My thoughts and questions on "Ten Reasons Primitive Baptists Are Not Calvinists."

[DaveXR650]

Yet the bible does say that faith/belief is a gift from God:

I like to read Horatius Bonar. He says it's referred to in the Bible as a gift and also as something required by a person and seemingly coming from that person. And he gives verses. It seems like you definitely can understand and believe in the sense that you ascribe to the truth of the gospel message. And you can understand naturally that you have broken God's law and understand when you hear of the consequences. It is not clear whether you can change your own character enough to begin to value and love Christ and "draw" yourself to him in a true trusting commitment. It's not that you can't as far as mental ability, but you just don't see the value in doing so.

Even more difficult is that even staunch Calvinists say the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit is not a zapping of us consciously but an acting with and on our very being and will. Therefore, our perception will and should be that we have changed our minds and decided to repent. Plus at some point, during all this awakening, illumination, and believing we are regenerated, which we all agree is supernatural and there again scripture seems to say more than one thing about the precise order of this. The "wind bloweth where it listeth" is probably all we are supposed to know for sure, except we are flat out promised that if we believe, whether we understand how it happened or not, we shall be saved (or show we already were saved if you want to put it like that).

 

[DaveXR650]

It appears that Christianity in the USA, which has been so strong for so many years, is fading away. If the Hyper-Calvinism exhibited on this board is typical of the nation as a whole, I have to say that I'm not surprised. Look at post #104. "Us four, no more; shut the door." That's not Christianity, much less real Calvinism.

Martin, I fear that there may be a couple of flaky posters on here that are misrepresenting the Primitive Baptists. I am somewhat familiar with one Primitive Baptist church. It's in Cincinnati, Ohio and also has sponsored a radio program called the Baptist Bible Hour, and they have a website. A quick view of their sites and you quickly find a serious level of Calvinism but also efforts to evangelize the unsaved, and missionary (including foreign) activity. And you also find quotes in their articles and resources from Augustine, Mark Dever from 9Marks, R.C. Sproul and other Calvinists. They do seem to want to separate from some of what Calvin stood for but have no trouble using Augustine. I have personally sat under some of the young guys who were sent from that church to fill in while our pastor was on sabbatical and liked them a lot. I personally know one person who still goes there and he is literally the most aggressive sharer of the gospel that I currently know.

I can only speak from my own experience but in my area folks who home school and are interested in presiding over all the education of their children tend to like the PB churches because they are family integrated. That means no separating out for Sunday school. They also do their music without the accompaniment of instruments. We had considered going there but we are big fans of Sunday school. I do like the music, not that I care about instruments, but they focus on the old familiar hymns.

In Midwestern U.S.A, I think the Primitive Baptist churches are very similar to any Baptist church you find that uses the word "Reformed" in their website. The family integration and the acapella singing are the distinctions you would notice. I don't know how it is in England but here home schooling is legal, and in my circles of Baptists is very popular along with various hybrid and Christian school arrangements. I hope that gives you some insight from the ground here in the U.S. I'm not going to post much else on here. It seems there are a couple of posters who can ruin any thread. I'm not a PB but hate to see that group tied in to what you are seeing on here.

 

[David Lamb]

To be chosen in Him before the foundation of the world is quite different than to be elect in Him before the foundation of the world. The first means that God choose faith in Christ as the means of salvation the second means that a select group were saved prior to creation. One is only elect when they are in the elect one through faith.

How can "chosen" be different to "elect" when both English words are used in different places to translate exactly the same Greek word? "Chosen" means "elect".

God being omniscient knows all those that will freely trust in Him for their salvation but knowing who will trust does not require God to cause them to trust. The good news about Christ is powerful but it is still resistible.

But we have verses such as these:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,” (Eph 1:3-5 NKJV)

"Predestined" means far more than merely "foreseen".

The bible is clear that we are all sinners who deserve hell but God in His love has provided the means of our salvation, Christ Jesus. While He has provided the means He does not cause/force anyone to trust in Him. God in His sovereignty has chosen to save those that believe in Him.

I agree with that. He does not force, but He does renew our hearts, making them like the good soil in the parable of the sower, ready to receive the seed, the Word of God.

