Man’s Duty vs. God’s Elective Purpose Explained

[Yeshua1]

What I have been trying to point out Iconoclast is that the reformed writings, because they encompass a huge range of issues involving things we as humans have a hard time understanding oftentimes produce in themselves difficulties. And it does not help in debate to constantly recite the basic TULIP explanation and think you are done. In the quote above you certainly don't have anyone making a case for an unbeliever having free will in choosing Christ on their own. And I didn't say that. You do have an honest attempt by the writers to show that in a general sense not only do a lot of non elect people have an honest offer of the gospel but the Spirit is actually at work in them (their words, not mine). And because of their willful neglect and contempt are then left alone.

I have read fellow Calvinists argue among themselves that Calvin taught either limited atonement or not!

 

[Yeshua1]

The same thing happens on here with the "L", limited atonement. "The language of limited atonement describes inadequately and unfairly the view which is held by Reformed people". That's not from Silverhair, it's from Roger Nicole on Particular Redemption. But if I or he would have said that a lot of folks on here would have jumped all over that as a heresy. There is a lot involved in discussing something like this in a fair manner so that maybe one can help a person who is new to all this learn something. Sproul, in his writing on the TULIP changes at least 3 of the letters himself. Puritan preachers and modern Calvinistic preachers constantly preach in a way that requires men to exercise their wills and they even plead for men to repent and believe. I think the Reformed writings explain the difficult theology behind these things much better than Armenian theology but there are difficulties in Reformed theology that need to be explained.

Think that since even Apostle Paul had a struggle fully understanding the grace of God, we should all be mindful that we all see thru a glass dimly at times!

 

[DaveXR650]

Well, regarding limited atonement, what if I said it this way:
"Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men?" I prefer that to Limited atonement and I'll tip everyone off this time that is Louis Berkhof, who had it seems a basic understanding of Reformed theology. And yes, it is difficult for several reasons. It seems to have developed fully after Armenian and Lutheran theologians started attacking Reformed theology. It seems to be squeezed into a rebuttal of the Armenian five points. Also, there is the fact that when you read Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" you have to keep in mind the charged political atmosphere at the time and how closely Calvinists, Armenians and Catholics were tied into government and the warfare that was coming. I think that affected Owen greatly in his work and in the way he treated opposing views. Bottom line is that a real Christian has a perfect right to not believe in a limited atonement at all or at least to dislike the "L" terminology and not have their basic Christianity challenged.

 

[Iconoclast]

What I have been trying to point out Iconoclast is that the reformed writings, because they encompass a huge range of issues involving things we as humans have a hard time understanding oftentimes produce in themselves difficulties. And it does not help in debate to constantly recite the basic TULIP explanation and think you are done. In the quote above you certainly don't have anyone making a case for an unbeliever having free will in choosing Christ on their own. And I didn't say that. You do have an honest attempt by the writers to show that in a general sense not only do a lot of non elect people have an honest offer of the gospel but the Spirit is actually at work in them (their words, not mine). And because of their willful neglect and contempt are then left alone.

Dave,
The confessions are carefully worded documents.
When you tamper with the wording it changes the intent.
You raise the issue that some truths are hard to be understood;
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

That is why I asked what church you were in for 10yrs, or however long you said.They should have had studies available to work through the issues you speak of slowly and carefully.
here for you;
www.sermonaudio.com

 

[DaveXR650]

"The Calvinists whom I admire do not claim to have simple easy solutions to complex biblical tensions. When their writings are difficult it's because the scriptures are difficult (as the apostle Peter admitted that in part, they are)" John Piper, "Are There Two Wills in God", from the book "Still Sovereign" by Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware.
I don't always agree with Piper (sometimes I disagree a lot), but he's a pretty smart guy and he helped encourage me to start reading Edwards. That book came from a study at my church and if I remember correctly Bruce Ware did the study. You cannot possible study reformed theology and not realize how difficult it is. My church, and I will not give the name because I have seen no one on here give out a specific church name, with all it's flaws at least realizes this. No one "tampered with any wording". Once again we talk past each other.

 

[Yeshua1]

"The Calvinists whom I admire do not claim to have simple easy solutions to complex biblical tensions. When their writings are difficult it's because the scriptures are difficult (as the apostle Peter admitted that in part, they are)" John Piper, "Are There Two Wills in God", from the book "Still Sovereign" by Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware.
I don't always agree with Piper (sometimes I disagree a lot), but he's a pretty smart guy and he helped encourage me to start reading Edwards. That book came from a study at my church and if I remember correctly Bruce Ware did the study. You cannot possible study reformed theology and not realize how difficult it is. My church, and I will not give the name because I have seen no one on here give out a specific church name, with all it's flaws at least realizes this. No one "tampered with any wording". Once again we talk past each other.

