-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Being Chosen Requires a Response (Of Faith) from One’s Own Heart! Like it or Not!
- Thread starter Benjamin
- Start date
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Where did you learn to read Winman? Perhaps we have discovered the source of your problem. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that we who believe the Doctrines of Grace understand the role of Faith. I repeat for your edification!
Since you are having a difficult time with the above statement perhaps I can help you a little. I have posted the following for your edification numerous times in the past but you are hard to edify!
Regeneration
The initial event in salvation is regeneration, the theological term synonymous with ‘rebirth’ or ‘being born again’. Regeneration is solely the work of God the Holy Spirit whereby those who are spiritually dead in trespass and sin are made spiritual alive and are brought into union with Jesus Christ [Ephesians 2:1-9].
Conversion
Conversion is the result of conscious act of a regenerate person in which he responds to the effectual call and turns to God in faith and repentance. Conversion is in reality an acknowledgment that one has experienced regeneration.
The Apostle Paul described the problem of those who enamoured of the idea that "maybe I am not so bad after all":
Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Paul is speaking about the Jews here but they had the same attitude ofmany who boast of their free will!
Yes, but from God's perspective, man's faith is not from synergistic contribution, but from God's monergistic work and eternal decree.
It's more like to respond in faith you must be elect. After all, election is "before the foundation of the world." Faith is after the foundation of the world.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
I have never denied that there is a required response of faith from our hearts. The issue, though, is this: Is the exercise of faith a response to God's work or is it that which causes God's work?
You, and the OP, argue that we must have a response of inherent faith, unencumbered and uninfluenced by the Holy Spirit. We flatly reject that position.
What we affirm is that there is a necessary response of faith that is a result of God's regenerating work, through the power of the Holy Spirit.
There is an important difference.
The Archangel
Old Regular said:
If man responds to the effectual call to God, then salvation is not all of God.
Oh, you claim regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit only, but that the man must cooperate with God to be converted or saved.
Old Regular said:
This sentence is a contradiction of the one that preceded it. The first sentence distinguishes between regeneration and conversion, this sentence says that conversion is simply an acknowledgment of regeneration.
These two sentences contradict themselves.
If conversion is simply an acknowledgement of regeneration, and conversion requires a response of faith, then regeneration also requires a response of faith.
Translation- Mumbo Jumbo
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Just read all that I said about Conversion WM:
You have a problem understanding the written word WM. You also have an over riding tendency to twist whatever anyone writes, even Scripture, to support your erroneous concept of freewill salvation.
I understand it well.
Conversion acknowledges or shows that a person is regenerate.
Conversion involves a person responding in repentance and faith to the gospel.
Therefore, a person must respond in repentance and faith to be regenerate.
Now, you think about that a minute or two and you will see I am correct.
No response of repentance and faith ---> no conversion
No conversion ---> no regeneration
Now, you might say a person can walk around 20 years regenerated before they respond in faith and are converted. You can say that, but you have no proof or scriptural support for this. Just saying this does not make it so, and it does not make much sense. Why the delay?
The only way you know someone is regenerate is when they actually respond in faith and are converted.
You are trying to break everything up when it is not possible. You cannot have conversion without a person responding in faith, and you have no proof of regeneration unless a person responds in faith and is converted.
The OP is correct, whether you will admit it or not. The only proof that a man is elect is that he responds in faith and is converted. That is absolutely all the proof you have of election. You cannot separate these things.
Election requires a response of faith, the OP is correct.
You can post all sorts of mumbo jumbo, it will not work.
Conversion acknowledges or shows that a person is regenerate.
Conversion involves a person responding in repentance and faith to the gospel.
Therefore, a person must respond in repentance and faith to be regenerate.
Now, you think about that a minute or two and you will see I am correct.
No response of repentance and faith ---> no conversion
No conversion ---> no regeneration
Now, you might say a person can walk around 20 years regenerated before they respond in faith and are converted. You can say that, but you have no proof or scriptural support for this. Just saying this does not make it so, and it does not make much sense. Why the delay?
The only way you know someone is regenerate is when they actually respond in faith and are converted.
