Many more questions

[William C]

Originally posted by Scott J:
No. Man is indeed free to consider God's offer... and he will always reject God's offer unless God changes him within.

Semantics to avoid the argument.

So man is capable of doing something good that leads to his salvation- without which God is unable to save him?

Yes, man is capable of faith, without which God is not willing to save him.

God can do whatever he wills. I believe He wills to save those who have faith. You believe He saves an arbtrary selection of people who have faith as a result. My view is more biblical.

Reasoning, counting costs, and deciding are all works of the mind. People are paid salaries to do these things every day. If God is not able to save without these good works of man- Is God truly sovereign? Is man saved by grace or the works of his own mind?

Again, God can save whomever he wants, because He is indeed Sovereign. He wants to save those who persue salvation through faith, not those who perue it through the works of the Law.

BTW, the bible talks about man doing both of those.

Yes I know. This is a record of the effect, not the cause.

Really, then why does God call unsaved men to do these things?

Absent the change of regeneration, man will always think he can save himself through some act of his own.

No one here thinks man can save himself. That's a straw man mischaraterisation.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
No. Man is indeed free to consider God's offer... and he will always reject God's offer unless God changes him within.

Semantics to avoid the argument.</font>[/QUOTE] Labeling to avoid the argument.

This is not semantics Bill. There is nothing absent in man required to be saved except the 'good' will. Man is free... he simply is not good in his natural state. His nature limits his freedom just as the nature of God limits His freedom. Man's decisions absent the direct influence of the Holy Spirit will never rise to God's requirement for 'good.'

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So man is capable of doing something good that leads to his salvation- without which God is unable to save him?

Yes, man is capable of faith, without which God is not willing to save him.</font>[/QUOTE] So man does in fact seek God, right? Man does "do" good, right? So salvation is God's grace plus man's self-generated faith and good decision, right?

Ultimately, God is not sovereign in matters of salvation under your system. He can only hope that man is good enough to accept it. It is up to the goodness of man to activate salvation. Also, since God does not see to it that all men everywhere hear the gospel, He is unjust for condemning lost people who might have believed if they had the chance.

I am sorry Bill. But under your system, all of mankind would be hopelessly lost.

God can do whatever he wills.

He just can't save anyone who does not make good choices, right?

I believe He wills to save those who have faith.

As do I. You say man is the source of this goodness (faith). I say it is God.

You believe He saves an arbtrary selection of people who have faith as a result.

I don't think God does anything arbitrarily as this implies that He is haphazard about it. I don't claim to know the dimensions of God's purpose but it governs the world none the less.

My view is more biblical.

Not that you have proven. But you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Is man saved by grace or the works of his own mind?

Again, God can save whomever he wants, because He is indeed Sovereign. He wants to save those who persue salvation through faith, not those who perue it through the works of the Law.</font>[/QUOTE] You didn't answer the question. You talked around it. BTW, I notice you also avoided discussing Jesus' comparison of new spiritual birth to physical birth. Where does a person's will play into their conception or delivery?

... why does God call unsaved men to do these things?

Because He is just as well as loving.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Absent the change of regeneration, man will always think he can save himself through some act of his own.

No one here thinks man can save himself. That's a straw man mischaraterisation. </font>[/QUOTE]No. You can't make that charge since this is my answer to your question... BTW, you quoted incompletely to make your charge of "straw man." This is a dishonest tactic in avoidance of evaluating the merit of the response.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Scott J:

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
[qb]

Originally posted by Scott J:
[qb]This is not semantics Bill. There is nothing absent in man required to be saved except the 'good' will. Man is free... he simply is not good in his natural state. His nature limits his freedom just as the nature of God limits His freedom. Man's decisions absent the direct influence of the Holy Spirit will never rise to God's requirement for 'good.'

Do you know what "semantics" means? It means that even if you change the way you say something it still has the same effect and thus affords the same argument that must be reconciled. You fail to do that.

One Calvinists argues that man doesn't have free will, you say its free but he is not good enough to believe the gospel message and repent. Tomato/tomatoe

So man does in fact seek God, right?

Wrong. God seeks men. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost.

Man does "do" good, right? So salvation is God's grace plus man's self-generated faith and good decision, right?

You equate faith with the scriptures condemnation of salvation by the works of the law. The Bible doesn't place faith in the catagory of works. You do that in order to label it as a work and thus dismiss it as being an actual requirement for salvation. Those who pursue salvation by works of the law will not get it, but those who pursue it by faith, will.

Ultimately, God is not sovereign in matters of salvation under your system. He can only hope that man is good enough to accept it. It is up to the goodness of man to activate salvation. Also, since God does not see to it that all men everywhere hear the gospel, He is unjust for condemning lost people who might have believed if they had the chance.

Wrong. God is sovereign even when men have a geniune choice. If that were not the case then God gave up his sovereignty when he gave Adam a free choice.

Romans 1 seems to indicate that mankind is without excuse for condemnation because they understand the divine nature and eternal attributes of God through his revelation in nature and must respond accordingly. Your system trys to say man cannot understand the things of God until they have been regenerated, but scripture is quite clear that man's understanding of Godly matters is what makes them without excuse. Your system give men the perfect excuse.

I am sorry Bill. But under your system, all of mankind would be hopelessly lost.

Nope. Only those who don't believe and follow. Your system is what takes away the hope for most of humanity.

God can do whatever he wills.

He just can't save anyone who does not make good choices, right?

Wrong. He can save whomever he wills to save. He desires to save all but He sovereignly wills to save those who believe. This is not a compromise of His Sovereignty no matter how much you want to make it seem as if it is.

As do I. You say man is the source of this goodness (faith). I say it is God.

No. Faith is from God. All good things come from God. We must be stewards of the faith God has given all of us by placing it in Christ. Everyone has the capasity to believe in something bigger than themselves, the question is how will we use the ability and gifts God has given.

You didn't answer the question. You talked around it.

Man is saved by grace through faith. Faith is not equavilant to the works of the law, so stop making them seem as if they are one in the same.

BTW, I notice you also avoided discussing Jesus' comparison of new spiritual birth to physical birth. Where does a person's will play into their conception or delivery?

Anyone can take an analogy too far. Jesus wasn't using this analogy to show that man's will doesn't play any part. He was showing that the Spirit is the one who gives birth and He give birth to whomever he wills, not just children of Abraham as Nickodemus thought, but both Jews and Gentiles or "whosoever believes."

... why does God call unsaved men to do these things?

Because He is just as well as loving.

What is just or loving about calling a man to believe who doesn't have that moral capasity within his inborn nature?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Do you know what "semantics" means?

Yes Bill, as a matter of fact, I do. Do you know what pompous and condescending mean?

It means that even if you change the way you say something it still has the same effect and thus affords the same argument that must be reconciled. You fail to do that.

Thank you for recognizing that I am failing to play semantics just as I have been arguing.

What is just or loving about calling a man to believe who doesn't have that moral capasity within his inborn nature?

What is moral or just in allowing anyone to decide for themselves whether to believe or not and then providentially denying most of the world the opportunity to hear the gospel? Your position does not escape the same dilemna that you would foist upon Calvinism.

But to answer your question- This question is why what you want to avoid by calling it semantics is absolutely critical. You still want to equate everything back to the argument that you have defeated in your own mind. Namely, that if one does not agree with you in saying that man has full freedom to choose salvation on his own then they must believe that man has a lack of ability. I don't believe either position is true biblically.

I believe that man is unwilling in complete harmony with his sinful nature and is therefore unable as a result, not a cause. To call the distinction of something as a result rather than a cause 'semantics' is not legitimate. The critical thing that defeats your claim is that all men acting on their own 'will' reject God.

Adam had the ability and the freedom to choose. I believe that we do as well. But just as Adam used this freedom and ability to deify himself and seek his own way, we will also unless God intervenes.

 

[The Archangel]

Bill et al ...

Here is a random thought....

Dealing with the entire story-line of scripture and, thus, with a "Whole-Bible-Theology," how does one account for the outright election of Israel?

Certainly Israel did not choose!

Just a question....I'd like an answer to. (this is not to imply that I don't have an answer)

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by The Archangel:
Bill et al ...

Here is a random thought....

Dealing with the entire story-line of scripture and, thus, with a "Whole-Bible-Theology," how does one account for the outright election of Israel?

Certainly Israel did not choose!

Just a question....I'd like an answer to. (this is not to imply that I don't have an answer)

Blessings,

Archangel

The scriptures themselves state that God elected the Jews to be his chosen race.

Deut 4:37. And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt;

There are other similar scriptures as well

 

[The Archangel]

Yelsew,

The scriptures themselves state that God elected the Jews to be his chosen race.

Deut 4:37. And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt;

There are other similar scriptures as well

Thank you for your answer. I realize the Jews were elected. My question, to clarify, is related more to the question of "How were they chosen?" and "Why were they chosen?"

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Do you know what pompous and condescending mean?

Yes I do, but really Scott you shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

What is moral or just in allowing anyone to decide for themselves whether to believe or not and then providentially denying most of the world the opportunity to hear the gospel? Your position does not escape the same dilemna that you would foist upon Calvinism.

One, the scripture doesn't tell us specifically the fate of those who have never heard the gospel so you are speculating here. Second, as I have stated men understand the divine nature and eternal attributes of God through what is revealed in nature thus making all man without excuse. Your dogma removes that understanding thus giving them back their excuse in judgement.

I believe that man is unwilling in complete harmony with his sinful nature and is therefore unable as a result, not a cause. To call the distinction of something as a result rather than a cause 'semantics' is not legitimate. The critical thing that defeats your claim is that all men acting on their own 'will' reject God.

Scott, when I say "semantics" I mean that my arguement is applicable to both views. Regardless of how you word it man is unable. You just describe it a bit differently than some do. I personally used to argue it the same way that you are because that's the way Sproul argues it as well. But for simplicity I just say, "total inablity" and I expect you to understand what I'm refering too. I understand your argument but it doesn't change the objection that I have raised. Man's nature is the cause of man's unwillingness and thus his inability. Only God has control over what man's inborn nature is capable of, therefore this explaination affords the same objections. It's just semantics.

Adam had the ability and the freedom to choose. I believe that we do as well. But just as Adam used this freedom and ability to deify himself and seek his own way, we will also unless God intervenes.

This is actually a contradiction. You have just said that man's unwillingness makes him unable and now you say we had the same ability and freedom as Adam. What exactly do you believe were the effects of the fall? Do you not believe the "T" of TULIP?

 

[The Archangel]

Bill,

You wrote:

One, the scripture doesn't tell us specifically the fate of those who have never heard the gospel so you are speculating here. Second, as I have stated men understand the divine nature and eternal attributes of God through what is revealed in nature thus making all man without excuse.

My friend, this is dangerous. It would seem (as per point 1.) that you think that Christ is NOT the only way to salvation. I hope this is not the case.

It would also seem (as per point 2.) that you hold to some type of natural theology--that man can be saved by the knowledge of God gained through nature. Again, I hope this is not the case.

Please help me out here!

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
One, the scripture doesn't tell us specifically the fate of those who have never heard the gospel so you are speculating here.

This demonstrates a major flaw in your position. The scripture does tell us what happens to those who never hear the gospel. Your statement "Second, as I have stated men understand the divine nature and eternal attributes of God through what is revealed in nature thus making all man without excuse" alludes to it. Christ is the way. It is appointed to man once to die then the judgment. Everyone stands guilty before God and no one deserves to hear the gospel much less receive the gift of God's grace.

The issue of those who never hear the gospel is a non-issue under calvinistic suppositions. It appears to be irreconcilable with the character of God under arminianism.

Operating from your current presuppositions, you must leave the door open to the notion that those who don't hear the gospel in this life will be afforded some other fate than those shown in scripture. I used to struggle with this concept a great deal before becoming calvinistic.

