Do seekers find? Or do only "founders", seek?

[Ben johnson]

One facet of "OSAS" (Calvinism) asserts that "man is too corrupt* to EVER seek God; he must be regenerated before he can even THINK of believing."

* There is a difference between "total depravity", and "utter depravity"; against the charge of "Pelagianism", many of us who believe in "OSNAS", accept that we are totally depraved; our righteousness is to God as filthy rags. Apart from Him, we have nothing, we are nothing, we can only die. Jn15:6 WITH Him --- we are perfect (Matt5:18), we are righteous (2Cor5:21), we can do ALL THINGS (Philip4:13).

Us who accept "total depravity" of all mankind, agree that we always tend towards sin; but this differs from "utter depravity", in that with "TD", God's call of everyone TO Himself, overcomes our depravity in enough measure that we CAN believe.

Utter depravity, on the other hand, asserts that those who are NOT elected, are not even called --- they are both totally depraved AND utterly depraved --- without chance or faint hope of redemption.

It is a subtle point; but foundationally important. Pelagius asserted that "man has inherent goodness, and can find God if he seeks"; Responsible Grace asserts that man IS totally depraved, and must be CALLED to salvation; yet that call is sufficient to overcome his sinfulness, and place him squarely at the Door of salvation, before JESUS --- he can enter in and BECOME "saved-sheep", or he can turn away and choose depravity. All are called, and those who ANSWER that call receive Jesus (by their own faith), believe and are saved. Calvinism asserts that the very faith that SAVES believers, is something that God sovereignly INSTALLS (or gifts, or instills, etc) in our hearts by monergistic (unilateral) decision (we have no choice in our election)...

Hence the question:

"Do we seek God and FIND Him (and He finds us)?
Or does He find us FIRST and then the 'founders' seek Him (consequentially)?"​

First, let's look at:
"There is none righteous, none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, they have become uselyess; none who does good, not even one; their throat is an open grave, their tongues keep deceiving; the poison of asps lies under their lips; ...there is no fear of God before their eyes..." Rom3:10-19

This reads to the Calvinist, as: "You CANNOT seek God EVER". They reason that "God must CHANGE the heart so that they CAN seek Him."

Is this Scriptural truth?

Rom3:10-19 is not "Pauline writing"; he is merely citing Psalms 14, and 51. Is the "NONE-SEEK", being written as DICTATE? Or is it a lamentation, exaggerating in saying "NO one seeks"?

Look now at:
"You will call upon Me, and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will SEEK Me and you will FIND Me, when you search with all your heart. I WILL BE FOUND BY YOU" declares the Lord God..." Jeremiah 29:11-14

This was written to the Israelites; does it apply to us today?

Romans 3 continues with:
"God is just, and justifier of he who BELIEVES in Jesus". Which comes first --- belief, or justification? Does God justify the believer? Or does he believe whom God justifies?

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I certainly understand that God is not one who show partiality (is no respecter of persons), but in every natnion the man who fears Him (reveres) and does right is welcome to him." Acts10:34-35

Calvinism asserts that "man is elect by God's SOVEREIGN choice" --- casting God forever as the ultimate "respecter of persons".

Is He a "respecter of persons", or not?

"He who asks, receives. He who seeks, finds. To him who knocks, it shall be opened..." Matt7:8

He who seeks, finds? Does this apply to salvation? Do seekers find, or do the found seek?

"Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." Heb11:6

A rewarder of those who seek. This seems not to support "monergistic-instilled-saving-faith", doesn't it? Instead, the whole chapter of Heb11 speaks of faith, and places faith as causal towards God's favor.

That's opposite of "Predestined-Election", which asserts "God's favor is CAUSAL to saving-faith".

Thus is Romans3 cast solidly as a "lamentation", not a dictate; exaggerating that no one seeks God --- but not contradicting that if you DO seek Him, you WILL FIND Him.

"Many are called, but few are chosen". Matt22:2-14 This parable is called by Calvinists, as "not indicating eternal salvation". That denies the context, "The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE...." It is referring to "salvation".

By parable's end, all have been called --- Jew (first-called), and Gentile (second-called) alike. Those who RECEIVE the invitation, come and put on the king's clean garments (HIS righteousness!), become the chosen.

Over and over faith is charged to us, and makes us responsible. By faith we seek God, and He receives our faith. By faith we walk in Him (Col2:6 --- everyone better be lookin' these up!), and by faith we abide in Him (1Jn2:26-28)

God rewards those who SEEK Him. It does not say "they seek whom God has pre-chosen"...

