I've never known a Calvinist...

[Frenchy]

I do follow my bible correctly the bible say that NO MAN seeks after God. at least no unregenrated man.

3:10 As it is written, "There is no one righteous. No, not one.
3:11 There is no one who understands.
There is no one who seeks after God.
3:12 They have all turned aside.
They have together become unprofitable.
There is no one who does good,
No, not, so much as one." (Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20)
3:13 "Their throat is an open tomb. (Psalm 5:9)
With their tongues they have used deceit."
"The poison of vipers is under their lips;" (Psalm 140:3)
3:14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." (Psalm 10:7)
3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood.
3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways.
3:17 The way of peace, they haven't known." (Isaiah 59:7,8)
3:18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Psalm 36:1

The unregenrated man has a God given desire for spiritual things he was created in Gods image, so therefore he has an inated deisre to worship his creator. But that doesn't mean he seeks after the one and TRUE God who is his creator, some worship trees. I honestly believe the bible teaches that those God has Called/Chosen he gives a "special desire" drawing if you will, to seek after him.

 

[Frenchy]

Yes J.D. i know , i too do not think all Arminians believe they can lose their salvation.
it is just an avenue that can cause them to, thats all i was saying.

 

[Helen]

Oh PLEASE put those verses back in context!

For instance, Psalm 14 starts off
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."

Who is this talking about? The fool who denies there is even a God! That is not all unsaved people by a LONG shot!

I'm not sure which thread I put it in, but I took apart that Romans quote verse by verse and went back to where each section was taken from and EVERY one was talking about those people who deny God, who prey on other people, who glory in wickedness and evil and cruelty.

The Jewish Christians in Rome whom Paul was writing to knew their Scriptures. They knew what Paul was talking about -- that Jew or Gentile, both could sink to the depth of depravity and the law was no benefit in those cases. It is the lazy people of today who do not know their Scriptures and do not recognize where those quotes came from and what Paul was saying that think his mention of those verses in Romans refers to all men. They do not. They were never meant to.

 

[J.D.]

"The unregenrated man has a God given desire for spiritual things he was created in Gods image, so therefore he has an inated deisre to worship his creator. But that doesn't mean he seeks after the one and TRUE God who is his creator, some worship trees. I honestly believe the bible teaches that those God has Called/Chosen he gives a "special desire" drawing if you will, to seek after him."

I'm not sure if "special desire" is the right way to put it, but you're definitely on the right track. We differentiate between "common" grace and "saving" grace. Common grace is the universal mercy of God, that leads every man, even the reprobate, to repentence:

Rom2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

But we continue and see the effect on the reprobate:

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

So although they are "Led" to repentance, they do not actually repent, for they are hardened first of their own selves, and later by God Himself. Repentence is given to those to whom God granted it. In the famous words of Augustine: "Lord, command what thou will, and grant what thou commandest."

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

 

[Frenchy]

"Oh Apostle Paul PLEASE put those verses back in context!"

He was talking to both Jews and Greeks all are under sin. Man is unuversally EVIL. Check out verse 9, " What then are we better than they? NOT AT ALL, for we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are ALL under sin!"

ALL scripture is for ALL men both old T and new T. Then why do we use Romans 3 for witnessing? guess we shouldn't do that any more.

[ March 23, 2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Frenchy ]

 

[J.D.]

BTW Frenchy, thank for that PM correcting me on Romans 10:17. I will make all the pertinent facts on that public as soon as I can.

 

[J.D.]

Later

 

[Frenchy]

I haven't checked your pm yet J.D. been on this thread for awhile.

 

[Frenchy]

So although they are "Led" to repentance, they do not actually repent, for they are hardened first of their own selves, and later by God Himself. Repentence is given to those to whom God granted it. In the famous words of Augustine: "Lord, command what thou will, and grant what thou commandest."

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Thank you for those verses

 

[Andy T.]

I can just imagine the Roman Christians who read Paul's letter, when they got to Chapter 3, in what is meant to be humiliating to man that he may realize that Christ is his only hope and salvation, that they said,

"Phew! I'm glad that didn't describe us! It couldn't have, because we earnestly sought after God and he rewarded us accordingly. Man, I'm glad we did that. I'm glad that we're not like the publicans, atheists and sinners that Brother Paul described as not seeking God or having no understanding. Thank you God, that we are not like them!"

Yep, I bet that is how they understood chapter 3.

 

[webdog]

ALL scripture is for ALL men both old and new.

