Dominion vs determinism 3

[JesusFan]

"No man can come to me unless the Father draws them". When Peter said "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", Jesus said that was supernaturally revealed. Yet the truth of the statement itself seems to be very simple.

Beside this, the other big mistake is you can't get past the inability being moral and being the result of our own natural free wills working as we want them to work. You are still thinking of inability as if God had required that we jump over the church building or something.

And lastly, I think Calvinists make a mistake in taking this logic of inability, which I think is correct, and then making it seem like God is cruelly and arbitrarily withholding grace from say Bill, while giving it irresistibly to Ted, sitting right beside him. I don't believe that Jacob and Esau as discussed in Romans 9 expresses this. And I think God is giving a lot more grace to a lot more people than we think. What I think we see is God indeed not saving everyone, and not explaining it to us at all, and not feeling a need to. But at the same time, I think many people get a lot of light and conviction and some enlightenment; and whether it's truly irresistible or not, it was indeed effective for those who get saved, but yet scripture indicates, and Calvinist Puritans at least preached, that there may come a time where God withholds further grace and light to individuals and groups. And when this happens God does not seem to feel any need to justify himself to us. Our proper reaction, if we are drawn to Christ, is to immediately repent, come to Christ for salvation, and be thankful. We are not told to figure out if God is fair in distributing grace and to judge him in this area or to ponder election, or to turn election into a condition which we can fulfill the requirements of.

Is the Lord obligated and required to save all persons then?

 

[Ben1445]

Is the Lord obligated and required to save all persons then?

By His own word, He has obligated and required Himself to save all who come by Jesus Christ.
To do anything less would make Him a liar.

 

[JonC]

It is not only possible, but correct. The inability of man is taught in Calvinism and classic Arminianism. The difference is in how grace works and is it always irresistible.

I was not talking about inability. I was simply stating that Adamic theology differs within Calvinism.

For example, some believe that Adam had free-will prior to sinning. Others believe free-will never existed (the Fall being decreed).

I do not believe it is possible to deny or minimize the existence of free-will or divine sovereignty and have a biblical perspective.

 

[JesusFan]

I was not talking about inability. I was simply stating that Adamic theology differs within Calvinism.

For example, some believe that Adam had free-will prior to sinning. Others believe free-will never existed (the Fall being decreed).

And yet Adam still was to blame for what He chose to do

 

[DaveXR650]

Is the Lord obligated and required to save all persons then?

I don't think he is obligated to save anyone. But he has promised to save everyone who comes to him. If you come to him you have his word on that and need not ponder the implications of election, sovereignty, or determinism, all of which, while true, do not override that promise.

 

[DaveXR650]

By His own word, He has obligated and required Himself to save all who come by Jesus Christ.
To do anything less would make Him a liar.

Wherefore, that which is now proposed unto consideration in answer hereunto, is the readiness of Christ to receive every sinner, be who or what he will, that shall come unto him. And hereof we have the highest evidences that divine wisdom and grace can give unto us. This is the language of the Gospel, of all the the Lord Christ did or suffered, which is recorded therein; - this is the divine testimony of the "three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Gost;" and of the "three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood:" all give their joint testimony, the the Lord Christ is ready to receive all sinners that come to him. They who receive not this testimony make God a liar, - both Father, Son, and Spirit. (John Owen. Meditations and Discourses Concerning the Glory of Christ)

 

[Psalty]

Our sinful nature was what we received from Father Adam, not from God

And who decreed the result of Adam’s choice?

Why are you so shallow that you don’t want to pursue the truth of the origin of the sinful nature that Calvinism purports?

And again, by taking this view, you flip flop definitions of Sovereignty. You’re God is limited, lacking glory before the fall… isnt that what you all say to Free Willers? How can you accept this now?

 

[JesusFan]

And who decreed the result of Adam’s choice?

Why are you so shallow that you don’t want to pursue the truth of the origin of the sinful nature that Calvinism purports?

And again, by taking this view, you flip flop definitions of Sovereignty. You’re God is limited, lacking glory before the fall… isnt that what you all say to Free Willers? How can you accept this now?