 

[nobdysfool]

One facet of "OSAS" (Calvinism) asserts that "man is too corrupt* to EVER seek God; he must be regenerated before he can even THINK of believing."

* There is a difference between "total depravity", and "utter depravity"; against the charge of "Pelagianism", many of us who believe in "OSNAS", accept that we are totally depraved; our righteousness is to God as filthy rags. Apart from Him, we have nothing, we are nothing, we can only die. Jn15:6 WITH Him --- we are perfect (Matt5:18), we are righteous (2Cor5:21), we can do ALL THINGS (Philip4:13).

Us who accept "total depravity" of all mankind, agree that we always tend towards sin; but this differs from "utter depravity", in that with "TD", God's call of everyone TO Himself, overcomes our depravity in enough measure that we CAN believe.

Utter depravity, on the other hand, asserts that those who are NOT elected, are not even called --- they are both totally depraved AND utterly depraved --- without chance or faint hope of redemption.

It is a subtle point; but foundationally important. Pelagius asserted that "man has inherent goodness, and can find God if he seeks"; Responsible Grace asserts that man IS totally depraved, and must be CALLED to salvation; yet that call is sufficient to overcome his sinfulness, and place him squarely at the Door of salvation, before JESUS --- he can enter in and BECOME "saved-sheep", or he can turn away and choose depravity. All are called, and those who ANSWER that call receive Jesus (by their own faith), believe and are saved. Calvinism asserts that the very faith that SAVES believers, is something that God sovereignly INSTALLS (or gifts, or instills, etc) in our hearts by monergistic (unilateral) decision (we have no choice in our election)...

Hence the question:

"Do we seek God and FIND Him (and He finds us)?
Or does He find us FIRST and then the 'founders' seek Him (consequentially)?"​

First, let's look at:
"There is none righteous, none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, they have become uselyess; none who does good, not even one; their throat is an open grave, their tongues keep deceiving; the poison of asps lies under their lips; ...there is no fear of God before their eyes..." Rom3:10-19

This reads to the Calvinist, as: "You CANNOT seek God EVER". They reason that "God must CHANGE the heart so that they CAN seek Him."

Is this Scriptural truth?

Rom3:10-19 is not "Pauline writing"; he is merely citing Psalms 14, and 51. Is the "NONE-SEEK", being written as DICTATE? Or is it a lamentation, exaggerating in saying "NO one seeks"?

Look now at:
"You will call upon Me, and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will SEEK Me and you will FIND Me, when you search with all your heart. I WILL BE FOUND BY YOU" declares the Lord God..." Jeremiah 29:11-14

This was written to the Israelites; does it apply to us today?

Romans 3 continues with:
"God is just, and justifier of he who BELIEVES in Jesus". Which comes first --- belief, or justification? Does God justify the believer? Or does he believe whom God justifies?

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I certainly understand that God is not one who show partiality (is no respecter of persons), but in every natnion the man who fears Him (reveres) and does right is welcome to him." Acts10:34-35

Calvinism asserts that "man is elect by God's SOVEREIGN choice" --- casting God forever as the ultimate "respecter of persons".

Is He a "respecter of persons", or not?

"He who asks, receives. He who seeks, finds. To him who knocks, it shall be opened..." Matt7:8

He who seeks, finds? Does this apply to salvation? Do seekers find, or do the found seek?

"Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." Heb11:6

A rewarder of those who seek. This seems not to support "monergistic-instilled-saving-faith", doesn't it? Instead, the whole chapter of Heb11 speaks of faith, and places faith as causal towards God's favor.

That's opposite of "Predestined-Election", which asserts "God's favor is CAUSAL to saving-faith".

Thus is Romans3 cast solidly as a "lamentation", not a dictate; exaggerating that no one seeks God --- but not contradicting that if you DO seek Him, you WILL FIND Him.

"Many are called, but few are chosen". Matt22:2-14 This parable is called by Calvinists, as "not indicating eternal salvation". That denies the context, "The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE...." It is referring to "salvation".

By parable's end, all have been called --- Jew (first-called), and Gentile (second-called) alike. Those who RECEIVE the invitation, come and put on the king's clean garments (HIS righteousness!), become the chosen.

