The Elect and Not Are Twins

[Aaron]

A new thread bashing God's sovereignty in salvation was started.

Calvin & Arminius were both wrong

No matter how it's sliced, saying that one has natural power to say yes or no to grace is to say that those who say yes do so because they are inherently better than those who say no.

But God was wise to make Jacob and Esau twins. While yet in the womb. Each equally innocent. Neither having done any good or evil. Both conceived of the same act, under the same star, of the same heritage, both with the same nurturing and enviroment. In every way equal and level, and neither being given a choice, God accepted one, and rejected the other.

If Grace were resistible, no one would be saved.

Batter my heart, three-person'd God, for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town to another due,
Labor to admit you, but oh, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be lov'd fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy;
Divorce me, untie or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
—John Donne​

 

[HankD]

A new thread bashing God's sovereignty in salvation was started.

Calvin & Arminius were both wrong

No matter how it's sliced, saying that one has natural power to say yes or no to grace is to say that those who say yes do so because they are inherently better than those who say no.
...

I don't see how this idea follows if that "natural" power is supplied to every human being. It then becomes a matter of choice.

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

John 5
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

 

[Reformed]

I don't see how this idea follows if that "natural" power is supplied to every human being. It then becomes a matter of choice.

I do not want to speak for Aaron, but you may be misunderstanding him.

The free will position believes that everyone has the ability (i.e. "natural power") to either accept or reject the Gospel message, and the pivot on which that decision rests is the choice of the individual. This is why Aaron states, "those who say yes do so because they are inherently better than those who say no".

Let me put it another way. If person A and person B both hear the Gospel message and only person B responds in faith, why did he believe and person A did not? If the free will advocate is honest with himself he has to say that the decision comes down to the choice of the individual. If God will not force anyone to believe then, de facto, person B has something to brag about. Jesus Christ may have made the way possible for salvation, but salvation cannot occur unless and until the individual chooses to believe. Very few people on the free will side will admit to that understanding because it does sound wrong. How can God, from eternity, orchestrate every facet of salvation only to leave the final piece up to a vile, wretched sinner who is dead in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1) and unrighteous (Romans 3:9)? It is easier to overlook the biblical description of the sinner's plight and make the plea for free will.

Of course, the Calvinist believes full well that the individual exercises saving faith and choose to believe as part of the new birth. For him, it depends more on when he believes as opposed to how. The Calvinist believes the sinner is first regenerated by the Holy Spirit which results in the transformation of the heart, which makes him able to believe. In this way salvation is all of God. There is not one part of it that is out of His control.

 

[HankD]

I do not want to speak for Aaron, but you may be misunderstanding him.

The free will position believes that everyone has the ability (i.e. "natural power") to either accept or reject the Gospel message, and the pivot on which that decision rests is the choice of the individual. This is why Aaron states, "those who say yes do so because they are inherently better than those who say no".

Let me put it another way. If person A and person B both hear the Gospel message and only person B responds in faith, why did he believe and person A did not? If the free will advocate is honest with himself he has to say that the decision comes down to the choice of the individual. If God will not force anyone to believe then, de facto, person B has something to brag about. Jesus Christ may have made the way possible for salvation, but salvation cannot occur unless and until the individual chooses to believe. Very few people on the free will side will admit to that understanding because it does sound wrong. How can God, from eternity, orchestrate every facet of salvation only to leave the final piece up to a vile, wretched sinner who is dead in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1) and unrighteous (Romans 3:9)? It is easier to overlook the biblical description of the sinner's plight and make the plea for free will.

Of course, the Calvinist believes full well that the individual exercises saving faith and choose to believe as part of the new birth. For him, it depends more on when he believes as opposed to how. The Calvinist believes the sinner is first regenerated by the Holy Spirit which results in the transformation of the heart, which makes him able to believe. In this way salvation is all of God. There is not one part of it that is out of His control.

You speak in terms of stand alone human reasoning in the act of coming to the LORD.
It is a cooperative venture. Again we are brought to the realization of our hopeless helpless sinful estate by God.

Jeremiah 17
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

He did this with Cain

6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Cain chose evil, Abel chose the good.

The act of the will is amoral, though the subsequent result has eternal consequence.

Let me put it a different way - A modern Pilgrim is a pilot who flies a jet plane.

The plane is totally impossible to turn by the pilot in his own strength as it requires several thousands of pounds of thrust to actually steer the plane.

However the jet power steering system provides the power to steer the plane, the pilot provides the free will decision which way to navigate.

Together with the provided power, the pilot is then free to chose - navigate to the New Jerusalem or Gehenna, its his choice.

 

[kyredneck]

The Calvinist believes the sinner is first regenerated by the Holy Spirit which results in the transformation of the heart, which makes him able to believe.

Lol, there's only like 2 nanoseconds difference between your regeneration before belief and their regeneration after belief. In fact I believe the last time we debated you implied 'there's not even a nanosecond between regeneration and belief'.

This Monergist holds that the elect can be regenerate YEARS before conversion.

 

[Reformed]

You speak in terms of stand alone human reasoning in the act of coming to the LORD.
It is a cooperative venture. Again we are brought to the realization of our hopeless helpless sinful estate by God.

Jeremiah 17
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

He did this with Cain

6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Cain chose evil, Abel chose the good.

The act of the will is amoral, though the subsequent result has eternal consequence.

Let me put it a different way - A modern Pilgrim is a pilot who flies a jet plane.

The plane is totally impossible to turn by the pilot in his own strength as it requires several thousands of pounds of thrust to actually steer the plane.

However the jet power steering system provides the power to steer the plane, the pilot provides the free will decision which way to navigate.