You are trying to break everything up when it is not possible. You cannot have conversion without a person responding in faith, and you have no proof of regeneration unless a person responds in faith and is converted.
The OP is correct, whether you will admit it or not. The only proof that a man is elect is that he responds in faith and is converted. That is absolutely all the proof you have of election. You cannot separate these things.
Election requires a response of faith, the OP is correct.
You can post all sorts of mumbo jumbo, it will not work.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I believe that you do understand WM and that is what is so sad. For some reason known only to you and perhaps to God you deliberately twist and misrepresent the words of those who respond to you. I assume you are trying to justify your position but it is unethical to say the least. Your responses remind me of a passage of Scripture that God revealed through the Apostle Peter. In this passage Peter is discussing the writings of Paul as being difficult to understand and you are living proof of that. But that is not all Peter has to say:
2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
There you go again, directly changing my words which specifically explain my argument is against your doctrine to form a strawman against me while trying to make it a personal issue. Let me spell this out for Mr. critical thinker…That sir, is a fallacious ad hominem attack against me. An “ad hominem” is rhetorical device that means in Latin “to bring the attack to the man”, this is done instead of addressing the subject matter in the argument. It is motivated by an attempt to cast a negative feature on the opponent in a debate through an attempt to discount his argument solely due to an attack on his character, it is pure fallacy. Even IF this ploy of yours to accuse me of hating my Christian brothers and sisters were true it does not add one iota of truth to your argument, THAT IS WHY IT IS A FALLACY and you should be ashamed of that unethical debate tactic. Maybe you should consider that in your continuing to resort to this speaks volumes toward your own character, how important it is to you to win an argument, and how it displays your ignorance of logical ethical philosophical debate principles which are meant to draw out the truth in an argument (IOW’s “critical thinking skills”).
You’re entire post is basically directed at me and uses things like the typical “you don’t understand my doctrine” and “don’t want to”. Again, none of this rhetoric supports your argument Mr. critical thinker.
I don’t give a darn what you “say” you believe, I care about what your doctrine logically, thereby “truthfully” amounts to. I’m not interested in chasing your entire system down in this thread and going in circles, I am standing on one principle here, the necessity of the condition of faith coming from one’s own heart and you have not begun to refute my argument presented in the Op but only look to play games and engage in ad hominem.
You want to know something personal about me so bad; my introduction to Calvinism came about 7 years ago when I first learned how to use the internet. In short, I came across a live “Christian” chat site where a seeker began asking me questions about God while saying things like, “I just don’t know if God loves me and if He does why can’t see His Words as truth, why can’t I have faith in Him?” I explained the promise of Good News and witnessed about the truths of God being Love and wanting a relationship with her. I explained she could put God’s promises in the bank and that His Word was true. I told her to ask, seek, knock and God would open the door and give her all she needed if she truly desired to know Him from her heart and asked. I talked about the treasure of knowledge and truth which came through the Word and gave understanding and wisdom. On comes someone who begins to tell her she may have no possibility to know God because she wasn’t one of His children (elected). He told her she was more likely born to be a child of Satan and he was her father. He knew and used all the Calvinist proof texts and dogma to try to convince her she may have not been one of God’s chosen, had no ability to have faith in Him, etc. He went about contradicting everything I told her concerning her ability to know Him while using the scriptures to do so. I was unprepared to deal with everything he was throwing out. It was like speaking to the Devil himself who knew the scriptures very well and twisted them to tell lies to this person so she would not believe. This went on for several days and the girl ended up emailing me privately and explained they were “role playing” and the guy I was battling against was a Wiccan Warlock while telling me she was afraid of him and only doing this because of his power over her. She told me he did this to further Satan’s kingdom by preying on weak Christians, those who did not know the doctrines of this “Warlock prophet” etc. I didn’t know when she was role playing or not or even for sure if our private discussion wasn’t some kind of a continuation of it, but I did feel I planted some good seeds and gave her some hope while I proclaimed the Truth of God’s Love for all His creation with conviction.