Over and over faith is charged to us, and makes us responsible. By faith we seek God, and He receives our faith. By faith we walk in Him (Col2:6 --- everyone better be lookin' these up!), and by faith we abide in Him (1Jn2:26-28)

God rewards those who SEEK Him. It does not say "they seek whom God has pre-chosen"...

Ben, if you rightly understood Calvinism, you would understand what an utter waste of bandwidth this post is. Your representations of Calvinism (it is not OSAS), your attempts to explain away the obvious point of Paul in Romans 3 by calling it in essence, "exaggeration", and your obvious bias against anything and everything even remotely identifiable as Calvinist, marks this post as one to be understood as being extremely flawed and biased.

After all this time, you should know better.

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, if you rightly understood Calvinism, you would understand what an utter waste of bandwidth this post is. Your representations of Calvinism (it is not OSAS)...

Hi, NBF! Wonderful to "see" you again! How is married life????

I call three separate beliefs, "osas" --- regarding Calvinism (#2 of those three), it asserts that the saved, cannot become unsaved. That's why it is grouped with "OSAS"...

your attempts to explain away the obvious point of Paul in Romans 3 by calling it in essence, "exaggeration", and your obvious bias against anything and everything even remotely identifiable as Calvinist, marks this post as one to be understood as being extremely flawed and biased.

I believe Paul wrote Hebrews; so the question about 11:6, is valid --- it places God's reward, or favor, as subordinate to our seeking. Calvinists' view of "utter depravity", is as I have stated; no one CAN seek God WITHOUT monergistic regeneration.

After all this time, you should know better.

The more I study, the clearer I see "Responsible Grace" in Scripture.

This is the motivation for this thread; if God's decision is causal to our seeking, then Calvinism is correct; but if our faith and our seeking is causal to God's favor, then Responsible Grace is correct.

Why would he say "without faith it is impossible to please God", if saving-faith was something God caused? Why would he say "God is a rewarder of those who seek", if seeking was consequential to God's choice?

"God is just, and justifier of those who BELIEVE". You're asserting that "God chooses who WILL believe, and chooses who will be lifelong-reprobates" --- and that sounds "just" to you.

If it is just for God to cause BOTH belief AND reprobation, then you're correctly understanding Romans3; none CAN seek God WITHOUT His forceful prior intervention.

... but that isn't how it's written; those who DO seek Him, FIND His favor.

That much I do know "better"...

 

[Van]

Paul's point in Romans 3 is that no one seeks God through the works of the Law because we all sin. It is not, no one ever seeks God. Obviously those who seek God through the works of the Law are attempting to seek God. But because by the Law no flesh is justified, the effort in effect is not seeking God, it is heading in the wrong direction.

 

[Ben johnson]

But because by the Law no flesh is justified, the effort in effect is not seeking God, it is heading in the wrong direction.

Good post, Van; I agree with this. God has a plan, and an approach towards us; His approach was that "Jesus should die, so that whosoever believes might be saved".

It seems identical that those who SAID they were following God (and perhaps even thought they were), but rejected Jesus, were NOT following God. "If God were your Father, then you would love Me; for I have proceeded forth and come from the Father..." Jn8:42

Exactly as Jesus was saying in Jn5:39-47: "You search the Scriptures, thinking in them you have salvation; but they speak of Me and you are UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have life. HOW can you believe, WHEN you seek one another's glory rather than seeking the glory of the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you; Moses will accuse you, in whom you have set your hope. For if you BELIEVED Moses, then you would believe Me, for Moses wrote of Me. But if you will not believe Moses' writings, how will you believe My words?"

Scripture is clear that "God is a rewarder of those who SEEK Him."
And that "whoever seeks, finds".
And "if you seek God with all your heart, you will FIND Him."

God welcomes he who does right and reveres God. God is no respecter of persons.

There is another point about "predestination" I would like to address, but it occurs to me that it's kindof a different topic, so I'll make a new thread...

 

[Outrider]

Do seekers find? Or do only "founders", seek?

It doesn't matter how many times the humanistic Christian turns the question inside out the Bible still keeps saying the same thing and giving the same answer, Zech. 4:6 (ESV) Then he said to me, "This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts.

 

[Ben johnson]

It doesn't matter how many times the humanistic Christian turns the question inside out the Bible still keeps saying the same thing and giving the same answer, Zech. 4:6 (ESV) Then he said to me, "This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts.

What does "Humanistic Christian" mean?

 

[Outrider]

What does "Humanistic Christian" mean?

