Lutherans, could you please help me with this?

[Lotar]

Hey bro. I read this and I must say that, as much as I respect the genius that was Luther, this seems difficult to decipher. It seems, as you imply, that on the one hand Luther is content to blame man and man alone for his failure to come to salvation. To this I would agree. But, of course, considering my view on God's grace in regeneration and salvation I have never looked at it another way. However, we cannot divorce the passive way in which God deals with the reprobate by simply saying that God did not willfully and sovereignly decree their destruction. When one acknowledges that it is the efficacious grace of God that regenerates man and creates in him the faith necessary for salvation we must also acknowledge the flip side to that. That is, if God does not grant the grace of regeneration and saving faith then it was not His desire that that particular person come to salvation. Surely if we, as finite, fallen humans can recognize the inherent predestination of these souls to damnation then God can. If God willfully, and make no mistake, He did willfully withhold His grace of regeneration and salvation, then it was His plan that they be condemned. That is double predestination.

In my opinion, the concept of single predestination is completely incongruous with the biblical teaching of our means of regeneration and saving faith. If we are willing to only accept single predestination as biblical we are forced to make other biblical concessions that do violence to Scripture. First, if God only predestines those who actually come to faith but does not predestine those who remain dead in their trespasses then we imply that man is not really completely incapable of regenerating himself so God did not sign the proverbial "death warrant" by not giving a person that grace. If we profess that man is capable of regenerating himself and coming to a saving knowledge of Christ apart from the grace of God then we align ourselves with the semi-Pelagian who says that grace is sufficient in aiding the person in coming to Christ but it is not necessary. In essence we are saying that God Himself is not the sole causal agent in our saving faith. Additionally, the whole concept is illogical because God surely knows what the sinner needs to be saved and if He withholds that which is necessary and efficient then He is ensuring that they will not come to saving faith.

You see, double predestination is not the view of equal ultimacy. God need not deal with the reprobate in the same, but opposite, manner as the elect to ensure their destruction. The biblical account of God's intercession in the lives of the elect and the reprobate is not equal but opposite. He actively works in the hearts of the elect to create in them a desire to submit to Him. He is not active in the hearts of the reprobate but rather passive in the sense that He leaves them to their unbelief. This passive action of God in the hearts of the reprobate is the flip side to the active intercession in the hearts of the elect and it comprises the second part of predestination.

Thoughts?

God bless

That is the major difference between the Reformed and Lutheran views of salvation, we do not believe that there is a flip side to the coin, and that is why it is so hard to understand.

The Reformed say that if God elects those who will be saved and only those who have been chosen and regenerated could ever have faith, therefore, if God does not choose someone He does not desire their salvation and is electing them to damnation. We do not take that step.

Arminians say that if a man is lost because of his own sin and hardness of his heart, then he must also have the ability to believe and decide whether to accept or reject His grace. We do not take that step either.

The elect are saved because of no merit or ability of their own, solely by the work of God. The lost are lost solely by their own sin and hardness of their hearts. God does not withhold His grace from them, but without Him actively working in them and regenerating them, there is no way in their totally corrupt state that they can ever come to faith. Why He chooses to regenerate some and not others is not known to us, nor will it be until we meet Him in heaven.

 

[Reformationist]

That is the major difference between the Reformed and Lutheran views of salvation, we do not believe that there is a flip side to the coin, and that is why it is so hard to understand.

So you ascribe to a single sided coin? That's not "hard to understand," it's impossible.

The Reformed say that if God elects those who will be saved and only those who have been chosen and regenerated could ever have faith, therefore, if God does not choose someone He does not desire their salvation and is electing them to damnation. We do not take that step.

Please understand that I mean no offense when I say this but if you "do not take that step" it just means that you ignore it. It doesn't mean it's not there. I'll show you what I mean. Answer these few questions:

1. Can unregenerate man, of his own volition, ever will to come to Christ in faith?

2. What is it that brings man to faith in Christ?

3. Is the method in question #2 that God uses always effective in bringing someone to faith in Christ?

4. Is that the only way one can come to faith in Christ?

5. What must God do before granting the grace of regeneration to someone?

I understand that number 5 is rather vague but I ask you to think about the decisions you make. It is completely illogical to say that when presented with a choice of two options, i.e., give grace vs. not give grace, God only chooses one of those options. When He chooses one of the options, He willfully chooses not to do the other option. That willful act by God in not choosing to grant the grace of regeneration and faith is the "flip side of the coin" that you deny even exists. God doesn't just make the decision to give grace or not give grace. If He chooses for the giving of grace, He has chosen against not giving grace. If He chooses for not giving grace He has chosen against giving grace. You cannot have the one without the other. He either willfully chooses to give grace, thus willfully choosing against not giving grace, or, He willfully chooses to withhold His grace, thus willfully choosing against giving grace. There must be two sides to the coin Lotar.

Arminians say that if a man is lost because of his own sin and hardness of his heart, then he must also have the ability to believe and decide whether to accept or reject His grace. We do not take that step either.

As I said, it is completely incongruous to agree with the concept of man's fallen inability to come to faith apart from the grace of God but deny that God willfully and volitionally leaves fallen man in that state. The point is, choosing to not give grace is making the choice to predestine them to hell because, as you and I and, certainly, God know, it is that very grace that rescues them from the pit of their sinfulness.

The elect are saved because of no merit or ability of their own, solely by the work of God. The lost are lost solely by their own sin and hardness of their hearts.

Agreed. However, you cannot remove the Perfector of our souls from only one side of the equation. It makes it completely illogical. I am sure you would agree that if God gave the grace of regeneration and faith to those that are "lost solely by their own sin and hardness of their hearts" then their spiritual polarity would irrevocably be changed to that of being a child of God. God is causal in everything He does. Therefore, if He chooses to not do something then He has chosen that the results of Him not doing something is His desire.

Let me tell you a personal example of this that I always use to train my wife in godly parenting. Children often act out to establish the bounderies of their actions. As a parent I am tasked by God with setting these bounderies and enforcing them to train my child to obey my, and ultimately God's, authority. I have taught my wife that certain steps must be taken to enforce certain acceptable behavior patterns. For instance, when my youngest son messes with the controls on the T.V. I give him a spanking. He knows that he is not supposed to touch the controls on the T.V. and so I reinforce that by punishing him when he disobeys me. In essence I am actively teaching him to obey. Now, if he touches the controls and I ignore it I am still teaching him. However, now, I am passively condoning his disobedience. Now, God is active with both the elect and non-elect. However, He is actively active with His elect and actively passive to the reprobate. In both cases He is active.

God does not withhold His grace from them, but without Him actively working in them and regenerating them, there is no way in their totally corrupt state that they can ever come to faith. Why He chooses to regenerate some and not others is not known to us, nor will it be until we meet Him in heaven.

Come on Lotar...

You say, "God does not withhold His grace from them." Well, does He give it to them? Do those of us who do get God's grace take it from God or is it ours because He freely grants it to us? If it's the latter, and I sincerely hope it is, then what you say makes no sense. God's passive action of not granting His grace is His active action of willing to not give His grace.

God bless,
Don

 

[Reformationist]

Lotar, let me give you another example, from Scripture:

John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

In this verse we see that man did not just love the darkness. It is clear that they willfully and volitionally loved the darkness and willfully and volitionally rejected the light.

Both are willful actions. They must reject the light and embrace the darkness.

To say that they only embrace the darkness is to deny the clear inference that they also reject the light.

God bless,
Don

 

[Lotar]

So you ascribe to a single sided coin? That's not "hard to understand," it's impossible.

Neo: There is no coin.

The problem is that you are trying to define an infinite God with your finite knowledge.