I was and am strictly a Bible student first and foremost and very Berean with any man-made philosophical doctrines I hear or have heard while trusting in God to guide me in His truths (John 14:6) and to keep me from being led astray because of what He had branded into my heart early on when I asked to know Him, (Col 2:8). I don’t need a man-made doctrine of A-B-C-D-E or T-U-L-I-P to direct my thinking or guide my interpretations and I take seriously the warning against being spoiled by doing so and how they can lead one away from Christ, who lovingly died for all. Anything I need to know He will give me through His written Word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I know Him through His Word, that He is Love in Truth, that He is a Light to all in the world, I understand His purpose and glory in creation having to do with love and hope for all He created and strongly believe that any doctrine that attempts to step that Divine attribute is not of the Truth.
I have debated Atheist, Agnostics- one who was a Philosophy professor, who use the doctrines of Determinism to defend their lack of faith and to contradict the truth of God being love. The attack on the ability of true faith from one’s own heart (free will) is being acclaimed to be the best “new” argument against the existence of God.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=79084
Here on this board I noted we have “Christians” who for some reason???, will jump at every chance to proclaim that some are not pre-selected and cannot know God unless He chose them and they do so with such enthusiasm and glee as to be “in your face with it”. I do not understand that motivation, that excitement over a man-made doctrine which concludes such at all, but I find it very hard to overlook. Now, I don’t see you doing that so much (projecting hyper-determinism), I understand that you are a Compatibilist and I have much more respect for that position even though I see the determinist doctrines and volition as logically mutually exclusive. But many here which I consider “Hyper-Determinist” are jumping at every opportunity to proclaim “Sovereign Pre-selection of Election” and are not even shy to say some have no hope. I think to be intellectually honest with your doctrine that it is plain to see it always adds up to strict determinism. This form of Hyper-Determinism is not only theologically fatalistic but is damnable heresy in my book if one even dares to rest on it and proclaim some may have no hope. I do not believe that ever to be projected in church history until of late and yet it is allowed to be resorted to on this board as fair game- as long as it helps the cause. When you say, “we don’t believe that” I can accept that “you” may not believe that as a compatibilist or don’t see that your doctrine logically equates up to that and I don’t see you pushing that particular agenda, if anything I see you avoiding going there, but you are lumping yourself with others here who are not nearly concerned as you to avoid that message of no hope and then taking it personally that I am arguing against the doctrine you hold to.
You say there is no need to go into such detail, as to get into your Calvinist soteriology when witnessing, but I think that’s a copout at best, a half truth, an excuse, and I use the exact opposite of Deterministic doctrines, my doctrine of free will when witnessing to tell people that they can believe, that they do have the ability to respond and will often go into great detail concerning promise of grace being for all, volition, judgment, and God’s righteousness, purpose and love in that matter. I find many difficulties in the way how and when Calvinism is taught and often perceive those teaching as sounding cultish; I find its reasoning to defy simple logical principles which reveal truth in an argument and I see it as forgoing the blessed Divine attributes of God. I believe God to be all about Truth as well Love and believe both of these attributes not only can but must be known to have a relationship with Him and come to loving faith. When I see some that are so motivated to jump at the chance to preach the doctrine of no hope I hate it, BUT I DO NOT CLAIM TO KNOW THEIR HEART!
You’re doctrine’s serious messed up Dude, but I don’t hate you or my other brothers or sisters that try to hold to it, I love you, I just don’t like your doctrine... at all... and I am not shy about expressing that- after all this is debate board. If want to take it personal that I don’t like your doctrine and use that as a debate tactic or call upon a moderator to stop the attack on your doctrine I will take that for what it is – a fallacy in debate and a ploy to unethically support your agenda (s).
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
I will address the full post later. Let me first say, the tone of the first half of your post, some of which is represented below, is deplorable. However, and this did pleasantly surprise me, the last half of your post did demonstrate a tone much more suited for discussion and debate. Now, on to this from the first part.
I want to point this out. In one paragraph you state "You're [sic] entire post...uses..."you don't understand my doctrine" and "don't want to" Then, in almost the very next breath you say "I don't give a darn what you "say" you believe..."
You simply do not understand my doctrine. Your second statement (I don't give a darn what you say you believe) ipso facto proves that you do not understand my doctrine--quod erat demonstrandum.
