Exalting the view of man

[agedman]

Baloney, Cornelius is a perfect example of an unregenerate, unsaved man who feared God, prayed always, and did "righteous works" according to Peter himself.
...
Was Cornelius saved? NO, because the angel told him to send for Peter whereby he would hear words and be saved. (Acts 11:13-14)
...
It is indisputable, Cornelius was not saved, and yet he feared God, and did righteous works.

Did Cornelius have the Holy Spirit before Peter preached to him? NO.

...

So there is absolutely evidence that unregenerate man can seek God in the scriptures. It may be exceptional, but it is there.

You are attempting to prove a point that is not proved by the Scriptures you used.

Cornelius is just the same as many in whom God has selected for salvation. He has already placed in their heart a new will to seek the things of God. They are under Godly conviction, and merely needing to be given the intellectual insight in which their heart has already been prepared by God.

If anything, your use of Cornelius shows all the more how God appoints a person to salvation and moves a believer into the relationship to bring the Word.

It shows all the more the Calvinist thinking is basically correct.

However, YOUR view obliges that this be done for all humankind - or it is unfair.

That is just not the historical way God has conducted business, irregardless of your own desires.

One other point:

You desire to use the evidence of the Holy Spirit falling upon the house of Cornelius as it did in Pentecost as proof. However, Peter accepted this as a sign (not as proof of salvation) to show that for certain the Gentiles were to be saved just as the Jews at Pentecost. Later, this would prove vital when Paul was sent to Jerusalem for discussions as to how Jewish the Gentiles had to be to be saved. Peter was the one who made the final decision, and (in my opinion) it was because he witnessed first hand the events at Cornelius' home.

Another example of an unregenerate man who sought God is the Philipian jailer;

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

The Philipian jailer could not have been spiritually alive when he burst in and asked Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved, because he had not yet believed on Jesus. And until you believe on Jesus you are DEAD in trespasses and sins, yet he was aware that he was lost, and he sincerely desired to be saved.

And Paul and Silas's answer tells us he was not regenerated, because they told him he must believe on Jesus to be "saved".

So, here are TWO examples of unregenerate men who sincerely sought God in the scriptures.

Do you not see the intention of God that a specific jailor was in charge when Paul and Silas were thrown into the prison?

You make the mistake of assuming that a person is "dead" until they believe on Jesus.

Dead people do not have the ability to believe.

Unless the person is made alive (as was Cornelius, as was the jailor) they remain unresponsive to the claim of God on the life.

Expressions of belief come from a heart that has already believed.

The heart that has already believed is a heart that has already been awakened not only to the need, but has actually been changed. It is made alive in Christ.

BOTH Cornelius and the Jailor's show evidence their heart was already changed, and that the intellect had to be "upgraded."

Do not neglect: "For with the heart man believes ... with the mouth ..."

Just for those who mistake this verse as meaning someone has to proclaim belief to receive belief, I suppose I should clarify one word of the verse.

The "unto" of Roman's 10 is not a statement of "this has to be done in order for this to happen." One does not have to have the mouth moving in order that salvation be attained.

The "unto" is a word of response (movement) to a condition (belief).

The condition of the heart causes the response of the mouth.

Just as at the condition of birth causes the new born to cry out (and all with ears to hear do hear) the birth of the new believer causes them to cry out.

Those who were schooled in the thinking that god/God (as reflected in idol worship, or OT sacrifices in which something had to be done to appease a god or God) would most certainly cry out "What must I DO to be saved." For intellectually that is all they know. And the instructor must guide them into understanding.

The crying out is an expression that salvation is already at work in the heart.

 

[Herald]

You have a blessed day as well brother!



I was a Calvinist so I'm aware of this. But I'd like you to objectively consider two points:

1. Why do Calvinists insist that a gift be irresistibly given in order for the giver to get full credit for giving it?​

That is not the Calvinist premise. It is the call that is effectual (meaning that the call will always result in God's desired result). If the call is not effectual then salvation pivots on mans decision. According to the Reformed view total inability accompanies total depravity. The effectual call, which includes regeneration, nullifies total inability.

Also, the effectual call is not a passive desire on the part of God. The effectual call is a positive command - a decree if you will. Since God decrees it, it will come to be.

