doctrines of grace ?

[JonShaff]

I agree that we must surrender, but that we do is a work of God.

I believe that's the permissive will of God, just like the other thread i'm engaged in...you have a choice: "Eat of the Tree of Life" or "eat of the Tree of Knowledge"...One leads to death, the other leads to life. It's not the Work of God that that causes you to choose, it's the Response that the Gospel illicits.

 

[JonC]

I believe that's the permissive will of God, just like the other thread i'm engaged in...you have a choice: "Eat of the Tree of Life" or "eat of the Tree of Knowledge"...One leads to death, the other leads to life. It's not the Work of God that that causes you to choose, it's the Response that the Gospel illicits.

We see things in a similar way. My disagreement is I believe apart from the work of the Spirit our choice will always incline to us rather than God. I believe God works in us to develop new desires.

 

[JonShaff]

We see things in a similar way. My disagreement is I believe apart from the work of the Spirit our choice will always incline to us rather than God. I believe God works in us to develop new desires.

Psalm 119:30
I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgments have I laid before me.

I agree, we see things similarly. And i do believe the Spirit "wooos" us to fall onto the Rock. But Just as Rebekah was Given a choice to be Isaac's Bride, i believe we too have a choice...even though Christ's Bride and Isaac's Bride were both Foreseen prior to the Call

 

[Agent47]

No, but I'm getting old. Show me by quoting where I said that transformation makes our drawing certain.

Here's your quote.

And they may be resistant here as well. But God prevails. This is irresistible grace, that God accomplishes his purpose - not by compulsion but by transformation.

You believe men are totally depraved.

You believe in that state they can't accept the truth, which necessitates some transformation in them in order for them to receive the truth.

Is it not obvious that the part that is transformed is their rebellious will?

If this will is interfered with leading to reception of revelation, is that not compulsion?

By revelation I do not mean a new special revelation by God. I mean God's revealing of Truth (that type of personal revelation....it is new to us).

Of course, it's new in that we did not possess it before. I was not thinking of anything else. The Ethiopian Eunuch received revelation of the existing gospel.

Well, I don't think it was men doing self-help methods, so I'll choose the work of God in our lives. Or as Paul said "not I but Christ".

Do you think God gave Adam 'self-help methods' for retaining him in the garden? I doubt. He simply gave him choice....free choice. Adam choose badly. That's no 'self-help methods' anymore than Jesus upbraiding Chorazin for rejecting Him.

 

[Agent47]

What we (@JonC and myself) are examining is total depravity and freewill.

According to these 'doctrines of grace', a Totally Depraved man is incapable of freely receiving the saving truth. So to save him, God first regenerates/transforms, and once transformed, he can't but receive the revelation, the saving truth.

Regeneration is therefore an act of Love from God. But there can be no compulsion in love; love is freely given and accepted or rejected.

Question is, if the Totally Depraved man would not freely, of his own volition, love God, and turn to Him, isn't this regeneration that makes him receive the revelation (gospel) and thereby saving him compulsion?

 

[JonC]

Here's your quote.

And they may be resistant here as well. But God prevails. This is irresistible grace, that God accomplishes his purpose - not by compulsion but by transformation.

You believe men are totally depraved.
You believe in that state they can't accept the truth, which necessitates some transformation in them in order for them to receive the truth.
Is it not obvious that the part that is transformed is their rebellious will?
If this will is interfered with leading to reception of revelation, is that not compulsion?

You misunderstand a couple of my points. When I say “God accomplishes his purpose – not by compulsion but by transformation” I am not indicating that God transforms man in order for man to turn to him. I am saying that salvation is supernatural, not merely a decision (I believe in regeneration, that we are made a new creation in Christ).

But this is salvation, not drawing but the result of salvation. And we were discussing this "drawing" of sinners.

To illustrate – should you persuade me that I am wrong and you are right through this discussion, why do you think that this would be by compulsion? How, exactly, would you have violated my will? Why would my actual nature be different, or “transformed”, simply because I was made to see the error of my way and the correctness of your position? I do not understand you logic here, brother.


When I speak of “transformation” in salvation I mean being made something else – i.e., regeneration or “born again”. I do not mean persuaded or inclined towards a faith in God.

Do you think God gave Adam 'self-help methods' for retaining him in the garden? I doubt. He simply gave him choice....free choice. Adam choose badly. That's no 'self-help methods' anymore than Jesus upbraiding Chorazin for rejecting Him.

Adam choose poorly. And his choice, just like ours, was made freely – to sin.

Question is, if the Totally Depraved man would not freely, of his own volition, love God, and turn to Him, isn't this regeneration that makes him receive the revelation (gospel) and thereby saving him compulsion?

The answer to your question is no. The reason is that God does not save people against their will.

We are saved through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit. What part of that makes you believe “drawing” is regeneration?

 

[Agent47]

You misunderstand a couple of my points.

Profuse apologies for misunderstanding.

