Can you really BLAME them?

[JonC]

And why were they and the non-elect in a state of rebellion from birth? Whose choice was it to punish all mankind with Total Depravity because of Adam's sin?

So, your argument is that because the elect were also blameworthy for their inevitable and inborn nature of rebellion, the non-elect are likewise blameworthy for theirs? Ignoring the obvious distinction between the elect and non-elect, where at least for the elect God effectually undoes by regeneration what he effectually did by his punishment of Total Depravity, how does this make those who hate God any more blameworthy for hating someone who hates them from birth and has guaranteed their eternal condemnation?

I didn’t state an argument other than to suggest that men (both the elect and non-elect) fall short of the glory of God. I don’t actually believe that God “undoes” anything in the process of salvation, but instead He redeems and regenerates. Total depravity is descriptive, not punitive – and I don’t agree that God creates men simply to sovereignty damn them. But I do believe that all men sin, and that all fall short of the glory of God – I also believe that everything is accomplished within God’s plan and that God has created men with the capability of choosing one thing over another. The question is not can the lost believe, but will the lost believe. So my view of free-will is more in line with Edwards in that I believe what was tainted in the fall was desire rather than capabilities.

I’ll cheat here and use another’s words because I am far less eloquent.

“Why did God hate Esau? …Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignty—it is the same thing—created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him forever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endures forever. You are quite right when you say the reason why God loves a man, is because God does do so; there is no reason in the man. But do not give the same answer as to why God hates a man. If God deals with any man severely, it is because that man deserves all he gets. In hell there will not be a solitary soul that will say to God, O Lord, thou hast treated me worse than I deserve! But every lost spirit will be made to feel that he has got his deserts, that his destruction lies at his own door and not at the door of God; that God had nothing to do with his condemnation, except as the Judge condemns the criminal, but that he himself brought damnation upon his own head, as the result of his own evil works. Justice is that which damns a man; it is mercy, it is free grace, that saves; sovereignty holds the scale of love; it is justice holds the other scale. Who can put that into the hand of sovereignty? That were to libel God and to dishonor him.” (Spurgeon on Rom. 9).

 

[jonathan.borland]

Well preached, brother Spurgeon!

 

[Skandelon]

[/I][/COLOR]You're ignoring Paul's application, which is one was made a vessel of wrath, and one was made a vessel of mercy. The elect are represented by Jacob, and the nonelect by Esau.

Again, you are over individualizing the intent of the text. I'M NOT SAYING that individuals aren't involved, because clearly they are, but you are OVERLY emphasizing the individual to the neglect of the obvious intent.

Who are God's objects of wrath?

Option 1: Those INDIVIDUALS God didn't salvifically love from the foundation of the earth, and who he chose to punish with Total Inability from birth due to Adam's sin destining them to an eternal hell without hope of turning even when invited by God himself to do so?

or the biblical answer:

Option 2: Those PEOPLES who God chose, loved, and held out his hands to all day long (Rm 10:21); but who were unwilling to be gathered (Mat. 23:37), and who freely chose to rebel again and again despite God's long-suffering and patience with them?

Esau did serve Jacob, though not willingly. He was made a servant. His rebellion served God's immediate and long-term interests for Jacob.

When will you learn that the boys rebellion had nothing to do with it?! They were both rebellious and sinful. You of all people should affirm that. The choice was about which brother would carry the line of Christ and had nothing to do with their morality. Man is saved by grace through faith, those who believe in God are true Israel, but that doesn't change the historical reason God elected Israel, the nation, which was to bring the means of redemption to the entire human race. Jacob and his seed was chosen for this 'noble purpose,' while Esau and his seed were chosen for 'common use.' Those who rebel against God, regardless of who there father is, are objects of wrath prepared for destruction, but the good news is that whosoever believes (Jew or Gentile, of Jacob's line or Esau's line, of the CHOSEN or UNCHOSEN nation) will not perish. Those who DO perish, don't perish because they weren't chosen, 'they perish because they refuse to love the truth and so be saved.' -Paul

You have WAY too high a view of unbelievers. You give them WAY too much credit. Unbelievers are much much much worse than you think they are. You need to work on your view of man, it obviously stems from pride and a high view of mankind in general.

 

[Skandelon]

I didn’t state an argument other than to suggest that men (both the elect and non-elect) fall short of the glory of God.

And I never denied that, nor does the OP contradict that view simply because it doesn't address it.

I don’t actually believe that God “undoes” anything in the process of salvation, but instead He redeems and regenerates.

