Which Mystery Would You Pick?

[Van]

"God is absolutely totally sovereign" in that He causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. Otherwise either He is the author of sin, or that "truth" will be "hidden" from view by referring to it as a "mystery." This is not rocket science.

 

[KenH]

Otherwise either He is the author

God is the author of all things.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

 

[Van]

God is the author of all things.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Only Hyper-Calvinists say God is the author of sin. See the WCF. Since God created humans with the capacity to sin, does that mean He compels us to sin? Nope. Such a claim dishonors God, in that it makes His unjust, first He causes us to sin, then punishes us for the sin He caused. Only Calvinist can push that level of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

1 Cor. 1:21b. '... It pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached [or 'proclaimed'] to save those who believe.'
Do you want to please God?

By being a bother to people? Can’t they read? If God wants them He will regenerate them.

 

[KenH]

See the WCF.

The Bible is authoritative, not the WCF.

Since God created humans with the capacity to sin, does that mean He compels us to sin? Nope.

The Last Adam must die; therefore, the First Adam must fall.

Such a claim dishonors God, in that it makes His unjust

Free-willers dishonor God by claiming that the Creator is subject to His creation.

first He causes us to sin, then punishes us for the sin He caused.

2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

2 Samuel 24:10 And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

2 Samuel 24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beer-sheba seventy thousand men.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, the gospel of Christ is to be preached and taught widely; however, the gospel is not an offer, it is a declaration of the finished work of Christ on behalf of God's elect, chosen by God before the world began. It is a declaration to be believed, not an offer to be accepted.

It’s a right nuisance to a reprobate.

 

[JesusFan]

Four-point Calvinist Warren Wiersbe affirms both divine election and human free will. Wiersbe also recognized the difficulty in reconciling the two concepts, stating that "The mystery of divine sovereignty and human responsibility will never be solved in this life". Therefore, the fall of Adam was due to human free will.

Five-point Calvinist James White affirms divine election and rejects human free will. White also believes that God ultimately ordains all things, including the fall of Adam. Because he believes that scripture does not directly expound upon the nature of Adam’s fall, it should therefore remain a mystery.

Both men claim to have a mystery that they are stuck with and goes back to how we understand the fall of Adam. Whether or not you agree or disagree with their theologies, which of these two “mysteries” are you more likely to side with and why?

God cannot be the causer and author of Sin, as he repeatly warned Adam and Eve about how destructive doing that choice would be, and I as a Calvinist do affirm Human free will, but only in the extent that we are still bound and constrained by sin nature, and limited in what we actually desire to even being able to choose

 

[JesusFan]

The fact is that no one before the 18th Century was against preaching the Gospel to the lost. The first guy to teach against it was a Congregationalist called Joseph Hussey around 1700 in a book called God's Operations of Grace but No Offers of Grace. His teaching was picked up by a Baptist named John Skepp who presided over John Gill's ordination in 1720.
I am reluctant to criticize John Gill because he did wonderful work in defending the cause of Christ against the Unitarianism which was spreading among the churches at this time. However, the fact is that the Baptist churches became moribund for 50 or 60 years because of the reluctance of many ministers to imitate the Lord Jesus by calling on sinners to "Repent and believe the Gospel.'

I know some people here hate the very name of Andrew Fuller, but it was he and his friends like Robert Hall, John Sutcliffe, John Ryland Jr. and, of course, William Carey, who rescued the Baptists from the slough into which they had fallen.

Thank God those you listed combated Hyper Calvinism, as they were used by the Lord in some of the greatest missionary works since Age of ther Apostles, and would not have done that if stuck in Hyper Cal mode

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The fact is that no one before the 18th Century was against preaching the Gospel to the lost. The first guy to teach against it was a Congregationalist called Joseph Hussey around 1700 in a book called God's Operations of Grace but No Offers of Grace. His teaching was picked up by a Baptist named John Skepp who presided over John Gill's ordination in 1720.
I am reluctant to criticize John Gill because he did wonderful work in defending the cause of Christ against the Unitarianism which was spreading among the churches at this time. However, the fact is that the Baptist churches became moribund for 50 or 60 years because of the reluctance of many ministers to imitate the Lord Jesus by calling on sinners to "Repent and believe the Gospel.'

I know some people here hate the very name of Andrew Fuller, but it was he and his friends like Robert Hall, John Sutcliffe, John Ryland Jr. and, of course, William Carey, who rescued the Baptists from the slough into which they had fallen.

Peddlers

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, the gospel of Christ is to be preached and taught widely; however, the gospel is not an offer, it is a declaration of the finished work of Christ on behalf of God's elect, chosen by God before the world began. It is a declaration to be believed, not an offer to be accepted.