When I say “God accomplishes his purpose – not by compulsion but by transformation” I am not indicating that God transforms man in order for man to turn to him. I am saying that salvation is supernatural, not merely a decision (I believe in regeneration, that we are made a new creation in Christ).

Yes I agree salvation is supernatural.

Decision does not make it otherwise for it may as well be at that very point when supernatural life is infused. Healing in some instances followed decision, yet nobody reasonably argues that it is natural because it followed a natural act such as believing or touching.

But this is salvation, not drawing but the result of salvation. And we were discussing this "drawing" of sinners.

Let me get you right. You believe God draws some but saves a fraction of these?

Or all he draws he necessarily saves?

To illustrate – should you persuade me that I am wrong and you are right through this discussion, why do you think that this would be by compulsion? How, exactly, would you have violated my will? Why would my actual nature be different, or “transformed”, simply because I was made to see the error of my way and the correctness of your position? I do not understand you logic here, brother.

Your analogy would be accurate if salvation is all about convincing the sinner the error of their way. But is it?

If you were simply shown the error of your way, then would you say the lost were simply not shown the error of their way?

When I speak of “transformation” in salvation I mean being made something else – i.e., regeneration or “born again”. I do not mean persuaded or inclined towards a faith in God.

I also believe this is what regeneration means. I also believe God regenerates those who heed to His drawing. As such God does not override nobody's will.

As far as you are concerned, does God regenerate only those willing? If He does not,I'd say He regenerates by compulsion.

Adam choose poorly. And his choice, just like ours, was made freely – to sin.

The damned I believe choose poorly; they resist God's drawing.

The answer to your question is no. The reason is that God does not save people against their will.

Does this mean that He regenerates only those willing to be regenerated?

We are saved through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.

Agreed

What part of that makes you believe “drawing” is regeneration?

I don't believe that. Drawing is not regeneration. He draws then regenerates.

 

[JonC]

Profuse apologies for misunderstanding.


Yes I agree salvation is supernatural.

Decision does not make it otherwise for it may as well be at that very point when supernatural life is infused. Healing in some instances followed decision, yet nobody reasonably argues that it is natural because it followed a natural act such as believing or touching.


Let me get you right. You believe God draws some but saves a fraction of these?

Or all he draws he necessarily saves?


Your analogy would be accurate if salvation is all about convincing the sinner the error of their way. But is it?

If you were simply shown the error of your way, then would you say the lost were simply not shown the error of their way?


I also believe this is what regeneration means. I also believe God regenerates those who heed to His drawing. As such God does not override nobody's will.

As far as you are concerned, does God regenerate only those willing? If He does not,I'd say He regenerates by compulsion.


The damned I believe choose poorly; they resist God's drawing.


Does this mean that He regenerates only those willing to be regenerated?


Agreed

I don't believe that. Drawing is not regeneration. He draws then regenerates.

I believe God calls all to salvation and all reject that call. God draws some to salvation and saves none against their will. And yes, God saves "through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" only those who willingly come (hence the work of the Spirit towards salvation).

 

[Agent47]

I believe God calls ALL to salvation and all reject that call. God draws some to salvation and saves none against their will.

He calls all, draws some?
Could you briefly contrast call from drawing

And can a Totally Depraved soul,in that state, be drawn to salvation ?

 

[Agent47]

When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted.

What's the whole point of dangling the gospel message to multitude God is not interested in saving? Is this not mockery?

 

[JonC]

What's the whole point of dangling the gospel message to multitude God is not interested in saving? Is this not mockery?

Why would the cross to those not saved be mockery on God's part? I don't get your point.

Are you saying salvation was only offered to those who are saved?

 

[Agent47]

Why would the cross to those not saved be mockery on God's part? I don't get your point.

Did you read the excerpt of Cassidy's post I quoted?

Here it is again

When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted.

God 'offers to all people the gospel message'

Then to a subset of 'all' he 'extends an internal call'

So the gospel message is offered to ALL yet God's agenda is to save the Elect. Is this in the first place an offer?

An offer that can't be accepted is mockery of the term. My question is why dangle something obviously out of reach.

 

[Agent47]

Are you saying salvation was only offered to those who are saved?

I'm saying offering salvation to those who can't possibly receive it is equivalent to not offering them anything. It's a mockery of the term offer.

Cassidy reckons God 'offers' gospel message to everyone but then 'extends' an 'internal call' to the Elect. Of what purpose is this 'offer'?

If you offered me half of the US in consideration of my flying to the moon unaided, you have offered me nothing

 

[JonC]

I'm saying offering salvation to those who can't possibly receive it is equivalent to not offering them anything. It's a mockery of the term offer.

Cassidy reckons God 'offers' gospel message to everyone but then 'extends' an 'internal call' to the Elect. Of what purpose is this 'offer'?

