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.
You need to carefully study Romans 9. Paul anticipates your questions.
Of course, we can never say that any attribute of God is completely comprehensible to man's feeble mind. Nor can we ever understand His attributes in a human way. That is not what I am saying.
You would have to prove that I speak of God's justice in a human way. Furthermore, you yourself would also need to prove that you do not speak of God's justice in a human way.
But if I say that God is impartial in all that He does, rendering every man according to his works, being no respector of persons, how am I speaking humanly? These truths are all found in Scripture, are they not? How can you say that God is no respector of persons in one instance but not in others? It is reasonable to say that God is immutable; and if He is immutable in His characteristics, then He is no respector of persons in all cases with all men. Indeed, we do not ever find a scripture that qualifies this characteristic and says, "God is no respector of persons...only in these situations."
But we know that the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men (Titus 2:11), not only the elect, but to all men.
And again, 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. (John 3:16)
Moreover, The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
And Ezekial prophesies, Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11)
But if you are not convinced sufficiently, how can you deny the words of Paul on this matter? For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:3-6)
And so, it is beyond apparent that God desires and wills all men to be saved in Christ Jesus, and that He has acted mercifully with all and extending grace to all in some way or another, in ways that our feeble minds cannot conceive, in ways that surpass our understanding. For the same God who spoke through a donkey, and the same God who appeared in a vision to Saul who would later be known as Paul, and the same God who imcomprehensibly became a man, was crucified for us, resurrected, and ascending into Heaven--this God, our God, Who can do all things, for nothing is impossible with God, the same willed all men to be saved.
The argument of Calvinists is that if God will man to be saved, then man must be saved because, otherwise, God's will is deficient and ineffectual. Now, this folly would be correct if these men possess a pious understanding of God's mercy and love. Man must also will to be saved and be one with God. Is this possible without God's grace? By no means, and we do not believe that. However, neither do we say that man has no capacity to choose God unless God forces him, or enables him, to choose the Lord and have faith in His Name by His irresistible grace. And we do not say that man cannot but choose God because of the irresistible grace of God. Is it true that God is sovereign? Yes. But He is not sovereign over man's will; He does not coerce man's will, nor manipulate it, nor force it. And if He did not act thus when man lived according to his sinful desires, God does not act thus to effect man's salvation.
If God did not extend His grace to all men, and if He did not will all men to be saved, how are you able to say that God impartial to all men? If you say that He is not impartial to all mankind, then you cannot deem Him just or righteous. Since, if He is just and righteous by deeming all mankind worthy of hell, in order not to be in opposition to His justice and righteousness, He equally extends His saving grace to all mankind in one way or another so that all are without excuse on the day of judgement.
You tell me, how is it reasonable for the Lord Jesus to command that we love our enemies and do good and to bless all of those who act against us, no matter who they are, but then He Himself does not act according to His own commandments?
Now, if the Lord is no hypocrite, as we know Him not to be, how can you believe that God will extend these small things to everyone while neglecting to also desire all men to be saved? But if you do not refute that He desires all men's salvation, how will you argue that He does not offer salvation to all men?
And I think it is a profitable question to ask why it is that God would command the repentance of sinners and not aid them or be merciful unto them? Are His commands just for show? Of course not. But if you believe that God justly extends mercy and salvation to some while neglecting others, it is clear that you believe that God demands repentance of men that will never repent, and that He condemns them without helping them or willing their salvation. Because what other reason could God have for inciting man's repentance through His prophets and apostles if He does not will their salvation also? And if He wills men's salvation, then He offers grace to all who are unfaithful, unrighteous, unjust, and wicked, which was the state of all who lived apart from Christ.
I am sorry if my post is very convoluted. This is hard to talk about.
By all means, educate me!I am going to find a Calvinist view of these.
By all means, educate me!
I'm not a Calvinist but not all Calvinists literally believe God micro-manages every individual action.
Unfortunately, I find these links quite unsatisfactory because they all color their interpretation with presuppositions based on Calvinistic theology. Thus, instead of properly expounding the Scriptures, they distort them to fit their theology.Titus 2:11 Reformed View of Titus 2:11 and Irresistible Grace
2 Peter 3:9 Reformation Theology: Understanding 2 Peter 3:9 by Pastor John Samson
Ezekiel 33:11 Calvinism and Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11?
1 Timothy 2:3-6
I tend to take the Scripture for what it says there. There must be a way that God predestined us and yet He died for all. It's mysterious.
Unfortunately, I find these links quite unsatisfactory because they all color their interpretation with presuppositions based on Calvinistic theology. Thus, instead of properly expounding the Scriptures, they distort them to fit their theology.
With regards to Titus 2:11, the link you gave me does not refute the fact that the grace of God has appeared to all men.
