The Doctrine of OSAS

Wormwood · Oct 16, 2015

FHII and justaname,

I must say that I agree with Baard and StanJ on this one. First, your argument is (as I understand them...perhaps I am wrong on your assessments) that the "if" statements in these passages do indeed warn us about the importance of holding fast to the Gospel, but those who do not hold fast to the Gospel were never saved in the first place. I find this argument to be difficult to swallow. Why would the author give such a warning if the person predetermined for hell couldn't help it if they did not hold to the Gospel because they were really never "elect" in the first place? This renders all these passages and warnings completely meaningless.

Second, this doctrine clearly flies in the face of one of the most basic tenants of the Bible: God loves the world and desires "anyone" who will to come and find life. The divine determinism you hold to essentially teaches that God does not desire everyone to be saved, and, in fact, has predetermined that some be destined for hell prior to their ever doing anything good or bad. Those who hold this view claim that it is for the "glory of God" and that to give people free choice to determine their own salvation is to strip God of his glory and sovereignty. However, this is not the case, especially when God's sovereign decree is that he chooses to save people according to their response to the Gospel (which is what Paul is teaching in Romans 9....contrary to the Israelite view (much like Calvinism) that God is mandated to save them because they were the "chosen"). In fact, the NT contrasts "faith" with "works." Allowing people to determine their own fate through their faith is not "earning" anything nor is it stripping glory from God. The gift of salvation is entirely a gift and unearned. Accepting a gift is not earning a gift. This is a huge flaw in Calvinistic logic.

Finally, passages like 1 John 2:19 do not teach double predestination or pan-determinism. For instance, if someone is part of a sports team then they belong to the team. However, if some people quit the team and the coach says, "Now we know who the real Wildcats are..." This does not mean the coach had caused the players to quit, nor does it mean they were really never part of the team. The point is simply that true teammates are those who stick together and stay as part of the team. Those who quit displayed that they didnt have what it took to be a part of the team. Again, its not because the coach wouldnt let them on the team or they only pretended to be on the team. It's more of a hindsight reflection on the inner character of a person. That is what we see in 1 John. To assume this teaches double-predestination is a terrible error in my estimation in the same way that it would be an error for a parent to assume that the coach kicked their kid off the team based on the above statement. God wants all people to be saved, but allows their own choice and perseverence in the faith to be the determining factor in their own salvation. This is His plan and its widely attested to in the New Testament. Personally, I find the notion that God determines that the majority of the world would go to hell prior even to their creation by his own sovereign decree and that the atoning power of Christ's cross to be limited to a select group that God had pre-determined by mere capricious will to be the antithesis of everything taught by Jesus and the NT. We are not billiard balls being bounced around by forces beyond us. We are created in God's image and we have a choice. God holds us responsible for our choices. Thus, the evil of the world is not God's pre-determined will, but the result of free choice. God is not the author of it. He is the author of salvation and the undoing of what wicked humanity has done.

justaname · Oct 16, 2015

Wormwood said:
FHII and justaname,

I must say that I agree with Baard and StanJ on this one. First, your argument is (as I understand them...perhaps I am wrong on your assessments) that the "if" statements in these passages do indeed warn us about the importance of holding fast to the Gospel, but those who do not hold fast to the Gospel were never saved in the first place. I find this argument to be difficult to swallow. Why would the author give such a warning if the person predetermined for hell couldn't help it if they did not hold to the Gospel because they were really never "elect" in the first place? This renders all these passages and warnings completely meaningless.

Second, this doctrine clearly flies in the face of one of the most basic tenants of the Bible: God loves the world and desires "anyone" who will to come and find life. The divine determinism you hold to essentially teaches that God does not desire everyone to be saved, and, in fact, has predetermined that some be destined for hell prior to their ever doing anything good or bad. Those who hold this view claim that it is for the "glory of God" and that to give people free choice to determine their own salvation is to strip God of his glory and sovereignty. However, this is not the case, especially when God's sovereign decree is that he chooses to save people according to their response to the Gospel (which is what Paul is teaching in Romans 9....contrary to the Israelite view (much like Calvinism) that God is mandated to save them because they were the "chosen"). In fact, the NT contrasts "faith" with "works." Allowing people to determine their own fate through their faith is not "earning" anything nor is it stripping glory from God. The gift of salvation is entirely a gift and unearned. Accepting a gift is not earning a gift. This is a huge flaw in Calvinistic logic.

Finally, passages like 1 John 2:19 do not teach double predestination or pan-determinism. For instance, if someone is part of a sports team then they belong to the team. However, if some people quit the team and the coach says, "Now we know who the real Wildcats are..." This does not mean the coach had caused the players to quit, nor does it mean they were really never part of the team. The point is simply that true teammates are those who stick together and stay as part of the team. Those who quit displayed that they didnt have what it took to be a part of the team. Again, its not because the coach wouldnt let them on the team or they only pretended to be on the team. It's more of a hindsight reflection on the inner character of a person. That is what we see in 1 John. To assume this teaches double-predestination is a terrible error in my estimation in the same way that it would be an error for a parent to assume that the coach kicked their kid off the team based on the above statement. God wants all people to be saved, but allows their own choice and perseverence in the faith to be the determining factor in their own salvation. This is His plan and its widely attested to in the New Testament. Personally, I find the notion that God determines that the majority of the world would go to hell prior even to their creation by his own sovereign decree and that the atoning power of Christ's cross to be limited to a select group that God had pre-determined by mere capricious will to be the antithesis of everything taught by Jesus and the NT. We are not billiard balls being bounced around by forces beyond us. We are created in God's image and we have a choice. God holds us responsible for our choices. Thus, the evil of the world is not God's pre-determined will, but the result of free choice. God is not the author of it. He is the author of salvation and the undoing of what wicked humanity has done.

Wormwood,

You have created a straw-man argument. Who is saying God predestined anyone to hell?

The passage in question is 1 Corinthians 15:1-2. Please give us your understanding. I have provided my own with a plethora of other opinions supporting me.

Also please convince me using Scripture those with saving faith do not persevere to glorification. I can easily show those who believe in vain do not persevere. I can also show those who leave the faith were never of the faith.

The fact is men can not see into the hearts of other men, yet those who say we can "lose our salvation" pretend to do just that. They say they know these had salvation to begin with or that God determined to save them yet they undermined God's plan of salvation for them. The authors of the NT seek to strengthen the faith of the readers of the epistles and warn of the dire consequences of those who do depart from the faith and of those who do remain in sin. Those who depart and continue in sin prove they are not God's children by their actions. These never were being saved by God.

