Either .... Or

[Michael Wrenn]

Here I'll let Wesley explain it:

Indeed, if man were not free, he could not be accountable either for his thoughts, word, or actions. If he were not free, he would not be capable either of reward or punishment; he would be incapable either of virtue or vice, of being either morally good or bad. If he had no more freedom than the sun, the moon, or the stars, he would be no more accountable than them. On supposition that he had no more freedom than them, the stones of the earth would be as capable of reward, and as liable to punishment, as man: One would be as accountable as the other. Yea, and it would be as absurd to ascribe either virtue or vice to him as to ascribe it to the stock of a tree.

Careful now; that's too close to the character of God and too sensible for Calvinists to grasp.

 

[jbh28]

Careful now; that's too close to the character of God and [snip]

Michael, there is no reason for person insults on the board.

 

[jbh28]

No, it teaches that if they were to be left to themselves they will never seek God, or attain righteousness through the law. It says nothing of their inability to respond to a God actively seeking reconciliation, or to attain righteousness by grace through faith.

Calvinists seem to think that scriptural proof showing that mankind can't attain righteousness through the law = mankind can't attain righteousness through faith. And mankind won't seek God = mankind can't respond to God even when He sends his Son, messengers, scriptures, church, the Holy Spirit which all proclaim the powerful life-giving gospel appeal, which comes to call all men to reconciliation. We are NOT left on our own anymore!!!

mankind wont seek God AND won't accept him. they reject the gospel without the Spirit. The do not understand the gospel to the point of accepting it.

Calvinists also make the error of over individualizing the biblical concept of election, which historically is a corporate concept. (i.e. God chose Israel to bring redemption into this world.) That doesn't mean individuals aren't involved. God had to pick out his prophets, priests, kings and latter his apostles so that God purpose in choosing Israel would stand. God then chose to ingraft the Gentiles (individuals without a nation). How? Through faith.

Not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that individuals are chosen for salvation. Ephesians 1 is the clearest on this. Yes, God chose Israel. There is more than just one choosing in the Bible. We can't see one type and then assume all the others are the same. God told the saints in Ephesus that God has chosen them for justification, sanctification, adoption. We can't say that he speaks corporately and then individually in the context. individuals are saved. Individuals are dead(in chapter 2). Individuals are saved by grace though faith.

 

[Skandelon]

mankind wont seek God AND won't accept him.

Even when enabled by God to do so? Why does that enabling work have to be 'irresistible' for you to consider it a work of God?

they reject the gospel without the Spirit.

Please answer this question: Is the Gospel itself a work of the Holy Spirit? If so, why do you assume its an insufficient work to accomplish its purpose of making an appeal for enemies to be reconciled?

The do not understand the gospel to the point of accepting it.

So the word 'understand' means the same thing as "accept" to you? If not, can you explain how one understands enough of God revelation to be 'without excuse' but not enough to accept what they have understood?

There is more than just one choosing in the Bible. We can't see one type and then assume all the others are the same.

I agree and explained how God does individually set apart his prophets, priests, kings and apostles from Israel to accomplish his overall purpose in electing Israel to begin with...

God told the saints in Ephesus that God has chosen them for justification, sanctification, adoption.

Right. He chose THE SAINTS. He didn't chose lost people to become saints, he chose the saints (whosoever believes) to be justified, sanctified, and adopted. He predestined what would happen to anyone, Jew or Gentile, who enter His kingdom by faith. And the mistake Calvinists make is to take that to mean God predetermined who would and would not be irresistibly drawn into his kingdom.

We can't say that he speaks corporately and then individually in the context. individuals are saved. Individuals are dead(in chapter 2). Individuals are saved by grace though faith.

As I just explained, individual are not excluded from the context in my interpretation. If YOU (an individual) believes in Christ then God has predetermined for YOU (still an individual) to be justified, conformed and adopted.

 

[JonC]

Listen, I hear a several Calvinists attempt to maintain that men do make a choice, but this seems to just be some kind of subtle attempt to maintain some form of human culpability.


EITHER God makes the choice as to what individuals will certainly be saved,

OR...

God chose to permit men to freely respond to his appeal for reconciliation.

I do not see how one can claim both of these are true as some attempt to do. If the former is true then what is the point in even pretending the latter is true? What is accomplished in affirming the latter if you hold to the former?

