John Wesley's theology

[Canuckster1127]

The scope of how you're using the word "choice." My comment was to clarify that in terms of the choice to accept God or not, 5 point Calvinism's position is that there is no choice, as fallen man cannot even choose to accept Christ without God regenerating them before they do so. Your comment as to Calvinism allowing for choice doesn't apply in this context. The clarification is outside the scope of how the word is being used here.

[DannyM]

Bart, can you quote me where I said this. I'm looking and can't see it.

The scope of how you're using the word "choice." My comment was to clarify that in terms of the choice to accept God or not, 5 point Calvinism's position is that there is no choice, as fallen man cannot even choose to accept Christ without God regenerating them before they do so. Your comment as to Calvinism allowing for choice doesn't apply in this context. The clarification is outside the scope of how the word is being used here.

Of course I agree that no man can come to God without God regenerating them. My view regarding that is established and clear. So if I've made a slip of the tongue I'd like to see it and correct it.

[puritan lad]

I do have a question about the term "double-predestination". Is it logically possible to hold to "single predestination"? Can one hold that God predestines the elect to be saved, and then reject the idea that He also predestines "the wicked for the day of destruction"?

That's a great question, PL. It's one I've had myself. I struggle to understand how one can believe in only predestination of the elect. Single predestination seems inconsistent to me. It seems if God would predestine some to eternal life, the others, would have to be predestined to eternal damnation. In other words, PL, at least your error is based on logic.

Well. logic as well as Scripture.

Proverbs 16:4
Romans 9:21-23
1 Thessalonians 5:9
1 Peter 2:8
Jude 1:4

[Canuckster1127]

I actually agree that PLs reasoning is consistent here. It's meaningless to speak of non-volitional predestination in one instance but not in its reverse. Many Reformed or Calvinist believers either don't understand or are uncomfortable with the implications of their belief in this regard. That's why you have 4 point Calvinists. 4 pointers drop the L in the tulip. If you beieve that God predestines people to salvation in the manner that PL describes then you have to correspondingly believe that God creates people with the intent and preknowledge of sending them to hell.

[DannyM]

I actually agree that PLs reasoning is consistent here. It's meaningless to speak of non-volitional predestination in one instance but not in its reverse. Many Reformed or Calvinist believers either don't understand or are uncomfortable with the implications of their belief in this regard. That's why you have 4 point Calvinists. 4 pointers drop the L in the tulip. If you beieve that God predestines people to salvation in the manner that PL describes then you have to correspondingly believe that God creates people with the intent and preknowledge of sending them to hell.

Not sure that differences between Calvinists is the discussion. But still, I'd like to see where I have instigated such a discussion...

[RickD]

PL, are you familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church? Could you tell me from your pov, where their error lies. I mean their error, in their biblical interpretation. So it won't derail this thread, please post in this thread:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=120

I think it would help clarify your pov, here. Thanks

[August]

No-one, including Calvinists, deny that one has to believe in order to be saved.

I would beg to differ. Because the word believe is being equivocated to suit the argument. Without question the position that PL presents is that belief is a result of salvation. The believer is programed for belief. It is the unavoidable response to regeneration which has already occurred. In this case, everything follows. God regenerates the person. Then they believe, which is a determined response. I would say that for many here, that definition of belief is far different.

jlay, I agree and disagree.

Belief is defined the same way no matter how we come to belief. It is warranted intellectual, spiritual and emotional consent to a stated fact. We have to be convinced that something is true before we believe it. So is belief faith? One cannot have faith in something which one does not believe.

I think you are mixing up some terms here too. PL, nor any Calvinist, is arguing that belief is a result of salvation. Salvation is not an event, it is a process, and belief, or faith, if you want, is but one part of that process.

