Why do some feel a tug towards God and others nothing?

TedT said:

Not if "very good" has no connotation of meaning righteousness or morally good but only "good for HIS purpose

Click to expand...

It might not even mean "good for his purpose", but "good" as in "satisfaction; that is how I wanted, and meant it, to be".

If I make a greetings card and I say "that's good", it means "I like the design, the way the colours work together and the rubber stamps that I've used". The purpose of the card; to let someone know that I am thinking of and praying for them, remains the same. That would be its purpose even if I had used different colours or an unfamiliar technique. But the finished result is one that I like - in fact I am more likely to send it to someone if I do like it.

Before the fall there was no sin, no "sinful elect", no suffering, death or punishment.

God bless you brother. I have been currently trying to cope with this mental illness called psychosis. Today very sense of self was intensely and personally threatened by a group of deities claiming to be "descendants of Astaroth" (a demon) "The diaper faced-one" A.k.A "V/D/A" was singled out by the welcomed ones in my head, for being helped/aided by "gaurentee ya'", "rotton soul", "rotton soul's friends", and "provide"... All working together to hate (my genitalia/penis/dick/[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]) at serious times where i chose to be intimate with somebody, in order to ruin my life and make me feel disgraced sexually as an attempt to even end any relationships with lovers i have... Like my x-lover Fritz's relation i had, i was horridly disgraced by when this group of evil B-words did to me in my head while i was just trying to love him for who he really is. Very embarrassed, for a long time afterward I would get laughed at arrogantly as this group shoved energy in my face with a depiction that would appear out of nowhere... The context of their laughter was very malicious envy that was meant to get me closer to wards ending my life. I had gathered from the spirits that were helping me deal with the group, that "V/D/A" (and others likely) was alone receiving power from "miss lord lucifer", desperately trying to instill horrid envious temptations upon others, in order to destroy me. Oh my god, dealing with these lunatic deities in my head has been hell... like i was sexually assaulted out of having the will to see my own family on Christmas by supernatural entities and energy. god bless!

Mark Quayle said:

They 'receive' him because God has transformed their will, by the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Transformed: "to change completely the appearance or character of something or someone, especially so that that thing or person is improved" (transformed)

Your will is your want to do something or for something to happen. In this case, God changing your will means Him making you want to believe, and if you cannot want to believe except for when God changes your will, then you cannot want to believe unless God wants you to believe. Therefore, if you want to believe, God has made you want to believe. And if you "fall away", then you didn't actually want to believe in the first place. You only thought you did. I do not see any error in this assessment of what you have replied with in the above quotation of your response, and I cannot get by this block to my acceptance of the reformed view.

Am I missing something, or is there another dimension to the reformed view of God's changing one's will towards belief in him? Are there two wills or something?

Mark Quayle said:

And they go on to defend 'Free Will' in the usual way, as though Calvinism denies choice. It does not deny choice --it insists on it --and it even insists on the necessary results of regeneration: faith, repentance, obedience and so on, without which a person is by no means one of the regenerated.

Click to expand...

"Calvinists hold that God's grace to enable salvation is given only to the elect and irresistibly leads to salvation." Doesn't Calvinism believe in Irresistible Grace?

"Calvinism: All men are totally depraved, and this depravity extends to the entire person, including the will. Except for God's irresistible grace, men are entirely incapable of responding to God on their own."

How then does Calvinism insist on choice and free will?

Mark Quayle said:

Most Wesleyan, even Arminian-leaning, 'Bible Churches', Fundamentalist and Mainline denominational, if they believe in Plenary Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures, and the Deity of Christ, recognize that salvation is by grace alone, through faith, and preaching to that effect is acceptable if nuances are not recognized as opposing to their POV.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. Arminians believe that salvation is by grace alone. But the same grace is available to all people rather than few elect who are forced to believe.

Mark Quayle said:

My mom says, "above the gate to Heaven, on this side it says, 'Whosoever Will'. From the other side it says, 'Chosen from the Foundation of the World.'"

