Born Anew?

[Silverhair]

After reading some of Muller, who gets into the philosophy at a deeper level of free will and contingency, I think what is really going on is that guys like Owen understood this at a deeper level that we can. I used to have big problems reading Owen, currently find Muller beyond my ability or desire, and have begun to realize that the real debate on these things is beyond my level of education and probably I.Q. as well. And at my age, there isn't time for much more education and I just read a BBC article today that said we loose 50,000 brain cells daily so I guess that's it!

I did read an interesting article which I have somewhere (if I can find it) that talked about the battle for Calvinism between Owen and Baxter. They said Calvinism was in trouble in England even in the mid 1600's and went into some of what Owen and Baxter were saying - to each other as well as to the rest of the world. I'll try to dig that up.

I am not so sure that Owen or Muller or any of them understand it at a deeper level but rather at a level that they feel comfortable with. Just as the rest of us do.

But for me the bottom line is does what they say align with what the word of God says.

I find too may people make the bible out to be a great mystery that only the enlightened can understand.

While I do appreciate the advanced knowledge of Greek & Hebrew and even the clearer thinking that they may have they are still just men who have a bias to a certain view and that will inform how they understand scripture.

 

[Silverhair]

I think you are illustrating how not to use theology. Theology if correct makes for a good set of guardrails. I don't think it was ever intended to be used as a confession of faith or a creed. But I guess you have to decide for yourself what to make of these things. If J.C. Ryle says he holds to the doctrines of grace and also says that the reason some men aren't saved at last is because they loved darkness rather than light - who are you to say that he is somehow bound to claim that the real reason was that they were not "chosen". And if John Owen says that he has it on authority of scripture that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved who are you to claim he is not allowed somehow to say that because of a reply to Arminian theology that was made at a meeting years earlier? Let me suggest that if we are to have any meaningful discussion we must insist that the discussion be on what these men actually taught - not what you determine several hundred years later as to what they "must" have really meant.

It is not what I am claiming Dave it is what the DoG/TULIP presents. If one says they hold to DoG/TULIP then it is not whether they loved darkness but that they were not chosen.

I as a non-calvinist can say and be biblically correct that anyone that responds in faith to Christ will be saved. For the calvinist to say that would be less than honest as they believe that only their "elect" from before the foundation of the world can be saved.

Calvin even went so far as to say that some who believe in Christ Jesus will be condemned since they were not picked as God had given them a false sense of faith so they would suffer more in hell.

I have had Owen, Gill, Spurgeon etc held up as great teaches and some of what they said I could very well agree with if it aligns with scripture, but we must not dismiss what they said that clearly disagrees with scripture.

Please do not overlook the fact that Owen as a calvinist believed that only a select group could come to Christ. We have to look at what has been said through the lens of their philosophy.

So yes if we are to have a meaningful discussion we need to deal with what they actually taught.

 

[DaveXR650]

But for me the bottom line is does what they say align with what the word of God says.

I agree. There are things revealed in scripture as to what God wants from us. They are clear and we are to do them. We are for instance, to repent and believe the gospel. Other things are not so obvious as to what we are to do. We are told we must be born again but obviously it's not something we do ourselves. But it's essential we are told and we are informed about it so we know it applied to us. Our part is to believe. Now from this we can get into a whole bunch of theological debate, which may be important but yet is not part of the essential thing we do which is to repent and believe. That's why I don't care whether you are born again first and as a result of that you believe - or if you decide to believe and because of that are born again. If I were a theologian, or even a pastor of a denominational church responsible for the spiritual welfare and teaching of a congregation I might care more but as a layman I don't feel I have to work those issues out even though I enjoy the discussion.

Muller and the advanced philosophical arguments for divine determinism and freedom as existing together are trying to show how God can absolutely decree something and yet have those involved act freely and according to their own wills. This is important because both are clearly taught in scripture. That is a simple fact whether we can resolve it or not. To not try to resolve it means that either one must err on the side of saying that God determines everything directly - or err the other way where God must constantly react and modify his plans according to our free will decisions.

 

[DaveXR650]

It is not what I am claiming Dave it is what the DoG/TULIP presents. If one says they hold to DoG/TULIP then it is not whether they loved darkness but that they were not chosen.

I guess if you went to a church that put up the doctrines of grace or TULIP as essential beliefs in order to be a member then that might be right. But it should be noted that under Cromwell, when the Puritans were asked to come up with a list of essential beliefs required for Christian fellowship, nothing was said about the doctrines of grace or Calvinistic theology. John Owen was on the committee, as was Richard Baxter. I can post the list if you like.