2. Why do you believe new life (regeneration) is the means through which men come to believe when the scripture teaches just the opposite in many places?

Example: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." - John 20:31

I do not see a disconnect between regeneration and the means. The Gospel is the means of salvation. In other words God uses the Gospel as His method of calling sinners to repentance. Regeneration is included in this. The right response to the means (the Gospel) is belief. So, when the biblical author writes that his words are written so that you may believe, it is perfectly acceptable to the Reformed Christian.

While we all agree that God must initiate the process, we obviously disagree about the effectuality (irresistibility) of that initial working of God. Given that many passages also suggest God longing to save those who are unwilling (Matt. 23:37), holding out his merciful hands the rebellious (Rm 10:21), desiring none to perish (2 Pet. 3:9; 2 Tim 2:4; Ez 18:23), and sending out a powerful appeal for reconciliation to all his enemies (2 Cor 5:11-21; Mk 16:15-16); I think a strong case can be made for the initial working of God being 'enabling' but not necessarily 'irresistible.' I believe His calling enables a response. Why? Because God hold's man responsible for that response (response-able: able to respond, not totally inability). Why would anyone presume man is not able to respond if God holds him responsible?

But if the initial work of God is enabling, then salvation still rests upon mans decision. Therefore God becomes passive in salvation instead of active. Man can take some of the credit. He can say, "I am saved because I chose to believe."

By the way, not to be lazy, but I have a string of verses I can post that support my view. Sometime tells me you are well acquainted with these passages, so it is really not necessary. What is apparent is that our differences are substantial. That is okay. Better to let our differences stand out then to mollify them.

Have a great rest of the day.

 

[Winman]

You are attempting to prove a point that is not proved by the Scriptures you used.

Cornelius is just the same as many in whom God has selected for salvation. He has already placed in their heart a new will to seek the things of God. They are under Godly conviction, and merely needing to be given the intellectual insight in which their heart has already been prepared by God.

If anything, your use of Cornelius shows all the more how God appoints a person to salvation and moves a believer into the relationship to bring the Word.

It shows all the more the Calvinist thinking is basically correct.

That is pure nonsense, the scriptures directly tell us that Cornelius needed to get saved. He also did not have the Holy Spirit, so it is impossible that he was regenerated according to Romans 8:9. Your argument is ridiculous, and you do not have one word of scripture to support that he was regenerated prior to Peter preaching the gospel to him.

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

It was only AFTER Cornelius heard the gospel and believed that the scriptures say he had LIFE. The word "life" here IS regeneration.

However, YOUR view obliges that this be done for all humankind - or it is unfair.

That is just not the historical way God has conducted business, irregardless of your own desires.

One other point.

You desire to use the evidence of the Holy Spirit falling upon the house of Cornelius as it did in Pentecost as proof. However, Peter accepted this as a sign (not as proof of salvation) to show that for certain the Gentiles were to be saved just as the Jews at Pentecost. Later, this would prove vital when Paul was sent to Jerusalem for discussions as to how Jewish the Gentiles had to be to be saved. Peter was the one who made the final decision, and (in my opinion) it was because he witnessed first hand the events at Cornelius' home.

Again, nonsense. Acts 11:17-18 shows that Cornelius receiving the Holy Spirit was regeneration. It says THEN God has also granted the Gentiles repentance "unto life". THAT is regeneration, it is being made alive again. The word "then" is speaking of Cornelius receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. This was evidence that he was regenerated and had LIFE.

Do you not see the intention of God that a specific jailor was in charge when Paul and Silas were thrown into the prison?

You make the mistake of assuming that a person is "dead" until they believe on Jesus.

Dead people do not have the ability to believe.

You are begging the question, you are ASSUMING your premise is correct. The scriptures show the spiritually dead CAN believe.

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Jesus said THE DEAD (not the living) shall hear his voice, and those that hear SHALL LIVE. This is speaking of spiritual death, not physical.

This is the whole argument, non-Cals believe the scriptures show unregenerate man has the ability to hear and believe the gospel, and IF they do, they will be made alive. This is exactly what happened to both Cornelius and the Philipian jailer, both were lost (else no need to be saved) and both heard and believed the gospel and were regenerated or made alive.