Your dogma removes that understanding thus giving them back their excuse in judgement.

No. Not at all. I never said man did not have a choice nor have I said that he doesn't have mental capacity. In fact, I have asserted over and over that the only thing men lack is the good 'will.'

Scott, when I say "semantics" I mean that my arguement is applicable to both views.

I know what you mean. I simply deny the charge.

Regardless of how you word it man is unable. You just describe it a bit differently than some do.

If this is truly what you believe then you are applying a double standard. You say that God is sovereign but yields to man's choices. No matter how you word it- the conclusion can only be that God is not sovereign if you are willing to apply the same critical method to your own arguments as you do mine.

...argue it the same way that you are because that's the way Sproul argues it as well.

That's nice to know. I have heard and read a little from Sproul but not on these specifics that I can remember. It is quite encouraging that he uses similar arguments and arrives at the same conclusion.

But for simplicity I just say, "total inablity" and I expect you to understand what I'm refering too. I understand your argument but it doesn't change the objection that I have raised.

But it does. One way agrees with scripture. The other way does not. I believe and scripture teaches that the means are as important as the outcome.

Man's nature is the cause of man's unwillingness and thus his inability.

Man's nature does not cause his will so much as the two are indivisible and interdependent- almost synonomous. A person without a will- natural or regenerate- lacks an integral part of what makes one a man.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Adam had the ability and the freedom to choose. I believe that we do as well. But just as Adam used this freedom and ability to deify himself and seek his own way, we will also unless God intervenes.

This is actually a contradiction. You have just said that man's unwillingness makes him unable and now you say we had the same ability and freedom as Adam. What exactly do you believe were the effects of the fall? Do you not believe the "T" of TULIP? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. Which makes ULIP obvious conclusions. We are born with Adam's sin nature- the result of his spiritual death. It is imputed according to scripture. We are not marred- still retaining a distorted spiritual image of God. If we were then God would be condemning Himself when He condemned the lost. We retain nothing God-like spiritually therefore nothing genuinely good.

The freedom and ability we have is to choose to sin or not. God does not force us to sin. The simple fact is that every man, save one, has used and will use that freedom and ability to rebel against God.

We have our own eyes. Yet no one would deny that we inherited them from our parents. In the very same way, we have our own nature inherited from Adam. But just as having our eyes by inheritance does not force us to see anything that our parents see (we can keep our eyes closed), inheriting Adam's sin nature does force us to sin. Both are acts of will and complete accordance with our nature- to see or to sin.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by The Archangel:
My friend, this is dangerous. It would seem (as per point 1.) that you think that Christ is NOT the only way to salvation. I hope this is not the case.

That's not what I said Angel. I simply said the Bible doesn't specifically address the fate of those who never heard the gospel while here on earth so we would be speculating as to how God will punish them differently from those who have been entrusted with the message. No one is saved apart from Christ, but how one is judged and condemned could very well be different. I don't know, its mere speculation.

It also could be that some believers are responsible for some not hearing the message. The bible does speak about the blood being washed from the hands of the messengers once their audiences have heard and rejected their message. This seems to imply that they would carry their blood if they refused to deliever the message they were appointed to give.

It would also seem (as per point 2.) that you hold to some type of natural theology--that man can be saved by the knowledge of God gained through nature. Again, I hope this is not the case.

People are only saved through Christ's blood. But as Romans 1 points out, nature can give testimony to God's eternal qualities and divine nature and I'm sure that would include his revealed plan of redemption for the world. Nature is just one of the many means God has employed to draw men to Himself.

It's because man CAN understand this that makes him without excuse. Yet, Calvinists try to maintain that man cannot understand the things of God. This gives man a perfect excuse. Just like when a child returns to his father after not completing the instructions given to him and says, "Dad, I didn't understand what you meant." Mankind cannot say that to the Father on judgement day because nature reveals what is needed to lead one the the knowledge of truth, which is sumed up in the gospel.