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

[holdon]

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

Same to you brother! I do appreciate that.

 

[Ben johnson]

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.

Hi, Peter. Mostly "OK", thank you. Still tryin' to recover from a wreck.

With respect --- the word "responsibility", conveys "CAUSE". It is my understanding that Calvinists read Rom3:10ff, as absolute. That is, "NO one SEEKS God, EVER". Thus they see the need for prior regeneration.

But here is a salvational verse, that places both "belief", and "seeking" as man's choice.

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.

You and I agree --- mankind is "totally depraved". But your view takes it much farther --- you hold to "UTTER depravity". Total depravity states that all of man's righteousness is to God as filthy rags. Without the sincere call to salvation, he cannot be saved. But UTTER depravity holds that God does NOT call EVERYONE.

Thus --- "total" denounces Pelagius, in that man has NOT inherent goodness to believe, he must be CALLED. Yet Jesus says He will call ALL MEN. Jn12:32 "Utter", states that those unchosen, are uncalled --- and utterly hopeless.

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.

Correct; but I see Rm8 (esp 12ff) as clearly conveying the "obligation" (choice), to walk AFTER the flesh (and die), or to put to death (by the power of the Spirit) and LIVE.

I don't see how he would use "obligation", if it was a divine dictate.

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.

Not a tangent at all, my friend. You and I agree on much; I'm hoping that I'll show you conflict between what you believe, and Scripture.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the sequence of "seeking" and "finding". Do we find God if we seek? Or does God find us (election) and THEN we seek Him? Scripture conveys the former to me.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisses, hypocrites; becasue you SHUT OFF the kingdom of heaven FROM MEN. You do not enter in youselves, nor do you allow those who ARE entering, to GO in." Matt23:13

"Woe to you, experts in Mosaic Law! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and you HINDERED those who WERE entering in." Lk11:52

I do not think these two verses can fit "Predestination", at all. For if we are predestined, then no one CAN interfere. But here is Jesus condemning them FOR interfering!!!

Jesus would not have said what He said, if "predestined-election" was dogma....

PS: In "contending for the truth", it is the utmost desire of my heart to encourage my saved brothers and sisters closer to Christ. You also, Peter; I would never wish to "hinder" you in any measure from walking ever closer to Jesus.

 

[Ben johnson]

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.

Outrider, I believe you have missed my intent. We do not "keep Law" to be saved; we keep Jesus, and He now is the Law.

Our difference --- is that you see "saving-faith", as something directed "God-toward-man"; while I see it as "man towards God". Instead of faith being a source of MERIT for salvation, it is instead complete SUBMISSION (surrender) to Him.

So --- if it is by faith we are saved, it is fully HIS power, HIS sacrifice. Look at Jn1:12-13; one might focus on vs13 and think that we have NOTHING to do with becoming saved; are we pawns, mere flotsam and jetsam in the currents of an absolute machinating God? Instead --- I see verse 13 as speaking of the BEGOTTENNESS --- it IS all of Him and NOTHING of us.

...but verse 12 cleary says that we BECOME begotten by "believing/receiving Jesus".

And that's all I'm saying.

BTW, I would sincerely like you to also respond to the previous post I made, to Peter...

 

[pcwilkins]

Hi, Peter. Mostly "OK", thank you. Still tryin' to recover from a wreck.

Sorry to hear that. Hope you soon recover.

With respect --- the word "responsibility", conveys "CAUSE".

I'm not sure. When I say responsible, I mean that we will be held to account for something. I am responsible for paying my taxes - that is, I will be punished if I don't. I don't see cause coming in here. I pay my taxes because I'll get into trouble if I don't.

It is my understanding that Calvinists read Rom3:10ff, as absolute. That is, "NO one SEEKS God, EVER". Thus they see the need for prior regeneration.

I see that verse as speaking of 'jews and gentiles' (see verse 9). In that sense it includes you and me, as we are gentiles. I'm not sure what your view is on who is included here.

You must at least confess that not many people do seek God - at least not in the right way, or else they would find Him. Why is it that they don't seek Him in a right way?

But here is a salvational verse, that places both "belief", and "seeking" as man's choice.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Where is the salvational verse? Do you still mean Romans 3:10etc?

You and I agree --- mankind is "totally depraved". But your view takes it much farther --- you hold to "UTTER depravity".

Surely if mankind is totally depraved, that means that every part of us is depraved. If every part of us is depraved, isn't that the same as utter depravity?

My dictionary defines 'utterly' as 'completely; absolutely; entirely'. By denying man to be utterly depraved you are therefore denying he is completely or totally depraved, surely.

Total depravity states that all of man's righteousness is to God as filthy rags.

I believe it means more than that - not just that man's righteousness is as filthy rags, but that every facet of man is fallen from God and directly opposed to Him.

Without the sincere call to salvation, he cannot be saved.

But at the same time, we are not saved by a 'sincere call'. I could stand by a river and throw a rope to a drowning man - thereby sincerely showing my willingness to save him. BUT the man is not saved by the fact that I am willing to save him - he is only saved if I actually do save him.

Trying to fit that to the subject, it would not save a man if God just gave him a sincere call - God needs to act, as well. That person's sins need to be atoned for. There needs to be a transferring of their guilt to a surety - there needs to be a payment for those sins.

But UTTER depravity holds that God does NOT call EVERYONE.

In my mind utter depravity is not connected to the extent of God's call. The basic problem is that fallen man is not receptive to God's calls, no matter how general the call is.

One point on which I think we differ is that I see two calls - the outward call and the inward call. The gospel as it is recorded is a call to every man. The command to repent is to every sinner, just like all God's commands - it is binding on each of us. However the mere outward call does not save. That is what Paul meant when he wrote "our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance" (1 Thes. 1:5). I can present the gospel to any man in word only, but to make it come in power and in the Holy Ghost is God's work only.

Thus --- "total" denounces Pelagius, in that man has NOT inherent goodness to believe, he must be CALLED.

Ok, so when a man hears the gospel he is given the ability to believe. The problem is then, what is it that makes some people use that ability and others not use it?

Yet Jesus says He will call ALL MEN. Jn12:32

Granted - as I've said, the outward call of the gospel is not limited to the elect. My question is, what is it that makes some people respond to this call, while others ignore it? What makes them to differ?

"Utter", states that those unchosen, are uncalled --- and utterly hopeless.

You are again confusing the outward call with the inward call. Those who are 'unchosen' are still subject to the outward call. The gospel comes unto them in word. However it doesn't come to them in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance.

Correct; but I see Rm8 (esp 12ff) as clearly conveying the "obligation" (choice), to walk AFTER the flesh (and die), or to put to death (by the power of the Spirit) and LIVE.

You seem to be implying that we can choose to be put to death by the power of the Spirit. What natural man would make this choice?

Romans 8:9 says that "ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Here is the crucial different - are we in the flesh, or do we have the Spirit of God dwelling in us? And can we choose to have the Spirit of God dwelling in us - or is the Spirit like the wind, in that it 'bloweth where it listeth'?

I also take issue with you interpreting obligation as choice. If we are obliged to do something it is because we owe it to someone. It is not a free choice.

I don't see how he would use "obligation", if it was a divine dictate.

I assume that you are referring here to verse 12 - "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh." We are not obliged to live to the flesh, but after the Spirit. Why? It is found in verse 11 - because His Spirit dwelleth in us. That is why we are obliged to live in the Spirit.

Not a tangent at all, my friend. You and I agree on much; I'm hoping that I'll show you conflict between what you believe, and Scripture.

Thanks. I hope that where I am wrong, God will use you to show it to me.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the sequence of "seeking" and "finding". Do we find God if we seek?

Yes, always and without exception. Those that seek shall find. I don't disagree with that. The issue I have is that you are not willing to look at why some people seek and some don't seek. I thank God that I sought Him - does that not imply that God is somehow responsible for the fact that I sought Him?

If it was entirely my decision to seek Him, I don't see why I feel like I ought to thank Him because I did. Does that make sense?

Should I stop thanking Him that I sought Him? Should I just thank Him for giving me the ability to seek Him, and then thank my own self for making use of that ability?

Or does God find us (election) and THEN we seek Him? Scripture conveys the former to me.

Of course it does. Scripture is designed to encourage seekers. It is designed to be used by God to bring sinners to Christ. But again, what I am trying to get you to consider is why some seek and some don't.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisses, hypocrites; becasue you SHUT OFF the kingdom of heaven FROM MEN. You do not enter in youselves, nor do you allow those who ARE entering, to GO in." Matt23:13

"Woe to you, experts in Mosaic Law! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and you HINDERED those who WERE entering in." Lk11:52[/color]

I do not think these two verses can fit "Predestination", at all. For if we are predestined, then no one CAN interfere. But here is Jesus condemning them FOR interfering!!!

Jesus is condemning them for interfering, because they were acting in direct opposition to God's revealed will. They had entirely misinterpreted God's way and God's law and they sought to impose their misunderstanding on others. We would expect Jesus to condemn them for that. At the same time they were clearly fulfilling God's secret will. It was God's secret will that the Jews would oppose Christ and eventually crucify Him.

The Jewish leaders were rebuked for not understanding God's law, even though their lack of understanding was part of God's secret will. It is not our job to try and fulfil God's secret will. We should go by what God has revealed to us.

For if we are predestined, then no one CAN interfere.

Isn't that exactly what Paul is saying in the latter part of Romans 8? Because Christ died, and is risen again, and maketh intercession for us, none can condemn us.

None can seperate us from the love of Christ. That doesn't mean people won't be punished for trying.

Incidentally, there verses don't really support your case, because they clearly show that 'believing' is conditional. If a person can be hindered by men from entering in (i.e. believing) then clearly that person's belief is conditional on the behaviour of others - i.e. their will is not free.

Jesus would not have said what He said, if "predestined-election" was dogma....

I've no doubt that Jesus' understanding of the doctrines of grace was more advanced than mine. However I can only go by what I have been shown. And I still cannot see how the difference between a person believing and a person not believing can be due to anything within that person. Otherwise grace is no more grace.

PS: In "contending for the truth", it is the utmost desire of my heart to encourage my saved brothers and sisters closer to Christ. You also, Peter; I would never wish to "hinder" you in any measure from walking ever closer to Jesus.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Peter

 

[Ben johnson]

I'm not sure. When I say responsible, I mean that we will be held to account for something. I am responsible for paying my taxes - that is, I will be punished if I don't. I don't see cause coming in here. I pay my taxes because I'll get into trouble if I don't.

I'm focusing on Webster's definition of "accountable as being the CAUSE of something". When you pay your taxes --- do you have a choice NOT to? Yes. Yet Predestination asserts that "regeneration always leads to saving-belief". In other words, it is "irresistible grace".

That which cannot be resisted, cannot be said to be choice. Thus --- God is "final cause", and we are not responsible (for all that we do flows invariably/unavoidably FROM His sovereign choice and monergistic-regeneration...)

I see that verse as speaking of 'jews and gentiles' (see verse 9). In that sense it includes you and me, as we are gentiles. I'm not sure what your view is on who is included here.

You must at least confess that not many people do seek God - at least not in the right way, or else they would find Him. Why is it that they don't seek Him in a right way?

It is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), that Calvinists assert "No one seeks God UNLESS He has irresistibly-called them to [chosen] salvation". Thus the question --- do we seek and find? Or does God choose, and THEN we seek?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Where is the salvational verse? Do you still mean Romans 3:10etc?

