Originally posted by Ian Major:
Skandelon said
I don't know what you have written on 'means', but you are having a hard time accepting that ends cannot be achieved without means in regard to salvation.
I understand that! I understand the part of your system that the gospel (a means) must be preached for the elect to hear and believe. I understand the part of your system that there must be threats (a means) from above to cause the elect to perservere. I understand it. Don't believe it, but I understand.
It is perfectly simple: God warns the elect SO THAT they will not fall away. The only reason they will not, cannot fall away is that God uses whatever means are necessary to ensure that.
So, God warns people that they could fall away so that they certainly will not fall away? Right?
Right!
That is an empty threat. Its warning someone of something that CANNOT by any means happen. And you doctrinal system explains the threat away making it impotent. That threat that will not be carried out is empty and impotent.
Think about it. A husband and wife talk one night and decide they are never going to give their child another spanking but just use the threat of it as their motivator. One day after the father threatens to spank the son if he lies to his father again the mother goes into the sons room, without her husband's consent, tells the son that his father was not going to ever spank him again and not to worry about that. The son knows his father will never spank him now and begins to ignore the fathers continued threats which now fail to motivate him altogether.
Boy, isn't that the picture of the church today as the Bride of Christ. We have Christ making threats and the bride going around saying, "Once you're saved you're always saved. That threat is just a motivator, it won't really happen." And we have teens and some adults living without the fear of God because afterall OSAS. Why not let God's threat stand as it is stated and allow people to fear him. If indeed it was sent as a motivator for elect people who will most certainly be saved then you are still causing harm by removing the motivating factor in the threat.
You think it illogical for God to propose something that cannot happen - but Scripture abounds with such examples of means. Why did Christ hide Himself from the Jews who sought to kill Him, since that could not happen before His time? Why did Christ ask the Father to let His cup pass from Him, since He must drink it? Why did Paul flee Damascus, since he could not fail in his mission until it was finished?
Because HUMAN WILL is in play and you're not willing to accept that. Christ hid himself from the Jews for the same reasons he hid the gospel from them in parables--it wasn't the right time for him to die and it wasn't the right time for them to believe. There is nothing about an empty threat involved any of these examples. These are all examples of circumstances people had to go through to reach the end result. In other words, its about the means to the end, which I don't have the problem with. The problem I have is with the lie God is telling when he says "you could be cut off" or "you could fall away."
In fact, it is not Calvinism alone that faces the objection of 'there is no ponit, if it's going to happen anyway'. Consider, you argree with Calvinists that everyting that will happen is known to God, is fixed and cannot be changed. You say it all happens in the context of man's Free-will. Calvinists's say it all happens in the context of God's Free-will. But both systems agree the end is certain. So the unbeliever can say to you as well as me, my decision is already certain and cannot be changed, so why bother. You as well as me have to reply that their decision is part of the means God uses to establish His ends.
Oh, its much different if man's response is actually in play here. Just because God knows the final choices of men and whether or not they will indeed fall away or not doesn't change the fact that the threat of falling away is a real one. The threat of falling away may have prevented some from falling away, but others it didn't prevent and though God knew of their plight, he did not choose them for it or determine them to it. Therefore His threat was not empty at all, it actually happened to some who had believed at one time. Some people actually "fell away" and were lost because they didn't heed Christ's warnings. His knowing of that beforehand changes nothing about the validity of that threat.
Sure, Acts 16: 14Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
How can you apply this to a lost, dead person being saved?
Notice a key part of this text: "WHO WORSHIPPED GOD." How many dead people worship God? I thought that was impossible (Romans 3:10) The passage is about a woman of faith who God prepared to hear more of his revelation.
2. Ok, so the means are working on all people, but are only effectual to the elect? right? The effectual means, where is that taught about in scripture?
See Acts 16:14 above.
You don't have any others? As I've shown you gave us an example of a person who has apparently already been made alive since she has been worshipping God, unless of course you want to alter your beliefs about the nature of the lost man.
Calvinists agree that the sole reason reprobates are lost is their unwillingness to be saved (behind which of course is their sinful heart and sinful actions).
No, no, no. If you won't let us say that believers are saved for the sole reason of God's Grace if their will is in play, then by that same logic you can't say that reprobates are lost for the sole reason of their unwillingness to be saved while believing that its completely dependant upon God's will. You must admit that they are not saved because God didn't want to save them, something scripture is not willing to say. In fact, it seems to indicate quite the opposite without even one qualifing statement to the contrayary.
