Posted on 02/08/2003 7:43:01 AM PST by Matchett-PI
God and man must both do something before a man can be saved.
Hyper-Calvinism denies the necessity of human action, and Arminianism denies the true nature of the Divine action.
The Bible clearly sets forth both the divine and human as essential in God's plan of salvation.
This is not to say, as Arminianism does, God's part is to freely provide salvation for all men, and man's part is to become willing to accept it.
This is not what we said above, nor is it what the Bible teaches. In order to understand what God's Word really says and to try to answer some "straw dummy" objections, we shall establish the subject one point at a time.
ONE: A man must repent and believe in order to be saved. No one was ever forgiven and made a child of God who did not willingly turn from sin to Christ.
Nowhere does the Bible even hint that men can be saved without repentance and faith, but to the contrary, the Word always states these things are essential before a person can be saved.
The one and only Bible answer to the question "What must I do to be saved?" is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
TWO: Every one who repents and believes the gospel will be saved.
Every soul, without any exception, who answers the gospel command to come to Christ will be received and forgiven by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Philip Bliss put the truth to music when he said, "Whosoever will, forever must endure...
If we can be absolutely certain about anything, we can be sure that Christ will never void His promise to receive "all who come to Him." As old John Bunyan said, "Come and welcome" is the Savior's eternal word to all sinners.
THREE: Repentance and faith are not vicarious but are the free acts of men.
Men, with their own mind, heart, and will must renounce sin and receive Christ. God doesn't repent and believe for us~we repent and believe.
Turning from sin and reaching out in faith to Christ are the acts of man, and every man who so responds to the gospel call does so because he honestly desires to do so.
He wants to be forgiven and he can only be forgiven by repenting and believing.
No one, including God, can turn from sin for us, we must do it.
No one can trust Christ "in our place," we must personally, knowingly, and willingly trust Him in order to be saved.
Now someone may be thinking, "But isn't that what the Arminian teaches?"
My friend, that is what the Bible teaches-and teaches it clearly and dogmatically.
"But don't Calvinists deny all three of those points?"
I am not talking about, or trying to defend, "Calvinists" since they come in a hundred 'varieties.
If you know anyone that denies the above facts, then that person, regardless of what he labels himself, is denying the clear message of the Bible.
I can only speak for myself, and I will not deny what God's Word so plainly teaches.
"But haven't you established the doctrine of free-will and disposed of election if you assent man must repent and believe and it is his own act?"
No, we have neither proven freewill nor disproved election ... since it is impossible to do either.
We have merely stated exactly what the Bible says a man must do in order to be saved.
Let us now look at what the Scripture says a sinner is able to do and what he is not able to do.
FOUR: The same Bible that states man must repent and believe in order to be saved, also emphatically states that man, because of his sinful nature, is totally unable to repent and believe.
All of man's three faculties of mind, heart, and will, which must be receptive to gospel truth, have neither the ability to receive such truth nor even the desire to have such ability.
In fact the exact opposite is true.
Man's total being is not only unable to either come, or want to come, to Christ, but every part of his nature is actively opposed to Christ and truth.
Rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is not a passive "non-action," but a deliberate volitional choice.
It is deliberately choosing to say "no" to Christ and "yes" to self and sin.
No one is "neutral" in respect to God and His authority.
Unbelief is just as much a deliberate act of mind, heart, and will as is faith.
This is what Jesus meant in John 5:40 when He said, "You will (you are deliberately making a choice) not to come to me."
Yes, unbelief is an act of the will. In fact unbelief is active faith, but unfortunately it is faith in myself.
To believe and preach points One, Two, and Three, without also preaching number Four is to grossly misrepresent the gospel of God's grace.
It is to give a totally false picture of the sinner and his true need.
It shows only half of the man's sin.
It misses the most crucial point of a lost man's need, namely, his lack of power or ability to overcome his sinful nature and its effects.
The "gospel" which is concocted out of this view is only a half gospel. It is at this point that modern evangelism so miserably fails.
It confuses man's responsibility with his ability, and falsely assumes that a sinner has the moral ability to perform all that God has commanded.
The "cannot" texts of scripture are either totally ignored or badly twisted by this perversion of the true gospel of God's saving grace.
