Predestination??

[ContraMundum]

I'll point out three things that are explicitly stated in Scripture:

1. Only those whom God calls are able to come to Christ.

Not so sure about that one. Are not all called?

Jn 12:32, Ps 65:2, Rom 1:18,20 etc etc, I'd cite a lot more if I had time.

2. All whom God calls do come to Christ.

Not sure about that either. (If point 1 is disputed, naturally this cannot follow)

The usual texts objecting to irresistable grace come to mind. You know them.

3. Christ will lose none that the Father has given Him.

Sure, except for the Judas' among them Acts 1:17, Jn 17:12 etc

Now, couple these indisputable facts that are explicitly revealed in Scripture with the reality that not everyone comes to Christ and we can add to the clearly revealed, and biblically accurate, assessment of the salvitic work of the Godhead:

1. Only those whom God calls are able to come to Christ.
2. All whom God calls do come to Christ.
3. If someone does not come to Christ they were not called.
4. Christ will lose none that the Father has given Him.

That's just fallible darkened human logic, based on disputable ideas int he first place.

None of this is generically indicative of reformed doctrine. We acknowledge that "all" means what the context defines it as. "Whosoever" is not limited by Calvinists but by context, i.e., "Whosoever will..." Clearly not everyone will so "whosoever" cannot mean "everyone without exception."

Sure, I understand that. Too bad not all Reformed are as informed as you are.

Please show me, from Scripture, where we are told that "Christ died for the whole world"

1 Jn 2:2

and, if you can do that, why you would define "whole world" in an universal manner there but not in places where "whole world" is employed but the meaning of "whole world" is clearly not universal.

The context demands that interpretation in that verse. John is speaking to the elect in the church but adds- "not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."

Two things. First, that is not the reason there is "outcry" at the idea of God sovereignly ordaining whomsoever He will unto salvation. The "outcry" is because man cannot stand to think he didn't positively contribute to his being saved.

I don't think so. That's an argumnent used a lot in this thread but anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Arminianism or any other Ordo Salutis knows this is merely an appeal to emotion via hyperbole.

For a start, Arminianism states that man cannot save Himself, ever, and that's without God's gracious action he will remain dead in sin. Secondly, the Arminian position really deals with the doctrine of contrition in relation to the role of the Holy Spirit on convicting the world of sin. If one understands this posiiton then there can be no credit whatsoever for man's activity in his salvation. To say otherwise is to mis-represent your opponent's position and understanding.

Even a flick through the statement of the Remonstrants does not lead one to the conclusions the Calvinists on this thread accuse the Arminians of.

As to your last point, predestination is taught from cover to cover in the Bible. If you choose to ignore it in favor of man centered doctrine then nothing we can say will change that.

No one that I know disputes that predestination is taught in the Bible. It's just about what we are predestined to (obviously predestination only to conformity to the image of the Son is explicitly stated for the elect, in the context we are speaking of). What we are disputing here is election, and how that happens. That's when the problem starts. Texts such as Phil 2:12 are not dealt with properly by those who hold your position, and texts such as Acts 13:46 are dealt with by your opponents. However, because it is possible to believe in election and still hold to man's free will and responsibility, this needs to be looked at by those in your camp.

Obviously, there is some form of responsibility placed by God's decree upon men. What exactly that is is the bone of contention here.

There are few people that dispute an election to grace, or even an election to salvation, but what people do dispute is an election to eternal Hellfire. Still, no one has shown anyone a clear, undisputed proof-text in support of that.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Reformationist-

Here's the problem CD: You regularly refer to post-Fall man as having "free will."

I tried hard to clarify it was a weakened free will. I dont recall saying post fall man had non weakened free will if I ever said post-fall man has free will in the same manner as Adam then I didnt mean to say that.

You define "free will" as "the ability to choose good or evil when given the choice."

I followed that up with the point that weakened free will needs God's grace.

In fact, man having "free will" is foundational to your views on salvation.

Why not? We are not lifeless packages being shipped FedEx to one place or another, there is more to salvation than that.

Then, as if to deny this very thing, you say that, without the help of God, man can't choose good. This is not an issue of permission CD. It's an issue of inherent inability. You have violated the law of non-contradiction by claiming that man has both the ability to "choose good or evil when given the choice" and that man is "incapable of choosing good." Again I ask, what seems either logical about such contradictory claims, and, in what way does that describe a will that is "free?"

In Gen4:

1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD."
2 And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground.
3 In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, 4 and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, 5 but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.
​

They both chose to give an offering to the Lord.

6 The LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."
​

Here we see that Cain failed to do well, yet his ability was there. God goes onto warn Cain so we know cain was not forced to sin despite the urge.

8 Cain said to Abel his brother, "Let us go out to the field." And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. 9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" 10 And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. 11 And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength; you shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth."
​

Here God says "what have you done". This doesnt mean God didnt know, rather it means Cain sinned freely.