1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
[size=-1]who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
[/size]
[size=-1]Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

[/size][size=-1]I have yet to hear a satisfactory response from a Calvinist on these verses. [/size]

[size=-1]The bible clearly states that God desires all men to come to repentance. Ever instance in which predestination and election is spoken of it is applied to those who He has chosen to save. Where ever it speaks of damnation, it puts the full reason and blame on the person who would not believe.[/size]

Please understand that I mean no offense when I say this but if you "do not take that step" it just means that you ignore it. It doesn't mean it's not there. I'll show you what I mean. Answer these few questions:

1. Can unregenerate man, of his own volition, ever will to come to Christ in faith?

no

2. What is it that brings man to faith in Christ?

God regenerating our souls.

3. Is the method in question #2 that God uses always effective in bringing someone to faith in Christ?

Yes.

4. Is that the only way one can come to faith in Christ?

It is the only way that someone will come to Christ. Whether or not the unregenerated would ever be willing to come to repentance does not clear them of the responsibility to do so.

5. What must God do before granting the grace of regeneration to someone?

He must choose to do so (that's where you're leading, right? )

I understand that number 5 is rather vague but I ask you to think about the decisions you make. It is completely illogical to say that when presented with a choice of two options, i.e., give grace vs. not give grace, God only chooses one of those options. When He chooses one of the options, He willfully chooses not to do the other option. That willful act by God in not choosing to grant the grace of regeneration and faith is the "flip side of the coin" that you deny even exists. God doesn't just make the decision to give grace or not give grace. If He chooses for the giving of grace, He has chosen against not giving grace. If He chooses for not giving grace He has chosen against giving grace. You cannot have the one without the other. He either willfully chooses to give grace, thus willfully choosing against not giving grace, or, He willfully chooses to withhold His grace, thus willfully choosing against giving grace. There must be two sides to the coin Lotar.


As I said, it is completely incongruous to agree with the concept of man's fallen inability to come to faith apart from the grace of God but deny that God willfully and volitionally leaves fallen man in that state. The point is, choosing to not give grace is making the choice to predestine them to hell because, as you and I and, certainly, God know, it is that very grace that rescues them from the pit of their sinfulness.

Agreed. However, you cannot remove the Perfector of our souls from only one side of the equation. It makes it completely illogical. I am sure you would agree that if God gave the grace of regeneration and faith to those that are "lost solely by their own sin and hardness of their hearts" then their spiritual polarity would irrevocably be changed to that of being a child of God. God is causal in everything He does. Therefore, if He chooses to not do something then He has chosen that the results of Him not doing something is His desire.

Let me tell you a personal example of this that I always use to train my wife in godly parenting. Children often act out to establish the bounderies of their actions. As a parent I am tasked by God with setting these bounderies and enforcing them to train my child to obey my, and ultimately God's, authority. I have taught my wife that certain steps must be taken to enforce certain acceptable behavior patterns. For instance, when my youngest son messes with the controls on the T.V. I give him a spanking. He knows that he is not supposed to touch the controls on the T.V. and so I reinforce that by punishing him when he disobeys me. In essence I am actively teaching him to obey. Now, if he touches the controls and I ignore it I am still teaching him. However, now, I am passively condoning his disobedience. Now, God is active with both the elect and non-elect. However, He is actively active with His elect and actively passive to the reprobate. In both cases He is active.

Come on Lotar...

You say, "God does not withhold His grace from them." Well, does He give it to them? Do those of us who do get God's grace take it from God or is it ours because He freely grants it to us? If it's the latter, and I sincerely hope it is, then what you say makes no sense. God's passive action of not granting His grace is His active action of willing to not give His grace.

God bless,
Don

We make a distinction between the grace of salvation and the grace of election. One must have faith to recieve the grace of salvation, it is not withheld from anyone and is freely given to those who would recieve it.

 

[Breetai]

 

[Bulldog]

What are you confused about, Breetai?

