Can we choose Him before He wakes us up?

[Thee Librarian]

Yes, that is a good way to put it. Another that my family is fond of saying is, "We do so, because it is so."

And vise - versa.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

We can choose God once we have heard the Gospel (the power of God unto salvation) and understand there is a choice to be made. One cannot make a choice about which one is ignorant. Being "dead" spiritually does not mean one cannot recognize, in the light of the Gospel, that one is a sinner in need of a Saviour. This is where Calvinists go seriously wrong: They assume that "dead" means not only that a sinner has no spiritual life but that he cannot even recognize that this is so. And this is why Calvinists think salvation must be a monergistic work of God. If the Calvinist is right in this, then a man is saved in order to recognize that he needs to be saved. This is like a person dying of cancer being told of a cure but being unable to respond to their need for the cure until they have first been cured. Does this make a lot of sense to you? It doesn't to me. But this is what prevenient grace amounts to as far as I can see.

The Gospel and the persuading, convicting and illuminating (though, not preveniently regenerating) work of the Spirit are entirely sufficient to enable a sinner to choose the Saviour. This is why Paul writes, "...we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:20) Why would Paul use the word "implore" if God unilaterally regenerates people so that they can recognize that they need to be regenerated? If salvation is entirely a monergistic work of God, what purpose is there in imploring anyone to be saved? Under Calvinism, God will save those who are His whether or not they desire to be saved, so imploring a person to be saved is quite pointless. And yet, Paul, obviously, thought he did need to implore people to be saved. This strongly suggests to me that Paul believed the individual was response-able; they were able to choose to be saved. One does not need to implore a person to do something one knows they will inevitably be made to do - or not do.

www.soteriology101.com

Thanks for sharing. I thought prevenient grace was an Armenian concept that differs from the irresistible grace concept of Calvinists. I think of prevenient grace as in grace that we need in order to even have the opportunity to come to Him eternally. The most obvious necessary grace was Jesus' paying the price. The second prevenient grace to me is God drawing us in a way that we can legitimately make choice. He isn't forcing us, He is drawing us. It can be resisted, but if He didn't draw us, we wouldn't come.

I agree with you that we will all be response-able. God didn't set out to condemn anyone. He chose to let us choose.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Correct.

It happens all the time. Usually yes, but there is no guarantee. Anecdotal evidence says that each time a person resists, the next time is a weaker drawing. Eventually it fades away totally.

Pray and ask God to draw them again. And if/when that happens, DON'T RESIST!!!

So, Dave, do you not believe that all can choose Him? If theoretically someone understands the Gospel and wants to pray wouldn't that be because God drew them, in the first place?

 

[aiki]

Thanks for sharing. I thought prevenient grace was an Armenian concept that differs from the irresistible grace concept of Calvinists. I think of prevenient grace as in grace that we need in order to even have the opportunity to come to Him eternally. The most obvious necessary grace was Jesus' paying the price. The second prevenient grace to me is God drawing us in a way that we can legitimately make choice. He isn't forcing us, He is drawing us. It can be resisted, but if He didn't draw us, we wouldn't come.

There is a distinction between the grace God affords the lost so they might be saved in the Armenian systematic and the compelled regeneration of the lost in the Calvinist perspective. I appreciate your making this important distinction.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

There is a distinction between the grace God affords the lost so they might be saved in the Armenian systematic and the compelled regeneration of the lost in the Calvinist perspective. I appreciate your making this important distinction.

To be honest, I don't know that I effectively can represent either, since I am neither. But, I think of prevenient grace (whether I use it correctly or not from an Armenian theological perspective) as grace that God provides everyone and without it, we would never choose Him. I don't believe prevenient grace is limited to a predestined elect nor do I believe it is irresistible. The reason I don't is that God wants to be chosen. He woke me up, but I still have the opportunity to walk away, if I would ever want to. I can't imagine a scenario where I would want to, because my Creator, Lord and God allowed me to know Him and that just blows me away! But, I could. He says that very thing in Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:26-30, and Hebrews 11:15-16 and so many other places in Scripture.

 

[Dave-W]

So, Dave, do you not believe that all can choose Him? If theoretically someone understands the Gospel and wants to pray wouldn't that be because God drew them, in the first place?

You can choose only when being drawn.

