Coming to God

[Skandelon]

With all due respect, you are missing the connection between 'ability' and 'will'.

Been down that road... change my wording to "ability to be willing" and it stands the same.

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.

Nitpicking the analogy?

Ok, I'll play.

Instead the dog is drugged by the master with a chemical that causes him to love his pole and his chain...better? Does it change anything regarding the point of responsibility for which I was arguing? No. If he is unable to be willing, then he is unable, period. The means of the inability is inconsequential.

Consider the sinfulness of mankind. We are slaves to sin, and rebels against God.

Right, but why presume that truth is unable to set men free or an appeal for reconciliation is unable to call a rebel to respond?

Does a rebel desire to be reunited with his King?

Once approached with a Holy Spirit wrought powerful life-giving appeal for reconciliation he might.

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 actually what predestination is all about. Whosoever believes has been predestined to adoption, sanctification and glorification. Once one believes they are given the HS as a guarantee.

We affirm the effectual nature of regeneration, just like you do. We just don't order it as you do. You think we are given life so that we will certainly believe but God teaches, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:31

The human will MUST be able to change itself at a moment's notice, without cause, without influence.

Without influence? You think the powerful gospel has no influence? Paul thinks differently...he said the gospel is the very power of God unto Salvation.

Man must be completely autonomous, which means that his actions are NEVER caused by anything.

An actor causes his actions. A chooser causes his choice. You may deny the possibility of this yet to do so denies the possibility of God himself, who is the ultimate proof of an 'uncaused cause,' and only one who would deny the omnipotence of God would deny the possibility that he could create other such autonomous creatures. Mysterious indeed, but impossible with God? Never.

In all honestly this puts man on equal footing with God.

Hardly. Being free hardly suggests omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent powers.

That is why the belief in human autonomous free will is completely unbiblical, because it sets man as equally free as God.

Wrong. I'm only as free as my abilities allow. I could want to flap my arms and fly all day but it aint happening. We are talking only about man's moral freedom to respond to God's genuine appeal. There is NOTHING to suggest such divinely granted freedom puts us on His level. That is like saying if a father chooses to give His two year old daughter the ability to choose to sit down at the dinner table then he must not be as physically strong as she is.

 

[Herald]

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.

I hope you can tell from the body of posts I've made on the BB that I am quite capable of expressing myself and offering a solid biblical defense of the doctrines of grace. In this case I've decided not to do so. Why? Because it doesn't matter. You're convinced of your position, so to to try and persuade you otherwise is just wasting vowels and consonants.

In the end, even though this is a debate/theological forum, it's really nothing more than preaching to our respective choirs.

 

[Skandelon]

I hope you can tell from the body of posts I've made on the BB that I am quite capable of expressing myself and offering a solid biblical defense of the doctrines of grace. In this case I've decided not to do so. Why? Because it doesn't matter. You're convinced of your position, so to to try and persuade you otherwise is just wasting vowels and consonants.

In the end, even though this is a debate/theological forum, it's really nothing more than preaching to our respective choirs.

Translation: I regularly come to a debate forum but if I happen to come across someone who is as sure of his position as I am mine I won't bother to engage.

So, can we assume by this post you won't be back here to 'preach to your respective choir' anymore or is this just a diversion?

 

[Herald]

Translation: I regularly come to a debate forum but if I happen to come across someone who is as sure of his position as I am mine I won't bother to engage.

So, can we assume by this post you won't be back here to 'preach to your respective choir' anymore or is this just a diversion?

Let me ask you an honest question. Person A is sure of his position. Person B is just as sure. Both are beyond convincing. All they can do is serve back and forth like a never-ending tennis match where neither side breaks serve. How profitable is it for those two to continue playing the game?

 

[Skandelon]

Let me ask you an honest question. Person A is sure of his position. Person B is just as sure. Both are beyond convincing. All they can do is serve back and forth like a never-ending tennis match where neither side breaks serve. How profitable is it for those two to continue playing the game?

