• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Is Salvation a choice? If it is, whose choice is it ?

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
15,006
6,660
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,067,741.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
That is not true. When presented with the gospel truth people can decide they no longer want to be slaves to sin. But, people can resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). God reached out all day long with the gospel to the Israelite people (Romans 10:21) and most of them rejected it. But, you expect me to believe that He did not sincerely want all of them to believe the gospel. Nonsense.
I have not said we can't resist the Spirit, nor even that our resisting the Spirit is useless. What I have said is that before being born again, we are corrupt at the core, and what we do, we do at enmity to God (Eph 2). If a person is able to truly repent, it is because God has re-born them by the Spirit of God.

Irresistible Grace refers to that work of God in re-birthing us. It is not that we can't resist the Spirit, but that the Spirit does as it will with us, (John 3), in indwelling us, changing us from death to life. It is not a reference to subsequent moral choices.
 
Upvote 0

throughfierytrial

Truth-Lover
Site Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
3,069
879
Leesburg
✟717,657.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Any thoughts ?
God's choice...

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
15,006
6,660
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,067,741.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Mark Quayle said:
I'm having a hard time following you. Where did I say it has nothing to do with obedience? Have I not said that if we do not live in obedience we do not belong to Christ? What is NO HOLINESS —what does that even mean? Do I not believe in Sanctification subsequent to Justification? (And, for whatever it is worth, experientially, I find I MUST pursue holiness. God does not let me abandon it altogether. I cannot—not for long, anyway. It feels like dying.)
Maybe you could just clarify a few things for me. In my understanding you believe something along these lines:

*A person is regenerated and saved totally without regard to their choice in the matter
*A regenerated/saved/justified person could never compromise and forfeit that status or position
Not sure what you mean there by compromise, but yes, the regenerated will not even one be lost (John 6:39 "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.") This is why I say what God set out to do he will complete, and that, not because it is automatic but because it is sure.

*A regenerated person can and will do whatever is required of them in order to enter heaven
No. That has already been done in them. It is sure, and entirely by grace.
*Personal holiness has nothing to do with our salvation, whether prior to or after justification, but those regenerated must be and will be made holy/sanctified with our Spirit/grace-driven and inspired cooperative efforts, nonetheless
No. Salvation (regeneration) necessarily produces obedience. And I don't believe in "cooperative efforts", as that implies we can do something for God that God is not doing. We do not exist apart from God, so what good we do, God is doing in/through us. This is partly what it means to be "in Christ".
*This holiness/sinlessness will not be perfect in this life but there must be some level of sanctification (sort of a grey area?) without which one could not be a true child of God to begin with
That's for God to judge, though he does say if we do not, he has no part of us. But I would not characterize that as 'some level' or 'some degree' of sanctification. The sanctification is what God is doing, by use of our obedience. It is not our job to build our own sanctification, but to live according to what he tells us.
*No one can know with perfect certainty in this life whether or not they or anyone else are among the regenerate
Lol, I suppose that's a valid enough way to put it, though I wouldn't. It is not a question of whether a person is regenerated, but whether they are in Christ. It isn't my job to accomplish either one, but that fellowship with Christ is the proof of it—the Spirit himself witnessing to my spirit that I am a child of God, and the satisfaction from every little obedience, and the grief from disobedience. When I go off on my own, I am saying that I am forfeiting that assurance, not that I have forfeited my security. My security is simple—God will complete what he has begun. IF I am in Christ, by the Spirit's "Sealing", I will be there. 2 Corinthians 1: "21Now it is God who establishes both us and you in Christ. He anointed us, 22 placed His seal on us, and put His Spirit in our hearts as a pledge of what is to come."

