Inability of the Will is Never Literal

[Dave G]

Ken,
Since I'm off work recovering from shoulder surgery and the time has presented itself this morning, rather than waiting for you to step in with verses used to support your position, I'd like to address some of your comments from the first post.

A little background on me:
I believed on Christ during the preaching of God's word in a "Traditionalist" ( what some might call "4 Point Arminian" ) Independent Baptist church in 1978. From then until the age of 37 in 2003, I had never dealt with, much less heard preached, anything resembling what is known as "Calvnism" from any pulpit in the churches I was a member of, or had ever visited.

In 2003 a friend asked me to read 3 passages out of the Bible ( Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 ), and the rest was slowly understood out of Scripture during Bible studies over the next 5-10 years ( and mostly by myself, independent of any influence ). I don't own any books on theology and I have no use for commentaries, as I believe Scripture is it's own commentary.

With that said, I'd like to assure you and anyone who reads this, that my conclusions are strictly my own, and from my own private studies in God's word, for the most part.
I say, "for the most part" because it would be untruthful for me to state that I never looked at writings by prominent "Calvinists" during that time period, but that I also confess to never having needed or trusted their conclusions above my own personal responsibility to get the answers strictly from the Lord and not men.

In addition, I believe that I have established, from Scripture, what is the "default" condition of men with regard to our attitudes towards God in post # 15.
As I see it, @Reformed brought up the observation of many "Calvinists" that I know of, who see man's inability as just that...inability and "deadness"... while I see perhaps another ( and larger ) facet to our deadness that leads me to the firm belief that not only is it "inability" or "Total Depravity" according to the TULIP summary developed during the Synod of Dordrecht in 1619, but that what makes it that way is both man's love of sin, and our innate hatred of God for commanding us to repent, or give it up, in favor of obeying Him.

In other words, the "will not" becomes a concrete "can not"...the heart of man being described as "stony" in Ezekiel 11:19, Ezekiel 36:26, "darkened" in Romans 1:21, " "blind" in Ephesians 4:17-19, and "deceitful" and "wicked" in Jeremiah 17:9.
Not only is the "heart" ( which I believe to be man's "seat" of affections and desires, see Galatians 5:24 ) or "flesh" ( the outer or "old man" as opposed to the "inward man" as developed in Romans 7:14-25 and Galatians 5:16-18 ) of which both the heart/nature and mind consist, the problem at the center... but these things are described as being at "enmity" ( actively opposed or hostile to ) with God ( Romans 8:5-8 ).


To me, this should serve to address the condition of unregenerate, or "not-born-again" / "dead in trespasses and sins" mankind prior to the Lord's miraculous process of the new birth being introduced.

However, since you are convinced of something that appears to occupy a middle position between being both actively rebellious, and "dead" towards God and His ways, I will be more than happy to explain my beliefs according to what I see in the pages of God's word.


End of Part 1.

 

[1689Dave]

No matter how you try to balance free will with New Covenant scripture, any amount of it turns the gospel into law and grace into works.

 

[Dave G]

The issue of the inability of sinners is one in desperate need of common sense and Biblical clarity, which will provide some common ground for both sides—that is, for those who are willing to open their eyes and consider what the middle has to offer.

Personally,
I think the concept of "common sense", when applied to God's word is at best unreliable, and at worst, serves to only get in the way.

I'm reminded of the Lord's command here, that I happen to believe was made in order to forestall or urge the believer, to dump what "seems right" and to trust Him and His words explicitly ( Proverbs 3:5-7 ).
Because God's children are prone to being "dull of hearing" ( Hebrews 5:11 ) and "carnal" in their understanding ( 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 ) and fit for not the "meat" of the word, but only "milk" ( 1 Peter 2:1-3 ) until they build upon the words of God over time, they are in special need of that "milk" and milk alone ...and should never trust in things like "common sense" to guide them.

Paul confessed, " For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not." ( Romans 7:18 )...
As I see it, "common sense" goes out with the trash, and I'm forced to trust only in God's word and my Teacher ( Hebrews 8:7-13, 1 John 2:20-27 ) for my understanding of it.