A distinction without a difference IMO. If you affirm, which I believe you must, that it was God's choice to punish all of mankind by enslaving them with a "Totally Depraved" nature from birth due to the Fall of Adam, then the work of 'regeneration' is indeed 'undoing' what the punishment did.

Total depravity is descriptive, not punitive

A description of what, if not the punishment or judgement of God for the Fall?

– and I don’t agree that God creates men simply to sovereignty damn them.

I understand that claim as I once held it too when I affirmed Calvinistic doctrine, but objectively speaking I honestly can't see anyway around that conclusion in a Calvinistic worldview. That doesn't mean you can't hold to that view and appeal to mystery, you can obviously, but it doesn't avoid the apparent contradiction and troublesome conclusions the human mind would naturally draw...and which scripture never adequately answers...which one would think it would given such obvious reactions even by fellow brethren.

God has created men with the capability of choosing one thing over another.

So you affirm contra-causal free will? Or is this meant to convey a 'compatibilistic' understanding of freedom by which men is merely doing as they want, but their wants are determined by their nature which in turn is determined by God?

The question is not can the lost believe, but will the lost believe.

Actually it is a question of being 'enabled' because THAT is the word employed by scripture in John 6, which Calvinists often point to as proof text for their view of 'total inability.'

But even if were to say they are 'unable to be willing' have we really changed the nature of the debate? I think not.

 

[JonC]

A distinction without a difference IMO. If you affirm, which I believe you must, that it was God's choice to punish all of mankind by enslaving them with a "Totally Depraved" nature from birth due to the Fall of Adam, then the work of 'regeneration' is indeed 'undoing' what the punishment did.

Your assumption is not correct as I do not believe that men are enslaved as a punishment with a totally depraved nature. I believe your misconception of my understanding is that you take it that I hold Beza’s position of predestination as the foundation of all doctrine. I don’t believe that God decreed that man should sin.

A description of what, if not the punishment or judgement of God for the Fall?

I see total depravity as nothing more or less than descriptive of men, in that men are incapable of saving themselves apart from the grace of God.

So you affirm contra-causal free will? Or is this meant to convey a 'compatibilistic' understanding of freedom by which men is merely doing as they want, but their wants are determined by their nature which in turn is determined by God?

I suppose you could say that I hold a compatibilistic understanding of free will if by that you mean that I believe in divine providence being congruent with human free choice. But I don’t believe that man’s wants are determined by God, but this is of course another topic entirely.

To assume no “mystery” is to assume that the will of God is identical in kind to the will of man – I’m simply not willing to make this assumption. I do not fully understand man’s will, how arrogant would I be if I supposed to understand God’s? In short, “I am not a smart man, but I know what love is.”

 

[jbh28]

[snip]

How can we say that non-elect "should be thankful and obedient to God" in one breath, and that they are incapable of obedience in the next?

Well, should and ability are two different things.

Which is it? Either they are capable of obedience to God and refuse to be, or, they are not even given the ability to repent and it is not their fault.

It has to do with what is meant by "can't." The reason people "can't is because they don't desire two. It's not God keeping them from repenting. Man naturally wants to sin and doesn't want to come to God.

Calvinism is like a father saying that he will never give his son the tools to do the right things in life, by not teaching him morals and good behavior. But then holding the child responsible and punishing him when he turns out bad. Whose fault is it that the kid is bad? The kid's fault, or the non-caring father?

We have the tools. We have the gospel. Romans 1:20 says we are without excuse. What about the person who never hears the gospel. Do they have an excuse? They never heard it. No, romans 1:20 says they are without excuse. We have the tools. Man still rejects.

Bottom line is this: If man is denied the ability to repent, then he is not responsible for his unrepentence.

man is not denied. man is responsible for his sins which will be punished.

The fact that God punishes unrepentent sinners is proof that they do indeed have the ability to repent.

How's that? God doesn't have to save anyone. Man punishes sinners because they are sinners and deserve hell. It's only by the grace of God that anyone is saved. Second, God doesn't keep anyone from repenting. He will save all that do. He has called all men to repent. The problem is that many do not.

 

[jbh28]

Did I say that was the reason?

It was by your wording that it appeared that you were saying we believed that God sent people to hell because they were "predestined" to go there. They go there because of their sin.

So do you and I.

Yes! By the grace of God, you and I will not have to be there. What a great God!

EDIT: Now the song "O Great God" is in my head. That's good. great song!

Did I ever deny that?

Nope, don't think so.