Its an oxymoron that is currently thriving, a person within the general economy of Christianity, i.e. a professing Christian, who has not yet spiritually dealt the death blow to his Flesh's demand to be redemptively enfranchised. Therefore, the Humanistic Christian is still scrooging into the Inner Counsels of the Godhead claiming he has something to contribute to his own salvation. Scripture ignores him.

 

[Van]

Understanding Zechariah 4:6

6Then he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel saying, 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts.

The first question is "what is accomplished by "my Spirit?" I think the answer is the salvation in Christ Jesus. He did not accomplish salvation by sword, or battle, but by His life and sacrifice. His words were the words given Him by the Father, His miracles were acomplished by His Father's Spirit. He brought salvation not in the physical sense of deliverance from earthly oppression, but in the sense of spiritual rebirth.

And so, as ambassadors of Christ, we do not plant, we do not water by might or by power, but by His Spirit. If you would like to gain a better understanding of the concept, see the movie "The End of the Spear."

 

[Ben johnson]

Its an oxymoron that is currently thriving, a person within the general economy of Christianity, i.e. a professing Christian, who has not yet spiritually dealt the death blow to his Flesh's demand to be redemptively enfranchised. Therefore, the Humanistic Christian is still scrooging into the Inner Counsels of the Godhead claiming he has something to contribute to his own salvation. Scripture ignores him.

Thank you for answering.

It is often difficult to engage in discussions between saved brothers, when one does not accept the position of the other. In claiming that "Ben thinks he has something to contribute to his own salvation", you unfairly misrepresent Ben's view; it creates a "strawman" in essence, and of course you can tear down that strawman while completely diverging from what has been said. I mean no offense by this, Outrider; you are my brother.

First, there is no such thing as a "death blow to the flesh"; while we have breath, we have the flesh; and we can sin. If the flesh could be dealt a "death blow", then for the rest of our lives we would be completely sinless. Thus it is far more accurate to describe "salvation" as a "WALK" --- rather than a single destination.

"Therefore, BRETHREN, we are under OBLIGATION not to walk after the flesh --- for if you DO, you MUST DIE! But if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live." Rm8:12-13

"As you have RECEIVED Christ, so walk IN Him." Col2:6

Plainly stated in Rm8, is the idea of "obligation to walk in the Spirit, putting to death the flesh". Not a one-time-event, but continuous. By OUR effort? Equally clear --- not by our effort or strength, but BY THE SPIRIT.

Still you will not be able to understand what I'm saying; because you view "saving-faith", as GIFTED to us (monergistically) by God. It is not --- faith is our choice. Once you understand that, then you will see that we add NOTHING to Jesus' work on the Cross; but we absolutely do believe and RECEIVE it.

...and by faith we walk and STAND in that salvation.

"Protected by the power of God THROUGH FAITH for a salvation ready to be revealed in the end time." 1Pet1:5

Against what you just said --- the Christian is convicted in his heart; meaning, he BELIEVES. He believes in Jesus, he believes in his own sinfulness and damnation. Utterly broken and despairing, POWERLESS, he throws himself in absolute submission to Jesus, down at the foot of the Cross.

It is faith that joins us to Jesus; first, joining us WITH Him, ON that Cross. As Jesus was crucified, SO TOO WERE WE! Rm6 uses five words interchangeably --- crucified, buried, united, immersed, DIED. And THEN --- verse 4 tells us we are likewise united in His RESURRECTION.

We are "born again", or "born from above".

And YET --- we must walk in Him, we must abide in Him, we must continue to fellowship with Him.

There is verse, after verse, after verse that admonishes us to ABIDE in Him; 1Jn2:26-28 is one (warning about DECEIVERS), 1Tim4:16 is one, and maybe the best (clearest) is 2Cor13:5. We are to "EXAMINE ourselves to see if we ARE in Christ (and Christ is in us)!"

We are saved by His gift, nothing else; but it is received by our faith.

We walk by HIS might and power, but it is our steadfastness and perseverance, by faith.

We are righteous because HE is righteous THROUGH us, but He indwells us through our belief.

We are regenerated by the Holy Spirit; not of Human will or blood nor of Human effort; but regeneration is by the RECEIVED (indwelling) Spirit, who is received by BELIEF.

Against the Calvinist idea that "saving-faith is the CONSEQUENCE of God's regeneration", Scripture says that regeneration is BECAUSE of faith. Faith is causal, not consequential.

