What is Election?

[Deborah13]

Jethro:
1) Does God give man the choice as to whether he will be regenerated and given a 'chooser' that will then receive the gospel? Make it clear, but I think you have said above that God does not give man that (first) choice. You said it is entirely a one-sided act of mercy by God, right?

ivdavid:
Does God give man the choice - Yes.
Is it entirely a one-sided act of mercy by God - Yes.


You have answered 'yes' to the question if God let's man choose for himself whether to be regenerated or not (at which time he will then be given the will to choose the offer of gaining right standing with Him).

You'll have to better explain where and how man's own personal choice to be regenerated fits into your doctrine, a will which afterward he is then regenerated to then accept the gospel. The hope is, you can explain the contradiction in your two answers above.

'Entirely one sided act of mercy by God' is not consistent with your first 'yes' that man has the choice to be regenerated at which time (regeneration) he then receives the will from God to accept the gospel, as you say.

I don't think I read where ivdavid ever said this.
What I hear him saying is that man hears the Gospel but he will Never choose it.
God first regenerates him and God does not regenerate everyone to receive the Gospel for himself.

This is what Calvin calls the general call to salvation. There is no irresistible grace (regeneration), so it will not take effect.

I did notice something that I have not heard before. That all men, even the elect, will hear the Gospel at least once and reject it, before he is regenerated and accepts it. I pretty sure that is what was said?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

.
Everyone chosen was predetermined before the foundation of the world.

And utterly and completely predetermined to be elected (chosen) by God in complete and utter contradiction to His own words that says he wants all men to be chosen/elected.

That's what is impossible to accept about predetermined election.

In that doctrine, He is in complete and utter control of who is chosen, yet defies his own word in wanting all men to come to repentance and be saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't think I read where ivdavid ever said this.
What I hear him saying is that man hears the Gospel but he will Never choose it.
God first regenerates him and God does not regenerate everyone to receive the Gospel for himself.

This is what Calvin calls the general call to salvation. There is no irresistible grace (regeneration), so it will not take effect.

I did notice something that I have not heard before. That all men, even the elect, will hear the Gospel at least once and reject it, before he is regenerated and accepts it. I pretty sure that is what was said?

His doctrine is pretty hard to understand.

Can't you see how if his doctrine wants to insist man has choice in the matter (he answered 'yes' to that question) that the choice lies in that doctrine in whether or not the person wants to be regenerated (at which time he says they then have the choice to believe)?

I know it's hard to put the pieces together on this doctrine, but I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy, but have been hearing the argument correctly.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

He can get angry and offended, or he can just calmly explain his doctrine better and leave the commentary about how we're handling it out of it. I have to do this all the time in my law discussions.

 

[ivdavid]

So some people, even infants, have to pay for being the children of Adam and others do not.

We can start with this, not in a debate mode but just a sharing of beliefs mode - where I do not hold the above exactly the way you seem to mean it. That's why I hold the doctrine of federal headship of Adam.

Ask yourself this question - if God were to condemn Adam in the eternal lakes of fire for his rebellion in the garden of eden, would you find anything amiss or wrong in God's doing so? For the sake of proceeding with my explanation, I'm assuming you'd say you're fine with Adam being condemned for his act of rebellion.

Now assume God created another man M1 from the earth instead of Adam - and the same scenario plays out - and we find M1 too rebelling there - is God justified in condemning him too? As above, one can find no fault here too. Now extrapolate this to M2, M3...and so on to every single human that has ever been created - and we happen to find each and every one of them choosing to rebel exactly like Adam did, when they are created so. Then aren't all deserving of condemnation?

Now God, instead of actually going through this entire time consuming creation process of setting up the same scenario to each of these billions of people - just to prove to every single human that he is indeed deserving of condemnation - creates just one of them(Adam) and holds him the representative of all, the common factor being their self-nature(flesh). This representation is carried out by God's decree that this flesh-nature should give birth to similar flesh-nature(John 3:6).

Given that all are now indeed deserving of condemnation, God can purpose when He can carry out the judgement into eternal fire - hence no necessity for the age of concession. Likewise, there is no necessity for an age at which God is required to show that person mercy - which is why I personally believe God would have willed to show mercy on all infants and similar categories of humans. I see evidence for this in David's child.