13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me." 15 Then the LORD said to him, "Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold."
​

Here Cain recognizes his punishment as due to his personal failings.
Here is another example Im thinking of, what stops all men from being the worst they can be? It must be grace helping them not to act out a sinful thought. If they are able not to act out a sinful thought then grace must have been present.

If you mean to ask how I understand the usage of the word "weakened" as it is used in the Canons of the Council of Orange I would clarify that I acknowledge that the term "weakened" is used to describe a will that was so impaired by the propagation of sin that it is incapable of inclining itself towards good or God by its own power.

If you would also use the term "free" to describe such a will then you and I have very disporportionate usages of that qualifier.

I think here is where the problem is, I agree with the top part. The problem is the term "free" tacked on, thats just how it goes I guess.

Okay, then how do you mean "free will" with regard to a creature that cannot choose good from the power of his own will unless God grants him that ability? Also, in what way does God enable men to choose good?

One thing that comes to mind is the gift of faith, a man can be enabled to have faith but that doesnt mean he cant abuse or reject this later in time. God gave the Jews the promised land, but they abused this gift and were thrown out as well as other punishments.

CD, despite what you and your church claim, regeneration from death in our trespasses and sins to life in the Lord Jesus is not effected through water baptism. That is a fanciful and unbiblical notion that man has created to cloak the fact that he includes his own righteous choices in the salvation process. That same council states this:

Salvation through Baptism is an ordinary means of salvation. The Bible and Church Fathers are very clear that Baptism forgives all sins and makes them members of Christ's body. Titus 3 says:

4 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.
​

Baptism is always done with water in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If you can show me a Scripture passage or Church Father who explicitly says otherwise then Id be willing to read it.

As for the comment that "man includes his own righteous choices"? How is this bad? Is someone being Baptized apart from God's will to save them? God cleary provided the means for them.

And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29).

Clearly baptism is not the means by which regeneration is effected or it would have that result in all who are baptized, which it surely doesn't.

First of all this is talking about those not Baptized, but only "desire to be Baptized". This is going back to what Canon5 said:

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles
​

This is talking about the "desire" which has its start in grace. Not to mention it specifically says "regeneration of holy Baptism".
As for the part you quoted if you keep reading it says:

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.
​

This is specifically talking about "all Baptized persons". Nobody is Baptized apart from God's will be it infants or adults.

Also from that same place you quoted I think we agree it describes "free will" in a manner we both agree:

The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him.
​

The irony here is that you contend that man, before he is regenerated, desires to be baptized and, in fact, goes to be baptized and to prove this you erroneously cite rulings from councils that say quite the opposite. The very words that you cite decry what you claim, "If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. The very beginnings of desire for baptism are the product of the Lord's work, also something stated in what you cite, "If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6)."

It specifically says "regeneration of holy Baptism", not regeneration before Baptism. Also you misquote when you say bold "free will" in the first half it is out of the context in the exact same way the previous poster originally misquoted, here is the key passage in that same canon:

...For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God.
​

The part "by mercy but others through free will" explicitly go onto explain what I posted above, that this "free will...which has been weakend" cant do anything without the revelation of God.

Here we are clearly told that the "increase in faith" as well as "the very desire for faith" is something that is "a gift of grace." Your theology has man doing something by faith, i.e., seeking to be baptized, before they are ever even regenerate.

I never disagreed with the first part here. As for the second, regeneration is a result of Baptism as the council states and places like Titus3:5.

They absolutely can, if we're speaking in a general sense. Do you mean to apply this same reasoning to salvation? If so, it simply will not work. Salvation is not the result of a choice we make. It is the result of a choice God made before the foundations of the world and then accomplishes during the course of history. We are the recipients of the benefits of His choice.

How do you figure? In places like Matt18:23ff it shows God forgiving a man his debts and later punishing the man and reinstating the debt.
We agree faith is a gift, but the Bible also tells us people made a "shipwreck of their faith".

Certainly.

So we agree the person can freely choose to sin after accepting Christ.

Both easy questions. Grace is present as long as God gives it and it is present to whomsoever He gives it.

Thats not really what I was getting at, but its not a big deal.

I'm not speaking of God's gracious gifts of abilities. I'm speaking of God's gracious dispensation of salvitic grace, by which He sovereignly and efficaciously compels one to faith through His work of regeneration.

Like I was wondering, is there a "minimum" that everyone gets?
I must have confused you because I was talking of ablitites in the sense of salvation, the woman at the well didnt display the same extent of gifts as someone like Paul.

I do not deny that true believers can fall into darkness after being enlightened but I disagree with you that he can fall away to his utter destruction. God will never lose any whom He has made His own.

What do you think when Jesus said stuff like:

29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
​

We agree that this doesnt mean literally cut off a body part, but its clear things in your life which cause sin must be removed/avoided.

(I have to go so ill get back when I can)

 

[strengthinweakness]

I can be charitable but the Lord is not going to be so charitable when he returns.

To the ones who possess the Spirit.

