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

[Reformed1689]

I will not, I have given my scriptural reasons, if you dont except that, fine with me.

In other words you can't.

 

[Reformed1689]

Its not in the text, its scripture principle. The non elect who Christ didnt die for are indebted to do the whole law. They are married to the law.

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Its all in scripture. The non elect whom Christ didn't die for, they are married to the law. Only the death of Christ makes people free from the law to believe in Christ. Rom 7:4

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

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.

 

[DaveXR650]

In trying to answer the OP of man's duty vs God's elective purpose would it be OK to say the following:
God has determined to call some people "the elect" in
such a way that they without fail end up being saved and
and believing. Others too are called by hearing the truth

of the gospel and even have the Holy Spirit work on them
in some fashion but they have a willful neglect and

contempt for the gospel and so God leaves them in their
unbelief and they never come to Christ.


Would a statement like that be a satisfactory way to acknowledge God's elective will yet still leave a place for man's free will?

 

[George Antonios]

George, your arguments need answering because they are held by many sincere folks who hold similar errant views.

To be honest, there are many more questions one could ask as to why God chose to govern the world as He has. In fact, such questions are endless, as one question begets another question, etc.

For example, there is the question of evil. Why does a holy righteous omnipotent loving God allow evil in the first place, considering all the pain, hatred and destruction it causes? Non-Calvinists have no better response than do Calvinists.

So, rather than pose ‘gotcha’ questions which attempt to expose the alleged ‘false’ God worshipped by Calvinists, one needs to consider the divine character and attributes of our Creator as testified in the only authoritative source for such a mystifying revelation: God’s Word.

Upon a cursory study of the Bible, one is immediately struck by the fact that God does not include explanations as to why He ‘does what He does.’ Instead, we are told He does nothing without the ends and means to the end decreed before the foundation of the world. He has the authority to do this because He alone is His own authority. His actions and reasons for such actions are the result of the choices made by an infinitely wise, just, holy and all-powerful Being. Every move He makes is perfect in achieving the goals and ends He purposes.

Could God have done things differently? Not if perfection in attaining the ends He desired is the goal.

So, rather than attempt to disparage the character of the only perfect, holy and good Being, a wiser, humbler path to take would be one which acknowledges one’s limited capacity to dare question the mind of his Creator.

Calvinists believe the Word of God. They accept as true that which has been revealed in His Word. They refuse to speculate beyond what is written. They have carefully examined the whole counsel of God and developed a system of theology and apologetics which is consistent, God-honoring, as well as able to refute all systems which attempt to contradict it.

It is possible “He could have so constituted Adam's fallen nature as to still allow it the ability to perceive its own depravity and at least believe the gospel of his own.”

Yet, the fact that He did NOT is witnessed throughout Scripture by using the metaphor of death, which is universally recognized as the ultimate state of deep, irreversible unconsciousness, resulting in being deaf, dumb, blind and paralytic, unable to lift a finger, let alone ‘come to Christ in faith.’

Why did God 'do what He did?' The Bible responds, Because it pleased Him.

Beautifully written, and utterly beside the point I was making except, finally, after the customary generic sermon that avoids the issue, the last part where it is quasi-addressed:

It is possible “He could have so constituted Adam's fallen nature as to still allow it the ability to perceive its own depravity and at least believe the gospel of his own.”

Yet, the fact that He did NOT is witnessed throughout Scripture by using the metaphor of death, which is universally recognized as the ultimate state of deep, irreversible unconsciousness, resulting in being deaf, dumb, blind and paralytic, unable to lift a finger, let alone ‘come to Christ in faith.’

Why did God 'do what He did?' The Bible responds, Because it pleased Him.

So there it is, the confession that it was God himself that so constituted Adam's fallen nature.
So my point is, again, that using the "that's because of Adam's fallen nature" excuse doesn't really work since Calvinists are forced to admit that even Adam's fallen nature was programmed that way, along with its parameters of incapacity to see or respond, by God.

Now, you can go on and try to still uphold that, but at least let's settle that the "that's because of Adam's fallen nature" defense simply kicks the can down the road.

 

[George Antonios]

George, Paul shows us in his letter to the Romans that humans do not perceive their own depravity or believe on their own.

Romans 1:18-24
But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles. So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.

Romans 3:9-18
Well then, should we conclude that we Jews are better than others? No, not at all, for we have already shown that all people, whether Jews or Gentiles, are under the power of sin. As the Scriptures say, “No one is righteous— not even one. No one is truly wise; no one is seeking God. All have turned away; all have become useless. No one does good, not a single one.” “Their talk is foul, like the stench from an open grave. Their tongues are filled with lies.” “Snake venom drips from their lips.” “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “They rush to commit murder. Destruction and misery always follow them. They don’t know where to find peace.” “They have no fear of God at all.”

