<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I cannot accept the "total depravity" expressed by some Puritans (there was a chapter on this in John Armstrong's "The Compromised Church.") i.e. humans are totally unable to even respond positively to God without His spirit. What about people who, for example, express an interest in God, begin reading the Bible, and then die in a car accident? Did God decide to play some cruel joke by bringing them part way, and then send them to Hell anyway?<br></font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>First of all Henry your mistake is in thinking that sending a person to hell is a "cruel joke" rather that a just punishment for being in total rebellion against their lawful Lord and Sovereign.(Rom. 5:10;8:7) Even if I were to read the bible a thousand times and have some supposed "interest" in God its still not an interest that is godly in nature. People come to the bible reading it and seeking a God that satisfies them not looking toward the true God they "worship what they do not know" (John 4:22, Acts 17:23) <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Salvation is a work of God, one who "stoops to conquer," who brings us to Himself rather than waiting for us to come for all the best motives, because we never could. But we must have a part- a small part, like Samson pushing on the pillars- but still a part. Otherwise Jesus was wasting His breath preaching the kingdom to the crowds that flocked around Him. Think of all those open invitations! Didn't he realize that most of those listening likely weren't part of the elect?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? (2Co 2:14-16)<br><br>Now what does this have to do with what you just quoted? Just this when the Gospel is preached it has two purposes one is to bring the elect to salvation and the other is condemnation to the reprobate. Again I must emphasize the fact that God is infinitely just in sending people to hell because of the fact of their rebellion against Him. And if in the preaching of the gospel the reprobate are condemned to God be the glory.<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I would say it would be a false gospel if he sent us into all the world to preach the gospel to every person if there were no pardon for every one. Would you go to your neighbor and invite him to a diner you never prepared, knowing he has other plans and won’t come anyway? That would be a false and vain invitation.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Apparently, you do not understand the different wills of God. Read below.<br>
This parable is particular to Matthew alone. It must not be confused with the Great Supper of Luke 14:15-24.<br><br>The little group of parables, of which the Marriage Feast is the last, is arranged to make a specific point ONLY. Not only will those who disobey God’s command and reject His messengers (John the Baptist) never enter the Kingdom if they continue in this state of impenitence (compare, Matt 21:28-32) and not only will the dreadful scoundrels who maltreat and murder God’s ambassadors (the prophets) and even kill His Son be brought to a dreadful end, but far more, the city of these impenitents will be destroyed by fire (AD 70) and the Gentiles will come pouring into the Church.<br><br>Now just what kind of invitation was it?<br><br>Although only few are chosen, many must be called. This condemns all hyper-Calvinistic restriction of preaching to the elect, or to the regenerated, or to the "sensible sinner." Election in no wise hampers the serious call to all. But neither may the call of the many ignore, or conflict with, or destroy the election of the few. The sole saving purpose of God with the call of the many is the salvation of the few. The preaching of the gospel has its source, basis, and reason in the election of the church.<br><br>Thus, there are two distinct calls in the Gospel. The general call of the gospel is serious because it corresponds to a twofold distinction. First of all, God seriously makes known his revealed will for all creatures, his voluntas praecepti: "seriously and most genuinely God makes known in his Word what is pleasing to him: that those who are called should come to him." The call is serious in that it truly reveals what the duty of sinful humanity is, namely, repentance and faith in God. This first part of the explanation of the serio vocantur does not imply any will or intention to save on God's part; it only reveals the obligation of sinners. Secondly, the Canons go into the voluntas decreti: "Seriously he also promises rest for their souls and eternal life to all who come to him and believe." The call is a promise of salvation for all who do repent and believe, namely, the elect.<br><br>You may desire to study this more thoroughly. Paul Helm happened to write a brief response to the common misunderstanding of the wills of God. It so happens it is here at the Highway: The Call that Brings a Response Enjoy!