 

[dms1972]

@Dave-W

When you talk about being drawn by God the Father: is this the same as what Calvinists would refer to as "effectual calling"?

If on the Arminian understanding it is ultimately a person's response to that drawing that decides their salvation, then God can't be sure of any being saved. He leaves it finally up to man whether they will accept His offer? Then is salvation ultimately in man's hands? But Jesus says "all that the Father gives to me will come to me." John 6:37. That sounds like God has made sure some will definitely be saved. For instance is He going to send his beloved Son into the world, to be crucified for mankind's redemption and yet leave it finally up to men whether any accept it?

Is it not true that the Arminian says the reason he was saved was because he chose to believe the Gospel? Yet does that not leave the whole matter very uncertain as to whether anyone will be saved?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

You can choose only when being drawn.

Do you believe all are drawn, based on Jesus saying that "when I am raised up, I will draw all men to myself"?

 

[Dave-W]

Do you believe all are drawn, based on Jesus saying that "when I am raised up, I will draw all men to myself"?

Yes

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, God is centrally and fundamentally positioned in the process of any person coming to salvation. About this the Bible is very clear.



Certainly, God must work to persuade a sinner of the truths of the Gospel. But I don't for a moment believe God compels a person to be saved or that He first saves them so that they can recognize they need to be saved.



Yes.

I am not an Arminian, by the way.



I could agree to this depending upon what you mean by "does a work on them." For a Calvinist, this means God unilaterally compels a person to salvation. For me, it means that God persuades a person to salvation by way of the preaching of the Gospel (the power of God unto salvation), divine conviction, and illumination. If this is what you mean, then we are in agreement.



Did I say that it did? Nope.

It is a shame, in a way, that God's thoughts are not man's. I love how he can fit eternity into a word, yet we are unable to see by that word what he has done.

I think we are unable to simply convey or understand what God means by "compel". How he does what he does, I don't know. But the love of Christ compels us anyway. People argue against "forces us" and "double predestination" as though there was a way to divide the concepts there. There is a lot we cannot understand, because he is not like us. He is not subject to the laws to which we are bound.

If my logic is valid, I have to say he does whatever he pleases, and only what he pleases may happen. I have to also say that our choices are ALWAYS subject to his sovereignty. As such, our behaving as though we are truly independent agents is a bit much. A dog may behave according to his desires and instincts, but can be trained. When a trained dog misbehaves, he is corrected again. His decisions thereafter --are they by chance, by character, or by coercion? Does it matter? He is totally into his decision, this we know. He is an earnest participant in whatever he does.

One thing I have noticed, that is almost universal even among believers, is the outrageous (to my assessment, anyway) fact that thought they easily admit to their decisions being influenced from all sides by circumstances, upbringing, genetics, desires, habits etc, somehow they pretend outrage that God would influence them in any way, as though that relegates their decisions to robotic programming. I think this is significant, for several reasons --one, because it shows we recognize that God is unlike anything else, but two, because to our thinking, God is not allowed to do a small thing; even his small influences upon us are extreme, to our independent tendencies. And three, because this is the position we exalt ourselves to --that God is only like us, and we have integrity of existence independent of him.

We make me sick, haha. Who do we think we are?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark, what you are arguing is the sovereignty of God and that's not my point. God can do what He wants, when He wants, how He wants, I don't dispute that. God know all that we will do in the entirety of history, I don't dispute that. I do dispute that the Bible directly states God preordained people to go to hell by his direction. God knowing our choices that lead to hell, which is biblical, is far afield from God picking and choosing people before creation to be damned.

Back we go, again, to Romans 9: "22. In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction." Does this prove his predestining them to hell, or holding them to their decision? Yes.

I cannot rationally separate the two. He does have the absolute right to do as he will with his creation, and we can be assured that the Judge of all the Earth will do what is right. It comforts me to think that what those of us who end up in infinte payment for our infinite sin will hardly resemble persons, certainly not resembling children of God at that point, but will be more like vaporous wraiths of mad hatred and despair, worse than Satan for worth of being, I think.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I believe God gives us the ability to repent and believe but He does not force it. We must comply with the guidance of the Holy Spirit urging us to repent and believe. I also believe that God will call everyone who is capable of believing. Being all knowing He may not call those those He has foreseen who would fail in the end. I’m not 100% sure about that I simply believe it is a possibility.

