Eternal Security & Free Will

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Eternal Security & Free Will

Post by Paidion » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:38 am

NJchosen wrote: Last, if two people read the Bible, and one believes and the other rejects, I would say it was God who moved in the one who believed, who drew him/her to Himself. But from an Armin. standpoint, I never thought about this years ago, but where do you stand? What was in the one who believed versus the one who did not believe? Why did some believe in Jesus when he raised Lazarus from the dead, but there were others who disbelieved even though the proof was before their eyes. Are some more spiritually minded then others? Is it something in man, or is it something in God that causes one to believe?
The "something in man" is his free will! If God "caused" only some to believe and not others, this would be inconsistent with the fact that God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4 ) and that He is "not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (2 Peter 3:9 )

The differentiating factor can be only the free will of humanity.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Eternal Security & Free Will

Post by steve » Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:41 pm

There is nothing wrong with saying that there is something in one man that makes him more spiritually sensitive than most others. It is the same as saying that there is something in some men that makes them less spiritually sensitive than most others. If some are less sensitive, then some must (by definition) be more sensitive. What factors cause one man to be more or less spiritually receptive than another has no simple answer. For some, native temperament may play a significant role. For others, it may be their upbringing. Some make poor choices of priorities early in life, which mark their character, their attitudes and their pursuits through the rest of their lives. Some respond poorly to suffering, and others to prosperity. Some have heard or seen good examples of Christianity, while others have seen or heard only bad examples. Some (like the Pharisees) have been inoculated against true faith by being raised with religion and morality, so as to be suffering from a condition of self-righteousness. Others (as those Paul mentions in Ephesians 4:19) may have become so morally compromised that they are past conviction.

People are complex entities, influenced by myriad factors, both hereditary and environmental. To ask for a simple answer why one man chooses Christ and another chooses unbelief is a reductionist error. It is like asking why one man falls in love with a certain woman, while the next man does not take any interest in her at all, or why one man becomes a passionate Democrat and another man an equally passionate Republican. Why do people make the choices they do? It may be impossible to know every factor that plays a role in a given choice.

NJchosen wrote:
...scripture seems plain enough that none seek after God.
This is an interesting observation. I find the scripture to be truly plain in saying that men must (and sometimes do) seek God. There is only one verse that seems to say otherwise, and that verse is clearly presenting a hyperbole. Paul (paraphrasing Psalm 14) writes: "There is none who seeks after God" (Romans 3:11). This is the only verse in all of scripture that seems to suggest that no human being seeks after God, and yet, even in Psalm 14, from which the statement comes, it is clearly a hyperbole, because the psalmist himself was a seeker after God, and mentions others who were of the "generation of the righteous" as well (Ps.14:5). This lone verse, forced into an absolutized statement which the Psalmist never intended, can hardly justify the statement that "scripture seems plain enough that none seek after God." Especially in view of all the passages that describe those who do seek God, like the following:

Deu 4:29 But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart.

1Ch 16:10 Let the hearts of those rejoice who seek the LORD!

1Ch 22:19 Now set your heart and your soul to seek the LORD your God.

2Ch 11:16 such as set their heart to seek the LORD God of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the LORD God of their fathers.

2Ch 15:2 The LORD is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you.

2Ch 15:12 Then they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;

2Ch 20:3 And Jehoshaphat feared, and set himself to seek the LORD, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.

2Ch 20:4 and from all the cities of Judah they came to seek the LORD.

Psa 24:6 This is Jacob, the generation of those who seek Him, Who seek Your face.

Psa 27:4 One thing I have desired of the LORD, That will I seek: That I may dwell in the house of the LORD All the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the LORD, And to inquire in His temple.

Psa 27:8 When You said, "Seek My face," My heart said to You, "Your face, LORD, I will seek."

Psa 34:10 But those who seek the LORD shall not lack any good thing.

Pro 28:5 Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all.

Isa 45:19 I did not say to the seed of Jacob, 'Seek Me in vain'; I, the LORD, speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

Isa 51:1 "Listen to Me, you who follow after righteousness, You who seek the LORD"

Isa 55:6 Seek the LORD while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near.

Hsa 3:5 Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD

Amo 5:4 For thus says the LORD to the house of Israel: "Seek Me and live."

Zec 8:21f The inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, "Let us continue to go and pray before the LORD, And seek the LORD of hosts. I myself will go also." Yes, many peoples and strong nations Shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem

Act 15:17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD

Act 17:26f And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.

Here are twenty passages that clearly teach that there are men who seek the Lord—against one passage that can only be made to deny it by illegitimately absolutizing a hyperbole. So what does the Bible plainly teach on this subject?

Calvinists will say, "Yes, there have always been those who have sought the Lord, but they are the elect, whom God has regenerated—making them capable of seeking God." Yes, yes. We all know the line. What we don't know is where one can find this information in the scriptures.

None of these passages say anything about election or regeneration. In fact, it does not seem to be possible to prove that any regeneration occurred prior to the resurrection of Christ (see John 7:37-39/1 Peter 1:3), and most of these passages are in the Old Testament—prior to the resurrection of Christ. Even in Romans 3, where Paul quotes Psalm 14 ( "there is none who seeks after God"), neither Paul nor David mention that they are speaking of a subset of humanity called "the unregenerate." When Calvinists insert this concept, it is a blatant example of the dreaded eisegesis, of which they constantly accuse non-Calvinists.

In the Psalm, we are told that the statement applies to "the sons of men" (Psalm 14:2). That is, human beings. The statement is clearly a hyperbole spoken in exasperation by the Psalmist,* who also said (quite non-literally) that all the "evildoers" are guilty of eating up David's people "like bread"(v.4). It seems strange (and disingenuous) for theologians to use this one line in a poetic hyperbole as a means of canceling out the teaching of dozens of other biblical passages.

Blessings!

Steve

*We have modern examples of similar exasperated hyperbole in the case the teenager informing her father, "All parents these days let their kids stay out till after midnight!" or of the business owner, who laments, "Nobody does honest work anymore!"

jaiotu
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Eternal Security & Free Will

Post by jaiotu » Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:52 am

Even in Romans 3, where Paul quotes Psalm 14 ( "there is none who seeks after God"), neither Paul nor David mention that they are speaking of a subset of humanity called "the unregenerate." When Calvinists insert this concept, it is a blatant example of the dreaded eisegesis, of which they constantly accuse non-Calvinists.
I don't think that it would be "the dreaded eisegesis" so much as it would be a complete misrepresentation of the Calvinists position in regards to whom Paul is referring to here.

First of all, there are many places in the New Testament where the writer quotes from the old testament with what would appear to be a clear disregard for the original context. One such instance would be where Matthew 2:15 quotes from Hosea 11:1, taking what Hosea intends as a reference to Israel's exodus from Egypt during the time of Moses and using it to indicate that it was actually a prophecy fulfilled by a young Christ when he returned with his mother and Joseph from exile.

Paul, in Romans 3, quotes Psalm 14. While David may have surely been generalizing, Paul uses David's words to illustrate the depravity of man... and not JUST the unregenerate, but also the elect. For the elect are not without sin and can claim no special freedom from sin aside from the grace of God. I've never personally heard a Calvinist claim that Romans 3 only refers to a "subset" of humanity and not the whole human race... so I would question if the issue here is not "the dreaded eisegesis" so much as it is the "nasty strawman argument," which is the next door neighbor of "dreaded eisegesis" and both like to poison the same wells.

I do say that last part kinda tongue-in-cheek... I just couldn't resist. "The Dreaded Eisegesis" just sounds so much like some kind of monster or illness.

"Whats wrong with you today Steve?"
"Oh... I've just got a 24 hour Dreaded Eisegesis."
"Here, take some CalviniCaps. Not only will they cure your Eisegesis, but it's also good for knocking out Strawman Arguments and night time Ad Homonyms! CalviniCaps are only available by a prescription to election by the Great Physician. Talk to YOUR Pastor today!"

