The "I" chapter has been finished in Vance's book: Irresistible Grace. The basic premise of Irresistible Grace is that God's grace works in the life of the person whom He had unconditionally chosen to save, and His saving grace works in such a manner that the person does not resist it. It is called the "effectual calling" meaning that the call of the Spirit on this person is effectual - it produces results.
From my perspective, the doctrine as presented above is fine - if you take out 'unconditionally.' Calvinists agree that God's grace is given to every person, just in a different manner. They call it "common grace." My point is that when God's grace works in the life of a person, knock yourself out and call it effectual grace... that's fine. I would simply say that the only difference between common grace and effectual grace is whether or not it is mixed with faith.
That brings us to the next part of this topic: Faith and Repentance. Calvinistic doctrine teaches that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, he then is able to believe and repent. It teaches that a person is born again before he believes. Some would say that Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches this "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; Not of works lest any man should boast." Some Calvinists would say that verse is teaching that Faith is God's gift - but truly, the verse is saying that "salvation by grace through faith" is God's gift. My understanding is that the Greek does not allow "That" to refer to faith. If any of you can show me a verse that teaches that being born again precedes faith, I would love to hear of it - I accept anonymous comments as well ;)
A pet peave of mine is when a Calvinist would come up to me and say that because I say that I believe, that I have something to boast of myself. I have heard that accusation first hand from more than one Calvinist. However, that accusation flies right in the face of Romans 4 where it says that to him that worketh is the reward reckoned of debt, but to him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is counted for righteousness. It is an anti-Biblical accusation for a Calvinist to say that a non-Calvinist is claiming his own work when referring to faith.
Ok, blood cooled down a little, let's continue...
Another issue on this topic is the "Will of God." Calvinists teach that God arbitrarily (defined: 'subject to individual will or judgment without restriction') chooses each individual that He will save. That is, His will is to save this person and that person, but His will is not to save the other person and the one over there, etc. There is some truth to this, in this regard: When God created man, the salvation of every single individual's soul was not His greatest will. When He created man, He knew that some would not believe and go to Hell, yet He created man anyway. So in that sense, you could say that the salvation of all men was not His greatest will. However, when we consider God's dealing with mankind today, it is clear that His will is that all men come to faith and repentance and be saved. 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 clearly state this to be true. And normal exegesis will not lead you to any other conclusion on those two verses. For God to maintain His justice, it is only through faith in Christ's blood, the propitiation that He set forth, that allows a man to be saved.
Ok, I started getting off topic some... I think I've written enough on the topic. By the way, some of those are Vance's thoughts, and some of them I mixed in of my own.
18 comments:
hm... how to state this without angering your pet peave... although stating that you have something to 'boast in yourself' is not a very tactful or graceful way of making a calvinist point i would argue that it is not an anti-biblical accusation.
and the reason that i state that is because i believe when you break down the Arminian/ Calvinist debate to it's lowest common denominator the argument really becomes Is God sovereign? Can He choose men, or can man choose Him?
'He knew that some would not believe and go to Hell, yet He created man anyway. So in that sense, you could say that the salvation of all men was not His greatest will'
if this statement is true are you saying that God didn't know which men would go to Hell because all men are free to choose Him? because it's either that or He specifically created some men to go there... just wanted a clarification on what you were trying to say there (i'm hoping you can avoid the D word but if you can't i will understand).
i don't know that i can come up with a verse that states that being born again precedes faith, i don't know that would be the order of the argument with respect to those verses, however Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. states that God predestinated, called, and justified without any mention of faith or belief to interrupt His working;)
you're turn.
*your turn.
Eph 2:8-9 is interesting...
Albert Barnes says. "And that not of yourselves. That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered that--touto--is in the neuter gender, and the word faith--pistiv --is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to the salvation by grace of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one. See Bloomfield. Many critics, however, as Doddridge, Beza, Piscator, and Chrysostom, maintain that the word "that" touto refers to "faith," (pistiv;) and Doddridge maintains that such a use is common in the New Testament. As a matter of grammar this opinion is certainly doubtful, if not untenable; but as a matter of theology it is a question of very little importance. Whether this passage proves it or not, it is certainly true that faith is the gift of God. It exists in the mind only when the Holy Ghost produces it there, and is, in common with every other Christian excellence, to be traced to his agency on the heart."