I agree that man has no reason to boast about receiving the gift of salvation, so I do wonder why so many calvinist think they were so special that God actually picked them out and then forced them to come to Him via Irresistible Grace and then had to give them faith after they were saved. So the only boasting that I see is from calvinists.

But Calvinists don't boast (or at least they shouldn't). They would echo these words from the hymn, "When this Passing World is Done": "Chosen, not for good in me, Wakened up from wrath to flee, Hidden in the Saviour's side, By the Spirit sanctified, Teach me, Lord, on earth to show By my love how much I owe."

Those that respond to the gospel message with faith have humbled themselves before God and acknowledged that they cannot save themselves, so no boasting.

I agree.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Agreed we are only saved by God when we believe, but that is where I see calvinism error. They say man is saved prior to his believing. That is illogical.

I do not believe that anyone is justified before he repents and believes. The idea of 'Justification from Eternity' is quite wrong, and disproved by several verses, most notably Isaiah 12:1-2. But it is quite clear to me that no one will believe unless and until God opens his heart to do so. I see regeneration as being a process rather than an all-in-one event. This was taught by William Perkins (1558-1602), often called 'the Father of Puritanism, and seems to have been followed by other Puritans like John Owen and Thomas Goodwin. It was John Murray who popularized 'all-at-once' regeneration back in the 1940s.or '50s.

What I believe is this: there is a general call to sinners whenever the Gospel is preached, but there is also an 'effectual call,' when someone's heart is opened, or awakened to think seriously about the things of God. This leads to conviction, when that person comes to see himself as a guilty sinner justly under the condemnation of God. This in turn leads to repentance and faith, whereupon the sinner is justified or declared righteous by God, sealed by the Holy Spirit and adopted into the family of God. Sometimes, especially in revivals, these things are telescoped together and people become Christians very suddenly, but usually true conversion takes some time.
There can be counterfeits of awakening and conviction, as when Felix 'trembled,' and king Agrippa declared to Paul, "Almost you persuade me to become a Christian." Some people have gone forward at Billy Graham meetings, and then woken up the next morning, wondering how they could have been so foolish. But when God calls someone effectually, he will most certainly come to salvation (Romans 11:29; Phil. 1:6).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I do not believe that anyone is justified before he repents and believes. The idea of 'Justification from Eternity' is quite wrong, and disproved by several verses, most notably Isaiah 12:1-2. But it is quite clear to me that no one will believe unless and until God opens his heart to do so. I see regeneration as being a process rather than an all-in-one event. This was taught by William Perkins (1558-1602), often called 'the Father of Puritanism, and seems to have been followed by other Puritans like John Owen and Thomas Goodwin. It was John Murray who popularized 'all-at-once' regeneration back in the 1940s.or '50s.

What I believe is this: there is a general call to sinners whenever the Gospel is preached, but there is also an 'effectual call,' when someone's heart is opened, or awakened to think seriously about the things of God. This leads to conviction, when that person comes to see himself as a guilty sinner justly under the condemnation of God. This in turn leads to repentance and faith, whereupon the sinner is justified or declared righteous by God, sealed by the Holy Spirit and adopted into the family of God. Sometimes, especially in revivals, these things are telescoped together and people become Christians very suddenly, but usually true conversion takes some time.
There can be counterfeits of awakening and conviction, as when Felix 'trembled,' and king Agrippa declared to Paul, "Almost you persuade me to become a Christian." Some people have gone forward at Billy Graham meetings, and then woken up the next morning, wondering how they could have been so foolish. But when God calls someone effectually, he will most certainly come to salvation (Romans 11:29; Phil. 1:6).

