The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum true calvinism.......MJM please read

MJM said here.......https://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...amp;o=&vc=1


Two major problems. First, any condition man must fill upon his own dooms him. How does a sinful man overcome his very nature to hate God? Arminians believe Jesus died for ALL but not salvifically. Christs death only brings about an offer and leaves the rest up to mans ability.


Second, that is a false view of calvinism. Man is condemned by his own sin. I would recommend further study.


God bless,

william

William,

You wrote:

> "First, any condition man must fill upon his own dooms him. How does a sinful man overcome his very nature to hate God?"

He cannot overcome his sinful nature. That is why God first seeks us and sheds his grace upon us. Arminians do not deny this. We just believe that God truly loves the whole world.


> "Arminians believe Jesus died for ALL but not salvifically. Christs death only brings about an offer and leaves the rest up to mans ability."

[John Murray:]

Let it not be thought that the Arminian by his doctrine escapes limited atonement. The truth is that he professes a despicable doctrine of limited atonement. He professes an atonement that is tragically limited in its efficacy and power, an atonement that does not secure the salvation of any..."

Like most Calvinists, Murray confuses the accomplishment of the atonement with the application. Ironically, he missed this in "Redemption: Accomplished and Applied":) Christ atoned for the sins of the world (1 Jn. 2:2), he died for all (2 Cor. 5:14), but redemption is always applied through faith (Rom. 3:25).

The atonement is hardly limited in efficacy and power if we believe in General Redemption. Even key early Church Fathers, Reformed Protestants and Calvinists believed that Christ died for all:

Eusebius: "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered as a sacrifice for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race." (Quoted by Norman Douty, "The Death of Christ", p. 95ff)
Ambrose: "Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit..." (Ibid)
Martin Luther: "Christ hath taken away the sins not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world". (Ibid)
John Calvin: "For though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him." (Quoted by Samuel Fisk, "Election & Predestination", p. 171)
Henry Bullinger: "The Lord died for all: but all are not partakers of this redemption, through their own fault." (Douty)
Jerome Zanchius: "It is not false that Christ died for all men as it regards His conditional will..." (Ibid)

In what way does a belief in General Redemption limit the power of the atonement? - I know the Calvinian answer, I'm just testing you:)

Michael

Your post, once again, did nothing in actually overcoming the issues I continue to raise with you. However, I do notice a pattern of misrepresentation on your behalf. I believe God loves all men to some degree, just not to salvation. The two are not equal.


It actually saves none. Therefore, none are actually saved.

Now, I took Soteriology at a credo-pelagian college, so let's see if we can go through this step by step.


OK. God calls, though ineffectually, regenerates, but not unto faith, seeks, knowing He won't find most, warms your heart and begs, pleads, makes an offer and then what?


God bless,

william

I guess you either haven't really read Murray's book, Redemption, Accomplished and Applied, or you aren't able to comprehend what he wrote. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> In the first part of the book, Murray right establishes the judicial aspect of the atonement, i.e., that Christ met ALL the demands required in the law, which thus satisfied the justice of God. In so doing, ALL for whom Christ died are thus released from both the demands of the law and the punishment due them for transgressions of that law. Since Christ's atonement was substitutionary in nature, the sentence passed upon Christ was accepted vicariously and the punishment received in behalf of those whom He died for. So again, that which was held against those for whom Christ died was totally rectified on the cross.

On the other hand, this accomplished redemption needs to be applied to the elect; those whom the Father gave to the Son to redeem. And this Christ does in the sending forth of His Spirit Who supplies the means by which the benefits of the atonement are apprehended. The faith which acts as the means by which that which is accomplished is then applied (justification) is again, one of the manifold benefits merited by Christ in His atonement and which no man has by nature.

Your claim is sheer hyperbole and has no basis in fact. For example, John Calvin held unabashedly to "Definite Atonement" as any honest reading of his writings will show. The overwhelming majority of Reformers, Puritans, etc., held to what is set forth in detail in the Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt.

Answering this rhetorical question would serve no purpose since you claim to already know the answer. But obviously, you aren't able to grasp it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

William,

You shared that man is condemned by his own sin. Let us consider two men born into this world: one is elect and the other reprobate. Both are born into sin, they both have inherited Adam's sinful nature as the Bible tells us that through the offence of one man, death reigned over the whole human race.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Rom 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Both of these men stand condemned because of their sin and deserve punishment in Hell and separation from God. But at this point, the men are not in equal in blessing. Because you will probably say that God will only now work with the man who is elect to irresistibly draw him to accept salvation in Jesus Christ.

Let us consider that neither man has accepted the saving work of Jesus on the cross for their behalf. Of course by your views, the reprobate man might as well eat, drink and be merry, because he is dead as he stands on his feet. His eternal fate is already sealed he is reprobate and apparently darned happy that he is.

Consider that suddenly both men are hit by a metro bus prior to either of them accepting Jesus. What happens now? Or are you going to say that the metro will amazingly swerve and only take out the reprobate. The elect will be spared this tragedy, for after all, he is elect and he will be eventually wooed by the Spirit of God to salvation. The Holy Spirit apparently knows not to woo the reprobate because God knows in advance that they will not be affected by His irresistible grace and drawing.

I read in God's word that Jesus died for sinners:

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

All men are sinners but will you say that only the elect need to be saved? If the reprobate cannot be saved then what purpose does their life serve beyond bringing God glory by accepting their fate as poor doomed from birth creatures that they are. The reprobate might as well commit suicide and await his final judgement so that the books will be empty of the sins that he would have piled on with no hope of ever being reconciled to God.

2 Cor 5

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Will you say that the world in verse 19 above is only the elect? Then apparently our ministry of reconciliation must also only be to the elect. Surely the call to be reconciled to God, brought back into proper relationship with Him is made to all men. Then if they reject or ignore it, they now must bear their sin and be answerable to God for it and rightly so. But if they are the elect to reprobation and damnation, it is better if they had never lived.

believingThomas

I will let William answer for himself, but the more I read your post the more I was reminded of the rebuke in Romans 9:16-21.

Tom

William,

You answered:

> "It actually saves none. Therefore, none are actually saved."

Correct. This is what I also used to argue. If Jesus died for all men, but all are not saved, then the atonement only makes salvation possible, it doesn't actually save. Also, if Jesus atoned for the sins of every single individual, that means that there are souls in hell whose sins have been atoned for! How can that be? Thus, I agreed with Murray, Owen, et al. that Jesus died only for the elect.

But, after I became an Arminian, I wondered about verses such as 1 John 2:2 where it says that Jesus is "the atoning sacrifice [or propitiation] for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world". How did propitiation take place for the non-elect? And the previous questions came back: Did Jesus' death merely make salvation possible, or did it actually save? Norman F. Douty answered all of these questions for me in his book, "The Death of Christ: Did Christ die only for the elect?" So I will briefly quote from his work:

"[1 John 2:2; 3:5; 4:10] This means that Christ suffered for every sort of sin ever committed by human kind. For example, He suffered for the violation of every one of the Ten Commandments. There is, in fact, no transgression of any of God's laws for which Christ did not suffer. Name it - He bore its punishment.

