-
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!
The act of receiving
- Thread starter npetreley
- Start date
Well, I don't know why you find the univeral call apparently contradictory....
If I put up posters inviting everyone on my block to a barbeque at my house, but I know there is one family that will not come because they hate me, does that make my invite to them not genuine? Does their unwillingness to come make my invitation anything less than universal to everyone on my block?
Neat little analogy there Russell but it doesn't speak to the issue that your paradox presents, but I'll go with your same analogy, but this time making it more in line with your actual system.
Everyone on your block hates you, because of something you planned from before the beginning of the neighborhoods existance and they have no control over that hatred whatsoever, it's inate with in them, as according to your plan. Some of them on your block speak English and others speak Spanish. You decide to have a block party because you "geniunly desire reconcilation with all of them", but you really don't intend the party to be for the Spanish speaking people because you don't like them as much, so you plan a party for just the English speaking people. So you put up posters saying "everyone is invited," but you make sure you don't translate the posters into Spanish so as to insure that they don't understand. All the while you say that your invitation is genuinely universal to them all but in reality is not universal nor genuine at all, because you have insured that the Spanish speaking people cannot understand. You've decieved all your neighbors by telling them that you invited everyone when you knew full well that the Spanish speakers wouldn't understand those posters. When question about your deception you say, "I didn't have to invite anyone if I didn't want too, the fact that I had a party should be enough." But they say, that's not the question, you said everyone was geniunely invited to come, but they really weren't. Isn't that deceptive to say that its geniunly universal when in fact its not.
By the way, you go on to burn the Spanish speaking people for the rest of eternity. Why? Because they hated you according to your plan and they didn't respond to the invitation you never intended for them to understand. THAT IS ABSURD!!!
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Russel,
I think the problem is that some Calvinists have maintained the General Call is universally resisted. Only by the "Effectual Call" will some be MADE to want to come.
Perhaps a more reflective illustration would be to invite everyone on your block to a BBQ knowing that EVERYONE hates you and doesn't want to come. Not only that but they are incapable of loving you or even coming over to your house if they wanted. You then decide to force certain neighbors to love you and secretly invite them to come since the first invitation was ineffective. More than that, the first invitation was NOT GENUINE because you know that unless you MAKE person able to come he can't. Since you aren't making EVERYONE COME then you weren't sincere and the invitation is meaningless. You only intend to make some come while maintaining the illusion that those who CAN'T come actually COULD come if they wanted.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Looks like you beat me to it, Bill!
Ray Berrian
New Member
Brother Bill,
I tried to Email you directly but was unable to do so. Received your post as did everyone else on 2/12/ at 11:44 p.m. Yes, and just think they don't even want to plea the 'fifth ammendment.' Another observation is they don't even acknowledge there is another, in many cases, a majority view of the issue. In some cases, they also neglect answering questions that you pose.
Regards . . .
I tried to Email you directly but was unable to do so. Received your post as did everyone else on 2/12/ at 11:44 p.m. Yes, and just think they don't even want to plea the 'fifth ammendment.' Another observation is they don't even acknowledge there is another, in many cases, a majority view of the issue. In some cases, they also neglect answering questions that you pose.
Regards . . .
Ray Berrian
New Member
Brother Bill,
With all due respect to our Canadian brother in Christ, your evaluation of the block party was excellent.
With all due respect to our Canadian brother in Christ, your evaluation of the block party was excellent.
Ray Berrian
New Member
Does anyone have a problem with the definition of faith as penned by Drs. Ryrie, Chafer, Robertson or Berrrian?
Respectfully . . .
Respectfully . . .
Bible-belted
New Member
How can you say that the meaing of faith has anything to do with efectual call when I drew it directly from Roans 4?
I don't fdeny that faith is reliance on God. The qiestion is the source. Where does it come from?
You just keep on assuming soimething without bothering to unpack or prove it. For those who prefer to discuss isssues beuyond the level of the superficial slogan, your tactics are quite frustrating.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Ray, I think biblical faith ALSO conveys the idea of obedience. It's one thing to SAY we trust Jesus; it's another to PROVE that claim by obedience (see James 2:14-26)
Bible-belted
New Member
Doubting Thomas
I agre that faith ash to do with obedience. Paul even refers tp the "obediecne of faith".
But Ray needs to understand that he can agree with Ryrie at all all her wants about what faith is, but he wil not be in complete agrement with the Bible about it until he recognises that faith is not from us. if it were, it would be a work, as per Roamns 4. He never actually addresses that issue, you might note.
See Ray is right as far as he goes. He just doesn't go far enough.