God, also wanting to show forth His justice in such proceedings, will use the same law to show each and every person who's able to perceive these things(non-infants etc.) - that their flesh is indeed pervaded by sin and that their love for disobedience and rebellion against God is why they're being held guilty unto condemnation. Having concluded all under such guilt - every single one - God is entitled to show mercy upon whom He wills - which has to be a selection purposed in Himself and not on the people(in order for God to remain impartial) - and this selection is purposed before the foundation of the worlds.

Therefore, I do not hold any single person being asked to pay for being the children of Adam - they pay only their own debts, which is represented through the federal headship of Adam.

I did notice something that I have not heard before. That all men, even the elect, will hear the Gospel at least once and reject it, before he is regenerated and accepts it. I pretty sure that is what was said?

You're right - that's what I'd said.

Let me add to this by saying that this is what I hold to be the conceptual principle - though like in the case of infants, God could show mercy and regenerate some the very first time they hear the Gospel too. But the general intent is to show how hardened man's heart is and how evil his desires are, even at a time when the Son Himself is sent - to make these same men savor the showers of grace and mercy that would fall upon a regenerated heart which is able to appreciate the same now.

 

[Deborah13]

We can start with this, not in a debate mode but just a sharing of beliefs mode - where I do not hold the above exactly the way you seem to mean it. That's why I hold the doctrine of federal headship of Adam.

Ask yourself this question - if God were to condemn Adam in the eternal lakes of fire for his rebellion in the garden of eden, would you find anything amiss or wrong in God's doing so? For the sake of proceeding with my explanation, I'm assuming you'd say you're fine with Adam being condemned for his act of rebellion.

Now assume God created another man M1 from the earth instead of Adam - and the same scenario plays out - and we find M1 too rebelling there - is God justified in condemning him too? As above, one can find no fault here too. Now extrapolate this to M2, M3...and so on to every single human that has ever been created - and we happen to find each and every one of them choosing to rebel exactly like Adam did, when they are created so. Then aren't all deserving of condemnation?

Now God, instead of actually going through this entire time consuming creation process of setting up the same scenario to each of these billions of people - just to prove to every single human that he is indeed deserving of condemnation - creates just one of them(Adam) and holds him the representative of all, the common factor being their self-nature(flesh). This representation is carried out by God's decree that this flesh-nature should give birth to similar flesh-nature(John 3:6).

Given that all are now indeed deserving of condemnation, God can purpose when He can carry out the judgement into eternal fire - hence no necessity for the age of concession. Likewise, there is no necessity for an age at which God is required to show that person mercy - which is why I personally believe God would have willed to show mercy on all infants and similar categories of humans. I see evidence for this in David's child.

I think I have understood what you are saying, in this whole post. And...
So all infants and those in similar categories were predestined by God to die when they did. And God in His mercy included in His plan for them to be of the elect?

God, also wanting to show forth His justice in such proceedings, will use the same law to show each and every person who's able to perceive these things(non-infants etc.) - that their flesh is indeed pervaded by sin and that their love for disobedience and rebellion against God is why they're being held guilty unto condemnation. Having concluded all under such guilt - every single one - God is entitled to show mercy upon whom He wills - which has to be a selection purposed in Himself and not on the people(in order for God to remain impartial) - and this selection is purposed before the foundation of the worlds.

Therefore, I do not hold any single person being asked to pay for being the children of Adam - they pay only their own debts, which is represented through the federal headship of Adam.


You're right - that's what I'd said.

Let me add to this by saying that this is what I hold to be the conceptual principle - though like in the case of infants, God could show mercy and regenerate some the very first time they hear the Gospel too. But the general intent is to show how hardened man's heart is and how evil his desires are, even at a time when the Son Himself is sent - to make these same men savor the showers of grace and mercy that would fall upon a regenerated heart which is able to appreciate the same now.

 

[ivdavid]

I think I have understood what you are saying, in this whole post. And...
So all infants and those in similar categories were predestined by God to die when they did. And God in His mercy included in His plan for them to be of the elect?

Yes. Like I've stated before on this thread, I believe God decreed some of His elect alone to die at an early age.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Having concluded all under such guilt - every single one - God is entitled to show mercy upon whom He wills - which has to be a selection purposed in Himself and not on the people(in order for God to remain impartial) - and this selection is purposed before the foundation of the worlds.