THIS IS DIFFERENT from saying that Christ suffered so much for this man's sins, and so much for that man's. When He suffered for any particular sin, He suffered for a sin of which millions have been guilty. Since the value of His suffering for that one sin was infinite (because of His own infinity), provision was thereby made for all instances of that sin whenever committed.

From this it is evident that Christ suffered for the sins of both the elect and the non-elect when He bore the punishment of any particular sin, since both groups of persons have been guilty of that sin... He could not suffer for the sins of the elect without suffering for those of the non-elect, because both companies have sinned the same sins... Away then with the foolish talk of wasting Christ's suffering if He suffered for those who are damned; He suffered for all, or He suffered for none." (pp. 29-30)


Therefore, Christ has certainly made atonement for the sins of the world, dying for all men, but propitiation is only applied "through faith in his blood" (Rom. 3:25).

Michael

Indeed and scriptural.


Agreed in principle.


In fact, he may be blind to his position. Others may have some degree of their sinfulness but they willfully choose to deny God.


You missed the point. God saves all the elect, so unless this accident took God by surprise, your illustration becomes meaningless. The rest is basically correct. God controls our lives and will let none of His chosen perish. The Holy Spirit, despite the ramblings of MJM and similar ilk, does not attempt to save those God did not elect.


You have put forth some errors here. All sinners need saved. I have simply never stated otherwise. It's not that the reprobate cannot be saved, the reprobate cannot save himself. God does save people, just not everybody. We are condemned from birth in that we are born wit sinful natures. Killing yourself won't help. Hope? the reprobate don't want salvation. They remain willfully reprobate. Yes, all people are sinners, infants included. Because Jesus died for sinners does not mean ALL sinners. The text doesn't say ALL. If Christ saved two sinners, the passage would remain true.


The word KOSMOS has many meanings in scripture. Our mission is to all, as per Biblical command, the great commission. We don't know who the elect are so we offer the gospel to all. Only the elect will respond unto salvation. People bear their sin despite hearing the word. I agree, it would be better if the reprobate had not been born.


God bless,

william

You deny a vicarious sacrifice. Christs death saves none. What work does man add to become saved? Oh, please interact with my questions or I might think you are merely preaching instead of discussing.


God bless,

william

Tom,

Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with Romans 9:16-21 and I understand that my questions to William place me in a non-favorable analogy to those verses, especially verses 19 and 20. I am teachable and am willing to hear reasonable explainations for those searching questions that I am asking concerning the predestination aspects of Calvinism.

Also, I apologize for using Calvinism as a label. I don't like man-made labels for systems of faith because they are limiting and demeaning, placing people into categories like insect specimens. I would prefer Biblical labels because at least they are foundational and have firm backing in God's word. Let me know if another label is more appropriate to use than Calvinism or Arminianism.

But on the other hand, labels are handy in theological discussions because they help us to concisely transmit our meanings to each other.

I would think that this passage in Romans is a showcase for Calvinistic doctrine. I am surprised that it is not used more often by Calvinists as a defense for that position. I don't think that election is specifically referred to although Paul is discussing it in the chapter immediately preceeding, that is, in regards to predestination and God's calling.

I would assume then, that most on this site would have problems with Billy Graham for instance because he preaches to "all" the lost and pleads for them to accept salvation in Christ Jesus. Problems I say, because his audience would certainly include the reprobate, i.e. other than favored elect. You surely consider evangelicals like Graham in a kind and respectful light although I would suspect that you might consider their preaching to be inefficient since so many of the hearers are not the elect unto salvation.

Consider this verse:

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

We know that this is NOT saying that all men will be saved but is not Paul telling Timothy that God wants all men to be saved? All my life I have been taught that the LORD would be very pleased if all men would seek His face; was this untruth?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I would desire that Peter would have phrased the above to be: “not willing that any of the elect shall perish, but that all of the elect should come to repentance.” Then we could know of a certainty that God calls unto Himself only a pre-chosen, privileged elect.

Let me state it this way: if 1 Timothy 2:4 only applies to the elect, then why the urgency for their salvation if they are already the elect, chosen of God? Yes, they were born into the sin nature inherited from Adam and there is the issue of imputed guilt for Adam’s sin that pervaded the human race. Salvation effectively deals with this problem.

Finally, with respect to “freewill” and what the Arminianist believes to be man’s part in all this:

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

God’s righteousness (of which we are told that no man has or can ever muster in himself, with this I whole-heartedly agree) was imputed to Abraham, “funneled” into his prior empty “righteousness account” because Abraham believed God. Do you agree that this transaction of righteousness would never have occurred if Abraham had not believed?

And does not one “believe” unto salvation?

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

God’s sovereignty has not been compromised, He does the saving. But in my upbringing, we do the believing to appropriate this miracle on one’s soul. We add nothing to salvation beyond child-like simple, believing faith. None of our works would suffice, they are filthy rags, we possess no inherent righteousness. We start out totally depraved. Even the faith required to believe God is a gift from Him.

You perhaps might say that it was God who woke up this desire to seek Him out and find Him because He does this for the elect.

Could not God in His sovereignty choose to give men free will, even to violate; not His sovereignty; but His will? And violation of His will He can and must punish. The creature has free will to choose, but he suffers the consequences of wrong decisions. His choice to do evil for a season bring about God’s chastening for the believer. During this moment before he repents according to 1 John 1:9, he is violating God’s will by sinning. But the word of God and the Holy Spirit convict him of his sin and he turns and repents. God receives him and the violation of God’s will ends for that particular sin because the man has been brought under the obedience of the gospel. There are conditional things that we must do, very simple acts of faith and then God responds; very much how it is between parents and their children.

If the jailor had not beleved in Acts 16:31 above, then no further response would have occurred at that time from God on behalf of the jailor’s salvation. And, of course the Holy Spirit could continue to convict his heart and draw him from that point on until he chose to finally believe.
I contend that this is not manipulating God. He encourages us to ask, seek, knock and the door of blessing will be opened. And I am not advocating “bless me” dogma. We know that if we ask anything ACCORDING TO HIS WILL, he heareth us, etc. Has not God offered men salvation and as an act of His own sovereign will, chosen to make the efficacy of salvation dependent upon the choice to believe that He will do this upon the believing faith of the one who chose to receive this divine intervention?

I think that Calvinists will fault me in this assertion because they will probably say that He only does this for the elect and that even then, it was not their initiation but God’s that effected salvation’s goal?

Earlier in the chapter it does.......


My problem isn't with preaching to the reprobate. What other method do we use to reach them? My beef with Billy is the message he preaches. It is a sandimanian pelagian heresy. We can't preach only to the elect because we do not know who they are infallibly.


Is God incapable of getting what He wants? No, because He is omnipotent. I think God would be happy if even one sinner turned to Him, but He also knows none will without His grace. Here is a page that covers the text in question, 1Tim 2:4.