So, I see no desperate need to negotiate a compromise with my own faulty understanding and God's word...
Trusting in Him to develop that understanding over time in study is the correct course, as starting off on "shaky ground" should automatically necessitate a total reliance for His child to grab hold of His hand while they are learning to "walk".



Believe it or not, I've already considered what the "middle" has to offer, in my own journey of arriving at what is contained in the concept of "Total Inability" or "Total Depravity"....which I sometimes like to call, "Total Rebellion".


End of Part 2.

 

[Dave G]

The most clarifying principle in expounding the inability of sinners is that explained by Andrew Fuller[1] (who was prompted by the writings of Jonathan Edwards[2]), to wit, that there is a distinction between natural and moral inability—a distinction that is both Biblical and common in understanding language. A moral inability consists in nothing more than an unwilling heart—unwilling due to its immoral nature—and provides no excuse because it is not absolute but leaves a power remaining to do otherwise (a remaining natural ability). A natural inability is one that cannot be overcome no matter how much one might be willing—it excuses because it is absolute and no power remains to do otherwise.

With respect,
I see little difference between natural and moral inability, as they are both inescapably tied together...joined "at the hip"...the first influences the other.

As some have said, even on this board... man's will, or "moral ability", is bound by his sin nature and and his "natural ability" is constrained by his love for sin and hatred of God.
"Original sin" being the cause, passed down through "the flesh", like "tainted clay" from one generation to the next.
Spiritual darkness inherited through the process of first, man sinning, and then God giving us over to that which we began to love...for His own purposes ( Romans 1:18-32 ).

Others throughout history have called it, "The Bondage of the Will", and I firmly agree.
Change a man's nature, and the rest, though hampered by the "flesh" around us, will at least desire to follow.
Add in the efforts of the Holy Spirit to overcome that "flesh" ( Romans 8:10-13, Galatians 5:16-17 ) ), and we "get the victory", in the end...only He gets it, and we rejoice in it.

All glory goes to God.

However, to address the part of your quote that I've bolded,
I tend to agree with the underlined, but at the point that the statement is made, " and provides no excuse because it is not absolute but leaves a power remaining to do otherwise (a remaining natural ability).", I see it as departing from what Scripture teaches.
To me, there is no "power to do otherwise", as man is completely powerless to change his own moral "compass".
He is not righteous in all his thoughts....

" And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. ( Genesis 6:5 ).

...and this is best described because of the Lord's statement here:

" But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:" ( Matthew 15:18-19 )

I see this as continuing to this day in every man, woman and child that is not born again.
So, to clarify my beliefs about both Fuller's and Edwards' thoughts on this matter, I believe them both to be in error.

Man's "moral inability" provides no excuse because it is absolute, and leaves no power remaining to do otherwise.
Man's "natural inability" provides no excuse because it is absolute, and leaves no power to do otherwise.
Man's "heart", or "natural inability", provides the impetus or motivation, while his "moral inability" goes right along with it, in "lock step", never wavering by so much as a hair's width.

"Hard as a rock", and in order for anyone to come to God in repentance, that "rock" has to be broken and made soft...the "heart of stone" must be removed, spiritually, and by God's power, and a "heart of flesh", sensitive to His ways and commands, must be "installed" ( Ezekiel 11:19, Ezekiel 36:26 ).
Repentance must be granted ( Acts of the Apostles 11:18 ) or given by God to someone ( 2 Timothy 2:25 ) in order for any change of heart and mind to follow.

It is not something that can be sought by any unregenerate person, and absolutely requires the power of God to initiate the process.



End of Part 3.

 

[Dave G]

Perhaps an easier way to think of this distinction is to keep in mind that terms of inability when applied to the will are always figurative (what Edwards and Fuller called “improper”[3]). If a man is wholly averse to doing a particular thing, even though he has it within his power to do it, and nothing hinders him except his unwillingness, he can within the common rules of language be said to be unable to do it. But since his inability consists only in his unwillingness, it is universally understood that terms of inability in the case are being used figuratively and not literally—figuratively because the man literally has it within his power. If he wanted to do it, nothing stands in his way.

