Dr. Luke—the Proto-Reformed Theologian

[Scarlett O.]

Scarlett O. -- I was browsing the table of the Westminster and London Baptist Confessions, and came across this description of man's fallen will (total depravity). I think this quote from the London Baptist Confession describes it better than I did:

Thanks for going to that trouble.

I do want to respond to that and to something else you and JArthur said, but I am on my way out the door to VBS Family Night. I may not get back to this until tomorrow night.

 

[csl]

God is sovereign that is without question. Yet why do those who wish to be called calvinists with a capital C fear the free will of man so terribly?
Is free will to God as is kyroptonite to superman?

God is so sovereign yet according to some man's free will is the one force that can destroy God's sovereignty?

I firmly believe God can remain fully sovereign while man has the freedom to use his free will. Our ability to choose does not diminish God's sovereignty in the least.

That being said I know this much. By God's grace I accepted His offer of salvation. Yet the moment that act of salvation occurred I realized that it was God that had drawn me to Himself.

I'm not all out calvinistic Scripture has alot to say about election and free will that is a fact.

In my opinion one indictment apart from scripture that is being revealed in these recent times against the arminian, easy believism crowd etc... is the state of evangelicalism today in america.

All the gimmicktry, programs, Church growth movement etc... can be traced back to those whose theology is arminian to one degree or another. The Willowcreekers, Purpose Driven crowd are of that ilk.


just my musings , any thoughts out there?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Yet why do those who wish to be called calvinists with a capital C fear the free will of man so terribly?

If you do a survey, you will find out that very few, if ever, "wish" to be called calvinists, and in fairness, very few wish to be called arminians.

These are simply labels attached by one side to the other, some with no malice, others with malice, as you will see from at least one poster here.

And for what it's worth, nothing can threaten God's sovereignty, not even the so-called free will of man which really exists only in the minds of arminians.

 

[skypair]

Gomer did not have a say so did she? Salvation was by her Lord, and Gomer had nothing to do with it. The book of Hosea is the full picture of salvation. Hosea bought Gomer from the slave market, just as Christ did on the cross toward us.

Hosea 3:1 "The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes." {2} So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and about a homer and a lethek of barley. {3} Then I told her, "You are to live with me many days; you must not be a prostitute or be intimate with any man, and I will live with you." {4} For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol. {5} Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days."

Nice try -- but remember, Gomer was once married to Hosea and, yes, she did once have to commit to Hosea.

Furthermore, Gomer is a picture of Israel. God will take Israel back in the end times despite her apostacy.

What?? yes it says Israel..the real Israel did not obtain saving grace...even though they were seeking for it. If this be true..and it is...how do you obtain saving grace?

They did not "obtain" to the belief in Messiah/Jesus. Saving grace with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is only obtained through belief on Christ. They rejected Him, remember?

Saving grace comes through election.

No, saving grace comes through Christ. Have you totally forgotten?

So... "the rest that were blinded"...can they become a believer? Or can saving grace come though only the election of God as this verse clearly says?

"The rest" didn't believe on Christ. They CAN become believers. If I offer you a proposition, are you capable of understanding and receiving it?? Sure! I've lost track of the particular scripture we are talking about here but often "election" regarding the Jews speaks of the nation descended from Abraham who were "elect" according to God's purposes. And grace/Christ did come to us through them, right?

skypair

so....who chooses who?[/QUOTE]

 

[skypair]

You seem to have a passion for digging your own scriptural grave.

And you seem to believe on grace without Christ else you would affirm you were saved by Him and not it. :laugh:

skypair

 

[skypair]

God is sovereign that is without question. Yet why do those who wish to be called calvinists with a capital C fear the free will of man so terribly?
Is free will to God as is kyroptonite to superman?

God is so sovereign yet according to some man's free will is the one force that can destroy God's sovereignty?

I firmly believe God can remain fully sovereign while man has the freedom to use his free will. Our ability to choose does not diminish God's sovereignty in the least.

That being said I know this much. By God's grace I accepted His offer of salvation. Yet the moment that act of salvation occurred I realized that it was God that had drawn me to Himself.

Great post!! :godisgood: I appreciate your testimony.

skypair

 

[Jarthur001]

Nice try -- but remember, Gomer was once married to Hosea and, yes, she did once have to commit to Hosea.

You need to read the book again. This was all setup by God, for the picture of salvation.

Furthermore, Gomer is a picture of Israel. God will take Israel back in the end times despite her apostacy.

