Sure He did but this entire debate boils down to can man choose. If man can know God He can choose. The Calvinist argues that man cannot know God or choose to receive Him. Scripture doesn't bear that out.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Power to choose
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
Sure He did but this entire debate boils down to can man choose. If man can know God He can choose. The Calvinist argues that man cannot know God or choose to receive Him. Scripture doesn't bear that out.
That is right. The bigger question is what are our presuppositions based on?
'But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.......nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Cor. 2:14).
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:21)
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:21)
There is knowing God and then there is knowing God. The KJV uses the words 'know/knew' as intimate encounters as Adam 'knew' his wife Eve as an intimate encounter in an intimate relationship. God has revealed Himself to everyone via creation. They know, or acknowledge, His existing, even if it was through the Indians and 'the happy hunting ground' or the Philistines 'Dagon'. They knew of a Higher Power through creation, the knew there was a god, or a higher power, but not Christ. They could not know God w/o knowing Christ, seeing He is the Only Way unto the Father.
God 'knows' His Children in an intimate relationship, and not just by know as in acknowledging their existence.
To know God. The person who knows God in Romans 1 has no union with God. There is no power or ability ascribed to that individual in the text at all.
One without the Spirit, as I demonstrated in 1 Cor.2:14 is lost and cannot know God as a Christian knows God.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you trying to pit the two passages against one another?
When I was a sinner I wanted nothing less than to serve Him, my Brother. My nature, my will, was bent towards sin and self, and not towards righteousness and God. My nature precluded me from choosing God. It was after God changed my nature, my will, that I freely chose God.
There is a difference in knowing about God and knowing God intimately. The context in Romans 1 is that they know God enough that their rejection is held against them. The implication here is they chose to go the other way.
I do not believe that is a fair representation of the Calvinist position. The natural man (1 Cor. 2:14) does not, and cannot, understand the things of the Spirit of God. The inherent problem for the natural man (a.k.a. "sinner") is that he cannot understand the saving message of the Gospel because he "does not accept the things of the Spirit Of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them" (1 Cor. 2:14, NASB). If the natural man, in his natural condition, cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God, something beyond the natural man's ability must take place in order for the natural man to be able to understand and believe the Gospel. I think we see this in Ephesians 2.
"But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (Ephesians 2:4, 5).
God took unilateral action by making a spiritually dead sinner alive, and able to believe. This leads to another topic, namely regeneration before justification, but it reveals how freedom of choice does exist within the Calvinist schema. We choose freely, but only after our nature has been changed by an act of God, independent of our will.
There is indeed knowing of God and knowing God. James I. Packer's very helpful book elaborates in his Knowing God
Everyone knows about God (as Romans 1 brings out). But God doesn't intimately know a host of folks.
Not to repeat my self intentionally but I must go back to Romans 1:21 here. God sends His wrath on those who knew Him and then reject Him. John 1:12 says He saved those who received Him. I do believe the chronology is clear in that passage.
With regard to the I Cor 2:14 passage it is clear the lost cannot understand the doctrines of God but that does not impose on them that God opens their minds and hearts to knowing Him to have the ability to choose.
Now, could they choose had God not revealed Himself to them. Of course not. Can they choose to walk away knowing Him? You bet they can because that is the way God set it up to be. All in all God is still sovereign even when He gives man the ability to choose.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.[vss. 18-23]
These Paul are writing about are those who were actively suppressing the truth by their wickedness. They had no desire to serve God, even though they knew God existed. They also refused to glorify or give Him thanks. They would not choose Him and God darkened their hearts accordingly.
ETA:That Romans 1 passage resonates, reverbiates throughout all time. Everyone who dies lost actively rejected God.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok I missed, in your post, how I misrepresented the Calvinist position.
Further, I Cor 2:14 is correct right up until God show man who he is. It is clear that Romans 1:21 is a huge problem for the Calvinist position.
It is clear that it has never been a problem. In what way or ways does it become a problem for Calvinists from your Arminian perspective?
Good. You have changed your mind from a few months ago when you strenuously said that this passage was merely speaking of a low-level Christian.
Could you please rephrase that? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Sinners suppress the truth all the time.
Truth: You shall have no other gods before Me.
Fact: Sinners serve themselves, thereby they place themselves before God, which also breaks truth # 2 about making idols. We served ourself and made an 'idol' out of ourself.
This is the thrust of the thought Paul was addressing.
You wrote, "The Calvinist argues that man cannot know God or choose to receive Him."
The Calvinist does not argue that man cannot know God or choose to receive Him. He argues that the unregenerate man cannot know God or choose to receive Him unless, and until, God illumines the individual (i.e. Ephesians 2:3, 4).
Romans 1:21 is far from a problem for Calvinists. Verse 21 cannot be disconnected from verses 19-20. Natural revelation is not sufficient to save anyone. Apart from the Gospel message no one can be saved. Natural revelation is proof that there is a Creator -- God. Intuitively each man knows this, even the so-called atheist. It is possible to know God's existence without knowing Him in regards to salvation.
Romans 1:18-32 was never meant to be a polemic on choice.
You are making a molehill out of an unnecessary nuance. What I said and what you said are the same thing.
According to rm both of you are saying the same thing.
"What I said and what you said are the same thing." (RM)
Apparently RM has suddenly become a Calvinist. But I have a feeling he will not admit any such thing.
The adversarial, antagonistic, personal attacks need to stop.