And that's the foundational difference between "Calvinism", and "Responsible Grace".

 

[pcwilkins]

Once more you are chuntering away on the surface without really wanting to get to the bottom of the matter. The real issue is, what makes a person a seeker?

Why is it that millions and billions do NOT seek God, and a few do? There must be a reason.

Does the reason lie inside us? Does our temperament make us seekers? If so, then what decides our temperament? Surely it is a mixture of our genes and our experience.

You see that going down this route, we conclude that whether a person seeks God or not depends on a mix of their genes and experience. Then we can dig deeper. What decides a persons experience? If, like me, you believe that God is in control of every facet of your life, then you will have to confess that yes, it was God who has led me through life to this point. It was God who put me through that experience, who showed me that point of view, who put me in that situation.

The fundamental flaw in the Arminian is that he doesn't look deep enough. We all agree that some people believe and some don't. That's obvious. But look deeper.

One of my old teachers used to tell us that to understand anything you need to ask 'why' at least three times. Let's try it.

Some people believe, some don't. Why? Because some see their need of salvation, and some don't. Why? Because some see their inability to stand before a Holy God, and some don't see it. Why?

Where do we go from here? Do we say it is because some choose to see their need of salvation, their need of a saviour, their need of something real? That doesn't solve anything, because we then have to ask, why do some make that choice and some don't?

No. I believe the answer, when we have said enough 'whys', must come down to God. It is the Spirit that convicts a man of his own state, and then leads him to the only way of salvation.

You see, if you were in my shoes, you would not need to argue about total depravity, about whether a man can do anything good without Christ. You would know it to be true. You would feel it to be true. You would have to confess with Paul that 'the good that I would, I do not; but the evil that I would not, that I do'.

'Oh wretched man that I am!' Thanks be to God, that I have somewhere to look - somewhere outside of myself - to someone able to save unto the uttermost. I am an uttermost sinner; I need an uttermost Saviour.

Peter

 

[holdon]

Some people believe, some don't. Why? Because some see their need of salvation, and some don't. Why? Because some see their inability to stand before a Holy God, and some don't see it. Why?

So, you are saying God makes some believe and others not? So, God is ultimately responsible for not saving some and thereby sending people to eternal damnation?

I need an uttermost Saviour.

How would you ever know He would save you? On what basis?

 

[Desolate Owl]

Where do we go from here? Do we say it is because some choose to see their need of salvation, their need of a saviour, their need of something real? That doesn't solve anything, because we then have to ask, why do some make that choice and some don't?

No. I believe the answer, when we have said enough 'whys', must come down to God. It is the Spirit that convicts a man of his own state, and then leads him to the only way of salvation.

Hi Peter,

Do you also see God as the cause of sin? Following the same pattern of thought you have outlined, we would draw 2 conclusions. It would seem that God is just as responsible for sin as He is for salvation.

Why do men sin? If we keep asking "why", we end up back at God again. What are your thoughts on this?

- Owl

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi, Peter. Good to see you again!

I'll respond more, later; but I would like to hear your understanding of Heb11:6.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who SEEK Him."

How does the writer embrace "sovereignly-gifted saving-faith"? How does he support "seeking as consequential (rather than causal) to God's election"?

How is "believing and coming to God" presented as something that GOD decides, rather than vested fully with the SEEKER?

 

[pcwilkins]

Holdon,

So, you are saying God makes some believe and others not?

Not exactly. God does not need to make any one 'not believe', because it is part of our nature to hate God, to turn from Him, and to reject Him. God does not prevent anyone from believing - the fall of Adam is entirely responsible for that.

What God DOES do is to open the eyes of His people, showing them their own need of salvation, and then revealing to them the way of salvation - Christ. They then believe.

So, God is ultimately responsible for not saving some and thereby sending people to eternal damnation?

You're kind of half right. God is 'responsible' for not saving a person - but you're speaking as though He ought to, as though He is obliged to. He isn't.

What sends people to eternal damnation is their sins, their rejection of God, and their hatred of Him and disobedience to Him.

Incidentally, the argument you advance here is typical of those used by Arminians against Calvinists. "What, God actually damns people?" is just an argument by outrage, not a serious point. If you consider it carefully and do some careful reading, you will get a lot further than you will by shrieking about how unfair it all is.

How would you ever know He would save you? On what basis?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it an 'assurance of salvation' question? If so, it's off topic - perhaps you should start another thread. Sorry if I've misunderstood you.