As I have been saying, you do not understand my doctrine. You assume I am a hyper-Calvinist simply because I am a Calvinist in my soteriology. This is simply guilt by association (the association fallacy, sub-type of the Red Herring fallacy). And, by your own words, you do not care to understand what I believe.
The problem, as I've expressed before, is this: You are fighting against a caricature of Calvinism, which, as we now see, is based on an experience that you had with someone claiming to be a Calvinist--who turned out to be a Wiccan! So, in your mind, you seem to be equating all Calvinists with Wiccan Warlocks. You are simply chasing windmills or arguing against a so-called square-circle (which is, I might add, the very textbook definition of the Strawman fallacy).
Are there Calvinists who are "hyper" and believe that man does not have to respond? Sure. They are wrong in their assertions (and I have no problem telling them that).
The Bible affirms two immovable facts dealing with salvation: 1) God is absolutely sovereign and 2) man is completely responsible. We, (the non-hyper, non-Warlock Calvinists) affirm the necessity of man's response to God. However, we read that man's heart desires only evil continually and is unknowably evil, we see that Paul refers to us as "dead," we see that Paul says "no one seeks after God," and we come to the conclusion that God, by His grace, intervenes and makes us willing who where once unwilling.
And, you still haven't answered my question: Do you pray that persons you know who are not believers, perhaps a friend, co-worker, or family member, come to Christ? And, I'm fairly certain why you haven't answered.
And, finally, because you posted your "Intro to Calvinism" story, I can finally see where all the animosity comes from. In psychological lingo, we call this "Transference." You rightly feel animosity toward the Wiccan guy for yanking your chain, thwarting your admirable work in sharing the Gospel, etc. Your animosity toward the Wiccan guy--which I would feel too--has been misdirected at Calvinists, it has been "transferred." Of course, those issues are difficult and must be worked through, a road I've walked before.
Now, it won't surprise me if you take this entire post as an attack (which it isn't), but I hope you won't.
The Archangel
You’re entire post is basically directed at me and uses things like the typical “you don’t understand my doctrine” and “don’t want to”. Again, none of this rhetoric supports your argument Mr. critical thinker.
I don’t give a darn what you “say” you believe, I care about what your doctrine logically, thereby “truthfully” amounts to. I’m not interested in chasing your entire system down in this thread and going in circles, I am standing on one principle here, the necessity of the condition of faith coming from one’s own heart and you have not begun to refute my argument presented in the Op but only look to play games and engage in ad hominem.
I want to point this out. In one paragraph you state "You're [sic] entire post...uses..."you don't understand my doctrine" and "don't want to" Then, in almost the very next breath you say "I don't give a darn what you "say" you believe..."
You simply do not understand my doctrine. Your second statement (I don't give a darn what you say you believe) ipso facto proves that you do not understand my doctrine--quod erat demonstrandum.
As I have been saying, you do not understand my doctrine. You assume I am a hyper-Calvinist simply because I am a Calvinist in my soteriology. This is simply guilt by association (the association fallacy, sub-type of the Red Herring fallacy). And, by your own words, you do not care to understand what I believe.
The problem, as I've expressed before, is this: You are fighting against a caricature of Calvinism, which, as we now see, is based on an experience that you had with someone claiming to be a Calvinist--who turned out to be a Wiccan! So, in your mind, you seem to be equating all Calvinists with Wiccan Warlocks. You are simply chasing windmills or arguing against a so-called square-circle (which is, I might add, the very textbook definition of the Strawman fallacy).
Are there Calvinists who are "hyper" and believe that man does not have to respond? Sure. They are wrong in their assertions (and I have no problem telling them that).
The Bible affirms two immovable facts dealing with salvation: 1) God is absolutely sovereign and 2) man is completely responsible. We, (the non-hyper, non-Warlock Calvinists) affirm the necessity of man's response to God. However, we read that man's heart desires only evil continually and is unknowably evil, we see that Paul refers to us as "dead," we see that Paul says "no one seeks after God," and we come to the conclusion that God, by His grace, intervenes and makes us willing who where once unwilling.
And, you still haven't answered my question: Do you pray that persons you know who are not believers, perhaps a friend, co-worker, or family member, come to Christ? And, I'm fairly certain why you haven't answered.
And, finally, because you posted your "Intro to Calvinism" story, I can finally see where all the animosity comes from. In psychological lingo, we call this "Transference." You rightly feel animosity toward the Wiccan guy for yanking your chain, thwarting your admirable work in sharing the Gospel, etc. Your animosity toward the Wiccan guy--which I would feel too--has been misdirected at Calvinists, it has been "transferred." Of course, those issues are difficult and must be worked through, a road I've walked before.
Now, it won't surprise me if you take this entire post as an attack (which it isn't), but I hope you won't.
The Archangel
First off, this thread is not about how you perceive my tone…
1. Lame typical argument. I probably understand your doctrine better than most the Calvinist on here and I don’t agree with one point of it, nor do I buy into the theories of Compatibilism that you hold to which many use in an attempt to avoid fatalism. Most philosophical thinkers are dropping that concept completely today because it has been proven not to be logically possible to maintain both creaturely volition and divine determinism.
2. I engaged your attempt to turn this personal with a personal reply (once), but not to give way to your further attempts to do so as I made it clear to you that it was fallacious and I WAS NOT GOING TO ENGAGE YOUR FALLACIOUS ATTEMPTS OF TURNING THIS INTO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR ENGAGE YOUR ENTIRE SYSTYEM IN CIRCULAR DEBATE (I am not yelling here just trying to get your attention)… I stated my prupose of the thread: “I am standing on the necessity of the condition of faith coming from one’s own heart and you have not begun to refute my argument presented in the Op but only look to play games and engage in ad hominem.”
Lame with the -> ”You don’t understand my doctrine.” Look - I told you I recognize the differences with Compatibilistic views and I know where you’re coming from Believe it or Not-> I’m saying it in no way equates to a logical truth of faith coming from one’s own heart …so I don’t care if you say you believe otherwise…GOT IT? I’m not going down the road of Compatibilism...again (read my signature) Your doctrine either agrees with my premise or not...and apparently not.
This thread is not about you or I. Stick to the premise of the Op. Get that through your head please!
No kidding! Tell me somethng I don't know. That is the point of the thread, that’s what I’m addressing (Hyper-Determinism) in stating the necessity of the condition that one must respond in faith from their own heart.
1. The Calvinist’ definition of what divine sovereignty must consist of has been debated here 1000 times and that is not what this thread is about.
2. Get it through your head that am not here to debate your whole system, I told you what this thread was about and what I willing to debate on never mentioned the “Calvinist view of Divine sovereignty!” It actually proves my point about your doctrine holding to a deterministic view anyway.
I know what your doctrine reads into these issues and again these interpetations have been debated here 1000 times AND I AM NOT HERE TO DEBATE YOUR ENTIRE SYSTEM! My Op spells out that your/these interpretations are wrong while showing in fact the scriptures do support that faith must come from your own heart as well as addresses true judgment in the matter (the "truth" of responsibility).
You either agree that there is a "real" conditon of faith from one's own heart or not...sheeesh you guys like to speak out of both sides of your mouths!
Puleeaase...Look - I have heard this force to fit dogmatic interpretation 1000 times! I dealt with the attempt from one of your buddies to single out of that verse to fit your doctrine of Total Inability here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=72690
Again, I am not hear to address all your unrelated dogmatic proof texts, only that one must come to faith from their own heart as the Op spells out. Tryig to support the determinist doctrine of Total Inability does nothing to prove that conditon of faith from one's own heart is being met. It actually hurts your position.
Give me a break! Again, that question has been answered here 1000 times! Look it up, threads have been started on it! That question does NOT address the necessary condition of faith coming from the heart. My prayers do not ever amount to asking God to forcefully determine that someone has faith that is not their own. Such faith would have no value...Period!
Look - Save the ad hominem! This thread is not about me, or my animosity, or what you think my psychological problems are rooted in because I don’t like your doctrine, or your ability to analyze them. :laugh: Get a clue about the fallacy you are committing here. Quit focusing on these fallacies of making this personal and address the Op directly.
