The effectual call can also be looked at from a negative perspective. If God does not call the sinner then the sinner cannot respond positively to the Gospel. I base this on the fact that the Bible teaches that man is completely fallen in his nature, and incapable of a positive response to the things of God without prior divine intervention (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:4-9).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Free offer of the Gospel?
- Thread starter MorseOp
- Start date
From God’s perspective, true. From man’s not at all. In time, without faith, without the new birth wrought in your soul by the Holy Spirit you are an enemy of God and his wrath abides upon you.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.... For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, ( By grace ye are saved; ) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
1 Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God.
Php 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before
Col 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in his sight
Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: for which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time when ye lived in them.
1 Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
You missed the point completely, almost as if you didn’t even try...
again... missed the point entirely.
Sorry HoS but because you do not understand does not mean it makes no sense. You insist you understand Calvinist theology but as far as I can tell you only understand your convenient caricature of it. You don’t see a difference in a decretive vs. perceptive will. You don’t see a distinction between a will of signum vs. beneplacitum. *shrug*
wrong. not even a very good straw man either. HoS, here is what I said:
“that is not to say that the Holy Spirit does not use words of the preacher, emotion, reason, fear or understanding in bringing that man to faith but the point is that it is God's work not man's. The preacher is an instrument in the hands of God, not the other way around. Too many men want to be the hands and have God be the instrument.”
I don’t blame you for not reading what I wrote, but why then did you respond? My whole point is that there is a proper distinction between what we understand and know and what God understands and knows...
I don't think you sound capable of explaining my Soteriology to me. HA!
That when they stand before his throne of judgment their condemnation will be complete and they will be legally destroyed with many arguments.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
what man hears with his mind and intellect is not the same as what he hears with his spirit and heart. The dead can and do know this with their mind and ear, and they do make that choice.
HoS, he is more glorified because his Salvation is all of grace, every part of it. He is more glorified because of the length and depths that he went to secure the salvation of his elect, from the inception of it in his foreknowledge to glorification of the saints in time. He is more glorified because he would be absolutely just to throw every man without exception into hell, EVEN (with respect to man’s wicked and faithless response) after having sent his son to die and providing a way of escape. The reconciliation of sinners is of such a profound degree we cannot fathom the hem of it. Christ’s condescension to take on the form of sinful flesh alone is difficult to understand in the context of a supremely Holy God. The degree of offense of sin is not even remotely understood by us. That God did what he did in love, so that he might save a people for his name is mind-boggling. God’s glory in those he did save is only enhanced in the light of how far he had to stoop to save us, even in the effectual call. Even in this, his grace is clearly evident. When I look at what I deserve, I have even more to glory in what I have been given.
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Last edited by a moderator:
Amazing....every one of these passages clearly implies a non-deterministic and non-Calvinistic interpretation of how God actually interracts with his creation. Every one of these passages are clearly loaded with Arminianinsm.....actually even Open Theism. In absolutely no way whatsoever do they imply Calvinism....They scream against it...Are we supposed to accept your particular philosophies because you posted a veritable dearth of random Scriptures because they utterly disprove your point???? We may be stupid, (because we aren't Calvinists) in your mind, but we aren't so stupid that you can pose to us a random amalgam of Open Theists proof-texts...devoid of explanation, and somehow assume we are to conclude that they prove Calvinism to us...Sheesh...
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
It is interesting (and worthy of noting) that only one of the verses you site to support your assertion that mankind is incapable of any positive act of faith actually mentions "faith." That verse is Heb. 11:6, which notably mentions nothing about inability....in fact, it introduces a list of many people who apparently had the ability....
"By faith Abraham...By faith Isaac ... By faith Jacob... By faith Joseph...By faith Moses' parents...By faith Moses.... By faith the people passed through the Red Sea... By faith the walls of Jericho fell... By faith the prostitute Rahab...I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated-- the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground. 39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."
These people weren't totally unable to have faith, as your doctrine suggests, and since not one of your other proof text even mentions faith I find it hard to believe they could rightly support your premise either.
Not just capable of a response, but necessarily WILLING, as your doctrine doesn't just promote that God enables a response, but He guarantees one. That is an important distinction, as we too believe God must enable people to come to Him. We just don't believe the enabling has to be be irresistible in causing one to respond positively, as you do.
