Posted on 06/14/2005 9:27:50 AM PDT by HarleyD
Because salvation is conditional. The gift is offered to all. Not all choose to receive.
Quoting one verse as the be-all and end-all of the discussion doesn't cut it
How many verses of scripture that overtly contradict your proposition do you require?
Also, is salvation truly conditional upon man's response? Did Jesus go to the Cross hoping that some men would respond and choose to be saved, or did He go to the Cross knowing with certainty that His death would actually purchase the salvation of those whom He said the Father had given Him? In other words, was the Cross an act of "potential" salvation, or an act of specific and certain salvation for a known and chosen people?
Sinners who have not been born again are. Spiritually dead people are separated from God, but they still have abilities. Sinful men are dead in the sense that they are guilty of sin and separated from God, but they have the ability to come to themselves as the prodigal did and place their trust in God.
Did Jesus go to the Cross hoping that some men would respond and choose to be saved
You may be ashamed of a Savior who stands at the door and knocks, waiting for the one inside to open the door, but that's how Jesus describes himself in Revelation.
I think it is interesting when Calvinists use God's sovereignty as a supporting argument and then deny his right to make a sovereign decision that salvation is conditional.
And conditional it must be, because God wants relationships - not robots. Faith, love, respect lose their meaning when they are forced upon someone.
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21-22 NASB)
Scripture teaches that man does not have the wherewithall to save himself. Salvation is by the blood of the Lamb. This, however, does not prevent that salvation from being conditioned upon man's obedient response to the gospel.
I find this to be an interesting statement which plainly shows some do not understand God's sovereignty in regeneration nor Calvinism they claim to be wrong. Doesn't God understand the heart? Doesn't God know who are His sheep? Doesn't God chooses His own?
God doesn't force anything on anyone. He knows His own and seeks His own. God knew Paul, what it would take to turn Paul to Him on the Damascus, and took steps to actively bring Paul to Him. Under your belief Paul still would have had a "choice" to "freely come to Him" even though God blinded him for three days and had a special message for him. What would have happened if Paul said, "No"? Would God have said, "Well, I guess another one got away."? I don't see where Paul lost any faith, love or respect for God who actively persued him nor do I see Paul acting like a robot afterwards.
I perfer to think of our Lord Jesus as one who comes to SEEK and save the lost. Not as one who hides behind a door to frail to act all the while hoping WE will open the door.
You really didn't answer my questions... Please read my post to you and try again.
You state: I don't see where Paul lost any faith, love or respect for God who actively persued him nor do I see Paul acting like a robot afterwards."
"Active persuasion" is not what is at issue. The "I" of Calvinism's TULIP is irresistable grace, not persuasive grace.
You state: "I prefer to think of our Lord Jesus as one who comes to SEEK and save the lost. Not as one who hides behind a door to frail to act all the while hoping WE will open the door.
Like I said before, Jesus is the one who says, "I stand at the door and knock." Your characterization of your Savior's own description of himself is sad.
And again, you accuse others of not understanding God's sovereignty and then deny God's sovereign choice to make salvation conditional upon a person's obedient response to the preached gospel.
You state: "He...seeks His own." The question is how - by what method?
I will try again, though.
An alien sinner can meet the conditions for salvation placed on him by God. He told the crowd on Pentecost, "Repent and be baptised every one of you for the remission of sins." Some chose to obediently do so, some didn't.
Jesus went to the cross with the intent of drawing all men unto him. He wills that none should perish.
You seem to believe God wills that most perish.
The context of Rev. 3:20 is Jesus speaking to a church who is ostensibly comprised of Believers, not the lost. Your use of this verse is outside of the context it was written in. You may not agree, but throwing perjoratives at those with whom you disagree is even sadder, and unproductive. If you wish to engage in discussion about this, fine, but if your motive is just to declare, "I'm right, you're wrong, so there.", then there really isn't much to talk about.