No. This one:

"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

Believing that God IS, conveys "salvational belief". "Comes to God", also. The verse does not fit the idea of "monergistic-gifted-faith". And it fits fully the premise that "seekers find God", rather than "founders seek God".

Surely if mankind is totally depraved, that means that every part of us is depraved. If every part of us is depraved, isn't that the same as utter depravity?

My dictionary defines 'utterly' as 'completely; absolutely; entirely'. By denying man to be utterly depraved you are therefore denying he is completely or totally depraved, surely.

I seek to differentiate between a depravity that reflects man as completely incapable of saving himself, and a depravity that is beyond hope. So --- we are totally depraved, there is nothing of worth inherent in our nature. But UTTER depravity --- conveys a CLIFF, over which is OUTSIDE of redemption.

If Jesus does not sincerely call a certain person to salvation, then he is totally depraved, and utterly depraved. If a person IS called to salvation, then he is totally depraved, but through Jesus' blood he has HOPE.

I believe it means more than that - not just that man's righteousness is as filthy rags, but that every facet of man is fallen from God and directly opposed to Him.

Agreed.

But at the same time, we are not saved by a 'sincere call'. I could stand by a river and throw a rope to a drowning man - thereby sincerely showing my willingness to save him. BUT the man is not saved by the fact that I am willing to save him - he is only saved if I actually do save him.

Yes! Exactly that! Here is the crux of the argument: in the river, is there a DROWNING MAN, or is there a LIFELESS CORPSE?

Trying to fit that to the subject, it would not save a man if God just gave him a sincere call - God needs to act, as well. That person's sins need to be atoned for. There needs to be a transferring of their guilt to a surety - there needs to be a payment for those sins.

I believe that Jesus redeemed ALL MANKIND. See how this fits:

"Jesus is the propitiation (appeasement) for sins; and not for ours ONLY, but also for (the sins of) the WHOLE WORLD." 1Jn2:2

To me, this says "He redeemed the world, but that redeeming atonement must be RECEIVED."

"He is the Savior of all men, chiefly/above-all (malista) BELIEVERS." 1Tim4:10

Savior of all, but effective to believers. Propitiation and redemption OF all, but REALIZED (accepted) by believers.

Ok, so when a man hears the gospel he is given the ability to believe. The problem is then, what is it that makes some people use that ability and others not use it?

Jesus said (Jn3:18), that some love the light, some love darkness. I believe that love can be returned to God, or resisted.

Granted - as I've said, the outward call of the gospel is not limited to the elect. My question is, what is it that makes some people respond to this call, while others ignore it? What makes them to differ?

You are again confusing the outward call with the inward call. Those who are 'unchosen' are still subject to the outward call. The gospel comes unto them in word. However it doesn't come to them in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance.

I don't see evidence in Scripture of "two calls"; one sincere, one insincere. I do "put much stock" in passages like Matt22:2-14; by the end of the parable (which, in Jesus' words, illustrates the call to salvation) --- who was NOT called? It ends, "many are called, but few are chosen". Where is it conveyed that the KING determined who would respond, and who would not? Were they not free to accept, or to choose instead farming, business, or their own filthy clothing?

You seem to be implying that we can choose to be put to death by the power of the Spirit. What natural man would make this choice?

This is "fodder" for a whole other discussion; it would encompass verses like 1Cor2:14 ("A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he CANNOT understand them because they are spiritually appraised [judged].") And I would point out that verse 12 plainly says "the RECEIVED Spirit enables us to know the things freely given to us by God". The Spirit is received by belief --- therefore believing in Jesus is NOT one of the "spiritual things that only spiritual men can know". Belief in Jesus, RECEIVES the Spirit. The natural man CAN believe. This is also how I read 1Cor1:21 --- God is pleased to save those who believe THROUGH (in spite of) what they formerly thought foolish...

Romans 8:9 says that "ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Here is the crucial different - are we in the flesh, or do we have the Spirit of God dwelling in us? And can we choose to have the Spirit of God dwelling in us - or is the Spirit like the wind, in that it 'bloweth where it listeth'?

Does not Eph5:18 admonish us TO be filled with the Spirit? Does not Col3 admonish us to "set our minds on things above, NOT on earthly things"? Doesn't the following context convey "life" (above), and "death" (earthly)?

I also take issue with you interpreting obligation as choice. If we are obliged to do something it is because we owe it to someone. It is not a free choice.

A debt can be forfeit; yes there is consequence; perhaps even jail. But I think it's important that he said "obligation", rather than "compulsion"...

I assume that you are referring here to verse 12 - "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh." We are not obliged to live to the flesh, but after the Spirit. Why? It is found in verse 11 - because His Spirit dwelleth in us. That is why we are obliged to live in the Spirit.

Exactly that! "Obliged TO live in the Spirit". Please read Eph4:17-32 --- does it not read as choice? Look now at 2Cor13:5; we are to "examine ourselves to see if we are in Christ (and if Christ is IN US)".

So my perception is that we ARE to be filled with Christ, we ARE to be filled with the Spirit, but it is a continual choice. See Col2:6. And 7. AND 8!!! How do you understand those three verses?

Thanks. I hope that where I am wrong, God will use you to show it to me.

Peter, it is an honor and priviledge to converse with you. I pray that I will be equally open to ANY error, which God will teach me through my brothers. Know this, if I have not said it often enough --- there is a time when "OSAS/OSNAS" does not matter. Two brothers, one OSAS, the other OSNAS, can stand together in perfect fellowship and love.

I have absolutely no doubt that you are a child of God.

Yes, always and without exception. Those that seek shall find. I don't disagree with that. The issue I have is that you are not willing to look at why some people seek and some don't seek. I thank God that I sought Him - does that not imply that God is somehow responsible for the fact that I sought Him?

It gets right back to what I asked you a moment ago; is there a drowning man in the river? Or is there only a floating lifeless corpse?

If it was entirely my decision to seek Him, I don't see why I feel like I ought to thank Him because I did. Does that make sense?

I understand why it makes sense to you. Please look at Acts2:37; they were "pierced to the heart" (smitten in conscience). Rather than BOAST at their "intelligence" in choosing Jesus, they are instead crying in ANGUISH, convicted of their sin. Crying for Him to SAVE them. It is as far away from "personal boasting" as can be.

Conviction turned them to Him; not vice-versa.

Of course it does. Scripture is designed to encourage seekers. It is designed to be used by God to bring sinners to Christ. But again, what I am trying to get you to consider is why some seek and some don't.

Jesus said, "some were unwilling to come to the light, BECAUSE it would expose their (loved) evil deeds". If we are but "corpses floating down the river", then of course we MUST be regenerated BEFORE we can grab the rope. But if we are ALIVE-floating, then (even if not drowning at that moment --- maybe the FALLS are just AHEAD) we have the choice to grab the rope, or not. "Total depravity" (drowning man), or "utter depravity" (corpse).

Make sense?

Jesus is condemning them for interfering, because they were acting in direct opposition to God's revealed will. They had entirely misinterpreted God's way and God's law and they sought to impose their misunderstanding on others. We would expect Jesus to condemn them for that. At the same time they were clearly fulfilling God's secret will. It was God's secret will that the Jews would oppose Christ and eventually crucify Him.

The Jewish leaders were rebuked for not understanding God's law, even though their lack of understanding was part of God's secret will. It is not our job to try and fulfil God's secret will. We should go by what God has revealed to us.

That Jesus would be crucified, was God's secret will (decree). Which person(s) would PARTICIPATE in that crucifixion, was NOT God's choice...

Isn't that exactly what Paul is saying in the latter part of Romans 8? Because Christ died, and is risen again, and maketh intercession for us, none can condemn us.

IF we believe! Look at the end of ROmans9; why did the Israelites fail? Was it not BECAUSE of disobedience and unbelief?

None can seperate us from the love of Christ. That doesn't mean people won't be punished for trying.

According to 2Tim2:11-13, He is faithful (loving) to us even if we DENY Him and NOT-REIGN with Him (perish!). And they didn't just TRY to keep people from Heaven, in Matt23:13, they succeeded!

Incidentally, there verses don't really support your case, because they clearly show that 'believing' is conditional. If a person can be hindered by men from entering in (i.e. believing) then clearly that person's belief is conditional on the behaviour of others - i.e. their will is not free.

No --- it shows they can be deceived to UNBELIEF. Those three verses in Col2 (6-8) --- how can they NOT mean "deceived to unbelief"? And Heb3:12-14? James1:12-14? 2Peter3:17? There are many verses like that...

I've no doubt that Jesus' understanding of the doctrines of grace was more advanced than mine. However I can only go by what I have been shown. And I still cannot see how the difference between a person believing and a person not believing can be due to anything within that person. Otherwise grace is no more grace.

Calvinism asserts that "saving-faith" is but a SECOND dispensation of God's monergistic grace. So Paul's words in Eph2:8, become: "For by grace THROUGH GRACE have you been saved; it is NOTHING of yourselves, the unilateral gift from God...."

A.T.Robertson, on that passage, says "Grace is GOD'S part, faith is OURS."

----------------------

Do you understand more of the position from which I'm speaking? Do we not still agree on the foundational things --- salvation by God's grace, through our faith, UNearned, UNmeritted, UNdeserved? Have I damaged your walk in any way? (I pray not!) Even if we continue to disagree, I smile in the knowledge that I have driven you deeper into the Word, and closer to God; as you have me!

 

[pcwilkins]

I'm focusing on Webster's definition of "accountable as being the CAUSE of something". When you pay your taxes --- do you have a choice NOT to? Yes.

Yes, I have a choice not to; but it is not a free choice. It is influenced by all kinds of things - not least by the fact that I would be punished if I didn't. In fact, if I didn't believe that I would get punished, I probably wouldn't pay them.

So a sinner, until he/she is convinced of the facts that God exists, that they are accountable to God, and that God will punish them if they aren't found in Christ, he/she will not seek Christ.

Yet Predestination asserts that "regeneration always leads to saving-belief".

I assert that when a man is born again, the first thing that he does is cry for mercy because he sees his own state. God then reveals to him the way of salvation and he is compelled (by his great need) to flee unto Christ.

In other words, it is "irresistible grace". That which cannot be resisted, cannot be said to be choice.

You are looking at this too simplistically. It's not my belief that the decision to seek God is not our decision. What I do believe is that no man would take that decision, unless he saw an attraction in God - and no man sees an attraction in God unless born again.

The reason that most people don't come to Christ is because they don't see their need of Him. And the reason they don't see their need of Him is because they are dead in trespasses and sins, and content to be so.

Thus --- God is "final cause", and we are not responsible (for all that we do flows invariably/unavoidably FROM His sovereign choice and monergistic-regeneration...)

We are responsible (as in 'accountable') for our actions - but we are not responsible (as in 'the cause of') for our own salvation!

It is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), that Calvinists assert "No one seeks God UNLESS He has irresistibly-called them to [chosen] salvation". Thus the question --- do we seek and find? Or does God choose, and THEN we seek?

Again, it's not that simple. I believe - and I don't pretend to represent Calvin or anyone else - that noone seeks God unless they see an attraction in Him, and that no-one sees an attraction in Him unless they see their need of Him, and that noone sees their need of Him unless born again. Unregenerate man is quite happy without God.

No. This one:

"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

The verse does not fit the idea of "monergistic-gifted-faith".