So do you consider yourself a hyper Calvinist? ...one denying the universal appeal of the gospel to all sinners?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I'm not sure why you consider this to be a 'danger' within your worldview? What eternal, or even temporal, harm is there in a non-elect individual thinking they are saved? They were born unloved and unchosen by God, destined for certain destruction, why not give them the brief pleasure of hope in an eternal bliss before they spend the rest of their existence in eternal torment? What does it matter?
An interesting and erudite solid point....What indeed would it matter? Why fear that the "non-chosen" should endure a few brief moments prior to God's eternal torture....where they think they might hold on to hope? God's blood-thirst for eternal torture is satiated regardless. Why should we begrudge them that fleeting non-pleasure of holding on to a fallacious and mis-placed hope? Since they are doomed only to wrath, we clearly should celebrate and joyously revel in their eternal torment...............Or....Should we be sad??????
That makes no sense, as God does not desire it, and we should not, at any point, desire that which God does not desire, as we would only be wanting the opposite of God's perfect will.....No indeed, we should sing celebratory songs of celebration in the anticipation of the knowledge that God will eternally revel in the screams of the damned!!!...God will be well-pleased! Why do we not go to church on Sunday and sing songs of joyous anticipation at the eternal torment of the irreparably DAMNED!!!! This is cause for sheer celebration....We should rejoice in it!
Great is thy wrathfulness....Oh, God, tormenter....there is no shadow of mercy for THESE.... Thou changest not, thy wrath as it fails not....decade by decade thy tortures I see!!!!!!"
Great is the heat of flame.....
Great is thy righteous wrath....
ever and always....thy torments we seee!!!!!"
The entire hymnbook needs to be re-written.
Last edited by a moderator:
If we possessed perfect knowledge I suppose your question would have merit. Alas, we do not. In many ways those who believe in the doctrines of grace act somewhat like Arminians. We plead with men to be reconciled to God. We grieve over their sin. We do so because we do not know God's plan for the individual. Perhaps, like Hezekiah pleading with God not to die, God's plan includes even this; the fact that we would call out to him to save the sinner who seems beyond saving. In the end, God is sovereign and acts after the counsel of His own will, so we can trust in that.
I know that you and HoS insist that DoG is fatalistic determinism. This is why my statements seem insane, because if I'm a fatalistic determinist, I can have no concept of the prayers of a righteous man availing much. Just because I believe in the decree of God He has determined all things does not mean I believe this in a fatalistic sense, or that I believe that there is no sense of causation within God's creation. I see God as eternal and immutable, omniscient and omnipresent but I also see that when a rock is dropped from a height it falls. Does that mean that because God decreed the laws of physics and even decreed that that particular rock would fall at that particular time that he did so against the laws of physics or regardless of them? I say no, he actually decreed what he did in such a way that it would happen in congress and harmony with the world he created. Because God decreed all things whatsoever were to come to pass does not mean that the world which he created does not work according to the way He designed it or that the workings of that world are meaningless in God's decrees. His decrees do not invalidate the working of them according to our temporal observations if any thing, they reinforce each other. If fatalistic determinism says the rock will fall regardless of the laws of physic, I say that the rock falls because of the laws of physics and God determined both the law which causes the rock to fall and that that particular rock would fall at that particular time.
I do insist though that the idea of an uncertain God is absurd.
I don't ask you to agree with me, and If I come across as a know it all then I apologize. Believe me it is just in the style of my writing because I feel as if I know next to nothing. I mean that. I struggle to understand all of this stuff. I HOPE that engaging in these threads I can understand some of what the bible teaches better, and I like the challenges that are put forth. I do get frustrated though when someone insists I believe something that I do not.
Hi HoS ,
the straw man that you are creating is that Calvinism is fatalistic determinism, which, despite what you insist, it is not. By defeating fatalistic determinism, you do not defeat DoG.
I admitted that the hypothetical scenario was silly because of the inconsistency of "knowing who was not elect" but I was trying to use it to make a point, which is that the preaching of the gospel should perhaps not be based only on "revealing the elect" and that there is some precedence in scripture for beseeching God to "change his mind". That was the point of my hypothetical. Perhaps God uses men to spread the gospel because he wants men to care about the eternal position of other men and wants our hearts to yearn for the salvation of ALL the lost. That was the point that I was making and it was in reference to the idea that the message of the gospel is only for the elect. While I believe there is a sense in which that is true, I also believe that we as men should care about men dying and going to hell.
of course there are absurdities in my hypothetical, I admit that. The point is still there though, and I don't believe that is absurd (I realize that you do)
I was not trying to create an argument against Arminianism at all, I was speaking within and challenging my own framework in the Doctrines of Grace...
so when you insist that Calvinist Theology is fatalistic determinism is this because you have a superior understanding of it beyond any who actually hold the theology?
But HoS, he did not create them in that state at all, they were born into that state as a consequence of the sin of Adam. I understand man being left in the state he was born in as God allowing but not efficiently causing that which he has decreed with respect to that condemned man. I understand this similarly to the existence of evil in the world, in that the fact of it was part of God's eternal decree but it arose by allowance not efficient causation. In man, the efficient causation of his condemnation is not his rejection of the gospel, but his sin and sin nature which puts him at enmity with God and his willing and active participation in that nature through sin.
v 11: For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
The point being that whom he loves whom he hates, whom he will have mercy whom he hardeneth are according to his purpose according to election (his choice). Don't lose the thrust of Paul's argument here. Not all the children of Abraham inherit the promises. Esau does not inherit the promises, Jacob does and it is purely through the good pleasure of God's will. Similarly, not all the children of Jacob inherit the promises of Abraham but those whom he hath called:
The vessels of mercy are those he has not cast away, individuals called according to foreknowledge. (11:2)
"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us - who? - whom he hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.
The called in this verse are the called spoken of in 8:28
8:33 "Who can lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" (Individuals of 8:17)
No, I believe you are incorrect. The entire argument is not of Israelites as a nation vs. Gentiles but that the children of promise (individuals) The Children of God (individuals) (Rom 8:16,17) are not the corporate nation of Israel and not only of the nation of Israel, but also of the Gentiles. He is not telling the "nation of the gentiles" that they are now the "elect Jacob" (corporately). The elect individuals are "not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." The corporate nation of Israel believed they were corporately elected as inheritors of the promise of Abraham and Paul says that they are not corporately elected to those promises but only individually elected according to the election of grace, and therefore individually children of promise. The children of God spoken of are individuals, the "foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and glorified are individuals. He didn't justify nations, or a new elect nation, he justified individuals. The elect of 8:33 are the same as those of 8:28 and 16,17 which are the same individuals in view in 9:15 and 9:16 (individual, not nation), 9:18, 9:20 (individual again "O man, who art thou that repliest against God..." not O nation that replieth against God. Therefore, the Gentiles are not prevented from inheriting the promises due to their lack of lineage. They are made inheritors of the promises through the election of grace (as individuals)
No, the entire context is expressly individuals. He is arguing against corporate election. The whole point is that corporately, as Israelites, their advantage is that unto them were committed the oracles of God. The advantage being that "the law entered, that the offence might abound." And Gal 3:23 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." They had the advantage of what the law provided. But as individuals Rom 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" It is not a contrasting of corpora but an argument that their corpus is not enough and that it is the pleasure of God which determines their election as individuals drawn from the corpora of Jew AND Gentile, not a single national corpus.
,the straw man that you are creating is that Calvinism is fatalistic determinism, which, despite what you insist, it is not. By defeating fatalistic determinism, you do not defeat DoG.
I admitted that the hypothetical scenario was silly because of the inconsistency of "knowing who was not elect" but I was trying to use it to make a point, which is that the preaching of the gospel should perhaps not be based only on "revealing the elect" and that there is some precedence in scripture for beseeching God to "change his mind". That was the point of my hypothetical. Perhaps God uses men to spread the gospel because he wants men to care about the eternal position of other men and wants our hearts to yearn for the salvation of ALL the lost. That was the point that I was making and it was in reference to the idea that the message of the gospel is only for the elect. While I believe there is a sense in which that is true, I also believe that we as men should care about men dying and going to hell.
of course there are absurdities in my hypothetical, I admit that. The point is still there though, and I don't believe that is absurd (I realize that you do)
I was not trying to create an argument against Arminianism at all, I was speaking within and challenging my own framework in the Doctrines of Grace...
so when you insist that Calvinist Theology is fatalistic determinism is this because you have a superior understanding of it beyond any who actually hold the theology?
