Coming to God

[Skandelon]

Nope.

I don't see your point.

You're question seemed to presume that the Gospel could be proclaimed and the Holy Spirit not be at work, when the Gospel ITSELF is a WORK of the Holy Spirit.

It would be like me not crediting your posts on this forum to you unless you personally called someone on the phone and explained the post to them before they actually read it. Understand?

 

[Skandelon]

As far as your question is concerned, I do think the power to bring sinners to God is in the Gospel.

But what that power does is regenerate some while not having any effect on others.

So the question goes deeper, in my mind, to why does that power have an tremendous effect on one man and absolutely no effect on another?

I will allow Paul to answer:

"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." (2 Thess 2:10)​

It's certainly not because God hasn't done all that was needed. It is not God's failing or lacking or shortcoming that causes some to reject. The Gospel is plenty clear and plenty sufficient for a response and thus man HAS NO EXCUSE for their rebellion. NONE.

I think the answer is that God has not granted that EVERYONE should be effected by it the same

Again, that is the PERFECT EXCUSE for unbelievers. Don't give them that out! Don't be so easy on them by giving them that excuse for not repenting and coming to Christ!

I really do believe your view of the lost is way too high. They are far worse then you seem to think they are. They aren't just doing what God created them to do....they aren't rebelling because God has failed to give them something they needed. NOOOO! God 'holds out his hands to them' in long-suffering and patience, 'longing to gather them under his wings of salvation, but they are unwilling!' (Rom. 10:21; Matt 23:37) He gives them all they need but they CHOOSE to 'trade the truth in for lies' they CHOOSE to rebel in the face of His gracious love and mercy. They spit in the face of his appeal for reconciliation and thus they fully deserve the wrath for which they have been fitted.

Don't be so easy on unbelievers. That is a man exalting view.

 

[Herald]

I really do believe your view of the lost is way too high. They are far worse then you seem to think they are. They aren't just doing what God created them to do....they aren't rebelling because God has failed to give them something they needed....They spit in the face of his appeal for reconciliation and thus they fully deserve the wrath for which they have been fitted.

This is absolutely correct. Even as a believer in the DoG I heartily agree that no one goes to hell simply* because they were chosen as vessels of wrath. They are also rebels and enemies of God. They labor at rebellion and even perfect it. Every person who winds up in hell will justly deserve it.

*full disclosure requires me to state that I do believe God chooses both groups - elect and children of wrath. But that does not relieve man of responsibility for his sins.

 

[Van]

If the Calvinist Total Spiritual Inability as a consequence of the Fall DoG is true, then all sinners have an excuse, they are unable not to sin. Further, if the Calvinist "whatsoever comes to pass is ordained by God" DoG is true, then God Himself predestined each and every sin. So yet another excuse. How could we be without excuse? If we can seek God and trust in Christ. To him who knows what is right and does it not, to him it is sin. If we do not seek Christ as a refuge from the wrath of God, we do so because we are unwilling, not because we are unable, otherwise we would have an excuse. God would not beg us to be reconciled with God if we were unable to be saved through our autonomous faith in Christ.

 

[Van]

Does God individually choose vessels of wrath? What verse says or implies this view? Naturally, when God separates the sheep from the goats, He chooses to send the goats to Gehenna. So what verse says God chooses vessels of wrath before our physical life is over?

Matthew 24:51 appears to refer to the consequence of rejection. Ditto for Luke 12:46.

Now 1 Thessalonians 5:9 indicates we were not appointed to wrath, but to obtain, i.e. in the future, salvation. An inference could be drawn, that others were appointed to wrath, but that may not be sound. It could just as easily be inferred that all the unsaved have not been appointed yet to wrath.

Which brings us to 1 Peter 2:8. This passage and verse clearly says those who reject the precious stone - the Chosen Christ - were also appointed to the outcome. Again, an inference could be drawn which says they were appointed to Gehenna even before they rejected Christ. However, another view is equally viable, for John 3:18 says "unbelievers" have been judged already.

As a footnote the Greek word translated appointed in these passages is "tithemi" not "tassio" Tassio means an appointment by mutual consent, but tithemi refers to the unilateral action of one in authority, i.e. God. Calvinism tries to blur the meanings, so Acts 13:48 reads like the word is tithemi when in fact it is tassio.