On 2 Peter 3:9, the exegete purports that Peter is not speaking of all in the sense of everyone in the world but rather in the sense of speaking to all those he is writing to. This is a fair conclusion to make based on a literary analysis, but it is not logical to think that Peter speaks this way 100% of the time. For, when he says, "Account that the longsuffering the Lord is salvation", he speaks of a general truth which is applicable to everyone who reads it, not just those he wrote to. Therefore, I have grounds to affirm that he speaks likewise with regards to his previous statement, "The Lord...is not willing that any should perish."
Lastly, whoever expounded Ezekiel 33, is unreasonable. You yourself said that we cannot define God's justice in human term, yet that is exactly with this person did. He compares God's justice with man's courtroom. That is not how the heavenly works. Furthermore, all he does is quote the Old Testament, which were things spoken in shadows, primarily. The image of God was manifested in Christ Jesus, and He truly taught us what the Old Testament meant. The Pharisees and Saducees of the Lord's time made wild assumptions and interpretations based on the OT scriptures. How many times did Christ have to correct their flawed understanding? He revealed to us the correct understanding of the OT. Thus, if anyone interprets the OT without using the lens of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he falls into great error.
I believe you will find a satisfactory theology from theologians such as John Chrysostom and John of Damascus.Hm, I tend to not fully agree with those posts. I was just finding Calvinist arguments.
I believe in predestination, eh... It's in the Bible. But I keep trying to formulate a theology.
The vagueness is why I voted 'no.'
One glaring problem is that if God wills us to sin, if every sin committed is directly willed/caused by God, then there is absolutely no reason to trust Him, and there's absolutely no reason to believe that heaven should be any better than hell. Unless, maybe, He only wills Calvinists to sin.Simple question
Thank you for sharing this.Some Calvinists, like TreeofLife, believe that God ordains everything, and that includes our sin.
People like I believe that we are free to live our lives out but that we cannot will ourselves to stop sinning or to follow Christ without first being regenerated through unmerited, sovereign grace.
Some Calvinists, like TreeofLife, believe that God ordains everything, and that includes our sin.
People like I believe that we are free to live our lives out but that we cannot will ourselves to stop sinning or to follow Christ without first being regenerated through unmerited, sovereign grace.
I have to ask, is there one atom in the universe out of God's control? If God is sovereign, we have to make distinctions, recognize active and passive aspects to His will, in this way, whatsoever comes to pass, either way is the will of God. One of the great mysteries for us, is why He chose to create Lucifer/Satan in the first placing knowing the choices he would make and the influence he would have on Creation. It's a mystery to me anyway, I really don't care about logical solutions to the problem of evil, because they cannot solve the emotional problem of evil, they offer little comfort to those hurting and suffering because of evils they neither deserved any more than the next person, nor asked for, nor wanted, nor saw coming. God allowed Satan to do all but have Job's soul, the Lord drew the line at his soul, but that's alot of slack, a scary amount.
Ephesians 1:11 "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will"
Probably wouldn't be Job's favorite verse, but His will is precisely what Job submitted himself to. Though He slay me yet will I serve Him. Sorry skating around a bit in thought after a rough day of being daddy.
It's too schizophrenic for me to imagine God is in control of Satan too. And dangerous to boot. Why would anyone even want to entertain the idea that God thinks for Satan? This is lunacy. Complete and total loss of perspective.
It's more comforting that most everything is out of God's control? I mean obviously He allows Satan practically free reign here on earth, evils are so common, many have taken to calling evils good, and good evil. But let me back up a minute, NO CALVINIST has ever suggested the GOD controls Satan, that is insane and completely false misrepresentation. I'm not gonna write a novel in response, go backwards in this thread and read my responses, especially the post with quotes from historical Reformed Confessions. Ah, but it's easier to ignore and hurl insults, how Christ like.
Why wouldn't hurl I insults? It's sad when you follow the presuppositions and implications of this theology.
No matter how true Predestination itself is, what I'm really calling out is trying to interpret it. I'm not just insulting you...I'm in effect insulting myself too. I'm insulting all of humanity for thinking it has the capacity to get inside God's head. This has to stop. We should be content with simply accepting mysteries like Predestination -- then just shelving them in the back of our heads. Because the minute you try to systematize it, it becomes a negative. We can't systematize it in the first place. There isn't the right perspective for it.. or a language for it. And trying to be the one guy who finally tackles it is just more pride and arrogance.
edit: To make a flimsy analogy.. I'll compare my approach to when Einstein's theories came on the scene and introduced the concept of that gravity was the effect of warped space. Before, Newtonian physics dominated and gravity was considered a force. Newton can still be combined and be "true" from an experiential perspective. Gravity can feel like a force.. even if it's just the after effects of warped space.
This is how I'm gonna approach Free Will. lol. Predestination may be true, but for my own purposes, experience matters.. I don't have the capacity to wrap my head around the bigger picture. So I'm going to go about my day normally and still behave as if free will still exists. Just like I pretend that Gravity is a Newtonian Force.
Why wouldn't hurl I insults? It's sad when you follow the presuppositions and implications of this theology.