Supralapsarianism ("above/before the fall") and Infralapsarianism ("after/below the fall") are two Calvinist views on the logical order of God’s eternal decrees. Supra holds that God decreed election before permitting the fall, while Infra posits God decreed election after decreeing the fall, focusing on saving sinners. Both aim to explain sovereignty, with Infra being the more common, moderate position.

Youi seem to be assuming the supra view, but the Confessions of faith back more of the Infra view.
The Gospel Coalition +4

 

[Psalty]

"No man can come to me unless the Father draws them". When Peter said "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", Jesus said that was supernaturally revealed. Yet the truth of the statement itself seems to be very simple.

I asked for best verses for inability and you referenced John 6:44. I will answer this as the strongest statement for difinitively proving inability. Regarding drawing from John 6, this term is used in the LXX in Jeremiah 31:2-3:

Thus says the LORD,
“The people who survived the sword
Found grace in the wilderness⁠—
Israel, when it went to find its rest.”
The LORD appeared to him from afar, saying,
“I have loved you with an everlasting love;
Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness.
— Jeremiah 31:2-3

Here God “draws” Israel back to Himself after punishment. How does He draw? Effectually? No, with lovingkindness.
Could they continue to reject His drawing freely? Yes, just keep reading all the way to verse 22.
In John 6, Jesus saws the Father will draw. How will He draw? Effectually? No, through the ultimate lovingkindness of the cross.
Could they continue to reject His drawing freely? Yes, as stated in v28-29, 40, 47, and in John 12:32-42 where Jesus reveals the specifics of the drawing that was first referenced in John 3, then 6, and completes in 12.

See also Luke:

But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.
— Luke 7:30

Beside this, the other big mistake is you can't get past the inability being moral and being the result of our own natural free wills working as we want them to work. You are still thinking of inability as if God had required that we jump over the church building or something.

Because on Calvinism it is by God’s decree that man cannot seek God. Yes, on Calvinisms view of will, it’s a result of our will. But you cant stop there as a Calvinist because you believe that God has made man with a will that has Inability. Calvinists will never take this next step… I think I know why.

And lastly, I think Calvinists make a mistake in taking this logic of inability, which I think is correct, and then making it seem like God is cruelly and arbitrarily withholding grace from say Bill, while giving it irresistibly to Ted, sitting right beside him. I don't believe that Jacob and Esau as discussed in Romans 9 expresses this. And I think God is giving a lot more grace to a lot more people than we think. What I think we see is God indeed not saving everyone, and not explaining it to us at all, and not feeling a need to. But at the same time, I think many people get a lot of light and conviction and some enlightenment; and whether it's truly irresistible or not, it was indeed effective for those who get saved, but yet scripture indicates, and Calvinist Puritans at least preached, that there may come a time where God withholds further grace and light to individuals and groups. And when this happens God does not seem to feel any need to justify himself to us. Our proper reaction, if we are drawn to Christ, is to immediately repent, come to Christ for salvation, and be thankful. We are not told to figure out if God is fair in distributing grace and to judge him in this area or to ponder election, or to turn election into a condition which we can fulfill the requirements of.

 

[Psalty]

Supralapsarianism ("above/before the fall") and Infralapsarianism ("after/below the fall") are two Calvinist views on the logical order of God’s eternal decrees. Supra holds that God decreed election before permitting the fall, while Infra posits God decreed election after decreeing the fall, focusing on saving sinners. Both aim to explain sovereignty, with Infra being the more common, moderate position.

Youi seem to be assuming the supra view, but the Confessions of faith back more of the Infra view.
View attachment 13858The Gospel Coalition +4

Let me outline the infralapsarian position;
1. God creates a universe with man having free will. At this point, God has not predestined salvation. God’s sovereignty is limited.
2. At the fall, God now changes how He does sovereignty. He now decrees that all have Inability due to Adam’s choice
3. God now only saves people through an effectual predestined call to overcome the Inability that He has decreed.

You do see the wild inconsistency of your definition of Sovereignty that you are swinging, dont you? That is incompatible with an unchanging God is remarkable.