I link this verse to the one which says that those that are in the flesh cannot please God. Does that indicate that there is a connection between being in the flesh and not believing?

And it fits fully the premise that "seekers find God", rather than "founders seek God".

I fully agree with the first premise. I am trying to get you to consider why some seek.

I seek to differentiate between a depravity that reflects man as completely incapable of saving himself, and a depravity that is beyond hope.

Our depravity is total whether there is hope for us or not. The man in the river is in the same situation whether I'm throwing him a rope or not!

At any rate, by nature we are completely without hope! There is nothing in our nature to give us hope.

So --- we are totally depraved, there is nothing of worth inherent in our nature.

Depraved indicates much more than a lack of worth. It means not only are we 'completely not good', but we are 'completely bad'. Not only do we have nothing to commend us to God, but we see no need of anything to commend us to God. Not only are we distant from God, we are also content to be distant from God.

But UTTER depravity --- conveys a CLIFF, over which is OUTSIDE of redemption.

I don't see that just because we are utterly depraved means that we cannot be saved. Jesus came to save those who are utterly depraved!

If Jesus does not sincerely call a certain person to salvation, then he is totally depraved, and utterly depraved.

We are all utterly/totally depraved, whether we are called to salvation or not.

If a person IS called to salvation, then he is totally depraved, but through Jesus' blood he has HOPE.

Again you are confusing two issues. A person can be utterly depraved and still have hope. Trust me, I know!!!

Yes! Exactly that! Here is the crux of the argument: in the river, is there a DROWNING MAN, or is there a LIFELESS CORPSE?

There is a drowing man - but by nature he is content to be drowning!

I believe that Jesus redeemed ALL MANKIND. See how this fits:

"Jesus is the propitiation (appeasement) for sins; and not for ours ONLY, but also for (the sins of) the WHOLE WORLD." 1Jn2:2

You know the Calvinistic interpretation of this word as well as I do!

To me, this says "He redeemed the world, but that redeeming atonement must be RECEIVED."

To me, what you have just said means that the atonement was worthless unless somehow 'activated' by our faith.

But I believe that Jesus death actually atoned forthe sins of His people - their sins have been paid for! They have a clean slate! There is nothing to condemn them!

A man is not saved because he received the atonement, but because the atonement was made!

"He is the Savior of all men, chiefly/above-all (malista) BELIEVERS." 1Tim4:10

Savior of all, but effective to believers. Propitiation and redemption OF all, but REALIZED (accepted) by believers.

Again, this says to me that the redemption was not worth anything as an event. To my mind, if all men were redeemed, all men would be saved - because it is Jesus' death that saves, not our acceptance of His death.

Jesus said (Jn3:18), that some love the light, some love darkness. I believe that love can be returned to God, or resisted.

Yes! Yes! BUT, why the difference? Dig deeper! This is where we are getting close to the solution! If we can concentrate on this point, I believe we will get to the crux of the problem.

I don't see evidence in Scripture of "two calls"; one sincere, one insincere.

I believe it is demonstrated by words like "our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance" (1 Thes. 1:5).

Clearly there is a 'coming of the gospel in word only'. But there is also a 'coming of the gospel in power, etc'. I don't see that we need to invent labels like 'sincere' or 'insincere'.

I do "put much stock" in passages like Matt22:2-14; by the end of the parable (which, in Jesus' words, illustrates the call to salvation) --- who was NOT called?

I suspect we both put 'much stock' by all scripture!

The answer is, 'many' were called. Just like I said, the gospel call is to all men. The King's invitation to the first lot of people was sincere. The gospel call to all men is a sincere call.

But read the version in Luke. The first set of guest were called: "And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come."

But because they had better things to do they ignored the call - just like unregenerate man will.

"Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind." Not 'invite in hither'.

They 'accepted' and came because they needed the food! Draw the analogy - those who come to Christ come because they need Him! Does the natural man feel a need of Christ?

Then later: "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled."

Compel: "To force, drive, or constrain" or "To necessitate or pressure by force; exact" or "To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway". Why does the Holy Spirit use the word 'compel' here?

It ends, "many are called, but few are chosen".

Yes - it doesn't say "many are called, but few choose to respond"!

Where is it conveyed that the KING determined who would respond, and who would not?

It isn't! The parable breaks down there, because unlike our heavenly King, the earthly king in the parable isn't omniscient or omnipotent. The parable is designed to show that only those who need Christ come to Christ.

Were they not free to accept, or to choose instead farming, business, or their own filthy clothing?

No! Their decision was influenced - in fact, determined - by the fact that they saw no real attraction in the feast! Similarly, an unregenerate man, who sees no real attraction in Christ, will not come to Him!

This is "fodder" for a whole other discussion; it would encompass verses like 1Cor2:14 ("A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he CANNOT understand them because they are spiritually appraised [judged].") And I would point out that verse 12 plainly says "the RECEIVED Spirit enables us to know the things freely given to us by God". The Spirit is received by belief

You have contradicted yourself. First you quite 1 Cor 2:14 - the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. Then you say that the Spirit is received through belief, which the natural man can do!

Therefore you are saying that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit, but he can receive the Spirit itself!

Yes, verse 12 does say that we have received the Spirit. But nowhere does it say that the Spirit is 'received by belief'. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

therefore believing in Jesus is NOT one of the "spiritual things that only spiritual men can know".

I don't follow your 'therefore'.

Belief in Jesus, RECEIVES the Spirit.

No. Luke 11:13: "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" We receive the Spirit when we ask for it. And we will not ask for it until we desire it. And we will not desire it until we see our need of it. And we will not see our need of it by nature because by nature we believe we are self-sufficient and we certainly will not depend on God for anything.

The natural man CAN believe.

Yes, in his head. But not in his heart, not in his spirit. We can believe what we like in a natural way. But true faith - saving faith - "faith which works by love" - cannot come from a God-hating heart.

This is also how I read 1Cor1:21 --- God is pleased to save those who believe THROUGH (in spite of) what they formerly thought foolish...

Yes. And when did they change from thinking it foolish to believing it? And why?

Does not Eph5:18 admonish us TO be filled with the Spirit?

Yes! The same chapter also exhorts us to "Be...followers of God", to "walk in love", to "walk as children of light", to "walk circumspectly", to give "thanks always", and to love our wives "even as" ourselves!

Is the natural man able to do any of these? No! Then why do you think that he is able to "be filled with the Spirit?"

Does not Col3 admonish us to "set our minds on things above, NOT on earthly things"?

Yes! But "they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh".

Doesn't the following context convey "life" (above), and "death" (earthly)?

Yes! And by nature we prefer earthly things!

A debt can be forfeit; yes there is consequence; perhaps even jail. But I think it's important that he said "obligation", rather than "compulsion"...

Let me make it clear - nobody is compelled/forced to love God. He doesn't drive them to it by force - He draws them by love.

Exactly that! "Obliged TO live in the Spirit". Please read Eph4:17-32 --- does it not read as choice?

Yes! But a choice which no merely natural man would ever make!

Look now at 2Cor13:5; we are to "examine ourselves to see if we are in Christ (and if Christ is IN US)".

Yes! But I don't really see the relevance of this as to what makes a man a seeker.

So my perception is that we ARE to be filled with Christ, we ARE to be filled with the Spirit, but it is a continual choice.

You speak almost as if you believe that we can choose to be filled with Christ, filled with the Spirit!

See Col2:6. And 7. AND 8!!! How do you understand those three verses?

"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, [so] walk ye in him:"

How do I understand it? I understand it as an exhortation to walk in Christ! Do I need God's help to do that? Yes, I do!

"Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving."

Rooted and built up by who? Stabilished by who? Taught by who?

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Again it says watch out you don't get caught up in wrong doctrines! Do I need God to keep me from doing so? Do I need God to interpret His word to me and enable me to understand it? In short, am I completely dependant on God for everything good? Yes, I am!

It is only when I try to be independant that I fall!

Peter, it is an honor and priviledge to converse with you. I pray that I will be equally open to ANY error, which God will teach me through my brothers. Know this, if I have not said it often enough --- there is a time when "OSAS/OSNAS" does not matter. Two brothers, one OSAS, the other OSNAS, can stand together in perfect fellowship and love.

Quite:

"When is it Christians all agree,
And let distinctions fall?
When, nothing in themselves, they see
That Christ is All in All."

To be continued...

 

[pcwilkins]

...continued!

It gets right back to what I asked you a moment ago; is there a drowning man in the river? Or is there only a floating lifeless corpse?

It's a drowning man who doesn't know he's drowning, and no matter how much you shout to him to tell him, he won't listen because he's too intent on what's happening around him. He's too busy enjoying what he can get out of his life to worry about his impending death.

Until God convicts him of his sins and opens his eyes to see that he needs a saviour, he won't seek one. It comes back to the gospel coming in power - I can stand on the bank and shout to him that he needs Christ, that Christ is the saviour of sinners - but unless the word enters with power into his heart, he won't listen!

I understand why it makes sense to you. Please look at Acts2:37; they were "pierced to the heart" (smitten in conscience). Rather than BOAST at their "intelligence" in choosing Jesus,

They hadn't 'chosen' Jesus.How could they have boasted about something they hadn't done???

they are instead crying in ANGUISH, convicted of their sin. Crying for Him to SAVE them.

Indeed! Why? Because the Gospel came not only in word, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance!

It is as far away from "personal boasting" as can be.

Again, what could they have possible boasted about? At that stage they weren't 'in Christ'!

Conviction turned them to Him; not vice-versa.

So you accept that men need turning to come to Christ? And who is that can turn them? Isn't this the same as what old-fashioned people call 'conversion'?

Jesus said, "some were unwilling to come to the light, BECAUSE it would expose their (loved) evil deeds".

Ok!

If we are but "corpses floating down the river", then of course we MUST be regenerated BEFORE we can grab the rope.

I havn't said we are corpses floating down the river. I deliberately used 'drowning man', not 'dead man'!

But if we are ALIVE-floating, then (even if not drowning at that moment --- maybe the FALLS are just AHEAD) we have the choice to grab the rope, or not.

Ok! But how does a man know he needs to grab the rope? And again we come back to the point - what is it that makes one man grab it, and one not?

"Total depravity" (drowning man), or "utter depravity" (corpse).

I'm going to go for an utterly, completely, totally (however you want to say it) depraved drowning man who does not know he is drowning!

That Jesus would be crucified, was God's secret will (decree). Which person(s) would PARTICIPATE in that crucifixion, was NOT God's choice...

Hmm. But God knew who would do it. At any rate I don't see this as relevant.

IF we believe! Look at the end of ROmans9; why did the Israelites fail? Was it not BECAUSE of disobedience and unbelief?

Again we come back to this point - is a person saved because Christ died for them, or because they believe that Christ died for them? In other words, are they saved by His death or not?

According to 2Tim2:11-13, He is faithful (loving) to us even if we DENY Him and NOT-REIGN with Him (perish!).

Romans 8 is saying that no matter what opposition there is to a Christ, they are saved! Noone can condemn them because Christ died! Noone can lay anything to their charge because God justifies them!

It is not saying that we can go to Hell but still not be seperated from God's love. The verses in Timothy do notsay that God is faithful to those that perish:

"It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself."

Notice the 'shalls'? Not, "if we abide faithful to Him". Our salvation does not depend on our faithfulness to God, but God's faithfulness to us!