Part of the problem is that we tend to interpret these passage as absolutes. ALL simply does not always ALL without exception. Actually, in normal usage it rarely does. Context is everything. The passage is concerning the elect. We know God calls people to Himself. Doesn't the OT show this? IF God wanted all people saved, what holds Him back? Careful.


Then Gods regeneration is either unto a neutral state or toward salvation infallibly. However, you contradicted yourself several times.......let me show you.



This is exactly a false atonement. It actually saved none, only making salvation an option dependant upon (Enter work here) to appropriate it. Your next sentence contradicts that.......



Nothing except.


Nothing except our (enter free-will choice here).




Free-will is unscriptural. Any hypothetical concerning it starts with a false premise.


Saint Paul answered this.......



No.


God bless,

william

I think this all started because I requested prayer for my mother who believes that Gods grace is obtained by faith, which is essentially saying grace comes by something we do or merit.

Titus 2:11,12 teaches that grace does two things.
1 It brings salvation
2 It sanctifies us

In eph 2:8-10 we see that faith is a gift of God or that faith and salvation are gifts of God. God will provide faith for those he will save and will have them "do good works."
To say that MY faith is what caused God to show me grace would definitely be boasting and would be a salvation by works.

MJM said "Arminians believe that we are saved by grace alone, and not by works. The CONDITION is that we accept the offer of salvation by faith."
That is a total contradiction and is a salvation by works-not grace alone.
MJM, you need to realize that faith is a good thing that comes from God and not yourself, for there is no one who does good.Rom 3:12

"God doesnt call the equipped; He equips the called."

MJM,

Just a few quick responses to some statements you made:

(1) The passage does not say that Christ make a propitiatory sacrifice for the non-elect. What it says is: "and <span style="background-color:yellow">[color:"blue"]he is the propitiation[/color]</span> for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." In other words, Christ's death propitiated God, i.e., (a) appeased God's wrath, and (b) removed that which was offensive. The result of Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement, in this regard, is that God's wrath toward those for whom Christ died was removed because their sins, which evoked that wrath, was dealt with by Christ receiving the punishment due. What all these abhorrent views have in common is that they either diminish, ignore or deny the judicial basis of the atonement. As John Murray so succinct put it, "the atonement was antecedently absolutely necessary", i.e., there just wasn't any other way that a man could be saved. Justice demands that law-breakers be punished. And the Lord Christ received that punishment. Consequently, the legal requirements in all its aspects was fulfilled. The atonement satisfied the law in a four-fold way: 1) Reconciliation: those who were estranged from God and with whom God was at enmity, were joined together, Christ having made peace between them. (Rom 5:11; 2Cor 5:19; Heb 2:17). 2) Redemption: Christ paid the price which was necessary to effect the release of those who were held captive. Thus it is said that His death was the "ransom". (Matt 20:28; 1Tim 2:6; cf. Rom 3:24; 1Cor 1:30; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Heb 9:12, 15). 3) Propitiation: The Lord Christ appeased God's anger through His substitutionary death. All men are born with the imputed guilt of Adam and inherit the corruption of nature which befell Adam in consequence of his transgression, aka: Original Sin. Of necessity, all men are born sinners and are thus under the judicial wrath of God (Eph 2:1-3; Rom 5:12-18). 4) Sacrifice: The Lord Christ offered up Himself as the necessary offering to satisfy the law which had been broken. Thus, He having accomplished all that was required, God was wholly satisfied. And having accepted that atonement, God cannot punish anyone for whom that atonement was made. The LEGAL requirements were met; the debt paid, the anger appeased by the removal of the offence, the bond broken and reconciliation was accomplished. All this was done APART FROM any act or even desire of the recipients. The atonement was the administering of capital punishment by the court of heaven. The benefits of that legal satisfaction are then applied to those for whom it was intended.

2) The context of the 1Joh 2:2 does not allow one to understand the meaning of the word, "world" to be synonymous with "all mankind without exception". For as I have illustrated above, if Christ IS the propitiation, i.e., if Christ succeeded in appeasing the wrath of God by removing the sins which offended Him, then all men of necessity must be saved. For, a) God is no longer angry with those whom Christ was the propitiation, and 2) there is not even one sin that would provoke God's wrath and thus cause Him to find anyone guilty of punishment, He, Christ having been punished in their stead.

BTW.... and I'm sure you have been given the reference previous to this, but nonetheless I shall provide it once more, Dr. Gary Long has given a most thorough and convincing exegesis of 1John 2:2 here: PROPITIATION IN I JOHN 2:2.

In His Grace,

William,

Thank you for your thoroughness with my questions. I agree with you that we cannot infallibly know whether a person is of the elect (chosen of God) or not. I admit that my questions in the post you have kindly answered are hypothetical and even foolish; I should know better than to think that we can have this knowledge that is reserved for God only.

I had no idea what Sandemanian dogma was. So I researched it on the net and I agree that Robert Sandeman's view is a gross error. Sandeman wrongly taught that salvation only required a mental assent. He even wanted emotions and soulish reaction "divorced" from it. He wouldn't make a good charismatic, but that is just some levity to lighten our heavy discussion. And I found Pelagius in the dictionary and discovered that he denied the doctrine of original sin. This too is error and ignores the Biblical truth that Adam acted as our "Federal Head" or I'll say, representative and through his sin, passed the sinful nature and curse of death to all humanity. Remedied, of course, by the "last Adam", Jesus Christ.

I won't speak for Billy Graham, but in my own case, being brought up in the Church of the Brethren, we simply were not taught this truth. It may sound utterly amazing, but it was largely ignored. And not surprising as that denomination moved from conservative, puritan-like views to liberal, ecumenical (as in WCC, World Council of Churches) ones. It could be that Graham's up-bringing in the Baptist tradition was a similar experience as mine, but I think that someone as learned in theology as Bill should know better.

I am concerned when I watch Graham's crusades because I have doubts of the sincerity of the multitudes who come down to that platform, hear Billy pray the sinner's prayer over them (actually, I hope they have them at least recite it). They get their "complimentary Psalms + NT" books and away they rush to their cars in the parking lot. How many of them forget this experience or toss it aside, etc. God only knows. In defense of the crusades, I attended a pre-crusade meeting by some of Graham's "advance guards" sent to a local church. They asked us to be in prayer for the crusade and took down phone numbers, addresses of parishioners willing to share their testimony or follow up if called upon by converts of the crusade. They really stressed follow up. This was saying to me that they expected many to fall away or ignore a decision that is supposed to change our lives inside out.

There have surely been many who can testify that they genuinely received Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior at one of these crusades and I do not want to degrade their experience in any fashion. But many may view these services and think that it looks to be "cheap grace" or a "mob mentality" or peer pressure tactic to add notches to the barrel of Billy's "gospel gun". I sincerely hope that this is not the case. God knows.

I apologize for my lengthy rambling, let me finish on this thought:

It appears to me that the Arminian view of salvation is rejected by the Calvinist because the act of believing faith on the part of an individual is interpreted by the Calvinist as a work. If the efficacy of salvation cannot be realized (according to Arminianists) until Jesus' atonement is received by a soul as belonging to him or her personally, then you must believe that this makes it conditional upon man's "input" (be it ever so small). Hence, the sovereignty of God has been usurped by man in this instance. This, I know, is contradictory because God is sovereign. Unless God, as a sovereign act of His will gave men the freedom to choose if they will answer His call on their lives.