If you offered me half of the US in consideration of my flying to the moon unaided, you have offered me nothing

Did I ever say that they "cannot"? I believe men's inability is a matter of will. We are inclined to our own "righteousness". As history shows, we want God but we want God on our terms. Inability here is not a matter of "can't" but "won't". Scripture says they won't because of their desire and deeds....not because of so disability rendering the offer obsolete.

 

[Agent47]

Did I ever say that they "cannot"? I believe men's inability is a matter of will. We are inclined to our own "righteousness". As history shows, we want God but we want God on our terms. Inability here is not a matter of "can't" but "won't". Scripture says they won't because of their desire and deeds....not because of so disability rendering the offer obsolete.

Can't vs won't I'd say is a distinction without a difference in th is case but I won't push it.

Still, this Totally Depraved soul who won't heed to an external call responds to an internal one.

What changes, persuasion, persistence content of the call,or the rebellious will?

 

[JonC]

Can't vs won't I'd say is a distinction without a difference

Let’s look at your logic here. By your standard:

Those who chose not to believe in Christ in truth could not have believed because “can’t” and “won’t” are distinctions without a difference. Therefore, your logic dictates, salvation was only a legitimate possibility and Christ the Savior for only those who did believe OR God’s offer (Jesus’ death on the Cross) was but a mockery.

So, you believe that all of those people who did not believe could not believe (they lacked not just the will but an actual capacity to believe). If the lost are not judged that they have not believed, and if the judgment is not that Christ has come men loved the darkness instead because their deeds were evil as everyone who does evil hates God and does not come for fear their evil acts be expose....if all of that is false and those who reject Christ do so simply because they lack the capacity to do otherwise, then why the condemnation?

You seem to have an understanding that I would call extreme or “hyper” Calvinistic, in one way (you reject choice as being a matter of the will, but instead view "can not" and "will not" as distinctions without a difference, when in fact they are distinctions that make all of the difference.

And you are wrong. There are things I can do, but I choose not to do. And there are things I cannot do, so my desire to do them is irrelevant. And there are things I can do, but am unable to do them because of my will.

Since you believe "will not" and "can not" are the same, then you believe those who in fact would not believe could not believe. Whether will or capability, your conclusion is that those who are not saved could not have been saved. Is it because salvation was not offered to them or was God mocking them?

 

[JonC]

I think that I may need to make a distinction here. When I talk about Total Depravity, I am not saying that at the Fall Adam became less human (or even less what he was, per se), but that his eyes were opened to good and evil. His focus shifted towards the “flesh”, of his own desires, perhaps even needs, and away from God. Adam’s human nature was there as he stood in the Garden, and the temptation was there as the Serpent said “you will be like God”, but the sin….the Fall…was not until Adam acted in disobedience to satisfy the flesh.

Calvinism does not deny the freedom to choose as a free exercise of our will. Calvinism denies that man’s nature is God’s nature.

 

[utilyan]

If God has to directly intervene in a irresistible forced change of a person's nature, then there is no repentance nor forgiveness.

Its merely a heart/brain transplant.

 

[JonC]

If God has to directly intervene in a irresistible forced change of a person's nature, then there is no repentance nor forgiveness.

Its merely a heart/brain transplant.

As far as I know, there aren’t any here who believes that God intervenes in an irresistible forced change of a person’s nature.

But there are people who believe that God intervenes in Creation, that it is in Christ everything exists and holds together. And there are people who believe that in terms of being drawn to salvation the Holy Spirit works within the hearts and minds of people so that they seek God. And God saves them (they are washed with the waters of regeneration and renewed by the Spirit). So, you are right that some people believe conversion is a supernatural work of God where they are "re-created" or "made new". But you are wrong in that no one (here anyway) seems to believe that God forces men by changing their nature.

Men must repent and believe. This is not just simply believing facts about God. God draws men to repentance. The Spirit drives men to a godly sorrow over their sinfulness and this leads to repentance as they turn from their sinfulness and self righteousness and to God and his righteousness. And God saves them - transforms them.

 

[Agent47]

I think that I may need to make a distinction here. When I talk about Total Depravity, I am not saying that at the Fall Adam became less human (or even less what he was, per se), but that his eyes were opened to good and evil. His focus shifted towards the “flesh”, of his own desires, perhaps even needs, and away from God. Adam’s human nature was there as he stood in the Garden, and the temptation was there as the Serpent said “you will be like God”, but the sin….the Fall…was not until Adam acted in disobedience to satisfy the flesh.

Agreed

Calvinism does not deny the freedom to choose as a free exercise of our will. Calvinism denies that man’s nature is God’s nature.

Irresistible/efficacious grace does exactly that. Men who freely resisted God somewhat turn to Him and can't/won't resist him.

That's the whole point of regeneration preceding faith;the totally depraved soul can't or won't believe so God must transform it first.

And if God by divine fiat regenerates/transforms some so that they can't but believe and follow Him and love Him, if He does this to His enemies, against or outside their will, then there is compulsion not love.


Please note.
I'm trying to point the logical conclusion of the 'doctrines of grace'. Many who subscribe to them have never done this.