Why Provisionism Is Biblical

[Van]

1) Scripture teaches many will seek the narrow door (Christ) but will not find it. Thus the lost are able, in their spiritually dead sinful state to seek God. Luke 13:24

2) Everyone who believes [as discerned by God] that Jesus is the Christ, has been and remains born anew by God. The sequence is:

a) God reveals His gospel
b) Those not yet hardened, hear and understand and respond
c) Some embrace the gospel fully, some partially and some reject it
d) Those whose faith God credits as righteousness, He causes to be born anew.​

Thus everyone believing as discerned by God has been born anew as a child of God.

3) In John 3:3 the word translated see is used in the sense that we "see" our doctor. Thus it refers to access not awareness. Thus consistent with the sequence, first we become aware, they we respond.

4) Acts 16:4 says God opened Lydia's heart meaning the gospel was presented in a way she could understand and accept without any supernatural involvement. This also is consistent with the sequence, first the lost become away, then they respond. So our faith is not the starting point or the ending point,

5) God choosing to credit a lost person's faith as righteousness is a gracious gift, turning a sows ear into a silk purse. Obvious the faith of a lost person is worthless, and without merit, as it is a filthy rag before they receive God's gracious gift. God's provision of "credited faith" is in God's hands, not ours. This is consistent with Romans 9:16, which teaches salvation depends not on the lost, but upon God. Biblically the "gift of faith" refers to the gift of crediting our faith, rather than the compulsion of irresistible grace.

6) Ephesians 1:4 teaches God chose His Redeemer before the foundation of the world, and therefore in making that choice, He chose us in Him corporately as those His Redeemer might redeem. No individuals existed or were chosen before creation, and all individuals subsequently chosen had existed as not a chosen people who had not yet received mercy, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

7) Acts 13:48 teaches that the Gentiles who agreed with the arrangement specified in the gospel for eternal life, believed. The Greek word, translated as appointed refers to an arrangement agreed upon by mutual consent, rather than a unilateral dictate.

8) When scripture says belief or repentance has been "granted" it means allowed rather than disallowed by their hearts being hardened.
Thus fallen humans are mostly, but not all, able to hear and to heed the gospel with varied responses.

9) No verse or passage says a lost person must be supernaturally altered in order to hear and to head God's revelation.

a) John 6:37 refers to God transferring a chosen individual spiritually into Christ, as after the transfer Christ will not cast him out. This verse has nothing to do with "coming to faith in Christ."
b) Romans 8:29-30 says those whom He foreknew as the target group of His redemption plan He also planed to have them be spiritually born anew, thus conformed to the image of His Son, a sibling so to speak, and He implemented His plan, by calling them on at a time into the kingdom of His Son, when He credited their faith. Following the transfer, they underwent the washing of regeneration, removing their sin burden, what God held against them, which resulted in their justification, and then He gloried them, uniting them with Christ, making them eternally alive.​

10) Romans 4:16 says receiving the promises given to the seed of Abraham is by or based on "credited" faith which is according to grace rather than the works of the Law.

In Summary, Provisionism is fully consistent with all scripture, and those who claim otherwise use errant interpretations of vague scriptures to support their false claims. Thus Provisionism is Biblical.

 

[Van]

I see I made some typos in the opening post. Here are the corrected sentences:

4) Acts 16:4 says God opened Lydia's heart meaning the gospel was presented in a way she could understand and accept without any supernatural involvement. This also is consistent with the sequence, first the lost become aware, then they respond. So our faith is not the starting point or the ending point,

9) No verse or passage says a lost person must be supernaturally altered in order to hear and to heed God's revelation.

b) Romans 8:29-30 says those whom He foreknew as the target group of His redemption plan He also planed to have them be spiritually born anew, thus conformed to the image of His Son, a sibling so to speak, and He implemented His plan, by calling them one at a time into the kingdom of His Son, when He credited their faith. Following the transfer, they underwent the washing of regeneration, removing their sin burden, what God held against them, which resulted in their justification, and then He gloried them, uniting them with Christ, making them eternally alive.​

Additionally scripture denies "Total Spiritual Inability" but proclaims "Limited Spiritual Ability" as the lost are able to understand spiritual milk, but not spiritual solid food, as taught by 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.

And Provisionism is consistent with the correct order of divine and human actions, with God remaining absolutely sovereign in determining who He chooses to redeem, reconcile and glorify. The lost do not deserve, merit, or otherwise earn or determine their salvation.

Because the lost have "Limited Spiritual Ability" (proven by Luke 13:24) they do not need to be supernaturally "enabled" in order to hear and to heed the fundamentals of the gospel, which are the spiritual milk things of the Spirit.

 

[Van]

God provided our Soul Competency to allow us to gain access to salvation through our faith, but the result makes us
"Responsible." Everyone (including the lost) is able to respond to God's appeals for reconciliation, because a Divine Provision will be heard and understood. [This concept is extracted from Provisionism as found on the internet]

Deuteronomy 30:11-19
Matthew 23:37
Luke 8:12
Romans 2:4
Hebrews 3:7-8"

Here a case is made against the "T" of the TULIP, Total Spiritual Inability, the false doctrine that the lost are unable to understand spiritual milk, contrary to 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 where Paul spoke to immature Christians in the same way, using spiritual milk, that he did when speaking to "men of flesh," people who were not indwelt.

