Calvinist Arminian dialog

[OzSpen]

God the Father 'draws' us, and all whom are thus drawn
SHALL be raised-up on the Last Day (John 6:44).

The Greek word for "draw" is even rendered in the NT as "dragged".

So are all who are 'drawn' irresistibly drawn so that they have no ability (given by God) to say, 'yes' or 'no' to salvation? Are all of the 'drawn' deterministically drawn to salvation?

 

[tulipbee]

We are not saved by the will, we are saved by grace.

The reason that there's any believers at all is not due to the fact that some people are just better than others, but because of God's grace and purpose of election.

That's true.

0
​

This is the Christian’s answer when unbelievers ask: "What about all the good people in far off lands who never have had the opportunity to hear the Gospel ? Are they damned ?"

The Reformation reply being: "What 'good people' ? The Bible says there are only bad people (Romans 3:10)."

Same type of response when we get accused of thinking we're better than others because we are Elect. Our reply is, again, Romans 3:10.

The Elect are drawn from the same mass of sinners deserving of Eternal Hell as the reprobate. Only that God for His own purposes -and not because of any merit in us- choose in His mercy to pick us. It's all about God, and zero about us !

 

[tulipbee]

So are all who are 'drawn' irresistibly drawn so that they have no ability (given by God) to say, 'yes' or 'no' to salvation? Are all of the 'drawn' deterministically drawn to salvation?

Don't be deceived. None wants it.

Deception in salvation ("a soteric issue") is a different matter.

Outside divine grace EVERYBODY will be deceived ! Since the corruption of human nature in The Fall, all of us want to be deceived. We prefer lies to the truth.

This because we love sin, and don't want to stop sinning.

So, it ain't like the followers of false prophets are good people who were completely taken in. There are no 'good people' ! These are sinners looking for the most pleasant lie they could find.

Only when God regenerates us do we prefer truth over deception.

 

[Don Maurer]

So are all who are 'drawn' irresistibly drawn so that they have no ability (given by God) to say, 'yes' or 'no' to salvation? Are all of the 'drawn' deterministically drawn to salvation?

OzSpen, I just want to review some of the terms you use.

"so that they have no ability" ---"Ability" is a word that does not always clarify the issues. In Reformed theology we believe man has the ability to believe or not believe, but because of original sin, and sin nature, it is our nature to say no. We thus have the ability to say yes, but because of our rebellion and sin nature we will never use that ability. By nature we will resist, unless God chooses to over come that resistance in drawing us to salvation. As far as our ability to choose evil, Reformed theology is adamant that we absolutely have that ability.

"irresistibly drawn" --- Of course that is one of the letters of TULIP in irresistible grace. While I am in agreement with the doctrines of grace in the TULIP acrostic, this does not mean I think that the particular (excuse pun) language used in TULIP is the best language to describe reformed soteriology. Some Reformed people use term like "effectual calling." This of course means that you who disagree with Reformed theology at best believe in an ineffectual calling that is insufficient to draw people to God's grace. God kind of scatters his grace like chicken feed and then bites his nails and worries through all of history that at least some of the best, spiritually strongest, or most keep people will receive his salvation. That of course is the much weaker view then the preceding grace before salvation is powerful, effectual, and completely sufficient.

"deterministically" -- Certainly Reformed soteriology is deterministic. If salvation were left up to we rebel sinners to determine, no one would ever be saved. A good example might be the apostle Paul. We there no determinism with Paul and his experience at Damascus? Paul resisted so much Christ said "it is hard to kick against the goads." Paul had nothing but resistance to the Gospel in his soul. God saved him not because of his cooperation with God's grace, but in spite of his resistance to God's grace. With Paul, was God's grace resistible and non deterministic? Or was it a powerful grace that even Paul was unable to resist. I thank God his grace is deterministic. If I determined it in my own rebellious nature. I would not have been saved.

The terms you use, lead me to believe that you do not have a deep understanding of what is being said by we on the other side of the opinion.

One more comment.... I did not stay with John 6:44 in this comment. It might have been better to do that. The text is really air tight. You can dislike the conclusions that John 6:44 might lead to. In fact, it is not really a nice thing to believe that we are so sinful and rebellious against God that a effectual grace is required to save us. It is not a nice thought. It is hard to believe. But let us stay focused upon the text... what does it say? Then we believe the results of the text no matter how tough it is to believe.

 

[Hentenza]

So are all who are 'drawn' irresistibly drawn so that they have no ability (given by God) to say, 'yes' or 'no' to salvation?

Irresistibly? Absolutely. When God called me back into His fold after several years of being an agnostic, I fought God's will until I could not fight any longer and here I am. I was happy being an agnostic and had no desire to repent of my sin and start "wasting" my Sunday mornings again. Resistance is futile.

Are all of the 'drawn' deterministically drawn to salvation?

Deterministically? No. Salvation is a gift of God.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

Rom 11:19-24 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

Any of you may respond that desire too, tell me this from this passage, why does v19-20 say that it was because of unbelief these Jews were broken off but if they do not continue in unbelief they will be grafted back in? Sure does sound to me like it wasn't that they did not get the call to salvation, but they refused to believe God and therefore it was their own unbelief that kept them in the stated of rebellion. The Calvinist always keeps saying that man cannot respond on his own when most will and do agree with this principle. But it is God who seeks out the sinner and that is the purpose for which Jesus came into the world, to save sinners by grace through faith. No one is ever said to be a child of God before they receive Jesus by faith, John 1:12. He does not come for His sheep, He comes to call sinners to repentance to become His sheep.