Wonderous are the ways of the Lord that he has turned them backward. He gives them the things they know to debate. Always going backward. Never forward. The theologians delight in quoting other theologians. That's their thing. As it is written, "a hungry man dreams he is eating and awakes with his hunger not satisfied" so it is with them. In their vain imaginings, they think their words are the words of God.

Isa 28:13
Therefore the word of the LORD will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Jer 7:24
But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

Jer 15:6
You have rejected me, says the LORD, you keep going backward; so I have stretched out my hand against you and destroyed you; --I am weary of relenting.[/QUOTE=MarkT]


MarkT, you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between "scholars and theologians" and "the ones who possess the Spirit." Christian theology is not opposed to the Bible-- it is the systematic study of the Bible. Everyone has some sort of theology. The important question is, is that theology true, i.e. does it accurately state what the Bible teaches? True Christian scholars and theologians are not scholars and theologians because they simply like to study, write, and talk about what the Bible teaches in a purely "academic" sense. They are Christian scholars and theologians because they are serious about studying the word of God so as to know God Himself better. They quote other theologians not simply so that they can agree or disagree with them in the sense of "debating," but so that they can combat unBiblical theology (i.e. untruth) and call attention to Biblical theology (i.e. truth) that will help others to know God better. Any theology which does not help Christians to know God better is worthless, and anyone who reads theology without having knowing God better as his/her aim is wasting time and fooling him/herself. However, because some theologies are unBiblical, and some theologians and scholars may be only playing around with ideas, does not mean that Christian theology itself is pointless and not a Godly discipline.

 

[MarkT]

MarkT, you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between "scholars and theologians" and "the ones who possess the Spirit."

Not at all. If we all recogize the master's voice and we listen to him like a child, believing every word, then what is there left for us to do but to grow in the knowledge of God. The knowledge that comes from God. As Paul said, "God gives growth".

Then what is there left for the theologian to do? I shouldn't say that because the theologians study the sacred writings. I should ask, "Who are the theologians?"

The Spirit leads us to understand the scriptures.

But who are the ones who are drawn to studying religion? Only the blind would be drawn to do such a thing. The theologian is a different critter altogether. That's the Pharisee in them.

Now I don't know if the critical scholars and the theologians are the same spirit but anyone who has ever read a typical commentary knows, I should say, a Christian would know, that the critical scholars are the worst scoundrels in the world and if they would call themselves theologians as well, then they would be the worst blind guides and the most polluted waterless springs.

Not that it's so troubling or surprising to me.

See this is the prediction. There will be false teachers and false prophets. There's nothing we can do to prevent it. And of course we have no desire to prevent God's will, however, it may seem like evil is winning.

But that's because all the evil and causes of evil in the world have to come together at some point.

It's hard to understand, I mean, it's a wonderous sight when you see these people on TV, when you see the wrath of God upon them, how they don't know they are perishing.

 

[JayJay77]

Before we get into calling each other "false prophets" and the like, let us continue on in this debate like loving brothers, seeking the truth, and holding each other accountable. One comes with a scripture and a point, and the other interprets with another scripture and point. Simplicity as such does not need name calling.

Reform, I agree with Contrumundum in response to what you said earlier:

The "outcry" is because man cannot stand to think he didn't positively contribute to his being saved.

I can contend that God chose me first. He called me. And hopefully, when I die, I'll find out that I was part of the ones that God had "given to Jesus," by His grace.
The outcry is against God "not dispensing His 'saving-grace' on non-Christians" and therefore sentencing (and creating) them to and for hell.

 

[ContraMundum]

Then what is there left for the theologian to do? I shouldn't say that because the theologians study the sacred writings. I should ask, "Who are the theologians?"

People, just like you, asking for guidance from the Lord to study the scriptures.

Every Christian is a theologian.

But who are the ones who are drawn to studying religion? Only the blind would be drawn to do such a thing. The theologian is a different critter altogether. That's the Pharisee in them.

I've always said that the person who rejects every theologian is always the one in dire need of one.

that the critical scholars are the worst scoundrels in the world and if they would call themselves theologians as well, then they would be the worst blind guides and the most polluted waterless springs.

I couldn't agree more with that!

 

[Reformationist]

Not so sure about that one. Are not all called?

That depends on the manner in which you mean "called." All without exception are "called" to obey the Lord God. However, the inward call, from which springs forth salvitic faith, is efficacious in bringing to faith those to whom it is given so, in that case, no. Only those whom the Lord has ordained to ultimately glorify are "called." The point I made is based upon God's revelation in John 6. Consider this:

John 6:37
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

First we are told that all that the Father gives the Son will come. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that if someone doesn't come, they weren't given, yes?

Then we are told, seven verses later, of man's inherent inability to come apart from this divine impulsion:

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.

And not only this, but a clear distinction is made between the universal imposition of the demands of God's law, which I call the general call of God, and the result of the inward and effectual call of God in reconciling sinners to Himself. We are told that those God calls He ultimately glorifies (Romans 8:28-30). This call is referring to the inward and necessary work of the Spirit in regenerating man unto life in Christ and the invariable result that He will complete the good work He starts in them.