Adam and his offspring, left to themselves, never show any capacity to believe. Paul makes it painfully clear. God must break in to the human and cause them to change their path toward destruction (repent). Humans will never repent apart from God causing them to repent. Scripture is clear on this, George. It's not an issue of philosophy, it's an issue of scripture telling us these facts. Read what I quoted in scripture. Don't run from it. Embrace it.

It's like you skimmed through my post and never got the point and answered by reflex.
See my above reply.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In trying to answer the OP of man's duty vs God's elective purpose would it be OK to say the following:
God has determined to call some people "the elect" in
such a way that they without fail end up being saved and
and believing. Others too are called by hearing the truth

of the gospel and even have the Holy Spirit work on them
in some fashion but they have a willful neglect and

contempt for the gospel and so God leaves them in their
unbelief and they never come to Christ.


Would a statement like that be a satisfactory way to acknowledge God's elective will yet still leave a place for man's free will?

Hello Dave,
I appreciate your desire to be a Berean and work through this issue from the Scriptures.
The Gospel is to go out into all the world and there is no doubt that it is the duty of everyone who hears it to receive it. Even those who have not heard the Gospel can see enough in Creation to make them without excuse if they do not seek Him (Romans 1:19-21; Acts of the Apostles 17:27-28), and if they will seek him with all their heart, they will find Him (Deuteronomy 4:29; Luke 11:9-10). However, fallen Man's free will is so skewed and clouded by sin that he will not seek God or obey the Gospel unless God opens his heart to do so. In this Man is absolutely culpable (John 3:19; 1 Corinthians 2:14).
Yet in spite of this sinful rebellion, God has graciously chosen a vast crowd (so vast that no one can count it) of guilty sinners for salvation and has come in the Person of Jesus Christ to make propitiation for their sins and to satisfy His own justice (Romans 3:26).

 

[Protestant]

In trying to answer the OP of man's duty vs God's elective purpose would it be OK to say the following:
God has determined to call some people "the elect" in
such a way that they without fail end up being saved and
and believing. Others too are called by hearing the truth

of the gospel and even have the Holy Spirit work on them
in some fashion but they have a willful neglect and

contempt for the gospel and so God leaves them in their
unbelief and they never come to Christ.


Would a statement like that be a satisfactory way to acknowledge God's elective will yet still leave a place for man's free will?

Dave, you have yet to come to grips with the errant notion unregenerate man's will is free to either accept or reject the Gospel call. Scriptures teach man's fallen nature is completely and utterly spiritually DEAD. I have cited a few proof texts. Indeed, man does have a will to make choices which he prefers. The reality, according to Scripture, is that unregenerate men prefer and love darkness, Satan and lies over the light, love and truth of Jesus Christ. I realize there are many professing 'Christian' denominations who do not hold this biblical view. Calvinists prefer to believe Holy Writ over the vain imaginings or fallible, prideful men.

 

[AustinC]

Beautifully written, and utterly beside the point I was making except, finally, after the customary generic sermon that avoids the issue, the last part where it is quasi-addressed:



So there it is, the confession that it was God himself that so constituted Adam's fallen nature.
So my point is, again, that using the "that's because of Adam's fallen nature" excuse doesn't really work since Calvinists are forced to admit that even Adam's fallen nature was programmed that way, along with its parameters of incapacity to see or respond, by God.

Now, you can go on and try to still uphold that, but at least let's settle that the "that's because of Adam's fallen nature" defense simply kicks the can down the road.

It's like you skimmed through my post and never got the point and answered by reflex.
See my above reply.

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

Beautifully written, and utterly beside the point I was making except, finally, after the customary generic sermon that avoids the issue, the last part where it is quasi-addressed:



So there it is, the confession that it was God himself that so constituted Adam's fallen nature.
So my point is, again, that using the "that's because of Adam's fallen nature" excuse doesn't really work since Calvinists are forced to admit that even Adam's fallen nature was programmed that way, along with its parameters of incapacity to see or respond, by God.

Now, you can go on and try to still uphold that, but at least let's settle that the "that's because of Adam's fallen nature" defense simply kicks the can down the road.

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

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave, you have yet to come to grips with the errant notion unregenerate man's will is free to either accept or reject the Gospel call. Scriptures teach man's fallen nature is completely and utterly spiritually DEAD. I have cited a few proof texts. Indeed, man does have a will to make choices which he prefers. The reality, according to Scripture, is that unregenerate men prefer and love darkness, Satan and lies over the light, love and truth of Jesus Christ. I realize there are many professing 'Christian' denominations who do not hold this biblical view. Calvinists prefer to believe Holy Writ over the vain imaginings or fallible, prideful men.

I probably should apologize for the trick but my post you replied to was almost word for word from the Westminster Larger Catechism Question No. 68. If you notice I did not suggest that an unregenerate can accept the gospel call but that they can of their own free will reject it, just like it's stated in WLC Question 68. We often talk past each other and won't even acknowledge partial truths or honest difficulties in understanding something.