Together with the provided power, the pilot is then free to chose - navigate to the New Jerusalem or Gehenna, its his choice.

Your pilot example is a perfect example of Synergism; man cooperating with God in salvation.

 

[kyredneck]

Your pilot example is a perfect example of Synergism; man cooperating with God in salvation.

No. Hank is a mugwump. Tell him Hank.

 

[JonShaff]

But God was wise to make Jacob and Esau twins. While yet in the womb. Each equally innocent. Neither having done any good or evil. Both conceived of the same act, under the same star, of the same heritage, both with the same nurturing and enviroment. In every way equal and level, and neither being given a choice, God accepted one, and rejected the other.

This was to picture Christ vs. Adam. God didn't choose Adam to birth an eternal family, creation. He chose Christ. You're missing the point.

 

[JonShaff]

1 Corinthians 15:42-49 (KJV) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Guys, look at this passage. This is what God was alluding to when He dropped all the hints of blessing the second, and not the first .

Isaac, not Ishmael
Jacob, not Esau
Grace, not Law
Spiritual, not physical
Tree of life, not tree of knowledge

Christ, not Adam.

 

[kyredneck]

This was to picture Christ vs. Adam. God didn't choose Adam to birth an eternal family, creation. He chose Christ. You're missing the point.

???

Where is Christ or Adam mentioned in the context?:

10 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac--
11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. Ro 9

This is about 'the purpose of God according to election', not a picture of Christ vs, Adam. Where in the world do you get that?

 

[JonShaff]

???

Where is Christ or Adam mentioned in the context?:

10 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac--
11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. Ro 9

This is about 'the purpose of God according to election', not a picture of Christ vs, Adam. Where in the world do you get that?

The passage is to show that the promise was not according to the flesh, but of Christ.

 

[kyredneck]

Christ, not Adam.

< see >

 

[kyredneck]

The passage is to show that the promise was not according to the flesh, but of Christ.

You're still gomming it up:

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
7 neither, because they are Abraham`s seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. Ro 9

It's the children of the promise that is the real Israel, and again, Christ is not mentioned in the immediate context. YOU are inserting it.

 

[HankD]

Your pilot example is a perfect example of Synergism; man cooperating with God in salvation.

Like kyredneck said I am a Mugwump but I often play the Devil's advocate without telling folks on individual threads.

 

[Reformed]

Like kyredneck said I am a Mugwump but I often play the Devil's advocate without telling folks on individual threads.

Hank, we can do our best to stay independent and not accept a label, but if we hang around long enough, what we truly believe becomes exposed. As I have read your posts in various threads your belief on soteriology is slanted decidedly towards the Arminian view. I know you eschew the label, but as I wrote in my previous response, your pilot analogy is a perfect example of Synergism. I am not castigating you for that. I am simply calling it for what it is. As for me, I am not bothered by the Calvinist label.

 

[Dave G]

Together with the provided power, the pilot is then free to chose - navigate to the New Jerusalem or Gehenna, its his choice.

That's essentially "Prevenient Grace" in a bottle...
Spiritual hydraulic assist.

But God was wise to make Jacob and Esau twins. While yet in the womb. Each equally innocent. Neither having done any good or evil. Both conceived of the same act, under the same star, of the same heritage, both with the same nurturing and enviroment. In every way equal and level, and neither being given a choice, God accepted one, and rejected the other.

This was to picture Christ vs. Adam. God didn't choose Adam to birth an eternal family, creation. He chose Christ. You're missing the point.

To me, he's paraphrasing Romans 9.
I see the point he's making quite clearly.

Guys, look at this passage. This is what God was alluding to when He dropped all the hints of blessing the second, and not the first .

Isaac, not Ishmael
Jacob, not Esau
Grace, not Law
Spiritual, not physical
Tree of life, not tree of knowledge

Christ, not Adam.

I've seen that somewhere...I think it's called "the biblical law of seconds".
Dunno if I'd ascribe those analogies that way, but it looks "catchy".
I agree, all of that is a part of it...but not the core of it.

Isaac, not Ishmael = The second born, not the first.
Jacob, not Esau = Same.
Grace, not Law = The Law was to bring the believer to Christ...there is no salvation in the Law.
Spiritual, not physical = God having a heart to heart relationship, instead of a face to face...at first. That comes later ( 1 Corinthians 13:12, 1 John 3:2 ).
Tree of Life, not Tree of Knowledge = Mankind ate of the first, and now believers will eat of the second.

Again, confounding the wisdom of this world ( 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 ), at least in the first 5.
However, the sixth one is really all that matters.

 

[Dave G]

Now this one you probably won't like, Jon...

Some of those show, at least to me, the Lord God deciding to do what He wants with men, and not what we want.
Including having mercy and not having mercy, having compassion and not.
Both temporally, and eternally.

He is God, and we are the offenders.
He can do as He wishes with criminals, and He doesn't need our approval.

 

[JonShaff]

Now this one you probably won't like, Jon...

Some of those show, at least to me, the Lord God deciding to do what He wants with men, and not what we want.
Including having mercy and not having mercy, having compassion and not.
Both temporally, and eternally.

He is God, and we are the offenders.
He can do as He wishes with criminals, and He doesn't need our approval.

The old Foreshadowed the New. Thinking that the Jacob and Esau story is about individual election is man-centric. Recognizing that it's about Choosing Christ as His elect to bring salvation is Christocentric.

 

[utilyan]

Your pilot example is a perfect example of Synergism; man cooperating with God in salvation.

See how many are regenerated and saved If no man cooperates to hear or preach the gospel.

 

[Aaron]

This was to picture Christ vs. Adam. God didn't choose Adam to birth an eternal family, creation. He chose Christ. You're missing the point.

Seriously?