According to Primitive Baptist theology, yes, one can be considered justified before actively repenting because they believe in the concept of "election" where God chooses certain individuals for salvation from eternity, meaning their justification happens before they even have the conscious choice to repent; this is often referred to as "justification from eternity."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Martin, I fear that there may be a couple of flaky posters on here that are misrepresenting the Primitive Baptists. I am somewhat familiar with one Primitive Baptist church. It's in Cincinnati, Ohio and also has sponsored a radio program called the Baptist Bible Hour, and they have a website. A quick view of their sites and you quickly find a serious level of Calvinism but also efforts to evangelize the unsaved, and missionary (including foreign) activity. And you also find quotes in their articles and resources from Augustine, Mark Dever from 9Marks, R.C. Sproul and other Calvinists. They do seem to want to separate from some of what Calvin stood for but have no trouble using Augustine. I have personally sat under some of the young guys who were sent from that church to fill in while our pastor was on sabbatical and liked them a lot. I personally know one person who still goes there and he is literally the most aggressive sharer of the gospel that I currently know.

I can only speak from my own experience but in my area folks who home school and are interested in presiding over all the education of their children tend to like the PB churches because they are family integrated. That means no separating out for Sunday school. They also do their music without the accompaniment of instruments. We had considered going there but we are big fans of Sunday school. I do like the music, not that I care about instruments, but they focus on the old familiar hymns.

In Midwestern U.S.A, I think the Primitive Baptist churches are very similar to any Baptist church you find that uses the word "Reformed" in their website. The family integration and the acapella singing are the distinctions you would notice. I don't know how it is in England but here home schooling is legal, and in my circles of Baptists is very popular along with various hybrid and Christian school arrangements. I hope that gives you some insight from the ground here in the U.S. I'm not going to post much else on here. It seems there are a couple of posters who can ruin any thread. I'm not a PB but hate to see that group tied in to what you are seeing on here.

OK… I will call them on Monday to confirm if they are an authentic Primitive Baptist, something by your description tells me they are a progressive church, probably blend with other churches….cause they do not represent the churches in Florida and Texas that I speak to on a regular basis. I’d also like to see if they adhere to some of the doctrines & training of some of the Teaching & Pastoral Elders that I follow….we will see

 

[Silverhair]

How can "chosen" be different to "elect" when both English words are used in different places to translate exactly the same Greek word? "Chosen" means "elect".

By the logic you are using Love in tennis is the same as to Love your wife or God. It is the same exact word, not even a translation.

One is only elect when they are in Christ and they are only in Christ when by the grace of God one is saved because they have trusted in Him.

But we have verses such as these:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,” (Eph 1:3-5 NKJV)

"Predestined" means far more than merely "foreseen".

Because he is omniscient He foreknows/foresees all that will happen therefore He knows all that will freely trust in Him.

Those that freely trust in Him are predestined to 1] adoption as sons 2] no condemnation
3] the Spirit of God dwells in them 4] eternal life 5] fellow heirs with Christ 6] the redemption of their body 7] conformed to the image of His Son

These are all the will of God for those that love Him.

I agree with that. He does not force, but He does renew our hearts, making them like the good soil in the parable of the sower, ready to receive the seed, the Word of God.

God has provided the means for us to know Him, creation, conviction of the Holy Spirit, hearing the gospel message etc. but even with all these promptings from God we still have to choose to trust in or to reject Him.

Every farmer knows that even good soil does not mean a good crop.

But Calvinists don't boast (or at least they shouldn't). They would echo these words from the hymn, "When this Passing World is Done": "Chosen, not for good in me, Wakened up from wrath to flee, Hidden in the Saviour's side, By the Spirit sanctified, Teach me, Lord, on earth to show By my love how much I owe."

No one should boast but what we do see from calvinists is the false claim that they were chosen/elect/saved before the foundation of the world. That is boasting.

 

[Silverhair]

I do not believe that anyone is justified before he repents and believes. The idea of 'Justification from Eternity' is quite wrong, and disproved by several verses, most notably Isaiah 12:1-2. But it is quite clear to me that no one will believe unless and until God opens his heart to do so. I see regeneration as being a process rather than an all-in-one event. This was taught by William Perkins (1558-1602), often called 'the Father of Puritanism, and seems to have been followed by other Puritans like John Owen and Thomas Goodwin. It was John Murray who popularized 'all-at-once' regeneration back in the 1940s.or '50s.

