This is usually the question that comes up regarding particular redemption and effectual calling. If God has foreordained the salvation of many, why does He command all to repent and believe the Gospel? Wouldn't this make His commandment insincere?
The answer of course, has to be no. So, there is either something wrong with the doctrine or with our understanding. The first thing I do in such cases is look to the Bible to see if the doctrine is true. Why? Because I don't want to reject the truth of God because I can't understand it. Are these things "effectual calling" and this "universal calling" taught in Scripture? Or another way of asking is, Does call universally call everyone without exception to repentance and faith, and then by the word of God effectually call (an inward calling) many so that such will certainly repent and believe the Gospel?
Or another way of asking is, are there many called but few chosen?
I don't want to answer the question for you. If you are goign to believe these things from a "calvinist" theology so to speak, I would want you to find them in Scripture. Perhaps my questions can help you look in Scripture for the truth.
Foreknowledge, Foreknown, Predestined
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by ReformedBaptist, Sep 6, 2007.
Page 12 of 12
-
-
skypair -
You put forth 3 Scriptures that are to teach us that man in an un-saved state, left to himself, has the power and ability to believe the Gospel without any aid from God at all. Am I understanding you correctly? I want to be sure before I proceed with the Scriptures you have provided, namely 1 Cor 2:1-6; 1 Cor 15:1-3 and the book of Acts.
RB -
Assertions:
(1) Fallen Man (as we all are), "left to himself" (apart from God), has z-e-r-o ability to turn to YHWH-God (in any meaningful, steadfast way)
(2) YHWH-God, by His Grace, and through His firstborn son Jesus Christ, is actively calling all men to Him (John 12:32)
(3) Thus "buoyed up" by God's Grace, Fallen Man is graciously empowered (by YHWH-God) with the ability to Believe the Gospel.
Analogy 1:
Believing the Gospel is like bench-pressing 4,000 lbs.
You cannot do so on your own.
But if YHWH-God, by His Grace, calls you to Him through his firstborn son Jesus Christ (John 12:32), and does the heavy lifting for you, you can*get on the bench-press and push the weights up and down (as long as, and only because, YHWH-God's Helping Hand is on the bar).
Analogy 2:
Believing the Gospel is like shooting a Bullseye at 4,000 yards.
Even with the best rifle, you cannot do so on your own. Your bullet will eventually veer off course, and fall short, and miss the target.
But if YHWH-God, by His Grace, guides your bullet, you can pick up the rifle, squeeze the trigger, and hit the mark (as long as, and only because, YHWH-God is guiding your aim and carrying your bullet along).
Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.
Luke 12:32
In short, I am arguing (essentially) that YHWH-God's "regenerative Grace" has already (John 12:32) been extended to all mankind — because YHWH-God has chosen to do so, by His Grace, and even despite Fallen Man's putrid & unworthy unholinesses.
I would like to try to defend this position Scripturally, to see how well it holds together. -
-
-
I understand about trying appropriate a type of label so as to better siginify to what we are addressing. But remember that Arminian is a system of theology just as Calvinism is and it has it's specific beliefs of which I do not agree with.
So then it is pointless for Paul to even make the statement of "harden not your heart" since Paul KNOWS they can do nothing BUT Harden their hearts (because it is the will of God) or that they can do nothing but Relent to God (because it is the will of God).
I don't believe (based on my studies of scripture) there are two types of 'calls' found in the scripture.
So I am merely acknowledging what I beleive scripture states regarding God truely offering savlation even to those He knows will not accept it (like 2 Thes 2 - they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved).
God does not only do good to those who will love him back, nor does He love only those who will love Him in return. (granted there IS a distinction in the 'type' of love given but God loves them none the less)
Obvious Answer: Greater and by far. For if fallen man will only do good to those who will do good back, how much greater is God who will do good even to those who will not recieve it nor give it back. As God's children we are to become like He is (as see above), and as Christ's disciples we are to be like He is. See below:
Both imply that it is God by grace which compels us to be saved. Yet grace compels nothing but extends something (favor) to one/those who does not deserve it.
That extention is not a compultion to receive that which grace is offering (Gospel call) to the person. That is also why grace is the means of the Gospel call and that call is the offering of a 'gift' of salvation according to scripture that is only received "By Faith". A gift does not have to be received when it is offered yet offered a 'gift' must be regardless of intent of the recipient.
IMHO - To state that grace is 'effectual' seems to miss the very meaning and scope of what grace is - an offer thus it is seen as synonomous with the Gospel or Good news. This offer isn't limited and thus the General Call. Therefore, IMO it appears that grace is more a subjective matter (regarding effectual) rather than objective.