For the Arminianist view to be true, God must place a conditional upon salvation. It cannot be effective for the unregenerate until he places his total trust and faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. But the moment he receives, he is converted and he becomes a new creature, something that did not exist before. Yes, he needs to grow and be tested with various trials that produce patience. He is sanctified and submits to Jesus' teaching and loves Him above all else. Election for the Arminianist is general or non-specific in that God predestinated only the plan and potential for the Elect to be saved. He would someday call them and the moment they answered the call in sincere, believing faith, He declares them to be the elect, now in a more specific sense. The Arminiast would likely say that "limited Atonement" is such because only those who act in faith to believe will receive the vicarious redemption of our Saviour. The substitutionary aspect of His vicarious death is of no use to me until I answer and receive His call to Salvation. The key word to jump on there is "act" where I am sure you must declare as a work and now it would no longer be of grace.

I don't see the act of believing faith as a work. James in his book rebukes the one who says he has faith without supporting evidence of works and that faith without works is dead. Yes, this answers in your favor, because James declares that the two live under the "same roof".

I know that you will have objections to the above and I am willing to hear them out because the doctrine of Calvinism is very compelling. Don't give up on me too quickly. Likewise, I guess dismiss me somehow, if after many reasonings, I still conclude that my current beliefs are in truth and acceptable to God.

believingThomas,

Sorry for this rushed reply, but I'm out of time right now and this is all the time I can afford.

On Sandemanianism, see here:

"Andrew Fuller and the Sandemanians" by Michael Haykin

Another Gospel by A.W. Pink

Modern Evangelism Unmasked by William F. Bell


On "faith=a work", see here:

By Grace Alone? by yours truly

There are Only Two Religions in the Whole World by John G. Reisinger

Arminian Errors by William MacLean

In His Grace,

Hi Soli,

You wrote:

> "To say that MY faith is what caused God to show me grace would definitely be boasting and would be a salvation by works."

Faith is not a work. Paul said that boasting is excluded on the principle of faith (Rom. 3:27).


> "In eph 2:8-10 we see that faith is a gift of God"

It does not say that faith is a gift of God; it says that we are saved by God's grace, through faith - salvation is the gift of God.

MJM

It isn't scripturally. It is in the arminian/pelagian scheme of possible atonement. With a merely possible atonement, man must do something to acquire this possibility.


Does man have faith prior to regeneration? When can we expect scripture from you?


God bless,

william

I agree that some have come to God at Billy's crusades. However, when you are responding to a false gospel, what are you 'consenting' to?


Still contradictory. God gave away His sovereignty to man? Who is sovereign? This idea of an equipoise state of the conscience was discussed here a few months ago.......it isn't found in scripture. Man is spiritually dead, morally corrupt, does not seek and actually opposes God due to his sinful nature. It takes a radical change to alter this.


I am still waiting for MJM to provide scripture for his views. Could you provide some?


God bless,

william

MJM,

Faith is most certainly a gift:


How do you deal with this passage, particularly verses 37, 39, 44, and 45?

Thanks for your response MJM.
You give yourself credit for your faith correct?

averagefellar said "Man is spiritually dead, morally corrupt, does not seek and actually opposes God due to his sinful nature. It takes a radical change to alter this."

I will go a little bit deeper with this and give scripture to back it up.

-Paul says we are "dead" Eph 2:1-3.

-Paul also says there is no one who searches after God or even does anything good. Rom 3:10-12

-Paul says were at enmity with God and cannot please him Rom 8:7-8

-Jesus even says we refuse to come to him. Jn 5:40

-Jesus says we are children of the devil and it is OUR will to do what he desires. John 8:44

How then can we be saved?

-John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

- like SemperReformanda said only if God draws us or enables us. Jn 6:44,65

- John 1:12-13 says But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, BUT OF GOD.

-Phil 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose

- Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

As you can see i am not basing my beliefs only on eph 2:8,9 but on what scripture says as a whole.

Please give me scripture thats says our will is free to chose between good and evil or generate faith on our own. There is plenty of it that has been perverted.ie: Josh 24:15; Rev 3:20

Soli Deo Gloria <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />

Hi Semper,

John 6:35ff used to be my favourite proof text that God irresistibly draws, enables and gives to the Son only those whom he had elected before the foundation of the world to receive salvation. But, recently, as I studied this verse over and over, the more my Calvinistic hermeneutic, which I had superimposed onto the text, faded away. The whole passage in John 6 concerns God's salvific work in the person of the Lord Jesus, as well as man's responsibility to believe in Christ. Here were my observations:

· Jesus' main point is that he is the bread of life; whoever "feeds" (believes) on him will receive eternal life (vv. 27-29). Jesus is the life of the whole world (v. 33). Notice the world, not an elect few.
· "Coming" and "believing" are closely related (v. 35).
· Although the Jews had seen Jesus, they still did not believe him (v. 36).
· The will of the Father is that all those whom he gives to the Son will be "raised up" i.e. given new life and glorified at the last day (vv. 37-39).
· Who does the Father give to the Son? Those whom he unconditionally elected to salvation without any responsibility on their part? No. Those whom the Father gives are identified as the "everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him" (v. 40). Notice the condition: everyone who looks and believes. Contrast this with verse 36. So, those whom the Father does not give to the Son, are those who see Jesus, and yet do not believe in him (cf. v. 36). There is absolutely no indication in this passage that they are denied eternal life because they were not predestined to believe.
· Jesus says that no one can come to him unless the Father draws him and enables him (vv. 44, 65). Jesus speaks of "drawing" elsewhere, in 12:32: "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself". Truly, Jesus is the life of the whole world (v. 33)!
· Everyone who listens and learns from the Father will come to Christ (v. 45).

As stated above, I found no hint of an unconditional elective decree or irresistible will in which God chose before eternity certain individuals whom he would enable to respond to the gospel and believe in his Son, whilst unconditionally choosing to withhold his enabling grace from the majority of humankind and leaving them to be damned to hell forever. No hint of this dreaded and dark eternal decree doctrine is found in John 6. Instead, after reviewing my observations, I was able to place in chronological order God's salvific work in Christ and the responsibility of man to receive God's grace:

1. The Father draws and enables all men to come unto Christ.
2. Everyone who listens and learns from the Father & looks and believes in the Son will come unto Christ.
3. All of these ones will the Father give to the Son.
4. All of these ones will come unto Christ and receive eternal life.
5. All of these ones will be raised up at the last day.

Michael

Hi Soli,

You asked:

> "You give yourself credit for your faith correct?"

No, I do not give myself credit. To exercise saving faith in Christ is to trust in him (Jn. 14:1) as opposed to one's own ability. The apostle Paul goes into great lengths to distinguish "faith" from "works" (Rom. 4). If you believe that Arminians hold to a works-based salvation, then you are ignorant - sorry to be so blunt, but either you purposely misrepresent Arminianism or you really are ignorant.

