Man's responsibility.

[justbyfaith]

The Calvinist has the only answer God gives to that question. According to his pleasure---meaning His purposes---and His will. Beyond that He does not tell us, yet you expect the Calvinist to be able to give you His reason, one that will satisfy you? The reason is in the mind of God.

Actually, this is the answer.

Act 16:29, Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31, And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

 

[justbyfaith]

Believing is a choice that we make.

Specifically, receiving Jesus as Lord and Saviour from sin.

 

[Papa Smurf]

Those who have never heard of Christ have nevertheless been faced with the light of creation (Romans 1) and the light of conscience (Romans 2).

If they are obedient to the first two lights, they will be presented with the light of Christ (Romans 3); as was the case with Abraham.

In being presented with the first two lights they are in fact being drawn towards Christ.

Hello again JustByFaith, I think that I understand what you are saying, but I'm still struggling to understand how you can fit everything together in the manner that you have.

Let's take a look again at the verse in question and go from there.

John 12​

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me.​

The first thing that I notice is that v32's drawing (of "all men") is the specific result of/has everything to do with the light of special revelation (that of the Crucifixion, ALONE), and nothing whatsoever to do with the other light that you mentioned from God's general revelation (the "light of Creation" and/or the "light of conscience"). So, for now anyway, this idea seems like nothing but pure conjecture on your part to accommodate/support a particular presupposition or theological belief (but I am very willing to be shown why I am wrong .. if that is truly the case ).

Assuming that you are correct about all of this for the moment, I'm also left wondering why you believe that the Lord Jesus' drawing in v32 (as you've described it) can be considered a drawing of "ALL men, without exception", since your scenario eliminates that possibility from the get-go (by eliminating all of the men/women/children who reject the light of God's general revelation from ever receiving the light of the Lord Jesus' special revelation)

Finally, this idea seems particularly odd to me because I know atheists who refused to receive God's general revelation about Himself from early childhood on, but who are now saved and in Christ, nevertheless. How can this be explained?

There's more of this to talk about, but this is plenty for now, IMHO, so I'll stop here and wait to hear back from you

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf
p.s. - even if everything that you believe is correct, that all who accept the general revelation about God's existence will be given the opportunity to accept or reject the special revelation that the Cross gives us about the Messiah, how can such a thing be proven or shown to be true (especially in the case of those who die w/o ever knowing or hearing His Name, much less knowing anything about Him or His ministry to us as our Savior) Thanks!

 

[justbyfaith]

Hi @Papa Smurf,

I will only say that when people receive general revelation, they are in effect being drawn to Christ; since the end result of this, if they are obedient to light #1 and #2, is that they will be given the light of Christ (hearing the gospel) as was the case with Abraham.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It is my choice to believe that John 12:32 refers to all men without exception, just like it is your choice to believe that John 12:32 refers to all men without distinction.

That is correct. And our choice is made on the basis of sound exegesis involving the whole counsel of God in scripture, which is why we are so at peace with it.

If God chooses those who are saved, then by default he chooses whom he will not save ...

That is correct. Badly worded, but correct. (Note the faulty contrast in the bold text.)

... and in choosing them unto condemnation (ultimately not giving them a choice in the matter of whether or not they will be saved), he removes the responsibility of the sinner to make a decision to receive Christ—since that is not the choice of the sinner but rather this is based on God's unconditional (arbitrary) decision.

That is incorrect. Every Calvinist will tell you that man has a choice in the matter, and that he always and only chooses sin, for which he is responsible—which is why he is facing condemnation!

And that includes the sin of not believing in Christ, which contravenes God's command (1 John 3:23). Sin, of course, is lawlessness (v. 4).

... [God] removes the responsibility of the sinner to make a decision to receive Christ, since that is not the choice of the sinner but rather this is based on God's unconditional (arbitrary) decision.

That is incorrect. God's unconditional decision is whom to elect. That is not a decision we make. Man's decision is whether or not to believe in Christ. That is not a decision God makes.

All those whom God elects will choose to believe. All those he passes over will choose to not believe. Both sides make a choice.

If man has a choice in the matter of being saved when he is drawn; ...

That is incorrect. Even those who are not drawn have a choice in the matter of being saved—and they choose to note believe.

... and also if every man is drawn; ...

That is incorrect. Every man without distinction is drawn, not every man without exception.

... then every man is ultimately responsible for the decision that he will make.

That is incorrect. The reprobate are responsible for the decisions they make.

But the elect are not responsible for the decisions they make. God gets the all glory for that. That is why the elect will cast their crowns at his feet, in a manner of speaking. He held himself responsible for their wicked decisions, bearing the penalty for their sin in their stead (e.g., 2 Cor 5:21), but also for all their good decisions, as he is the one bringing forth in them both the desire and the effort (e.g., Php 2:13). Soli Deo gloria.

