Featured Man’s Duty vs. God’s Elective Purpose Explained

In other words you can't.

 

If it is not in the text, guess what, it is not Scripture principle.

 

Romans 7:4 does not mention your 'non-elect.' It tells Christians that they are not under the law of Moses, which was a major issue in the early days of Christianity (Acts 15 etc.).

Romans 2:12. 'For as many as sinned without law will also perish without law.' Non-Christians will certainly be judged by God's moral law, but they were never under the ceremonial law.

 

In trying to answer the OP of man's duty vs God's elective purpose would it be OK to say the following:
God has determined to call some people "the elect" in
such a way that they without fail end up being saved and
and believing. Others too are called by hearing the truth

of the gospel and even have the Holy Spirit work on them
in some fashion but they have a willful neglect and

contempt for the gospel and so God leaves them in their
unbelief and they never come to Christ.


Would a statement like that be a satisfactory way to acknowledge God's elective will yet still leave a place for man's free will?

 

Beautifully written, and utterly beside the point I was making except, finally, after the customary generic sermon that avoids the issue, the last part where it is quasi-addressed:

So there it is, the confession that it was God himself that so constituted Adam's fallen nature.
So my point is, again, that using the "that's because of Adam's fallen nature" excuse doesn't really work since Calvinists are forced to admit that even Adam's fallen nature was programmed that way, along with its parameters of incapacity to see or respond, by God.

Now, you can go on and try to still uphold that, but at least let's settle that the "that's because of Adam's fallen nature" defense simply kicks the can down the road.

 

It's like you skimmed through my post and never got the point and answered by reflex.
See my above reply.

 

Hello Dave,
I appreciate your desire to be a Berean and work through this issue from the Scriptures.
The Gospel is to go out into all the world and there is no doubt that it is the duty of everyone who hears it to receive it. Even those who have not heard the Gospel can see enough in Creation to make them without excuse if they do not seek Him (Romans 1:19-21; Acts of the Apostles 17:27-28), and if they will seek him with all their heart, they will find Him (Deuteronomy 4:29; Luke 11:9-10). However, fallen Man's free will is so skewed and clouded by sin that he will not seek God or obey the Gospel unless God opens his heart to do so. In this Man is absolutely culpable (John 3:19; 1 Corinthians 2:14).
Yet in spite of this sinful rebellion, God has graciously chosen a vast crowd (so vast that no one can count it) of guilty sinners for salvation and has come in the Person of Jesus Christ to make propitiation for their sins and to satisfy His own justice (Romans 3:26).

 

The answer is in Romans 5, yet you seem to think it is not there. Why is it that you skim through scripture and never get the point God is making?

What do you mean by "it was God himself that so constituted Adam's fallen nature"?
Do you mean that God gave Adam the capacity to break God's commandment and thus fall into corruption? Yes, God gave Adam that capacity. Moreso, Paul informs us in Romans 5 that this corruption of character would pass on to all of Adam's offspring.
George, did Adam sin by his own capacity to break God's commandment or by God making him break the commandment?
Answer: Adam had the capacity and broke the commandment.

George, did God give us the capacity to fix that corruption by our choice to fix it?
Answer: Humans cannot choose to fix what they have no capacity to fix. It's like an infant playing with an electronic toy. They have the capacity to break the toy, but they don't have the capacity to fix the toy. A qualified person needs to fix what the child broke. The fixing of the toy is entirely that of the one who has the capacity to fix the toy, not the infant who broke the toy.

Adam's brokenness is in each of his offspring. In each person there is a need to be repaired and there is only one repairman who can fix the brokenness.

Is God obligated to fix the brokenness? (Remember, Adam broke God's command, but couldn't fix that which has been passed on to all his offspring.)
Answer: No. God is not obligated to fix what Adam broke. If God chooses to fix what is broken, it is purely because God chooses to be gracious.

Is God unfair if he chooses to fix one broken "toy" but not all broken "toys"?

Answer: He is not unfair. Fair equals justice. If God would be fair, then He would justly leave all toys unbroken since they all need repairing and he didn't break the toy. Adam and his offspring broke the toy.
To fix the toy, you need to pay the repairman, but the cost of fixing the toy is too expensive for anyone to pay. Therefore the repairman (God) can either choose to repair the toy for free, which is an act of grace, or not fix the toy.

Why does God fix one toy and not another?

Answer: He is not obligated to fix any toy, but according to His own mysterious council, God chooses to grant mercy to whom he grants mercy and not grant mercy to others. (Romans 9) He fixes the toys he chooses to fix and he never tells us why. You can make up all sorts of speculations. You can say that humans must do this, that or the other thing to get God to fix the toy. Or you can acknowledge that God simply doesn't tell us and since God is the only one with the capacity to fix the toy, we are entirely at his mercy. In other words...we don't control the decisions of the repairman. He controls his own decisions.

George, you have to live with the mystery. It is not yours to know.

 

George, using your reasoning God is responsible for sin,as He created man.
If He did not create man Adam would never been able to sin

 

I probably should apologize for the trick but my post you replied to was almost word for word from the Westminster Larger Catechism Question No. 68. If you notice I did not suggest that an unregenerate can accept the gospel call but that they can of their own free will reject it, just like it's stated in WLC Question 68. We often talk past each other and won't even acknowledge partial truths or honest difficulties in understanding something.

 

But that's just the point isn't it. I did read it and quoted it. You illustrate my original point perfectly.

 

My post and your quote are above. Others can judge whether they are saying the same thing. Honestly, Protestant some of you like to get on here and beat up some old guys who you think don't possess your superior level of knowledge. Yet when someone points out to you that the Calvinistic system is complicated and difficult to understand and uses a quote from the reformed documents to show that it is indeed difficult to keep all concepts in mind at the same time you dissolve into sniveling name calling. Frankly, the debate on here is not at a high level and you are a perfect example as I have shown of someone who doesn't even really understand the writings from his own camp. You are an embarrassment to Calvinism.

 

You are totally wrong.
Protestant has offered a consistent position as no one who writes and believes the confessions believes man has free will.
man makes choices,but his will is not free bit bound by sin.
Several of your "calvinistic" posts are off a bit..
Which reformed baptist church did you attend?
Who was the pastor?

 

No....you are dead wrong.

 

What I have been trying to point out Iconoclast is that the reformed writings, because they encompass a huge range of issues involving things we as humans have a hard time understanding oftentimes produce in themselves difficulties. And it does not help in debate to constantly recite the basic TULIP explanation and think you are done. In the quote above you certainly don't have anyone making a case for an unbeliever having free will in choosing Christ on their own. And I didn't say that. You do have an honest attempt by the writers to show that in a general sense not only do a lot of non elect people have an honest offer of the gospel but the Spirit is actually at work in them (their words, not mine). And because of their willful neglect and contempt are then left alone.

 

The same thing happens on here with the "L", limited atonement. "The language of limited atonement describes inadequately and unfairly the view which is held by Reformed people". That's not from Silverhair, it's from Roger Nicole on Particular Redemption. But if I or he would have said that a lot of folks on here would have jumped all over that as a heresy. There is a lot involved in discussing something like this in a fair manner so that maybe one can help a person who is new to all this learn something. Sproul, in his writing on the TULIP changes at least 3 of the letters himself. Puritan preachers and modern Calvinistic preachers constantly preach in a way that requires men to exercise their wills and they even plead for men to repent and believe. I think the Reformed writings explain the difficult theology behind these things much better than Armenian theology but there are difficulties in Reformed theology that need to be explained.