I disagree.
I believe that I have shown that the terms are both literal, and all-encompassing.

I also believe that both Edwards and Fuller's conclusions were an attempt to reconcile what they saw as a "paradox".
Instead of understanding and accepting God's point of view, they misunderstood the Scriptures in this area, stumbled in their thinking and made a compromise.
They refused to submit their thinking to God's very words.

Man does not, literally, have anything in his power to change that which "powers" his whole being...the sin nature.
Therefore, he is helpless before God to even so much as lift a finger in obedience, much less reconciliation and true and lasting repentance.

End of Part 4.

 

[Dave G]

Both Calvinists and [Arminians] look for God to “enable” sinners to believe. However, since the inability consists in nothing more than unwillingness, then we in the middle look only for the persuading power of God’s grace at work in the sinner’s life. When the inability is figurative, consisting only in unwillingness, then the enabling would also be figurative, consisting only in changing an unwillingness to a willingness. Of course, all would agree that God has the power to supernaturally make such a change instantaneously; but the real question is, can He effect a change in will without first indwelling and regenerating the man? Like most Middlers, I believe that God is indeed capable, by means of the Holy Spirit, of persuading the lost man to embrace God and His truth through Christ and His cross.

Inability being literal in both cases, at least to me, I see mankind as I've developed in my prior posts.
I agree to the bolded, and as far as I know, all "5 Point Calvinists" look to the Lord, and Him alone to resolve this...
Knowing that apart from Him and His power through the Spirit, there is no resolution.


In the underlined, as much as I dislike stating it, I see what represents the beginnings of the "Arminian" doctrine of "Prevenient Grace" being developed..
In other words, the same direction Jakob Hermanszoon began to take, is represented in the thoughts and statements of men like Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller.
A compromise between Scriptural declaration, and man's attempt to reconcile that which the Bible states we should trust His perspective on.

"Total Inability".


While at first seemingly easy for my mind to believe both Fuller's and Edwards' conclusions, I do a "double take", remembering the Lord's words in many places.
This results in me almost agreeing with it, in principle, and then abandoning it because of its error.

In other words, the "middle position" in "Total Depravity" is in reality attempting to establish what would later be fully developed by men like John Wesley into the so-called "doctrine" of "Prevenient Grace"...which is part and parcel of modern "5 Point Wesleyanism", and is also, if I'm not mistaken, a large part of Roman Catholic "Molinism".

By necessity, the new birth must take place first...
The Lord must first "open the heart" ( Acts of the Apostles 16:14 ) in order for the unbeliever to "attend", or inwardly listen to, the word of God and be affected by it, "savingly".
They must first be given "ears to hear" ( Matthew 11:15 and several others ), and then and only then, can true faith follow ( Romans 10:17 ) during the presentation of His words...the Gospel of the believer's salvation.

I'm sorry, Ken, but we will definitely have to disagree.
I see no profit in trying to rationalize what I see explicitly stated in God's word as a total natural and moral inability, due to man's deeply-ingrained love of sin and hatred of God and His ways.

It literally goes all the way to his core.


End of Part 5

 

[1689Dave]

Inability being literal in both cases, at least to me, I see mankind as I've developed in my prior posts.
I agree to the bolded, and as far as I know, all "5 Point Calvinists" look to the Lord, and Him alone to resolve this...
Knowing that apart from Him and His power through the Spirit, there is no resolution.


In the underlined, as much as I dislike stating it, I see what represents the beginnings of the "Arminian" doctrine of "Prevenient Grace" being developed..
In other words, the same direction Jakob Hermanszoon began to take, is represented in the thoughts and statements of men like Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller.
A compromise between Scriptural declaration, and man's attempt to reconcile that which the Bible states we should trust His perspective on.

"Total Inability".


While at first seemingly easy for my mind to believe both Fuller's and Edwards' conclusions, I do a "double take", remembering the Lord's words in many places.
This results in me almost agreeing with it, in principle, and then abandoning it because of its error.