But HoS, he did not create them in that state at all, they were born into that state as a consequence of the sin of Adam. I understand man being left in the state he was born in as God allowing but not efficiently causing that which he has decreed with respect to that condemned man. I understand this similarly to the existence of evil in the world, in that the fact of it was part of God's eternal decree but it arose by allowance not efficient causation. In man, the efficient causation of his condemnation is not his rejection of the gospel, but his sin and sin nature which puts him at enmity with God and his willing and active participation in that nature through sin.
I think he was. Paul is arguing that God's preference for Jacob (and his children) vs. his rejection of Esau (and his children) is not based upon anything that they DID but upon the pleasure of his will.
v 11: For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
The point being that whom he loves whom he hates, whom he will have mercy whom he hardeneth are according to his purpose according to election (his choice). Don't lose the thrust of Paul's argument here. Not all the children of Abraham inherit the promises. Esau does not inherit the promises, Jacob does and it is purely through the good pleasure of God's will. Similarly, not all the children of Jacob inherit the promises of Abraham but those whom he hath called:
The vessels of mercy are those he has not cast away, individuals called according to foreknowledge. (11:2)
"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us - who? - whom he hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.
The called in this verse are the called spoken of in 8:28
8:33 "Who can lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" (Individuals of 8:17)
No, I believe you are incorrect. The entire argument is not of Israelites as a nation vs. Gentiles but that the children of promise (individuals) The Children of God (individuals) (Rom 8:16,17) are not the corporate nation of Israel and not only of the nation of Israel, but also of the Gentiles. He is not telling the "nation of the gentiles" that they are now the "elect Jacob" (corporately). The elect individuals are "not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." The corporate nation of Israel believed they were corporately elected as inheritors of the promise of Abraham and Paul says that they are not corporately elected to those promises but only individually elected according to the election of grace, and therefore individually children of promise. The children of God spoken of are individuals, the "foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and glorified are individuals. He didn't justify nations, or a new elect nation, he justified individuals. The elect of 8:33 are the same as those of 8:28 and 16,17 which are the same individuals in view in 9:15 and 9:16 (individual, not nation), 9:18, 9:20 (individual again "O man, who art thou that repliest against God..." not O nation that replieth against God. Therefore, the Gentiles are not prevented from inheriting the promises due to their lack of lineage. They are made inheritors of the promises through the election of grace (as individuals)
No, the entire context is expressly individuals. He is arguing against corporate election. The whole point is that corporately, as Israelites, their advantage is that unto them were committed the oracles of God. The advantage being that "the law entered, that the offence might abound." And Gal 3:23 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." They had the advantage of what the law provided. But as individuals Rom 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" It is not a contrasting of corpora but an argument that their corpus is not enough and that it is the pleasure of God which determines their election as individuals drawn from the corpora of Jew AND Gentile, not a single national corpus.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi WITBOTL!!Hi HoS
the straw man that you are creating is that Calvinism is fatalistic determinism, which, despite what you insist, it is not. By defeating fatalistic determinism, you do not defeat DoG.
Well....engaging your hypotheticall...I don't think that if one takes a "deterministic" view...than God ever "changes his mind"....I actually think he does "change his mind"...but if all things are determined in, at least, the same sense that Calvinism teaches that they are...than it is unintelligible to think that God actually "changes his mind". I honestly think that God TRULY intended to DO a particular thing...and that the "prayers" of those BOLD enough to tell God that it was NOT in accordance with his nature to do these things...actually "changed" his mind.
But, given Calvinism.......do you not understand that GOD DOESN'T!!!!! "yearn for their Salvation??? Nor does he "care" about the salvation of all the lost????....Given Calvinism, God simply does not WANT them to be saved....Why is that so hard to comrehend? Has God, then...wanted a paricular thing (namely our desire or want for all men to be saved)....but his "actual" desires...(namely, that all people absolutely NOT be saved) be the case?
Tell me why they should "Care" if God himself simply does NOT "CARE"...in fact, given Calvinism...he DOES "CARE" and it is actually his Preference that they NOT be saved...If God had indeed wanted those individuals to be saved, than, in your own POV....they irresistably WOULD have been saved...That is, in fact Calvinist Theology...So, what is so hard to understand?
Yes, and no actually. I think that I am willing to take your own Theology to it's logical conclusions and that you don't and most Calvinists Theologians aren't willing to do the same thing. I think that Calvinist Theologians and apologists play "word-games" in a way with their own Theology to re-define the obvious...In that way, I actually think that they have actually "dilluded" themselves somewhat. What we on Baptist Board have to understand is that when someone engages in "Reductio ad absurdum"...They are NOT "Straw-manning" ANYTHING!!!! My arguments against Calvinism are "Reductios"...not "Straw-men". So are Skandelon's usually BTW.
