Help on Calvin and common grace.

[geebob]

It's come up in a couple of threads that Calvin believed in a common and universal (albeit non-universal) grace, and this is his explanation as to why the unsaved don't go around stealing milk from babies, heiling hitler and worshipping satan at the drop of a hat and so on.

I'm interested in looking into what he said about this and I'm curious as to where this information can be found.

[Kenny]

Well, here's (http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/bk2ch03.html#three.htm) somthing from the Institutes for starters.

[Defenestrator]

I would suggest He Shines in All That's Fair: Culture and Common Grace by Richard Mouw.

[Jaltus]

Hmm, let me check my Romans commentary by him. I'll see if I come up with anything juicy.

[CT292]

For more information on Calvin's view of Common grace and the reformed history of the topic, see:

Berkhof on Common Grace (http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/commongrace.htm)

See also:

Calvin on Common Grace (http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/ab/Calvin.pdf) by Herman Bavinck

And David Ponter on Common Grace (http://www.smartlink.net/~phillipj/letter3.htm)

Common Grace and Total Depravity (http://www.smartlink.net/~phillipj/cg_td.htm)

Colin

[geebob]

Thank you all for the suggestions. I'll look into some of these as time permits. have any scriptures on the notion?

[Kenny]

Yesterday @ 02:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121119#post121119)
Defenestrator:

I would suggest He Shines in All That's Fair: Culture and Common Grace by Richard Mouw.

Hey, go Richard Mouw! He's the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, which just so happens to be were I go to school.

:thumb:

[amishrockstar]

It's come up in a couple of threads that Calvin believed in a common and universal (albeit non-universal) grace, and this is his explanation as to why the unsaved don't go around stealing milk from babies, heiling hitler and worshipping satan at the drop of a hat and so on.

I'm interested in looking into what he said about this and I'm curious as to where this information can be found.



Here's a link to a debate between Prof. Richard Mouw and Prof. David Engelsma entitled "Is the doctrine of Common Grace Reformed"

http://www.hudsonvilleprc.org/ram-2/debate.html

I think Prof. Engelsma really does a good job of refuting the "Arminian" notion of "common grace/free offer of the gospel"

If that's not enough, here's a link to articles from the Protestant Reformed churches on Common Grace and the Free offer (Including what Calvin wrote).

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets_and_articles.html

And "rain and sunshine" are NEVER viewed as "Grace" from God in the
scriptures!! These are "good gifts" for the purpose of revealing the ungratefullness/ unthankfullness of the reprobate, therefore storing up for themselves wrath for the day of wrath (Rom. 2:5), and also, it's the "wrath" of God that's "revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men"(Rom. 1:18)- NOT the "GRACE of God."

There is no grace for sinners outside of Christ (Eph. 1 & 2). The grace of God IS salvation as well as the benefits bestowed by God in that covenant relationship. "Common Grace" seeks to destroy the antithesis- to blur the lines between God's covenant people and the reprobate.

God does not "hold back" sin. Abraham Kuyper needed a good excuse for how he- as a believer- could work toward a common goal with unbelievers in governmental matters. Since the atmosphere in the Netherlands was such, that anything a Christian did, needed to have a sound theological reason- he came up with a kind of "common grace" that worked in the hearts of the unregenerate.

Ultimatly, this issue should be viewed in light of scripture such as Rom. 9. God never extended grace, or offer salvation to Esau, Pharoah, or any other vessels of wrath.

In Calvin's Commentaries regarding the Ezekiel passages (18:23, 33:11,etc.) he writes:

"It follows, then, that what the Prophet now says, is very true, that God wills not the death of a sinner, because he meets him of his own accord, and is not only prepared to recieve all who fly to his pity, but he calls them towards him with a loud voice, when he sees how they are alienated from all hope of safety. But the manner must be noticed in which God wishes all to be saved, namely, when they turn themselves from their ways. God thus does not so wish all men to be saved as to renounce the difference between good and evil; but repentance, as we have said, must precede pardon."

Calvin demonstrates in his commentaries that doctrine of double-predestination is not thwarted by the Ezekiel passages- rather, it's established. God is not extending "Grace" to the reprobate, He doesn't want all sinners to be saved indescriminatly "to renounce the difference between good and evil."

The wicked are always filling up their cup of iniquity, because sin is a matter of the "heart" (Matt. 5:28 etc). A person doesn't need to be a satanist in order to hate God in their heart, neither do they need to "hail Hitler" to despise their neighbor.



May God richly bless your studies,

-Matthew


"And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." -Gen. 15:16 ESV

[Calvinist4Him]

It's come up in a couple of threads that Calvin believed in a common and universal (albeit non-universal) grace, and this is his explanation as to why the unsaved don't go around stealing milk from babies, heiling hitler and worshipping satan at the drop of a hat and so on.

I'm interested in looking into what he said about this and I'm curious as to where this information can be found.

Van Til wrote a book entitled "Common Grace & The Gospel" which you might be interested in.

You probably know this, but one shouldn't confuse common grace with saving grace.

As for information from Calvin on common grace, I recommend searchable copies of his text. I'm not sure if the texts at ccel.org are searchable, if not, I know the AGES Software Calvin Collection texts are searchable.

[amishrockstar]

Van Til wrote a book entitled "Common Grace & The Gospel" which you might be interested in.

You probably know this, but one shouldn't confuse common grace with saving grace.

As for information from Calvin on common grace, I recommend searchable copies of his text. I'm not sure if the texts at ccel.org are searchable, if not, I know the AGES Software Calvin Collection texts are searchable.




Yes, Van Til DID hold to "common grace." Herman Hoeksema addresses that in his 101 page book "The Clark-Van Til Controversy" (The Trinity Foundation, ISBN: 0-940931-44-3) which deals with Calvin, Gordon Clark, and Van Til's view on common grace, etc.

I also agree that common grace should not be confused with saving grace. From my studies in scripture, and reading what Calvin, Owen, Knox, etc. have said on this issue I don't believe grace to be "common." As a Calvinist, I believe God's grace to be particular, and that their is NO grace apart from Christ!!
I believe from scripture that common grace isn't biblical. God gives good gifts- YES!! But this is NOT grace. These gifts are only for the further hardening of the reprobate as well as to demonstrate His wrath toward them (Rom. 1:18)- their is NO other grace that God extends, outside of saving grace in Christ (Eph 1,2).

-Matthew

"But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?" 1 Cor.2:14-16

[Calvinist4Him]

Yes, Van Til DID hold to "common grace." Herman Hoeksema addresses that in his 101 page book "The Clark-Van Til Controversy" (The Trinity Foundation, ISBN: 0-940931-44-3) which deals with Calvin, Gordon Clark, and Van Til's view on common grace, etc.

Van Til was also a Calvinist, PCA to be more precise.


I also agree that common grace should not be confused with saving grace. From my studies in scripture, and reading what Calvin, Owen, Knox, etc. have said on this issue I don't believe grace to be "common." As a Calvinist, I believe God's grace to be particular, and that their is NO grace apart from Christ!!

I'm also a Calvinist...if my username didn't give that away. :wink:

If we define grace as unmerited, undeserved blessing, and consider that the blessing of rain falls on the righteous and the wicked, then we see a temporary common grace extended to everyone. Let's face it, good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to the elect in Christ. Why do the wicked obtain the land, why are they blessed with everything under the sun, while God's people suffer? True, no blessing can compare to that special saving salvation found only in Christ, but how can we deny that the ungodly are quite often blessed in many ways (never acknowledging or giving thanks to God). Is not our every breath grace? That God does not give everyone what they deserve like He did in the days of Noah is a temporary common grace.


I believe from scripture that common grace isn't biblical. God gives good gifts- YES!! But this is NOT grace. These gifts are only for the further hardening of the reprobate as well as to demonstrate His wrath toward them (Rom. 1:18)- their is NO other grace that God extends, outside of saving grace in Christ (Eph 1,2).

It is not grace? What have unbelieving reprobates done to merit, to deserve good gifts? Just because common grace is not salvic, that doesn't make it non-grace. Are those "good gifts" free?

[amishrockstar]

Dear Calvinist4Him,

If you wish to define the things that the wicked/reprobate recieve in this life as a "blessing" or "grace" from God, then I'd have to suggest reading Psalm 73. God has set these things they receive, as "slippery places" (Psa 73:18). He makes them "fall to ruin," by them (v.18,19).

These things are not given out of the grace of God, they are given for their destruction and to heap up wrath for themselves. God also uses these things to contrast His "GRACE" to believer's (read the psalm).

"Truly God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart. But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled, my steps had nearly slipped. For I was envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For they have no pangs until death; their bodies are fat and sleek. They are not in trouble as others are; they are not stricken like the rest of mankind. Therefore pride is their necklace; violence covers them as a garment. Their eyes swell out through fatness; their hearts overflow with follies. They scoff and speak with malice; loftily they threaten oppression. They set their mouths against the heavens, and their tongue struts through the earth. Therefore his people turn back to them, and find no fault in them. And they say, "How can God know? Is there knowledge in the Most High?" Behold, these are the wicked; always at ease, they increase in riches. All in vain have I kept my heart clean and washed my hands in innocence. For all the day long I have been stricken and rebuked every morning. If I had said, "I will speak thus," I would have betrayed the generation of your children. But when I thought how to understand this, it seemed to me a wearisome task, until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end. Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin. How they are destroyed in a moment, swept away utterly by terrors! Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when you rouse yourself, you despise them as phantoms. When my soul was embittered, when I was pricked in heart, I was brutish and ignorant; I was like a beast toward you. Nevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand. You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. For behold, those who are far from you shall perish; you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you. But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, that I may tell of all your works."

-Psalm 73

"For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you. The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers."

-Psalm 5:4,5

God does whatever He pleases (Psa.115:3) and He's pleased to bless His elect only, with grace. "Rain and sunshine" is NOT grace...

THE GRACE OF GOD IS SALVATION- THEIR IS NO OTHER GRACE APART FROM THAT WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS.

I really can't make it anymore simple than that. I've given scripture and plain statements of what I believe from scripture. I can only ask that if you want to defend "common grace" as a clear biblical teaching, that you present me with the same so that I might offer a rebuttal. In other words, what passages of scripture are you using to back up "common grace??" I just can't see it in scripture, and would be grateful if you can present your case as plainly and biblically as possible.

IN CHRIST,
Matthew

[GoBahnsen]

Van Til was also a Calvinist, PCA to be more precise.



I'm also a Calvinist...if my username didn't give that away. :wink:

If we define grace as unmerited, undeserved blessing, and consider that the blessing of rain falls on the righteous and the wicked, then we see a temporary common grace extended to everyone. Let's face it, good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to the elect in Christ. Why do the wicked obtain the land, why are they blessed with everything under the sun, while God's people suffer? True, no blessing can compare to that special saving salvation found only in Christ, but how can we deny that the ungodly are quite often blessed in many ways (never acknowledging or giving thanks to God). Is not our every breath grace? That God does not give everyone what they deserve like He did in the days of Noah is a temporary common grace.



It is not grace? What have unbelieving reprobates done to merit, to deserve good gifts? Just because common grace is not salvic, that doesn't make it non-grace. Are those "good gifts" free?Just a quick off topic remark: we really ought to take God more seriously when we reflect on the flood. God can and sometimes does and will give sinners what they deserve and it's really ugly. Thank God for grace in Christ Jesus.

[infide]

THE GRACE OF GOD IS SALVATION- THEIR IS NO OTHER GRACE APART FROM THAT WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS.

I really can't make it anymore simple than that. I've given scripture and plain statements of what I believe from scripture. I can only ask that if you want to defend "common grace" as a clear biblical teaching, that you present me with the same so that I might offer a rebuttal. In other words, what passages of scripture are you using to back up "common grace??" I just can't see it in scripture, and would be grateful if you can present your case as plainly and biblically as possible.

IN CHRIST,
Matthew

i hate proof-texting. But, i'd like to suggest a rather clear teaching on this from a Sermon by Paul,

"16 "In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; 17 and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." (Acts 14, NAS)

So, Paul is relating the goodness of God to send rain and provide for their needs not only as part of the natural order of the world, but as a specific witness (synonym: revelation) of God. That is a spiritual blessing, and so no matter what your defintion of grace is, must be grace.

peace,
jd

[GoBahnsen]

One thing I have become convinced of, is that even in the Church as a whole, there is too high a view of man(not taking into account, his sin and what he really deserves) and too low a view of God (in terms of what He truly deserves from creatures).

I think much of that leads to the hot debates we have about grace, freewill, election and so forth. We gloss over the fact that God does give rain to sinners. We figure He should, I think. Like He owes us good for making us. We don't want to own our rebellion against God. We think it normal and thus "not so bad". God owes us grace, is the unspoken sentiment.

Just some thoughts.

[amishrockstar]

i hate proof-texting. But, i'd like to suggest a rather clear teaching on this from a Sermon by Paul,

"16 "In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; 17 and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." (Acts 14, NAS)

So, Paul is relating the goodness of God to send rain and provide for their needs not only as part of the natural order of the world, but as a specific witness (synonym: revelation) of God. That is a spiritual blessing, and so no matter what your defintion of grace is, must be grace.

peace,
jd


JD,

You've just made my point- thanks!!

Acts 14 is a beautiful example that "common grace" isn't a biblical doctrine.
"He did not leave himself without witness" (v.17) These things aren't because God wants to be gracious toward the reprobate... the whole point of not being "without witness" is for their condemnation, or, so that they will be without excuse- this isn't grace.

As far as "proof-texting" goes, that's not what I was talking about. I was asking for a logically-sound/ biblically based argument. So if you can provide an answer to Psalm 73, Rom. 1:18, and the "logical" arguments I've presented so far (NOT just proof-texting)- that would be great.

Have you had an opportunity to read/listen to the debate between Prof. Mouw and Prof. Engelsma that I posted ("Is The Doctrine of Common Grace Reformed")?? These are two very "able" scholars debating these issues. If you'd like to discuss this, or what Calvin's commentaries say, etc. I'd be more then happy to do that.

You also mentioned the "natural order of the world," in regards to God's self-revelation. So as to not misrepresent what you said, I'll simply state I'm NOT a "deist" (you may/may not be either). I don't believe that things are just "naturally" occurring from day to day, or that rain and sunshine are just "natural" things. God sends the rain and makes the grass to grow (Psa.147:8)- He is very much active in these activities for His Glory- to show His wrath on unbelievers (through the hardening of their hearts) and exceeding riches and grace toward His elect in Christ.

I wouldn't call "rain" a "spiritual blessing" toward the wicked. God's "wrath" is always being revealed from heaven towards them (Rom.1:18) -not His "grace."

You also wrote "and so no matter what your definition of grace is, must be grace." I would argue that the definition of grace does "matter." How we view God's grace in the light of His revealed will (scripture), the confessions that the church has given us through the centuries, and theologians that have held to "sound" biblical teachings, etc. should have an impact on this definition and other doctrines.

I would not define grace as God revealing Himself to the reprobate in the creation. Rather, among the plethora of definitions for "grace," I would chose what I believe is most biblically and theologically correct, and that is, that grace can be found only in Jesus Christ, and to be "found in Christ Jesus" is to possess/ be given, the grace of God. God does not bestow grace on the reprobate, and neither does He want to sincerely offer salvation to them.

Hopefully I've presented a clear enough argument in this, and the other post's I've written. I look forward to your answer to my arguments. Please take your time.

IN CHRIST,
Matthew

"and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" -Rom.3:24 ESV

[infide]

JD,

You've just made my point- thanks!!

yup...
I like arguing against myself, it makes refuting myself that much more easy.


Acts 14 is a beautiful example that "common grace" isn't a biblical doctrine.
"He did not leave himself without witness" (v.17) These things aren't because God wants to be gracious toward the reprobate... the whole point of not being "without witness" is for their condemnation, or, so that they will be without excuse- this isn't grace.

And so you assume. Its just as possible that God did so to reveal to them that He was good in spite of their wickedness (going their own ways). It is God's kindness which leads us to repentence, after all. (Romans 2:4)


As far as "proof-texting" goes, that's not what I was talking about. I was asking for a logically-sound/ biblically based argument. So if you can provide an answer to Psalm 73, Rom. 1:18, and the "logical" arguments I've presented so far (NOT just proof-texting)- that would be great.

Psalm 73 is not really speaking about common grace it seems to me. It is certainly implying it, but not really teaching about the nature of it. The places they are set in are "slippery" in the sense that at any moment God's righteous judgement could be brought upon them. But until that time, God gives His Grace, and I believe, hoping that in it they will repent and turn to Him.

Romans 1:18,
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (NAS).

first of all, God's wrath does not invalidate His Grace. God may give grace freely, and then justly condemn those who do not respond in obedience and faith towards the giver of that Grace.

secondly, the idea that the men are "supressing" the truth, implies that God has revealed, at least in part, the truth. You cant supress something that you dont know about. So therefore, this verse implies not only common grace, but prevenient grace as well!

I havent seen any Logical arguments beyond that.


Have you had an opportunity to read/listen to the debate between Prof. Mouw and Prof. Engelsma that I posted ("Is The Doctrine of Common Grace Reformed")?? These are two very "able" scholars debating these issues. If you'd like to discuss this, or what Calvin's commentaries say, etc. I'd be more then happy to do that.

Not at present, no, on all questions. If you would like to post some of these arguments, i will be happy to refute them or offer alternative interpretations.


You also mentioned the "natural order of the world," in regards to God's self-revelation. So as to not misrepresent what you said, I'll simply state I'm NOT a "deist" (you may/may not be either). I don't believe that things are just "naturally" occurring from day to day, or that rain and sunshine are just "natural" things. God sends the rain and makes the grass to grow (Psa.147:8)- He is very much active in these activities for His Glory- to show His wrath on unbelievers (through the hardening of their hearts) and exceeding riches and grace toward His elect in Christ.

Well if they do not "naturally" happen. Then anything good that happens to anyone is in part spiritually gifted, correct? I think that implies common grace, if grace is anything like "an undeserved gift".


I wouldn't call "rain" a "spiritual blessing" toward the wicked. God's "wrath" is always being revealed from heaven towards them (Rom.1:18) -not His "grace."

thats because you dont live in the 1st century. you are not worried about rain falling in order to water your crops, in order to give you food. If you did, you would appreciate how much of a grace this is. Nowadays, its hard to realize that our irrigation technology, and the ability that humans had to invent it, is a grace from God. well, anyway, you get the idea.

Again, God's wrath in judgement do not negate His earlier Grace in kindness.


You also wrote "and so no matter what your definition of grace is, must be grace." I would argue that the definition of grace does "matter." How we view God's grace in the light of His revealed will (scripture), the confessions that the church has given us through the centuries, and theologians that have held to "sound" biblical teachings, etc. should have an impact on this definition and other doctrines.

I would not define grace as God revealing Himself to the reprobate in the creation. Rather, among the plethora of definitions for "grace," I would chose what I believe is most biblically and theologically correct, and that is, that grace can be found only in Jesus Christ, and to be "found in Christ Jesus" is to possess/ be given, the grace of God. God does not bestow grace on the reprobate, and neither does He want to sincerely offer salvation to them.

I'm sorry you feel that way, the Apostles taught that God does not desire that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to eternal life.

Your definition of grace is too restrictive in my view. It should simply be an undeserved/unmerited gift. Revelation of God and truth would rightly fit this definition.


Hopefully I've presented a clear enough argument in this, and the other post's I've written. I look forward to your answer to my arguments. Please take your time.

IN CHRIST,
Matthew

"and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" -Rom.3:24 ESV

They are "clear enough", but they are not conclusive. I suspect only someone who is assuming your theology would agree with the arguments youve presented.

peace,
jd

[amishrockstar]

yup...
I like arguing against myself, it makes refuting myself that much more easy.

LOL me too.


And so you assume. Its just as possible that God did so to reveal to them that He was good in spite of their wickedness (going their own ways). It is God's kindness which leads us to repentence, after all. (Romans 2:4)

Well, I guess I have to ask, do you believe that the self-revelation of God in His creation is able to save those peoples that have never heard the gospel proclaimed?? In the case of those "generations gone by," Paul spoke about in Acts 14:15-17 would you say that their is a way of salvation outside of Christ for them??
Because your trying to make a case of God's kindness leading to repentence (Rom.2:4) and weaving it into those "things" of Acts 14:17. So if your saying that the "rains" and "fruitful seasons" in Acts 14:17 are those means of grace that God offers to these heathen, and these things are the kindness which leads them to repentance. Then what you're saying is that their IS salvation outside of Christ. Please prove me wrong.


Psalm 73 is not really speaking about common grace it seems to me. It is certainly implying it, but not really teaching about the nature of it. The places they are set in are "slippery" in the sense that at any moment God's righteous judgement could be brought upon them. But until that time, God gives His Grace, and I believe, hoping that in it they will repent and turn to Him.

In what passage of scripture can I find the "nature" of common grace taught??
Are these "slippery places," physical things or something else??
Does God want everyone on earth to repent??

Romans 1:18,
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (NAS).

first of all, God's wrath does not invalidate His Grace. God may give grace freely, and then justly condemn those who do not respond in obedience and faith towards the giver of that Grace.

So if a person is condemned on the basis of not responding in obedience and faith towards the giver of that Grace, then does the grace of God fail to save anyone?? In other words, is God unable to acomplish what He sets out to do?? Are we saved by our obedience and what we do??
"For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom.11:29), this passage very clearly speaks of God's grace- but what your saying, is that God gives grace, and then takes it back and condemns someone.

secondly, the idea that the men are "supressing" the truth, implies that God has revealed, at least in part, the truth. You cant supress something that you dont know about. So therefore, this verse implies not only common grace, but prevenient grace as well!

(A)God has revealed truth in part- man suppresses it
(B)Man knows about what he's suppressing
(C)THEREFORE, "common grace?!?!"

I'm sorry, I don't see the connection here.


I havent seen any Logical arguments beyond that.



Not at present, no, on all questions. If you would like to post some of these arguments, i will be happy to refute them or offer alternative interpretations.


Well if they do not "naturally" happen. Then anything good that happens to anyone is in part spiritually gifted, correct? I think that implies common grace, if grace is anything like "an undeserved gift".

"spiritually gifted??"
"an undeserved gift??" Then how do you explain Rom.3:24 "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus"?? Grace comes through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and justification is described as a gift from God to those whom Christ has died, did Jesus die for everyone??

thats because you dont live in the 1st century. you are not worried about rain falling in order to water your crops, in order to give you food. If you did, you would appreciate how much of a grace this is. Nowadays, its hard to realize that our irrigation technology, and the ability that humans had to invent it, is a grace from God. well, anyway, you get the idea.

Well, I really do not get the idea... Grace is particular, not universal. Christ did NOT die for everyone head-for-head, he died for His elect only.

Again, God's wrath in judgement do not negate His earlier Grace in kindness.



I'm sorry you feel that way, the Apostles taught that God does not desire that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to eternal life.

"Any" of who?? "All" of what??

"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." -2Pet.3:9

Well, it's very obvious that Peter speaking to the church, as well as about God's elect that haven't yet been saved. So he's telling them to be patient and to wait for their brethren that God is still calling "in time."

Your definition of grace is too restrictive in my view. It should simply be an undeserved/unmerited gift. Revelation of God and truth would rightly fit this definition.

How did you arrive at YOUR definition?? Can you substantiate by scripture, that God wants to give grace as an underserved/unmerited gift to all the people living today??

They are "clear enough", but they are not conclusive. I suspect only someone who is assuming your theology would agree with the arguments youve presented.

peace,
jd



"FOR THIS REASON IT IS BY FAITH, IN ORDER THAT IT MAY BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRACE..." Rom.4:16a

[amishrockstar]

yep...
I like arguing against myself, it makes refuting myself that much more easy.

Well, since I ran my whole response into Infide's original quote last time, let me try again...


And so you assume. Its just as possible that God did so to reveal to them that He was good in spite of their wickedness (going their own ways). It is God's kindness which leads us to repentence, after all. (Romans 2:4)

Well, I guess I have to ask, do you believe that the self-revelation of God in His creation is able to save those peoples that have never heard the gospel proclaimed?? In the case of those "generations gone by," Paul spoke about in Acts 14:15-17 would you say that their is a way of salvation outside of Christ for them??
Because your trying to make a case of God's kindness leading to repentance (Rom.2:4) and weaving it into those "things" of Acts 14:17. So if your saying that the "rains" and "fruitful seasons" in Acts 14:17 are those means of grace that God offers to these heathen, and these things are the kindness which leads them to repentance. Then what you're saying is that their IS salvation outside Christ. Please prove me wrong.


Psalm 73 is not really speaking about common grace it seems to me. It is certainly implying it, but not really teaching about the nature of it. The places they are set in are "slippery" in the sense that at any moment God's righteous judgement could be brought upon them. But until that time, God gives His Grace, and I believe, hoping that in it they will repent and turn to Him.

In what passage of scripture can I find the "nature" of common grace taught??
Are these "slippery places," physical or something else??
Does God want everyone on earth to repent??


Romans 1:18,
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (NAS).

first of all, God's wrath does not invalidate His Grace. God may give grace freely, and then justly condemn those who do not respond in obedience and faith towards the giver of that Grace.

So if a person is condemned on the basis of not responding in obedience and faith towards the giver of that Grace, then does the grace of God fail to save anyone?? In other words, is God unable to acomplish what He sets out to do?? Are we saved by our obedience and what we do??
"For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom.11:29), this passage very clearly speaks of God's grace- but what your saying, is that God gives grace, and then takes it back and condemns someone.


secondly, the idea that the men are "supressing" the truth, implies that God has revealed, at least in part, the truth. You cant supress something that you dont know about. So therefore, this verse implies not only common grace, but prevenient grace as well!

(A)God has revealed truth in part- man suppresses it
(B)Man knows about what he's suppressing
(C)THEREFORE, "common grace?!?!"

I'm sorry, I dont see the connection here.


I havent seen any Logical arguments beyond that.



Not at present, no, on all questions. If you would like to post some of these arguments, i will be happy to refute them or offer alternative interpretations.



Well if they do not "naturally" happen. Then anything good that happens to anyone is in part spiritually gifted, correct? I think that implies common grace, if grace is anything like "an undeserved gift".


"spiritually gifted??"
"an undeserved gift??" Then how do you explain Rom.3:24 "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus"?? Grace comes through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and justification is described as a gift from God to those whom Christ has died, did Jesus die for everyone??



thats because you dont live in the 1st century. you are not worried about rain falling in order to water your crops, in order to give you food. If you did, you would appreciate how much of a grace this is. Nowadays, its hard to realize that our irrigation technology, and the ability that humans had to invent it, is a grace from God. well, anyway, you get the idea.

Well, I really do not get the idea... Grace is particular, not universal. Christ did NOT die for everyone head-for-head, he died for His elect only.



Again, God's wrath in judgement do not negate His earlier Grace in kindness.


I'm sorry you feel that way, the Apostles taught that God does not desire that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to eternal life.

"Any" of who?? "All" of what??

"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow avout His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." -2Pet.3:9

Well, it's very obvious that Peter's speaking to the church, as well as about God's elect that haven't yet been saved. So he's telling them to be patient and to wait for their brethren that God is still calling "in time."

I might also add, that if your claiming that this verse mean's every individual, then Jesus will never return. Because if He's waiting for all to come to Him- because He doesn't want them to perish- then according to that interpretation, Christ will never return to claim His bride.



Your definition of grace is too restrictive in my view. It should simply be an undeserved/unmerited gift. Revelation of God and truth would rightly fit this definition.


How did you arrive at YOUR definition?? Can you substantiate by scripture, that God wants to give grace as an underserved/unmerited gift to all the people living today??


They are "clear enough", but they are not conclusive. I suspect only someone who is assuming your theology would agree with the arguments youve presented.

peace,
jd


2COR.2:14-16

[infide]

Well, I guess I have to ask, do you believe that the self-revelation of God in His creation is able to save those peoples that have never heard the gospel proclaimed??

Nope. Nothing can SAVE except the work of Christ. However, I believe that God via His Self-Revelation will save some who respond in faith to that revelation. Thus, it will not necessarily be all those who know Christ who will be saved, but all of those whom Christ knows.

The substance of all salvation is the finished work of Christ, and the condition of all salvation is faith.


In the case of those "generations gone by," Paul spoke about in Acts 14:15-17 would you say that their is a way of salvation outside of Christ for them??

no, there is no salvation outside Christ.


Because your trying to make a case of God's kindness leading to repentance (Rom.2:4) and weaving it into those "things" of Acts 14:17. So if your saying that the "rains" and "fruitful seasons" in Acts 14:17 are those means of grace that God offers to these heathen, and these things are the kindness which leads them to repentance. Then what you're saying is that their IS salvation outside Christ. Please prove me wrong.

I dont follow that line of reasoning. I am saying that PART of the picture is the grace which God gives to all men, common and prevenient grace. The other part is responding to Him in faith. This in no way implies that salvation can come to anyone outside of Christ. Christ gives salvation to any who are saved.


In what passage of scripture can I find the "nature" of common grace taught??

i dont think there is a single passage it is implied throughout.


Are these "slippery places," physical or something else??

the slippery places are metaphorical for the spiritual risk they are taking.


Does God want everyone on earth to repent??

yeah, He sure does.


So if a person is condemned on the basis of not responding in obedience and faith towards the giver of that Grace, then does the grace of God fail to save anyone?? In other words, is God unable to acomplish what He sets out to do??

Those are two questions that, in my view, are asking different things. God's grace does not fail to do what God intended it to accomplish. There are two ways to look at the grace that saves us. (1) is what God is doing. (2) is what God DID. the first involves God providentially and spiritually working in our lives to reveal Himself and give us the ability to respond in faith. The second is the finished work of Christ on the Cross. Both are needed for someone to be saved, and both are gifts which we do not deserve. but (1) and (2) do not lead to someone being saved necessarily. Someone must respond and act along with prevenient graces, and trust in God in faith.

So grace does not fail to save anyone that God desires to save - Because God desires to save those who respond in faith towards Him.


Are we saved by our obedience and what we do??

nope. We are saved by grace. but, you need to understand that grace comes through faith - responding in faith.


"For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom.11:29), this passage very clearly speaks of God's grace- but what your saying, is that God gives grace, and then takes it back and condemns someone.

first of all, really far out of context:

"From the standpoint of the gospel they (*hereditary Israel*) are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Rom. 11:28-29, NAS)

So clearly, the "gifts and calling" being spoken of here is the gifts offered to the Fathers of the unbelieving Israel. Really, the promise of the covenants and promises through the prophets, it would seem. So you are just way off with your use of that clause.

Secondly, I am not saying that God gives grace and then takes it back. He gives grace and then gives judgement. judgement doesnt "take away" the reality of the grace that we previously given.


(A)God has revealed truth in part- man suppresses it
(B)Man knows about what he's suppressing
(C)THEREFORE, "common grace?!?!"

I'm sorry, I dont see the connection here.

Right, because no truth about God COULD be known apart from Grace, right? So the truth, and the ability to know it are in some way a common grace.


"spiritually gifted??"
"an undeserved gift??" Then how do you explain Rom.3:24 "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus"??

youre saying justification is as a gift by grace. I agree. But this doesnt say whether other things are also as a gift by grace. Thats all I am saying, God gives grace (a gift...) to all people, whether they will be saved or not, its just not justification, which is given only to some.


Grace comes through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and justification is described as a gift from God to those whom Christ has died, did Jesus die for everyone??

your problem is your assumption that justification is the ONLY grace that God gives.

but yeah, Jesus did die for everyone. He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2).


Well, I really do not get the idea... Grace is particular, not universal. Christ did NOT die for everyone head-for-head, he died for His elect only.

thats simply not true. I realize you are a Calvinist and you are programmed to believe that - but Jesus did die for the whole world, and some graces are offered to all. John 1:9 says that Christ enlightens every soul which comes into the world.


"Any" of who?? "All" of what??

any individuals, all individuals.


"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow avout His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." -2Pet.3:9

Well, it's very obvious that Peter's speaking to the church, as well as about God's elect that haven't yet been saved. So he's telling them to be patient and to wait for their brethren that God is still calling "in time."

that is a possible view, i will give you that. however, that in and of itself, wouldnt work against my position. Since the church/elect is a subset of all men. In other words, we also have this:

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4, NAS)

Now this shows us that even if 2 Peter 3:9 cannot conclusively be shown to support the general idea that God desires all to repent, we know that He does, from this verse from Timothy. So, i suppose you will tell me that "all men" here doesnt mean all men?


I might also add, that if your claiming that this verse mean's every individual, then Jesus will never return. Because if He's waiting for all to come to Him- because He doesn't want them to perish- then according to that interpretation, Christ will never return to claim His bride.

no, it could be a general statement, saying that the reason God has given the amount of time He has so that people will have room to repent. In other words, I am not certain that this verse conclusively demonstrates your view, and in light of 1 Timothy 2:4, your view completely unravels.


How did you arrive at YOUR definition?? Can you substantiate by scripture, that God wants to give grace as an underserved/unmerited gift to all the people living today??

I guess just the general way it is used throughout the scriptures.

John 1:9 says this: (NKJ)

"That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world."

light in this context must be spiritual, and thus this must be talking about divine Grace.

peace,
jd

[amishrockstar]

[QUOTE=infide]Nope. Nothing can SAVE except the work of Christ. However, I believe that God via His Self-Revelation will save some who respond in faith to that revelation. Thus, it will not necessarily be all those who know Christ who will be saved, but all of those whom Christ knows.

Hmmm... I'm not really sure how to answer this one...

You say that "Nothing can SAVE except the work of Christ" and yet some will be saved by responding in faith to God's self-revelation in His creation?!?!
Which is it??
How in the world does someone NOT know Christ, and be saved regardless of their not knowing Christ??
I'm sorry, but this is really getting far out there...

If someone does NOT know Christ they are:

"HOSTILE towards God" (Rom.8:7)
"UNABLE to please God" (Rom.8:8)
"DARKENED in their understanding (Eph.4:18)
"walking in DARKNESS" (Eph.5:8)
"having their minds and consciences DEFILED" (Titus 1:15)
"DEAD in trespasses and sins" (Eph.2:1)
"by nature children of WRATH" (Eph.2:3)
"DEAD in trespasses" (Col. 2:13)
"brought forth IN iniquity" (Psa.51:5)
"lovers of DARKNESS rather then lovers of light" (John 3:19)

etc., etc., etc...

...and yet you're saying that these same people will get to heaven apart from knowing Christ. No. I really don't know how else to say this, but that is some messed up theology. Christ says:

"I AM THE GOOD SHEPHERD. I KNOW MY OWN AND MY OWN KNOW ME, JUST AS THE FATHER KNOWS ME AND I KNOW THE FATHER; AND I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR THE SHEEP." -John 10:14-15

Knowing Christ IS, IS, IS salvation, it IS being born-again, it IS being delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of his beloved Son (Col.1:13).

Wheat does NOT become tares, and tares don't become wheat...

"even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will..." -Eph.1:4-5

That seems pretty straight forward to me... Their's no salvation outside Christ. Man is thoroughly wicked, unable to save himself, and can never be saved by God's self-revelation. The whole point to GOD revealing Himself in creation etc., is to leave the wicked without an excuse- NOT to save them.
"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God... For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe." ICor.1:18,21

It's by preaching that people are saved, because the 'natural man' is in such a spiritually DEAD state that it must be God the Holy Spirit that opens his heart to believe.




The substance of all salvation is the finished work of Christ, and the condition of all salvation is faith.

The substance of all salvation IS the finished work of Christ, but that's not what you just proposed. Faith is a gift from God (Eph.2:8) - not something God sees in man:

"For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil.1:29)

God is the one that "grants" a sinner the ability to believe.


no, there is no salvation outside Christ.

I would agree!!! But when you say that "it will not necessarily be all those who know Christ who will be saved, but all of those whom Christ knows." This is double-talk.


I dont follow that line of reasoning. I am saying that PART of the picture is the grace which God gives to all men, common and prevenient grace. The other part is responding to Him in faith. This in no way implies that salvation can come to anyone outside of Christ. Christ gives salvation to any who are saved.

Well, now we really come to the heart of the matter...

Monergism or Synergism??

Does God alone save man, or does man save himself with the help of God...
What really needs to be said here is that we are talking about 2 completely different gospels. You really hold to a synergistic, and ultimately man-centered gospel. In which God is completely helpless to save anyone and so He's simply provided "a way," not "the way." Man has to DO something to be saved. The problem is, that man is spiritually DEAD!!! How can a corpse, such as in the analogy of Lazarus (John 11:38-44) come forth on his own. You see, Christ came to "proclaim good news to the poor... proclaim liberty to the captives... and recover sight to the blind, etc." (Luk.4:18-19) The recovering of sight to the blind, as well as the other miracles (healing the lame, deaf, and raising the dead) are a type of the much more important work that Christ does- that work is, spiritually giving sight, hearing, life, etc. to the spiritually deaf, dumb, blind, and dead- US.




i dont think there is a single passage it is implied throughout.
the slippery places are metaphorical for the spiritual risk they are taking.

"YOU SET THEM IN SLIPPERY PLACES; YOU MAKE THEM FALL TO RUIN."

It's GOD doing this work, and those "slippery places" are those physical things that God has given for the hardening and destruction of the wicked!!!


yeah, He sure does.

(see above)


Those are two questions that, in my view, are asking different things. God's grace does not fail to do what God intended it to accomplish. There are two ways to look at the grace that saves us. (1) is what God is doing. (2) is what God DID. the first involves God providentially and spiritually working in our lives to reveal Himself and give us the ability to respond in faith. The second is the finished work of Christ on the Cross. Both are needed for someone to be saved, and both are gifts which we do not deserve. but (1) and (2) do not lead to someone being saved necessarily. Someone must respond and act along with prevenient graces, and trust in God in faith.

Well, you had me nodding emphatically in agreement until the last two sentences- YES man does believe. God doesn't believe FOR man. But the only way that a spiritually DEAD sinner will ever believe, is if God opens his heart so that he CAN believe.
You can go down to the local cemetary and say to the person in the grave that you'll offer them a "hand" out of that hole that they're in, if they will only reach out to you first- YOU"LL BE WAITIN" A VERY LOOOOOONG TIME. It takes the resurrecting power of the Holy Spirit and Christ finished work on the cross to bring a person to spiritual life.