No matter how true Predestination itself is, what I'm really calling out is trying to interpret it. I'm not just insulting you...I'm in effect insulting myself too. I'm insulting all of humanity for thinking it has the capacity to get inside God's head. This has to stop. We should be content with simply accepting mysteries like Predestination -- then just shelving them in the back of our heads. Because the minute you try to systematize it, it becomes a negative. We can't systematize it in the first place. There isn't the right perspective for it.. or a language for it. And trying to be the one guy who finally tackles it is just more pride and arrogance.
Okay, you mentioned many things, so I'll choose one main point to respond to.
With regards to your statement that you believe salvation is monergistic, that man is passive in receiving salvation, why then, do you quote CS Lewis and St Isaac?
For, how can you say, that God does not will or decree man's damnation while simultaneously purporting that man's will towards God cannot change without His grace?
Thus, what could be clearer, by your own words, that you are arguing that man cannot and will not choose God unless God chooses to give a man grace?
How is it reasonable in anyway to believe that while God wills all to be saved, He does not save all men because He does not give all men grace to choose Him and believe in Christ?
And if the Lord does not give grace to all men to repent and believe, how is this theology different from Calvinism?
And the impression you give me by your theology is this: once man receives the grace of God, he will repent, believe, and be saved. But if a man does not receive the grace of God, he cannot repent because he does not will to repent. So, what I am understanding from you is that you also believe that God's grace is essentially irresistible, similar to what Calvinists believe. Thus, once God's grace comes upon a man, man cannot but repent and believe in the Son of God unto Salvation.
However, if you are saying that even when God's grace descends upon a man's heart, man can still choose to reject Christ, then we are in agreement. Nevertheless, if this is what you believe, how can you say salvation is monergistic?
It is as I said, man has no power to save his own soul by any sort of works whatsoever. He does not earn his own righteousness, and he does not glorify himself. We know this to be the truth. Yet, to say man is a passive recipient is the furthest thing from the truth. In what way is he passive if you yourself say that he wills, that he chooses God's salvation by God's grace? A choice, a will, and works that reflect this choice and will cannot be deemed passive at all.
In a very simplistic way, we can observe that salvation is accomplished in this way. Firstly, God acts upon a man's heart. Man responds positively to God (or he can also choose to respond negatively unto damnation). Man's response is repentance, faith, good works, all of which are aided by the grace of God in a mystical way. Now, do we say that these things are possible without grace? No. And do we say that these things are unnecessary for salvation? By no means. Thus, if they are necessary, it follows that man must will them to be done. And it would be pious, I believe, to say that man's will to accomplish these things is something that is initially inspired by God's grace. Moreover, in order for man to repent, have faith, and yield good fruits, he must abide in Christ and receive grace from above. And it is possible that even in this seeking of God's grace, grace is also preceding man's actions, but not always.
So, in all that we have observed, it is impossible to conclude that man is passive and that he contributes nothing to his salvation. There is One Savior, Jesus Christ, not man; this is obvious. Ultimately, God saves man, man does not save himself. However, we must come to the Savior to be saved. We must believe on Him to be saved. We must cooperate with Him to be saved. Because, it is as you said, God wills all men to be saved and therefore man must also choose to be saved. And if man must choose and repent and have faith and do good works, it is most evident that he is not passive in his salvation, and we can assert this with all truth and piety while also maintaining that God alone is the one who saves man.
There are very pious and holy men who have, as far as it was possible for the feeble mind of a man to do, answered the question of predestination and free will. St. Augustine being one of these men, although he erred greatly in some respects (yet, I am not sure about this, since I have not fully read his writings yet, and I suspect that many have simply misinterpreted his words). Two other mighty men in the Scriptures, very holy and pious men of God, I have mentioned earlier in this thread: St. John Chrysostom and St. John Damascene.Why wouldn't hurl I insults? It's sad when you follow the presuppositions and implications of this theology.
No matter how true Predestination itself is, what I'm really calling out is trying to interpret it. I'm not just insulting you...I'm in effect insulting myself too. I'm insulting all of humanity for thinking it has the capacity to get inside God's head. This has to stop. We should be content with simply accepting mysteries like Predestination -- then just shelving them in the back of our heads. Because the minute you try to systematize it, it becomes a negative. We can't systematize it in the first place. There isn't the right perspective for it.. or a language for it. And trying to be the one guy who finally tackles it is just more pride and arrogance.
edit: To make a flimsy analogy.. I'll compare my approach to when Einstein's theories came on the scene and introduced the concept that gravity was the effect of warped space. Before, Newtonian physics dominated and gravity was considered a force. Instead of completely throwing it out though, Newton can still be applied and be "true" from an experiential perspective. Gravity can feel like a force.. even if it's just the after effects of warped space.
This is how I'm gonna approach Free Will. lol. Predestination may be true, but for my own purposes, experience matters.. I don't have the capacity to wrap my head around the bigger picture. So I'm going to go about my day normally and still behave as if free will still exists. Just like I pretend that Gravity is a Newtonian Force.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?