Mark Quayle said:
What has the RV Fridge drawing attachment to do with this?
Now, that's a question that, believe it or not, I do not have an answer for. It's one of those great mysteries that will be answered only in eternity as far as I can tell, something like the question regarding names of the elect. But...if you happen to need any help with RV electrical systems, well, as of yesterday I'm your huckleberry as they used to say. I was able to solve a major appliance issue despite not finding any applicable diagrams at the end of day. Wasn't a fridge tho, so the mystery deepens...
Ha! Well done. That doesn't look like an RV furnace drawing, lacking an external thermostat, which is why I think it is a 2-way fridge
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
15,006
6,660
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,067,741.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Yes, everyone must choose who they want to serve, as Joshua said (Joshua 24:14-15). Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does scripture say that some people are unable to choose to repent and believe and to serve the Lord.
What it does say, plain as day, is that those who have not the mind of the Spirit are at enmity with God, unwilling and unable to submit to God's law, and unable to please God. (Romans 8)

But, of course we much choose whom we will serve. Where have I said otherwise?
 
  • Like
Reactions: David Lamb
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
15,006
6,660
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,067,741.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
It's not heretical at all. Almost everything you say is just utterly ridiculous. You're very consistent like that. If God humbles him then God humbled him and he didn't humble himself. You have no understanding of logic and reason WHATSOEVER. You fail Logic 101 with a 0% score.
If a man humbles himself, is it not God working in him that enables him to do it?
("For it is God who works in you both to will and to do according to his good purposes." Philippians 2:13
("For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out." Romans 7:18
("...apart from me, you can do nothing." John 15:5)
 
  • Like
Reactions: David Lamb
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
15,006
6,660
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,067,741.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
It's a cooperative effort, with Him leading, us following, or not. A process, a journey.
Agreed, but for the definitions and limitations implied. For example, it is not only by our willingness that we follow, but that even that willingness is God's doing. (For it God who works in you both the will and to do according to his purposes. Phil 2:13)
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
15,006
6,660
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,067,741.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Mark Quayle said:
Can you show how those do not work out to being one and the same thing? You want God to oversee something that he set in motion, without him being specific as to what happens. But, if he set it into motion OMNISCIENTLY, he intended every detail.

Furthermore, good reasoning shows that everything (but the first causer) results from cause, and there can be only one first causer. Nothing spontaneously springs into being.

I cannot explain how God created the universe, no one can. Can you prove everything is predetermined? If it is that obvious, can you at least show one human act is predetermined? (I mean outside the Biblical account. We all know Jesus' death was decreed).
By, "outside the Biblical Account", I can show that EVERYTHING (except first cause) is predetermined. But you want just one thing; I'm pretty sure you aren't mean enough to think, "Now I've got him!", when you know that I don't have an accounting of every one of the billions of cause-effect links in the chain of any one thing's causation. All I have, extra-biblically, that is, is the simple logic of causation, and the illogic of true spontaneity on the part of the creature.

If, let's say, I choose to use a curse word, my conscience condemning my doing it, there are many things that led up to my choosing, my anger, my frustrations, the very word I chose, and my preferences for what I chose to say in that particular circumstance. I don't think you can show me how it is possible for me to do anything uncaused to do it.
I can't show you how free libertarian will works mathematically. But driving from reasoning, it's the best explanation or I would even say the only possible way it can be, since the alternative: God being the author of sin and we without responsibility is Biblically impossible.
While there is rightfully a revulsion against the idea that God would cause sinful things to come about, the Bible doesn't use the word, "author", in the discourses where it mentions him causing that these things happen. But you are right that him causing that there be sin does not leave anyone without responsibility in the matter. We really do choose it. So, the last sentence above is not the only alternative.
Also, the burden isn't only on me to explain free libertarian will. It's also on determinism to explain how God ordains every sinful act without becoming its author.
I thought I did, above: Furthermore, good reasoning shows that everything (but the first causer) results from cause, and there can be only one first causer. Nothing spontaneously springs into being.

There's a lot of variance of meaning within the notion of God being the author of sin. The Bible doesn't use the phrase, but does show how far sin is from God's ways. I think the confusion comes with our short-sighted assessing reality to this temporal frame we are in, as if God himself is also in it with us. We know God cannot sin, by definition of sin, which is always against God. But the notion that coming up with sin is purely spontaneous on our part, (or on the devil's part), runs into the same problem with claiming free will can be entirely spontaneous. It makes us small first causers, which is a logical impossibility, since there can be only one first causer. And, as that video mentioned, there are other lines of reasoning showing it is logically vapid. We are creatures, "creative" though we are, we are not first causers.