You guys are avoiding the question because I think you know the answer. You can't blame them for hating a God who first hated them.

no, I was fixing your wording because it implied something. God has every right to send people to hell and not offer them salvation. I do not by any means believe that to be true, but he could. It would be just because he would give man justice. Grace is that, grace.

Just like you can't credit a man for loving a God who is first loved by God, you can't blame a man for hating a God who is first hated by God. Why is that incorrect? OR is it?

You'll have to get someone how believes God hates people to answer that. I don't hold to God creating people just to hate them and send them to hell. That to me contradicts God's attributes and the Bible.

 

[Cypress]

It's a wonder that more Calvinists are not politicians because they are so good at double speak.

How can we say that non-elect "should be thankful and obedient to God" in one breath, and that they are incapable of obedience in the next?

Which is it? Either they are capable of obedience to God and refuse to be, or, they are not even given the ability to repent and it is not their fault.

Calvinism is like a father saying that he will never give his son the tools to do the right things in life, by not teaching him morals and good behavior. But then holding the child responsible and punishing him when he turns out bad. Whose fault is it that the kid is bad? The kid's fault, or the non-caring father?


You are also correct with the above... JBH's response to what you posted above is really an affirmation instead of a rebuttal as well.
(And yes, I know you Cals will respond with "We are all bad kids". I am referring to problem kid's that go beyond the norm, like drugs and stealing.)

Bottom line is this: If man is denied the ability to repent, then he is not responsible for his unrepentence.

The fact that God punishes unrepentent sinners is proof that they do indeed have the ability to repent.

Skan is completely correct in his observations in the OP.

John

Your post is correct as well......JBH's response was exactly as u predicted.

 

[Iconoclast]

Why not? Because God hates them and made them that way from birth. A reason worthy of hatred, right?

Oh, I see, so because HIDES the truth from them they have no excuse? Really? Wow.

So, according to your view God deceives these poor saps by pretending to love them, but secretly hates them, thus they should love him back? Really????????

You sound very bitter about God. You blame God for the fall.and its just consequences. Your issue is with God.

Sin and death have made them that way...yet you seem to not like that a Holy God punishes sin.

Oh, I see, so because HIDES the truth from them they have no excuse? Really? Wow.

God very graciously reveals himself..by the light of nature,and the light of conscience..leaving men without excuse.
Then additionally many get to hear the free offer of the gospel...which they promptly reject.

If God in mercy wants to save one soul..that is His concern and His alone.
That he saves multitudes...each one who believes and continues to believe is only mercy. The God of the bible is Holy, loving , and righteous...He will always do right.. We do not need to doubt this...at all.:thumbs:

 

[Aaron]

Again, you are over individualizing the intent of the text. [snip rant]

Nope. You are simply trying to avoid it. Paul has overruled your objection.

 

[Forest]

If Calvinism is true, can your really blame the non-elect reprobate for their being rebellious against God?

After all look at the facts of the matter:

1. God punished them for the sin of Adam by making them be born totally unable to repent even when invited by God to do so.
2. God didn't really love them (salvifically), in fact he hated them from birth (i.e. Esau).
3. God didn't grant them what they needed to be saved.
4. God predetermined they would spend an eternity being tortured in hell prior to their even being born.​

Can you really blame them for rebelling and hating that? Wouldn't you if you weren't chosen?

The non-elect would not even think upon the four things that you have listed. The non-elect does not believe in a God or the hereafter. Ps 73, They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued (divinely punished) like other men, (whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth). Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment. Their eyes stand out with fatness; they have more than heart could wish. They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression; they speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth. Therefore his people return hither; and waters of a full cup are wrung out to them. And they say, How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the most High? Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. And David said,"when I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end".

 

[Forest]

Those poor 'innocent' sinners...can you really blame them? :wavey:

Maybe a Superhero will come save them, they're innocent you know, and they have rights too.

Non of mankind is innocent, including his elect.

 

[Forest]

I don't like your false application, true. But I love the truth of Paul's actual intent.

Esau represents all those of Israel who weren't chosen for a noble purposes in God's redemptive plan for humanity. Paul, an Israelite, was chosen for a noble purpose, just like Jacob was chosen for the noble purpose of being the lineage of Christ. Other Jewish Pharisees, who were just as rebellious as Paul, weren't chosen to be his apostle. Paul hadn't done anything good or bad to deserve being chosen to carry the message of redemption to the world. The other Pharisees were left in their rebellion, blinded by God, cut off from the vine, chosen for 'ignoble purposes.' It is this truth to which the reader objects.