Moses' inspired message was spiritually dead people are to love God, thus able to love God; by obeying His word, thus able to discern the Word of God; and by "holding close" or faithfully following God, thus able to repent and strive to follow His will.

Matthew 23:37 teaches God gathers the "willing" not the unwilling. Thus some lost people are able to will to come to Christ through faith.

Luke 8:12 teaches a Satanic action is required to take away the gospel message, because otherwise the lost may believe and be saved.

Romans 2:4 teaches we should not take lightly the kind provision of God's revelation to us, and His patience in allowing humanity the time to come to repentance.

Hebrews 3:7-8 reminds us that God was provoked when those delivered out of Egypt, hardened their own hearts, when they heard and rejected God's will. God would not have been provoked if they had been unable to hear and appropriately respond.

 

[Van]

God's provision of innate Soul Competency is required both make sense of witnessing, as otherwise the effort would be akin to casting pearls before swine, and to allow us to see the justness in holding those responsible for going against what they see are right. incompetent people are not held responsible for their inability.

But the fields are white for harvest, requiring acceptance that many of the lost are able to hear and respond to the gospel.

 

[Kai]

It is Christ's atoning sacrifice that provides the provision for everyone.

1 John 2:2 says that He is the propitiation for the whole world, but since we know that the whole world will not be saved, we can reasonably conclude that it is provisional in nature. It offers the means of salvation to all who believe and removes God's wrath—the penalty for our sins, whether past, present, or future.

Anyone in Christ receives this benefit; however, those who are not in Christ gain no advantage from His sacrifice on the cross.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Wow! I stand corrected! It's hard work getting saved and one has to look diligently for that "Strait gate and narrow way" but God rewards salvation to whoever finds it!

It is so hard to find that you must REALLY WANT to be saved if you are going to persist!

Thank you for setting us all straight!

 

[Kai]

Wow! I stand corrected! It's hard work getting saved and one has to look diligently for that "Strait gate and narrow way" but God rewards salvation to whoever finds it!

I'm sure that your post was intended to be tongue in cheek, but what does Scripture have to say about that?

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Is that supposed to be "hard work?"

Matthew 11:28-30
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

I'd say it's quite the opposite!

 

[Kai]

There's a certain poster who will jump into a thread to let us know how wrong we are, but when we respond, they suddenly lose interest in continuing the discussion.

I truly hope they break that pattern eventually, as it could lead to both of us potentially learning something valuable.

 

[Van]

It is Christ's atoning sacrifice that provides the provision for everyone.

1 John 2:2 says that He is the propitiation for the whole world, but since we know that the whole world will not be saved, we can reasonably conclude that it is provisional in nature. It offers the means of salvation to all who believe and removes God's wrath—the penalty for our sins, whether past, present, or future.

Anyone in Christ receives this benefit; however, those who are not in Christ gain no advantage from His sacrifice on the cross.

One of our problems with communicating God's gospel is the use of arcane or obscure words such as "propitiation." The noun refers to the "means of reconciliation" which Christ provided by His sacrifice on the cross, as the Lamb of God. I agree "propitiation" could mean "means of salvation" because reconciliation with God equals salvation from the wrath of God.

Thanks, your post is excellent in my opinion.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I'm sure that your post was intended to be tongue in cheek, but what does Scripture have to say about that?

Absolutely. I do not believe that Van actually believes this but was using absurdity to prove a point.

People become so obsessed with their desire to disprove predestination and election that they cherry pick and conveniently leave something out that quickly and easily refutes (or at least calls into question) the point they are trying to make!

The primary scriptures I am thinking of would be Rom 3:11 which says "there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God..." along with Jn 3:19 which says "Light is come into the world but men love darkness rather than the light... These need to be factored into one's understanding of the "strait gate and narrow way of which few there be that find it" (Mt 7:14). The fact of the matter is that an unregenerate man has no interest in "striving" to enter the strait gate now does he?

They may argue that Calvinists believe God intends to keep the non-elect in the dark but Rom 1:20 makes it clear that such is not the case. The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN...... So that they are without excuse!

When the author of Hebrews states that "Without faith, its impossible to please him..." is this speaking of the lost world who must strive to please God with their "faith" or is this speaking of believers who are living and walking by faith? If you are lost, you are without faith and dead in your sin. If you are in Christ, it is "not I but Christ who liveth in me" and the faith we are to walk in is far greater than any faith we could ever conjure on our own!

Is that supposed to be "hard work?"

No, and this is my point! First of all, we DESIRE the things of God and there are times that God causes us to dig in and search out a matter. We often find such digging and searching to be quite gratifying and rewarding. Is this not why men seek to attend seminary and write 150 page dissertations that make little sense to anyone outside of their area of study?

If you are outside of faith and therefore feel as if you are laboring under some sort of obligation or are trying on your own to please God, such ought to be a wake-up call and one ought to examine themselves as to whether they actually possess faith? Are they "Working" or are they "Resting?"