Not sure about that either. (If point 1 is disputed, naturally this cannot follow)

Again, Scripture suffices to address the efficacy of God's call:

John 6:37
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

John 10:27
My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Sure, except for the Judas' among them Acts 1:17, Jn 17:12 etc

Judas was not lost. He was never a child of God. He was chosen specifically for the purpose of manifesting God's will in betraying the Messiah.

That's just fallible darkened human logic, based on disputable ideas int he first place.

And I suppose you have come to your conclusions by way of an infallible, enlightened, divine revelation that is based on indisputable ideas?

Sure, I understand that. Too bad not all Reformed are as informed as you are.

I daresay that the reformed Christians on this MB that I am priviledged to learn from are far more "informed" than I.

1 Jn 2:2

CM, how would you define the biblical usage of the term "propitiation?" What I mean is, if someone serves as a "propitiation" for the sins of another, what has been accomplished by their act of propitiation?

The context demands that interpretation in that verse. John is speaking to the elect in the church but adds- "not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."

I was going to spend the time relaying the pertinent aspects of properly exegeting this passage but have found a site that does so far better than I could hope to do. I ask only that you look at its explanation and consider its points:

1 John 2:2: Universal or Limited propitiation?

I don't think so. That's an argumnent used a lot in this thread but anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Arminianism or any other Ordo Salutis knows this is merely an appeal to emotion via hyperbole.

CM, with all due respect, I have had thousands of conversations with Arminians on this MB regarding this very issue so I am very familiar with the desparity between what they claim to believe and the natural conclusion of their theology. They may deny the accuracy of such a claim but their theology only serves to support it. Ask an Arminian or if you are one, ask yourself, how many people are saved by the work of Christ alone, apart from their contributory work of accepting His work as meritorious on their behalf. Bottom line, Arminians believe that the work of Christ was intended to save all people without exception and that the self willed response of the person is what determines whether it does so.

For a start, Arminianism states that man cannot save Himself, ever, and that's without God's gracious action he will remain dead in sin.

I am aware of that. However, they also state that God cannot, or will not, save them without their permission. How a creature who is dead in sin ever even thinks to offer that permission is something I've never seen adequately explained. I've been told that the grace of God precedes their decision to do so but they destroy the logic behind such reasoning by claiming that that same grace is given to all, even those who still reject the work of Christ as salvitic. That said, it cannot logically be the grace of God which causes the one who is dead in sins to accept the work of Christ as salvitically meritorious. They've merely put themselves back into the same illogical position that Rome is in.

Secondly, the Arminian position really deals with the doctrine of contrition in relation to the role of the Holy Spirit on convicting the world of sin. If one understands this posiiton then there can be no credit whatsoever for man's activity in his salvation. To say otherwise is to mis-represent your opponent's position and understanding.

As I said, such a position, while initially God centered, quickly shows its man centered roots in the acknowledgement that the same work of the Spirit which they credit for their converstion was utterly impotent to accomplish the same thing in the lives of all who continue in their spiritual bondage.

Even a flick through the statement of the Remonstrants does not lead one to the conclusions the Calvinists on this thread accuse the Arminians of.

Peddle that if you will but I have been here long enough to know exactly who those I discuss these issues with ultimately credit with their personal salvation. The best assessment I can offer is that they see salvation as a synergistic process and, in doing so, credit man's decisions with as much influence as God's work on their behalf.

No one that I know disputes that predestination is taught in the Bible.

Hang around a bit. You'll meet quite a few that reject it outright and many others that simply pay it lip service.

What we are disputing here is election, and how that happens.

Okay. How and why do you believe it happens?

Texts such as Phil 2:12 are not dealt with properly by those who hold your position

I fail to see why that would be a problem verse as none of us, reformed or otherwise, believe that salvation is by works. Would you like for me to attempt to answer any questions you may have about the reformed understanding of that verse?

and texts such as Acts 13:46 are dealt with by your opponents.

Why would we be dealing with that verse??? Is there something in reformed doctrine that you believe avoids dealing with the providential dispensation of God's revelation?

However, because it is possible to believe in election and still hold to man's free will and responsibility, this needs to be looked at by those in your camp.

Why do you act as if the issues of God's monergistic work of election and man's responsibility are incompatible in reformed doctrine? We don't deny man's responsbility. Everything we espouse stems forth from God's providence in all matters of history but we don't claim that man is a volitional creature or that God has not ordained to manifest His will through secondary causes, i.e., man's freely willed actions. In fact, one of the most poignant and supportive revelations of our view in the Bible is that of God's sovereign providence in the life of Jacob's son, Joseph. Additionally, I have personally addressed those very issues numerous times. What is it that you have questions about that you feel are not being answered?

Obviously, there is some form of responsibility placed by God's decree upon men.

A fact we do not deny.

What exactly that is is the bone of contention here.

Care to state your position on the issue?

There are few people that dispute an election to grace, or even an election to salvation, but what people do dispute is an election to eternal Hellfire. Still, no one has shown anyone a clear, undisputed proof-text in support of that.

As previously stated, if one acknowledges that God's election unto salvation is a necessary, and sufficient antecedent to man's redemption then it is likewise stated that a person who lacks that election has been, by default, left to his own devices to be justified before God. This abandonment is His sovereign election unto damnation. Where I think you're getting confused regarding our view is that we don't claim that He elects unto "hellfire" in the same manner as He elects unto salvation. We don't espouse equal ultimacy.

 

[Normann]

2 Tim. 1:12
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

 

[Reformationist]

I tried hard to clarify it was a weakened free will. I dont recall saying post fall man had non weakened free will if I ever said post-fall man has free will in the same manner as Adam then I didnt mean to say that.

I understand the distinction you make. I simply think it is too confusing. Why call a will that is inherently incapable of choosing good "free," whether you qualify that with "weakened" or not? That's like distinguishing between the strong guy and the weak strong guy. It makes no sense.

I followed that up with the point that weakened free will needs God's grace.

I know. However, you also stated that man will decide whether to "reject the grace or work with it." So, as I pointed out, you have a person that is naturally incapable of choosing good having to choose whether to reject or accept the grace of God which would then lead to his ability to choose good or evil when presented with the choice. Is not the choice, itself, to accept the grace of God which frees him from his inability to choose good, an example of him choosing good?

Why not? We are not lifeless packages being shipped FedEx to one place or another, there is more to salvation than that.

Come on CD. No one, certainly not me, is denying that man has a will or that he is a volitional creature. I merely take issue with the claim, your claim, that a man who is enslaved to his sinful nature with a will that is "weakened" to the degree that he is naturally incapable of even choosing good has a "free" will.

They both chose to give an offering to the Lord.

Here we see that Cain failed to do well, yet his ability was there. God goes onto warn Cain so we know cain was not forced to sin despite the urge.

Here God says "what have you done". This doesnt mean God didnt know, rather it means Cain sinned freely.

Here Cain recognizes his punishment as due to his personal failings.


Here is another example Im thinking of, what stops all men from being the worst they can be? It must be grace helping them not to act out a sinful thought. If they are able not to act out a sinful thought then grace must have been present.

Let me clarify that I don't deny man is a volitional creation or that he makes choices or that his choices are his own. I merely disagree that a will that is inclined only and always to sin is "free."

I think here is where the problem is, I agree with the top part. The problem is the term "free" tacked on, thats just how it goes I guess.

If you recognize that "free" is inappropriate in describing a will that is "weakened" to that degree, why do you casually dismiss that with "that's just how it goes I guess?"

One thing that comes to mind is the gift of faith, a man can be enabled to have faith but that doesnt mean he cant abuse or reject this later in time.

CD, man is not "enabled to have faith." Man is given faith. Faith in God is something added to man's nature. True faith, which is a gift from God, cannot be denied. It can be abused, as you acknowledge. But none whom the Lord has enlighted can deny that He has done so. As for "rejecting this later in time," well, that is another discussion so, for now, I'll simply say that I trust in God's ability to complete the good work He starts in us.

So we agree the person can freely choose to sin after accepting Christ.

Man can and does choose to sin after he accepts Christ as Lord, though not with impugnity.

Like I was wondering, is there a "minimum" that everyone gets?

Well, everyone is blessed by God in some measure though I doubt that there is some rule as to what God is required, or determined to give.

What do you think when Jesus said stuff like:

29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.


​

We agree that this doesnt mean literally cut off a body part, but its clear things in your life which cause sin must be removed/avoided.


(I have to go so ill get back when I can)

He was speaking of the connection between sin and damnation. However, that connection is no longer applied to those who are children of God:

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Before we get into calling each other "false prophets" and the like, let us continue on in this debate like loving brothers, seeking the truth, and holding each other accountable. One comes with a scripture and a point, and the other interprets with another scripture and point. Simplicity as such does not need name calling.

Wise advice.

Reform, I agree with Contrumundum in response to what you said earlier:


I can contend that God chose me first. He called me. And hopefully, when I die, I'll find out that I was part of the ones that God had "given to Jesus," by His grace.

If you recognize that you chose God because He chose you then you're not in that group of people that I was referring to.

The outcry is against God "not dispensing His 'saving-grace' on non-Christians" and therefore sentencing (and creating) them to and for hell.

Tell me Jay, why would anyone have a problem with God for not giving man, any man, what he doesn't deserve?

Also, man's condemnation is the product of man's sinful works. You claim that people take issue with God for not restraining man from being sinful, as if such a thing were, somehow, His responsibility.

God bless

 

[Catholic Dude]

Reformationist-
(continued from yesterday)

Again, I am speaking of salvation, not simply acts of virtue. You, and your church, contend that salvation is the product of man's choice to "accept Jesus."

