Unbelief vs Belief ?

[Ben1445]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Before someone is born anew, he will always use his free will to reject the Gospel; after he is born anew, he is the recipient of a new heart and a new spirit and will use his free will to receive the Gospel.
I hope that clarifies. There are those who believe that the New Birth is not an 'all-at-once' operation, but something that happens in stages. The idea is as follows:

Everyone who is predestined is effectually called by God at some time in their lives. A large congregation may listen to a gospel sermon, but perhaps just one or two are affected by it; or someone may hear a portion of scripture, or perhaps just look at the beauty of nature and it sets him on a train of thought which will eventually lead him to Christ. This is the effectual call (1). It is the first movement of God upon the unconverted Spirit and as such it is entirely sovereign and monergistic. The subject, the unconverted person has no part in it. It may be thought of as the moment of conception of the New Birth, the implantation of spiritual life. It may lead to someone attending church for the first time or buying a Bible.

This call leads to awakening or quickening, when men and women begin to think seriously about the things of God for the first time. Conviction is a further step along the road, when awakened souls come to see themselves as sinners under the just condemnation of God. Now conviction is not just having a bad conscience or a sense of shame- many unsaved people have that. Those who are truly convicted by the Holy Spirit see their sin as God sees it- in all its vileness and wickedness in rebellion against the Creator, and they come to understand the justice of God in sending sinners to hell.

Then, finally, they come to understand from the word of God (whether preached or read) that Jesus Christ has done everything necessary to reconcile them to God and is standing ready to receive them. They repent and believe, whereupon God justifies them (that is, He judicially declares them righteous since Christ has paid the penalty for their sin upon the cross) and glorifies them by seating them with Christ in the heavenly places (Eph. 2:9; Col. 3:3).

I used to be a big fan of this idea, but I'm not quite so sure now.

I appreciate the explanation.
It leaves room for questions like what happens to someone who is born again but hasn’t believed were they to be hit by a car or die before they did trust Christ.

 

[Ben1445]

[Eph 2:1 KJV] 1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;

God does the quickening! To God be the Glory!

To me, this is as clear as it can be. A spiritually dead person is DEAD and can only respond to God if God awakens him.

And the rest of people are zombies who you can talk to, hold conversations with teach and learn from but they are dead. They are spiritually dead without Christ. Christ is our life. But they are not dead yet. DEAD Adam still talked with God in the garden after he had sinned and was aware of what was going on.
Cain was never in the garden and he talked with God. He understood what was going on without being born again. Unless you think Cain is a follower of God; you would be the first person I ever met to think that.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

And the rest of people are zombies who you can talk to, hold conversations with teach and learn from but they are dead. They are spiritually dead without Christ. Christ is our life. But they are not dead yet. DEAD Adam still talked with God in the garden after he had sinned and was aware of what was going on.
Cain was never in the garden and he talked with God. He understood what was going on without being born again. Unless you think Cain is a follower of God; you would be the first person I ever met to think that.

They fail to understand. Death is not a ceasing to exist nor is it non-existence. Death is separation, physical death is when the spirit and soul leave the body the body is dead.

James 2:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead"

When the spirit is separated from God it is dead.

Ephesians 2:1 “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.”

As you clearly said: Adam was spiritually dead the moment he sinned, yet he still spoke with God and understood Him. Cain was never born again, yet he conversed with God and comprehended His words. So yes, the spiritually dead are separated from God, but they are not unconscious or unable to hear.

Only the body becomes insensate in death, never the spirit.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I appreciate the explanation.
It leaves room for questions like what happens to someone who is born again but hasn’t believed were they to be hit by a car or die before they did trust Christ.

I think we can leave that to God. if it is true that 'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,' which it is, then God will look after the details. Matt. 10:29 applies.

 

[Ben1445]

I think we can leave that to God. if it is true that 'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,' which it is, then God will look after the details. Matt. 10:29 applies.

So there is then no rejection of Christ by those who would be in the category of “regenerate.” And if all will come, then what are we doing persuading men?

 

[Silverhair]

I have been through this so many times, but I suppose once more won't hurt. God's absolute sovereignty in salvation does not bypass the hu,am will.
John 6:37. 'All that the Father gives Me will come to me.....' Here is your Particular, Effective Atonement. The Father has given to the Son a vast number (Rev. 7:9) of people to be saved, and every single one will come to him; not one will be lost (v.39; 17:2 etc.). But:
'.....And the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.' The word of God goes out to all, and no one who responds in repentance and faith will be rejected. Let all come freely to the waters; everyone may drink of the water of life! But the reason they respond is that God has opened their hearts to believe just as He did Lydia's. That is is something of a paradox I freely admit, but there it is in the word of God. It is repeated in Matthew 11:25ff, so I think it should be believed.

Let me close by saying that I never insigate these Cal vs. Arm debates, which are invariably fruitless. I only respond when people accuse Calvinists of fatalism or determinism.

I find it odd that you fail to read that verse in it's context. But as you said, I have been through this so many times, but I suppose once more won't hurt.

While it is true that God elects people [those that believe] to salvation, it is also true they must choose to be saved by a definite act of the will. Eph 1:13, Rom 10:9-10
The divine side of salvation is seen in the words, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.” The human side is found in the words that follow: “and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out” Joh_6:37.

We are told in plain words why Christ came. Joh 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

What is the Father's will and who is it that the Father gives to Jesus?
Joh 6:39 "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
Joh_6:40 "For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life."

So as you can see Martin your error is cleared up just by understanding the context in which Joh_6:37 is found.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

So there is then no rejection of Christ by those who would be in the category of “regenerate.” And if all will come, then what are we doing persuading men?

That was the great struggle of C.H. Spurgeon, his Bible taught, and his heart told him, to preach to the lost, but his head was Calvinist because that was the system he grew up in. That struggle was why he came up with his "two lines" theory, trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I find it odd that you fail to read that verse in it's context. But as you said, I have been through this so many times, but I suppose once more won't hurt.

While it is true that God elects people [those that believe] to salvation, it is also true they must choose to be saved by a definite act of the will. Eph 1:13, Rom 10:9-10
The divine side of salvation is seen in the words, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.” The human side is found in the words that follow: “and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out” Joh_6:37.

We are told in plain words why Christ came. Joh 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

What is the Father's will and who is it that the Father gives to Jesus?
Joh 6:39 "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
Joh_6:40 "For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life."

So as you can see Martin your error is cleared up just by understanding the context in which Joh_6:37 is found.

I think you will find that you have just agreed with me. Thanks!
Thank you also for mentioning John 6:38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." Very helpful! Of course our Lord tells us in the very next verse what that will is. "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." Or as He puts it in His prayer to the Father: "...As You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him." This is very easy to understand: the Father has given to the Son a vast crowd of people with the command that He should redeem every single one of them; not one will be lost. Therefore it is impossible that the Lord Jesus should die for all Mankind, because not all Mankind is saved and our Lord would have failed to do His Father's will.

But of course there is another part of the Father's will: "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise Him up at the last day." So we can see that as in verse 37, verses 39-40 are two sides of the same coin. There is particular and effective redemption, not for all, but for the 'great crowd' of Rev. 7:9, and there is salvation for everyone who believes. And these are the same people. The Lord Jesus told the Jewish leaders, "You do not believe because you are not My sheep" (John 10:26); not, "You are not My sheep because you do not believe." Not that they were desperate to believe but God prevented them, but because they had wicked, unbelieving hearts, as we all do at birth, and God did not see fit to regenerate them all, though He did some (Acts 6:7).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So there is then no rejection of Christ by those who would be in the category of “regenerate.” And if all will come, then what are we doing persuading men?