In other words, the "middle position" in "Total Depravity" is in reality attempting to establish what would later be fully developed by men like John Wesley into the so-called "doctrine" of "Prevenient Grace"...which is part and parcel of modern "5 Point Wesleyanism", and is also, if I'm not mistaken, a large part of Roman Catholic "Molinism".

I'm sorry, Ken, but we will definitely have to disagree.
I see no profit in trying to rationalize what I see explicitly stated in God's word as a total natural and moral inability, due to man's deeply-ingrained love of sin and hatred of God and His ways.

It literally goes all the way to his core.


End of Part 5

Thanks for this entire post!

 

[agedman]

I disagree.
I believe that I have shown that the terms are both literal, and all-encompassing.

I also believe that both Edwards and Fuller's conclusions were an attempt to reconcile what they saw as a "paradox".
Instead of understanding and accepting God's point of view, they misunderstood the Scriptures in this area, stumbled in their thinking and made a compromise.
They refused to submit their thinking to God's very words.

Man does not, literally, have anything in his power to change that which "powers" his whole being...the sin nature.
Therefore, he is helpless before God to even so much as lift a finger in obedience, much less reconciliation and true and lasting repentance.

End of Part 4.

I am not certain that Edwards presents a middle ground in his writing

I haven’t read Fuller’s work.

 

[Dave G]

I am not certain that Edwards presents a middle ground in his writing

I will be looking into it at a later time.
For now, I'm only going on information in the OP's post.

I've also only a brief knowledge of Fuller's work, having been exposed to its general concepts recently on a local Missionary Baptist website in their Statement of Faith.
From there, I let my fingers do the walking, and came up with the concept being attributed to the writings and influence of Andrew Fuller.

To my understanding, some have called it, "Fullerism".

 

[Dave G]

No matter how you try to balance free will with New Covenant scripture, any amount of it turns the gospel into law and grace into works.

I've heard it called "Pure Grace", Dave...
and I have to agree.

I like to use the analogy of a drop of raw sewage ( or something equally as nasty as the malaria-carrying amoeba ), into a bucket of pure and refreshing mountain spring water...
Instead of the spring water, there is now the taint of impurity.
Like a parasite, that impurity begins to invade and take over.
In a loaf of bread, yeast makes it rise...even a little bit will make it rise from being completely flat.

With respect to God's grace, I see any effort left up to man as being a pollutant, and it turns it into works, from God's perspective ( Romans 11:5-6 ).

If He is not responsible for every facet of a person approaching to Him, every "cause" ( Psalms 65:4 ), then to me, salvation is not truly "of the Lord".

 

[kyredneck]

I'd like to see Scriptures that speak with reference to the Gentiles

1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith Jehovah. Isa 54 [Galatians 4:27]

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10

Israel...who I'm convinced is responsible for rejecting Him as not only their Lord, but as their national Saviour.

...how about His murderer?:

The Righteous Judgment of God-The Spirit Convicts

 

[Dave G]

@kyredneck
I'm not sure I'm following you in your comment.

Are you disagreeing with me?
Or providing Scripture that proves the point that the Gentiles are held responsible for rejecting Christ as their Saviour?

To clarify:
I made the statement:

I'd like to see Scriptures that speak with reference to the Gentiles, not Israel

In context with my belief that all men are not held responsible to obey the Gospel.

who I'm convinced is responsible for rejecting Him as not only their Lord, but as their national Saviour.

Only Israel was, and it was because of their having not only a covenant of Law with God, but Him standing right in front of them.

imply put, please show me the Scriptures that tell us that all men are responsible to obey the Gospel.

With respect, I'm not talking about repentance, I'm talking about God actually holding someone fully responsible for rejecting His Son as their Saviour.

The above is what I was seeking an answer for, and I don't believe that there are any Scriptures that explicitly ( not implicitly ) state that anyone outside of Israel was ever held responsible to obey the Gospel.

I'll be back later...I'm off to physical therapy.

 

[kyredneck]

I'm not sure I'm following you in your comment.

Are you disagreeing with me?

Sorry. I made a knee jerk reply without reading the whole thread. It's off topic, disregard.

