Do you agree with this definition of......

IFB Mole · Jun 2, 2006

J.D. Again, nice post. How is what you posted contrary to compatibilism? To me you defined and explained it to a "T". Man is wholly responsible, God is absolutely sovereign as man acts of his "own free will" he also fullfils God's eternal redemptive purpose as you so astutely pointed out with Satan indwelling Judas. Satan wanted to destroy Jesus but he instead fulfilled God's perfect plan.

Now I ask, to make man wholly responsible does he not have to have the ability to "resist the Grace of God"? If Grace is irresistable how can man be held responsible since Grace "coerced" or "forced" man's will to believe.

Of all the points of Calvinsim, irresistible Grace is the one I grapple with the most. I just see in Scripture over and over where men do resist the Holy Spirit and reject salvation and I also see where men glady receive the free gift of salvation by faith because of yielding to that same Holy Spirit.

J.D. · Jun 2, 2006

IFB Mole, hello again, I've enjoyed this discussion, wish I had more time to really get into it. Like I said in my last post, I need to leave the discussion on compatibility to a better theologian since I don't have time to research the issue and I'm getting over my head on it I think.

But concerning the "I", I'm glad to make a response. First of all, calvinism teaches that the fact that man resists God is evidence of his total depravity and is a consequence of it. Man resists God of his own desire to sin, therefore he is fully responsible for it. This is the state, or "stasis" (not sure about that word but I think it's right), the status quo of man. God has done nothing to directly cause it, although he did permit it. The resistance to God's commands under the law will stand as man's indictment in the judgement. And all of man is under the condemnation of law, for law exists universally.

God mercifully saves some, though none deserves it, out of this sorry condition by effecting a change within man - a change of heart. This is the very core of truth that establishes salvation by grace. If man were able of himself to turn to God, then would be of grace? What would be the gift if man already possesses by natural birth that which God requires? Would the new birth be a supernatural act if it were within us by Adam's genes?

Also, orthodox calvinism does not teach that God "forces" man to believe - that is, no violence is done to it as the Westminster puts it. Man is not dragged into God kingdom against his will, so no force is involved. But what happens is that God CHANGES the will by changing the underlying desires of man. The man loved sin, but now loves God, he did resist, but now accepts, once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see! When God regenerates a man, the man to believes by the power of the Holy Spirit. Faith and repentance are the fruits of the change of heart that God works in us.

What happened to Lydia that she attended to the things that Paul preached? The Lord opened her heart.

How did Paul know that the Thesselonians were elect?

1 Thess 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

Because the preaching of the word was accompanied, as on the day of pentacost, with power in the which souls were saved. Powerless preaching is that, although it still accomplishes that which God has sent it, is not accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit. Now let me ask you, did the Holy Spirit come on the day of pentacost because the disciples were able to wake God up that morning and convince Him that it was time to save people? Of course not - it was all in God's control and on His time table. And so it was in Thessolanica.

5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

And the result of this power?

6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:

Just like Jesu said - "My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me". He does not force the sheep to follow, it's just what sheep do. They will not follow the voice of a stranger. The sheep WILL respond to the voice of their master. The elect will infallibly come to God by His merciful design.

IFB Mole · Jun 4, 2006

J.D.

I agree in principal to your post but can man resist the free gift of enternal life from God by grace? Can man once his heart is convicted by the Holy Spirit resist the free gift of salvation? I see numerous cases in Scripture where some "convicted" people reject and others beleive.

Trotter · Jun 4, 2006

I've been one of those who rejected Him when I was under conviction. Praise the Lord that He didn't give up on me!

Rippon · Feb 9, 2008

Re: Sermon Tomorrow - C vs. A !! Can't wait For It !

J.D. said:

Hello IFB Mole, to answer your OP question, yes, you seem to have properly defined the theological terms as far as I can see, but let's wait for more input from some better trained theologians than myself.

But given that the terms are defined properly, are they understood properly? Compatibility, as you've presented it here, is a compromise position on the predeterminate counsel of God. It leaves as its final conclusion that the work of God in determining the end from the beginning is mystery and can not be known. Now we might be able to go along with that, for the secret things belong to God after all. But we can not call something a mystery that is not a mystery. The answers to these questions are in the scripture - not hidden, but in plain view for all to see. No, we do not know everything there is to know about God, for we are finite beings, but nevertheless there are many things we can know if we will receive them.

Truth is both scriptural and logical. Would you say that scripture is ILLOGICAL? I don't think so. Don't confuse human philosophy with sound logic. One plus one must equal 2 or something is askew. That a truth may be apparently contradictory, such as the union of God and man in Christ, does not make it illogical. It may be supernatural, but not illogical. Just as the order of the universe points to an intelligent God, so does the order of thoughts - logic. Logic is our friend, not our enemy. As a matter of fact, in my own posting, I've begun to appeal first to logic and then to scripture due to the fact that I've found that people who claim to be bible-believers are very unimpressed with the number of scriptures I can display in support of my views. When I first came to this forum Rippon had posted over 100 scripture verses which prove unconditional election. The reply from so-called "Biblicists"? "Proves nothing - anyone can quote scripture. So I don't bother posting scripture as much as I used to.

