Fatalism, Irresistible Grace and Misunderstanding

Martin, don't worry about it. Your theological "opponents" are never defeated and only multiplied.

I didn't pay much attention to that other thread because it seems that the real quibble is over the definitions of faith and repentance. Until you get that sorted out, the labels LS and EB are meaningless in the discussion. Faith and repentance are not new requirements on the gospel, but it is helpful to meditate what one means by those terms. It's not much of a surprise to me that someone with a substantively different understanding of faith and repentance than Reformed orthodoxy also has a different understanding of "fatalism" and irresistable grace.

Don't worry, be happy

BJ

 

For the simple reason that Calvinists insist they have no control, neither over their salvation nor over choices/decisions. Fatalism IS lack of control/sovereignty/responsibility.

 

I don't generally hear "non-Calvinists" refer to Calvinism as "fatalism," though quite clearly in its extreme expressions it is.

Most often Calvinism is spiritual determinism -- to deny that is to deny the very basis of the system -- God's sovereignty choice of "the elect" without regard to the active decision of the "elect" individual acted upon (monergism).

It doesn't matter how one slices and parses it, that IS determinism. The question then becomes, which concept of God is greater -- the concept of a God who decrees EVERY single detail and decision in all spheres of life and existence because He is "Sovereign," or the concept of a God who allows his creation free moral agency and the ability to choose, yet He still KNOWS all things and is Sovereign in the whole process...?

In short, freedom of will is no threat to -- nor is it a denial of -- the Sovereignty of God.

JDale

 

JDale, it is certainly arguable that Reformed orthodoxy even held to what is known as compatibilism let alone "spiritual determinism." I can't speak for the evangelical "calvinists" like Feinberg and White, and populizers like Sproul and Piper, but scholars would certainly balk at your claims.

I've posted this on another thread when I recommend reading some work by Paul Helm on this matter. He's graciously included on his blog some pieces for publication (not at vanity presses either), one of which is the historical calvinistic understanding of God's sovereignty. Helm's not perfect, but he'll steer you in the right direction if you desire to understand the real view of Reformed orthodoxy.

Scroll down here to his post on 12/29/06: http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/

 

Please give your definition of "free will" JDALE . The Non-Cal postion ( in its various flavors) is so weak in upholding the many passages of Scripture which teach the exact opposite of the FW stance .

 

I disagree. I believe it is the non cal who uses proper hermeneutics in exegeting Scripture...and the calvinist eisegetes Scripture to coincide with their theology.

 

Have at it WEBDOG . Show how a spiritually dead person exercises their FW .

 

Quite simple when you properly understand what being spiritually "dead" means...not what it HAS to mean to calvinism. Spiritual death is separation from God. Period. Not a spiritually unconscious corpse. If it were, Hell is pointless. Does the corpse that's cremated feel the fire?

 

Mixed metaphor. One moment you're talking about spiritual "unconsciousness". The next moment you're talking about a body with nerves to feel fire.

 

...but that's exactly what your camp does...equate physical death and spiritual death as both being corpses.

 

Outta' curiousity, how can one not resist grace (irresistable grace), whatever that means, but somehow resist God, and the ordinances of God? (Since ordinance is another Biblical word for the precepts (written word) of God.) This makes no sense, to say the least.

Naw, I suggest Lou M. has it right, completely, here.

Ed

 

Rip:

We've trod this ground before in the "Prevenient Grace" thread, the "Forfeiting Salvation vs. Losing Salvation" thread, and several others. No need to re-hash disagreements you and I have had before. I've thoroughly answered all the questions you pose here (as have others) on prior threads. Go back, re-read and even re-post them here if you like.

JDale

 

LOL

It's called an ALLEGORY -- it's used to give and example to EXPLAIN a principle or idea. And his allegorical explanation works here.

JDale

 

How would you draw that conclusion?? What I am asserting is that I can see that God's hands are better than ours, even as a lost person.

No, that's a miscalculation on your part. First you would have to assume that God "planned" the lives of the lost as well, right? That even in their sin, God was in control of their lives.

I don't do that. I believe that God "predestines"/plans only the steps of the saved!

True, BUT the "work of God" in their heart is NOT making the decision to believe for them. And unless they beleive, they can't be saved. Do you see that? The mental process, "knowledge," comes before the spiritual conversion can occur? IOW, the "change of heart" comes via man's own spirit being changed by the Holy Spirit.

This is looking at it from a different perspective, martin. The process is drawn, come, given/elected if you want to put it in those terms.

No, my point is that they are "given" only after they are drawn and come.

You are misquoting there. Jesus said all who come are drawn and will be raised -- NOT all who are drawn will be raised. Same with 6:40 -- all who "see" and "believe"/come will be raised up...

Good! We must be making progress then!


skypair

 

So how come these words like a lot of other so-called teachings are never to be found in Scripture? Surely something of this importance would be crystal clear, like the over 200 times that faith/believe is used in the NT, and the clear statements that one is saved by faith/believing, instead of having to construct this doctrine based on implication, wouldn't you say?

Ed

 

JDALE , in post #15 you indicated that we've gone around the barn a few times about the issue of "free will " . I assure you -- I'm only a prepubescent on the BB , and you are a virtual infant . You can go back a lot further on the subject here than your more recent offerings . You haven't settled matters here on the subject -- just as you feel that we haven't on the other side of the aisle .