"THE" Doctrine of Grace

[Phat8594]

So, how does this verse distinguish between Calvinists and non-Calvinists thinking about grace (given that the term, "grace," does not even appear in the verse) since neither Calvinists nor non-Calvinist seem to have any problems with this verse?

God's object of the gospel is the world, and not merely the elect.

God's gives salvation to whosoever believes, not whosoever is chosen to believe.

[rhutchin]

God's object of the gospel is the world, and not merely the elect.

The object of the gospel is to save the elect whom both Calvinists and non-Calvinists (except for the Open View crowd) agree were identified by God before the foundation of the world. The salvation of the non-elect is never an issue. The issue - between the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists - is the manner in which the elect are identified in the first place.

God's gives salvation to whosoever believes, not whosoever is chosen to believe.

Not necessarily. If a person chooses not to believe, God can still exercise His will to bring that person to belief. Can't He?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

"The Doctrine of Deterministic Grace" or maybe "The Doctrine of Pre-selected Grace"

I think the distinctions have been made through use of the terms, “common grace,” and “special grace.”
Special grace is uniquely Calvinistic and refers to those actions God takes to save people.
Common grace refers to God’s favor on mankind to maintain man’s conscience so that people are not as evil as they could be.
The Arminians take it a step further and require that God enable people to determine, through their own will, whether they want to be saved.
The problem here is that even the Arminians agree that God knows who will be saved (even if God foreknows who will accept Christ)
but
this just means that God extends sufficient grace to bring about the salvation of the elect and not great enough to save any other than these.

Non-Calvinists relegate “grace” to a position subservient to Man’s will making it somewhat perfunctory that God extend grace.

It looks like you now have divided Grace into two parts:

SUFFICIENT GRACE which causes salvation, the granting of which is unrelated to anything the person does...

INSUFFICIENT GRACE which causes unbearable eternal torment, the granting of which is unrelated to anything a person does...

So now Calvinist Doctrinal Dogmatics require us to BELIEVE in GOD'S INSUFFICIENT GRACE...???

Lord have Mercy!

Arsenios

[Phat8594]

The object of the gospel is to save the elect

So I am guessing that you do not believe that God sincerely offers the Gospel to the non-elect?

The issue - between the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists - is the manner in which the elect are identified in the first place

Sure, thats one issue, but its also whether God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, whether he takes joy in the death of a sinner, and whether Christ died for the sins of the world or just the elect....to name a few more of the issues that arise from this.

If a person chooses not to believe, God can still exercise His will to bring that person to belief. Can't He?

The question is not CAN He, but DOES He?

[Phat8594]

It looks like you now have divided Grace into two parts:

SUFFICIENT GRACE which causes salvation, the granting of which is unrelated to anything the person does...

INSUFFICIENT GRACE which causes unbearable eternal torment, the granting of which is unrelated to anything a person does...

So now Calvinist Dotrinal Dogmatics require us to BELIEVE in GOD'S INSUFFICIENT GRACE...???

Yes, I have wondered what Biblical reason there is to make this distinction. I know the systematic motivation...but not the Biblical reason.

[Littlejoe]

I tend to think that Calvin had studied the Scriptures and formed his theology prior to reading Augustine. I think he cites Augustine more to substantiate that the theology he taught was not new and not that he had gotten his theology from Augustine. He actually traces his theology back to the Fathers and in this term, I think Calvin includes Paul.

That's rather doubtful, and at least BB Warfield and Spurgeon both disagree with you.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

If a person chooses not to believe, God can still exercise His will to bring that person to belief. Can't He?

Yes, and He is doing so constantly and steadily to every person on earth - Although for some, He does eventually give them what they are demanding from him, like Pharoah, which is a hardness of heart despite great acts of Grace on God's part...

