Featured The Doctrines of Grace

I've seen it. In fact it helped me to study out the Doctrines of grace. I've even heard a preacher say "God gets one vote, the devil gets one vote, and YOU break the tie." (that wasn't on the BB though )

 

I don't think "colloquial quips" like you shared necessarily reflect ones genuine theology. Often times, in public speaking, and unfortunately yes from the pulpit, things are stated because they are "cute" or linguistically appealing. I am not defending inarticulate statements or inaccuracies.

 

No, you are not reading the whole verse, it says their election was not based upon being good or bad, but according to him that calleth.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

This is those who answer the call of God by faith.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Those chosen are those who obey by faith and come to God when he calls them. Read the parable of the marriage in Matthew 22. Only those who obeyed when called were allowed in. One man was refused because he did not have the proper wedding garment on. This garment represents the righteousness imputed to those who believe on Christ. This man tried to work his way into heaven. But those who trusted Christ and came when invited were saved. Those who did not obey when God called were destroyed.

Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Only those who believe are chosen. Jacob believed the promises given to Isaac and desired them. Esau did not believe the promises and sold his birthright for a bowl of soup. God foresaw Jacob's faith and elected him before he was born.

We are not told the story about Esau selling his birthright to Jacob without reason.

You should know and understand these things Amy.

 

My reasoning ability may seem rather simple compared to a lot of academics and scholars; but, to me, a Calvinist's interpreting/reasoning process seems somewhat like that of a person that walks into a 1,000,000 acre forest of mostly pine trees and a few Aspen trees and comes into the middle ot the forest and finds the only plot of Aspen trees, about 100 acres, and becomes so infatuated with the fall beauty of the Aspen trees that he concludes that the 1,000,000 acre forest is made up of all Aspen trees.

My interpreting/reasoning process is obviously different from the academic and scholarly Calvinists. Let me try to explain by giving examples of my reasoning process.

I interpret scripture with scripture that deal with the same topic - in this case all scriptures that deal with the topic of “man's inherent ability to accept/believe or reject God's call, commands, instructions and promises”. Because God is communicating to mankind through the Scriptures in the Bible in a style that reeks with an understood implication that the hearer/reader, mankind, has the inherent ability to accept/believe or reject His call, commands, instructions and promises (some folk briefly refer to it as man's free will), and also because the majority of the Scriptures also reeks with the same implication that mankind has the inherent ability to accept/believe or reject His call, commands, instructions and promises, I let the concept of mankind having this inherent ability be the precedence. Therefore when I encounter the very few verses of Scripture text (approximately less than 0.5% of the Scriptures) that on the surface possibly could be interpreted to contradict that majority precedence (man's inherent ability to accept/believe or reject God's call, commands, instructions and promises), I interpret them in light of this majority precedence.

Because of my reasoning process listed above and because God is omniscient, I interpret what God foreknew in Romans 8:29 to be - God foreknows those whom he can convince to accept His call/drawing - which He is very capable of foreknowing. Concerning Romans 9:6-24, I interpret that section to be a very stern method that God used to tell mankind that our willingness or running (verse 16) did not FORCE Him to develop His plan of whom to show mercy to or whom to harden. This is clearly revealed by God's response to the questions in verses 14 and 19. God did not right away fully explain why He was not unrighteous in response to the question in verse 14; God appears to be peeved and just had Paul write “God forbid” and then started sternly pointing out that (verse 18) “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” Also, this sternness of God is clearly revealed by God not fully answering the question of verse 19 right away; instead God appears to be peeved and immediately rebukes those who would raise the question and by going through the potter and clay analogy. I believe if one gets locked up on this stern section (Romans 9:6-24) and forgets to take into account Romans 9:30-33 and the implication of the majority of Scripture, he will easily conclude that mankind does not have the inherent ability to accept or reject God's call, commands, instructions and promises. God so loved fallen mankind so much that He by Himself, without mans help, decided/chose how he was going to show mercy, how he would harden, whom He would show mercy to and whom to harden. After reading Romans 9:6-24, a person could easily be very fearful wondering about whether or not God had decided to make him a vessel of honor or a vessel fit for hell. However, in Romans 9:30-33 God finally completes/reveals His answers to the questions in verse 14 and 19 and indicates that He actually does choose to show mercy to those that chose to accept God's call to seek righteousness by faith, not by works as Israel did. Yes, God also finally finishes answering the questions of verses 14 and 19 - why He is not unrighteous.

