Why Do The Elect Need to Be Persuaded?

[SavedByGrace]

Oh no! I should have known better than to get on here. I share how I discovered Bunyan was a Calvinist, then I find out Jesus wasn't reformed. What next. Is somebody gonna come on here and tell me God did not dictate the KJV Bible to King James?

Ya learn every day

 

[Silverhair]

Of course that's true. What happened with me was that I was disappointed with the lack of seriousness when it came to living the Christian life in my old church. I started reading guys outside my normal scope of gurus and found a seriousness and warm preaching that I had been missing. They were Puritans and guys like Jerry Bridges and Paul Washer and Charles Spurgeon. I was so unsophisticated theologically that I did not know what Calvinism was. I had been told that Calvin and Luther were "wrong on baptism, wrong on the Lord's supper, what's the use of listening to them"! People on a theological board like this may laugh but after going on about the teaching of Bunyan to an older Christian he told me Bunyan was a Calvinist and I was really offended. It was after that that I began to look at some of the theological claims of Calvinism with a different attitude.

You know, before the internet, in the middle ages, (the '70's), you could not find most of the Puritan writings in paperback. Had not Banner of Truth started publishing and Martyn LLoyd-Jones and some guys in England begin finding and republishing some of the Puritan's I don't think the resurgence in Calvinism would have occurred. My first exposure to Spurgeon was a sermon reprinted in "Sword of the Lord" so you know where I'm coming from.

Have to agree on the wishy washy type of preaching that we find in many churches. I was just fortunate to not grow up with that type.

What I have read, and it is limited, I have found to just push what they think. But that is to be expected. I was just always taught that the bible was the bedrock of my faith. People can have their ideas about what the bible says and some can make those ideas sound good and even compelling, but if when I hear or read them I get that not quite right feeling then sorry not for me.
I think CH Spurgeon said it best:
"DISCERNMENT is not simply telling the difference between what is Right and Wrong; rather, it is the difference between Right and almost right."

Here is another quote from CHS that I really like:
"My faith rests not in what I am, or shall be, or feel, or know, but in what Christ is, in what He has done and in what He is now doing for me."

As you may guess I do like Spurgeon, he was baptist after all. And it may surprise you but I have listened to a number of sermons by Paul Washer. He is Godly in his preaching but I can not agree with all the he says.

 

[Silverhair]

Oh no! I should have known better than to get on here. I share how I discovered Bunyan was a Calvinist, then I find out Jesus wasn't reformed. What next. Is somebody gonna come on here and tell me God did not dictate the KJV Bible to King James?

As you know I disagree with calvinism but that does not require that I dislike calvinists. We are all brothers in Christ Jesus.

 

[Silverhair]

Iconoclast you wrote something in post # 6 that I would like to circle back to if you do not mind.

1] you used the expression “walking blind dead men” am I to take that as referring to all men?

2] you then said “God gives light and sight to the elect” by this did you mean only those selected by God before creation?

3] then you added “The others go on resisting and hating the truth of God.” so are these that resist doing it because they want to or because God makes them do it?

 

[Silverhair]

Here again, reformed theology explains this better than other systems. You have to admit first of all, this verse is a much bigger problem for free willers. They seek to enter in but they can't. How would you explain it.

Here's how I would:
Reformed theology teaches that men are not capable of doing anything good on their own. As I read Calvinist literature I discovered that they did not mean that men can't do anything virtuous or have high thoughts about morality or even how to please God. Read Calvinist explanations of the "general call" as stated in the WCF and they say this call is real and many move quite far along toward saving knowledge of Christ. But they don't enter. Why? It could be they loved darkness rather than light. They found the narrow way not to be the path they wanted. Figuratively, they wouldn't ditch the stuff they wanted to bring with them, whether sin or self righteousness, or works and they can't fit through the gate with those. Notice that this is all according to their choice and will. But some, because of God's saving grace and "effectual call" do finally rip themselves from all these things and after much struggle enter the gate and go on the way, giving glory to God for saving them - even though there was much anxiety as this happened. And of course, that verse doesn't even mention the fact that there are many others who don't even bother to look for the gate!

First I would make a comment on what you call a general call vs effectual call. I do not find these in the bible, what I do find is that God calls all to salvation through faith in His son.

But enough of that, what I wanted to point out was something that I have said many times and that you have confirmed in this post. Even the calvinist preachers and writers will tell you that the person that comes to God must decide to do so on their own. God does not decide for them.

As you said and I agree, for some "they loved darkness" and "
found the narrow way not to be the path they wanted". And this was by their free will.

Then you go on and say "But some...do finally rip themselves from all these things and after much struggle enter the gate" Would this not indicate that these people had a free will.

Calvinism has to have a general call to all people, although way is this necessary under their theology, and I agree that God calls all people via various means. Then calvinism puts the cart before the horse so to speak. What you say is Gods' effectual call to a select group is actually an effectual call because people have responded to it. This why we preach the gospel message to all, so that some may respond and trust in Christ Jesus and be saved. It is the response that has made the call effectual.

 

[AustinC]

Why the need to be "reformed" anyway? what is wrong with being a simple, Bible-believing, Christian? Neither Jesus Christ, nor Paul, nor any of the other NT Writers, were "reformed"! This is just a smoke-screen to hide some very dodgy teachings!

With your many replies, as usual, you fail to answer the OP. I suppose I should not expect any different!

Well the term, Reformed, simply implies that the RCC teaching of free will and salvation by grace plus works is a path that the Apostles never taught, therefore the Church needs to be reformed to its original God given belief as taught to us by God.
So, if your teaching hadn't risen as a twisting of truth there would be no need for the term.
My suggestion is you repent of your teaching and reform it back to what God teaches.

 

[Silverhair]

The church drifted from truth early on
Acts20:28-31.
reformed means to set things right.
man centered theology crept in with cults.
like today people want man in control rather than God.

Would you be referring to those brought into the church by Augustine. He brought in ideas from his earlier learning in
Manichaeism and latter Neo-Platonism. He married his gnostic philosophy with Christianity. His ideas were latter used by Calvin in his teachings.

Because of his disagreement with the Pelagians, Augustine moved away from traditional Christian views which he had taught for 26 yrs prior to 412 AD and started to incorporate ideas from Manichaeism.

 

[Iconoclast]

Would you be referring to those brought into the church by Augustine. He brought in ideas from his earlier learning in
Manichaeism and latter Neo-Platonism. He married his gnostic philosophy with Christianity. His ideas were latter used by Calvin in his teachings.

Because of his disagreement with the Pelagians, Augustine moved away from traditional Christian views which he had taught for 26 yrs prior to 412 AD and started to incorporate ideas from Manichaeism.

I was not there, so i do not want to be a talebearer.
Those who oppose the doctrines of grace frequently raise this Canard, but to no avail. I do not care what most of the early church fathers believed or taught.

 

[DaveXR650]

As you said and I agree, for some "they loved darkness" and "
found the narrow way not to be the path they wanted". And this was by their free will.

Then you go on and say "But some...do finally rip themselves from all these things and after much struggle enter the gate" Would this not indicate that these people had a free will.

This is my understanding, not necessarily the official Calvinist position. The general call describes anyone who hears the gospel and it includes the conviction that hearing the word works on men in general. Now just like in the Bible when men hear the gospel it can result in a wide range of reactions from "we'll hear more of this matter later" to "let's stone him". But the group that does finally believe are people who have had a work of the Holy Spirit on them that is powerful enough to change their human will for real. That would be the "effectual call" or "irresistible grace". The Spirit's work I think is more than powerful conviction, it is creative (quickening or regeneration or being born again) but to the person it feels like you changed your mind and now you feel you must have Christ and you can't wait to repent and come to him if he will have you. Your will is still working. God has chosen to make us as humans and so our normal mental faculties and processes are at work and we do what we want. Because of this you can have a time of deep conviction, wrestling with your desires, sorrow for sin and so on. Or, like many others, you can simply be drawn and come joyfully. It is not wrong or deficient if you come like that either.

Your will is free in the sense that you do what you want. It is not sovereign or autonomous though. We accept this easily in other areas. My 12 year old grandson thinks girls are useless and deficient. I tell him in a very short time he will change his mind and think they are incredibly interesting. He has no choice in the matter. Yet he will being exercising his free will in a couple of years as he is now.

 

[Dave G]

These “elect” have been “chosen” in Jesus Christ, and they WILL come to faith in the Lord.

Amen.

Chosen:
Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:6-24, Romans 10:8-20, Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 2:1-10, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, etc.

Surety of coming them coming to faith:
John 6:37-47
2 Timothy 1:9
2 Peter 3:8-9

God has so “Enabled” their “will”, that they cannot “reject” His “Saving Grace”, and WILL be saved.

Quite so, my friend.
That "enabling" is known as being "born again" from above.

 

[Dave G]

IF, this teaching is Biblical, then why do we read, for example, in the context of salvation, Paul say in 2 Corinthians chapter 5, “Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we PERSUADE men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your consciences” (verse 11)?

I see that in the context of that passage, while it is that of eternal salvation, is from our perspective as believers.
We want men to be saved, but at the same time we recognize that it is God's prerogative to save one and not another.

As in other threads, please see Romans 9:14-18.

It is ABSURD that those who have been PREDESTINED before the foundation of the world, to be the ELECT of God, who WILL come to Jesus for salvation, because God has to DETERMINED it, should be PLEADED with, and APPEALED to, and EXHORTED, and BEGGED, to be “RECONCILED” with God.

I agree.

In light of the above, it is not God's elect that need to be pleaded with...
It is God's elect who are persuading men with the truth, as well as in meekness instructing those that oppose us, in case God should grant them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth ( 2 Timothy 2:24-26 ).

In other words, we persuade men because we do not know who, among all of mankind, are His elect until He reveals them by His work in them.

 

[Silverhair]

I was not there, so i do not want to be a talebearer.
Those who oppose the doctrines of grace frequently raise this Canard, but to no avail. I do not care what most of the early church fathers believed or taught.

But like the say if the foundation is not good the house will not be either.

 

[Iconoclast]

But like the say if the foundation is not good the house will not be either.

no one I know draws there teaching from what you claim.Your post is pointless because you cannot answer scripturally.

 

[Silverhair]

But the group that does finally believe are people who have had a work of the Holy Spirit on them that is powerful enough to change their human will for real. That would be the "effectual call" or "irresistible grace".

But the question still remains, why would the God that desires all to come to repentance and be saved only choose a small group to do so. Why would He not give all this "irresistible grace"? Do you not think that the calvinist view contradicts what the God of the bible wants to happen.

Many calvinists have said that man has a free will to reject but not a free will to accept salvation. But then they claim an "irresistible grace", but say God does not force anyone to believe or be saved. I find calvinism very contradictory in it's claims.

 

[Silverhair]

no one I know draws there teaching from what you claim.Your post is pointless because you cannot answer scripturally.

Why would you say that since calvin got his views from augustine and we know where augustine got his ideas. The links in the chain can not be denied.

But on another note I wrote a comment to you earlier but I would have to surmise that you did not see it so I have copied it here. Perhaps you could address these questions.

Iconoclast you wrote something in post # 6 that I would like to circle back to if you do not mind.

1] you used the expression “walking blind dead men” am I to take that as referring to all men?

2] you then said “God gives light and sight to the elect” by this did you mean only those selected by God before creation?

3] then you added “The others go on resisting and hating the truth of God.” so are these that resist doing it because they want to or because God makes them do it?

 

[SavedByGrace]

In light of the above, it is not God's elect that need to be pleaded with...
It is God's elect who are persuading men with the truth, as well as in meekness instructing those that oppose us, in case God should grant them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth ( 2 Timothy 2:24-26 ).

In other words, we persuade men because we do not know who, among all of mankind, are His elect until He reveals them by His work in them.

so the "non elect" can also be saved? you are correct!

 

[DaveXR650]

But the question still remains, why would the God that desires all to come to repentance and be saved only choose a small group to do so. Why would He not give all this "irresistible grace"? Do you not think that the calvinist view contradicts what the God of the bible wants to happen.

I'll be honest. I don't know. That point gets raised a lot and it may be right. But even if everybody has enough innate ability to come to Christ you can still ask why doesn't everybody get to hear the gospel if God desires all to come to repentance. And if "conviction" plays a part at all, and all evangelicals believe it does, why doesn't everyone get convicted. I mean even conviction is a manipulation of someone's will. If I pray for someone to get saved, I want their will convinced to get saved. I'm not praying for their own sovereignty if I love them.

 

[DaveXR650]

Many calvinists have said that man has a free will to reject but not a free will to accept salvation. But then they claim an "irresistible grace", but say God does not force anyone to believe or be saved. I find calvinism very contradictory in it's claims.

The first part is easy. We have a free will to reject because that is our default position by nature. We're born with a sinful bent and as soon as we are able we begin to sin. With all of us going off in sin and selfishness and ignoring God is universal and certain. If something isn't done to us we will never change that. Some say persuasion or conviction is needed. Calvinists say it's more. You need to be born again because that's what the Bible says. Some use terms like regeneration or quickening. Even Wesley no less in his great hymn "Long my imprisoned spirit lay, fast bound by sin and natures night. Thine eye diffused a quickening ray. I woke, the dungeon flamed with light. My chains fell off. My heart was free." Notice it's all passive at first and then "I rose, went forth and followed thee".

 

[Silverhair]

I'll be honest. I don't know. That point gets raised a lot and it may be right. But even if everybody has enough innate ability to come to Christ you can still ask why doesn't everybody get to hear the gospel if God desires all to come to repentance. And if "conviction" plays a part at all, and all evangelicals believe it does, why doesn't everyone get convicted. I mean even conviction is a manipulation of someone's will. If I pray for someone to get saved, I want their will convinced to get saved. I'm not praying for their own sovereignty if I love them.

Dave the simple answer is free will. Man has been given a limited free will by God that is why we are able to hear the gospel and accept it or reject it. If someone holds to the idea that man can not make the choice to believe then you have to ask why all the admonitions to believe in Christ Jesus.

I think your choice of words causes a problem, when you say the persons will in manipulated that indicates lack of a real free will. Then you fall back to the idea that God through His lack of manipulation actually condemns those people to hell. In Rom 1:18-20 we see that God justly condemns those that suppress the truth but this means that they have the ability to know and accept the truth. In other words a free will.

Man can trust in the true of the gospel but it takes a sovereign God to save them. Saying that because a man can freely chose to believe then that makes him sovereign over his salvation is just a calvinist canard.

What I have always found strange about calvinism is that they say God is absolutely sovereign but then say that He, by His sovereign choice, can not allow man the ability to choose salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. That to me seems like calvinists want to limit the sovereignty of God.

 

[AustinC]

so the "non elect" can also be saved? you are correct!

How did you jump to that conclusion from what Dave said? Honestly, did you comprehend what Dave said, cause he certainly did not say what you concluded.