Please note a few texts of Scripture that dogmatically state some things that a lost man cannot do:
Man cannot see-until he first be born again. (John 3:3)
Man cannot understand-until he first be given a new nature. (I Cor. 2:14)
Man cannot come-until he first be effectually called by the Holy Spirit. (John 6:44-45)
We do not have space to go into all the "cannots," but these three are sufficient to show that a sinner absolutely cannot (notice it is not "will" not) come to Christ until God first does something in that sinner's nature.
That "something" is what the Bible calls regeneration, or the new birth, and it is the exclusive work of God the Holy Spirit.
Man has no part whatever in regeneration.
FIVE: The new birth, or regeneration, is God giving us the spiritual life that enables us to do what we must do (repent and believe), but CANNOT DO because of our bondage to sin.
When the Bible says man is dead in sin, it means that man's mind, heart, and will are all spiritually dead in sin.
When the Bible speaks of our being in "bondage to sin," it means that our entire being, including our will, is under the bondage and power of sin.
We indeed need Christ to die and pay the penalty of our sin, but we just as desperately need the Holy Spirit to give us a new nature in regeneration.
The Son of God frees us legally from the penalty of sin, but only the Holy Spirit can free us from the power and death of our depravity in sin.
We need forgiveness in order to be saved, and Christ provides complete forgiveness and righteousness for us in His death.
However, we also need spiritual life and ability, and the Holy Spirit provides it for us in regeneration.
It is the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration that enables us to savingly receive the atoning work of Christ in true faith.
God is a triune God, and no person can understand His 'so great salvation" until he sees each blessed Person of the Godhead playing a distinct and necessary part in that salvation.
No man can declare the "glorious gospel of grace" and leave out the Father's sovereign electing love and the Holy Spirit's regenerating power as essential parts of God's work in saving sinners.
To speak of "God's part" in salvation as only being one of "providing" forgiveness and man's part as "being willing" to accept it is to ignore both the Father's work of election and the Spirit's work of regeneration.
This not only makes man a full "partner" with God in the work of salvation, it credits man with playing the decisive roll in the deal.
How dreadful, and ridiculous, to give Christ the glory for His work on the cross, and then give sinners the credit for the Father's work in eternity (election) and the Spirit's work in our hearts (regeneration).
It does great dishonor to the Sovereign Spirit to say, "The Holy Spirit will perform His miraculous work of quickening you unto life as soon as you give Him your permission."
That's like standing in a graveyard saying to the dead people, "I will give you life and raise you up from the grave if you will only take the first step of faith and ask me to do it."
What a denial of the sinner's total spiritual inability.
Amazing!
The root error of the Arminian's gospel of freewill is its failure to see that man's part, repentance and faith, are the fruits and effects of God's work and not the essential ingredient's supplied by the sinner as "man's part of the deal."
Every man who turns to Christ does so willingly, but that willingness is a direct result of the Father's election and the Holy Spirit's effectual calling.
To say, "If you will believe, God will answer your faith with the New Birth," is to misunderstand man's true need and misrepresent God's essential work.
SIX: The Scriptures clearly show that faith and repentance are the evidences and not the cause of regeneration.
Suppose a man who had been dead for twenty years greeted you on the street one day.
Would you conclude that the man had gotten tired of being dead and "decided' to ask a great doctor to perform a miracle and give him life?
I'm sure you would instead, exclaim in amazement, "Man what happened to you? Who brought you back to life?"
You would see he was alive because he was walking and breathing, but you would know these were evidences of a miracle having been performed on him from without and not the results of his own power of will.
Just so when a spiritually dead man begins to perform spiritual acts such as repentance and faith-these spiritual "fruits" show that the miracle of the new birth has taken place.
Let me illustrate this with a Biblical example. Acts 16:14 is a clear proof of the above.
By the way, as far as I know, this is the only place in the New Testament that uses the phrase "opened heart," and the Bible gives the whole credit for this "opening" to God's power and not to man's will.
Modern evangelism does the exact opposite and credits the opening of the heart to the power of man's "free will."
Remember that we are not discussing whether man must be willing to open his heart. We settled that under points One, Two, and Three.
We are looking now for the source of power that enabled man to perform that spiritual act.
Arminianism insists that man's free will must furnish the willingness or power, and the Bible says that the Holy Spirit of God furnishes that power or ability in the new birth.
Let us examine the one text in Scripture that uses the phrase "opened heart" and see if it agrees with our previous points:
"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16:14)
The NIV says: "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message."