So grace does not fail to save anyone that God desires to save - Because God desires to save those who respond in faith towards Him.

YES... I agree, provided you understand that it's God who grants a person saving faith. Again, God doesn't believe FOR man (the Bible's clear on that). But the question is, how does a wretched, poor, blind, dead sinner put faith in God when he has no faith in and of himself??- It's a "gift" from God.



nope. We are saved by grace. but, you need to understand that grace comes through faith - responding in faith.

(see above)


first of all, really far out of context:


"From the standpoint of the gospel they (*hereditary Israel*) are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Rom. 11:28-29, NAS)

So clearly, the "gifts and calling" being spoken of here is the gifts offered to the Fathers of the unbelieving Israel. Really, the promise of the covenants and promises through the prophets, it would seem. So you are just way off with your use of that clause.

If the "means" of grace, or rather, those things that pointed the true Isreal within Isreal towards Christ, were exactly what these "gifts and the calling of God" are... then NO, I'm not far off. What were the "gifts" given them?? What exactly was their calling??



Secondly, I am not saying that God gives grace and then takes it back. He gives grace and then gives judgement. judgement doesnt "take away" the reality of the grace that we previously given.

Well, if you define "grace" as the bible clearly tells us what the grace of God is- that grace is only given IN Christ Jesus- then yes that IS what your proposing. Your saying God gives grace, which is in Christ Jesus, then takes it away.


Right, because no truth about God COULD be known apart from Grace, right? So the truth, and the ability to know it are in some way a common grace.

Uhhh, NO. "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:19-20). That's NOT Grace. That's God working out HIS plan and purpose in the lives of the Reprobate, according to HIS Sovereign will.




youre saying justification is as a gift by grace. I agree. But this doesnt say whether other things are also as a gift by grace. Thats all I am saying, God gives grace (a gift...) to all people, whether they will be saved or not, its just not justification, which is given only to some.

your problem is your assumption that justification is the ONLY grace that God gives.

That's no "assumption" that's just the plain reading of the Bible

"What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" (Rom.8:31-32)



but yeah, Jesus did die for everyone. He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2).


I heard a Pastor tell a story once about a Mormon missionary that came to his door. This particular missionary told him that he wasn't really worried about anyone going to hell. When the Pastor asked the question why. The young man replied "because he's not only the propitiation for our sins; but for the whole world." In response the Pastor said the missionary was, "much more consistant then many of my evangelical brethren."

Propitiation means that God is SATISFIED- take a look in any Lexicon or bible dictionary- and if God's wrath has been satisfied or appeased, then their's nothing left to be paid for.

Taken in context, this verse needs to be understood that the early church (many of whom were Jews) were preoccupied with this idea of the Gentiles being grafted in. That's what the whole Jerusalem Council was about (Acts 15)- they were trying to figure out what they were to do about all these uncircumcised Gentiles that are now being saved. 1 John 2:2 isn't talking about God's wrath being satisfied for those who never come to Christ!! He's talking about "world" in the sense of the gentiles.

To sum up, the word "world" is used in many different ways in the N.T., it doesn't always mean everyone head-for-head. For example:

In John 12:19...

"So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!"

Or Rom. 1:8...

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world."

These are just a couple examples of how- just like in our own usage of the term "world"- the apostles weren't limited to simply one single meaning of the word either. "World" CAN me everyone, but it can also be my own "immediate" world around me, the creation in general, men of all nations, or it can be used in ways such as world peace, world opinion, communist world, ancient world, etc., etc., etc.


thats simply not true. I realize you are a Calvinist and you are programmed to believe that - but Jesus did die for the whole world, and some graces are offered to all. John 1:9 says that Christ enlightens every soul which comes into the world.

As long as you understand that Christ did not appease God's wrath for every individual and die for the sins of every individual (for then, NO ONE would be in Hell)- then I accept the use of the term world, as it is found in scripture.
I hope you can admit that when you use the term "everyone" in your daily conversation, that you're not necessarily talking specifically about people in Australia, or that you have Gays & Lesbians in mind, or those in the NRA, etc... In the same way, John isn't speaking of all individuals- everyone head-for-head- and the text proves this.
"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, NOT OF BLOOD NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, but of God." -John 1:12-13

John's talking about salvation in this passage- for that's WHY Christ came in the flesh- and he says that those who were "given the right" to become children of God, didn't become that by their own "will."


any individuals, all individuals.

that is a possible view, i will give you that. however, that in and of itself, wouldnt work against my position. Since the church/elect is a subset of all men. In other words, we also have this:

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4, NAS)

O.K., context, context, context...

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, FOR KINGS AND ALL WHO ARE IN HIGH POSITIONS, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in everyway... who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. -1 Tim.2:1,2,4

Paul's writing about all KINDS of people!!!

He makes it very clear that they shouldn't simply pray, interceed, give thanks, for only those around them, but "For KINGS and ALL WHO ARE IN HIGH POSITIONS" not just the lower-class, which really was what made up the majority of the church at that time (Paul makes it clear that God has chosen "not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth..." 1Cor. 1:26b & James 2:5,6).



Now this shows us that even if 2 Peter 3:9 cannot conclusively be shown to support the general idea that God desires all to repent, we know that He does, from this verse from Timothy. So, i suppose you will tell me that "all men" here doesnt mean all men?

"All men" DOES mean "ALL MEN." The problem's not with the text, it's how your interpreting it. Paul's talking about all KINDS of men (Kings,etc.). He's being very specific in this passage, he's not saying that God desires all men that are alive to "come to the knowledge of the truth" He has "kinds" of men in view since he specifically calls their attention to Kings and those in positions of authority.


no, it could be a general statement, saying that the reason God has given the amount of time He has so that people will have room to repent. In other words, I am not certain that this verse conclusively demonstrates your view, and in light of 1 Timothy 2:4, your view completely unravels.

(see above again)


I guess just the general way it is used throughout the scriptures.

John 1:9 says this: (NKJ)

"That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world."

light in this context must be spiritual, and thus this must be talking about divine Grace.

(see above again, and again)


peace,
jd

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." -John 6:44
:eek:

[infide]

Hmmm... I'm not really sure how to answer this one...

You say that "Nothing can SAVE except the work of Christ" and yet some will be saved by responding in faith to God's self-revelation in His creation?!?!
Which is it??

its both, obviously. The substance of any who are saved is the finished work of Christ on the cross.


How in the world does someone NOT know Christ, and be saved regardless of their not knowing Christ??

Ask Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Elijah, etc.

I would ask you simply to show where these men met Jesus Christ, and placed faith specifically in Him. You see, it is FAITH which was accounted for righteousness in these men. But it wasnt faith in Jesus, He wouldnt be born for thousands/hundreds of years.


I'm sorry, but this is really getting far out there...

it is your theology which is "out there" in terms of the Biblical record, Church History, and any other aspect of Christianity that we could look towards (save the little blip of history called "Calvinism", which thankfully did not go unopposed.)


If someone does NOT know Christ they are:

"HOSTILE towards God" (Rom.8:7)
"UNABLE to please God" (Rom.8:8)

where the subject is "the mind set on the flesh".


"DARKENED in their understanding (Eph.4:18)

where the subject is Gentiles who had "walked in the futility of their mind".


"walking in DARKNESS" (Eph.5:8)

where the subject is a person who is "immoral, impure, or covetous".


"having their minds and consciences DEFILED" (Titus 1:15)

which is talking about those who are unbelieving.


"DEAD in trespasses and sins" (Eph.2:1)
"by nature children of WRATH" (Eph.2:3)

describing those who walk according to the world, in lust.


"DEAD in trespasses" (Col. 2:13)

speaking to the former life of those who have trusted in faith.


"brought forth IN iniquity" (Psa.51:5)

this is clearly poetic exaggeration.


"lovers of DARKNESS rather then lovers of light" (John 3:19)

describing those whose deeds are evil.


...and yet you're saying that these same people will get to heaven apart from knowing Christ. No. I really don't know how else to say this, but that is some messed up theology. Christ says:

no, these people are not responding to God in faith.


"I AM THE GOOD SHEPHERD. I KNOW MY OWN AND MY OWN KNOW ME, JUST AS THE FATHER KNOWS ME AND I KNOW THE FATHER; AND I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR THE SHEEP." -John 10:14-15

Knowing Christ IS, IS, IS salvation, it IS being born-again, it IS being delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of his beloved Son (Col.1:13).

Right but this is not always a reality for all those who escape the judgement through faith. Not all who will be saved through the judgement have knowledge of Jesus. Think about those who are never evangelized, or the Old Testament saints. Are these simply out of luck because they were born in a particular place at a particular time by God's own decree!? (Acts 17). How strange your conception of the judgement must be.


Wheat does NOT become tares, and tares don't become wheat...

yeah they do! or none would ever be saved. Were you not a tare before you became wheat through faith?


"even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will..." -Eph.1:4-5

yup, i agree with that verse.


That seems pretty straight forward to me... Their's no salvation outside Christ.

i believe i said the exact opposite.


Man is thoroughly wicked, unable to save himself, and can never be saved by God's self-revelation.

He cant save Himself, but He can be saved, obviously! and if God did not reveal Himself, no one would be saved - so i would say people are saved in part because of God's self-revelation. Hebrews says that in order to please God you must believe that God "is", or exists. That can be known through God's self revelation (Romans 1).


The whole point to GOD revealing Himself in creation etc., is to leave the wicked without an excuse- NOT to save them.

i disagree. Did God reveal Himself to you? are you saved?


"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God... For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe." ICor.1:18,21

It's by preaching that people are saved, because the 'natural man' is in such a spiritually DEAD state that it must be God the Holy Spirit that opens his heart to believe.

I dont think I specifically denied any of this.


The substance of all salvation IS the finished work of Christ, but that's not what you just proposed.

yes it is. the grace which saves any man is traced back to and finds its source in the work of Christ.


Faith is a gift from God (Eph.2:8)

thats not what Eph. 2:8 says. It says that "being saved by grace through faith" is a gift of God. Not "faith" (feminine noun disagrees with the neuter pronoun, your interpretation is ruled out by the grammatical gender of the words).


"For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil.1:29)

right, i agree with that verse too.


God is the one that "grants" a sinner the ability to believe.

right, just like He grants anyone the ability to do anything.


I would agree!!! But when you say that "it will not necessarily be all those who know Christ who will be saved, but all of those whom Christ knows." This is double-talk.

hmm, by that i suppose you mean saying two contradictory things as if it were coherant. Well, i disagree. There are people who exhibit faith, whom Christ bought on the cross, who never heard the Christian gospel (think Abraham as one clear example). Thus, Christ knows Him, but He doesnt know Christ.


Well, now we really come to the heart of the matter...

Monergism or Synergism??

Does God alone save man, or does man save himself with the help of God...

which, of course, is a straw man. In the synergist system, God is the one saving, He just requires some conditions and actions on the "one being saved"'s part. Man does not, and cannot save himself on EITHER model.


What really needs to be said here is that we are talking about 2 completely different gospels.

That is a ridiculous sentiment. We are talking about different interpretations of the order of salvation - but it is the same Gospel, Grace through faith.

This is, I believe, one of the biggest mistakes that Calvinists make. This radical distancing themselves from others who interpret things differently. We are all Christians who love God, His Word, and each other. Many Arminians and other Synergists (like myself) recognize that although we disagree on the order of salvation, Calvinists are our brothers and sisters. Do Calvinists offer the same love towards their brothers and sisters? Do you?


You really hold to a synergistic, and ultimately man-centered gospel. In which God is completely helpless to save anyone and so He's simply provided "a way," not "the way." Man has to DO something to be saved. The problem is, that man is spiritually DEAD!!! How can a corpse, such as in the analogy of Lazarus (John 11:38-44) come forth on his own. You see, Christ came to "proclaim good news to the poor... proclaim liberty to the captives... and recover sight to the blind, etc." (Luk.4:18-19) The recovering of sight to the blind, as well as the other miracles (healing the lame, deaf, and raising the dead) are a type of the much more important work that Christ does- that work is, spiritually giving sight, hearing, life, etc. to the spiritually deaf, dumb, blind, and dead- US.

The answer is simple for the Arminian - Prevenient Grace! It gives light and life and precedes and enables our decisions to move toward God in Christ.

God is not "helpless to save anyone", for He does save many. (Romans 5, the grace abounds to many). But He places a condition of faith as the means, the vessel that His Grace should come.


"YOU SET THEM IN SLIPPERY PLACES; YOU MAKE THEM FALL TO RUIN."

It's GOD doing this work, and those "slippery places" are those physical things that God has given for the hardening and destruction of the wicked!!!

God is doing this, okay. How does that prove this is a literal physical place that God is putting people? This is quite obviously metaphorical for the sudden judgement that could be brought upon those who think they are "blessed" and "secure".


Well, you had me nodding emphatically in agreement until the last two sentences- YES man does believe. God doesn't believe FOR man. But the only way that a spiritually DEAD sinner will ever believe, is if God opens his heart so that he CAN believe.

Okay, how does that prove that EVERY MAN does not receive this enablement?


You can go down to the local cemetary and say to the person in the grave that you'll offer them a "hand" out of that hole that they're in, if they will only reach out to you first- YOU"LL BE WAITIN" A VERY LOOOOOONG TIME. It takes the resurrecting power of the Holy Spirit and Christ finished work on the cross to bring a person to spiritual life.

John 1:9 says that the Light "enlightens every man coming into the world". So, it seems that God in Christ does so in part for every man.


YES... I agree, provided you understand that it's God who grants a person saving faith. Again, God doesn't believe FOR man (the Bible's clear on that). But the question is, how does a wretched, poor, blind, dead sinner put faith in God when he has no faith in and of himself??- It's a "gift" from God.

Everything is a gift from God.



If the "means" of grace, or rather, those things that pointed the true Isreal within Isreal towards Christ, were exactly what these "gifts and the calling of God" are... then NO, I'm not far off. What were the "gifts" given them?? What exactly was their calling??

It was said to be given for the sake of the Fathers - the promises were given to the fathers. God called Israel, God promised to Israel. Paul is talking about UNSAVED Israel. you are completely missing this, here.


Uhhh, NO. "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:19-20). That's NOT Grace. That's God working out HIS plan and purpose in the lives of the Reprobate, according to HIS Sovereign will.

ohhh... i didnt know that God working out His plan and God giving grace could not both be true. duh, its both.



That's no "assumption" that's just the plain reading of the Bible

"What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" (Rom.8:31-32)

one man's "plain reading" is another man's misinterpreted reading. Well, the verse you have quoted most obviously REFUTES you, since God "graciously giving all things" clearly includes MORE than only justification. At the very least this would also include sanctification. But then your original statement that Justification is the Only grace, is just plain wrong.


I heard a Pastor tell a story once about a Mormon missionary that came to his door. This particular missionary told him that he wasn't really worried about anyone going to hell. When the Pastor asked the question why. The young man replied "because he's not only the propitiation for our sins; but for the whole world." In response the Pastor said the missionary was, "much more consistant then many of my evangelical brethren."

Propitiation means that God is SATISFIED- take a look in any Lexicon or bible dictionary- and if God's wrath has been satisfied or appeased, then their's nothing left to be paid for.

Thats right because no other sacrifice need be or COULD be made. Thus there is nothing left to be paid for.


Taken in context, this verse needs to be understood that the early church (many of whom were Jews) were preoccupied with this idea of the Gentiles being grafted in. That's what the whole Jerusalem Council was about (Acts 15)- they were trying to figure out what they were to do about all these uncircumcised Gentiles that are now being saved. 1 John 2:2 isn't talking about God's wrath being satisfied for those who never come to Christ!! He's talking about "world" in the sense of the gentiles.

the context in no way demands that reading of John's statement. you are just misinterpreting the text to suit your preconceived theology.

The propitiation is only effectual for those who believe. But it is enough to save every soul. Its not meant to be thought of as a certain number of "tokens of sin" and for every sin Jesus had to pay one token of suffering. Thats silly. Jesus' sacrifice just was so awesome that it satisfies the wrath for any and every sin.


To sum up, the word "world" is used in many different ways in the N.T., it doesn't always mean everyone head-for-head. For example:

In John 12:19...

"So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!"

they were exaggerating, which makes sense in that narrative context. In John however, it doesnt make sense given that John is teaching.


Or Rom. 1:8...

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world."

Paul very well could have meant this in the sense of the "world as he knew it". The ancients didnt understand how big the world was. Paul did travel all over the "known world" of his time.


These are just a couple examples of how- just like in our own usage of the term "world"- the apostles weren't limited to simply one single meaning of the word either. "World" CAN me everyone, but it can also be my own "immediate" world around me, the creation in general, men of all nations, or it can be used in ways such as world peace, world opinion, communist world, ancient world, etc., etc., etc.

and i think in 1 John 2:2 the best sense in that passage is the whole world meaning everyone, everywhere.


As long as you understand that Christ did not appease God's wrath for every individual and die for the sins of every individual (for then, NO ONE would be in Hell)- then I accept the use of the term world, as it is found in scripture.

thats not what John 1 is saying. It is talking about an enlightening. I think this means an amount of grace is given to every man to respond in faith or reject in pride and sin.


I hope you can admit that when you use the term "everyone" in your daily conversation, that you're not necessarily talking specifically about people in Australia, or that you have Gays & Lesbians in mind, or those in the NRA, etc... In the same way, John isn't speaking of all individuals- everyone head-for-head- and the text proves this.

it depends on the context, thats right. But in this context, with a predication "coming into the world" I think that includes everyone. Because everyone comes into the world.


"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, NOT OF BLOOD NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, but of God." -John 1:12-13

Calvinists make too much of what John is relating here. He is simply contrasting the spiritual birth and the natural birth. With a natural birth, there is blood. with a natural birth there is the will of the flesh (intercourse, or perhaps even the birthing process itself). with a natural birth there is a will of man, that is a decision to have a child. The Spiritual birth is accomplished by God in the Spiritual/Immaterial realm.


John's talking about salvation in this passage- for that's WHY Christ came in the flesh- and he says that those who were "given the right" to become children of God, didn't become that by their own "will."

thats your interpretation of the text, i think you are misreading it.


O.K., context, context, context...

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, FOR KINGS AND ALL WHO ARE IN HIGH POSITIONS, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in everyway... who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. -1 Tim.2:1,2,4

Paul's writing about all KINDS of people!!!

no, you inserted the idea of "kinds" into the text. i believe that is called eisegesis, something you Calvinists like to accuse of? Clearly the designation of "for kings and all who are in high positions" is just a specific example. kings and leaders are included in "all men". your reading of the text is unnatural and clearly not what Paul was meaning.


He makes it very clear that they shouldn't simply pray, interceed, give thanks, for only those around them, but "For KINGS and ALL WHO ARE IN HIGH POSITIONS" not just the lower-class, which really was what made up the majority of the church at that time (Paul makes it clear that God has chosen "not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth..." 1Cor. 1:26b & James 2:5,6).

this proves nothing, though. It seems altogether clear to me that Paul means "all men" as a general term when he asks them to pray. And when saying God desires to save all men, we assume he means the same thing - a general universal meaning.