Still how do you explain not all people do the same amount of good? Its clear to me there is a wide gap between those who respond with full good deeds like blessed Mother Teresa and those who live an "average Christian joe" lifestle. Also how do you explain people being called "greatest and least" in the Kingdom?

We "accept Jesus" in the sense that He called and we responded. Like in Matt22:

1 And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast; but they would not come.
4 Again he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage feast.' 5 But they made light of it and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.
7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.' 10 And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; 12 and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.' 14 For many are called, but few are chosen."
​

The original feast was specifically inviting a group of people. But they did not respond. They were again invited but they refused again. So the King went out to find people who would come, and people did. It turns out some who came didnt come properly so they were kicked out.

What I'm asking is, is the grace that proceeds such a choice given to all men without exception and, if so, why is it impotent to bring many to saving faith?

Im not quite sure if its given to all, but it is possible. As far as why is it impotent in some, I would say its because they didnt respond properly, the Jews are a prime example.

I don't contend that it is a failure of the grace of God to accomplish the purpose for which it was given. I merely acknowledge the efficacy of God's grace and the sinful inclinations of even regenerate man. Therefore, if God determines to withhold His grace that His will may be revealed then man, often being disposed to act according to his old man, will desire and pursue that which God has forbidden, oftentimes leading to their falling back into sinful lifestyles. The Lord, however, has promised to not abandon those who are His and will, once again, raise them up from the muck into which they've fallen.

I dont understand why God would regenerate someone to later pull the rug out from under them? He calls them to be perfect and holy yet He puts a stumbling block?
I believe if man falls after being regenerated its a failing on his part, eg Matt25:

14 "For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; 15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. 17 So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money.
19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' 21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' 23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26 But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'
​

The men were all given according to their ability and each responded to this task.

If you are speaking of regenerate people then you and I are in agreement on this area. This ability, however, is instilled in us by God's work of regeneration so it is not present in the hearts of those who have yet to be regenerated.

Do you agree the ability in the person to not do evil is always present in a regenerated person? Im must be missing something because above you said God does withold his grace among the saved.

It is the grace of God that maintains man's very existence. Adam's "salvation" was his to maintain, and pass on, or forfeit. We all know which he chose. Salvation is not the only grace which God gives to man. He blessed Adam abundantly in the Garden, giving him dominion, providing for him sustenance. Are these not graces in your eyes?

Makes sense to me now.

I am well aware that you never denied grace comes first, which is why I asked whether there was a prevenient prevenient grace which man has only the ability to accept which frees his nature and makes him capable of then choosing whether to "reject the grace or work with it?" You see CD, unless there is a point in the process at which man's will is changed without his cooperation, what you are saying is that a will that cannot choose good without the grace of God must choose to cooperate with the grace of God so that he may be freed from his inability to choose good. This, of course, makes absolutely no sense being that the choice to cooperate with the grace of God is clearly a good choice. That would mean that a man who is incapable of choosing good without the grace of God chooses good that the grace of God may help him choose good.

Let me see if I understand this, the grace that enables man, it frees his nature without his cooperation. I agree. Im missing the rest. Here is how I see it, a man with a broken leg must first be helped by a doctor by getting a cast. The doctor first put the cast on the man without the man's cooperation. The man can now start to walk but requires the cast to be there (cooperation). The man can remove the cast and be hurt again cant he?

Let me once again clarify that I am in full agreement that God's common grace is given to all without exception, thus, by the power of God, all men without exception are capable of a measure of good in the form of civic righteousness. However, it is the salvitic grace of God that He dispenses exclusively to His elect. Regarding the institution of salvation, man makes no decision. He is the recipient of the covenant between the members of the Godhead.

Whats the point of "civic righteousness" if the person has his soul still in jeopardy? If I understand "civic righteousness", lets say a fireman gets paralyzed saving a group of children at sunday school. Is this "heroic" act pleasing to God or not? If its pleasing to God, how can you differentiate civic with salvific? Is there really a dividing line?

I also fail to see how man makes no decision at any time, if man makes no decision at any time then where is his love for God? Jesus says if someone loves Him they will keep his commandments.

 

[Reformationist]

CD, I am very much enjoying our conversation and pray that you will be patient with me. I actually am enjoying the fact that we are truly discussing these weighty issues without anger or malice. Please, if you are inclined, extend me a bit of grace on my response which, for the time being, must be postponed. I am in the middle of a project at work and need to focus on that.

I'll be back and I hope that I have not been left in the dust of a fast moving thread.

God bless,
Don

 

[Catholic Dude]

Reformationist-

I understand the distinction you make. I simply think it is too confusing. Why call a will that is inherently incapable of choosing good "free," whether you qualify that with "weakened" or not? That's like distinguishing between the strong guy and the weak strong guy. It makes no sense.

I (or we) might be misundersting what the council meant when it said things to the effect "free will was weakened'.