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Eternal Security & Free Will

Post by steve » Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:23 am

First of all, there are many places in the New Testament where the writer quotes from the old testament with what would appear to be a clear disregard for the original context. One such instance would be where Matthew 2:15 quotes from Hosea 11:1, taking what Hosea intends as a reference to Israel's exodus from Egypt during the time of Moses and using it to indicate that it was actually a prophecy fulfilled by a young Christ when he returned with his mother and Joseph from exile.
I disagree with your assessment of Matthew's use of scripture. Seeing Israel as a type of Christ, he easily saw the events of Christ's infancy as having been foreshadowed in the infancy of Israel. To say that the biblical writers quoted scripture without reference to context is to fail to grasp how they are thinking. Paul specifically said that he did not "corrupt the word of God" nor "use the word of God deceitfully" (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2), which he would be doing if he was arguing for a point and used a scripture that did not apply to his point as a proof. I will stand by my earlier remarks.
Paul, in Romans 3, quotes Psalm 14. While David may have surely been generalizing, Paul uses David's words to illustrate the depravity of man...
I have read those commentaries, too. However, I believe they are missing Paul's point. I have discussed this elsewhere, and would not like to get into it again here. Suffice it to say that the Calvinists that I have debated publicly have indicated that David's remarks were describing the unregenerate only, since his words clearly do not describe David, nor "the generation of the righteous"—who do in fact seek God. If you have never heard Calvinists use this argument, it must be due to your limited experience.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Eternal Security & Free Will

Post by darinhouston » Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:00 pm

I sent Steve's list of scripture references above to some Reformed friends of mine for their devotional considerations, and one of them who is pretty Reformed in his soteriology has responded suggesting that this shouldn't be couched in a Calvinist/Arminian debate because the context of Romans 3:11 is only saying that no one "continuously" seeks after God and is "pure."

I was flabbergasted, and was happy to find grounds of agreement in this regard. So, I'm curious -- NJchosen, would you agree with this understanding of Romans 3:11?

Also, I received the following more detailed response from another of my friends:
Reply : Paul quotes 6 Old Testament texts in this passage from Romans. Ps 14 is referring to the Gentiles. Quotes from Isaiah 59:7-8 and 59:2 (Rm 3:15-17) refers to the Jews. Put these together and you have the point Paul is communciating, " no one is righteous = no one seeks after God" without His grace.

This does not mean no one was saved in the Old Testament -Abraham believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. (see 1 Corinthians 2:14 if you think Abraham figured it out on his own)

From Piper :
And wherever you have someone called "righteous" in the Old Testament it is not because they were not sinners, but because God had mercifully intervened in their lives and given them the grace of faith and forgiveness to overcome their natural sinfulness and set them right with God.

How does Paul support the universal claim of sinfulness in verse 9 by quoting these six Old Testament passages which speak of righteous people as well as wicked people? He shows that both Jews and Gentiles are characterized as deeply corrupt and that the only way out of that corruption is by God's gracious gift of faith and forgiveness that sets a person right with God (which, we know now, is) on the basis of the substitutionary sacrifice that would one day come in Jesus Christ.
I would agree that we can't seek Him without grace, but the question is whether that requires a saving grace or a common prevenient grace. Piper carries it further to require "saving grace" before they can seek after Him, but I would suggest that even after regeneration, I don't always seek after God.

Here is my response -- I'd appreciate feedback.
I don't agree that Ps 14 refers merely to the Gentiles, and I wouldn't actually suggest no one was saved in the Old Testament (why would you assume I do?). If you mean by "saved" that they could be "justified," then I definitely agree they were -- however, I do believe there is a reasonable debate one could have whether anyone in the Old Testament was truly "regenerated" in the way we can be today with a new heart indwelt and empowered by the Holy Spirit, but that's a different debate.

Like you, I see no reason to suggest that Abraham did "anything" on his own (regenerated or not). The point of disagreement is not whether we can seek and find God without God's grace. That's a straw man because I don't know anyone who believes we even walk across the room safely or take our next breath without God's grace. The question is whether God provides sufficient grace to all mankind (differing in measure according to His will, perhaps) to seek and find Him (or even please Him in some respects), or whether His default position is to withhold the granting of any such grace only to a select few and only then "following" the very act of regeneration.

I can believe in the universality of sinfulness you suggest (all men sin) without believing that both Jews and Gentiles are so deeply corrupt by that sinfulness that the only way out is for God to "first" regenerate them. You didn't put it quite that way, but your final paragraph suggests this, and that is, indeed, the question -- we agree that a man can only be truly "out of corruption" by forgiveness and restoration. But, the question is the extent to which such corruption prevents a man (made in the image of God and led by the so-called "prevenient" grace of God) from seeking God "prior to" that forgiveness and restoration. Scripture certainly suggests that men of all stripes (though all sinful) are able to and often do seek God (again, not by their own power but by God's non-salvific grace), and that they can also please God in some respects (another different but related point). Consider Cornelius -- I have asked before, but how did God receive the "good deeds" brought to Him by Cornelius in Acts 10? Did God say his efforts were the filthy rags of an unregenerate man? Or was he instead pleased by the fragrant aroma of a man who was trying best he knew to honor Him in even a pre-regenerated state. That does not confirm or deny what state Cornelius would end up in at the judgment (I have my suspicions, though Acts 11 tells us of his later conversion), and he clearly wouldn't have been empowered by an indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a present salvation from a "bondage" to sin along with a "right relationship" with God, but his situation does seem counter to the notions of man's depravity held by many Calvinists.

The question is -- where in Scripture do we learn that a man must be regenerated "before" he can even seek after God? That is the fundamental Augustinian presupposition that I reject.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Eternal Security & Free Will

Post by darinhouston » Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:48 pm

No response from NJchosen?

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Eternal Security & Free Will

Post by darinhouston » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:22 am

Some verses from my friends and another response from me.
Calvinists wrote:Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Ephesians 2:1-9 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, (2) in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. (3) Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. (4) But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, (5) even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), (6) and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, (7) so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (8) For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; (9) not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 3:3-8 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (4) Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" (5) Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (6) "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' (8) "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
Thanks -- these are, of course, some pretty standard proof-texts on this subject. I think they're often pressed into service to prove much more than they actually are intended to teach. Depending on one's presuppositions, they can support a given paradigm (as many scriptures can do), but at a cost (I believe) to other teachings and in particular to the broader teachings of Scripture. Also, there are verses that are difficult to reconcile with either system, so a battle of prooftexts will never be definitive, but let me at least show you why I don't think they necessarily support the popular Reformed interpretations.

Jn 1:12-13
I believe this tells us that we did not by our own devices discover or create our own system of regeneration to become right with God on our own, and that it was God's decision and good pleasure to provide a system of new birth. It doesn't speak to the question of what role one plays or what God expects from us in that process. Wesley pointed out that this was really to show the distinction between a salvation based on descent or natural generation on the one hand (what the Jews assumed) and a salvation based on God's adoption on the other. The way that adoption is worked out is provided elsewhere in Scripture, and I don't think it's fair to extrapolate beyond that here.

Ephesians 2:1-9
Yes, the power to enliven us is absolutely from God. I think we all agree there is nothing innate within us or that originates within us as individuals that gives us the ability to choose to follow Christ (or otherwise get right by any other means with God). That ability must be planted into us by God. But, that doesn't speak to the universality or exclusivity of such an ability. And, yes, by definition, you're dead until your made alive, but dead here is a metaphor rarely intended to be pressed to its extreme to mean "incapable of anything" as many Calvinists would suggest -- clearly the people referred to here weren't really physically dead and even with regard to spiritual death, it wasn't that they couldn't do anything of a spiritual or even righteous nature, but just that in contrast to the life God would bring to them and the black and white nature of being right with Him or not, they were not there yet until God did His own work in us. Again, no one denies that it is God's own power that enlivens us and gives us new birth. And, again, it doesn't speak to how or whether we participate in that process. I think you can look at verse 5 as Paul simply reflecting on just how remarkable it is that God used such undeserving raw material to create the lasting body He was going to make to serve with Him, and it is not necessarily a reflection on any practical inability on our part to participate in or respond to God's plan in even our unregenerate state.

Though you haven't emphasized it, the emphasis here is usually on 2:8-9, and it's quite related to the topic at hand so I've provided a commentary excerpt you might consider if you don't see many non-Calvinist commentaries:
Forster and Marston wrote:Augustine cites this and adds: "That is to say, And in saying through faith, (I meant) even faith itself is not of yourself, but is God's gift." Augustine's idea is that the word "that" refers back to the word "faith" in the previous phrase, meaning that faith itself is "not of yourselves." This sounds plausible, but there are a major and a minor reason why anyone reading greek could not accept it. The minor reason is that, if it were true, then the following words, "not of works lest any man should glory," would also refer to faith. But Paul always set works and faith in antithesis, and for him to say "faith is not of works" would be very strange. The major reason is that the Greek precludes the interpretation. The words "faith" and "grace" are both feminine in gender, but the word "that" is neuter. If the latter had been intended as a simple reference back either to faith or to grace, Paul would certainly not have used the neuter form (touto) but the feminine form (haute) which is quite different. The best interpretation that the Greek would seem to allow is for the phrase in verse 8, "for by grace have you been saved through faith," to be regarded as a similar type of parenthesis to that in verse 5: "by grace have you been saved" -- which many versions put in brackets. This would imply that the word "that" refers back to the whole process described in verses 4-7 of God quickening us and raising us together with Christ to show his grace to us in the heavenly places. None of this, Paul says, is through works, but is a gift of God. Whether or not this is his precise meaning, certainly no one who read the Greek could see any suggestion in this passage that the beginning of faith is an irresistable gift. (Appendix to God's Strategy in Human History, Forster and Marston with forward by FF Bruce).
John 6:44
Again, yes -- God draws us -- I certainly don't deny that -- I also agree that He doesn't draw us all equally; but, again, it doesn't speak to whether God draws all of us in some measure. As in the Ephesians verse above, God is the originator and initiator but that doesn't answer the question at hand of how exclusive or resistable that drawing may be. Macarthur deals with this in his commentary, as follows along with my response to sir Mac:
Macarthur wrote: The third kind of election is salvational, the kind of which Paul is speaking in our present text. “No one can come to Me,” Jesus said, “unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44). Helkuō (draws) carries the idea of an irresistible force and was used in ancient Greek literature of a desperately hungry man being drawn to food and of demonic forces being drawn to animals when they were not able to possess men. Salvage yards use giant electromagnets to lift and partially sort scrap metal. When the magnet is turned on, a tremendous magnetic force draws all the ferrous metals that are near it, but has no effect on other metals such as aluminum and brass. In a similar way, God’s elective will irresistibly draws to Himself those whom He has predetermined to love and forgive, while having no effect on those whom He has not.
Darin's response to Mac wrote: This does not speak to whether the converse is true -- i.e., whether there are those who are "called" or "drawn" who do not come to Christ. That must be found elsewhere if at all. His definition of "drawn" to connote "irresistibility" seems flawed or overly relied upon and, most importantly, doesn't appear to be derived from Scripture or the context of the surrounding text. Basically, I think there's too much emphasis being put on this definition of drawn. From even a very quick word study of actual Scriptural usage of the term, it is clear that the term is used most commonly in its general sense. Actually letting Scripture inform Scripture, the same word "Helkuo" is used in John 12:32, for example, in this very context is used with respect to all men:

Jn 12:32 "And I 2504, if 1437 I be lifted up 5312 from 1537 the earth 1093, will draw 1670 all 3956 [men] unto 4314 me 1683."

He clearly was lifted up. He does draw all men to Himself -- however, not all respond because "draw" doesn't mean the irresistible force he suggests it does.
I'm not exactly sure what point you intended to make with John 3:3-8.

dizerner

Re: Eternal Security & Free Will

Post by dizerner » Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:55 am

~~~ Sorry to bump an old thread but I've been meditating on this topic.
But how can you believe in eternal security and the free will of man, together? For if man has free will to chose God, and they believe, and are made born again, do they still have free will after conversion?
Simple answer, NJchosen, eternal security is not truly compatible with Arminianism even though many believe it. Instead of dumping Arminianism why not just dump eternal security, which even Paul didn't believe. As best as I can tell it seems to be a doctrine motivated either by people's fear of falling away, to give them a false sense of security, or a fear that it will create a works based legalistic salvation. Once you remove those two things, you don't feel a need to explain away the myriad of verses that attest to apostasy and spiritual death.
But now I see that God, from an Armin. view, is stopped from saving all by the will of man. I do believe God can save all but chose not to. Though He loves all
God can't save all if he gives a free will that can reject him. That's just logic you can't get away from. This is the Calvinist dilemma, because people are lost not because they reject God, but because God rejects them before any choice of their own.
And if so, can they disbelieve? After all God doesn't want to force Himself upon anyone? Or does his new nature prevent such a thing?
Of course they can disbelieve. The new nature does not literally prevent us from sinning or rejecting God, even though it gives us a disposition not to want to. A degree of deception or spiritual sloth can lead us into contradicting our nature, or even just an evil choice.
Did God say his efforts were the filthy rags of an unregenerate man? Or was he instead pleased by the fragrant aroma of a man who was trying best he knew to honor Him in even a pre-regenerated state.
This is a tough question, because as was quoted before in this thread:
And wherever you have someone called "righteous" in the Old Testament it is not because they were not sinners, but because God had mercifully intervened in their lives and given them the grace of faith and forgiveness to overcome their natural sinfulness and set them right with God.
If all good works are really by God's grace, what truly makes the difference between a godly and sinful man? The way I see it, is that I believe both in original sin leading to a kind of total depravity and also a free will choice and response. The free will choice allows God's grace to operate in your life, but it doesn't produce it. That's not a small distinction and Calvinists say even a choice is a contribution—in the sense of synergy, in the way they define it, it's true. But we can argue and defend that not all actions are meritorious simply because they will eventually allow an effect to be produced.
I think we all agree there is nothing innate within us or that originates within us as individuals that gives us the ability to choose to follow Christ (or otherwise get right by any other means with God). That ability must be planted into us by God. And, again, it doesn't speak to how or whether we participate in that process.
People say this, but do they follow through with a commitment to this in the rest of their theology? It seems to me you've got to give all the credit to God or to man, but people do seem to jump back and forth. And it seems like they are mixing works with grace, while then appending "but it's still grace." Because what you wrote here could easily be interpreted as original sin and inability.
The question is -- where in Scripture do we learn that a man must be regenerated "before" he can even seek after God? That is the fundamental Augustinian presupposition that I reject.
This is a good point, I think. And Steve's verses prove that saints throughout time have had the ability to seek God, somehow anyway. But I believe you can harmonize that with original sin as a principle, which Romans 3 and the other verses on original sin are meant to show (and are not just "hyperbole," but rather the fundamental constitution humans have without intervention from God.)
Because as I have understood the free will of man, it means man has the ability, despite his sinful nature, and apart from the influence of God, he or she can choose God and it is of their own desire or will. This is not to say God the Holy Spirit doesn't work in the process of it all.
What exactly does the Holy Spirit, do, that's what we need to know. I think humans have a free will (that is enslaved to sin but can desire not to serve the slave master, even though it can't in practice). Calvinists argue that you can only choose what you desire, but I think we do see many examples contradicting that. Or, at least, the ability to choose to desire something without feelings for it. So I think when an unbeliever receives the idea of God, they could choose to want to know God, but they would need the Gospel to be regenerated and set free. And we could describe any form of "wanting" God as seeking him.
Like you, I see no reason to suggest that Abraham did "anything" on his own (regenerated or not). The point of disagreement is not whether we can seek and find God without God's grace. That's a straw man because I don't know anyone who believes we even walk across the room safely or take our next breath without God's grace. The question is whether God provides sufficient grace to all mankind (differing in measure according to His will, perhaps) to seek and find Him (or even please Him in some respects), or whether His default position is to withhold the granting of any such grace only to a select few and only then "following" the very act of regeneration.
This is very interesting. But you would, to be consistent, need to say people do evil and sin "with God's grace." I don't think by grace we mean "the ability to do anything at all," but rather "the ability to do righteousness." Of course we'd feel silly to say "Hitler could not have committed the massive effects of his atrocities were it not for the enabling grace of God!" Even if we mean, God gave him the opportunity to do evil. But I agree that God does not "withhold" grace from anyone that would autonomously choose to desire it, and that's what it means to say "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved."

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”