"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
I don't think God was *forcing* Pharaoh to do something evil. Rather, simply hardening his heart towards God, and then allowing this 'evil' to take place in order to complete His Will. It's the same with all sin. God doesn't force people to sin, but he allows them to and uses it towards a greater purpose.Silvertusk wrote:True - But the whole idea of God hardening "Pharoah's Heart" is a reference to his middle knowledge and it does not imply that God changed Pharoah's heart physically himself. Otherwise you are then implying that God is forcing someone to do something evil and you can equate that with Satan entering Judas.
and Matthew 24:10The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
From a Calvinist view point, how does one explain this? Surely, God's elect can't un-elect themselves. Therefore, how do some abandon their predestination?At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other
Like the above, how does one fall away from predestination? Clearly, this verse states that one can be in the faith and then severe themselves from it; abandoning it. This gives me trouble with the 'They weren't really Christians' argument.I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
Clearly states that we can reject or resist the Holy Spirit. Now, I realize God has the ability to overcome this; but in the (general) case of an elect, giving them the ability to choose or reject the Father's 'drawing' is really no different from Arminianism, correct?You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.
I initially thought this Efficacious Grace was a great way to put things; however, upon further reflection, it gives me several questions.B. W. wrote:Maytan,
That's why I like the phrase 'Efficacious grace' over ‘Irresistible Grace’ better because God's Word will not return void, will accomplish His purpose, not being dependent upon man's response as it remedies the response, and thus God's purposes are glorified in Himself alone.
Irresistible Grace makes it sound like there is no remedy to the response of men, when there really is. 'Efficacious grace' on the other hand God provides the medicine that creates choice to take the medicine or not – God produces choice, when before there was none offered for humanity.
God foreknowing the end result of the choice that his offer of medicine will have on everyone - then he can make a person howsoever he wills before they ever were. In this, he remains absolutely just, without iniquity, revealing absolute justice to all, perfect in all his ways. Without this, in the eyes of men, God is forced to contradict his very nature and character.
The greatest weakness of Calvinism is its current locked box theology that forbids anyone to think outside the box to smooth out the inconsistencies. I get in trouble with my Calvinist brethren even to mention this, but it was predestined!
Remember God is way too big to put in a locked box – the creeds of Calvinism cannot answer everything about God. It is only a tool set with a few tools one can better understand God with.
-
-
-
This sounds like you're taking a stance directly opposite to that of Calvinism. This statement sounds more like God buying medicine (salvation) for everyone, but not everyone accepts it. Which isn't a Calvinist stand-point. (Limited Atonement)'Efficacious grace' on the other hand God provides the medicine that creates choice to take the medicine or not – God produces choice, when before there was none offered for humanity.
I don't quite understand this. I think I'm rather poor at comprehending things, so hang in there with me for a moment. This sounds to me like you're saying, because God knows what each person will choose if he offers them the choice, he predestines them based on what he knows they'll do. Correct? Isn't that prohibiting the ability to choose (follow or reject) God; which would be contradicting to scriptures? This is my biggest problem with predestination. It ('Irresistible Grace') eliminates the ability to choose to follow or reject God.God foreknowing the end result of the choice that his offer of medicine will have on everyone - then he can make a person howsoever he wills before they ever were. In this, he remains absolutely just, without iniquity, revealing absolute justice to all, perfect in all his ways. Without this, in the eyes of men, God is forced to contradict his very nature and character.
Oh, don't worry, I know this quite well! I'm not trying to reconcile God to any particular doctrine or belief. Rather, I'm trying to find out what beliefs fit the Bible.Remember God is way too big to put in a locked box – the creeds of Calvinism cannot answer everything about God. It is only a tool set with a few tools one can better understand God with.
Not really -- at all...Maytan wrote: I initially thought this Efficacious Grace was a great way to put things; however, upon further reflection, it gives me several questions.