I know. However, you also stated that man will decide whether to "reject the grace or work with it." So, as I pointed out, you have a person that is naturally incapable of choosing good having to choose whether to reject or accept the grace of God which would then lead to his ability to choose good or evil when presented with the choice. Is not the choice, itself, to accept the grace of God which frees him from his inability to choose good, an example of him choosing good?

(because I had to finish up the second half of your last post I didnt address this, but I did get to this issue in my last post)

Come on CD. No one, certainly not me, is denying that man has a will or that he is a volitional creature. I merely take issue with the claim, your claim, that a man who is enslaved to his sinful nature with a will that is "weakened" to the degree that he is naturally incapable of even choosing good has a "free" will.

(already settled)

Let me clarify that I don't deny man is a volitional creation or that he makes choices or that his choices are his own. I merely disagree that a will that is inclined only and always to sin is "free."

It looks like this topic went awry when we misunderstood eachother.

If you recognize that "free" is inappropriate in describing a will that is "weakened" to that degree, why do you casually dismiss that with "that's just how it goes I guess?"

I use it because the Council uses it, either we are misunderstanding what the council is saying or the council should have used a different term. It must be there to distinguish between a "free" will incapable of chosing good and no will at all. Im going to ask around on this.

CD, man is not "enabled to have faith." Man is given faith. Faith in God is something added to man's nature. True faith, which is a gift from God, cannot be denied. It can be abused, as you acknowledge. But none whom the Lord has enlighted can deny that He has done so. As for "rejecting this later in time," well, that is another discussion so, for now, I'll simply say that I trust in God's ability to complete the good work He starts in us.

This sound like were going to confuse eachother again. How is it added to mans nature? Shouldnt it be repaired or something to that effect?

Man can and does choose to sin after he accepts Christ as Lord, though not with impugnity.

And isnt hell a punshment Jesus talks about?

He was speaking of the connection between sin and damnation. However, that connection is no longer applied to those who are children of God:

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

I dont know where Jesus made such a distinction in that Sermon.
As for the passage you cite, I agree there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ, but that is not talking about those who remove themself from Christ (ie sin). In Romans11 it says:

22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.​

In otherwords those "in Christ" are the branches and the branches can be removed from Christ, just as Jesus also explains in places like John15.

 

[Catholic Dude]

CD, I am very much enjoying our conversation and pray that you will be patient with me. I actually am enjoying the fact that we are truly discussing these weighty issues without anger or malice. Please, if you are inclined, extend me a bit of grace on my response which, for the time being, must be postponed. I am in the middle of a project at work and need to focus on that.

I'll be back and I hope that I have not been left in the dust of a fast moving thread.

God bless,
Don

Ok, no big deal.

In a few days Ill be too busy to spend much time here as well.

 

[Normann]

Over 140 times the the word "whosoever" is in the Bible. Shall we change the meaning of all this times. If it does not mean (any), (all), (anyone), or "whosoever" in one place it surely would not mean it any where else.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Matthew 7:24
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Matthew 10:32
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 10:42
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
Matthew 11:6
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
Matthew 12:32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Mark 3:35
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

John 3:15-16
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 12:46
I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Rev. 22:17
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

 

[cygnusx1]

God and His will , and those who will perish ......

those who say God doesn't will anyone to perish , have they ever read the many killer plagues that are sent on mankind (Revelation) these plagues kill such a large portion of mankind , and they are all coming from God not Satan
They are said to come upon men as God pours out His Judgment .
But if God pours out Wrath , then it is plain for all to see that God does indeed will many to perish .... for if He were to will none to perish then He must never kill anyone!

take Genesis 6 , the destruction of the world by the flood , was it God's will ?
take Sodom and Gommorah , God destroyed them completely , was God unwilling that any should perish ?

you say , ahhhh , but that was for sin that they perished ....... who said it wasn't ?
The point is it can be shown easily that God's will is varied .
Was it God's will that Annanias and Sapphira perished ?

Those who object , and say ''but , God still wasn't willing for any to perish , but He changed His mind'' are on thin ice........ God isn't like a man , changing His mind.
Those who object and say , ''God will's none to perish , it is men who choose to perish'' , better go read Revelation.
Those who say , ''but God gives men a chance , He only wills them to perish IF they reject the Gospel'' .............I am sorry , Sodom didn't even get told to repent never mind informed of the Gospel.

Then there are those who say , ''Well God is hoping that they will repent , and only then He will not have them perish ''

that is a conditional "I will not have anyone perish" so long as they repent , THAT is more like it , but under careful analysis , even the plagues in Revelation that are predicted for this world are said to be of no effect on sinners .....
''but they still would not repent'' ..........

and lastly , if God would have none to perish then the return of Jesus can never happen .......... for many will perish at His appearing .

look again at that text in 2 Peter 3:9 ....... and consider all those who would have repented , who would have got saved just after the trumpet blast ( a few days a few weeks a few Months a couple of years) , they would have responded favourably to the Gospel ........ but alas , their opportunity was taken from them when Jesus returned they perished.
so much for the Arminian interpretation of that verse.......