 

[countrymousenc]

It is the only way that someone will come to Christ. Whether or not the unregenerated would ever be willing to come to repentance does not clear them of the responsibility to do so.

(Winnie the Pooh - "Think, think think") The reprobate are able, but never willing. It is not really ability that is provided by God's prevenient grace, but willingness. It is a necessary change of heart that prevenient grace works in the elect but not in the reprobate. The will follows the heart. (It always does; Walt Disney didn't really have to tell anyone to do that.)


???

 

[Reformationist]

Neo: There is no coin.

Okay. "Coin" is clearly a phraseology to make a point but we could use any analogy. No matter our view, the Bible forces us to take a position on predestination, because it is clearly and regularly spoken of. So, how does God, who is causal in all things that He does, not righteously condemn a sinner without withholding His grace. I am not implying that the reprobate person seeks God and God selfishly withholds it out of spite. I'm simply acknowledging that God gives grace to some because it pleased Him to do so and withheld it from others, also because it pleased Him to do so. No matter how we slice this pie, we cannot, in good conscience, act as if the Bible says that God is indifferent to those He has not chosen. His passivity in not giving them grace is an active choice of His sovereign will.

The problem is that you are trying to define an infinite God with your finite knowledge.

Come on bro. I expect more from a learned guy like you. I am using finite knowledge to understand an infinite God because finite knowledge is all I have. Every single one of us is finite. Does that stop us from trying to understand God? Of course not. Our attempts to understand God with a limited capability for understanding may hinder us, even radically, but it is not a vain attempt. God, to whatever degree, has chosen to gracefully reveal Himself to us. It is our duty as His disciples to make every effort to acknowledge and understand that revelation. What would you have me do, give up? Take no stance whatsoever because I'm a finite being? No. I cannot do that and claim to love God. To relegate my understanding of the Word of God to the position of "Well, I'm finite so I'd just better avoid delving too deeply" is nothing more than a lazy person's response to difficult issues. In John 6 we read of a difficult teaching, the teaching that Jesus is the bread of life come down from Heaven, and the response of many of His disciples. Look at the words of Peter when the Twelve were asked, by Christ, if they, too, would leave:

John 6:67-69
Then Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?"
But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

It seems that Peter was not altogether thrilled with this lesson either but he had to face the fact that, though it was difficult to submit to, he could not forsake the giver of life because of a difficult teaching. He had no where else to go if he wished to have eternal life.

My point is that you seem to be looking at this all wrong Lotar. You seem to want to protect God from any involvement in wrongdoing by completely removing Him and His sovereign actions from the condemnation brought upon those who reject the Lord. I admire your love for God but you cannot ignore God's clear involvement in predestined reprobation, not if you wish to remain true to the Word. God is not indifferent in the lives of those He has not chosen. He makes the choice to not give them grace. That is the exact same thing as withholding His grace. Clearly God is not obliged to give grace so He is, in no way, unrighteous for withholding it.

1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Okay. Let's think about this before we start carrying on like a bunch of Arminian Christians. Does God ever fail at accomplishing His pleasure?

Isaiah 46:9-11
Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, "My counsel shall stand,
And I will do ALL My pleasure,'
Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it;
I will also do it.

If God does all His pleasure and He will do all that He purposes to do don't you think it's pretty clear that if something as monumental as a person's condemnation comes to pass that it's God's purpose for that to come to pass? Like a judge who sentences a criminal God may take no pleasure in the necessity of their condemnation but that doesn't mean that it isn't His purpose, His will. We cannot speak of the execution of God's wrath as if His wrath is a trait that He just as soon shed, as if it were an extra thirty pounds of body weight. God is glorified in executing His wrath against the sinfulness of man.

So, in light of God's omnipotent glory and His authority and power in which He brings all His will to pass, I would say that 1 Timothy 2:3,4 signifies God's benevolence rather than His failure to bring to pass that which He desires. Remeber, as I am finite, so was Paul. We have a limited ability to express the emotions of a sovereign Being. God may desire the salvation and saving knowledge of all men in the sense that He takes no wicked glee in their destruction, but, universal salvation is CLEARLY not God's decree. We cannot responsibly pit the benevolence of God against His holiness. We cannot, in good conscience, believe that God truly and deeply desired the salvation of all of mankind and also acknowledge that He does not bring that to pass. That makes God a basket case who works against Himself. God's desire is exactly what comes to pass.

Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

Lotar, what are you using this verse to show, that God has brought salvation to all men? I don't even think you believe that. I could be wrong about your beliefs, but I don't think I am. Simply ask yourself, "has God brought salvation to all men?"

I have yet to hear a satisfactory response from a Calvinist on these verses.

Have you ever heard a "satisfactory response" from anyone? Even those who will say that God wants everyone ever created to be saved must contend with the fact that many aren't. Does something God deeply desires, like the salvation of so many people, not come to pass? And if so, why not? If you wish to remain theologically consistant you are not able to say it's because the person rejects Him. According to both of our beliefs we all reject Him apart from His grace. So, according to your beliefs, if God desires the salvation of every created person in history, why has that not come to pass.

The bible clearly states that God desires all men to come to repentance.

And reality clearly states that that does not happen. So, if God desires it, why doesn't it come to pass? Is God unable to bring it to pass?

Ever instance in which predestination and election is spoken of it is applied to those who He has chosen to save. Where ever it speaks of damnation, it puts the full reason and blame on the person who would not believe.

And I'm not claiming anything contrary to that. The reprobate are to blame for their damnation. That doesn't mean that they weren't predestined to reject God. God doesn't force someone to reject Him. Rejecting Him is the natural inclination of all of us. God is not obliged to change that. If He doesn't change that then we will keep on rejecting Him. His sovereign decision to not change that is His sovereign choice to ordain them unto damnation.

no

Agreed.

God regenerating our souls.

Agreed.

Yes.

Agreed.

It is the only way that someone will come to Christ. Whether or not the unregenerated would ever be willing to come to repentance does not clear them of the responsibility to do so.

In the case of unregenerate man, "will" and "can" imply the same thing because they stem from the same source, our fallen inclination to rebel. The Bible uses the word "can" here:

John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

"Can" is not a reference to permission. It's a reference to ability. Fallen, unregenerate man is incapable of coming to Christ. Why? Simply because it is contrary to their nature. They will never desire to do so, so, they never will. And yes, we have a responsibility to submit to Christ, whether God has made us morally capable of doing so or not. Man condemns himself by his actions, I agree. However, that rejection is merely the temporal outworking of God's divine decree. That decree is election.

He must choose to do so (that's where you're leading, right? )

That's exactly where I'm leading. Very good grasshopper.

So, if He chooses to regenerate some so that they will come in faith then it naturally follows that He chooses to not regenerate others. That sovereign act of choosing to not provide the remedy for our fallen nature is God's sovereign decree that those people will go to hell. Their condemnation will be just, do not doubt. However, their eternal disposition, like the elect, is foreordained before the foundations of the earth.

We make a distinction between the grace of salvation and the grace of election.

So do I. You can certainly distinguish between salvation and election but you cannot ever separate them.

One must have faith to recieve the grace of salvation, it is not withheld from anyone and is freely given to those who would recieve it.

What's not withheld, faith or salvation? Also, what causes us to receive it? Isn't it God's grace in regenerating us that causes us to recieve salvation by faith? Please, oh please, don't tell me you believe we must make a positive volitional move toward Christ before we get the gift of regeneration or faith?


God bless

 

[Reformationist]

(Winnie the Pooh - "Think, think think") The reprobate are able, but never willing. It is not really ability that is provided by God's prevenient grace, but willingness. It is a necessary change of heart that prevenient grace works in the elect but not in the reprobate. The will follows the heart. (It always does; Walt Disney didn't really have to tell anyone to do that.)


???

Though I am unsure as to your usage of the term "prevenient grace" I would say that I completely agree with this. Very nicely said countrymousenc.

God bless

 

[countrymousenc]

Thanks, Reformationist

(By the way, that is a beautiful baby in the picture! How old is he/she now?)

I was using prevenient grace to indicate God's heart-changing grace, which leads us into the Church through confession and baptism.

Does the basic argument between the Calvinist and the Arminian maybe boil down to whether God's heart-changing grace is given to all or only to the elect? That's the way it seems.

 

[Lotar]

Okay. "Coin" is clearly a phraseology to make a point but we could use any analogy. No matter our view, the Bible forces us to take a position on predestination, because it is clearly and regularly spoken of. So, how does God, who is causal in all things that He does, not righteously condemn a sinner without withholding His grace. I am not implying that the reprobate person seeks God and God selfishly withholds it out of spite. I'm simply acknowledging that God gives grace to some because it pleased Him to do so and withheld it from others, also because it pleased Him to do so. No matter how we slice this pie, we cannot, in good conscience, act as if the Bible says that God is indifferent to those He has not chosen. His passivity in not giving them grace is an active choice of His sovereign will.

Come on bro. I expect more from a learned guy like you. I am using finite knowledge to understand an infinite God because finite knowledge is all I have. Every single one of us is finite. Does that stop us from trying to understand God? Of course not. Our attempts to understand God with a limited capability for understanding may hinder us, even radically, but it is not a vain attempt. God, to whatever degree, has chosen to gracefully reveal Himself to us. It is our duty as His disciples to make every effort to acknowledge and understand that revelation. What would you have me do, give up? Take no stance whatsoever because I'm a finite being? No. I cannot do that and claim to love God. To relegate my understanding of the Word of God to the position of "Well, I'm finite so I'd just better avoid delving too deeply" is nothing more than a lazy person's response to difficult issues. In John 6 we read of a difficult teaching, the teaching that Jesus is the bread of life come down from Heaven, and the response of many of His disciples. Look at the words of Peter when the Twelve were asked, by Christ, if they, too, would leave:

John 6:67-69
Then Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?"
But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

It seems that Peter was not altogether thrilled with this lesson either but he had to face the fact that, though it was difficult to submit to, he could not forsake the giver of life because of a difficult teaching. He had no where else to go if he wished to have eternal life.

My point is that you seem to be looking at this all wrong Lotar. You seem to want to protect God from any involvement in wrongdoing by completely removing Him and His sovereign actions from the condemnation brought upon those who reject the Lord. I admire your love for God but you cannot ignore God's clear involvement in predestined reprobation, not if you wish to remain true to the Word. God is not indifferent in the lives of those He has not chosen. He makes the choice to not give them grace. That is the exact same thing as withholding His grace. Clearly God is not obliged to give grace so He is, in no way, unrighteous for withholding it.

I see nothing wrong with trying to understand something, as long as it does not contradict scripture. Somethings are hard to the point of near impossibility of understanding, like the concept of the Trinity. Some things just come down to those two words you hate so much when the Catholics use them, starting with a d and a m.

I agree that God is not obligated to give grave, or that He would be any less just for predestining people to hell. My point is that scripture poiints to otherwise. We

Okay. Let's think about this before we start carrying on like a bunch of Arminian Christians. Does God ever fail at accomplishing His pleasure?

Isaiah 46:9-11
Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, "My counsel shall stand,
And I will do ALL My pleasure,'
Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it;
I will also do it.

If God does all His pleasure and He will do all that He purposes to do don't you think it's pretty clear that if something as monumental as a person's condemnation comes to pass that it's God's purpose for that to come to pass? Like a judge who sentences a criminal God may take no pleasure in the necessity of their condemnation but that doesn't mean that it isn't His purpose, His will. We cannot speak of the execution of God's wrath as if His wrath is a trait that He just as soon shed, as if it were an extra thirty pounds of body weight. God is glorified in executing His wrath against the sinfulness of man.