This is exactly contradictory to your answer to my question:

Jethro:
1) Does God give man the choice as to whether he will be regenerated and given a 'chooser' that will then receive the gospel? Make it clear, but I think you have said above that God does not give man that (first) choice.

ivdavid:
Does God give man the choice - Yes.


Your doctrine is in blatant contradiction of itself. I'm confident everyone can see this. And you deny your doctrine makes man a robot.

 

[ivdavid]

If God creates some people to believe and others not to believe...

I will address this premise independently - but it would help if you shared what your beliefs are on all this (it always helps to contextualize responses if one knows where the other is coming from). Is the above something you actually would say yourself - or is it a hypothetical question for the sake of evaluating consistency?

As to the premise itself - I do not believe God sets out thinking "Ah, I shall create this person M1 to believe - and that person M2 shall be created to disbelieve". I think God begins with an overarching desire to create a people for Himself, who will have knowledge of the glory of His nature. Then I imagine Him to have 2 options to choose from - where the 1st option is He could simply create everyone, of the Holy Spirit(what we now refer to as the born-again creature) initially itself. Then the eternal kingdom of God would have been realized at that creation itself - there would have been no sinning(for all would be subject to God's will alone by their Spirit-birthed-nature) and there would be no sorrow. And with no sinning, there would have been no display of God's longsuffering patience, nor display of God's Justice - and with no Judgement, there would have been no display of His mercy and grace. Essentially, there wouldn't have been any way these creatures could perceive these attributes of God - and the fact that these attributes actually spring forth from Him(the I AM) alone and not from themselves, though they may be gods(John 10:34) ie having the same nature of God because of the power and work of the Holy Spirit. How then can God realize in this option, His desire of having a people for Himself with knowledge of the glory of His nature?

So, at this point in time - God looks at the alternative of Not creating them, of the Holy Spirit. But then, by simply the definition of this created person's nature Not being born of the Holy Spirit, God knows it to be corruptible. Immediately, irrespective of what anyone is going to do after they are created and before even beginning to lay the foundations of the world, God reserves a subset of people from this total pool - whom He purposes to preserve unto the fulfillment of His overarching desire (the equivalent of Rom 9:27, Rom 11:5). Note here, God isn't in any way taking pleasure in the inevitability of corruption - nor is this selection based on one person being any more special than the other - it is purposed in Himself. And while God purposes to show His enduring mercy toward His elect - He however does not likewise show any enduring wrath towards the non-elect - instead, He strives with them with much longsuffering until the completion of their storing up Just wrath for themselves.

Then God creates man in the flesh (ie an independent self-nature that is Not born of the Holy Spirit). As God completes His creation - this flesh-nature along with all creation is found to be uncorrupted and good. God also decrees that flesh shall give birth to flesh. Then this corruptible but as yet uncorrupted nature does get corrupted by sin in the famous Gen 3 episode. This corruption induces rebellion in the very will of man - the independent self-will of man that now begins to resent God's rule.

Then begins the very patient process of God enduring constant rebellion against Him from each and every one in the flesh, while He goes about revealing His perfect will through all His commandments and judgments. God's Law of works is the tool that is used to reveal such a nature of rebellion in man - and to justify God when He holds all guilty unto condemnation. Given God's Holy nature, He desires submission to His rule and obedience to His commands - and abhors and grieves everyone's sinning - and could have righteously and justly poured out His wrath on each and every single person - but instead He makes provision for all, desiring each and every one to be saved through faith in His Precious Son.

And here the exceeding sinfulness of sin is revealed - for man now rejects the Son Himself - and his self-nature and hardened heart wills to remain independent of God's rule and authority. Any outward form of obedience is actually devoid of love towards God and is filled with only self-proud conceit. Given this rejection of the great offer itself, God now is zealous for His Holy Name and begins His work of mercy towards His elect - not for the sake of the objects of mercy but for His own name's sake (Deu 9:6, Eze 36:22). God holds every man guilty the exact same way (Eph 2:3) such that all are dependent on His sovereign mercy - through which mercy man is regenerated and is caused to walk in God's foreordained ways(Eze 36:27, Php 2:13, Eph 2:10). Here, God's predetermined election plays out through mercy - where God is entitled to show mercy upon all, or upon none, or even just 1. Rom 9:16 shows that God's mercy is independent of man's will - and rightly so, for that is the very concept of mercy.