You take issue with Irresistible Grace, but I don't believe you really understand the context in which the Reformed faith uses it and understands it. I'm sure you think you do, but I assure you, you don't. Irresistible Grace is not a negation or setting aside of man's will, it is a re-ordering of man's desires, done through the agency of the Spirit and the Word, which does not force a man to choose Christ, it makes Christ and the Gospel overwhelmingly desirable, and the man freely chooses to believe. Without that work of the Holy Spirit, the man is not able to choose Christ.
If you believe that it is reasonable for us to believe that God made salvation conditional, then it should be no stretch for you to embrace the idea that God could re-order a man's desires and make the Gospel and Christ irresistibly attractive, all without "violating" his precious free will that you insist so much that man must exercise freely or he's just a robot.
It certainly at first glance might appear that way, but is perception truly reality? Certainly you should be able to answer the burning question raised here: What is it in man that causes one to choose Christ, and another to reject the same Gospel? Since your theology specifically eliminates any overt act of God in actually enabling or assisting the man in choosing, then it follow that it must be something within them. What is it?
You seem to believe God wills that most perish.
Your perception is wrong. But I will ask you this, will most, in fact, perish? And if so, is it because God could not, or would not, save them? If you say that they chose to perish, then was God powerless to prevent them from doing so? Or, is man's will that powerful, that he can resist completely the Will of God? Or could it be that God purposed that very end, in order to show forth both His Glory and His Justice and Mercy, by saving a portion of mankind, but not all?
And this is what we come to. Paul is a special person. Just like John the Baptist, Mary, Joseph, Peter, Jeremiah, David, etc. With all due respect, as great as these people were, God doesn’t have different modes and methods of salvation. There is only one way God saves people. He chooses them. God shows no partiality (Rom 2:11) which is what you are suggesting with Paul.
”"Active persuasion" is not what is at issue. The "I" of Calvinism's TULIP is irresistible grace, not persuasive grace. “
I would agree but that is not what I said. I said God pursues a person. It seems like this would be a little hard for you to deny when you’re the one who used the “I stand at the door and knock…” verse. What a Calvinist believes is that it is impossible for man to open the door without God’s help.
”And again, you accuse others of not understanding God's sovereignty and then deny God's sovereign choice to make salvation conditional upon a person's obedient response to the preached gospel. “
You say Paul was a special case and then you turn around and say salvation is conditional upon a person’s response. And you don’t see a conflict? What are the qualifications for being a “special case”?
You state: "He...seeks His own." The question is how - by what method?
God gives us to our Lord Jesus and our Lord Jesus takes care of us. That is the method. Paul states that God had set him "apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me..." (Gal 1:15-16). It is no different for Paul as it is for you and I.
For such a simple concept people sure have a hard time understanding this truth.
Romans 5
18So then as through (AJ)one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one (AK)act of righteousness there resulted (AL) justification of life to all men.
19For as through the one man's disobedience (AM)the many (AN)were made sinners, even so through (AO)the obedience of the One (AP) the many will be made righteous.
=======================
Ephesians 2
1And you were (A)dead in your trespasses and sins,
2in which you (B)formerly walked according to the course of (C)this world, according to (D)the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in (E) the sons of disobedience.
3Among them we too all (F)formerly lived in (G)the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were (H) by nature (I)children of wrath, (J)even as the rest.
DG: I presume that you intend to make the “by nature (I)children of wrath,” into a UNIVERSAL declaration of “wrath” toward ALL those who are not regenerated Christians. That such is the very nature of ALL such people. In fact, the passage is more specific. It is specifically talking about “the sons of disobedience.” DISOBEDIENCE is the key word.
Romans 2
12For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, (AA)according to my gospel, (AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
DG: Verse 14 tells of a set of people “who do not have the Law.” Thus, they could not have been Israelites or Christians. But, it plainly states that they “do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law.” That is, they act in a way which is pleasing to God, by their very nature. Also, note that “their conscience” is a key issue, We shall see this concept, later.
DG: Note that I make NO other claim, about these verses. Other verses which have a similar theme:
Acts 10
35but (AT)in every nation the man who (AU)fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.
Acts 17:
26and (E)He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having (F)determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, (G)though He is not far from each one of us;
===================
Ephesians 5
5For this you know with certainty, that (K) no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom (L)of Christ and God.