I actually don’t have a problem accepting both statements, so I really don’t see why a Calvinist would not be able to maintain both.

For examples, you can see (of course) Spurgeon – for a more contemporary example there’s Timothy Keller (Presbyterian) on the will of men and God and obviously J.I. Packer’s “antinomy.”

As far as what is accomplished? Well, nothing – just like nothing is actually “accomplished” by holding one view and rejecting the other. I see both in Scripture and therefore I hold both as truths.

 

[jbh28]

Even when enabled by God to do so? Why does that enabling work have to be 'irresistible' for you to consider it a work of God?

how are you using "irresistible"? I believe when the Spirit convicts the heart of the unbeliever, he repents and believes the gospel.(John 16:8-9) (Here is what most Calvinist would call regeneration.)This is a work of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit in conviction is changing a heart of stone to a heart of flesh. (Ez 36) Man can resist, but after so much time will come.

Please answer this question: Is the Gospel itself a work of the Holy Spirit? If so, why do you assume its an insufficient work to accomplish its purpose of making an appeal for enemies to be reconciled?

Do all people get saved when hearing the same gospel. Sorry to answer with a question, but there are people that hear the gospel and reject it. There are others that hear this same gospel and receive it. The gospel is wonderful. How anyone could reject it is beyond me. God loved us sinners so much that he sent his only Son Jesus to die for us. Beyond that, Jesus rose from the dead. We have a living savior. How could anyone reject such a glorious gospel? But, people do. People do not believe. The Spirit comes to convict the world because we do not believe.

So the word 'understand' means the same thing as "accept" to you? If not, can you explain how one understands enough of God revelation to be 'without excuse' but not enough to accept what they have understood?

he is without excuse because it's there. Lack of understanding is man's fault.

I agree and explained how God does individually set apart his prophets, priests, kings and apostles from Israel to accomplish his overall purpose in electing Israel to begin with...

Right. He chose THE SAINTS. He didn't chose lost people to become saints, he chose the saints (whosoever believes) to be justified, sanctified, and adopted. He predestined what would happen to anyone, Jew or Gentile, who enter His kingdom by faith. And the mistake Calvinists make is to take that to mean God predetermined who would and would not be irresistibly drawn into his kingdom.[/quote]It cannot be said he chose saints to be justified. Saints are already justified. He chose unbelievers to be justified and sanctified.

As I just explained, individual are not excluded from the context in my interpretation. If YOU (an individual) believes in Christ then God has predetermined for YOU (still an individual) to be justified, conformed and adopted.

But that's not the wording of Paul in Ephesians. He has chosen people to justify. Unsaved people are the only ones in need to be justified.

 

[Forest]

Where does scripture ever say that, and what scholars have held to this view?

Ps 53:2-3.

 

[Winman]

he is without excuse because it's there. Lack of understanding is man's fault.

How can lack of understanding be man's fault? Did you choose to be born spiritually dead in your system?

Is it your fault that Adam sinned? How could you have prevented Adam from sinning? Why is it your fault that Adam sinned?

 

[Skandelon]

how are you using "irresistible"?... Man can resist, but after so much time will come.

I mean it just like you answered here. It means inevitable or effectual. Why must a work of God inevitably cause a man to obey for that work to be credited to God? Why can't you affirm that God may do a work that enables a response without effectually causing a response? If one is enabled to respond positively but chooses to respond negatively, does that in any way negate God's involvement and gracious provision?

Do all people get saved when hearing the same gospel.

No, but its not because the gospel is lacking. Its because the person is free to reject it. The gospel enables the response because it is more powerful than man's nature, but just because a man rejects the gospel doesn't mean the gospel wasn't enough. It only means they freely chose to reject it and stand accountable for that choice.

How could anyone reject such a glorious gospel? But, people do. People do not believe.
he is without excuse because it's there. Lack of understanding is man's fault.

How is their lack of understanding their fault if they were born with an inability to understand it? That is like the USA military going to enemy tribe in a foreign country which speaks another language, warning them in English ONLY that if they don't sign a treaty that we will bomb them. They look at us confused and don't submit to our demands; so our military leader says, "Well, we warned them, the fact they can't understand our language is their own fault. Bomb them!" It's absurd to any objective observer.

It cannot be said he chose saints to be justified.