2 Cor. 5:18-20. 'Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself, through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to Christ. ......... 6:1. We then as workers together with Him, also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.'
Paul, and we, have been given the 'ministry of reconciliation - that is, that God's righteous anger against sin is satisfied by the obedience, suffering and death of Christ, and the way is now open for men and women to be reconciled to God. In this we are like ambassadors; we do not speak our own words but those of God, and in doing this we are to 'implore' sinners and 'plead' with them.
N.B. the word 'you' is twice put in italics in the KJV, NKJV and NASB to show that it does not appear in any of the ancient Greek MSS.

So, in our imploring and pleading, what kinds of words should we use as God's ambassadors? Maybe these:
Isaiah 45:22; Ezekiel 18:30-32; Matthew 11:28-30. And be in no doubt, if sinners will look to Christ in repentance and faith, He will save them. The problem is that because of their wicked, unbelieving hearts, unless they are born anew, they will most certainly not look to Christ.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Peddlers

Yes, I aspire to be a peddler of the Gospel. I cannot think of a better occupation.

 

[KenH]

It’s a right nuisance to a reprobate.

Obviously true, look, for instance, at what happened to Stephen in Acts chapter 7, also, the uproar in Acts chapter 19.

 

[KenH]

2 Cor. 5:18-20. 'Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself, through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to Christ. ......... 6:1. We then as workers together with Him, also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.'

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ,.... Since God has made reconciliation by Christ, and the ministry of it is committed to us, we are ambassadors for him; we come with full powers from him, not to propose terms of peace, to treat with men about it, to offer it to them, but to publish and proclaim it as made by him: we represent him, and God who made it by him.

be ye reconciled to God; you, who are new creatures, for whom Christ has died, and peace is made; you, the members of the church at Corinth, who upon a profession of faith have been taken into such a relation; be ye reconciled to all the dispensations of divine Providence towards you; let your wills bow, and be resigned to his, since he is the God of peace to you; and as you are reconciled by Christ as a priest, be reconciled to him as your King, and your God; to all his ordinances and appointments; to all the orders and laws of his house; conform in all things to his will and pleasure, which we, as his ambassadors, in his name and stead, have made known unto you. You ought to be all obedience to him, and never dispute anything he says or orders.

- excerpts from John Gill's Bible commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:20

(emphasis in purple mine)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ,.... Since God has made reconciliation by Christ, and the ministry of it is committed to us, we are ambassadors for him; we come with full powers from him, not to propose terms of peace, to treat with men about it, to offer it to them, but to publish and proclaim it as made by him: we represent him, and God who made it by him.

be ye reconciled to God; you, who are new creatures, for whom Christ has died, and peace is made; you, the members of the church at Corinth, who upon a profession of faith have been taken into such a relation; be ye reconciled to all the dispensations of divine Providence towards you; let your wills bow, and be resigned to his, since he is the God of peace to you; and as you are reconciled by Christ as a priest, be reconciled to him as your King, and your God; to all his ordinances and appointments; to all the orders and laws of his house; conform in all things to his will and pleasure, which we, as his ambassadors, in his name and stead, have made known unto you. You ought to be all obedience to him, and never dispute anything he says or orders.

- excerpts from John Gill's Bible commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:20

(emphasis in purple mine)

Yes, as much as I admire Gill for His forthright stand on the Bible and the deity of Christ, he is quite wrong here.
However, as you like John Gill and Church history,, you might be interested in these two articles:

Learning The Lessons of History (1)

Learning the Lessons of History The Salters’ Hall Synod of 1719 Henry Ford was quite forthright. “History,” he said, “is more or less bunk.” The Roman statesman Cicero had a very different view. “H…

marprelate.wordpress.com

Learning the Lessons of History (2)

[Read first I am sure that I cannot be alone in seeing remarkable parallels between the early 18th Century and today. In our own time we have seen a marked decline in Christian orthodoxy and teac…

marprelate.wordpress.com

 

[KenH]

he is quite wrong here

John Gill is correct. The intended recipients of the epistle were believers, not unregenerated folks.

Again, as I also stated earlier in this thread, the gospel is not an offer, it is a declaration.

God was not gazing over the ramparts of Heaven when Adam was confronted by Satan about the forbidden fruit and wondering, "Will he or won't he? Will he or won't he?" and cheering Adam on, "Come on, Adam, you can do it! Just say no!" Just as God is not gazing over the ramparts of Heaven over any of His creation and wondering, "Will he or won't he accept my offer?" and cheering him on, "Come on, you can do it! Please, or please, accept My off

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Obviously true, look, for instance, at what happened to Stephen in Acts chapter 7, also, the uproar in Acts chapter 19.

Agreed…and it could irrupt into violence like Stephen who paid with his life.

 

[DaveXR650]

God was not gazing over the ramparts of Heaven when Adam was confronted by Satan about the forbidden fruit and wondering, "Will he or won't he? Will he or won't he?" and cheering Adam on, "Come on, Adam, you can do it! Just say no!" Just as God is not gazing over the ramparts of Heaven over any of His creation and wondering, "Will he or won't he accept my offer?" and cheering him on, "Come on, you can do it! Please, or please, accept My off

I agree. But neither is there any evidence that God wanted Adam to sin. Or that God caused him to sin. Since it looks like God already had a plan of redemption in place, you can say that Adam had to sin, as a logical event in time. But that God caused him to sin goes too far. So you have a "mystery", like the OP says.

Again, as I also stated earlier in this thread, the gospel is not an offer, it is a declaration.

The gospel is a declaration that Jesus is Lord, he has died according to the scriptures, and he can forgive sin. And it is an offer in that if you repent and come to Christ by faith he will save you.

If you are just saying that it is not an offer in the sense that I can come up with a polished version, soften it up a little, make it sound more inviting, add some fringe benefits, and somehow by my sales ability increase the odd of someone believing me then you are right. But still, if I announce a pardon has been arranged, but don't make it clear that it is for you, then I have not clearly announced the whole truth.

 

[KenH]

God already had a plan of redemption in place, you can say that Adam had to sin, as a logical event in time.

So Adam could have foiled God's plan by not sinning, eh?

And it is an offer in that if you repent and come to Christ by faith he will save you.

The gospel is a declaration of the finished work of Christ on behalf of God's elect, chosen by God before the world began, to whom are granted the gift of faith and the gift of repentance of dead works, after the Holy Spirit has regenerated them(given them spiritual life).

But still, if I announce a pardon has been arranged, but don't make it clear that it is for you, then I have not clearly announced the whole truth.

The truth, the gospel of Christ, should be proclaimed, which includes that God chose a people before the world began, gave them to His Son to be their Surety, who died for their sins which were imputed to Him, after having lived a perfect righteousness which was imputed to them, and God's elect will be preserved by God and brought into the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwells righteousness, when Christ returns.

God sanctified His elect in Christ, Christ perfected God's elect forever by the one offering of Himself, the Holy Spirit regenerates God's elect.

 

[DaveXR650]

So Adam could have foiled God's plan by not sinning, eh?

That's what makes this a mystery from our human standpoint, Ken. It was necessary that Adam sin because as we know from scripture, God really had decreed it. But we also know from scripture that God does not make people sin. And I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that not only did God not make Adam sin but he did not create him with a nature that caused him to sin.

The easiest and probably best way is to just accept both at the same time and leave it as a mystery. But there is a philosophical method where it is explained that Adam, though it was "necessary" so to speak, that he sin, because it was God's plan for the world in which we live, yet since Adam, even at the moment he sinned, had truly the ability or "potency" as they would say, to not sin, it is therefore true that Adam can be truly accountable, and God be not guilty of making him sin, and yet in the world that we exist in, it was indeed impossible that Adam not sin.

You might say that that's all just a bunch of double talk. It is, but like I said, it's a mystery. The alternative is to make God either the direct cause of man's sin, which I interpret scripture as saying he doesn't do because it violates his own nature; or go with the compete free will idea like you described above where God is left saying "what in the world have they done and what are they going to do next", which I agree, does not sound like the God revealed in scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

The truth, the gospel of Christ, should be proclaimed, which includes that God chose a people before the world began, gave them to His Son to be their Surety, who died for their sins which were imputed to Him, after having lived a perfect righteousness which was imputed to them, and God's elect will be preserved by God and brought into the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwells righteousness, when Christ returns.

The deficiency in this is that it makes the primary thing to realize - that you are elect. Where I think the primary thing to realize is that you are in jeopardy before God because of sin and in danger and that this Jesus is the Lord and can forgive sins. Then, the "offer" is that forgiveness and pardon is available to you upon faith and repentance. Everything you said above is fine. It's just that I think it is an essential and legitimate part of the complete gospel to link it directly to a person who is listening.

In my own mind, I view this as occurring in real time where the person hears this and accepts or rejects the offer of salvation. I am completely OK with someone like Flowers who views this a case of a rational being using his own natural ability to respond how he chooses. And I am OK with someone who views this as God's method of bringing in elect individuals who truly have been chosen before time began. I personally view this as the essential Holy Spirit working in everyone who does get saved and they are the elect. If the Calvinists were meaning that this was "effectual" then I have no problem with that. I personally think grace is often resisted but I have to admit that they have a point when they say if it resulted in salvation then it was effectual.

Last of all, I believe that everyone who hears the gospel, even the elect, which are the one's who receive it, are equally lost until such time as they do so. And that get's us back to the mystery like in the Fall. Yes, if God chose you as "elect" it is an infallible fact that you will be saved. But it is equally true that until you are saved you are just as lost as everyone else.