I agre that faith ash to do with obedience. Paul even refers tp the "obediecne of faith".
But Ray needs to understand that he can agree with Ryrie at all all her wants about what faith is, but he wil not be in complete agrement with the Bible about it until he recognises that faith is not from us. if it were, it would be a work, as per Roamns 4. He never actually addresses that issue, you might note.
See Ray is right as far as he goes. He just doesn't go far enough.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
I think where you and I disagree is that I think FAITH is synergistic. It is of God, because He has to give it to us since we can't conjure it up ourselves. However, we are still responsible for using the faith that HE offers.
Bible-belted
New Member
Doubting Thomas,
I don't think that what you articulate is proper synergism. Monergists do not deny that we are responsible to use the faith given by God. But the fact is we are given that faith. Synergism, as I understand it, is the idea that God does his part, and we do ours, where our part, faith, is from us, and not from God. Feel free to correct me on this, but please be sure to provide a source that I can verify (preferably web-based) if you do so. Thanks.
I don't think that what you articulate is proper synergism. Monergists do not deny that we are responsible to use the faith given by God. But the fact is we are given that faith. Synergism, as I understand it, is the idea that God does his part, and we do ours, where our part, faith, is from us, and not from God. Feel free to correct me on this, but please be sure to provide a source that I can verify (preferably web-based) if you do so. Thanks.
Ray Berrian
New Member
Doubting Thomas,
I agree with your post dated Feb. 12-----2:09.
I agree with you if you do not count 'human works' as a Christian as being contributory to final salvation. Salvation is by faith alone as the Protest Reformers also believed.
I agree with your post dated Feb. 12-----2:09.
I agree with you if you do not count 'human works' as a Christian as being contributory to final salvation. Salvation is by faith alone as the Protest Reformers also believed.
Bible-belted
New Member
And where does faith come from Ray?
How do you avoid the conclusion that faith that isfrom us is a work as defined in Romans 4?
Will you EVER address these issues?
Will you simply stick to sloganeering?
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Bible-Belted
When I say "synergism", I mean that there is a sense in which faith is given from God and a sense in which it is our own. It is NOT our own because it ORIGINATES in us, but rather, it is our own when we responsibly USE it, when "given", instead of REFUSING it.
Of course synergism can have a wide range of meanings, since, as it's bare minimum, it does connote that two parties play a "role" so to speak. For instance, Roman Catholicism's synergism is:
God's grace + Our Merit = Justification,
which is, of course, patently false. We're justified by faith alone, but we're responsible for utilizing that God ordained occasion of faith to be saved. Where I disagree with monergism is that I believe God offers faith to more than those who actually "accept" (or "exercise") it.
Those who DO exercise saving faith have NOTHING to boast about, because it was God at work bringing them to the point of saving faith and repentence. Biblical faith so exercised is the ANTITHESIS of works because those excercising it know there is nothing they can offer to contribute to salvation. Having been convicted, drawn, and enabled by the Spirit,they humbly submit themselves to Christ. Those who REFUSE to take that last "step" of faith when led by the Spirit towards God have no one to blame but themselves for finally rejecting the gift of God.
Ray
Works do not contribute to salvation but are rather the RESULT or PROOF of salvation. However, if there are no works then there was never saving faith, because faith without works is DEAD.
DT
PS: I don't have an internet "source" for what I mean by "synergism". It's just my belief that Calvinism, in reacting to the UN-BIBLICAL synergism of Roman Catholicism, went to an unnecessary extreme by advocating a monergistically imposed faith. Faith is gift, but we must "receive"(use) it.
When I say "synergism", I mean that there is a sense in which faith is given from God and a sense in which it is our own. It is NOT our own because it ORIGINATES in us, but rather, it is our own when we responsibly USE it, when "given", instead of REFUSING it.
Of course synergism can have a wide range of meanings, since, as it's bare minimum, it does connote that two parties play a "role" so to speak. For instance, Roman Catholicism's synergism is:
God's grace + Our Merit = Justification,
which is, of course, patently false. We're justified by faith alone, but we're responsible for utilizing that God ordained occasion of faith to be saved. Where I disagree with monergism is that I believe God offers faith to more than those who actually "accept" (or "exercise") it.
Those who DO exercise saving faith have NOTHING to boast about, because it was God at work bringing them to the point of saving faith and repentence. Biblical faith so exercised is the ANTITHESIS of works because those excercising it know there is nothing they can offer to contribute to salvation. Having been convicted, drawn, and enabled by the Spirit,they humbly submit themselves to Christ. Those who REFUSE to take that last "step" of faith when led by the Spirit towards God have no one to blame but themselves for finally rejecting the gift of God.