I have no problem with all the Scripture references you cited. I also believe that we were dead in our sins (Eph. 2:1) until Christ made us alive. It is by grace that we are saved, but it is through faith. And faith isn't something that we can generate within ourselves. Paul says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). The problem with those Israelites who perished in the wilderness was that although they heard, they "did not combine it with faith" (Heb. 4:2).

Re John 1:12-13: Those who were born of God (regenerated) first believed in his name. Faith first, then regeneration.

Michael

Let's re-read that......."The problem with those Israelites who perished in the wilderness was that although they heard, they "(place work here)." (Heb. 4:2). Notice it is mans ability you keep focusing on?


Could you exegete that passage? It must be regeneration first, lest none could come, John 6:44.


God bless,

william

No, it doesn't say "work". It says they "did not combine it with faith". Focus on the text.

You asked:

> "Could you exegete that passage? It must be regeneration first, lest none could come, John 6:44."

I've already dealt with John 6:44 (see my response to Semper). Respond to it, and then I'll exegete John 1:12-13.

Michael

yes, God gives Christ those who (insert work here), a condition in man. Sorry, I uphold Total Depravity. I am going to ask you one more time, nicely, to quit building straw-men. Nobody believes your last sentence, except those who do not understand calvinism.


We have repeatedly asked you to exegete any scripture showing this.......you have not. I'll ask again, in case you missed the other ten requests. Could you, please, exegete any passage that says Jesus died for ALL sins of ALL people. Could you also show that Jesus death was not a vicarious sacrifice and yet still saves?


The only ones capable are those regenerated unto faith. prior to this, man is sinful, dead, etc.


Which ones? The ones that believed? Is that the condition man adds? is that the condition God looked for when He chose to elect? Are you admitting God knowingly created people He knew would burn in hell? Could you exegete John 6:44 please?


Redundant repetition of #3.


God bless,

william

Exactly, it was (work here) "they did not do". I understand. I am focused. Please, no sarcasm.


God bless,

william

MJM, you seem to contradict yourself when you say your faith is not from yourself but then you say we do choose to put our trust (faith) in God for salvation.

You said you agree with all of the scripture i gave and yet you must not understand it because it teaches that we can do nothing on our own towards salvation.

From that scripture it could probably be said that we are like a lion and anything sinful is like red meat and anything of God is like vegetables. Our nature wants nothing to do with God!

Here is a stupid scenario that maybe could help you.
You believe grace is unmerited favor right?

Say you owe me $100 and i forgive you of the debt if you mow my lawn. Is that grace? Of course not because i am asking you to work for it.
Now we take this same concept to salvation. God says he will forgive you of your sins if you put your faith in him.
Is that grace? Of course not!<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" />
God gives us his grace first(regenerates us) which then causes us to have faith.

Maybe a stupid scenario that wont help at all. But hey im trying. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />

Iv heard people say that its like we are drowning and God has his hand out and all we have to do is grab it. We are not drowning but we are dead! How can we do anything while we are dead???????????????????????

"God doesn't call the equipped, He equips the
called."

Hi Soli,

Thanks for trying!

Let's look at your scenario:

> "Say you owe me $100 and i forgive you of the debt if you mow my lawn. Is that grace? Of course not because i am asking you to work for it.
Now we take this same concept to salvation. God says he will forgive you of your sins if you put your faith in him.
Is that grace? Of course not!"

Again, you are confusing faith with good works. Faith is not mowing the lawn to pay back the debt (for that would be salvation by works). But rather, faith is trusting Jesus to "mow the lawn". Trusting in HIM - not in our ability. Verstaan julle? Goed.

Michael

Thanks for the quick reply MJM!

I admit my scenario may not be adequate. My question is how can anyone put their faith in Jesus if by nature we hate him and are completely dead in our sin.

I hope you don't mind if I attempt to improve on this scenario a bit.

Over the course of many years, a very successful businessman has loaned you $1,000,000,000. You have squandered it entirely, and have no means of repaying this enormous debt. Because you cannot pay, you are thrown into prison. Unbeknownst to you, the son of this businessman, himself extraordinarily wealthy, offers to his father to pay off your debt from his own wealth. When he does, your debt is cancelled and you are released from prison.

Now, does the cancellation of your debt require that you first of all believe that the son paid it off? Not at all. The cancellation of your debt is a matter of law; it is cancelled whether you choose to believe it or not. Likewise, whether you choose to believe that you have been released from prison or not, you have been. But here's the thing: when you are sent the legal documents that secure your release by showing that your debt has been cancelled by virtue of his payment, and when the prison door is opened and you are told you are free to go, you will certainly believe that the son paid off your debt, even though you didn't see him do it.

The squandered $1,000,000,000 is your sin. The businessman is the Father. The prison is the just consequences of sin. The son is Jesus Christ. The debt which the son pays is the crucifixion of Christ. The legal documents, which secure release, are the Holy Spirit, and the release from prison itself is regeneration. In both this parable and the Gospel, the truth of what has happened is apprehended by faith, which follows after all of the work which has been accomplished by the son/Christ. This faith is only possible once you have received the legal documents/Holy Spirit and have experienced release/regeneration.

William,

I am discovering that the gulf between the theology of Calvinism and Arminianism is much larger than I had ever imagined and it disturbs me. One of Pilgrim's references for me pointed to a site with the paper, 'Arminian Errors' by William MacLean. It was an eye-opener, especially the section where he bashes evangelicals from Billy Graham "and on down" to use his words. I say that I am disturbed because my own views place me in position to be your opponent even though I would desire fellowship and a true sharing of God's word in humility.

I won't provide scriptures on MJM's behalf; I will let him defend the points he brings up because it is not my "battle". I jumped into this particular thread on 5-point Calvinism out of curiosity and a desire to discuss theology. However, I will provide some scriptures to discuss the topic of salvation or soteriology:

Acts 16:30-34
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Can we all agree that the Phillipian jailor was unsaved at the point of verse 30? Else he would not have asked, "...what must I do to be saved?" Let's discuss the state of the jailor at this point. According to the soteriology that I have studied, a person is in an un-regenerated state prior to being saved. Their spirit is dead and they cannot even receive the things of the Holy Spirit because their own spirit is dead. This was a condition brought to the whole human race through Adam's original sin. What prompted or motivated the jailor to desire salvation? The Holy Spirit who was drawing him. He observed Paul and Silas' faith and wanted this assurance of salvation in his own heart. What if the jailor had not followed their advice, what if he chose not to beleive? He would not have been converted according to verse 31.

Do you have a definition for conversion (the new birth)?

When does conversion occur in your theology?

What initiates conversion?

According to the Calvinist's view, they must say that the jailor has to do NOTHING. If the jailor's salvation hinges upon the condition to 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ...' then you will likely say that Sovereign Grace has been thwarted because the will of man is involved in something you say is entirely within God's will and resources to accomplish.

You and I might agree to a point that it is God who saves us as an act of His own good pleasure to graciously provide this gift of salvation to man. But the jailor above would not have been saved if he had not embraced the person of Jesus Christ according to verse 31.