Well, when I was a Calvinist I was pretty darn sure I was right back then too. Truth be told if my world view is right then I believe there is a chance for me to convince you to change your mind, and if your view is right then you believe God may have decreed for you to help change my mind, so the volley continues, unless one feels he'd rather not engage a discussion that might push him beyond his pat answers for once. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[jbh28]

With all due respect, you are missing the connection between 'ability' and 'will'.

This happens a lot. I'm sure someone will try to wiggle out... We are free to choose anything we want, but in our sinful state, we never will want Christ. Salvation 100% of God.

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.

exactly! No man wants to come to Christ but can't.

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.

Very biblical!

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).

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Herald]

Well, when I was a Calvinist I was pretty darn sure I was right back then too. Truth be told if my world view is right then I believe there is a chance for me to convince you to change your mind, and if your view is right then you believe God may have decreed for you to help change my mind, so the volley continues, unless one feels he'd rather not engage a discussion that might push him beyond his pat answers for once. :smilewinkgrin:

Or the discussion continues until one just grows weary of it. I have to admit, that's me. I usually make my point, point and counter point a few times, and then retire. It's not because I don't want to be pushed, it's because I've been down that road before numerous times. I enjoy threads where I'm in a dialog with someone who shows keen interest in the topic without sniping and throwing out ad hom bombs. We probably won't change the other person's mind, but at least there will be a respect for the process - the process of uncovering the truth of the Word of God.

 

[Skandelon]

This happens a lot. I'm sure someone will try to wiggle out... We are free to choose anything we want, but in our sinful state, we never will want Christ. Salvation 100% of God.

What use is there in speaking of what one wants when even what they want is determined by God? You think this approach avoids the inherent problem of your system? It doesn't. It only serves to subtly bury the blatantly obvious issue of divine culpability. Regardless of how you word play it, you have God determining men's choices in such a way that they couldn't be otherwise. Whether He does that by first cause or second cause or third cause is irrelevant.

 

[Herald]

What use is there in speaking of what one wants when even what they want is determined by God? You think this approach avoids the inherent problem of your system? It doesn't.

So, what's the problem of "your system"? Could the problem be that God leaves some things as a mystery? God doesn't always explain why He does certain things. After all, it is God's world. He created it. He determined the end from the beginning. God is completely omniscient. Versing quoting aside, even logic dictates that a sovereign God, who created all there is ex nihlio, is not answerable to His creation. The mystery is how man's choices can dovetail exactly into God's plan. If man is a complete moral free agent, and his choices are his alone without any divine order, then the sheer law of probability would be stacked up against things like Christ's birth, His death, and resurrection. The idea that God looked down the corridor of time and acted in response to man's choices is an attempt at reverse engineering.

One of the hardest things for a serious bible student to admit is, "I've studied the Word exhaustively, and read the writings of storied author's, but I still don't have an answer for my questions." That's a hard one because we all want answers. Coming from the doctrines of grace perspective, I am convinced by scripture that the position I hold to is correct. Does that mean that all the things I believe are tied off in neat little bows and are water tight; safe from the criticisms of opponents? Nope. There are some things that neither I, nor long dead theologians, have been able to adequately explain; theologians from both sides of the issue. That's where the mystery comes in. We should be willing to embrace the mystery, just so long as the mystery doesn't become an excuse not to diligently study scripture.

 

[Herald]

This happens a lot. I'm sure someone will try to wiggle out... We are free to choose anything we want, but in our sinful state, we never will want Christ. Salvation 100% of God.

I think I know what you're saying here. Scripture teaches that the unsaved man is not free in the sense that he can choose anything he wants. For instance, the unsaved man (natural man) isn't free to choose God because he is dead to things of God and can't understand them (Eph. 2:1; 1 Cor. 2:14). If he was truly free than he would be able to understand enough to choose. You make that point when you say, "but in our sinful state, we never will want Christ." The opponents of the D.o.G. reject the idea of total inability but we don't. That issue is one of the main areas of division between our respective views.

 

[Winman]

I think I know what you're saying here. Scripture teaches that the unsaved man is not free in the sense that he can choose anything he wants. For instance, the unsaved man (natural man) isn't free to choose God because he is dead to things of God and can't understand them (Eph. 2:1; 1 Cor. 2:14). If he was truly free than he would be able to understand enough to choose. You make that point when you say, "but in our sinful state, we never will want Christ." The opponents of the D.o.G. reject the idea of total inability but we don't. That issue is one of the main areas of division between our respective views.