You are correct that we believe that regeneration precedes faith. That gets back to the the whole natural state of man discussion. I don't think our beliefs on that are that much different either, as both Wesley and Arminius seemed to affirm depravity, and the necessity of grace and the work of the Spirit so that man is able to believe. The big point of contention is whether that grace was prevenient, or common, grace, as the two gents whom I mentioned argued, or special grace, as Calvinism argues. While Calvinism does not dispute that God is good to all people, and that even fallen man experiences some of the goodness of God, we do argue that that is not the grace that causes one to be reborn. That grace is specific to the elect, those which God "rips out the the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh", where the blinders are removed, and in which the Spirit moves so that they may perceive the things of the Spirit.

And yes, once one is moved by the Spirit, then one cannot deny that which the Spirit reveals, the grace of God, and one is able to emotionally, spiritually and intellectually understand the choices before him, and by virtue of having felt the Spirit move in oneself, cannot deny the power of God. I know that my individual experience is not representative or normative, but I have both seen and experienced the emotional movement of the Spirit in people when hearing the gospel. I cannot reconcile that sudden outburst of emotion and surrender with the same persons that walked in the room just minutes before. The change is just too profound to be natural.

I would argue that all responses are programmed, unless anyone can show that indeterminism is true. We have three options: Determinism, where the actualization of choices are pre-determined and can be no different (which you are arguing is the position of Calvinism), indeterminism, where choices are made independent of any influence or determinants whatsoever, or self-determinism, where the person, subject to his background, character, circumstances and external influences, make a decision by himself.

Calvinism, and I think most of Christianity (except Pelagianism), holds to self-determinism or compatibility. Our response to specific choices are always subject to who we are (unless indeterminism is true), what we have heard, what our belief system is, what our character is like, where we grew up, what we do and our spiritual state. In that sense, your argument of being pre-programmed holds true for both cases. You just argue that we are wrong because we say that there is a special intervention by the Spirit upon the hearing of the gospel that compels us to accept the gift of the atonement. However, that we already have some kind of influence that compels us to actualize a choice is inarguable (except in the case of indeterminsim). What proof is there that 1. there is no special intervention by the Spirit upon hearing the gospel, and 2. that without that intervention, one is able to understand and accept the full weighty importance of the atonement? I would argue that the Scriptural proof shows the opposite, that the gospel as Gods decree for how He chooses to save His people carries with it a special spiritual power, and that without that, no-one is able to understand.

In fact, we argue from Scripture that man cannot understand that which is spiritually discerned without the power of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14). Acts 7:51, for example, say that we always resist the Spirit, Rom 8:7 says the carnal mind is the mortal enemy of God. How then are we to believe that such a person can come to an intellectual, spiritual and emotional conviction of the gravity, importance and love that is the gospel? Unbroken sin is the result of a character that stands in complete opposition to God, as a result of the condition is which we are born. It is in our makeup, and we cannot change that by ourselves.

In one sense, we see grace resisted all the time, and it is only against that backdrop that we can speak of the irresistible grace that makes effective the hearing of the gospel. Just recently, with the death of Hitchens, we saw that resistance. He must have heard the gospel hundreds or thousands of times, yet he resisted forcefully and expressively. Why did he not come to believe? (Disclaimer: If in fact he did not). He was no different than any other man, he grew up in church, his brother is a Christian and he understood the gospel, yet he did not consent, whereas many others do, when they first hear the gospel. I saw this personally as a missionary in Africa. There was no advantage for Hitchens to be gained from his person, from who he was and his attributes, even if he was highly intelligent, had heard the gospel many times, and knew the dire consequences of not believing.

One may here say that in the Calvinist scheme it was predetermined by God that he should not believe. This would not be inconsistent with Scripture, where we read of the hardening of hearts and vessels of destruction prepared for the glory of God. That would only be part of the story though. Hitchens did not believe because he was never moved to do so. In his natural state, despite having heard the gospel, knew the consequences and intellectually and emotionally understood them, he was not spiritually moved. In fact, one may even say it appears that he was programmed not to believe, so unbelievable it seems. In reality though, it was that he remained in his natural state. He was spiritually blind. He could not actualize a belief in God, because he did not desire it. There was no movement from his natural state towards God, yet logic dictates that having heard the best arguments of Christianity, having heard the gospel, even being friends with Christians, it should have been a no-brainer, he should have accepted the atonement. He had more opportunities to do so than most.

Was he unable, or unwilling, or unwilling because he was unable? Was his will the cause or effect of his unbelief? It cannot be both, as many here want to argue. Something cannot be its own cause. Logically ability precedes will. I can will to jump to the moon (the choice is there), but logically I know that I don't have the ability (cannot actualize the choice, so the choice is useless). Only a change in my ability allows me to make a valid choice, I can jump to the moon if I so choose. (If this does happen, does anyone know a good basketball agent?). In the same way, if we are spiritually unable to accept the atonement (actualize the decision by entering into a relationship with Christ), then the choice is irrelevant. Once our ability changes, then we can make the choice. John 1:13, Eze 37:14 and many others.

A quick word about indeterminism...as it seems from how some here define free will that that is what they believe the will of man is. When talking about choice, one should distinguish between the possibility of choices, and the actualization of choices. The term means no causally sufficient circumstances to actualize a choice. Under normal circumstances, one would presume that everything that happens, is determined because of something that happened before. Indeterminism states that the universe at any specific moment is totally independent of its state in any prior moment. Successive events are never causally related in any way.

We can immediately see that this is not acceptable in any way, shape or form to the Christian. It just doesn't work on so many levels. Creation was then not the cause of the universe. The atonement as a historical fact is then of no consequence. God's love for us does not matter, as it cannot cause us to experience His love for us, or love Him or one another. As far as the argument at hand, it would be preposterous to argue then that God is causally responsible for our ontology, yet indeterministic when it comes to our spiritual, emotional and intellectual response to the gospel call. We know that there is preceding causes for us to be able to respond. We have a spirit, given by God breathing it into us and we have heard the gospel. In fact, we are told that faith comes by hearing (a cause).

We know God says that His word does not return empty (Is 55:11). That means the word is the cause of something, and it is to achieve the purpose for which God sent it out. Leaving the choice to an indeterministic spirit means that it may well return empty (no-one knows since there is no cause and effect), and it will not accomplish Gods purpose.

Sorry for the long answer, but I think we need to see a few things:
1. We are not as far apart as many think we are.
2. We need to be careful how we define things, as BW and others have said, and make sure we understand the implications of our definitions from a Biblical perspective.
3. That soundbytes and prooftexts are essentially used as debate mechanisms, and we should always attempt to understand as completely as we can.

I know that not everyone will agree with what I wrote here, but the purpose is for me to be clear about what Calvinism is and isn't.

[DannyM]

Bart, please produce my words. I have looked back through the thread and can't find me even hinting that fallen man can "choose to accept Christ without God regenerating them before they do so."

And this is even more baffling:

"Your comment as to Calvinism allowing for choice doesn't apply in this context. The clarification is outside the scope of how the word is being used here."

I mean, if I've said it I'll correct it, so can you quote me please?

[puritan lad]

PL, are you familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church? Could you tell me from your pov, where their error lies. I mean their error, in their biblical interpretation. So it won't derail this thread, please post in this thread:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=120

I think it would help clarify your pov, here. Thanks

It would take a book to outline the many errors in Westboro Baptist Church, but the two root errors lie in:

1.) The nature and purpose of the church in respect to social justice.
2.) Confusing God's Holy and Righteous "hatred" with their own malevolent hatred.

When they assume God's judgment upon fallen soldiers as a result of societal sins, they arbitrarily exempt themselves from such judgment.

[puritan lad]

To clarify jlay's issue:

We are justified BY faith, not BECAUSE OF faith. Faith is the means of our justification, not the cause.

Even so, since faith is itself a gift of God, we are still stuck with unconditional election, since God would be justifying us based on what He alone can give us.