 

[percho]

A. Is God in the salvation business?

B. Is God in the offering salvation business?

Give or take a billion, how many people have lived and died not having heard the only name by which they might be saved?

And if ye Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Give or take a billion, about what do you believe the number of the children of Abraham might be in Christ?

Just some random thoughts.

 

[HankD]

A. Is God in the salvation business?

B. Is God in the offering salvation business?

Give or take a billion, how many people have lived and died not having heard the only name by which they might be saved?

And if ye Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Give or take a billion, about what do you believe the number of the children of Abraham might be in Christ?

Just some random thoughts.

Hi percho,

Normally I avoid these posts but you make a good point which I would like to expand upon...

The more important issue is one upon which I think all can agree, that - concerning the seed of Abraham - we should look "up from earth" but addionally "down from heaven" as to their number.

Of all the billions down through the ages God knew each one of them before they were born and knew which would be with Him in the eternal state either by decree or foreknowledge or predestination or something else (within the concept of "after the counsel of His own will").

Each of us has a defined way by which we ultimately credit God ("Salvation is of the Lord") as the author and finisher of our faith within our view of God's sovereignty.

Actually, from heaven's point of view that number of which you ask can not be numbered (counted) by anyone of us...

Revelation 7

9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.​

HankD

 

[Van]

"A" yes
"B" yes

The number of folks having never heard might have been smaller, had believer's been more diligent carrying the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Traditional dispensationists might claim non-Jews are not children of Abraham. What they do with Galatians 3 is beyond me.

 

[Van]

How many can a man number. If that means count, one by one, and we are talking about our physical lifespan, not our eternal one, then no one can count to 4 Billion. Then there was the guy, who after 17 years of counting sneezed and lost track and had to start over.

 

[Van]

What exactly is meant when scripture says "all the Father gives to me, shall come to me? Does the Father give someone and then sometime later does the one given come to Jesus? Or when the Father gives someone, does He put them in Christ, such that they come, i.e. arrive?

I think the second option is correct, this is speaking of God putting individuals in Christ, just as 1 Corinthians 1:30 says. Note that Jesus will not cast them out, so comes to means enter in.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the other view would have the Father giving someone to Christ and then later putting them in Christ. So the least complicated view is that when God puts someone spiritually in Christ, this is called in John 6:37, "come to [enter] me."

 

[Yeshua1]

What exactly is meant when scripture says "all the Father gives to me, shall come to me? Does the Father give someone and then sometime later does the one given come to Jesus? Or when the Father gives someone, does He put them in Christ, such that they come, i.e. arrive?

I think the second option is correct, this is speaking of God putting individuals in Christ, just as 1 Corinthians 1:30 says. Note that Jesus will not cast them out, so comes to means enter in.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the other view would have the Father giving someone to Christ and then later putting them in Christ. So the least complicated view is that when God puts someone spiritually in Christ, this is called in John 6:37, "come to [enter] me."

Think pretty clear that the Apostle did NOT seek to follow jesus themselves, but that his father drew them, called them, placed them with jesus, as an act of his soveregn Will!

 

[percho]

Think pretty clear that the Apostle did NOT seek to follow jesus themselves, but that his father drew them, called them, placed them with jesus, as an act of his soveregn Will!

True and also Saul/Paul could have, "come." to Jesus when he heard Stephen preach but he did not and continued to persecute the church of God. He did this in what he called, himself, ignorantly in unbelief. He did not, "come," to Jesus but God through Jesus called him from unbelief unto belief.

Yes or No?

 

[Van]

Pitchback

Think pretty clear that the Apostle did NOT seek to follow jesus themselves, but that his father drew them, called them, placed them with jesus, as an act of his soveregn Will!

I think scripture makes clear that the Apostles were seeking the Messiah before they were called or chosen. See John 1:36-51.

And scripture says the Father draws by the revelation of His lovingkindness.

Next, the Father did not call them, Jesus called them.

And why mix together the earthly relation of Jesus and His Apostles with the spiritual relationship of believers placed "in Christ" not with Christ.