NOTE: Foreknew is not about 'looking into the future' but that God knows already the future, present, and past - all at once. It is that God knew and not so much as our discriptor of a time period when it was known - fore. To state that God knew because He pre-determined what each man will do puts that person in a very unbilbical position of God (though logical) making men act both glorious and wicked, righteous and sinful. So that their actions are squarely and singularly done because of God making man to want to do them. Man would then have no responsiblity and be punished because that was his intended purpose from the outset of why God created him - to endure Eternal torments for doing exactly as God made him to. Not even you agree with that as far as I know.
It is a true statement that God chose according to His good purpose (foreordain) and not because of something he foresaw in man.
For Man by himself and left to himself has nothing redeeming in himself because Man would be the very object of his own salvation and therefore wholely unworthy.
Therefore it by the grace of God man is revealed even in nature and his conscience any truths of God. It is by the grace of God that He reveals to man he has nothing worthy in and of himself to 'offer' to God in exchange for salvation (works), and then continuing in grace, God reveals the very object of God's salvation to and for man - the Man Christ Jesus (who has done all the works). This Man can now 'potentially' be saved (with regard to knowing biblical truth) because he sees he can not be the object of his own salvation but that Christ Jesus 'the gift of God' is only one worthy to be that object for his/mans salvation. Therefore 'faith' in His or Christ's work unto our salvation is what saves. Faith is not a work (Rom 4:4-5) but it receives that work another has already done on our behalf.
God's foreknowledge includes this otherwise God is not truly all-knowing. Especially since the scriptures attest that those who are condemned have been so condemned by their rejection of the truth "THAT COULD HAVE SAVED THEM".
What is the converse of this statement and many more like it?
IOW - If THEY were condemned for rejecting the Truth, what does that say about 'why' those who are saved are not condemned? -
Let's even bring it down to something more specific --- Why does Jesus tell Nicodemus "Ye must be born again" rather than "men must be born again?" If Nicodemus has nothing to do with it ("It's all of God."), why does Jesus offer the personal challenge?
skypair -
Do you acknowledge that 1 Cor 2,15; Acts, etc...
all happened after the crucifixion?
If you were to draw a time line, you'd put the Crufixion at Passover 30 AD...
and then Acts, and 1 Cor would be to the right of that on the time line.
Why is this important? B/c John 12:32 says that, once the Messiah was "raised up", he began "drawing" all men unto him. Cf. John 3:16, "for God so loved the world that He [reached across the gulf of Fallen Man's sin and] sent his firstborn son" (paraphrase).
Thus, since Passover 30 AD, God's Spirit has been "invading" the Fallen World = domain of the adversary (1 John 5:19). Thus, your Scripture citations do not actually address the issue of whether Fallen Man left apart from God can, or cannot...
b/c, since 30 AD, nobody has been fully left apart from God, but instead — b/c God so loved the world, all praises be unto Him — all have been "drawn" back to Him.
In short, I agree with your conclusions... with the "technicality" that Fallen Men "have" the power to Believe not because it is intrinsic, but instead because for the past 1977 years YHWH-God has been assisting Fallen Man and "doing the heavy lifting for them".
(And why? Because "it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32).)
PS: I believe that John 6:44,64-66 shows that, technically speaking, Fallen Man without YHWH-God's helping hand, are doomed without chance:
'No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day'... 'But there are some of you that believe not.' For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, 'Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.' From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
John 6:44,64-66
All of this occurs before Jesus' Crucifixion. Thus, all of this occurs without YHWH-God's "helping hand" promised by John 12:32.
Against this interpretation, however, is the fact that Peter and the Apostles did not backslide (v. 68-69). I would be very interested to hear your comments on this.
Best re: -B -
skypair -
or, at least, more steadfast than others.
Peter fell away, after Jesus rebuked him for drawing his sword... and the others all fled too.
Thus, it does seem that "to the left of the Cross", w/o regeneration, all did fall short (cf. Rom 3:23) as they, under (extreme) pressure forsook the Messiah, even Simon "the Rock". (Does John the "Beloved Disciple" disprove this?)
As for Paul rebuking Peter (Gal 2:11ff = Acts 15:2), please allow me to make a technical observation.
"Men came from James" (Gal 2:12), or "from Judah" (Acts 15:1), and Peter bowed to their authority — ie, to the authority of James whom they purported to represent. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Head of the Church.
However, they falsly claimed James' authority, and James rejected/disowned them at the Jerusalem Council soon after that Peter-Paul argument (Acts 15:24).
Thus, you might say that Peter did not backslide, but meekly acknowledged James' authority...
and made a dash for Jerusalem, reported to James, highlighted the lies of the "circumcision party" (Gal 2:12 = Acts 15:1,5,24) — often called (not from Scripture) "Judaizers". The Jerusalem Council was then quickly convened (Acts 15:-6).
Thank you for your informative answer.
-B -
skypair -
-
Rom 11:2
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Rom 11:4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.
Rom 11:5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Take your pick!!! -
-
I have before asked you several simple questions regarding your beliefs. I have yet to recieve an answer, and until I hear from you on those matters I will not engage you in any debate.
Best regards,
RB
Page 12 of 12