But Paul explains God can take from the same lump of Israel and make vessels for noble purposes and others for common use, but later goes on to show that even those hardened in their rebellion may be 'provoked to envy' and saved if they 'leave their unbelief.'
Read Romans 11:14ff. It is all very clear.

John 6:37-41, Christ died for the sins of those that God gave him only, and said that he would raise them all up at the last day without the loss of one. None of those that Christ died will lose their eternal salvation. They can lose their fellowship with God by being dissobedient, but they can not lose their eternal salvation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If Calvinism is true, can your really blame the non-elect reprobate for their being rebellious against God?

Really? Are you suggesting that the rein of God is a democracy.

 

[Forest]

Again, this begs the question that your view properly represents God, the very point up for debate. Again, the LOWEST form of debate. We all know you think you know God better than us but continually pointing that out doesn't serve the purpose of an actual debate of the issues.

Of course I am. In fact, my sermon on Easter is on that very subject. In fact I'll provide the outline for you:

Christ took care of abolishing all the sins, past, present and future, of every one that he died for on the cross. There is no sin that the elect will commit that will keep him from everlasting life in heaven. God will chasten us when we sin, but that sin will not endanger our entrance into heaven.

 

[JonC]

Option 2: Those PEOPLES who God chose, loved, and held out his hands to all day long (Rm 10:21); but who were unwilling to be gathered (Mat. 23:37), and who freely chose to rebel again and again despite God's long-suffering and patience with them?

The choice was about which brother would carry the line of Christ and had nothing to do with their morality. Man is saved by grace through faith, those who believe in God are true Israel, but that doesn't change the historical reason God elected Israel, the nation, which was to bring the means of redemption to the entire human race. Jacob and his seed was chosen for this 'noble purpose,' while Esau and his seed were chosen for 'common use.' Those who rebel against God, regardless of who there father is, are objects of wrath prepared for destruction, but the good news is that whosoever believes (Jew or Gentile, of Jacob's line or Esau's line, of the CHOSEN or UNCHOSEN nation) will not perish. Those who DO perish, don't perish because they weren't chosen, 'they perish because they refuse to love the truth and so be saved.' -Paul

:thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

Man naturally wants to sin and doesn't want to come to God.

What is meant by 'naturally'? By nature? What is nature, if not God?

We have the tools. We have the gospel.

But apparently that work of the Spirit isn't sufficient apart from the regenerative work of Spirit, right?

Romans 1:20 says we are without excuse. What about the person who never hears the gospel. Do they have an excuse?

No they don't. I agree. But WHY don't they have an excuse? Because they 'clearly see and understand' the revelation, right? If they can understand God's attributes just from what they see in creation, then how much more so can they see and understand the clear gospel explanation spoken in their own language? Yet, doesn't Calvinism teach they can't understand unless the Spirit does some EXTRA work, as if His work to inspire, preserve and send the message wasn't enough?

Second, God doesn't keep anyone from repenting.

He punished all mankind for the sin of Adam by making all men born totally depraved. That or it just happened by accident?

He will save all that do. He has called all men to repent. The problem is that many do not.

Why don't they in your worldview? Because God didn't choose to save them. He didn't grant them faith? Or do you believe He did grant them faith?

 

[Skandelon]

Your assumption is not correct as I do not believe that men are enslaved as a punishment with a totally depraved nature.

Then how did they come to be enslaved and totally unable to willing come even when invited by God himself?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Your assumption is not correct as I do not believe that men are enslaved as a punishment with a totally depraved nature. I believe your misconception of my understanding is that you take it that I hold Beza’s position of predestination as the foundation of all doctrine. I don’t believe that God decreed that man should sin.




I see total depravity as nothing more or less than descriptive of men, in that men are incapable of saving themselves apart from the grace of God.


I suppose you could say that I hold a compatibilistic understanding of free will if by that you mean that I believe in divine providence being congruent with human free choice. But I don’t believe that man’s wants are determined by God, but this is of course another topic entirely.

To assume no “mystery” is to assume that the will of God is identical in kind to the will of man – I’m simply not willing to make this assumption. I do not fully understand man’s will, how arrogant would I be if I supposed to understand God’s? In short, “I am not a smart man, but I know what love is.”

Interesting Jon, you & I have very similar beliefs. :thumbs:

 

[JonC]

Then how did they come to be enslaved and totally unable to willing come even when invited by God himself?

I didn’t think that they were enslaved and totally unable to willingly come even when invited by God Himself. The only requisite for a sincere invitation is that if the conditions are met that the offer will be granted, but that said, men are fully capable of responding to a general call – they are not willing.