And this is where we are to see the contrast between what the independent self-will achieved(Php 3:4-6) and what the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit achieves. This is why we are asked to deny the Self - but how can our Self deny itself until we are born in a new inner man with the very Mind of Christ that can then deny and mortify the deeds of the outer flesh-nature. How can the rebellious hardened heart surrender to God's will until God conquers it and causes it to surrender (Jer 13:23). This is the boldest statement against freewill and it is made by God - God set forth man with his own "free" independent self-nature to show him that it profits absolutely nothing in the face of resisting corruption or in ceasing the effects of such corruption or at least in recognizing this very corruption within him. When this same person(in his inner man) is shown the futility of what most hold to be "freewill" - he appreciates, pleads for and embraces God to work in him to both will and do everything in Him, and to not be allowed or permitted to do anything by his own Self-nature(outer man) - which is true surrendering. But who does this surrendering - the outer man before regeneration?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The church is not a bunch of robots. God separates fallen man from the influence of his sin nature when he testifies to him about the gospel by the Holy Spirit. During that time of calling, man is enabled to make a freewill choice and either chooses to ask for God's mercy, or he doesn't. Most do not.

This thinking that "I'm a Christian because that's the way God wants it, and there's nothing I can do about it, likewise for you unbelievers" contradicts too much of the scriptures that show us that God gives man the opportunity to choose of his own free will (made free by the separating of spirit and soul through the preaching of the gospel) whether he will accept God's invitation to receive forgiveness, or not.

The sad part is, most Christians buy into the thinking I summarized above to some extent or another. IMO, it's what's responsible for fulfilling Paul's prophecy of a church that has a form of godliness but doesn't have the power of godliness.

And it seems to all be rooted in the misguided thinking that it's impossible for man to be responsible for his own believing because that would amount to a 'works' salvation. Like I say, most Christians buy into this erroneous thinking to some or extent to another, being represented in more than one doctrine presently gripping the church, and it all ends up creating the church Paul prophesied would come about.

Itching ears doctrine--"I'm not responsible. I'm a Christian and there's nothing I can do about it."

 

[chessman]

The sad part is, most Christians buy into the thinking I summarized above to some extent or another. IMO, it's what's responsible for fulfilling Paul's prophecy of a church that has a form of godliness but doesn't have the power of godliness.
Like I say, most Christians buy into this erroneous thinking to some or extent to another, being represented in more than one doctrine presently gripping the church, and it all ends up creating the church Paul prophesied would come about.
Itching ears doctrine--"I'm not responsible. I'm a Christian and there's nothing I can do about it."

2 Timothy 3:13 (ESV) while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.​

And Paul gets it from Jesus:

Matthew 7:15 (ESV) “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.​

And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. (Matthew 24:11 ESV)​

Peter gets it too:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1 ESV)​

 

[ivdavid]

The cause of one's unbelief is man....What is in question is what is the cause of one's belief.

This is a critical point in understanding the reformed view. Our logic usually is flawed when it comes to concluding upon such premises.

Eg1: When I say, "All tall men were permitted into the room" - a flawed assumption is that the short men weren't. But "Some short men too could have been permitted". I didn't use the word "only".

Eg2: When I say, "If a flower is red, it will be used in decoration" - a flawed assumption is that the yellow flowers, white flowers etc are not used in decoration. But while the condition comments on red flowers, it makes no distinction on the other colors at all. We can then only conclude, that "if a flower is not used in decoration, it definitely is not red in color".

Eg3: Taking the same premise, "If a flower is red, it will be used in decoration" - a flawed assumption is that the reason this flower is used in decoration is because it is red. Maybe its being 'red' is only an indicator of the actual true basis , which could be something entirely different - perhaps the actual basis was that any flowers which were grown in a flower bed treated with a particular fertilizer must be used in decoration, and it so occurs that only 'red' flowers were grown in that flower bed - here the true basis is the fertilizer and not the 'red' color, which is only used as a reference parameter.

Eg4: When I define a rule, "If any man completes the marathon, he will receive $1000 for doing so" - a flawed assumption is that not one of those who haven't completed the marathon end up receiving any money. It seems strange not to assume that way, but it is so by the rules of mathematical logic. As seen in the above Eg2, we are only permitted to conclude, that "if a man does not receive $1000, it is because he has not completed the marathon" - we cannot conclude upon whether he did actually receive any money from the given data. What if the sponsors of the marathon decided to charitably distribute $1000 to some of those who didn't complete too - the difference being the one who completes the marathon merits the $1000 and can claim it under the rules while the one who doesn't complete can stake no claim of merit at all.