Ultimately, God does not send anyone to hell; rather, we send ourselves there when we reject God's offer of free provision to save us in the cross of Christ.

That is incorrect. First, God is the judge who condemns sinners (i.e., sends them to hell). They willingly choose that fate, for sure, but God is the judge who passes the verdict and sentence. Second, salvation is not something God offers, it is something he does. We proclaim the good news of that salvation, and those whom the Father gives to the Son will come.

But if God chose certain men out for condemnation (by default), then his condemnation of them is not just and fair.

That is incorrect. It is, again, conflating God's decision to elect and man's decision to sin. Man is not responsible for God's decision to elect, and God is not responsible for man's decision to sin. God justly condemns man for the sin they willingly chose. But not those whom God chose, as he bore their condemnation on the cross.

For God would have created them specifically in order to stoke the fires of hell.

I hate to break this to you but I suspect you believe the same thing. Does God know who will reject him their entire life and create them anyway? Why would he do that, unless he is some sort of cosmic sadist?

I would ask you, what makes you so confident that you are of the elect?

My confidence is not in my election, my confidence is in Christ Jesus.

There is a clear and crucial distinction between the security and assurance of one's salvation. The former is an objective fact grounded in the work of Christ applied by the Spirit, while the latter is a subjective experience grounded in the word of Christ affected by the Spirit.

The doctrine that teaches the eternal security of our salvation finds its basis in the love and grace of God who reconciled believers with himself for his own glory through the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ and for his sake. This great salvation is all of grace; it does not depend on anything we say or do but wholly upon the sinless Son of God. As such, it cannot be placed in jeopardy by anything we say or do. Any teaching that claims a person can lose his salvation ends up making salvation conditional on human merit, attributing in part to man what wholly belongs only to Christ. If salvation is not secured by any merit of ours, then neither is it jeopardized by any demerit of ours. Salvation belongs to the Lord (Jonah 2:9; Ps. 3:8; 68:20; Acts 4:12; Rev. 7:10).

Moreover, the security of our salvation is not a matter of our possessing assurance thereof. In other words, our salvation rests upon the perfect and finished work of the Son of God, not what our transient feelings happen to be telling us at any given moment. What is happening in such cases is that we are looking at ourselves in search of assurance, when the proper ground of assurance should be the same as that of security: Jesus Christ. Peter confidently walked on water so long as he remained focused on Christ; but when he took his eyes off Christ and looked to himself, that is when he doubted and sank below the waves.

The work of Christ grounds our security and the word of Christ grounds our assurance (the word of Christ being the gospel of God's promises). We do not look to our faith for assurance of our salvation but to Christ alone, for Benjamin Warfield was right when he observed: It is not faith in Christ that saves, but Christ who saves through faith. When your faith is at its weakest, Christ remains the sure and solid Rock of your salvation. Rest in him, and him alone.

Ultimately, man is responsible for his own decision and that therefore God's judgment of him is just and fair.

I get that sinners are responsible for their wicked decisions, but do you believe the redeemed are ultimately responsible for their salvation (since they chose Christ)?

 

[CrowCross]

I would contend that we are told that it is based upon our faith.

Kina curious as to just where the bible teaches this.

 

[Arial]

Believing is a choice that we make.

Choosing to believe is not actually believing. One does not believe what they choose to believe unless they already do believe it. A person cannot simply say they choose a belief and count it as being equal to the same thing as truly believing it. We are talking about being saved by grace through faith in Christ. You have salvation coming from, not grace, and not faith in Christ, but by choosing to be saved. Not grace. Not faith. But simply choosing salvation.

Now dissect those sentences and tell me what they mean.

Much of what you believe the Bible means is not sound according to the whole counsel of God, and when you are shown this, you ignore it, repeat your misinterpretation and the contradictions in scripture they have been shown to produce, as though you have no true interest in finding out what God means in His word, but are quite satisfied with what you say He means.

 

[Arial]

Yes...because clearly, if Romans 5:18 says this,

Rom 5:18, Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

and not this,

Rom 5:18, Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the <offer of the> free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

then the teaching of that scripture is Universalism.

I will point out that you are the one who says salvation is an offer by God that one either accepts or rejects. I am the one (and not the only one) who says salvation is not an offer, but a done deal for the elect. It is God who elects and God who gives them to Christ, and God who gives them the faith necessary. That is as far from universalism as one can get. What you present Rom 5:18 as meaning is Universalism that then not rightly handling of the word of God and producing contradictions in it, says it is not universalism because of this and that. And the this and that are picked up from isolated scriptures and even portions of sentences. Your own doctrines are contradictory to themselves.

