Do we choose God does He choose us or both

[dogs4thewin]

I believe it is both because He does not make us accept Him?

 

[Don Maurer]

I notice 38 views and no replies. Probably you should raise the bar a little and that might get a reply. I suggest you defend your view from scripture and someone might show an interest.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I believe it is both because He does not make us accept Him?

I didn't know Calvinists believe God makes us accept Him. That's a new one to me. Praise God He pulls us kicking and screaming....except that's not exactly accurate.

Calvinists believe it is both, however Calvinists believe that God first chose us from eternity, before the foundation of the world. Calvinists also believe, because a person is able or has the ability to choose God, a supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit the work of regeneration by God alone must take place where God also replaces the dead faith with living faith, the heart of stone for a heart of flesh, and after the person has become a new creation (Gal 6:15) all things have become new (2 Cor 5:17), then a person chooses to repent, confesses and submits to Christ as Lord of their life, because the call is effectual, it is "irresistible". So far as resisting is concerned, that is all a person dead in sins and trespasses can do, is to resist because that which is flesh is flesh, and the nature of the flesh is to resist the Spirit. If God did not intervene by providence in the case of fallen humanity, none could accept Him. If God had not chosen us first (election) from eternity, and left it up to mankind to choose (elect) himself, none would choose Him, because of the condition of mankind, neither could any persevere without the providence, grace, and tender mercies of God. To God, we are but children, and just as parents must intervene for the good and safety of a child, so God must intervene also, and He has every right as Creator to do as He pleases, which we all struggle with at times.

 

[stenerson]

I believe it is both because He does not make us accept Him?

We are all born at enmity with God as children of wrath. Scripture clearly states that "there is none that seeks God." Scripture says that the "natural man can not discern the things of God", it says that we are
'blinded by the god of this world." (Satan)
Scripture tells us that we should pray for some that "God would grant them a spirit of repentance." Also that faith is a gift from God. Once you have true faith you don't lose it.
Read the 1st 2 chapters of Ephesians and it gives a clear picture of how people are saved.

 

[phronimos]

I believe it is both because He does not make us accept Him?

EXACTLY!

God's Elect Have Both

The Scriptures teach that Divine sovereignty and human freedom co-operate in perfect harmony; that while God is the sovereign Ruler and primary cause, man is free within the limits of his nature and is the secondary cause; and that God so controls the thoughts and wills of men that they freely and willingly do what He has planned for them to do.

A classic example of the co-operation of Divine sovereignty and human freedom is found in the story of Joseph. Joseph was sold into Egypt where he rose in authority and rendered a great service by supplying food in time of famine. It was, of course, a very sinful act for those sons of Jacob to sell their younger brother into slavery in a heathen country.
They knew that they acted freely, and years later they admitted their full guilt (Genesis 42.21; 45.3). Yet Joseph could say to them, "Be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither; for God did send me before you to preserve life...So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God;" and again, "As for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive," Genesis 45.5, 8; 50.20. Joseph's brothers simply followed the evil inclinations of their natures; yet their act was a link in the chain of events through which God fulfilled His purpose; and their guilt was not the least diminished by the fact that their intended evil was overruled for good.
Man's volitions are, in fact, governed by his own nature, and are in accordance with the desires, dispositions, inclinations, knowledge, and character of the person.
Man is not independent of God, nor of mental and physical laws, and all of these exert their particular influences in his choices. He always acts in the way in which the strongest inclinations or motives lead; and conscience tells us that the things which appeal to us most powerfully at the time are the things which determine our volitions.

thanks and be blessed

 

[Skala]

I believe it is both because He does not make us accept Him?

When you give CPR to, and resuscitate a dying, unconscious person, are you "making" them live?

 

[hedrick]

I'm increasingly convinced that Scripture speaks of election in differing ways.

Most of the time, election is for service. God called Israel to bless the nations. He calls us in Christ to be the Church, his light to all mankind. He called Paul and other individuals. His call is prior to any response on our part and enables it.

The corporate calls can be rejected. Even one of the disciples ended up rejecting his call. Probably the individual can as well, though you can define that away by using the term election only for people who are finally saved. I think that's a mistake, though, as it turns election into election for privilege rather than election for responsibility. I think Christ saw his mission as calling people to the Kingdom, and holding them responsible for their response. So I'd rather see election as applying to everyone that is called.

But there's another side to it. If we think God is responsible for all of history (and I have to say that for me this is still an open question), then everything, even people's rejection of him, is part of his plan. I don't think Scripture speaks of this often, though there are a few places that do seem to reference it. I think Luther was wise in later life not to say much about it. We don't know God's perspective, and in trying to guess, we risk making God look demonic. I don't think God has a list of people who he sets out to damn, although I understand that there are good, logical reasons for concluding that he does. But I think it contradicts explicit statements that God doesn't want any to be lost. So I'd rather simply say that God's plan does include even human rejection, but resist going further than that.

I think Reformed have often been too quick in seeing every reference to election as referring to God's secret choice of who will be saved, when election refers to God calling a person or group to service, and holding them responsible for their response.

 

[Daniel924927]

I believe it is both because He does not make us accept Him?

Um maybe but how do you know for sure that God does not make us accept him?
Who can resist the will of God ?

 

["DJ"]

Please read Psalm 139...he knew us before we were born....he definitely chose us!

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I believe it is both because He does not make us accept Him?

I believe that God chooses us. I believe that we would never on our own choose God.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean.
May I remind you of this part of this forum's Statement of Purpose:
Non-Calvinist members are not allowed to post in this forum.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

View attachment 254253
MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean.
May I remind you of this part of this forum's Statement of Purpose:
Non-Calvinist members are allowed to post in this forum.
MOD HAT OFF​

What's a "clean?"

 

[Paidiske]

It means I've removed all the posts in the thread which broke the rules, and any posts responding to those posts.

Note: If you're not a Calvinist, please stay out of this thread henceforth.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

It means I've removed all the posts in the thread which broke the rules, and any posts responding to those posts.

Note: If you're not a Calvinist, please stay out of this thread henceforth.

Huh? But you posted, "Non-Calvinist are allowed to post in this forum."

 

[Paidiske]

Sorry, you're correct, that was a typo. I've edited it now.

Only Calvinists may post in this forum.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Sorry, you're correct, that was a typo. I've edited it now.

Only Calvinists may post in this forum.

Question: this thread is in the sub-folder "debate with a Calvinist". Should it be re-titled "debate between Calvinists" instead?

 

[Paidiske]

That's above my pay grade.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Sorry, you're correct, that was a typo. I've edited it now.

Only Calvinists may post in this forum.

Actually, what you posted 26 minutes ago still reads, "Non-Calvinist members are allowed to post in this forum."

 

[FreeGrace2]

That's above my pay grade.

I only ask because the title suggests that non Calvinists are invited to debate with Calvinists.

 

[Paidiske]

Guys! Please!

As far as I can tell, neither of you are Calvinist. I've pointed out the SOP. It's now time for you to gracefully bow out.