Do you cover your head in church? Do you still offer animal sacrifices? Do you tithe a portion of your livestock? Do you honor the Sabbath? Do you avoid meat from hooved animals?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Helen:
To Scott:

Originally posted by Helen:
God will not violate their free choice.
You responded:
That statement defies scripture- both declarations and examples in the sense that you seem to intend it.

"Behold, I stand at the door an knock..."

Not used in context. You are much better than that.

These words are to a church, not an individual, and contextually are not concerning salvation.

"Come, let us reason together, says the Lord..."
"Choose this day who you will serve..."
"Harden not your hearts..."

All of which have contexts.

But moreover, telling someone to do something in no way implies their immediate willingness to do it... nor does unwillingness constitute any sort of indictment against the one giving the command.

I can put all of these deep into context, but I have mentioned them so many times that I am hoping I don't have to do all that typing again. I will if challenged, though..

You know that I care about you but the only context that matters is how they fit into their immediate text and the whole of scripture.

God gave man free will -- the freedom to want -- and does not repent or turn back on His gifts.

Free will without ultimate, effectual "goodness" will only have one result- rejection of the gospel.

The goodness to choose correctly to believe must come from somewhere. It is either manufactured in the heart of man or placed there by God.

He does not violate that free will.

No. He changes its nature.

It is our choice if we open, or seek, or reason with God, or harden our hearts. The Bible is very plain about this.

Obedience is a reaction, not an originating action. Obedience is good and proceeds from a good motive. It cannot proceed from wickedness or a sinful motive.

So effectively if it is ultimately man's decision that is the critical factor in the "choice" to believe then we are saved by our own goodness and good choice... not by God's grace.

I find a good parallel here between this anti-calvinist concept and Darwinian concept of God's creativity. It would hold that God didn't cause anything really... He just established the conditions under which it could happen on its own.

If salvation must ultimately come under the sovereign choice of men... shouldn't their birth also? And if their birth, why not creation as a whole? Why not the birth of others who might interfere with or facilitate their finding salvation?

Think about it. If physical conception automatically and without respect to our will predestines that we will have an eternal fate... is it fair that we don't get to choose whether to live or not?

Did God not "violate" our "free will" by requiring us to make the choice at all? If your reasoning holds true at all then the only answer must be "yes".

This isn't far from the beginning verses of John 3. Jesus compares physical birth to spiritual birth... and He in no way qualifies that spiritual re-birth is a choice rather than being like natural birth... a non-choice.

For instance, God violated Paul's free choice. He had freely chosen to go persecute Christians in Damascus... God had a different plan.

You are looking a the effects of Paul's choice, not his heart's choice, which was to serve the God of Scripture. He considered Christians a cult which was damaging to Scripture. He wanted the truth of God to stand. That was his heart. God then showed him Who the truth was and is and Paul changed immediately -- in accord with the truth he always wanted. God fulfilled his heart's desire and did not violate his freedom to want that truth. Instead He answered Paul's quest with Himself.

Interesting try but... no. And even if true... where did that desire come from? Where did the good within Paul come from? Himself or God?

We cannot control what happens to us. Our responsibility is how we choose to respond.

Now that is an interesting thing to say... If one cannot control what happens to them and the goodness to believe lies within them if given the right opportunity... Is God not responsible for their going to hell? If the fate of the sinner is ultimately dependent on their own free will choice then how is it not incumbent upon God to give each an equal opportunity to make that choice? Doesn't everyone equally deserve it since they possess goodness within them? Wouldn't God be unjust for condemning one who had goodness within themselves that He denied them the opportunity to express?

When I mentioned about prayer, you responded:
If those things are true then you are basically saying that God is in control of the circumstances that result in someone's salvation... meaning He has very much violated their "free choice" and that of those for whom He doesn't manipulate circumstances favorably.

Of course God is in control of circumstances, but He doesn't cause or force anyone to respond in a particular way to them.

Did He "force" you to be born? If not then consider re-birth by the same nature... Jesus did.

The word cause though is much different. If God did not "cause" it then that good "cause" must have been supplied by the sinner... meaning that the sinner's goodness not only contributes to his salvation... it is the critical contribution that differentiates the lost from the saved.

Take a look at the incredible blessings in the lives of the majority of Americans -- they have been set up to win. But they choose to reject God for the most part -- or at least to reject any serious commitment to Him. But if something bad happens, "How could God do that!?!" They know God is in charge! Their response is what is their responsibility.

The response of natural men to pleasure (to ungratefully abuse it) or pain (to blame God for it) in no way supports the notion that such people will ever supply the goodness from within themselves to effect a salvation choice.