I know from past experience with you that you interpret Romans 5 as meaning that the cross took care of the imputed sin of Adam for all men without exception and that in essence we all start with a clean slate. That there is no imputed sin of Adam since the crucifixion. But you have nothing from the Bible to support this but your own theories superimposed onto the Bible from that one verse, taking none of the rest of the Bible into consideration.

 

[makesends]

Okay...if it is not random, then on what basis does God choose some and then condemn others?

If the Calvinist had an answer to this question, he would also have an answer to the question, "What must I do to be saved?"

The self-determinist keeps claiming that God is not particular —er, not partial— as though this proves that God doesn't choose anyone in particular until that person sets himself apart from the rest in choosing God. That notion is self-contradictory. Yet they want to claim that Calvinism is contradicting themselves to say that the elect are chosen 'unconditionally'. Once again, God does not choose on the basis of any person's worth or work or any other condition found in that person. He 'chooses' on the basis of HIS purposes for the person.

God is the cause of the particularities of individuals. THEY are not the cause of that. What you are is what God made you. YOU did not do this.

 

[Arial]

God doesn't regenerate a man against his will...He waits for the man to give God permission to change His will.

Were you able to comprehend a single thing in the post that gets this response? You illustrated perfectly that you have no genuine theology (study of God based on what He tells us of Himself.) You did not address a single point in my post, not one, demonstrating that you have no interest in ever searching for actual truth, that you are quite satisfied with what you choose to believe, this belief you chose, whether it is truth or not, whether it is biblically sound or not. The belief you say you chose refuses to submit to God and His word. It only desire to go its own way and call it truth.

Jesus is a gentleman. He stands at the door and knocks.

Standing at the door and knocking is not gentlemanly when it is given the definition you give it. Which is, I am such a gentleman I will give you the opportunity to be saved, but I will not save you against your will. That would be a Jesus who has the power to save you, but doesn't really care whether you are saved or not. One who would walk away from you if you do not answer the door and leave you to face the fires of hell. Not a gentleman.

I would ask you, in light of that, to discover what that passage of Jesus standing at the door and knocking means really, but you can't, because you are blindsided by your own refusal to align all your beliefs in consistency of truth to the word of God. His very voice! IOW no thinking is possible to you outside the thinking of the box you are in. You have no ability of comprehension outside that box.

 

[Arial]

John 6:44 is saying that a man is enabled to receive Christ when he is drawn to Christ.

It does not say in that verse that he is guaranteed to come to Christ in being drawn to Christ.

Jhn 6:44, No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Everyone who is drawn to Christ will be raised up at the last day; not necessarily unto salvation (John 5:29, Daniel 12:2).

You have been shown otherwise. Your own presuppositions are contradictory to themselves. I showed you and told you that in John 6 Jesus is referring to resurrection unto eternal life, that those drawn to Him in John 6 are those God is giving to Him, that those who are drawn to Him in John 6 are those who believe.

You show the stubborn mentality of Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 12:1; Proverbs 12:15; Prov 18:2; Prov 23:9 in not submitting to the word of God.

 

[CrowCross]

Clearly, according to the following scriptures, the one who is righteous is not ungodly.

The one who is righteous has the righteousness of Jesus Christ given to them via imputation.

 

[CrowCross]

God doesn't regenerate a man against his will...He waits for the man to give God permission to change His will.

Jesus is a gentleman. He stands at the door and knocks.

Doesn't God give you the ability to change your will?

 

[Arial]

You don't know whether some of them were staunch Calvinists.

Huh? Calvinist aren't trusting in a choice they made but in what they believe. It is free willers that are trusting in a choice they made INSTEAD of what they believe. That equates trusting in themselves and refusing to trust in God for their salvation. They don't believe Him when He says He will have mercy on whom He has mercy. They don't believe Him when He says is grace just like His word will accomplish what He sends it to do. They don't believe Him when He says He knows before the foundation of the world who He will give to Christ. They do not believe Him when He says He predestines those ones to come to Christ in belief. They do not believe Him when He says He calls those one's. They do not believe Him when He says He justifies them. They do not even truly believe that He glorifies them.

What they do is give Him credit for the work necessary being performed by Jesus, but after that it is all ME, ME, ME.

 

[Arial]

Not according to psychic abilities; but because He exists outside of time and sees the end from the beginning.

Of course you would not like that word and would not use it. Saying it is because He exists outside of time does not change what you are saying. Choosing one that you know will choose you is not choosing them, it is choosing what chose Him. It makes man the first cause of what God does. If He merely sees the end from the beginning and acts accordingly, is that not the tail wagging the dog? And who is the tail in that analogy? Man. But God tells us He IS the beginning and the end. So what does that tell you?