Bottom line the Apostles were given to Jesus during His lifetime, establishing a relationship of teacher/disciple, and so their being "given to Him" does not equate with John 6:37 which refers to spiritually putting us "in Christ."

 

[Yeshua1]

I think scripture makes clear that the Apostles were seeking the Messiah before they were called or chosen. See John 1:36-51.

And scripture says the Father draws by the revelation of His lovingkindness.

Next, the Father did not call them, Jesus called them.

And why mix together the earthly relation of Jesus and His Apostles with the spiritual relationship of believers placed "in Christ" not with Christ.

Bottom line the Apostles were given to Jesus during His lifetime, establishing a relationship of teacher/disciple, and so their being "given to Him" does not equate with John 6:37 which refers to spiritually putting us "in Christ."

Remember that Peter received his revelation from God regarding nature of christ, so the father was always the One behind the scenes directing the Apostles to first seek and come to Christ, and to obey and follow Him!

 

[Skandelon]

This is absolutely correct. Even as a believer in the DoG I heartily agree that no one goes to hell simply* because they were chosen as vessels of wrath. They are also rebels and enemies of God. They labor at rebellion and even perfect it. Every person who winds up in hell will justly deserve it.

*full disclosure requires me to state that I do believe God chooses both groups - elect and children of wrath. But that does not relieve man of responsibility for his sins.

Then your view of responsibility is flawed, IMO. If someone is 'responsible' then they are 'response able' (able to respond).

Calvinism removes that ability thus cannot consistently maintain any real since of 'responsibility' without completely redefining the word itself.

Even the heathen wouldn't beat a dog for not coming when called if they themselves chained the dog to a pole. According to Calvinism, God chained all men from birth to their depravity as a punishment for Adam's sin, but then he makes an appeal for all of them to come to him and be reconciled...then He punishes those who do not come. Any objective observer would find this view completely disingenuous and unjust. I know, I know, we all deserve hell, but we agree on that point. We are talking about God appeal for all to be reconciled to Him so they can avoid destruction. We are talking about his calling the dog who HE chained to the pole and then punishing that dog for not coming.

 

[Herald]

Then your view of responsibility is flawed, IMO. If someone is 'responsible' then they are 'response able' (able to respond).

I'm glad you added "IMO" because I obviously disagree with you. The doctrines of grace has never nullified human responsibility.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm glad you added "IMO" because I obviously disagree with you. The doctrines of grace has never nullified human responsibility.

If it doesn't nullify it, then it redefines it. Can you think of any scenario where a similar view of 'responsibility' is used while still being referred to as 'responsibility?' I doubt it.

 

[Loopie]

Then your view of responsibility is flawed, IMO. If someone is 'responsible' then they are 'response able' (able to respond).

Calvinism removes that ability thus cannot consistently maintain any real since of 'responsibility' without completely redefining the word itself.

Even the heathen wouldn't beat a dog for not coming when called if they themselves chained the dog to a pole. According to Calvinism, God chained all men from birth to their depravity as a punishment for Adam's sin, but then he makes an appeal for all of them to come to him and be reconciled...then He punishes those who do not come. Any objective observer would find this view completely disingenuous and unjust. I know, I know, we all deserve hell, but we agree on that point. We are talking about God appeal for all to be reconciled to Him so they can avoid destruction. We are talking about his calling the dog who HE chained to the pole and then punishing that dog for not coming.

With all due respect, you are missing the connection between 'ability' and 'will'. In the scenario of the dog chained to a pole, you are neglecting the dog's will. He loves his chain, and he loves his pole. He does not seek to be released. That is why the dog's nature, his will, MUST be changed first.

Consider the sinfulness of mankind. We are slaves to sin, and rebels against God. Does a rebel desire to be reunited with his King? When I discuss theology with my atheist friends, they always tell me that they are at peace with themselves, do not feel any emptiness, and have no need for God. Does this look like a slave chained to a pole just begging to be released? No. Those who are slaves to sin are WILLING slaves. They LOVE their sin and their rebellion. They do not even think they have chains. They actually think of themselves as FREE. Freedom from God can only mean slavery to sin, but they don't believe that. Nothing inside themselves is going to motivate them to stop loving their sin. Only by spiritual surgery does God grant them a NEW NATURE, which sets their will free from sin.

