Skala,

you posted, "Well, I've never heard of grace that was conditional.  Grace is always freely given. Hence, unconditional. If you want to believe in conditional or merited grace, go back to Rome.  They'd love to have you."

Yes, I and 99% of ALL Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, etc..) believe that grace is unconditional and freely given to ALL (not just to Skala's little imaginary clique). See God loves ALL his creatures not some little imaginary group and gives his grace unconditionally to ALL. If you're clueless about other denominations' beliefs (e.g., Catholics) please don't speak for them

Skala,

it seems to me that our biggest difference is that you believe that grace is unconditionally given to SOME (not ALL), and I, like most christians, believe that grace is given unconditionally to ALL. Is that correct? If yes, could you find anything that JESUS said that supports your view that grace is withheld by God only for the select few??

By this statement are you implying that the correct definition of "Free will" is:  Free to do all the evil or good that we want? YES - Free means free

Can the devil do any good, or only evil?   The devil can do GOOD or EVIL. Satan is a fallen angel who abused his free will and FREELY DECIDED to become evil. Otherwise we have to believe that God knowingly created a powerful being that was incapable of doing GOOD (that makes God a co-conspirator, if Satan is a puppet unable by his Creator to do any good)

"If we used your reasoning, and the devil can only do evil", (No, I disagree with your initial assumption, the devil can do good if he so chooses)

Jimmy, I appreciate what you are saying.  I really do.  And I have appreciated our exchanges.  But, I would be interested in knowing what your answers are to those two questions.  I suppose some would say something along the lines of an age of accountability.  But, your questions are good ones and I wouldn't mind understanding your view on when Paul was alive and when he died.  I know we probably won't see eye to eye, but I know we both love the Savior.  That's always been good enough for me.

Steve

Well, what do you mean by grace?  I believe that there is common grace, whereby God lets unbelievers breath his air and enjoy the pleasures of life.  Common grace also restrains the world from being as evil as it could be if he simply removed his hands and let the world fall into corruption and total chaos.  God restrains the amount of sin and evil in the world, and that is a form of Grace.  In that sense, grace is given to all.

But saving faith is not given to all, otherwise all would be saved.  I mean, if salvation is by grace alone, and not everyone is saved, then everyone does not receive saving grace.  It's that simple.  You see, we view saving grace differently, you and I.  You view saving grace as a meal set out on a table with a sign that says "you can eat me, or not eat me". So grace itself is passive in the process, and salvation is a result of what humans do with their choice.

I view grace as not passive, but active.  God sees dead sinners who are headed to hell, and he actually comes in and does something.  He changes them.  He quickens them.  They are born again. He converts them, he changes their hearts.  He brings them to faith and repentance.  In this sense, grace is not given to all, but some, and the Bible makes no apologies for it. God makes no apologies for it.

Rom 9:10-23
(10)  And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
(11)  though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls--
(12)  she was told, "The older will serve the younger."
(13)  As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
(14)  What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
(15)  For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
(16)  So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
(17)  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
(18)  So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
(19)  You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
(20)  But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
(21)  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
(22)  What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
(23)  in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

You see, you are posing the question: "If God determines who will receive mercy and who receives hardening, how can He hold us accountable?" Don't you see Angelos, you are asking the exact same question that Paul's objector in this passage asked in verse 19.  To that Paul responds "Who are you to sit in judgment upon God?"

Angelos, all people are sinners, therefore all deserve damnation.  For God to save any at all is incredibly merciful.  But for God to not save someone is not injustice, but justice! To not be saved is to receive exactly what you deserve.  Can you imagine how a court case would go if a judge sentenced a man with punishment instead of setting him free, and the DA stood up and said "I don't like your decision your honor, because it's just!" That's hardly an objection at all.  That the judge acted "justly" is not an objection.  Yet that is what you are doing.  You are objecting that God act justly with people and not mercifully with people. Paul says right there with his own lips, not my interpretation "God shows mercy on whomever He will, and he hardens whomever he wills".

Those that receive free mercy are saved by grace.  Those that are hardened receive justice.  There is no injustice done.  Only justice and mercy.  Justice is not injustice, and mercy is not injustice.  Neither action on God's part is injustice. Yet you have the nerve to stand up and tell God that his justice is injustice.  You have the nerve to object to God showing mercy to some, but not all.  To that Paul says "Who are you oh man to answer back to God?"