 

[OzSpen]

Don,

I'd like to draw your attention to a term you use that has a limited meaning, in your understanding. You wrote:

In Reformed theology we believe man has the ability to believe or not believe, but because of original sin, and sin nature, it is our nature to say no. We thus have the ability to say yes, but because of our rebellion and sin nature we will never use that ability'.

I am a Reformed Arminian in biblical understanding and my theology is part of 'Reformed theology', but it is not part of your limited definition. Would you please be accurate in your use of the term, 'Reformed', as to his dying day, James Arminius was Reformed? My theology is 'Reformed theology' but it is not identical with yours.

You wrote:

you who disagree with Reformed theology at best believe in an ineffectual calling that is insufficient to draw people to God's grace

I find the language of 'effectual calling' to be a camouflage for 'irresistible grace'.
I do not disagree with Reformed theology. I disagree with your limited definition of Reformed theology.

You wrote:

Certainly Reformed soteriology is deterministic

All of Reformed soteriology is not deterministic. I, in my understanding of Reformed Arminian theology, do not support deterministic soteriology.

Now you dare to say,

The terms you use, lead me to believe that you do not have a deep understanding of what is being said by we on the other side of the opinion.

I do have a deep understanding of your view of Reformed theology, but I disagree with it at many points as my Reformed theology follows that of Reformation Arminianism. This is not the place to take that up.

I know from Scripture that salvation is not deterministic, whether in OT or NT,

Joshua 24:14-15 , “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

AND

Acts 16:31, ‘And they said, “[You] Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

AND

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12).

There's no determinism here but God's giving people the ability to choose this day whom they will serve - the foreign gods or God Himself. It is they who believe, they who make a human response. It is they are receive him and believe. This is a far cry from determinism through irresistible grace.


Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Rom 11:19-24 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

Any of you may respond that desire too, tell me this from this passage, why does v19-20 say that it was because of unbelief these Jews were broken off but if they do not continue in unbelief they will be grafted back in? Sure does sound to me like it wasn't that they did not get the call to salvation, but they refused to believe God and therefore it was their own unbelief that kept them in the stated of rebellion. The Calvinist always keeps saying that man cannot respond on his own when most will and do agree with this principle. But it is God who seeks out the sinner and that is the purpose for which Jesus came into the world, to save sinners by grace through faith. No one is ever said to be a child of God before they receive Jesus by faith, John 1:12. He does not come for His sheep, He comes to call sinners to repentance to become His sheep.

And I would add Romans 10:17, 'So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ' (ESV).

This sure doesn't sound like a deterministic faith through irresistible grace.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Irresistibly? Absolutely. When God called me back into His fold after several years of being an agnostic, I fought God's will until I could not fight any longer and here I am. I was happy being an agnostic and had no desire to repent of my sin and start "wasting" my Sunday mornings again. Resistance is futile.

Deterministically? No. Salvation is a gift of God.

Existential experience is not a good way of describing your understanding of irresistible grace. Why? Because my experience in coming to Christ and returning to him after years of wandering during my teens, was for me to respond personally to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I was not irresistibly drawn. I chose whether to say 'yes' or 'no' to God's wooing. I've been blessed for around 50 years that I chose to respond to Christ's offer of salvation.

My understanding of deterministic in your theology makes it harmonious with irresistible grace (effectual call), unconditional election and limited atonement (particular redemption).

Oz

 

[Hentenza]

Existential experience is not a good way of describing your understanding of irresistible grace. Why? Because my experience in coming to Christ and returning to him after years of wandering during my teens, was for me to respond personally to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I was not irresistibly drawn. I chose whether to say 'yes' or 'no' to God's wooing. I've been blessed for around 50 years that I chose to respond to Christ's offer of salvation.

My understanding of deterministic in your theology makes it harmonious with irresistible grace (effectual call), unconditional election and limited atonement (particular redemption).

Oz

lol So you chose God? Did God know that you were going to choose Him?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Irresistibly? Absolutely. When God called me back into His fold after several years of being an agnostic, I fought God's will until I could not fight any longer and here I am. I was happy being an agnostic and had no desire to repent of my sin and start "wasting" my Sunday mornings again. Resistance is futile.

Deterministically? No. Salvation is a gift of God.

You got that right. And same background with me.

 

[OzSpen]

lol So you chose God? Did God know that you were going to choose Him?

I'm on God's side:

And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15).

 

[Hentenza]

I'm on God's side:

You did not answer my questions.

 

[tulipbee]

lol So you chose God? Did God know that you were going to choose Him?

Did God know that you were going to choose Him?

 

[Hentenza]

Did God know that you were going to choose Him?

Yes, since before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4).

 

[tulipbee]

Yes, since before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4).

And if you didn't choose Him, he would know that as well, right?

 

[Hentenza]

And if you didn't choose Him, he would know that as well, right?

Yep.

 

[tulipbee]

Yep.

Why did God have to wait on how a person chooses before he predestined the person?

 

[Hentenza]

Why did God have to wait on how a person chooses before he predestined the person?

Who said God had to predestine the person? They either chose Him or not since before the foundation of the world. God knows, and has always known, ALL free actions so He has always known whether a person would choose Him or not. At no point did God have to "wait" for a person's answer because God is not contingent on anything.

 

[Skala]

So are all who are 'drawn' irresistibly drawn so that they have no ability (given by God) to say, 'yes' or 'no' to salvation? Are all of the 'drawn' deterministically drawn to salvation?

False dilemma and strawman.

Being drawn results in the person willingly saying "yes" to salvation.

It does not remove their "ability to say 'yes' to salvation", as you erroneously questioned.