I read the article Joe and I thought it was good. I have no problem in agreeing with your position on Divine election. I fail to see how the article addressed the question of limited atonement though. And I don't see that the writer is denying the aspect of man's free will in regard to the divine call that accompanies the 'who so ever will' of preaching. <br><br>Exactly to what extent we have a free will in regard to God's foreknowledge and predestination is very difficult to pin down. The quote Henry gave from CS Lewis regarding Abraham brings this out nicely. <br><br>Another example that totally boggles my mind is the book of Ruth.<br><br>Here people are just going through the process of living their lives just like anyone else but the things that happen and the things they do develop into such a graphic and prophetic picture of Christ and the church it seems like the whole thing was written in advance and it was but they don’t know that.<br><br>So how do they have a free will? If we don’t have a perfectly free will, then how can Christ take us as a bride? In a perfect world, a husband chooses a wife, but the wife also has to be free to choose the husband. <br><br>To diminish man’s complete and total free will defeats the purpose of creating the world. We can never become automatons. How could He possibly love us the way He does is that is all we are or ever become after salvation?<br><br>In order for God to hold us accountable for anything we must first be made responsible and we can not be responsible for what we do have a free will to act on, including our salvation. Matthew 25:14-30<br>
Costello:<br><br>You made the following statement and you have made it a least twice now and it is a good point, but you didn't get the response I already made in the form of a previous post where Edwards addresses your objection head on. Here is your statement again:<br><br>"So how do they have a free will? If we don’t have a perfectly free will, then how can Christ take us as a bride? In a perfect world, a husband chooses a wife, but the wife also has to be free to choose the husband."<br><br>You are correct that Christ doesn't want a unwilling Bride, any more than you or I do. But the problem is, as Edwards points out, that though many say they are willing, in fact they are not, but rather at enmity against God, and loving the world, as the scripture states, UNLESS AND UNTIL their darkened understanding is illuminated to Christ's true beauty and wonder and suitableness and the sinners' utter need, by the work of the Holy Spirit. At that point, the understanding is no longer darkened as before and person TRUELY sees their need. This is the difference between the stoney and thorny ground hearers and the good ground hearers. The good ground hearers aren't born with a good heart, but rather their heart is enlightened and plowed to make it good.<br><br>I too, read the article by Healm and though he makes some good points he doesn't in my view bring these points out clearly enough. Right at the beginning he quotes Mathews account of the parable of the sower but he doesn't address why some hear EFFECTUALLY AND SOME DON'T, except tangentially. Nor does he point out in the Isaiah quote how those that "see" don't really see and those that "hear" don't really hear. What does this mean? It means that there are different kinds of hearing and seeing, and that those who think they see but are yet unhumbled to their true state by the plowing up of their heart by conviction of sin and their own utter helplessness, don't see or hear as is needed for salvation. <br><br>The other point you make indicates that you don't yet see that you are accountable for your sin and liable for eternal punishment:<br><br>"In order for God to hold us accountable for anything we must first be made responsible and we can not be responsible for what we do have a free will to act on, including our salvation. Matthew 25:14-30"<br><br>The scriptures make plain that we are already accountable, though we see it not. For you or I to claim that we are not accountable for eternal punishment is to secretly believe that if you had been in Adam's shoes you would have done differently with respect to original sin. This is at the root of the belief of those that claim Adam's sin imputed to them is not fair. But the truth is that God is saying that you are no different than Adam and would have made the same choice he did had you been in his shoes, and thus, whether you agree or not you are accountable. When the Spirit works inside a person to illuminate them, he shows them this and they truely see and believe it and admit their culpability before God honestly. They feel their guilt and admit it and then sue for mercy. As Edwards points out, to ask for mercy that you 'don't really deeply believe you NEED BECAUSE OF YOUR REAL GUILT, is a fake. That is step one, to truely see the need. Then, the Holy Spirit reveals' Christ's beauty and pardon to the soul and ravishes the soul with love to Him. We love Him because He first loved us, and he reveals that love and it become real, more real and more important than the things of the world. At that point the will is truely free because it see's self as it is and Christ as He is and the will, before in bondage to darkness and ignorance is free and makes a whole hearted choice to Love and serve Christ.<br><br>Hope this helps,<br><br>In Him,<br><br>Gerry<br><br>
Have you read Bondage of the Will by Luther or Freedom of the Will by Edwards? Both of these are classics and I highly recommend them. They will demonstrate the total inability of man's will in coming to Christ before the Holy Spirit first does a work. These would be well worth you time, I assure you.<br><br>
I was contemplating on how to answer some of what you said about free will and I recalled something that I thought might be helpful, that is written in the London Confession of the Baptist Faith.<br><br>The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter X<br><br>Of Effectual Calling<br><br>I. Those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;[2] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;[3] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh:[4] renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;[5] yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[6]<br><br>1. Rom. 8:30; 11:7; Eph. 1:10-11, II Thess. 2:13-14<br>2. Eph. 2:1-6<br>3. Acts 26:18; Eph. 1:17-18<br>4. Ezek.36:26<br>5. Deut. 30:6; Ezek.36:27; Eph. 1:19<br>6. Psa. 110:3; Song of Sol. 1:4<br><br>II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all forseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature,[7] being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit;[8] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.[9]<br><br>7. II Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8<br>8. I Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:5; John 5:25<br>9. Eph. 1:19-20<br><br>Tom<br><br>
Hi Gerry, I am sorry for not responding to your earlier posts and the posts of others. As I said early on, I’m not very good at expressing my thoughts. It takes a long time to say what I want to say and this topic just kind of exploded. I think your first question about the text of Heb. 6 was why I think they are Christians to begin with.<br><br>Well, for one reason, that is how I was taught scripture. (I will most likely post my testimony of salvation in the near future so you will better understand where I am coming from.) It always amazes me when I encounter different theologies, how strongly people hold to what they are taught and frankly that scares me. Not just to be scared for them that they might be wrong which I think is a natural and legitimate concern that we have for each other, but for myself, that I might be wrong.<br><br>In my heart of hearts I am very confident and secure in my theology. I study the scriptures, and make every effort to work out my own salvation. All the pieces from Genesis to Revelation fit together (most all of them anyway) and it fits my world view so that I have the perception of knowing who I am, where I came from and where all this is going. That is what I strive for daily, and to know Him who is TRUTH. I do my homework.<br><br>When I have done all that, how can I be so different from someone else who is perhaps just as diligent or more so? How can there be so many different theologies? Maybe the differences are smaller than they seem in the big picture, or maybe they are not. I have honestly tried to fit myself into other forms of doctrine. I seriously look at Seventh Day Adventists. They are not stupid people. They are honest. They believe they have found truth in their doctrine but I can’t do it. We have entered into spiritual rest and every day is the same. That is what I was taught. I can’t change.<br><br>I can’t accept someone else’s eschatology. I try to understand the verses the way they do but I can never answer all the objections that come to mind so that their interpretation looks better than what I was taught.<br><br>I’m trying, but I can’t get my brain around limited atonement which is what I’m focusing now. It is hard to express every detail that seems objectionable on a message board. I’m finding some confusion of terms which is always a major obstacle. I haven’t quite figured out the way ‘regeneration’ is used here. You seem to think that OT saints were regenerated. I don’t see how that is possible. Perhaps the most difficult part is the very low esteem that is held about Arminianism here. It is quite shocking.<br><br>I have always accepted man’s total free will as a fundamental part of our being. God placed Adam in the Garden with the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil so he had the power of choice. He made the wrong choice, but afterwards repented and served God. His nature was corrupted and his propensity to choose good was diminished but not lost. <br><br>For some reason no matter how many different ways I try to look at different theological ideas there is only the one I was taught that seems right. I would like to find something that I could comfortably change about the way I believe just to know that I could. The only thing is important is to know the Savior and know Him better and better. For that I give up all.<br><br>I appreciate all the responses. I am reading them and trying to consider them.<br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]<br><br><br>I can’t get my brain around limited atonement which is what I’m focusing now. It is hard to express every detail that seems objectionable on a message board. I’m finding some confusion of terms which is always a major obstacle. I haven’t quite figured out the way ‘regeneration’ is used here. You seem to think that OT saints were regenerated. I don’t see how that is possible. Perhaps the most difficult part is the very low esteem that is held about Arminianism here. It is quite shocking.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Like you, I too was raised with a completely different theology. But one thing that helped me understand Calvinism was this distinction: While my Arminian teachers believed that Christ came to make salvation possible for "whosever will," Calvinism teaches that Christ actually accomplished the salvation of all the elect. As for the regeneration part, it finally made sense to me that regeneration (or being "born again" must precede conversion because responding positively to the gospel is impossible for the natural man. See 1 Corinthians 2:14-16. <br><br>The Old Testament saints must have been regenerated as well, for saving faith is impossible for natural man.<br><br>Those two points are what helped clarify the Reformed faith for me. And they magnified my sense of awe and amazement at God's sovereign grace by about a billion times!! I hope this will provide the same clarity for you as well.<br><br>Your servant,<br>Robin<br>
Some of the phrases you used in your most recent post caught my eye. Setting aside the actual content of the discussion for a second, notice the terminology with which you describe your position. Among other things, you said: [color:red] That is what I was taught. I can’t change.