And now what if the same sponsors who charitably decided to distribute the $1000 to those who would not complete - what if they decided to display their charity not in directly giving the money but in giving an energy tonic that would make these cross the line, thereby upholding the rule AND still making it their charitable contribution to which these still have no claim of merit at all, since they're no longer under the rule?

Now, applying such mathematical logic to our interpretation of Scripture - we find that if one does not receive $1000, it is because he hasn't completed the marathon. But if one does end up receiving $1000, it could either be because he completed the marathon OR because of a completely different reason(Eg3) where the true basis is the charity of the sponsor in contributing the $1000 but through the means of the recipient completing the marathon. ["completing the marathon"="believing in Christ" ; "$1000"="eternal life"]. One could refer Deut 9:5 for this concept of the bad half alone being merited by man while he has absolutely no claim of merit to the good half.

 

[mondar]

Then God creates man in the flesh (ie an independent self-nature that is Not born of the Holy Spirit). As God completes His creation - this flesh-nature along with all creation is found to be uncorrupted and good. God also decrees that flesh shall give birth to flesh. Then this corruptible but as yet uncorrupted nature does get corrupted by sin in the famous Gen 3 episode. This corruption induces rebellion in the very will of man - the independent self-will of man that now begins to resent God's rule.

I think your statement above is the key to the difference of opinion in this thread. In the fall of Adam, did this corruption extend to the will of man?

John 1
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 1:13 has that triple negative.
* Not of blood (Genetic descent)
* Not of the will of the flesh.
* Not of the will of man.

The new birth is after the will of God.

This is why John 6:44 says "no man can come to me..." Its not that we do not have a choice, we do have a choice. Adam had a choice without being corrupted, and he chose rebellion. We have the same choice but our nature is now corrupted. We are conceived in sin, born in iniquity (Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.) We have a choice, and we all choose rebellion because it is our nature, because of the corruption of our flesh.

In your illustrations of M1 and M2 etc, I thought of this reference in Genesis 6.
5 And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


M2 and M3 were the same as M1.

Well, thats my 2cents.

 

[Deborah13]

This is a critical point in understanding the reformed view. Our logic usually is flawed when it comes to concluding upon such premises.

Eg1: When I say, "All tall men were permitted into the room" - a flawed assumption is that the short men weren't. But "Some short men too could have been permitted". I didn't use the word "only".

Eg2: When I say, "If a flower is red, it will be used in decoration" - a flawed assumption is that the yellow flowers, white flowers etc are not used in decoration. But while the condition comments on red flowers, it makes no distinction on the other colors at all. We can then only conclude, that "if a flower is not used in decoration, it definitely is not red in color".

Eg3: Taking the same premise, "If a flower is red, it will be used in decoration" - a flawed assumption is that the reason this flower is used in decoration is because it is red. Maybe its being 'red' is only an indicator of the actual true basis , which could be something entirely different - perhaps the actual basis was that any flowers which were grown in a flower bed treated with a particular fertilizer must be used in decoration, and it so occurs that only 'red' flowers were grown in that flower bed - here the true basis is the fertilizer and not the 'red' color, which is only used as a reference parameter.

Eg4: When I define a rule, "If any man completes the marathon, he will receive $1000 for doing so" - a flawed assumption is that not one of those who haven't completed the marathon end up receiving any money. It seems strange not to assume that way, but it is so by the rules of mathematical logic. As seen in the above Eg2, we are only permitted to conclude, that "if a man does not receive $1000, it is because he has not completed the marathon" - we cannot conclude upon whether he did actually receive any money from the given data. What if the sponsors of the marathon decided to charitably distribute $1000 to some of those who didn't complete too - the difference being the one who completes the marathon merits the $1000 and can claim it under the rules while the one who doesn't complete can stake no claim of merit at all.

OK

And now what if the same sponsors who charitably decided to distribute the $1000 to those who would not complete - what if they decided to display their charity not in directly giving the money but in giving an energy tonic that would make these cross the line, thereby upholding the rule AND still making it their charitable contribution to which these still have no claim of merit at all, since they're no longer under the rule?

