Biblical Assertion

[DaveXR650]

So to accept the free gift of salvation is to be regarded as some kind of an achivment?

No. The point I am making is that if you believe that the Holy Spirit convicts or in some way "helps" a person to be saved and without such help the person would not get saved - then the question is why didn't the Holy Spirit provide enough help to actually result in the salvation of the person. Why wasn't the work of the Holy Spirit effectual or overcoming. So suddenly, the WCF doesn't look quite as illogical, does it?

 

[Van]

You didn't. But yes, a lot of people do. The rich young ruler did. Mr. Pelagius did. Mr. Finney did. A lot of legalists do. It's probably the default most natural way of men to look at getting right with God. It is usually the first thing a lot of us try to do when we first come to the realization that we are not right with God. In Pilgrim's Progress, one of the main characters said that he tried to do that at first.

You are so quick to take offense that you skipped over the first part of that post which agreed with your statement. But do you really believe from what you read in the Bible and from what you see people do in their own lives and from what you know of your own coming to faith in Christ - that people honestly sit down, from a neutral standpoint, and on their own intelligently evaluate the claims of the gospel and then decide to renounce all their own self effort and rely on Christ for salvation? That we really have it in us to figure all this out and to come to Christ on our own? Think of all you have to know about your sin and how offensive it looks to God, how short you fall when you've tried your best to please God, how hard it is to even care about pleasing God compared to the attractions all around you all the time and then can you honestly pretend that we really could do all this without direct action by the Holy Spirit?

It would be nice to discuss my actual posted position, rather than all the bogus inferences asserted by the unstudied.
Do I believe everyone saved was "drawn by the Father? Of course.
Do I believe the gospel is the power of God for salvation? Of course.
So once more you argue against "to come to Christ on our own?" But that is not the biblical view!

Scripture tells us God sets before us the CHOICE of life or death, not the ?choice? of death or death. To be a choice, we must at lease some of us, some of the time be able to choose life!! Otherwise, we are just saying scripture does not mean what it says.
​

 

[DaveXR650]

@Van . I really don't have a problem with your position. The idea that all men are given some light, enough to decide they need to obey God and believe the gospel, is what I grew up with. The Holy Spirit draws and convicts where and when he wants and we can see the results. I think the only difference is that I put more emphasis on how forceful God draws and I have a lower view of our free will. I tend to think the conviction or drawing is decisive, not just helpful.

I mean, how do you resolve the idea that men have enough light to choose life, yet to be saved they were drawn by the Father? All men who hear the gospel don't believe it. Why? Is it a difference in their virtue or goodness? Or was the drawing of the Holy Spirit different in some than others? If I pray that some be saved, what am I asking God to do if it is really up to the person?

 

[Van]

@Van . I really don't have a problem with your position. The idea that all men are given some light, enough to decide they need to obey God and believe the gospel, is what I grew up with. The Holy Spirit draws and convicts where and when he wants and we can see the results. I think the only difference is that I put more emphasis on how forceful God draws and I have a lower view of our free will. I tend to think the conviction or drawing is decisive, not just helpful.

I mean, how do you resolve the idea that men have enough light to choose life, yet to be saved they were drawn by the Father? All men who hear the gospel don't believe it. Why? Is it a difference in their virtue or goodness? Or was the drawing of the Holy Spirit different in some than others? If I pray that some be saved, what am I asking God to do if it is really up to the person?

I have addressed this argument dozens of times.
Draw when used metaphorically means to attract, not compel.
You did not cite a verse that says the Holy Spirit draws and convicts "where and when he wants" but John 12:32 says draws all who behold Jesus high and lifted up. Since all who hear the gospel do not believe into Him, draw does not mean compel.

There is no difficulty in people having the capacity to choose life, with the need to have the choice of life set before them!

And once again you imply those that choose life have "virtue or goodness!" Utter nonsense as salvation does not depend on the person who wills or does things to be saved, but upon God alone!

If you cannot actually address the biblical view being presented, why post?

 

[37818]

No. The point I am making is that if you believe that the Holy Spirit convicts or in some way "helps" a person to be saved and without such help the person would not get saved - then the question is why didn't the Holy Spirit provide enough help to actually result in the salvation of the person. Why wasn't the work of the Holy Spirit effectual or overcoming. So suddenly, the WCF doesn't look quite as illogical, does it?

I am of the point of view the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit precedes if one is or is not going to believe.

