Featured Understanding God’s election

@Dougcho

Correct, that's the condemnation we all have by nature, to love darkness rather than light, and Christ and His Gospel is the Light Jn 3:19-21

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

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

By nature we hate the light, it can only be changed by a supernatural act/work of God, the New Birth

 

These conversations never work because if you take our logic to it's conclusion you end up with an obvious falsehood. If we are incapable of coming to Christ in a functionally incapable manner, then God is the one responsible for those who don't come. But if God is putting out the information or the provision for salvation and it's up to us to respond then we have a problem. One. We can tell it doesn't work that way - there is not observed equality in the hearing of the gospel, nor is our environment and exposure to good or bad influences equal. And two. Under this system, God would be wrong and unjust to go to and help a certain group or individual, which he clearly did and does, and it would be wrong to pray that he do this (which we all do, and are told to do).

So is it all up to God then? The problem I run up against is that my favorite Calvinists don't seem to think so. Owen said that the greatest offense and sin we can commit against God is to refuse his invitations to come to Christ. Edwards preached that Christ has died, all is ready, the only thing lacking is your consent to be saved. J.C. Ryle said that in a sense, you control your own destiny by accepting or rejecting Christ. He put it into your own hands, without apology.

 

The other problem is that when you talk about depravity, almost everyone agrees that we are truly unable to just resolve to start following Christ and then to do so effectively. We inherently know that something is wrong with us and that our attempts to do so end up in failure and discouragement. We know this is our own fault and we know the problem is our own depravity.

But if we know this, then does that mean we are indeed able to go to Christ at least admitting that we know this? If we are capable as men of having that type of self introspection and dialog then is it not true that we have some responsibility, on our own, to at least evaluate our condition, and possibly to ask for help? Or, was it the Holy Spirit who had to awaken us in order to even have such a dialog with ourselves? If so, is what we are describing regeneration, or just conviction?

 

But God disagrees with you Dave. God has provided the information and conviction for all men. How they respond to that is why God has said we are all without excuse. If man has no option but to reject His offered gift then how is it just for God to hold them responsible for rejecting Him? God considers man capable of making rational choices. The bible is clear that God will respond to those that call out to Him.

Why would God be unjust? I do not follow your logic on that point. If God chooses to use a certain group or individual to further His plan for His creation who are we to question it.

God has said in many ways, I have provided the way and means but you have to make the choice. God will not force anyone to come to Him for salvation. On this I agree with Owen, Edwards and J.C. Ryle.

 

The question is not whether we are unable to start following God but why we choose to either follow Him or reject Him. Our depravity is indeed a hurdle that we have to deal with but God obviously thinks that we can overcome that hurdle.

We need to have common ground on what you mean by "regeneration". Webster defines it as "In theology, new birth by the grace of God" Dictionary.com as "spiritual rebirth; religious revival" or from a biblical perspective, being born again/saved. Titus 3:5 refers to the spiritual rebirth of the individual soul.

The description you have given would be of conviction as we have to know that we are sinners and in need of forgiveness. Introspection comes about because of conviction. Through this introspection we realize that we are sinners and some will call out to God for forgiveness. Those that call upon Him will be forgiven and saved/born again that is regeneration.

 

One of the biggest arguments for God's sovereignty in man's salvation is the fact that everyone is obviously not given some kind of equal chance. You simply cannot read scripture and come up with this equal opportunity scenario, even though it might make you feel better.

I agree with you here. And I have noticed that the Calvinists who I read do indeed hold man responsible upon hearing the gospel, to respond. And they actually taught that if men don't respond to God it is because of their willful rejection and not because of some type of inability that is organic. When they are saying "inability" they mean a problem with our actual will which is not the same I fear as some of the modern Calvinist development which is much more deterministic.

What I am saying is that we simply do not have the ability to understand what all is going on in our salvation. Clearly, we who believe have been given great opportunities, far more than others. That is an observable fact. We can also give testimonies of being convicted and drawn in a way that other people we know have not. But it is true at the same time, that other people have chosen not to come to Christ who have had what looks to us like just as much opportunity and blessing as we have. They are the barren fig trees of scripture and their fault is truly their own. And we are clearly warned lest we be among those people. If election explained everything then warnings like that could not be real. My only point is that we cannot really resolve this with an oversimplified explanation. The explanation that God throws out the information and leaves it up to us to decide falls short of explaining how this works. But so does the Calvinist explanation that clearly states that God as a creative act and as a primary desire, created millions of people for the sole purpose of burning them in Hell.

 

???

3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish:
4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn [upon them].
6 Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4

 

??? I'm not sure what those passages have to do with what I am saying.

 

We are obviously going to disagree on this as I see that God made it clear that man has no excuse for not knowing Him. And we can all call out to Him for forgiveness.