Additionally, all of the verses about the Lamb being predestined “BEFORE the foundation of the world” ie, creation, now are in conflict.

Maybe a question for you is: Do you believe the confessional statement that ”God decrees whatsoever comes to pass”? A simple yes no is fine on this one.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Psalty. I often disagree with @JonC but what he says here is certainly true:

I do not believe it is possible to deny or minimize the existence of free-will or divine sovereignty and have a biblical perspective.

The reason we wrangle with these concepts is that both are found in scripture. I am not in any way wanting you to become a Calvinist. Regarding man and his fallen nature, I just believe that by nature and by God's design, we were made to serve and have fellowship with God. When our first representative parents fell due to deliberate rebellion against God we felt the effects of that. We are unable, in our natural state, to fix that situation. Worse yet is that the reason is we don't really want to. I'm willing to admit that maybe Flowers and Lennox are right in that we all retain enough natural ability to at least figure out that we are in trouble and need to come to God, with only natural inducements like the message of the gospel, or the verbal explanation of salvation. Or maybe the Arminians are correct in that the Holy Spirit works and is necessary but he works in a persuasive manner, not decisively.

Or maybe it's in truth, a combination of things. In the same area as my quote from John Owen above, he says some things that indicate that using your natural intellect to attend services and the means of grace and reading scripture can at least increase the chance of further grace being given. And then he warns not to trifle with grace or light given, lest it be withdrawn and you will never come to Christ - and it will be totally on you, due to your resistance. Ask me to explain that, coming from the pen of a famous high Calvinist.

All these theological systems are good guardrails to keep individuals and churches on the best path. I find them all unsatisfactory as a point by point rule of how I need to think and believe. That should be reserved for scripture only. So do you reject all the systems and just use the Bible. You could, but most of the cults and heretics claim exactly that. With a theological system you at least have a touchpoint for reconciling difficult passages or apparent contradictions. So I find them useful. Keep reading.

 

[JonC]

I often disagree with @JonC

What?? When have we ever disagreed????

Spurgeon noted (in his sermon on man's will and God's will) that one issue is magnifying one truth to diminish another. He concluded that he was guilty of that because he suffered from the human condition.

We all are like that. Often Calvinists magnify sovereignty in a way that diminishes free-will. Arminians do the same with sovereignty.

We can learn from both camps. But we have to remember that truth is truth regardless of our theology (say "yes" to God even when we have problems fitting it into our process).

 

[Psalty]

@Psalty. I often disagree with @JonC but what he says here is certainly true:

The reason we wrangle with these concepts is that both are found in scripture. I am not in any way wanting you to become a Calvinist. Regarding man and his fallen nature, I just believe that by nature and by God's design, we were made to serve and have fellowship with God. When our first representative parents fell due to deliberate rebellion against God we felt the effects of that. We are unable, in our natural state, to fix that situation. Worse yet is that the reason is we don't really want to. I'm willing to admit that maybe Flowers and Lennox are right in that we all retain enough natural ability to at least figure out that we are in trouble and need to come to God, with only natural inducements like the message of the gospel, or the verbal explanation of salvation. Or maybe the Arminians are correct in that the Holy Spirit works and is necessary but he works in a persuasive manner, not decisively.

Or maybe it's in truth, a combination of things. In the same area as my quote from John Owen above, he says some things that indicate that using your natural intellect to attend services and the means of grace and reading scripture can at least increase the chance of further grace being given. And then he warns not to trifle with grace or light given, lest it be withdrawn and you will never come to Christ - and it will be totally on you, due to your resistance. Ask me to explain that, coming from the pen of a famous high Calvinist.

All these theological systems are good guardrails to keep individuals and churches on the best path. I find them all unsatisfactory as a point by point rule of how I need to think and believe. That should be reserved for scripture only. So do you reject all the systems and just use the Bible. You could, but most of the cults and heretics claim exactly that. With a theological system you at least have a touchpoint for reconciling difficult passages or apparent contradictions. So I find them useful. Keep reading.

Oh, I dont disagree with divine sovereignty, just the definition a compatibalist calvinist would give it.