Click to expand...

This is wise.

Mark Quayle said:

I asked whosoever might that be, that will? (It's like with the notion of 'pure chance' --the fact that we don't know the cause doesn't mean that what we are considering is random or uncaused). The fact we don't know who are the Elect doesn't mean they are chosen from a pool of random possibles, by mere foresight. God is specific.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the best answer to this is not a few verses and proof texts but rather the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1–23, Mark 4:1–20, Luke 8:4–15). There are 3 types of soil. Does the soil bear responsibility for being rocky or thorny? In this parable, it does. Otherwise, why would God reward one person and punish another if both were not responsible for the outcome?

zlick45 said:

Transformed: "to change completely the appearance or character of something or someone, especially so that that thing or person is improved" (transformed)

Your will is your want to do something or for something to happen. In this case, God changing your will means Him making you want to believe, and if you cannot want to believe except for when God changes your will, then you cannot want to believe unless God wants you to believe. Therefore, if you want to believe, God has made you want to believe. And if you "fall away", then you didn't actually want to believe in the first place. You only thought you did. I do not see any error in this assessment of what you have replied with in the above quotation of your response, and I cannot get by this block to my acceptance of the reformed view.

Am I missing something, or is there another dimension to the reformed view of God's changing one's will towards belief in him? Are there two wills or something?

Click to expand...

Well, yes there are two wills: In the simplest terms, there is his command, and then there is his plan.

But what exactly is your block against the Reformed position? I don't understand. If one is of the Elect he will not ultimately be lost. If one of the Elect continues (by our assessment --not God's) in sin "his works will be lost, but he himself will be saved, yet so as by fire".

I'm not one to claim that God cannot make a person want to believe, then drop him like a bad habit. The Spirit of God did some pretty strange things in the OT, even causing a pagan to prophesy, whom he had no intent to save, as far as I know. Even John 3 tells us the Spirit will do as it will. But as for the Elect, their will is against God, just like everyone else's, until they are born again, of the Spirit. I do not say that they do not choose Christ, but that their choice of Christ is the result of their changed will.

RDKirk said:

I have to point out something here. In the parlance and custom of the day, the concepts of "common vessels" and "vessels of honor" had to do with their purposes.

A vessel of honor would be the golden bowl used to serve most honored guests. A typical "common vessel" would be a chamber pot.

In particular, "...Those who cleanse themselves from the latter..." is referring to people purging themselves, not the vessel itself ("purge" is used in older translations) into common vessels. "Purging" refers to either vomiting or defecating. So that is a "common vessel," indeed.

Understanding what "common vessel" actually means, then going back to Romans 9, the "common vessel" of wood or clay was never meant by the potter to be cherished or even maintained. It would absorb what was poured into it. It would become sodden and eventually useless. Yes, they were designed from the beginning to be disposable..."fitted for destruction" even if perfect for that purpose. A nicely designed clay chamber pot was still going to be tossed out eventually; the gold serving dish would be kept for generations.

But what if...what if...the potter chose to use that vessel of wood or clay for a purpose of honor. What if the potter chose to use the clay pot for soup instead of as a chamber pot?

What right did the gold dish have to complain about the potter's choice to set the clay pot beside it...which is what the Jews were doing with respect to Gentile believers.

Click to expand...

Just as Christ described Paul as a vessel, Paul goes on and describes all of us as vessels. We can all clean ourselves up and be vessels of honor (made useful for God, like Paul).


Yes, a common vessel can be a chamber potty, but a vast majority of the common vessels would be holding water for washing, oils, grains, and food items. There is a huge difference between gold and silver vessels and common vessels.

It is not true all common vessels were chamber potties. Paul is contrasting and giving only two separate groups very special and all the rest, but that does not mean they are worthless, even if they are a chamber potty.

Nothing suggests the common vessels were made to throw away and even chamber potties were not meant for throwing away any more then you would throw your toilet away today after using.