The UNSAVED normally receive much MORE Grace than the SAVED, by the way... But they never are turned by it to repentance... Pharoah was one of these... But the Grace that leads to repentance is the same Grace that brings salvation - The only difference is the HUMAN CONDITION OF THE SOUL of the person to whom it is granted by God... A sinner receiving it can turn to God, whereas a Saint will become one with Him in the Power and Love of the Holy Spirit... The first is defiled in heart and needs repentance... The second is pure in heart and only longs of God... Each receives the same Grace, but differently...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

whether God SINCERELY desires the salvation of all men

That is another of the Calvinist crimes - They deny God's sincerity when Holy Writ tells us that God desires with desire that all men should come to the knowledge of the Truth and be saved... They regard this as an IDLE DESIRE on God's part, because it does not happen... And thereby accuse God of INSINCERITY...

Lord Have mercy!

Arsenios

[rhutchin]

It looks like you now have divided Grace into two parts:

SUFFICIENT GRACE which causes salvation, the granting of which is unrelated to anything the person does...

INSUFFICIENT GRACE which causes unbearable eternal torment, the granting of which is unrelated to anything a person does...

So now Calvinist Doctrinal Dogmatics require us to BELIEVE in GOD'S INSUFFICIENT GRACE...???

If it is true that that some will not enter heaven (the non-elect) then it must also be true that God does not extend sufficient grace (i.e., make the required effort) to bring the non-elect to salvation. If you see this differently, then tell us what you see happening.

[rhutchin]

So I am guessing that you do not believe that God sincerely offers the Gospel to the non-elect?

The offer is sincere. If the non-elect desire salvation it is available to them freely as it is to the elect.

Sure, thats one issue, but its also whether God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, whether he takes joy in the death of a sinner, and whether Christ died for the sins of the world or just the elect....to name a few more of the issues that arise from this.

Not real issues between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. Given that each side recognizes that the elect and the non-elect were identified by God before the foundation of the world, then each side essentially views God's actions towards the non-elect in the same manner.

The question is not CAN He, but DOES He?

Apparently God does. I suspect that all of the elect initially reject God's offer of salvation before responding to God's additional prompting without which they would have gone on their merry way to hell but I can speak only to myself and those who's testimony has come to me.

[rhutchin]

That is another of the Calvinist crimes - They deny God's sincerity when Holy Writ tells us that God desires with desire that all men should come to the knowledge of the Truth and be saved... They regard this as an IDLE DESIRE on God's part, because it does not happen... And thereby accuse God of INSINCERITY...

OK. Given that God is able to save all regardless what decisions any person might make, how do you explain why there are some who will not be saved?

[rhutchin]

That's rather doubtful, and at least BB Warfield and Spurgeon both disagree with you.

It's too bad Calvin did not write his autobiography to explain these things. Warfieled wrote a book about Calvin and Augustine. If you have read that (I haven't), maybe you could provide some of the points that led Warfield to his conclusion about Calvin's dependence on Augustine.

[rhutchin]

Yes, I have wondered what Biblical reason there is to make this distinction. I know the systematic motivation...but not the Biblical reason.

The Biblical reason is that some are saved and some are not.

[Phat8594]

The offer is sincere. If the non-elect desire salvation it is available to them freely as it is to the elect.

Except for the fact that in the Calvinist mind, the elect are those who are drawn irresistably and not freely....

So if irresistable grace is necessary for salvation (and God knows this), then how can an offer without irresistable grace be considered sincere?

then each side essentially views God's actions towards the non-elect in the same manner.

Well one side believes in limited atonement and the other unlimited....so I think I will disagree with this.

Apparently God does. I suspect that all of the elect initially reject God's offer of salvation before responding to God's additional prompting without which they would have gone on their merry way to hell but I can speak only to myself and those who's testimony has come to me.

I appreciate your testimony, but I am asking for Biblical evidence that He does.

[Phat8594]

The Biblical reason is that some are saved and some are not.

Thats a systematic reason! Not a Biblical one! Saying its Biblical doesn't make it so.