But if God can decree even the one thing you mentioned —the murdering of his Son— which is sin, then he can cause that there be sin, since he did so there. If he had not caused that to happen, it could not have happened, since, as he shows, it did not come about spontaneously.

God uses means. We sin, and he uses us that way for his purposes as well as using our obedience. His purposes are determined from the beginning, so his decree that there be sin(s) is proven.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
15,006
6,660
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,067,741.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
God wants to have mercy on all people, but your doctrine has no explanation for why He doesn't have mercy on all people.
Well, yes, it does. I could go general with, "His own reasons, His own purposes", as though he left me completely ignorant, and it would be good enough. But he tells us quite a bit, about both the end result and the means of our journey to get there.

He tells us in Romans 9:22, 23 that, among other things, the reprobation of the non-elect (the non-mercy) shows the riches of his glory to the objects of his mercy. There's a good enough reason in itself. There's also the logic —I will use an analogy—of growing the right trees, cutting the lumber, shaping the right pieces for the perfectly made building. This is no haphazard construction of random pieces. There is no need for all of the supposedly "possible" pieces. The Bride of Christ will be perfect in every way. No warts, no extra limbs.
Romans 11:30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
I can only guess at your reason for posting that, since you haven't explained. You think it shows that God does have mercy on them all?
As the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector shows, God has mercy on those who humble themselves before Him and acknowledge that they are sinners in need of His mercy and forgiveness (Luke 18:9-14). That is what He wants all people to do. He does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked and He does not want the wicked to die before repenting, but your doctrine says He is pleased to allow the wicked or non-elect to die without having any ability or opportunity to repent.
And, again, how do you think anyone can humble themselves, who are otherwise at enmity with God and at the core in rebellion to him who made them, if God does not change their nature? Romans 8, again. The sinful nature does not please God.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
15,006
6,660
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,067,741.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
It clearly implies that we have responsibility in salvation. Of course, Jesus did all the work, but we have to decide how to respond to what He did. Salvation is presented in scripture as something that is offered to people (Matthew 22:1-13, Titus 2:11). Faith is not something that can be forced upon someone. In your doctrine Jesus kicks down the door of our hearts and lets Himself in. In scripture, He is described as knocking on the door of our hearts while making us responsible to open the door.

Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.
Look at the context of Revelation 3:20. He is talking to Christians, not to unbelievers. This is not about salvation, but about fellowship. That we do open our hearts I don't deny. In fact I insist on it. But that does not CAUSE our salvation, but is only in keeping with it.

I agree that we do have responsibility concerning our salvation, but not in causing it.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,233
4,296
✟432,008.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Agreed, but for the definitions and limitations implied. For example, it is not only by our willingness that we follow, but that even that willingness is God's doing. (For it God who works in you both the will and to do according to his purposes. Phil 2:13)
Yes, and I’ve quoted that as well; we cannot will rightly unless God enables or empowers us to do so. But we believe even that can be thwarted, denied-that's the central difference between our views in this discussion. Not because God’s unable, of course, but because He wants to limit His influence. That very self-limiting of His, in fact, is exactly what man’s moral freedom consists of. That's why sin is possible at all. We have to keep in mind that God opposes sin, but wants our freedom even if it means sin for a time, until all is finally consummated and He'll no longer allow good and evil to coexist. In fact, this grand enterprise known as "creation" is all about a question: What will man do with the freedom, and the grace, he's been given? We all have sufficient reason and ability to turn to God now; what will we do with what we've been given? The Parable of the Talents/Bags of Gold offers an excellent treatment of that question.

Freedom used rightly, instead of freedom abused, is what God wants to draw from man, to lead man into.