In light of the precedence of “ man's inherent ability to accept or reject God's call, commands, instructions and promises”, my interpreting of John 6:44 and 45 is as follows: if one assumes that the person does not have the inherent ability to accept or reject, the verse implies that he would not be raised up in the last day if God does not draw him; and also, if one assumes the person does have the inherent ability to accept or reject, he also will not be raised up in the last day if God does not draw him. This line of reasoning would also apply to Jn 6:65 "And He was saying, 'For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.'" In verse 65 it also does not make any difference whether or not a person has the inherent ability to accept or reject, the person can not come to Christ if God has not granted it to him. Therefore, the conclusion from this line of reasoning is that the drawing and granting by God is not God irresistibly/regeneratively giving the person a will that believes, but God is only presenting the Gospel to the foreknown person by Holy Spirit and the word of God giving that person the opportunity to accept or reject the call. God granted that if he accepts the call/drawing (God foreknew that He could convince the person to freely accept the call), he will be raised up on the last day.

 

Or maybe your eyes are becoming dim in you elder years, no? :laugh: :love2: :wavey: :flower: ??????

 

God does not need to gain knowledge,or convince people to "accept "anything.

 

Well ....everyone has an opinion & you know what opinions are like ....right!

 

If that is the way He set it up and is His will then yes.

 

I first heard this when my younger brother (a Fundamentalist Baptist Pastor)told me that that is what his Senior Pastor in his home church in Pennsylvania taught. He also told me that he warned my brother never to have any association with Salvation by Grace people since he considered them an evil cult bound for hell.....(last caveat) & the church would not be blessed because of any association with those evil ones.Sorta takes ya far afield from "Love thy neighbor"

 

Yes, I do.

In the discussion of soteriology, there are two great errors: 1) The sovereignty of man in salvation and 2) The complete passiveness of man in salvation.

Issue #1 seems to say, to some degree or another, what others have said here: God gets one vote, the devil another, and you cast the tie-breaker.

If this position is right, God is not sovereign over anything.

Persons who tend to hold this position--the Humanist-Christians--tend to be quite rabid in their defense of their position, not being able to tolerate any mention of God overcoming the human heart at any level.

Issue #2 seems to say, to some degree or another, that God will save anyone He wants to (which is not a problem if God is, indeed, sovereign). However, this issue goes further. The proponents of this position say that God will save anyone He wants to regardless of whether they respond in repentance and faith.

Persons who tend to hold this position have struggled with evangelism, etc. It can be that they also rabidly defend their position, being intolerant of man having to have any response to God.

Of course, a true Arminain position (as opposed to the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian positions) and a true Calvinist position (as opposed to a hyper-Calvinist position) affirms, in some way, that God, at the level of the individual, takes some action of grace to overcome the effect(s) of sin that would necessarily reject Him and the Gospel. The true Arminian and true Calvinist also affirm that man, in some way, must respond to God, and that responding is a second action on the part of man subsequent to God's first action.

I can't figure out how to do a Venn Diagram here...but, it would have a big circle "A" and a big circle "B" and the "overlap" area "C". "C" represents orthodoxy in soteriological views. "A" and "B," outside the shaded "C," would represent the error of Issue #1 and Issue #2.

Both errors are dangerous. But, it seems to me that the errors of the Humanist-Christians tend to cause more trouble. This is because the position inherently holds that God, basically, does man's bidding, soteriologically speaking.

Often, when a Humanist-Christian is asked about assurance of salvation, you hear "I" believed, "I" prayed this prayer, "I," I," "I," etc. In my opinion, the Humanist-Christians have given rise to the false gospel of "Health and Wealth" and false practices in church like seeker-centrism where everything is done to make non-believers feel comfortable. The entire thrust of the false gospels that stem from the Humanist-Christian are there to convince man, through human means, that God will be their friend and love them--no matter what they do.

So...I think there are many Humanist-Christians and their influence, for the worse, is seen in many things in greater evangelicalism and baptist life (especially including The Southern Baptist Convention). And, yes, there are several here on this board.

The Archangel

 

You mean like this?

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.

Yeah, no true Christian who properly understands the Doctrines of Grace would say such a thing.

 

I would....:laugh:

 

Of course, you meant to say "2 Tim 1:12."

Of course, Paul is not saying "I," "I," "I" as in his believing in Christ is what caused his salvation.

The Archangel

 

Thank you for catching that, I went back and corrected my mistake.

But Paul absolutely said I HAVE BELIEVED. He said "I" five times in one verse.

Both Peter and Paul spoke of men saving themselves.

Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward
generation.

1 Tim 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Now, neither Paul or Peter are saying a man can merit eternal life or regenerate themselves. All men are sinners and cannot merit eternal life, and only God has the supernatural power to regenerate a man, but both Paul and Peter are saying man has the ability to hear and believe the gospel and be saved.