 

[Silverhair]

I agree. There are things revealed in scripture as to what God wants from us. They are clear and we are to do them. We are for instance, to repent and believe the gospel. Other things are not so obvious as to what we are to do. We are told we must be born again but obviously it's not something we do ourselves. But it's essential we are told and we are informed about it so we know it applied to us. Our part is to believe. Now from this we can get into a whole bunch of theological debate, which may be important but yet is not part of the essential thing we do which is to repent and believe. That's why I don't care whether you are born again first and as a result of that you believe - or if you decide to believe and because of that are born again. If I were a theologian, or even a pastor of a denominational church responsible for the spiritual welfare and teaching of a congregation I might care more but as a layman I don't feel I have to work those issues out even though I enjoy the discussion.

Muller and the advanced philosophical arguments for divine determinism and freedom as existing together are trying to show how God can absolutely decree something and yet have those involved act freely and according to their own wills. This is important because both are clearly taught in scripture. That is a simple fact whether we can resolve it or not. To not try to resolve it means that either one must err on the side of saying that God determines everything directly - or err the other way where God must constantly react and modify his plans according to our free will decisions.

This is one place that we do part ways Dave. To me the bible is clear as to the order of salvation. We hear, we believe and then we are saved. If we are saved prior to our trust in Christ Jesus that of what need is faith?

Molinism is an errant theological view as far as I understand it. It would have God looking and waiting for man to make choices and then reacting to those choices. I do not see that as a bible view.

What we know is God is omniscient so no surprises. He foreknows all the free will choices that man will make.

If we went by the view God has determined all things then that has to include all things which would include the sin. But since God has not determined all things but has given man the ability to make actual free will choices then man is responsible and will be held accountable for those choices.

We do not save ourselves but God saves those that freely trust in Him.

 

[DaveXR650]

I as a non-calvinist can say and be biblically correct that anyone that responds in faith to Christ will be saved. For the calvinist to say that would be less than honest as they believe that only their "elect" from before the foundation of the world can be saved.

Here's where theology acts as a proper "guardrail". We all agree that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved. I have Owen's quote on that. A Calvinist will say that everyone who comes is "elect" for sure, and you might say that they became "elect" when they come - but once again, everyone agrees that those saved are elect.
But without any application of theology you are left with severe and troubling questions. With your emphasis on the free will of the individual I have to ask, is God allowed to convict? If so, what if he convicts one person more than another? What happens in a time of spiritual awakening in a certain area or time? I mean, how does this happen randomly based only upon the free will of individuals? If it happens due to God then is it "fair" to the rest of the people that it did not happen equally in their area or time period. What I am saying is what I have always said regarding these things. And that is if you reject the doctrines of grace on the basis of fairness then you are still facing the exact same problem with any influence or conviction of the Holy Spirit because of the inequalities that exist as part of the human condition. The only way out of this it seems would be to have a specific set of things to do, easily understood, and then say that those who do such will be saved and the others lost. But then you are back at that troubling statement "ye must be born again", and you are back depending upon the mercy of God.

I'm not saying you have to swallow Calvinism hook, line and sinker. But I do ask that you look at the fact that your system also as ramifications and logical conclusions that present difficulties too.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is one place that we do part ways Dave. To me the bible is clear as to the order of salvation. We hear, we believe and then we are saved. If we are saved prior to our trust in Christ Jesus that of what need is faith?

I have no problem with your order above as far as chronology. I would point out that the Calvinists who believe you are saved prior to trust in Christ are only saying that as to logical order, not that it's possible that salvation can happen and a person not have faith. Faith would be inevitable.

Molinism is an errant theological view as far as I understand it. It would have God looking and waiting for man to make choices and then reacting to those choices. I do not see that as a bible view.

What we know is God is omniscient so no surprises. He foreknows all the free will choices that man will make.

The argument behind Molinism is similar to the logical dilemma you try to set up for Calvinists. What a Molinist would say to you is how can even God foreknow a truly free will decision not yet taken - considering the fact that by the very definition of a free will decision "another" choice could be made at any time, thus rendering prior knowledge impossible. The Calvinist would say that the decision was truly free but once taken, if God allows it to stand, it must occur and thus becomes ordained to happen. But how would you answer the Molinist?