I can’t accept someone else’s ...
I try to understand the verses the way they do but I can never answer all the objections that come to mind
I’m trying, but I can’t get my brain around ...
I haven’t quite figured out the way .... is used here.
I have always accepted ...
For some reason no matter how many different ways I try to look at different theological ideas there is only the one I was taught that seems right.
I would like to find something that I could comfortably change about the way I believe just to know that I could.
I am ... trying to consider them.
What you are freely acknowledging here is [color:blue]your own inability to believe anything other than you were taught! In effect, you are saying that your so-called free will is not quite so free as you would like to think. You then contradict yourself by stating your First Principle: [color:red]" I have always accepted man’s total free will as a fundamental part of our being." You write as if this were true in the area of sin and salvation, but your own words testify against you that you cannot freely change what you believe! How much less can a dead man freely choose to come alive?
You have said that you are considering what is said here. That is good. Please take the time to read an article on this site, which gets beyond the "buzz-words" of the limited atonement argument to the heart of the matter, which helped me immeasurably when I was struggling with this very issue, and let us know what you think: Introductory Essay to The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
Hi Robin,<br>You wrote: The Old Testament saints must have been regenerated as well, for saving faith is impossible for natural man.<br><br>First the issue of Faith. Abraham had saving faith. That we are sure of and agree on. You believe that it is impossible without regeneration, there for he was regenerated. To me, regeneration = born again = New Creature in Christ = The Church = Bride of Christ. (1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:)<br>So this is going into a whole other field of study being that of ecclesiology. The beginning of the church was the Day of Pentecost and no one was 'born again' -regenerated - before that day. Adam had saving faith, but he did not die spiritually in the morning and get reborn in the afternoon. OT saints had saving faith that looked forward to the cross and a salvation that was not yet accomplished. That’s a big issue.<br><br>Luther’s discovery that changed his life was Hab. 2:4 “the just shall live by his faith.” Paul made this a major point in three books. “the Just”: who are the just = Galatians. “shall live”: how shall they live = Romans. “by faith”: what is faith = Hebrews.<br><br>Some one here has said faith is works. That’s not true.<br><br>Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? <br>Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. <br>Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. <br>Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. <br>Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.<br><br>The contrast is between faith and works to show that works can not save and the faith is not works.<br><br>Show me where it says he was born again. It says that he was justified, his faith was counted for righteousness and sin was not imputed to him. (verse 6) The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of the living and not of the dead, but he was not new creation. He just lives forever as Adam would have had he not sinned. He was called the friend of God, but we are called “SONS of God”. Big difference.<br><br>Btw, Arminian teachers teach salvation is possible for "whosever will," and also accomplished for the elect. The elect have a responsibility by the help and grace of God to make their calling and election sure. We don't do it on our own, but if we don't do our part, the part He holds us accountable for and we are responsible for, the abiding in Him part, we can not bear fruit and the Father comes and takes it away.<br><br>For your second point regarding the natural man receiving the things of God. 1 Corinthians 2:14 does not say the natural man can not respond to the gospel. They can not receive the things of the Spirit of God. What things of the Spirit of God? The wisdom of God. (verse 7) Paul is contrasting the salvation message he came to deliver and the deeper things of God that are reserved for the elect to receive.<br><br>I believe the natural man is perfectly capable of understanding the wages of sin is death but the Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. What is to not understand about that? The question is of faith, will he believe it? This, he also is capable of doing, as Abraham did. <br>
I think as we grow in knowledge it becomes like a house. When we are taught doctrine we take verses from one part of scripture and fit them into other verses and doctrines. It takes the form of a basic structure and then we fill in the spaces and decorate it with little hidden treasures from the word of God and experiences we find along the way. Every individual house is perfectly unique and customized by the occupant. <br><br>Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: <br>Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. <br>Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: <br>Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. <br><br>I am building my house, and it can be what ever I want it to be. But as I look for new building materials I have to ask myself ”how will this look in my house?” I have to look at each piece and compare it to the foundation stone, if I can not make it fit, I have to set it aside. The most important thing to building this kind of house is comparing new materials to the foundation stone and not what you have already built. I would tear it all down and start over if it becomes necessary. <br><br>The flood is coming and I want my house to stand. By the grace of God it will stand but I am still working on it.<br>