Gomer is a picture of Gods people. And God goes after His people, but others he gives over to their own lust. Read Romans 1 on this.

They did not "obtain" to the belief in Messiah/Jesus. Saving grace with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is only obtained through belief on Christ. They rejected Him, remember?

Not so...

They were LOOKING for Christ...and still missed it. Why? The passsge tells us.

6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.

No, saving grace comes through Christ. Have you totally forgotten?

Indeed...because the election of God obtained it for them? Do you not rememeber what the Bible says?

"The rest" didn't believe on Christ. They CAN become believers.

Not so.
and the rest were blinded....is what the passage says. Why were they blinded? If they were blinded and could still come, what was the meaning of the Blinding?

If I offer you a proposition, are you capable of understanding and receiving it??

If I understand your propostion I may. But if I am blinded from the truth of your propostion, how can i? God blinded them...right? Now would be a great time to start believe Gods Word and stop changing it.

I've lost track of the particular scripture we are talking about here

Romans 11

but often "election" regarding the Jews speaks of the nation

Often is does. However in this case it is speaking of salvation. That is the main point..check it out below..

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

This is clearly talking about the Israelites. But notice Cast away...what is Paul talking about?

Well...back in chapter 10 Paul is showing that God is not just working with the Jews.

12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

When Paul asked is His people the jews now cast away...or is God no longer working with the Jews...Paul says "God forbid"...and then follows with...

2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

Then Paul address all the bad things they did..like killing prophets and leaving God out of their life...and even worshipping Baal.

But in verse 5 he reminds his readers that ELECTION of GRACE...kept a remnant through the bad times...

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Which gets us to our text..

In this text Paul shows us clearly where this grace comes from. He tells us also that if it were not for election no one would obtain it.

6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

And there you have it again.

So lets try this again and see if you understand this time.

1) Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh

seeketh....they looked for it...they wanted it...they did obtain the grace

2) but the election hath obtained it

"it" is the saving grace found above.

All those from the remnant according to the election of grace....that remnant found in verse 5...got saving grace from election....or obtained it because of election.

3) and the rest were blinded.

rest? The rest that did not odtain grace through election.

The rest was blinded. Blinded..meaning they God gave them blindness...so they should not see. Verse 8 says it this way..."God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear"

hear what?

so I ask again...could those that God blinded believe?

so....who chooses who?

God choose. Always my frind...always

 

[npetreley]

And you seem to believe on grace without Christ else you would affirm you were saved by Him and not it. :laugh:

skypair

Have you no humility at all? It's not even possible for you to admit your error? Instead, you take another ignorant stab at twisting words so you won't have to deal with your mistake. I never said anything even remotely like "I believe on grace without Christ."

You said "We are NOT saved by grace". Then I posted the scripture that says we ARE saved by grace. A rational, humble person would simply say, "I don't know what I was thinking. There it is in scripture in black and white. My bad, of course we are saved by grace." But rather than humble yourself and admit your error, you compound it and dig yourself deeper by making an accusation out of nowhere that I believe on grace without Christ.

Have you no clue how foolish you seem to anyone with half a brain?

 

[skypair]

You need to read the book again. This was all setup by God, for the picture of salvation.

Indeed it is --- ISRAEL'S marriage at Sinai to God and her later divorce in Jer 3:5 from which God would take her back in the passage you showed me at Messiah's coming!

skypair

 

[skypair]

and the rest were blinded....is what the passage says. Why were they blinded? If they were blinded and could still come, what was the meaning of the Blinding?

That they didn't see Messiah when He came. Then Paul tells them that not all were blinded -- the he himself was not.

But in verse 5 he reminds his readers that ELECTION of GRACE...kept a remnant through the bad times...

"Even so at this present time there is a remnant according to the election [the purpose] of grace." is how I read it. Like Paul, their "election"/ministry/purpose "of grace" was, as Jewish remnant, to spread the gospel of grace. Do you get that?

11:7 -- "...the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded." IOW the remnant, like Paul, obtained it.

Gotta go. Back later.

skypair

 

[Jarthur001]

That they didn't see Messiah when He came. Then Paul tells them that not all were blinded -- the he himself was not.


"Even so at this present time there is a remnant according to the election [the purpose] of grace." is how I read it. Like Paul, their "election"/ministry/purpose "of grace" was, as Jewish remnant, to spread the gospel of grace. Do you get that?

11:7 -- "...the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded." IOW the remnant, like Paul, obtained it.

Gotta go. Back later.

skypair

The passage speak of two types of Jewish groups.