[Canuckster1127]

Danny, You're right. Now I understand why you asked earlier if I was speaking to you or PL. It was PL who made the comment and I confused the two of you. I'm sorry and thanks for correcting me. My clarification however still stands.

[DannyM]

Danny, You're right. Now I understand why you asked earlier if I was speaking to you or PL. It was PL who made the comment and I confused the two of you. I'm sorry and thanks for correcting me. My clarification however still stands.

I thought I was going bonkers for a minute there!

[B. W.]

The doctrines of Calvinism: The Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD)

http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/ccorange.html

Here are some observations regarding the Canon…


One--Canon 3 contradicts Canon 11 and Luke 18:11-14

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have we given thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).

So did Jesus teach wrongly here in Luke's account and violate Canon 3?

Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.
Luke 18:12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.'
Luke 18:13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!'
Luke 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." NKJV


Two--Canon 7 contradicts Canon 13 and Canon 23

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed

Three--Canon 23 states man can do their own will; however does not that statement contradict Canon 8 and Canon 10 quoted below? How can a man have a will at all if all was predetermined by God?

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works.

How does Calvinism define free will? Is it the same as others definition

Another observation regard the Canon

After reading of the Laws – Canon 7 of Calvinism, and I guess Jesus himself would be deemed a heretic for his statement made as they are all phrases indicating the Father's and Son's drawing is by providing the means to induce choice:

John 3:15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. NKJV

The next parts are in also contradiction of Canon 7 as these are choice phrases also…

John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 3:20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
John 3:21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." NKJV

Conclusion:

After reviewing the Canons, it is plain that from these one can prove absolutely that God is partial and can only demonstrate partiality.

However the bible states clearly that God is not partial, nor does he show partiality to anyone. The Canon on the other hand does make God out as partial and arbitrary.

As for me, my loyalty is with Jesus Christ and not the doctrines of man. To him alone are we to be loyal too. These Canons had led to killing of many. Christ leads to life.

It appears to me, in my opinion that many well meaning Calvinist are more loyal to Canon and not Christ demonstrated by how they attempt blow others up with unholy grapeshot.

Don’t get me wrong, there are great truths within the doctrines of the 5 Points but also errors as well. The biggest one is making God Partial.

The other is the absolute failure to define terms like Free will with how others define Free will and words like Choice/choose, Depravity, Call…

So to beg the question for 5 pointers is this: Do tenants of Calvinism’s interpretation of predestination make God Partial? Why or Why not?

And next – Is the only means to be saved is accepting absolutely all 5 points of Calvinism and those that do not are d-mned? Is this true?

Final Remark

Note on Drawing mentioned in John 6:44 and John 12:32 both Father and Son draw - but how? by forceful coercion or induced choice? Which of these two lines up with being JUST, first to God proven so to the person as well?
-
-
-

[DannyM]

B.W., my aim was to show the doctrines of sovereign grace go back much farther than Calvin. You can do what you want with the canons, but the point I wanted to make, was made.

[DannyM]

As for me, my loyalty is with Jesus Christ and not the doctrines of man. To him alone are we to be loyal too. These Canons had led to killing of many. Christ leads to life.

This is about as relevant as saying, “The bible has led to the killing of many.”

It appears to me, in my opinion that many well meaning Calvinist are more loyal to Canon and not Christ demonstrated by how they attempt blow others up with unholy grapeshot.

Nice.

Don’t get me wrong, there are great truths within the doctrines of the 5 Points but also errors as well. The biggest one is making God Partial.

And your theology has no errors, Bryan?

The other is the absolute failure to define terms like Free will with how others define Free will and words like Choice/choose, Depravity, Call…

Calvinists don’t bandy the words ‘free will’ about without defining their terms. It’s usually those who cannot reconcile predestination with free will who are the most vociferous in proclaiming an unfettered free will. Funny, but true.

And next – Is the only means to be saved is accepting absolutely all 5 points of Calvinism and those that do not are d-mned? Is this true?

Whoever said such a thing?