Sigh…
:sleeping_2:
Last edited by a moderator:
The point is, if salvation requires a response of faith from the man, then man takes part in his salvation, which most Calvinists deny.
And I don't know of one non-Cal that believes we cause God to act. We believe a man must respond to the work God has performed on our hearts, but that response must come from our own free will.
You insert a fallacy into the argument. I have never said (or believe) that God does not influence us, he absolutely does. My definition of free will does not exclude influence, it includes it. My definition of free will is simply that man can choose between two options.
It is logically impossible to be regenerated until after you believe. Until you believe you remain dead in trespasses and sins, and that is DEATH. Only after you believe and your sins are forgiven can you be spiritually alive. This is so simple a child could understand it, but seems to baffle all Calvinists.
It is a matter of life and death
You don't get it, to be regenerated means to be alive again (which refutes we are born dead in sin). You cannot be spiritually alive while you remain in your sins. Faith MUST precede regeneration. This is absolutely logical. I think you know that, but you hold to a fallacy anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
If we are assuming in an irresistable act of grace...then it no doubt would be inconsistent to do so....but it is perfectly within the purview of an Arminian to pray thus. Arminians assume that God's grace is required to enable men to come to salvation. Call it "Prevenient Grace" or whatever...Arminians don't believe that anyone calls to God for salvation in an utter vacuum. By praying for the salvation of the lost, they are praying for any and/or all of these things:
For the gospel to be forefront in their minds...or for the gospel to be preached to them and regularly.
That God would impart that enabling or "Prevenient Grace" and work upon the heart of that sinner.
That the Holy Spirit would do his work of conviction of sin
That we, or others would be sent and gifted to rightly preach to them their need for salvation.
That God would bring about circumstances in that person's life which would require them to come face to face with the question of their eternal destiny. i.e. (come face to face with their mortality, so to speak...or that kind of thing).
That God would honor His promise that His Word would not return void.....
I am sure there are many others, these were only what immediately came to mind without even thinking about it.
For the same reason you might think that an Arminian shouldn't pray for the lost...I might just as quickly ask you why a Calvinist should ever bother himself, since the answer has been given, and you aren't about to change His mind about it. That knife could cut both ways really. But I already know what the answer might be: because you have a genuine desire to see the salvation of the lost, and because you believe that the Scriptures encourage us/command us to. That is sufficient for any Calvinist....It is sufficient for a non-Calvinist.
Rom 10:1 ¶ Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
No doubt, Arminians or non-cals (and probably a lot of nominal Calvinists) usually never really think too deeply about what they are asking for "specifically"....They (unlike some of us) :tongue3: aren't overly obsessed with the "arguing about our divisions and strifes of words..." with such things :smilewinkgrin:
. Fortunately...they know they can hold onto this promise:Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
The part bolded is written to both the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist.
Ultimately.....I think the most important and direct answer to that question is....we are to ask God for what we WANT!! and He wants to give good things to his children!
One article I found: and he actually links to an article by Roger Olson wherein Olson (an Arminian Theologian) in-explicably argues that an Arm shouldn't pray for the salvation of the lost. He would agree with your reasoning. But I think his thought-process is short-sighted on this.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/1417
Last edited by a moderator:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
But, in some of the things listed below, are you not asking God to draw people to Himself? Are you not asking Him to make the unwilling willing?
With an unsaved spouse, child, or parent, for example, don't you want God to draw them irresistibly, whether it is consistent or not?
Though I disagree with the concept of "Prevenient Grace" in the Wesleyan sense, the Augustinian sense of Prevenient Grace is where we get the concept of "Irresistible Grace." The Wesleyan sense of Prevenient Grace carries the idea that all men are given, for lack of a better description, a new heart that can understand and choose God for themselves. Obviously we reject this based on, partially, the so-called "Golden Chain" of Romans 8:28-30. We see a specific, directed "Prevenient" and irresistible grace that gives that gives a new heart to those whom God has chosen. Obviously, the Wesleyan sense of Prevenient Grace is not irresistible. And, interestingly enough, the "Irresistible" part of the concept is not well-served by the word "Irresistible." The word "Irresistible" give the impression that God is dragging us by the hair, kicking and screaming. We argue that the "Irresistible" part is better understood as God making the unwilling willing and, therefore, we find Him to be Irresistible and will "sell all we have in order that we may have Him as our treasure." (Paraphrasing John Piper who was paraphrasing the parable of the treasure hidden in the field)
I would view all these reasons and the accompanying prayers to be quite orthodox.