1) was the group choosen by election of God as a remnant.

2) a group that was blinded by God

>>>>>Can those blinded by God believe?

 

[Scarlett O.]

To npetreley and Jarthur-

I typed this last night and my connection timed out while I was trying to post it and I got mad and had a little temper tantrum. :BangHead: So I am trying again this morning. :laugh:

npetreley - you said this previously

But is isn't like God just hold out two hands, one with salvation and the other with damnation, and says, "pick one of your own free will." Indeed, we are already condemned.

As a free-willer, I agree totally with your comment. It isn't like that at all.

This lead me to an important point: Nobody gets condemned for making the "wrong" choice. We ARE already condemned from the start.

True. We are born condemned.

As a free-willer, I would modify that statement ever-so-slightly. I would say, "Anyone who rejects the gift of grace that cannot be earned but only bestowed by God, Himself, through the power of the Holy Spirit remains in the condemnation that he was born into"

This also means nobody has a right to a "chance' to be saved. To assert that every man deserves a "chance" at grace is to remove all meaning from the word "grace"......Toss in any notion of "it's only fair" ......and it's no longer grace."

I am in totally agreement with you. As a free-willer, I do not see salvation as a deserved opportunity.

What we deserve is hell. All of us. Hell....that's what's fair. I don't want God to be fair. I want Him to be merciful.

The "offer" becomes an obligation"

This is where we have to part company.

If salvation is obligatory, then what happened to King Agrippa? Or was God not really offering him a sincere "offer". In that case, that entire sermon by the apostle Paul was a bunch of hot air and a waste of bible space because surely God didn't anoint Paul's words if He wasn't serious about King Agrippa being obliged to being saved.

Jarthur - you said this earlier.

So if God left man to his will to chose God, this would be very crude of God for man does not have the power to overcome the power of sin.

Exactly! As a free-willer, I most definitely believe this.

Yes, they can live a good life and be a good person....

And you and I both know that there are "good" people who have and will split hell wide open.

When man sees his need for salvation, when he sees Christ as his only hope, when he see himself as a sinner, when he sees his sins as a problem that he cannot address on his own.......then he believes....

As a free-willer, I do not believe that mere acknowledgement of one's sin problem makes one a believer.

This pulling back of the sin wall.....this unblinding of the blind....this light from God, is the work of the Holy Spirit as man clearly sees for the 1st time his need for salvation.....

As a free-willer, I like the way that you phrased that.

....Yes...he is now a believer....for how could he resist. The person must believe, just as the Bible tells us.

As as free-willer, I can't let this one go by without addressing it. I don't see where the Bible tells us that we must believe.

Again, I do not believe that "man's clearly seeing his need for salvation" making him a believer. That's mere knowledge. Even if that knowledge is imparted by the Holy Spirit, knowledge does not save you.

How could he resist? People resist God everyday....all over the world.

In Jeremiah chapter 6, God told his people to get their lives straight and their relationship with him in order. They said, "WE WILL NOT!" Then He said that He was sending a watchman to them and to heed his voice. The people said, "WE WILL NOT!"

 

[npetreley]

If salvation is obligatory, then what happened to King Agrippa? Or was God not really offering him a sincere "offer". In that case, that entire sermon by the apostle Paul was a bunch of hot air and a waste of bible space because surely God didn't anoint Paul's words if He wasn't serious about King Agrippa being obliged to being saved.

I wasn't talking about salvation being obligatory, I was talking about the "offer" being obligatory (I'm posing this from a free-willer's perspective - believers in election/predestination do not see it as an "offer").

As soon as anyone says God would be unfair if He didn't offer salvation equally to all, they make the offer of salvation obligatory on God's part, and remove all the meaning from the word "grace". God is not obliged to offer salvation to anyone, let alone give it to anyone.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I wasn't talking about salvation being obligatory, I was talking about the "offer" being obligatory (I'm posing this from a free-willer's perspective - believers in election/predestination do not see it as an "offer").

Alright, I misunderstood you.

Free-willers also don't see it as an "offer". Specifically not like the offer that you and I both agreed was invalid. (God holding out two hands....)

Salvation is indeed a gift of grace. But what free-willers (at least myself) don't understand is if a person cannot resist the gift and cannot deny the gift, then is it really a gift?

And what are your thoughts about King Agrippa?

As soon as anyone says God would be unfair if He didn't offer salvation equally to all, they make the offer of salvation obligatory on God's part,.....