"All men" DOES mean "ALL MEN." The problem's not with the text, it's how your interpreting it.

au contraire, it is your interpretation that is shady. If all men means all men, then why are you trying to wriggle out of the very obvious implication, then, that your theology is plainly wrong.


Paul's talking about all KINDS of men (Kings,etc.). He's being very specific in this passage, he's not saying that God desires all men that are alive to "come to the knowledge of the truth"

Yes, actually, he is saying that! read it again, thats what it says. its right there for everyone to read. - God does indeed desire that all men "come to the knowledge of the truth".


He has "kinds" of men in view since he specifically calls their attention to Kings and those in positions of authority.

no, thats what you WANT it to say. He specifically call their attention to kings and those in high positions, because that would be a specific subset of "all men" which they should be reminded to pray for, so that "we may lead a peaceful and quiet life".


No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." -John 6:44
:eek:

you want to talk about context!? read the context for that verse and you will discover what that verse REALLY means.

peace,
jd

[AVmetro]

Infide,

Just a few comments.

You said:


Infide:

that is a possible view, i will give you that. however, that in and of itself, wouldnt work against my position. Since the church/elect is a subset of all men. In other words, we also have this:

But I don’t believe you answered to the problem with your interpretation Amishrocker pointed out here:


AR:

I might also add, that if your claiming that this verse mean's every individual, then Jesus will never return. Because if He's waiting for all to come to Him- because He doesn't want them to perish- then according to that interpretation, Christ will never return to claim His bride.

As Amishrocker pointed out, according to this passage, the “delay” in Christ’s coming is predicated on God’s desire that “all” come to repentance which strongly implies that unless “all” come to repentance, the “delay” as some thought it, will never end. Now, being God knows the “day and hour” of Christ’s coming (ergo it is set), the “delay” will only be effective till a certain number is filled.
I’d also point out that with the words “none should perish” (out of a group) but “all (out of a group) come to repentance” that this is very individualistic and therefore just doesn’t jive with a corporate “church” view.


Infide:

Ask Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Elijah, etc.

Well, as for Abraham and Moses; John 8:56, Heb. 11:24-26. David surely knew the Messiah would come from his seed and some do argue that Daniel saw the preincarnate Christ. But that’s just for conversation sake but in any case…


Infide:

I would ask you simply to show where these men met Jesus Christ, and placed faith specifically in Him. You see, it is FAITH which was accounted for righteousness in these men. But it wasnt faith in Jesus, He wouldnt be born for thousands/hundreds of years.
Hebrews 11 does address this, at least in part, I believe. But I think the burden is on the inclusive advocate as:

1. All said individuals were faithful to YHWH.
2. There is no example of an unbelieving heathen being justified.

There is something unique to the examples you gave that is not applicable to just anyone.


Infide:

thats not what Eph. 2:8 says. It says that "being saved by grace through faith" is a gift of God. Not "faith" (feminine noun disagrees with the neuter pronoun, your interpretation is ruled out by the grammatical gender of the words).

“Grace” and “salvation” are also feminine, I believe. Personally, I don’t think anything decisive can be had from this verse (but that’s just my uneducated opinion :-)
I do believe faith is something God gives, but I see it implied or stated more strongly elsewhere.


Infide:

thats not what John 1 is saying. It is talking about an enlightening. I think this means an amount of grace is given to every man to respond in faith or reject in pride and sin.

Okay, so once given this “amount of grace”, what causes one man to accept Christ and another not to? How does one “choose” to love God? Can I just walk up to any woman at random and say “I’ll choose love her”? Obviously not! :)

“Think of it this way, in personal terms. If you are a Christian you are surely aware of other people who are not Christians. Why is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes to prevenient grace while they siad no? Was it because you were more righteous than they were? If so, then indeed you have something in which to boast. Was that greater righteiousness something you achieved on your own or was it the git of God? If it was something you achieved, then at the bottom line your salvation depends on your own righteousness. If the righteousness was a gift, then why didn’t God give the gift to everybody?
Perhaps it wasn’t because you were more righteous. Perhaps it was because you are more intelligent. Why are you more intelligent? Because you study more (which really means you are more righteous)? Or are you more intelligent because God gave you a gift of intelligence he withheld from others?…We conclude that our salvation is of the Lord. He is the One who regenerates us. Those whom he regenerates come to Christ. Without regeneration no one will ever come to Christ…” (R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, p. 124-125)

AV

[infide]

Infide,

Hey AVmetro,


Just a few comments.

You said:

But I don’t believe you answered to the problem with your interpretation Amishrocker pointed out here:

As Amishrocker pointed out, according to this passage, the “delay” in Christ’s coming is predicated on God’s desire that “all” come to repentance which strongly implies that unless “all” come to repentance, the “delay” as some thought it, will never end. Now, being God knows the “day and hour” of Christ’s coming (ergo it is set), the “delay” will only be effective till a certain number is filled.
I’d also point out that with the words “none should perish” (out of a group) but “all (out of a group) come to repentance” that this is very individualistic and therefore just doesn’t jive with a corporate “church” view.

How can "all" be individualistic? all is a word that denotes universality, not particularity. But I realize that Calvinism has clouded your vocabulary on that matter.

So, what about the idea that Christ would never comeback? I dont see how that is implied. Not everyone will come to Christ, and God knows that. (i am no OVT) And so, God delays to allow more time for repentance, so the fullness of the Gentiles can come in. But this doesnt, and i believe shouldnt imply that God does not desire that ALL (as in every man) be saved. His desire as such is reflected by the very fact that He has given this time of repentance.

In other words, you are trying to force the idea that only some will be saved into a passage talking about a Universal desire of God. God comes back when His plan is fulfilled, and all those who would be saved in that plan are saved.


Well, as for Abraham and Moses; John 8:56, Heb. 11:24-26.

And those are talking retrospectively. They obeyed because they were obeying Christ (we ascribe this to them). But Christ was not yet revealed, so it cannot be that they were obeying, in knowledge, Christ. Look at the passage in the OT where Abraham's faith is "accounted as righteousness". If you can find the Christian Gospel in that passage, then your case will be made.


David surely knew the Messiah would come from his seed and some do argue that Daniel saw the preincarnate Christ. But that’s just for conversation sake but in any case…

Again, the amount of knowledge of Christ that David and Daniel had, we could easily ascribe to the Magi, who knew enough from astrology to look for Christ. But, that is hardly the Christian gospel of trusting in Christ's finished work on the cross.


Hebrews 11 does address this, at least in part, I believe. But I think the burden is on the inclusive advocate as:

1. All said individuals were faithful to YHWH.
2. There is no example of an unbelieving heathen being justified.

There is something unique to the examples you gave that is not applicable to just anyone.

My point, was that epistemological knowledge of Christ's work on the Cross did not disqualify any of them from coming to God in faith, trusting in Him, etc.


“Grace” and “salvation” are also feminine, I believe. Personally, I don’t think anything decisive can be had from this verse (but that’s just my uneducated opinion :-)

In these type of constructions, it is usually a phrase that the pronoun refers to. Thus, we are talking about the preceding phrase of being "saved by grace through faith". The whole thing as a whole is a gift from God, and indeed all aspects of it are a gift in a sense.


I do believe faith is something God gives, but I see it implied or stated more strongly elsewhere.

depends what you mean. I dont believe we have ANYTHING that God did not give to us. If you mean that faith is some entity that God mystically forces into the person's mind, then i think you are plainly wrong. If you think it is something that grows in someone where the soil of the heart is right, and the seed of God's Word is planted in - then i agree with you.


Okay, so once given this “amount of grace”, what causes one man to accept Christ and another not to? How does one “choose” to love God? Can I just walk up to any woman at random and say “I’ll choose love her”? Obviously not! :)

well it is said to enlighten. And I believe this includes an illumination of our sin. Some, love their sin more than the light - and they choose to shut out the light, and dwell in darkness. Some, are humble enough to repent of the sin that is revealed, and turn toward the light.

God's grace precedes all decisions as well - it upholds the will and God allows man to choose at that point.


“Think of it this way, in personal terms. If you are a Christian you are surely aware of other people who are not Christians. Why is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes to prevenient grace while they siad no? Was it because you were more righteous than they were? If so, then indeed you have something in which to boast. Was that greater righteiousness something you achieved on your own or was it the git of God? If it was something you achieved, then at the bottom line your salvation depends on your own righteousness. If the righteousness was a gift, then why didn’t God give the gift to everybody?
Perhaps it wasn’t because you were more righteous. Perhaps it was because you are more intelligent. Why are you more intelligent? Because you study more (which really means you are more righteous)? Or are you more intelligent because God gave you a gift of intelligence he withheld from others?…We conclude that our salvation is of the Lord. He is the One who regenerates us. Those whom he regenerates come to Christ. Without regeneration no one will ever come to Christ…” (R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, p. 124-125)

Its not about that. God doesnt give us grace because we would respond or because we are intelligent or because we are righteous(!). But that grace becomes effectual in our lives when we respond in faith. Remember - Grace THROUGH faith.


AV

peace,
jd

[Nang]

No such thing as "common" grace.

The grace of God always saves souls from their sins, and no less. Humanity at large does not know salvation or the grace of God, but remain in their sins. That is historical fact.

People confuse God's patience, forbearance, and tolerance (working His own timetables) with His grace, when observing the ungodly.

But provisional rain and food (temporal blessings) does not equate to Covenantal Grace (eternal salvation).



Nang

[AVmetro]

Hi, Infide,

Thanks for the reply.

You said:


Infide:

How can "all" be individualistic? all is a word that denotes universality, not particularity. But I realize that Calvinism has clouded your vocabulary on that matter.

Okay, perhaps I misunderstood you. You had said:


Infide:

however, that in and of itself, wouldnt work against my position. Since the church/elect is a subset of all men.

I had taken you to mean that the “you” represented the “church” as a generalized “class” (not a group of specific, known individuals). Hence my comment. I see now that your point was more specifically based on the church being a "subset" in relation to all humanity.

Now as to your question “How can ‘all’ be individualistic?” notice that I had clarified my understanding of the word “all” with “(out of a group).” In other words, “all individuals.“ What I therefore mean by “individualistic” is that as opposed to a “class concept” that precludes individuals.

But then again, I may have misunderstood what you were arguing to begin so in that case it would no longer be relevant.

But I still think there is a problem with your interpretation, namely with your statement “Since the church/elect is a subset of all men.” The “you” refers, as you concede at one point for sake of argument, to the “church/elect.” And it is the “you” that God is not willing should perish. Now, under the Reformed interpretation, “you” denotes the “class of the elect” (which entails individuals; not just a general concept). Therefore, under the Reformed view, God does not wish any of the elect to perish. However, the problem with your view, as I see it, is that “church” as you understand it (correct me if I’m wrong) refers to those who are already saved. Hence, under your interpretation, God is not willing that any of the “church” perish which, being they are already saved, seems unnecessary. Couple this with the fact that God is said to be specifically longsuffering toward “you” which under the Reformed position would be the class of the elect (entailing individuals) not to the “church subset” AND the rest of the world. Hence I believe the restriction of the “longsuffering” to “you” with a concession of “you” denoting “elect” would indeed work against your position; not merely be “neutral.”

Lastly, there is really no warrant to talk of Calvinism “clouding my vocabulary.” I have not always been a Calvinist and therefore presupposed the same “vocabulary” as Arminians. If I interpret things differently now, it is because I’ve given the issues some study.


Infide:

So, what about the idea that Christ would never comeback? I dont see how that is implied. Not everyone will come to Christ, and God knows that. (i am no OVT) And so, God delays to allow more time for repentance, so the fullness of the Gentiles can come in. But this doesnt, and i believe shouldnt imply that God does not desire that ALL (as in every man) be saved. His desire as such is reflected by the very fact that He has given this time of repentance.

This really doesn’t address the problem, IMHO. I had assumed you were OVT, and being you aren’t, I think that hurts your case even more as now I can add that God already [fore]knows the specific number of those who will accept Him (e.g., Rom 8:38) and therefore the “longsuffering” is more about filling a specific number rather than an attempt to allow for a world-wide exhaustive repentance.

He may very well desire that every individual in this physical earth come to repentance, but I don’t believe you can effectively argue that from this verse.


Infide:

In other words, you are trying to force the idea that only some will be saved into a passage talking about a Universal desire of God. God comes back when His plan is fulfilled, and all those who would be saved in that plan are saved.

The assertion that the word “universal” denotes literally every individual on this physical earth, as Amishrocker points out, is presumed on your part. We believe that “all” means “all” in this passage. But, “all” of what?

You say “all those who would be saved in that plan are saved.” Could you explain this some more? Are you limiting the number that will be saved to something specific or am I misunderstanding you?


Infide:

And those are talking retrospectively. They obeyed because they were obeying Christ (we ascribe this to them). But Christ was not yet revealed, so it cannot be that they were obeying, in knowledge, Christ. Look at the passage in the OT where Abraham's faith is "accounted as righteousness". If you can find the Christian Gospel in that passage, then your case will be made.

Infide, I made mention of this as they were specific references to said individuals having some kind of personal knowledge of Christ (contrary to your claims). It was more meant to show you not to jump to hasty conclusions than to make an exhaustive argument against your view. My actual argument came afterwards. After all, all you would have to do is refer to “Samson” or some other that no NT reference existed.

But just to make a correction--Abraham is specifically said to have “seen Christ’s day”--now what else could that mean other than to have a knowledge of the Messiah? And what about Isaiah in Is. 6:1 (Cf. John 1:18, 12:41)? Many argue that Moses saw the preincarnate Christ in the burning bush (see any argument on “theophanies”)

But like I said, in any case, see below.


Infide:

Again, the amount of knowledge of Christ that David and Daniel had, we could easily ascribe to the Magi, who knew enough from astrology to look for Christ. But, that is hardly the Christian gospel of trusting in Christ's finished work on the cross.

Actually, I would say that:

1. That the Magi did not know the gospel message is actually assumed on your part.

2. Given that they didn’t, I would hardly say “knowing where to look for Christ” and the revelations given to Daniel are to be equated!


Infide:

My point, was that epistemological knowledge of Christ's work on the Cross did not disqualify any of them from coming to God in faith, trusting in Him, etc.

Okay, but you have to show how the ignorant heathen are saved outside of faith in Christ or faith in YHWH. You claim that salvation is through faith in Christ, yet these heathen you claim are saved do not have such. (?)


Infide:

In these type of constructions, it is usually a phrase that the pronoun refers to. Thus, we are talking about the preceding phrase of being "saved by grace through faith". The whole thing as a whole is a gift from God, and indeed all aspects of it are a gift in a sense.

I believe that is what White argues for.


Infide:

depends what you mean. I dont believe we have ANYTHING that God did not give to us. If you mean that faith is some entity that God mystically forces into the person's mind, then i think you are plainly wrong. If you think it is something that grows in someone where the soil of the heart is right, and the seed of God's Word is planted in - then i agree with you.

I think the word “forces” is a typical Arminian caricature. It attempts to ascribe a negative connotation in the Reformed context of mercy.

Now on to what you say; you say that it is something that grows in someone where the “soil of the heart is right.” Do you mean to imply that certain persons are predisposed to righteousness? If so, it is more than simply “faith” that is required for someone to be saved, but that they are a certain “type” of person as well. I’ve seen/heard of the hardest criminals being saved. So what turned their “bad soil” into “good soil”? They were certainly not predisposed to accept Christ (I don’t believe anyone is).


Infide:

well it is said to enlighten. And I believe this includes an illumination of our sin. Some, love their sin more than the light - and they choose to shut out the light, and dwell in darkness. Some, are humble enough to repent of the sin that is revealed, and turn toward the light.

God's grace precedes all decisions as well - it upholds the will and God allows man to choose at that point.

I believe that Total Depravity and John 6 refutes this argument (but that is getting into another looong discussion that I don‘t have time for)…
Instead, I want to hear you out totally on your view. You still haven’t answered why some love their sin more than light and why some repent. What is it about them that is better than others and what conclusion about their innate character is this going to naturally lead us to?


Infide:

Its not about that. God doesnt give us grace because we would respond or because we are intelligent or because we are righteous(!). But that grace becomes effectual in our lives when we respond in faith. Remember - Grace THROUGH faith.

Again, why do some respond in faith and others don’t.
I think you missed the point of Sproul. He wasn’t arguing for that conclusion but that that conclusion is the necessary logical corollary to the Arminian view of prevenient grace.

AV

[infide]

But provisional rain and food (temporal blessings) does not equate to Covenantal Grace (eternal salvation).

Food and rain and breath and life are all Spiritual blessings, of which we are undeserving.

temporal or not, they are graces, which apparently, you cannot account for.

peace,
jd

[Nang]

Food and rain and breath and life are all Spiritual blessings, of which we are undeserving.

Blessings? Or earthly provisions that we do not deserve and have not earned in the slightest way?




temporal or not, they are graces,

Here is the core of your erroneous thinking . . .

Grace is Divine, not temporal. You are just making it up that earthly blessings are "graces."

Earthly and temporal blessings are provisional realities of this present life.

Grace from God is His promise and His accomplishment and His application of spiritual, eternal life.

There is no such thing known to man, as a "common grace." That concept is man-imagined and wished for, but not biblical at all.

Nang

[infide]

Okay, perhaps I misunderstood you. You had said:

I had taken you to mean that the “you” represented the “church” as a generalized “class” (not a group of specific, known individuals). Hence my comment. I see now that your point was more specifically based on the church being a "subset" in relation to all humanity.

Now as to your question “How can ‘all’ be individualistic?” notice that I had clarified my understanding of the word “all” with “(out of a group).” In other words, “all individuals.“ What I therefore mean by “individualistic” is that as opposed to a “class concept” that precludes individuals.

But then again, I may have misunderstood what you were arguing to begin so in that case it would no longer be relevant.

But I still think there is a problem with your interpretation, namely with your statement “Since the church/elect is a subset of all men.” The “you” refers, as you concede at one point for sake of argument, to the “church/elect.” And it is the “you” that God is not willing should perish. Now, under the Reformed interpretation, “you” denotes the “class of the elect” (which entails individuals; not just a general concept). Therefore, under the Reformed view, God does not wish any of the elect to perish. However, the problem with your view, as I see it, is that “church” as you understand it (correct me if I’m wrong) refers to those who are already saved. Hence, under your interpretation, God is not willing that any of the “church” perish which, being they are already saved, seems unnecessary. Couple this with the fact that God is said to be specifically longsuffering toward “you” which under the Reformed position would be the class of the elect (entailing individuals) not to the “church subset” AND the rest of the world. Hence I believe the restriction of the “longsuffering” to “you” with a concession of “you” denoting “elect” would indeed work against your position; not merely be “neutral.”

Try reading it like this,

God is not slow in returning, but gives some time of repentance, so that more people can come to God in Christ. God does this, because He desires that none should perish of those who are not yet saved.


Lastly, there is really no warrant to talk of Calvinism “clouding my vocabulary.” I have not always been a Calvinist and therefore presupposed the same “vocabulary” as Arminians. If I interpret things differently now, it is because I’ve given the issues some study.