God does know who He saves and those are the only ones He saves. Jesus' atonement is efficient for all but only effective for those who believe and persevere unto glorification. It is not divine determinism, yet most see this as an either or proposition. The Scriptures present God's sovereign hand in the actions of men and man's culpability for their actions and decisions. (Acts 2:23)

Now your argument about the warning passages could be made in reverse also. Why would God promise anything He can not uphold? God can not save us from ourselves. Jesus is not the author and perfecter of our faith we are. We are our own workmanship. God does not complete what He started, we have to finish it ourselves. God can not keep us as the Good Shepherd, He allows the sheep to wander off on their own to be eaten by wolves.

Wormwood · Oct 16, 2015

justaname,

I apologize if I misrepresented your position. Based on your previous arguments, it appeared to me that your understanding of election and so forth was portraying those ideas that are common with 5-point Calvinism. Again, I apologize if this is not your position.

As for 1 Cor 15:1-2, I would take the position that Paul is arguing that salvation is the result of persevering in the faith. I think we would both agree here, but the question is whether or not such a thing as "saving faith" exists distinctly from "non-saving faith" as a inherent quality of faith itself. In my opinion, I think at least the 5-point Calvinist is consistent. In fact, the doctrine of OSAS is derived from 5-point Calvinism as the notion of perseverance of the saints is based on the concept of divine pre-determination. Someone cannot lose their salvation if God has predetermined it by his own sovereign choice that cannot be undone (or so the argument goes). This is the basis of OSAS, yet today many hold to the fruit even through some feel the branches of Calvinism are not necessary. Personally, I think its either one or the other as the fruit of 5-point Calvinism is OSAS, but if we dont adhere to the five points, why do we want to eat the fruit of those 5 points? That is my assessment anyway.

So, back to the previous thought. Is there a "saving faith" and a non saving faith? For the Calvinist, "saving faith" was a faith given by God, which then mandated their salvation. Thus, there was a different quality to this faith because it was from God as part of his divine pre-determination. This is where these two concepts are derived. Yet, if faith is something that is a response to the Gospel, then there isnt a divine/persevering quality vs a non-divine non-enduring quality. There is only faith. Whether or not that faith perseveres, then, is not a matter of its original source or quality, but simply a matter of whether or not the individual endures in the truth. Thus, if the focus is on the individual to endure, than this suggests that the issue is not the source of the faith (God), but the growth, maturity and steadfastness of the individual. As a result, these are real warnings to people about the importance of enduring in the truth. To fail to endure in the faith is not because God did not grant them "saving faith" but because they simply did not mature or grow and therefore failed to persevere. I think we see this taught clearly in Heb. 6 and Jesus teaches similar things in the parable of the seed. The difference between the seed that is choked, burned up or doesnt develop root is not the quality of the seed (saving seed vs. non-saving seed) but the nature of the soil (the individual and how they cultivate that seed).

In sum, the notion of "saving faith" comes from the faulty understanding that God grants a persevering, saving faith out of his own divine determinism. Yet, if we dismiss this view, then there is only faith. Whether or not it is "saving" is not based on its source, but on whether or not the individual perseveres in it. A person can have little faith or great faith. Yet, their faith is their own and they are called to grow in it. So there is no "non-saving faith." Either a person has real, genuine faith or they do not have faith. James says that faith without works is "dead." In other words, its not real faith. So, when it comes to the Bible, you either really believe God or you dont. Its not about what God plants in you, as God scatters the same seed everywhere. It is about what you do with it. A person can really believe and then really forsake the faith (ive seen it). The issue, then, is whether or not someone has faith. The saved are the believing. If someone is not believing they are not saved. All faith is saving faith. God does not condemn believers.

I hope that makes sense.

StanJ · Oct 16, 2015

justaname said:
Wormwood,

You have created a straw-man argument. Who is saying God predestined anyone to hell?

Not IMO....I think his assessment if very valid and shows a person who is NOT influenced by dogmatic doctrine, bit ONLY by what the Word of God states.

justaname · Oct 16, 2015

Wormwood said:
justaname,

I apologize if I misrepresented your position. Based on your previous arguments, it appeared to me that your understanding of election and so forth was portraying those ideas that are common with 5-point Calvinism. Again, I apologize if this is not your position.

As for 1 Cor 15:1-2, I would take the position that Paul is arguing that salvation is the result of persevering in the faith. I think we would both agree here, but the question is whether or not such a thing as "saving faith" exists distinctly from "non-saving faith" as a inherent quality of faith itself. In my opinion, I think at least the 5-point Calvinist is consistent. In fact, the doctrine of OSAS is derived from 5-point Calvinism as the notion of perseverance of the saints is based on the concept of divine pre-determination. Someone cannot lose their salvation if God has predetermined it by his own sovereign choice that cannot be undone (or so the argument goes). This is the basis of OSAS, yet today many hold to the fruit even through some feel the branches of Calvinism are not necessary. Personally, I think its either one or the other as the fruit of 5-point Calvinism is OSAS, but if we dont adhere to the five points, why do we want to eat the fruit of those 5 points? That is my assessment anyway.

So, back to the previous thought. Is there a "saving faith" and a non saving faith? For the Calvinist, "saving faith" was a faith given by God, which then mandated their salvation. Thus, there was a different quality to this faith because it was from God as part of his divine pre-determination. This is where these two concepts are derived. Yet, if faith is something that is a response to the Gospel, then there isnt a divine/persevering quality vs a non-divine non-enduring quality. There is only faith. Whether or not that faith perseveres, then, is not a matter of its original source or quality, but simply a matter of whether or not the individual endures in the truth. Thus, if the focus is on the individual to endure, than this suggests that the issue is not the source of the faith (God), but the growth, maturity and steadfastness of the individual. As a result, these are real warnings to people about the importance of enduring in the truth. To fail to endure in the faith is not because God did not grant them "saving faith" but because they simply did not mature or grow and therefore failed to persevere. I think we see this taught clearly in Heb. 6 and Jesus teaches similar things in the parable of the seed. The difference between the seed that is choked, burned up or doesnt develop root is not the quality of the seed (saving seed vs. non-saving seed) but the nature of the soil (the individual and how they cultivate that seed).

In sum, the notion of "saving faith" comes from the faulty understanding that God grants a persevering, saving faith out of his own divine determinism. Yet, if we dismiss this view, then there is only faith. Whether or not it is "saving" is not based on its source, but on whether or not the individual perseveres in it. A person can have little faith or great faith. Yet, their faith is their own and they are called to grow in it. So there is no "non-saving faith." Either a person has real, genuine faith or they do not have faith. James says that faith without works is "dead." In other words, its not real faith. So, when it comes to the Bible, you either really believe God or you dont. Its not about what God plants in you, as God scatters the same seed everywhere. It is about what you do with it. A person can really believe and then really forsake the faith (ive seen it). The issue, then, is whether or not someone has faith. The saved are the believing. If someone is not believing they are not saved. All faith is saving faith. God does not condemn believers.