I'd say it's quite the opposite!

Yes, it is.

 

[Kai]

I do not believe that Van actually believes this but was using absurdity to prove a point.

I'm not fully aware of all of @Van's beliefs, but like with every poster, I have acknowledged the valid points while also highlighting the potential errors. It’s possible to express these observations without resorting to mockery.

People become so obsessed with their desire to disprove predestination and election that they cherry pick and conveniently leave something out that quickly and easily refutes (or at least calls into question) the point they are trying to make!

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not fixated on disproving predestination and election. My focus is on accurately understanding these concepts. I would gladly submit to any Scripture that clearly states that God causally predetermines everything that occurs, including the election of individuals. However, since such a passage is absent and we have other verses, like Ecclesiastes 9:11, which indicate that some events happen by chance, we must dismiss that notion.

The primary scriptures I am thinking of would be Rom 3:11 which says "there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God..." along with Jn 3:19 which says "Light is come into the world but men love darkness rather than the light...

I don't think I would disagree with most of what you've said about man's sinful condition. Romans 3 makes it clear that nobody naturally seeks God, and John 3:19 explains why people reject the light. But I think you're making a leap from man's inability to save himself to the conclusion that he cannot respond to God's grace unless he has first been irresistibly given that ability.

It is an absolute that God's grace must take the initiative. I don't believe fallen man can manufacture saving faith through his own efforts. Rather, God's grace enables people to respond to the gospel, but that grace can be resisted. Otherwise, passages such as Acts 7:51, where Stephen tells people they resist the Holy Spirit, become difficult to explain.

They may argue that Calvinists believe God intends to keep the non-elect in the dark but Rom 1:20 makes it clear that such is not the case. The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN...... So that they are without excuse!

What that establishes is that humanity is without excuse because God's existence and attributes are evident through creation. But it doesn't establish that God has chosen to withhold saving grace from everyone except the elect.

If you are lost, you are without faith and dead in your sin. If you are in Christ, it is "not I but Christ who liveth in me" and the faith we are to walk in is far greater than any faith we could ever conjure on our own!

I agree that faith is essential and that our faith ultimately depends on God's grace. But the passage doesn't say that regeneration must precede faith or that God must irresistibly cause someone to be placed in Christ.

First of all, we DESIRE the things of God and there are times that God causes us to dig in and search out a matter. We often find such digging and searching to be quite gratifying and rewarding.

I don't think that distinction answers the question we're discussing. A person can genuinely desire to know God, search the Scriptures, and respond to the gospel without believing they are earning salvation through their efforts. Seeking God isn't necessarily an attempt to work one's way into heaven.

Also, I would distinguish between the believer's desire to grow in the things of God and the initial response of someone hearing the gospel. The fact that God works in believers to produce a desire for spiritual growth doesn't automatically establish that He must irresistibly change their desires before they can believe.

Are they "Working" or are they "Resting?"

We rest entirely in Christ for salvation, but it is God's grace that enables a person to respond to Him without making that response irresistible. Faith isn't something we boast about or use to earn salvation; it is how we receive the gift God freely offers.

Yes, it is.

I'm glad we can agree on something.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I'm not fully aware of all of @Van's beliefs, but like with every poster, I have acknowledged the valid points while also highlighting the potential errors. It’s possible to express these observations without resorting to mockery.

I do not interact with Van too much here. He is typically a "One Trick Pony" and always trying to disprove Calvinism from what I can see. I usually pass over his threads but couldn't ignore this one. If you want to make a strong argument, you have got to look at all sides examining the scriptures that either prove or disprove his position. Perhaps there would could've been a better way to point this out but sometimes it is the "Shock and Awe" approach that gets someone's attention but perhaps he skips over my posts as I often do his? You seem to be taking an interest and that is fine.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not fixated on disproving predestination and election. My focus is on accurately understanding these concepts. I would gladly submit to any Scripture that clearly states that God causally predetermines everything that occurs, including the election of individuals. However, since such a passage is absent and we have other verses, like Ecclesiastes 9:11, which indicate that some events happen by chance, we must dismiss that notion.

You seem balanced and objective and I can appreciate this. We can have a conversation regarding this, I have no interest in arguing with those who have already made up their minds and are simply defending a "position."

Ecc 9:11 is speaking from our standpoint is it not? Yes, from our standpoint, things happen by chance but from God's standpoint, he has either actively decreed (ordained and caused to pass) or has passively allowed something to happen. God could've easily stopped the event of 9/11 so why didn't he? God could've easily brought about the outcome of the midterm election with completely different election results could he not? Nothing happens of which God is not aware and nothing happens of which God does not allow! This is a cold, hard fact but if you want a Bible verse, I guess Psa 33:11 and Eph 1:11 would be a start.

I don't think I would disagree with most of what you've said about man's sinful condition. Romans 3 makes it clear that nobody naturally seeks God, and John 3:19 explains why people reject the light. But I think you're making a leap from man's inability to save himself to the conclusion that he cannot respond to God's grace unless he has first been irresistibly given that ability.

I think you may be assuming some things of which I was being intentionally vague thus leaving things open for interpretation. I am dogmatic regarding man's total depravity and his inability to save himself but was being intentionally "dodgy" regarding how God enables one to come to faith or what exactly takes place. Jesus is quite clear in the Gospel of John that "No man comes to me except the Father draw him..." but I will allow you to come to your own conclusion as to how and what actually occurs. My understanding is that aside from such divine intervention, an unregenerate man has no interest whatsoever in his or her standing with God and the gospel message will be foolishness to them. They also will stand before God accountable for whatever "special revelation" they have received regarding the witness of other believers and the preaching of the Gospel. If God will hold them accountable, this implies they have some understanding.

It is an absolute that God's grace must take the initiative. I don't believe fallen man can manufacture saving faith through his own efforts. Rather, God's grace enables people to respond to the gospel, but that grace can be resisted. Otherwise, passages such as Acts 7:51, where Stephen tells people they resist the Holy Spirit, become difficult to explain.

Seems pretty simple to me. First of all, of what "Grace" are we speaking? Every man and woman experiences God's common grace, the goodness of God which brings one to repentance and the gospel of Christ which is able to make one wise unto salvation. It is also a cold, hard fact that an unregenerate man will ALWAYS resist this grace as such is in our fallen nature to do so! Any Calvinist will tell you so. The so-called "Irrestistable Grace" they are speaking of is the Efficiacious Grace or the "Effectual Calling" wherein regeneration actually occurs and one passes from death unto life. I typically tell people "No one ever asks to be born but all who are born have a desire to LIVE!" This is one of the traits of being alive - that we desire to REMAIN alive!

What that establishes is that humanity is without excuse because God's existence and attributes are evident through creation. But it doesn't establish that God has chosen to withhold saving grace from everyone except the elect.

The scriptures declare that mankind is guilty before God and dead in their trespasses and sins. They are condemned because of this, not because they never trusted Christ as Savior. Remember that Jn 3:17 says "He that believeth in him is not condemned but he that believeth not is CONDEMNED ALREADY meaning you were under condemnation before you ever heard or understood the implications of the gospel message. Those who come to Christ receive mercy and those who do not receive justice: NNE will receive injustice from God!

I agree that faith is essential and that our faith ultimately depends on God's grace. But the passage doesn't say that regeneration must precede faith or that God must irresistibly cause someone to be placed in Christ.

Once again, I am speaking of the reality of where one is in Christ, not how they got there. Call me dodgy but I think it is important to understand your position in Christ, why you are justified, and why you are secure rather than how you got there! How would you explain such a thing when presenting the Gospel anyway? Rom 10:13 says "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" and the very fact that you have a desire to call upon the name of the Lord is indication to me that God is bringing you to salvation through his Son. Jesus says "All that the Father gives to me shall come to me and he that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out (Jn 6:37). I really see no need to overthink things beyond this.

I don't think that distinction answers the question we're discussing. A person can genuinely desire to know God, search the Scriptures, and respond to the gospel without believing they are earning salvation through their efforts. Seeking God isn't necessarily an attempt to work one's way into heaven.

Who is it that genuinely desires to know God and who gave him that desire to know him? Why is it that one has great concern regarding his or her eternal destiny and another does not wish to be bothered with it? If you are in Christ, you are alive (as discussed above) and therefore have a desire to know Christ and to be conformed into his image.

Also, I would distinguish between the believer's desire to grow in the things of God and the initial response of someone hearing the gospel. The fact that God works in believers to produce a desire for spiritual growth doesn't automatically establish that He must irresistibly change their desires before they can believe.

Not sure what you are implying here but seems to me that what you are describing is REPENTANCE which is a change of heart and mind. It is God who leads you to repentance and I believe that repentance is indicative of a genuine conversion; not a prerequisite God demands of someone in order to be saved.

We rest entirely in Christ for salvation, but it is God's grace that enables a person to respond to Him without making that response irresistible. Faith isn't something we boast about or use to earn salvation; it is how we receive the gift God freely offers.

What you are describing here is the Arminian view of "Prevenient Grace" and if this is what you believe, who am I to argue? Those coming to faith in Christ often believe they are making the "Greatest decision ever" but I do not believe for one second that they would boast in the fact that they had the good common sense to trust Christ.

I believe that when we do personal evangelism, we must take into account the fact that it is our job to plant and water but it is God who gives the increase! If one comes to faith in Christ, it is God's doing, not ours - we are just along for the ride but it sure is cool when God allows you to be his instrument!

 

[Van]

I do not interact with Van too much here. He is typically a "One Trick Pony" and always trying to disprove Calvinism from what I can see. I usually pass over his threads but couldn't ignore this one. If you want to make a strong argument, you have got to look at all sides examining the scriptures that either prove or disprove his position. Perhaps there would could've been a better way to point this out but sometimes it is the "Shock and Awe" approach that gets someone's attention but perhaps he skips over my posts as I often do his? You seem to be taking an interest and that is fine.

1) Many of my threads do not address the false doctrines of Calvinism. So the first claim is false and demeaning.

2) It is not hard work to get saved, it is impossible to will anything or do anything to get saved. Romans 9:16 So the second false claim, being both deflective and deceptive.

3) We are chosen individually through faith in the truth. Only Calvinists are the "One Trick Pony" always trying to deny the very words of scripture. Does Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all ring a bell? Christ really sacrificed His life to provide the means of salvation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2.

 

[Kai]

Ecc 9:11 is speaking from our standpoint is it not? Yes, from our standpoint, things happen by chance but from God's standpoint, he has either actively decreed (ordained and caused to pass) or has passively allowed something to happen.

That raises a question: if we acknowledge that Scripture sometimes describes things from our limited perspective rather than God's, on what basis do we decide when that principle applies and when it doesn't?

Why couldn't predestination be understood as a thing from our limited perspective? And why must predestination and chance be mutually exclusive? Could God not predestine certain things while also allowing other events to occur through genuine human choices that happen by chance? Both could be true without contradiction.

Acknowledging that God knows all things and is sovereign over His creation does not automatically establish that He causally determines every human decision. There is a difference between God knowing something will happen, allowing it to happen, and directly causing it to happen. Those are not necessarily the same thing.

That's why I'm cautious about reading determinism into Scripture simply because we must assume that God's foreknowledge requires it.

Jesus is quite clear in the Gospel of John that "No man comes to me except the Father draw him..." but I will allow you to come to your own conclusion as to how and what actually occurs. My understanding is that aside from such divine intervention, an unregenerate man has no interest whatsoever in his or her standing with God and the gospel message will be foolishness to them. They also will stand before God accountable for whatever "special revelation" they have received regarding the witness of other believers and the preaching of the Gospel.

I think we may actually agree on more than you realize. I also believe in total depravity and that nobody can save themselves or come to Christ apart from divine intervention. Where I differ with Calvinism is not over the necessity of God's grace, but over what that grace entails.

When Jesus says in John 6:44 that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him, I agree completely. The question is whether that drawing must be irresistible or whether God can genuinely draw someone while allowing them to resist. John 12:32 is worth considering here, where Jesus says He will draw all people to Himself.

I also agree that people are accountable for the revelation they've received. However, being accountable for rejecting God's revelation doesn't necessarily mean they possess the ability to save themselves. It means they are responsible for their response to the light God has given them.

Every man and woman experiences God's common grace, the goodness of God which brings one to repentance and the gospel of Christ which is able to make one wise unto salvation. It is also a cold, hard fact that an unregenerate man will ALWAYS resist this grace as such is in our fallen nature to do so! Any Calvinist will tell you so. The so-called "Irrestistable Grace" they are speaking of is the Efficiacious Grace or the "Effectual Calling" wherein regeneration actually occurs and one passes from death unto life. I typically tell people "No one ever asks to be born but all who are born have a desire to LIVE!"

I agree that fallen man naturally resists God and cannot come to Christ through his own ability. But why couldn't God, through prevenient grace, overcome that natural inability sufficiently to enable a person to respond to the gospel without determining the outcome of that response?

In other words, I'm not suggesting that an unregenerate person suddenly develops a natural desire for God or possesses some inherent ability to save himself. I'm suggesting that God takes the initiative, draws the person, and enables a genuine response of faith.

Your analogy about being born and then desiring to live is interesting, but I think it assumes the very point we're debating: that regeneration must precede faith. The question is whether Scripture actually establishes that sequence.

The scriptures declare that mankind is guilty before God and dead in their trespasses and sins. They are condemned because of this, not because they never trusted Christ as Savior. Remember that Jn 3:17 says "He that believeth in him is not condemned but he that believeth not is CONDEMNED ALREADY meaning you were under condemnation before you ever heard or understood the implications of the gospel message. Those who come to Christ receive mercy and those who do not receive justice: NNE will receive injustice from God!

I agree that humanity is already under condemnation because of sin and that salvation is entirely an act of God's mercy. Nobody deserves salvation, and nobody will receive injustice from God. However, I don't think John 3:17-18 establishes the Calvinist understanding of election or effectual calling. The fact that we are condemned before hearing the gospel doesn't answer the question of how God enables someone to believe.

Notice that John 3:18 also says that the one who believes is not condemned, while the one who does not believe is condemned already. The passage establishes both our existing condemnation and the significance of our response to Christ. So I don't think that my position requires anyone to earn mercy or claim that God owes them salvation. I am simply saying that God graciously provides the means by which people can respond to the gospel, and that His grace can be resisted.

Rom 10:13 says "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" and the very fact that you have a desire to call upon the name of the Lord is indication to me that God is bringing you to salvation through his Son. Jesus says "All that the Father gives to me shall come to me and he that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out (Jn 6:37). I really see no need to overthink things beyond this.

Where I think we're talking past each other is that I'm not questioning whether God draws people to Christ or whether those who come to Him are secure. I agree with both.

The point I've been raising is whether God's drawing necessarily results in an irresistible response or whether someone can resist His grace. Romans 10:13 says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." I don't see anything in that promise suggesting that the invitation is limited to those whom God has irresistibly regenerated.

And I agree that we shouldn't overcomplicate the presentation of the gospel. We preach Christ, call people to repentance and faith, and assure them that whoever comes to Him will be received. We don't need to explain every theological detail of the order of salvation to someone who needs to hear the gospel.

Who is it that genuinely desires to know God and who gave him that desire to know him? Why is it that one has great concern regarding his or her eternal destiny and another does not wish to be bothered with it? If you are in Christ, you are alive (as discussed above) and therefore have a desire to know Christ and to be conformed into his image.

I don't believe anyone comes to Christ independently of His grace. But I think you're assuming that because God gives someone the desire to seek Him, that desire must be the result of irresistible regeneration. God's grace can awaken, draw, and enable someone to respond to Him without making that response irresistible.

So I agree that the desire to know Christ is evidence of God's work. The question is whether that work necessarily produces faith or enables a person to genuinely respond. I don't think the fact that one person responds and another doesn't, by itself, proves irresistible grace.

 

[Kai]

Not sure what you are implying here but seems to me that what you are describing is REPENTANCE which is a change of heart and mind. It is God who leads you to repentance and I believe that repentance is indicative of a genuine conversion; not a prerequisite God demands of someone in order to be saved.

I agree that repentance is a work of God's grace and that genuine repentance is evidence of conversion. But I would be careful about separating repentance from the response God calls people to make in the gospel. Scripture repeatedly calls people to repent and believe (Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30). I also don't think repentance being God's work automatically means it must be irresistible. God can lead someone to repentance without forcing that response. Romans 2:4 says God's goodness leads us to repentance.

So I think we're back to the same question: Does God's gracious leading necessarily produce repentance, or can someone resist it?

Those coming to faith in Christ often believe they are making the "Greatest decision ever" but I do not believe for one second that they would boast in the fact that they had the good common sense to trust Christ.

I believe that when we do personal evangelism, we must take into account the fact that it is our job to plant and water but it is God who gives the increase! If one comes to faith in Christ, it is God's doing, not ours - we are just along for the ride but it sure is cool when God allows you to be his instrument!

I absolutely agree that salvation is God's doing, not ours, and that we have nothing to boast about. Even our ability to respond to the gospel is dependent on His grace.

Where we differ is that I believe God's grace enables a person to respond to Him without making that response irresistible. Choosing to trust Christ doesn't mean I deserve credit for being smarter or more sensible than someone who doesn't believe. It simply means I responded to the grace God extended to me.

As you said, we plant and water, but God gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6-7). I think that's a good place to recognize both God's initiative and our responsibility to respond to Him.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

1) Many of my threads do not address the false doctrines of Calvinism. So the first claim is false and demeaning.

2) It is not hard work to get saved, it is impossible to will anything or do anything to get saved. Romans 9:16 So the second false claim, being both deflective and deceptive.

3) We are chosen individually through faith in the truth. Only Calvinists are the "One Trick Pony" always trying to deny the very words of scripture. Does Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all ring a bell? Christ really sacrificed His life to provide the means of salvation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2.

I'm sorry but the vast majority of the posts I see of you are either a feeble attempt to refute Calvinism or spinning an issue into an argument about Calvinism in order to argue about it. this has been my experience with you so I tend to overlook your posts. I really have no interest in endless, futile arguments on the matter. Even in this response, you are trying to argue Calvinism with me and I simply do not have the time or energy to deal with someone who has already made up his mind and especially not someone who thinks me a "False Teacher" because I am Calvinistic in my soteriology.

I will try to find threads where such is not the case and hopefully, we could interact in a civil and mutually respectful manner.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

That raises a question: if we acknowledge that Scripture sometimes describes things from our limited perspective rather than God's, on what basis do we decide when that principle applies and when it doesn't?

This is where we need to stick to the scriptures and formulate our theology from here. That God decrees all things which come to pass goes far beyond Calvinism and right into Theology Proper and the attributes of God.

Let's try this again answering the following Questions:

1. Does anything ever happen of which God is unaware?
2. Does anything ever happen of which God does not allow?

If there is nothing that happens of which God not aware or does not allow, it should also go without saying that God is able to stop bad things from happening so why doesn't he?

Let's make this very clear - God does cause bad things (evil) but he certainly allows bad things to happen! Why?

Why couldn't predestination be understood as a thing from our limited perspective? And why must predestination and chance be mutually exclusive? Could God not predestine certain things while also allowing other events to occur through genuine human choices that happen by chance? Both could be true without contradiction.

Are you trying to be rationalistic here? We understand predestination from a scriptural standpoint because predestination is found in the scriptures. We may disagree whether we are predestined according to foreknowledge or according to his eternal decree but such exists nonetheless.

Acknowledging that God knows all things and is sovereign over His creation does not automatically establish that He causally determines every human decision. There is a difference between God knowing something will happen, allowing it to happen, and directly causing it to happen. Those are not necessarily the same thing.