 

[Silverhair]

I guess if you went to a church that put up the doctrines of grace or TULIP as essential beliefs in order to be a member then that might be right. But it should be noted that under Cromwell, when the Puritans were asked to come up with a list of essential beliefs required for Christian fellowship, nothing was said about the doctrines of grace or Calvinistic theology. John Owen was on the committee, as was Richard Baxter. I can post the list if you like.

But we are not speaking of being a Christian fellowship. We are speaking of salvation.

The bible teaches that man is responsible for the choices they make.
Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Do men love the darkness, yes. {Joh 3:19}

But does that stop them from responding to the word of God, no.
Act 16:30 ... "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 ... "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved,...

Trust in the risen Christ is the only requirement for being part of His church.

When we look at the DoG/TULIP in relation to salvation then we come across the problem.

Calvinist salvation is actually quite conditional
1] You have to have been picked out prior to creation
2] You have to receive irresistible grace
3] You have to have been one for whom the limited atonement was meant

By contrast the bible says there is only one condition
1] Trust in the risen Christ Jesus

 

[Silverhair]

Here's where theology acts as a proper "guardrail". We all agree that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved. I have Owen's quote on that. A Calvinist will say that everyone who comes is "elect" for sure, and you might say that they became "elect" when they come - but once again, everyone agrees that those saved are elect.
But without any application of theology you are left with severe and troubling questions. With your emphasis on the free will of the individual I have to ask, is God allowed to convict? If so, what if he convicts one person more than another? What happens in a time of spiritual awakening in a certain area or time? I mean, how does this happen randomly based only upon the free will of individuals? If it happens due to God then is it "fair" to the rest of the people that it did not happen equally in their area or time period. What I am saying is what I have always said regarding these things. And that is if you reject the doctrines of grace on the basis of fairness then you are still facing the exact same problem with any influence or conviction of the Holy Spirit because of the inequalities that exist as part of the human condition. The only way out of this it seems would be to have a specific set of things to do, easily understood, and then say that those who do such will be saved and the others lost. But then you are back at that troubling statement "ye must be born again", and you are back depending upon the mercy of God.

I'm not saying you have to swallow Calvinism hook, line and sinker. But I do ask that you look at the fact that your system also as ramifications and logical conclusions that present difficulties too.

First off let me be clear I do not reject the DoG/TULIP on the basis of fairness but rather because they are not biblical.

God does not have to be fair but He is just.
Rom 3:26 ... that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Calvinism has a select group pre chosen as the elect and only they are saved. The bible tells us anyone who trusts in the Elect One, Christ Jesus, will be saved. We are elect when we are in the Elect One not before.

God convicts through various means creation, conviction of sin, the gospel message etc.

Those that reject those means cannot claim God was not fair as all have the same opportunity to trust in Him.

Yes we must be born of God as we cannot save ourselves but we are born of God because we believe.

I agree we need an easily understood and easy to follow means of ones salvation and we have that stated clearly in scripture.

Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Rom 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

What you seem to be missing is that God has a stated reason for why He will have mercy on man. Faith in His son.

 

[DaveXR650]

Trust in the risen Christ is the only requirement for being part of His church.

When we look at the DoG/TULIP in relation to salvation then we come across the problem.

Calvinist salvation is actually quite conditional
1] You have to have been picked out prior to creation
2] You have to receive irresistible grace
3] You have to have been one for whom the limited atonement was meant

By contrast the bible says there is only one condition
1] Trust in the risen Christ Jesus

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose but you are creating a false dichotomy here. The "conditions" you listed are all of God and have nothing to do with our activity. The fact is, Calvinists like Owen and Edwards indeed put faith as the sole "condition" on our part for salvation. Non-Calvinists have the same 3 conditions in that 1. The plan is that all who believe are the elect. 2. All receive a gracious invitation. 3. You have to have been one for whom the unlimited atonement was meant. This is a meaningless argument.

 

[DaveXR650]

Those that reject those means cannot claim God was not fair as all have the same opportunity to trust in Him.

You were doing OK until you get to this and this is the downfall of free willers. That statement cannot be true unless God is exerting exactly an equal amount of grace toward each individual ever born, and in whatever circumstances - otherwise, it is not fair.

God convicts through various means creation, conviction of sin, the gospel message etc.