For the same reason you might think that an Arminian shouldn't pray for the lost...I might just as quickly ask you why a Calvinist should ever bother himself, since the answer has been given, and you aren't about to change His mind about it. That knife could cut both ways really. But I already know what the answer might be: because you have a genuine desire to see the salvation of the lost, and because you believe that the Scriptures encourage us/command us to. That is sufficient for any Calvinist....It is sufficient for a non-Calvinist.
Rom 10:1 ¶ Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
No doubt, Arminians or non-cals (and probably a lot of nominal Calvinists) usually never really think too deeply about what they are asking for "specifically"....They (unlike some of us) :tongue3: aren't overly obsessed with the "arguing about our divisions and strifes of words..." with such things :smilewinkgrin:
Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
The part bolded is written to both the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist.
Ultimately.....I think the most important and direct answer to that question is....we are to ask God for what we WANT!! and He wants to give good things to his children!
One article I found: and he actually links to an article by Roger Olson wherein Olson (an Arminian Theologian) in-explicably argues that an Arm shouldn't pray for the salvation of the lost. He would agree with your reasoning. But I think his thought-process is short-sighted on this.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/1417
Everyone should, actually must pray for the salvation of sinners (I'm thinking in a personal way--like pray that God would open Aunt Sally's heart, etc.). And, we must work to present the Gospel to those who we pray for.
As a Calvinist, it is natural to pray for the salvation of people. We don't know who the elect are, only God does and He has not marked the elect in any way visible to man. We work, pray, and evangelize indiscriminately, not caring is one might be elect or not.
But, we also believe that God ordains the ends and the means. So, might it be the case that God elected a person in eternity past and put them in our present--but hasn't saved them yet--so that we could pray for Him to open their heart to the Gospel and that we might have joy in seeing our prayers answered when they, finally, come to Christ? Absolutely! We get joy, God gets glory--a perfect combination. In this scenario, the ends (salvation) and the means (our prayers, evangelization, etc.) are ordained. There is not one second of the entire thing that is outside of God's sovereignty, yet man is responsible to do what God has commanded him to do--make disciples, preach the word, pray for the lost, etc.
It is a beautiful dovetail in the compatiblistic sense.
The Archangel
Archangel said:
Well, this is what I see about many Calvinists, they make a statement, then they make another statement that contradicts the first. You say God's grace is "irresistible", but then say that term is not really appropriate. Why then use that term? Why don't you call it "persuading grace". Ah, but then you would agree with the other side.
Calvinists say salvation is all of God, but then agree that a man must respond in faith. Again, you contradict yourselves and agree with the other side, only you never will admit you are agreeing with your opponents.
What Calvinists do is try to hold two contradictory positions at the same time. Non-Cals do not have this problem, our view is consistent with itself.
psalms109:31
Active Member
It is the work of God from start to finish through the Holy Spirit, so God gets the glory for our salvation without the working of God no one will be saved. We are responsible to follow the will of God, not our own will, to trust in His Son.
When all you hear is I did this to be saved and done this to be saved it starts to become sickening.
It isn't easy to continue keeping peoples focus on the Lord and being responsible for our own action. I has to do something, but it is Our Lord, Our God, Our Saviour, Jesus Christ who has saved us.
When all you hear is I did this to be saved and done this to be saved it starts to become sickening.
It isn't easy to continue keeping peoples focus on the Lord and being responsible for our own action. I has to do something, but it is Our Lord, Our God, Our Saviour, Jesus Christ who has saved us.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Very well stated. Salvation is ALL of God. Scripture clearly teaches that truth. Believing that the Big I had to give God a helping hand is denying Scripture.
Hebrews 12:2. Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
God will bring to Salvation those He chose before the foundation of the world and for whom Jesus Christ died. To believe and contend that the Big I can make the death of Jesus Christ of no effect is very sad.