The Number Of God’s Elect

[DaveXR650]

I think you touched on where many of us seem to part ways.

My perspective is that the natural man can’t respond positively to the Gospel because they won’t. It requires God’s grace to first free them from a nature that will always prioritize their sinful desires above everything else.

You are right. I think Calvinistic confessions are well done, yet I have to admit that most of the interactions in scripture would seem to lose a lot of their meaning if you frame them in such a way that the men cannot rationally interact in a meaningful way with truth.

Plus, I read enough primary source Calvinist Puritan sermons and teachings to know that they themselves seemed to have no problem addressing men as truly able and responsible to respond.
"Salvation is ready brought to your door; and the Savior stands, knocks, and calls that you would open to him, that he might bring it in to you. There remains nothing but your consent. All the difficulty now remaining is with your own heart." That's Jonathan Edwards.

But here again, "all the difficulty now remaining is with your own heart", your own free will. Edwards said that we can fully understand the proposals of the gospel, and even desire to avoid Hell. What we tend not to do on our own is to see the value of Christ and his salvation and to actually "see" as it were the wickedness of our sin. Maybe we over think it. But I think the LBCF does a reasonable job of explaining it.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0500 GMT (Thurs) 1100 pm EST

 

[Silverhair]

These numbers represent scripture quoted in chapter 9;1Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19.2Ecclesiastes 7:29. 3Genesis 3:6.
4Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7. 5Ephesians 2:1, 5. 6Titus 3:3–5; John 6:44.


7Colossians 1:13; John 8:36. 8Philippians 2:13. 9Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23.

Regarding the LBCF quote
"Paragraph 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; 4 "
4 Rom. 5:6, 8:7

The writers of the LBCF were using Rom 5:6 and Rom 8:7 as support for their view as would be expected.

But to ignore the rest of scripture is to deny the word of God and the purpose of the gospel message itself.

10E

What?

 

[Silverhair]

Don't get me wrong. I think you can overdo the idea that we can't (as in can't, not won't) respond to the gospel message or to good things God provincially does for us. However, chapter 9 seems to me just to be discussing the deficiencies of our free wills. Look at your own take on it:

I think it's just saying that man has to have actual drawings by the Holy Spirit. What you forget is that the problem is with your actual will. Because of that you are responsible for it. I do understand your concerns that it is possible to take this too far. What is not often discussed is the possibility to take it too far the other way - so that by force of will one could convert one's self or at least make one's self ready to be born again. Again, it's true we probably should be able to do this but left to our own free will we don't seem to do so but throughout our lives become harder and more sinful. So I was just saying that ch. 9 seems to be an attempt to understand the depravity of our free will, not to deny it's existence.

Dave I agree that going to either extreme is not biblical. Man sins and left to himself I do not see how or why they would just choose God But thankfully God has not left us alone. He has provided many ways for us to know Him.

As we have seen and heard lately many people in closed countries are having dreams that are drawing them to trust in God and then later finding out it was Jesus that had drawn them. We also have creation or the conviction of sin let alone the gospel message. So while man does tend to sin and reject God there is no credible reason to say that man cannot know Him.

All are drawn or we have to say that God mislead us when He said we have no excuse for not knowing Him.

I have not denied the will of man but calvinism denies the actual will of man. Man has the ability to choose to sin just as he has the ability to choose to turn to God in faith. The bible is clear that man will be held responsible for rejecting God but if he is being held responsible for rejecting then he must have the ability to trust.

The ability to trust is denied in the LBCF.

Paragraph 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;4 so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin,5

This I agree with and so should any bible believe Christian
is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.6

Man cannot save himself or forgive his own sins.

But he can turn in faith to the one that can do those things.

 

[Tea]

But to ignore the rest of scripture is to deny the word of God and the purpose of the gospel message itself.

The LBCF is a revision of the Westminster that was used by the Puritans, and both are 99% identical to one another.

So no, the confession wasn’t conjured up by men who were ignorant of scripture, as you seem to think.

In fact, I would go as far as saying that Clement would probably agree with the confessions on several points, given that his utilization of the Greek language seems to be consistent with someone who would affirm the doctrine of unconditional election.

 

[DaveXR650]

This I agree with and so should any bible believe Christian
is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.6

Yeah, Owen goes into this in detail in his "Display of Arminianism" chapter 14 (Of Our Conversion to God). Basically, since the preliminary work of the Spirit is upon our will, and the first act on our part that we do is truly by our will which has been enlightened by the Spirit, the perception you have - that you hear the gospel and respond and willingly come to Christ - is not only the way you perceive it but it indeed is true.