Because God will have it so. 1 Cor. 1:21. 'For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by its wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the word preached to save those who believe.'
A helpful O.T. verse is Esther 4:14. 'For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish.' God will save His people, but, as Paul said, 'Woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel!' ( 1 Cor. 9:16).

I hope BTW, that you and @Anthony Pritchard never pray for your loved ones or anyone else to be saved. According to you, God has nothing to do with saving people, only with offering salvation to all and sundry and letting them sink or swim.

That was the great struggle of C.H. Spurgeon, his Bible taught, and his heart told him, to preach to the lost, but his head was Calvinist because that was the system he grew up in. That struggle was why he came up with his "two lines" theory, trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

I'm sure that an educated man like yourself knows better than this. The early (17th Century) Particular Baptists all believed in the necessity of preaching. There was a spell during the 18th Century when Hyper-Calvinism had an influence, but men like William Carey, Andrew Fuller, Abraham Booth, John Sutcliffe, Andrew Pearce and others had returned the P.B.s to true Calvinism well before Spurgeon appeared. A good book to read is Ardent Love for Jesus by Michael Haykin.

Also, if you will read The Forgotten Spurgeon and Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism, both by Iain Murray and published by Banner of Truth, you will find that from before the time he came to London aged 19, he had no doubt at all as to what true Calvinism is and never varied from it.

 

[Ben1445]

According to you, God has nothing to do with saving people, only with offering salvation to all and sundry and letting them sink or swim.

I have never said that or anything like it.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I hope BTW, that you and @Anthony Pritchard never pray for your loved ones or anyone else to be saved. According to you, God has nothing to do with saving people, only with offering salvation to all and sundry and letting them sink or swim.

Brother, I think you’re misunderstanding my point. I have never said God has “nothing to do” with saving people. Quite the opposite. God moves first, He convicts, enlightens, draws, and opens the heart. That divine work enables a person to believe; it does not bypass the will or cause belief in a deterministic sense. That is the distinction I’m making: enablement versus causation.

And yes, I pray for my loved ones to be saved precisely because God does act upon the heart. If God had no role, prayer would be pointless. But Scripture presents God’s work as giving capacity, not overriding agency. Lydia’s heart was opened so she could heed, not so she must heed. That is the biblical order I’m defending.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I'm sure that an educated man like yourself knows better than this. The early (17th Century) Particular Baptists all believed in the necessity of preaching. There was a spell during the 18th Century when Hyper-Calvinism had an influence, but men like William Carey, Andrew Fuller, Abraham Booth, John Sutcliffe, Andrew Pearce and others had returned the P.B.s to true Calvinism well before Spurgeon appeared. A good book to read is Ardent Love for Jesus by Michael Haykin.

Also, if you will read The Forgotten Spurgeon and Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism, both by Iain Murray and published by Banner of Truth, you will find that from before the time he came to London aged 19, he had no doubt at all as to what true Calvinism is and never varied from it.

Brother, I will use Spurgeon’s own words, because they show plainly that he recognized a tension, an imbalance inside Calvinism that he could not resolve. His “two parallel lines that meet only in eternity” is not a biblical doctrine, not an apostolic teaching, and not a principle found in the early churches. It is Spurgeon’s personal attempt to reconcile two claims his system required but Scripture never presents.

And yes, history shows that not every Baptist group remained aligned with the faith once delivered. The Particular Baptists adopted a predestinarian framework that the apostles never taught, and Spurgeon inherited that system. His metaphor is a philosophical patch, not a biblical exposition.

The Bible never speaks of two lines that can or cannot be reconciled. It speaks with one voice: God acts upon the heart, enabling belief; man responds freely; and salvation is genuinely offered to all. Spurgeon’s metaphor exists only because Calvinism creates a tension Scripture does not create.

Spurgeon’s own admission of that struggle:

“That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see… These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they do converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.” - C.H. Spurgeon, New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 4, 1858, p. 337.