Pro 12:2, A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.

The book of Proverbs is wisdom literature, not a book of doctrine and commands. What that means is that it is instruction in living wisely, according to the wisdom given by God. It frequently makes its point by contrast as is the case above. The Lord is pleased with righteous living, and condemns wicked living.

1Pe 3:12, For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

Sounds like "merited favour" to me...

Who are the righteous in this passage?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Make up your mind what you are talking about. You say unconditional means arbitrary.

RE: Carm:

1. Unconditional election means that God out of the sovereignty of his own will, God chooses people for salvation, not based on any quality in themselves and not based on anything foreseen in regard to that individual.

SO "Election" is completely Arbitrary, since it's based on NOTHING - no "personal quality", no "Foreknowledge", no "Suitability for a task", nothing. the very definition of "Arbitrary" Romans 9 agrees.

You simply make up what they mean by unconditional instead of accepting what they say it means. Twiddling your thumbs and trying to tear down what you are unable to tear down. Define unconditional according to the Calvinist doctrine. I asked you to do that before and you still haven't. Gaslighting only weakens your position.

I've read the "Calvinist doctrine" and it indicates that Election is not "unconditional" at all. which makes more sense in the final analysis.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Ultimately, God says, "Depart from me". How is that not sending them to Hell?

Do they not choose their own fate by rejecting the Lordship of Jesus Christ?

Answer the question.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Your premise is off. The Calvinist can know. And these verses tell us how they can know.

Yet, there are those, who believe that His Spirit bears witness with their spirit that they are children of God, who ultimately don't persevere to the end.

Were not these, never saved in the first place?

Did God give them a false assurance that they were saved?

We all can fool ourselves. What's your point? Do you honestly think your post there proves anything?

No, the Spirit of God, who did not take up residence within them, and did not regenerate them, did not give them false assurance.

 

[Arial]

RE: Carm:

1. Unconditional election means that God out of the sovereignty of his own will, God chooses people for salvation, not based on any quality in themselves and not based on anything foreseen in regard to that individual.

SO "Election" is completely Arbitrary, since it's based on NOTHING - no "personal quality", no "Foreknowledge", no "Suitability for a task", nothing. the very definition of "Arbitrary" Romans 9 agrees.

It is amazing how many times I ask someone to tell me something in their own words so that I know where THEY are coming from, and they respond by quoting someone else from somewhere else.

So it is quoted correctly here and responded to with no understanding of what is said. I highlighted what you refuse to understand and create a strawman from, so you can hopefully recognize the straw man.

That does not make God's choice arbitrary which means for no reason at all. Pay attention now. He has a reason, but it is not based on a personal quality, or foreknowledge, no suitability for a task. He is the Creator. He is the Potter. We are the clay. He molds people acccording to HIS purpose.

I am starting to realize that the inability to understand certain things, to grasp their concept; the inability to rightly handle God's word and keep their interpretations of scriptures consistent with all the other scriptures; the necessity of changing clear meaning to suit the presupposition; to not even recognize the contradictions they make in the Bible but are unable to even when shown; is from a lack of any workable knowledge of the self revealed God that would enable them to do so. What we find is in all their defenses of their position is everything based on humanity and human reason, and human desire. That of course is the natural state of a human, even a redeemed one. But it is no excuse because God DOES reveal exactly who He is from cover to cover in a vast Book, covering centuries of His interaction with humanity. He expects us to start and finish with HIM.

 

[makesends]

RE: Carm:

1. Unconditional election means that God out of the sovereignty of his own will, God chooses people for salvation, not based on any quality in themselves and not based on anything foreseen in regard to that individual.

SO "Election" is completely Arbitrary, since it's based on NOTHING - no "personal quality", no "Foreknowledge", no "Suitability for a task", nothing. the very definition of "Arbitrary" Romans 9 agrees.

Strange reasoning, there. How does a description of what Election is not based on, mean that Election is based on nothing?

I've read the "Calvinist doctrine" and it indicates that Election is not "unconditional" at all. which makes more sense in the final analysis.

Interesting: At first you quote (?) CARM rather clearly demonstrating the unconditional nature of election, then you turn around and say that the "Calvinist doctrine" indicates that Election is not "unconditional" at all. Make up your mind!

The whole point of what is called Unconditional Election is to uphold that it is by grace alone that we are saved. It is not by any worth or work of the individual. But you know this, and continue to mock. Your only point is that they shouldn't have called it "unconditional election". Ok, fine, they should have found a better way to say that it is by grace that we are saved, and not of anything endemic to any of the saved. I think this can be called trolling, how you continue on with this.