Just compare the theology of as Calvin or a Gill to what is called such today!

 

[George Antonios]

The answer is in Romans 5, yet you seem to think it is not there. Why is it that you skim through scripture and never get the point God is making?

What do you mean by "it was God himself that so constituted Adam's fallen nature"?
Do you mean that God gave Adam the capacity to break God's commandment and thus fall into corruption? Yes, God gave Adam that capacity. Moreso, Paul informs us in Romans 5 that this corruption of character would pass on to all of Adam's offspring.
George, did Adam sin by his own capacity to break God's commandment or by God making him break the commandment?
Answer: Adam had the capacity and broke the commandment.

George, did God give us the capacity to fix that corruption by our choice to fix it?
Answer: Humans cannot choose to fix what they have no capacity to fix. It's like an infant playing with an electronic toy. They have the capacity to break the toy, but they don't have the capacity to fix the toy. A qualified person needs to fix what the child broke. The fixing of the toy is entirely that of the one who has the capacity to fix the toy, not the infant who broke the toy.

Adam's brokenness is in each of his offspring. In each person there is a need to be repaired and there is only one repairman who can fix the brokenness.

Is God obligated to fix the brokenness? (Remember, Adam broke God's command, but couldn't fix that which has been passed on to all his offspring.)
Answer: No. God is not obligated to fix what Adam broke. If God chooses to fix what is broken, it is purely because God chooses to be gracious.

Is God unfair if he chooses to fix one broken "toy" but not all broken "toys"?

Answer: He is not unfair. Fair equals justice. If God would be fair, then He would justly leave all toys unbroken since they all need repairing and he didn't break the toy. Adam and his offspring broke the toy.
To fix the toy, you need to pay the repairman, but the cost of fixing the toy is too expensive for anyone to pay. Therefore the repairman (God) can either choose to repair the toy for free, which is an act of grace, or not fix the toy.

Why does God fix one toy and not another?

Answer: He is not obligated to fix any toy, but according to His own mysterious council, God chooses to grant mercy to whom he grants mercy and not grant mercy to others. (Romans 9) He fixes the toys he chooses to fix and he never tells us why. You can make up all sorts of speculations. You can say that humans must do this, that or the other thing to get God to fix the toy. Or you can acknowledge that God simply doesn't tell us and since God is the only one with the capacity to fix the toy, we are entirely at his mercy. In other words...we don't control the decisions of the repairman. He controls his own decisions.

George, you have to live with the mystery. It is not yours to know.

Ships in the night.

 

[George Antonios]

George, using your reasoning God is responsible for sin,as He created man.
If He did not create man Adam would never been able to sin

Beside the point.

 

[George Antonios]

George, according to God’s Word our Lord has predetermined all that comes to pass, including the deleterious effects of the Fall,

You were almost there bud, the only one that at least takes time to read and understand the point.
But then you couldn't stare down the barrel.
Given what you just rightly conceded, the excuse that "the reason men cannot believe is Adam's sin and therefore not God's fault" is unusable since it's God himself that so constituted Adam's fallen nature as to be unable to believe.
I'm not discussing any other point, and all discussions beside that point are beside the point.

 

[Iconoclast]

Beside the point.

Hello George,

I am not certain that it is beside the point.
God is sovereign, Man is responsible for his sin and rebellion.
Any attempt to violate God's Holy attributes, wisdom, knowledge, is a theological third rail.

All the proper confessions of faith start with the Premise of God being perfect in all His Holy attributes.
George, all discussion starts right here with this stark contrast;
3 Because I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children:
they are a perverse and crooked generation.

God is perfect ,sinful man is not, yet fully responsible to God.

 

[George Antonios]

Hello George,

I am not certain that it is beside the point.
God is sovereign, Man is responsible for his sin and rebellion.
Any attempt to violate God's Holy attributes, wisdom, knowledge, is a theological third rail.

All the proper confessions of faith start with the Premise of God being perfect in all His Holy attributes.
George, all discussion starts right here with this stark contrast;
3 Because I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children:
they are a perverse and crooked generation.

God is perfect ,sinful man is not, yet fully responsible to God.

When one has no answer, one resorts to generalities.

 

[Iconoclast]

When one has no answer, one resorts to generalities.