First of all we note that Lydia did indeed "attend" or listen to the words of Paul.
She gladly heard and willingly believed his message. As we have already shown, she had to do this in order to benefit from the gospel and be saved.
Lydia's attending," or hearing and believing, illustrates points One, Two, and Three above, and refutes hyper-Calvinism, (which says the elect will be saved regardless of whether they hear and believe the gospel or not).
Lydia did choose to believe, and she herself did it only because she wholeheartedly wanted to.
She did not do it "unwillingly" nor did God hear and believe for her.
It was her own response and it was a most willing response.
Next, we notice exactly what God did. We see here demonstrated what God must do before Lydia can be saved.
(1) He provided a salvation of "by grace through faith" that could be preached. Obviously "the things spoken" by Paul were the gospel facts concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and surely this Lamb is God's gracious provision.
(2) God also brought the message of His provision to Lydia. He sent a preacher to tell her about this great plan of salvation.
God went to a lot of trouble to provide such a gospel-He gave His only begotten Son up to death.
He went to great ends to provide such a preacher as Paul-read about it in Paul's testimony in Acts 22.
It is at this point that Arminianism departs from the Bible and proceeds to apply human logic to the above truths.
They tragically fail to look at the rest of the Biblical text and see that God must do something else.
(3) God must open Lydia's heart (or give her spiritual life) so she will be able to believe.
Her natural mind is blind, her natural heart is averse to God, and her will is in bondage to sin and spiritual death.
Only the power of God can free her from this graveyard of spiritual depravity.
The giving of this life and power is solely the work of God.
Notice that the Bible explicitly gives God alone the credit for Lydia's heart being opened.
It is impossible not see that in this text unless you simply refuse to accept what God clearly says.
Look at the words carefully: . . whose heart the LORD OPENED...
Notice also how clearly the Holy Spirit teaches us the relationship between the cause and the effect in the conversion of Lydia.
God was the One Who opened Lydia's heart, that is the cause, and He did so in order that she might be able to attend to the truths that Paul preached, that is the effect.
Now that is what the Word of God says!
Do not bluster about "dead theology" or throw Calvin's name around in derision, just read the words themselves in the Bible.
If you try to deny that the one single reason that Lydia understood and believed the gospel was because God deliberately opened her heart and enabled her to believe, you are fighting God's Word.
If you try to get man's "free will" as the one determining factor into this text, you are consciously corrupting the Word of God.
God's grace not only provides salvation, but His power also gives us the ability to both desire and receive it He works in us "both to will and to do."
His working in us to "will" is the new birth, and, I say again, this work of regeneration (new birth) is totally the work of the Holy Spirit.
The moment we lose sight of this distinction between being "saved by faith" (the act of man) and being "born again by the Holy Spirit" (the act of God), we are heading for confusion and trouble.
We will be convinced that man is able to do what the Bible emphatically states he is unable to do.
The necessity of the Holy Spirit's work being thus theologically denied, it will not be long before it is ignored in actual practice.
This is the plight of modern day evangelism.
Since the evangelists are convinced that the new birth is within the power and ability of man's will, their man made "me theology" has become far more important than the theology of the Bible, and organization and advertising are absolute essentials to success while the necessary work of the Holy Ghost is all but forgotten.
It is true that lip service is given to the need to "Pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance," and cards asking people to "promise to pray every day" are always sent out months in advance of the big campaign.
However, some people are not sure if the promise to pray or the other pledge (to give money) which is always included ( "only your gifts can make this great campaign possible") is the most important to the success of the campaign.
But that's another subject for another day....
Your argument had little to do with actual Scripture and more to do with a philisophical understanding. You are dealing, not with what Scripture declares, but with hypotheticals.
I'll stick with what the scripture clearly declares!
Jean
Your argument had little to do with actual Scripture and more to do with a philisophical understanding. You are dealing, not with what Scripture declares, but with hypotheticals.
I'll stick with what the scripture clearly declares!
Jean
Maybe what I am struggling with here is the difference between foreknowledge of a specific event and foreordination of a specific event. Which is why, IMHO, this discussion about the Book of Numbers is not comparable to any discussion of Christ's death on the cross. Christ, the sinless Lamb, HAD to be slain as an offering; the price HAD to be paid. Moses, however, did not HAVE to enter Canaan (indeed, he did not). But, my question is, when the LORD chose Moses, did He know that Moses would strike the rock twice, thus incurring God's wrath and preventing Moses from entering Canaan.