Isn't this exactly what I am saying here? There are times in which God actively decrees (determines, causes something to happen - his redemptive plan for example) and in which he passively decrees (allows something to happen - Adam's fall for example). If God knows something will happen and does not prevent it from happening, he is allowing it to happen and if he allows it to happen, it is according to his eternal plan and purpose.

That's why I'm cautious about reading determinism into Scripture simply because we must assume that God's foreknowledge requires it.

I do not believe we should read anything into scripture - this is called eisegesis and is never a good thing. Romans 10:13 states that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" and I believe this to be quite simple and straightforward.

I think we may actually agree on more than you realize. I also believe in total depravity and that nobody can save themselves or come to Christ apart from divine intervention. Where I differ with Calvinism is not over the necessity of God's grace, but over what that grace entails.

I agree with this. Much of the time an argument is over semantics. I am dogmatic about man's inability (or better yet, his unwillingness) to seek after God but I am not dogmatic about the extent of this inability. Man's responsibility must also be considered.

When Jesus says in John 6:44 that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him, I agree completely. The question is whether that drawing must be irresistible or whether God can genuinely draw someone while allowing them to resist. John 12:32 is worth considering here, where Jesus says He will draw all people to Himself.

I often hear this brought up and have heard different approaches from those of a Calvinist mindset. What I would ask is whether God is drawing all men without exception (every human being ever lived) or is this speaking of "all men of every tribe and tongue?" You also need to ask how God could draw anyone who has never heard the gospel message. How could God hold them responsible (spoiler alert - he most certainly does)? What about those living on North Sentinel Island where one is legally forbidden to go and is likely killed by the inhabitants if they try?

In other words, God does not give every man opportunity to actually hear the gospel message which is able to make them wise unto salvation. This is a difficult question to answer is it not?

I agree that fallen man naturally resists God and cannot come to Christ through his own ability. But why couldn't God, through prevenient grace, overcome that natural inability sufficiently to enable a person to respond to the gospel without determining the outcome of that response?

I often think of this and am actually sympathetic towards prevenient grace but based upon my example above, it is clear that not every man is afforded prevenient grace is he?

In other words, I'm not suggesting that an unregenerate person suddenly develops a natural desire for God or possesses some inherent ability to save himself. I'm suggesting that God takes the initiative, draws the person, and enables a genuine response of faith.

You have scriptures speaking of ministering angels to those who are "heirs of salvation" and it is clear that God often deals with people, allows them to go through certain experiences which they later see God's working and leading them to salvation. God does use a man's intellect and ability to reason.

Your analogy about being born and then desiring to live is interesting, but I think it assumes the very point we're debating: that regeneration must precede faith. The question is whether Scripture actually establishes that sequence.

Not really, I am just stating a fact: No one ever ASKS to be born but everyone who is born wants to live! You are able to take that fact and do with it what you may. It is simply to provoke thinking, not something of which demands an answer. I will let you come to your own satisfactory conclusion.

Its getting late and I have an early day tomorrow!

 

[Van]

I'm sorry but the vast majority of the posts I see of you are either a feeble attempt to refute Calvinism or spinning an issue into an argument about Calvinism in order to argue about it. this has been my experience with you so I tend to overlook your posts. I really have no interest in endless, futile arguments on the matter. Even in this response, you are trying to argue Calvinism with me and I simply do not have the time or energy to deal with someone who has already made up his mind and especially not someone who thinks me a "False Teacher" because I am Calvinistic in my soteriology.

I will try to find threads where such is not the case and hopefully, we could interact in a civil and mutually respectful manner.

Sir, you continue to make my case. Here you address my behavior, not the topic. Deflection is a tool of false teachers, no matter what they are peddling.

Striving for a common understanding of the truth of scripture is not futile.

I am agreeing with scripture, and Calvinism, that it is impossible to work your way into salvation.

Yes, I believe my view is correct, but I expect you believe your view is also correct. So why disparage me? Deflection?

And Yes, I believe Calvinism is false doctrine, and therefore those advocating it are false teachers. Scripture requires opposing false doctrine. To claim someone opposing a point of view as false doctrine should not be given a defense of what we believe is unbiblical nonsense.

Last point, when I present what I believe is the truth of scripture, and it runs afoul of what Calvinism teaches, it is not an effort to undermine Calvinism, but rather an effort to present biblical truth.

​

"God choosing to credit a lost person's faith as righteousness is a gracious gift, turning a sows ear into a silk purse. Obvious the faith of a lost person is worthless, and without merit, as it is a filthy rag before they receive God's gracious gift. God's provision of "credited faith" is in God's hands, not ours. This is consistent with Romans 9:16, which teaches salvation depends not on the lost, but upon God. Biblically the "gift of faith" refers to the gift of crediting our faith, rather than the compulsion of irresistible grace." [From the OP] ​

 

[Kai]

1. Does anything ever happen of which God is unaware?
2. Does anything ever happen of which God does not allow?

If there is nothing that happens of which God not aware or does not allow, it should also go without saying that God is able to stop bad things from happening so why doesn't he?

Let's make this very clear - God does cause bad things (evil) but he certainly allows bad things to happen! Why?