So, in light of God's omnipotent glory and His authority and power in which He brings all His will to pass, I would say that 1 Timothy 2:3,4 signifies God's benevolence rather than His failure to bring to pass that which He desires. Remeber, as I am finite, so was Paul. We have a limited ability to express the emotions of a sovereign Being. God may desire the salvation and saving knowledge of all men in the sense that He takes no wicked glee in their destruction, but, universal salvation is CLEARLY not God's decree. We cannot responsibly pit the benevolence of God against His holiness. We cannot, in good conscience, believe that God truly and deeply desired the salvation of all of mankind and also acknowledge that He does not bring that to pass. That makes God a basket case who works against Himself. God's desire is exactly what comes to pass.

Lotar, what are you using this verse to show, that God has brought salvation to all men? I don't even think you believe that. I could be wrong about your beliefs, but I don't think I am. Simply ask yourself, "has God brought salvation to all men?"

Have you ever heard a "satisfactory response" from anyone? Even those who will say that God wants everyone ever created to be saved must contend with the fact that many aren't. Does something God deeply desires, like the salvation of so many people, not come to pass? And if so, why not? If you wish to remain theologically consistant you are not able to say it's because the person rejects Him. According to both of our beliefs we all reject Him apart from His grace. So, according to your beliefs, if God desires the salvation of every created person in history, why has that not come to pass.

God has brought salvation to all men, though all men will not take it. He wishes all to be saved. The grace of salvation is for all men, but the grace of election is only for some.

38. To be sure, it is necessary to observe the Scriptural distinction between the election of grace and the universal will of grace. This universal gracious will of God embraces all men; the election of grace, however, does not embrace all, but only a definite number, whom "God hath from the beginning chosen to salvation," 2 Thess. 2:13, the "remnant," the "seed" which "the Lord left," Rom. 9:27- 29, the "election," Rom. 11:7; and while the universal will of grace is frustrated in the case of most men, Matt. 22:14; Luke 7:30, the election of grace attains its end with all whom it embraces, Rom. 8:28-30. Scripture, however, while distinguishing between the universal will of grace and the election of grace, does not place the two in opposition to each other. On the contrary, it teaches that the grace dealing with those who are lost is altogether earnest and fully efficacious for conversion. Blind reason indeed declares these two truths to be contradictory; but we impose silence on our reason. The seeming disharmony will disappear in the light of heaven, 1 Cor. 13:12.

And reality clearly states that that does not happen. So, if God desires it, why doesn't it come to pass? Is God unable to bring it to pass?

God is able to bring it to pass, though it is not His will to do so. That does not mean He doesn't desire all to be saved.

And I'm not claiming anything contrary to that. The reprobate are to blame for their damnation. That doesn't mean that they weren't predestined to reject God. God doesn't force someone to reject Him. Rejecting Him is the natural inclination of all of us. God is not obliged to change that. If He doesn't change that then we will keep on rejecting Him. His sovereign decision to not change that is His sovereign choice to ordain them unto damnation.

Being predestined means that you have no choice in the matter, I had no choice but to be regenerated and receive God's saving grace. This is not the case for the unregenerate, they have the choice to repent or not, and they have the free will to make this choice. Their will is so twisted that they will never make that choice, but it does not remove the fact that if they wanted to, they could. God's grace is extended to them and they spit on it and turn away, we would do the same, if He had not changed us.

In the case of unregenerate man, "will" and "can" imply the same thing because they stem from the same source, our fallen inclination to rebel. The Bible uses the word "can" here:

John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

"Can" is not a reference to permission. It's a reference to ability. Fallen, unregenerate man is incapable of coming to Christ. Why? Simply because it is contrary to their nature. They will never desire to do so, so, they never will. And yes, we have a responsibility to submit to Christ, whether God has made us morally capable of doing so or not. Man condemns himself by his actions, I agree. However, that rejection is merely the temporal outworking of God's divine decree. That decree is election.