 

[Dave G]

While bouncing around on the internet,

I'm running across more and more articles about Andrew Fuller... one of which attributes an ever-changing mind to him, and another references him making disparaging comments ( as I see it, something no teacher of God's word should ever do to another person, no matter how much they might be in error ) against men like John Gill, and several others seem to give him the credit for revitalizing missions among "Calvinistic Baptists" during the early to late 1800's by introducing the cooperative aspect of God's sovereign grace and man's moral responsibility.

In addition, and I'm sure that @Reynolds will be delighted to discover this ,
it seems that I am what is considered to be a "High Calvinist".

This does not mean that I am a "Hyper-Calvinist" who believes and teaches that God causes and purposes everything that men do, even sin...
But it does mean that I believe not only that God can and does step in as often as He wishes to "tweak" men to do His will in some instances, put other things into their hearts to carry out, and often stands back and lets men make a wreck of things to some extent in their sins...but that He works all these things after the counsel of His own will.

Furthermore, it appears that the very narrow "corner" of professing Christians that I find that I am closest to in beliefs and teachings, appears more and more to consist of ...
Get ready for this:

Old School, "Hardshell", Old Line, Strict Particular Baptists...of which Primitive Baptists and several others in this country and the world over, are closely related.
How interesting.

Some websites out there for people like me, who seem to make up roughly 1 percent of all professing Christians, include this one:
The Association of Historic Baptists
I'm sure there are more, but I am also equally as sure that we will always remain a very small group ( no doubt a relief to many here ).

If that means I'm going to be hated even more by certain people, then it is, after all, part of my "calling" ...and it also comes with the territory.
I have my armor on ( see avatar picture ), my sword in my hand, and I'm riding the white horse ( Revelation 19:14 ) that the Lord will lend to me out of His stables when we come down with Him in the clouds.
I should be OK.

I am what I am, by the grace and mercy of God. <---- I'm "emoting" again. It's a phase I go through from time to time.

 

[Dave G]

Ken,

Thanks for the opportunity to interact with your comments,
To offer my detailed ( yes, I like detail ) responses to your post,
and to have the privilege of walking all over your thread ( even though it was not my express intention ).

I'm not averse to answering any questions you might have, once you return, but I think that I'm all "typed out" for now.
My final opinion is that Andrew Fuller was in error.
That is my firm belief, and I can say with all honesty, that's about as likely to change as a leopard's spots ( Jeremiah 13:23 ).

As for Jonathan Edwards, I'll have to review his book, " Freedom of the Will", a copy of which can be found here:
Freedom of the Will
...to get a better understanding of how similar or different he and Fuller were in their beliefs about man's moral inability.


I wish you well, and may God, in His grace and kindness, bless you with many good gifts.




*Edit*
Well, I've spent nearly 30 minutes skimming various chapters and sections of it, and I can tell you one thing...
I didn't see one Scripture listed in its entirety.

Not that there were none, but I didn't see any....and I skimmed through fully 3/4 of it.
It also seems to be a high form of philosophical discourse, and not anything I'm used to seeing among plain-speech preaching.
Light on Scripture appears to be a massive understatement, from my perspective.

To me, it's like reading John Calvin, only "deeper".
John Gill, only harder.
Spurgeon, only more long-"winded".

Edwards reasoned things out very laboriously, and I think I caught the gist of what he was saying...
Man's will while tied to his nature, is not quite the same way as the "High Calvinist" teaches it, and definitely not the same as the "Arminian" teaches it.

To me, he's "sounding" a lot like Fuller.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Ken,
Simply put, please show me the Scriptures that tell us that all men are responsible to obey the Gospel.

With respect, I'm not talking about repentance, I'm talking about God actually holding someone fully responsible for rejecting His Son as their Saviour.
As an added caveat, I'd like to see Scriptures that speak with reference to the Gentiles, not Israel...who I'm convinced is responsible for rejecting Him as not only their Lord, but as their national Saviour.