I simply meant 'believers.' He has chosen to justify whosoever believes. I used the word 'saint' because you did.

But that's not the wording of Paul in Ephesians. He has chosen people to justify. Unsaved people are the only ones in need to be justified.

It is the EXACT wording of Paul. He never says that he chose the lost to become believers. It says "he chose 'US' to be..." Who is "us"??? BELIEVERS. He CHOSE what will happen to whosoever believes in him, even if they are not of Abraham's Seed. The fact that God would save those who are not of Israel was the big controversy of that day, which is why Paul (an apostles of the Gentiles) keeps reminding them that they too have been chosen from the beginning...that it has always been God plan (he predetermined plan) to save people of all nations...whosoever believes.

 

[AresMan]

Listen, I hear a several Calvinists attempt to maintain that men do make a choice, but this seems to just be some kind of subtle attempt to maintain some form of human culpability.


EITHER God makes the choice as to what individuals will certainly be saved,

OR...

God chose to permit men to freely respond to his appeal for reconciliation.

I do not see how one can claim both of these are true as some attempt to do. If the former is true then what is the point in even pretending the latter is true? What is accomplished in affirming the latter if you hold to the former?

Maybe because the Bible reveals both? raying:

 

[Skandelon]

Maybe because the Bible reveals both? raying:

And one could avoid the unnecessary contradictions by simply removing the presumption that the first statement is really about individuals. If Cals understand election like the church fathers and most of Christianity not influenced by the Western influences of Augustine and Calvin the contradictions and controversies of these two biblical doctrines wouldn't exist.

 

[JonC]

If Cals understand election like the church fathers and most of Christianity not influenced by the Western influences of Augustine and Calvin the contradictions and controversies of these two biblical doctrines wouldn't exist.

But if non-Cals understood election through the scholarship of Augustine and Calvin, the contradictions and controversies of these two biblical doctrines wouldn’t exist either.

(I’m not saying that Calvinism is correct – only that antiquity and majority are poor defenses)

 

[jbh28]

I mean it just like you answered here. It means inevitable or effectual. Why must a work of God inevitably cause a man to obey for that work to be credited to God? Why can't you affirm that God may do a work that enables a response without effectually causing a response? If one is enabled to respond positively but chooses to respond negatively, does that in any way negate God's involvement and gracious provision?

Because when God convicts the heart, it works.

No, but its not because the gospel is lacking. Its because the person is free to reject it. The gospel enables the response because it is more powerful than man's nature, but just because a man rejects the gospel doesn't mean the gospel wasn't enough. It only means they freely chose to reject it and stand accountable for that choice.

I would agree 100% with this. The gospel is not lacking. It's man that rejects it. That's why he responsible. He freely rejects the gospel.

How is their lack of understanding their fault if they were born with an inability to understand it? That is like the USA military going to enemy tribe in a foreign country which speaks another language, warning them in English ONLY that if they don't sign a treaty that we will bomb them. They look at us confused and don't submit to our demands; so our military leader says, "Well, we warned them, the fact they can't understand our language is their own fault. Bomb them!" It's absurd to any objective observer.

The Bible teaches that we are born in sin.

I simply meant 'believers.' He has chosen to justify whosoever believes. I used the word 'saint' because you did.

I know. believers = saints. "It cannot be said he chose saints/believers to be justified." Saints/believers are already justified.

It is the EXACT wording of Paul. He never says that he chose the lost to become believers. It says "he chose 'US' to be..." Who is "us"??? BELIEVERS. He CHOSE what will happen to whosoever believes in him, even if they are not of Abraham's Seed. The fact that God would save those who are not of Israel was the big controversy of that day, which is why Paul (an apostles of the Gentiles) keeps reminding them that they too have been chosen from the beginning...that it has always been God plan (he predetermined plan) to save people of all nations...whosoever believes.

He's speaking in the past tense to people that have already believed. He had chosen them to justification, sanctification and adoption.... It doesn't say that that he chose because they believed. That's not in the text.

 

[Skandelon]

Because when God convicts the heart, it works.

Exactly my point. It works to ENABLE the person to respond. If every conviction of God lead to certain salvation then everyone would be saved because God sent his HS to convict the world of sin. Surely you've known of people who were under conviction but who rejected, don't you? I know I do.