I know, I couldnt resist :lol:


This really doesn’t address the problem, IMHO. I had assumed you were OVT, and being you aren’t, I think that hurts your case even more as now I can add that God already [fore]knows the specific number of those who will accept Him (e.g., Rom 8:38) and therefore the “longsuffering” is more about filling a specific number rather than an attempt to allow for a world-wide exhaustive repentance.

No, my view (Molinist) is that God's foreknowledge of the particular set of those "elect" was not based on some predetermined allotment of people "to be saved" - rather, His decision to create this particular world passively selected a particular group of those who would freely respond effectively to His grace of their own inspired free-will. God still gives His Grace to those who actively refuse it, out of His pure Love.

So, God really is attempting to offer all that is necessary for a world-wide repentance, its just that He happens to know that some will never respond in faith.


He may very well desire that every individual in this physical earth come to repentance, but I don’t believe you can effectively argue that from this verse.

to believe otherwise is to assert a strange view of the "God of Love".


The assertion that the word “universal” denotes literally every individual on this physical earth, as Amishrocker points out, is presumed on your part. We believe that “all” means “all” in this passage. But, “all” of what?

You say “all those who would be saved in that plan are saved.” Could you explain this some more? Are you limiting the number that will be saved to something specific or am I misunderstanding you?

Well, since I am not a universalist - I must assert that those who "will be saved" is a subset of those who "will be".

The rest of the explanation is above.


Infide, I made mention of this as they were specific references to said individuals having some kind of personal knowledge of Christ (contrary to your claims). It was more meant to show you not to jump to hasty conclusions than to make an exhaustive argument against your view. My actual argument came afterwards. After all, all you would have to do is refer to “Samson” or some other that no NT reference existed.

My point is that your counterexamples are unsound - and thus i need to simply turn back the force of the counterexample, i need not prove them wrong. (if you understand basic argumentation).


But just to make a correction--Abraham is specifically said to have “seen Christ’s day”--now what else could that mean other than to have a knowledge of the Messiah? And what about Isaiah in Is. 6:1 (Cf. John 1:18, 12:41)? Many argue that Moses saw the preincarnate Christ in the burning bush (see any argument on “theophanies”)

It doesnt make sense to draw a connection to Abraham seeing "His day" with a theophony. That would full out deny any real meaning to Jesus' life and ministry in the flesh. Seeing a theophony (a manifestation of the divine Logos) is not to "see Jesus' day" (since Jesus is the divine-human INCARNATION).

That is, the verse probably refers to some vision given to Abraham of the present (allowing Abraham to see Christ from Sheoul, or whatever).


Actually, I would say that:

1. That the Magi did not know the gospel message is actually assumed on your part.

2. Given that they didn’t, I would hardly say “knowing where to look for Christ” and the revelations given to Daniel are to be equated!

I think my point was adaquately made.


Okay, but you have to show how the ignorant heathen are saved outside of faith in Christ or faith in YHWH. You claim that salvation is through faith in Christ, yet these heathen you claim are saved do not have such. (?)

Some who are saved do not know the specific special revelation of the Messiah of Israel on the cross dying for the world. That was all I was saying.


I believe that is what White argues for.

ohh boy... I love when me and my buddy can agree (end sarcasm).


I think the word “forces” is a typical Arminian caricature. It attempts to ascribe a negative connotation in the Reformed context of mercy.

Well under any other circumstances, brainwashing someone would be considered "forcing". Somehow, Calvinists think God is exempt from standard vocabulary being used in a sentence with God as the subject.


Now on to what you say; you say that it is something that grows in someone where the “soil of the heart is right.” Do you mean to imply that certain persons are predisposed to righteousness?

No, i do not think so. I believe that any person, under the influence of divine Grace, really could turn to Christ and be saved. They can choose to move in the direction of doing so (closer to the light), or further away (away from the light).


If so, it is more than simply “faith” that is required for someone to be saved, but that they are a certain “type” of person as well.

Well aside from the standard NT affirmation that God "resists the proud and gives grace to the humble" (though, obviously, anyone can be proud or humble), I would deny that. Any person could be the "type" of person that is saved.


I’ve seen/heard of the hardest criminals being saved. So what turned their “bad soil” into “good soil”? They were certainly not predisposed to accept Christ (I don’t believe anyone is).

Must be that they humbled themselves and chose to let the light of Christ in to expose their deeds upon repenting of them. I could think of lots of possibilities there - from the internal witness of God's Spirit, to the illumination of God's Law. But I always liken the soil with humility in choosing humility or pride in choosing pride (i.e. LFW).


I believe that Total Depravity and John 6 refutes this argument (but that is getting into another looong discussion that I don‘t have time for)…

Wait, A Calvinist doctrine (as interpreted) and a Biblical passage which is interpreted Calvinistically support your view!? thats shocking.


Instead, I want to hear you out totally on your view. You still haven’t answered why some love their sin more than light and why some repent. What is it about them that is better than others and what conclusion about their innate character is this going to naturally lead us to?

See, you believe that there must be some "character trait" or set of antecedent causes which will CAUSE the person to repent, or choose good. but that is a philosophical presupposition (compatibilism) which I am in no way required to accept.

Under a Libertarian view of Freedom, People are causes who act for final causes. Thus we dont need to look for a set of causes which cause out of necessity, them choosing good. The agent is just simply free to act and choose. (of course considering Prev. Grace).


Again, why do some respond in faith and others don’t.
I think you missed the point of Sproul. He wasn’t arguing for that conclusion but that that conclusion is the necessary logical corollary to the Arminian view of prevenient grace.

Then e misunderstands Prevenient Grace. Especially under Molinism (where actual Grace is intrinsically neutral in terms of it being efficacious). Prevenient Grace does not necessitate a good spiritual choice. It does not require a good character trait. It just enables and upholds the will to make a real, free decision.


AV

peace,
JD

[AVmetro]

Infide,

I will respond to your latest as I have time. But let me tell you upfront that if I receieve any more of this:


I know, I couldnt resist :lol:

this


ohh boy... I love when me and my buddy can agree (end sarcasm).

or this


Wait, A Calvinist doctrine (as interpreted) and a Biblical passage which is interpreted Calvinistically support your view!? thats shocking.

our discussion will end.

AV

[infide]

Infide,

I will respond to your latest as I have time. But let me tell you upfront that if I receieve any more of this:



this



or this



our discussion will end.

AV

ouch, fair enough. I was only making light of the fact that certain aspects of these (type of) discussions are routine, and sometimes nauceously so. I dont normally find myself being sarcastic, its just that getting the same stuff back all the time has left me jaded.

I'll try to be more serious. And take this in a new way.

peace,
jd

[Anoetos]

It was among the Egnlish baptists of the 19th century that this issue really came to a head (not that it hasn't elsewhere, for example among the sons of Dutch immigrants in western Michigan in the 20th century...but...).

The question for the Baptists of Spurgeon's day was whether the non-elect had a duty to believe the Gospel.

Spurgeon (with Calvin) believed and taught that they did and do even though they never will. The Particular baptists who considered themselves the heirs of Gill and Owen (though he was not a Baptist) denied this. However, it has never been clear to me who those notable puritans agreed with though the hypers claimed and continue to claim them.

Historically speaking, what is commonly called Hyper-Calvinism can be determined by whether a given "Calvinist" believes that the duty to believe the Gospel is incumbent upon the reprobate as well as the elect.

"Every unconverted Arminian is a Pelagian and every unconverted Calvinist is an Antinomian" -John Duncan

[infide]

It was among the Egnlish baptists of the 19th century that this issue really came to a head (not that it hasn't elsewhere, for example among the sons of Dutch immigrants in western Michigan in the 20th century...but...).

The question for the Baptists of Spurgeon's day was whether the non-elect had a duty to believe the Gospel.

Spurgeon (with Calvin) believed and taught that they did and do even though they never will. The Particular baptists who considered themselves the heirs of Gill and Owen (though he was not a Baptist) denied this. However, it has never been clear to me who those notable puritans agreed with though the hypers claimed and continue to claim them.

Historically speaking, what is commonly called Hyper-Calvinism can be determined by whether a given "Calvinist" believes that the duty to believe the Gospel is incumbent upon the reprobate as well as the elect.

"Every unconverted Arminian is a Pelagian and every unconverted Calvinist is an Antinomian" -John Duncan

I dont yet see why or how a given Calvinist could believe that it was the duty of some reprobate person to believe. If it is their duty, does that not imply that God believes that they should? And if He believes they should, does He also not believe they could?

But God alone holds the power (under Calvinism) to convert their heart.

So we are left with the seeming illogic that God both believes that the reprobate could (because they ought to) and could not (because He hasnt chosen to convert their heart) believe the Gospel.

peace,
jd

[Anoetos]

Again the tension between human responsibility and divine sovereignty...that very issue so many non-calvinists have been able to trick Calvinists into thinking was a real problem.

[infide]

Again the tension between human responsibility and divine sovereignty...that very issue so many non-calvinists have been able to trick Calvinists into thinking was a real problem.

A contradiction (if it is one) is a real problem. Since then, your position must be false. It cannot be a trick if it is formulated as a real objection. You seem to just not want to confront this problem, and instead sit back in your chair and call it a "trick".

thats fine by me, I will just have to start seeing a little hyper- in all my Calvinist brothers and sisters.

peace,
jd

[Anoetos]

I completely agree, a contradiction would be a real problem.

By the way, Calvinists try the same kind of "trickery" I'm talking about here when they accuse anyone who doesn't accept all five points of being Arminian...they force Lutherans, for example into a soteriological mold when they insist that their apprehension of this or that implication defines the principle.

[infide]

I completely agree, a contradiction would be a real problem.

By the way, Calvinists try the same kind of "trickery" I'm talking about here when they accuse anyone who doesn't accept all five points of being Arminian...they force Lutherans, for example into a soteriological mold when they insist that their apprehension of this or that implication defines the principle.

So you dont think the above problem is a contradiction?

peace,
jd

[Anoetos]

Which problem is that?

[infide]

Which problem is that?

(1) If God believes it is one's duty to believe the Gospel, one is able to believe the Gospel.
(2) God believes it is one's duty to believe the Gospel.
(3) If God does not change the heart of someone, that one is not able to believe the Gospel.
(4) God does not change the heart of the reprobate.
(5) Therefore, a reprobate is able to believe the Gospel. (from 1 and 2)
(6) Therefore, a reprobate is not able to believe the Gospel. (from 3 and 4, in the specific case where "one" is a reprobate)

but (5) and (6) are contradictory.

peace,
jd

[Anoetos]

(1) If God believes it is one's duty to believe the Gospel, one is able to believe the Gospel.
(2) God believes it is one's duty to believe the Gospel.
(3) If God does not change the heart of someone, that one is not able to believe the Gospel.
(4) God does not change the heart of the reprobate.
(5) Therefore, a reprobate is able to believe the Gospel. (from 1 and 2)
(6) Therefore, a reprobate is not able to believe the Gospel. (from 3 and 4, in the specific case where "one" is a reprobate)

but (5) and (6) are contradictory.

peace,
jd

1. It is the duty of all men to believe the Gospel.
2. God knows and has foreordained that only the elect will receive the grace of faith in His sovereign work of regenerating them.
3. Some men, though they have the duty to believe the Gospel will not because God has not regenerated them.

You do not understand the nature of secondary causes. A duty imposed by God does not negate the contrary will of contingent beings.

Thus the Calvinist distinction between decretive and prescriptive will in the divine volition.

[BenK]

Reformed theology would reject 1. In this schema, God justly demands of men what he has not, in fact, made them able to do. The reformed are fond of telling us that men are spiritually dead; they consider it to God's glory that he will punish, by way of eternal torment, the stillborn for being corpses.

[BenK]

Thus the Calvinist distinction between decretive and prescriptive will in the divine volition.

A distinction between what God says ought to happen and what he actually decides will happen.

Is God lying about the ought, or is he sinning in choosing the will? Or does God decree that men have a duty to do that which they ought not to do?

Madness.

[Anoetos]

Ben,

You haven't been paying attention. Historically Calvinism has always asserted number 1. On several occasions individuals and groups have tried to deny it and they're called 'Hyper-Calvinists'.

But then it is both common and convenient to confuse them.

And characterizing the distinction between decretive and prescriptive wills as you have here is silly and cartoonish.

There is decree and prescription, there is no 'ought'; there is just requirement for which punishment ensues if the individual fails to comply, and for the elect there is compliance on their behalf, applied to them in the merits of Christ.

[BenK]

Ben,

You haven't been paying attention. Historically Calvinism has always asserted number 1.

You posted #40 while I was writing post #41. By '1.' I meant the '1.' in Infide's post #39.


There is decree and prescription, there is no 'ought'; there is just requirement for which punishment ensues if the individual fails to comply, and for the elect there is compliance on their behalf, applied to them in the merits of Christ.

So then, it's simply a matter of power; God will inflict eternal torment on people who he makes do X and lavish eternal bliss on people who he makes do Y?

[infide]

1. It is the duty of all men to believe the Gospel.
2. God knows and has foreordained that only the elect will receive the grace of faith in His sovereign work of regenerating them.
3. Some men, though they have the duty to believe the Gospel will not because God has not regenerated them.

you dont find that a little strange? How can the most perfectly just and rational being in the Universe command something that it is not possible (with Gods help, perhaps) for them to do? Is God such a cruel Sovereign as to command the impossible?


You do not understand the nature of secondary causes. A duty imposed by God does not negate the contrary will of contingent beings.

I dont understand secondary causes!? No sir, it is you who does not understand secondary causation. How could God demand something of a human agent in which He has not given to them the causal powers to accomplish it? Even in human relationships, if a parent commanded their child to do something which they knew the child could not accomplish, we would stand in judgement of such actions, calling it cruel.

Now maybe, a parent might command something that they know might be challenging enough to get them to ask the parent for help. But then the parent is going to be there when the child needs help! And if the child doesnt ask, the parent is going to go to the child and tell them "ya know, next time, you can ask me and i will help you".

But thats not your view of this situation, is it? You think that its just fine that God commands something of these "reprobate" which He knows they will never be able to do. In fact, God has the only thing by which they could accomplish it!

That is shockingly cruel. Something I am glad that my theology rejects.


Thus the Calvinist distinction between decretive and prescriptive will in the divine volition.

sure, thats the answer, isnt it? Come up with some theological terms which merely put labels on the problem. The problem, Anoetos, is that you have no rationale for saying that God has these two seperate wills. The real questions are left unanswered:

WHY does God have a decretive will that does not coincide with His prescriptive will when He alone is the Sovereign over both?

WHY does God have a decretive will at all? If He is Sovereign, why would His every desire not be accomplished? Your theology simply, afaict, cannot account for such a distinction. The free-will theologian, who truly recognizes and can account for secondary causes, has an answer. God allows secondary causes to frustrate His perfect will in order to allow for true, genuine freedom in His creation.

peace,
jd

[infide]

There is decree and prescription, there is no 'ought'; there is just requirement for which punishment ensues if the individual fails to comply, and for the elect there is compliance on their behalf, applied to them in the merits of Christ.

There is a prescription, but there is no "ought"? no, Anoetos, thats just false. if God prescribes or decrees something, He is not saying that the creature ought to do it? "though shalt not" does not mean "though ought not"?

Isnt that what the Moral Law is all about? We ought to act morally, if we do not we are punished.

peace,
jd

[infide]

"though shalt not" does not mean "though ought not"?

woops, i meant

"thou shalt not" does not imply "thou ought not"?

peace,
jd

[Anoetos]

Yes, it seems very strange to me indeed.

I certainly wouldn't have done it that way. But then, it's not my creation.

Isa. 5:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

1 Cor. 1:18-19
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."

1 Cor. 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Romans 11:33
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

We find in Scripture that God does not always behave in a way that makes sense to us, or that is not strange to us, nor is He bound to explain Himself to us.

I completely understand that to you and I it just doesn't make sense, and that no matter how hard I try to make it make sense, it just doesn't.

In a nutshell though, we have a few assertions:

1. God requires perfect obedience, holiness and righteousness.

2. Man cannot, because of sin, comply with this righteous requirement.

3. God is perfectly just in punishing men.

4. God chooses not to punish some men for the sake of Christ in Whose sacrifice His justice has been satisfied with regard to those for whom it was made.

Furthermore:

5. God has, in Christ, been satisfied with regard to that righteous requirement.

6. God wills that all men, notwithstanding their election or reprobation, comply by faith for what they could not do by works.

Nonetheless,

7. In order that God's righteousness and glory be made manifest, some will not comply and their non-compliance must necessarily have been foreordained of God since nothing which comes to pass cannot at the same time have been foreknown and foreordained by Him.

And, finally,

8. Responsibility for that non-compliance falls upon man since he chooses not to comply, this brings Glory to God in that in it the righteousness of His Law is maintained and upheld, while reponsibility for the righteousness with which the elect are clothed is all of God's and He is glorified thereby as well.

Do I understand it?

No.

Do I have to?

Again, no.

Do I have to force the decree of God into my finite and contingent sense of what is right and just?

No.

Isa. 29:16
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?

Isa. 45:9
"Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'?

Isa. 64:8
Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Romans 9:20-22
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

[infide]

Yes, it seems very strange to me indeed.

I certainly wouldn't have done it that way. But then, it's not my creation.

Isa. 5:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Confront the issue, Anoetos, do not play ignorant. This verse (I think you meant Isaiah 55) Is talking about God's MERCY! Humans understand and desire vengeance, but God's ways are not our ways, He abundantly pardons. It is NOT saying that we cannot understand God's ways. It is saying that God's ways are better than human ways.


1 Cor. 1:18-19
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."

Confront the real issues! This verse is talking about how the Cross of Jesus Christ (not the election/predestination/etc) is both consider folly by the so-called wise, but also that it could not be deduced from natural wisdom.


1 Cor. 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

See above.


Romans 11:33
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

This is just like the Isaiah 55 passage! JUST LOOK AT v. 32. Confront the real issues.


We find in Scripture that God does not always behave in a way that makes sense to us, or that is not strange to us, nor is He bound to explain Himself to us.

However, even if that is true, that does not mean that we need to interpret Scripture in the most unreasonable or unjust way possible, just because those other verses show that God's ways are MORE just and merciful than our own. In other words, you cannot escape the obvious problems of your interpretation, that it posits an INJUSTICE to God. We are not simply talking about a mystery here, because in that case you wouldnt assert anything at all in these matters (because you dont know!!!), but we are talking about positive assertions that you are saying God does this or that and is like this or that. So while you are retreating to a "it doesnt matter what we think" you are simultaneously asserting what you think.


1. God requires perfect obedience, holiness and righteousness.

2. Man cannot, because of sin, comply with this righteous requirement.

3. God is perfectly just in punishing men.

4. God chooses not to punish some men for the sake of Christ in Whose sacrifice His justice has been satisfied with regard to those for whom it was made.

Thats fine so far. Especially if those who He chooses not to punish are those who put faith and trust in Christ.


5. God has, in Christ, been satisfied with regard to that righteous requirement.

6. God wills that all men, notwithstanding their election or reprobation, comply by faith for what they could not do by works.