I am reading the intro essay to” "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". I don’t like it. I need something with more scripture support. This is very heavy handed, and ‘just take my word for it’. The Arminian view is very grossly misrepresented which I am finding is common in what I have read in articles here so far.<br><br>What I wanted to ask though was if God so expertly saves and keeps the elect without any volition on their part, how did Adam fall in the first place? Are we to assume He can keep us any better, or was it something He allowed Adam to have that we are denied, like a free will?<br><br>Which is not to imply that He needs our help, but only to say if that was His plan to have a group of people to serve Him that are without personal will or are so held in His power that their will is completely impotent, it would appear something went terrible wrong. Or at least He would not have taken this route to that end.<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] To me, regeneration = born again = New Creature in Christ = The Church = Bride of Christ. (1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:) </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>On that point, we agree. Abraham was a new creature in Christ, a patriarch of the Church, and part of Christ's bride. The Church has always existed, my friend, it just wasn't always called "the Church." In ancient days she existed only in a single household. Then she existed in many households and went by the name "Israel." Old Testament Israel is hugely multiplied in the New Testament to include the Gentiles, and the church is now called "the Church." But salvation has always been only by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone. <br><br>God is timeless! The Old Testament Church looked forward with faith, and we look backward with faith, but both looked with faith to Christ, the Savior of the whole Church.<br><br>Natural man is [color:red]DEAD</font color=red> in tresspasses and sins. Natural Man is incapable of responding to anything. He is not merely sick, but dead. He must be resurected first in order to even hear the gospel, let alone respond to it. The only cure for spiritual death is spiritual rebirth, and only God can do that. Otherwise unregenerate men can boast in their own merit for having the good sense to accept Christ, or in their sensitivity to God's leading, or in their own ability to comprehend and believe in an unseen God and accept an unseen Christ as risen from the dead.<br><br>Such things are foolishnes to the unregenerate.<br><br>
My personal beliefs are that we do have a free will, but it is 1) apart from Christ, only free to choose damnation and 2) is only as free as God allows for it to be. I have no problem in saying I went to that movie on my own free will. It was what I wanted to do. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]What I wanted to ask though was if God so expertly saves and keeps the elect without any volition on their part, how did Adam fall in the first place? Are we to assume He can keep us any better, or was it something He allowed Adam to have that we are denied, like a free will?</font><hr></blockquote><p>One must keep in mind that the Garden of Eden was a perfect place and was free from the corruption of sin. And in a perfect world, man is free completely to do as he wants. And Adam was free to do so. But until Satan came along, the only thing Adam wanted to do was commune with God. And when Eve came, commune with God through the love of his wife and along side of her. Why is it such a hard thing to say that they had more freedom in the garden than we do, especially in light of verses like Genesis 3:17-19?<blockquote>[color:green]And to Adam he said,<br><br>"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife<br>and have eaten of the tree<br>of which I commanded you,<br>'You shall not eat of it,'<br>cursed is the ground because of you;<br>in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; <br>thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;<br>and you shall eat the plants of the field. <br>By the sweat of your face<br>you shall eat bread,<br>till you return to the ground,<br>for out of it you were taken;<br>for you are dust,<br>and to dust you shall return."</font color=green><br> Genesis 3:17-19 (ESV)</blockquote>I think that this passage shows that man LOST some control in the Garden.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Which is not to imply that He needs our help, but only to say if that was His plan to have a group of people to serve Him that are without personal will or are so held in His power that their will is completely impotent, it would appear something went terrible wrong. Or at least He would not have taken this route to that end.</font><hr></blockquote><p>But something did go terribly wrong. Adam sinned. And for sin, there is always a punishment.<br><br>