You proven that men are sinful... but to answer effectively, you must prove that they are truly good of their own accord.

If we are Christians sharing the Gospel or discipling someone, we bear a very heavy responsibility to listen to the Holy Spirit's direction.

Why? If He is not the effective initiator of salvation, why does His timing matter? If He doesn't purpose to save those whom He will in His own time... why should we wait for Him? Aren't we in fact irresponsible for waiting for anything except perhaps the other person's willingness?

He knows what He is doing.

Does He? He knows what He is doing but not so thoroughly that when He sets out to accomplish something He does so?

But it is also ours to pray for the circumstances in the person's life and his or her ability to see what is going on.

You mean that they can't "see" unless God grants them the ability?

No, I am not a universalist and yes, salvation is supernatural.

If salvation is ultimately contingent upon the choice of "natural" men then it is nothing but a choice... it is not supernatural. It is no more supernatural than dropping a stone and seeing it fall. Both cases may allow that God created the conditions but neither attribute the effect to anything that isn't naturally predictable.

But neither denies that God has invited man to reason with him, asked man to seek Him with his whole heart, warned him not to harden his heart, and invited him to choose whom he will serve.

Again, even when one has authority to issue a command, it does not necessarily follow that those responsible to obey will.... ever of their own accord and nature obey.

Obedience is a will from within... that is good. Goodness comes from God alone.

We have the freedom to respond yes or no to God. Our response is no surprise to Him. He knew from all eternity. But that does not make it any the less our choice.

Actually I agree with all of this.

Natural man has the freedom... but not the goodness to choose "yes".

God is not surprised by who responds yes because ultimately it was His choice to impart goodness to them.

And absolutely... it is our choice. The choice to believe is caused by Him because He is good but carried out by us... because of His goodness and our recognition of our wickedness.

The choice to reject... He leaves that completely up to the natural man.

A pastor I had before called it the Divine Paradox.

I would agree with that pastor... and the reason I believe in principle the doctrines of grace is that they deal with this paradox better and with more respect to scripture than those that exalt man.

 

[Helen]

Scott, you are trying to say that there is a choice of one thing. That is not choice.

Your argument about not choosing to be born physically sounds like my kids when they were teenagers. Their excuse was that they were not mentally mature yet...

Would you say that if God COMMANDS something, He expects it to be carried out and has given the wherewithall for it to be carried out? I'm sure hoping you know God well enough to say yes. But please look at Jeremiah 32:17-23 -- the first part of Jeremiah's prayer:

Ah, Sovereign Lord, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you. You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the fathers' sins into the laps of their children after them. O great and powerful God, whose name is the Lord Almighty, great are your purposes and mighty are your deeds. Your eyes are open to all the ways of men; you reward everyone according to his conduct and as his deeds deserve. You performed miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt and ave continued them to this day, both in Israel and among all mankind, and have gained the renown that is still yours.
You have brought your people Israel out of Egypt with signs and wonders, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with great terror. You gave them this land you had sworn to give their forefathers, a land flowing with milk and honey. Thyey came in and took possession of it, but they did not obey you or follow your law; they did not do what you commanded them to do. So you grought all this disaster upon them.

Will God command and not bring it to pass in the Calvinist theology?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Helen:
Scott, you are trying to say that there is a choice of one thing. That is not choice.

No. I am not saying that.

The choice is always there. The goodness is not. The necessity to make the right choice and to even have a mental understanding is there but the goodness is not.

Paul even as a Christian in Romans 7 found no goodness in his flesh. His flesh resisted the renewed spirit within... How much more then if the spirit is not regenerate? How much more will the flesh dominate a dead spirit if the battle is so grievous between a quickened spirit and the flesh.

A natural man is one that obeys his flesh because he has no will or goodness within to cause him to deny it.

Your argument about not choosing to be born physically sounds like my kids when they were teenagers. Their excuse was that they were not mentally mature yet...

It shouldn't since it was the illustration provided by Christ Himself.

But even so, you didn't answer the point. It is not a "violation" of our free will when we are physically born... yet our physical birth was not by our will but God's. That perfectly and biblically illustrates that there is no conflict between saying that God ordains "life" without respect to the will of the one who will live.

This is the third choice that those who protest calvinism but deny arminianism are looking for.

Our physical birth was not our choice. It was not forced upon us in any rational sense. It was a non-choice for us. It was neither chosen nor forced... and decidedly not a violation of our free will.

Would you say that if God COMMANDS something, He expects it to be carried out and has given the wherewithall for it to be carried out?