How can you separate his foreseeing from his forecausing? To me, that is irrational, when it comes to God. He does not operate according to our limitations of meaning.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you believe God caused Adam to sin? That He creates some to joy and life and others to be tortured for eternity for nothing they themselves did? That doesn't sound like a God of love peace and joy who isn't a respecter of persons, does it? Not to me!

Do you pretend that if God causes a thing, that the self-proclaimed independent agent who did the thing God caused him to do bears no responsibility? He will indeed pay for the enormity of his self-exaltation.

And don't pretend that the sinner is not a willing participant in his own sin. But comfort yourself in that God will not extract from him payment that is not due.

But your construction necessarily implies either the rule of chance, or of earned grace. God does not choose because of worthiness of the recipients of his choice, but because of his own intent. Furthermore, what makes one person decide what another does not? Is it not God? Or do you admit to the rule of Chance? I'm sorry, I can't believe in an Omnipotent, Self-existent Creator who must kiss the ass of Free Will, nor operate subject to Chance, simply because we demand it for the comfort of our minds.

 

[1stcenturylady]

There is a distinction between the grace God affords the lost so they might be saved in the Armenian systematic and the compelled regeneration of the lost in the Calvinist perspective. I appreciate your making this important distinction.

Armenian, the country; or Arminian, the theology?

 

[aiki]

Armenian, the country; or Arminian, the theology?

LOL! I am not, as you can see, immune from typos. Arminian, of course.

 

[Ken Rank]

Do you pretend that if God causes a thing, that the self-proclaimed independent agent who did the thing God caused him to do bears no responsibility? He will indeed pay for the enormity of his self-exaltation.

And don't pretend that the sinner is not a willing participant in his own sin. But comfort yourself in that God will not extract from him payment that is not due.

But your construction necessarily implies either the rule of chance, or of earned grace. God does not choose because of worthiness of the recipients of his choice, but because of his own intent. Furthermore, what makes one person decide what another does not? Is it not God? Or do you admit to the rule of Chance? I'm sorry, I can't believe in an Omnipotent, Self-existent Creator who must kiss the ass of Free Will, nor operate subject to Chance, simply because we demand it for the comfort of our minds.

Not sure where you are really going, but we can go back and forth and in the end, for me, this will come down to God saying, "Choose this day" and so I choose. He has set before us life and death, blessing and cursing and I choose the life... one of the two choices He gave us. You can pretend He didn't give us that choice... but for me and my house, I will serve the Lord according to His word without adding to it.

Peace.
Ken

PS... I threw in the "pretend" to show how ridiculous it was for you to do that. To say to me, "don't pretend" when you don't know my intent at all, reveals that either you are seeking to be divisive or have elevated yourself to a position where you think you know the heart of others.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How can you separate his foreseeing from his forecausing? To me, that is irrational, when it comes to God. He does not operate according to our limitations of meaning.

Because look closely to these verses.

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3:9‬

Why is God wishing that none should perish but instead that all should come to repentance? If God we’re electing who will be saved by predestination this wouldn’t make any sense. If God desires everyone to be saved He has the power to make it happen. The Greek word for wishing is boúlomai which means

1) to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded

2) of willing as an affection, to desire

From this context we know definition 1 cannot be the case because if God had deliberately willed everyone to be saved then everyone will undoubtedly be saved. But that is not the case. Some will definitely be condemned to the lake of fire. Therefore only the 2nd definition can fit the context of this statement. God desires everyone to be saved. Because we know not everyone will be saved God is sitting back and watching us as we make our own decisions. He is most likely helping us along but ultimately He is leaving the decision up to us. Why? Because God desires our love. The first of the most important commandments. Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Love is a gift given freely. Sure God could program us to love Him if He wanted but would that be a satisfactory kind of love? Would it even really be love? I don’t believe so. I believe God wants a genuine love that comes naturally from our own free will of us giving Him the gift of our love. It is the giving that makes love so precious. Consider 1 Timothy 2:3-4


“This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth.”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:3-4‬

The Greek word used for “wants” is thélō which means

1) to will, have in mind, intend a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose b) to desire, to wish c) to love

1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing d) to take delight in, have pleasure

Again God desires everyone to be saved. He is rooting for us cheering us on in hope that we will be victorious and endure to the end giving Him the gift of our love which He desires so much. It is the one gift that we can give to God that He cannot have unless we choose to give it.