I would agree 100% with this. The gospel is not lacking. It's man that rejects it. That's why he responsible. He freely rejects the gospel.

You define free as "doing what ever he wants", but you fail to point out that what he wants is determined by his nature, which was determined by God in such a manner than it could not have been otherwise. There is nothing "free" about that. The gospel, in your view, is lacking. It lacks the ability to convict or enable a lost man to come to Christ apart from an additional regenerative work of the HS.

The Bible teaches that we are born in sin.
I know. believers = saints. "It cannot be said he chose saints/believers to be justified." Saints/believers are already justified.

Are you saying someone is justified prior to believing????

He's speaking in the past tense to people that have already believed. He had chosen them to justification, sanctification and adoption.... It doesn't say that that he chose because they believed. That's not in the text.

It's all in the perspective. Look at it this way: Suppose a Army Sergeant is speaking to his recruits after a few weeks of basic training and he says to them, "Uncle Sam has chosen us and has determined for us to be the best trained fighting force in the world." Does that mean the Army recruiters didn't attempt to recruit other solders who chose not to join? Of course not. It only means that it was the plan of the US Army to equip and train whosoever joined. You are just reading it from the perspective of an 'individual' being chosen and made to believe so that they would be justified, adopted and conformed, when in reality the perspective is that God has chosen to justify, adopt and conform whosoever believes, both Jews and Gentiles alike.

 

[jbh28]

You'll have to see what the Bible teaches. The Bible clearly teaches that man's nature is sinful and depraved.

Are you saying someone is justified prior to believing????

No, not even close. Not even remotely close.

It's all in the perspective.

There you go. That's the biggest difference when people look at each other's views. Which is why there are a lot of "straw men" that get thrown around.

 

[JonC]

There you go. That's the biggest difference when people look at each other's views. Which is why there are a lot of "straw men" that get thrown around.

:thumbsup:

I’ve noticed that this is true – often people look at another’s view but only from their own perspective – they object to something that is therefore out of context to what was presented.

 

[Skandelon]

You'll have to see what the Bible teaches. The Bible clearly teaches that man's nature is sinful and depraved.

No one here has denied that and you know it. Deal with my actual views please or we are just going to keep going in circles. I affirm that we are born enemies of God, but I also believe that is why God sent a message meant to make an appeal for his enemies to be reconciled. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that gospel appeal doesn't have the ability to enable reconciliation.

No, not even close. Not even remotely close.

Then explain what you meant when you said, "It cannot be said he chose believers to be justified." Believers are already justified."

If you don't mean that believers are justified prior to believing then what is your point? Because my point is that God has chosen to justify whosoever believes. Why would you argue against that point with the statement above if it doesn't mean that?

There you go. That's the biggest difference when people look at each other's views. Which is why there are a lot of "straw men" that get thrown around.

I agree, which is why I'd like for just one of you to correctly represent your opponents view of predestination and election.

 

[Skandelon]

But if non-Cals understood election through the scholarship of Augustine and Calvin, the contradictions and controversies of these two biblical doctrines wouldn’t exist either.

(I’m not saying that Calvinism is correct – only that antiquity and majority are poor defenses)

Are you suggesting Augustine and Calvin didn't view election from the individual perspective? (i.e. God chose to effectually save that individual but not that one?) Versus the corporate view of election (i.e. God chose to effectually save whosoever believes, Jew or Gentile). Please explain.

 

[JonC]

Are you suggesting Augustine and Calvin didn't view election from the individual perspective? (i.e. God chose to effectually save that individual but not that one?) Versus the corporate view of election (i.e. God chose to effectually save whosoever believes, Jew or Gentile). Please explain.

I’m saying anything of the sort – I’m saying that if the non-cals understood election through Augustine and Calvin you wouldn’t have these controversies and contradictions as well. I’m not advocating their position, I just didn’t see the point of your statement and responded in kind.

 

[Skandelon]

JonC,

I disagree, respectfully of course because you're a respectable fellow.

I believe Augustine/Calvin's individualistic approach has created an unnecessary controversy. It is not a controversy for those who don't read those passages from an individualized perspective. Just look at Eastern Orthodoxy as proof. Sure, they have their own conflicts but the controversy over election/predestination is not one of them because this super individualized perspective of Calvinism wasn't there to introduce the apparent contradiction of God's individualized election and man's individual responsibility/freedom.