How about this,
There are two runners in a race, they have to run the race, they have no choice in this matter. The rules say that whoever finishes the race within the 10 seconds gets a $1000. The distance of the race is set so that neither runner can finish in 10 seconds. Their natural ability will not allow them to do this.
So the one who initiated the race, chose the runners in the race, and made the rules provides one runner with an energy tonic so that runner could finish the race in the 10 seconds. That runner wins the $1000.

Or,
There are two runners in a race, they have to run the race, they have no choice in this matter. The rules say that whoever finishes the race within the 10 seconds gets a $1000. The distance of the race is set so that neither runner can finish in 10 seconds. Their natural ability will not allow them to do this.
So the one who initiated the race, chose the runners in the race, and made the rules provides both runners with a written rule book. That rule book explains the race, the rules, and tells both runners how they can win the race.
The message in the rule book is quite clear, they can't win it by their own abilities, they must drink the energy tonic in order to win the race. The initiator also provides instructors to help them understand what the rule book says. But most importantly the initiator is able to prick both men's conscious' (by the Holy Spirit, John 16) and the rule book commands, Repent, drink the energy tonic. The initiator provided the man with an intellect that is able to understand a simple message of drink the energy tonic and you win, if you don't you lose.
So the initiator provided the race (He didn't have to), He provided the reward, He provided the men with everything they need to understand the race and how to win. He holds out the energy tonic and says drink (He draws). The men have to drink by faith. They have to trust that what the initiator says is true.
So what I believe to be true is that man must first believe there is a God who is the Creator. (Romans 1)
I believe that the Holy Spirit convicts all men of unbelief in Christ (John 16), preparing them to receive the Gospel message. The Lord will draw them but not all will respond. I believe that if the Lord did not do this, no man could be saved.
Joh_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.
Joh_12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Jas_4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

God gives an invitation to win the race, drink the energy tonic. Not all men will believe there is an initiator of a race, or that there is a race, or that they must be a runner in the race, or that they need the energy tonic in order to win the race.

Mat 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
Mat 22:4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
Mat 22:5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: (the Jews)

Mat 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.(Jew and Gentile)
Mat 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
Mat 22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Mat 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

I don't see that the call to the wedding was given any differently to any of the guests. Why was the man not chosen? Because he did not put on Christ, he showed dishonor for the King.

Now, applying such mathematical logic to our interpretation of Scripture - we find that if one does not receive $1000, it is because he hasn't completed the marathon. But if one does end up receiving $1000, it could either be because he completed the marathon OR because of a completely different reason(Eg3) where the true basis is the charity of the sponsor in contributing the $1000 but through the means of the recipient completing the marathon. ["completing the marathon"="believing in Christ" ; "$1000"="eternal life"]. One could refer Deut 9:5 for this concept of the bad half alone being merited by man while he has absolutely no claim of merit to the good half.

In my scenario of the race, there is no completing the marathon without the charity (love, grace, mercy) of the initiator of the race.
So my belief about election goes something like this. By grace, through faith, the gift of salvation is given. It was not any different in the OT. Those who believe God (faith) whether it was because God spoke to them directly, or because they believed what the prophets said about the Messiah, or because they heard the Word of God and didn't close their eyes and block their ears, they were preserved until the day the Messiah would come and suffer the cross for their sin. To those who would seek the one true God, God said they could find Him.
Deu 4:28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
Deu 4:29 But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
Deu 4:30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; ( that voice which is calling, Come repent)
Deu 4:31 (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

They were aware of the presence of the Holy Spirit and their need. David cried out in his remorse,
Psa_51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

 

[ivdavid]

Its not that we do not have a choice, we do have a choice.

You're right - but observe how your above statement could be misunderstood by some. Say you present very healthy green spinach in your left hand and very colorful candy in your right hand to a little child and ask it to choose any one of them - and the child chooses the candy. Now say you repeat this same offer 10 times and the child makes the same choice each of the 10 times. Should we conclude that the child did Not have a choice at all - or that the child did have a choice each time, where the child actively chose the same thing continuously? The latter seems to be the obvious observation.