It is not a supernatural act for a man to believe the gospel when he hears it. But when a man does believe, then God according to his promise will supernaturally regenerate that man.

Both Paul and Peter show that man plays a part in salvation. And it is not passive, as I showed before, Jesus himself taught that a man actively takes hold on forgiveness.

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

These were the words of Jesus, and the word "receive" is not passive. It means a man actively takes hold of forgiveness of sins by faith in Jesus. Man plays an active role in his salvation as Peter and Paul also showed.

 

Strawman Fallacy. Calvinists do not deny that we ourselves believe. We believe as a result of God's working, not to being the cause of that working. We believe because of God's grace, not in order to bring God's grace.

Well...context, context, context.

[37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” [38] And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” [40] And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:37-41 ESV)​

You quote verse 40 and ignore verse 37. In verse 37, we see that those listening were "cut to the heart" and, as a result, asked Peter and the apostles what they had to do. Peter then commands "repent and be baptized."

What is more, in verse 40, the command to "save yourself from this crooked generation" is a way of saying "repent and believe and escape the God's punishment." For these people, Jews, remember, to consider themselves liable to God's punishment was quite a change for them.

And, in verse 41 those "added that day..." shows it is not the apostles who added them and it shows it is not the people who added themselves. "added" is passive, meaning, in Greek, that these people were acted upon.

This is not saying that Timothy can save himself. He is saying that persistent evaluation of yourself and your doctrine is required for salvation. This means that following a false Gospel (which might have been a very real temptation for Timothy in Ephesus) would disqualify him from salvation, and it would disqualify his congregation as well, if they followed his false gospel.

They are saying nothing of the sort.

It is most certainly a supernatural act for man to believe the Gospel.

And, we do not say that man is merely passive in salvation. The difference in what we are saying and you are saying is this: You believe man takes the first step toward God based on something in himself. We believe that man actively responds to God as a result of a work that God performs first. We believe that God takes the first step toward us and our belief (active) is a response to Him.

There are two related issues: Grammar and context.

"receive" is not a verb, per se, it is an infinitive. You are correct it is active. However, as is often the case, infinitives in Greek often complete the idea expressed by the main verb. The main verb here? "Sending" in v. 17. Jesus is the subject, he is sending. Why is he sending? Because in sending He, in effect, will be using Paul to open the eyes of the Gentiles (used here in a plural, general sense). So, by the time we get to the gentiles receiving, the idea in both the grammar and context is that the Gospel will be preached to the Gentiles--and, indeed, some of them will receive it. But of course, we already know from Acts 13, that the ones receiving it had been appointed to do so.

Context matters. One cannot traipse through the Bible cherry picking verses from their context.

The Archangel

 

Non-Cals also believe God's grace is necessary, as no man could believe the gospel unless God revealed his word to man and sent prophets and preachers to tell men his word (Rom 10:13).

But that is not the same as God imposing faith on man. God presents his truth to men, but men must decide for himself if it is true and believe it.

You refute yourself. This proves the word of God convicts a natural man. All of these men were convicted by Peter's preaching, but none had trusted Christ yet, and none had received the Holy Spirit. Only after repenting and believing on Jesus for the remission of their sins did Peter promise they would receive the Spirit. Romans 8:9 teaches us that until a man has the indwelling Spirit he is still "in the flesh". This proves the natural man in the flesh has the ability to believe.

Peter was telling them to save themselves from damnation.

It says that those who gladly received his word were added. They were added because they willingly believed.

And if Timothy must evaluate himself and doctrine, then he plays a part in his salvation.

You can deny, but both Peter and Paul show a man plays a part in his salvation.

The word of God teaches and convicts a man so that he can understand with his natural God-given abilities. If the man chooses to believe, then God supernaturally regenerates him.

Nonsense. I have never seen one non-Cal at BB say man takes the first step toward God. I challenge you to show where I or any other non-Cal has EVER said this. This is absolutely false and I think you know that.

I have read that Pelagius believed this, and this is why I have always said I am not a Pelagian.

No, Acts 13:48 says persons were ordained to eternal life. It does not say they were ordained to believe. But it does mean that God has ordained that those that believe will receive eternal life.

Coming from a Calvinist that is a real laugh. Your whole doctrine is built on carefully choosing certain proof-texts that can be wrested to appear to support your doctrine, while ignoring multitudes of scripture that clearly and easily refutes it.

 

Fallacy: Strawman. Again.

