Reformationist
Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
- Mar 7, 2002
- 14,273
- 465
- 52
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
ContraMundum said:
It only "fits into" that theory if "free will" means that the thing created wills freely. It doesn't mean that their ability to will something is free from controlling influence, as is the case with one who is a slave to an unregenerate nature.
I speak primarily, though not exclusively, of recognizing the difference between the orthodox reformed teaching of predestination and that of the heinous and unbiblical view of equal ultimacy, wherein God brings to pass, in the same manner, the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate. Are you familiar with the distinction of which I speak?
I fail to see the point you are attempting to make here being that all I proclaim is that God's sovereign act of predestination is according to His sovereign will. You don't contradict any view that I hold on that point. However, to claim that such a choice is not selective in nature implies universality, which will logically lead to either contending that God intends and attempts to save all without exception, though He fails, or that He intends and attempts to save all without exception and is successful and all without exception will taste of Heaven. Neither are biblical concepts.
I have no clue what this "privilege" is of which you speak, nor how you came to limit this passage's reference to that, unless of course you include within its bounderies eternal salvation, which is clearly a "privilege" of the children of God.
My apologies. Clearly I was the one who misunderstood your position.
Certainly. The inherent nature of fallen man, insofar as I understand the Bible's teaching on the issue, is that of a depraved and rebellious creation that, due to the universal influence of sin upon the constituency of his being, seeks only to serve his fallen desires. Though such an influence does not always exert the same force upon the actions of unregenerate man, the force it does exert is always sufficient to ensure that he will never do anything according to a desire to please and obey God, for such a desire is exclusive to one whom the Lord has graciously condescended to regenerate and, as such, a mark of a person's adoption. Now, acknowledging man's inherent inability to come to the Lord in faith (John 6:44; Rom 8:7) allows us to understand the greatness of the unmerited grace which God has extended to those who are at enmity against Him that He, and He alone, may bridge the chasm that exists between His holiness and their wretchedness. He does not "enable" man to cross that bridge. He does not "meet man half way." He builds the bridge and revives man, who lies dead on the other side, as He purposed to do so from the beginning, and then leads him from wretchedness to glory in love and mercy. This He does for His elect alone, whom He has appointed unto redemption before the foundations of creation. Those upon whom He has been pleased to pour out His wrath can neither cry foul, nor justifiably question God's authority nor holiness, for their ultimate end is one which they earn. Now, some may say that, being that man is born with a nature inclined only to sin that it is unjust for the Lord to hold them accountable for that which they are predisposed to do. This, of course, only shows that God's choice of Adam as their representative for glory or ruin was appropriate, for such a view is indicative of one who would have chosen to rebel, just as did our forefathers. Additionally, though man's nature logically precludes obedience, God does not introduce evil into the heart of fallen man but, instead, reveals His glory in such a way as should spur the heart of man to revere Him. Man, despite his guilty knowledge of his Creator, seeks Him not but turns to his sin, just as the first Adam hid from the Lord God in shame for his own rebellion.
Now, as to the issue of the predestination of the Lord being inherently "double," it is a clear case of the explicit revealing the implicit. As previously stated, God has enlightened us that fallen man is naturally incapable and disinclined to seek the Lord. Also, as previously noted, God is not obligated to free man from his self-imposed bondage. In fact, such an abandonment reveals the holy and just nature of God ruling over His creation and judging iniquity as no less than cosmic treason. The fact that God endures the wickedness of man that He may have mercy upon any shows His graciousness, not His "unfairness." Therefore, if man is naturally incapable of coming in faith apart from the gracious intercession of God's regenerative work, and God is not obligated to extend such grace to all men without exception, those whom He has sovereignly willed to leave to account for their sin will continue on his path of destruction and receive that which they deserve.
The most important point, or rather distinction, that should be noted here is that while God actively works in the heart of the elect to bring forth faith, and thus redemption, His role in the heart of the reprobate is that of passivity.
I pray that I may do it justice. As I understand it, man is inherently inclined to resist the graciousness of God, and it is for this reason, among others, that man will face the wrath of God on the day of his judgement. The grace of which I speak that God does not allow to be ultimately resisted is His salvific grace. I do not generally refer to that grace as "irresistable," though such a term is perfectly acceptable among those who use it reverently. Such a term tends to send the free will activists in to an uproar, causing them to cite such passages as Matthew 23:37 in defense of man's ability to regulate God's redemptive work. In light of that, I prefer the term "invincible," for His salvific grace, which He extends to the elect, is always efficacious in bringing them to faith and overcoming their inherent obstinacy against His love (John 6:37; Rom 8:28-30). This He does according to His loving work of regeneration. I do not contend that God steamrolls man's will, making him compliant against his will, nor do I contend that God removes man's will, making him nothing less than a puppet on a string (an accusation to which reformed Christians all too often fall prey). I submit that God, in His work of regeneration, remakes man anew, giving him a will that loves the Lord God and desires to do His will. Regeneration is truly one of the most explicit biblical, and practical, marks of God's love for His elect.
On the contrary. The Bible may not explicitly state why some come and some don't. However, the inference is clearly made. As I said, if we agree with Holy Scripture that all who are given to the Son come then it is a clear teaching that if one does not come, it is because they were not given.
God bless
Upvote
0