Desolate Owl,

Do you also see God as the cause of sin?

The reason that we sin is because we are sinners. That is due to the fall of Adam. Is God responsible for the fall of Adam? I'm not sure I'm able to advance an answer to that. Certainly it is a great mystery, and far more able theologians than me have failed to explain it satisfactorily. One thing we can say - God is in control of everything.

Following the same pattern of thought you have outlined, we would draw 2 conclusions. It would seem that God is just as responsible for sin as He is for salvation.

Once again you're proposing questions to which I don't have the answers! Seems to me, though (and I'm only advancing my own opinion) that God knew Adam would fall. That's why God, before time began, provided a way of salvation.

Why do men sin? If we keep asking "why", we end up back at God again. What are your thoughts on this?

Let's try it. Why do men sin? Because they are sinners. Why are they sinners? Because Adam fell. Why did Adam fall? ....Where do we go from here? I don't know. Sorry.

Ben,

Hi, Peter. Good to see you again!

Likewise, Ben. Hope you are well. I can't promise to stay; I find that getting involved in these debates doesn't often bring me closer to Christ.

I'll respond more, later; but I would like to hear your understanding of Heb11:6.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who SEEK Him."

How is "believing and coming to God" presented as something that GOD decides, rather than vested fully with the SEEKER?

I'm not sure I understand the question but I'll have a shot.

You are right - the responsibility to seek lies fully with us. If we don't seek God, we will be judged for it - just as we will be judged if we don't keep any other of God's commands.

But responsibility and ability do not come together automatically. When Adam fell, he died spiritually, rendering him unable to keep any of God's commands in their full, spiritual sense. By this fall, he lost his ability - he did not lose his responsibility.

Because we are descendants of Adam, we are also, by nature, spiritually dead. Instead of being filled with love to God, we are filled with enmity against Him - "the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Rom. 8v7). Every act that we commit in unregeneracy is committed in a wrong spirit - though the acts may be 'good' in themselves. An unregenerate person may feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, etc etc, but because all the while he/she is hating God, God is not pleased with these works. It is nonsensical to suppose that God will be pleased with anything I do while at the same time I am committing the great sin of hating God.

That is why "they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8v8), because everything that they do is mixed with this hatred to God. This includes going to Church, reading His word, praying - if any of these are done "in the flesh" they are simply mocking God by pretending to love and worship that One who, really, we hate.

I don't know if I've answered your question but I seem to be going off at a tangent so I'll stop right now.

Peter

 

[holdon]

Not exactly. God does not need to make any one 'not believe', because it is part of our nature to hate God, to turn from Him, and to reject Him. God does not prevent anyone from believing - the fall of Adam is entirely responsible for that.

What God DOES do is to open the eyes of His people, showing them their own need of salvation, and then revealing to them the way of salvation - Christ. They then believe.

Well, this is just twisting semantics. If God is the factor that makes the difference between believing or not believing, seeing or not seeing, etc.. then it is because of God that some will not be saved.

You're kind of half right. God is 'responsible' for not saving a person - but you're speaking as though He ought to, as though He is obliged to. He isn't.

It doesn't matter. If He arbitrarily saves some to the exclusion of others then we could say that He is a respector of persons. Which He is not. Unless you claim that He cannot save each and everyone, but that would show His limitation, which He has not.

What sends people to eternal damnation is their sins, their rejection of God, and their hatred of Him and disobedience to Him.

Incidentally, the argument you advance here is typical of those used by Arminians against Calvinists. "What, God actually damns people?" is just an argument by outrage, not a serious point. If you consider it carefully and do some careful reading, you will get a lot further than you will by shrieking about how unfair it all is.

No, you jump to the wrong conlusion. What is not unfair is that God sends people to eternal damnation, because they have not believed.
What is unfair is that God would take away/not give the a priori possibility for some to believe.

 

[pcwilkins]

Well, this is just twisting semantics.

I'm sorry it seems that way. It wasn't supposed to be.

If God is the factor that makes the difference between believing or not believing, seeing or not seeing, etc.. then it is because of God that some will not be saved.

So what you are saying is that if salvation is the work of God, then it is God's 'fault' that some are not saved. I don't agree with your reasoning.

If 10 people are sentenced to death, it is possible for the King to pardon all of them, though he would be perfectly just not to pardon any of them. If he pardoned 5 and not the other five, do you think anyone would complain that it is the King's fault that the 5 unpardoned prisoners died? No, of course not; everyone would agree that they deserved to die. So sinners deserve 'not to be saved'.