Ray
Works do not contribute to salvation but are rather the RESULT or PROOF of salvation. However, if there are no works then there was never saving faith, because faith without works is DEAD.
DT
PS: I don't have an internet "source" for what I mean by "synergism". It's just my belief that Calvinism, in reacting to the UN-BIBLICAL synergism of Roman Catholicism, went to an unnecessary extreme by advocating a monergistically imposed faith. Faith is gift, but we must "receive"(use) it.
Ray Berrian
New Member
Bible-belted,
I believe your explanation of 'synergism' is 100% correct.
We believe that salvation by grace must come from Him alone; [Ephesians 2:8] we are non-contributory to this grand hope of everlasting life.[Ephesians 2:9]
If God wanted the Apostle Paul to tell us that faith or believing was a work He would have had the great apostle pen those words. On the other hand, he did say that we are not to try to work for our salvation. ' But to him who does not work' [Romans 4:5a] He then goes on to say that all a person has to do is 'believe' in Christ who will justify the sinner. [Romans 4:5b] And on top of it all God says that ' . . . his faith {that is the faith of the human being} is ' . . . counted' by God for righteousness. Believing and or faith is that which triggers God pouring, as it were, His righteousness in our hearts and lives as lost sinners.
The King James Version says, 'But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.'
The New International Version makes it even easier to understand. 'However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.'
I believe your explanation of 'synergism' is 100% correct.
We believe that salvation by grace must come from Him alone; [Ephesians 2:8] we are non-contributory to this grand hope of everlasting life.[Ephesians 2:9]
If God wanted the Apostle Paul to tell us that faith or believing was a work He would have had the great apostle pen those words. On the other hand, he did say that we are not to try to work for our salvation. ' But to him who does not work' [Romans 4:5a] He then goes on to say that all a person has to do is 'believe' in Christ who will justify the sinner. [Romans 4:5b] And on top of it all God says that ' . . . his faith {that is the faith of the human being} is ' . . . counted' by God for righteousness. Believing and or faith is that which triggers God pouring, as it were, His righteousness in our hearts and lives as lost sinners.
The King James Version says, 'But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.'
The New International Version makes it even easier to understand. 'However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.'
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Bible-belted,
Let me see if I can clarify points from an earlier exchange. On Feb 11 at 12:58 AM you posted...
"Accountability does not imply ability." and
"It is a non sequitur infrence tha anility is to be inferrred from responsibility, a non sequitur soundly denied by Scripture."
I then proceeded to make the case that responsibility/accountability DID imply ability. Then you posted...
Why? Because man, despite his depravity, is a morally accountable agent who can use his own God-given volition to receive or reject the truth. If he wasn't he'd be like a robot doing ONLY what he was programmed to do. But even depraved, unregenerate men can "by nature" do the things in the Law (Rom 2:14-15). They don't do it consistently of course, but when faced with a given moral dilemma man can choose to do good. This doesn't mean he's LIKELY to choose the good. Just that he CAN (despite being a "slave to sin")and that he's responsible to do so.
Could say more, but gotta run--later...
Let me see if I can clarify points from an earlier exchange. On Feb 11 at 12:58 AM you posted...
"Accountability does not imply ability." and
"It is a non sequitur infrence tha anility is to be inferrred from responsibility, a non sequitur soundly denied by Scripture."
I then proceeded to make the case that responsibility/accountability DID imply ability. Then you posted...
So are you now conceding that it DOES imply an ability to choose, just not an EQUAL ability?
I never said that.
What is it about "helpless" you don't understand?</font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say that we were NOT "helpless". We are helpless in anyway attaining our salvation because: (1)we can't keep the law fully; (2)we don't seek God without Him seeking first; (3) and we can't atone for our own sins (among other reasons!) However, we CAN still observe the "law" to varying degrees (Rom 2:14-15) and when we do, we're exercising a "choice" to do so.
Choosing to RECEIVE Christ by the Divine guidance of the Holy Spirit and through the gift of faith GOD provides is NOT man "saving himself"!
True, but man has chosen to be a slave of sin (Romans 6:16). By God's grace man can be set free from that bondage, but man has the capacity to receive that grace or reject it.
I agree with you to point, I just don't see where the hard-and-fast distinction between the "general call" and the "effectual call" is made in the Bible. However, it is true that those who DO respond to God's call unto salvation "do not wish to resist".
Absolutely not.
Those who don't resist yield in response to God's moving. Those who DO, resist the Holy Spirit.