But somehow, when it comes to the reformed view of total depravity and election etc. - the general approach is to cry against a wrongly assumed doctrine that man is given No choice at all. Man is constantly given a choice and is held responsible and accountable for his choices of his own independent self-will. After such a man chooses to disobey even the Gospel command, he concludes himself under condemnation and is left at the mercy of God alone - but how can one object to be given no more 'choice' under the mercy of God - when it is the abuse of all his own choices earlier that landed him in this scenario?

 

[ivdavid]

The distance of the race is set so that neither runner can finish in 10 seconds.
Their natural ability will not allow them to do this.

A minor point - but I'd disagree with the above 1st statement while I'd agree with the above 2nd statement. The organizer himself cannot in any way impair the capacity of any runner from achieving the expected outcome - while I can accept some other cause(sin) disabling this initial capacity in the runner.

The men have to drink by faith. They have to trust that what the initiator says is true.....The Lord will draw them but not all will respond. I believe that if the Lord did not do this, no man could be saved.
Joh_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.

Both of us are in agreement over the gracious undeserving Gospel call to man, over man's responsibility in choosing to obey the Gospel, over God's constant striving with man to persuade him to obey etc. - but does any man actually obey without first being regenerated? That is where the two streams of doctrines diverge.

Let's consider your reference to John 6:44 - you interpret the 'drawing of men' to be God "offering the tonic and asking man to drink" - while I interpret the 'drawing' to be the act of regeneration (or efficacious calling) in this context. But let's assume it is as you say.

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not.......
Joh 6:65 .....Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Why does Jesus say "Therefore" in this context - giving rise to the implication that these didn't believe given that they were not 'drawn' by the Father. How am I to apply your interpretation here, when Jesus Himself has strived with these people, offering the 'tonic' and asking them to drink(John 6:29,35) - and then observing these to not believe on account of them not yet being 'drawn' ?

To those who would seek the one true God, God said they could find Him.

Absolutely True. Is it that you think the reformed view denies this? Everyone who seeks shall find - everyone who asks shall receive - everyone who believes shall be saved - no restrictions at all. But do the unregenerate seek is the fundamental question here. When Paul concludes the whole world under sin in Rom 3, why does he use that particular OT passage which states that there is none who seeketh after God, to make his point?

 

[Deborah13]

I think your statement above is the key to the difference of opinion in this thread. In the fall of Adam, did this corruption extend to the will of man?

John 1
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 1:13 has that triple negative.
* Not of blood (Genetic descent)
* Not of the will of the flesh.
* Not of the will of man.

The new birth is after the will of God.

This is why John 6:44 says "no man can come to me..." Its not that we do not have a choice, we do have a choice. Adam had a choice without being corrupted, and he chose rebellion. We have the same choice but our nature is now corrupted. We are conceived in sin, born in iniquity (Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.) We have a choice, and we all choose rebellion because it is our nature, because of the corruption of our flesh.

If one is to take Psalm 51:5 literally than one must also take the whole Psalm literally including verse 7 and 8.
Psa 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Psa 51:8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

Can hyssop make one clean? Did God break David's bones and now those bones can rejoice?
Consider the state of remorse that David was in when he wrote this Psalm.

Here's another verse that is quite similar. Is Job speaking these words literally or is he in an emotional state and speaking figuratively?
Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken.

In your illustrations of M1 and M2 etc, I thought of this reference in Genesis 6.
5 And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


M2 and M3 were the same as M1.

Well, thats my 2cents.

 

[Deborah13]

A minor point - but I'd disagree with the above 1st statement while I'd agree with the above 2nd statement. The organizer himself cannot in any way impair the capacity of any runner from achieving the expected outcome - while I can accept some other cause(sin) disabling this initial capacity in the runner.


Both of us are in agreement over the gracious undeserving Gospel call to man, over man's responsibility in choosing to obey the Gospel, over God's constant striving with man to persuade him to obey etc. - but does any man actually obey without first being regenerated? That is where the two streams of doctrines diverge.

Let's consider your reference to John 6:44 - you interpret the 'drawing of men' to be God "offering the tonic and asking man to drink" - while I interpret the 'drawing' to be the act of regeneration (or efficacious calling) in this context. But let's assume it is as you say.

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not.......
Joh 6:65 .....Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Why does Jesus say "Therefore" in this context - giving rise to the implication that these didn't believe given that they were not 'drawn' by the Father. How am I to apply your interpretation here, when Jesus Himself has strived with these people, offering the 'tonic' and asking them to drink(John 6:29,35) - and then observing these to not believe on account of them not yet being 'drawn' ?

