Challenge - The Golden Chain of Salvation

[sandusky]

That’s reading your OSAS theology into the term “appointed to eternal life” in which you view eternal life as an instantaneous, complete and irrevocably permanent reality at the moment one has saving faith. Most Protestants - both historically and presently - do not hold such a view and their understanding of such verses differs from yours.

By the way, Phil, that is a double standard.

As Mike has documented, Catholics are required, de fide, to believe in an election to perseverance; it is an election that is fixed in number, and will happen certainly.

It is, for lack of a better word, an OSAS doctrine.

So in addition to, or in spite of, those “most Protestants” who would disagree with me on this, every Catholic must agree with me on this issue, in addition to the other de fide requirements of the Church concerning predestination.

 

[sandusky]

Would these people be held accountable for there sins no more or no less than you and I?

They would; what they did, they did willingly, and freely, of their own volition; God was not holding a divine .357 magnum to their head.

Isaiah 10:5-16

5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation,

6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets.

7 Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations.

8 For it says, “Are not my princes all kings?

9 “Is not Calno like Carchemish, Or Hamath like Arpad, Or Samaria like Damascus?

10 “As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria,

11 Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?”

12 **So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.” **

13 For he has said, “By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants,

14 And my hand reached to the riches of the peoples like a nest, And as one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth; And there was not one that flapped its wing or opened its beak or chirped.”

15 **Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, Or like a rod lifting him who is not wood. **

16 Therefore the Lord, the God of hosts, will send a wasting disease among his stout warriors; And under his glory a fire will be kindled like a burning flame.

 

[Philthy]

You continue to kick against God’s plan, and His gospel Phil; why?
The promise of the gospel that God wants published to all the world is, in a nutshell, that the one who repents, and believes in the crucified Christ, shall not perish, but have eternal life
(Jn 3:16). That is the gospel, defined by God, and His proclamation of it is sincere, and His promises in it are sure.

Published? You mean proclaimed. Otherwise I agree with it all.

It is not the fault of the gospel, nor is it the fault of the Christ proclaimed within the gospel, nor is it the fault of the God who calls men by the gospel, and confers upon them the gifts He will through the gospel, that men refuse to come, and believe. The fault lies in themselves.

I see. He’s the potter, we’re the clay and the clay is at fault for what the potter did with it?

sandusky:

Though the salvation of the elect is sure, it is not automatic; God determines the ends, as well as the means, and the means of salvation for the elect is through hearing the word of faith which we are preaching (Rom 10:8). It is because of that Paul says, I endure all things for the sake of those who are elect that they may obtain salvation, and with it eternal glory :heaven: (2 Tim 2:10;
cf Rom 8:30).

It’s a no-brainer, Phil; it is you who is making it difficult by your own “free will.”

Im just the clay - the potter has done with me what he Wills.

sandusky:

That is why I do not base my theology on the fallibility of “most protestants.”

Correct - you base it on the fallibility of a single one of them!

sandusky:

They might; and depending upon how they understand that parable, I might agree with them.

There’s that “clarity of Scripture” that leads to unity of faith.

 

[Philthy]

By the way, Phil, that is a double standard. As Mike has documented, Catholics are required, de fide, to believe in an election to perseverance; it is an election that is fixed in number, and will happen certainly.

It is, for lack of a better word, an OSAS doctrine.

I disagree. Fortunately it remains irrelevent.

 

[mikeledes]

You are asking a philosophical question, the following is a theological answers:Psalm 135:6

Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.

Daniel 4:35

“All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,

But He [God] does according to His will in the host of heaven

Sandunsky, God does whatever He pleases, as long as it does not violate His own righteousness. God can give the gift of final perseverance to whomever He pleases. However, He will not predestine someone to glory and then say “You know what, now I’m going to cast you into Hell.” The general point I’m trying to make is that God is absolutely Sovereign, but He is not arbitrary.

I don’t think so Phil; the reprobate know that God exists, and suppress that truth…

Romans 1:18-20
​

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.… the problem is not that they don’t have the information; the problem is moral in nature as a result of inheriting the spiritual deadness of Adam in whom they are born (Rom 5:12ff).

Acts 17:30-31

30 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,

31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” God has declared that all people everywhere should repent, (that is not an historical present tense, but a continuing action present tense), and that He will judge all men through Christ, and He furnished proof of that in the resurrection—He has furnished proof; but as Abe says, some will reject it (Lk 16:31), “they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.”

It is a genuine offer, complete with proof, shown above, and with revelation through creation, and conscience (cf Ps 19; Rom 1 & 2).

That’s the “prevenient grace” position; perhaps you should direct that to Mike.

All unregenerated sinners, Sandunsky, “know that God exists and repress that truth”, not just the reprobate. Can man, without the aid of God’s grace, come to repentance simply through reason and an act of the will? According to traditional Calvinist theology, please correct me if I’m wrong, but man apart from the grace of God is spiritually dead. In other words, a dead person can do nothing for himself. So if I say to a dead body, “I command you to walk” and the body does not walk, do I now say “Well, he didn’t want to walk?” How can that body “want” to walk if it cannot respond to that command to walk for obvious reasons.

The opposite of irresistible grace is irresistible sin. The unregenerated sinner has original sin and has thus acquired concucpisence (i.e. a “sin nature.”) Apart from God’s intervention, no one can chose or please God:

Romans 8:7-8

7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

All unregenerated sinners are in the flesh and are not able to subject themselves to the law of God. How then can one expect them to subject to God’s command to repent if they are not able to do so. External evidence (i.e. creation, witnessing miraculous works), is not sufficient to bring anyone to repentance if it is not accompanied by an internal intervention in the heart of man by God. By prevenient/ antecedent grace, I mean an internal illumniation by God which enables a person to freely chose - or reject - repentance. Like I said earlier, the word “choose” inherently entails the ability to select one thing over another. Man in the flesh is unable to choose between grace and sin, life and death. They are under the power of sin and are unable to resist it’s force. Hence, God must intervene in order to enable that person to make a choice (i.e. accept or reject). That is why an offer cannot be genuine without prevenient grace, an internal illunination/call. I believe God’s offer to the reprobate includes this. In other words, he offers suffient grace to all (elect and reprobate) that enables them to choose - or reject - repentance.

God Bless,
Michael​

 

[mikeledes]

HI MIKE ,

God permits sin. He then uses it, and other sins, for His glory and purpose. Remember the account of Joseph’s brothers who sinned by selling him into slavery and then lying to their father about it. After years , Joseph said, “And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive” (Gen. 50:20).

God meant it for good? How could that be if God is only passively allowing things to occur? Here, Joseph states that God had a purpose in their sin. Though God does not want sin, He made provision for it in His divine plan. Consider also how evil people conspired against Jesus to bring Him to death. Was this God’s plan that they do this?

“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur,” (Acts 4:27-28).
Do you see how God predestined Herod and Pontius Pilate to carry out His will? Didn’t they sin in condemning Jesus? Yes! Did God predestine them to do what He planned? Yes! Did God make them sin? No, for God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13). Yet, God, in His sovereignty predestined them to do what they did.

Thanks for the response! I think I can agree with what you just stated in your post. I believe that the events surrounding Jesus’ death were foreordained by God (i.e. predestined), but I do not believe the choices made by Herod and Pilate were determined by God. I believe God arranged everything so that Pilate and Herod would freely make the decisions they made, but did not cause them to make those decisions. Similarly, I believe God can arrange it in such a way that the elect can be saved without destroying the freedom of the will (i.e. determinism).

However, I do believe determinists, especially “Hard” determinists, do have a problem dealing with the existence of evil in the world.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[NotWorthy]

They would; what they did, they did willingly, and freely, of their own volition; God was not holding a divine .357 magnum to their head.

OK, just making sure we’re on the same page!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Would these people be held accountable for there sins no more or no less than you and I?

Romans 6:23

23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It doesn’t specify what kinda sins.
We know Pilate went on to kill himself so he’s paying the full price, no repentance there…
Don’t know Herods history after that…whether he ever repented…

 

[mikeledes]

They would; what they did, they did willingly, and freely, of their own volition; God was not holding a divine .357 magnum to their head.

Once again, I quote Romans 8:7-8

7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

A person that is in the flesh cannot please God. It’s not that they won’t please God. Is that they can’t please God for they are not even able to subject themselves to the law of God. A person in the flesh is under the dominion of sin and cannot resist its power without divine and internalintervention.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

(continued from #213)

Sigh……

In Acts 13:48, Luke states that upon hearing Paul’s preaching the gentiles rejoiced, glorified the word of God, and that as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Luke doesn’t choke on that, he doesn’t say that God is unjust, or unfair to those not appointed, but makes his statement matter-of-factly, and unabashedly, and without shame.

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be (Rom 9:14).

His focus is on the elect. He is not making a broad theological statement on the response of the reprobate.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

This is the old pelagian argument that the imperative (the command by God to do something), indicates the indicative (that man is in the state of ability that enables him to positively execute the command). You have not fallen completely into the error, because you insist that, in order for the choice given to be sincere (or as I suspect you truly mean, “for the choice to be fair”), God must give grace, not freely, to whom He wills, but universally, to every man, so that man can make the choice for good, or bad, and so that God can prove His sincerity. I would submit that your position is not scriptural reasoning, but human reasoning.

I would suggest, as well, that you read the ten commandments given in Ex 20, and then read Paul’s statements concerning the law in Rom 3, in which he makes it clear that the purpose of the law is to give knowledge of sin, but the law cannot give the power to keep one from sin.

You’re right! The law only gave knowledge of sin, not the power to keep one from sin. Only God can do that. Whatever He does to the righteous of the New Covenant in regards to grace and sin, He did it with the righteous of the Old Covenant. Grace is not something that suddenly appeared in the New Covenant. The difference is that the means of obtaining salvation was finally and explicitly revealed in Christ Jesus. Previously, those of the Old Covenant knew of Christ through the promises made and the sacrifical system that pointed to the Cross. So there is no essential difference when it comes to justifcation/salvation between the Old and New Covenants. The righteous of the Old Covenant were made righteous the same way the righteous of the New Covenant were made righteous. All of the ritual laws of the Old Covenant simply foreshadowed the New Covenant. When Christ died and resurrected, all of that which pointed to Him was done away with because it had already served its purpose and was no longer needed.

The heresy of Pelagianism took God completely out of the equation and made choice completely dependant upon man’s natural powers. The issue is not “fairness” because “fairness” has to do with giving to a person what is due under the law. Its about sincerity. If I say, Sandunksy, that I desire that you pass the math test, but I do everything possible to make you fail, how sincere is that? A “sincere” offer of salvation, Sandunsky, includes prevenient grace that enables a person to accept or reject an offer. Otherwise, it is the equivalent of giving a blind man a piece of paper that says “You will be killed tonight if you leave your apartment,” without telling him what is written on it. When the blind man leaves the appartment and gets killed, the one who gave him the message states , “It’s his own fault. Why did he have to be so stubborn. I gave him the message to read and he refused to read it.” If that man was sincerely concerned about the blind man’s safety, he would have read the message to him. Now if the blind man choses to reject the message as unbelievable and dies, the fault lies exclusively with him. You might say this is mere human reasoning. And yet you argue that sinners can use their human reasoning to know that God exists and, by implication, repent. Moreover, even Calvinists use human reasoning to explain such concepts as predestination, the Trinity, etc. You can glean many truths from pure human reasoning, including basic moral principles and the existence of God.

Joshua 24:14-15

**14"Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.
15"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." **

Deuteronomy 30:19

**19"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, **

No man can properly choose and properly serve God apart from grace. In fact, a proper choice is not possible without prevenient grace that enables that choice, whether this choice was made in the Old or New Covenants. As I stated earlier, choice, by definition, requires the ability to select one thing over another. Just as you cannot have a square circle, you cannot have choice if there is no possibility of accepting or rejecting for that is the very essence of choice.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

And what is the desire? That all men be saved and that the wicked repent and live. I believe its absolutely sincere and I’m sure that you do as well. The problem is how can you reconcile this sincere desire with the teaching that God completely witholds His grace from the reprobate. Let’s say I have been given the power to cure the blind. I see a blind man and say, “I desire that you see,” but I refuse to cure him or at least to offer to cure him. How sincere is that desire? If God has created certain men specifically for the purpose of eternal damnation, does not take into account free will in that decision, and then completely withholds the grace that would make it possible for that person to even respond to His offer, how is that reconciled with His desire for the wicked to repent and live? How do you reconcile that with Ezekiel 18:23?

The Calvinist notion of “opportunity” and “offer” is the equivalent of a person giving a blind man the New York Times to read. When the blind man doesn’t read the New York Times, the one who gave him the Newspaper says “He doesn’t want to read it.” If God withholds His prevenient grace from the reprobate, how are they supposed to submit to the Gospel’s command to repent? Man, apart from the grace of God, cannot repent.

Yes, He has the absolute freedom to extend His grace to whomever He wishes and I believe He has expressed His desire to extend prevenient grace to both the elect and the reprobate.

John 12:32

**“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men **to Myself.”

How does Jesus draw all men to Himself? The “all men”, by the way, refers to all mankind (elect and reprobate). The expression “all men” does not mean only the elect and this is demonstrated by the following verse:

1Timothy 4:10

For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

Note the distnction made between “all men” and “believers.” Drawing does not merely mean an external call to repentance. It is an internal call to repentance placed in the heart of man by God through His prevenient or antecedent grace. As Linkowksi pointed out previously, to “draw” means to “drag.” Here is the definition found in dictionary.com:

1. to cause to move in a particular direction by or as if by a pulling force; pull; drag

Thus God offers this “drawing grace” to all mankind, thus enabling them to freely accept or reject His offer. This is all I have time for right now. I’m surprised I was even able to find time to post today. I might not be able to post for several days.

God Bless,
Michael

I reaffirm what I stated in the above post. Christ said He would draw all men unto Himself, thus affirming the universality (elect and reprobate) of prevenient grace, the internal illumination that only God can provide and which enables choice.

John 1:9

9There was the true Light [Jesus] which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

Revelation 9:20

20’Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

I guess I’ll repost John 12:32:

**32"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." **

There’s a wideness in God’s mercy, like the wideness of the sea. All Glory and Praise to God!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Speaking of John 1:9, Titus 2:11 and John 12:32…what are these actually saying…

John 1:9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

Joh 12:32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

This means that all (nations/men) are drawn to him…not effectually in every case, however.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

We know this cannot mean that all are saved…but, in a sense, the Light comes to all. But who responds??? Here is another…

1Timothy 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

In a sense, Jesus died for all…but only for His sheep in another sense. We see scriptures that says He died for all - then we see scriptures that mention only His dying for His sheep. His death was sufficient for all but only efficient for some…these are those who it will be efficient for…

John 6:37 "**All that the Father gives Me **will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Joh 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that **no one can come to Me **unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

What we are confused by is the reaching out to all in all sincerety while knowing that only some will come (those whom the Father has given Him)…

Mt 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Mt 11:28 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

This is an invitation for all even though the Father only reveals to some.

Here are two others that have this type of thing going on in the same context…

Open Invitation:
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

Narrow Invitation:
John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Open Invitation:
Acts 13:39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

Narrow Invitation:
Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

God’s Sovereignty does not trump man’s accountability. This is difficult to grasp for us but…

Ps 131:1 O LORD, my heart is not proud, nor my eyes haughty; Nor do I involve myself in great matters, Or in things too difficult for me.

Isaiah 55:8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.
9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Hi Linkowski! No man can come to Jesus without God’s “drawing” grace (i.e. prevenient grace/ internal illumination) and this grace will be infallibly efficacious in the elect. That is the basic point of the passages that you cited. This does not mean that this drawing grace is not extended to the reprobate or that in none of the reprobate is this “drawing” grace efficacious in bringing the person to Christ, though they will eventually fall away. I would like to develop this point further, but I can’t do it now due to lack of time. I’ve been so preoccupied answering other posts in this thread, that I have been unable to get to this point. When we read John 12:32, we see that this “drawing” grace is a universal offer:

**32"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." **

Like you said yourself, to “draw” means to “drag” and is the same word used in the verses from John 6.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I will not be online for the weekend so I wish all of you a very blessed weekend.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Yes, He has the absolute freedom to extend His grace to whomever He wishes and I believe He has expressed His desire to extend prevenient grace to both the elect and the reprobate.

I know you believe that.

mikeledes:

John 12:32

“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

How does Jesus draw all men to Himself? The “all men”, by the way, refers to all mankind (elect and reprobate).

John continues with his narrative stating this, that, and the other, and then we come to vv37-40:37 But though **He had performed so many signs before them, YET, they were not believing in Him.**Jesus had healed the lame, the blind, the sick, and raised others from the dead, and yet, they were still not believing in Him.

The words of Abraham to the rich man in Lk 16, are pressed upon us once again, “…they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.”

Drawing “all men” in 12:32, does not mean “all mankind.”

Continuing in v38:38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,

40 **“He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.”***They will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead *(let alone be lifted up).

The Jews would not be drawn to Christ because God determined that, at that time, they would reject their messiah, and He would bring in the Gentiles; as Paul says, from the standpoint of the gospel, the Jews were enemies for the Church’s sake (Rom 11:28)—the Jews, in the national sense, were not drawn to Christ—individual Jews? Yes. All Jews, without exception? No.

Furthermore, the Jews considered Christ to be “cursed” because of the mode of His death by crucifixion:Galatians 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ***“Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—***They would not be drawn to one they believed was cursed by God (cf Dt 21:23).

Moreover, the drawing is said to occur at the lifting up of Christ; we are told that the lifting up of Christ is foolishness to all but the ones being saved (1 Cor 1:18ff); how could one be drawn to something they consider foolish?

You will say, *“it is because God gave them prevenient grace, *SO THAT by the power of their own free will they call it foolish.” Isn’t that correct?

I say they call it foolish because they have been graced, neither with the truth, nor with the understanding of the significance of the lifting up of Christ (cf Rom 9:18).

I do understand your position, Mike; I’m an ex-Catholic.

Those points should dispel your idea that “all men” in 12:32, does not mean “all mankind“ without exception,” but all men without distinction, as to Jew or Gentile (cf Rev 7:9); but it probably won’t.

 

[sandusky]

Once again, I quote Romans 8:7-8

7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

A person that is in the flesh cannot please God. It’s not that they won’t please God. Is that they can’t please God for they are not even able to subject themselves to the law of God. A person in the flesh is under the dominion of sin and cannot resist its power without divine and internalintervention.

God Bless,
Michael

Your point?

 

[sandusky]

I reaffirm what I stated in the above post. Christ said He would draw all men unto Himself, thus affirming the universality (elect and reprobate) of prevenient grace, the internal illumination that only God can provide and which enables choice.

John 1:9

9There was the true Light [Jesus] which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

Revelation 9:20

20’Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

I guess I’ll repost John 12:32:

32"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

There’s a wideness in God’s mercy, like the wideness of the sea. All Glory and Praise to God!

God Bless,
Michael

Mike, everytime I attempt to discuss something with you, you follow this same pattern: you make assertions, and don’t support them. You keep asserting that these verses support your position, but you have yet to explain how they do so.

What do you think that if you say it enough times, people will believe you?

I’m waiting…:coffeeread:

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

The heresy of Pelagianism took God completely out of the equation and made choice completely dependant upon man’s natural powers. The issue is not “fairness” because “fairness” has to do with giving to a person what is due under the law.

Mike, Pelagius taught that God holds man responsible only for those things that man is
able to do.

I hear that in your notion of prevenient grace.

For example, you say:

Its about sincerity. If I say, Sandunksy, that I desire that you pass the math test, but I do everything possible to make you fail, how sincere is that? A “sincere” offer of salvation, Sandunsky, includes prevenient grace that enables a person to accept or reject an offer.

What I’m hearing undergirding your demands for sincerity, Mike, is,***“how can God hold me responsible if I can’t make the choice He demands because my sin has impaired my decision making abilities?”***I submit that a rejection of a command is a choice. Whether or not the choice is made when one is impaired, is irrelevant, unless one is attempting to skirt their responsibility for the choice.

I assume that you have laws against drunk-driving in your town.

The drunk-driving law, sincerely written, sincerely desires that you don’t drive drunk.

You understand that law, and you go out, and you proceed to get hammered.

Then, in your hammered condition, a condition which you brought on yourself, you get in your car, and you drive, and you get busted.

You go to court. What do you do?

Complain that the law is insincere, if it doesn’t first make you sober, so you could make the right choice before you drove the car drunk?

Man is drunk on sin, Mike; why should God have to sober him up to make a choice
he’s already made? Is he not responsible for his sin?

mikeledes:

No man can properly choose and properly serve God apart from grace. In fact, a proper choice is not possible without prevenient grace that enables that choice, whether this choice was made in the Old or New Covenants.

I call that “saving grace.”

mikeledes:

As I stated earlier, choice, by definition, requires the ability to select one thing over another. Just as you cannot have a square circle, you cannot have choice if there is no possibility of accepting or rejecting for that is the very essence of choice.

I hear Pelagius in that Mike, “must be able,” “…only for what he is able to do…”

How is the rejection of the Gospel by a sinner, impaired by Adam’s fall, not a choice?

How is your insistence that, in order for the gospel to be sincere, God must give prevenient grace, not a demand put upon the creator by the creature?

And, you say that after previously saying that God is not obligated to correct the creature’s malady.

I have yet to read anything from you that supports your notion of prevenient grace, other than, you believe it to be so.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Sandunsky, God does whatever He pleases, as long as it does not violate His own righteousness. God can give the gift of final perseverance to whomever He pleases. However, He will not predestine someone to glory and then say “You know what, now I’m going to cast you into Hell.” The general point I’m trying to make is that God is absolutely Sovereign, but He is not arbitrary.

Not just His righteousness, but His character, within which are all of His attributes equally.

I understand your point, and agree; God is not arbitrary, He is purposeful in all that He does; with respect to this thread, and regarding His purpose for the vessels of wrath, He states:Romans 9:23

…to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for gloryDo you consider that purpose of God to be arbitrary?

mikeledes:

All unregenerated sinners, Sandunsky, “know that God exists and repress that truth”, not just the reprobate.

My bad—poor choice of words.

mikeledes:

Can man, without the aid of God’s grace, come to repentance simply through reason and an act of the will?

We both agree that He cannot.

mikeledes:

According to traditional Calvinist theology, please correct me if I’m wrong, but man apart from the grace of God is spiritually dead.

In a nutshell, yes; dead in sin.

mikeledes:

In other words, a dead person can do nothing for himself. So if I say to a dead body, “I command you to walk” and the body does not walk, do I now say “Well, he didn’t want to walk?” How can that body “want” to walk if it cannot respond to that command to walk for obvious reasons.

Dead in sin; he will not come; he will not come, because he cannot come; he cannot come because he is dead to the things of the spirit—a natural man; he must be made alive to spiritual things; he must be created anew (1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:4-5; 2 Cor 5:17).

mikeledes:

The opposite of irresistible grace is irresistible sin.The unregenerated sinner has original sin and has thus acquired concucpisence (i.e. a “sin nature.”) Apart from God’s intervention, no one can chose or please God:

The opposite of irresistible grace is resistible grace; the opposite of irresistible sin is resistible sin.

mikeledes:

All unregenerated sinners are in the flesh and are not able to subject themselves to the law of God. How then can one expect them to subject to God’s command to repent if they are not able to do so.

Let’s re-phrase what you say in the above quote, and ask the real question that’s on your mind:How then can God expect one to subject himself to God’s command to repent if he is not able to do so?That’s your real question.

("how can God hold me responsible if I can’t make the choice He demands because my sin has impaired my decision making abilities?")?

You are being overly literal with “deadness” of spirit. As I said above, the unregenerate is “dead in sin.” He is a “natural man, unable to discern spiritual things.” Man’s problem is a “moral” problem; he has all of his faculties, but they were corrupted in Adam; man still has “reason,” “conscience,” etc., but his whole being, including his spirit, is in rebellion to God; he wants nothing to do with God:Romans 3:10-12

10 as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” But, you don’t believe that; do you?

mikeledes:

By prevenient/ antecedent grace, I mean an internal illumniation by God which enables a person to freely chose - or reject - repentance. Like I said earlier, the word “choose” inherently entails the ability to select one thing over another.

I know what you mean, and I call that saving faith.

mikeledes:

Man in the flesh is unable to choose between grace and sin, life and death. They are under the power of sin and are unable to resist it’s force. Hence, God must intervene in order to enable that person to make a choice (i.e. accept or reject). That is why an offer cannot be genuine without prevenient grace, an internal illunination/call. I believe God’s offer to the reprobate includes this. In other words, he offers suffient grace to all (elect and reprobate) that enables them to choose - or reject - repentance.

You keep talking about God giving this grace, but, with the exception of posting a few verses, and asserting that they support your argument, without explaining how they do that, you have yet to demonstrate that God does this.

 

[Philthy]

Moreover, the drawing is said to occur at the lifting up of Christ; we are told that the lifting up of Christ is foolishness to all but the ones being saved (1 Cor 1:18ff); how could one be drawn to something they consider foolish?

Hi Sandusky -

Im not sure what you meant to imply here, but it seems that you are saying that someone cannot convert from believing the cross “to be foolishness” to believing it to be God’s means for salvation. That contention, I think we all recognize to be flatly false. In fact, the writer of the letter, Paul, once considered the cross to be foolishness - or worse. The cross is foolishness and remains foolishness when viewed exclusively through reason. It only becomes wisdom by the grace of God. So the answer to your question, “how could someone be drawn to something they consider foolish?” is that they can only be drawn by grace.