That is the problem with the arguments for autonomous free will. I also find it very interesting that some people argue for man's free will to respond to God (naturally, without God's saving grace), but they also believe that a person cannot lose their salvation. That is a predicament you see, because on the one hand they say that man is free to accept or reject the gospel on his own, but once he has accepted it he actually loses freedom in the hands of God and can no longer reject Christ and lose his salvation. So apparently God 'respects' the free-will of man prior to man coming to faith in Christ, but then God 'no longer respects' the free-will of man once he is in Christ.

Those who have held to Calvinism have ALWAYS made it clear that God is sovereign and man is responsible. Those who attack Calvinism try to paint a picture of a sinner who is unable to obey God, but is trying really hard to do so (the chained dog who wants to be set free). Yet the fact is that the unbeliever is unable to obey God BECAUSE HE IS UNWILLING. We cannot talk about the ability to do something without reference to the will to do it. I mean, when I say that "I am able to drive a car" the implication is that IF I WERE WILLING to do it, I could. But my action of driving the car, even if I were physically able to do so, is totally and completely dependent upon my will to do so. So long as I remain unwilling to drive a car, I will never drive it.

THAT is the state of the sinner. The sinner is UNWILLING to stop rebelling against God. The unbeliever is UNWILLING to bend the knee to Christ. Some other external force (God's action) is required in order to CHANGE the person's heart. That is why those who deny total depravity argue for autonomous free will. The human will MUST be able to change itself at a moment's notice, without cause, without influence. Man must be completely autonomous, which means that his actions are NEVER caused by anything. In all honestly this puts man on equal footing with God. God's will is not caused by external influences. God is the uncaused first cause. But at the same time, if we hold to autonomous free will in man, we are saying that man IS JUST AS FREE AS GOD, JUST AS AUTONMOUS, and JUST AS FREE FROM INFLUENCE. Man's will becomes uncaused. That is why the belief in human autonomous free will is completely unbiblical, because it sets man as equally free as God.

In the end, let me summarize with a scenario. Let's say that 100 atheists go to church and hear THE EXACT SAME SERMON. Let's say that only 10 of them accept Christ. Why didn't the other 90 accept Christ? They heard the same words, from the same preacher. How comes those words were effective on 10 people but not effective on the other 90? I will submit to you that there are only two possible answers to this question. Either there is something inherently different about those 10 people that allowed them to respond to the gospel, or it was God who chose in that moment to do open heart surgery on those 10 individuals, effectually calling them to himself. Consider that all 100 people heard the same general call of the gospel, but for SOME REASON, only 10 accepted Christ. The REASON for this is either found in man, or in God. Either those 10 people were somehow naturally different from the other 90 (they were more spiritual, smarter, better educated, better upbringing), or God supernaturally did something to those 10 people that he didn't do to the other 90. I think if you truly ponder this scenario, you will see that those who deny God's sovereignty (and FREEDOM) in salvation end up placing salvation somewhere else (namely in the hands of men).

 

[Van]

Remember that Peter received his revelation from God regarding nature of christ, so the father was always the One behind the scenes directing the Apostles to first seek and come to Christ, and to obey and follow Him!

First you say the Apostles did not seek God, now you say the Apostles were seeking God. How did they seek God since they were fallen natural men who had not been regenerated. Remember Jesus said to them, if you follow Me in the regeneration.... Jesus had not yet walked out of the tomb, He was not yet the first born of many brothers.

 

[Van]

With all due respect, you are missing the connection between 'ability' and 'will'. In the scenario of the dog chained to a pole, you are neglecting the dog's will. He loves his chain, and he loves his pole. He does not seek to be released. That is why the dog's nature, his will, MUST be changed first.

Calvinists employ the moving the goal post argument seemingly unaware it is bogus. Lets try another illustration, God makes the dog deaf and blind so it is unaware it is being called. So the sleeping dog chooses to stay put because it does not hear the call or see the food of life being offered. Next, God punishes the dog for rejecting what it did not know was being offered. The concept of total spiritual inability conflicts with the punishment for rejecting spiritual things, the milk of the gospel. Why not stick with what the Bible actually teaches.