I would say in this context, that the Father had not drawn them. I do believe that God draws and the Holy Spirit convicts. I don't not believe man comes completely ever on his own, how could he if he has never heard.
By the same token I do not believe that one can conclude that in all cases where one is drawn and convicted, they will come.
I think we can safely concluded that all believers have been convicted and drawn. But I cannot conclude that all unbelievers have not.

Absolutely True. Is it that you think the reformed view denies this? Everyone who seeks shall find - everyone who asks shall receive - everyone who believes shall be saved - no restrictions at all. But do the unregenerate seek is the fundamental question here. When Paul concludes the whole world under sin in Rom 3, why does he use that particular OT passage which states that there is none who seeketh after God, to make his point?

Do the unsaved seek God? Yes, some do. But not own their own. God said in Romans 1, He has made Himself known to all men. Man must make a deliberate choice to disbelieve in the existence of the Creator. Romans 2 says that the Gentiles do the things of the law, even not having the law. It is written on their hearts but my point in this is that '
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;).

I believe that man is without excuse because he knows/knew that there is a Creator/God. He knows just by his conscience (which was a gift from God at creation) that sin, whether it be murder, lying, stealing, etc. that those things are evil and thus against God's law.

I don't believe that God/Jesus is asking one to drink, He commands it. It's not a request.

If "all" means "all" in Romans 3, why doesn't 'all' mean 'all' in other scripture related to men, sin, and salvation?

 

[ivdavid]

I would say in this context, that the Father had not drawn them.

What exactly constitutes this "drawing of men" ? Since I personally hold this "drawing" to refer to God's regenerative work in man - I'd describe this "drawing" as God taking away the heart of stone and giving him a new heart that now rejoices in God and is readily and irresistibly drawn towards Him. Given that you don't hold this "drawing" to be regeneration itself, how would you describe it?

I thought you held this "drawing" to be God offering the tonic and commanding man to drink it (from your quote in your earlier post), which is why I'd sought clarification on your position - to which you've responded that you don't consider God to having 'drawn' these men here, showing me I've misunderstood your concept of 'drawing'. So, what exactly happens when God 'draws' a man?

And why didn't God 'draw' these men, given that Jesus just preached the Gospel to these men, who are to "go back and walk no more with Him"?

I believe that man is without excuse because he knows/knew that there is a Creator/God. He knows just by his conscience (which was a gift from God at creation) that sin, whether it be murder, lying, stealing, etc. that those things are evil and thus against God's law.

I believe exactly the same. But we see that the vain Romans 1 people have their foolish hearts darkened even though God revealed Himself to them - and we find the Romans 2 people are storing up wrath for themselves by their hard and impenitent hearts even though God had written His laws in their heart - thereby affirming and leading up to Paul's point in Rom 3, that none seek after God.

If "all" means "all" in Romans 3, why doesn't 'all' mean 'all' in other scripture related to men, sin, and salvation?

Firstly, I do believe "all" means "All" in other Scripture too.

But most importantly, if "all" doesn't actually mean "All", then "All" the world is not under sin as per Rom 3:9 and "All" the world is not held guilty before God as per Rom 3:19.

 

[Dan00]

I don't think I read where ivdavid ever said this.
What I hear him saying is that man hears the Gospel but he will Never choose it.
God first regenerates him and God does not regenerate everyone to receive the Gospel for himself.

This is what Calvin calls the general call to salvation. There is no irresistible grace (regeneration), so it will not take effect.

I did notice something that I have not heard before. That all men, even the elect, will hear the Gospel at least once and reject it, before he is regenerated and accepts it. I pretty sure that is what was said?

Hi, Deborah,

I would like to add my two cents. I don't recall reading anywhere in the scripture about your last statement; but since it happened to me that way, it makes sense.

Regarding "drawing," see if this makes sense:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. "(John 6:37)

"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." (John 6:44)

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John 12:32)

Well, who does the "drawing," Jesus or the Father? I believe this is the answer:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:" (John 3:14)

"... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father..." (John 14:9)

Now, those scriptures taken together can be interpreted this way:

"I will draw all men unto me, cast none out, and I will raise all up on the last day." (Jesus, the Father)

Am I not right?

Dan