1. When you say it remedies the response, you're basically saying that, regardless of whether or not a person chooses to accept God, the choice is as according to His Will; right? But, the whole concept of having the ability to choose whether or not to follow God is in direct contradiction to Calvinism, isn't it? (Total Depravity)
Depends on one’s idea of limited atonement - limited to whom...? To humanity only??? Selected angels, people, animals??? - This is one area Calvinist need to think out of the box on...Maytan wrote: 2.This sounds like you're taking a stance directly opposite to that of Calvinism. This statement sounds more like God buying medicine (salvation) for everyone, but not everyone accepts it. Which isn't a Calvinist stand-point. (Limited Atonement)'Efficacious grace' on the other hand God provides the medicine that creates choice to take the medicine or not – God produces choice, when before there was none offered for humanity.
Not quite would be my answer to you in this is an area. Black and white old school locked box theology is a good defense against universalism, Mormonism, Cults, etc…but it still leaves unsettledness and ammo for people to reject Christ on this matter we are discussingMaytan wrote:3.I don't quite understand this. I think I'm rather poor at comprehending things, so hang in there with me for a moment. This sound to me like you're saying, because God knows what each person will choose if he offers them the choice, he predestines them based on what he knows they'll do. Correct? Isn't that prohibiting the ability to choose (follow or reject) God; which would be contradicting to scriptures? This is my biggest problem with predestination. It ('Irresistible Grace') eliminates the ability to choose to follow or reject God.God foreknowing the end result of the choice that his offer of medicine will have on everyone - then he can make a person howsoever he wills before they ever were. In this, he remains absolutely just, without iniquity, revealing absolute justice to all, perfect in all his ways. Without this, in the eyes of men, God is forced to contradict his very nature and character.
It seems a Calvinist point is that, if Jesus dying on the cross truly accomplished something, it couldn't have been for all men. This being because, if it's up to man to choose God in order to get Salvation, that essentially gives man the ability to give himself salvation. (not sure I've got that argument correct, so feel free to correct me.) However, as I mentioned earlier in this topic, it could be like buying gifts. If God bought a gift for everyone, that doesn't mean everyone has to accept it. Would someone rejecting the gift mean that God failed to buy it? Puritan Lad seemed to say that, if Jesus dying paid for the sin of every man, then they would all be saved. (Universalism) But, if you look at it like a gift, it seems to me possible that God bought the gift of salvation for everyone, and is holding it out in-front of them for whenever (or if) they decide to receive it. Why isn't this a possibility?
Your last statement is excellent and shows another area Calvinism needs to think out the box to improve their belief system (not destroy it). It need airing out in under the light of the Lord.Maytan wrote:Oh, don't worry, I know this quite well! I'm not trying to reconcile God to any particular doctrine or belief. Rather, I'm trying to find out what beliefs fit the Bible.Remember God is way too big to put in a locked box – the creeds of Calvinism cannot answer everything about God. It is only a tool set with a few tools one can better understand God with.
The whole topic of salvation is probably the biggest question I've had in regards to Christianity. While I've been raised in a Christian home, I never really was a Christian. When the topic came up, I was more or less saying "Jesus? Oh yeah, that guy, I know him and all that." Over the passed... I suppose year or so, I've grown increasingly interested in exactly what my world views are, what my standards are, where I exactly I decide to put the foundations of my life. Needless to say, while I still have more questions popping into my head every day, I've chosen Jesus.
Just tacking this on at the end; one is saved by believing and trusting in Jesus. The thing I don't get is, from a Calvinist how sin fits into this. Obviously, even the 'saved' are going to sin. And thus, we have to repent of this sin. But, if people are predestined and the 'Perseverance of the Saints' is true, then I fail to see how repentance matters at all. This is why, besides just scripture, the choice to fall away or reject Christ seems to *have* to exist. From the perspective of Perseverance, as I understand it, the elect would be saved regardless of whether they have unconfessed sin. (whereas, uncofessed sin, or a lack of repentance, would put us in the same positions as demons. Knowing that he exists, but not being saved.) Is it not possible for one believe and trust in Christ, and yet still sin? If it is not, that would mean that the saved are not sinners. If a 'saved' person decides to sin deliberately, and does not repent or be remorseful of such a thing, that would cause one to lose such salvation, correct? At least; until this person decides to repent.