Could you clarify for me? I would like to attempt to be very specific, but I am not sure I understand your objection, in a way that does not do violence to God's attributes...You are trying to say something that you feel is crucial and not being addressed, but i cannot understand what? I know you are sincere, so i would like to try and interact as clearly as I can.

 

[AustinC]

Ships in the night.

Turn your rudder around, George.

 

[Protestant]

You were almost there bud, the only one that at least takes time to read and understand the point.
But then you couldn't stare down the barrel.
Given what you just rightly conceded, the excuse that "the reason men cannot believe is Adam's sin and therefore not God's fault" is unusable since it's God himself that so constituted Adam's fallen nature as to be unable to believe.
I'm not discussing any other point, and all discussions beside that point are beside the point.

George, spiritual and physical death are God's righteous judgments for man's sin. I realize you do not like this judgment and prefer one which is less severe. But God's judgments are always right, just and perfect, whether we feeble, finite, fallen creatures think so or not. There is no unrighteousness in Him (Ps. 82:15). With that I must end our conversation and trust the Lord to continue His work of grace in your life.

 

[George Antonios]

George, spiritual and physical death are God's righteous judgments for man's sin. I realize you do not like this judgment and prefer one which is less severe. But God's judgments are always right, just and perfect, whether we feeble, finite, fallen creatures think so or not. There is no unrighteousness in Him (Ps. 82:15). With that I must end our conversation and trust the Lord to continue His work of grace in your life.

Again, not the point. You're ignoring or simply not reading what I'm writing. Please stop avoiding the point. See below.

 

[George Antonios]

Could you clarify for me? I would like to attempt to be very specific, but I am not sure I understand your objection, in a way that does not do violence to God's attributes...You are trying to say something that you feel is crucial and not being addressed, but i cannot understand what? I know you are sincere, so i would like to try and interact as clearly as I can.

Where have I objected to anything? Someone said that man's inability to believe is due to man himself because he sinned and became unable to believe. My point is that that particular argument doesn't work because it's God that programmed the effects of the fall so it's God that made man unable to believe (he could have not programmed that particular parameter of the fall and left man's will intact to believe).
Someone out there please tell me you understand this most basic, simple argument. You don't have to agree, just understand.
I think you Calvinist brethren have not fully analyzed the implications of your system which is why such a basic point seems impalpable to you. Instead, all I get is sermons about God's sovereignty...which for the umptieth time, is not the point of contention here.
My point is exactly that God IS sovereign, so the effects of the fall were not random, but his own programming. So God made Adam unable to respond then blames him for not responding.
Please guys turn off the automatic default answer setting and think about your interlocutor's actual point.

 

[Iconoclast]

Where have I objected to anything? Someone said that man's inability to believe is due to man himself because he sinned and became unable to believe. My point is that that particular argument doesn't work because it's God that programmed the effects of the fall so it's God that made man unable to believe (he could have not programmed that particular parameter of the fall and left man's will intact to believe).
Someone out there please tell me you understand this most basic, simple argument. You don't have to agree, just understand.
I think you Calvinist brethren have not fully analyzed the implications of your system which is why such a basic point seems impalpable to you. Instead, all I get is sermons about God's sovereignty...which for the umptieth time, is not the point of contention here.
My point is exactly that God IS sovereign, so the effects of the fall were not random, but his own programming. So God made Adam unable to respond then blames him for not responding.
Please guys turn off the automatic default answer setting and think about your interlocutor's actual point.

The answer is very simple.
God meant exactly what He said.
Dying,thou shalt surely die.
He did not say, dying you will be slightly wounded,or slightly confused in need of a touch of rehab.God meant what He said.

I do not question God's perfect wisdom at all.
Sounds as if you doubt God is perfect and Holy in His wisdom, His omniscience.
You want to suggest your idea of what took place at the fall would be superior to what God did?
I cannot understand why a person could entertain any such possibility.prov3:5

 

[Brightfame52]

In other words you can't.

Not for you

 

[Brightfame52]

If it is not in the text, guess what, it is not Scripture principle.

Yes it could be. Much of Gods Truth must be spiritually discerned, its not black and white all the time, that's why the natural man cant discern it.

 

[Brightfame52]

Romans 7:4 does not mention your 'non-elect.' It tells Christians that they are not under the law of Moses, which was a major issue in the early days of Christianity (Acts 15 etc.).

Romans 2:12. 'For as many as sinned without law will also perish without law.' Non-Christians will certainly be judged by God's moral law, but they were never under the ceremonial law.

Its scripture principle, Paul is writing to believers, they are the elect. Christ died for believers, not unbelievers who remain permanently unbelievers.