Unless the person is made alive (as was Cornelius, as was the jailor) they remain unresponsive to the claim of God on the life.

False, Jesus said the DEAD shall hear his voice, not the living, and those that hear SHALL live.

Expressions of belief come from a heart that has already believed.

That's like saying everyone who ate ate. Duh.

The heart that has already believed is a heart that has already been awakened not only to the need, but has actually been changed. It is made alive in Christ.

No, Hebrews 6 shows a man can be enlightened and taste of the word of God and be brought to the point of repentance and yet fall away in unbelief.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

This passage in Hebrews absolutely refutes Calvinism because it is either teaching a person can lose salvation, or else it refutes Total Inability. There is no way this scripture agrees with Calvinism.

Total Inability is false. Men can hear and understand the gospel, and even be brought to the point of repentance and yet fall away in unbelief and be lost, that is what Hebrews 6:4-6 is teaching. This passage refutes Calvinism no matter how you look at it.

BOTH Cornelius and the Jailor's show evidence their heart was already changed, and that the intellect had to be "upgraded."

Do not neglect: "For with the heart man believes ... with the mouth ..."

Just for those who mistake this verse as meaning someone has to proclaim belief to receive belief, I suppose I should clarify one word of the verse.

The "unto" of Roman's 10 is not a statement of "this has to be done in order for this to happen." One does not have to have the mouth moving in order that salvation be attained.

The "unto" is a word of response (movement) to a condition (belief).

The condition of the heart causes the response of the mouth.

Just as at the condition of birth causes the new born to cry out (and all with ears to hear do hear) the birth of the new believer causes them to cry out.

Those who were schooled in the thinking that god/God (as reflected in idol worship, or OT sacrifices in which something had to be done to appease a god or God) would most certainly cry out "What must I DO to be saved." For intellectually that is all they know. And the instructor must guide them into understanding.

The crying out is an expression that salvation is already at work in the heart.

Too many words... You are ASSUMING your doctrine is true. You do not show any scripture to support your view, you simply declare your view and then tell others it is true.

I on the other hand show scripture that utterly refutes your view. I have shown that Jesus himself said the DEAD can hear his voice, and if they will hear they will be made alive. I have shown Hebrews 6 that shows an unregenerate man can be enlightened and brought to the point of repentance and yet fall away in unbelief.

You provide no evidence for your view, I do provide evidence.

 

[InTheLight]

Cornelius is just the same as many in whom God has selected for salvation. He has already placed in their heart a new will to seek the things of God.
[...]
Unless the person is made alive (as was Cornelius, as was the jailor) they remain unresponsive to the claim of God on the life.
[...]
BOTH Cornelius and the Jailor's show evidence their heart was already changed, and that the intellect had to be "upgraded."

It is impossible to make these assertions from reading the text. You are making these verses say something that isn't there [attack snipped]

 

[agedman]

It is impossible to make these assertions from reading the text. You are making these verses say something that isn't there in order to prop up your defective theology.

Actually, I did make those assertions from reading the context.

That you don't agree is not my problem.

Whom God places a claim upon, will be saved.

Winman's argument (and apparently yours) is that one cannot be saved outside of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

That salvation is complete and sealed by the Holy Spirit - of that there is no argument.

However, that does not prevent the Holy Spirit from impressing and quickening the person in whom God has appointed to salvation long before they intellectually understand what is going on.

There are unnumbered testimonies (some given on the BB) that show that God was working through conviction and events to bring one to Christ.

Was this conviction no part of the work of the Holy Spirit?

What was it that Christ said the work of the Holy Spirit was?

BOTH Cornelius and the Jailor expressed the need. Was this not direct evidence of conviction BY the Holy spirit?

Perhaps Winman and you can explain salvation as totally human generated and the result of human intellectual exercise, but that isn't Scripture.

 

[Winman]

Actually, I did make those assertions from reading the context.

That you don't agree is not my problem.

Whom God places a claim upon, will be saved.

Winman's argument (and apparently yours) is that one cannot be saved outside of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

That salvation is complete and sealed by the Holy Spirit - of that there is no argument.

However, that does not prevent the Holy Spirit from impressing and quickening the person in whom God has appointed to salvation long before they intellectually understand what is going on.