What I believe is this: there is a general call to sinners whenever the Gospel is preached, but there is also an 'effectual call,' when someone's heart is opened, or awakened to think seriously about the things of God. This leads to conviction, when that person comes to see himself as a guilty sinner justly under the condemnation of God. This in turn leads to repentance and faith, whereupon the sinner is justified or declared righteous by God, sealed by the Holy Spirit and adopted into the family of God. Sometimes, especially in revivals, these things are telescoped together and people become Christians very suddenly, but usually true conversion takes some time.
There can be counterfeits of awakening and conviction, as when Felix 'trembled,' and king Agrippa declared to Paul, "Almost you persuade me to become a Christian." Some people have gone forward at Billy Graham meetings, and then woken up the next morning, wondering how they could have been so foolish. But when God calls someone effectually, he will most certainly come to salvation (Romans 11:29; Phil. 1:6).

I agree with much of what you have written. But I do feel you error in a few points.

You speak of regeneration as being a process but the bible does not see it that way. One is regenerated/born again in an instant. "The washing of regeneration (paliggenesía, Titus_3:5) refers to the spiritual rebirth of the individual soul." WSD "In theology, new birth by the grace of God" Webster

God has said that He desires all to be saved and has provided the means to open their hearts, whether it be through creation, conviction of sin, or the gospel message etc. But as we know all the means God has used to draw man to Himself do not guarantee that they will come to repentance.

A person may take some time to think about what they have heard or seen but when they make the decision to trust in God then at that moment they are saved by the grace of God. Does that mean that the person knows all about why or how salvation came about NO. But they are no less saved.

Regeneration 'all-at-once' was always in scripture John Murray just pointed it out.
The effectual call does not awaken or cause someone to think seriously about God. The call is only effectual/effective if the person has responded in a positive way to the various means God uses to draw the lost to Himself.
The two verses that you use for support of your view do not accomplish what you had hoped they would.

Rom 11:29 is telling us that He does not change He does not renege on His word.
"The word “calling” κλῆσις klēsis here denotes that act of God by which he extends an invitation to people to come and partake of his favors, whether it be by a personal revelation as to the patriarchs, or by the promises of the gospel, or by the influences of his Spirit. All such invitations or callings imply a pledge that he will bestow the favor, and will not repent, or turn from it. God never draws or invites sinners to himself without being willing to bestow pardon and eternal life." Barnes on Rom 11:29

We see the same thing in Php 1:6
"The “good work” here referred to, can be no other than religion, or true piety. This is called the work of God; the work of the Lord; or the work of Christ;"..."Margin, “Or, finish” The Greek word - ἐπιτελέσει epitelesei - means that he would carry it forward to completion; he would perfect it. It is an intensive form of the word, meaning that it would be carried through to the end." Barnes on Php 1:6

Those that trust in God will be saved by God.
Neither of these verses support your view of God calling certain people through an effectual call.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin, I fear that there may be a couple of flaky posters on here

Just the two? But thanks for the insight into the PBs. Very helpful.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree with much of what you have written. But I do feel you error in a few points.

Well that's a forward movement then. At least I got a few things right!

You speak of regeneration as being a process but the bible does not see it that way. One is regenerated/born again in an instant. "The washing of regeneration (paliggenesía, Titus_3:5) refers to the spiritual rebirth of the individual soul." WSD "In theology, new birth by the grace of God" Webster

I understand that there is a moment when a sinner moves from spiritual death to life. But when does that come about? At the moment that someone gets a warm feeling listening to a sermon? Or when a guy gets a pang of conscience when he's betraying his wife with another woman and wonders if God might have something to say about it? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know your salvation story, but I was not saved until I was 38, and it involved a lot of running away from God, and a lot of conviction that did not lead directly to repentance. Read John Bunyan's spiritual autobiography, Grace abounding to the Chief of Sinners. He went through agonies of conviction and inner turmoil before God finally brought him to salvation.

God has said that He desires all to be saved and has provided the means to open their hearts, whether it be through creation, conviction of sin, or the gospel message etc. But as we know all the means God has used to draw man to Himself do not guarantee that they will come to repentance.