In response to your "lowest common denominator" - Man can choose God because God has given all men the ability to do so (John 1:9, Titus 2:11). That does not make God not sovereign. My definition of sovereign is that He is in complete control. He can let man make their own decisions without Him losing control... My point is that the 'Arminian' position does not take away God's sovereignty at all.
God knew which men were going to Hell - He is omniscient, and He inhabits eternity, so all knowledge and events are always present with Him. He knew what decisions man would make before He created them. You would agree with that.
Romans 8:30. First of all, I had not looked at that passage as a chronological order of events, First, foreknowing, then predestinating, calling, justifying, glorifying... until it was explained to me in reading a Calvinist. I had always read it that the saved have been foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and glorified. Regardless, that verse is not an exhaustive study on soteriology.
Do you agree with this statement: God only works salvation in those that believe in Jesus?
(For there to be less issues, let's assume it is an adult man without any mental handicaps.)
Ephesians 2:8-9... Barnes writes, "it is certainly true that faith is the gift of God." I am comfortable saying that "the ability to believe [have faith] is the gift of God." Without God's enabling, natural man would not be able to believe. So, yes, in that sense, faith is the gift of God.
Natural Man, left to his own, would never exercise faith in Christ. But Jesus lighted every man that comes into the world, which I assume enables them all to believe, yet some do and some do not.
... as always, those are my thoughts.
just for the record i was not the anonymous poster in the middle...
'He knew that some would not believe and go to Hell, yet He created man anyway.' 'Man can choose God because God has given all men the ability to do so' this is a hypothetical question but humor me and seriously think about it... Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
if every man can be saved, even though God has specifically made some for destruction, can a degenerate sinner, one that is 'fitted to destruction' possibly choose God? doesn't that mean that man's choice can override God's?
do i agree that God only works salvation in those that believe in Jesus? maybe i should e-mail you my answer to this, but i believe that the Bible teaches that no one can believe in Jesus and have salvation worked in them unless God has specifically called them and they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. (maybe i should post this anonymously;)
and i am not trying to 'speak down' in any way to an arminian position, i am just using it and calvinism as convenient labels for the arguments... i am definitely not trying to offend in any way with a label;)
i'm nervous what response this may get...
Matt, you no good, dirty foolish, etc., etc., etc... Oh wait, that's not the Christian reponse, is it?
Let's try again:
Matt, I have thought much on Romans 9. If Romans 9 is talking about the eternal salvation of an individual, or rather, the eternal destruction of an individual, then to me it contradicts the passages in God's word which say that His will is that all men would be saved. It would make me have to say that when "God so loved the world" that it doesn't really mean the whole world, but just part of it - and there are obviously many more that have to be "explained away" (forgive me for using that accusatory phrase, I couldn't think of a better one)...
But, if I read Romans 9 and take it for what it is directly speaking about (using a literal interpretation): Jacob & Esau and the promises to Abraham, the physical destruction of the Egyptian Empire through Pharaoh, etc., then I can say that God raised up Pharaoh to be the most powerful ruler on the earth, He endured that, so that He could show His wrath on the armies and make His power known.
I don't have a problem using the tags Calvinist & Arminian. I suppose you don't agree with everything that Calvin wrote as I suppose I don't agree with everything Arminius wrote - but it does make the conversation easier.
Feel free to email me your answer to that other question - I'd be curious...
This "Irresistible Grace" seems to make robots out of the "elect". If a person is taught repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21) is irresistible, what is the point - when does the totally depraved person freely "call upon the name of the Lord"?
welllll... i agree with you that romans 9 is not contradictory to the rest of the Bible (see we agree on something!!!)
i think that what romans 9 is speaking about, using a literal example of jacob and esau vs. 11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) for an example to show how the promise made to abraham isaac and jacob in the old covenant has been transitioned to the new vs.24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. usually i find that if something is restated in the new testament from the old it is either a fulfillment of a statement or prophecy, or a further revealing/ expounding of a doctrine or teaching, not an isolated reference with no current application.
i'm sure this discussion could go on and on, i'm not trying to convince you, but simply to get you to expand on points within your statements;) plus i find out about your pet peeves...(mine is drivers who don't use their turn signals)
by the way i was meaning to ask you, i have not read anything by Vance before, does he simply compare the two positions or does he explain calvinism trying to either prove or disprove it? just curious...