My answer to both is an emphatic no. However, I think we need to be careful about what we mean by "allow." God's permitting something to happen is not necessarily the same as His directly causing it or determining that someone must do it.

But I think there is another issue I think we need to consider. If God, as the first cause of all things through His act of creation, is also understood to be the ultimate determining cause of every event and every human intention, including sinful ones, then how do we avoid making Him the author of evil?

I realize the standard Calvinist response is that God works through secondary causes and that human beings remain responsible for their actions. But simply calling human beings "secondary causes" doesn't logically resolve the problem. If God has already determined every thought, desire, and action those secondary causes will produce, then they are still carrying out what God has unconditionally determined. Changing the terminology doesn't necessarily remove the underlying problem. We still have to explain how God can be the ultimate determining cause of every sinful act without being its ultimate author.

As to why God allows evil when He has the power to stop it, I don't pretend to know every reason. Scripture gives us examples of God allowing things for purposes that may not be immediately apparent to us. He can bring good out of what people intend for evil, accomplish His purposes, and still hold people accountable for their choices. God's sovereignty and human responsibility are both taught in Scripture, and I don't believe we should sacrifice one to explain the other.

Are you trying to be rationalistic here? We understand predestination from a scriptural standpoint because predestination is found in the scriptures. We may disagree whether we are predestined according to foreknowledge or according to his eternal decree but such exists nonetheless.

My point is about consistency in how we interpret Scripture.

If we are willing to interpret passages about things happening "by chance" as merely describing events from a human perspective because they don't fit our understanding of God's sovereignty, why wouldn't we apply the same caution when interpreting predestination, especially when the concept itself was already being discussed in the ancient philosophical world?

I'm not suggesting that Greek philosophy determines what Scripture means. Scripture must interpret Scripture. I'm simply saying we shouldn't automatically impose a particular philosophical understanding of predestination onto biblical language any more than we should dismiss the language of chance because it challenges our theological assumptions.

The question isn't whether predestination exists in Scripture. It is what Scripture actually means by it, and whether our theological conclusions are being driven by the text or by assumptions we bring to it.

Isn't this exactly what I am saying here? There are times in which God actively decrees (determines, causes something to happen - his redemptive plan for example) and in which he passively decrees (allows something to happen - Adam's fall for example). If God knows something will happen and does not prevent it from happening, he is allowing it to happen and if he allows it to happen, it is according to his eternal plan and purpose.

Where I'm differing is the conclusion that everything God permits must necessarily be part of an eternal plan in the sense that He has predetermined every detail of it. I agree that nothing takes God by surprise and that He is never caught off guard. But knowing something will happen and choosing not to prevent it doesn't, by itself, establish that God predetermined the event or every detail surrounding it.

For example, God could permit a person to make a genuinely free choice while knowing exactly what that person will choose. His decision to permit that choice does not necessarily mean He causally determined the choice itself. So I think we need to be careful not to make God's permission synonymous with God's determination. Otherwise, the distinction between actively causing evil and passively permitting it becomes difficult to maintain.

I often hear this brought up and have heard different approaches from those of a Calvinist mindset. What I would ask is whether God is drawing all men without exception (every human being ever lived) or is this speaking of "all men of every tribe and tongue?" You also need to ask how God could draw anyone who has never heard the gospel message. How could God hold them responsible (spoiler alert - he most certainly does)? What about those living on North Sentinel Island where one is legally forbidden to go and is likely killed by the inhabitants if they try?

I don't pretend to have a complete answer for the fate of those who never hear. But I don't think that difficulty gives us sufficient reason to conclude that Christ only draws the elect. We should let the text say what it says rather than narrow its meaning to fit our theological assumptions.

As for John 12:32, I don't think we should automatically redefine "all" to mean only some people from every tribe and tongue. Every individual person belongs to some people group, tribe, or nation. Saying Christ draws all people naturally includes Jews and Gentiles, but that doesn't mean the text limits His drawing to only some individuals within those groups. The passage itself doesn't say "some from every tribe and tongue."

Also, the fact that someone has never heard the gospel doesn't necessarily mean God has never drawn or dealt with that person. Romans 1:19-20 tells us that God has revealed Himself through creation, and Romans 2:14-15 speaks of the conscience. That doesn't mean general revelation is the gospel, but it does show that God's dealings with humanity are not limited to the preaching of the gospel.

I often think of this and am actually sympathetic towards prevenient grace but based upon my example above, it is clear that not every man is afforded prevenient grace is he?

I don't think we can necessarily draw that conclusion. You're assuming that prevenient grace must come in the form of everyone having the same opportunity to hear the gospel, but I don't think those are identical things. Prevenient grace refers to God's gracious work in overcoming our natural inability to respond to Him. It doesn't necessarily mean everyone receives the same amount of revelation or the same outward opportunity to hear the gospel.

 

[David Lamb]

Let's make this very clear - God does cause bad things (evil) but he certainly allows bad things to happen! Why?

Just checking (because as it stands, the above quote is confusing me, and I wouldn't want to misunderstand you), didn't you really mean: "God doesn't cause bad things (evil) but he certainly allows bad things to happen!"?