Mat. 11:28
"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

It is not just the elect who are weary and heavy-laden. The gospel is for all, and we are commanded to preach it to all. The gospel is not merely informative, as if to say, "Some of you might be elect and might believe;" but rather, it is implorative, imploring men to believe:

2 Cor. 5:20
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Fuller, p. 49, quotes Owen regarding this verse:
"'When the apostle beseecheth us to be reconciled to God, I would know,' says Dr. Owen, 'whether it be not a part of our duty to yield obedience? If not, the exhortation is frivolous and vain' [Display of Arminianism, chap. x. 5]. If sinners are not obliged to be reconciled to God, both as a Lawgiver and a Savior, and that with all their hearts, it is no sin to be unreconciled..."

Rom. 1
1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;

2 Thes. 1
6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.

John 16
8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

Mark 16
15 And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Matt. 11
20 Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. 21 Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to ACHades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24 Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”

That's all I have time for today. These are not exhaustive, nor do I intend by these a prooftext battle. There's more to understanding theology than prooftexts.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

I like Edwards, but if he taught "human responsibility" anywhere near what Fuller did, then I disagree with him.
To me, Fuller was wrong, and the non-elect have no "duty" to "exercise faith" nor to believe the Gospel.
I'll qualify this if or when I address it further.

To my understanding, the gospel was never intended for God's enemies, only His children.

Edwards was no Centrist. He held that all things happen of necessity, and according to God's plan. But He did propagate the idea that inability is of two kinds, natural and moral, and this was used by Fuller in his teachings. Fuller did not hold that all things happen of necessity. Rather, he held that all things happen by certainty. This is what I see as making him a centrist, even though he claimed to be a Calvinist; and this because of Calvinists' denial, in general, that there is any difference between necessity and certainty.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Hello Ken,

For your reading pleasure;
The Total Depravity of Man by A. W. Pink

Still reading...

 

[Ken Hamrick]

If one's soteriology does not begin with the natural man's complete incapacity to please God, it's a lost cause to argue with them about the deeper things.

God doesn't save sinners because He's meritoriously pleased with our faith. Rather,, He will not save us until we believe, since unbelief is spiritual rebellion against God.

 

[Reynolds]

While bouncing around on the internet,

I'm running across more and more articles about Andrew Fuller... one of which attributes an ever-changing mind to him, and another references him making disparaging comments ( as I see it, something no teacher of God's word should ever do to another person, no matter how much they might be in error ) against men like John Gill, and several others seem to give him the credit for revitalizing missions among "Calvinistic Baptists" during the early to late 1800's by introducing the cooperative aspect of God's sovereign grace and man's moral responsibility.

In addition, and I'm sure that @Reynolds will be delighted to discover this ,
it seems that I am what is considered to be a "High Calvinist".

This does not mean that I am a "Hyper-Calvinist" who believes and teaches that God causes and purposes everything that men do, even sin...
But it does mean that I believe not only that God can and does step in as often as He wishes to "tweak" men to do His will in some instances, put other things into their hearts to carry out, and often stands back and lets men make a wreck of things to some extent in their sins...but that He works all these things after the counsel of His own will.

Furthermore, it appears that the very narrow "corner" of professing Christians that I find that I am closest to in beliefs and teachings, appears more and more to consist of ...
Get ready for this:

Old School, "Hardshell", Old Line, Strict Particular Baptists...of which Primitive Baptists and several others in this country and the world over, are closely related.
How interesting.

Some websites out there for people like me, who seem to make up roughly 1 percent of all professing Christians, include this one:
The Association of Historic Baptists
I'm sure there are more, but I am also equally as sure that we will always remain a very small group ( no doubt a relief to many here ).

If that means I'm going to be hated even more by certain people, then it is, after all, part of my "calling" ...and it also comes with the territory.
I have my armor on ( see avatar picture ), my sword in my hand, and I'm riding the white horse ( Revelation 19:14 ) that the Lord will lend to me out of His stables when we come down with Him in the clouds.
I should be OK.

I am what I am, by the grace and mercy of God. <---- I'm "emoting" again. It's a phase I go through from time to time.

I am indeed glad to know you are a high Calvinist.