Scripture does not teach that unregenerate men are unable to repent.

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Does this say a regenerate man forsakes his ways and thoughts? NO. It says a wicked man, an unrighteous man. The scriptures do not teach that the unregenerate man cannot repent and turn to God, they teach he can, and if he does so God will have mercy on him and pardon him.

 

[Skandelon]

So, what's the problem of "your system"? Could the problem be that God leaves some things as a mystery?

Yes, exactly. We appeal to mystery prior to drawing unbiblical conclusions. Calvinists draw unbiblical conclusions and then appeal to mystery when pressed.

Arminians: Appeal to mystery regarding how any free moral agent makes free moral choices, we just know the choosers make choices, period.

Calvinists: Libertarian free will can't be explained so that must not be true, so God must causally determine all choices. But we appeal to mystery as to how God makes choices.​

They both appeal to mystery, but we do BEFORE creating the divine culpability problem and the unbiblical notion that God casually determines the sinful choices and actions of man.

The mystery is how man's choices can dovetail exactly into God's plan. If man is a complete moral free agent, and his choices are his alone without any divine order, then the sheer law of probability would be stacked up against things like Christ's birth, His death, and resurrection.

Again, you seem willing to appeal to mystery but then you continue to attempt an answer based on finite human linear logic.

The idea that God looked down the corridor of time and acted in response to man's choices is an attempt at reverse engineering.

I agree. That is why I also reject that mode of thinking. It is still finite and linear. When I appeal to mystery, I mean it. I don't attempt to answer something so far beyond our comprehension. I just know we make choices that we are held accountable for. I don't draw hard conclusions about how God must have casually determined them in order to accomplish His plan. I think God is bigger than that. I don't believe He is reduced to having to 'play both sides of the game board' to ensure a victory. I believe His is powerful enough to defeat a real, independent and free enemy. Why? Because the Bible presents His enemies as just that.

Coming from the doctrines of grace perspective, I am convinced by scripture that the position I hold to is correct. Does that mean that all the things I believe are tied off in neat little bows and are water tight; safe from the criticisms of opponents? Nope. There are some things that neither I, nor long dead theologians, have been able to adequately explain; theologians from both sides of the issue. That's where the mystery comes in. We should be willing to embrace the mystery, just so long as the mystery doesn't become an excuse not to diligently study scripture.

I agree. All the more reason that Calvinists shouldn't dismiss the concept of LFW (libertarian free will) simply because it involves mystery. To do so presumes Calvinism is better when it likewise appeals to mystery. All LFW is claiming is that men make their own choices and could have done otherwise. It is just saying that your choice is YOURS alone and that no one or thing outside yourself determines that choice. Just because we can't fully define or explain the inner workings of man's will doesn't mean they must be determined by God. I believe that is an unbiblical presumption based on finite human logic.

 

[Skandelon]

Scripture teaches that the unsaved man is not free in the sense that he can choose anything he wants.

Which is NO FREEDOM at all when someone else is determining your wants.

If I drug a child from birth with a chemical that makes him hate his parents and all authority figures to such a degree that he will NEVER obey anyone, there is no one in this world who would hold that child accountable for his rebellious deeds. Why? Because his desires were controlled by someone else beyond his control.

The bible doesn't teach men are born blind, deaf and unable to understand and repent. In fact, it says just the opposite in Acts 28:24-28.

 

[Herald]

Calvinists draw unbiblical conclusions...

I think we both agree that the other side comes to unbiblical conclusions.

Calvinists: Libertarian free will can't be explained so that must not be true...

No. The D.o.G. rejects the conclusion of the free will position based on their argument. It's not a matter of not being able to understand the argument.

They both appeal to mystery, but we do BEFORE creating the divine culpability problem and the unbiblical notion that God casually determines the sinful choices and actions of man.

The D.o.G. doesn't create a "divine culpability problem." It understands that God is sovereign over the affairs of His creation. Those who hold to the D.o.G. do not see God as capricious, or causal, in determining the affairs of men. God acts with purpose. The mystery is understanding the reasons behind His purpose.