We are not saying that God "imposes" faith on man. We are saying that "irresistible grace" (again, an unfortunate term) means that God giving a new heart (replacing the only-evil-continually heart) results in that new heart giving the first real choice to that person (because before the person was a "slave to sin" and "by nature a child of wrath"). When real choice is given to a new heart freed from sin that person, who has also been given eyes to see and ears to hear, can see God as He is for the first time and he can see himself as he is for the first time. And in that instant, God is irresistible and the "choice" is made.

There are two errors here: One is a contextual error in your understanding of Romans 8:9. The second is applying your misunderstanding to a different passage.

In Romans 8:9, the phrase "in the flesh" is in reference to believers, not how they became believers. We affirm that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is permanent for the believer.

But the Holy Spirit's work is not limited to indwelling. The Holy Spirit worked through Balaam, a non-believer, in the Book of Numbers.

You are insisting that the Holy Spirit's work can only be one thing or can come to pass in one circumstance.

But that's only half the story. They had already been convinced, through the preaching of God's word and the application of that Word by the Holy Spirit, that they were liable to God's judgment. Again, this shows quite a work in their hearts as a Jew in that day would never have considered himself or herself to be under God's judgment since they were Jews.

No. There is no causation. The last clause "and there were added..." is a summary statement and makes no case for them "willingly believing."

A far, FAR stretch of logic.

Romans 10:10 says, "For with the heart one believes and is justified."

How can someone with an only-evil-continually heart and a desperately wicked heart believe without having a new heart? They can't. This is why John 3 is very instructive. Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be "Born again." Born again is passive; it is something done to him. Ezekiel 36 shows God "removing hearts of stone and implanting hearts of flesh" and Nicodemus should have known that this is what "born again" was referring to.

The natural man--one with an unregenerate heart--cannot believe.

That you are not a Pelagian is a good thing.

Not even close. You run afoul of the grammar at every turn.

And this from one who claims to be able to prove freewill by finding verses in the Old Testament that talk about "freewill" offerings, as opposed to the other offerings that were a part of the life of Israel.

Now, that's funny!

 

Baloney, does God get man's permission or consent before he gives them this new heart?

No, Romans 8:9 clearly says we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit if so be the Spirit dwells in us. It is not speaking of believers, because Paul said if you do not have the indwelling Spirit, then you are "none of his" speaking of Jesus. Therefore if the Spirit does not dwell in you, then you are in the flesh. Those Jews who were convicted by Peter's preaching were still in the flesh, none had received the Spirit until they repented and believed on Jesus for the remission of sins.

Yes, but Romans 8:9 clearly says that we are in the flesh unless the Holy Spirit dwells in us. The point is, the natural man in the flesh has the ability to be convicted by the word of God and believe. Many scriptures show this.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians received the Spirit by first hearing and believing the gospel. This proves a man in the flesh can both hear and believe the gospel.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question here proves he believed a person received the Spirit AFTER believing. The rest of this passage confirms this, they believed on Jesus and were baptized, and AFTERWARD received the Spirit.

Again, this shows the natural man in the flesh has the ability to hear and believe the gospel, and when he does he receives the Spirit.

You will never see a person who had the indwelling Spirit before they believed in scripture. You can't show it. But there are many scriptures that show men believed before they received the Spirit, Cornelius is a perfect example.

I agree God did a work on their hearts. But they did not have the indwelling Spirit and were therefore still in the flesh according to Rom 8:9.

Give me a break, it says they gladly received his word. Why do you deny scripture?

You are the one who said that Timothy had to evaluate himself and the doctrine so that he did not disqualify himself from salvation.

Just because the scriptures say a persons heart was only evil continually does not prove they were unable to think or do good. This is an assumption all Calvinists make.

As I have said before, if I were to say that my neighbors never go to church, no, not one, does that mean they are unable to go to church? NO, and no reasonable person would ever think that. It is just the same in Gen 6:5. Just because it says their thoughts were only continually evil does not mean they weren't able to think good thoughts. You assume that and read it into scripture. And if you are a real scholar you will admit this is true.

Cornelius wasn't saved, and he didn't have the indwelling Spirit, yet he feared God, prayed always, and gave much alms to the people. He must have been doing this for years, because all the Jews knew of him and respected him.

Well, perhaps I am a Pelagian. I said I had read that about Pelagius, but that was from one of his opponents. I am not sure exactly what Pelagius believed.

Acts 13:48 says those that were ordained "to eternal life" believed. It is not saying they were ordained to believe.

It was God himself who said that any man of the Jews could give an offering of his own voluntary will, and God also said he would accept it as an atonement for their sins.

Lev 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

Nothing complicated here, very straightforward scripture. But you would rather believe the teachings of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin than a simple reading of scripture.