But ineffect you are..If God had destroyed the nation of Israel then the entire plan of Salvation would have had to be changed..
"and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham." Matt. 3:9
I think that if God had indeed destroyed the nation of Israel, somehow He would have figured out a way to still make the plan of Salvation work.
Pony this was all about God's glory at this point..those that had no faith in Him and were not obedient were not to occupy the land...PERIOD..
Well, no, I think it ends up with God's glory, but it starts with choice, doesn't it? When that generation of Israelites left Egypt, did they or did they not have the opportunity to inherit the land of Canaan? If not, was it because God foreknew they would not or is it because God foreordained they could not?
Did God foreknow that Moses would not enter and Joshua would? I suggest you look to the name and the typeology of Joshua
This is what I would think too. But, then what are the ramifications of this, specifically is the future set in stone or are there many different possibilities for what tomorrow holds?
I know that the LORD has a specific plan for the cumulation of history, or else I would just have to rip the Book of Revelation out of my Bible (God forbid, lol!) So, while the destination is clear, is there one specific highway to get there or are there several, but all arriving at the same pre-determined destination?
Or, to put it another way, when an orchistra sets out to play a sympony (Bethoven's Fifth, for example) every single note has been laid out before the performance; every note, every rest, every accent, every creshendo, everything is specifically marked. However, when a jazz band gets together to play Charlie Parker's Ornithology, they know the key, roughly the tempo, and the major changes in the piece, but each player is allowed (indeed, encouraged) to contribute something different to the piece than what Charlie had written. But, in the end, it still sounds like Ornithology.
So, I guess my question is, does God write classical music or jazz?
What tribe was Moses from? What tribe was Joshua from? Do either meet the prophecies?
That question is not was God able ..the question was WHAT DID GOD WILL?
Did either meet the plan laid before the foundation of the earth?
I will ask you again pony...If God is not immutible in His decisions..If God changes His mind ..what assurance do you have that your salvation is secure..could it be He will "change the plan" and you will not "fit"
How could God be sure you are going to take the right road?
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
I mean, lets be honest, the LORD never said which generation of the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would enter Canaan. I don't think, though I might be wrong, that the LORD ever promised Moses that he would actually enter Canaan, either. So, really, in this situation God's promise would have been kept if that generation did enter the promised land, just as it was kept as the next generation entered the promised land, right?
What the LORD does say to that generation that left Egypt, however, is that "none of the people who have seen my glory and the signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have tested me these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, shall see the land that I swore to give to their ancestors; none of those who despised me shall see it. Num. 14:22,23
The reason that that generation is not entering Canaan is not because God had it in for them at the outset, that God foreordained them to grumble in the wilderness, but simply that they did not obey the voice of the LORD, correct?
I guess the concept of the punishment of the LORD is also something we might discuss; i.e. why does the LORD choose the method of punishment that He does? Why, when both Miriam and Aaron speak against Moses, why was only Miriam made leprous and Aaron was not (Num 12:1-16)? And, why does the LORD only give leprosy to those who speak against His chosen instrument (Moses), while a man who simply gathers sticks on the Sabbath the LORD commands to stone to death (Num. 15:32-36)?
And, ultimately, if the LORD really wanted to see that generation in Canaan, could He or could He not have come up with a punishment that would have both quelled His wrath and also allowed that generation entry into the promised land? So, maybe, God did have it in for them at the outset after all.
Yes He did....are you a pastor?
There are Jewish scholars that believe God never intended to have that generation enter because they had always lived as slaves and had a "slave mentality"
What specific prophecies are you talking about? Scripture please.
That question is not was God able ..the question was WHAT DID GOD WILL? Did either meet the plan laid before the foundation of the earth?
I seems to me, and I might be wrong, that God willed that the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob enter the land of Canaan. The LORD was not specific about which generation that would be (though, I quite possibly be wrong, so, if I am, please provide me the Scriptures that specifically mention this).
So, RnMomof7, do you think that that promise could have been fulfilled by either that specific generation of Israelites that left Egypt as well as the generation after them that did actually enter Canaan and fulfil God's promise?