 

[Protestant]

Beautifully written, and utterly beside the point I was making except, finally, after the customary generic sermon that avoids the issue, the last part where it is quasi-addressed:



So there it is, the confession that it was God himself that so constituted Adam's fallen nature.
So my point is, again, that using the "that's because of Adam's fallen nature" excuse doesn't really work since Calvinists are forced to admit that even Adam's fallen nature was programmed that way, along with its parameters of incapacity to see or respond, by God.

Now, you can go on and try to still uphold that, but at least let's settle that the "that's because of Adam's fallen nature" defense simply kicks the can down the road.

So there it is, the confession that it was God himself that so constituted Adam's fallen nature.

George, according to God’s Word our Lord has predetermined all that comes to pass, including the deleterious effects of the Fall, (according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will).

Disobedience to our sovereign Lord results in immediate spiritual death, with fleshly death typically following by decades. These truths are explained in Genesis.

I realize you prefer the notion that man’s ability to believe the Gospel was simply diminished and not extinguished.

Assuming this to be the way God has ‘constituted’ mankind, (allowing man some ability to believe), you then must explain why it is George believed, while Tom, Dick and Harry did not.

Perhaps George made better use of his diminished ability than did T, D & H. If so, then George was surely superior to them, having made the right choice for his eternal good. George has much in which to glory.

But that scenario does not square with Scripture which posits G, T, D, & H as being formed from the same [corrupted, miserable] lump of clay. Furthermore, Scripture explains it was the Potter who made the difference (Romans 9:20-23), choosing some men as vessels of mercy prepared unto glory and others vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.

Moreover, Paul addresses your thesis:

For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? (1 Cor. 4:7).

You argue it was your good use of the limited ability left in your nature which made the difference in receiving Christ, while Paul argues it was the saving grace of God alone which made the difference.

I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

 

[Protestant]

I probably should apologize for the trick but my post you replied to was almost word for word from the Westminster Larger Catechism Question No. 68. If you notice I did not suggest that an unregenerate can accept the gospel call but that they can of their own free will reject it, just like it's stated in WLC Question 68. We often talk past each other and won't even acknowledge partial truths or honest difficulties in understanding something.

Keep reading and studying the original Westminster Confession penned by the Puritans. It will set you on the narrow path of salvation.

 

[DaveXR650]

But that's just the point isn't it. I did read it and quoted it. You illustrate my original point perfectly.

 

[Protestant]

But that's just the point isn't it. I did read it and quoted it. You illustrate my original point perfectly.

Dave, this will be my last encounter with you, as I believe you to be disingenuous. You claim to quote the WLC # 68, "If you notice I did not suggest that an unregenerate can accept the gospel call but that they can of their own free will reject it, just like it's stated in WLC Question 68."

The WLC # 68 says no such thing. The doctrine of 'free will' is not part of the answer, as you have erroneously claimed.

WLC 68: Are the elect only effectually called?
"All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ."

Dave, you have purposefully attempted to deceive, proving you are either a sincere, but sincerely ignorant Christian battling sin, or you are a tare sown among the wheat.

 

[DaveXR650]

Others too are called by hearing the truth

of the gospel and even have the Holy Spirit work on them
in some fashion but they have a willful neglect and

contempt for the gospel and so God leaves them in their
unbelief and they never come to Christ.

although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ."

My post and your quote are above. Others can judge whether they are saying the same thing. Honestly, Protestant some of you like to get on here and beat up some old guys who you think don't possess your superior level of knowledge. Yet when someone points out to you that the Calvinistic system is complicated and difficult to understand and uses a quote from the reformed documents to show that it is indeed difficult to keep all concepts in mind at the same time you dissolve into sniveling name calling. Frankly, the debate on here is not at a high level and you are a perfect example as I have shown of someone who doesn't even really understand the writings from his own camp. You are an embarrassment to Calvinism.

 

[Iconoclast]

My post and your quote are above. Others can judge whether they are saying the same thing. Honestly, Protestant some of you like to get on here and beat up some old guys who you think don't possess your superior level of knowledge. Yet when someone points out to you that the Calvinistic system is complicated and difficult to understand and uses a quote from the reformed documents to show that it is indeed difficult to keep all concepts in mind at the same time you dissolve into sniveling name calling. Frankly, the debate on here is not at a high level and you are a perfect example as I have shown of someone who doesn't even really understand the writings from his own camp. You are an embarrassment to Calvinism.

You are totally wrong.
Protestant has offered a consistent position as no one who writes and believes the confessions believes man has free will.
man makes choices,but his will is not free bit bound by sin.
Several of your "calvinistic" posts are off a bit..
Which reformed baptist church did you attend?
Who was the pastor?

 

[Iconoclast]

But that's just the point isn't it. I did read it and quoted it. You illustrate my original point perfectly.

No....you are dead wrong.

 

[DaveXR650]

"All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ."

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.

 

[DaveXR650]

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.