There are no personal definitions of logic. I am no expert, but I have studied logic briefly and I know that it is a hard science, applying a mathematical analysis to verbal expression. Here's an example: If A is trued, and B is true, then both A and B is true. Too simple? Let's look at the implications:

Let A= God's predeterminate counsel
Let B= Man's responsibility

If A is true, and B is true, then BOTH A and B are true.

Therefore, that God has determined the end from the beginning, and man is responsible for his own actions, are both true.

In which theological system to we see this born out?

Arminianism: A is not true, B is true, so BOTH can not be true. Only B is true.

Arminianism teaches that man, in order to be responsible, must have an absolutely sovereign will, so therefore God's sovereignty is limited and therefore not truly sovereign.

Compatibilism: A is true, B is true, But both are not true.

How is that? Look at the statement: "God’s Sovereignty and man’s free and responsible will are harmonious in God’s eternal decrees."

You've used the word "harmonious" here. Do you mean that these "truths" are both true in a complimentary sense or in a supplementary sense? Are they separate but true, but never meet together into one unified truth? If they do not unify together into a single truth, then you are logically saying that the union of the truths (BOTH A and B) is not true. By "harmony", you imply, maybe unintentionally, that they are separate truths, as the two singers sing different lines, not in unison. In order for man's responsibility and God's sovereignty to be BOTH true, they must sing in unison, not harmony. They are not separate but equal truths; they are subsets of a greater truth.

What you've presented by compatiblism is that two CONTRADICTIONS exist, yet both true, in scripture. This is not possible. The rub comes in the use of the term "free" will. The scripture does not support the notion of a free will in man, except perhaps in the case of Adam. Man's will is in bondage to sin until God changes his will to love Him. Human will can only be said to be free inasmuch as his will follows his desires. The natural man does not desire God.

Ask yourself "how can God work all things after the pleasure of His own will" and yet man be sovereign in his choices? It is a contradiction of both logic and scripture. Only one can be sovereign. That God controls the choices of men, and thereby controls the outcomes of history, through His own power, is the only right conclusion.

Now for the Calvinist system:

A is true, and B is true, therefore, BOTH A and B are true.

Calvinism teaches that man is fully responsible for sin, because sin is what he willfully chooses to do. That God created man knowing that he would sin does not mitigate man's responsibility, for God's commandment was "Thou shalt not", and man did it anyway. Yet this was all in God's plan, knowing that through the fall He would condemn all; and yet save some according to his good pleasure, mercy, and grace; and through the redemption of some, those he had redeemed would despise their own glory, and would live eternally to the praise of God's glory.
Click to expand...

J.D. nailed in this -- his #8 post .

webdog · Feb 9, 2008

Helen said:

Logic is logic. God's WAYS are higher than man's, but logic is still logic. "A" will never be "non-A" for God or man. In Isaiah 1, God invites man to reason with Him so that man will understand the horror of sin and repent and be cleansed. This indicates clearly that God is dealing with man in terms that man can understand and respond to -- and God is NOT talking to saved people in this passage! So the passage is necessarily God talking to unsaved people and inviting them to reason with him. That involves logic and conclusions based on that logic.

Often those who decry free will seem to think that to want something means that one can accomplish, or help accomplish it. That is in no way implied in 'free will.' Free will simply means the freedom to want, whether it is attainable or not. Sometimes I want to stay in bed all day. I can't. At the very least I have to get up and go to the bathroom! All my life that I can remember, I have wanted to fly -- not in an airplane; me, myself, fly. I have bad legs. I have so often stood on a hillside or high place and looked out over a vista and daydreamed of swooping across it on my own. Does this mean that it is even remotely possible for me to accomplish? Nope.

Every religion in the world is based on the fact that man knows something is not right with him and he wants to change/improve. This by itself shows Calvinism to be wrong, because men are NOT happy they way they are. Many find excuses for what and who they are and harden their hearts, deliberately, to the reality of wrong and evil. Many others, who acknowledge wrong and evil, try desperately to change things or themselves BY themselves, via religion, education, money, power, etc.

But some want the truth and do not suppress it in favor of themselves (see Romans 1). That does not mean they can find the truth for themselves or save themselves or anything else. It does mean, however, that they will respond positively to the truth when presented with it, and follow it. And those are the ones the Father will lead to the Son, who IS the Truth.

But the fact is that EVERY man initially wants to be something other than what he is, or finds himself to be. This is the freedom to want, or free will, which is God's gift to every single one of us. What we do with it is what makes all the difference.
Click to expand...

Helen nailed it :thumbs:

Why are threads being resurrected after so many years?

Rippon · Feb 9, 2008

webdog said:

Helen nailed it :thumbs:

Why are threads being resurrected after so many years?

Click to expand...

Because they are still relevant -- the good posts (J.D. ) as well as the bad ( Helen ) . Old threads scare you don't they ?

webdog · Feb 9, 2008

They do. I'm getting older each day

Do you agree with this definition of......

IFB Mole New Member

J.D. Active Member
Site Supporter

IFB Mole New Member

Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Do you agree with this definition of......

IFB Mole New Member

J.D. Active Member Site Supporter

IFB Mole New Member

Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

webdog Active Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

webdog Active Member Site Supporter

J.D. Active Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter