Posted on 11/13/2008 6:57:12 AM PST by Between the Lines
I confess that I'm having trouble making sense of your question: According to Webster, noetic means of, relating to, or based on the intellect. You seem to be adding something to that definition, though from your comment I can't quite make out what it is.
In terms of the basic definition, I believe that I would be affirming sin as a "noetic" entity -- explicitly so, given that "choosing" implies the exercise of the intellect to decide between options. To deny the "noetic" aspects of sin would be to deny the existence of free will, a position that I quite obviously reject.
I do not claim to know the exact manner by which the Fall operates, in the sense of what "mechanisms" are at work. I believe that one aspect of the Fall is to skew our view of the world, and thus the decisions we make as a result. The fact that we decide based on a flawed perspective, still requires the ability to decide.
In that context, I think that the Fall did somehow hinder our ability to decide properly. I would say that the Fall had a "noetic effect," but that it did not shut down our noetic abilities. (Indeed, if that were the case it's difficult to imagine us having this discussion at all!)
Theologically, the noetic effects of sin are "the ways that sin negatively affects and undermines the human mind and intellect." I think that this is undoubtedly true, but it says nothing about the ability to choose; rather, it would refer to our ability to properly discern.
This does not require, however, that all of the inputs to our intellectial are "totally depraved." Indeed, the Gospels depict Jesus as moving among people who are able to recognize Him as something good, even if they often had difficulty in going beyond that recognition.
Thus, we know that we do not possess "free will" in the sense that Adam did prior to the Fall, esp. as wrt doing anything positive/good toward God , like "choosing" eternal life.
You've gone too far here. Even supposing that we can no longer choose to obey perfectly, that does not logically imply that we must choose to disobey completely. Referring again to the Gospels, there are any number of examples of people doing things "positive/good toward" Him, even if they did not fully understand their choice. Consider, for example, the woman in Luke 7:36-50, which ends, And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." Jesus contrasts the behavior of this woman, with that of Simon, His host -- we see in this story both sides of the choice that faces us all.
What's missing in your response is any discussion of the nature of sin: what is sin? Adam sinned by choosing to disobey God. Since you trace our tendency to sin back to Adam, does it not follow that Adam's ability to choose, was passed down to us along with the consequences of his decision? The Gospels certainly indicate this to be the case.
I don’t see how you can make a distinction. If one’s ability to discern truth is hampered by sin in and around them, then how can they choose rightly? The mind is clouded by sin, in fact it is actually dead, spiritually speaking. The truth cannot penetrate the mind clouded by sin to the point where sufficient truth to obtain salvation is possible.
That is why we need a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit to put us in the right mind so that the truth of God’s salvation can penetrate and change us. We call this regeneration, and it only comes to God’s elect.
The will is directly related to the mind and also affected negatively by sin. The fact is we do not posses the "free will" that the 1st Adam possessed. We are fallen, and our will is in bondage to sin. Our present "natural" condition is at enmity with God. We hate God and we do not seek His salvation because we do not will to do so. We cannot choose to do good or evil towards God and more than we can choose to jump off a 20 story building and fly like a bird. That action would be entirely contrary to our human nature.
There is nothing in the Bible after the story of the Fall in Genesis that indicates man has a "free will" you have conceived it. "Natural man" is not inclined to do any moral/ethical good towards God. It is only after the working of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life that they are able to do good towards God. Good works, like our faith, is a gift of God, and not something that is innate
What's missing in your response is any discussion of the nature of sin: what is sin?
Simply put, sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the Law of God. Not all of what Adam possessed is available to us. Adam was able to live forever as long as he obeyed God. When he sinned he lost that ability, and all of his posterity. So too with his ability to choose good and evil. He lost that ability when he sinned and so too all his posterity, until the appearing of the 2nd Adam, who was able to choose good only. There is nothing in the gospels or any place else that indicates unregenerate man is able to choose good towards God. within the fallen soul.
You just made the distinction yourself. "Choosing" is essentially a mechanical act, based on the consciousness of alternative actions, followed by a process of selecting one over the other. Simply to be conscious of choice, implies the awareness of different paths and different consequences. Discernment is the means by which we evaluate the consequences of each.
Your argument, for it to work at all, demands that all people be utterly unconscious of the idea of "choice," in all circumstances. That is clearly not the case, for anybody who has a minimally functional mind. We all exercise choice, all the time.
The mind is clouded by sin, in fact it is actually dead, spiritually speaking. The truth cannot penetrate the mind clouded by sin to the point where sufficient truth to obtain salvation is possible.
Let us grant that there are those who are so far gone as to be utterly unable to discern truth. There is no basis in empirical observation, nor in Scripture, for assuming this to be the general condition of mankind. God rather obviously communicates with humanity on the basis that they're able to discern truth at some level.
Beyond that, you seem to be setting an unnaturally (and un-Scripturally) high threshold for the sort of decision required to "obtain salvation." The woman in Luke 7, or the Samaritan woman at the well, or the thief on the cross, or any number of others ... they were sinners of precisely the sort you describe. Their salvation was rooted in nothing more than the most basic acknowledgement of Jesus, and it is clear from that Gospels that their decision is a crucial component in that process.
That is why we need a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit to put us in the right mind so that the truth of God’s salvation can penetrate and change us. We call this regeneration, and it only comes to God’s elect.
While I will most certainly not denigrate the role of the Holy Spirit in setting people right, the body of Scripture does not support this statement. (Nor, for that matter, does my own experience support it.) Worse, the underlying logic of your statement reduces to the proposition that sin is God's will -- which in turn suggests that "sin" does not actually exist. Which again is counter-Scriptural.
Moreover, your introduction of "God's elect" into the discussion reminds us that you therefore also believe that many (most) people are not among them. And yet those among the non-elect clearly have and exercise choices every day, many of which are the same as those that you (presumably one of the elect) would make, and for some of the same reasons. Either they're actually able to discern truth at some level (which you suggest they cannot), or they're just automata under God's complete control -- which makes no Scriptural sense whatever.
To use the words of a friend of mine, Scripture makes clear that God is sovereign, and that we're responsible. What's in the middle is a mystery. But the fact that we're responsible, only makes sense in a context where we have the power to decide and choose.
There is nothing in the Bible after the story of the Fall in Genesis that indicates man has a "free will" you have conceived it. "Natural man" is not inclined to do any moral/ethical good towards God. It is only after the working of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life that they are able to do good towards God. Good works, like our faith, is a gift of God, and not something that is innate
Sorry to say, but you seem now to just be making things up. The "facts" you're stating are little more than self-referential claims made to support your argument. Scripture does not agree with you.
For example, the Old and New Testaments are full of stories wherein people are, in fact, "inclined to do ... moral/ethical good towards God." Abraham is an obvious case. I gave you an excellent example (Luke 7:36-50) in my previous post. That they cannot perfectly do "moral/ethical good" is of course a consequence of the Fall. But it is blindingly obvious that they are at least inclined to do it.
Moreover, the Bible shows God interacting with mankind in a way that can only be explained in terms of that "inclination." Even with something as dramatic as St. Paul's conversion, or Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, God requires people to make a choice.
And speaking more personally, I can share with you one of the major features of my own conversion. God said to me, "You know I exist. Now what are you going to do about it?"
I appreciate your contribution to this discussion very much. I am copying your answer to topcat54 for reading in our Bible institute on the mission field. It will be trnaslated into Chinese.
We have seen Chinese go to the States for post-grad studies, while there get their head full of religious intellectualism, and when they return, they try to take over (quite literally, and most often very, very rudely) thinking they have really arrived.
This is a terminology issue. I do not deny that folks can make choices. What I deny is that folk have a "free will" or natural ability to make any correct choices wrt God, that is, insofar as religion is concerned. (I do not confuse being able to carry on an intelligent conversation in this forum with the moral ability to make "free will" choices for God. They are two different birds.)
The woman in Luke 7, or the Samaritan woman at the well, or the thief on the cross, or any number of others ... they were sinners of precisely the sort you describe. Their salvation was rooted in nothing more than the most basic acknowledgement of Jesus, and it is clear from that Gospels that their decision is a crucial component in that process.
But there is nothing in any of these texts to suggest that these folks were able to make their "choice" apart from the special working of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Jesus could say "your faith has saved you" knowing that even our faith is a gift from above (Eph. 2:8,9). It is not something that lies naturally in any human being. Supernatural faith, that which leads to eternal life, is from above. Unlike the 1st Adam, We have no "free will" to choose God apart from divine intervention.
When Jesus asked Peter, "who do men say that I am?" Jesus’ response to Peter’s answer was not to commend him for his excellent "free will"-enabled, well-discerned commentary. He pointed, rather, to the true source of real knowledge, that is, God Himself (Matt. 16:16).
For example, the Old and New Testaments are full of stories wherein people are, in fact, "inclined to do ... moral/ethical good towards God." Abraham is an obvious case.
You are confusing regenerate with unregenerate. How did Abraham get to the point in his life where he was able to choose God? Why did no one else in Ur exercise their "free will" and go after the true God besides Abraham and his family? Abraham could only choose God because God had first chosen him and work in his soul to revive his dead, stony heart.
There is no example in the Bible of an unregenerate person choosing to do some moral good toward God while in an unregenerate state. That is because they are dead in trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:5) and incapable of any moral good wrt God.
"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13)
I find it impossible to state politely how completely I reject this statement! It is not mere "terminology."
What you've done, is to remove God from everyday life. Every lesson of Scripture -- most especially the Incarnation of Jesus Christ -- tells us that our everyday lives and our religious lives are not "different birds." They are inseparable. What we do -- whatever we do -- matters to God. To deny free will with respect to God, is to deny the possibility of any choice whatsoever, and it reduces us to the status of automata.
But there is nothing in any of these texts to suggest that these folks were able to make their "choice" apart from the special working of the Holy Spirit.
None of what I say should be taken to imply that the Holy Spirit has no role, because that would be utterly wrong. The Holy Spirit is at work within us. But I stoutly deny the idea that you have untangled the fundamental mystery of how the Holy Spirit somehow straddles the gap between God's sovereignty, and our responsibility.
Which reduces not just us, but Jesus Christ also, to nothing more than a character in a stage drama, in which all of the lines are written beforehand. I utterly reject that doctrine, too. I refuse to relegate Jesus to the position of "member of the cast," regardless of the the fact that He would have the starring role. We are made in God's image, after all -- and something made in "God's image" cannot be just some dead character on the pages of a script.
How did Abraham get to the point in his life where he was able to choose God? Why did no one else in Ur exercise their "free will" and go after the true God besides Abraham and his family? Abraham could only choose God because God had first chosen him and work in his soul to revive his dead, stony heart.
Your questions are good ones -- I've asked them myself, in fact. They are central to the mystery of the relationship between God and mankind. But we must be clear on the fact that the story of Abraham is incomplete in many ways. We're only told the story of one great man who heard God's call and accepted it. We don't know if other great men heard and rejected God's call. We don't know if there were lesser people who heard God's call and accepted it. We're told a vitally important story; but we must not assume that it's the only story that could be told.
Your answer, however, presupposes that the reason for Abram's response to God's call is that God made him do it. But that's contrary to all human experience: we have choices, and we exercise them; you say so yourself.
More than that, the plain reading of Scripture refutes your approach: God deals with Abram (and many others) on an if/then basis. Abram has a choice! And as a result, Abram sometimes does as God asks, and sometimes he does not. God makes a covenant with Abram, and coventants are two-way deals.
And again: we are made in God's image. This is not just some dry, lifeless idea. It is a fact, and as such it has real consequences and meaning. It means, for example, that we are capable of entering into covenants with God as partners, even if vastly unequal ones. To enter a covenant implies choice; a covenant without choice is no covenant at all.
There is no example in the Bible of an unregenerate person choosing to do some moral good toward God while in an unregenerate state.
Which really means, there are no examples that you will acknowledge as such. The reason for that is that you're reading Scripture through a lens of your own making: you DEMAND that all actions toward God be directed by God; and thus you see it so.
The refutation of that approach is found in one simple, wonderful word. "Love." God LOVES us. Not as we might love our wrenches or favorite chair, but as beings who are able participate in relationship with Him. The Person of Jesus Christ makes sense in no other way: again I remind you that we are created in God's image. And it is in that context that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
I have to tell you, FRiend, that despite your obvious sincerity, you are preaching a false Gospel -- one in which hope is extinguished and replaced by fatalism: we're either elect or not, and God has already decided our fate. "Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed."
The true Gospel is different: it is loving and kind. It offers hope to the oppressed, and we are surely oppressed by our sins. The true Gospel comes from a God who can say,
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matt. 11:28-30)This is not an order, it's an invitation -- and we're given the choice of whether or not to accept it.
Again, you are confused by your choice of terminology. If you cannot see the difference between intercourse among humans and the approaching the divine throne then it is no wonder you are confused about the matter of our alleged "free will". They are entirely different categories of activity.
The fact remains that one cannot approach God unless and until the are sovereignly called by Him. When this happens their wills are changed and they are given he ability to do good, morally speaking. The hearts of stone are turned into hearts of flesh.
But I stoutly deny the idea that you have untangled the fundamental mystery of how the Holy Spirit somehow straddles the gap between God's sovereignty, and our responsibility.
But my alternative, which is based on the Scriptures I’ve given, is far better than your alternative which is based on conjecture.
More than that, the plain reading of Scripture refutes your approach: God deals with Abram (and many others) on an if/then basis. Abram has a choice!
But the fundamental choice for God cannot be made by any human until their dead soul is made alive and their defective will is renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit. From the point on they are given the ability to choose right towards God. They do not always do it perfectly, but only now do they have the ability to do it at all (unlike those who remain unregenerate).
The reason for that is that you're reading Scripture through a lens of your own making: you DEMAND that all actions toward God be directed by God; and thus you see it so.
I don’t demand anything. I simply read what the Bible in a way that does justice to all the information I read. I must acknowledge a sovereign God in all areas, not just those that are to my liking. Your problem is that you think too highly of men and too little of God (and who He is). He is the Potter and we are the clay. Not vice versa.
I have to tell you, FRiend, that despite your obvious sincerity, you are preaching a false Gospel
I’ve been called worse. But until you can convince me from Scripture alone that such is the case, I’m afraid you have nothing that I can hang my hat on.
Let me say that I would love to believe what you believe. I would love to believe that man is so good that they can do right toward God without the need for a change; regeneration. I would love to believe in "free will" since it is the most noble belief of autonomous man. It is the view of the Enlightenment, not the Reformation. IOW, it fits well with the worldview of sinners who cannot see God as He truly is.
The true Gospel is different: it is loving and kind.
I’m afraid your gospel as you have tried to articulate it is quite stunted. It leaves us with no hope in the face of reality. "Free will" over and against God claim to absolute sovereignty leaves us with pure chaos and no hope in this life. It makes Christ claim as Lord of all an empty one, since He is at least not lord of your will.
This is not an order, it's an invitation -- and we're given the choice of whether or not to accept it.
Dead men do not accept invitations to anything. Like Lazarus, they must be called to life by Christ before they can come forth from the tomb. And we are more often than not compared to dead men being brought to spiritual life (Eph. 2:4,5).
For you sin is a sickness, like a cold, that with some fortitude we can overcome by the exercise of our "free will". For me, sin is death. Only a loving, benevolent, and sovereign God can cure spiritual death.
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. … No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. … And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." (John 6:37,44,65)My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. (John 10:29)
That is completely and utterly false.
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is,'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Matt. 12:28-32)
There you have it: love God, love your neighbor. Not two "entirely different categories," but rather the defining characteristics of our entire relationship with God. Jesus made clear that our responsibilities toward our neighbor. And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
But my alternative, which is based on the Scriptures I’ve given, is far better than your alternative which is based on conjecture.
So far as I can see, you've given me two out-of-context lines from St. Paul. I gave you the words of Jesus Christ that directly address the topics at hand. If you really want to reduce this discussion to a Scripture contest, mine are bigger than yours.
But the fundamental choice for God cannot be made by any human until their dead soul is made alive and their defective will is renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit.
No. That's a circular argument based on an assumption that your position is a priori true.
I don’t demand anything.
Of course you do. You demand that I accept the truth of your doctrine, and read Scripture in the same way you do. (I have to point out the irony of your trying so hard to convince me of a doctrine that contradicts your very attempt.)
I simply read what the Bible in a way that does justice to all the information I read. I must acknowledge a sovereign God in all areas, not just those that are to my liking.
Your language betrays you here.
Your problem is that you think too highly of men and too little of God (and who He is). He is the Potter and we are the clay. Not vice versa.
Well, that's cute, but inaccurate. I think highly enough of God to value His creation as it deserves to be valued. That includes accepting the implications of what it means to be "made in His image." I do not deny the fall or its consequences, nor do I deny our sorry, sinful state. I've made enough terrible decisions to understand my own tendencies. All that said, I simply accept that we have a choice, because that's part of what it means to be made in God's image.
But until you can convince me from Scripture alone that such is the case, I’m afraid you have nothing that I can hang my hat on.
You're dead, then. By your own statements, Scripture alone can do nothing of the sort. Nevertheless, to a human capable of rational thought -- which you are, despite your protestations to the contrary -- Scripture absolutely does tell us that we are responsible for our choices. Any rational, Scripture-based doctrine of sin, salvation, or damnation must acknowledge the role of human decisions.
I am finished this conversation. It is quite literally pointless. You will not convince me that your man-as-automaton theology has any connection with reality; and your self-imposed doctrine of strict unconvincability means that my words are wasted on you.
So ... have a nice, pre-destined life. I plan to live mine like my choices matter.
You're not getting it, so rather than continue to beat a dead horse I'll think I'll bow out.
Dear brother in Christ. The testiness you've evidenced near the end of this thread was once my own. I, like you, couldn't abide hearing the name Calvin, or the idea of some sort of predestination, or the fact that men's vaunted "free will" was not exactly as I had been taught in public school -- "you can do it!"
It was only by the grace of God that I came to gratefully embrace the truth of God's everlasting hand in all things. As one who has believed both perspectives, I can tell you unequivocably that Calvin was right and my life has been graced by this fact. All of us Calvinists wish for you this same security and confidence in God's perfect word and will.
Some time when you haven't anything better to do, read the following essay and some of the accompanying links.
The arguments you've used on this thread are exactly the same arguments Roman Catholics use on the forum -- men are capable of choosing righteousness; men are inherently "rational;" Christ has redeemed the entire world; and men are autonomous beings in a universe merely created, but not controlled by God.
The Reformation was waged to correct these errors. But as we know all too well after this election, progress can be slow and our human tendency is to slip back into error and liberalism.
It's said that Calvin understood the true meaning of "grace" after studying Ephesians 1. This chapter is pivotal to knowing who does what when in our salvation. I found this link this morning which offers many of Calvin's sermons, including those on Ephesians 1...
From the FIRST SERMON ON EPHESIANS 1...
" But let us bear well in mind these words where it is said, ‘the saints and faithful ones in Jesus Christ’. For St. Paul shows that all the holiness of men is nothing else but pretence until God has brought them to his own service and dedicated and consecrated them to it by faith. For we are all unclean by nature, and nothing but infection can come from us. It is true that, if men put on some fine outward show and appearance, they will be accounted as righteous as can be, and their virtues will be commended everywhere, just as we see that a man can acquire the reputation of great perfection if he but possesses some fair qualities. But we must remember that it is said in the fifteenth chapter of Acts that God cleanses men’s hearts by faith [15:9]. And he had great reason to do so, for (as the prophet Jeremiah says) man’s heart is a pit of horrible confusion [17:9]. We ourselves do not perceive it, but God has clearer eyes than me. Be that as it may, let us assure ourselves of this, that all the holiness which men imagine they have is but corruption and abominable before God, until such time as they are made one by the faith of the gospel. Therefore note it for a settled point that no other holiness is accepted and acknowledged at God’s hand than the holiness of believers. For except we first become Christians we are blind and can never render to God his due..."
And from the SECOND SERMON ON EPHESIANS 1...
You see then that the reason why some men find this doctrine hard and irksome is because they are too much wedded to their own opinion and cannot submit themselves to God’s wisdom, to receive his sayings soberly and modestly. And truly we ought to take warning from what St. Paul says, namely, that the natural man does not understand God’s secrets but regards them as stark foolishness [I Cor. 2:14]. And why Because we are not his counsellors but must have things revealed to us by his Holy Spirit, or else we shall never know them, and we must have them in such measure as he gives them to us...""In short, we have to note here that we shall never know where our salvation comes from till we have lifted up our minds to God’s eternal counsel by which he has chosen whom he pleased and left the remainder in their confusion and ruin. Now then it is no marvel that some men think this doctrine to be strange and hard, for it does not fit in at all with man’s natural understanding. If a man asks of the philosophers, they will always tell him that God loves such as are worthy of it, and that, since virtue pleases him, he also marks out such as are given that way to claim them for his people. You see then that, after our own imagination, we shall judge that God puts no other difference between men, in loving some and in hating others, than each man’s own worthiness and deserving. But, at the same time, let us also remember that in our own understanding there is nothing but vanity and that we must not measure God by our own yardstick, and that it is too excessive a presumption to impose law upon God so that it would not be lawful for him to do anything but that which we could conceive and which might seem just in our eyes. The matter here, therefore, concerns the reverencing of God’s secrets which are incomprehensible to us, and unless we do so, we shall never taste the principles of faith. For we know that our wisdom ought always to begin with humility, and this humility imports that we must not come weighing God’s judgments in our own balances or take it upon ourselves to be judges and arbiters of them. We must be sober because of the smallness of our minds, and since we are gross and dull, we must magnify God and say, as we are taught by the holy Scripture [Ps. 36:6], Lord, thy counsels are as a great deep, and no man is able to give an account of them.
As Christ tells us...
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them... Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" -- John 17:9-10;20"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Salvation is of the Lord.
"The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them." -- Proverbs 20:12
The Sovereignty of God is absolute and a delight to live under.
Thank you for setting the doctrines of Grace out for all to see.
“Scripture absolutely does tell us that we are responsible for our choices”
Why pray “Thy will be done” or for that matter why pray at all if we are left up to our choices? It would appear that that the efficacy of prayer is its ability to make us comfortable with our choices...sort of a spiritual opiate. God has given His revelation of Himself, what is the purpose of the Holy Spirit’s illumination if God has given all men (and women) the capacity to make reasoned choices without His assistance?
AMEN!
"Comfortable with our choices" -- because they are all from God for His glory.
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." -- Ephesians 2:4-7"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Not when we got our act together. Not when we weigheded the odds. Not when we rationalized the alternatives. Not when we accepted the responsibility. But "when we were dead in sins," Christ loved us and made us His own.
Why? For God's glory, revealed according to "the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindess toward us through Christ Jesus."
No one needs to understand election in order to be saved. But it's a shame some Christians live without the strength and sustenance provided by this Scriptural truth.
"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
Amen, secret agent Vimto. I like your homepage. Welcome to the land born of the Presbyterian Rebellion. 8~)
Thank you for setting the doctrines of Grace out for all to see.
You're most welcome. Here's another good one I found this morning.
Interesting, isn't it, how much criticism the doctrine of grace endures and how much rancor and ignorance fills threads like this which gets so much so wrong about Scripture and T.U.L.I.P?
Those who doubt the T. think too highly of men and too little of God. All men are fallen and none seeks the face of God unless and until God regenerates their heart of stone.
Those who doubt the U. make God a respecter of persons, and deny that God has named His family from before the foundation of the world. They miss the fact that mercy is free and unearned, and that the only work which saves anyone is the work of Christ on the cross.
Those who doubt the L. wrongly believe Christ's atonement was simply influential, not perfectly effectual. This error leads to the incorrect conclusion that Christ actually saved no one on the cross; He merely presented a means for men to save themselves.
Those who doubt the I. question God's integrity by nullifying Christ's promise to lose none whom the Father has given Him.
Those who doubt the P. do not trust Christ to do what He promised by redeeming God's family. Likewise, they do not trust the Holy Spirit to abide faithfully in that family according to the will and purpose of God.
...Reformed theology also emphasizes the cultural mandate, or the obligation of Christians to live actively in society and work for the transformation of the world and its cultures. Reformed people have had various views in this area, depending on the extent to which they believe such a transformation possible But on the whole they agree on two things. First we are called to be in the world and not to withdraw from it. This sets reformed believers apart from monasticism. Second, we are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the prisoner. But the chief needs of people are still spiritual, and social work is no adequate substitute for evangelism. In fact, efforts to help people will only be truly effective as their hearts and minds are changed by the gospel. This sets reformed believers apart from, mere humanitarianism. It has been objected to reformed theology that anyone who believes along reformed lines will lose all motivation for evangelism. "If God is going to do the work, why should I bother?" But it does not work that way. It is because God does the work that we can be bold to join Him in it, as He commands us to do. We do it joyfully, knowing that our efforts will never be in vain.
Now the Evangelical does not challenge this underlying philosophy of Chance as it controls the unbeliever’s conception of history. He is so anxious to have the unbeliever accept the possibility of God’s existence and the fact of the resurrection of Christ that, if necessary, he will exchange his own philosophy of fact for that of the unbeliever. Anxious to be genuinely “empirical” like the unbeliever, he will throw all the facts of Christianity into the bottomless pit of Chance. Or, rather, he will throw all these facts at the unbeliever, and the unbeliever throws them over his back into the bottomless pit of Chance.This approach of Mr. Grey is unavoidable if one holds to an Arminian theology. The Arminian view of man’s free will implies that “possibility” is above God. But a “possibility” that is above God is the same thing as Chance. A God surrounded by Chance cannot speak with authority. He would be speaking into a vacuum. His voice could not be heard. And if God were surrounded by Chance, then human beings would be too. They would live in a vacuum, unable to hear either their own voices Or those of others. Thus the whole of history, including all of its facts, would be without meaning. Van Til, Cornelius, The Works of Cornelius Van Til, (New York: Labels Army Co.) 1997.
Amen! I find it interesting that the Lord's Prayer acknowledges God sovereign will BEFORE acknowledging our sin. We're always taught that we should confess our sins first but I believe this may be in error. Rather we should confess God's control and sovereign might AND then confess our sin.
Q 28. How does the knowledge
of God's creation and providence
help us?
A. We can be patient when things go against us,
thankful when things go well,
and for the future we can have
good confidence in our faithful God and Father
that nothing will separate us from his love.
All creatures are so completely in his hand
that without his will
they can neither move nor be moved.
General revelation makes available to all men a knowledge of God’s power, righteousness, and providential rule, but it contains nothing of God’s redemptive purposes through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. God’s existence and glory are plainly revealed to all men by the things that are made, by the aid of a general illumination which enlightens every man who comes into the world so that all men clearly see God’s existence, power, and righteousness. Apart from special revelation the wisest and most educated of men have failed to discover gospel truth; in spite of their knowledge of God, none worship him as God. Instead, they worship and serve his creation. God meets the sinner’s need with “special” revelation. It is special in both content and outreach. Its content is not general truth about God but specifically God’s gracious plan of redemption including the Jewish history creating and preserving the Messiah’s line. The outreach of special revelation, is not universal but in fact limited to “many.”
That is why even when men, the wisest of men, can read the scriptures and hear the gospel taught and preached and still not respond to the “special revelation”.
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.