Your question also implies that you don't believe that God is the "factor that makes the difference between believing or not believing". I assume that you believe. Let me ask you then in the words of Paul; "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" Where did your faith come from?

It doesn't matter. If He arbitrarily saves some to the exclusion of others then we could say that He is a respector of persons. Which He is not.

Who said anything about 'arbitrarily'? God saves those who He will save. The choice is not 'arbitrary' - it is based on His own will.

Why was Peter saved and Judas lost? Because Peter was a more intelligent person and therefore made better decisions? Or because of what Jesus said in Luke 22v32: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when [not if] thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

Unless you claim that He cannot save each and everyone, but that would show His limitation, which He has not.

I don't claim that. God could save everyone if it was His will. The fact that He doesn't shows either that it is not His will, or that He is unable to perform His will. I believe the first, Arminians believe the second - that God would love to save everyone, but can't. In my opinion, that "would show His limitation, which He has not."

No, you jump to the wrong conlusion. What is not unfair is that God sends people to eternal damnation, because they have not believed. What is unfair is that God would take away/not give the a priori possibility for some to believe.

Firstly, God does not take away the possibility of a person believing. The fall did that by rendering natural man a hater of God.

Secondly, to say that it is unfair for God not to give a person the ability to believe, implies that that person has a right to be given that ability. We don't. We forfeited all our rights when Adam fell.

Peter

 

[Outrider]

Thank you for answering.

It is often difficult to engage in discussions between saved brothers, when one does not accept the position of the other. In claiming that "Ben thinks he has something to contribute to his own salvation", you unfairly misrepresent Ben's view; it creates a "strawman" in essence, and of course you can tear down that strawman while completely diverging from what has been said. I mean no offense by this, Outrider; you are my brother.

First, there is no such thing as a "death blow to the flesh"; while we have breath, we have the flesh; and we can sin. If the flesh could be dealt a "death blow", then for the rest of our lives we would be completely sinless. Thus it is far more accurate to describe "salvation" as a "WALK" --- rather than a single destination.

"Therefore, BRETHREN, we are under OBLIGATION not to walk after the flesh --- for if you DO, you MUST DIE! But if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live." Rm8:12-13

"As you have RECEIVED Christ, so walk IN Him." Col2:6

Plainly stated in Rm8, is the idea of "obligation to walk in the Spirit, putting to death the flesh". Not a one-time-event, but continuous. By OUR effort? Equally clear --- not by our effort or strength, but BY THE SPIRIT.

Still you will not be able to understand what I'm saying; because you view "saving-faith", as GIFTED to us (monergistically) by God. It is not --- faith is our choice. Once you understand that, then you will see that we add NOTHING to Jesus' work on the Cross; but we absolutely do believe and RECEIVE it.

...and by faith we walk and STAND in that salvation.

"Protected by the power of God THROUGH FAITH for a salvation ready to be revealed in the end time." 1Pet1:5

Against what you just said --- the Christian is convicted in his heart; meaning, he BELIEVES. He believes in Jesus, he believes in his own sinfulness and damnation. Utterly broken and despairing, POWERLESS, he throws himself in absolute submission to Jesus, down at the foot of the Cross.

It is faith that joins us to Jesus; first, joining us WITH Him, ON that Cross. As Jesus was crucified, SO TOO WERE WE! Rm6 uses five words interchangeably --- crucified, buried, united, immersed, DIED. And THEN --- verse 4 tells us we are likewise united in His RESURRECTION.

We are "born again", or "born from above".

And YET --- we must walk in Him, we must abide in Him, we must continue to fellowship with Him.

There is verse, after verse, after verse that admonishes us to ABIDE in Him; 1Jn2:26-28 is one (warning about DECEIVERS), 1Tim4:16 is one, and maybe the best (clearest) is 2Cor13:5. We are to "EXAMINE ourselves to see if we ARE in Christ (and Christ is in us)!"

We are saved by His gift, nothing else; but it is received by our faith.

We walk by HIS might and power, but it is our steadfastness and perseverance, by faith.

We are righteous because HE is righteous THROUGH us, but He indwells us through our belief.

We are regenerated by the Holy Spirit; not of Human will or blood nor of Human effort; but regeneration is by the RECEIVED (indwelling) Spirit, who is received by BELIEF.