You asked for Bible proof of God witholding grace from some.  Did you not see the ginormous post 1 page back on the topic of reprobation?  For your convenience here it is:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php/topic,37345.msg684158.html#msg684158

Also, for your convenience, here is an entire chapter decided to reprobation from a classic Christian book, The Sovereignty of God, available online to read for free.  Can't beat that.

http://www.reformed.org/books/pink/index.html
 

You have a faulty view of free will my friend.  Can I ask you if you believe in original sin?  You see, the argument you and I are having is nothing new.  This exact debate topic arise very early in church history, when Augustine and Pelagius butted heads over this same topic.  Centuries later, Martin Luther and Erasmus debated over the exact same thing.  Here we are again today on these little forums, debating it.  You see, your arguments are nothing new, and my answers to your arguments are nothing new.  You seem to think this debate is brand new in the contemporary scene as if it just popped up out of nowhere.  The best thing you can do is go study it for yourself, as I have.  You are like a rookie - new to the game - trying to take on veteran players.  I'm not talking on the personal level - you compared to me.  I'm talking about you compared to the topic.

Luther and Erasmus debated over free will. Erasmus wrote "Freedom of the will".  Luther wrote "Bondage of the will".  If you are a Roman Catholic, as Erasmus, you will most likely agree with him.  I, however, am a protestant.  Luther is my Christian ancestor.  I of course agree with Luther on this topic.  I'm no Roman Catholic.

 I don't believe that man's will is "free", but in bondage.  Bondage to his sinful nature and desires. Man's will is in bondage to the corruption of sin.  He has free choice, but his range of options is limited.  He is spiritually deaf, blind, and dumb to the things of God.  He is hostile towards God and the things of God. Therefore he cannot, with his natural abilities, choose the things of God.  Paul says "In the flesh, nobody can please God..they are unable to submit to God's law".  As unregenerate fallen men, nobody can choose to obey God. In order for any to do this they must be changed by God's grace.  They must be converted.  They must be born again.

Sinners are not on the fence, un-persuaded by either good or evil.  It's not as if they are neutral and as such can choose to lean to the right or the left.  Instead the Bible describes them as altogether opposed to God, lovers of sin, in bondage to sin and satan, children of the death, children of wrath, hostile towards God, fulfilling the lusts of the flesh, finding the gospel foolishness.

For any at all to think a right thought about God or feel a right feeling bout him, a change must first happen on the inside, and that by grace.

The conditional language in the Bible does not disprove this.  It does not suddenly mean that man's will is somehow neutral.  The conditions are there, the choices are there. But the Bible tells us that men always make the wrong choice.

God clearly does command us to do that which is impossible for fallen sinners: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Moreover, the law of God itself demands to be obeyed perfectly, flawlessly (James 2:10)—thus demanding a level of obedience that has proven utterly impossible for every person who ever lived, except Christ.

Therefore the fact that God commands us to do something is no proof that we have intrinsic power in our fallen state to obey Him. (Cf. Romans 7:15-16).

One major reason God gives us moral standards we cannot obey is to reinforce our knowledge of our own spiritual impotence, so that we have no option but to turn to His grace as we seek salvation from our sin. (Cf. Luke 18:13-14).

Nothing but sheer arrogance and a blindness to one's own spiritual poverty would lead anyone to think he is capable of obeying God or saving himself through human will power. (cf. Luke 18:11; Romans 10:3.)

 It is also a serious mistake to imagine that inability nullifies responsibility in the moral realm. The fact that sinners are spiritually dead and therefore morally unable to obey God does not remove them from the moral obligation to obey Him.

I think you misunderstand the Calvinist objection to "free will." Every true Calvinist believes sinners are responsible moral agents, free from any external force or coercion in the choices they make. They choose freely. But they inevitably choose wrong, because their choices are determined by their own nature and their nature is sinful and corrupt. We can discuss this further if you're interested, but the point is simple: A call for the sinner to "choose" something good is in no way incompatible with Calvinist theology.

Scripture often calls us to make choices that involve a decision for good rather than evil. That in no way suggests that we are morally neutral, or inclined neither to evil or to good. Choosing "good" goes against the sinner's nature (Romans 8:7-8), so unless God graciously intervenes to awaken and empower us, we will always make the wrong choice (Jeremiah 13:23). And we do so without any external force or compulsion. In that sense our choices are perfectly free. But apart from divine grace we would be hopelessly enslaved to our own lusts (Romans 6:20). So the sinner's "choice," though free in every meaningful sense, is always predictably wrong.

So, you can post scriptures until you are blue in the face that have conditional language and that urge people to "make a choice".  That does not do anything to further the debate of Calvinism vs Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism/Arminianism.  We will get nowhere until you first understand the underlying difference between the two theologies as far as man's natural state is.

That being said, what exactly do you believe about man's natural, fallen, unregenerate state?