Again, you seem willing to appeal to mystery but then you continue to attempt an answer based on finite human linear logic.

I disagree. I am providing answers either directly from Scripture or inferred from Scripture. The mystery begins when divine knowledge escapes human reasoning. When Paul tells us, "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed...(1 Cor. 15:51)" he is revealing something that was hidden from human understand until that time. Some prior mysteries have been revealed and some haven't. Some mysteries will remain mysteries until the eternal state. Some mysteries will remain mysteries for eternity, namely the depths of God Himself. We both have responsibilities to study and understand those things Scripture reveals. It's when we reach the end of human understanding that we rest in the mystery itself.

I agree. That is why I also reject that mode of thinking. It is still finite and linear. When I appeal to mystery, I mean it. I don't attempt to answer something so far beyond our comprehension.

Answered above.

I just know we make choices that we are held accountable for. I don't draw hard conclusions about how God must have casually determined them in order to accomplish His plan.

We're agreed.

I think God is bigger than that. I don't believe He is reduced to having to 'play both sides of the game board' to ensure a victory. I believe His is powerful enough to defeat a real, independent and free enemy. Why? Because the Bible presents His enemies as just that.

Hey, let's high five each other. We agree again. For different reasons, but why quibble?

All the more reason that Calvinists shouldn't dismiss the concept of LFW (libertarian free will) simply because it involves mystery.

Back to disagreeing again. And here I thought we were going to join hands and sing "Kumbaya." We dismiss the free will position because we think it is a misrepresentation of Scripture.

To do so presumes Calvinism is better when it likewise appeals to mystery.

To the extent that finite humanity can understand the infinite, the D.o.G. is a better interpretation of Scripture on this issue. We don't seek to presume but to understand. I'll extend the same grace to you. I don't think you're trying to presume either.

All LFW is claiming is that men make their own choices and could have done otherwise. It is just saying that your choice is YOURS alone and that no one or thing outside yourself determines that choice.

The D.o.G. believes Scripture teaches that man does make his own choices, but those choices are also God's choices. The mystery is how they can be both. You and I disagree on that, but that's in keeping with our respective hermeneutics. Both of us can start slinging verses here, but as I alluded to in earlier posts it won't convince either of us. I'm content simply to present the differences between us.

 

[Yeshua1]

Which is NO FREEDOM at all when someone else is determining your wants.

If I drug a child from birth with a chemical that makes him hate his parents and all authority figures to such a degree that he will NEVER obey anyone, there is no one in this world who would hold that child accountable for his rebellious deeds. Why? Because his desires were controlled by someone else beyond his control.

The bible doesn't teach men are born blind, deaf and unable to understand and repent. In fact, it says just the opposite in Acts 28:24-28.

sinners are able to do whatever their natures allow them too...

can worship false gods, have religion, even read the Bible...

just that unless/until the Lord reveals Himself to them , by Act of his will and grace, in their own state, cannot and will not come to jesus in order to be saved!

 

[Skandelon]

sinners are able to do whatever their natures allow them too...

can worship false gods, have religion, even read the Bible...

just that unless/until the Lord reveals Himself to them , by Act of his will and grace, in their own state, cannot and will not come to jesus in order to be saved!

So men are born able to believe lies but not truth that is revealed by God himself with the intent to make an appeal for reconciliation? Interesting.

 

[jbh28]

What use is there in speaking of what one wants when even what they want is determined by God? You think this approach avoids the inherent problem of your system? It doesn't. It only serves to subtly bury the blatantly obvious issue of divine culpability. Regardless of how you word play it, you have God determining men's choices in such a way that they couldn't be otherwise. Whether He does that by first cause or second cause or third cause is irrelevant.

It's just what the Bible teaches Skan. I don't have any "system." I only teach the Bible. The Bible teaches that the natural man will never want Christ. I'm not word playing it. I'm wording it like the Bible does. Man is sinful and has no desire to come to Christ. It's only by the convicting work of the Holy spirit through the gospel that man ever comes to Christ. Without the spirit convicting the heart of the sinner(John 16:8) and changing his heart from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh(Ex 36:26) man will never have any desire to come to Christ. He will always choose to reject.