I hope that makes sense.

If you say salvation is the result of persevering in the faith, then can you argue someone may lose something they are yet to attain?

Without question I can say God saves all who are His. These are written in the Lamb's book of life from before the foundations of the world. This is the elect Jesus speaks of. (Matthew 24:24)

Then here, can you say any of the soils have a saving faith or belief other than the good soil? And who is it that makes good or bad soil but God alone?

Romans says God gives or allots the measure of faith. (Romans 12:3) God gives the gift of faith (1 Corinthians 12:9) And salvation is a gift from God. (Ephesians 2:8) God also gives the growth, not the individual. (1 Corinthians 3:5-9)

The seed is the gospel message or the word not faith. Yet one soil has a faith that saves while the others do not.
13 And He *said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 These are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them. 16 In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; 17 and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they [c]fall away. 18 And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, 19 but the worries of the [d]world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 20 And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.”

Yes some have saving faith. Some do not have saving faith. This is evident in this parable.

1 Corinthians 3:9
9 For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building.

Do we build with our works? Without question, yet we are His workmanship. He has prepared the good works for us to walk in.

StanJ · Oct 16, 2015

justaname said:
If you say salvation is the result of persevering in the faith, then can you argue someone may lose something they are yet to attain?

He was NOT saying that, and equivocating about what he did say is what you tend to do all the time.

He said;
"In sum, the notion of "saving faith" comes from the faulty understanding that God grants a persevering, saving faith out of his own divine determinism."

justaname · Oct 16, 2015

StanJ said:
He was NOT saying that, and equivocating about what he did say is what you tend to do all the time.

He said;
"In sum, the notion of "saving faith" comes from the faulty understanding that God grants a persevering, saving faith out of his own divine determinism."

Well Stan here is the quote from Wormwood...

As for 1 Cor 15:1-2, I would take the position that Paul is arguing that salvation is the result of persevering in the faith.

Let's wait for the response shall we?

Barrd · Oct 16, 2015

justaname said:
Thank you for the spelling correction.

Any time.
Always willing to help

!

justaname said:
My point is you are leaning on your own flawed understanding...God has provided everything you need to know in His word. Yet your flawed interpretations have led to flawed understandings of the text. You set yourself up as the sole authority in interpreting the text, and you disregard anyone else...

You lean on your own understanding. You do not heed the Scriptures you ask me to.

This sounds an awful lot like an opinion.

I say that the 'sole authority' is Jesus, and I will continue to disregard anyone else.
I am relying on Him, and will not consider any outside source.

Wormwood · Oct 16, 2015

justaname,

Thanks for your response. I apologize if I am not as clear as I should be. I will try to explain what I mean a little better...

"Saving faith" is a notion that was born out of the Calvinistic concept that God grants some faith because He has predetermined their salvation by His own sovereign will. Other apparent "faith" is therefore not "saving" because it does not come from God out of His pre-ordained choice to save the "elect" (and thereby choosing to condemn the non-elect). I don't believe "saving faith" is a biblical concept because there are only two categories of people...the believing and the non-believing. There are some with greater faith than others, but all faith is saving faith. If a person is condemned, it is not because they didn't have "saving faith"...it is simply because they didn't have faith. These catergories of saving vs non-saving faith are simply not biblical in my estimation.

As for your questions:

If you say salvation is the result of persevering in the faith, then can you argue someone may lose something they are yet to attain?

If a person has faith, they are "saved," immediately. They move from a position of being an object of divine wrath to being saved from it in that very moment. Right now, if Jesus returns, all those who believe in Him are saved. However, I do believe that a person can reject the faith they once embraced, and thus reject Jesus Christ and his salvation. So, if Jesus does not return in our lifetime, a person must persevere in their faith to ultimately be saved. Allow me to explain why I believe this to be the case: First, salvation is a person, not merely an event. Jesus is the one who saves us from the wrath to come. If a person is "in Christ" they are saved. They are not saved because they jumped through some hoop that gave them a ticket to heaven. They are saved because they are connected to Christ and Christ shields them from the coming wrath. However, if a person then rejects Christ and denies the one who bought him, they are cutting themselves off from the one who saves them and thus place themselves back into a position of receiving divine wrath. So, as I see it, salvation is not merely an event, but a person. I would also add that this is not a matter of a person sinning too much or backsliding. Those who lose their salvation do so because they reject the faith and willingly turn to disbelief in spite of the Spirit's testimony within them. So I don't believe someone can "accidently" lose their faith. It is a very intentional thing and I think the author of Hebrews makes it clear that not only is it possible, but that once this happens there is an inability to repent and "no sacrifice for sins is left."

Then here, can you say any of the soils have a saving faith or belief other than the good soil? And who is it that makes good or bad soil but God alone?

Here is where I strongly disagree. God gives the seed to all who hear the Gospel. The soil is the heart of the person receiving the Word. The reason Jesus tells the parable is to warn his hearers about how they hear. Notice that those who do not produce fruit are those who get the word "choked" by the desires of the world, or burnt up by fear of persecution. It is not because God wont let them receive it but because they have other preoccupations (wealth, love of the world, etc.) that keep them from producing fruit.

If what you are saying is right (that God makes the soil good or bad) then who is to blame for someone not receiving the Word but God alone? After all, if only God can make someone able to accept the Word and produce fruit, then why wouldn't He choose to make all people good soil? Yes, God hardens people, but he does so as a result of their choices. God gives people over to their own desires. He does not predetermine their desires or choose some and not choose others apart from anything they do.

As for God granting people faith, yes, I believe he does. However, nothing in these verses suggest that these gifts are irresistible, or that God only gives them to some people while rejecting others. Rather, like the parable of the talents, God gives everyone a portion and they are responsible for that gift. I believe God gives all people a measure of grace and faith and based on how they respond to that grace, they may receive more. However, the Bible is very clear that we can resist the Holy Spirit. God does not force himself upon people. He gives gifts, including faith, but those gifts can be, and often are rejected. Remember how Jesus wept and said, "O Jerusalem...how I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing!" God has given us all a great gift in Christ and we all get a choice on whether we accept or reject that gift. To suggest that God's atonement is limited (I don't know how else to read your comments) based on his own sovereign choice to make people good soil or not, simply does not jive with the most basic and straight-forward verses in the Bible concerning God's offer of salvation to the world and the responsibility each person has to accept or reject that gift.