There are unnumbered testimonies (some given on the BB) that show that God was working through conviction and events to bring one to Christ.

Was this conviction no part of the work of the Holy Spirit?

What was it that Christ said the work of the Holy Spirit was?

BOTH Cornelius and the Jailor expressed the need. Was this not direct evidence of conviction BY the Holy spirit?

Perhaps Winman and you can explain salvation as totally human generated and the result of human intellectual exercise, but that isn't Scripture.

Conviction is not proof of regeneration. Unregenerated men can be convicted by the word of God.

Jhn 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

These men were not regenerated, these were the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus said the devil was their father.

Jhn 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

You don't get any more unregenerated than these guys, they were evil, they were trying to tempt Jesus so that they could accuse him.

Yet, when Jesus spoke to them they were deeply convicted by his words. They went out one by one starting with the eldest.

So, being convicted by the word of God is no proof of regeneration.

 

[agedman]

Conviction is not proof of regeneration. Unregenerated men can be convicted by the word of God.

So, being convicted by the word of God is no proof of regeneration.

Paul disputes your thinking.

He told the Corinthians that the heathen can sorrow as the world and die.

However, Godly sorrow leads to salvation.

Paul distinguishes between worldly sorrow and Godly sorrow.

There is only ONE Godly sorrow, and that is brought about by the direct work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8).

Without this direct work - there is no salvation only intellectual ascent which is without belief.

 

[Herald]

Skan,

I have given our dialog in this thread some thought. It is not inevitable that those of opposing view points need to get nasty and personal. Our dialog is also proof that we do not need to minimize our differences. Debate can get vigorous at times. It really is not for the thin-skinned. But even if debate becomes hard hitting it does not immediately follow that it must be personal. Thank you for helping prove that in this thread.

Blessings!

 

[Skandelon]

That is not the Calvinist premise.

Calvinists argue that the non-Calvinistic view robs God of glory because man's response (acceptance of the gift) is required for the gift to be applied. My rebuttal to that argument is that God gets full credit for the gift (provision) whether or not man accepts it. In other words, no glory is taken from God simply because some men reject God's appeal.

Additionally, even those who accept the gift or provision of God aren't earning their salvation by accepting the gift. It's not as if asking for forgiveness makes the one asking deserve to be forgiven. The Prodigal son didn't deserve to be received back as a son on account of his return. He, like those of us who in faith humbly seek God's forgiveness, deserve to be thrown into hell. Our faith or humility earn NOTHING. Salvation is all of Grace whether our response is truly OURS or not.

It is the call that is effectual (meaning that the call will always result in God's desired result). If the call is not effectual then salvation pivots on mans decision.

I understand your point. I remember making this exact point in a debate with another guy back when I was a Calvinist. He told me something that I totally dismissed at the time, but later it came back to bring me some clarity in my journey. I want you to just openly consider it, just as I will consider what you are saying to me:

What if God's desired result is for us to make our own decision?


If it is....and I know that is an "IF", but if it is then for the gospel to ENABLE a man to respond of his own free will, then that would be God's intending result. For instance, if I don't invite my friend to the party he won't even be able to choose to come, but if I do invite him then the choice is his...he is now enabled. What if God's call is ENABLING and not IRRESISTIBLE? Would that be unbiblical? That is for you to examine for yourself just as I have to as well.

I do not see a disconnect between regeneration and the means. The Gospel is the means of salvation. In other words God uses the Gospel as His method of calling sinners to repentance. Regeneration is included in this.

Yes, but what do those means ACTUALLY accomplish in and of themselves?

For example, consider Jonah who was a believer but whose will was dead set against obeying God's will. Could God have just spoke and made Jonah desire to obey? Of course He could. He could have done some powerful inward irresistible working (something like "regeneration") making Jonah's heart softer and more obedient, but He didn't. He used the MEANS of a storm and a big fish to provoke and convince Jonah's will to change. He went, but he wasn't real happy about it. But, God EFFECTUALLY called His messenger using external but very convincing means. BTW, some Calvinists use this fact to somehow prove that God saves effectually through regeneration. But proving that God uses external normative means to ensure His redemptive appeal is sent doesn't prove that God uses internal irresistible means to make the audience believe it. In fact, it would seem to disprove such a claim given that God could have used the same type of means to get Jonah to obey in the first place.

