Jesus saves from unbelief !

[Rick W]

There has been much said on both camps. Has there ever been any reconciliation or is it simply that one is wrong while the other is right when scripture supports both simultaneously?
I support both. Others may support one or the other but I honestly believe that due to that selective reasoning one ignores much of the wealth found in scripture.
It's been over 10 years now since that particular bible study I referred to. So far I haven't seen anything that convinces me to choose one side over the other.

 

[Drew]

Those who are 'predestined' to be given life will be. AFTER they have been given life, they have a 'free will' in determining what they will do with the gift.

Those who are not predestined to be given life, perish.

This may introduce free will, but not in any kind of causative role in reflect to ultimate salvation. So, at least as far as the matter of "eternal destiny" is concerned, your position leaves free will out of the loop. Needless to say, there are arguments for a free will role.

 

[mutzrein]

Those who are 'predestined' to be given life will be. AFTER they have been given life, they have a 'free will' in determining what they will do with the gift.

Those who are not predestined to be given life, perish.

This may introduce free will, but not in any kind of causative role in reflect to ultimate salvation. So, at least as far as the matter of "eternal destiny" is concerned, your position leaves free will out of the loop. Needless to say, there are arguments for a free will role.

Does a dead person (a person without life - a person not yet born) have free will?

 

[Drew]

Does a dead person (a person without life - a person not yet born) have free will?

Of course not, but I trust you do not expect that I share your view about the specific sense in which we are dead.

 

[mondar]

A while back the pastor of our church wanted to enhance interest in studying the bible. After a few topical studies it was decided to try a topic of more controversial concern. We divided into two groups... predestination and free will. Scripture supported both. What a study that was. It went on so long that other studies were started/ended while that one was still being pursued.

Nowhere do they come together in scripture. We couldn't reconcile the two.

Conclusion:
Both are correct. Some are predestined and some aren't.

Rick, I appreciate the attitude. I suspect I see in your words an attitude of tolerance and I appreciate it.

If I can comment further, I there is an issue below all of the predestination/free will issues. The foundational issue is this-------> Is regeneration the cause of faith. Or are do we believe without regeneration.

This can also be said in other ways. In this thread, the question is .... "is our faith the work of the crosswork of Christ?" or "Is our faith not a part of the crosswork of Christ."

It could be said, "is our faith a part of God's grace?"

However, even when we articulate things in the way I did above, there are problems. The problems have to do with how we look at Grace. The Calvinist looks at grace and the cross work of Christ as limited in scope or extent, but absolutely and complete powerful in saving. There is no one for whom Christ died that he does not save.

On the other hand, some believe that Gods grace and the crosswork of Christ is insufficient for salvation, but universal in scope. If the crosswork of Christ were completely sufficient for salvation, then all whom Christ died for would be saved. So then, the only truely "unlimited atonement" position would be universalism.

The question can also be phrased "is a person able to reach out to Christ for salvation." There are many and varied positions on this. The RCC/Arminian position is that there is a universal grace (called by some regeneration) that goes from the cross to all men. This universal grace is insufficient, and does not save or lead to faith in and of itself according to Arminian/RCC theology. There must be a response to this grace. This position is called "Synergism." In the other view, monergism, grace is sufficient to bring one to faith and salvation.

There are many other problems. What do people mean by the term "free will." Calvinists like John MacArther would define it as the ability to make a decision unfettered by outside influence. This is why he says that "we have the free will to choose any path of sin we desire." While I agree with Johnny Mac in what he says, I think it is better just to deny free will. But I would define free will as many other monergists would. My definition would go something like this......"Free will is the natural ability of the unregenerate to please God with their faith." Of course then "free will" is obviously very unbiblical. Let me demonstrate that in the scripture.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.
Romans 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
The flesh is the natural state of man. It is unregenerate man under the slavery of the sin nature. The slave of sin in the flesh cannot do anything, cannot think anything that pleases God. In Hebrews, it says that the thing that pleases God is faith. Is it then not a logical conclusion that man, in his natural ability, cannot generate faith?

So then, the question is actually does Gods grace come upon the entire human race to regenerate it to a position of free will? This would be universal regeneration, and I find that is nowhere taught in scriptures. Was Nicodemus regenerate in John 3? No, he needed regeneration (born again).

Well, I have talked way to much already.

 

[Dude named Louis]

There has been much said on both camps. Has there ever been any reconciliation or is it simply that one is wrong while the other is right when scripture supports both simultaneously?
I support both. Others may support one or the other but I honestly believe that due to that selective reasoning one ignores much of the wealth found in scripture.
It's been over 10 years now since that particular bible study I referred to. So far I haven't seen anything that convinces me to choose one side over the other.

I'm with Rick on this. Maybe I was predestined to choose to believe both are scriptural.

In the reformed circles I travel mostly in there is such a knee-jerk reaction when ever the topic of freewill comes up. Well, maybe that's not the best term because I don't know how free it actually is, but certainly we are called to choose. From our human vantage point it is a choice we make. Still, it is no work of mine that saves, it is of God and left to my own heart I would not choose, so I do believe I was elected to choose and regenerated by the Holy Spirit to enable me to do so. But I won't overlook the choice aspect just because it is inconvenient or threatens the doctrine of sola gratia.

I have enough faith in God's sovereignty to believe that he kept both concepts in scripture for a reason. We want it nice and neat, but sometimes it just ain't.

 

[savedbygrace57]

rick:

Ah.
"The elect"
I assume they believe. If not then they can't be the "elected".

The elect will believe in due time because Jesus Christ died for their sins [ to include unbelief], the non elect will never believe because Jesus Christ did not die for their sins [ to include unbelief]..

Jn 3:

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

He that is believing make manifest that they are not condemned [ because Jesus was condemned in their stead] but he that believeth not is condemned [ thats why they cannot believe, because Christ was not condemned in their behalf] because He hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God..His not believing is evidence that they are still under condemnation for their sins..

 

[mondar]

I'm with Rick on this. Maybe I was predestined to choose to believe both are scriptural.

In the reformed circles I travel mostly in there is such a knee-jerk reaction when ever the topic of freewill comes up. Well, maybe that's not the best term because I don't know how free it actually is, but certainly we are called to choose. From our human vantage point it is a choice we make. Still, it is no work of mine that saves, it is of God and left to my own heart I would not choose, so I do believe I was elected to choose and regenerated by the Holy Spirit to enable me to do so. But I won't overlook the choice aspect just because it is inconvenient or threatens the doctrine of sola gratia.

I have enough faith in God's sovereignty to believe that he kept both concepts in scripture for a reason. We want it nice and neat, but sometimes it just ain't.

Louis, in the reformed circles you travel in, is their anyone who denies that we make a choice? And if such a person exists, are they still considered reformed?

 

[glorydaz]

On the other hand, some believe that Gods grace and the crosswork of Christ is insufficient for salvation, but universal in scope. If the crosswork of Christ were completely sufficient for salvation, then all whom Christ died for would be saved. So then, the only truely "unlimited atonement" position would be universalism.

In no way does sufficiency require all to be saved.
There is a sufficient amount of food on the table to feed an army.
When all who are hungry have eaten, there is even some left over.

Only those who were hungry ate.

 

[Dude named Louis]

I'm with Rick on this. Maybe I was predestined to choose to believe both are scriptural.

In the reformed circles I travel mostly in there is such a knee-jerk reaction when ever the topic of freewill comes up. Well, maybe that's not the best term because I don't know how free it actually is, but certainly we are called to choose. From our human vantage point it is a choice we make. Still, it is no work of mine that saves, it is of God and left to my own heart I would not choose, so I do believe I was elected to choose and regenerated by the Holy Spirit to enable me to do so. But I won't overlook the choice aspect just because it is inconvenient or threatens the doctrine of sola gratia.

I have enough faith in God's sovereignty to believe that he kept both concepts in scripture for a reason. We want it nice and neat, but sometimes it just ain't.

Louis, in the reformed circles you travel in, is their anyone who denies that we make a choice? And if such a person exists, are they still considered reformed?

I think the terminology is where the hangup is. "Freewill" smacks of "I'm involved in my salvation". I'm a firm believer that Jesus + anything is a false gospel. Sure, they acknowledge choice, but it is downplayed so as to be not really a choice at all.

I understand the whole "I wouldn't choose had I not been chosen" thing, and I believe it. It's just, can't the text just speak for itself?

FTR, when I'm with friends who are not reformed they have the same hyper-sensitivity when election comes up. I just see both concepts there in scripture.

Why do we have to explain choice? Can't it just be left as a mystery that perhaps we can't understand because we are limited in our understanding? I don't see it as a threat to sola gratia, I just see it as something that I must take on faith. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm trying to sit on the fence.

 

[mondar]

I think the terminology is where the hangup is. "Freewill" smacks of "I'm involved in my salvation". I'm a firm believer that Jesus + anything is a false gospel. Sure, they acknowledge choice, but it is downplayed so as to be not really a choice at all.

I understand the whole "I wouldn't choose had I not been chosen" thing, and I believe it. It's just, can't the text just speak for itself?

FTR, when I'm with friends who are not reformed they have the same hyper-sensitivity when election comes up. I just see both concepts there in scripture.

Why do we have to explain choice? Can't it just be left as a mystery that perhaps we can't understand because we are limited in our understanding? I don't see it as a threat to sola gratia, I just see it as something that I must take on faith. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm trying to sit on the fence.

Louis, I do not have much experience in traveling in reformed circles. It is not my background. Although I am aware that I am articulating reformed theology. My exposure to Calvinism is more bookish, then local Church. We are the only ones in my extended family that ever attended a Reformed Church. For about 9 months we traveled to a Church that follows the London Baptist Confession of 1689 as their creed. But it takes about 35 minutes to get there. We love the church, but decided to attend a Church 2 minutes away that merely allows someone with my perspective, but also allows other perspectives. They have been accepting and gracious, we are in the process of applying for membership.

My concern about the issue of "choice" goes in 3 ways. Both issues relate to evangelism.
First concerns Hyper-Calvinism. I am aware of a very small group of people that sometimes circulate in reformed circles that are generally called "hyper-Calvinists." I read that R C Sproul calls them "sub-Calvinists." On Phil Johnson's Blog is a "Primer on Hyper-Calvinism." I can get the URL for that article if you want it. Phil Johnson suggests several doctrines that he suggests makes one a hyper Calvinist. I will have to read it again and see if denying "choice" is one of them. I am sure if you deny choice, and then take the next step and deny universal evangelism, then you are a hyper-Calvinist.
Second, is the issue of Pelagianism (or sub-arminianism). The simple word "choice" can refer to things other then biblical faith. Take for instance the theology of Charles Finney. Finney denies that justification is by faith alone. He takes the position that one merely needs to make a positive choice with regard to an altar call. As long as you "walk the sawdust trail." In Finney's theology salvation came from making a "decision" for Christ in a mass evangelism crusades. Faith in the substutionary death of Christ was not what Finney was talking about. So then, I am concerned about the issue of choice in a 2nd way. What about the child that grew up in a Christian family. If you ask them when they made a "choice" and they respond "I never made a choice but I always believed in the substitutionary shed blood of Christ." Will this person go to hell because (s)he did not make a "choice?" The bottom line here is that many like Finney are messing with the atonement. Of course that is just as bad or worse then the Hyper-Calvinism above.
Third, I take the position of regeneration before faith as I have stated. I do not necessarily think that those in opposition intend to deny of sola gratia, I do think that their theology does exactly that. When I stand before God in heaven, and he asks me why he should let me into heaven, and I answer that it is because I made a better decision then the next guy, is that not a violation of sola gratia? Louis, let me say this. I do not think everyone opposed to my opinion is a heretic. I fully recognize that people must learn. Coming from outside the reformed faith, I was once just as ignorant as many others on the doctrines of Grace. I, Myself, once raised similar objections just as as they do. But I hope I had the charity to at least listen to the answers Calvinists gave to my objections. I guess I did listen to their answers. Maybe I need to learn how to be more charitable to those who are in the place where I once was, but its seems to me, that some are far beyond what I once was. I think some are over the line in their affirmation of human unregenerate righteousness.

 

[Dude named Louis]

I think the terminology is where the hangup is. "Freewill" smacks of "I'm involved in my salvation". I'm a firm believer that Jesus + anything is a false gospel. Sure, they acknowledge choice, but it is downplayed so as to be not really a choice at all.

I understand the whole "I wouldn't choose had I not been chosen" thing, and I believe it. It's just, can't the text just speak for itself?

FTR, when I'm with friends who are not reformed they have the same hyper-sensitivity when election comes up. I just see both concepts there in scripture.

Why do we have to explain choice? Can't it just be left as a mystery that perhaps we can't understand because we are limited in our understanding? I don't see it as a threat to sola gratia, I just see it as something that I must take on faith. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm trying to sit on the fence.

Louis, I do not have much experience in traveling in reformed circles. It is not my background. Although I am aware that I am articulating reformed theology. My exposure to Calvinism is more bookish, then local Church. We are the only ones in my extended family that ever attended a Reformed Church. For about 9 months we traveled to a Church that follows the London Baptist Confession of 1689 as their creed. But it takes about 35 minutes to get there. We love the church, but decided to attend a Church 2 minutes away that merely allows someone with my perspective, but also allows other perspectives. They have been accepting and gracious, we are in the process of applying for membership.

My concern about the issue of "choice" goes in 3 ways. Both issues relate to evangelism.
First concerns Hyper-Calvinism. I am aware of a very small group of people that sometimes circulate in reformed circles that are generally called "hyper-Calvinists." I read that R C Sproul calls them "sub-Calvinists." On Phil Johnson's Blog is a "Primer on Hyper-Calvinism." I can get the URL for that article if you want it. Phil Johnson suggests several doctrines that he suggests makes one a hyper Calvinist. I will have to read it again and see if denying "choice" is one of them. I am sure if you deny choice, and then take the next step and deny universal evangelism, then you are a hyper-Calvinist.
Second, is the issue of Pelagianism (or sub-arminianism). The simple word "choice" can refer to things other then biblical faith. Take for instance the theology of Charles Finney. Finney denies that justification is by faith alone. He takes the position that one merely needs to make a positive choice with regard to an altar call. As long as you "walk the sawdust trail." In Finney's theology salvation came from making a "decision" for Christ in a mass evangelism crusades. Faith in the substutionary death of Christ was not what Finney was talking about. So then, I am concerned about the issue of choice in a 2nd way. What about the child that grew up in a Christian family. If you ask them when they made a "choice" and they respond "I never made a choice but I always believed in the substitutionary shed blood of Christ." Will this person go to hell because (s)he did not make a "choice?" The bottom line here is that many like Finney are messing with the atonement. Of course that is just as bad or worse then the Hyper-Calvinism above.
Third, I take the position of regeneration before faith as I have stated. I do not necessarily think that those in opposition intend to deny of sola gratia, I do think that their theology does exactly that. When I stand before God in heaven, and he asks me why he should let me into heaven, and I answer that it is because I made a better decision then the next guy, is that not a violation of sola gratia? Louis, let me say this. I do not think everyone opposed to my opinion is a heretic. I fully recognize that people must learn. Coming from outside the reformed faith, I was once just as ignorant as many others on the doctrines of Grace. I, Myself, once raised similar objections just as as they do. But I hope I had the charity to at least listen to the answers Calvinists gave to my objections. I guess I did listen to their answers. Maybe I need to learn how to be more charitable to those who are in the place where I once was, but its seems to me, that some are far beyond what I once was. I think some are over the line in their affirmation of human unregenerate righteousness.

Thank you Mondar. Your explanation is thorough and courteous. Of the three I clearly take the position three as you do of regeneration first. I just need to do "something" with choice, I can't just walk away from it. Perhaps choice is just from our perspective, for our benefit.

How would you simply (for my benefit) define what choice is then, a response to the regenerate heart?

Thanks also for the info on Pelagianism—new to me, interesting.

Regards,
Louis

 

[mutzrein]

Does a dead person (a person without life - a person not yet born) have free will?

Of course not, but I trust you do not expect that I share your view about the specific sense in which we are dead.

So you are saying that a person who is dead spiritually, ie not born of the Spirit of God, can actually make a decision to be born of God?

 

[mondar]

How would you simply (for my benefit) define what choice is then, a response to the regenerate heart?

I am not sure what you are looking for. I suspect you are asking about the nature of regeneration. Sometimes "regeneration" is not a word that is articulated very clearly.

I guess the bottom line, in the end, is that we make choices, but we make choices out of the heart. The unregenerate heart will make choices according to its Adamic nature. The regenerate heart will make Godly choices. God does not actually make the choice for us, but he does change our nature. Then we make the choice.

If you want a text, I would start with Romans 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

To define regeneration I would go to texts on the "old man" and "new man." If you look in texts like Romans 6:6 you will see the death of the old man with Christ's crucifixion. The death of the old man is also in Colossians 3:9. Verse 10 talks about how we have the new man. In the context of Romans 6, just go through the passage and count how many times the word "dead, or death" appears.

In Romans 6:8
8 But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him;
This has a direct relation with Romans 5 and the passage and the Adamic original sin. Remember Romans 5:12 how death came through sin. The word sin in Romans 5:12 speaks of more then the personal sin of Adam, it is a cosmic revolution in which Adam established his own moral standards apart from the standards of God. Maybe the term "Cosmic Revolution" would be better then the word "sin" in Romans 5:12. As the human race departed from the standards of God when we were all in Adam, death came. Being in Adam (we are his progeny) we all died in his rebellion. That is why Ephesians 2:1 says that we are all "dead in sin and trespasses." Romans 6 carries the concept of this same spiritual death, this same cosmic rebellion. But in Romans 6, it is the death of the Old man that occurs, not the death we know in Adam. See Romans 6:6.

Also, go through Romans 6 and count the words "slave" or "Servant." The greek word is doulos or bond slave. Romans 6 is also talking about the bondage we have to our Adamic nature (our Cosmic Rebellion against God). Notice the word "free from sin" in verse 18. This freedom from sin is not sinless perfection, but rather it is a freedom from the bondage we have to our Adamic Cosmic rebellion. We would be just like a black slave after the Civil War. We would be free of the "Old man" or the former master. Yet where did so many black men get their employment after the Civil War..... Yes, they went right back to the plantation and became sharecroppers. They served the former master. While we are legally free to serve our new master, Christ, the old master (sin nature) is still around and we can serve sin. That is the whole point of Romans 6!!!!!! We should not serve that former master, our Adamic nature because we died to the bondage we had. (The sin nature did not die, but our bondage to the sin nature).

Probably the last sentence is the entire point. The sin nature is not irradiated, it is still present, but the bondage of the sin nature is dead. Old man == bondage to sin nature.

In regeneration, we do not loose our sin nature, but God changes our nature so that we are no longer in bondage to our sin nature. In other words, we are enabled to make "choices" that please God.

Again let me quote Romans 8:8 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

After regeneration we can please God and make that choice of faith.

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him,....

Regeneration is that change in our nature by which God destroys the bondage we have to our sin nature, but does not remove that sin nature. This change in our nature enables us to make a choice that is pleasing to God, the choice of faith.

I see regeneration as "irresistible." When a person is born again (regeneration) it irresistibly leads to faith and then justification.

So then, salvation is totally by grace. We still make a choice, but the choice we make is according to our regenerate or unregenerate natures. God holds us accountable for the choices we make, but if we make the right choice, we can only give God the glory because we know we made that choice only by his power.

Regeneration is limited in scope. Not all men are regenerated. Christ had to tell Nicodemus that he needed to be "born again." But in verse 8, Christ told Nicodemus that this new birth is like the wind. It is not the "choice of man" to be born again, but the sovereign choice of God. But that sovereign choice of God enables man to make a choice of faith.

This is my view of regeneration, it is irresistible, and it is limited, and it is the cause of faith.

Sorry for the long post, it was not a simply question you asked.

 

[ronniechoate34]

The elect are never condemned for their unbelief, because as all their sins, Jesus christ was condemned for them..God cannot hold the elect condemned for their sin of unbelief when Jesus christ was condemned for it along with the rest of their sins...

Haven't you ever heard of the unpardonable sin?

 

[savedbygrace57]

The elect are never condemned for their unbelief, because as all their sins, Jesus christ was condemned for them..God cannot hold the elect condemned for their sin of unbelief when Jesus christ was condemned for it along with the rest of their sins...

Haven't you ever heard of the unpardonable sin?

Yeah, what about it ? It does not apply to the elect of God, but to the non elect whom Christ did not die for..

 

[Dude named Louis]

...
Sorry for the long post, it was not a simply question you asked.

Thanks, it's consistent with what I have learned. I appreciate you taking the time. This is a season for me of going back to the roots of my beliefs. You have been helpful in reminding me why I believe what I believe. I will continue to try to understand God's word to the best of my ability, with humility I hope.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Jesus redeems from unbelief, for it is one of the many iniquties He redeems from.

titus 2:

14Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Christ has Abolished Death !



2 tim 1:10

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Abolished, the greek word is katargeō and means:

to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative

a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency

b) to deprive of force, influence, power

2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish

a) to cease, to pass away, be done away

b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one

c) to terminate all intercourse with one

This was done by Christ through His death. All for whom Christ died has had death abolished on their behalf, and for this reason its impossible for them to remain in spiritual death, because Christ hath abolished it on their behalf ! And sooner or later that fact is brought forth by the preaching of the gospel, which brings forth their immortality !

Now what is that ? Its a condition associated with eternal life as per rom 2:

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Jesus gives to all them He died for, Eternal Life and Immortality because its a evidence that He has abolished death on their behalf.

Those who believe on Him show that they have been passed from death unto life ! Jn 5:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Jn 8:24

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Jesus is saying, If ye die in your sins, Then I was not your Saviour, else you would believe in Me.

You see, Believing in Christ is a evidence that He died for your sins, and saved you from unbelief which was one of your many sins.