And they didn't just TRY to keep people from Heaven, in Matt23:13, they succeeded!

Yes - against God's revealed will, but in line with His secret will.

At the same time, they didn't prevent Simeon entering Heaven! All through the long time when the Jews had misinterpreted God's word, there were still those who entered Heaven despite the scribes and Pharisees opposition!

No --- it shows they can be deceived to UNBELIEF.

Yes! And the vast majority of mankind are! But remember what Jesus said in Mark 13:22..."For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."

If it will be impossible for the false christs and false prophets to deceive the elect, don't you think that it was just as impossible for the scribes and pharisees to do so?

Those three verses in Col2 (6-8) --- how can they NOT mean "deceived to unbelief"?

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

This verse does not say that the elect can be deceived to unbelief. It says that Christians should beware of being spoilt through philosophy. The word 'spoil' is as in the military meaning - to carry away treasure. Christian's can lose their assurance and other graces through walking in wrong ways. But they cannot lose their salvation, because THAT was accomplished by the death of Christ, which cannot be undone!

And Heb3:12-14?

"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end"

This verse simply falls into the same category as "give diligence to make your calling and election sure". Don't be complacent! Don't just assume that you are saved and sit back and relax! Don't assume that Christ died for you and therefore you can do what you want!

James1:12-14?

"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

This proves that a Christian can be "drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." But I don't suppose either of us need proof of that - experience tells us the same.

It also proves that the Lord has promised a crown "to them that love him". Can the natural man choose to love God? Nope, enmity to God is built into his very nature.

It also proves that God's people have temptations which they must endure.

2Peter3:17?

"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."

This proves that God's people need to beware of being led away with the error of the wicked. Perhaps we could even say that it proves that God's people can be led away with the error of the wicked. It proves that they can fall from their own stedfastness.

But do any of these prove that a single one of Christ's sheep can perish? No! It can never be so, because Christ died!

There are many verses like that...

Yep! And all of them, I suspect, have been interpreted in hundreds of different ways by hundred of different, intelligent, Christian, people.

Calvinism asserts that "saving-faith" is but a SECOND dispensation of God's monergistic grace.

I've never heard a Calvinist put it exactly like that, but I'll take your word for it...

So Paul's words in Eph2:8, become: "For by grace THROUGH GRACE have you been saved; it is NOTHING of yourselves, the unilateral gift from God...."

I'm quite happy for that passage to stay as God intended!

A.T.Robertson, on that passage, says "Grace is GOD'S part, faith is OURS."

Depends what he meant. We could say that salvation is ours - does that mean we produced it from our own carnal, sinful nature? No!

Praise God if faith IS yours! Or...hang on....should we praise ourselves? Should I give up thanking God for the fact that I am a believer, since it was my own self that chose to be one? Should I instead thank Him that He gave me the kind of free will which didn't love darkness more than light? Should I thank Him that He made me just that little bit better than those who reject Him?

Should I stop praying that others would be brought to faith in Christ? After all, it's out of God's power to bring them to faith against their will, isn't it?

Do you understand more of the position from which I'm speaking?

Yes, I understand - but I disagree!

Do we not still agree on the foundational things --- salvation by God's grace, through our faith, UNearned, UNmeritted, UNdeserved---?

Absolutely! "The impulsive or moving cause of salvation is the free grace of God. The meritorious cause is the blood and righteousness of Christ. The efficient cause is the Holy Spirit. The instrumental cause is faith in Christ." - Robert Shaw

Have I damaged your walk in any way? (I pray not) Even if we continue to disagree, I smile in the knowledge that I have driven you deeper into the Word, and closer to God; as you have me!

Likewise! Sorry for the long post!

Peter

 

[Ben johnson]

Goodness, Peter! You're quite the writer!

So a sinner, until he/she is convinced of the facts that God exists, that they are accountable to God, and that God will punish them if they aren't found in Christ, he/she will not seek Christ.

Agreed; but what still separates you and me, is sequence. Does one become chosen, FROM conviction? Or is one convicted BECAUSE he is chosen?

You are looking at this too simplistically. It's not my belief that the decision to seek God is not our decision. What I do believe is that no man would take that decision, unless he saw an attraction in God - and no man sees an attraction in God unless born again.

The reason that most people don't come to Christ is because they don't see their need of Him. And the reason they don't see their need of Him is because they are dead in trespasses and sins, and content to be so.

How do you define, "BORN AGAIN"? To me, the best definition lies in Romans 6. It involves being "crucified/buried/immersed/united/DIED with Christ, in His crucifixion"; AND being likewise united in His resurrection. This throughout Scripture is the consequence of belief; not vice versa.

Let's clear up some terms --- there seem to be several words used in Scripture with identical meaning.

1. Fell (upon them)
2. Gifted (to them)
3. Received
4. Immersed
5. Sealed
6. Poured

All six of these words reflect one event for a believer --- when he RECEIVES the Holy Spirit. Eph1:13 places "sealed with the Spirit", after "having believed". Acts 10:44-48 (and 11:15-17) uses "gifted" and "fell-upon" and "received" and "poured", referring to ONE EVENT. When the Holy Spirit becomes united with the believers. Matt3:11 uses "immersed in the Spirit" (and it has nothing to do with water).

Acts11:17 plainly says "after having believed". Acts10:45 says "poured". Now please look at Titus3:5-6; regeneration is by the POURED Holy Spirit, Who was poured THROUGH our belief in Jesus. The sequence Calvinism requires (regeneration, or "born-again", preceding belief), isn't there. Not anywhere in Scripture that I've found...

Yes, verse 12 does say that we have received the Spirit. But nowhere does it say that the Spirit is 'received by belief'.

You'll have to deny that all of those descriptions, do NOT refer to one event. A Christian receives/has-poured/has-gifted/is-felled-upon/is-sealed by the Spirit; and it is "after belief". Can you deny that those six things listed above, refer to one event? Can you deny that they say, "after having believed"?

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

To me, that says: "You cannot see the wind, but it is real, you can see it by its EFFECTS; so too you cannot see spiritual birth, but you can KNOW it by its EFFECTS..."

 

[Ben johnson]

We are responsible (as in 'accountable') for our actions - but we are not responsible (as in 'the cause of') for our own salvation!

Technically true; JESUS is our cause. But our part IN becoming saved, is undeniable in many verses --- such as 1Tim4:16: "Take care about yourselves and your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you DO you will SAVE YOURSELVES and those who hear you..."

Again, it's not that simple. I believe - and I don't pretend to represent Calvin or anyone else - that noone seeks God unless they see an attraction in Him, and that no-one sees an attraction in Him unless they see their need of Him, and that noone sees their need of Him unless born again. Unregenerate man is quite happy without God.

What you need to find in Scripture (in support of Calvinism), is "conversion and THEN seeking". But Scripture denies that.

Calvinists point to 2Cor4:3-4: "Even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose eyes the god of this world has blinded, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ..." Blinded, so they CAN'T see, therefore they must be regenerated BEFORE they see/believe? Verse 3:16 ruins the whole Calvinistic interpretation: "WHEN a man turns to God, (THEN!) the veil is removed!" Sequence, Peter; it denies Calvinism, but affirms Responsible Grace, perfectly.

I don't follow your 'therefore'.

Verse 14 speaks of "things of the Spirit of God"; verse 12 says "things freely given to us by God". Both speak of the same "things".

THEREFORE --- those things that the natural man does not understand, but the spiritual man DOES, are understood through the RECEIVED Spirit. The sequence is absolute:

Believe/receive-Jesus => receive-Spirit => spiritual-understanding

Unless you can contend that "received-Spirit" is BEFORE belief, that sequence has to be valid.

No. Luke 11:13: "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" We receive the Spirit when we ask for it. And we will not ask for it until we desire it. And we will not desire it until we see our need of it. And we will not see our need of it by nature because by nature we believe we are self-sufficient and we certainly will not depend on God for anything.

And that's why I presented the "drowning or corpse" illustration. A drowning man can RECOGNIZE that he's drowning, and can accept the rope. But a corpse canNOT. Acts2:37 is the perfect example of "conviction that leads to salvation".

Another perfect example is 2Tim3:15: "Since childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures which are able to give you wisdom that leads to saving-faith in Jesus..."

I submit that "wisdom", is "conviction". And such conviction can be resisted; if you look at Jn5:39-49, Jesus is berating them for "studying the Scriptures but REFUSING to come to Me that you may have life"....

Yes, in his head. But not in his heart, not in his spirit. We can believe what we like in a natural way. But true faith - saving faith - "faith which works by love" - cannot come from a God-hating heart.

A man who is convicted and believes in Jesus, no longer hates God, Peter.

Yes. And when did they change from thinking it foolish to believing it? And why?

Conviction is what caused the change. Though it SEEMED foolish, the Gospel still had the power to convict. Conviction and "foolish-to-power" are simultaneous.

Yes! The same chapter also exhorts us to "Be...followers of God", to "walk in love", to "walk as children of light", to "walk circumspectly", to give "thanks always", and to love our wives "even as" ourselves!

Is the natural man able to do any of these? No! Then why do you think that he is able to "be filled with the Spirit?"

But I respectfully suggest that you're missing the reality that we can also NOT walk in Him. Heb3:12-14 warns us NOT to be deceived by sin to "falling away from the living God". It says, "we are partners in Christ IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance (hold fast to JESUS) firm until the end". The warning continues, describing how the Israelites did not enter THEIR rest (the promised land from Egypt) because of disobedience and unbelief; verse 4:11 LIKEWISE warns US not to "fall and miss entering GOD'S rest (Heaven!) by IMITATING their disobedience and unbelief"!

Every warning TO persevere in Christ, conveys the real danger of falling AWAY from Christ. Peter labored in his letters to teach that, notably the second. He desribes the attributes that WILL accompany the saved ("supply IN your saved faith", not "add TO your fruitless-saved-faith"!); he holds up a man who lacks these qualities, but that man WAS purified! He says not to BE like that man. We are to "therefore be all the more diligent to make sure of your calling and election; for as long as these things are yours ....you are useful ...and the very entrance to Heaven shall BE (abundantly) provided TO you!" Ch2 is all about false prophets and false teachers deceiving truly-escaped back into defilements, ch3 warns us to be careful so that Jesus FINDS us holy and blameless, and warns us NOT to be deceived by men into falling from our own steadfastness (in Christ!!!)

From the start --- passages like Deuteronomy 30:15-20, following and walking-in God, has always been a choice. From start to finish.

 

[Ben johnson]

Let me make it clear - nobody is compelled/forced to love God. He doesn't drive them to it by force - He draws them by love.

It's really a question of "semantics". Calvinists emphatically deny that "mankind is forced or coerced or compelled to love God". But if it is GOD who first chooses one who is (up until that point) sinful and only desiring defilements, and THEN regenerates him --- and if that regenerated man then unavoidably/invariably/irresistibly LOVES and SEEKS God, then there is no difference between such a "returned-love", and "compelled/forced". Such a man had no choice either to first turn TO God, or second to REFUSE God (after monergistic regeneration)...

Yes! But I don't really see the relevance of this as to what makes a man a seeker.

We are to test ourselves to see if we are "still in Christ" --- in other words, to see if WE are still CHRISTIAN. There can be no other meaning, can there?

You speak almost as if you believe that we can choose to be filled with Christ, filled with the Spirit!

There is no "almost", Peter; it is fully a choice. Constant. Therein lies the difference between what you have come to believe, and what I have come to believe...

Again it says watch out you don't get caught up in wrong doctrines! Do I need God to keep me from doing so? Do I need God to interpret His word to me and enable me to understand it? In short, am I completely dependant on God for everything good? Yes, I am!

"Wrong doctrines"? What does that mean? If someone DOES embrace a "wrong doctrine", does he still follow the Gospel of Jesus? How could he? And if he is following "wrong doctrines", how is he still saved?

It is only when I try to be independant that I fall!

"Fall" is an interesting word; it occurs many times. In Heb3:12, in 2Pet3:17, in 1Tim4:1, and many others --- it really reads to me as "fall eternally".

Until God convicts him of his sins and opens his eyes to see that he needs a saviour, he won't seek one. It comes back to the gospel coming in power - I can stand on the bank and shout to him that he needs Christ, that Christ is the saviour of sinners - but unless the word enters with power into his heart, he won't listen!

And yet verses such as we just read, 2Cor3:16, plainly say "turn to God and THEN the veil removed". The concepts conveyed by Paul and the Apostles must triumph over what seems reasonable to us.

So you accept that men need turning to come to Christ? And who is that can turn them? Isn't this the same as what old-fashioned people call 'conversion'?

Mankind is conscious. He can hear --- and "(saving) faith COMES from hearing". Rom10:17 In that same passage, "HOW can they believe WITHOUT preachers?" Belief that hinges on preacher-availability, cannot be predestined.

Belief that is predestined cannot be "hindered", Matt23:13.

If God elects a few whom He CHOOSES, then God IS a resecter of persons; opposing Acts10:34-35: "God is no respecter of persons --- but he who fears God and does right, is welcome to Him." Belief that can choose or reject God, that must exist without God's partiality ("respecter"), cannot be predestined.

I havn't said we are corpses floating down the river. I deliberately used 'drowning man', not 'dead man'!

But your view is "blissful-ignorant-drowning", meaning "he CANNOT answer" --- so conceptually that is no different from a "corpse who cannot answer"...

Ok! But how does a man know he needs to grab the rope? And again we come back to the point - what is it that makes one man grab it, and one not?

Conviction. Love. I made a similar journey (though not as atheistic) as Josh McDowell; when I realized that there was NO WAY to deny God, or Jesus and the Cross, I had no choice but accept what I knew was real.

Love is a decision, Peter. "You shall LOVE the Lord your God with ALL your heart, and all your mind, and all your soul!" That's a commandment; we are commanded to love Him.

All men --- just as "all men God commands to repent". Acts17:30

Hmm. But God knew who would do it. At any rate I don't see this as relevant.

It's relevant. Who made the dicision for any one particular person to PARTICIPATE in the Crucifixion? God? Or the one who participated? You see, if "belief" is "CAUSAL", then each person DECIDES to follow OR to oppose God. Therefore eternity is meted out JUSTLY. But if "belief" is "CONSEQUENTIAL", then we are but flotsam and jetsam in the sovereign will of an absolute-controlling God, and salvation and condemnation are HIS exclusive choice.

"God is JUST, and justifier of he who BELIEVES." Rm3:26 This conveys belief as "causal"; and God as "just in giving what each person CHOOSES --- 'he who, by doing good seeks for glory and honor and immorality, ETERNAL LIFE; but he who is selfishly ambitious and does not obey the truth but obeys unrighteousness, WRATH and INDIGNATION' (Hell)." Rm2:6-8

This is what we're discussing, Peter; sequence of "seek and find", or "find and seek"; sequence of "cause and effect", or "effect and cause".

If belief CAUSES salvation, then unbelief causes unsalvation. See 1Jn5:10.

 

[Ben johnson]

Again we come back to this point - is a person saved because Christ died for them, or because they believe that Christ died for them? In other words, are they saved by His death or not?

Scripture says "BECAUSE they BELIEVED". Unbelief is the ONLY cause for condemnation.

Notice the 'shalls'? Not, "if we abide faithful to Him". Our salvation does not depend on our faithfulness to God, but God's faithfulness to us!

I understand that's what Calvinism claims; and, that "saving-faith is GIFTED to us (unilaterally, monergistically)".

But if we are "saved by grace through faith", then salvation DOES depend on our faithfulness. Will you accept that "faithfulness" means the same thing as "steadfastness", as "obedience", as "perseverance"? There are many verses that charge US with "faithfulness" and "obedience" and "perseverance" and "steadfastness".

You see, if our salvation depends NOT on our faith, but ONLY on God's faith, then God does NOT show justice (either TO the elect or TO the condemned); and mankind has no accountability for doing what he could not avoid...

Yes! And the vast majority of mankind are! But remember what Jesus said in Mark 13:22..."For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."

If it will be impossible for the false christs and false prophets to deceive the elect, don't you think that it was just as impossible for the scribes and pharisees to do so?

The Greek only uses "ie dunatos" --- so it is translated, "to deceive the elect, if able to". Deceivers fully intend to lead us away from Jesus. Clearly conveyed in 1Jn2:26-28 (from "abiding in Christ"), clear in 2Jn1:7-9 (deceiving us to "going out from us, and leaving behind the teachings of Christ --- so they HAVE NOT GOD!").

Paul says, "I worry --- that as the serpent deceived Even, you ALSO should be LED AWAY from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ"... 2Cor11:3

This verse does not say that the elect can be deceived to unbelief. It says that Christians should beware of being spoilt through philosophy. The word 'spoil' is as in the military meaning - to carry away treasure. Christian's can lose their assurance and other graces through walking in wrong ways. But they cannot lose their salvation, because THAT was accomplished by the death of Christ, which cannot be undone!

How is it that you recognize "captive to worldly deceptions, AWAY from Christ", but you still see that as "SAVED"? With respect, Peter --- doesn't writing in words like "assurance and other graces", really change what Paul was saying? Doesn't Paul contrast "as you've received Jesus, WALK in Him" --- with "buying into worldly traditions and deceptions and LEAVING Jesus"?

This verse simply falls into the same category as "give diligence to make your calling and election sure". Don't be complacent! Don't just assume that you are saved and sit back and relax! Don't assume that Christ died for you and therefore you can do what you want!

An excellent reference! But Peter says "so THAT the gates of Heaven BE abundantly provided". There are not two entrances to Heaven, Peter; there isn't "abundant" and "sparse"; it's either ABUNDANT, or not at all.

This proves that a Christian can be "drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." But I don't suppose either of us need proof of that - experience tells us the same.

Doesn't "thanatos" convey spiritual death? Yes it does. Just as it does in James5:19-20. Contrast this with "nekros" (physical death only) in James2:26...

It also proves that the Lord has promised a crown "to them that love him". Can the natural man choose to love God? Nope, enmity to God is built into his very nature.

Not "A crown", he says "THE crown of LIFE". It's 100% salvational.

...and 100% conditional on our "persevering".

This proves that God's people need to beware of being led away with the error of the wicked. Perhaps we could even say that it proves that God's people can be led away with the error of the wicked. It proves that they can fall from their own steadfastness.

But do any of these prove that a single one of Christ's sheep can perish? No! It can never be so, because Christ died!

Do you really believe there is such a thing as "unsteadfastly saved"?

I'm quite happy for that passage to stay as God intended!

Amen!

Likewise! Sorry for the long post!

Backatchya!

 

[pcwilkins]

Ben,

I appreciate you trying to 'set me right' (at least as you see it) here, but I still don't think we have really got to the bottom of why some people choose to love God while others choose to remain haters of God. Is it something to do with their genetic make-up? Or is it solely to do with what experiences they go through? Or a mixture of both?

I made a similar journey (though not as atheistic) as Josh McDowell; when I realized that there was NO WAY to deny God, or Jesus and the Cross, I had no choice but accept what I knew was real.

You had no choice? Havn't you consistently been arguing that you did have a choice, and that you took the right option?

The point is, Ben, I have no doubt that you are right in what you say here. But I want you to look at it again. You accepted/believed because you "realized that there was NO WAY to deny God, or Jesus and the Cross." Why did you realize this when so many don't?

There's loads more I could write but I think this represents the crux of our differences. Rest assured I have read the rest of your post, and I thank you for taking the time to write it! I know from experience that it takes time!

Peter

 

[Ben johnson]

I appreciate you trying to 'set me right' (at least as you see it) here...

My focus is not you, and not what you believe; what each person believes is between himself and God. My focus is on Scripture.

Nowhere in Scripture is the sequence "regeneration and THEN belief". Each passage used to support "monergistic-regeneration" and "predestination" (Ezk36:26-27, 2Cor4:3-4, 1Jn2:19, Eph1:1-4 for instance), is exposed by context as fully against predestined-salvation. So this embodies "earnestly contend for the faith", and "hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance to the teaching, to be able to both exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict". (Jd1:3, Titus1:9)

There are some verses I've never used before in the argument. Acts10:34-35 states both that God welcomes the man who reveres Him and does right (one more "believe and THEN God receives him"), and states that God is NOT partial ("no respecter of persons"). Predestination casts God as a respecter of persons --- and that's an absolute contradiction.

Matt23:13 (Lk11:52) has Jesus condemning PHarisees for "shutting off the kingdom of Heaven from some, preventing them from entering in". That's an absolute contradiction to "predestined-election" --- there is no way harmonize the doctrine with Scripture. If God PREDESTINES, then man CANNOT hinder such a sovereign decision.

I still don't think we have really got to the bottom of why some people choose to love God while others choose to remain haters of God. Is it something to do with their genetic make-up? Or is it solely to do with what experiences they go through? Or a mixture of both?

It's sentience, Peter. Do you ever sit and wonder why it is you who peers through your eyes? Why and how can you think, feel, and reason? Why not someone else? I don't fully understand it myself; but I know I'm conscious.

What are Non-Christians like? Do they run around with glowing eyes, dripping fangs and gravelly voices? No. They fall in love, marry, and have children. They donate to charity, drive cars, vote. They go on vacation. They enjoy a seven-color sunrise after a spring rain over crisp blue and purple mountains. They think, Peter. I know --- I WAS a non-Christian. I did not have the Spirit in my heart. Yet I was able to read the Scripture, and listen to the words. They made SENSE to me. I knew Jesus lived. I knew what He said about Himself --- that He was God, that He became flesh and died, and lived again; that I might be rescued from the very gates of Hell.

I listened to science --- evolution is impossible. The Universe DOES bear out the claim, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork!" Archeology, history, it all "works" --- Scripture is real, it is believable. It happened.

I read about how Jesus treated the prostitute: "Neither do I condemn you; go your way, and do this no more." I understood how impossible it was for her TO go her way and not-sin; and I also undestood how she could do exactly that, if she used HIS strength.

Those words were aimed at me also. I understood how much He loved me. I understood the reason He died on the Cross --- it was the ONLY way that I could live. I understood all of this, and I was not a Christian. I knew He was real. I knew that when I prayed the prayer to ask Him to be my Lord and my salvation, He would. He would enter my heart, and rebuild me. I was NOT regenerated. But I believed. I recognized my sinfulness, and in shame I cried out to Him for forgiveness: "Wash me, oh Lord! Cleanse me and make me Yours! Forever!"

"A man attested to you by God with miracles and signs, YOU nailed to a cross. God raised Him again, His predestined plan. This man was PROPHESIED --- this Jesus God raised up again, to which we ALL are witnesses. You saw; you know. Therefore let all Israel know for certain that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ (MESSIAH!!!!!), this Jesus whom YOU CRUCIFIED." When they heard this, they were pierced to the heart (smitten in conscience!), and said: "What shall we do?" Peter said, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts2:22-38

There is the reality, Peter. The Gospel has the power to overcome depravity. It has the power of salvation. Unregenerated men CAN believe. Rotten sinners CAN recognize their sinfulness and cry out to Him for forgiveness.

Calvinism asserts that "mankind, apart from Jesus cannot do anything good; believing in Him IS good, therefore they must not be ABLE to believe in Him."

Believing in Him is NOT "a good thing we do"; it is "receiving the good thing He DID".

You had no choice? Havn't you consistently been arguing that you did have a choice, and that you took the right option?

Oh I had a choice; I could have refused Him, and gone "my own way". But I had been placing facts on a scale; and there was nothing on the "FALSE" side. I knew Scripture was an accurate record of Jesus. I knew He claimed to be God, and I knew He died on the Cross. I knew He was the Creator; that He was perfect love; that salvation was through Him and no one else.

Why do some REFUSE Him? We have Jesus' own words to answer that; in Jn8:42, Jesus said: "If God WAS your Father, THEN you would love Me." Identical to Jn5:39-47, "If you BELIEVED Moses' words, then you would believe ME. How can you believe, when you seek man's glory rather than God's? You read the Scripture, but it speaks of Me; and you are UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have life."

Unwilling because they are self-focused, and don't really follow God. Jesus said that if they HAD been following God, they WOULD have believed in Him. From the Old Testament, was "following God" something GOD decided? Certainly not. Deut30:15-20 is very clear; "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse, prosperity and adversity; so choose life, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice and following His statutes; for this is life and the length of your days."

Ezk18 speaks of "wicked men turning from their wickedness towards God, and doing righteousness"; and it speaks of "righteous men turning away from God and doing wickedness".

Throughout Scripture sentient conscious men CHOOSE. Jesus condemns whole cities, Chorazin and Capernaum and Betshaida in Matt11; saying "If THEY had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED" There is no way that Jesus would have condemned them for willful UNBELIEF, had He believed in "predestined-faith". The premise that "no one can choose God unless God chooses him first", opposes Scripture.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God; BECAUSE whoever comes to God must believe that God IS, and that God is a rewarder of those who seek Him." Heb11:6 Where is "monergistic-gifted-saving-faith" in Scripture? Saving-faith is FULLY charged to the individual. Unregenerated men CAN seek Him, and WILL find Him. Jeremiah29:11-14 applies here.

I gave you the illustration of "floating corpse unable to grasp the rescue-rope"; but your view of "drowning man incapable of ever WANTING to grasp the rope", is the same thing. I showed you Peter's words in Acts2; he put it before their faces --- they had killed the Messiah. AND --- God has raised Him up again. He both condemned them FOR their abominable actions, and He showed them how it was God's predestined-plan. They were SMITTEN IN CONSCIENCE, and BELIEVED.

That's the sequence.

There's loads more I could write but I think this represents the crux of our differences. Rest assured I have read the rest of your post, and I thank you for taking the time to write it! I know from experience that it takes time!

Thank you, and thank you also for the time and energy you have invested. You and I are not simply writing to each other; there are potentially millions who could be following along, learning from the discussion. Even in disagreement, you and I both convey the essentials of salvation. You and I both pray that they will read our words, and will receive Jesus the Lord.

Wherever we go, whatever we do, you and I serve the same Lord; we seek the same thing, to tell a lost and dying world of His love.

Though we do not always agree, I am grateful for brothers like you. Without you, there would be less opportunity to discuss here the foundations of our faith. Less chance to tell the world of Him. It is with excitement and sometimes impatience that I look forward to meeting you, and as many others as possible, in the clouds with Jesus when He returns.

YOU ALSO, dear reader! Join us! Receive Him, He is love, He is joy, He is fulfillment! He is eternity!

 

[cygnusx1]

Scripture says "BECAUSE they BELIEVED". Unbelief is the ONLY cause for condemnation.

I understand that's what Calvinism claims; and, that "saving-faith is GIFTED to us (unilaterally, monergistically)".

But if we are "saved by grace through faith", then salvation DOES depend on our faithfulness. Will you accept that "faithfulness" means the same thing as "steadfastness", as "obedience", as "perseverance"? There are many verses that charge US with "faithfulness" and "obedience" and "perseverance" and "steadfastness".

You see, if our salvation depends NOT on our faith, but ONLY on God's faith, then God does NOT show justice (either TO the elect or TO the condemned); and mankind has no accountability for doing what he could not avoid...
The Greek only uses "ie dunatos" --- so it is translated, "to deceive the elect, if able to". Deceivers fully intend to lead us away from Jesus. Clearly conveyed in 1Jn2:26-28 (from "abiding in Christ"), clear in 2Jn1:7-9 (deceiving us to "going out from us, and leaving behind the teachings of Christ --- so they HAVE NOT GOD!").

Paul says, "I worry --- that as the serpent deceived Even, you ALSO should be LED AWAY from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ"... 2Cor11:3
How is it that you recognize "captive to worldly deceptions, AWAY from Christ", but you still see that as "SAVED"? With respect, Peter --- doesn't writing in words like "assurance and other graces", really change what Paul was saying? Doesn't Paul contrast "as you've received Jesus, WALK in Him" --- with "buying into worldly traditions and deceptions and LEAVING Jesus"?
An excellent reference! But Peter says "so THAT the gates of Heaven BE abundantly provided". There are not two entrances to Heaven, Peter; there isn't "abundant" and "sparse"; it's either ABUNDANT, or not at all.
Doesn't "thanatos" convey spiritual death? Yes it does. Just as it does in James5:19-20. Contrast this with "nekros" (physical death only) in James2:26...
Not "A crown", he says "THE crown of LIFE". It's 100% salvational.

...and 100% conditional on our "persevering".
Do you really believe there is such a thing as "unsteadfastly saved"?
Amen!
Backatchya!

"The Greek only uses "ie dunatos" --- so it is translated, "to deceive the elect, if able to". Deceivers fully intend to lead us away from Jesus. Clearly conveyed in 1Jn2:26-28 (from "abiding in Christ"), clear in 2Jn1:7-9 (deceiving us to "going out from us, and leaving behind the teachings of Christ --- so they HAVE NOT GOD!")." ben

how is it that the elect cannot be deceived , the text says "if it were possible" or "if able to "
but you say every day it is possible for all Christians to be deceived and to lose salvation!

 

[Ben johnson]

how is it that the elect cannot be deceived , the text says "if it were possible" or "if able to "
but you say every day it is possible for all Christians to be deceived and to lose salvation!

Cygnus, why do you read it as "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE"?

Try reading it like this:

..."For false Christs and false prophets will rise, and will show signs and wonders, to seduce even the elect if they can."

I see nothing in the verse that asserts "it's not REALLY possible". Col2:8 certainly sounds like it's possible. 2Pet3:17 sounds like it's possible. 1Tim4:1 sounds like it's possible. Why do you think James (1:16) and Paul (Eph5:6, 1Cor6:9) say things like "Do not be DECEIVED, beloved brethren"?

"I worry, that as the serpent DECEIVED Eve, you also should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." 2Cor11:3

Does that sound like "we CAN'T be deceived"? Or can you put forth a credible premise of: "We can be deceived, and out of devotion to Christ, but STILL SAVED"?

There are so many verses* that can never work in "Predestined-Election", Cygnus. But they work perfectly in "Responsible Grace"...




-----------------
* Matt23:13 (Lk11:52) is one. It states "they CAUSE people to MISS Heaven" --- and it does not fit the idea of "The deceiving-Pharisees were GOD'S PREDESTINED PLAN (in keeping certain people from election)".

Acts10:34-35 is one. If we are "sovereignly predestinedly elect", then God is a respecter of persons. It fits "those who turn to God, He RECEIVES", perfectly; and it fits "God changes them so they CAN (will) turn to Him", not at all.

Yet when faced with these verses on another thread, multiple responses were posted --- "DON'T ARGUE WORDS". Why, in the face of indisputible Scriptural dictate, did everybody suddenly decide "DON'T ARGUE"?

Meaning no insult of course to my brothers and sisters here...

 

[cygnusx1]

Cygnus, why do you read it as "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE"?

Try reading it like this:

..."For false Christs and false prophets will rise, and will show signs and wonders, to seduce even the elect if they can."

I see nothing in the verse that asserts "it's not REALLY possible". Col2:8 certainly sounds like it's possible. 2Pet3:17 sounds like it's possible. 1Tim4:1 sounds like it's possible. Why do you think James (1:16) and Paul (Eph5:6, 1Cor6:9) say things like "Do not be DECEIVED, beloved brethren"?

"I worry, that as the serpent DECEIVED Eve, you also should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." 2Cor11:3

Does that sound like "we CAN'T be deceived"? Or can you put forth a credible premise of: "We can be deceived, and out of devotion to Christ, but STILL SAVED"?

There are so many verses* that can never work in "Predestined-Election", Cygnus. But they work perfectly in "Responsible Grace"...




-----------------
* Matt23:13 (Lk11:52) is one. It states "they CAUSE people to MISS Heaven" --- and it does not fit the idea of "The deceiving-Pharisees were GOD'S PREDESTINED PLAN (in keeping certain people from election)".

Acts10:34-35 is one. If we are "sovereignly predestinedly elect", then God is a respecter of persons. It fits "those who turn to God, He RECEIVES", perfectly; and it fits "God changes them so they CAN (will) turn to Him", not at all.

Yet when faced with these verses on another thread, multiple responses were posted --- "DON'T ARGUE WORDS". Why, in the face of indisputible Scriptural dictate, did everybody suddenly decide "DON'T ARGUE"?

Meaning no insult of course to my brothers and sisters here...

if they can hey ................. well according to you there is no if about it , all the elect can be decieved and all fall away , so there is no room for any doubt .
whereas how I have read it for years is that the deceiver is so powerful that were it not for Election and God's protection of His elect they too would be deceived!

as for arguing over words ....... no i still don't like it ..... for many it is a hobby , for me it is pointless.

btw , I read a good quote by C H Spurgeon today here it is ,

I. First, then, THIS IS FACT. Men say they do not like the doctrine of election. Verily, I do not want them to; but is it not a fact that God has elected some? Ask an Arminian brother about election, and at once his eye turns fiercely upon you, and he begins to get angry, he can't bear it; it is a horrible thing, like a war-cry to him, and he begins to sharpen the knife of controversy at once. But say to him, "Ah, brother! was it not divine grace that made you to differ? Was it not the Lord who called you out of your natural state, and made you what you are? "Oh, yes," he says," "I quite agree with you there." Now, put this question to him: "What do you think is the reason why one man has been converted, and not another?" "Oh," he says, "the Spirit of God has been at work in this man."

Well, then, my brother, the fact is, that God does treat one man better than another; and is there anything wonderful in this fact? It is a fact we recognize every day. There is a man up in the gallery there, that work as hard as he likes, he cannot earn more than fifteen shillings a week; and here is another man that gets a thousand a year; what is the reason of this? One is born in the palaces of kings, while another draws his first breath in a roofless hovel What is the reason of this? God's providence. He puts one man in one position, and another man in another. Here is a man whose head cannot hold two thoughts together, do what you will with him; here is another who can sit down and write a book, and dive into the deepest of questions; what is the reason of it? God has done it. Do you not see the fact, that God does not treat every man alike? He has made some eagles, and some worms; some he has made lions, and some creeping lizards; he has made some men kings, and some are born beggars. Some are born with gigantic minds and some verge on the idiot. Why is this? Do you murmur at God for it? No, you say it is a fact, and there is no good in murmuring. What is the use of kicking against facts? It is only kicking against the pricks with naked feet, and you hurt yourself and not them. Well, then, election is a positive fact; it is as clear as daylight, that God does, in matters of religion, give to one man more than to another. He gives to me opportunities of hearing the word, which he does nor give to the Hottentot. He gives to me, parents who, from infancy, trained me in the fear of the Lord. He does not give that to many of you. He places me afterwards in situations where I am restrained from sin. Other men are cast into places where their sinful passions are developed. He gives, to one man a temper and disposition which keeps him back from some lust, and to another man he gives such impetuosity of spirit, and depravity turns that impetuosity so much aside, that the man runs headlong into sin. Again, he brings one man under the sound of a powerful ministry, while another sits and listens to a preacher whose drowsiness is only exceeded by that of his hearers. And even when they are hearing the gospel, the fact is God works in one heart when be does not in another. Though, I believe to a degree, the Spirit works in the hearts of all who hear the Word, so that they are all without excuse, yet I am sure he works in some so powerfully, that they can no longer resist him, but are constrained by his grace to cast themselves at his feet, and confess him Lord of all; while others resist the grace that comes into their hearts; and it does not act with the same irresistible force that it does in the other case, and they perish in their sins, deservedly and justly condemned. Are not these things facts? Does any man deny them? can any man deny them? What is the use of kicking against facts? I always like to know when there is a discussion, what is the fact. You have heard the story of King Charles the Second and the philosophers—King Charles asked one of them, "What is the reason why, if you had a pail of water, and weighed it, and then put a fish into it, that the weight would be the same?" They gave a great many elaborate reasons for this. At last one of them said, "Is it the fact?" And then they found out that the water did weigh more, just as much more as the fish put into it. So all their learned arguments fell to the ground. So, when we are talking about election, the best thing is to say, "Put aside the doctrine for a moment, let us see what is the fact?" We walk abroad; we open our eyes; we see, there is the fact. What, then, is the use of our discussing any longer? We had better believe it, since it is an undeniable truth. You may alter an opinion, but you cannot alter a fact. You may change a mere doctrine, but you cannot possibly change a thing which actually exists. There it is—God does certainly deal with some men better than he does with others. I will not offer an apology for God; he can explain his own dealings; he needs no defence from me,

"God is his own interpreter,
And he will make it plain;"
but there stands the fact. Before you begin to argue upon the doctrine, just recollect, that whatever you may think about it, you cannot alter it; and however much you may object to it, it is actually true that God did love Jacob, and did not love Esau.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0239.HTM

 

[holdon]

if they can hey ................. well according to you there is no if about it , all the elect can be decieved and all fall away , so there is no room for any doubt .
whereas how I have read it for years is that the deceiver is so powerful that were it not for Election and God's protection of His elect they too would be deceived!

as for arguing over words ....... no i still don't like it ..... for many it is a hobby , for me it is pointless.

btw , I read a good quote by C H Spurgeon today here it is ,

I. First, then, THIS IS FACT. Men say they do not like the doctrine of election. Verily, I do not want them to; but is it not a fact that God has elected some? Ask an Arminian brother about election, and at once his eye turns fiercely upon you, and he begins to get angry, he can't bear it; it is a horrible thing, like a war-cry to him, and he begins to sharpen the knife of controversy at once. But say to him, "Ah, brother! was it not divine grace that made you to differ? Was it not the Lord who called you out of your natural state, and made you what you are? "Oh, yes," he says," "I quite agree with you there." Now, put this question to him: "What do you think is the reason why one man has been converted, and not another?" "Oh," he says, "the Spirit of God has been at work in this man."

Well, then, my brother, the fact is, that God does treat one man better than another; and is there anything wonderful in this fact? It is a fact we recognize every day. There is a man up in the gallery there, that work as hard as he likes, he cannot earn more than fifteen shillings a week; and here is another man that gets a thousand a year; what is the reason of this? One is born in the palaces of kings, while another draws his first breath in a roofless hovel What is the reason of this? God's providence. He puts one man in one position, and another man in another. Here is a man whose head cannot hold two thoughts together, do what you will with him; here is another who can sit down and write a book, and dive into the deepest of questions; what is the reason of it? God has done it. Do you not see the fact, that God does not treat every man alike? He has made some eagles, and some worms; some he has made lions, and some creeping lizards; he has made some men kings, and some are born beggars. Some are born with gigantic minds and some verge on the idiot. Why is this? Do you murmur at God for it? No, you say it is a fact, and there is no good in murmuring. What is the use of kicking against facts? It is only kicking against the pricks with naked feet, and you hurt yourself and not them. Well, then, election is a positive fact; it is as clear as daylight, that God does, in matters of religion, give to one man more than to another. He gives to me opportunities of hearing the word, which he does nor give to the Hottentot. He gives to me, parents who, from infancy, trained me in the fear of the Lord. He does not give that to many of you. He places me afterwards in situations where I am restrained from sin. Other men are cast into places where their sinful passions are developed. He gives, to one man a temper and disposition which keeps him back from some lust, and to another man he gives such impetuosity of spirit, and depravity turns that impetuosity so much aside, that the man runs headlong into sin. Again, he brings one man under the sound of a powerful ministry, while another sits and listens to a preacher whose drowsiness is only exceeded by that of his hearers. And even when they are hearing the gospel, the fact is God works in one heart when be does not in another. Though, I believe to a degree, the Spirit works in the hearts of all who hear the Word, so that they are all without excuse, yet I am sure he works in some so powerfully, that they can no longer resist him, but are constrained by his grace to cast themselves at his feet, and confess him Lord of all; while others resist the grace that comes into their hearts; and it does not act with the same irresistible force that it does in the other case, and they perish in their sins, deservedly and justly condemned. Are not these things facts? Does any man deny them? can any man deny them? What is the use of kicking against facts? I always like to know when there is a discussion, what is the fact. You have heard the story of King Charles the Second and the philosophers—King Charles asked one of them, "What is the reason why, if you had a pail of water, and weighed it, and then put a fish into it, that the weight would be the same?" They gave a great many elaborate reasons for this. At last one of them said, "Is it the fact?" And then they found out that the water did weigh more, just as much more as the fish put into it. So all their learned arguments fell to the ground. So, when we are talking about election, the best thing is to say, "Put aside the doctrine for a moment, let us see what is the fact?" We walk abroad; we open our eyes; we see, there is the fact. What, then, is the use of our discussing any longer? We had better believe it, since it is an undeniable truth. You may alter an opinion, but you cannot alter a fact. You may change a mere doctrine, but you cannot possibly change a thing which actually exists. There it is—God does certainly deal with some men better than he does with others. I will not offer an apology for God; he can explain his own dealings; he needs no defence from me,

"God is his own interpreter,
And he will make it plain;"
but there stands the fact. Before you begin to argue upon the doctrine, just recollect, that whatever you may think about it, you cannot alter it; and however much you may object to it, it is actually true that God did love Jacob, and did not love Esau.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0239.HTM

This all has nothing to do with eternal destiny. Mr. Spurgeon seems not to have grasped this. "Better off" in this life is all relative. But it is an altogether different story when the eternal salvation is involved. God can sure make the "elder serve the younger" in this life, but that has nothing whatsover to do with eternal salvation or reprobation. It is only 400 years later that God said He hated Esau, after his eternal fate was long settled....

 

[Crazy Liz]

Fact is that God cannot save everyone.

Why not?

 

[Ben johnson]

if they can hey ................. well according to you there is no if about it , all the elect can be decieved and all fall away , so there is no room for any doubt .
whereas how I have read it for years is that the deceiver is so powerful that were it not for Election and God's protection of His elect they too would be deceived!

The one thing that Calvinsts simply will not accept, is "sentience". Mankind (in their view) is incapable of independant thought. He is so twisted and evil, that he cannot BE called to salvation, can never even THINK of salvation without his heart being regenerated FIRST. It doesn't matter that each (and every!) of the verses used to try to prove "regeneration-precedes-belief", is easily refuted. Case in point, 2Cor4:3-4 ("the Gospel is veiled to the perishing --- in whose case the god of this world has blinded them ...that they might NOT see the light of the Gospel...."). Instead of supporting Calvinism, context very clearly asserts the OPPOSITE sequence: 3:16: "When a man TURNS to the Lord, THEN the veil is removed...."

Each "predestinary passage" is similarly overturned in its "monergistically-dictated" understanding. The overturning I just cited, is fact.

We are not mere "robots", incapable of HEARING Jesus in our "utter depravity". Indeed, "utter depravity" is against Scripture. We are totally depraved, but He offers HOPE --- ruining the meaning of "utter depravity".

Total depravity means we (of ourselves), are worthless; Utter depravity means some can perish and NEVER have hope. (If you can think of a better word to convey "depraved until the end of time", lemmeknow. "ULTIMATE" depravity? That might be better!)

Jesus is our Hope --- His call TO salvation (to every man), is sufficient to overcome "total depravity". Conscious men can THINK, can HEAR the Gospel, and can BELEIVE.

This is what happened in Acts2:29-38. Peter said, "You killed the Messiah, but that was God's plan, and God resurrected Him; He now sits at the right hand of God." They UNDERSTOOD and were "SMITTEN IN CONSCIENCE". Pierced to the heart.

"Faith comes from HEARING", Cygnus; not "from divine instillment". The Gospel has the power to convict. The god of this world has blinded them to the Gospel, AFTER they first refused to believe --- it is but another application of "charging others with what they did THEMSELVES".

Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart, end of Ex9; but in the same breath GOD is said to have hardened Pharaoh's heart. 10:1.

Mark4:11-12 is presumed to convey "predestination" --- seeming to say, "GOD closed their eyes and ears so they COULD not understand about Heaven". But Matt13:15 plainly says "they closed their OWN eyes (and ears)!!!"

Each "predestination" verse is refuted, Cygnus; but until you recognize that man is capable of THOUGHT, that every man is "helkuo-dragged TO Christ" (Jn12:32), until you understand that "believing in Christ is NOT a "good thing we DO", but rather it is "receiving the good thing He DID", you will never be able to see the flaws in "Predestined-Election".

You will re-define every "IF" passage, into: "Well it SAYS "if", but it really MEANS that "God will fufill what only seems to be a condition." You will continue to recognize warnings AGAINST apostasy, but stubbornly assert that "God keeps us-who-are-elect, 100% in line BY those warnings (the warned-condition therefore can NEVER happen). You will separate verses, claiming that "brethren" means SAVED in one verse (Heb3:1), but in essentially the same breath it is NOT saved (only PROFESSING --- 3:12). You will split passages like 2Jn1:8 and 9, claiming "he changes SUBJECT, verse 9 is NOT the consequence of "not-watching ourselves against deceivers".

I see your "resolute-doctrine" acting as filter for Scripture; it forms the basis for understanding what the verses really mean --- and I cannot convince you that it is "proving the conclusion with the presumption".

But I have faith that eventually you will come to a point where credibility is so strained, that you will have no choice but to admit that "Jesus really DID mean that the Pharisees were CAUSING people to perish" (Matt23:13, Lk11:52). One more verse that can NEVER harmonize "predestination".

Well, then, my brother, the fact is, that God does treat one man better than another; and is there anything wonderful in this fact? It is a fact we recognize every day. There is a man up in the gallery there, that work as hard as he likes, he cannot earn more than fifteen shillings a week; and here is another man that gets a thousand a year; what is the reason of this? One is born in the palaces of kings, while another draws his first breath in a roofless hovel What is the reason of this? God's providence. He puts one man in one position, and another man in another. Here is a man whose head cannot hold two thoughts together, do what you will with him; here is another who can sit down and write a book, and dive into the deepest of questions; what is the reason of it? God has done it. Do you not see the fact, that God does not treat every man alike?

I do not follow Charles Spurgeon for a simple reason. Scripture is inspired by God, Cygnus; I know you accept that. Scripture says:

"God is NO respecter of persons, but he who fears God and does right is WELCOME to God." Acts10:34-35

Yet here is Spurgeon spouting "God IS A RESPECTER OF PERSONS".

Who shall I believe, Cygnus? Spurgeon? Or all of Scripture?

If what Spurgeon says calls Scripture a "lie", and if Scripture is inspired by God, then does not Spurgeon stand against GOD?

No offense meant; that seems to be the only answer.

Certain verses seem to say certain things; you read Eph1, and Rom9, and a verse or two from Rom8; you read 2Cor4:3-4, and you read Mark4:11-12; and you see "PREDESTINATION". But the rest of Scripture overturns that view; and very soundly. Demonstrated in this post.

THEREFORE --- we are doing far more than "arguing with vain words, that are "pointless vanity". We are contending for the faith, the true essence of Jesus' Gospel. The day will soon come, I'm certain, that you will come to recognize how "Responsible Grace" cannot be refuted from Scripture...

 

[pcwilkins]

Predestination casts God as a respecter of persons --- and that's an absolute contradiction.

I don't think it does. God saves His people without respect to their persons. He saves them because it is His will to save them, not because of who they are.

Matt23:13 (Lk11:52) has Jesus condemning PHarisees for "shutting off the kingdom of Heaven from some, preventing them from entering in". That's an absolute contradiction to "predestined-election" --- there is no way harmonize the doctrine with Scripture. If God PREDESTINES, then man CANNOT hinder such a sovereign decision.

You are still confused about God's revealed will and His secret will. Those who hindered were in direct opposition to God's revealed will - hence they were condemned. However at the same time they were fulfilling His secret will. Anyone who they succeeded in hindering was, by definition, not predestined to be saved!

It's sentience, Peter. Do you ever sit and wonder why it is you who peers through your eyes? Why and how can you think, feel, and reason? Why not someone else? I don't fully understand it myself; but I know I'm conscious.

Ok, so the reason that some people come and some don't is 'sentience'. Could you now define 'sentience'? The fact is that we are all 'sentient', so we cannot say that the reason why some believe is 'sentience'. Those who don't believe are 'sentient' too!

You see how all this philosophy/psychology is simply dodging around the question. I am sentient, yes. Mr X is sentient. We both hear the same sermon, the same preacher, the same church, the same day. I believe. Mr X does not believe. Why the difference? You cannot expect to get away with just saying "Oh, its sentience".

What are Non-Christians like? Do they run around with glowing eyes, dripping fangs and gravelly voices? No. They fall in love, marry, and have children. They donate to charity, drive cars, vote. They go on vacation. They enjoy a seven-color sunrise after a spring rain over crisp blue and purple mountains. They think, Peter. I know --- I WAS a non-Christian.

Yes, everyone is a non-Christian by nature. I was one too. I know many non-Christians, and am well aware that some of them are very 'nice' people. I know they think. But that is not the point. The point is, why do they not believe?

I did not have the Spirit in my heart.

Again, like everyone else by nature.

Yet I was able to read the Scripture, and listen to the words.

Ah! Then why, if you read it, did it not enter into your heart? And why was it that one day it DID enter? What changed? What was different?

They made SENSE to me. I knew Jesus lived. I knew what He said about Himself --- that He was God, that He became flesh and died, and lived again; that I might be rescued from the very gates of Hell.

These things made sense to you? Then that proves that God was already at work in your heart - because "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him". If these things made sense to you, in a real, spiritual way, then you cannot have been just a 'natural man'.

I listened to science --- evolution is impossible. The Universe DOES bear out the claim, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork!" Archeology, history, it all "works" --- Scripture is real, it is believable. It happened.

Yes, agreed. But at the same time there are millions who don't see this!

I read about how Jesus treated the prostitute: "Neither do I condemn you; go your way, and do this no more." I understood how impossible it was for her TO go her way and not-sin; and I also undestood how she could do exactly that, if she used HIS strength.

Yes! This keeps coming through, "I understood", "I read", "I knew". But there are millions who read the same facts, and yet did not understand, see, or know. Why the difference? Why did you see?

Those words were aimed at me also. I understood how much He loved me. I understood the reason He died on the Cross --- it was the ONLY way that I could live. I understood all of this, and I was not a Christian.

Exactly! You have just proved that understanding, knowledge, and human reason cannot make a man a Christian!

I knew He was real. I knew that when I prayed the prayer to ask Him to be my Lord and my salvation, He would. He would enter my heart, and rebuild me. I was NOT regenerated.

I believe that by this stage you had been born again. God had begun a good work in your heart. He was leading you and teaching you to see nothing in yourself and everything in Christ.

But I believed. I recognized my sinfulness, and in shame I cried out to Him for forgiveness: "Wash me, oh Lord! Cleanse me and make me Yours! Forever!"

Yes! Yes! But millions go through the same experience and do not "recognize their own sinfulness", and do not confess it, and do not cry to the Lord! Why not? Because they're more hardened than you were? Because they're worse people? Because they're not so intelligent as we are? No! The answer lies in God's everlasting purposes.

Carnal, natural man is so full of pride that he will not recognize his own sinfulness. It is the Holy Spirits work to convince of sin. Yes, natural man will admit that he does wrong - but he will not admit that he is sinful, i.e. full of sin. He will believe that he is inherantly good, and that he could cease from sin if he wanted to.

A man attested to you by God with miracles and signs, YOU nailed to a cross. God raised Him again, His predestined plan. This man was PROPHESIED --- this Jesus God raised up again, to which we ALL are witnesses. You saw; you know. Therefore let all Israel know for certain that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ (MESSIAH!!!!!), this Jesus whom YOU CRUCIFIED." When they heard this, they were pierced to the heart (smitten in conscience!), and said: "What shall we do?" Peter said, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts2:22-38[/color]

Yes! The gospel came unto them in power, not in word only!

There is the reality, Peter. The Gospel has the power to overcome depravity.

Yes! I know it! But not merely in the words! The gospel can come in 'word only' or it can come in 'power, and in the Holy Ghost'. It came to you 'in power'! Praise God for that!

It has the power of salvation. Unregenerated men CAN believe. Rotten sinners CAN recognize their sinfulness and cry out to Him for forgiveness.

Only when the Gospel comes in power! That is what makes the difference!

Calvinism asserts that "mankind, apart from Jesus cannot do anything good; believing in Him IS good, therefore they must not be ABLE to believe in Him."

Who are you quoting there?

Believing in Him is NOT "a good thing we do"; it is "receiving the good thing He DID".

And yet you have just said that before you were saved, you "believed in Him", and yet did not "receive the good thing that He did".

What is the difference between the 'believing' that does not receive Him, and the 'believing' that does receive Him?

Oh I had a choice; I could have refused Him, and gone "my own way".

Could you? I don't believe you could. You saw your need of Him and because you saw your need of Him you came to Him. You were being drawn by His love, Ben - I'm sure of it. GOD SAVED YOU, and it is to Him that I give all the glory.

But I had been placing facts on a scale; and there was nothing on the "FALSE" side.

And yet thousands of others probably do this and come to a completely different conclusion. Why? Because they're not so intelligent?

I knew Scripture was an accurate record of Jesus. I knew He claimed to be God, and I knew He died on the Cross. I knew He was the Creator; that He was perfect love; that salvation was through Him and no one else.

Yes! And millions know the same truths in their heads and yet never come. Why did this knowledge have the effect on you that it did?

Why do some REFUSE Him? We have Jesus' own words to answer that; in Jn8:42, Jesus said: "If God WAS your Father, THEN you would love Me." Identical to Jn5:39-47, "If you BELIEVED Moses' words, then you would believe ME. How can you believe, when you seek man's glory rather than God's? You read the Scripture, but it speaks of Me; and you are UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have life."

Yes! "If God WAS your Father, THEN you would love Me." Not, if you would love me then God would be your Father!

Unwilling because they are self-focused, and don't really follow God.

Now we are getting somewhere! So presumably you were willing to come because you were not self-focussed and because you really knew God? How then did you get into this situation? How did you stop being self-focussed? How did you get to know God?

Jesus said that if they HAD been following God, they WOULD have believed in Him. From the Old Testament, was "following God" something GOD decided? Certainly not. Deut30:15-20 is very clear; "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse, prosperity and adversity; so choose life, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice and following His statutes; for this is life and the length of your days."

Yes! And yet read the next verse! God said "this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them." God did not say that He had determined that they would not follow Him - and yet He knew that they would not!

Ezk18 speaks of "wicked men turning from their wickedness towards God, and doing righteousness"; and it speaks of "righteous men turning away from God and doing wickedness".

Yes! I know, Ben, I know! Scripture also speaks of men loving God, loving their neighbours as themselves, being holy - does that mean the unregenerate man has the ability to do any of them? No!

Scripture says "Be ye holy". Can unregenerate man do it, without God? No!

Throughout Scripture sentient conscious men CHOOSE.

Yes! And they always choose based on their own will, which in turn is based on their own experience and 'who they are' - their genetic make up.

Jesus condemns whole cities, Chorazin and Capernaum and Betshaida in Matt11; saying "If THEY had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED"

Yes! So I could say about the unsaved - if they had seen what you have seen, Ben, and I'm talking to you personally - if they had seen what you have seen, they would have believed! Why didn't they see it? Because God did not reveal it to them as He has revealed it to you!

I showed you Peter's words in Acts2; he put it before their faces --- they had killed the Messiah. AND --- God has raised Him up again. He both condemned them FOR their abominable actions, and He showed them how it was God's predestined-plan. They were SMITTEN IN CONSCIENCE, and BELIEVED.

Yes! Did they choose to be smitten in conscience? No! They were smitten because the Gospel came unto them in power, and in the Holy Ghost!

They were smitten because God blessed Peter's preaching! They did not stand there and think, "Hmmm, shall I be smitten in conscience? Yes, I think I will..."! It was an instantaneous act of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you, and thank you also for the time and energy you have invested. You and I are not simply writing to each other; there are potentially millions who could be following along, learning from the discussion. Even in disagreement, you and I both convey the essentials of salvation. You and I both pray that they will read our words, and will receive Jesus the Lord.

Yes! We pray that the Gospel would not come unto them in word only, but in power! Then they will see what you saw, need what you needed, and come to Him who you came to!

You see how we are getting down to foundation truths now? We've established that people do not come to God because they are self-centred and they do not really know Him. Now I want you to consider why it is that some - including you - come not to be self-centred and come to know God.

Peter