Posted on 07/03/2003 11:25:31 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
FREE GRACE OR FORCED GRACE?
Steve Witski
In his well known sermon "Free Grace," John Wesley said that the "grace or love of God, whence cometh our salvation, is FREE IN ALL, AND FREE FOR ALL" [Works, 7:373]. In this sermon he responded directly to the Calvinist teachers of the day that taught that God’s loving grace is not free for all but irresistibly forced on only some — the elect. Wesley believed that the Scriptures did not support such a teaching.
Just as in Wesley’s day, Calvinists today teach that God’s grace is not free for all but forced on only some. Some of my Calvinist brothers would object to me using the word "force" to describe the irresistible working of God’s grace on the hearts of the elect. Yet, it seem to me that I am justified in using such a word since Calvinists use the equivalent of it in their writings. This will become clearer as one moves through the article.
Calvinists typically appeal to the irresistible grace of God from John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul says that this verse "teaches at least this much: It is not within fallen man’s natural ability to come to Christ on his own, without some kind of divine assistance" [Chosen by God, p. 68]. Wesley can be seen to be in complete agreement with Sproul’s statement when he writes, "Natural free-will, in the present state of mankind, I do not understand; I only assert, that there is a measure of free-will supernaturally restored to every man, together with that supernatural light which ‘enlightens every man that cometh into the world’" [Works, 10:229-30].
Wesley taught that divine assistance was absolutely necessary for any person to come to Christ in faith. This gracious assistance comes before or prevenient to any movement of man towards God. Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ in his fallen condition without God first taking the loving and redemptive initiative.
The disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians would be over the meaning of the word draw in John 6:44; whether this divine drawing or assistance is irresistible or resistible, and whether it extends to all people as John 12:32 suggests, or just to some people. We need to keep in mind that there is a huge difference between being irresistibly compelled or forced to believe in Christ and being graciously enabled to believe.
Sproul’s position is obvious from his following words: "Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it [draw] to mean to compel by irresistible superiority. Linguistically and lexicographically, the word means ‘to compel’ " [Chosen by God, p. 69; Grace Unknown, p. 153]. He goes on argue for this meaning by appealing to two additional texts: James 2:6 and Acts 16:19. He points out that both of these texts translate the Greek word helkuo as "drag" and therefore John 6:44 cannot mean woo or lovingly persuade as some Arminians argue [p. 70].
Another Reformed theologian Loraine Boettner would be in agreement with Sproul as seen in how he inserts the following words in John 6:44: "No man can come unto me except the Father that sent me draw [literally, drags] him" [The Reformed Faith, p. 11].
Calvinist Robert W. Yarbrough sets forth the same argument that Sproul does but in more detail. He writes,
"Draw" in 6:44 translates the Greek helkuo. Outside John it appears in the New Testament only at Acts 16:19: "they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace. . . . " John’s Gospel uses the word to speak of persons being drawn to Christ (12:32), a sword being drawn (18:10), and a net full of fish being hauled or dragged to shore (21:6,11). The related form helko appears in Acts 21:30 ("they dragged him from the temple") and James 2:6 ("Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?"). It is hard to avoid the impression that John 6:44 refers to a "forceful attraction" in bringing sinners to the Son ["Divine Election in the Gospel of John," in Still Sovereign, p. 50, fn. 10].
There are a couple of problems with both Yarbrough’s and Sproul’s approach to understanding draw in John 6:44. First, their procedure of looking at helkuo is an example of a word-study fallacy known as "word-loading." This occurs when a person takes a meaning of a word in one context and then seeks to apply that same meaning into a different context. They both do this when they appeal to the use of helkuo in James 2:6, Acts 16:19 and other places, as justification for understanding John 6:44 as meaning drag or force.
Secondly, while Yarbrough does not cite from any reference work to support his conclusions, Sproul at least cites one, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). After investigating "Big" Kittel’s definition for myself, I was surprised to find that it did not agree with Sproul’s definition of draw. Albrecht Oepke comments that in John’s usage of helkuo "force or magic may be discounted, but not the supernatural element" [TDNT, 2:503]. Yet for Sproul’ s definition to hold up, John’s usage must mean to compel or force. When I turned to find out what "Little" Kittel (the one-volume abridged edition of Kittel’s massive ten volume work) had to say on "draw," I was shocked at what it had to say in comparison to Sproul’s dogmatic assertions. Here is the entire comment as translated and abridged by Geoffrey Bromiley:
The basic meaning is "to draw," "tug," or, in the case of persons, "compel." It may be used for "to draw" to a place by magic, for demons being "drawn" to animal life, or for the inner influencing of the will (Plato). The Semitic world has the concept of an irresistible drawing to God (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5; 19:19ff.; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). In the OT helkein denotes a powerful impulse, as in Cant. 1:4, which is obscure but expresses the force of love. This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic [p. 227].
What? The compulsion is not automatic? But this is exactly what Sproul and other Calvinists argue that helkuo means in John 6:44 — God literally and irresistibly compels, drags, or forces the elect to come to Christ. Yes, helkuo can literally mean drag, compel, or force in certain contexts (John 18:10; 21:6,11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; and James 2:6), but it is not the lexical meaning for the context of John 6:44, nor for that manner, John 12:32. Sproul confidently states that "linguistically and lexicographically, the word means to compel," but where is the citation of all the lexical evidence to support this statement?
The Lexical Meaning for the Word "Draw" in John 6:44 and 12:32
I have surveyed every available Lexicon, Exegetical Dictionary, and Greek-English Dictionary, that I could find in bookstores, Seminaries, and College libraries available to me. Here is a sampling of the evidence:
• A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, says helkuo is used figuratively "of the pull on man’s inner life. . . . draw, attract J 6:44" [Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, p. 251].
• The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, states that helkuo is used metaphorically "to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32" [William Mounce, p. 180].
• The Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament has, "met., to draw, i.e. to attract, Joh. xii. 32. Cf. Joh. vi. 44" [W.J. Hickie, p. 13].
• The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller says, "figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44)" [p. 144].
• Calvinist Spiros Zodhiates, in his Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, says, "Helkuo is used of Jesus on the cross drawing by His love, not force (Jn. 6:44; 12:32)" [New Testament Lexical Aids, p. 1831].
I could cite at least eight more reference works but it is unnecessary because not a single one of them defines draw in John 6:44 as "compel or force." Clearly, R.C. Sproul has not done his homework. Without warrant or justification, he has appealed to a single source that does not even support his Calvinist conclusions. He has, knowingly or unknowingly, ignored the overwhelming lexical evidence that militates against his reformed theology. To further compound his error, he has committed a basic word study fallacy in attempts to bolster his dogmatic assertions. It is surprising to find a philosopher and theologian of his caliber committing such obvious errors in his work. Calvinism relies heavily upon this erroneous understanding of draw to support their doctrines of predestination and irresistible grace. Yet, they are left without any lexical justification for their view.
Let us review the last few comments on the word draw from "little" Kittel:
There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic.
What is rather ironic in all of this discussion is that the above definition coincides beautifully with the Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace — a doctrine that R.C. Sproul denies that the Bible teaches [pp. 123-125]. Wesleyan-Arminians believe that divine grace works in the hearts and wills of every person to elicit a faith response or as Thomas Oden states so well, "God’s love enables precisely that response in the sinner which God’s holiness demands: trust in God’s own self-giving" [The Transforming Power of Grace, p. 45].
God’s prevenient or assisting grace is morally drawing all people to Himself (John 12:32). This gracious working of God does not compel or force anyone to believe but enables all to respond to God’s commands to turn away from sin in repentance, and towards the Savior Jesus Christ in faith. Thus, with all the strength of Calvinism, salvation can be ascribed completely to God, but without denying genuine human responsibility that Calvinism does.
What is also ironic is that Wesley’s understanding of "draw" in his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament is fully in agreement with the lexical evidence that we have already witnessed. He says of John 6:44: "No man can believe in Christ , unless God give him power. He draws us first by good desires, not by compulsion, not by laying the will under any necessity; but by the strong and sweet, yet still resistable, motions of His heavenly grace" [pp. 328-329].
I would like to note that several times in Wesley’s teachings we see him dispelling this notion that God uses irresistible grace to force or compel people to believe in Christ. I would like to first mention those instances in Wesley’s Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament and then those in his Works.
Jesus said in Matthew 16:24-25, "If any man be willing to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Wesley replied to these words with. . . "None is forced; but if any will be a Christian, it must be on these terms. Let him deny himself, and take up his cross— A rule that can never be too much observed" [Explanatory Notes, p. 83]. At the end of the Parable of the Great Banquet in Luke’s gospel Jesus said, "And the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (14:23). To this Wesley replied, "Compel them to come in — With all the violence of love, and the force of God’s Word. Such compulsion, and such only, in matters of religion, was used by Christ and His disciples" [Explanatory Notes, p. 258]. Paul’s argument found in Acts 17:24-28, that God has revealed Himself through His creation and providential care so that people "would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him," is interpreted by Wesley as meaning: "The way is open; God is ready to be found; but He will lay no force upon man" [Explanatory Notes, p. 465]. When Paul defended himself before King Agrippa in Acts chapter twenty-six he said these words, "Consequently, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision [of Christ on the road to Damascus]" (vs. 19). Wesley commented, "I was not disobedient — I did obey; I used that power (Gal. i. 16). So that even this grace whereby St. Paul was influenced was not irresistible" [Explanatory Notes, p. 501]. In response to the familiar words found in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 Wesley says, ". . . willeth all men to be saved. It is strange that any whom He has actually saved should doubt the universality of His grace! Who willeth seriously all men--Not a part only, much less the smallest part. To be saved--Eternally. This is treated of, verses 5-6. And, in order thereto, to come — They are not compelled. To the knowledge of the truth — Which brings salvation" [Explanatory Notes, pp. 774-775]. In Revelation chapter two Jesus says that he gives a false prophetess in the Church of Thyatira "time to repent" yet, "she does not want to repent of her immorality" (vs. 21). Wesley ’s notes read, "And I gave her time to repent — So great is the power of Christ! But she will not repent — So, though repentance is the gift of God, man may refuse it; God will not compel" [Explanatory Notes, p. 948].
In the sermon, "The General Spread of the Gospel," Wesley responds to a gentlemen concerning the idea that God acts irresistibly upon the souls of men. He writes,
You know how God wrought in your own soul, when he first enabled you to say, "The life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." He did not take away your understanding; but enlightened and strengthened it. He did not destroy any of your affections; rather they were more vigorous than before. Least of all did he take away your liberty; your power of choosing good or evil: He did not force you; but, being assisted by his grace, you, like Mary, chose the better part. Just so has he assisted five in one house to make that happy choice; fifty or five hundred in one city; and many thousands in a nation; —without depriving any of them of that liberty which is essential to a moral agent [Works, 6:280].
In Wesley’s sermon "On the Wedding Garment," taken from Matthew 22, he concludes his message by saying:
The God of love is willing to save all the souls that he has made. This he has proclaimed to them in his word, together with the terms of salvation, revealed by the Son of his love, who gave his own life that they that believe in him might have everlasting life. And for these he has prepared a kingdom, from the foundation of the world. But he will not force them to accept it; he leaves them in the hands of their own counsel; he saith, "Behold, I set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: Choose life, that ye may live." [Works, 7:317].
In "Predestination Calmly Considered," Wesley argues that God’s free and assisting grace is far more in line with the wisdom and plan of God to save sinners than through irresistible grace. He says,
how gloriously does the manifold wisdom of God appear in the whole economy of man’s salvation! Being willing that all men should be saved, yet not willing to force them thereto; willing that all men should be saved, yet not as trees or stones, but as men, as reasonable creatures, endued with understanding to discern what is good, and liberty either to accept or refuse it" [Works, 10:232].
Wesley goes on to say that God accomplishes this wise plan by enlightening mens understanding concerning good and evil and by convicting them of his sin when they violate their God given conscience. He adds that God also "gently moves their will, he draws and woos them, as it were, to walk in the light" [Works, 10:232-33]. God, in his wisdom, proceeds in this way "to save man, as man; to set life and death before him, and then persuade (not force) him to choose life" [Works, 10:233]. With God graciously moving is this way men are held responsible for their response to His loving grace. Since God has taken these gracious initiatives toward fallen man to redeem him, Wesley said God could rightly reply, " ‘What could I have done for’ you (consistent with my eternal purpose, not to force you) ‘which I have not done?’ " [Works, 10:233]
This is indeed a wise and marvelous plan by a sovereign God to save sinners. Wesley has explained well that a sovereign God does not "force one into everlasting glory," and another "into everlasting burnings" for such an action would be entirely inconsistent with the character of God our righteous and just Governor ["Thoughts Upon God’s Sovereignty," Works 10:362-363].
To be an Arminian is to be as Wesley has said — a lover of free grace. All people partake of God’s free and enabling grace. Therefore, God can justly grant eternal life or eternal death depending on how people use their grace enabled freedom. Calvinism do not have the word "draw" from John 6:44 to use in their favor to teach their doctrines of predestination and irresistible grace. On the other hand, Wesleyan-Arminians have the lexical evidence in their favor to teach that the "grace or love of God, whence cometh our salvation, is FREE IN ALL, AND FREE FOR ALL." Let us, in the power of God’s Spirit, powerfully proclaim this biblical truth in our churches today.
[Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ in his fallen condition without God first taking the loving and redemptive initiative.]
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of 'fallen condition'...???
?.....partial or total.....depravity?
See, thats where Wesley gets into trouble. Nothing wrong with "Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ" where the trouble begins is with the word "first". "First" implies a "second", and when a "second" is in man's hands then what you are getting back to is the doctrine of a helpless God who pines away hoping and wishing that man would do something right.
All of this wishful thinking that man somehow is the ultimate authority, still is a anthropocentric religion that makes man sovereign in matters of salvation. I just don't know by what calculus man feels that he can substitute for God in the claim "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." How man can distort and pervert "election" into "acknowledgement" for that ultimately is what is done even with the magical Tunnel O' Time device, is that "God's election" is really "God's acknowledgement" and that is alien to Scripture.
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of 'fallen condition' ...partial or total.....depravity?
I have been asked this too many times not to see the trap. The classical rebuttal to the "T" in "TULIP" has been to demagogue a strawman argument "total" means that man is as evil as he can possibly be. I have seen pages and pages of rants and ravings on how this can't be so. Let me head that fallacy off at the pass. "total depravity" means that there is nothing in man that acknowledge or love God. Man is not sick, he is not merely knocked out, nor dizzy; Man is not on life-support, or is in need or crutches. Man is dead. As in dead, dead. As in there is no pulse, there hasn't been a pulse, and man is three days in the tomb, rotting and sticking from decay dead. Man can't grab the rescue line; man can't feebly reach out his hand; man can't even open the medicine bottle. All of those analogies that the Pelagians have offered fail to recognize that the Bible says that man's spiritual condition is dead. So when someone says "partial" I am thinking that man has the ability to some measure or another.
When I think "total depravity", then I open to the pages of Scripture and see that "No man seeks God". "Man is in enmity with God". "They hated me First", "All man's righteousness is as filthy rags", "No one does good", "Man is enslaved to sin", "Man is dead". That is total depravity.
When I think partial depravity", I open the pages of Arminian/Pelagian/Neo-evangelical/Free-Will commentaries and feel-good books (because it is not found in Scripture) and see that man "needs to be enabled first", or "man just needs a light to follow", or "they just need to feel the love of Jesus", or some other thing that conveys the idea that man just needs a kick in the pants, and then he will straigten up and fly right.
So in that light, call me a believer in Total Depravity
Amen!
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of 'fallen condition'...??? ?.....partial or total.....depravity?
It is 'total' in the sense that man is helpless to do anything for his own salvation.
Man can still however, say no to God's free gift,(Rom.6:23,Jn.3:16) which is why man is condemned, for saying 'no' to God (Jn.14:6, Rom.1:20-21 2Cor.4:4, 1Jn.5:10)
And what Wesleyian ever claimed differently?
The point of contention is not the 'drawing' but the resisting which the Calvinist says is impossible.
Moreover, it is the Calvinist who consistently overlooks Jn.12:32 where Christ said that He would draw all men to Him.
And God chose you to be saved and rejected others the basis of what?
Just willy-nilly huh?
Just because you Calvinists do not the fact that God views His sovereign 'rights' differently then you do, (imagine a Plan that would consist of the Creator becoming one of His own creatures and allowing Himself to suffer humilation and death at their hands-now what Calvnistic conception of God with all their huffing and puffing about sovereignity could conceive of that (Phil. 2), that is no reason to reject clear scripture that He does (1Tim.2:4,2Pet.3:9).
If you want the perfect proto-Calvinist check out Jonah, upset because God forgave the city of Ninevah, after preaching of its destruction and doom!
Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I know that thou art a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, of great kindness and repentest thee of the evil (Jonah 4:2)
Why Jonah was so angry with this 'Arminian' 'wish-washy' God that he wanted to kill himself!!! (Jonah 4:3)
See, thats where Wesley gets into trouble. Nothing wrong with "Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ" where the trouble begins is with the word "first". "First" implies a "second", and when a "second" is in man's hands then what you are getting back to is the doctrine of a helpless God who pines away hoping and wishing that man would do something right.
All of this wishful thinking that man somehow is the ultimate authority, still is a anthropocentric religion that makes man sovereign in matters of salvation.
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of this Salvation?
?.....partial or total.....Salvation?
I'll accept this change in tactics, even though the article was sweating over the word "helko", trying to convince the world that it meant something other than "drag".
I don't think that I am the only person who has reminded those schooled in Wesleyian soteriology that this very same question of "resisting" is smacked down rather hard by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9 (see your question asked in v18). Since the usual debate on predestination works on Romans 9, and fearing that there would be mission creep and all of the "Five Points" would come under fire, I tried to go the scenic route and ask those who like the prospects of free-will take a trip down Memory Lane and read Job, particularly the part where God reminds man where man's place in the Universe is. I would think after that humbling experience it would be difficult for the Free Will Theorist to thump his chest and say "my decision", despite the word of the Apostle John (1:12-13), which clearly states that salvation is not something you inherit, or forced upon you by men, or something you choose on your own.
Moreover, it is the Calvinist who consistently overlooks Jn.12:32 where Christ said that He would draw all men to Him.
So the Wesleyian thinks that "Man's Will" is the Almighty Creator God's kryptonite. You would think that God's only weakness, His Archille's Heel, the point of vulnerability, the part of His own creation that escapes His control and defies His power will get a bit more recognition than through some wresting of John 12:32.
Well, I don't consider myself a "Calvinist", because "Calvinism" is more than just TULIP, it is a whole systematic understanding of theology that happens to include T,U, some 'L',I, and P. And these days, the label "Calvinist" is treated by others in the same way the KKK considers the word "nigger". Keep in mind that Spurgeon and John Gill, both Baptists, believed in the Doctrines of Grace, and yet it is the presbyterians in larger part who have taken Calvin in as one of their own. But if you like the modern day pejorative "Calvinist", then that's OK.
John 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."
There is that word "draw" (helkuo) again. The problem is that you have created a double standard, and that is why there is no chance to persuade you through word studies alone. As the thread started, the Weslyians have rejected the original meaning of "helkuo" and have redefined it with a word of their own preference, and we have already been around that tree. Now the Greek says "pántas helkúsoo prós emautón", or rough word for word translation: "'all' 'will draw' {men} 'unto' 'me'" The word "men" is inserted because the context of the passage makes 'pántas' mean, based on whether we are speaking individualy or collectively to "all people", or "all peoples". And there is a difference between the two, the former seems to be your preferred translation "every person of every land and every time without distinction", and "some of all types". If I say that "pántas" is presented as a collective and therefore yields a "some of all types" translation (as the New King James translators have read it), then the Weslyian, in defense of this proof-text, will attack my defintion (which in this case has basis). If you don't attack my choice, then the redefintion of "draw" to mean "persuade" (which, if "persuade" was the author's intent, the author would have used the word "peitho") is moot since God could be said to only effectively woo some people, but not everyone without distinction.
I could give you plenty of passages in Scripture where "pás" (root word) does not mean "everyone without distinction" (example: Mark 1:5, did everyone with absolutely no exception go to the river Jordan and become baptized, or where some from all classes of men represented?). Granted, "all" could mean "everyone without distinction", and so the argument would continue to be between "absolute all", and "representative all".
This is where it gets difficult to discuss these things with the Free Will Theorist. The FWT will be free and loose concerning select words and be irrationally dogmatic about a single specific meaning on another. In a vacuum, outside of context, and isolated from any doctrinal biases, "pántas" can mean absolute or representative and no one can be reasonably dogmatic about either view. But the word "helkuo" is specific in meaning and clearly means "to drag". If "woo", "persuade" or "influence" was the intent then John would have used "peitho". You have stolen John's ability to actually say "to drag" because you have hijacked the meaning of "helkuo" to be a synonym of "peitho" and have left us with no word to say "to drag". It is dishonest to do so, and is even made worse when one treats the proof-text like a bottle rocket and shoots if far away from its context.
But let's reinforce a point made earlier. Romans 9 must be one of those chapters torn out of the Weslyian Loose-Leaf Bible because you ask this question:
And God chose you to be saved and rejected others the basis of what?
Clearly the FWT is hung-up on merit. In FWT soteriology, it is by merit that one is saved. For example: "I am saved because I chose Christ". The word "because" says that the "cause" for being saved is "I chose", or "I did a meritorious thing" (since we can't say "work" even though "work" is implied). How is it meritorious? Because by doing it, one has received a benefit - that is "eternal life". In contrast, by NOT doing "it", then one receives the default, which is death. Classic cause and effect equation. By doing a good thing, in "choosing Christ", the consequence, or the reward is eternal life. Just like a job, the employer extends the employee the opportunity to do a good thing (make the employer some money), and if the employee does the right thing, then the reward is a wage. The good work in this case is nothing to strenuous or time consuming, just do the right thing and "choose Christ". This makes salvation contingent on merit. This same meritocracy is polluting the question you asked. The Bible keeps telling us that salvation is not based on merit. (Eph 2:8-9) nor is it based on some alleged free will choice of man (John 1:12-13). What Romans 9 does indeed teach is that "we don't know" why God made some people as vessels of mercy and made other people vessels of wrath. We do know why we have both types (to show God's Glory) , but we don't know why "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated". It is the Potter's choice to create vessels that suits his purpose. And your question that you have posed is just as defiant against God's arbitrary means of choosing one over the other as the hypothetical questioner in Paul's "conversation".
So to answer your question, is to admit that God operates salvation based on merit, and I and the Bible categorically deny that such a system exists. And I am equally offended that you consider God's soveriegnty and His infinite wisdom to be "willy-nilly". I would expect that kind of language and sentiment to come from the mouths of scoffers. But in your "willy-nilly" treatment of the Wisdom of God, there is a reflection of the overall attitude shared by the anthropocentric doctrines of the FWT.
Luke 15:7 "I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.
What is the point, you ask? Simple. If the FWT believes that Man is sovereign over his own salvation, and the ultimate decision belongs to Man, then when the FWT uses his (alleged) free-will to "choose Christ", then the cause of joy in heaven will be due to the Man and not God. The reason that heaven is rejoicing is not because of God, but the focus and purpose of their joy is about You. Am I the only one seeing the blasphemy here in that Man is receiving the Glory that is really due only to God and God alone?
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'
Before you get puffed up and think that God's Plan requires Him to let you take control, be reminded of this: The only thing made by man that will be in Heaven are the scars on the Son of God. It ain't something to brag about.
In regards to your slander against "Calvinists" by ridiculing Jonah and distorting the reason for his demeanor, it is more indicitive of a troubled mind that has contempt for God's Wisdom and seeks to replace the perfect and Holy God's wisdom with the egocentric and corrupted desires of the flesh. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God
Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ in his fallen condition without God first...
See, thats where Wesley gets into trouble. Nothing wrong with "Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ" where the trouble begins is with the word "first". "First" implies a "second", and when a "second" is in man's hands then what you are getting back to is the doctrine of a helpless God who pines away hoping and wishing that man would do something right.
All of this wishful thinking that man somehow is the ultimate authority, still is a anthropocentric religion that makes man sovereign in matters of salvation.
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of this Salvation?
?.....partial or total.....Salvation?
?.....partial or total.....Salvation?
I thought you were joking. Salvation is either "total" or it isn't "salvation". I would love to hear what distinguishes hypothetical "partial" salvation from "total". Is "partial" a salvation where God only teases someone? Otherwise, you got me here. (scratching head)
See, thats where Wesley gets into trouble. Nothing wrong with "Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ" where the trouble begins is with the word "first". "First" implies a "second", and when a "second" is in man's hands then what you are getting back to is the doctrine of a helpless God who pines away hoping and wishing that man would do something right.
All of this wishful thinking that man somehow is the ultimate authority, still is a anthropocentric religion that makes man sovereign in matters of salvation.
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of this Salvation?
?.....partial or total.....Salvation?
I thought you were joking. Salvation is either "total" or it isn't "salvation". I would love to hear what distinguishes hypothetical "partial" salvation from "total". Is "partial" a salvation where God only teases someone? Otherwise, you got me here. (scratching head)
?.....What part of 'Salvation' is NOT a Gift???
I am loathe to say "I am of Paul", or "I am of Apollos" or "I am of Calvin". The term "Calvinist" among friends is a shortcut to say "I believe in the Doctrines of Grace". Just like those who are of the FWT crowd are often called "Arminian", though most rarely hold but to just a few of the tenets of the Remonstrants, the term "Arminian" is an intramural term for distinguishing "Calvinist" from non-Calvinist. My favorite label for one who belives in "Religia Americana" (the predominate view within evangelical circles such as the Southern Baptists and Bible Churches) is "semi-Pelagian".
But to answer your question, I have been accused of being a Do-It-Yourself Christian.(not that I saved myself, but that I don't automatically embrace 1689 Baptist Confession, the Belgic or the Westminster, rather I consider them as guardrails.) For instance, I prefer to consider John's Baptism as a sign and something that is optional rather than view it as a sacrament as everyone else does. (So this kicks me out of the Baptist camp) I have reason to believe that John's Baptism wasn't full immersion, but rather "dry-cleaning" (sprinkled). Yet I don't subscribe at all to the Roman Catholoc or Covenant Theology's sacramental view of baptism. (More of a believer's baptist rather than one who baptises the unregenerate.)
Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I am not a Mary Idolator, and feel that Mary would have been living in sin if she ignored the Genesis 1-2 commands that a man and woman marry and have children.
In terms of lapsarianism, I am certainly not a "common grace" infra, and I feel that supralapsarianism isn't quite there either, so I am a Hyper-Ultra-Mega-Arch-Supralapsarian
I am aligned with Mark & Luke regarding divorce, not Matthew
The list of stuff goes on concerning how I differ from Calvin and many of the Reformers. So if someone wants to argue soteriology, I will be a Calvinst just to keep the lines simple. But if one wants to get into other doctrines then lets shy away from the label Calvinist until proven otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.