 

[MarkT]

People, just like you, asking for guidance from the Lord to study the scriptures.

I have one teacher who is the Father. I have one Spirit by whom the teaching comes. I have one mind by whom I understand. Christ is my wisdom.

I don't study the scriptures. I understand the scriptures.

Every Christian is a theologian.

I think I know what you mean.

And I know there are many who study the scriptures, who think that in doing so they will become like the theologians (the Pharisees) who study the scriptures. But those people are walking over empty graves. I'd say no Christian is a theologian, the difference being that the theologians study the gift they do not receive.

This is evidently true. We know them from their many words.

Jesus said, "woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"

Jesus said, "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher and you are all brethren."

Christians don't study the scriptures. They receive the scriptures. Actually they receive the words of God and the wisdom to understand the scriptures.

It's sort of like saying they don't study the medicine, they take the medicine.

Now you see they are well. Those who are well have taken the medicine. Those who are not well study the medicine and they teach others to study the medicine thus making their proselyte twice as much a child of hell as themselves.

 

[mlqurgw]

God and His will , and those who will perish ......

those who say God doesn't will anyone to perish , have they ever read the many killer plagues that are sent on mankind (Revelation) these plagues kill such a large portion of mankind , and they are all coming from God not Satan
They are said to come upon men as God pours out His Judgment .
But if God pours out Wrath , then it is plain for all to see that God does indeed will many to perish .... for if He were to will none to perish then He must never kill anyone!

take Genesis 6 , the destruction of the world by the flood , was it God's will ?
take Sodom and Gommorah , God destroyed them completely , was God unwilling that any should perish ?

you say , ahhhh , but that was for sin that they perished ....... who said it wasn't ?
The point is it can be shown easily that God's will is varied .
Was it God's will that Annanias and Sapphira perished ?

Those who object , and say ''but , God still wasn't willing for any to perish , but He changed His mind'' are on thin ice........ God isn't like a man , changing His mind.
Those who object and say , ''God will's none to perish , it is men who choose to perish'' , better go read Revelation.
Those who say , ''but God gives men a chance , He only wills them to perish IF they reject the Gospel'' .............I am sorry , Sodom didn't even get told to repent never mind informed of the Gospel.

Then there are those who say , ''Well God is hoping that they will repent , and only then He will not have them perish ''

that is a conditional "I will not have anyone perish" so long as they repent , THAT is more like it , but under careful analysis , even the plagues in Revelation that are predicted for this world are said to be of no effect on sinners .....
''but they still would not repent'' ..........

and lastly , if God would have none to perish then the return of Jesus can never happen .......... for many will perish at His appearing .

look again at that text in 2 Peter 3:9 ....... and consider all those who would have repented , who would have got saved just after the trumpet blast ( a few days a few weeks a few Months a couple of years) , they would have responded favourably to the Gospel ........ but alas , their opportunity was taken from them when Jesus returned they perished.
so much for the Arminian interpretation of that verse.......

Very well said.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

That depends on the manner in which you mean "called." All without exception are "called" to obey the Lord God. However, the inward call, from which springs forth salvitic faith, is efficacious in bringing to faith those to whom it is given so, in that case, no. Only those whom the Lord has ordained to ultimately glorify are "called." The point I made is based upon God's revelation in John 6. Consider this:

John 6:37
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

First we are told that all that the Father gives the Son will come. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that if someone doesn't come, they weren't given, yes?

Reformationist, You can only come to your conclusion by removing your verse from the context. Jesus explains that John 6:45 (NLT)
"As it is written in the Scriptures, 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me."
The Greek "learning" is a volitional act by the person and not a passive "dragging" along by a manipulation by God like a puppetteer drawing the person on strings. God's part is to teach and those who choose to respond to His doctrine will be drawn to Christ because His doctrine teaches man that Jesus is the Christ. Those who refuse to believe His doctrine will reject Christ and are calling God a liar.

 

[MarkT]

Didn't Satan suggest the same thing to Eve? Don't be a puppet. Don't listen to God. You can be like God.

And here again is the same suggestion. Don't listen to God because if the words he gave us are true, then you would be a puppet. So they can not be true as given.

But it's not enough to say the words aren't true. They go on to say that what we can read isn't really what God said. Why? Again because then it would make us puppets. So it is our understanding that is at fault.

But they forget God's spirit is in all men and God reveals himself to whoever he wills.

What is a revelation and what is a choice?

A choice is made when one is not sure of the outcome. It's like picking a horse. But if you knew ahead of time which horse was going to win, it wouldn't be a choice. Unless you're trying to lose. Then you could chose a loser. Of course you would still have to buy the ticket but you would be buying it, not choosing it.

Well God chose us from a bunch of losers and he made us winners.

A revelation is something that is sought after and found, something that when it is found or revealed, it is necessarily known by the one who is seeking it and it is recognized and treasured. "lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven ... where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is there will your heart be also."