Let me unravel your statement. :saint:

It's not that we believe that God would be unfair is He didn't offer salvation equally to all......it's that God does offer salvation equally to all because He is equally merciful. And God's being equally merciful does not make His salvation obligatory.

Asking God to be equally fair would make Him an obligatory God.

As I said before, if God were fair to all, then you and I both would end up in hell along with everyone else on the BB.

....and remove all the meaning from the word "grace". God is not obliged to offer salvation to anyone, let alone give it to anyone.

You are right. God is not obliged to "offer", "give", or "hand-out" salvation to anyone.

But He loved the world so much that He mercifully chose to provide a Lamb anyway. He was not obliged....He wanted to.

 

[npetreley]

Alright, I misunderstood you.

Free-willers also don't see it as an "offer". Specifically not like the offer that you and I both agreed was invalid. (God holding out two hands....)

You obviously disagree with most of the free-willers on this board. The free-willers here repeatedly pose salvation as an offer which men either accept or reject. Right, it's not necessarily the "two hands" thing, but they still pose it as an offer.

Salvation is indeed a gift of grace. But what free-willers (at least myself) don't understand is if a person cannot resist the gift and cannot deny the gift, then is it really a gift?

I don't get your logic here at all. Why wouldn't it be a gift? I don't usually like to debate using analogies because we get side-tracked by the analogies and lose sight of the point. But I can't think of a better way of demonstrating the flaw in your logic. If I deposit $100 into your bank account without even your knowledge OR approval, isn't it still a gift?

And what are your thoughts about King Agrippa?

I don't get your question here. We spread the Gospel to the elect and the non-elect every day.

It's not that we believe that God would be unfair is He didn't offer salvation equally to all......it's that God does offer salvation equally to all because He is equally merciful.

Where do you get the idea that God is equally merciful? It's certainly not from the Bible. Romans 9:18 - "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."

As I said before, if God were fair to all, then you and I both would end up in hell along with everyone else on the BB.

I agree. That is why nobody can fault God for NOT being equally merciful.

You are right. God is not obliged to "offer", "give", or "hand-out" salvation to anyone.

But He loved the world so much that He mercifully chose to provide a Lamb anyway. He was not obliged....He wanted to.

Again, that's not what the Bible says (see above). And your presumption leads to skypair's conclusion: God wants everyone to be saved, but fails. So either God is incompetent, or God isn't trying to save everyone at all -- He will have mercy on whom he has mercy, and whom He will he hardens. Which is more Biblical?

You agree that God is under no obligation to extend savlation to anyone, let alone everyone equally -- so why do you obligate God to love everyone equally so as to "attempt" to have mercy on everyone? No matter how you slice it, if you assume any of God's attributes requires Him to treat everyone equally on any level, you remove all meaning from the word grace. The bestowal of grace cannot have any obligation attached to it.

 

[Scarlett O.]

If I deposit $100 into your bank account without even your knowledge OR approval, isn't it still a gift?

Feel free to do this anytime you want to! :laugh:

Seriously, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I have a sneaking suspicion that you and I are just tripping over semantics anyway and probably agree more than we think.

Just one last question.

As someone who believes in some people never having an opportunity from God to be saved, how do you deal with "For God so loved the world..." and "It is God's will that none should perish...."?

I'll let you have the last word. :saint:

 

[npetreley]

Just one last question.

As someone who believes in some people never having an opportunity from God to be saved, how do you deal with "For God so loved the world..." and "It is God's will that none should perish...."?

Okay! "For God so loved the world." Compare to 1 John 2:15 "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

Obviously, "world" cannot possibly mean "everyone in the world" everywhere it is used. So who is to say it MUST mean "everyone in the world" in John 3:16? To me, it means "the world" as in "Jews and gentiles alike, not just Jews only".

Better yet, just look past verse 16: "19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

There you have the world consisting of men who refuse to come into the light. Then it is contrasted by "he who does the truth comes to the light". Obviously, the world cannot include "he who does the truth", right? In short, there's no reason why "world" MUST mean every person.

----------

Remember, whenever you see "all" or "any" you have to ask yourself, "all of whom?" or "any of whom?" Any of the whole world? Any gentiles? Any Jews? What's the context? Look at the context of 2 Peter 3:9. It tells you right there who he's talking about when he says "not willing that any should perish".

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

So the "any" refers to "us". So again, in context:

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any [OF US] should perish but that all [OF US] should come to repentance.

And who are "us"? Peter and the people to whom he was writing. The elect.