No, that rejection is a result of our free will, and our will desires only evil, so as a result will only do evil.

That's exactly where I'm leading. Very good grasshopper.

So, if He chooses to regenerate some so that they will come in faith then it naturally follows that He chooses to not regenerate others. That sovereign act of choosing to not provide the remedy for our fallen nature is God's sovereign decree that those people will go to hell. Their condemnation will be just, do not doubt. However, their eternal disposition, like the elect, is foreordained before the foundations of the earth.

I disagree, He elects those who will be saved, and leaves the others to their own devises.

So do I. You can certainly distinguish between salvation and election but you cannot ever separate them.

I believe that in some ways you can. The grace of salvation is all encompassing, while election is not.

What's not withheld, faith or salvation? Also, what causes us to receive it? Isn't it God's grace in regenerating us that causes us to recieve salvation by faith? Please, oh please, don't tell me you believe we must make a positive volitional move toward Christ before we get the gift of regeneration or faith?

No, I reject the idea that we must cooperate with God's grace because then we would all be lost. But, this is because God has chosen to extend to us the grace of election.

 

[Bulldog]

Does the basic argument between the Calvinist and the Arminian maybe boil down to whether God's heart-changing grace is given to all or only to the elect? That's the way it seems.

Kinda. Arminians believe that God does not have to make a person regenerate, but that he is already regenerate enough to chose between Life and death. Arminians do not believe that God chose some people to salvation. I think what you're thinking of is the Lutheran belief.

 

[Reformationist]

Thanks, Reformationist

Thank you for your wise words.

(By the way, that is a beautiful baby in the picture! How old is he/she now?)

He's about 2½ now. Here's a more recent pic of him.

I was using prevenient grace to indicate God's heart-changing grace, which leads us into the Church through confession and baptism.

I see.

Does the basic argument between the Calvinist and the Arminian maybe boil down to whether God's heart-changing grace is given to all or only to the elect? That's the way it seems.

Well, that's certainly part of it, though I'm not sure why. It seems as if God gave everyone His "heart-changing grace" then everyone's heart would be changed. If that grace was unsuccessful in changing someone's heart I'm not sure how we could call it "heart-changing grace." It would become "occasionally heart-changing grace."

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Okay Lotar. Well, as this is a thread asking for Lutheran views I'll go ahead and bow out.

Thanks for the discussion bro.

God bless,
Don

 

[Lotar]

Thanks. Hopefully I'll have learned more by the time we address this subject again. I think you have a few more years of knowledge than me.

 

[Breetai]

What are you confused about, Breetai?

What Luther's final stance on predestination was and when and if he changed his views. I'm too busy with school to study it now though

 

[countrymousenc]

He's about 2½ now. Here's a more recent pic of him.

It's gotta be hard to say "no" to a face like that!

Well, that's certainly part of it, though I'm not sure why. It seems as if God gave everyone His "heart-changing grace" then everyone's heart would be changed. If that grace was unsuccessful in changing someone's heart I'm not sure how we could call it "heart-changing grace." It would become "occasionally heart-changing grace."

Yes, it would, and it seems as though that would make election universal, and then why mention it at all?

God bless

God bless you, too.

 

[Lotar]

Arminians believe a person is saved by working in cooperation with God's grace. So a person can accept or reject it. Therefor, "making a decision for Christ."

 

[countrymousenc]

Arminians believe a person is saved by working in cooperation with God's grace. So a person can accept or reject it. Therefor, "making a decision for Christ."

But that is not what Luther believed - correct? Or what Lutherans believe. ?

 

[Lotar]

I was visiting the LCMS site and took a look on their view on predestination. They believe that God predestined some to salvation, and those who are condemned to Hell are condemned becuase of thier disbelief in Christ.

How does this make sense? If God predestined some to salvation, then wouldn't that by default mean that some were predestined to Hell?

Not to lose track of the subject. Does it make any more sense now?