The idea of referring to a human as a vessel is not Paul’s idea but comes from Christ/God:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

The Greek word ἐκκαθάρῃ (ekkatharē) in 2Tim2:21 is cleansing and not just throwing up.

NKJV Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.

Ro. 9 has only two types of vessels leaving the potter’s shop “Special and Common”, for the Jews there were only two types of people (God’s elect [Jews] and all the rest [gentiles]). The Jews new they were very special vessels and thus would have thought of the Gentiles as being very common vessels.

ImAllLikeOkWaitWat said:

Which just comes down to God choosing who he wants and to hell with the rest of them?

Click to expand...

St_Worm2 said:

Or perhaps, speaking even more "technically" , it all comes down to God allowing the vast majority of mankind the freedom to choose who ~they~ want (which is clearly not Him) but, at the same time, refusing to allow ~all~ of us to perish by interfering with the free will of His elect (the saints 'to be' in this case) such that a remnant is saved.

God bless you!

--David

Click to expand...

ImAllLikeOkWaitWat said:

So you're saying no one would choose God(be saved) unless he willed them to?

Click to expand...

St_Worm2 said:

Well, technically , I got the idea from the Bible (but let's just keep that between the two of us for now ). For instance, John 6:44, 65; 10:26-28; Romans 3:10-11; Acts 13:48.

--David

Click to expand...

I can make no sense of this interaction. It seems to imply that God will fail, no one would ever choose God willingly unless forced to, so God will just go with the will of the people instead? That has been seen to have happened in the choosing of a king over God “They did not reject you they have rejected Me” but think it fails to realize there are those who have accepted so would that not imply those who not accepted His will in their lives have been left behind in their own sins?

Andrewn said:

"Calvinists hold that God's grace to enable salvation is given only to the elect and irresistibly leads to salvation." Doesn't Calvinism believe in Irresistible Grace?

"Calvinism: All men are totally depraved, and this depravity extends to the entire person, including the will. Except for God's irresistible grace, men are entirely incapable of responding to God on their own."

How then does Calvinism insist on choice and free will?

Click to expand...

You say: "Doesn't Calvinism believe in Irresistible Grace?" Yes. Problem?
I'm not sure who said what you quoted, but Irresistible Grace is the description of what God does in regenerating the unbeliever. He doesn't ask for their permission to give them a new heart. If you are saying the phrase, "grace to enable salvation", sounds like enabling choice, and not simply applying salvation irrevocably to them, I agree, it sounds that way. But their choice to receive does not make happen what God has made to already happen. It merely demonstrates the individual's unity of effort, or identification, with Christ.

Meanwhile, I don't follow your question: "How then does Calvinism insist on choice and free will?" Man does choose. "Free will"? I think most within Calvinism would say they do not insist on Free will. I only use the term to mean that human choice is real and effective, and done according to individual will of the human.

Andrewn said:

Yes, of course. Arminians believe that salvation is by grace alone. But the same grace is available to all people rather than few elect who are forced to believe.

Click to expand...

Available is a nice smooth vague term. Calvinists say, 'offered' (also rather vague, but...)

Andrewn said:

This is wise.

Click to expand...

It is poetic. Wise, I'm not so sure.

Andrewn said:

Perhaps the best answer to this is not a few verses and proof texts but rather the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1–23, Mark 4:1–20, Luke 8:4–15). There are 3 types of soil. Does the soil bear responsibility for being rocky or thorny? In this parable, it does. Otherwise, why would God reward one person and punish another if both were not responsible for the outcome?

Click to expand...

This is self-evident. But I don't understand your point. What has that to do for or against Calvinism? Of course a person is responsible for their choices!

TedT said:

Although I do like the bulk of your answer, I must refer to John 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. as support for the idea that the good ie, elect, (though sinful) seed, aka the sheep gone astray into sin, were NOT ever condemned with the weeds and the goats.

A small differentiation but the implications are meaningful, especially for those who believe the good seed are repentant weeds and the sheep returned to their saviour are repentant goats.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you are saying here:
Do you believe all saved people at conception are believers in Christ and all others are going to hell?
What does it take to believe in Christ?
Saved people could never be weeds at some point in their liives, so are different from birth?

ImAllLikeOkWaitWat said:

This is true whether they are in a Christian family where both parents are religious and then you have the even more bizarre yet wonderful situation where both parents are staunch atheists and the child knows their parents would be upset if they end up believing in God yet the pull towards God is so strong they end up converting. Is this simply because God wants certain people with him and the rest he wants nothing to do with? I personally don't have a problem with this because God wants who he wants. Some might say well why would he create me if he wanted nothing to do with me? Thats a good question and a very deep one and I don't know how to answer that but I know there is an answer for it and it will be answered one day.

Click to expand...

I don't think it happens that some don't ever feel the tug towards God, though of course to reach a conclusion involves both interpretations and then speculations also, because we don't have omniscient ability to know all the feelings some other person ever had, from even when they were 2 or 3 or 4 years old. We don't know those feelings (can't see all about everyone). Often, the person themselves can't even remember all of them.

So, you probably meant to refer instead to the important question: What about the tug towards God after a person is an adult?

Which is worth discussing (I'll point out a couple of key things about that after the dashed line below).

But to think a person never felt a tug isn't something we are able to know, because we don't have the all-knowing ability to see into all hearts and know all histories of everyone from when they were small children and began to relate with God, or began to resist Him (eventually, later).
---------
After a person is an adult though, then we know that Luke chapter 15 will certainly apply.

But, a person doesn't have to repent, even when suffering (having the profound help and aid and blessing of intense suffering because they left God). An individual might refuse even then!

zlick45 said:

Or can this simply be deflected by saying that the moral compass, if it exists (as I think it does), is corrupted by the fall, leading to the elect being the only ones able to follow the sense of morality that God wants us to adhere to (as a result of the process of sanctification)?

Click to expand...

I agree with this except that I add the caveat that the elect are capable of having a restored moral compass that, as you suggest, was ruined in their fall, but it is restored only by grace thru faith and rebirth not just by their being elect.

Mark Quayle said:

They 'receive' him because God has transformed their will, by the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

I agree with this whole post but I mention this sentence because it supports my contention that because GOD would never interfere with our free will to be HIS partner (often referred to as a Stepford wife situation or a rape) so this transforming of the will of the elect must be the transformation of their sinful will, their will enslaved to the addictive power of evil thus freeing it to choose freely again and restore it to its pre-election pre-fall faith returned to their saviour, as sheep who after going astray into sin are returned to their saviour whom they left when they rebelled:
1 Peter 2:25 For "you were like sheep going astray," but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

IntriKate said:

Jesus didnt endure excruciating agony and humiliation just for a few. His blood is for everyone and his hand is reached out to everyone, not all want to accept it preferring to mock or scoff through ego or selfishness. No one dies without Gods fingerprints on their life.

Click to expand...

Please consider:
They don't want HIS redemption because they have already sinned the unforgivable sin and been condemned, John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son....condemned already for their unfaith which is the reason they were passed over for election, ie, the promise of salvation, because they had already rejected salvation by Christ.

Unqualified said:

I...think everybody gets a tug at sometimes because the law is written on their hearts.

Click to expand...

And many ignore that tug because they want to stay on the throne of their hearts.

bling said:

Not sure what you are saying here:
Do you believe all saved people at conception are believers in Christ and all others are going to hell?

Click to expand...

Well, except for the small thing that at conception they are not saved yet but are only under the promise of salvation called election.

All elect will be saved.
Only elect will be saved.

They were chosen to be HIS elect by putting their faith in YHWH's claims to be our creator GOD and in the Son as their saviour from any and all future sin. I contend this is the most probable reason for election* and those who rejected HIM as a liar and therefore a false god and put the work of the Son into disrepute can never be brought to redemption because they repudiated it by their sacrosanct free will thus separating themselves from the only thing that can save them, the grace of GOD thru faith, for eternity.

*I reject totally the Calvinist supposition the election must have been UNconditional because salvation from sin is unconditional because unconditional election makes reprobation to hell also unconditional which I can't abide.

bling said:

What does it take to believe in Christ? Saved people could never be weeds at some point in their liives, so are different from birth?

Click to expand...

Yes, different. pre-birth, pre-election.

The word already is telling though easily ignored or explained away:
John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

The belief in Christ must be chosen by a free will decision, uncoerced by absolutely anything while the person is in state of ingenuous innocence and made with full knowledge of the reported natural and legal consequences of choosing either option, ie, to accept YHWH's claims or to reject them.

No sinner can make this choice so HIS grace to sinners cannot be to create faith by HIS grace but only to restore us to our own self chosen faith which we lost when we rebelled against HIS command after our election.

The elect good but sinful seed are NOT repentant weeds.
The elect sheep gone astray into sin are NOT repentant goats.
...because the reprobate are condemned already while the elect ones are never condemned, Jn 3:18.

TedT said:

I agree with this whole post but I mention this sentence because it supports my contention that because GOD would never interfere with our free will to be HIS partner (often referred to as a Stepford wife situation or a rape) so this transforming of the will of the elect must be the transformation of their sinful will, their will enslaved to the addictive power of evil thus freeing it to choose freely again and restore it to its pre-election pre-fall faith returned to their saviour, as sheep who after going astray into sin are returned to their saviour whom they left when they rebelled:
1 Peter 2:25 For "you were like sheep going astray," but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, there is no reason to think there has ever been uncaused choice on the part of ANYONE, except First Cause himself. To me, the notion is self-contradictory.

If what God does, unbidden, in transforming the will, is unjust to the recipient of that transformation, then he was also unjust in making us as we are to begin with, or even to make us at all.

TedT said:

Well, except for the small thing that at conception they are not saved yet but are only under the promise of salvation called election.

All elect will be saved.
Only elect will be saved.

They were chosen to be HIS elect by putting their faith in YHWH's claims to be our creator GOD and in the Son as their saviour from any and all future sin. I contend this is the most probable reason for election* and those who rejected HIM as a liar and therefore a false god and put the work of the Son into disrepute can never be brought to redemption because they repudiated it by their sacrosanct free will thus separating themselves from the only thing that can save them, the grace of GOD thru faith, for eternity.

*I reject totally the Calvinist supposition the election must have been UNconditional because salvation from sin is unconditional because unconditional election makes reprobation to hell also unconditional which I can't abide.

Click to expand...

Can we all be to begin with “under the promise” of salvation, not saved (yet) and later in human time: “…put their faith in YHWH's claims to be our creator GOD and in the Son as their saviour from any and all future sin” or “reject”?

TedT said:

Yes, different. pre-birth, pre-election.

The word already is telling though easily ignored or explained away:
John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

The belief in Christ must be chosen by a free will decision, uncoerced by absolutely anything while the person is in state of ingenuous innocence and made with full knowledge of the reported natural and legal consequences of choosing either option, ie, to accept YHWH's claims or to reject them.

No sinner can make this choice so HIS grace to sinners cannot be to create faith by HIS grace but only to restore us to our own self chosen faith which we lost when we rebelled against HIS command after our election.

The elect good but sinful seed are NOT repentant weeds.
The elect sheep gone astray into sin are NOT repentant goats.
...because the reprobate are condemned already while the elect ones are never condemned, Jn 3:18.

Click to expand...

All I can assume from what you are saying is: “People make a choice prior to being conceived”, so am I right about this?

What kind of “uncoerced by absolutely anything” could possible exist for this future “human”?

If a being truly had “full knowledge of the reported natural and legal consequences of choosing either option” how could they select hell? This is putting a gun to their heads and saying choose heaven or else.

To truly make the choice to humbly accept God’s undeserved Love as pure undeserved charity, there has to be a likely alternative or there is no choice. Hell is not a likely alternative. On earth the person has the autonomous free will mental choice to humbly accept pure undeserved sacrificial charity as pure charity or maintain his/her false pride, be macho willing to accept the punishment he fully deserves, not accept charity and go on in the pursuit of the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.

Because some are listening.

4UallPraise said:

I can make no sense of this interaction. It seems to imply that God will fail, no one would ever choose God willingly unless forced to, so God will just go with the will of the people instead? That has been seen to have happened in the choosing of a king over God “They did not reject you they have rejected Me” but think it fails to realize there are those who have accepted so would that not imply those who not accepted His will in their lives have been left behind in their own sins?

Click to expand...

Hello 4UallPraise, first off, since I see that you are still pretty new around here, WELCOME TO CF

That said, all who enter Heaven will be there because they ~want~ to be there/have chosen to be there (IOW, He will not have to drag someone into Heaven kicking and screaming because they don't want to be there ).

God makes choosing Heaven a reality for us by quickening our hearts/by making us alive (spiritually) .. e.g. Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:3; Ephesians 2:1-5. Protestants AND Catholics believe that this enabling of His is an absolute necessity (or no one could be saved), but there are differences in what we believe about both the scope and the effect of what is referred to as His enabling or prevenient grace.


So, Arminians and Roman Catholics believe that God tries to save everyone, but is successful at saving only a few, while the Reformed believe that while God could choose to save everyone, He chooses to save His elect alone, and that He is 100% successful in His attempt to so (IOW, all of His elect will choose to come to saving faith eventually).

Does that help make sense out of what was being said, or are you even more confused now? If you are (more confused) please let me know and I'll try again. Or if you simply have additional questions, please ask them and I will do my best to answer them for you

God bless you!

--David

St_Worm2 said:

Hello 4UallPraise, first off, since I see that you are still pretty new around here, WELCOME TO CF

That said, all who enter Heaven will be there because they ~want~ to be there/have chosen to be there (IOW, He will not have to drag someone into Heaven kicking and screaming because they don't want to be there ).

God makes choosing Heaven a reality for us by quickening our hearts/by making us alive (spiritually) .. e.g. Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:3; Ephesians 2:1-5. Protestants AND Catholics believe that this enabling of His is an absolute necessity (or no one could be saved), but there are differences in what we believe about both the scope and the effect of what is referred to as His enabling or prevenient grace.

Reformed/Calvinists (the minority of Protestants today) believe/teach that God enables ~some~ to believe, and that ~all~ who are so enabled ("drawn") by Him will (eventually) choose to come to His Son and be saved.

Arminians (the majority of Protestants today and what you, as a Nazarene are) believe/teach that God enables ~all~ to believe, but that only ~some~ will ever choose to do so.

Roman Catholics believe/teach that ~all~ (who are water baptized) are saved in the waters of baptism and enabled to believe/enabled to come to saving faith, but that only ~some~ will choose to come to faith and continue the salvation that was gifted to them in baptism. They also teach that someone can both lose their salvation AND get it back again too (which is a teaching that very few Protestant denominations hold to, particularly the latter teaching).​

So, Arminians and Roman Catholics believe that God tries to save everyone, but is successful at saving only a few, while the Reformed believe that while God could choose to save everyone, He chooses to save His elect alone, and that He is 100% successful in His attempt to so (IOW, all of His elect will choose to come to saving faith eventually).

Does that help make sense out of what was being said, or are you even more confused now? If you are (more confused) please let me know and I'll try again. Or if you simply have additional questions, please ask them and I will do my best to answer them for you

God bless you!

--David

Click to expand...

Many are called but few are chosen. That isn’t speaking of eternity since eternal life is the only gift the Father gives IS eternal life. That’s the problem of the nations but not of the individual for the simple reason that Christ is a personal saviour. There’s no reason to believe that destination refers to anyone but Christ when He accomplished the new covenant. Eternal life is not the problem. His role and your role between now and then doesn’t need anything to prove commitment to holiness beyond the righteous exterior.

I didn’t realize the thread was about competing denominations.