Nonetheless,

7. In order that God's righteousness and glory be made manifest, some will not comply and their non-compliance must necessarily have been foreordained of God since nothing which comes to pass cannot at the same time have been foreknown and foreordained by Him.

AND herein lies the problem. 7 is incompatible with 6. Because if God wills that all men comply by faith, then He would not will that all men do not comply by faith.


8. Responsibility for that non-compliance falls upon man since he chooses not to comply, this brings Glory to God in that in it the righteousness of His Law is maintained and upheld, while reponsibility for the righteousness with which the elect are clothed is all of God's and He is glorified thereby as well.

Thats plainly false. how could that non-compliance fall upon a man who could not possibly do otherwise? You are acting as if God doesnt hold all the cards in your view! Thus if someone can be considered unjust for doing something evil, then they could also be considered unjust for not doing something good. That is a fact that you must come to grips with.


Do I understand it?

No.

Then lets look at the other interpretations. Maybe there is one that does make sense.


Do I have to?

Again, no.

Actually yes. Because you probably should not believe something that you do not understand.


Do I have to force the decree of God into my finite and contingent sense of what is right and just?

No.

Its not a matter of that. Its a matter of understanding what has been revealed. If God has revealed it, then we should be able to comprehend it. Dont you see that? God reveals something for a reason - so that people will come to understand that which was revealed.


Isa. 29:16
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?

Isa. 45:9
"Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'?

Isa. 64:8
Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Romans 9:20-22
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

Confront the real issues. These are talking about God being the hands that shape His Creation. They do not say HOW God does so. Romans 9 is the most abused text by you and your friends. The text is talking about how God has the Sovereign right to form the Gentiles into godly people, just as He had done with Israel, and will do again (Romans 11).

peace,
jd

[Anoetos]

Well, I guess I've said all I can say here.

I've enjoyed our discussion and look forward to joining you in others.

God bless you and keep you in His favor...

Mike

[infide]

Well, I guess I've said all I can say here.

I've enjoyed our discussion and look forward to joining you in others.

God bless you and keep you in His favor...

Mike

What discussion? You didnt even address the issues which were raised. Do you think Calvinism is exempt from such critiques, or do you just not know how to answer them?

I understand if its the latter.

God Bless,
jd

[BenK]

infide/p3@r1z0rZ :)

[AVmetro]

Infide,

Sorry for the delay. I’ve been busy the past few days and just simply let the discussion slip my mind.


Try reading it like this,

God is not slow in returning, but gives some time of repentance, so that more people can come to God in Christ. God does this, because He desires that none should perish of those who are not yet saved.

First, I believe my point was to respond to your statement here:


that is a possible view, i will give you that. however, that in and of itself, wouldnt work against my position. Since the church/elect is a subset of all men.

So in my last response we are assuming that “you” = “church/elect” and how that would be inconsistent with your view.

In any case, regarding what you said above:

This just brings us right back to the start (which I have already answered). This is how I have read it. But you fail to realize that Christ was on earth 2000 years ago. In that time, more have been born, more have been saved, yes, but more have also taken the wide path to Hell. We have a new generation of “those who are not yet saved” as the years pass by. The saved/unsaved ratio is always going to favor the unsaved. God knows this (He said it Himself!) As time progresses, immorality will only become worse and worse. At the most, a higher and higher number of total Christians from the past to the present will accumulate.

I think what it boils down to, is God’s intent is to save “a lot more than has been already” through this postponement as opposed to all. If “all” means “literally every individual on this physical earth” this it is His intent stated in passing as motivated to get “more.” In other words, the meaning shifts from a delay predicated on getting “all” to come to repentance, to being predicated on getting a higher number throughout multiple generations (all the while, on the other hand, we have more going to Hell as well).

At which point I would simply say that that is the most you can say and that this passage does not necessarily refute the Reformed view (as you conceded to Amishrocker). Just simply citing it (as you initially did) isn’t a “one-two punch” to the Calvinist. :)

I’m sure there’s more to say, but I want to concentrate on the discussion below.


No, my view (Molinist) is that God's foreknowledge of the particular set of those "elect" was not based on some predetermined allotment of people "to be saved" - rather, His decision to create this particular world passively selected a particular group of those who would freely respond effectively to His grace of their own inspired free-will. God still gives His Grace to those who actively refuse it, out of His pure Love.

Sure, but does He know the exact number that will respond of their “own inspired free-will?”


So, God really is attempting to offer all that is necessary for a world-wide repentance, its just that He happens to know that some will never respond in faith.

Wouldn’t it have been more effective to sent Christ to Adam and Eve? Or perhaps to Abel? In such a case, they most likely would have repented and the rest would be history. Why wasn’t this particular act done? Why didn’t God create, utilizing His middle knowledge, a world in which all persons were saved? One in which Adam and Eve did not fall?


to believe otherwise is to assert a strange view of the "God of Love".

The above is very opinionated. I could say that it is a strange view of the “God of Love” to assert that God “loves” those He throws into a burning Lake of Fire.


My point is that your counterexamples are unsound - and thus i need to simply turn back the force of the counterexample, i need not prove them wrong. (if you understand basic argumentation).

And:


It doesnt make sense to draw a connection to Abraham seeing "His day" with a theophony.

I didn’t. I had said:


Avmetro:

But just to make a correction--Abraham is specifically said to have “seen Christ’s day”--now what else could that mean other than to have a knowledge of the Messiah? And what about Isaiah in Is. 6:1 (Cf. John 1:18, 12:41)? Many argue that Moses saw the preincarnate Christ in the burning bush (see any argument on “theophanies”)

You go on to say:


That would full out deny any real meaning to Jesus' life and ministry in the flesh. Seeing a theophony (a manifestation of the divine Logos) is not to "see Jesus' day" (since Jesus is the divine-human INCARNATION).

That is, the verse probably refers to some vision given to Abraham of the present (allowing Abraham to see Christ from Sheoul, or whatever).

And I agree. In which case I see you concede that Abraham had a personal knowledge of Christ contra your statement earlier here:


Ask Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Elijah, etc.

I would ask you simply to show where these men met Jesus Christ, and placed faith specifically in Him. You see, it is FAITH which was accounted for righteousness in these men. But it wasnt faith in Jesus, He wouldnt be born for thousands/hundreds of years.

Your argument above is that they could not have placed “faith” in Him because they had not “met” Him. Now, as I pointed out, Daniel, Isaiah, and Moses most likely did “meet” Him. The rest had knowledge of Him which would have been sufficient enough to have placed “faith” in Him.

But then again, like I said before, all you would have to do is point out an example in which the OT individual did not have a meeting/vision/knowledge of Christ. Hence, the continuation of my argument which I now return to below.


Infide:



You said:


I think my point was adaquately made.

I don’t. So is that where this ends?

I had said:


Avmetro:

Okay, but you have to show how the ignorant heathen are saved outside of faith in Christ or faith in YHWH. You claim that salvation is through faith in Christ, yet these heathen you claim are saved do not have such. (?)

To which you replied:


Infide:

Some who are saved do not know the specific special revelation of the Messiah of Israel on the cross dying for the world. That was all I was saying.

In which case “all [you] were saying” amounts to “A person doesn’t need faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.” I would say that is patently unbiblical. So how are they saved? And again, I would also like examples of heathen who were saved outside of faith in YHWH or Christ.

8<



Well under any other circumstances, brainwashing someone would be considered "forcing". Somehow, Calvinists think God is exempt from standard vocabulary being used in a sentence with God as the subject.

Evidently, you must be somewhat naïve when it comes to Reformed theology if you call this "brainwashing."

I had said:


Avmetro:

Now on to what you say; you say that it is something that grows in someone where the “soil of the heart is right.” Do you mean to imply that certain persons are predisposed to righteousness?

To which you replied:


No, i do not think so. I believe that any person, under the influence of divine Grace, really could turn to Christ and be saved. They can choose to move in the direction of doing so (closer to the light), or further away (away from the light).

Then you’ve negated any relevance to your statement of “right soil.” (Though I’m glad you admit that something outside of man is necessary in order to believe and I would ask how that jives with LFW--I.e., if “divine influence“ is necessary to conversion [as opposed to simple preaching, etc.], then man is not truly coming on his own])


Must be that they humbled themselves and chose to let the light of Christ in to expose their deeds upon repenting of them. I could think of lots of possibilities there - from the internal witness of God's Spirit, to the illumination of God's Law. But I always liken the soil with humility in choosing humility or pride in choosing pride (i.e. LFW).

Okay, why did one choose to humble themselves and the other didn’t? Evidently, your view necessitates that there is something more righteous about that person who values humility over someone who does not.

8<


See, you believe that there must be some "character trait" or set of antecedent causes which will CAUSE the person to repent, or choose good. but that is a philosophical presupposition (compatibilism) which I am in no way required to accept.

No, I don’t. Once again, I am pointing out the necessary corollary to your theology, not mine.


Under a Libertarian view of Freedom, People are causes who act for final causes. Thus we dont need to look for a set of causes which cause out of necessity, them choosing good. The agent is just simply free to act and choose. (of course considering Prev. Grace).

Of course man is not “free” to choose God, God must initiate. Try preaching to someone in order to convert them without God working in them and you’ll get nothing (John 6:44).

Something besides your witness and their “free will” is required.

But of course man is also not truly free in his will due to his dispositions. This is why Arminian prevenient grace is lacking, IMHO. Once “opened up” to God, there is still something about a man, in his dispositions, that causes him/her to choose, rather than reject, Christ. There are dispositions in a man that cause him/her to reject, rather than choose, Christ. I think this is the point you’re missing.


Then e misunderstands Prevenient Grace. Especially under Molinism (where actual Grace is intrinsically neutral in terms of it being efficacious). Prevenient Grace does not necessitate a good spiritual choice. It does not require a good character trait. It just enables and upholds the will to make a real, free decision.

Prevenient Grace does not necessitate a good spiritual choice, but man does require a special disposition toward righteousness in order to make that good spiritual choice.

This is, as an aside, one of the reasons I believe Arminianism empties John 6:44, 64-65 of its true intended teaching. God’s drawing becomes merely external--who is going to draw men’s predispositions? Or their dispositions to change their dispositions?

AV

[infide]

Infide,

Sorry for the delay. I’ve been busy the past few days and just simply let the discussion slip my mind.

fair enough, good to hear from you again.


This just brings us right back to the start (which I have already answered). This is how I have read it. But you fail to realize that Christ was on earth 2000 years ago. In that time, more have been born, more have been saved, yes, but more have also taken the wide path to Hell. We have a new generation of “those who are not yet saved” as the years pass by. The saved/unsaved ratio is always going to favor the unsaved. God knows this (He said it Himself!) As time progresses, immorality will only become worse and worse. At the most, a higher and higher number of total Christians from the past to the present will accumulate.

On the other hand, perhaps at a certain point in human history, the optimal balance between saved/unsaved tips toward the world being ultimately evil in that regard. Thus, God sends Christ to do the final redeeming of the world.


I think what it boils down to, is God’s intent is to save “a lot more than has been already” through this postponement as opposed to all. If “all” means “literally every individual on this physical earth” this it is His intent stated in passing as motivated to get “more.” In other words, the meaning shifts from a delay predicated on getting “all” to come to repentance, to being predicated on getting a higher number throughout multiple generations (all the while, on the other hand, we have more going to Hell as well).

indeed, but as long as God is morally justified (perhaps He is allowing the most possible to be saved in history) in delaying, there is no reason to suggest this isnt an acceptable interpretation.


At which point I would simply say that that is the most you can say and that this passage does not necessarily refute the Reformed view (as you conceded to Amishrocker). Just simply citing it (as you initially did) isn’t a “one-two punch” to the Calvinist. :)

I’m sure there’s more to say, but I want to concentrate on the discussion below.

Ok, thats fine, any actual refutation of Calvinism i would make would be on multiple levels not just this one verse.


Sure, but does He know the exact number that will respond of their “own inspired free-will?”

yeah, God's middle-knowledge furnished Himself with that knowledge.


Wouldn’t it have been more effective to sent Christ to Adam and Eve? Or perhaps to Abel? In such a case, they most likely would have repented and the rest would be history. Why wasn’t this particular act done? Why didn’t God create, utilizing His middle knowledge, a world in which all persons were saved? One in which Adam and Eve did not fall?

It is possible that such a scheme would not yield the world being saved, for example, Cain and Abel reject Christ. Now what? Paul said that Jesus was sent in the "fullness of time" (Gal. 4:4, NAS) and I think this may suggest that it was the exact perfect time to maximize those saved.


The above is very opinionated. I could say that it is a strange view of the “God of Love” to assert that God “loves” those He throws into a burning Lake of Fire.

at that point (after judgement, see Revelation) I would say He loved them.


And I agree. In which case I see you concede that Abraham had a personal knowledge of Christ contra your statement earlier here:

doh! I said that when his faith was accounted as righteousness he did not have personal knowledge of Christ. Perhaps He did thousands of years later, but that is a different matter.


Your argument above is that they could not have placed “faith” in Him because they had not “met” Him. Now, as I pointed out, Daniel, Isaiah, and Moses most likely did “meet” Him. The rest had knowledge of Him which would have been sufficient enough to have placed “faith” in Him.

what knowledge of Him? I am talking specifically about how these men had "faith" when they were on the earth that was accounted as righteousness (with Abraham as the type).


But then again, like I said before, all you would have to do is point out an example in which the OT individual did not have a meeting/vision/knowledge of Christ. Hence, the continuation of my argument which I now return to below.

In which case “all [you] were saying” amounts to “A person doesn’t need faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.” I would say that is patently unbiblical. So how are they saved? And again, I would also like examples of heathen who were saved outside of faith in YHWH or Christ.

Again, I appeal to my ACTUAL line of argumentation above. Abraham did not have faith in Jesus when it was said that his (Abraham's) faith was accounted as righteousness.


Evidently, you must be somewhat naïve when it comes to Reformed theology if you call this "brainwashing."

They wouldnt willingly believe, God *makes* them willing by implanting faith or knowledge or whatever into their heads. how isnt that brainwashing?


Then you’ve negated any relevance to your statement of “right soil.” (Though I’m glad you admit that something outside of man is necessary in order to believe and I would ask how that jives with LFW--I.e., if “divine influence“ is necessary to conversion [as opposed to simple preaching, etc.], then man is not truly coming on his own])

LFW does not deny that the individual is influenced by outside factors. Nor does it disallow that such choices could be enabled by something outside the agent.

Further, it does not negate the relevance of the "right soil" because the "right soil" itself could be LFW-chosen states of mind. Where we choose to be humble in light of the facts, or choose to be prideful in light of the facts. that attitude, humility or pride, is the soil.


Okay, why did one choose to humble themselves and the other didn’t? Evidently, your view necessitates that there is something more righteous about that person who values humility over someone who does not.

In an LFW model, when we get down to the choice itself, it is not appropriate to ask for a further explanation of the choice. The agent themselves determines the choice (again we are not excluding divine enablement/influence here) and thus nothing else "necessitates that there is somthing more righteous about that person..." They just do choose to respond in humility in that circumstance. Nor could this be charged with being unbiblical since it is stated a few times that simply, "God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble".


Of course man is not “free” to choose God, God must initiate. Try preaching to someone in order to convert them without God working in them and you’ll get nothing (John 6:44).

Something besides your witness and their “free will” is required.

...

Prevenient Grace does not necessitate a good spiritual choice, but man does require a special disposition toward righteousness in order to make that good spiritual choice.

This is, as an aside, one of the reasons I believe Arminianism empties John 6:44, 64-65 of its true intended teaching. God’s drawing becomes merely external--who is going to draw men’s predispositions? Or their dispositions to change their dispositions?

A clear look at John 6:44, 64-65 indicates why this makes no sense! In context, Jesus is talking about something concrete when He speaks about the "drawing" of the Father:

"It is written in the prophets, `AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." (6:45, NAS).

So the drawing of the Father, is the teaching of God and Christ in the Scriptures, it seems to me. Reading the context of these passages renders your interpretation entirely implausible (not to mention Calvinism). Consider this:

"Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" (6:70, NAS) Jesus said this, after several who were not "granted by the Father" left following Him because they were unbelieving.

And what is Jesus saying here? he is saying twelve are "elect" and one of the elect is a devil. But HOW could this work under Calvinism and your view of God Irresistably drawing people in some mysterious way? HOW could one be a devil, if 12 are chosen? Did God unchoose Him?


But of course man is also not truly free in his will due to his dispositions. This is why Arminian prevenient grace is lacking, IMHO. Once “opened up” to God, there is still something about a man, in his dispositions, that causes him/her to choose, rather than reject, Christ. There are dispositions in a man that cause him/her to reject, rather than choose, Christ. I think this is the point you’re missing.

that reeks of compatibilism, first of all. Prevenient Grace gives the ability to choose Jesus and BEGIN in the path of righteousness. (frankly, i dont believe it necessarily happens in that order...)

Jesus says that people reject the light because they dont want their sin exposed. (John 3:19-21) Or perhaps more specifically, they dont want to confront their sin in repentance.

peace,
jd

[GoBahnsen]

Thats fine so far. Especially if those who He chooses not to punish are those who put faith and trust in Christ.
And who do we credit for the faith that these "willing ones" give over to God? IOW, is God "rewarding" certain humans for being willing? Or are they willing because they were born not of the WILL of man but of God?

[AVmetro]

Hi, Infide,

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding 1 Peter, I don’t see much need to comment further than I have (you’ve conceded it cannot be used to necessarily refute Calvinism). But I want to continue with this:


Infide:

yeah, God's middle-knowledge furnished Himself with that knowledge.

So if the exact number is known, God’s “delay” is more about filling this known number than getting “all.” And I think “filling a number” (e.g., the “elect”) is a fitting interpretation for this passage (perhaps compatible with both sides). The usual Arminian interpretation portrays this as a “hope” of God. But in knowing the full number and those by name who will and who will not be saved,…I think you see my point. It doesn’t necessarily support Calvinism, but it certainly isn’t incompatible with the Reformed view.

I had said:


Avmetro:

Wouldn’t it have been more effective to sent Christ to Adam and Eve? Or perhaps to Abel? In such a case, they most likely would have repented and the rest would be history. Why wasn’t this particular act done? Why didn’t God create, utilizing His middle knowledge, a world in which all persons were saved? One in which Adam and Eve did not fall?

To which you replied:


Infide:

It is possible that such a scheme would not yield the world being saved, for example, Cain and Abel reject Christ. Now what? Paul said that Jesus was sent in the "fullness of time" (Gal. 4:4, NAS) and I think this may suggest that it was the exact perfect time to maximize those saved.

Well, by this reasoning, I could say “what if everyone in this world rejected the Messiah.” You would probably reply that God created a “world” in which, under the circumstances, a lot of men and women would choose Christ (though not all men and women). To which I would reply, why not create a “world” with a set of circumstances in which such a scheme does work?

And of course your objection is speculative and improbable to begin. In this present “world”, Abel was considered a godly man. He gave an acceptable offering to God. And why would we think that Adam and Eve would not desire to repent of their fall? They could accept Christ, redeem themselves of the fall, then proceed to fill the earth with godly children.