We also see means spoken of in Romans 11 where Paul talks about the Jews being provoked by envy and saved when they see the lives of the Gentiles change. What does provoking to envy accomplish that regeneration doesn't? What specifically are the means actually DOING if the will is being controlled by God internally? Personally, I believe we make it all too mystical. I believe God uses circumstances, signs, people, and his creation to provoke and move man's will, but sometimes they choose to suppress the truth and they are response-able for that...they have no excuses. (Rm 1)

The right response to the means (the Gospel) is belief. So, when the biblical author writes that his words are written so that you may believe, it is perfectly acceptable to the Reformed Christian.

But it doesn't fit the order of Salvation supposed by Calvinists to say, 'and by believing you may have life,' which is what it goes on to say.

truth proclaimed ---> truth believed --> life given

But if the initial work of God is enabling, then salvation still rests upon mans decision.

Did the father's reception of the Prodigal son rest on the son's return? No, it rested on the loving and gracious father who should have slapped him and sent him packing. Salvation is all of God, we just bring our humiliation and even that deserves hell.

Therefore God becomes passive in salvation instead of active.

Again, who was the ACTIVE one when the Son returned home? The FATHER ran to him!

Man can take some of the credit. He can say, "I am saved because I chose to believe."

Do you really think that son is going to brag to his buddies saying, "After I ate that pig slop, I got up and came home hoping to become a servant, man I'm awesome!" Of course not! If someone is going to boast he should boast that he understands and knows that God is the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness!

Have a great rest of the day.

You too. And I saw you last post too...I agree, it is possible to have a cordial discussion and still disagree and be friends. In fact, its better that way! :thumbsup:

 

[Revmitchell]

It is impossible to make these assertions from reading the text. You are making these verses say something that isn't there [attack snipped]

Pretty selective snipping there. But then it was about Calvinism wasn't it.

 

[saturneptune]

Why is this Calvinism-Arminian thread in this section? Is not there a new section for the nonsense? It has been proven time and again no one is going to change any minds, so please move the babbling the new section.

 

[Protestant]

What if God's desired result is for us to make our own decision?

Is this not a vital principle of non-cals: the theoretical doctrine that man has the free will to make his own decision either for or against Christ?
In order for that to be true man must either:

(a) Have the natural ability within himself to do so; or
(b) Have help from God to overcome any lack of innate ability. By God’s assistance man is now able to make a fair and rational choice…..either for or against Christ.

Based on man’s good decision for Christ God now has a legitimate and rational reason to elect that man for salvation while reprobating another who has rejected Christ.

However reasonable this theoretical doctrine may seem to the minds of sensible and rational men, it is exactly contrary to that which is proclaimed in Scripture.

For this non-cal theoretical doctrine equates God’s election with justice. It is just to reward salvation to the man who makes the righteous decision. It is equally just to punish the man who makes the unrighteous decision.

But, in fact, election has nothing to do with justice. It has everything to do with grace.

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

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”

The grace of God saves undeserving sinners who are both unwilling and unable to come to Christ.

The inability of man to come to Christ is taught by analogy through the miracle healings which He performed:

• Only Christ raises the spiritually dead sinner, as He did Lazarus.
• Only Christ gives sight to the spiritually blind from birth who otherwise cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven or the King.
• Only Christ heals the paralysis which hinders men from coming to Him.
• Only Christ opens the deaf ears to hear and transplants a new heart to receive the Gospel.

The unwillingness of man to come to Christ is taught by virtue of his sin nature:

• All men, like sinner Adam, run from the true God.
• None seek after the true God.
• The carnal mind is enmity with God.

In the non-cal view the Gospel is presented as a test to determine man’s ultimate destiny, depending on the choice man makes.

But Scripture tells us the testing was completed in the Garden. Adam failed and brought upon himself and his descendents sin, suffering and death. No more testing is needed. The results are in: F.

With that as His starting point, the Lord has purposed to save many undeserving God-haters. He does this because He has determined within Himself to love many who hate Him. His love is unconditional. His election is unconditional. His purposes never fail. Nor does His love ever fail.