We always, if we do something voluntarily, by definition do it by our will. So, maybe I'll have another corner cut off my Calvinist card but your statement above is sufficient for me. I find plenty of appeals to be saved in Calvinist preaching and know that they are not guilty of some of the things said about them. But those confessions, used as guardrails, can save us from some of the shallow preaching and "soul winning" I experienced where salesmanship, and emotional manipulation was used to get results instead of relying upon the word and the Holy Spirit. Regarding the confessions, our church, which is not Calvinist, lists the LBCF as a reference on their web page. We are encouraged to read it and use it but we do not recite, or study it.

 

[Silverhair]

The LBCF is a revision of the Westminster that was used by the Puritans, and both are 99% identical to one another.

So no, the confession wasn’t conjured up by men who were ignorant of scripture, as you seem to think.

This may shock you but I know that the LBCF is just an updated WCF.

Did I say conjured up, NO. But it is still just their opinion. They were writing a confession to support their calvinist view.

The scripture was picked because they thought it supported that view.

Where do you get the idea that Clement would support unconditional election?
That is a real stretch on your part.

 

[Silverhair]

Yeah, Owen goes into this in detail in his "Display of Arminianism" chapter 14 (Of Our Conversion to God). Basically, since the preliminary work of the Spirit is upon our will, and the first act on our part that we do is truly by our will which has been enlightened by the Spirit, the perception you have - that you hear the gospel and respond and willingly come to Christ - is not only the way you perceive it but it indeed is true.

We always, if we do something voluntarily, by definition do it by our will. So, maybe I'll have another corner cut off my Calvinist card but your statement above is sufficient for me. I find plenty of appeals to be saved in Calvinist preaching and know that they are not guilty of some of the things said about them. But those confessions, used as guardrails, can save us from some of the shallow preaching and "soul winning" I experienced where salesmanship, and emotional manipulation was used to get results instead of relying upon the word and the Holy Spirit. Regarding the confessions, our church, which is not Calvinist, lists the LBCF as a reference on their web page. We are encouraged to read it and use it but we do not recite, or study it.

I would say we are both old school, preach the gospel and let the Holy Spirit do His work on the lost.

I am so tired of the "fire insurance" or "get out of hell" type of preaching. If you have to scare people into trusting in God then are they really trusting in God?

 

[Zaatar71]

Regarding the LBCF quote
"Paragraph 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; 4 "
4 Rom. 5:6, 8:7

The writers of the LBCF were using Rom 5:6 and Rom 8:7 as support for their view as would be expected.

But to ignore the rest of scripture is to deny the word of God and the purpose of the gospel message itself.

Scripture does not contradict itself.

 

[Tea]

They were writing a confession to support their calvinist view.

No, they were writing a confession that is a doctrinally accurate summary of what Scripture teaches.

Where do you get the idea that Clement would support unconditional election?

As stated in the OP:

The Greek word for “number” is “ἀριθμὸν,” a singular noun that indicates a specific total sum amount.

 

[Silverhair]

Scripture does not contradict itself.

Did not say it did Z. As I said \:

The writers of the LBCF were using Rom 5:6 and Rom 8:7 as support for their view as would be expected.
But to ignore the rest of scripture is to deny the word of God and the purpose of the gospel message itself.

 

[Silverhair]

No, they were writing a confession that is a doctrinally accurate summary of what Scripture teaches.

As I said it is their opinion that it is a doctrinally accurate summary of what Scripture teaches.

They wrote a confess that reflects the theological position that they hold. Since you hold the same view you agree with it but that does not means that the majority of Christians have to agree with it Tea.

As stated in the OP:

I did show you that you are reading into his words what is not there.

Does God know the number of people that will freely trust in Him? He is omniscient so the answer is YES. Does that require that He determines who will freely trust in Him? The answer is NO.

You have to read your theology into the text for it to support the position that you hold.

 

[Tea]

As I said it is their opinion that it is a doctrinally accurate summary of what Scripture teaches.

Okay, yes, it's their opinion. However, if someone's opinion aligns with Scripture and can be demonstrated why, it should to be accepted as truth. I have a different stance on baptism compared to the Westminster, which is why I prefer the 1689.

Since you hold the same view you agree with it but that does not means that the majority of Christians have to agree with it Tea.

To clarify, I do not believe that any confession is without flaws, nor do I think that most Christians are required to follow a man-made document. The Bible alone is adequate.

Does God know the number of people that will freely trust in Him? He is omniscient so the answer is YES. Does that require that He determines who will freely trust in Him? The answer is NO.

I struggle to understand how God can be omniscient if His knowledge of human choices is only hypothetical. The potential for individuals to nullify prophecy seems too significant.