Against the Calvinist idea that "saving-faith is the CONSEQUENCE of God's regeneration", Scripture says that regeneration is BECAUSE of faith. Faith is causal, not consequential.

And that's the foundational difference between "Calvinism", and "Responsible Grace".

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, Ben, but I didn't see it until now. Take your method and apply it to the Levitical Law. What you'll come up with is that the law can indeed be kept, which is exactly the opposite of the teaching of Scripture Old Testament and New. Now, go back and read the Law. Throughout the Law, in the Old Testament, you'll see that it is only possible to be obeyed by grace. That is the teaching of the Old Testament Law. If that is true of the Old Testament Law, do you really think that the New Testament is going to teach an obedience apart from grace? So when you read Romans 8, if you see "not walking in the flesh" without any reference to enabling grace, you have read it wrongly. Grace is the environment in which we do or do not do the things we are called to do or not to do. And if your reading of it ignores that previous work of grace, the work is in the flesh and is works righteousness. And that is no strawman. It is really what you believe. And it is really what I am arguing against.

 

[holdon]

So what you are saying is that if salvation is the work of God, then it is God's 'fault' that some are not saved. I don't agree with your reasoning.

Why not?

If 10 people are sentenced to death, it is possible for the King to pardon all of them, though he would be perfectly just not to pardon any of them. If he pardoned 5 and not the other five, do you think anyone would complain that it is the King's fault that the 5 unpardoned prisoners died? No, of course not; everyone would agree that they deserved to die. So sinners deserve 'not to be saved'.

No, the King wants to pardon all. Wants all to be saved. Wants that no one perish... So, you cannot attribute to God that any are not.

Your question also implies that you don't believe that God is the "factor that makes the difference between believing or not believing". I assume that you believe. Let me ask you then in the words of Paul; "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" Where did your faith come from?

If you want to reason that Eph. 2:8,9 means that God gives faith, that is not a correct conclusion of those verses. The "it" of verse 9 does NOT refer back to "faith" of verse 8. (It's a different gender). But refers back to the "you are saved saved". That is God's work.
If God "makes some different from others" with respect to granting them faith or something like that, then you make God a respector of persons. He cannot be.

Who said anything about 'arbitrarily'? God saves those who He will save. The choice is not 'arbitrary' - it is based on His own will.

Nowhere in Scripture will you find wording like that. God's saves those believe on Him. See Eph. 2:8,9 for instance.
By the way "based on His own will" is arbitrary if He does not choose all to be saved.
But election has not salvation in view at all.

Why was Peter saved and Judas lost? Because Peter was a more intelligent person and therefore made better decisions? Or because of what Jesus said in Luke 22v32: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when [not if] thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

No matter how we slice it, if Peter was saved (which the text does not say, but let's suppose it) based on a prayer of Jesus and Judas was not, then it is Jesus making the difference: withholding saving grace from Judas.

By the way the Judas case is an interesting one, because clearly he was chosen (!) by Jesus.

I don't claim that. God could save everyone if it was His will. The fact that He doesn't shows either that it is not His will, or that He is unable to perform His will. I believe the first, Arminians believe the second - that God would love to save everyone, but can't. In my opinion, that "would show His limitation, which He has not."

I don't care what Arminians believe. You can call me by any name you want, it doesn't matter. Fact is that God cannot save everyone. If He could and as He expressed His will that none perish, but does not, then you have created a two-faced God with no moral standard whatsoever.
But He cannot save everyone, because not everyone believes. And that is because some won't. Jn 3:36.

Firstly, God does not take away the possibility of a person believing. The fall did that by rendering natural man a hater of God.

I fully agree.

Secondly, to say that it is unfair for God not to give a person the ability to believe, implies that that person has a right to be given that ability. We don't. We forfeited all our rights when Adam fell.

No, that has nothing to with having a right. Salvation is only based on grace.
If God is just, then He will treat all equally. If He would exempt some from perishing, He must extend the same offer to all, otherwise He is not just. And so He does conclude that all are equal, sinners, and extends His mercy to all. See Romans 11:32

"For God hath shut up together all in unbelief, in order that he might shew mercy to all. "

 

[pcwilkins]

I started to reply, but realised I was writing in a wrong spirit, as often happens. It is plain that we are not going to agree, and I am not finding that this discussion is bringing me closer to Christ.

I extend my love to you in Jesus Christ, and trust that He will continue that good work which I trust He has begun in you.

Peter