If God desires all men to be saved, then all men will be saved. I Timothy 2:1-6 is not an easy a verse as you suppose. You must spend an awfully long time in prayer if you make supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanks giving for all 9 billion people on the earth (v.1). But God does desire a vast number of men, women; Jews, Gentiles; Black, White; rich, poor etc. and He has given these people to the Son who has redeemed every last one of them by His obedience and His death upon the cross. But none of them will be redeemed without repenting and trusting in Christ for salvation. J. Gresham Machen wrote that faith is like the cable that runs between an electric lamp and the light switch. It joins the lamp to the power. But it is God who must, as it were, turn on the switch before the lamp will light.

A person may take some time to think about what they have heard or seen but when they make the decision to trust in God then at that moment they are saved by the grace of God. Does that mean that the person knows all about why or how salvation came about NO. But they are no less saved.

Regeneration 'all-at-once' was always in scripture John Murray just pointed it out.
The effectual call does not awaken or cause someone to think seriously about God. The call is only effectual/effective if the person has responded in a positive way to the various means God uses to draw the lost to Himself.

There is a huge difference between the general call and effectual call. It is the difference between Mark 1:15 and Luke 5:27-28. Our Lord's call in Mark 1:15 was a general call; it was made to anyone within earshot. Maybe some responded, and if they did, it was a particular call to them because it came with the power of the Spirit. To others, it was just words, though it left them without excuse. But when the word comes with power, a man will 'leave all, rise up and follow Him.'
I will try to cover the rest of your post tomorrow or Tuesday, but I have a busy day tomorrow, so be patient.

 

[Silverhair]

Well that's a forward movement then. At least I got a few things right!

We all see threw the glass dimly. None of us have all the answers. Well it seems all my posts have born some good fruit after all.

I understand that there is a moment when a sinner moves from spiritual death to life. But when does that come about? At the moment that someone gets a warm feeling listening to a sermon? Or when a guy gets a pang of conscience when he's betraying his wife with another woman and wonders if God might have something to say about it? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know your salvation story, but I was not saved until I was 38, and it involved a lot of running away from God, and a lot of conviction that did not lead directly to repentance. Read John Bunyan's spiritual autobiography, Grace abounding to the Chief of Sinners. He went through agonies of conviction and inner turmoil before God finally brought him to salvation.

What you, Bunyan and even I went through prior to our trusting in Christ is what let up to the point of our regeneration. All the conviction the pangs of conscience over some sin we have committed is just God reaching out to us and using various means to draw us to Himself.
Whenever a sinner moves from spiritual death to life that is the moment of their regeneration/new birth.

If God desires all men to be saved, then all men will be saved. I Timothy 2:1-6 is not an easy a verse as you suppose. You must spend an awfully long time in prayer if you make supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanks giving for all 9 billion people on the earth (v.1). But God does desire a vast number of men, women; Jews, Gentiles; Black, White; rich, poor etc. and He has given these people to the Son who has redeemed every last one of them by His obedience and His death upon the cross. But none of them will be redeemed without repenting and trusting in Christ for salvation. J. Gresham Machen wrote that faith is like the cable that runs between an electric lamp and the light switch. It joins the lamp to the power. But it is God who must, as it were, turn on the switch before the lamp will light.

Have you not read verse one? What did Paul write that you do not understand? "I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men" 1 Ti 2:1

And do you actually think the Holy Spirit got it wrong?
1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Please show me in scripture where it says He desires a vast number to be saved. You are reading into scripture what you need to find and ignoring what it actually says.

I have prayed for those stuck in the delusion of false religion that they would be convicted by God and turn to Him in faith but I do not know all their names nor do I need to.

By Machen's view God has to give man faith but the bible is clear that God does not give a person faith but rather that man has faith in Him in response to the various means God uses to draw men to Himself.

There is a huge difference between the general call and effectual call. It is the difference between Mark 1:15 and Luke 5:27-28. Our Lord's call in Mark 1:15 was a general call; it was made to anyone within earshot. Maybe some responded, and if they did, it was a particular call to them because it came with the power of the Spirit. To others, it was just words, though it left them without excuse. But when the word comes with power, a man will 'leave all, rise up and follow Him.'
I will try to cover the rest of your post tomorrow or Tuesday, but I have a busy day tomorrow, so be patient.

God calls all men to Himself through various means but that call is only effective if the person has responded to it. Even your examples prove what I am saying. Christ called for people to trust in / follow Him. It was the same call to all. It was effective because they chose to follow Him the call did not cause them to follow Him.

"Follow G190 (G5720) Me G3427 Mat_19:21
The Rich Young Man chose not to follow

"Follow G190 (G5720) Me G3427. Luk_5:27
Levi/Matthew chose to follow

G5720
Tense-Present See [G5774]
Voice-Active See [G5784]
Mood -Imperative See [G5794]

G5794
The imperative mood corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding.

Look at Mak 1:15 "...Repent G3340 (G5720), and G2532 believe G4100 (G5720) in G1722 the gospel G2098 ."

Thus, Jesus’ phrase, "Repent, and believe in the gospel." Mar_1:15 is not at all an "invitation, " but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers.

The same call is made to all people, "come follow me". God does not have different calls, "general or effectual".

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Just the two? But thanks for the insight into the PBs. Very helpful.

We all see threw the glass dimly. None of us have all the answers. Well it seems all my posts have born some good fruit after all.

What you, Bunyan and even I went through prior to our trusting in Christ is what let up to the point of our regeneration. All the conviction the pangs of conscience over some sin we have committed is just God reaching out to us and using various means to draw us to Himself.
Whenever a sinner moves from spiritual death to life that is the moment of their regeneration/new birth.

Have you not read verse one? What did Paul write that you do not understand? "I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men" 1 Ti 2:1

And do you actually think the Holy Spirit got it wrong?
1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Please show me in scripture where it says He desires a vast number to be saved. You are reading into scripture what you need to find and ignoring what it actually says.

I have prayed for those stuck in the delusion of false religion that they would be convicted by God and turn to Him in faith but I do not know all their names nor do I need to.

By Machen's view God has to give man faith but the bible is clear that God does not give a person faith but rather that man has faith in Him in response to the various means God uses to draw men to Himself.

God calls all men to Himself through various means but that call is only effective if the person has responded to it. Even your examples prove what I am saying. Christ called for people to trust in / follow Him. It was the same call to all. It was effective because they chose to follow Him the call did not cause them to follow Him.

"Follow G190 (G5720) Me G3427 Mat_19:21
The Rich Young Man chose not to follow

"Follow G190 (G5720) Me G3427. Luk_5:27
Levi/Matthew chose to follow

G5720
Tense-Present See [G5774]
Voice-Active See [G5784]
Mood -Imperative See [G5794]

G5794
The imperative mood corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding.

Look at Mak 1:15 "...Repent G3340 (G5720), and G2532 believe G4100 (G5720) in G1722 the gospel G2098 ."

Thus, Jesus’ phrase, "Repent, and believe in the gospel." Mar_1:15 is not at all an "invitation, " but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers.

The same call is made to all people, "come follow me". God does not have different calls, "general or effectual".

And non accurate.

 

[DaveXR650]

God calls all men to Himself through various means but that call is only effective if the person has responded to it. Even your examples prove what I am saying. Christ called for people to trust in / follow Him. It was the same call to all. It was effective because they chose to follow Him the call did not cause them to follow Him.

The differences get very subtle. On one hand, I have to admit that there has to be at some level, some exercise of our free will. Calvinism that denies that is flawed in my opinion. The problem is though, if you go the other way with free will you end up with the scenario Leighton Flowers has on his Soteriology 101 website. In the "shorts" section he has a brief video where he compares the Calvinistic idea of irresistible grace to either dragging a girl out of a bar or first drugging her and then walking her out because that makes you appear better at least because you first changed her will. Not that I am in any way suggesting that you think this way but he does, and he is has become very popular as a spokesman for the free will philosophy with his "Provisionism".

What bothered me so much about his illustration is that I know of a young lady who I would gladly like to "drag" out of a certain situation. She was already drugged to get her in to that situation. To suggest that an all knowing God is not allowed to powerfully influence someone who has an impaired, fallen will and is headed for certain destruction, like this girl, or all the rest of us, goes too far and indicates too high a view of our real condition. If you want to say it's a matter of "influence and response" then I would say I have to agree. But if you were headed to disaster eternally and the influence was essential in order to get a response then it was certainly efficacious, and could be argued it was irresistible, (the proof being that it wasn't resisted).

I know you can argue that you still had to respond, and you do, but the question goes both ways. The same logic can ask if you really need any type of work on your soul by the Holy Spirit, describe it as conviction, all the way to supernatural "quickening", then it is a sovereign work. Do you then require it to be applied equally to everyone? It obviously is not, just as the external call and means are not given equally to everyone. What goes on between a soul and the Holy Spirit is not shown to us. It's not even perceptible to our own consciousness because it affects our will which we only perceive when we evaluate and then choose a course of action. So we can't really figure this out.

 

[Silverhair]

The differences get very subtle. On one hand, I have to admit that there has to be at some level, some exercise of our free will. Calvinism that denies that is flawed in my opinion. The problem is though, if you go the other way with free will you end up with the scenario Leighton Flowers has on his Soteriology 101 website. In the "shorts" section he has a brief video where he compares the Calvinistic idea of irresistible grace to either dragging a girl out of a bar or first drugging her and then walking her out because that makes you appear better at least because you first changed her will. Not that I am in any way suggesting that you think this way but he does, and he is has become very popular as a spokesman for the free will philosophy with his "Provisionism".

What bothered me so much about his illustration is that I know of a young lady who I would gladly like to "drag" out of a certain situation. She was already drugged to get her in to that situation. To suggest that an all knowing God is not allowed to powerfully influence someone who has an impaired, fallen will and is headed for certain destruction, like this girl, or all the rest of us, goes too far and indicates too high a view of our real condition. If you want to say it's a matter of "influence and response" then I would say I have to agree. But if you were headed to disaster eternally and the influence was essential in order to get a response then it was certainly efficacious, and could be argued it was irresistible, (the proof being that it wasn't resisted).

I know you can argue that you still had to respond, and you do, but the question goes both ways. The same logic can ask if you really need any type of work on your soul by the Holy Spirit, describe it as conviction, all the way to supernatural "quickening", then it is a sovereign work. Do you then require it to be applied equally to everyone? It obviously is not, just as the external call and means are not given equally to everyone. What goes on between a soul and the Holy Spirit is not shown to us. It's not even perceptible to our own consciousness because it affects our will which we only perceive when we evaluate and then choose a course of action. So we can't really figure this out.

I agree that the Flower's illustration is a bit over the top. I would think he did it to counter the over the top calvinist view of irresistible drawing.

I have always held to an "influence and response" view of the work of God in drawing man to Himself. Where we differ is in your use terms such as efficacious and irresistible.
For God to powerfully influence a person is quite different from that influence being irresistible. The person could have rejected the influence. The fact they did not does not alter the fact that they had to make the choice to accept or reject the information presented.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have always held to an "influence and response" view of the work of God in drawing man to Himself. Where we differ is in your use terms such as efficacious and irresistible.
For God to powerfully influence a person is quite different from that influence being irresistible. The person could have rejected the influence. The fact they did not does not alter the fact that they had to make the choice to accept or reject the information presented.

I have to admit that I do believe that grace is resistible. Even famous and strong Calvinist writers spent much time warning us not to spurn or ignore any gracious influence we become aware of lest it be withdrawn, leaving us with no chance of salvation because we are indeed dependent upon such influences, however they work. There are even scriptures which seem to me at least to indicate even supernatural light and quickening can be lost and become of no use. There is indeed responsibility on us at some point or points in the process of our salvation.

Calvinist theology tends to then say that if it worked it was effectual or irresistible, which is technically true I guess, but I can't blame someone for calling that out as not being a fair argument. For what it's worth I have noticed that there are small differences in how Arminius himself and how Grantham (the early Baptist) and Wesley handled this topic. This goes along with how and if the gospel is "offered" and if you notice men are all over the place and there is a spectrum from one end to the other. Out of Calvinism there constantly rises up voices like the Marrow men, Arminius, Baxter, and Wesley who cannot accept the determinism in an extreme form. And then there is a tendency to go so far the other way that salvation becomes a "decision" or a moral reformation and then voices rise up against that.

 

[Silverhair]

I have to admit that I do believe that grace is resistible. Even famous and strong Calvinist writers spent much time warning us not to spurn or ignore any gracious influence we become aware of lest it be withdrawn, leaving us with no chance of salvation because we are indeed dependent upon such influences, however they work. There are even scriptures which seem to me at least to indicate even supernatural light and quickening can be lost and become of no use. There is indeed responsibility on us at some point or points in the process of our salvation.

Calvinist theology tends to then say that if it worked it was effectual or irresistible, which is technically true I guess, but I can't blame someone for calling that out as not being a fair argument. For what it's worth I have noticed that there are small differences in how Arminius himself and how Grantham (the early Baptist) and Wesley handled this topic. This goes along with how and if the gospel is "offered" and if you notice men are all over the place and there is a spectrum from one end to the other. Out of Calvinism there constantly rises up voices like the Marrow men, Arminius, Baxter, and Wesley who cannot accept the determinism in an extreme form. And then there is a tendency to go so far the other way that salvation becomes a "decision" or a moral reformation and then voices rise up against that.

I have always had problems with those that tend to the extremes. For me the bible seems to be clear that we are responsible to respond to the offer that God has made.

I can understand your point of salvation having been effectual or irresistible when you look back from the position of having been saved. Until the person makes that choice to trust in God because of the Spirits conviction, the gospel or whatever other means God uses to draw someone to Himself it is just an offer. Salvation, being born anew as a child of God is a moral reformation. If the person had not made the decision to trust in God and God had not saved them as a result then there would be no moral reformation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don’t like the word reformation, not on any level. It implies a conscious choice at changing one’s behavior. There must be a change in one’s soul, a growth of conscience, a conviction of a higher power showing you a better way of being. And that’s a radical reality change deep in one’s soul…not a forced modification for my own welfare. In a way, I find reform as a fear based modification of behavior like an alcholic giving up the drink. Mentally, you do that because you fear a drunk life, but deep down you still desire it. No im talking about something more profound than that, a light shining in the darkness… a metamorphosis.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree with much of what you have written.

Well, that's a start.

Rom 11:29 is telling us that He does not change He does not renege on His word.
"The word “calling” κλῆσις klēsis here denotes that act of God by which he extends an invitation to people to come and partake of his favors, whether it be by a personal revelation as to the patriarchs, or by the promises of the gospel, or by the influences of his Spirit. All such invitations or callings imply a pledge that he will bestow the favor, and will not repent, or turn from it. God never draws or invites sinners to himself without being willing to bestow pardon and eternal life." Barnes on Rom 11:29

[/QUOTE]
Correct. There is a general call that goes out to sinners, which invites all men to come to Christ and be saved. But left to themselves, men and women will not obey that call (John 3:19; 1 Cor. 2:14 etc.). The best example of this is the parable of the Great Feast (Luke 14:15-24). All are invited to the wedding feast of the Son. That's the general call; if people will obey it they will most certainly come to the feast. 'But they all, with one accord, began to make excuses.' So what does the Master of the house say? "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that My house may be filled." That is the particular call. 'Your people will be willing [or 'volunteers'] in the day of Your power.' (Psalms 110:3).

We see the same thing in Php 1:6
"The “good work” here referred to, can be no other than religion, or true piety. This is called the work of God; the work of the Lord; or the work of Christ;"..."Margin, “Or, finish” The Greek word - ἐπιτελέσει epitelesei - means that he would carry it forward to completion; he would perfect it. It is an intensive form of the word, meaning that it would be carried through to the end." Barnes on Php 1:6

Yep!

Those that trust in God will be saved by God.

Still yep!

Neither of these verses support your view of God calling certain people through an effectual call.

Well I think they both do. Those who have trusted in Christ for salvation will most certainly be saved, but people will not trust in Christ unless they are compelled by the almighty power of God. It takes the same power that raised the Lord Jesus from the dead to bring a sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, to new birth (Ephesians 1:19-2:6)