If it's all based on my decision then it simply is not fair if I never got to see miracles showed to others, or had the same conviction of sin, or even had consequences of my sin lead to devastating results that helped me reevaluate my path - moreso than others. The fact is you are on just as shaky ground as the Calvinists you criticize. Don't get me wrong on this. I'm not knocking your views in themselves. It could be that God in his wisdom just provided the means of grace and the rest is up to us. My objection is you pretending that this would be somehow more "fair" or just than God himself sovereignly saving some. Your system is not fair because it favors those with proximity to the gospel, and those able to witness great things, and those properly taught in a real church, and those who are not scarred and abused and grow up mean. Those things are in play regardless of your system, they make a difference and render life not fair. I allow that God in his wisdom takes this into account and therefore a lot more is going on than the provision of the means and information - and then God awaits our free will decision. It likely may be that all this is going on at the same time. God providentially acting in grace with conviction and direct intervention, and along with that is some standard of judgment based upon the light and help which we receive and the circumstances in which we live and the time and place where we live. I have no problem with that. But to try to make a case that God is unfair if he in his perfect wisdom saves some while at the same time believing that it is possible to be more fair by throwing out the gospel message and seeing what happens according to our own free will is preposterous, especially for old folks like us who have seen decades of the chaos and unfairness that we call life.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Just to make it interesting, let's ask a similar question.

Is it man's sin that sends him to Hell, or his rejection of Christ?

Is not rejecting Christ a sin?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin, I know how this subject can weigh on you and you just get tired of defending your position. But let me give you an idea of how we come to our interpretation of the verses we see differently. Just one of many points.

We outright reject the idea that the God of the Holy Bible chooses some for salvation thereby choosing the rest for Hell.

If you take that stand, then you will be able to understand how we interpret those verses.

Well, with much respect, this is your problem, not mine. Is the Bible God's word, or is it not? The Bible teaches Particular Atonement. If you don't like that, you have a problem.

Luke 10:21-22. 'In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.' OK, tell me how this text teaches general atonement.

What I have not seen from you or @Silverhair is any real interaction with what I post. I am sick to death of posting the same stuff over and over again and getting nothing back except to be told that I don't believe the Bible when I'm the one who keeps posting it!
We are supposed to be discussing the New Birth on this thread and it's an important doctrine, but instead it has gone the way of just about every other thread, into yet another sterile Cal v, Arm non-discussion.

Now, having got that little rant off my chest, I want to give you a quote from Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' book, What is an Evangelical? (Banner of Truth Trust, 1992). Here he is talking about essentials and non-essentials

'One is the belief in election and predestination. Now I am a Calvinist; I believe in election and predestination; but I would not dream of putting it under the heading of essential. I put it under the heading of non-essential. Mark you, I would condemn Pelagianism; I would say that Pelagianism is a denial of the truth of the Scripture with regard to salvation - that goes out. But I am thinking of Arminianism in its various forms, and so I do not put this into the category of essential. I do not for the reason that this, for me, is a matter of understanding. You are not saved by your precise understanding of how this great salvation comes to you. What you must be clear about is that you are lost and damned, hopeless and helpless, and that nothing can save you but the grace of God in Jesus Christ and only Him crucified, bearing the punishment of your sins, dying, rising again, ascending, sending the Spirit, regeneration. These are the essentials.
Now when you come to ask me, How exactly do I come to a belief in this? I say that that is a matter of the understanding of the mechanism of salvation, not of the way of salvation. And here, while I myself hold very definite and strong views on that subject, I will not separate from a man who cannot accept and believe the doctrines of election and predestination, and is Arminian, as long as he tells me that we are all saved by grace, and as long as the Calvinist agrees, as he must, that God calls all men everywhere to repentance. As long as both are prepared to agree about these things I say that we must not break fellowship.

Just to add, there are several Arminians who are members in my church. So long as they understand that the ministry of the church will be basically Calvinistic, and do not seek to cause division over the issue (Titus 3:10), there is no problem.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The slander to God from Calvin and all that follow the theory of Sovereign Grace is that all who are in Hell had no choice in being sent there.

All the lost souls in Hell can blame God for their suffering.

Whereas with free will man can only blame himself for his suffering.

How well do you think that will set with God when you meet Him?

This is simply not Calvinism. All who are in hell have no one to blame but themselves. Another thing I am sick of is repeating John 3:19 over and over again. I must say, I thought you were better than this.

 

[Charlie24]

Well, with much respect, this is your problem, not mine. Is the Bible God's word, or is it not? The Bible teaches Particular Atonement. If you don't like that, you have a problem.

Luke 10:21-22. 'In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.' OK, tell me how this text teaches general atonement.

What I have not seen from you or @Silverhair is any real interaction with what I post. I am sick to death of posting the same stuff over and over again and getting nothing back except to be told that I don't believe the Bible when I'm the one who keeps posting it!
We are supposed to be discussing the New Birth on this thread and it's an important doctrine, but instead it has gone the way of just about every other thread, into yet another sterile Cal v, Arm non-discussion.

Now, having got that little rant off my chest, I want to give you a quote from Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' book, What is an Evangelical? (Banner of Truth Trust, 1992). Here he is talking about essentials and non-essentials

'One is the belief in election and predestination. Now I am a Calvinist; I believe in election and predestination; but I would not dream of putting it under the heading of essential. I put it under the heading of non-essential. Mark you, I would condemn Pelagianism; I would say that Pelagianism is a denial of the truth of the Scripture with regard to salvation - that goes out. But I am thinking of Arminianism in its various forms, and so I do not put this into the category of essential. I do not for the reason that this, for me, is a matter of understanding. You are not saved by your precise understanding of how this great salvation comes to you. What you must be clear about is that you are lost and damned, hopeless and helpless, and that nothing can save you but the grace of God in Jesus Christ and only Him crucified, bearing the punishment of your sins, dying, rising again, ascending, sending the Spirit, regeneration. These are the essentials.
Now when you come to ask me, How exactly do I come to a belief in this? I say that that is a matter of the understanding of the mechanism of salvation, not of the way of salvation. And here, while I myself hold very definite and strong views on that subject, I will not separate from a man who cannot accept and believe the doctrines of election and predestination, and is Arminian, as long as he tells me that we are all saved by grace, and as long as the Calvinist agrees, as he must, that God calls all men everywhere to repentance. As long as both are prepared to agree about these things I say that we must not break fellowship.

Just to add, there are several Arminians who are members in my church. So long as they understand that the ministry of the church will be basically Calvinistic, and do not seek to cause division over the issue (Titus 3:10), there is no problem.

Well, I know you lean strongly toward Calvinism because you have ignored everything I've said on the slander toward God.

But that's the Calvinist way, they reason their way out of it, or in your case they just simply ignore it.

I've been quietly following your conversation with @Silverhair, you were speaking of the lack of fairness in free will, now is my chance to ask you a question without interrupting the conversation.

Where do you find the nerve to speak of fairness when Calvinism teaches that God opens the heart of whom He will, and leaves the rest in their sins to perish? Where is the fairness for those He passed by and never had a chance?

 

[Charlie24]

Well, I know you lean strongly toward Calvinism because you have ignored everything I've said on the slander toward God.

But that's the Calvinist way, they reason their way out of it, or in your case they just simply ignore it.

I've been quietly following your conversation with @Silverhair, you were speaking of the lack of fairness in free will, now is my chance to ask you a question without interrupting the conversation.

Where do you find the nerve to speak of fairness when Calvinism teaches that God opens the heart of whom He will, and leaves the rest in their sins to perish? Where is the fairness for those He passed by and never had a chance?

There is no fairness in Calvinism, and you can ignore me, but you can't ignore Him when you face Him with that accusation.

 

[SovereignGrace]

There is no fairness in Calvinism, and you can ignore me, but you can't ignore Him when you face Him with that accusation.

If God were truly fair with mankind, none would be saved. Fairness is giving someone that which they actually deserve. What you are erroneously saying is lost mankind merits a chance at being saved, and if God does not attempt to save each individual at least once, He is being unfair.

 

[Charlie24]

If God were truly fair with mankind, none would be saved. Fairness is giving someone that which they actually deserve. What you are erroneously saying is lost mankind merits a chance at being saved, and if God does not attempt to save each individual at least once, He is being unfair.

Well the Scripture must not be true that God desires for all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

But wait, I forgot that "all" doesn't mean all of mankind, it's just you fortunate folks.

It's just the matter of the absolute sovereign will of God no matter how it looks on Him, right?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Well the Scripture must not be true that God desires for all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

But wait, I forgot that "all" doesn't mean all of mankind, it's just you fortunate folks.

It's just the matter of the absolute sovereign will of God no matter how it looks on Him, right?

I can do all things through Christ Jesus which strengthens me. Seeing that rape, murder, stealing, adultery, lying, idolatry, I guess ppl can do those things through Christ Jesus, right? They are part of all things, right?

 

[Charlie24]

I can do all things through Christ Jesus which strengthens me. Seeing that rape, murder, stealing, adultery, lying, idolatry, I guess ppl can do those things through Christ Jesus, right? They are part of all things, right?

Whatever you want to believe, God will honor that, but we must pay the price of what we believe.

It will not be overlooked.