Welcome to Pelagianism Angelos.

"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

And that verse somehow teaches that fallen man has the ability and/or desire to do good in God's eyes? I think you're reading something into the verse that isn't there.  The fact that God hardens people is not proof that that they by nature can understand the spiritual things of God, or can see the Kingdom of God, or can submit to God's law to be pleasing in his sight.  For these verses prove otherwise: 1 cor 2:14, Rom 8:7-9, John 3:3-8

Nobody, not a single person, by nature, by default, has the ability to do any of those things.  Hence the argument that enabling grace must exist prior to a right thought, a right action, a right feeling about the gospel.  Paul says that the gospel is foolishness to all men.  Only when men are "called" is when they find the gospel wisdom and power. (1 Cor 1:24)


Angelos do you believe any human being has the ability to follow the law of God perfectly?  I think the Biblical answer is no.  Yet at the same time God commands us to follow the law perfectly, right?

God commands us to come to Christ, yet Christ says as plain as day that we do not have the ability to come to Christ in and of ourselves:

"No man can come to me unless it were given him of the Father" (Jn 6:65)
"No man can come to me unless the Father who set me draws him" (Jn 6:44)

There are plenty of examples of God commanding us to do what we don't have the ability, in and of ourselves to do.  Hence we must throw ourselves upon God's grace so that He gets all the credit.

Pelagius, the heretic, was famous for saying this quote:  "If I ought, I can".  Angelos, you are a modern day heir of this man's thinking.  Are you sure you are correct about this?

As for your reference to Luke 18, it seems like you always forget everything else the Bible says when you are reading a recorded event.  The events that happened in Luke 18 are not meant to be understood apart from and outside of all the rest of the Bible's anthropology (analysis of man).  He did not do the "right action" without God's grace.  He did not innately have the ability to obey God, which the Bible is absolutely clear on. The Bible is crystal clear that any right action in God's sight is itself a direct result of God's grace.

To say anything else is to be a Pelagian.  If you're fine with being a Pelagian, that's cool with me.  Just know that it's been considered heresy throughout the entirety of Christianity.

Sounds good to me :) You near New Mexico?


Nope but that's very interesting ;)

I find it interesting that, despite how long as the passage from Romans 9 seems to be, if one reads the whole chapter, it really doesn't have much to do with universal depravity or pretty much anything else being discussed...

Instead, it explains why those of the fleshly Israel will not receive their inheritance unless they abandon their faith in Works, and  believe and accept Jesus as their Savior.

The irony is I know a lot of Calvinists who would disagree with this thesis, insisting that all his "His Chosen," i.e., the Jews, will be saved automatically, regardless of their relationship with Christ.

My problem of Calvinism is, IMHO, they really don't have a "Blessed Assurance," since they believe (correct me if I am wrong, as I am sure someone will) that the Elect can never "fall away."

I will give you an example:

Supposed one Sunday, two young men "obeyed the Gospel" one in a SOFCOC, the other in a Baptist Church; the former baptised to have his sins washed away, the latter to demonstrate that he had already been forgiven.

Each struggled keeping on the straight and narrow, started and raised good Christian families, and participated in the mission of their church, perhaps leading others to Christ.
(Forgive me if I get the jargon wrong...)

However, say in twenty years after conversion, they begin to drift from sound doctine, perhaps falling into temptation and sinning more and more openly.  The coC brethren will admonish their brother to confess his sins and return to a forgiven state.  I do not know what the SOP for Calvinists are, but I would suppose that they would attempt to encourage their brother to live in a more Christlike manner.

Anyway, despite all the efforts of their brothers and sisters, each turned his back on his family and friends, and eventual, God.  After blaspheming God, their lives are shortened by raucous living, and they die.

At this point, while there may be fervent prayers towards God for mercy towards these fallen individuals, there would probably be a consensus among the faithful that each would probably not be with Jesus in Paradise.  And, perhaps, rightfully so.

However, I find the reason for making such judgements from the respective congregations rather telling, and frightening:

The SOFCOC brethren would claim that while their brother was saved when he first believed and was baptised, his spiritual condition degraded after he failed to seek escape from Satan's traps, and began to serve Satan rather than God.

The Calvinists would say, and, again, correct me if I am wrong, the man obviously was NOT saved when he thought he had "accepted Grace," because then he could have been subsequently tempted to leave the God's grace, and thus, though well intentioned, was never in a saved relationship with God.

The scary part is if each had died ten years after they had come forward, according to Arminianism, the first one would have been saved, while, according to Calvinism, the second one would have died in his sins, even though neither had yet committed a grievious sin.

Where is the "assurance" in that?