Many people misinterpret the word predestined which also means preordained or chosen beforehand. God foresaw all who would be victorious and endure to the end and preordained us in the book of life before creation. He did not choose a select group to be saved and reject all others to be condemned to the lake of fire. That would contradict John 3:16 and John 3:17. Many people misunderstand John 3:17 to mean that Jesus was sent to save the world but that is not how it is written in the scriptures. Jesus was sent so that the world may be saved. He was sent so the world would have the opportunity to be saved. All we need to do is accept His free gift of grace. If we seek we will find if we knock the door will be opened and if we endure and abide we will be saved. God gives us the ability to accomplish this thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He will show us the Way but He won’t make us walk the path.

 

[aiki]

I love how he can fit eternity into a word, yet we are unable to see by that word what he has done.

I have no idea what you mean by "fit eternity into a word."

I think we are unable to simply convey or understand what God means by "compel".

Well, we may not be able to understand fully everything that God does but this doesn't mean we can't understand sufficiently what He is doing, or at all. I understand well enough what "compel" means. And as far as I understand the term, I don't see that it applies to what God does in bringing us to salvation.

But the love of Christ compels us anyway.

Only after we have "known and believed the love God has for us." (1 John 4:16) His love can constrain or control us only after we have given it the freedom to do so.

How he does what he does, I don't know.

Yes, He does what He does. And what He has done is give us free agency.

People argue against "forces us" and "double predestination" as though there was a way to divide the concepts there. There is a lot we cannot understand, because he is not like us. He is not subject to the laws to which we are bound.

Divine inscrutability is certainly a limiting factor for us, but those with a Calvinist perspective tend, I think, to use the "mystery" of God as a convenient escape from the contradictions/illogicality of their doctrines.

If my logic is valid, I have to say he does whatever he pleases, and only what he pleases may happen.

And here you go immediately awry. As it stands, your statement here makes God the Author of evil. It requires that one believe that adultery, murder, rape, incest, gluttony - whatever sin you'd care to name - it pleased God to cause humans to enact. That's not the God I see described in Scripture. (1 John 1:5; James 1:13)

I have to also say that our choices are ALWAYS subject to his sovereignty.

Yes, of course. And if He has sovereignly decreed that we should be free agents? What then?

As such, our behaving as though we are truly independent agents is a bit much.

Not at all. See Molinism and its views on divine permission.

A dog may behave according to his desires and instincts, but can be trained. When a trained dog misbehaves, he is corrected again.

But Calvinism asserts that the desires and instincts of man are imparted to him by God. If a man "misbehaves," then, it is only as a consequence of the desires and instincts God has given him. Why, then, should he be corrected? Is he not doing exactly as God made him to do? It looks that way to me.

His decisions thereafter --are they by chance, by character, or by coercion?

Under the notion of the meticulous sovereign decree of God, Calvinism holds that there is no such thing as chance and that our fundamental inclinations have been imposed upon us by God. We may act in accord with our desires, on Calvinism, but those desires have been placed within us by God and so He is ultimately responsible for our acting in accord with those desires for good or ill.

Does it matter? He is totally into his decision, this we know. He is an earnest participant in whatever he does.

Yes, it does matter.

He is an "earnest participant" by God's doing, not his own. His participation is not something he has actually freely chosen, however earnest he may be.

One thing I have noticed, that is almost universal even among believers, is the outrageous (to my assessment, anyway) fact that thought they easily admit to their decisions being influenced from all sides by circumstances, upbringing, genetics, desires, habits etc, somehow they pretend outrage that God would influence them in any way, as though that relegates their decisions to robotic programming.

Well, this isn't me. But I understand your "outrage."

I think this is significant, for several reasons --one, because it shows we recognize that God is unlike anything else, but two, because to our thinking, God is not allowed to do a small thing; even his small influences upon us are extreme, to our independent tendencies. And three, because this is the position we exalt ourselves to --that God is only like us, and we have integrity of existence independent of him.

Again, this isn't reflective of what I think. It is no less bizarre, though, than protesting sin when it is God who has decreed the sin of which men are guilty, or preaching the Gospel to those God will inexorably make His own.