But let’s assume that Adam, Eve, and Abel, would not accept Christ if He offered salvation to them. We could go just a little further to the case of those godly men such as Noah. The world was destroyed with the exception of him (and his family) because he was godly! Now can you picture Noah saying to Christ’s offer, “Nah, I don’t need it.” ( ! )

As for Gal 4:4, that verse is neither here nor there in relevance as it could support either view and necessitates nothing.


Infide:

at that point (after judgement, see Revelation) I would say He loved them.

Actually, Christ will say “I never knew you.”

Cite what you have in mind from Revelation in particular that supports your view that He loved them before, then didn’t love them after.

In the meantime, do you believe God’s love is mutable? Being you advocate exhaustive foreknowledge (within the world God chose to pick in particular), how is this compatible with the fact that God can foresee that He will both love and then subsequently not love them? Now if God fore-loves someone, I’m sure that it is an experience rather than a mere head knowledge before the fact. In which case, the two emotions cannot exist at the same time (yet both being foreknown at the same time). See the problem?

“I know I’m going to love them” (which means He loves them beforehand--before they are born e.g., Jer 1:5)

“I know I am going to not love them.”

Why “love” them to begin? I can see how this is plausible under the Open View, but not in our cases.

Now I could be wrong, but I’d like to see the evidence as to why.

But returning to my ultimate point--which was that what a “strange view of God’s love” entails is subjective. All I have to do is take what I have just said and say “my, that’s some strange love.” See my point?

8<


Infide:

what knowledge of Him? I am talking specifically about how these men had "faith" when they were on the earth that was accounted as righteousness (with Abraham as the type).

I was speaking of “on earth” as well.


Infide:

Again, I appeal to my ACTUAL line of argumentation above. Abraham did not have faith in Jesus when it was said that his (Abraham's) faith was accounted as righteousness.

And that would be fine as I had said one or two posts ago that I could not use the examples of Abraham, Daniel, et al to wholly refute inclusivism.

But now that we are back on the straight and narrow, what is your reply to my argument against your actual line of argumentation? I had asked for examples of heathen who managed to obtain salvation outside of faith in YHWH or Christ. I would also ask why faith is a prerequisite for anyone to [i]begin if one can be saved without it.


Infide:

They wouldnt willingly believe, God *makes* them willing by implanting faith or knowledge or whatever into their heads. how isnt that brainwashing?

Because “brainwashing” has very negative connotations which are not warranted.
You have someone who was dead in sins and trespasses, to whom God shed His mercy and grace for which that person is eternally thankful, living in a loving relationship with their Lord and Savior.
On the other hand, “brainwashing” brings to mind POWs imprisoned in a communist land who come out psychologically warped.
Enlightening us and giving our spirits life is not to be equated to “brainwashing.”
Big difference.

If you want to think of it as “brainwashing”, feel free to do so. But publicly characterizing Calvinism as such is deliberately casting the view in a bad light.


Infide:

LFW does not deny that the individual is influenced by outside factors. Nor does it disallow that such choices could be enabled by something outside the agent.

Further, it does not negate the relevance of the "right soil" because the "right soil" itself could be LFW-chosen states of mind. Where we choose to be humble in light of the facts, or choose to be prideful in light of the facts. that attitude, humility or pride, is the soil.

See below.


Infide:

In an LFW model, when we get down to the choice itself, it is not appropriate to ask for a further explanation of the choice. The agent themselves determines the choice (again we are not excluding divine enablement/influence here) and thus nothing else "necessitates that there is somthing more righteous about that person..." They just do choose to respond in humility in that circumstance. Nor could this be charged with being unbiblical since it is stated a few times that simply, "God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble".

It may not be appropriate to ask in your view, but I think it is a very significant question.

1. If divine enablement (?)/influence are necessary to making the right decision, and these two acts on the part of God are not merely external preaching, then the person is not absolutely free to choose God of their own.

2. I understand that the agent themselves determines the choice. But their choosing the “righteous” over the alternative is influenced by their dispositions! A righteous man will make a righteous choice, an unrighteous man will make an unrighteous decision.

3. As you see it, this “divine enablement” is given to every individual, correct? So we’re back to why some reject it and some don’t. Why some make the “righteous choice” and some reject it--even hate it. People do not make choices outside of their dispositions. If am given a choice between steak and liver, I will choose the former based on the fact that I am disposed to like steak and disposed to dislike liver. It’s not a matter of “they just do.”

4. As to your last sentence, I don’t disagree in the slightest. This verse simply states who He resists and to whom He gives grace. It doesn’t say why the proud are proud and why the humble choose to be humble.

I had said:


Avmetro:

Of course man is not “free” to choose God, God must initiate. Try preaching to someone in order to convert them without God working in them and you’ll get nothing (John 6:44).

Something besides your witness and their “free will” is required.

...

Prevenient Grace does not necessitate a good spiritual choice, but man does require a special disposition toward righteousness in order to make that good spiritual choice.

To which you replied:


Infide:

A clear look at John 6:44, 64-65 indicates why this makes no sense! In context, Jesus is talking about something concrete when He speaks about the "drawing" of the Father:

"It is written in the prophets, `AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." (6:45, NAS).

So the drawing of the Father, is the teaching of God and Christ in the Scriptures, it seems to me. Reading the context of these passages renders your interpretation entirely implausible (not to mention Calvinism). Consider this:

"Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" (6:70, NAS) Jesus said this, after several who were not "granted by the Father" left following Him because they were unbelieving.

And what is Jesus saying here? he is saying twelve are "elect" and one of the elect is a devil. But HOW could this work under Calvinism and your view of God Irresistably drawing people in some mysterious way? HOW could one be a devil, if 12 are chosen? Did God unchoose Him?

Infide, you bypassed my point in order to respond to a mere side comment. I mentioned John 6:44 in passing to voice my opinion.

But I’ll go ahead and respond to your comments on this passage.

1. Contextually, it is your interpretation that doesn’t make sense. Christ’s words are an explanation as to why many of these before Him did not believe. Note carefully vss 64-65 “But there are some of you who do not believe…THEREFORE I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

Now your interpretation takes “granted to him” to mean “preached to him externally.” But simply look at who He is speaking to! Those in vs. 66 are even said to have been His “disciples.” They had already heard the word of God preached to them--yet they didn’t believe Him! Why? Because they were not drawn by the Father and therefore did not come to Him (i.e., spiritually--they had already come to Him physically!)

2. You mention John 6:70 as a refutation of the Reformed interpretation of this chapter. Two things to note here: First, I believe the “choosing” in this instance regards the choosing of the twelve, specifically. That is, their office. Secondly, vs. 64 states that Christ knew from the beginning who did not believe in Him. Ergo, no, God did not “unchoose” Judas. Rather…Third, I believe John 17 sheds significant light on this namely vs. 12. Fourth, in this verse, Christ is said to do the “choosing.” However, the role of “giving” is the Father’s perorogative--not the Son’s. His [Christ’s] is to keep them and raise them up at the last day. They were the Father‘s possession (John 17--before being given to the Son! [that‘s the “elect“ for you]) and now they are His.

I had said:


Avmetro:

But of course man is also not truly free in his will due to his dispositions. This is why Arminian prevenient grace is lacking, IMHO. Once “opened up” to God, there is still something about a man, in his dispositions, that causes him/her to choose, rather than reject, Christ. There are dispositions in a man that cause him/her to reject, rather than choose, Christ. I think this is the point you’re missing.

To which you replied:


Infide:

that reeks of compatibilism, first of all. Prevenient Grace gives the ability to choose Jesus and BEGIN in the path of righteousness. (frankly, i dont believe it necessarily happens in that order...)

I’m not really concerned with how it “reeks”, I’m concerned with hearing your replies. Do you deny that men’s choices are predicated on their dispositions? Do you believe that if a man wanted to, he could utilize his LFW and choose to stop finding women attractive? Do you believe that I could utilize my LFW and “choose” to stop liking chocolate ice cream and like strawberry more?


Infide cont.:

Jesus says that people reject the light because they dont want their sin exposed. (John 3:19-21) Or perhaps more specifically, they dont want to confront their sin in repentance.


Okay, so why do some want to confront their sin and others don’t? Again, I want to get to the root cause of our choice preferences.

AV

[infide]

Regarding 1 Peter, I don’t see much need to comment further than I have (you’ve conceded it cannot be used to necessarily refute Calvinism). But I want to continue with this:

And neither can it support it.


So if the exact number is known, God’s “delay” is more about filling this known number than getting “all.” And I think “filling a number” (e.g., the “elect”) is a fitting interpretation for this passage (perhaps compatible with both sides). The usual Arminian interpretation portrays this as a “hope” of God. But in knowing the full number and those by name who will and who will not be saved,…I think you see my point. It doesn’t necessarily support Calvinism, but it certainly isn’t incompatible with the Reformed view.

Well, I would simply respond that it says that it is about getting all, and not about filling a number. So therefore, it seems the Arminian view is more likely to be at home in this verse (whether Molinist or not).


Well, by this reasoning, I could say “what if everyone in this world rejected the Messiah.” You would probably reply that God created a “world” in which, under the circumstances, a lot of men and women would choose Christ (though not all men and women). To which I would reply, why not create a “world” with a set of circumstances in which such a scheme does work?

You dont understand middle-knowledge, it seems. God doesnt decide what His middle-knowledge is like, that is, what is true and what is false in terms of CCFs. Thus, there are some worlds which are not feasible in light of His middle-knowledge. The world you envision is one of those non-feasible worlds.


And of course your objection is speculative and improbable to begin. In this present “world”, Abel was considered a godly man. He gave an acceptable offering to God. And why would we think that Adam and Eve would not desire to repent of their fall? They could accept Christ, redeem themselves of the fall, then proceed to fill the earth with godly children.

First of all, of course it was speculation - I do not have perfect middle-knowledge to answer this non-speculatively. I was offering a possible reason why that may not have been God's course of action, that is, why God sent Christ when He did. The point, is that I dont need to show exactly why God did so, just that there is a possible reason why.


But let’s assume that Adam, Eve, and Abel, would not accept Christ if He offered salvation to them. We could go just a little further to the case of those godly men such as Noah. The world was destroyed with the exception of him (and his family) because he was godly! Now can you picture Noah saying to Christ’s offer, “Nah, I don’t need it.” ( ! )

No. Thats not the point of my suggestion. It was only that a world in which Christ was sent right after the fall, may not be the best world in terms of God's plan. I am not suggesting that no one would be saved in that world - just that God's plans would not be closely met in such a world.


As for Gal 4:4, that verse is neither here nor there in relevance as it could support either view and necessitates nothing.

I was citing that verse to support the thesis that God sent Christ at the perfect time, and not just at some random time. If it is possibly so, then it fully embraces Molinism.


Actually, Christ will say “I never knew you.”

Thats clearly talking about a certain kind of knowledge, otherwise you are suggesting that Christ is non-Omniscient in His glory. most likely youre splitting hairs.


Cite what you have in mind from Revelation in particular that supports your view that He loved them before, then didn’t love them after.

doh. I was saying that Revelation supports the idea that the judgement comes at the end, and hence it is fully conceivable that God loves and reaches out in expectation of repentance, until that judgement, and then He loved them.


In the meantime, do you believe God’s love is mutable? Being you advocate exhaustive foreknowledge (within the world God chose to pick in particular), how is this compatible with the fact that God can foresee that He will both love and then subsequently not love them? Now if God fore-loves someone, I’m sure that it is an experience rather than a mere head knowledge before the fact. In which case, the two emotions cannot exist at the same time (yet both being foreknown at the same time). See the problem?

you must have a weak view of foreknowledge.

how about this...

God loves person R at time T.

And then God's forknowledge need not change given that it is temporally indexed.


“I know I’m going to love them” (which means He loves them beforehand--before they are born e.g., Jer 1:5)

“I know I am going to not love them.”

Why “love” them to begin? I can see how this is plausible under the Open View, but not in our cases.

"I will love person R at time T."

"I will judge person R at time T+n."

its perfectly plausible on an EDF view.


But returning to my ultimate point--which was that what a “strange view of God’s love” entails is subjective. All I have to do is take what I have just said and say “my, that’s some strange love.” See my point?

shrug, thats fine. I gave my reasons why I feel your view of God's love is strange.


I was speaking of “on earth” as well.

Obviously not, because you argued that Abraham's apparent post-mortem knowledge of Christ would demonstrate that Abraham knew Christ when his faith was accounted as righteousness.


And that would be fine as I had said one or two posts ago that I could not use the examples of Abraham, Daniel, et al to wholly refute inclusivism.

But now that we are back on the straight and narrow, what is your reply to my argument against your actual line of argumentation? I had asked for examples of heathen who managed to obtain salvation outside of faith in YHWH or Christ.

you broadened it to "YHWH or Christ" and my point was specifically about "Christ fully revealed". So i believe the examples already given, i.e. ALL the OT saints before Christ was revealed, are sufficient to demonstrate MY point.


I would also ask why faith is a prerequisite for anyone to [i]begin if one can be saved without it.

And i am not saying that anyone "can be saved without it" - i think that is your Calvinistic thesis (election to salvation preceding and thus not through faith). It is simply faith which is prerequisite, if you believe that people before Jesus were saved.


Because “brainwashing” has very negative connotations which are not warranted.
You have someone who was dead in sins and trespasses, to whom God shed His mercy and grace for which that person is eternally thankful, living in a loving relationship with their Lord and Savior.
On the other hand, “brainwashing” brings to mind POWs imprisoned in a communist land who come out psychologically warped.
Enlightening us and giving our spirits life is not to be equated to “brainwashing.”
Big difference.

If you want to think of it as “brainwashing”, feel free to do so. But publicly characterizing Calvinism as such is deliberately casting the view in a bad light.

So if an alcoholic was brainwashed to hate alcohol, that would be negative or positive?


It may not be appropriate to ask in your view, but I think it is a very significant question.

because you are a compatibilist! we disagree on this basic fundamental philosophy, and thus, it is not a significant question for our discussion (since i will never agree to compatibilism and you will never agree to libertarianism).


1. If divine enablement (?)/influence are necessary to making the right decision, and these two acts on the part of God are not merely external preaching, then the person is not absolutely free to choose God of their own.

now youre adding pointless terminology... "absolutely" free? My thesis was that they are libertarianly free. I said nothing more and nothing less.


2. I understand that the agent themselves determines the choice. But their choosing the “righteous” over the alternative is influenced by their dispositions! A righteous man will make a righteous choice, an unrighteous man will make an unrighteous decision.

That is an assumption that you make. My view is that dispositions (character, traits, genetics, whatever) influence, but underdetermine choices and that man still has free moral agency when it comes to moral decisions.

you are assuming compatibilism when you say a "righteous man will make a righteous choice"... since that begs the question. HOW does someone become a righteous man?


3. As you see it, this “divine enablement” is given to every individual, correct? So we’re back to why some reject it and some don’t. Why some make the “righteous choice” and some reject it--even hate it. People do not make choices outside of their dispositions. If am given a choice between steak and liver, I will choose the former based on the fact that I am disposed to like steak and disposed to dislike liver. It’s not a matter of “they just do.”

you are likening moral decisions to preferences, which is clouding the water a bit. the divine enablement does not FORCE someone to believe, it only EMPOWERS them to do so. It makes them able to do so. They could be ABLE to believe, but still love their sin and therefore choose not to believe.


4. As to your last sentence, I don’t disagree in the slightest. This verse simply states who He resists and to whom He gives grace. It doesn’t say why the proud are proud and why the humble choose to be humble.

then why would the apostles say it? If it is just some piece of data, then it seems somewhat superfluous to their discussion. But if it means something, like CHOOSE to be humble then i think it makes more sense. Again, this just renders the Arminian view MORE plausible.


Infide, you bypassed my point in order to respond to a mere side comment. I mentioned John 6:44 in passing to voice my opinion.

But I’ll go ahead and respond to your comments on this passage.

1. Contextually, it is your interpretation that doesn’t make sense. Christ’s words are an explanation as to why many of these before Him did not believe. Note carefully vss 64-65 “But there are some of you who do not believe…THEREFORE I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

Thats an artistic use of elipses there. It is because they did not hear, in the sense, of willingly-humbly understand-to-believe the Words of the Father being spoken by Christ and enabled by God's Spirit. cf. vv.63-64

The Father grants the ability to go to Jesus through His Word (v. 45, 63).


Now your interpretation takes “granted to him” to mean “preached to him externally.” But simply look at who He is speaking to! Those in vs. 66 are even said to have been His “disciples.” They had already heard the word of God preached to them--yet they didn’t believe Him! Why? Because they were not drawn by the Father and therefore did not come to Him (i.e., spiritually--they had already come to Him physically!)

No, because they did not willingly accept it - that is, listen in humility. Faith has two parts, the Word and the soil. Both have to be present for faith to grow. They had the Word (they heard) but not the soil (humility).

And no, I do not think that "granted to him" to mean "preached to him externally". I have no doubt that Jesus meant something internally about being "TAUGHT BY GOD". but its both. Calvinists often draw up many false dichotomies like this. like, either it was external or it was completely God. It could be both.


2. You mention John 6:70 as a refutation of the Reformed interpretation of this chapter. Two things to note here: First, I believe the “choosing” in this instance regards the choosing of the twelve, specifically. That is, their office. Secondly, vs. 64 states that Christ knew from the beginning who did not believe in Him. Ergo, no, God did not “unchoose” Judas. Rather…Third, I believe John 17 sheds significant light on this namely vs. 12. Fourth, in this verse, Christ is said to do the “choosing.” However, the role of “giving” is the Father’s perorogative--not the Son’s. His [Christ’s] is to keep them and raise them up at the last day. They were the Father‘s possession (John 17--before being given to the Son! [that‘s the “elect“ for you]) and now they are His.

It just proves that you use texts selectively. For example, the text "you did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) will be used ad nauseum to prove monergistic election by Calvinists, (which is ALSO Jesus, and hence, according to you, not talking about salvific election) but this text you never hear.

I suppose you have some convoluted explanation of why John 15:16 is talking about election to salvation, but not 6:70?

Or maybe youre not the typical Calvinist, which is a good thing.


I’m not really concerned with how it “reeks”, I’m concerned with hearing your replies. Do you deny that men’s choices are predicated on their dispositions?

related to, but not determined by.


Do you believe that if a man wanted to, he could utilize his LFW and choose to stop finding women attractive?

I think LFW choices could lead to such a state. homosexuality? I'm not entirely certain about that one though.


Do you believe that I could utilize my LFW and “choose” to stop liking chocolate ice cream and like strawberry more?

perhaps not. But you could choose to eat strawberry ice cream, even though you might like chocolate more. Thats a more appropriate example.


Okay, so why do some want to confront their sin and others don’t? Again, I want to get to the root cause of our choice preferences.

because they choose to or not to. It may be based on their love of their sin, or their desire to live their own life, or whatever the case may be. In any case, they self-determine the choice in question.


AV
peace,
jd

[AVmetro]

Hi, Infide,

Thanks for the reply.

You said:


Infide:

And neither can it support it.