By His omnipotent power He changes the unwilling God-hater into the willing God-lover.

“Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.”

“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”

 

[Herald]

Skan,

My rebuttal to that argument is that God gets full credit for the gift (provision) whether or not man accepts it. In other words, no glory is taken from God simply because some men reject God's appeal.

Agreed. But this is where we go into a circular argument. I believe the Bible teaches man rejects because he is not called. Those who are called will not reject. You believe differently, thus a merry-go-round discussion.

Additionally, even those who accept the gift or provision of God aren't earning their salvation by accepting the gift.

Technically no one can earn their salvation to begin with, so the matter is moot. When the Reformed make the accusation that Arminian theology tries to earn its salvation by cooperating with God, it is more of a matter of revealing a flaw in Arminian theology. Everyone who is saved received salvation as a free gift. I know you and I agree on that statement.

What if God's desired result is for us to make our own decision?

It is...in a way. The Reformed believe that man does make a decision to believe once his will has been freed to actually do so. Yes. We believe that decision is irresistible, but that has more to do with the will of divine decree more than it has to do with a choice between two options.

Yes, but what do those means ACTUALLY accomplish in and of themselves?

Firstly, not those means but the means.

Paul states it forcefully and convincingly, Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."

The Gospel is also called "the word of the cross" (1 Corinthians 1:18). To those who are being saved (the elect) the word of the cross is "the power of God" (ibid). So, the means (the Gospel; the word of the cross) is the power of God. Later on in that chapter Paul writes, 1 Corinthians 1:24 "but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." Not only is the word of the cross (the Gospel) called the power of God, Jesus Christ is identified as the power of God. The means of salvation, the Gospel, is nothing less than the power of God - Jesus Christ! When the Gospel is proclaimed it is as though Jesus Christ Himself is being presented. And as 1 Corinthians 1:24 states, "to those who the called...Christ the power of God".

But it doesn't fit the order of Salvation supposed by Calvinists to say, 'and by believing you may have life,' which is what it goes on to say.

It does. The message is always the same. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved (Acts 16:31). The Reformed message is not, "Let us first determine if you are one of the called". Forgive me if that sounds cheeky, it is not meant to be.

Let me put it another way. I know theologically that only the called (the elect) will respond positively to the Gospel. However I do not posses perfect knowledge. Only God knows who is called. I also know theologically that God has ordained the means by which His called are converted. That means is the Gospel. So, I proclaim the Gospel as if all who hear it will be converted. That is why I chose the username "Herald". There is no higher calling than to be the herald of good news.

Quote:

Therefore God becomes passive in salvation instead of active.

Again, who was the ACTIVE one when the Son returned home? The FATHER ran to him!

The parable of the prodigal is not really the parable of the prodigal. It actually is the parable of the son who stayed home. It is a parable about ungrateful Israel. That aside, I did not say God is passive in salvation. I was making the point that the free will position makes God passive in salvation. God reaches the point where He effectively says, "Okay. I took you this far. Now it is up to you." I do not believe that is what the Bible teaches.

Skan, feel free to have the final word on this exchange. Be blessed!

 

[Aaron]

I believe the Bible teaches man rejects because he is not called.

More accurately, the Bible teaches that man rejects because he is not chosen. Many are called. Few are chosen.

 

[Herald]

More accurately, the Bible teaches that man rejects because he is not chosen. Many are called. Few are chosen.

In the context of 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 "called" is the correct term (c.f. 1 Cor. 1:18). I was arguing from the passage, but I understand your point.

 

[InTheLight]

Actually, I did make those assertions from reading the context.

That you don't agree is not my problem.
[..]
However, that does not prevent the Holy Spirit from impressing and quickening the person in whom God has appointed to salvation long before they intellectually understand what is going on.

It is impossible to make these assertions from reading the text. You are making these verses say something that isn't there.

There are unnumbered testimonies (some given on the BB) that show that God was working through conviction and events to bring one to Christ.

Same thing happened to me. But I wasn't regenerated prior to coming to Christ. The Holy Spirit was convicting me of sin, showing me the truth of the gospel, and begging me to repent. I finally relented, repented and believed, and I was saved.