6(M)Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things (N)the wrath of God comes upon (O)the sons of disobedience.
11(W)Do not participate in the unfruitful (X) deeds of (Y)darkness, but instead even (Z)expose them;
12for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.
DG: This passage, too, should not be taken as an absolute universal description of All sins of ALL non-Christians. They are described as immoral, impure, covetous, idolators. They are the sons of disobedience. The “things which are done by them” are “disgraceful even to speak of.” Is it reasonable to contend that altruistic actions on the part of an unbeliever fall into this category? Are they “disgraceful even to speak of?”
============
Colossians 3
5(G)Therefore consider (H)the members of your earthly body as dead to (I) immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
6For it is because of these things that (J) the wrath of God will come [a]upon the sons of disobedience,
7and (K)in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.
8But now you also, (L)put them all aside: (M) anger, wrath, malice, slander, and (N)abusive speech from your mouth.
9(O) Do not lie to one another, since you (P)laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
DG: Again, as above, we have, explicitly stated sins: “immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.” And, “anger, wrath, malice, slander, and (N)abusive speech.” And, again, “the wrath of God will come [a]upon the sons of disobedience.”
===============
Hebrews 2
1For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that (A)we do not drift away from it.
2For if the word (B)spoken through (C)angels proved unalterable, and (D)every transgression and disobedience received a just (E)penalty,
DG: I presume that you consider verse 2 to mean that every action of an unbeliever, no matter how altruistic, carries automatic condemnation. This is not accurate, for several reasons, including:
Deuteronomy 17:2-6
2"(A)If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, by transgressing His covenant,
3and has gone and (B) served other gods and worshiped them, (C)or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, (D)which I have not commanded,
5then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and (E)you shall stone them to death.
DG: “Transgressions,” here, include idolatry, serving other gods, and doing “what is evil.” In the Old Testament, they incurred the death penalty. This does not describe altruistic actions by the unbeliever.
DG: Furthermore, verse 2 says that they (the people described in Deuteronomy) received a “just reward” (payment) for their horrible sins. What is a “just reward,” for altruistic acts by unbelievers?
====================
====================
NBF: what is sin? Is it not disobedience to God? Is it not "missing the mark"? "Falling short of the glory of God"?
DG: Not so sure that "Falling short of the glory of God" is called a “sin.”
NBF: These verses plainly show that the wrath of God DOES fall on those who sin.
DG: This does not follow. None of your verses say that the wrath of God is incurred by everything you might call sin.
NBF: When Jesus bore sins on the Cross, He was subjected to the wrath of God against sin.
NBF: The punishment, the wrath due for sins is not dissipated by asking forgiveness, it is transferred to Christ, or more correctly, was transferred to Christ.
DG: You still have not put forth any scripture which states this.
NBF: Sin cannot stand in God's Presence, for He is Holy, and sin is unholy.
DG: Remember Satan, in Job.
NBF: I find it curious that you apparently believe that some sins do not merit punishment, do not merit God's displeasure and wrath.
DG: Since I did not say that, and merely posted scripture, it must necessarily be that you derived that concept FROM the scriptures. “Displeasure” and “wrath” are not identical.
NBF: Adam had one command, and in disobeying that command,
DG: Note that this was a case of INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE. This is not the same category of “sin” as the “sin”(?) of an unbeliever sacrificing his life for others.
===================
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Rom 14:23)
NBF: Seems pretty clear to me.
DG: Well, it is not. You are taking one phrase, (out of context) and presuming that it is UNIVERSAL.
Romans 14
1Now (A)accept the one who is (B) weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2(C)One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is (D) weak eats vegetables only.
8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore (M)whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
….determine this--(V) not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.
14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that (W)nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who (X)thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
20(AI)Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food (AJ)All things indeed are clean, but (AK) they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.
21(AL)It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who (AM) does not condemn himself in what he approves.
23But (AN) he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
DG: Please note that the whole chapter is about Christian brothers who hold differing opinions about eating meat which had been offered to idols. Verse 23 is saying that someone who is of the opinion that eating such meat is wrong, to HIM it IS wrong. Thus, if he eats in violation of his conscience, he INTENDS to act in disobedience to that which he believes God has commanded him.
DG: It is unreasonable to make that clause, which is clearly meant to apply to a certain set of Christians, and claim that it is both UNIVERSAL and ABSOLUTE, and applies to every act (whether good or evil) of unbelievers.
NBF: Paul states that whatever is not of faith is sin, so it can be seen that unbelief must be a sin, because it is not belief, which is the verb form of the noun, faith.
DG: Both belief (pistis) and unbelief (apistia) are nouns. That is, they are names for THINGS. In this case, the CONDITIONS, or STATES of the souls of men.
NBF: Unbelief can be a description of the condituion of the soul, but at its root is the opposite of faith, which is unbelief, and is a sin.
DG: Is there a scripture which clearly states that merely existing in a state of “unbelief” is called a “sin?”
====================
[from 218]
NBF: You have said that those who reject the Gospel and remain in unbelief have committed that sin,
DG: Actually, I said those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit, within them, such that they remain in unbelief.
__________
NBF: No, you said that those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit within them have blasphemed the Holy Spirit.
DG: Please note that your sentence says the SAME thing that MY sentence says. My sentence constituted a CORRECTION of your claim. This is not the first time….
NBF: You indicated that you believed that to reject the work of the Holy Spirit in one's life constituted blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, under the broader view that you hold of that sin.
DG: That is my current opinion, not belief.
NBF: I am merely pointing out the inconsistency and impossibility of such a view.
But, instead of doing so, you restate my position, and argue against your own RESTATEMENT.
DG
I marvel that you are so reluctant to accept that all men are born sinners, and as such, are by nature sons of disobedience. Or don't you believe that all men are born sinners? There is a true saying, "men are not sinners because they sin, they sin because they are sinners."
I get the impression that you believe that it is possible for a man to be sinless by his own effort. Is that so? You seem to run from the logical conclusions of some of the things you say when they are pointed out, and claim that you're only stating what scripture says, and no more. The problem is, you make artificial distinctions, such as the reference to the sons of disobedience, when that phrase was meant as a descriptor of all sinners, and not just a subset of sinners (maybe exceptionally bad? You tell me).
DG: Verse 14 tells of a set of people “who do not have the Law.” Thus, they could not have been Israelites or Christians. But, it plainly states that they “do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law.” That is, they act in a way which is pleasing to God, by their very nature. Also, note that “their conscience” is a key issue, We shall see this concept, later.
I think you're drawing a little more than is actually stated, by saying that they act in a way pleasing to God. The point being made here is about conscience, but the point is made to show that ALL men are without excuse, because the knowledge of what is morally right is written on their hearts, even though that heart is dead in sins. What they do with that knowledge doesn't determine whether they are sinners or not, but rather the relative depths of depravity to which they sink. There are many sinners who are not depraved axe murderers, or rapists, or sadistic tortureres, but that doesn't mean that they are not sinners. ANY sin separates the sinner from God, even one sin. Adam is the perfect example of that, and whether his sin was deliberate or not makes absolutely no difference. Sin is sin, whether it's the "little white lie" or the mass murder of thousands or millions.
DG: This passage, too, should not be taken as an absolute universal description of All sins of ALL non-Christians. They are described as immoral, impure, covetous, idolators. They are the sons of disobedience. The “things which are done by them” are “disgraceful even to speak of.” Is it reasonable to contend that altruistic actions on the part of an unbeliever fall into this category? Are they “disgraceful even to speak of?”
Comparing sins so bad they are disgraceful to even speak of, with an altruistic act is a red herring. A sinner performing an altruistic act does not gain any standing with God for that action. Otherwise, a man could theoretically work his way to salvation by his own efforts. Don't you see the implications of the things you're saying?
Altruism can be performed by sinners, no doubt. But what man considers to be good and noble, and worthy of praise does not have the same stamp of approval by God. To argue otherwise is unbiblical. "All our righteousness is like filthy rags" (menstrual rags is the literal translation), and altruistic actions performed by a sinner fall into that same definition. It may be pleasing to man, But it doesn't please God. A sinner's altruistic act is like a jewel in a pig's snout, a turd in the punchbowl.
DG: Again, as above, we have, explicitly stated sins: “immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.” And, “anger, wrath, malice, slander, and (N)abusive speech.” And, again, “the wrath of God will come [a]upon the sons of disobedience.”
Those pesky sons of disobedience...they are a scummy lot, aren't they? All those dirty deeds, they give sinners a bad name....
C'mon, DG, wake up and smell the coffee! Each and every one of us was a son of disobedience before Christ laid hold of us, and brought us to Himself! You make an artificial distinction where none exists! I can only logically conclude that you are at least of the opinion that man has it within himself to be perfct by his own efforts. I can't see any other reason why you would be saying these things.
DG: I presume that you consider verse 2 to mean that every action of an unbeliever, no matter how altruistic, carries automatic condemnation. DG: “Transgressions,” here, include idolatry, serving other gods, and doing “what is evil.” In the Old Testament, they incurred the death penalty. This does not describe altruistic actions by the unbeliever.
DG: Furthermore, verse 2 says that they (the people described in Deuteronomy) received a “just reward” (payment) for their horrible sins. What is a “just reward,” for altruistic acts by unbelievers?
Altruistic behavior won't save a sinner, or ameliorate his condemnation for the sins he commits. This isn't a situation where God weighs the good and the bad, and if the altruistic sinner has done more altruism than selfish behavior, God will declare him righteous by his own works. That seems to be what you're implying, although you will undoubtedly deny that you are. However, taken to its logical end, that's where your "opinion" winds up.
NBF: The punishment, the wrath due for sins is not dissipated by asking forgiveness, it is transferred to Christ, or more correctly, was transferred to Christ. DG: You still have not put forth any scripture which states this.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isa 53:4-5)
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Heb 9:22)
Every sin that God forgives, Christ bore the punishment for on the Cross. I think that's plain enough for you to get my meaning. Show me even one verse that contradicts that statement.
23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
DG: It is unreasonable to make that clause, which is clearly meant to apply to a certain set of Christians, and claim that it is both UNIVERSAL and ABSOLUTE, and applies to every act (whether good or evil) of unbelievers.
Well, if we're going to pick and choose which verses apply to all and which only apply to some, the Bible will get pretty thin. The principle stated here is universal. Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. Whether its eating, drinking, walking, talking, anything not rooted in faith, flowing forth from faith in Christ, is sin. That eliminates the sinner from doing anything but sin, because they are not motivatesd by faiuth in Christ, but by selfishness on some level. All sin can be summed up in the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the boastful pride of life.
NBF: Paul states that whatever is not of faith is sin, so it can be seen that unbelief must be a sin, because it is not belief, which is the verb form of the noun, faith.
DG: Both belief (pistis) and unbelief (apistia) are nouns. That is, they are names for THINGS. In this case, the CONDITIONS, or STATES of the souls of men.
You know what I meant. "To believe" is the verb form of haing faith. Faith and belief are the same thing. My point is, as the scripture says, whatever is not of faith, is sin. Unbelief, by it's very definition, cannot be faith. "A" cannot be "non-A", where A is a thing, a person, or a concept, and non-A is it's opposite. God cannot be both God, and not-God. Faith cannot be both faith, and non-faith. Unbelief is the absence of faith, the absence of belief. If faith is pleasing to God, then unbelief is, by definition, NOT pleasing to God. If it is not pleasing to God, then it falls under the classification of sin.
NBF: You have said that those who reject the Gospel and remain in unbelief have committed that sin (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, the one unpardonable sin),
DG: Please note that your sentence says the SAME thing that MY sentence says. My sentence constituted a CORRECTION of your claim. This is not the first time….
DG: Although I did not advance any “definition,” it is my opinion that a rejection of the work of the work of the Holy Spirit which leaves the person in a state of unbelief does constitute “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.” (from your post 198, this thread.)
Nope, I stated the same thing you stated, and you denied that you said it. I have just shown that you did indeed say what I stated that you said. You were not correcting me, because as can plainly be seen, I understood exactly what you said, and called you on it, because if what you say is true, then NO ONE can EVER be saved.
DG: Upon seeing your post, I noticed the following.
NBF: Nope, I stated the same thing you stated, and you denied that you said it.
DG: NEVER
NBF: I have just shown that you did indeed say what I stated that you said.
DG: NO
NBF: You were not correcting me, because as can plainly be seen, I understood exactly what you said,
DG: Clearly, you didn’t even TRY to understand.
NBF: and called you on it,
DG: You “called me on” something out of your own imagination.
NBF: because if what you say is true, then NO ONE can EVER be saved.
DG: But, I did not say it. You made it up, and claimed that I said it.
-------------------------
[From post #198]
NBF: To be consistent with your definition, ANY rejection of the gospel would be unpardonable.
DG: Although I did not advance any “definition,” it is my opinion that a rejection of the work of the work of the Holy Spirit which leaves the person in a state of unbelief does constitute “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.” I have given several scriptures which so indicate.
-----------------------------------
[From post #218]
[NBF:] You have said that those who reject the Gospel and remain in unbelief have committed that sin,
DG: Actually, I said those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit, within them, such that they remain in unbelief.
---------------------------
[From post #219]
DG: Actually, I said those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit, within them, such that they remain in unbelief.
NBF: No, you said that those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit within them have blasphemed the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
To make it simpler:
You: ANY rejection of the gospel
Me: a rejection of the work of the work of the Holy Spirit which leaves the person in a state of unbelief
You: those who reject the Gospel and remain in unbelief
Me: those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit, within them, such that they remain in unbelief.
Me: those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit, within them, such that they remain in unbelief.
You: those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit within them
-----------------------
The “gospel” is not identical with “the work of the Holy Spirit.” Why do you continue in this behavior?
It is absurd, for me to have to waste time and energy to make these corrections, but it will continue to be necessary as long as you continue to “restate” my positions, and then argue against your own restatement.
DG
p.s. Will reply to the remainder of your post, as able.
Rejection of the Gospel and rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit differ in that one is more specific than the other, but I would postulate that unless the Holy Spirit is present and active at the point of hearing the Gospel, rejection is inevitable. To put a finer point on it, I see where I added my own intepretation of what you were saying, which is to say that what I wrote is how I read what you wrote. A quickening of the Gospel to the hearer is a work of the Holy Spirit, is it not?
But, and this is a big one, what you have said, in stating that rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit (which leaves one in a state of unbelief) constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is STILL an incorrect statement. Your clause between the commas, which I have put in parentheses to indicate the parenthetical nature of the clause, does not modify the statement to negate the obvious conclusion that the whole statement leads to. Rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit obviously leaves one in a state of unbelief, it could do nothing else. You could not reject what the Holy Spirit says or does, and then turn around and say you believed it, after rejecting it. Consequently, rejection ensures and perpetuates unbelief in such a case.
Rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit is NOT the same thing as saying that the Holy Spirit's work is the work of the devil, which is what Jesus pointed out when that event happened. Jesus specifically indicated that such an action was unforgiveable. Stating that the Holy Spirit's work is the work of the devil or empowered by the devil is much more than a rejection of the work, it is a false attribution of the work to a false source, and a deliberate refusal to acknowledge the true source of the work. It goes beyond resistance.
It is absurd, for me to have to waste time and energy to make these corrections, but it will continue to be necessary as long as you continue to “restate” my positions, and then argue against your own restatement.
Quit trying to play "gotcha" and it will be easier. In actuality, I think I have been able to articulate my own views more clearly than you have articulated yours. It just might be that what you perceive as a failure on my part to understand what you're saying is not a fault of mine, but a fault of yours, in not clearly articulating it.
To put a finer point on it, I see where I added my own intepretation of what you were saying, which is to say that what I wrote is how I read what you wrote.
We ALL do this, at least to some extent. We read, or hear something; and our perception of those words is conditioned by our prior experiences.
For instance, when I read the first two phrases in Owens’ “questions,” I (mistakenly) assumed that it was poorly written, and tried to figure out what he meant, in terms of my own understanding of the gospel. Clearly, I was wrong. I should have tried harder, to understand his point of view.
I will be unable to post for a while. I don’t know how long, but I will continue this discussion, when able.
DG
That is true. I try to be precise in my meaning, but it doesn't always come off the ends of my fingers the way it should. I've gotta work on that brain-fingers connection....
I will be unable to post for a while. I don’t know how long, but I will continue this discussion, when able.
I understand. I have similar constraints sometimes myself. I'll look forward to continuing when you're able.
NBF
I never said the special circumstances surrounding Paul's choosing as an apostle had anything to do with his salvation. God saved Paul just like He saved me. The word was taught, Paul believed, Paul obeyed. Remember, Ananias told Paul, "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." That's what I did. And that's what the Jews on Pentecost, the Philippian jailer, Cornelius, etc. did.
With all due respect, it is you who make God a respecter of persons when you claim God specially empowers this one and leaves the other one to perdition.
God acted specially toward a lot of people for His special purposes for them (Jacob vs Esau, for example), but that didn't effect that person's salvation. Faith did.
And faith has no meaning when irresistable. It has to be a choice of the believer or it is just programming.
God chooses a class of people for salvation: those who believe and obey the gospel. The gift is available to all.
We have never said that God "empowers" some and leaves others to perdition. God ENABLES those whom He chooses.
You still have this idea that you chose to be saved. You couldn't have, unless God had enabled you, by His Holy Spirit opening your spiritual eyes and ears to see the Kingdom of God, and to hear the Word which imparted faith to believe. Your "choice" was due to His prior regeneration of your spirit IN ORDER THAT you could see, hear, and believe. Until He did that, you could not have chosen to believe. This isn't "programming" or "robotics". It is God sovereignly working on your heart, so that you can believe.
You still have never answered my question: What is it that makes one person choose Christ, and another reject Him?
Calvinists don't believe that your salvation isn't effected without faith. As nobdysfool stated, God enables a person so they can exercise faith. And less there be any confusion faith COMES from the Word of God which is also a gift. God's grace and man's faith (which God has given him) works together to bring him to our Lord Jesus.
"With all due respect, it is you who make God a respecter of persons when you claim God specially empowers this one and leaves the other one to perdition."
Paul got the same complaint.
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48
The Reformed truth is out there, sinator, though the world has worked overtime to diminish and obscure it. But it's the faith of the Apostles, of Augustine, of Luther, of Calvin, of Owen, of Warfield, of the Reformation itself.
"For many are called, but few are chosen." -- Matthew 22:14
"And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days." -- Mark 13:20
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- II Thessalonians 2:13-14
"For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake" -- Philippians 1:29
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -- Romans 9:11
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy...Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." -- Romans 9:16;18
"For God hath not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." -- I Thessalonians 5:9
God ordained the names of the elect from before the foundation of the world. All the sheep entrusted to the Shepherd will be gathered from all nations and races and times to be brought safely home. No one is prevented from believing in Him. But all belief comes from God alone. None who believes in Him will be lost. Whatever God wills, comes to pass, for His glory. Or else He's not God, just a very large Customer Service Department.
It serves men's temporal purposes to say salvation is dependent on their wise and good earthly choices. That way men can control other men. "You have the power; give it to me."
But if salvation is dependent on nothing but God's eternal decree for His creation, determined by Him from before the foundation of the world, then who is really in control?
"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." -- Matthew 11:27
It just doesn't get much clearer than that.
Perhaps you might want to read something like this by Loraine Boettner, a righteous gentleman with a goofy first name....
FWIW, most every Calvinist on this site once believed every word you've written. Then things changed, by His grace.
If God wanted all men saved, all men would be saved. He's God; we're not. But we have His promise that Christ has paid the penalty for our sins, and that we are His. Rejoice.
"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -- John 16:33
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.