Verse 31 is a conditional statement: ...Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved... And don't think for a moment that I think that the jailor is saving himself. No way, no how! No one can save himself. But we can delay or pass up the opportunity for God to save us if we refuse or choose not to believe.

Now according to what I was taught, the 'new birth' occurs at the point of salvation. The man accepting the person of Jesus Christ becomes a new creature, old things are passed away. Before this moment, the man was spiritually dead, separated from God and without hope in the world. But he saw how Paul and Silas lived that their testimony was one of calm assurance of the Savior's love and he desired this in his heart. You will say, 'How can he do this if his spirit is dead? How can he desire or seek after God as man is totally depraved and incapable, even not desiring to seek after God?'

The answer is that the Holy Spirit draws him to Christ and this tug or pull of God is difficult for unregenerate man to resist. The unregenerate man is incapable to desire the things of God or God Himself. But the Holy Spirit of God is able to convict the heart of unregenerate men and show them their need of a savior. In the case of the jailor, he allowed Paul and Silas to share God's word to him and he responded and received Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior. Unregenerate man's heart is utterly sinful and wicked. I believe that God is greater than our hearts and knows all things and He "reaches in" to our dead soul and miraculously intervenes to soften our hardened heart, allowing us to respond in His strength that He provides to believe Him and receive His person.

1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

You will probably tell me that the jailor was elect although no one including himself can know this. You will say perhaps that the jailor having been chosen as part of the elect was pre-disposed to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. I wonder if you even acknowledge the "new birth" that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of in John 3?

Answer me this please, what is the significance of Acts 16:31? Is it not an appeal for believing faith unto salvation? Is it not an answer to the question, 'sirs, what must I do to be saved?'

God will not read His word for you. You must exercise iniative and pick up the word of God and read it. Or hire or listen to someone preach the gospel message. Did I help God write His word? No. Did I have any part in God saving me? No. Can I appropriate God's blessings, injunctions and edifications by simply reading and receiving His word? Yes. Do I need to do anything for God (Jesus) to save me? Yes. Believe on the Lord Jesue Christ. Does this mean I am helping God to save me? No.

It's somewhat ironic you should ask this question, Thomas. Let's look at the text dealing with the new birth in John 3:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God [as] a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born from above [or, born again], he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb, can he?"

Now, Nicodemus' confusion here is understandable. Jesus has just told him that he must be born from above. How on earth is it possible for a man once born to be born again? We can't exactly climb back into our mother's womb. And, of course, we didn't really choose to be born in the first place. Let's look at the next few verses, 5–8:

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born from above [or, born again].' The wind blows where is wished and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Now, at what point, exactly, does man's choice play a role in his new birth? At no point, as we can see from Jesus' answer. As our Lord illustrates, the new birth which comes by the Spirit is like the wind, which blows where it wishes, not where we wish. This squares with what John writes earlier in his gospel, 1:12,13:

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, [even] to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

To say that the new birth is dependent on our decision to believe in Christ—our will to believe on Him—is to nullify this truth entirely.

Now, looking at the Philippian jailer, what can we say? His new birth must occur in the same manner which Christ describes to Nicodemus. That is, the Spirit causes his new birth, which is not dependent on the jailer's decision. But the new birth is not the only aspect of conversion and salvation; as we see with the Paul and Silas' response to the jailer, the jailer must believe in Christ. So it is with all men: we must believe in Christ. Indeed, this belief is an act of our will.

However, this act of belief is impossible apart from the new birth! We are dead in our sins, wholly incapable of desiring the things of God, much less truly believing in Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit must regenerate us, revive us, awaken us from our sleep of death before we can grasp the truth of our salvation through faith. And once we have been born again, it is impossible for us not to believe! If there were an actual possibility that we might choose not to believe in Christ once regenerated, how can it be said that we are regenerated? Our eyes and ears and hearts must yet be dead to the truth of the Gospel if we still reject Christ.

So, this is what we have: the Spirit of God regenerates a man, and as a result, he believes in Christ unto salvation.

I have stated, repeatedly, that Billy graham offers a different gospel. He offers a merely possible gospel where mans sovereignty is key. I believe in an effectual gospel, where Jesus death actually paid for sin and secured the salvation of many. We both limit the atonement; I limit its scope, you limits it efficacy.


I also doubt you could offer any examples of bashing in that paper. Disagreeing with somebody and saying so is not bashing. If you could offer an example, maybe.


This is correct. This doctrine is known as Total Depravity. Its basis was confirmed early in church history. Man is incapable of doing anything to save himself. Please note this, because everything must be Gods doing. This is a monergistic salvation rather than a synergistic. Jesus says; "he who commits sin is a slave to sin" (John 8:34), and this is what it means to be `dead in your sins and transgressions'--that `the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Cor. 2:14). The `natural' man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God. Jesus also confirms this when He says “no man can unless the Father draw him” (John 6:44). So far we agree. However, this starting point, mans ability and the condition of his will, is important.


If God was drawing the jailer, it was either an effectual calling or general, though ineffectual pleading. I believe, that since God purposed to save a remnant, an elect, a people of God, he brings about their conversion. In the Arminian scheme, God only draws all people to a point of salvability, and then leaves the final choice to man sovereignty. This is an ineffectual call. This would also cause us to wonder where in scripture this middle ground, this spiritual equipoise, because it is never mentioned. I uphold what is known as Irresistible Grace. The result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10). To me, there is no “what if”. Either the jailer was effectually called to repentance or his “choice” was made from his sinful nature.


The Holy Spirits drawing. Here is another passage from Acts tom illustrate this…….

And another…….

These people were called efficaciously. This is confirmed in that “My sheep hear my voice”, Jesus said in John 10:27. This is a major point of division between the Arminian and Calvinist. The Calvinist believes God elected specific people, provided real salvation for them, and calls effectually His chosen. The Arminian believes God elected a plan, made a way for salvation for all, and begs every person to “choose the right thing”. The difference here is a matter of efficacy. Who makes grace efficacious?


Calvinists do not classify faith as a work, nor do they exclude it from the process of salvation. They say with Paul `by grace [we] are save through faith, and this is not from [ourselves] but is God's gift; not from works so that none may boast' (Eph. 2:8-9). Calvinists do say that no fallen man will ever exercise saving faith, nor have the desire to do so unless God regenerates their heart and renews their mind (as per. 1 Cor. 2:14). If man must exercise free will in order to be saved; that is `agree with God', or `accept God's offer', etc., then man in a state of sin must be said to have the ability to do some amount of good, even if it be only a small amount, and thereby please God to the ends of salvation. How can this view be made consistent with verses like John 8:34, 1 Cor. 1:18; 2:14, Rom. 8:7-8, John 6:44 where it is plainly stated that sinful man has no ability to please God, agree with, receive or understand the things of God, or come to Christ, prior to regeneration?


Since you didn’t show how I do not uphold the new birth, or how my position is in opposition to it, I don’t see what you are saying exactly. I believe this was answered by somebody else already, though.


That’s correct, but your next set of statements contradicts these. However, I never claimed God would “read His word to me”. This claim has no meaning, unless it is a personal evaluation of my study habits. Nor did I ever claim you helped God write the Bible. I fail to see how this applies.


Wait. You can appropriate, by something you do, a work, Gods blessings? I disagree, in that grace, by definition, is unmerited favor. I believe that all are sinners (Romans 3:23) and unable by human performance to earn, deserve, or merit salvation (Titus 3:5). We believe that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and that apart from God's grace, no one can be saved (Ephesians 2:8-9). We believe that none are righteous, or capable of doing good (Romans 3:10-12), and that apart from the conviction and regeneration of the Holy Spirit, none can be saved (John 1:12-13; 16:8-11; I Peter 1:23-25). Mankind is clearly fallen and lost in sin.


I hope this helps to understand the differences in our positions, and which scripture upholds.


God bless,

william

CovenantInBlood (Kyle)

Thanks for your patience with me and taking the time to help me see your point of view. I am glad that you have shown a support for and belief in the new birth. I don't know how God does this, probably can not know in this mortal body. But I know that God in His manifold grace does this and I agree that I could never save myself. I can see how it could be that moments before I choose (or change my mind) to believe in Christ in faith, the Holy Spirit has actually already done or begun to change or let's say "quicken" my formerly dead spirit into the new creature who is able to receive and spiritually discern the things that God will now perform in my life.

Forgive my ignorance of Calvinistic principles, but for those the Calvinist considers personally, particularly chosen as elect of God (from the foundation of the earth): what is their disposition prior to the new birth? They will not be conscious of the fact that they are the elect, but I assume there may be several interventions by the Spirit of God into their lives so that they move more or less irresistably into right relationship with Him, finally resulting in their complete salvation. The reprobate should be equally unconscious of their election to damnation and apparently God passes them by instead of goading on to faith in Christ?

So does the Calvinist (again, sorry to use the label because it may not exactly represent your position) believe that there is a definite change or regeneration to new life in Christ? That is, do you also accept that a miraculous change takes place whereby we are born again but by the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus? And then could it be that God chooses the "moment" of salvation and prepares our heart. Then we as a result believe on Jesus Christ (now that our new, renewed spirit has been quickened (made alive) and is able to believe.

I guess that I would live in some apprehension, not wanting to outguess God for this moment, again I may be missing the point. By what I am hearing from you, believing faith is a post-salvic action, not a pre-salvic or "salvation initiated by the individual's will".

With that in mind, I can see now why the mass-invitation given by evangelists such as 'Billy' of my discussions would be viewed as distasteful and repugnant to the Calvinist. Let me think about this some. I have personally favored one on one or small Bible study evangelism for witnessing.

averagefellar,

You are right that in places I my illustrations appeared to be addressing, say your reading habits, etc. and I was only making an illustration, albeit a poor one. I may get back to you when I have more time. Please check my response to, was it william? I am beginning to understand that the belief for salvation FOLLOWS regeneration of the spirit. I suggested how the point of salvation might be viewed. You are welcome to get in on that response if you desire.

Thanks again for your time in discussing these truly crucial points of theology.

Thomas

I honestly think you are starting to understand.


before regeneration, we are all sinners deserving damnation. I think some people have assurance early on, but for some of us it is an ongoing 'struggle'. There are two camps on how the Holy Spirit draws. Some believe God works and draws throughout the life of the elect culminating in an effectual call. Others think it is an all-at-once thing. Either way, as you have noted, it is an effectual calling. Your summary of the reprobate is good. God leaves them in their preferred state. I think you are understanding the position of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace.


I don't have anything against an invitation to a mass of people. Peter preached to thousands as did Christ. We offer the gospel to all. Only those elected will respond. The difference with Billy is his view of the atonement and the theology it necessitates. I also prefer small groups studies and personal contact evangelism. Keep studying, I think you are beginning to understand.


God bless,

william

I agree that the jailor was "unsaved" (i.e., justified) at the point of verse 30, but he was at that point regenerated, i.e., the new birth had already taken place. The Holy Spirit works in, through and in conjunction with the preaching/reading of the Word of God, which we know from the text was that which Paul spoke to the jailor. You then ask: What if the jailor had not followed their advice, what if he chose not to beleive? This question is akin to asking, "What if God was not holy?" The answer is, of course, then he would not be God. If the jailor had not followed the advice given, then he would surely not have been saved (i.e., justified), but since the inspired text says he DID repent and believe upon Christ, then there is no possibility that he wouldn't have done so. Why? Because of the very fact that he believed on Christ shows that the Holy Spirit had done that radical transformation of his soul (new birth/regeneration/made alive/born again), which of necessity terminates in repentance and faith in Christ. As a newborn "naturally" and infallibly begins to breath; inhale and exhale air, so likewise one who is spiritually reborn begins to "breath"; inhales spiritual things and exhales the fruit of spiritual life; aka: repentance (putting off sin and resolving to walk in righteousness) and faith (a love for God and a trusting in the person of Christ and His substitutionary work.) If there are no signs of physical life with physical birth, then the child is pronounced dead. Likewise, if there are no signs of spiritual life, then the person is undoubtedly dead.

First, a correction of your use of terms is indicated. "Conversion" is decidedly a different thing than "the new birth". Let's define "the new birth" before "conversion" because it precedes it. The "new birth" in Scripture has many corollaries, e.g., "born again", "regeneration", "made alive", "resurrection", et al. This is the sole, sovereign and secret work of the Holy Spirit whereby He restores the spiritual essence of the soul. A new "nature"; i.e., disposition/inclination is formed within the person so that where there was once a natural hatred for God and an aversion to all that is good, this new nature has an insatiable love for God, desire for holiness and a hatred of sin, albeit these things exist initially in principle and grow throughout the person's life, aka: sanctification. The "new birth" is not something which a sinner experiences; i.e., he/she is totally unaware of its creation at the time it occurs. (cf. Jh 3:8)

Now, as to "conversion", this is where the "fruit/result" of regeneration occurs, wherein the sinner comes under conviction of sin, repents and turns to Christ in faith, at which time he/she is "justified" before God. In conversion, the person experiences these things since they are part of the event. So, conversion follows regeneration and is the natural and infallible result of it.
When does conversion occur in your theology?

If by "what" you mean to ask, what circumstances surround one being converted, the answer is that generally, it is in the context of the preaching/reading of the Word of God. More specifically, the Holy Spirit attends the proclaiming of the Gospel, regenerating those whose time it is to be saved, according to the secret council of God. Neither the one speaking the Gospel nor the hearer have any prior knowledge of the Spirit's work as explained above; i.e., it is a secret work as it is a sovereign work, according to His will.