Why? Because man, despite his depravity, is a morally accountable agent who can use his own God-given volition to receive or reject the truth. If he wasn't he'd be like a robot doing ONLY what he was programmed to do. But even depraved, unregenerate men can "by nature" do the things in the Law (Rom 2:14-15). They don't do it consistently of course, but when faced with a given moral dilemma man can choose to do good. This doesn't mean he's LIKELY to choose the good. Just that he CAN (despite being a "slave to sin")and that he's responsible to do so.
No...No....and, No, it doesn't!
Could say more, but gotta run--later...
Ray Berrian
New Member
In the mind of the Calvinist, is believing in Jesus a work or effort? [Acts 16:31] 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved . . . '
My guess is they would say, yes.
Be careful in maintaining 'good works' because God realizes that many people are trying to prove to themselves that they really are saved, when in fact they are not in His safe, fold. [Matthew 7:21] 'Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord . . . . (have we not) ' . . . in Thy Name done many wonderful works. And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from Me . . . '
I do know that we are commanded to obey the Lord in all things, but if a person has not received Christ, keeping up 'good works' does not insure Heaven and everlasting life.
My guess is they would say, yes.
Be careful in maintaining 'good works' because God realizes that many people are trying to prove to themselves that they really are saved, when in fact they are not in His safe, fold. [Matthew 7:21] 'Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord . . . . (have we not) ' . . . in Thy Name done many wonderful works. And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from Me . . . '
I do know that we are commanded to obey the Lord in all things, but if a person has not received Christ, keeping up 'good works' does not insure Heaven and everlasting life.
Bible-belted
New Member
Doubting Thomas,
To asert, as Ray does, that we do not contribute anything to our salvation while maintinaing that our faith is from us, and not from God, is inconsistent. That Ray continues to assume his definition of faith (which is not biblical) and read it into various texts which support Calvanism, is not to his credit. He continues to dodge a central issue.
The fact is that we are unable to obey the law completely, even though we are held accountabe by God for our failure to do so. Responsibility does not imply ability.
Your problem is you think there is only one type of call, even though there are clearly more than one in Scripture. You think that the discipes who went away (John 6) got the same kind as Paul on the the road to Damascus?
The sad relaity is that the god of arminianism IS a respecter of persons, saving only those who for some reason whcih no arminian wishes to explain, believe while others do not. Elitism, pure and simple. Ths is contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
This is not consistent with Arminianism. Arminiainsim demands that people have the free will to believe apart from God giving them faith.
To asert, as Ray does, that we do not contribute anything to our salvation while maintinaing that our faith is from us, and not from God, is inconsistent. That Ray continues to assume his definition of faith (which is not biblical) and read it into various texts which support Calvanism, is not to his credit. He continues to dodge a central issue.
I never said that people do not have the ability to choose. Calvanists hold that we have a will (ability to choose) but it is not free in the arminian sense (able to choose all options equally). Calvanists hld that the will is free to choose anything in accordance with the nature of that which wills. As we are by nature onjects of wrath, slaves to sin, and helplessly in Adam, we are bound by our nature to be unable to chgoose God. It is simply no longer in our nature. The will exists, but is in bondage. So there is no change in the position being expounded.
The fact is that we are unable to obey the law completely, even though we are held accountabe by God for our failure to do so. Responsibility does not imply ability.
All bt the last are staright calvanism. And even the last is comaptible with calvanism, since it does not deny the ability to choose. Our helplessness shows up in our inability to obey the law completely.
But this is not the Arminian position regarding faith and receiving Christ. It is the Calvanist position. You are describing the result of the effectual call.
No. One man chose to sin. Only one. The rest of us get the condemnation for it even though we do not sin after the likeness of Adam (Romans 5). As p[eople in Adam, helpless, and enemies of God (and we are so until we are in Christ, and not before, whcih Arminianism requires) then we will not choose grace. We cannot choose grace. We do not have the ability to receive the grace. We don't want it. Not unless the Holy Spirit by virtue fo the effectual call works in us to grant us that faith, and then we exercise it.
The first sentence describes the efectual call. The second the general call.
Your problem is you think there is only one type of call, even though there are clearly more than one in Scripture. You think that the discipes who went away (John 6) got the same kind as Paul on the the road to Damascus?
Yes, and becuase of his falen nature his volition is only to reject. YOu are arguing calvnaism, not arminianism here. Calvanism affirms human accoutnability.
The sad relaity is that the god of arminianism IS a respecter of persons, saving only those who for some reason whcih no arminian wishes to explain, believe while others do not. Elitism, pure and simple. Ths is contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.