Shasta said:
Grace of course. God's justice and mercy can be seen in the cross. At the same time we are given the option of trusting in and serving ourselves or believing in and serving him. I do not by embracing Christ in any way earn salvation. I am just putting myself in a position to receive the free gift.
So what makes you the exception to Romans 8:8? If those who are in the flesh cannot please God, how do you become spiritual
before you are born again of the Spirit?
How did you go from being a non-understanding non-God seeker (Romans 3:11) to someone who
puts themselves in a position to receive the free gift?
Non-Calvinists want to highlight the perceived dilemma they see with God ("God certainly would never choose some and leave the others in their sins," they say) at the expense of addressing the scriptural dilemma we see in man (which is that, left to his own devices, man is by nature, a God hating, sin lover who loves darkness rather than light).
Shasta said:
A typical straw man many Calvinists use is that any act of the will is equivalent to a meritorious "work"…
Fair enough. And I agree that it is not an appropriate critique of non-Calvinist soteriology to claim that faith=work. Nevertheless, what is a legitimate critique is salvation, according to synergism, is located in the will of man rather than the will of God. Correct me if I am wrong but you likely believe that God has tried to save everyone with equal effort throughout all of history. The difference between a believer and a non-believer then, cannot be God’s grace it has to be
something about the person. The believer has to be more humble, spiritually smarter, naturally more repentant, or just more spiritual than the non-believer. Whatever it is that makes the difference it is located inside of man rather than God because, in your view, God has tried to save both with equal effort.
Are you willing to admit that synergism necessarily means that the deciding factor in salvation comes from a characteristic within the person rather than God?
Shasta said:
…but I doubt if people of the time would have interpreted it that way.
I doubt they would have seen it any different. Israel was very comfortable with the notion that God elects and that a Sovereign God is under no obligation or compulsion to show His grace to everyone equally.
The Caananites weren’t given a Day of Atonement. The High priest of the nation didn’t make atonement for himself and for Amorites, but for himself and the nation of Israel.
God did not choose to make a covenant with every family of the world but rather chose Abraham.
Shasta said:
If that had been so then God never would have commanded man to do anything.
Your point here is dependent upon a flawed logic. I can give you numerous examples of God commanding man to do something that scripture says our human nature is too frail and sinful to obey without the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said, “be ye therefore perfect.”
Are you going to argue that God couldn’t have commanded that because that’s a command too difficult for you in your flesh to obey?
God told Israel to obey everything He had commanded them on Mount Sinai (Exodus 34:32). Are you going to argue that God somehow hoped that some would make it to glory by perfect obedience to the law?
Shasta said:
However, when men preach the Gospel in the Bible they almost call for an decision to be made. Usually the response they command is immediate. You do not see anyone preaching a Calvinist message like "God has not died for all of you, but only for a few. Most of you have no power whatever to choose Him" Neither do they say "God so loves a few of you."
1. Men preach silly things all the time. I invite you to tune into TBN for a couple hours if you need evidence.
2. If Jesus died for everyone equally, then you must conclude that Jesus’ atonement is insufficient to accomplish its purpose of reconciliation for the vast majority of humanity.
Shasta said:
The Gospel calls for a decision to be made. The decision is to believe on Him.
Of course! Calvinists don’t deny that a decision is made, we question whether a spiritually dead, sin loving, God hater has the ability, in and of himself, to choose life. Thus we conclude that man's decision is preceded by the Spirit's regeneration.
Shasta said:
It is true that this would only be a responses to the drawing of the Spirit, but "drawing" means leading or influencing, impelling, not coercing or driving.
First, here we notice the notion of “prevenient grace” being snuck into the conversation. Prevenient grace is the synergist’s off ramp to avoid driving all the way to full-fledged pelagianism. This was one of the week doctrines that eventually tumbled in my own view and led me out of an Arminian understanding of salvation.
It is week for at least 3 reasons.