If you are understanding Calvinism to teach that salvation occurs without any involvement of an individual, then unfortunately, you have misunderstood this. As explained above, man has no part whatsoever in his "regeneration". And, although conversion is the natural and infallible result of regeneration, there is indeed an actual inclusion of the person in it, i.e., it is really the person who repents and believes. Perhaps I should have dealt with defining this term, "salvation" before now, but I'll do so now. This word "salvation/saved" is a very comprehensive word, which can refer to the totality of a person being brought into a new and eternal relationship with the living God, e.g., beginning with God's eternal decree, predestination, election, regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and final glorification> It also can mean specific elements of that "Golden Chain" (cf. Rom 8:29, 30), e.g., "saved" is sometimes synonymous with "justified", i.e., that moment in time when a sinner repents and believes upon Christ and God then pronounces that person "not guilty", imputing Christ's righteousness to his/her account. (cf. Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6; Jam 2:23).

No one who has been regenerated can or will "pass up the opportunity", for they are "made willing", i.e., the new nature of necessity reaches out to Christ, as this is it's intended purpose. The unregenerate, by nature, refuse to believe (cf. Jh 10:26; Acts 7:51). The regenerate always and immediately believe on Christ (cf. 6:37, 45, 65; 10:27; Acts 2:37, 41; 13:48; 16:14).

As others have already pointed out, such statements are contradictory in that you cannot be "dead" and even hope to "see the kingdom of God", for the preaching of the cross is foolishness and something which is hated (cf. Jh 1:12, 13; 3:19; Rom 8:7, 8; 1Cor 2:14; Eph 4:17-19; 1Pet 2:7, 8; et al). Further, Paul says that "while ye were dead, God made you alive . . ." (Eph 2:1, 5). Using the raising of Lazarus from the dead as an illustration of what happens spiritually when one is "made alive, aka: regenerated", we see nothing of a semi-alive state after Jesus calls him forth from the grave. The biblical record says that Lazarus was 4 days in the tomb and thus there is no possible denying that he was really dead; in fact his body in all likelihood had begun to decompose. When Jesus said, "Lazarus, come forth!", Lazarus didn't take on a state of being between being dead and being alive and in that state choose to live and consequently received a "full" condition of life. Man is either spiritually dead or he is spiritually alive. A sinner never chooses to be alive; he is MADE alive by the Holy Spirit (regenerated/born from above) and as a result he/she believes upon Christ unto salvation.

Yes, the jailor was numbered with the elect from all eternity by God's secret determinative council. And yes, no one, including the jailor was privy to what God had decreed. (cf. Acts 18:9, 10) But even though the jailor was one of the elect, he was not "predisposed to believe", for there is no difference in this regard as to a sinner's natural condition. ALL are born in sin and have no interest in Christ whatsoever. Their natural inclination is toward sin, and that only. (cf. Eph 2:2-4; Rom 3:10-18)

What we see in this passage is the response of the outward call of the Gospel, i.e., the necessity of all men to repent of their sins and to believe upon Christ unto salvation. There is no implication that man is "naturally" capable of heeding that call. It is simply a statement of what all men are responsible to do should they desire salvation. Only those who have been given the desire (regenerated) have any interest in being saved. (cf. Matt 11:25-28; Jh 6:44; et al)

In His Grace,

I think that Paul's words to the Ephesians, after he had explained the glory of their eternal predestination in Chapter 1 is more than sufficient to explain the condition of ALL men from birth:

Ephesians 2:1-3 (ASV) And you [did he make alive,] when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:--

Yes and no! Regeneration effects a radical change of nature; i.e., one's entire being is recreated, being given a predisposition that is inclined toward God. This just prior to (speaking of time) one's conversion. It is IN and BECAUSE of regeneration that one suddenly feels the need of salvation and the excellency of trusting in Christ as a means to receive remission of sins and reconciliation with God. To encapsulate the entire experience, we could say that after one is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, the sinner feels an insatiable desire to be united to God. And, at the same time, he/she experiences a conviction of the condemnation and guilt that separates them from God, i.e., sin; they are indeed helpless and hopeless sinners. And, it is also here that one finds Christ most lovely and desirable in and of Himself and as the only means by which they can be reconciled to God and receive the forgiveness of sins over which they mourn.

As averagefellar has already replied on this matter, it is not the scope of the "invitation" but rather the content of that invitation and all that it implies, i.e., "God has done everything he possibly can to save you; now it's up to you!". Also, I might add, that evangelists such as Billy Graham use unbiblical (aka: worldly) methodologies to gain "converts", e.g., Madison Avenue salesmanship techniques, psychological ploys which evoke the emotions, etc., etc. The results are the further hardening of sinners' hearts and a counterfeit assurance that they are right with God.

For a marvelous description of the differences between the "new gospel" and the biblical "old Gospel", see here: The Old Gospel and the New, by Dr. J.I. Packer.

In His Grace,

I think you are beginning to understand what I'm saying. It's a very important difference, in fact, to say that regeneration precedes faith rather than follows it. It makes all the difference between whether the salvation is by man's will or by God's.


The disposition of the elect prior to regeneration is the same as the disposition of the reprobate: they are totally disposed toward evil in all they think, say, and do. They are, in fact, enemies of God. The difference is that the elect will at some point be regenerated, whereas the reprobate will be condemned. The decision as to who is elect and who is reprobate is, of course, entirely God's, and it is not based on anything about us, but it is based entirely on the secret counsel of God. All of us deserve damnation, but God has endeavored to save a remnant in order that His love and mercy might be made manifest, to His glory.

Now, whether there are "several interventions of the Holy Spirit" in the lives of the elect, I think God is constantly intervening in the world. In fact, I think even the most minute detail is in the mind of God, decreed by Him from all eternity. (Even that speck of dust on the window!) All these things in conjunction work together for the good of the elect, for the just judgement of the reprobate, and for the glory of God.


I'm comfortable with the label "Calvinist." It accurately describes my theological outlook. (My only caveat would be that it accurately describes the Bible's theological outlook, as well. But that's the quibble between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, isn't it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />)


Yes, yes, yes! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> God chooses the moment, prepares the circumstances, sends the Holy Spirit who quickens us, and as a result we believe.


Believing faith is a post-regenerate action, though I wouldn't say post-salvific. That is, in logical order, first there is regeneration, second there is faith and repentance, and third there is justification/salvation. But practically speaking, I'd say these occur simultaneously more often than not; that is, all in a single moment. If not knowing when this moment occurs causes you apprehension, I'm inclined to say you probably don't have to worry. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />


I don't think there's something wrong with mass invitations per se. Certainly, Peter's Pentecost sermon was delivered to a mass of people. The problem with Billy Graham's invitations is their content. Talk about how "God has done all He can, now it's up to you"—well, let's be honest, it's blasphemy. It paints a God who is dependent on man to save man, and that's both theologically ridiculous and unbiblical. Similarly all the junk about "accepting Jesus into your heart" by saying the "Sinner's Prayer." It becomes a kind of ritual whereby people think that because they have repeated a prayer, God owes them salvation.

Well, I hope what I've said helps clarify some things for you. You are of course welcome to ask further questions, and I and the others here will do our best to answer them. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />

Same link as Pilgrim posted, http://www.the-highway.com/gospeloldandnew_Packer.html, and an excerpt I think really sums it up.......

emphasis mine.

Good article.


God bless,

william