For clarity's sake, are you saying the Phillipian jailer was regenerated prior to bursting into Paul and Silas' jail cell and asking, "What must I do to be saved?"

Perhaps Winman and you can explain salvation as totally human generated and the result of human intellectual exercise, but that isn't Scripture.

Hmmm...Mischaracterizing an opponents position. Classic Calvinist tactic.

 

[InTheLight]

Based on man’s good decision for Christ God now has a legitimate and rational reason to elect that man for salvation while reprobating another who has rejected Christ.

However reasonable this theoretical doctrine may seem to the minds of sensible and rational men, it is exactly contrary to that which is proclaimed in Scripture.

For this non-cal theoretical doctrine equates God’s election with justice. It is just to reward salvation to the man who makes the righteous decision. It is equally just to punish the man who makes the unrighteous decision.

But, in fact, election has nothing to do with justice.

Hmmm... Mischaracterizing an opponents position. Classic Calvinist tactic.

 

[Skandelon]

For clarity's sake, are you saying the Phillipian jailer was regenerated prior to bursting into Paul and Silas' jail cell and asking, "What must I do to be saved?"

Good question.

 

[Skandelon]

More accurately, the Bible teaches that man rejects because he is not chosen. Many are called. Few are chosen.

It's strange that the Reformed brethren often reference this quote when in the very parable to which it refers the choice is conditioned upon the clothing of the guest. Hardly seems to support their assertions of unconditional election.

 

[Skandelon]

Agreed. But this is where we go into a circular argument. I believe the Bible teaches man rejects because he is not called.

Well, we know God sends his appeal to be reconciled to all creatures, thus to come to this conclusion you would have to presume that the gospel appeal is not a 'call' of God to faith and repentance, which is a stretch in my mind. I know you believe in a separate effectual calling, but I'm only pointing out that the call of the gospel is considered 'powerful, God-breathed, a double edged sword able to cut through to the soul, etc, so its difficult to understand why one would presume it is insufficient to enable a response.

Technically no one can earn their salvation to begin with, so the matter is moot. When the Reformed make the accusation that Arminian theology tries to earn its salvation by cooperating with God, it is more of a matter of revealing a flaw in Arminian theology. Everyone who is saved received salvation as a free gift. I know you and I agree on that statement.

We do agree, but my point was that the accusation against Arminian theology is based on the false presumption that faith is somehow meritorious or deserving of God's grace. That isn't true of either camp and thus the accusation has no basis on truth.

It is...in a way. The Reformed believe that man does make a decision to believe once his will has been freed to actually do so. Yes. We believe that decision is irresistible, but that has more to do with the will of divine decree more than it has to do with a choice between two options.

I'm familiar with the explanations of Compatibilism, but when I was referring to one's own decision I specifically had the view of a 'contra-casual' choice in mind, not one ultimately determined by God. And thus if it was God desire for men to make a 'contra-casual choice' then for them to do so WOULD be God's intended result. Some Calvinists seem to think that for man to reject God 'freely' is not God intended result because he is not saved (and that God somehow failed), but that is inaccurate. God's intended result, according to our view, is a free/independent choice thus even when the choice is the suppress the truth freely it is within God's will. AW Tozer explained this well:

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God
​

The parable of the prodigal is not really the parable of the prodigal. It actually is the parable of the son who stayed home. It is a parable about ungrateful Israel.

Yes, those components are certainly in view as well, but it doesn't change the point I was attempting to draw from that same analogy....a valid point IMHO.

That aside, I did not say God is passive in salvation. I was making the point that the free will position makes God passive in salvation.

I realize that was your point, and my rebuttal was that God isn't passive even in the Arminian view of salvation...far from it. The analogy I drew illustrates that.

God reaches the point where He effectively says, "Okay. I took you this far. Now it is up to you." I do not believe that is what the Bible teaches.

And with all due respect that is not what we would believe either, for even AFTER one repents and believes God must justify, sanctify and glorify them and that is exactly what he has predestined all believers for according to scripture. God is not obligated to forgive someone who asks for forgiveness. God makes his appeal for reconciliation and if we respond he chooses, by his grace alone, to forgive, reconcile, redeem and sanctify us. That is hardly passive even in our point of view of salvation.


Blessings to you brother. Good discussion! :godisgood: