Reconciling Two

[David Lamb]

You sound like Gordon Clark and the Sandemanians, both of which are Calvinists, by the way. T

As far as Sandemanianism is concerned, I came across this: "Sandemanians equated faith with mere intellectual assent to the facts of the Bible. Defined as a “simple faith” or “bare faith,” the faith promoted by Sandeman required no emotion or even an act of the will to produce salvation. It was an extreme version of easy believism." That doesn't sound like Calvinism.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

It sure is my pleasure to be on this site with KenH, atpollard, Dave G, and Rye.

You men have been with Jesus.

You're in good hands Blank.

And I think you are getting it well enough, aren't you?

Think of the words in the sentence, here:

but is longsuffering to us-ward,

That is the key.

By repeating the words again the way he is saying them, the intended expression would sound like, "God is long-suffering toward us-ward, not willing that any of us-ward should perish".

So, the word "us-ward" is not one we use every day, but there is is in that sentence and that word is indicating who it is the Lord is saying that He is not Willing that they perish.

Here are two passages I have trouble with, how would you reconcile them?

If God is not willing that any perish

That's the rub. We just don't need to bracket that portion of the sentence off, and miss the cue from the prior portion, as to who he is talking about.

You think if God is unwilling that any should perish, he would make his 'mystery plan' clear.

And, so there it is again. That's all there is that's causing the confusion.

God is not willing that any of us-ward should perish, meaning by following the wicked type temptations that evil men lay out there, where they could follow after them in the flesh and not live out their full lives, but perish, as the result of falling into a sinful life.

Answer those questions and THEN you will understand what Peter is talking about when he states that God is “not willing that any should perish”.

thought I made it quite clear that I'm trying to reconcile both statements of 'God is not willing any should perish'

That's O.K. That's what it's in the Book for.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward,

Bam! Amen!

Who do you see are the "us-ward", the "any" and the "all"?

What Rye says. The "beloved".

not willing that any should perish.

2 Peter 3:9 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The 'any' in this verse refers to the 'beloved' who are believers. It is not referring to all people universally. If God has given His grace to any of the elect, that means that He is not willing that any of them should perish but instead come to repentance and they most definitely will do so

Amen.

God has determined who will get mercy and who will get justice. Nobody will get injustice. When you look at it from this point of view, you'll see that there is no need for reconciliation but rather there exists great harmony between these texts.

"Nobody will get injustice".

What a powerful statement.

THANK YOU GENTLEMEN!

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

As far as Sandemanianism is concerned, I came across this: "Sandemanians equated faith with mere intellectual assent to the facts of the Bible. Defined as a “simple faith” or “bare faith,” the faith promoted by Sandeman required no emotion or even an act of the will to produce salvation. It was an extreme version of easy believism." That doesn't sound like Calvinism.

No, it sounds like they didn't see the death of Jesus being caused by their personal sins, nor that they had a conviction of their sins which God had Worked in them, for them to take sides with God, Whom they would realize they have Offended by breaking His Universal Moral Laws, against themselves, that would cause them to Repent of their sins and then turn to Jesus Christ TO TRUST HIM AS THEIR SAVIOR THEY ABSOLUTELY NEED AND MUST HAVE, that He Paid for their sins with His Perfect Life Given in their Place as their Substitute and that they know God Accepted Jesus' Payment for them, personally.

How do they know?

What happened on the third day?

Do they now have the FAITH that when Jesus Rose from the dead, He Rose in Victory to Fulfill the Promise of Giving them Eternal Life?

Is Jesus' Perfect Life and death, burial, and Resurrection what they BELIEVE?

AND HAVE 'FAITH' IN?

 

[DaveXR650]

As far as Sandemanianism is concerned, I came across this: "Sandemanians equated faith with mere intellectual assent to the facts of the Bible. Defined as a “simple faith” or “bare faith,” the faith promoted by Sandeman required no emotion or even an act of the will to produce salvation. It was an extreme version of easy believism." That doesn't sound like Calvinism.

Most of what little I know about Sandemanianism comes from reading Martyn Lloyd-Jones and he was of the opinion that they can be Calvinist or Arminian. I didn't mean to derail the thread but was just trying to say that saving faith is not the same as other areas in life where you might lay out the facts before you, evaluate the truth of them and then decide whether to believe or not. But Silverhair was right when he said this:

I do not think anyone can say why one person believes and another does not or even why they made the choice they did.

A Calvinist would say the difference in saving faith was the Holy Spirit's work, or whether they were elect. And Arminian would say the Holy Spirit's work combined with a response required by the individual (or at least a level of non-resistance) and then in practice most people are all over the place

All I am saying is that faith in our salvation is different than faith in other things, most of which we base on probability and benefit analysis, even if it's subconscious. And unlike those other areas, where God has indeed left us with natural ability to function, in saving faith we are dependent on a work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[DaveXR650]

No, it sounds like they didn't see the death of Jesus being caused by their personal sins, nor that they had a conviction of their sins which God had Worked in them, for them to take sides with God, Whom they would realize they have Offended by breaking His Universal Moral Laws, against themselves, that would cause them to Repent of their sins and then turn to Jesus Christ TO TRUST HIM AS THEIR SAVIOR THEY ABSOLUTELY NEED AND MUST HAVE, that He Paid for their sins with His Perfect Life Given in their Place as their Substitute and that they know God Accepted Jesus' Payment for them, personally.

Yes. That's what I meant. You have to "see" those things and that makes it more than just an evaluation of propositions and a mental assent that the proposals are true. (Which truly is part of saving faith, as the confessions point out, just not the sum total).

Where I see this as important to this thread is that some of the Calvinist brothers get so far away from the idea that there is any kind of true interaction whereas a truly lost person in time becomes a saved person - that they then would deny that God in any sense would truly desire that "all men" would be saved. So they must then look at a passage like 2 Peter 3:9 has to only refer to the elect, with no message at all to everyone else.

Whereas I think that the right answer, and the true Calvinist position is that 2 Peter 3:9 applies to everyone and yet does not deny "election" of individuals. The reason I say that is that the teaching of even high-Calvinists, like John Owen, and certainly Fuller and Lloyd-Jones and most reformed modern Baptists was that there is a warrant given by God that anyone who comes to Christ will be received and saved. As Ryle said, Jesus did not say come unto me all ye that are elect, but heavy laden. The only qualification necessary is to see your need (which I believe is from the Holy Spirit). So no reconciliation is necessary between verses that present the warrant for anyone to believe and verses that show the role of God in his sovereignty. The choice is not between God either waiting to see what our decision will be and God having nothing to say to the general population of men as a whole. If you are a Calvinist there is no need to turn something like 2 Peter 3:9 into a chilling exclusionary statement that leaves out a lot of mankind. Anyone who does believe is indeed among the elect and were known to God. But the warrant and invitation to believe is also in scripture and it's benefits are promised to anyone who will do so.

 

[Van]

ALL of us van are already born as lost sinners, at war against God, so God doers not have to do anything to have us all remove lost and hell bound, but grace is that any of us equally spiritually dead ever get saved

LOL, another post of gibberish. Does scripture say we were made sinners, conceived in iniquity? Yes. Is that in dispute? Nope. That means when conceived, we are lost and headed for Hades, unless we obtain mercy sometime during our lifetime. This is the Biblical Truth and what Calvinism denies.

 

[Silverhair]

You sound like Gordon Clark and the Sandemanians, both of which are Calvinists, by the way. The gospel is a set of propositions, but intellectual assent to the set of propositions does not do justice as an explanation of saving faith. One reason is that if you are human belief in something will have an effect on you in accordance with your perception of what it truly means. The bare naked facts of the gospel because of what the gospel means will be received differently as truth than knowledge of a set of new facts of indifferent importance. Just like you would react differently to belief that you won a dozen donuts as compared to winning 50 million dollars. True, the intellectual exercise is the same as far as your brain is concerned, but you should doubt yourself as to whether you really believed it if the reaction was the same.

Another reason "Why does one believe anything" doesn't work for the gospel is that belief in the gospel requires a prior work on our souls or else we will not see the importance of the propositions. This is not the case with believing other things. In believing other things either the knowledge is indifferent to us or we have a natural ability to understand our need to take the thing proposed seriously. If I am a refugee and they tell me I can find food at a certain location that knowledge is important to me and good news because of my natural ability to be hungry and my understanding that I need food. When people hear the gospel their natural state is to think the proposals are foolish or that they are doing OK on their own, already. In a sense, you are technically right in that if they would believe they could be saved, but they see no reason to worry themselves with doing so.

So what you saying is the Gordon Clark and the Sandemanians actually believed the bible So even a calvinist can learn to trust scripture.

It seems you still have a problem trusting scripture when it says
Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
Rom 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

So what your saying is that the gospel message is useless. Why did Christ have to suffer in the first place. All God has to do is zap the person and they would believe in Him. On the other hand if He did not zap them then it would be impossible for them to believe so now we have God choosing who will spend eternity in hell even though the bible says we are responsible for rejecting Him.
Joh 20:30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Joh 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

What does the bible tell us.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,

Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which confirms
Rom 10:13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

So it seems you would rather fall to the negative view of the Love of God for His creation in that He only loves some such as A. Pink suggested.

 

[Van]

I think I have read you say on multiple occasions that every individual has the opportunity to change the outcome of their destiny. If you have not said that, forgive me, I was away for a little while.

Regardless, some will say that every individual is on equal ground to either accept or reject the Gospel message. My argument is that’s not necessarily the case. As you said before, you were born into a Christian family so God had already given you a head start. God did not give that same advantage to an atheist born into an atheist family. If that’s the case, does everyone really have an equal chance?

No, I did not say every individual. God provides the opportunity of salvation to the whole of humanity, but certain individuals never hear the gospel, such as those who physically die before they could comprehend the gospel. Consider that the fields are white for harvest but we need more laborers. That suggests the opportunity might not reach everyone open.

So everyone does not have an "equal chance." Not everyone is "open" to God's word. But, OTOH, some who initially reject Christ, later put their faith in Christ, so we must not give up after our first effort at witnessing.

 

[Silverhair]

Most of what little I know about Sandemanianism comes from reading Martyn Lloyd-Jones and he was of the opinion that they can be Calvinist or Arminian. I didn't mean to derail the thread but was just trying to say that saving faith is not the same as other areas in life where you might lay out the facts before you, evaluate the truth of them and then decide whether to believe or not. But Silverhair was right when he said this:

A Calvinist would say the difference in saving faith was the Holy Spirit's work, or whether they were elect. And Arminian would say the Holy Spirit's work combined with a response required by the individual (or at least a level of non-resistance) and then in practice most people are all over the place

All I am saying is that faith in our salvation is different than faith in other things, most of which we base on probability and benefit analysis, even if it's subconscious. And unlike those other areas, where God has indeed left us with natural ability to function, in saving faith we are dependent on a work of the Holy Spirit.

But Dave the Holy Spirit convicts the whole world so why are not all saved since God desires all to be saved? Could it be because man has a free will with which to evaluate the information he is presented with? Such as creation, Holy Spirit conviction, the gospel message, etc.

You say that "in saving faith we are dependent on a work of the Holy Spirit." So are we to conclude that He exercises varying degrees of conviction or work in a persons life. But that goes against Gods desire for all to be saved?

 

[DaveXR650]

It seems you still have a problem trusting scripture when it says
Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
Rom 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

No. What I have been talking about is illustrated here when scripture chose to say believe in your heart, rather than just believe as in acceptance of a set of facts. Rom. 10:10 says when a person believes "with the heart" it results in righteousness and confession. James would say it results in good works. Belief in a set of propositions as being factually true doesn't result in anything but knowing they are true. I don't know why this should be difficult as it is held by almost all of Christendom whether Calvinist or not.

So what your saying is that the gospel message is useless.

Yes, without the accompanying work of the Holy Spirit. I am willing to say that whenever the gospel is presented there may be some level of Holy Spirit power just because of what the gospel is. Still, it is the Holy Spirit, not the words themselves that make it effective. There are atheists who fully understand the facts of the gospel propositions and make a living trying to refute them. I'm not saying they believe them but they understand the propositions and they study them diligently. Sometimes one of them will later become a Christian. So far I have never heard of anyone who did that explaining it as that they simply, upon further evaluation of the proposals, changed their minds in a rational fashion. Even C.S. Lewis, who, probably wrote more about his own journey to faith than anyone in modern times ends up saying something like he went on an outing, and came back a Christian.

 

[DaveXR650]

You say that "in saving faith we are dependent on a work of the Holy Spirit." So are we to conclude that He exercises varying degrees of conviction or work in a persons life. But that goes against Gods desire for all to be saved?

One of the things that C. S. Lewis wrote about as having a powerful effect on him was when an atheist friend of his, who Lewis looked up to said at one point "Rum thing, all that about a Dying God. Seems to have really happened once". The sad thing is that as much as it helped Lewis, that man as far as we know never came to faith. So yes, God pursues some more than others and does not allow our evaluation of him in that respect.

 

[JesusFan]

LOL, another post of gibberish. Does scripture say we were made sinners, conceived in iniquity? Yes. Is that in dispute? Nope. That means when conceived, we are lost and headed for Hades, unless we obtain mercy sometime during our lifetime. This is the Biblical Truth and what Calvinism denies.

Van, there are NO real Calvinists that deny original sin and that our salvation is totally dependent upon the working of the truine God to redeem us, as the father draws/calls us to Jesus, all those given by the Father are those who he died for and as a substitionary sin offering for, and all of them who were chosen and elected by grace of God convicted and regenerated unto salvation by Holy Spirit

You totally misunderstand what we Calvinists teach regarding election and predentination

 

[Van]

Saving Faith? Several claims are made concerning this biblical reality. Some are false.

One shared view is that fallen humans are unable to come to "saving faith." They must be "enabled" either by Prevenient Grace or Irresistible Grace, both of which are not founded on scripture. OTOH, Romans Chapter 4 clearly and explicitly teaches God credits the faith of some, such as Abraham, as righteousness. So our faith, alone does not save us, but our "credited by God as righteousness faith" does result in our salvation.

1) No human was chosen for salvation, or to be a people for God's own possession before they existed "not as a people" who had not "obtained mercy." Ephesians 1:4 says we were chosen "in Him" meaning when He was chosen individually as God's Lamb, Redeemer, we were chosen corporately as the target group, those believers to be redeemed by God's individual election.

2) His plan is no longer a mystery, thus He has revealed His plan.

3) Yes, not everyone who hears the gospel is able to understand it, such as Soil #1 of Matthew 13. Some have hardened hearts, others are only partially blinded by presuppositions. Others are open to God's word, the fields white for harvest. Recall the prodigal son, who "came to his senses."
So long as their is life, we are to continue our efforts to lead the lost to life.

4) Yes, the gospel revelation can be resisted or not fully embraced. See Soils # 2&3 of Matthew 13. We beg the lost "be reconciled to God" so the idea is that the lost at least need to desire salvation, but that action of course, does not cause or merit salvation.

 

[JesusFan]

One of the things that C. S. Lewis wrote about as having a powerful effect on him was when an atheist friend of his, who Lewis looked up to said at one point "Rum thing, all that about a Dying God. Seems to have really happened once". The sad thing is that as much as it helped Lewis, that man as far as we know never came to faith. So yes, God pursues some more than others and does not allow our evaluation of him in that respect.

Lewis also wrote that He heard many times the gospel , talked about what the bible teaches, disregrading it all pretty much, but one day walked to Oxford as Atheist and retuned back home a Christian, as he was persuaded and convicted by the Holy Spirit finally and got saved that very day

 

[Van]

Van, there are NO real Calvinists that deny original sin and that our salvation is totally dependent upon the working of the truine God to redeem us, as the father draws/calls us to Jesus, all those given by the Father are those who he died for and as a substitionary sin offering for, and all of them who were chosen and elected by grace of God convicted and regenerated unto salvation by Holy Spirit

You totally misunderstand what we Calvinists teach regarding election and predentination

Did anyone say Calvinists deny original sin? Nope, so more gibberish from the fount of gibberish.

Christ died as a ransom for all, both those to be saved and those never to be saved 2 Peter 2:1.

 

[Van]

2 Peter 3:9 is expressing the idea God will allow (being longsuffering) the period between His first appearance and His second coming to be long to afford the opportunity for many people to be chosen for salvation during their lifetime.

The second verse (Matthew 11:25) addresses progressive revelation. God did not reveal, by kept concealed, facets of His plan for His redemption of a people to be chosen for His own possession. Since even today, people disagree on just what the plan is, so it is still a mystery or a partial mystery to some or all of us.

We, who live in the post New Testament period have sufficient revelation to "be reconciled" to God. But we all do not understand and embrace that revelation such that God reconciles us. Those among the reconciled have the calling to be effective witnesses for Christ, and help lead the lost to Christ.

I think the contrast between "babes" who are open to learning, and the "wise and prudent" who reject the gospel because it does not fit with their presuppositions, is a point we all need to consider.

 

[JesusFan]

2 Peter 3:9 is expressing the idea God will allow (being longsuffering) the period between His first appearance and His second coming to be long to afford the opportunity for many people to be chosen for salvation during their lifetime.

The second verse (Matthew 11:25) addresses progressive revelation. God did not reveal, by kept concealed, facets of His plan for His redemption of a people to be chosen for His own possession. Since even today, people disagree on just what the plan is, so it is still a mystery or a partial mystery to some or all of us.

We, who live in the post New Testament period have sufficient revelation to "be reconciled" to God. But we all do not understand and embrace that revelation such that God reconciles us. Those among the reconciled have the calling to be effective witnesses for Christ, and help lead the lost to Christ.

I think the contrast between "babes" who are open to learning, and the "wise and prudent" who reject the gospel because it does not fit with their presuppositions, is a point we all need to consider.

Paul defines the Babes as Babes in Christ, nothing to do with still lost sinners

 

[JesusFan]

Did anyone say Calvinists deny original sin? Nope, so more gibberish from the fount of gibberish.

Christ died as a ransom for all, both those to be saved and those never to be saved 2 Peter 2:1.

Even though scriptures states God created and made some as tools for/of wrath?
That Jesus for the sins of the many, but not for the all?

 

[DaveXR650]

Lewis also wrote that He heard many times the gospel , talked about what the bible teaches, disregrading it all pretty much, but one day walked to Oxford as Atheist and retuned back home a Christian, as he was persuaded and convicted by the Holy Spirit finally and got saved that very day

Yes. Lewis is a good example of one who is apprehended by Christ. At one point he says this, "For the first time I examined myself with a seriously practical purpose. " And there I found what appalled me; a zoo of lusts, a bedlam of ambitions, a nursery of fears, a harem of fondled hatreds. My name was Legion". My argument is that this is a result of the Holy Spirit pursuing you and not something you can sit down and evaluate as you would a set of proposals. You cannot come to those conclusions about yourself on your own.

 

[Van]

Consider the fruit of the Spirit, which enables us as witnesses for Christ in the ministry of reconciliation:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control