Spurgeon struggled greatly to reconcile the irreconcilable. This is man’s attempt to make predestinarianism work. But these “two lines” appear nowhere in Scripture, nowhere in the early churches, and nowhere outside Spurgeon’s own writings. It is not Scriptural Christian doctrine.

 

[Silverhair]

I think you will find that you have just agreed with me. Thanks!
Thank you also for mentioning John 6:38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." Very helpful! Of course our Lord tells us in the very next verse what that will is. "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." Or as He puts it in His prayer to the Father: "...As You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him." This is very easy to understand: the Father has given to the Son a vast crowd of people with the command that He should redeem every single one of them; not one will be lost. Therefore it is impossible that the Lord Jesus should die for all Mankind, because not all Mankind is saved and our Lord would have failed to do His Father's will.

But of course there is another part of the Father's will: "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise Him up at the last day." So we can see that as in verse 37, verses 39-40 are two sides of the same coin. There is particular and effective redemption, not for all, but for the 'great crowd' of Rev. 7:9, and there is salvation for everyone who believes. And these are the same people. The Lord Jesus told the Jewish leaders, "You do not believe because you are not My sheep" (John 10:26); not, "You are not My sheep because you do not believe." Not that they were desperate to believe but God prevented them, but because they had wicked, unbelieving hearts, as we all do at birth, and God did not see fit to regenerate them all, though He did some (Acts 6:7).

I think if you would actually trust the word of God as written you will see that I do not agree with you Martin. You follow Calvin's misunderstanding of scripture and I trust the actual word of God.

As we can see from your post you have to read in the text what you need to find so that it fits your philosophy. You still will not accept the fact that Christ came too die for all mankind. 1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. And we should not forget Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

God loves the world Martin, not just a part of it as your Calvinism requires. Christ came to save sinners, which we all are. Because you follow Calvin's word you continue to miss the biblical truth.
Christ died for, Heb_2:9 ... for every man, 1Ti_26 ...a ransom for all, Rom_5:6 ...the ungodly, Rom_5:8 ...sinners, Joh 3:16 ...the world, 1Jn 2:2 ...the whole world.

Notice what it does not say Martin, it does not say He died for your calvinist elect. Your calvinism has lead you astray from the word of God. Those that have freely trusted in the risen Christ. Eph 1:13, Rom 10:9-10, are the vast crowd that have been given to the Son. They are not given to the Son so they would believe, as your calvinism requires, but because they have believed.

How is it that you cannot see the truth of scripture? You either have redemption or you do not. You are trying to impose your calvinist views on scripture again. Those that hear the gospel message and believe it are redeemed, whereas those that reject it are not redeemed. Your calvinism requires that God condemn the vast majority of those He loves and desires to come to Him because according to your calvinism He did not regenerate them so they could believe. So you have God working against Himself. That would be the house divided.

I actually agree that with you that those that do not believe are not His sheep but they can become His sheep by trusting in Him as we see in Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of My Father, then do not believe Me. Joh 10:38 But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works themselves, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.”

As you pointed out when you referred to Act 6:7, the number of disciples grew rapidly. Those that freely trusted in Christ were saved.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Brother, I think you’re misunderstanding my point. I have never said God has “nothing to do” with saving people. Quite the opposite. God moves first, He convicts, enlightens, draws, and opens the heart. That divine work enables a person to believe; it does not bypass the will or cause belief in a deterministic sense. That is the distinction I’m making: enablement versus causation.

And yes, I pray for my loved ones to be saved precisely because God does act upon the heart. If God had no role, prayer would be pointless. But Scripture presents God’s work as giving capacity, not overriding agency. Lydia’s heart was opened so she could heed, not so she must heed. That is the biblical order I’m defending.

I am glad to learn that you believe in a prevenient call of God, but perhaps now you realise how annoying it is to have your beliefs misconstrued.
However, I believe in a God who is sovereign in salvation, and I pray believing that He is able to save my loved ones, not merely to enable them to be saved.