 

[Silverhair]

No, but you have your own to work out. If God "helps" or convicts, why doesn't he help enough to effect salvation in everyone he helps? Why does he stop short sometimes? I mean, if it's our choice then leave it to us, if we need help then help enough to achieve salvation. If he leaves it to our choice, what are we doing when we pray for someone's salvation - isn't it their choice? If it is their choice is it fair the way some hear the gospel 100 times a year and some never hear it? Why do 90% of Baptists believe it's all up to you getting saved but after that you couldn't leave if you wanted to?

Logically, the strict determinists and the complete Pelagians are most consistent. The only problem is there are tons of Bible verses against them. These confessions and systematic theologies are man made and flawed. But I will say this, the WCF and the London Baptist 1689 confessions are brilliant and the more I look at them the more I am convinced that they are the best men will ever come up with as far as attempts at confessions. It's interesting though, some of the more deterministic Calvinists on here don't like them and they don't like the Puritans.

[/QUOTE]No, but you have your own to work out. If God "helps" or convicts, why doesn't he help enough to effect salvation in everyone he helps? Why does he stop short sometimes?[/QUOTE]
God does help enough for all to be able to trust in Him. If He did as you suggest then it would no longer be help but causation. That is why God does leave the choice to us, God does not force us to trust in Him. When I pray for God to open someone's heart or ears I am not expecting that He will force them to repent. Were that the case then everyone would be saved as all we would have to do is pray that God save everyone and He would do as we told Him to do. But that is not what the bible tells us is it. We must have faith, we must believe.

[/QUOTE]is it fair the way some hear the gospel 100 times a year and some never hear it?

Is it fair? Well that really is not the question is it? The real question is why do people reject the calling that God does provide so as to know Him. No one in the OT times heard the gospel message but we know that many came to trust in the living God and were saved. Our sovereign God does not change so for those that do not hear the gospel message now but respond to the light that they have just as people in the OT did then do you not think God would save them just as He did the others. We are told the HS convicts the world of their sin. Why would He do that if man could not repent of his sin? As for Christians that think they can not turn away from God and be lost, well I would just say they need to study their bibles more. As long as we are in Christ Jesus we are secure but if we latter reject Him we will be lost.

I would agree that the strict determinists and the complete Pelagians are most consistent. Consistently wrong. For myself I have never been one to look at systematic theologies or confessions that much. As you said they are man-made and thus contain the bias of those that wrote them. I have found that in those volumes man will cherry pick select verses to support their view and reject those that do not. I was raised to trust what the bible says so while commentaries, confessions and systematic theologies etc. are nice they are not the word of God. By example in one well respected commentary we find this comment on Titus 2:11
"Does Tit_2:11 really teach that the saving grace of God has appeared to every member of the human race without any exception? Of course not! It matters little whether one interprets “the appearance of the saving grace” as referring to the bestowal of salvation itself, or to the fact that the gospel of saving grace has been preached to every person on earth. In either case it is impossible to make “all men” mean “every individual on the globe without exception.” Now should I trust the bible or what was said here?

That seems to be where the real divide comes in between myself and a number of others on BB.

 

[Van]

I am of the point of view the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit precedes if one is or is not going to believe.

Sorry but 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we are chosen through faith in the truth. Thus before we are chosen, as our faith, if credited by God, is utilized in God's selection of individuals for salvation. It is a lock.

 

[DaveXR650]

And once again you imply those that choose life have "virtue or goodness!" Utter nonsense as salvation does not depend on the person who wills or does things to be saved, but upon God alone!

Then you are a Calvinist. Which is fine.

 

[Van]

Then you are a Calvinist. Which is fine.

Then you are a Calvinist. Which is a shame.

 

[37818]

Sorry but 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we are chosen through faith in the truth. Thus before we are chosen, as our faith, if credited by God, is utilized in God's selection of individuals for salvation. It is a lock.

". . . God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: . . ." Per John 17:17, ". . . Sanctify them through thy truth: . . ."

 

[DaveXR650]

God does help enough for all to be able to trust in Him. If He did as you suggest then it would no longer be help but causation.

But that's the whole crux of the matter. Isn't it. Help, when it makes something possible that would not have been possible without it, is causation. If I help a toddler get to the top of the steps, when he's at the age where he could not have made it on his own, then in a sense I did cause him to get up the steps. That's why you have strong language in the WCF in the section on irresistible grace. If by help, you mean like if I see you picking up groceries you dropped and I stop and help you, but you would have done it anyway, then that is not essential help and it is not causative. You guys that say the work of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation have to decide which type of help you mean. The fact is, it either is essential, or causative, or not truly necessary. I'm just trying to show you that the Calvinistic system, while man made and not perfect, is indeed well done, and logically no worse than any other system.

 

[DaveXR650]

Then you are a Calvinist. Which is a shame.

That's a well thought out answer. You just made a statement that is at the core of Calvinistic theology. And that is your answer?

 

[KenH]

The command is to "Come." (Revelation 22:17)

Revelation 22:17 And let him that is athirst come.

John 7:37 If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am of the point of view the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit precedes if one is or is not going to believe.

There is a sense in the order of salvation that the first thing that happens time wise, is that those who are going to be saved, the elect, are chosen, or separated out. Thus Owen said that the first thing that happens is "sanctification", which is a separating out for a holy purpose. It's used a little different there than when referring to our personal sanctification that is a process occurring after salvation. So it can be confusing.

 

[Silverhair]

Revelation 22:17 And let him that is athirst come.

John 7:37 If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Ken those are not command. Notice what is being said "let him that is athirst" "If any man thirst, let him come" Those are invitations.

 

[37818]

There is a sense in the order of salvation that the first thing that happens time wise, is that those who are going to be saved, the elect, are chosen, or separated out. Thus Owen said that the first thing that happens is "sanctification", which is a separating out for a holy purpose. It's used a little different there than when referring to our personal sanctification that is a process occurring after salvation. So it can be confusing.

But not all who were sanctified believe, Hebrews 10:29, ". . . Of how much sorer punishment, . . . shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? . . .

 

[KenH]

Those are invitations.

I see that you are still conditioning salvation based on the sinner and not on Christ alone.

Apparently, your idea of God remains basically Him pleading like a helpless human - "Please come. Won't you please come? Pretty please, won't you come? Pretty, pretty please with a cherry on top?"

I enjoyed studying Greek mythology in school, but I sure don't think of the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe, as basically like Zeus.

 

[DaveXR650]

But not all who were sanctified believe, Hebrews 10:29, ". . . Of how much sorer punishment, . . . shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? . . .

There are reams of good stuff written on that passage. Some say it means you can lose your salvation. Some say it's a dire warning to keep you on the right path and is actually something that won't happen so it's hypothetical. Owen was talking about an order of salvation where God is sovereign and logically the first thing would be a decree to save some. Separating out for a holy purpose is one definition of sanctification so he used the term. If you wish to reject that that is perfectly OK. He was just a man.

 

[Silverhair]

But that's the whole crux of the matter. Isn't it. Help, when it makes something possible that would not have been possible without it, is causation. If I help a toddler get to the top of the steps, when he's at the age where he could not have made it on his own, then in a sense I did cause him to get up the steps. That's why you have strong language in the WCF in the section on irresistible grace. If by help, you mean like if I see you picking up groceries you dropped and I stop and help you, but you would have done it anyway, then that is not essential help and it is not causative. You guys that say the work of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation have to decide which type of help you mean. The fact is, it either is essential, or causative, or not truly necessary. I'm just trying to show you that the Calvinistic system, while man made and not perfect, is indeed well done, and logically no worse than any other system.

Help that makes something possible is not causation. The person still has to avail themselves of the offered help. We are not toddlers we are thinking individuals who have the capacity to make logical choices. Help offered via conviction of sin does cause the person to repent but it can give them the motivation to do so. Logically if conviction caused a person to repent then all would repent and trust God. But practically all are convicted but all do not repent.
John 16:8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Now as to your "irresistible grace" we have two options,
1] The HS is not sovereign as we know that all do not come to repentance
or
2] God is disingenuous when He say that He desires all to come to repentance.

Via your "irresistible grace" we have God forcing people to repent as they have no option. You can't say well they would have repented anyway, but how can you know that.
The Gospel call in Calvinism is not a well meant or sincere offer. Only those that are included in the Unconditional Election will partake of the Limited Atonement and will be drawn to God by His Irresistible Grace. So all men do not have an equal chance to know or trust in God.

The Calvinist system is man-made and is logically flawed. Augustine was influenced by Manichaeism, a Gnostic deterministic philosophy. He brought those ideas into the church and Calvin and the reformers just carried them on.

 

[Silverhair]

I see that you are still conditioning salvation based on the sinner and not on Christ alone.

Apparently, your idea of God remains basically Him pleading like a helpless human - "Please come. Won't you please come? Pretty please, won't you come? Pretty, pretty please with a cherry on top?"

I enjoyed studying Greek mythology in school, but I sure don't think of the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe, as basically like Zeus.

Perhaps you should have spend more time in the study of English. Salvation is all of God man can not save himself. But He only saves those that trust in His son. Your determinism cannot provide a logical reason why Christ had to go to the cross. You can't say it was the means of salvation as your determinism has people chosen before the foundation of the world. You even have to be given faith so once again why the cross, it serves not purpose in your theology.