Not necessarily so, but:

* I do not believe this passage necessarily proves Calvinism, but..
* I do believe it is wholly compatible with Calvinism.
* I do not believe it supports the traditional Arminian interpretation in light of divine foreknowledge.
* I certainly do not believe it refutes any Calvinistic view, as you evidently believed by initially quoting it (upon which later you conceded that it does not).

Really, given that, the discussion regarding this passage should end. Unless you have something truly significant and new to add.

I had said:


Avmetro:

So if the exact number is known, God’s “delay” is more about filling this known number than getting “all.” And I think “filling a number” (e.g., the “elect”) is a fitting interpretation for this passage (perhaps compatible with both sides). The usual Arminian interpretation portrays this as a “hope” of God. But in knowing the full number and those by name who will and who will not be saved,…I think you see my point. It doesn’t necessarily support Calvinism, but it certainly isn’t incompatible with the Reformed view.

To which you replied:


Infide:

Well, I would simply respond that it says that it is about getting all, and not about filling a number. So therefore, it seems the Arminian view is more likely to be at home in this verse (whether Molinist or not).

Well, there are quite a few verses in scripture where “all” does not encompass all categories exhaustively. And of course we know this because of context, etc. I think taking into account God’s exhaustive foreknowledge (a view held by Arminians and Molinists alike, correct?), we can see the logical problem with the traditional view.

Now, I believe that “all” is appropriate and I also believe that the word is meant to be exhaustive. But exhaustive of what? The “elect” of God.

Having said this, we’re right back to where we were; we’re beginning to argue in circles.

You stated:


Infide:

You dont understand middle-knowledge, it seems. God doesnt decide what His middle-knowledge is like, that is, what is true and what is false in terms of CCFs. Thus, there are some worlds which are not feasible in light of His middle-knowledge. The world you envision is one of those non-feasible worlds.

Actually, I believe the circumstances I described would be a very available option to God in His choice to create a world.

Secondly, I note that you have simply asserted that the world I envisioned is one of those “non-feasible” worlds. But really, how do you know? In fact, you say here:


Infide:

First of all, of course it was speculation - I do not have perfect middle-knowledge to answer this non-speculatively. I was offering a possible reason why that may not have been God's course of action, that is, why God sent Christ when He did. The point, is that I dont need to show exactly why God did so, just that there is a possible reason why.

So how do you know?

Also, the reason you gave as to why it would not happen is incredibly unlikely to be the cause. Do you have any other explanations as to why He did not?


Infide:

No. Thats not the point of my suggestion. It was only that a world in which Christ was sent right after the fall, may not be the best world in terms of God's plan. I am not suggesting that no one would be saved in that world - just that God's plans would not be closely met in such a world.

Okay, so what is God’s “plan” that is allegedly not being fulfilled in such a world? I’m suggesting a world in which all are saved and none (or at least relatively few) perish which would reflect perfectly the Arminian interpretation of 2 Peter, correct?


Infide:

I was citing that verse to support the thesis that God sent Christ at the perfect time, and not just at some random time. If it is possibly so, then it fully embraces Molinism.

I never suggested that the time be random.


Infide:

Thats clearly talking about a certain kind of knowledge, otherwise you are suggesting that Christ is non-Omniscient in His glory. most likely youre splitting hairs.

Exactly! Like the non-emotional, non-loving kind of “knowledge.” Of course I would affirm that He literally knew of them. But I’m speaking of the kind of knowledge that God had of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 1:5), etc.

8<

I had said:


Avmetro:

In the meantime, do you believe God’s love is mutable? Being you advocate exhaustive foreknowledge (within the world God chose to pick in particular), how is this compatible with the fact that God can foresee that He will both love and then subsequently not love them? Now if God fore-loves someone, I’m sure that it is an experience rather than a mere head knowledge before the fact. In which case, the two emotions cannot exist at the same time (yet both being foreknown at the same time). See the problem?

To which you replied:


Infide:

you must have a weak view of foreknowledge.

how about this...

God loves person R at time T.

And then God's forknowledge need not change given that it is temporally indexed.

And:


Infide cont.:

"I will love person R at time T."

"I will judge person R at time T+n."

its perfectly plausible on an EDF view.

I didn’t say that it was inconsistent with EDF to say that God will love an individual, then subsequently judge an individual. In such a case, one could say that God continues to love said individual even after judgement.

My point had to do with God foreknowing perfectly that He would 1. Love said individual (experiencing the emotion presently, so to speak) and at the same time foreknowing perfectly that He would hate them (experiencing the emotion presently, so to speak).

Doesn’t God speak of loving persons prior to the foundation of the world (e.g., Rom 9:11,13)? If so, why does He not speak of hating them (I.e., the one He is just said to love) before the foundation of the world if that is their end? How can you fore-love an individual and fore-hate that individual at the same time.


Infide:

you broadened it to "YHWH or Christ" and my point was specifically about "Christ fully revealed". So i believe the examples already given, i.e. ALL the OT saints before Christ was revealed, are sufficient to demonstrate MY point.

I broadened it as that was common to all examples you gave. Yet it is your position that those without faith in either YHWH or Christ can obtain salvation.

1. There is something very consistent with the examples you have given which I have pointed out.

2. These consistent factors are entirely absent in regards to the heathen (of which some/many you claim can be/are saved).

3. I may not understand precisely how the salvation of the OT saints sans the specific personal knowledge of Christ works, but I know that it is not consistent with the salvation of ignorant heathen.


Infide:


And i am not saying that anyone "can be saved without it" - i think that is your Calvinistic thesis (election to salvation preceding and thus not through faith). It is simply faith which is prerequisite, if you believe that people before Jesus were saved.

“Faith in……?” Be more specific. I have pointed out that the OT saints had faith in something very specific viz. YHWH.

Do you believe that heathen peoples can be saved without knowledge of Christ in this present age? If they are saved by “simply faith”, what is it that they are placing their faith in that saves them?

I’ll avoid your tangent regarding Calvinism for now..

8<


Infide:

because you are a compatibilist! we disagree on this basic fundamental philosophy, and thus, it is not a significant question for our discussion (since i will never agree to compatibilism and you will never agree to libertarianism).

I think what I am proposing is something even a non-theist could agree with. Namely, that peoples choices are predicated on their dispositions. I’m really at a loss as to how you can deny this.


Infide:

now youre adding pointless terminology... "absolutely" free? My thesis was that they are libertarianly free. I said nothing more and nothing less.

Then I believe you underestimate the power of man’s dispositions and the necessity of God’s drawing. A man IS NOT ABLE to come to Christ unless the Father draws him.

If the Father does not draw said individual, then this individual is not at “liberty” to choose God. For example:

Man walks up to another man on the street and says:

Man 1: Good evening sir, will you choose God?
Man 2: No, I will not.
(*Man 1 preaches the entire gospel to Man 2*)

Man1: So now that you know that there is a God and the plan He has, will you choose Him?
Man2: No, I will not.

Why isn’t Man 2 choosing God? Let’s assume that it is because God is not drawing Him. Though this man has been given all the objective facts about the gospel, God’s common love, Man 2’s personal sin and the coming wrath upon them if he does not repent, he will not come to Christ.

Now, can this man, utilizing his LFW, choose God w/o the drawing of God? No? Then how can he be at liberty to choose God? Remember, he isn’t choosing because he’s ignorant of the choices possible to make. He knows all this and more! He’s choosing to refuse God because he is spiritually dead. The bible is clear that the carnal man cannot please God and that the flesh is at enmity with the Spirit. This isn’t merely a “lack of knowledge” on Man 2’s part.

I simply want you to tell me why you believe some accept Christ and repent while others remain in a hardened state; BOTH groups having the SAME knowledge, having the SAME gospel preached to them, having the SAME prevenient grace bestowed upon them.


Infide:

That is an assumption that you make. My view is that dispositions (character, traits, genetics, whatever) influence, but underdetermine choices and that man still has free moral agency when it comes to moral decisions.

Let’s take the example I give below concerning the Pharisees. They hate Christ. That is their disposition and it influences their choice to reject Him.

Now let’s take a parallel example.

I want you to take hypothetical example of one who takes advantage of one’s liberty and chooses to love the thing they hate. Let’s say homosexuality. Can a man, who hates the act of homosexuality, choose to love it? Sure, said person could choose to engage in homosexual acts, but will he like it? No. He’ll hate it. See below where I addressed this earlier to which you replied to which I will take time to respond.


Infide cont.:

you are assuming compatibilism when you say a "righteous man will make a righteous choice"... since that begs the question. HOW does someone become a righteous man?

If I were an Arminian, I would say X individual is more “righteous” than individual Y due simply to circumstance. E.g., parental influence, environment in which they were raised, genetic predisposition.

All of which brings the whole thing back to you…
This states that some are predisposed to be “better” than others and these better ones are those who will “choose” Christ of their own LFW.

[Now, under the Reformed view, though some are more righteous to a degree than others (e.g., Job, et al), none are righteous enough to merit entrance into God’s presence. But even this level of righteousness is not the basis for election. Even the most unrighteous, hardened of people (e.g., Saul who became Paul) have been regenerated by God’s Spirit.

Let’s take the Pharisees in Matthew. They desired that Jesus perform a miracle on the Sabbath in order to accuse Him! Here is Christ doing miracles in their midst and their using them as a basis for accusation! Now that’s hard!
So evidently they are not disposed to accept Christ. They have already seen His many works--what is going to break through? Hence John 6:44, etc.]


Infide:

you are likening moral decisions to preferences, which is clouding the water a bit. the divine enablement does not FORCE someone to believe, it only EMPOWERS them to do so. It makes them able to do so. They could be ABLE to believe, but still love their sin and therefore choose not to believe.

They are not ABLE to believe without the empowerment. We aren’t necessarily speaking about “forcing” one to do something, we are discussing whether or not one is entirely free to do that something. We are discussing why some choose to reject the gospel and some don’t.

Now I am of course going to take the opportunity to ask you this question as I believe we‘re starting to get off track (and this will put us right back on it): why does the person you speak of above chooses to love their sin and not believe over the one who does? Is he less righteous than the one who did? Previously you said “they just do” which isn’t sufficient.

8<

I had said:


Avmetro:

Infide, you bypassed my point in order to respond to a mere side comment. I mentioned John 6:44 in passing to voice my opinion.

But I’ll go ahead and respond to your comments on this passage.

1. Contextually, it is your interpretation that doesn’t make sense. Christ’s words are an explanation as to why many of these before Him did not believe. Note carefully vss 64-65 “But there are some of you who do not believe…THEREFORE I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

To which you replied:


Infide:

Thats an artistic use of elipses there. It is because they did not hear, in the sense, of willingly-humbly understand-to-believe the Words of the Father being spoken by Christ and enabled by God's Spirit. cf. vv.63-64

The Father grants the ability to go to Jesus through His Word (v. 45, 63).

? Really? Where does it say that in the context of John 6? Expecially with a free-will implication to it?

That “artistic use of elipses” was intended to keep you from missing the connection between the statement that these before Him did not believe and the reason they did not believe. Particular emphasis on the word “therefore.” What I excised did not militate against my point and in fact I appealed to that very section just moments later!

You are really practicing eisegesis here. I can affirm along with you that they did not “willingly-humbly understand-to-believe the Words of the Father being spoken by Christ” and yet disagree with your conclusion that they were able to choose otherwise. Vss. 63-64 say nothing in support of your position here and only affirm mine! Vss. 64-65 explains the unbelief of the crowd. The words He speaks are Spirit and Life. Yet the crowd does not accept those words and come to Him. Why? Because only by the drawing of the Father may one come to Christ. Harmonizing this with vss. 36-37 where Christ also explains the unbelief of the crowd (!), we see that those given to the Son by the Father will come to Christ. Not “may” come, will come. When we read John 17, we see that those “given” to the Son were the Father’s possession prior to being “given” to Christ and therefore prior to coming to Christ. This means that the giving must precede the “coming.” (Needless to say, this is so grammatically as well). The whole of the context is in explanation as to why these particular persons did not believe in Christ. The wording you need to support your view simply isn’t present.


Infide:

No, because they did not willingly accept it - that is, listen in humility. Faith has two parts, the Word and the soil. Both have to be present for faith to grow. They had the Word (they heard) but not the soil (humility).

If that was the specific problem, then Christ’s words are unnecessary! Why didn’t He just say “you don’t believe because you aren’t humble”? Instead He says “only those drawn by the Father can come.” Evidently, the “drawing of the Father” is what is lacking in their regards or else He wouldn’t have pointed it out. If the drawing of the Father was already upon them, as you would argue is the case with everyone, then it is a non-issue. The issue would then be why they didn’t respond to it. Yet this isn’t what we are presented with in the context.


Infide:

And no, I do not think that "granted to him" to mean "preached to him externally". I have no doubt that Jesus meant something internally about being "TAUGHT BY GOD". but its both. Calvinists often draw up many false dichotomies like this. like, either it was external or it was completely God. It could be both.

Here is what you originally stated in your last post:

Infide:

So the drawing of the Father, is the teaching of God and Christ in the Scriptures, it seems to me. Reading the context of these passages renders your interpretation entirely implausible (not to mention Calvinism). Consider this:

[Bold mine]

So if we plug in your statement above we have:

“No one can come to Me unless the Father presents the teaching of God and Christ in the Scriptures.”

Sounds external to me. Now you have stated in the past that God’s drawing is internal, so I didn’t charge you with not holding to that. But I did show you why it would be nonsensical to hold to an “external preaching” interpretation of Christ’s words in vs. 44.

Now if we are discussing “internal” calling, the argument shifts as to whether or not that drawing is effectual. I would say that it is based on the whole process of the “giving of the Father to the Son.” The Father “gives” them to the Son, they “come” to the Son, the Son raises them on the last day.

Also, if the drawing is merely “enlightening them to their sin”, what is the difference between having this done supernaturally and being told these facts by external preaching? I would assume you would say that the former entails “sorrow“, “remorse” or “repentance” but aren’t these acts that are dependant upon man’s LFW? If not, then

I believe I have already demonstrated why, contextually, the crowd did not “come” to Christ and why the drawing is effectual:

* All those given to the Son by the Father will come to Him (vs. 37). The crowd did not believe Him (spiritually “come” to Him), ergo we can conclude they were not given to Him as the “coming” is predicated on the “giving.”

*The “will come” is a future act and therefore comes subsequent to the “giving.” This does not support election based on “foreseen faith.”

* Now, John 17 states, what God has, He gave, in its entirety, to Christ. And what God gave to Christ, He will not lose. What this necessitates is that the “will come” really means “will come” (as opposed to “may come”) as otherwise, the Father’s possession to be given to the Son would have had to been lost before being given to the Son who was to keep them from being lost. If all who are given to the Son do not come, where were they lost in the process before being “given” to the Son?

- We do not have “most of what is the Father’s is mine” or “Some of what is the Fathers’ will be given to me.” or “I will not lose a whole a good number of them that the Father gives to me.”

- The possession of the Father is given en toto to the Son, the Son in turn keeps that possession. The giving of the Father’s possession to the Son necessitates the “will come” in order for the full possession of the Father to belong to Christ. Otherwise, Christ is only receiving it in part. If the Father has X amount of people to give, then X number of people will come to Christ as the Father’s possession subsequently given to the Son.


Infide:

It just proves that you use texts selectively.

No. Had I merely used texts selectively, I wouldn’t have given reasons for my interpretations. Instead, I would have simply said “this says X and this says Y” without giving what I believed to be good justification for it.


Infide cont.:

For example, the text "you did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) will be used ad nauseum to prove monergistic election by Calvinists, (which is ALSO Jesus, and hence, according to you, not talking about salvific election) but this text you never hear.

I suppose you have some convoluted explanation of why John 15:16 is talking about election to salvation, but not 6:70?

Or maybe youre not the typical Calvinist, which is a good thing.

Unless you believe that Christ chose Judas to salvation knowing in advance that he 1. Did not believe and 2. Was marked out for destruction in order to fulfill prophecy, I see no other interpretation. I find it amazing that you would advocate using a single word in the same precise way in all contexts ( ! ). I mean, c’mon Infide, this is the word “choose” we’re talking about!

If Christ were to say “I choose to go to this mountain to pray” would you retort “I suppose you have some convoluted explanation of why Jesus isn’t talking about the salvation of this mountain!”

Next, we cannot equate the word “choose” to “elect to salvation” without clear warrant. And for reasons given above and in my last post, I highly doubt Judas was “elected to salvation before the foundation of the world.” :-) Did God desire the salvation of Judas? Did He try all He could to reach out to Him? If so, who was going to betray Christ? Someone had to do it or else Christ would not have been crucified according to prophecy.
Evidently the answer is “no.” And if “no” then Judas was not elected to salvation and I am therefore not being “inconsistent.”

Also, I believe you have missed my point. My overall intent was to demonstrate that the Father is the one who gives, not the Son. Therefore, your charge that God, under a Calvinistic view, must have “unchosen” Judas, was not a necessary conclusion we must come to.

Ironically enough, Arminians will, in an attempt to disprove Calvinism, appeal to John 6:70 in order to prove that some can be elected to salvation yet fall away. Yet when it comes to John 15:16, the Arminian interprets it as election to Apostolic office! So it is amazing that you would attempt to play me as being inconsistent given that Arminians do the same thing only in reverse!

Now, as to John 15:16, Jesus is quite specific about the nature of His choice. He chose them that they should “go and bear fruit and that their fruit should abide.” Now, whom else could Christ be speaking of other than a regenerate Christian? Who else bears fruit that abides but the one in the vine (John 15)? Evidently He is not merely speaking of their being Apostles (I.e., their office only).

8<

I had said:


Avmetro:

Do you believe that if a man wanted to, he could utilize his LFW and choose to stop finding women attractive?

To which you replied:


Infide:
I think LFW choices could lead to such a state. homosexuality? I'm not entirely certain about that one though.

Now that I don’t believe. :-) Why not as an experiment, you go ahead and try that (I’m not saying go in the opposite direction!) If you say “But I don’t want to” I think you’ve conceded my point.

But since you have mixed feelings about the Libertarian free choices of homosexuals, explain how this doesn’t make them “robots” as you might cast Calvinist views? How do they have LFW if they can’t choose to unbecome homosexuals?


Infide:

perhaps not. But you could choose to eat strawberry ice cream, even though you might like chocolate more. Thats a more appropriate example.

I’m glad you say this as I can use this to demonstrate my point better. You have made the distinction between dispositions and naked actions. To draw a parallel to the above example, can I choose to perform the action of confessing Christ all the while in my being I have a disposition against Him? Let’s say I like my wife more than I like Christ. This would be parallel to my liking chocolate ice cream better than strawberry. I can perform the action of confessing Christ (eating the strawberry) yet loving my wife more than He (preferring the chocolate ice cream). Of course, Christ states that anyone who loves family over Him is unworthy of Him, so you can see where I’m going with this and how it supports my point.


Infide:

because they choose to or not to. It may be based on their love of their sin, or their desire to live their own life, or whatever the case may be. In any case, they self-determine the choice in question.

So would you agree that one who chooses to love their sin is less righteous than someone who refuses their sin and chooses Christ?

>

Infide, now that the semester has started, I am not going to have much time at all to give more replies (full-time college, full-time job and full-time family). So if my replies are significantly shorter and sporadic, you’ll understand why.

AV