.
True....but what difference does that make?...No, he didn't "create" them that way per-se... But was it not within God's purview for that actual state or tendency to NOT be passed on to his progeny??? Was God incapable of NOT decreeing that Adam's downfall would be inextricably passed on to all of his posterity? Did this happen without God's volition?....NO, so....It was then, again, God's perfect will, was it not??? That's Reductio.......Not "Straw-manning".
But, all of that is, in the Calvinist schema.....inextricably intertwinned in the notion that all men are born, by nature, the product and party to Adam's fallen nature, and that all of that follows necessarily from the "fallen state" to which God has sufficiently decreed that ALL of Adam's prosterity fell. If God had chosen that all men be given the same measure of "freedom" or "volitional will" that Adam enjoyed, than that would not be the case. Would it?
Agreed, actually. Only, I don't think that what he was "electing" them to, or "calling" them to, was eternall Salvation...but only to the purposes of God's "oracles" and earthly posterity...nothing in that passage suggests otherwise. "Edomites" were not, as a people fundamentally condemned to eternal hell....Nor are all Jews automatically "elect" to eternal salvation.....A VERY strong case could be made that Esau himself is in heaven...only that, his posterity does not enjoy the status of being God's "special elect people" to whom his "oracles" were given.
That cannot be separated from the Old Testament passage to which Paul is referring...and the Old Testament passage to which he is referring is a passage which speaks of the destruction of the "Edomites" as an Earthly nation, and not individuals. WE MUST!!! accept that God's meaning in Malachi is the defining point (i.e. the "Law of First Mention") behind ALL of our interpretation. It is not merely auxilliary too, but rather it is FUNDAMENTAL to what Paul is saying. He is not merely "borrowing verbiage" from Malachi...He is explaining what the prophet was saying to begin with. If we ASSUME what it is to which God is referring (i.e. individuals, and not Nations)...than Paul's entire argument breaks down.....Calvinism...(because of it's assumptions does this) and takes Paul's point in a completely wrong direction: I think the rest of your argument....Loses this very important distinction and is therefore confused from hereon out:
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I wasn't attempting to suggest you didn't affirm causation, but the fact that you affirm that there is NO cause that would prevent His elect from being saved or the non-elect from being condemned still affords my argument.
:thumbsup: Same here bro!
I seem to be unable to formulate a response that doesn't result in a lot of verbiage! I was trying to put together a response to this one sentence and it started turning into a book again... sigh. I guess my response is with respect to the elect.. I agree, with respect to the non-elect I do and I dont!
I think it comes down to my understanding of the nature and attributes of God and the honest difficulty (for Calvinists and non-Calvinists) to harmonize an eternal perfect God in all his revealed attributes to a temporal world in the minds of temporal and imperfect men.
What of omnipotence, omniscience, eternality, immutability? We have the challenge of preserving these attributes of God in all our doctrinal understanding.
Last edited by a moderator:
with respect to immutability that is correct. With respect to my understanding of God’s eternality, omniscience and omnipotence then he could not change his mind. However, he DOES deal with his imperfect, temporal creation in ways which we can understand and relate to him. I do not believe he limits himself to do this but he may limit his revelation of himself to us in order for us to relate to him as creatures with the limitations we possess.
Do you deny Immutability? How do you understand omniscience, eternality and omnipotence? Do you deny or limit these attributes to hold your view?
There is a decretive will of God by which he purposes whatever shall come to pass, there is a preceptive will which he prescribes the laws of his creatures (though they may not follow them). His decretive will always comes to pass, his preceptive will can be unfulfilled. Preceptively he wills all men keep his law perfectly. Decretively, he wills that not all men will. Similarly then, preceptively he would have men turn to him (ie. Luke 13:34) but Decretively, it is a part of his purpose that men will not. In this way I understand the “bad” things of this world not as surprises to God or something that he had to devise a subsequent plan for when his original plan failed, but part of the purpose of an eternal will which is consistent with his omniscience, omnipotence, eternality etc.
It relates to his preceptive will as opposed to his decretive will. I say we should care because he has prescribed us to care and prescriptively willed men to respond to the gospel.
I suppose if you are not intentionally misrepresenting Calvinism then you might not be intentionally raising a straw man, but if your reductio is based upon incomplete, or misrepresentative premises then the result is a caricature whether intended or not. In other words if you say “Calvinism says that God saves man against his will” You may think you have reduced Calvinist thinking with respect to predestination to God saving him against his will on the basis of a predetermined outcome. However, Calvinists state that he uses his will in response to the gospel (upon the effectual working and the giving of repentance and faith) and that he actually responds with volition which he has had enlightened through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Once enlightened, he responds with his will. Because God knows that the power of his working towards the elect will always result in man’s response to him (ie. that it is determined that the outcome will be a positive response) does not logically deny that the response was volitional, though it does mean that God initiated, and purposefully secured that positive response. Therefore predestination is not acting against the will of man, but is the basis for the securing of that will to a positive response of the gospel. Do you not see how your reductio, within this framework is misrepresentative?
Again, yes with respect to his decretive will, not according to his preceptive will.
However, if God had given men after Adam the same volitional freedom that Adam possessed (ie. no sin nature, not curse of sin, spiritual life etc.) and man still chose evil, then God must have foreseen this and and planned that this would be so through his omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty etc. Therefore in your schema He also must have willed it to be so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Except that there was purpose in this election beyond just their temporal enjoyment of things upon this earth. I agree though that in the corporate sense of the Children of Israel he is not talking specifically about salvation... (But you cannot separate the promises too far from God’s plan of salvation, can you?)
I don’t disagree with you that he is speaking about the Edomites with respect to the inheritance of promises and I do not believe it is just borrowed verbiage. He is very purposefully using the example of the Edomites as a national identity to make his point. That does not mean that his point is national or corporate. In other words, the corporate nature of the Edomites defines his point about the Edomites with respect to the Jews own understanding, but it is not his central argument broadly speaking at all.
Paul is proving how that the gentiles (not as a nation, but where applied, as individuals) can be legitimate heirs of the promises. The assumption of the Jews is that the sons of Jacob and ONLY the sons of Jacob were heirs to the promises. Paul is using their assumption that they are individual heirs because of their corporate identity to prove that they are wrong by pointing out that the Edomites are not corporate heirs (which the Jews agree) And if it is possible that the Edomites are not corporate heirs (though being children of Abraham) then it follows that all the children of Israel may not be individually children of promise.
In other words, the point about the corporate nature of the Edomites not inheriting the promises is to prove that the Jews do not inherit the promises corporately. In other words God’s electing purpose (not speaking of individual salvation particularly) to the Jews is not based on their Lineage of Jacob but on the good pleasure of God’s will.
So also, those of whom he speaks in 8:28,29 (individuals) to whom the passage in chapter 9 is referring do not receive their inheritance by virtue of their corporate identity, but according to the good pleasure of God’s will.
So when we speak of the grafting in, who is grafted in? Are all the gentiles now grafted in to the promises so that they are just like all the Jews? Or, are only those gentiles who are saved grafted in to the promises which are actually to the children of Abraham, though as gentiles not being a physical child of Abraham. I think it is the latter.
“And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them...”
Who is the remnant? Is it not saved individuals? The graffed in are those saved individuals who are now inheritors of the promises along with the remnant (individuals).
So, with this understanding, I am not denying the importance of Paul speaking about the Edomites corporately at all. It is central to that particular aspect of his argument, but this is not the conclusion of his argument, it is a plank in it. The purpose of his argument is not to talk about corporate election, it is to talk about (1:15,16) So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
However none of those scripture show a clear intervention of a prefaith regeneration.
If we do not have faith in place first, Grace can not be given because in the passage of Eph 2:8 grace comes through faith
It's simple: no faith, no grace.
In a fallen world, faith just appears out of the goodness of our hearts .... It is we that make the selection & then go to God with our wishes to be given the gift of grace....but not before we gift ourselves to God. Then & only then can God reciprocate & exchange presents.... Kinda like Christmas MorseOp, but we are really the Santy Clause giving ourselves to God....aint that sweet! :laugh:....kinda like partners in salvation. :love2:
I believe you've read enough of my post to know that isn't what I believe yet even if it was it would be perferable to what I've read from you. Thinking God just up and saved you one day when you had no faith for His grace to come through. No repentance and not the slightest of reason to save you in the first place. I know it was the luck of the draw. It was your fate. This is why you believe in fatalism. I'd laugh to but it isn't funny.
MB