BTW, what does regeneration consist of, from your perspective, how would it be defined or described? I believe you said it has nothing to do with causing man to will and choose rightly or to be obedient, and you’ve acknowledged that the regenerate will still continue to sin. So what, exactly, is the change in him? Or is it a forensic, declared change in status only?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,233
2,976
MI
✟516,981.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have not said we can't resist the Spirit, nor even that our resisting the Spirit is useless. What I have said is that before being born again, we are corrupt at the core, and what we do, we do at enmity to God (Eph 2).
Calvinists only ever tell part of the story and don't look at the whole story. Paul said that no one has any excuse for being at enmity with God (Romans 1:18-21). Calvinists brush that under the rug or try to explain that away by saying that man can't help but be at enmity with God. That is simply false. Otherwise, why did God reach out to the Israelites all day long to get them to believe the gospel (Romans 10:21)? He was reaching out to them to believe despite them supposedly being unable to do so?

If a person is able to truly repent, it is because God has re-born them by the Spirit of God.
Nowhere does scripture teach this.

Think about Lydia, for example. Calvinists like you try to use that as an example to support their doctrine, but, in fact, it refutes it. Lydia was already a worshiper of God before Paul and his companions came to preach the gospel to her. In Calvinism, God has to regenerate the hardened heart of a person in order for them to repent and believe, but Lydia was already repentant and already a true believer in God before that. When it talks about God opening her heart to understand and respond to the gospel, that's not talking about her darkened, hardened heart being regenerated. She didn't have a hardened heart. Sometimes, those who are open to the truth need some help to understand it and that's all that was happening there. Similar to how Jesus sometimes revealed the truth that He was teaching to His disciples and opened their understanding of it. He didn't have to regenerate their hearts in order to do that.

Irresistible Grace refers to that work of God in re-birthing us.
It's never taught anywhere in scripture. Instead, scripture teaches that God graciously offers salvation to people and people can choose to either accept or reject His offer. Those who reject it resist His grace just like the unbelieving Jews that Stephen preached to resisted the Holy Spirit.

It is not that we can't resist the Spirit, but that the Spirit does as it will with us, (John 3), in indwelling us, changing us from death to life. It is not a reference to subsequent moral choices.
If you acknowledge that people can resist the Spirit, why do you at the same time try to claim that the Spirit acts on His own to regenerate man without requiring man's cooperation at all?

In Calvinism, Jesus forcefully opens the door of our hearts and lets Himself in. In reality, He knocks on the door of people's hearts and asks them to open the door and let Him in.

Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,233
2,976
MI
✟516,981.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Look at the context of Revelation 3:20. He is talking to Christians, not to unbelievers.
No. You are mistaken. You are not looking at the context of the verse. He is talking to people in the church of the Laodiceans who were lost and needed to repent. Not everyone who were part of the churches written to in the book of Revelation were true Christians. Some thought they were, but were not.

Look at the context.

Revelation 3:14 “And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: 15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

Look at how He describes them. As being in a state where they "Have need of nothing", including Jesus Himself, while being "wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked". You think that describes Christians? Please be serious. Read Matthew 23 and you'll see He described these people much like He described the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees of His day. They thought much more highly of themselves than they ought and were not aware of their lost condition and need to repent. Christians are those who have humbled themselves and acknowledged their sins and submit themselves to Jesus and rely on Him for their needs. These people thought they didn't need anything, including Jesus. That's not the mark of a true Christian.

You are simply not reading this text carefully at all. And what did He say He would do if they did not repent? He said figuratively that He would vomit them out of His mouth. You think that describes Christians? You have to be kidding me. Give me any example of any other scripture where Jesus talked to true Christians like this. Good luck. Peter denied Him three times and He still didn't speak to Peter like this.

In Revelation 3:14-18 Jesus is talking specifically to and about the Laodiceans who needed to repent and then in verses 19 to 21 He made statements that apply to everyone. So, in Revelation 3:20 He is saying to everyone: "If anyone hears my voice and opens the door...". That is an open invitation to everyone which says that anyone who accepts the offer and opens the door will then be letting Jesus in to "dine with him, and he with Me". This lines up with other scripture which presents salvation as something God graciously offers to everyone (Matthew 22:1-14, Titus 2:11).

This is not about salvation, but about fellowship.
Absolutely false. Look at what Jesus said would happen if they didn't repent. How can you think they could be described as being vomited out of His mouth, but still be saved? That's ridiculous.

That we do open our hearts I don't deny. In fact I insist on it. But that does not CAUSE our salvation, but is only in keeping with it.
What does this even mean?

I agree that we do have responsibility concerning our salvation, but not in causing it.
What does this mean? How can we truly have any responsibility in salvation, as it relates to our own volition, if nothing we do contributes to salvation actually taking place?

Think of it this way. If a person is struggling in the water and trying to swim to shore against a strong current and then a lifeguard comes out to offer to help the person get to shore safely and the person humbly accepts the lifeguard's offer instead of saying no, they can do it themselves, and he then pulls the person to safety, this means the person had responsibility to accept the lifeguard's offer by taking his hand or grabbing on to the life preserver in order to be taken safely to shore, right? So, doesn't that mean that, even though it was the lifeguard who saved them, they still played a part in causing their safe arrival to the shore to occur? Not that they would deserve credit for it, but they played a part in it, right? And it wouldn't have happened without them accepting the lifeguard's offer, right? This is how I understand how salvation works.

You add unnecessary confusion to the whole process by saying we have responsibility concerning our salvation, but not in causing it. For one thing, that's kind of a vague thing to say, but it comes across as contradictory.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,233
2,976
MI
✟516,981.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, yes, it does. I could go general with, "His own reasons, His own purposes", as though he left me completely ignorant, and it would be good enough.
Yes, you could do that if that is what scripture indicated, but scripture does not leave us in the dark about this.

But he tells us quite a bit, about both the end result and the means of our journey to get there.
Exactly. And I believe that Calvinists miss quite a bit of what He tells us, too.

He tells us in Romans 9:22, 23 that, among other things, the reprobation of the non-elect (the non-mercy) shows the riches of his glory to the objects of his mercy. There's a good enough reason in itself.
Hold on a minute here. It's amazing how Calvinists make things convoluted at times but other times oversimplify things when it suits them.

This is not as cut and dried as you're making it out to be. Why did you cut if off at verse 23? You have to keep reading to see the context of the verses.

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.” 26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

Remember, Pharaoh was previously given as one of those "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction". It's silly to act as if his situation reflects the situation of all unbelievers as if in every case of unbelievers, God wills them to be that way "to make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy". No, that's not what Paul was saying at all. In the case of Pharaoh, who already hardened his own heart well before God ever did, God used Him "that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth" (Romans 9:18). God has the right to do that with someone if He wants to and no one can question it, as Paul indicated. It's not as if Pharaoh never had any opportunity to repent, but God decided He had enough of him and decided to make an example out of him in order to "show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth". Yes, God can do that if He wants. Who are we to question that?

So, what is Paul talking about in Romans 9:22-26 then? He's talking specifically about the Jewish unbelievers as being "the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (as occurred later in 70 AD), in order to make known the riches of His glory to the Gentiles. That's the context of this passage. You have it completely wrong. It's about God bringing salvation to the Gentiles. The Jews thought they were His chosen people and no one else, but Paul showed that God also calls Gentiles to salvation and not just Jews. Many Jews balked at that, but Paul indicates that there is no basis for questioning God about these things that He has done. This has nothing to do with God choosing some to salvation while purposely not giving the rest any ability and opportunity to be saved.

I can only guess at your reason for posting that, since you haven't explained. You think it shows that God does have mercy on them all?
No, I'm saying He wants to have mercy on all people. But, He only has mercy on those who humble themselves before Him, as Jesus indicated in Luke 18:9-14. God doesn't force anyone to be humble, He requires them to humble themselves.

And, again, how do you think anyone can humble themselves, who are otherwise at enmity with God and at the core in rebellion to him who made them, if God does not change their nature?
You don't understand the nature of human beings. Scripture does not teach that people are totally depraved with total inability as you imagine. Human beings are not robots who can't reason. Paul said that people have no excuse for being at enmity with God (Romans 1:18-21). Why do you draw conclusions from Romans 8 while ignoring Romans 1 and ignoring Romans 10:21 which says that God reaches out all day long to unbelievers? That's not how to interpret scripture. Human beings have a God given conscience to know right from wrong and a God given ability to reason through things. That's why Paul spent multiple days reasoning with the Jews in the synagogues to try to persaude them to believe the gospel (Acts 17:1-4, Acts 18:1-4). Scripture does not teach that people need to be regenerated in order to believe, it teaches that God reveals Himself to them by what He has made and also it says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God/Christ (the gospel - Romans 10:17). Hearing the gospel is not regeneration. As Paul indicated in Romans 10:14-21, not everyone who hears it believes it. Faith comes by hearing and accepting the gospel, not by regeneration.

Romans 8, again. The sinful nature does not please God.
Romans 1, again. The sinful nature is not an excuse to not please God by glorifying Him and being thankful to Him. Paul made that clear in Romans 1:18-21. You cannot come to the truth by cherry picking certain scriptures and taking them out of context. Your doctrine needs to be based on all of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,233
2,976
MI
✟516,981.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What it does say, plain as day, is that those who have not the mind of the Spirit are at enmity with God, unwilling and unable to submit to God's law, and unable to please God. (Romans 8)
Do you really think your cherry picking approach to interpreting scripture is a valid approach? It's not. Paul talks about setting the mind on the flesh there in Romans 8. That is a choice people make to do that or not. Even Christians can have their minds set on the flesh. Do you understand that? So, is he saying that unbelievers have no choice but to set their minds on the flesh and be at enmity with God? Of course not! Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting what He said in Romans 1:18-21 where he indicated that no one has any excuse for being at enmity with God instead of glorifying Him as God and being thankful to Him. Are you not willing to hold to a doctrine that reconciles Romans 1 and 8 and all scripture together? You'd rather just draw conclusions from Romans 8 that contradict Romans 1? I'm not willing to do that.

But, of course we much choose whom we will serve. Where have I said otherwise?
Please be more intellectually honest in these discussions. I find it hard to believe that you don't really know what I'm talking about here. In your doctrine, people are born totally depraved with total inability and are at enmity with God from birth with no ability to ever choose to be any other way. Right? If you're a typical Calvinist, then this is the case. So, what I'm talking about is each person having the ability to genuinely choose who to serve with the Lord being a viable choice for everyone or they can choose the devil or other gods as being another viable choice (not a good choice, but a viable choice they can make).

In your doctrine, everyone is at enmity with God from birth without having any choice in the matter. Right? And you believe that they cannot serve the Lord unless He regenerates them and causes them to want to serve Him, right? So, it is God's choice of who believers serve in that case, not theirs. So, what choice do you think that people actually have in who they will serve? In the case of believers, you believe God chooses for them that they want to serve the Lord and in the case of unbelievers, you believe they are born wanting to serve the devil or other gods without having any choice in the matter.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
9,233
2,976
MI
✟516,981.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
By, "outside the Biblical Account", I can show that EVERYTHING (except first cause) is predetermined.
This is crazy talk. This means that you believe God predetermines for people to do things that make Him angry and that makes Him want to take out His wrath on people and destroy them and, ultimately, to cast them into a place of eternal torment. You can't be serious. A God who purposely makes Himself angry? That's total nonsense. No, He gets angry at people and punishes them after they use their God given free will to choose to do things that He does not want them to do.

Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? 2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. 3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. 4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. 5 Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed. 6 A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the Lord that rendereth recompence to his enemies.

In your doctrine, you believe that God predetermined these people to "have chosen their own ways" and to "delighteth in their abominations" and to do "evil before mine eyes" and to have "chose that in which I delighted not" and that they would not answer when God called them. Think about that. It's ludicrous. If that is what God predetermined for them to do, then why would He want to "choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them" and to bring them to shame while bringing vengeance and judgment upon them? You think God punishes people for doing what He predetermined for them to do? That's complete nonsense. Why would He do that? He does not.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,233
4,296
✟432,008.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Calvinists only ever tell part of the story and don't look at the whole story. Paul said that no one has any excuse for being at enmity with God (Romans 1:18-21). Calvinists brush that under the rug or try to explain that away by saying that man can't help but be at enmity with God. That is simply false. Otherwise, why did God reach out to the Israelites all day long to get them to believe the gospel (Romans 10:21)? He was reaching out to them to believe despite them supposedly being unable to do so?
Yes, this idea that fallen man is corrupt at/to the core isn't sound understanding. It would mean that man is as bad/evil as he could possibly be, no redeeming qualties or spark of God's image left in him at all, nothing for God to appeal to which is not the case and not consistent with Scripture taken as a whole. The problem with fallen man is that he has no way, no means to reach up and find God, and bring Him down to himself. That requires grace, God's action.

Man is lost, far from his true home; he can never cause or experience reconciliation with God on his own to put it another way, even if he senses something's wrong, something's missing in this world; God must initiate that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,692
2,715
✟1,168,594.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
#103
It's true it does not literally say "everyone might be saved", but it's saying "whoever" which is the same meaning as "everyone might" in the world. Meaningly it's an actual possibilty for everyone.

Do you agree the world means both the elect and none elect?

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

John 3:17

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
John 12:47


Not sure what you're asking me to look at. Are you asking me to give my view on these verses, and comment on your comments, or the Reformed/Calvinist views or what?​

A. Take a look at John 3:16 interlinear. What here is translated in verse 16, "whoever", or in the KJV, "whosoever", is, in the Greek, properly, "all those that". It is not a question left up to chance or any quandary as to whether it is possible for anyone else to believe, (besides those who do).

B. And, again, the term, "so", can go either of two ways. The Greek works like the English: a) "So" means "so much", or, at least, it can imply it by the nature of that love. b) "So" means only, "Thus", or, "In this way". —The interlinear that I see renders it, "Thus", and that is how I read it, no matter how wonderful that love appears to us. We prefer a somewhat less clinical rendering, I understand, but... there it is! Preference is not what drives meaning. John 3:16 Interlinear: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

C. The subjunctive, carefully rendered in most translations, "so that [or, in order that]....might" is not in the Greek offering up alternate possibilities, but demonstrating PURPOSE. He did that, so that this would happen.

D. As for the term, "world", in all three references, I can't speak for the Reformed/Calvinists, but as a bilingual who grew up in a family of linguists, I can tell you that there are many ways to take that.
  • 1. The one you seem to suppose, is indeed a possible meaning, as I see the language here, (apart from the larger context of John 3 and the whole of the counsel of God.)
  • 2. The Bible doesn't always speak in specifics. It may not be literally, "everyone" within the world, but just a general statement of goodwill.
  • 3. It may well be (and this will probably be abhorrent to you, but try to listen anyway) that God considers what he created in light of the end result, to be "THE WORLD", which is to be restored to him at the end, which does not include the reprobate. That is, the present world, that which it takes to bring about the end result, is not THE WORLD that he loves in this way. We do know, after all, that only those who believe in him comprise The People of God in that final completed creation. —THAT "world" may well be what is referred to here, that is being saved out of this present passing creation.
  • 4. Repeatedly, in the Gospels, I hear Jesus making plays on words, and, in fact, throughout the Bible—the Old Testament, particularly—God speaks the same way, even in puns, for effect.
  • 5. That 2-4 will not be satisfying to you, I don't doubt. I only point them out as possible uses. But this (point E.) may be intellectually satisfying to you—

E. John 12:47 contextually is saying that Jesus is not the one who judges. BUT it specifically says that there is one who does judge. As some 'lounge chair theologians' have put it, "Jesus saves us from the Father." Jesus came not for the purpose of judging, but for the purpose of saving. I expect you are familiar with the way the more liberal users of the Gospel love to describe Jesus, as gentle and forgiving and friend-of-sinners, etc etc, and, "Why can't we be more like Jesus?". There is some truth to that. This too may tie into my point #2 above.
My question is about John's use of the word "world" in John 3:16-17 and John 12:47. What contextual evidence is there that "the world" means only the elect or the future redeemed creation? In John's Gospel, "world" normally refers to humanity broadly, including those who reject Christ (see John 3:19 and 12:47). I don't see how appealing to a possible meaning of "world" establishes that John intended that meaning here. There is a good reason to interpret "the world" to include both elect and non elect. We see in John 12:47 that those who do not receive Christ are part of the word "world". So it's reasonable to interpret "world" in John 3:16-17 to also include those who reject Christ.

And again, as the context indicate "the world" refers to both the elect and the non elect. We see, that if that is the case, then God loved even the non elect in such a way that He gave His only begotten Son. What then does that mean? It seems the most natural reading is that God gave His Son for them as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,692
2,715
✟1,168,594.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Mark Quayle said:
Can you show how those do not work out to being one and the same thing? You want God to oversee something that he set in motion, without him being specific as to what happens. But, if he set it into motion OMNISCIENTLY, he intended every detail.

Furthermore, good reasoning shows that everything (but the first causer) results from cause, and there can be only one first causer. Nothing spontaneously springs into being.


By, "outside the Biblical Account", I can show that EVERYTHING (except first cause) is predetermined. But you want just one thing; I'm pretty sure you aren't mean enough to think, "Now I've got him!", when you know that I don't have an accounting of every one of the billions of cause-effect links in the chain of any one thing's causation. All I have, extra-biblically, that is, is the simple logic of causation, and the illogic of true spontaneity on the part of the creature.
The only thing you need to show is that a particular choice was necessitated (not only influenced) by something else before the choice
If, let's say, I choose to use a curse word, my conscience condemning my doing it, there are many things that led up to my choosing, my anger, my frustrations, the very word I chose, and my preferences for what I chose to say in that particular circumstance. I don't think you can show me how it is possible for me to do anything uncaused to do it.

While there is rightfully a revulsion against the idea that God would cause sinful things to come about, the Bible doesn't use the word, "author", in the discourses where it mentions him causing that these things happen. But you are right that him causing that there be sin does not leave anyone without responsibility in the matter. We really do choose it. So, the last sentence above is not the only alternative.

I thought I did, above: Furthermore, good reasoning shows that everything (but the first causer) results from cause, and there can be only one first causer. Nothing spontaneously springs into being.
Sorry! Would you be kind to direct me back to the post where you explain how God can decree every sinful act without being the author of sin?
There's a lot of variance of meaning within the notion of God being the author of sin. The Bible doesn't use the phrase, but does show how far sin is from God's ways. I think the confusion comes with our short-sighted assessing reality to this temporal frame we are in, as if God himself is also in it with us. We know God cannot sin, by definition of sin, which is always against God. But the notion that coming up with sin is purely spontaneous on our part, (or on the devil's part), runs into the same problem with claiming free will can be entirely spontaneous. It makes us small first causers, which is a logical impossibility, since there can be only one first causer. And, as that video mentioned, there are other lines of reasoning showing it is logically vapid. We are creatures, "creative" though we are, we are not first causers.
I'm not saying Sproul didn't make a good argument. I think the argument was fine, but it leads to those unbiblical implications. Sure Calvinists don't agree, but I've never heard a reasonable explanation for how God can control everything, while we are still held responsible. Saying God uses "means" doesn't answer that, because the "means" themselves are determined by God.
But if God can decree even the one thing you mentioned —the murdering of his Son— which is sin, then he can cause that there be sin, since he did so there. If he had not caused that to happen, it could not have happened, since, as he shows, it did not come about spontaneously.
I think there's an important distinction you are overlooking. God decreeing some sinful acts for a specific purpose is not the same as God causing existence of sin.
God uses means. We sin, and he uses us that way for his purposes as well as using our obedience. His purposes are determined from the beginning, so his decree that there be sin(s) is proven.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,233
4,296
✟432,008.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It is not that we can't resist the Spirit, but that the Spirit does as it will with us, (John 3), in indwelling us, changing us from death to life. It is not a reference to subsequent moral choices.
How is that different from not being able to resist the Spirit: He doing as He wills with us and all?.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0