I'm open for correction, though. As I said, I'm new to all of this in the grand scheme of things.
Calvinism is one more illustration of the futility of systematic theology. God's truths, particularly relating to soteriology, are too lofty to be put into concise formulae. The Five Points of Calvinism oversimplify the profound truths of God. They derive their force from proof-texts rather than the general tenor of Scripture.
Both. They are willing slaves to sin, but they are still slaves. They need to be set free by the Son, because that are both unwilling and unable to free themselves.jlay wrote:Is it that they can't come to Christ, or that they won't come to Christ?
It's not that the knowledge itself is secret, but that it is supressed in unrighteousness. Man, in his fallen nature, cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. Such knowledge, though it exists in all men, can only take root as reality with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I would recommend Jonathan Edward's sermon "A Divine and Supernatural Light" to explain this further.Silvertusk wrote:This to me is dangerous theology and bordering on Gnosticism where having hold of secret knowledge allows you to be saved.
I prefer the term "Particular Redemption". Christ's atonement was not limited in it's sufficiency. No one can say that Christ's death was insufficient for their sins. But Christ came do to more than to provide "medicine", for medicine to a dead man is worthless. The Arminian view of the atonement is simply that. John Owen describes it as an ointment in a box, that God has left to us to apply by our own virtuous resources. But the key to understanding the atonement is first to realize that Christ's works provides actual salvation, and He clearly does not provide this for everyone. He came to seek and to save. He purchased the church in His own blood, and shed that blood for the redemption of many. He saw the labor of His soul, and was satisfied. So Christ atonement was for the effect of saving His sheep (and only them), so that not one of them is lost. That's what limited atonement teaches.B.W. wrote:Depends on one’s idea of limited atonement - limited to whom...? To humanity only??? Selected angels, people, animals??? - This is one area Calvinist need to think out of the box on...
More like God saying – here is medicine…
Didn't read the article, nor do I know who wrote it. But while this statement (and many similar one I've heard) may sound quite lofty and "spiritual", it is actually a sign of pride, immaturity, and just plain biblical laziness. While systematic theologies are not inerrant, to approach them as "futile" is to suggest that great men who have labored in doctrine and word have nothing to teach us. We think we know better because of some esoteric "spirituality" (or more likely because we aren't knowledgable enough ourselves to interact with such writings and refute positions that we may disagree with. The rejection of systematic theology is itself a theological system).Calvinism is one more illustration of the futility of systematic theology. God's truths, particularly relating to soteriology, are too lofty to be put into concise formulae. The Five Points of Calvinism oversimplify the profound truths of God. They derive their force from proof-texts rather than the general tenor of Scripture.
Both. They are willing slaves to sin, but they are still slaves. They need to be set free by the Son, because that are both unwilling and unable to free themselves.
is that what Paul is communicating? Do not people in their fallen state in fact pursue spiritual things? Were not the Jews gathered at Pentecost 'devout' men? Devoted to what? This was before their salvation.Man, in his fallen nature, cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God.
This seems to be completely contradictory. Are you saying that man has a choice or not. If he lacks the ability to decide, then how is that a choice?While we have "freewill and the choice of receiving salvation", we lack the ability to decide against our natures.
What would prevent the reprobate from saying that?No one can say that Christ's death was insufficient for their sins.
No one is pre-programmed to be saved. By nature, we are enemies of God, and deserving of his wrath. You also have a flawed view od election, as if Christ were turning away willing repenters. No one is able or willing to come to Christ unless God implants faith in them. Where else do we get faith?jlay wrote:That doesn't really answer the question. We're talking about a matter of will. This might sound crude, but in the Calvin view, unless one is pre-programmed to be saved, then he can't be. It isn't a matter of his willingness. Even if he is willing, he cannot, he is reprobate, and outside the boundaries of any hope. You would say he should be willing, but apart from God implanting faith in him, he is hopeless.
No. They may pursue "a god", or some sort of spiritual higher power, but the God of the Bible is not the God they want, so they surpress the truth in unrighteousness.jlay wrote:is that what Paul is communicating? Do not people in their fallen state in fact pursue spiritual things?