Barrd · Oct 16, 2015

Wormwood said:
FHII and justaname,

I must say that I agree with Baard and StanJ on this one. First, your argument is (as I understand them...perhaps I am wrong on your assessments) that the "if" statements in these passages do indeed warn us about the importance of holding fast to the Gospel, but those who do not hold fast to the Gospel were never saved in the first place. I find this argument to be difficult to swallow. Why would the author give such a warning if the person predetermined for hell couldn't help it if they did not hold to the Gospel because they were really never "elect" in the first place? This renders all these passages and warnings completely meaningless.

Second, this doctrine clearly flies in the face of one of the most basic tenants of the Bible: God loves the world and desires "anyone" who will to come and find life. The divine determinism you hold to essentially teaches that God does not desire everyone to be saved, and, in fact, has predetermined that some be destined for hell prior to their ever doing anything good or bad. Those who hold this view claim that it is for the "glory of God" and that to give people free choice to determine their own salvation is to strip God of his glory and sovereignty. However, this is not the case, especially when God's sovereign decree is that he chooses to save people according to their response to the Gospel (which is what Paul is teaching in Romans 9....contrary to the Israelite view (much like Calvinism) that God is mandated to save them because they were the "chosen"). In fact, the NT contrasts "faith" with "works." Allowing people to determine their own fate through their faith is not "earning" anything nor is it stripping glory from God. The gift of salvation is entirely a gift and unearned. Accepting a gift is not earning a gift. This is a huge flaw in Calvinistic logic.

Finally, passages like 1 John 2:19 do not teach double predestination or pan-determinism. For instance, if someone is part of a sports team then they belong to the team. However, if some people quit the team and the coach says, "Now we know who the real Wildcats are..." This does not mean the coach had caused the players to quit, nor does it mean they were really never part of the team. The point is simply that true teammates are those who stick together and stay as part of the team. Those who quit displayed that they didnt have what it took to be a part of the team. Again, its not because the coach wouldnt let them on the team or they only pretended to be on the team. It's more of a hindsight reflection on the inner character of a person. That is what we see in 1 John. To assume this teaches double-predestination is a terrible error in my estimation in the same way that it would be an error for a parent to assume that the coach kicked their kid off the team based on the above statement. God wants all people to be saved, but allows their own choice and perseverence in the faith to be the determining factor in their own salvation. This is His plan and its widely attested to in the New Testament. Personally, I find the notion that God determines that the majority of the world would go to hell prior even to their creation by his own sovereign decree and that the atoning power of Christ's cross to be limited to a select group that God had pre-determined by mere capricious will to be the antithesis of everything taught by Jesus and the NT. We are not billiard balls being bounced around by forces beyond us. We are created in God's image and we have a choice. God holds us responsible for our choices. Thus, the evil of the world is not God's pre-determined will, but the result of free choice. God is not the author of it. He is the author of salvation and the undoing of what wicked humanity has done.

I am both deeply impressed, and at the same time, humbled by this post.
Thank you, Wormwood. You have put it much better than I could have done.
Thank you.....and AMEN.

Barrd · Oct 16, 2015

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

justaname · Oct 17, 2015

Wormwood said:
justaname,

Thanks for your response. I apologize if I am not as clear as I should be. I will try to explain what I mean a little better...

"Saving faith" is a notion that was born out of the Calvinistic concept that God grants some faith because He has predetermined their salvation by His own sovereign will. Other apparent "faith" is therefore not "saving" because it does not come from God out of His pre-ordained choice to save the "elect" (and thereby choosing to condemn the non-elect). I don't believe "saving faith" is a biblical concept because there are only two categories of people...the believing and the non-believing. There are some with greater faith than others, but all faith is saving faith. If a person is condemned, it is not because they didn't have "saving faith"...it is simply because they didn't have faith. These catergories of saving vs non-saving faith are simply not biblical in my estimation.

I appreciate your understanding of the term "saving faith" with Calvinistic theology behind it, yet this is not how I am using the phrase. Perhaps I could say effective faith. This is most definitely a biblical concept as proven by the 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 passage. Paul states some may have believed in vain. Most commentators agree that Paul is supporting the idea of the resurrection. IOW if someone believes Jesus died for their sins yet denies the resurrection their faith is in vain. This then is an improper view of the gospel rendering their faith ineffective or in vain. Many people believe many things. Faith in anything is not the gospel message rather faith in the gospel as preached is effective faith. So then there are more than just believing and non-believing. Just as some deny the divinity of Christ, some may believe something inherently wrong.

Then I also argue some may profess faith, yet their faith is shallow. This shallow faith is also ineffective as shown through the parable of the sower. None of the soils except the good soil has a faith that is effective. Here I agree with you that God did not give a sterile faith. In my estimation God did not give any faith to these.

Wormwood said:
As for your questions:

If a person has faith, they are "saved," immediately. They move from a position of being an object of divine wrath to being saved from it in that very moment. Right now, if Jesus returns, all those who believe in Him are saved. However, I do believe that a person can reject the faith they once embraced, and thus reject Jesus Christ and his salvation. So, if Jesus does not return in our lifetime, a person must persevere in their faith to ultimately be saved. Allow me to explain why I believe this to be the case: First, salvation is a person, not merely an event. Jesus is the one who saves us from the wrath to come. If a person is "in Christ" they are saved. They are not saved because they jumped through some hoop that gave them a ticket to heaven. They are saved because they are connected to Christ and Christ shields them from the coming wrath. However, if a person then rejects Christ and denies the one who bought him, they are cutting themselves off from the one who saves them and thus place themselves back into a position of receiving divine wrath. So, as I see it, salvation is not merely an event, but a person. I would also add that this is not a matter of a person sinning too much or backsliding. Those who lose their salvation do so because they reject the faith and willingly turn to disbelief in spite of the Spirit's testimony within them. So I don't believe someone can "accidently" lose their faith. It is a very intentional thing and I think the author of Hebrews makes it clear that not only is it possible, but that once this happens there is an inability to repent and "no sacrifice for sins is left."

I like your analogy of salvation being a person. Yes Jesus' name is salvation! Indeed we are joined to Christ as believers. And from John 6 this is what Jesus says of those joined to Him...

39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

As with any shepherd that tends a flock, the sheep are His responsibility. I do not see Jesus as a liar nor is He incapable of tending His flock. This is not to say God forces Himself on anyone, rather that those joined to Him freely choose to remain freely. Those who waiver in their faith Jesus strengthens because He can. If God could not go over the will of men Jesus would be powerless for those who waiver in their faith. This is not the omnipotent God I have trusted for my salvation; in my weakness He is strong.

Wormwood said:
Here is where I strongly disagree. God gives the seed to all who hear the Gospel.

Perhaps you disagree because you are mistaken of your concept of the parable. Again the seed is the gospel message. The seed is the word not faith. Reread Jesus' explanation of the parable.

Wormwood said:
The soil is the heart of the person receiving the Word. The reason Jesus tells the parable is to warn his hearers about how they hear. Notice that those who do not produce fruit are those who get the word "choked" by the desires of the world, or burnt up by fear of persecution. It is not because God wont let them receive it but because they have other preoccupations (wealth, love of the world, etc.) that keep them from producing fruit.

And this beautifully illustrates my position. Yes they did receive the word, yet their faith was not effective. The faith they proclaimed was not salvific in nature. If they had salvific faith they would be considered good soil. Their faith was superficial. The parable graphically illustrates this point. Faiths are most definitely different otherwise all who have any type faith would endure and be saved. The fact that some do not is the whole reason we are discussing this issue.

Wormwood said:
If what you are saying is right (that God makes the soil good or bad) then who is to blame for someone not receiving the Word but God alone? After all, if only God can make someone able to accept the Word and produce fruit, then why wouldn't He choose to make all people good soil? Yes, God hardens people, but he does so as a result of their choices. God gives people over to their own desires. He does not predetermine their desires or choose some and not choose others apart from anything they do.

Not all people are alike in body or in the flesh. Some have brown skin others pale. Some have dark curly hair while others have straight blond hair. Why would you believe all personalities are the same? Engineers are wired to analyze while artists tend to admire. Also people in different situations will choose differently. Every person is not a blank slate just ripe for the message of the gospel. Most do not receive the message for wide is the path that leads to destruction. God creates the inside of people as well as the outside.

Our God is the God sovereign over and through our circumstances. He knows what we will decide in any situation and He is the creator of situations. God is in complete control over everything without being culpable for any of it as we have freedom of choice. If I were you I wouldn't seek to blame God. Yes God created all as they are yet we do make choices.

Wormwood said:
As for God granting people faith, yes, I believe he does. However, nothing in these verses suggest that these gifts are irresistible, or that God only gives them to some people while rejecting others. Rather, like the parable of the talents, God gives everyone a portion and they are responsible for that gift. I believe God gives all people a measure of grace and faith and based on how they respond to that grace, they may receive more. However, the Bible is very clear that we can resist the Holy Spirit. God does not force himself upon people. He gives gifts, including faith, but those gifts can be, and often are rejected. Remember how Jesus wept and said, "O Jerusalem...how I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing!" God has given us all a great gift in Christ and we all get a choice on whether we accept or reject that gift. To suggest that God's atonement is limited (I don't know how else to read your comments) based on his own sovereign choice to make people good soil or not, simply does not jive with the most basic and straight-forward verses in the Bible concerning God's offer of salvation to the world and the responsibility each person has to accept or reject that gift.

Firstly I will repeat that I do not argue in favor of limited atonement. Jesus' atonement is efficient for all but only effective for those who have faith in the gospel and endure. God does give common grace to all, yet His grace that redeems is not on all men. We can say it is available to all men, yet some never even hear the gospel message at all. Some men hear a twisted version of the gospel message. How can we say these truly have the same access to God's redeeming grace? God does not reject any rather selects some.
Here are the words of Christ.

John 6
65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

Those who hear the gospel message have been called by God to hear the message. Those who believe the gospel message are those who God foreknew. Those who profess faith only to walk away were never joined to Christ.

Wormwood · Oct 17, 2015

justaname,

Thanks for your reply. Sorry, this is a really busy day for me. I will try to respond in a few hours. I would just like to say that when I use the term "faith" I am implying a genuine faith in the essentials of the Gospel. I do not mean misplaced faith, faith in false gods, etc. I think there can be small faith or great faith...but genuine faith is the means by which a person accesses the grace of God in Jesus Christ. I'll try to look over your responses later this evening. Thanks again.

justaname · Oct 30, 2015

Interesting verse from Ephesians pertaining to this topic...

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

It is thought by many that this epistle was a more general epistle circulated through the churches throughout Asia. With this in mind we are at liberty to understand this epistle to have particular application to modern believers. Verse seven maintains the generic nature of the context showing the application to all believers. (note "we")

7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

In this epistle we see predestination in reference to adoption, this being according to the kindness of His will. We are chosen in Him before the foundations of the world.

Verses 13 and 14 are particularly of interest when speaking of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit...

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

And later in chapter 4

Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

So then the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a permanent action by God for those who have genuine faith. This is unlike the action of the Holy Spirit during the Old Covenant. (cf Samson, David, Saul) Believers are sealed for the day of redemption. These have been chosen from before the foundations of the world. They are predestined to adoption. All of this is according to the intention of His will. Paul states...

also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

Our predestination is according to His purpose. It is though the counsel of His will. Here Scripture is not speaking of irresistible grace rather sovereign authority and choice. I have already made the case that God choses individuals for His purpose, in such He chose those in Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:27-30) Only those chosen by God remain. Those who show a curiosity towards the faith or enthusiasm to the gospel message only to fall away never had God's saving grace. If this is a case of semantics so be it. I do contend God does not begin saving those He knows will in the future leave the faith. This to me is illogical. Thus salvation is not something to be gained only to be lost, it can only be gained.

The strength of the warning passages is not weakened in any measure in this view, nor do I only see loss of reward for those who leave the faith. The genuineness of the condition of those brought nearer to salvation only to forfeit the race is apparent in accordance with the texts. Yet from the perspective God has knowing the end of every individual, there is only those who are predestined for adoption, and those who are not. Only those predestined can truly be called saved.

Wormwood · Nov 2, 2015

39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

As with any shepherd that tends a flock, the sheep are His responsibility. I do not see Jesus as a liar nor is He incapable of tending His flock. This is not to say God forces Himself on anyone, rather that those joined to Him freely choose to remain freely. Those who waiver in their faith Jesus strengthens because He can. If God could not go over the will of men Jesus would be powerless for those who waiver in their faith. This is not the omnipotent God I have trusted for my salvation; in my weakness He is strong.

So, if I may ask a question, if you are not a Calvinist and do not hold to limited atonement, why are you not a universalist? If God desires all men to be saved is he not capable of saving them? If he can "go over the will of men" then why would he not do this for everyone and do it as the initial act of salvation rather than just preserving their salvation? To me, this notion that a person comes to momentary acceptance of the right facts, and therefore they suddenly lose their free will with regards to accepting or rejecting Christ once they come to that moment of cognitive recognition seems completely foreign to the NT. In my estimation, this verse has nothing to do with OSAS, but is talking about Christ's power to protect his own. Jesus is able to shield and save those who come to him and those who come to him belong to God. Yet, in my mind, this is very different than someone choosing to apostatize. I think the next verse makes this clear:

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes (present, active participle) in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”” (John 6:40, ESV)

Everyone who is believing in the Son will be raised to eternal life. No one who has faith in Jesus and follows him will find him incapable of saving them. That is the point. This has nothing to do with OSAS.

Perhaps you disagree because you are mistaken of your concept of the parable. Again the seed is the gospel message. The seed is the word not faith. Reread Jesus' explanation of the parable.

I thought I already explained this. Isnt the Gospel "the Word." If you receive the Gospel, you receive the seed that can allow you to live a fruitful life. Its up to the hearer to cherish it and cultivate it. I think that is the point of this parable.

And this beautifully illustrates my position. Yes they did receive the word, yet their faith was not effective. The faith they proclaimed was not salvific in nature. If they had salvific faith they would be considered good soil. Their faith was superficial.

But here is where I think you are mistaking the parable. The point of the parable is not to say which originating faith was more pure. The point is to show the obstacles in a person's life that prevents them from growing and being fruitful (ignorance, lack of root, love of the world/riches). Jesus is telling the parable to warn his listeners how they hear him. In fact, he uses Isaiah's prophecy to show how many had become hardened and have "closed their eyes" in such a way that God was preventing them from understanding. So, you see, this isnt about "my moment of clarity is more genuine than yours, therefore I am the good soil and I cannot fall away." Jesus is warning them about how they hear...and even preventing some from hearing (by speaking in parables) because of their hardness toward him. This is not a OSAS passage but a passage of warning that those who do not take Jesus seriously are in danger of being shut out of the Kingdom he is establishing. So again, its a warning passage, not a explanation of OSAS.

God creates the inside of people as well as the outside.
Our God is the God sovereign over and through our circumstances. He knows what we will decide in any situation and He is the creator of situations. God is in complete control over everything without being culpable for any of it as we have freedom of choice. If I were you I wouldn't seek to blame God. Yes God created all as they are yet we do make choices.

To be clear, I do not seek to blame God. My theology does not lay blame at God's feet. My question is how your theology prevents you from blaming God (because obviously we disagree on how these issues). If God creates the inside and outsife of people (God makes the soil) and God controls all the circumstances and variables (weeds, scorching heat, birds that kill the seed)...knowing ahead of time how we will respond...how (in your mind) is God not culpable? How exactly do you see this as free choice? If I create a pit bull to be a vicious attack dog by breeding it so it has certain characteristics, and then I control its circumstances and put it in a pit in continually violent circumstances so that it becomes mean and vicious, how am I not culpable if I set it loose and it attacks a person...especially if I knew in advance by foreknowledge that it would attack a person!? This makes no sense to me. If God creates our attitudes and dispositions and guides all history by manipulating all circumstances so we make choices exactly according to his plan, than how can you conceive of that as being "free will." Free will indicates that we have genuine freedom to choose between opposites. Free will says, "I have genuine freedom to choose to do something or not to do it." Yet, you are defining "free will" quite differently. Your defintion of free will isnt really freedom..but divine determinism. God creates the inside and then arranges all the circumstances so that our our actions follow his predetermined plan that have nothing to do with what we choose, but what God actually chose for us in advance. It's like God sets up the laws of gravity and makes us all dominoes and pushes the first domino and then holds us accountable as domino #347 for falling and knocking domino #348 down. In my view, this does lay the blame of every atrocity at God's feet (which is why I do not accept your view and therefore I do not blame God). After all, God made Hitler's inner inclinations and predispositions and then arranged all the circumstances so that he would ascend to power and make every decision he made, including the murder of millions of Jews and bringing the world into a horrific and bloody war. I, on the other hand, believe Hitler had true freedom and that while God knew what Hitler was going to do, he did not create him or his circumstances in such as way as to predetermine Hitler's actions. Hitler's atrocities were not the "secret will" of God based on his predetermined plan. God does not have a secret will that is contrary to his revealed will.

Firstly I will repeat that I do not argue in favor of limited atonement. Jesus' atonement is efficient for all but only effective for those who have faith in the gospel and endure. God does give common grace to all, yet His grace that redeems is not on all men. We can say it is available to all men, yet some never even hear the gospel message at all. Some men hear a twisted version of the gospel message. How can we say these truly have the same access to God's redeeming grace? God does not reject any rather selects some.
Here are the words of Christ.

Grace is grace. It is not owed to anyone. People do not go to hell because they did not hear the Gospel. They go to hell because of their sin. I do think God opens doors for all who seek him. Either way, there is a difference between some given the opportunity to respond to the Gospel and God "selecting" some as if he is picking and choosing. God did not create a sinful world that rejects the truth, or governments that block the Gospel message. These things are contrary to the will of God. As Paul says,

“For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!” (1 Thessalonians 2:14–16, ESV)

So, we should not equate the Gospel not being freely accessible to all as God's plan or God's choosing. Rather, there are evil forces in the world that "hinder" the message that seek to prevent the salvation of those people. This brings God's wrath. It is not part of God's secret plan to save only his predetermined few. God wants all to be saved and when people or governments hinder his message of salvation, he is angry.

justaname · Nov 3, 2015

Wormwood,

You are answering things posted in the past but seem more recent due to the rollback. I will still read your response and comment, yet it might take some time...

Shalom!

If you have time read this as the arguments truly apply...

http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0442.htm

Wormwood · Nov 4, 2015

Haha, justaname. I was looking at it and I thought, "I thought for sure I answered these before." I thought my mind was playing tricks on me! I'll try to read that link this morning when I get a chance.

Wormwood · Nov 4, 2015

My goodness is most free
To act or not: Necessity and Chance
Do not approach me, and what I will is fate.

justaname, thanks for the link. I read through it and thought I would post some responses to the various points brought forward in this sermon. First, I find Spurgeon makes a problematic leap from God's creation of mountains and stars to God's creation of creatures that are given the ability to choose. Yes, God chose the mountains to form and marked the orbits for the planets and stars. Yet, man is not a rock or a lump of gas that is pre-determined for a course like the orbit of the stars. To suggest that because God decreed the laws of gravity that therefore he must have also decreed the course of a man's life is very problematic.

From the first moment of human history even to the end, God's will shall be done. What though it be a catastrophe or a crime-there may be the second causes and the action of human evil, but the great first cause is in everything. If we could imagine that one human action had eluded the predestination of God, we could suppose that everything might have done so, and all things might drift to sea, anchorless, rudderless, controlled by every wave, the victim of a gale and a hurricane. One leak in the ship of Providence would sink her, one hour in which Omnipotence relaxed its grasp and she would break into pieces. But it is the comfortable conviction of all God's people that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him;” and that God rules and overrules, and reigns in all acts of men and in all events that transpire; still producing good from evil, and better still, and better still in infinite progression, still ordering all things according the wisdom of his will.

Here is a real problem with Calvinistic logic on display. It is the idea that if man is given freedom than God must be completely out of control and have no grasp on history and is completely subject to human beings. He makes this same leap in logic with regards to the atoning work of Christ...

Christ may die, but it is not certain according to their theory that he will redeem a great multitude; no, not certain that he will redeem any, since the effectiveness of the redemption according to their plan, does not rests in its own intrinsic power, but in the will of man accepting that redemption. Therefore if man is, as we know he always is, if he is a slave to the will of his own wicked heart, and will not yield to the invitation of God's grace, then in such a case the atonement of Christ would be valueless, useless, and altogether in vain, for not a soul would be saved by it; and even when souls are saved by it, according to that theory, the value, I say, lies not in the blood itself, but in the will of man which gives it value. Redemption is therefore made contingent; the cross shakes, the blood falls powerless on the ground, and atonement is a matter of perhaps. There is a heaven provided, but it may be that no souls will ever come there if their coming is to be of themselves.

This is just a very poor misrepresentation of non-Calvinists. The idea that if God is not dictating and controlling every decision and act for his grand purpose, then he is without any control and is entirely dependent upon human decision-making is ridiculous. Non-Calvinists do affirm predestination and God's overarching plan in human history. We simply believe that God does not have to coerce (though inner dispositions and circumstances) every decision to be in control of history. Moreover, it is not a strike against God's sovereignty to declare that God has sovereignly declared that humans have the freedom to determine if they will accept his grace or deny it. This is God's decreed plan and therefore it is very much in line with his purpose and control on history. Personally, I find it a very weak view on God's sovereign power that suggests that God can only be in control if he is the controlling "great first cause of everything," which must also include "catastrophe," "crime" and billions of people going to hell for all eternity.

Moreover, his sermon assumes a complete and total depravity of humanity, which I believe is a faulty assumption. And, he claims that if humans are allowed to make a choice to accept God's grace or deny it, then the value of Christ's blood is somehow emptied and the man's choice somehow receives all the glory. This is pure nonsense in my mind. This is like me writing you a million dollar check and then you going to the bank and endorsing it to deposit into your account. Then you claim, "Well, I receive most of the credit for the million dollars because I had to choose to endorse the check!" I find this concept completely baffling.

Then another difficulty comes in; not only is everything made contingent, but it does seem to us as if man were thus made to be the supreme being in the universe. According to the freewill theory the Lord intends to do good, but he must subject his will to his own creature to know what his intention is; God wills good and would do it, but he cannot, because he has an unwilling man who will not have God's good thing put into effect. What do you do, you who believe in the freewill of man, but drag the Eternal from his throne, and lift up into it that fallen creature, man: for man, according to your theory nods, and his nod is destiny.

Here he goes a step further in equating man's free-will choice to embrace God's gift as taking God off the throne and making man God by virtue of his choice! Nevermind the fact that God, himself, is the one who sovereignly designed and planned for man to have a choice in this matter! Again, this seems to be a very weak view of God that suggests that God can only reign effectively if he is ultimately predetermining every effect and outcome from before the creation of the world...and any ability for man to choose his own course somehow entirely derails God's ability to achieve his own ends. I know chess players that can still achieve their own ends even though their opponent is moving pieces in a way that seeks to check-mate them. Is God not wiser and more powerful than this? Does he have to move the all the pieces in order to achieve check-mate?!? I would think not.

You who believe in the freewill of man, believing the theory that man comes to Christ of his own free will, what do you do with texts of Scripture which say that man is dead? Ephesians 2:1, “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins;” you will say that is only a figure of speech. I grant that, but what is the meaning of it? You say the meaning is, he is spiritually dead. Well, then I ask you, how can he perform the spiritual act of willing that which is right? He is alive enough to will that which is evil, only evil and that continually, but he is not alive to will that which is spiritually good. Don’t you know, to turn to another Scripture, that he cannot even discern that which is spiritual? “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” [1Corinthians 2:14]. Why, he does not have a “spirit” with which to discern them; he only has a soul and a body, but the third principle, implanted in regeneration, which is called in the Word of God, “the spirit,” he knows nothing of and he is therefore incapable, seeing that he is dead and is without the vitalizing spirit, incapable of doing what you say he does.

There is so much here I disagree with that it would take me dozens of pages to respond. He touches on his assumption of total depravity by misappropriating Eph. 2:1 and I think he completely misunderstands 1 Cor. 2:14. Rather than explaining how I feel he is in error here, let me simply quote a section from a scholar I admire who I think deals pretty succinctly with the false assumption of total depravity. Sorry this is a bit long, but it is hard to be overly concise with such over-arching doctrines. I think this quote is about as succinct as it gets....

It is obvious, then, that total depravity is a pivotal doctrine. If it is true, it necessitates the entire Calvinist system. If it is false, it negates the entire system. In my judgment it is false. The Bible does not teach that sinners are totally depraved, either at birth or by their own sin. In particular, it does not teach that a sinner is totally unable to believe the gospel and turn to God for salvation.
Those who accept total depravity point out that many biblical texts teach that man has a depraved heart and is spiritually dead (e.g., Jer 17:9; Eph 2:1,5). In the preceding section we have already examined such passages and have agreed that sinners are depraved, but we must remember that depravity as such is not the same as total depravity. Also, we cannot simply assume that spiritual death is equivalent to total depravity. We must not be guilty of defining spiritual death a priori, before examining what the Bible itself says a spiritually dead person can actually do. As we will see below, Col 2:12–13 says such a person can believe the gospel.
Those who accept total depravity claim that Scripture teaches that sinners are unable to do anything good. Matthew 7:18 is quoted: “Nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.” This is true, but in Matt 12:33 Jesus says, “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad.” Since this is an exhortation addressed to men, it implies that the decision to be either a good tree or a bad tree lies within the sinner’s power. Even though he cannot change himself, the sinner can submit himself to God, who then transforms him from a bad tree into a good tree.
But does not Rom 8:7–8 say that the unbelieving mind “does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God”? Is this not a “total inability” to believe the gospel? Absolutely not! The context clearly shows that the inability here is related to the law, not to the gospel. As long as a person is controlled by the flesh, he is unable to obey any command of the law as God wants it done and as the law requires. In the unbelieving state he cannot please God with respect to the law. But this text says nothing about a sinner being unable to respond to the gospel, or through the power of the gospel being unable to redirect the set of his mind from flesh to Spirit. In other passages it is clear that sinners are able and expected to respond to the gospel in faith and repentance (Matt 23:37; John 3:16; Rom 1:17; Rev 22:17).
But does not Jesus say, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44)? This is certainly true, but contrary to Calvinism this drawing is not selective and irresistible; it is universal and resistible. All are drawn to Jesus by the power of the gospel (Rom 1:16; 10:17; 2 Thess 2:14; Heb 4:12), but only some respond (Matt 23:37). On the universality of the call, Jesus said, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth [on the cross, v. 33], will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:32). Denying that the Word of God has the power to draw all sinners to Christ disregards the very purpose and character of the written word as being addressed to sinners. The gospel is the good news of salvation to sinners and is clear to sinners. John says his accounts of Jesus’ life and miracles “have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31). This writing has not been in vain.
But does not the New Testament teach that faith and repentance are the gifts of God? Does this not imply the sinner’s inability to believe and repent? It is true that some passages use this language, but they are not referring to the irresistible gift of saving grace to totally depraved sinners. Acts 5:31 and 11:18 say that God granted repentance to Israel and to the Gentiles, but this means only that he is granting these groups (not individuals) the opportunity and means to believe and repent by taking the gospel to them. This is how Phil 1:29 and 2 Tim 2:25 should be understood also, though the latter is not referring to initial conversion repentance.
Some passages cited as proof that faith is a gift are not actually speaking of saving faith at all. Romans 12:3 means that God has measured out (distributed) to each Christian a spiritual gift that is appropriate to his own faith (Cottrell, Romans, 2:319–321). First Corinthians 12:9 refers to miracle-working faith as a gift of the Spirit (see 1 Cor 13:2), and Gal 5:22 refers to faithfulness in Christian living.
Some mistakenly conclude that Eph 2:8 says faith is a gift: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” This is disproved, though, by the rules of Greek grammar. The Greek word for “faith” (pistis) is feminine in gender; the pronoun referring to the gift (“that,” touto) is neuter. If it were referring back to faith, it too would be feminine in form. (There is no word in the Greek corresponding to the pronoun “it.”) This verse actually shows that faith is not a gift since grace and faith are carefully distinguished. We are saved by grace, as God’s part; but through faith, as our part, as distinct from the grace given. Faith is not a gift of grace and the result of regeneration; it is a response to grace and a prerequisite to regeneration.
That faith precedes regeneration and is a prerequisite for it is specifically affirmed in Col 2:12, “Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God.” Here “raised up with Him” refers to regeneration (see v. 13, “He made you alive together with Him”), and faith is the means by which the regeneration is received: we are “raised … through faith.” The spiritually dead unbeliever makes his decision to believe of his own free choice, moved by the power of the gospel, before being “raised up” in regeneration. See Eph 1:13–14, where “hearing” and “believing” are aorist participles, suggesting that these acts precede the action of the main verb, the sealing with the Spirit (see also Acts 5:32; 15:7–9; 16:30; 1 Peter 1:22).
In conclusion, we see that there is no biblical basis for the doctrine of total depravity. Augustinianism begins at the wrong end of the process of salvation. It begins with a definition and description of sin and spiritual death in the abstract, including an a priori conception of what a sinner can and cannot do; then it makes the process of conversion fit this preconception. It is much better to take the biblical description of conversion itself, and use this to help us to understand the limits of man’s sinful condition. We must not decide what a sinner can and cannot do before seeing what the Bible says that he can and does do in relation to conversion.

Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2002), 198–200.

There are some hymns in Mr. Wesley's hymnbook which are stronger on this point than I could ever venture to be, for he puts prayer into the lips of the sinner in which God is even asked to force him to be saved by grace. Of course I can take no objection to a term so strong, but it goes to prove this, that among all sections of Christians, whether Arminian or Calvinistic, whatever their doctrinal sentiments may be, their experimental sentiments are the same.

Wesley believed in total depravity and that God gave prevenient grace (grace that goes before) in order for a person to be able to do anything good (such as accept the Gospel). Yet, not all Arminians accept Wesley's view of prevenient grace. Thus, quoting Wesley as proof that all Calvinists and Arminians agree on total depravity and the need for God to intervene for anyone to do anything good is simply not accurate. Some Calvinists and Arminians agree on the idea of total depravity, but this is certainly not entirely the case.

Yet, note that the will is not gone; the will is treated as it should be treated; man is not acted on as a machine, he is not polished like a piece of marble; he is not planed and smoothed like a plank of wood; but his mind is acted on by the Spirit of God, in a manner quite consistent with mental laws. Man is thus made a new creature in Christ Jesus, by the will of God, and his own will is blessedly and sweetly made to yield.

Here is a problem I mentioned before in our discussion on this topic. The Calvinist here has conveniently redefined "free-will" such that it really is not "free." This idea is that God predetermined people to fall, then follow their own evil lusts in accordance with God's predetermined plan (not based on any human decision but upon his sovereign, predetermined plan alone...just like the stars following their orbits). Then, God intervenes into the lives of those he sovereignly chooses and changes their hearts so that they act differently, in accordance with his will in which the person in inwardly "made to yield." So, how is this freedom? While he claims we are not robots, this is exactly what this portrays. Our wiring made it such that we behaved one way and had no choice but to do such wickedness, then God goes in and wires us to act differently...and we start acting in the manner precisely in which he rewired us. This is a very shady view of "freedom." God remakes man by his own will and that man is "made to yield" and this is freedom? It seems to me that being "made" to do anything is the opposite of freedom of choice.

ATP · Nov 4, 2015

The Barrd said:
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

John 7:38-39 NIV Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them." 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

StanJ · Nov 4, 2015

Rev 3:20
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

The Doctrine of OSAS

Chaps

Disciple of Jesus Christ

Chaps

Lifelong student of God's Word.

Disciple of Jesus Christ

Lifelong student of God's Word.

Disciple of Jesus Christ

His Humble Servant

Chaps

His Humble Servant

His Humble Servant

Disciple of Jesus Christ

Chaps

Disciple of Jesus Christ

Chaps

Disciple of Jesus Christ

Chaps

Chaps

New Member

Lifelong student of God's Word.

Similar threads