 

[Skandelon]

The Bible teaches that the natural man will never want Christ.

Quote chapter and verse.

You want Christ and you were a natural man so your statement as it stands is false. I think you meant to say, "The bible teaches that the natural man IF LEFT TO HIMSELF will never want Christ," which is a statement we can both affirm. You just falsely believe the work of God is irresistibly applied to a select few. (relatively few that is)

I'm not word playing it. I'm wording it like the Bible does. Man is sinful and has no desire to come to Christ. It's only by the convicting work of the Holy spirit through the gospel that man ever comes to Christ.

I agree, but the HS work through the gospel is not irresistible. People that God loves and genuinely longs to gather to himself are sometimes unwilling (Matt. 23:37). That is not a lacking on God's part, but on man's. God has provided all they need and thus they have NO EXCUSE.

Without the spirit convicting the heart of the sinner(John 16:8) and changing his heart from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh(Ex 36:26) man will never have any desire to come to Christ. He will always choose to reject.

I agree, but yet again, God does these things through resistible means. Men are able to trade the revealed truth in for lies, and thus will be held to account.

 

[Skandelon]

I think we both agree that the other side comes to unbiblical conclusions.

But the difference is that we don't draw a conclusion on this point, we merely appeal to mystery. Calvinists draw a conclusion that because free independent decisions are not explainable by human logic that the other option must be true, which is that God has causally determined all choice...a non-biblical conclusion. God wouldn't even tempt men to sin, much less casually determine it to happen.

No. The D.o.G. rejects the conclusion of the free will position based on their argument. It's not a matter of not being able to understand the argument.

I'm not saying you don't understand our argument, I'm saying you all reject human freedom and any true since of accountability because it is mysterious, yet your own system eventually appeals to mystery too.

The D.o.G. doesn't create a "divine culpability problem." It understands that God is sovereign over the affairs of His creation.

Define sovereign.

1. God's complete control over everything, even sinful things, so as to determine the outcome He wants. (God plays both sides of the chess board)

2. God's all powerful and infinite ability to bring about his outcome despite and even through the independently caused evil choices of others. (God plays one side of the chess board and whips a real opponent by his awesome power and ability)

I think #2 is MUCH more Sovereign and powerful than the first.

Some mysteries will remain mysteries until the eternal state. Some mysteries will remain mysteries for eternity, namely the depths of God Himself. We both have responsibilities to study and understand those things Scripture reveals. It's when we reach the end of human understanding that we rest in the mystery itself.

I agree, but where in scripture does it teach that God causally determines every choice of man? It doesn't. That is a logical conclusion based on finite linear thinking. At times God intervenes to change men's minds (i.e. Jonah), but the very fact that he uses normative means such as a storm and a big fish proves he is not somehow manipulating the desires of men through innate means. Sure God intervenes to ensure his message is delivered but how does that prove God is always determining who will and won't respond to that message?

The D.o.G. believes Scripture teaches that man does make his own choices, but those choices are also God's choices. The mystery is how they can be both.

How can you call it a mystery while at the same time concluding men's sinful choices are God's choices? If you are talking about God's choice to permit that which is sinful, okay, but I don't think you merely saying God permits these choices, are you?

 

[Winman]

It's just what the Bible teaches Skan. I don't have any "system." I only teach the Bible. The Bible teaches that the natural man will never want Christ. I'm not word playing it. I'm wording it like the Bible does. Man is sinful and has no desire to come to Christ. It's only by the convicting work of the Holy spirit through the gospel that man ever comes to Christ. Without the spirit convicting the heart of the sinner(John 16:8) and changing his heart from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh(Ex 36:26) man will never have any desire to come to Christ. He will always choose to reject.

And the Philipian jailer refutes your view. You have said you believe regeneration and faith occur at the same moment, but the Philipian jailer came before he had believed. He did not even know that he must believe on Jesus until Paul and Silas informed him. And it was only after he washed them and took them home that Paul and Silas preached to his whole family and they all believed.

The Philipian jailer desired to be saved, and he was sincere. But he was not regenerated, he had not yet believed on Jesus.