Vance's first chapter (maybe intro?) basically says that there are plenty of books trying to persuade people to believe Calvinism, so he was not going to hide his intent that his was to persaude away from it.
He does quote Calvinists constantly throughout his book. He makes the effort of showing how on most points, you can find different Calvinists with differing views on them. The only thing I might fault him in this regard, is that he will try to find the Calvinist that makes the most outlandish statements (he uses Pink alot!) rather than using the more moderate ones. That is, I would have liked to heard him explain the way Spurgeon said something instead of the way Pink did.
It's a very thorough book. Not all of his arguments are strong (I could have defended the Calvinist position against a few of them), but seriously, the book is like 800 pages (200 of which are appendixes giving creeds and confessions, etc.).
it's always easier to disprove wacko's;) only 600 pages to read and you're not done yet?!?!
Heb 12:16-17 - Esau was rejected. He found no place of repentance though he sought it carefully with tears. Here is a man "seeking" God and looking to repent yet rejected. Please explain.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm
is this one of the creeds that is included in the back of the book? was wondering if you have ever explored this. i've found the westminster confession of faith to be an excellent reference...
After reading the passage in Hebrews, and I did not go back to look at the story closely in Genesis, the repentance he sought for was not a repentance towards God, nor was it God refusing to give him repentance. He sought to get his father to repent of blessing Jacob. He got to the point of tears to get his father to change the blessing. Esau is not seeking God here.
The warning in Hebrews is to be careful about your actions because they carry with them consequences. The earlier part of the chapter is about God's chastising His children. And then we are told to be holy.
Matt, I've looked at parts of the Westminster Confession. No, I've never studied it.
I don't get how it can say, "God... did... ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet... neither is God the author of sin."
Is it not saying that God causes every thing to happen that happens? Yet, when He causes sin, He wasn't the author of it? How is that? I seriously don't get how that statement can be made.
I'm tickled pink!
Calvinists are nutty...
Nutty in a "I have discovered what God really means" way. My God is no a liar. When a deep interpretation of scripture contradicts an absolute passage I have to go with the absolute and push the deep thoughts to the fringe. Thank you for this enjoyable discussion. I would like to read the discussion between Andy and the pyros! God bless you!
'I don't get how it can say, "God... did... ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet... neither is God the author of sin." well andy, that's a good question. do i need to remind you about the chicken and the egg? j/k. i'm wondering what you are getting at with that question because i think if i stated it to you in a different way you would agree with the statement. so i'll try... i
think we agree that God is sovereign (although we may disagree on how He manifests His sovereignty, but regardless i think we agree that He ordains whatever comes to pass, correct me if i'm wrong)
then the question becomes whether or not God is the 'author of sin'. we know that God can manipulate evil or good equally as well for his glory (Gen. 45 story of Joseph, Jesus telling Pilate he could do nothing unless given power from above, etc. etc.) but God also can not be touched by sin in the least James 1:13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: so i would take that to mean he is not the author of sin, but 'ordained' it in the world that Christ's work would be necessary, for without sin there is no need for a
Savior. i have no idea if i answered your question... at this point i'm just typing.
i was wondering if you'd studied or looked at the 1689 (or whatever year it was) baptist confession of faith more than the westminster,
although other than the sections on baptism they have a lot in common.
I think the word 'ordain' is where the confusion is. I say that God 'ordained' that man should be able to make their own decisions (Personally, I think that is a part of what it was to be made in the image of God). I believe Calvinism takes, 'ordain' to mean that God caused, or that God decreed (commanded) that all things happen as they do. Could you define for me 'ordain?'
Now, I am not saying that God does not at time directly interfere with man's choices (at times, not allowing man to do what he has chosen to try to do, and at times, influencing man to do things that he wouldn't otherwise do).
Post a Comment