1. The scope and depth of the Spirit’s influence is too vague. What exactly does the Spirit do to the unregenerate heart that enables that unregenerate heart to choose faith? How exactly does that differ from the Calvinist’s view of regeneration prior to belief?
2. Why does it appear that the Spirit doesn’t draw everyone equally? There have been millions of people who have died never once hearing the gospel. How did the Spirit draw
them?
3. The definition of Ελκω has been shown to mean exactly what you claim it does not. BDAG defines it as “drag” or “pull.” How do you rebut those findings?
Shasta said:
In fact, if men were being coerced no appeal to the will need be made but as far as I can tell persuading and informing are fundamental to evangelism.
Coerced really isn’t the right word. Empowered is really more accurate. Calvinism maintains that God empowers some to do what they cannot in their natural state of reprobation. A man who is tossed into a river with both feet and hands bound can’t be
persuaded or
informed to swim to a life preserver until their feet and hands are unbound.
Shasta said:
In another post you were arguing for limited atonement by trying to make the term "world" encompass fewer people than the whole of mankind. The verse under discussion was John 3:16. You spoke of the need for establishing context in that verse.
In another post I pointed out that John 3:16 describes how God loves the world. That’s the nature of the word Ουτως. The most common misunderstanding, and therefore misapplication, of this verse is that God loved the world
soooooo very much that He….
This isn’t what this verse means.
We need to get to an accurate exegesis before we get to systematic questions like Calvinism or Arminianism (or Open Theism).
It is also demonstrably true that the bible will use the word
κοσμος in a way that does not mean every single person on the planet who has ever lived or ever will live.
Here are some very clear, undisputable examples.
1 John 5:19: Are you under the sway of the Evil one? If “world” means everyone without exception then 1 John 5:19 says that you are.
1 John 4:5: Do you listen to false teachers? If “world” means everyone without exception then 1 John 4:5 says that you do.
1 John 3:13: Do you hate John? If “world” means everyone without exception then 1 John 3:13 says that you do.
John 15:18: Do you hate Jesus? If “world” means everyone without exception then John 15:18 says that you do.
I think a reasonable definition of κοσμος in John 3:16 is “the world in general, humanity in general”, rather than, “every single person in the world from the beginning of time until the end of time.”
God loved humanity in general and here’s how, He sent the Son. God didn’t send Jesus just for Jews but for Jews, Greeks, Romans, Scythians, Barbarians, slaves and free people alike. That understanding is consistent with the wider context of John's writing both given the textual context and the historical context.
If you disagree then please help me understand how God’s love expressed through the gift of the Son impacted the heathen Incan priest in the year 65 A.D. equal to the way it impacted Ignatius who John discipled?
Shasta said:
While it is true that the world can mean a variety of things I think it is clear in the wider context of John's theology that the Apostle believed that the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient for all though the benefits were not actually appropriated by any except those who believe.
Define what you mean by “sufficient.” We reformed minded folks certainly don’t believe that the atonement was insufficient in any sense. Rather, we believe that the atonement was more sufficient than our Arminian and Open Theist brothers. We believe that the atonement is actually sufficient to propitiated the sins of the intended.
Your example of 1 John 2:2 is a great example.
Shasta said:
In his First Epistle the Apostle makes this clear
"And he is a propitiation for our sins; and not ours only, but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2.
He is the propitiation ("atoning sacrifice") for OUR sins - for believers
but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD - everyone who is not a believer
The population of believers and unbelievers makes the population of the whole of mankind.
I see, so you see the sins of every human being who ever lived or will live removed from them by the cross, correct?
That is what propitiation means, that God’s just wrath has been turned aside concerning those sins rendering the "sinner" innocent.
So why does Jesus say to the Pharisees that they will die in their sins (John 8:24)?
If the whole of mankind, without exception, has their sins propitiated (which means that God’s wrath has been satisfied concerning them) then how can
anyone die in their sins?
:think:
