The Called Of God

[_Steve]

James,

I suppose I have not made my point sufficiently clear. Let me put it another way. The question is, would God command the sinner to do that which is beyond his power to obey? What lies behind this is whether God would command people to repent and believe, though He knows them to be utterly incapable of doing either.

Now when we look at the law, nothing is there commanded that a decent fellow, whether regenerate or not, would find impossible to perform. Many unbelievers (perhaps fewer than was the case two generations ago!) do not murder, do not cheat on their wives or on their employers, and even manage to keep a sabbath day. The moral code in the law did not include any commands that a man cannot obey, if he wills, and there were Jews who apparently willed to keep them—e.g., Paul, in his pre-christian life (Phil.3). Likewise, the rituals of the law were, every one of them, fully possible to observe, if one was determined to do so.

Thus the law did not command things that men cannot do—annectotally, at least. That is, a man may restrain himself from anger, and even lust,on occasion. What no one seems to be able to do (including Christians, who are regenerated), is to maintain this good conduct continuously. This, God apparently understands, and is therefore willing to have mercy on those who humbly repent.

The question of whether we can live a "sinless" life is another way of saying, "can we live a life in which we do nothing that is wrong?" I would agree with you that the answer would have to be "no," to this question. But when we ask if a man can live a "blameless" life, we are asking whether one can live his life without God laying anything to his charge. I suggest that the answer to this is "yes"—because when we repent of our sins, God does not impute iniquity (Ps.32:1).

Now when we ask, "Can a sinner repent?" we are asking whether an unregenerate man can or cannot do a single act of obedience to a command of God. Well, if a man can perform a single act of honesty or and act of chastity, in obedience to the command of God (though he may not have the capacity to keep-up his good behavior perpetually), then why would it be impossible for the same man to perform an act of repentance (though he may not have the strength to live-up to that commitment without the aid of divine grace)?

A man cannot be saved by performing a single act (or multiple acts) of chastity, but he can avail himself of divine aid by a single act of repentance. Where do we find the warrant to say that repentance is the one thing God has commanded which the sinner can not perform?

Now our Calvinist friends will, most likely, object that an unregenerate man cannot even perform one act of honesty or chastity in the manner that pleases God. I believe that Peter, addressing the house of Cornelius, would take issue with this, but even if the objection stands unchallenged, what manner of obedience is it that pleases God? Most Calvinists would say that only acts motivated, without selfish intent, and solely for the glory of God, are acceptable to Him.

I would agree that such motivation pleases God best, but I would ask whether any Christian can soberly assert that his own conversion (or most of his subsequent actions) occurred in the total absence of self-interest, and with a concern for nothing but the glory of God?

The way Jesus told the story of the prodigal (and He could have told the story any way He wished to make His point) suggests that the prodigal had little else than his own self-interest motivating his decision to return to his father. Of course, he was mindful that he had sinned against heaven and in his father's sight, but he also was aware that things would be much better for himself if only he were in his father's home, rather than feeding swine in a far country.

His father, so far as we know, did not question his son's motives. He was just delighted to see him on the right road, though still far away. The father ran out to meet him, fell on his neck, and did not wait to hear what his son's motives were. However feeble the son's attempts may have been to muster a pure intention and to traverse the distance between himself and his father, it was the father who made up the difference, running out to meet him, because the father (Christ tells us) rejoices, with all of heaven, to see an individual sinner repent.

As I read the teachings of Jesus, God is more eager for sinners to be saved than the sinner himself is to be saved. My impression (though I do not wish to judge other men's hearts) is that God wants all men saved more than Calvinists want all men saved. God is scandalously gracious. Older brothers often take offense.

[_Rick_C]

Sean,

Our recent thread on Romans 7 (when Steve was in Africa): Till now I never really considered how it might have implications for things Calvinist/Arminian.

Hmmmm....

If my view is correct -- Paul's "I" was a reference to 'a Jew' living under the Law and before Christ -- how would this enter into the Calv/Arm dialog? What are the ramifications and applications?

I think Paul was specifically addressing Jews in Romans 7 (and as the entire church in Rome also 'heard' the letter being read); I ask myself: What relevance would it have for us today?

Unbelievers today who have been raised in church or otherwise 'know' about the Law of God (10 Commandments, etc.) are not in the same position as Paul's "I"...they are not the People of the Covenant.

Hmmmm....

Since they are aware of the Law, they know, or have known, they are offending. But they cannot say, along with Paul, In my inner being I delight in God's Law (Ro 7:22) leave alone desire to: Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, with all of your soul, with all of your mind, and with all of your strength (De 6:5).

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord (De 6:4).

Unbelievers aren't in God's Israel yet may know His Law, though they do not delight in it or love Him (or want to with all of their being, anyway).

(Looks like I've already started a new thread, huh?) lol

I have more thoughts on this but need to get ready for church. Do we need a new thread on this? If so, you could start one while I'm at church (if yer free)...hehehe, jk

Thanks,
Rick

[_Rick_C]

Hi Steve,

The question of whether we can live a "sinless" life is another way of saying, "can we live a life in which we do nothing that is wrong?" I would agree with you that the answer would have to be "no," to this question. But when we ask if a man can live a "blameless" life, we are asking whether one can live his life without God laying anything to his charge. I suggest that the answer to this is "yes"—because when we repent of our sins, God does not impute iniquity (Ps.32:1).

Thanks...this is very encouraging!!!
Amen! & Amen,
Rick
(out)

[Guest]

Sean,

Our recent thread on Romans 7 (when Steve was in Africa): Till now I never really considered how it might have implications for things Calvinist/Arminian.

My point was more simple than that (I think ). If someone (like Paul or a Jew living under the law who may or may not, for that matter love the law) has the ability to desire what they have no power to do (as I believe Romans 7 suggests) then the Calvinist position that the unregenerate man cannot even desire to repent and believe the gospel once it is heard seems to be refuted.

Men living under the law had God's knowledge, but without the Spirit they did not have the ability to perform it without sin in their lives.

Compare this:

Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

With this:

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Without the Spirit of God, even the law could not set us free from sin. We were captive to it. But once the Spirit came is set us free from the law (of sin and death). The Spirit empowers us to walk as God wishes. I believe Paul is speaking to Jews who "know the law" to make the point that this "knowledge" does not break the bondage of sin, but rather condemns us by showing we are sinners. The law condemned the guilty, it didn't free anyone.

[_Rick_C]

Sean,

You wrote:

If someone (like Paul or a Jew living under the law who may or may not, for that matter love the law) has the ability to desire what they have no power to do (as I believe Romans 7 suggests) then the Calvinist position that the unregenerate man cannot even desire to repent and believe the gospel once it is heard seems to be refuted.

If...Romans 7 is about "a Jew" under the Law and before being in Christ, Romans 8:1, (as you know I'm pretty convinced is the case); the Calvinist position that "dead men can do nothing" is, indeed, rebutted. This chapter shows "a Jew" who knows (Greek, "has intimate knowledge of") the Law and is judged by it (knows right from wrong, sin from righteousness).

Romans 7 illustrates full knowledge of shortcomings and/or sin via the Law. Those dead in sin can: [1] know what sin is, [2] be convicted of it, [3] know they are sinners and, [4] WILL to do right (unbelievers HAVE a will), [5] to do God's Will.

Any Jew of Paul's time who was desirous (willing) to obey the Law would also know to repent as the Law commands, and to do any other requirements the Law demanded (like offer sacrifice(s), and so on).

Now; if believing the Gospel can be established as obedience to a command of God....

Romans 10, Revised Young's Literal Translation:
8 But what does it say? `Near you is the saying -- in your mouth, and in your heart:' that is, the saying of the faith, that we preach; 9 that if you may confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and may believe in your heart that God did raise him out of the dead, you shall be saved, 10 for with the heart does [one] believe to righteousness, and with the mouth is confession made to salvation; 11 for the Writing says, `Every one who is believing on him shall not be ashamed,' 12 for there is no difference between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord of all [is] rich to all those calling upon Him, 13 for every one -- whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, he shall be saved.'

10:14 How then shall they call upon [him] in whom they did not believe? and how shall they believe [on him] of whom they did not hear? and how shall they hear apart from one preaching? 15 and how shall they preach, if they may not be sent? according as it has been written, `How beautiful the feet of those proclaiming good tidings of peace, of those proclaiming good tidings of the good things!'

16 But they were not all obedient to the good tidings, for Isaiah says, `Lord, who did give credence to our report?' 17 so then the faith [is] by a report, and the report through a saying of God, 18 but I say, Did they not hear? yes, indeed -- `to all the earth their voice went forth, and to the ends of the habitable world their sayings.'

10:16 seals it, Sean!

There are many other texts (as I'm sure you know) that prove believing the Gospel is obedience to a Command of God....

2 Thess, RYLT:
1:3 We ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, as it is proper, because increase greatly does your faith, and abound does the love of each one of you all, to one another; 4 so that we ourselves do glory in you in the assemblies of God, for your endurance and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you bear; 5 a token of the righteous judgment of God, for your being counted worthy of the reign of God, for which also you suffer, 6 since [it is] a righteous thing with God to give back to those troubling you -- trouble, 7 and to you who are troubled -- rest with us in the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven, with messengers of his power, 8 in flaming fire, giving vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Most of the persecution in Thessalonica came from Jews who had rejected (disobeyed) the Gospel.

Belief in Jesus was a command of God: To the Jews and also to the Greeks
(these sections affirm it...and there are many more!)....

Great post, Sean!
Rick

[Guest]

Back by popular demand? I do not think so!

James is "Seer", WOW!!

Mark

[Guest]

So here we see the absurdity. God commands men to do that which He knows they can not do; neither will he allow them to do so, for He has chosen to make sure they can not. You have an insincere God in your theology. And to think you claim to give God greater glory than the non-Calvinist! Methinks He says "thanks but no thanks".

Homer, PLEASE!

God has not chosen to make sure man cannot do, blah, blah, blah.
Man cannot do because in and of himself HE WILL NOT DO! It is just that simple.

And please watch what you are saying with this "Insincere" God kind of talk.

The only absurd kind of thing going on here Homer is your total inability to rightly represent what you do not understand.

The natural man IS NOT EVEN ABLE to come to Christ. God must act first, or there is NO CONVERSION.
This is what the Bible teaches.

When the Bible speaks of what man must do, it does not imply the ability that man can do what God commands.
In the very same way that LAZARUS WAS COMMANDED to come forth from the tomb, and yet has no ability to do so, the same
is true of every man. Lazarus came forth as commanded, but by the power of God he did so!

The fallen sinner has no understanding, moral ability or inclination to believe prior to the new birth. (1 Cor 2:14).
Fallen Man has a mind at enmity with God; loves darkness, hates the light and does not have the Holy Spirit.
"There is no one who seeks God" (Rom 3:11); A Sinner would never turn to God without divine enablement and new affections.

The natural man can contribute nothing towards his salvation. Faith is a response rendered certain following the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit. We respond to God's unconditional love. (Acts 13:48; John 6:37)

Man's nature determines his desires/affections and give rise to the choices he makes. Jesus bears witness to this: "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit." Luke 6:43 Only Christ can "make a tree good and its fruit will be good." (Also see John 8:34, 42-44; 2 Pet. 2:19).

The Command toward sinners to repent and believe does not imply ability. Divine intent of the Law, according to Scripture, is to reveal our moral impotence apart from grace (Rom 3:20, 5:20, Gal 3:19,24). The Law was not designed to confer any power but to strip us of our own.

[Guest]

Mark,

You wrote:

The only absurd kind of thing going on here Homer is your total inability to rightly represent what you do not understand.

Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of absurd; if I do not understand Calvinism, I would be expected to be unable to rightly represent it. But this doesn't bother me so much; it is better than misrepresenting scripture.

Regarding Romans 3:11, Paul strings together various statements of David from the Psalms. Do you believe David included himself in the "none who seeks God" category? I would like to hear your view of this. Whatever pertains to David must have been applicable to others.

[Guest]

Mark,

You wrote:

Quote:
The only absurd kind of thing going on here Homer is your total inability to rightly represent what you do not understand.


Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of absurd; if I do not understand Calvinism, I would be expected to be unable to rightly represent it. But this doesn't bother me so much; it is better than misrepresenting scripture.

Yes and that is precisely what is absurd.
Let me break it down for you.

1/ You call Calvinism absurd.
2/ I point out how you misrepresent Calvinism.
3/ The absurdity is the misrepresentation.

Unless you desire to boast in what you do not understand, we shall only take this conversation to a higher and more profound level of absurdity.

Regarding Romans 3:11, Paul strings together various statements of David from the Psalms. Do you believe David included himself in the "none who seeks God" category? I would like to hear your view of this. Whatever pertains to David must have been applicable to others.

Quite apart from the numerous logical fallacies in your premise, of which I see several, it is enough to say that nowhere does Scripture teach that believers cannot seek God. If you cannot see that simple assertion then there is little hope for us to have a meaningful discourse.
As you use the term Berean in your sig line, I must say how inappropriate the term is when you make mention of things that the Berean's themselves never would have misrepresented.

So to answer your assertion. Nowhere in scripture is it ever stated that Believers cannot seek God, but everywhere, it is asserted that unregenerate sinners cannot in and of themselves seek God. Hence you have been refuted in your assertion.

I have provided scriptures in all of my posts here on these threads to support my view, which of course is the Calvinist view.

it is better than misrepresenting scripture.

And you shall answer for that Homer as shall we all.

Mark

[Guest]

Soaring Eagle had blurted out,

Quote:
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.

Can anyone ever imagine a soul in Hell saying these words?


Two things. First, Paul says Christ gave Himself for him, so should we conclude that Paul believes that Christ gave Himself for him only? If so, why not? Is it because there are passages that say Christ gave Himself for the church? If so, why should we believe that the passages of that nature mean the church only? After all, there are passages that say Christ' death was for every man, was a ransom for all, and for the whole world. Can we have a little consistency in our interperetation methods?

Consistency eh?
Ok, Christ’s atonement was powerful enough to redeem any number of individuals, even the whole world, but it is only aimed to redeem those who are chosen by God before the foundation of the world.
That means, no matter how hard it is to accept, Jesus did not die for every single person on the cross.

It is very clear that Christ died for many (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 20:28, 26:28), the church (Ephesians 5:25), the sheep (John 10:15), and those who will live for righteousness (1 Peter 2:24).

I know others like to throw out this "only" card and attempt to argue irrationally, but consistency is what counts at the end of the day, and consistency is the brother of faithfulness. Refute the "only" card from the above scriptures. Never ever seen it done, have you?

and

There are many important things to be reminded of when viewing the atonement. First, it is very important to always view Limited Atonement through the eyes of Unconditional Election.

If a person really considers the truth of Unconditional Election, then one sees the logical fallacy of saying that Christ died for everyone! Why would Christ die for those who will never be cleansed by His blood (1 Peter 3:18)?

Are Christ and the Father not in unity? Is the Trinity confused? Did Jesus want to die for all when the Father wanted to save only some? If a person is not part of the elect then they will irrevocably remain in their willful unbelief and will eternally perish.

They will never be cleansed by the blood of Christ! Why then would Christ spill His blood for those who will never be cleansed by it? He didn't! He died only for the sins of those who will believe according to the will of God.