If God takes these compensating measures, then it is not really harder for the rich to be saved than the poor??
It shouldn't be for God if indeed he is the only factor in the decision. One effectual calling is as powerful as the next, is it not? It can only be more difficult if the man's will is involved. It makes no sense other wise.
Yes, I know you don't believe God treats everyone equally. I just don't see the 'fairness' of that in a Free-will system.
I'm not arguing for "fairness" to the neglect of scripture. I hold scripture is higher regard than I do my own detemination of what is fair, which is one of the reasons I was willing to believe Calvinism when I thought that is what scripture was teaching. Understanding now the fact that God was hiding the gospel from the Jews temporarily in order to accomplish his purposes through their unbelief helps me to realize the error Calvinists make in their interpretations.
Ian, I know we are going in a circle here but you realize this takes us right back to our discussion on the means of God hiding the gospel in parables. Matt 13 clearly shows us that had the gospel not been hidden that those people may have repented and that teaching CANNOT fit into your system. Your system teaches that the means of hardening came from being born dead in sin and such passages teach that other means had to be employed to keep men from repentance before their time. You have to deal with that and I don't believe you have.
You must read that into it. The 'called according to His purpose' are certainly the elect. It is which comes first, the love of man or the love of God? I read it that God 'foreknew' - loved beforehand - and then predestined those He loved. You seem to read it that God foresaw men loving Him and predestined them on that basis. I suggest the former is much more likely, as it is 'whom' he foreknew, not what; also, the Biblical meaning of foreknow is that of intimate love rather than sight.
First, God could certainly foreknow those who chose him, and I don't mean that He foreknew what they did, but that he spent eternity with them because they loved him and he KNEW them personally. That could be one view, but that is not even the view I agrued. I pointed to the issue of the Jews and Gentiles since that is the issue Paul leads into with these words. He could have been simply speaking in national terms as he talked of God foreknowing the election of even the Gentile people and the process by which they will be saved. Read Adam Clarke for more details on that, its not as simple as debunking the idea that God foresaw what men did, that is overly simplify our view and actually ignoring it all together.
The nation was elect, but it was typical of the real Israel, the church that is elect onto salvation. Being of the nation did not mean one was elect onto salvation.
There is not such thing as the Gentile nation. The Gentiles are the nations other than Israel. The elect are not of blood but of the will of God. He has chosen the number of the elect from out of the nation of Israel and out of the Gentile nations.
Yes I realize that Gentiles are all other peoples which goes on to prove my point about God foreknowing those nations beforehand. And I know that just because a nation or a group of people are "elect" doesn't mean they will certainly be saved which also goes to show that the variable in the equation that determines ones salvation is not election alone, but also man's response to that call.
You must remember that the major issue of that day is not people trying to determine if God as selected certain individuals as opposed to other individuals. The issue is whether or not God had chosen any other nation besides Israel. Therefore, discussions in scripture speaking about God's choice or God's election are about groups of people, not individuals. NOTICE: That does not mean that an individual cannot be refered to as being chosen or elect. Once a person from a nation believed and bore fruit then they would have been confirmed as being chosen of God. In fact, many scholars believe that the term "elect" was a nickname for Jewish believers in some verses. Think back to Acts when the apostles point to the Gentiles belief and their fruits of the spirit when deciding if truly they had been elected of God. They weren't trying to determine if certain individuals were elect or not, they were trying to decide whether the Gentiles as a group could be included. That is the issue of their day!
NE kept the Old, but MILLIONS keep the New. The OC was based on man's free-will, the NC is based on God's free-will. In the NC God sovereignly causes men to have a new heart, to love His Law and to walk in His way. In ADDITION to this new aspect, He also brings His salvation to a vastly greater group than He did before. Very different covenants!
Some here have said in the past that their "belief" they are elect could be "fallible", and they believed in vain. If you reject this, you can be accused by those who believe that of rejecting "God's "sovereignty" as "unfair" as well. The passages on falling away are among the "hard" passages of scripture, so neither side can interpret them without some apparent problems. God can begin drawing a certain group of people, and then later expand, so their is no contradicion regarding that sparticular statement being for a certain number THEN. Noone ever said it would always be like that.