Yes but probably not in the way you imagine. Natural man doesn't disbelieve for a lack of any mental or physical faculty... he disbelieves because he is unrighteous and fundamentally "not good".

God gave man intellect and moral agency. Man himself was the cause of his own lost condition and unwilling nature. Man's nature was not defiled and is not depraved because God made him be that way but because man chose it.

This isn't a "blame Adam" thing either. Adam was our representative... we all would have made the wrong choice... and in fact do without any provocation from God.

The only sense that I accept the notion that man "can not" accept Christ is that he absolutely "will not" while still in his natural state. Inability is a very unfortunate and maybe even misleading means of argument.

I'm sure hoping you know God well enough to say yes.

Now don't get personal... and start questioning my spirituality or salvation over this. By and large, I try to avoid that on this particular subject.

The experential aspect of salvation is a very real choice. I don't deny that reality or its meaning... just its ultimate cause. And that, only because of what scripture reveals.

I personally do not feel violated or offended that when I was without hope, God moved in me in such a way that conviction, repentance, and faith were natural... whereas before, they were just words the preacher yelled every service.

Will God command and not bring it to pass in the Calvinist theology?

Yes. God permits things... even disobedience. He accounts for them in His plan but He is in no way guilty of them. Permitting something even knowing it will happen and with the power to stop it doesn't make one guilty of the decisions made by others.

However, He also has a perfect will. Things He accomplishes because He purposes to accomplish them. In every case where He employed supernatural means... it accomplished His perfect will. Salvation is supernatual and a manifestation of God's perfect will. He chooses by His own good pleasure due to no merit in the elect... and permits the others to continue in their "free will".

 

[saturneptune]

Scott,
Your posts on God's soverignty and man's free will are so insightful and deep, put in the proper context of course.

 

[Helen]

Paul, in Romans 7, is decribing himself before salvation. That is abundantly clear as he describes his spiritual death in verses 7-11 and then in verse 14 states that his condition at that point is being 'sold as a slave to sin.' If this is him after salvation, then he was lying in Romans 6 that we should no longer be slaves to sin (v. 6), that we are dead to sin (v. 11), that we have been brought from death to life (v. 13), that sin is not our master (v. 14), that we have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness (v. 18).

In short, Paul is describing the condition of the unsaved man who is seeking the truth, and acknowledging that the law is good, but is totally unable to obey it or to do any of the good he wants to do. He states repeatedly that this is the spiritually dead person. For no one who has the Holy Spirit living in him would ever say "I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."

It is because of the Holy Spirit that we can carry out our desire to do good -- and He also shows us what good He wants us to carry out.

The Bible consistently quotes God as asking people to love good, do justice, turn from sin, acknowledge their sinful ways, seek Him. This would not be said to a person already born again, for that would be an exercise in futility -- he is already on that path. And it would not be said to a person who could not respond, for that would be pure cruelty and mocking -- and that is not the God of the Bible.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
Scott,
Your posts on God's soverignty and man's free will are so insightful and deep, put in the proper context of course.

Hopefully you saw my last response to you.

In a nut shell, please tell me whatever it is that I have personally done to offend you and provoke you, as a Christian, to resort to sarcasm and mocking. The insincerity of your behavior is unbecoming of one professing to be brother.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Helen:
Paul, in Romans 7, is decribing himself before salvation. That is abundantly clear as he describes his spiritual death in verses 7-11 and then in verse 14 states that his condition at that point is being 'sold as a slave to sin.'

No. Besides the fact that the context is established by verse 6... verses 7-13 are written in the past tense tense.

The verses in question, 14-23 are in the present tense... and if that weren't enough, he declares in verse 25 that this battle is a continuing condition even after declaring that Christ saves him from it in verse 24.

If this is him after salvation, then he was lying in Romans 6 that we should no longer be slaves to sin (v. 6),

Context. Context. Context.

Chapter 7 is dealing specifically with the flesh-spirit battle all Christians face. Specifically, this supports my position. In chapter 6, we are raised to "newness of life"... we become regenerate creatures... which results in the battle. Before regeneration, there is no real battle. Man obeys his fleshly desires. Some seem more noble than others but all are "right in his own eyes".

that we are dead to sin (v. 11),

Dead to sin- separated from spiritual bondage to it. None the less, still in the flesh with a battle to be fought against that sinful flesh... as Paul continues to explain through the rest of chapter 6.

that we have been brought from death to life (v. 13),

So you are think that the flesh battled with a dead spirit?

that sin is not our master (v. 14),

So there was a battle when it was the master... ie before regeneration? No. The "natural man" doesn't discern nor receive the things of the Spirit... therefore no cause for a battle to exist.

that we have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness (v. 18).

Yet immediately after this is when Paul goes into the battle between the two masters... the flesh and the renewed spirit.

In short, Paul is describing the condition of the unsaved man who is seeking the truth, and acknowledging that the law is good, but is totally unable to obey it or to do any of the good he wants to do.

Not possible for the reasons given above. It is in the present sense and verses 24-25 contradict that interpretation.

He states repeatedly that this is the spiritually dead person.

Nope. Not once in those verses written in the present tense and describing the battle between the flesh and spirit does he describe himself as dead.

He concludes with a summary: 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

For no one who has the Holy Spirit living in him would ever say "I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."

No more nor less so than they would say that that they were "serving... with my flesh the law of sin".

It is because of the Holy Spirit that we can carry out our desire to do good -- and He also shows us what good He wants us to carry out.

Yes... in spite of our flesh. However, without the Holy Spirit, one has no inclination toward good nor resistance to the evil of their flesh.

The Bible consistently quotes God as asking people to love good, do justice, turn from sin, acknowledge their sinful ways, seek Him.

Yes. And Paul answers that objection in Romans 7 as well...

12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

Man is fully accountable under calvinism for his disobedience... but he deserves no credit for any good that causes his salvation.

 

[Helen]

No one 'causes' his own salvation. But each is free to accept it. I am amazed that you don't see what Paul is so clearly stating in Romans 7. Why do you think he ends it with "What a wretched man I am! Who will set me free from this body of death?" What born again person is going to proclaim "what a wretched man I am!"? We are to be thankful continually, according to this same writer! Please note verse 25 -- the end of it: "So then I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin." In both cases he is talking about being a slave to law. But Jesus fulfilled the law in the first instance and freed us from the law of sin in the second.

And yet you are willing to say that this narrative of Paul's is describing a person who is born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit! God forbid!

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Chirst Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

THAT is the born again man!

Chapter 8 continues, in direct opposition and contradistinction to chapter 7:
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

He states in the next verse that the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace -- and that is sure not what we were reading in chapter 7! In chapter 7, this man stated, "but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am!"

That is most certainly not a mind of life and peace controlled by the Spirit!

 

[Frenchy]

I noticed Helen avoided this question I had, please someone answer me this? by the way Helen i totally respect you and your delegence
to the word of God. You do a very good job in debating,lots of times i agree with you and when i don't i still respect your great answers that keeps me searching the bible for the truths i know in my heart. i have even learned some things from you, thank you. keep up the good fight, and just know i resect you and your opinions.

having said all that....

So how can an Arminian believe in assurance of salvation? I mean come on if they had to do something then they can also UNDO it too. seems very contradictory doesn't it?

So which is it?
God did it all even the calling/choosing before the foundartions of the world. therefore he will keep that which he called/chose or we had something to do with our salvation therefore those who hold to the veiw of losing it are right

This is where Helens "Free Will" examples fall apart.
We do have free will before salvation and after, but at the MOMENT of salvation it is the WORK of God. John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who has sent me DRAWS HIM."

God intervines on many occasions in our lives over riding FREE WILL for those saved and unsaved!

Seems that is the answer that yes we have free will but God in his sovernty decides when he wants to override our free will, and why. if he wants to choose who he wants that is within his sovernty, no one has been able to biblically explain away any of the verses where he said he chose us and draws us, according to his good will and pleasure, before the foundations of the world

It is a mystery and a paridox, which humanly cannot be explained. Just as how can Jesus be 100% man and 100% God?

you can't explain that no matter what, you just have to trust that since the bible is clear that he is then it must be true. just as the bible says God chose us and he is the one that draws us, and he is the one that keeps us, that our salvation doesn't depend on ourselves but God. but we have a free will that when that drawing and truth is presented to us that we have the opportunity to believe, to accept that which is true.

I was witnessed to many times in my life i even asked Jesus in my heart at 14 but there was NO change he didn't come in. what happened I believed what I had learned I wanted God in my life, but it didn't happen at 14 or even 7 years later. it happened when GOD wanted it to happen.
looking back i always felt God's working in my life or guardian anges or whatever, some kind of protection. so why didn't he save me when i asked? I honestly believe because it wasn't my time to be saved.
I am probably a much better christian being saved when i was, than at a young age. just my opinion but i am sure there are others out there
who would agree they experenced the same thing.