God continues to use various means and situations to draw people to Himself. What may awaken one will not have any effect on another. Why does God save us? We can say, because we have trusted in Him but does that really answer the question. I don't think it does and I actually do not think we can come up with a full answer.

I know we can give all the answers that we find in scripture about how and why but, still questions. What does saved really mean and what does hell mean? For those that have rejected God or think He is found in some other religion then to be with Him for eternity could be considered hell to them. We consider separation from Him as hell but if God gives them what they want, not being with Him, is that really hell for them? These are just questions I have heard over the years.

It would be nice to have all the answers but I do not even have all the questions.

Salvation is at the same time simple and complex. Simple because God saves those that trust in Him. Complex because why do some believe and others not. Why do some reject Him then later turn and trust and vise versa?

 

When you say God has to give them the necessary faith to believe then you make God responsible for them not believing. Without Him giving them that faith it would be impossible for them to believe, correct. The reality is that they both made the choice to reject God just as they both could have chosen to trust in Him. That is called free will.

 

@Dougcho,
I regularly use simply the Bible reference 1 John 5:9-13 written on a 3 x 5 index card. With a brief explanation the Apostle John wrote how one can know one can have eternal life from God. Very few reject it.

 

I do agree that when a man hears the gospel he is truly guilty if he rejects the offer. What I am trying to say is the difficulty or "inability" we have in coming to Christ is caused by the fact that we are too selfish, sensual, and mean to want to. And while that is truly a real inability, it is of a different nature than some physical limitation for example.

The problem I have with Calvinism, and not really Calvinism, but the way it is taught, is that while I believe that a supernatural enlightening or drawing or conviction is essential because of the way we are - I still think that from what I see in scripture, God is very liberal in desiring to give this light and does not tend to randomly withhold such light unless it is a response to a person's continued willful sin and rejection. In addition, I think that there is a theological principle that is not often discussed in these debates, and that is that it seems that there is some residual tendency of some men to make some type of attempt to move towards God that while it is short of saving enlightenment and while it may be somehow the result of God's previous grace - it is something that tends to move God to giving such grace. Lydia, Cornelius, and several other conversion stories seem to show this. And the Puritan preachers, mostly good Calvinists, noticed this and encouraged people to act on whatever light they had, read scripture, attend the ordinances or sacraments because of their teaching function, and pray for more grace. The fact is we are just not privy to exactly how this works and have to be careful intruding into the workings of God.

 

You said:
"God is the one responsible for those who don't come." (If we are incapable of coming to Christ in a functionally incapable manner)

I cited:
"the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving"

 

And while you can see that man has the ability to choose to reject the offer you just can not accept the reality that man can also accept the offer. I do find this odd as God seems to think man can do just that and that is why He holds them responsible for rejecting it. Logically if man is unable to trust in God then why all the injunctions to do just that? Did the Holy Spirit get it wrong? While man can be too selfish, sensual, and mean he is also rational and logical. He has the ability to evaluate information and make choices when presented with the reality of hell or heaven. To deny this is to deny man the capacity to think.

I understand that Gods' enlightening or drawing or conviction is essential as we see in scripture that God will use various means to accomplish this. Where Calvinism gets it wrong is when they say that man does not have the free will too respond as he chooses.
While God does desire that all would come to Him in faith He will not force anyone to do so.

I agree that man may move toward God in steps. Life shows us that people have come to trust in God over time and I do see Gods' grace at work in presenting more information to the seeking person even if they do not realize that they are seeking Him.

We did a coffee shop outreach a few years back. We had a number of young people come in that had many questions and over time you could see the questions change as they got to know Him better. Not saved yet but moving toward Him. Some but not all. All we can do is plant the seed.

 

Where this gets difficult is trying to differentiate between God holding a man responsible for what the judicial truth is. And that is that men should be able to respond to God's gracious offer of salvation and can be held fully responsible if he doesn't. Man is truly unable to do so because he is unwilling to do so and by his own free will tends to choose to reject Christ. I think that God indeed gives men grace in the form of circumstances, troubles, dangers, miracles and direct conviction and enlightening of understanding and calling. I think it is indeed essential that this happens or else men won't be saved. Where I think some Calvinists make a mistake is to so camp on a rigid predestination which leads them to also emphasize the one's who do not have a sufficient outpouring of grace that they are saved.

When it comes to hearing the gospel for instance. Does that in itself mean that there is sufficient light in the gospel message itself or is more work of the Holy Spirit required. I was surprised to read that Jonathan Edwards remarked that occasionally he felt he knew of a person here or there where it seemed that the word in itself seemed to be sufficient. Yet he mostly taught that a "divine and supernatural light" must be imparted to the soul before one is saved. And as I have said before, once someone has heard the gospel, none of us have any problem praying for them. Are we not asking for further work of the Holy Spirit and/or God's providential hand on their lives to bring them about? Well, what about their free will? If the person is someone you care about hang their free will, just save them please!