Says who?jlay wrote:Were not the Jews gathered at Pentecost 'devout' men? Devoted to what? This was before their salvation.
Just like I have the freedom to flap my arms and fly, but I do not have the ability. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and will never choose Christ apart from regeneration. The new birth must take place prior to our "choice", and that he something we have absolutely no control over.jlay wrote:This seems to be completely contradictory. Are you saying that man has a choice or not. If he lacks the ability to decide, then how is that a choice?
According to Scripture, they are without excuse. They know God, but supress that truth in unrighteosuness. As rebels against God, they are "condemned already". Christ's death is sufficient for all who come, but fallen man will never come apart from the new birth. The reprobate will be able to say nothing before the judge of the universe.jlay wrote:What would prevent the reprobate from saying that?No one can say that Christ's death was insufficient for their sins.
In that case, I'm not sure I want to get out of bed in the morning. I might mess up God's plans for me. Lord knows I mess all kinds of things up.DannyM wrote:Not sure if this has been said or even if it is relevant. But we are all - every man jack of us - predestined to be with God... if only we will take the offer. Our destiny beyond this life is literally in our own hands.
I sort of do, but I'm still rather confused here. Excuse me for being so slow to understanding, I truly with I could get a better grasp on this topic..B. W. wrote:Hi Maytan,
This post is only for you...
I hope you can now see what I meant in my last post just before this one ...
-
-
-
This verse would make *no* sense if man didn't have the choice of salvation. For it wouldn't be up to man to choose who he would serve. This is why I can't come to terms with Calvinism. There are (as I pointed out earlier) multiple verses that rely on our ability to make the choice, lest they become meaningless and pointless.And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
I would say God made the medicine himself, no? To which you might say, then why did God have to pay for it. Which offers the question, why did Christ have to die on the cross in-order for God to forgive us? I honestly don't know the answer to that one.B.W. wrote:To answer a bit: If one paid for the medicine, called out to all the ill – what was created? Who created it? Why was it created? What was the purpose of the one who called out to the ill? If some the ill did or did not respond who’s at fault for not responding? The caller or the one quickened to hear?
Now if I begin to delve into this more detail be prepared for someone to assume the wrong things and we'll make no headway. Again this is an area calls for wrestling with God, and thinking things thru intelligently, and not to get boxed in by locked box theology that - we for a lack of a better word, leaves a person hanging...and gives ammo to for people to reject Christ.
It is not my intent to try to bait anyone into a discussion on this. Been there done that and I spent way too much time battling good Christians who wrongly assume they know what you are saying, based on reflex theology (means; when one Says one thing the other reflexively strikes you with talking points without thinking). Not sure if I want to go there fully yet and have to fight off well mean brothers/ sisters in Christ wrongfully directed reflex theology. I am not trying to be vague on purpose, just a heated debate over nothing. But if you would like to know more, I can give a brief lesson on these things that will engage you to think and reason after this. Method I use is questions - so be prepared to think.
Bolded part. The Bible shows us to be predestined, but at the same time calls us to make a choice. Somehow, these are both true; though (as the article says) it seems practically contradictory. Looking at things from this angle, it makes Efficacious Grace out to make much more sense.Ultimately, it is our view that both systems fail in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable. Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all. Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation. These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God they make perfect sense.
Now, before I proceed, if possible put aside Calvinism and Arminianism points of view and approach this slowly. You know enough of both sides and understand that both leave a person hanging in a lurch, so to speak, and leaves a gnawing sense that something isn’t quite right with either of them. There is truth in both, but then, it slips away. So if possible, we need to go slow.
Link to quote Below.
"So, in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, who is correct? It is interesting to note that in the diversity of the body of Christ, there are all sorts of mixtures of Calvinism and Arminianism. There are five-point Calvinists and five-point Arminians, and at the same time three-point Calvinists and two-point Arminians. Many believers arrive at some sort of mixture of the two views. Ultimately, it is our view that both systems fail in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable. Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all. Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation. These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God they make perfect sense"[/b]