I will ask you again pony...If God is not immutible in His decisions..If God changes His mind ..what assurance do you have that your salvation is secure..could it be He will "change the plan" and you will not "fit"
God did not change His mind about the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob inheriting the land of Canaan, did He? No, of course not. The LORD is faithful to His promises, right? And this promise was fulfilled, right? So, just the details remain; couldn't the first generation of Israelites who left Egypt just have accurately fulfilled God's promise as the second?
Yes He did....
Scripture please.
...are you a pastor?
No, but why does it matter to this discussion?
(though, I quite possibly be wrong, so, if I am, please provide me the Scriptures that specifically mention this).
God is always specific
Read Gen 15...they would enter the land in the 4th generation
Not the third..not the 5th...the fourth...
Joshua was born "Hoshea" (salvation) but Moses changed his name to "Yehoshua" (Yahweh is salvation). This is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek name "Iesous" (Jesus). His name is symbolic of the fact that although he is the leader of the Israelite nation during the conquest, the Lord is the Conqueror.
So do you ~think~ God had a plan?
The Fourth generation seems specific enough. Question, who is the first? I think that the children of Israel entered the promised land around Salmon, because he married Rachab. He is the tenth generation from Abraham.
God is a Holy God and there is always a limit to His forebearance.(Gen.6:3)
As for the different punishments, they deal with particular violations.
Regarding Miriam she could have been the leader in the grumblng (Aaron being pretty much of a follower), hence she received the blunt of the punishment. Aaron asked Moses to pray for both of them, so a punishment seemed to be facing Aaron.
Breaking the Sabbath was a rejection of God's provision and thus, rebellion (1Sam.15:23) as was cursing the Lord (Lev.24:10-14)
LOL!
Acts 2:23 states Foreknowledge as in knowing something before something else.
Now, just because the Greek word in 1Pet.1:20 is translated as Foreordain (correctly) does not mean that the Greek word (Proginosko) means foreordain anywhere else!
Context gives meanings to words.
That same Proginosko is also used in two other verses
Which knew me from the beginning if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee (Acts.26:5)
and 2Pet.3:17
Ye therefore beloved seeing ye know these things before beware lest ye also, being led away with error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
Now, both of the verses have the same Greek word found in 1Pet.1:20, are they to be translated as saying forordained?
2 According to the foreknowledge of God - Speaking after the manner of men. Strictly speaking, there is no foreknowledge, no more than afterknowledge, with God: but all things are known to him as present from eternity to eternity. This is therefore no other than an instance of the divine condescension to our low capacities.
Elect - By the free love and almighty power of God taken out of, separated from, the world. Election, in the scripture sense, is God's doing anything that our merit or power have no part in. The true predestination, or fore - appointment of God is,
He that believeth shall be saved from the guilt and power of sin.
He that endureth to the end shall be saved eternally.
They who receive the precious gift of faith, thereby become the sons of God; and, being sons, they shall receive the Spirit of holiness to walk as Christ also walked.
Throughout every part of this appointment of God, promise and duty go hand in hand. All is free gift; and yet such is the gift, that the final issue depends on our future obedience to the heavenly call.
But other predestination than this, either to life or death eternal, the scripture knows not of.
Moreover, it is. Cruel respect of persons; an unjust regard of one, and an unjust disregard of another.
It is mere creature partiality, and not infinite justice.
It is not plain scripture doctrine, if true; but rather, inconsistent with the express written word, that speaks of God's universal offers of grace; his invitations, promises, threatenings, being all general.
We are bid to choose life, and reprehended for not doing it.
It is inconsistent with a state of probation in those that must be saved or must be lost.
It is of fatal consequence; all men being ready, on very slight grounds, to fancy themselves of the elect number. But the doctrine of predestination is entirely changed from what it formerly was.
Now it implies neither faith, peace, nor purity. It is something that will do without them all. Faith is no longer, according to the modern predestinarian scheme, a divine "evidence of things not seen," wrought in the soul by the immediate power of the Holy Ghost; not an evidence at all; but a mere notion.
Neither is faith made any longer a means of holiness; but something that will do without it.
Christ is no more a Saviour from sin; but a defence, a countenancer of it.
He is no more a fountain of spiritual life in the soul of believers, but leaves his elect inwardly dry, and outwardly unfruitful; and is made little more than a refuge from the image of the heavenly; even from righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
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.