truefaithsav, please receive this with all kindness... SI is, amongst other things, a forum for discussion, which entails reading and interacting intelligently and honestly with the posts of others. It seems unlikely that you read the entirety of mine, which is fine; but please do not respond to or misrepresent the posts of myself or others without reading them in their entirety.

I wrote several times that man is [b]not ultimately compelled[/b] by any external force to do other than what he chooses to do. The limiting factor upon his will is his own heart, that is, his nature, which is corrupt. In that sense, and that only, his will is limited from certain choices, just as God Himself can only will that which is in accord with His nature.

Instead of proof-texting, please interact with the particular verses I discussed. And, in order not to play the hypocrite, I will respond to the passage which you raised.

Deuteronomy 30 demonstrates that man has a moral responsibility to do certain things, but it does not infer that he has or will ever have a heart for such obedience. This is famously demonstrated by Martin Luther, in his explanation of the difference between Imperatives and Indicatives.

In the bible, imperative statements are commands to do one thing or another, without reference to the ability or willingness of the one commanded. An imperative expresses duty, but says nothing of ability, or lack thereof. For instance, Jesus told many persons to do things which, according to nature, were impossible. He said to a paralytic, "take up your bed and walk." The command did not imply natural ability. To many unregenerate Israelites, God said, "love the Lord your God with [b]all[/b] your heart." Did this imply that they, in their fallen condition, had the moral wherewithal to fulfill the command? Of course not. [b]Imperatives are often used to expose inability[/b], not to convey any indication of positive capability. To quote Luther,

"The commandments are not given inappropriately or pointlessly; but in order that through them the proud, blind man may learn the plague of his impotence, should he try to do as he is commanded." pg. 160

"...'if thou art willing' is a verb in the subjunctive mood, which asserts nothing...a conditional statement asserts nothing indicatively." "if thou art willing", "if thou hear", "if thou do" declare, not man's ability, but his duty. pg 157

"[Imperative or hypothetical passages teach] not what we can do, or do do...but what we ought to do, and what is required of us, so that our impotence may be made known to us and the knowledge of sin may be given to us." 174

Again, Luther writes,

"The passages of Scripture you cite are imperative; and they prove and establish nothing about the ability of man, but only lay down what is and what not to be done." pg 161

"[Such imperative passages] simply say: "if thou wilt turn", telling man what he should do. When he knows it, and sees that he cannot do it, he will ask whence he may find ability to do it..." 164


To infer an indicative sense upon what may be an imperative passage is to [b]upset all of biblical understanding[/b]. For instance, one may, as you did, read 'Choose you this day whom you will serve,' and thereby infer that the word 'choose' indicates one's native ability to fulfill the command. However, if one uses such flawed exegetical methods consistently, he must also infer an indicative sense upon all other 'command' passages.

For example, 'Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart' would then become either an indicative of an impossible reality - namely, that all people who hear that command really do only love God perfectly in this life, thus making an untrue promise out of the command - or that we are morally capable, of in our fallen state, of loving God perfectly.

If we as unregenerate persons were capable of this perfect love apart from grace, then what need was there then for grace to come upon us at all? And if one says, "grace enables us just enough to choose for ourselves to do these things by our free will", then we deny the very freedom of that will, showing that it needed enabling in order to do right! If the will needed enabling, it was to the same degree disabled - NOT free!

Thank you for your time.

Many elements of the last post I do agree with, the primary difference being that I believe this change is effectual upon all whom it is wrought. The change is irresistible in so much as it overcomes that sinful obstinacy which would oppose it. None are half-regenerate, and no regenerate person ceases to have faith.

When Wiley says, "these are given a new direction," he seems to imply that within man in something deeper than intelligence, feeling, and will, which ultimately directs all of these. I would contend that this is the heart, which, throughout scripture, is aptly called "new" in regeneration.

As well, you wrote that grace does not enable, but rather influences. I would again say, if it [b]needs[/b] to be influenced in order to do something, it is, for all practical purposes of language, disabled. Do any men come to God without grace? No. Out of billions, the fact that none come to God apart from His influence tells very much upon the fixed direction of their souls, and in what sense they cannot will to repent and believe.

I played a board game tonight with a group of people which, on my own, I never would have played. I am not into that kind of thing. But they influenced me to do it, so I did.

[b]Could[/b] I have chosen to do it without their influence? Sure. I have the ability to choose that.

[b]Would[/b] I have chosen to do it without their influence? No. I am not really interested.

It is not that I was not capable of doing it, but that I was not willing, and therefore I needed their influence. The problem was not my ability but with my will.

The same goes with a sinner. [b]Could[/b] a sinner obey God without the Holy Spirit's influence? Sure, they have a free will. But [b]would[/b] a sinner obey God without the Holy Spirit's influence? No. They are not interested. Therefore they need the help of the Holy Spirit to influence them.

It is not that sinners are not capable of obeying God but that sinners are not willing to obey God. Therefore they need the Holy Spirit to influence them into conversion. The sinners problem is not their ability, it is their will.

trufaithsav,

please consider two passages that would seem to run counter to your positions that lack of belief is due to a lack of teaching and divine influence.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth truth by their unrighteousness, since what may be known about God is plain to them.

and,

John 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light.....

What I wonder about is why people who claim God doesn't force people to believe aren't going crazy when God says in His Word that the devil enslaves men and blinds them to the truth. Talk about external force. The reason for no objection is that whatever force the devil exerts does nothing to coerce a man because everyone really knows the nature of man is towards evil so it really isn't force when the man does what the devil wants because it is really what the man's own nature wants to do anyway.

Michael, I want to respond later to your first thorough post after I have read it through, but I think I can easily refute your view that there are imperative and indicative commands. Simply that it is not in keeping with the character of Christ or the Christian purpose.

Calvinism with its complicated theological system will never allow a person to become as a little child and enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you think Peter the fisherman understood the difference between imperative and indicative? No, Peter was a disciple, he was interested in serving, worshipping, being sanctified and used by the Master. There was no time for complex theology.

And so, without any complex arguments of my own, I simply say that Calvinism is opposed to the lives and spirits of many of the greatest saints, in that it would exclude them. Yes, there are hundreds of great saints, just to name Spurgeon as one, who could understand the system and teach on it, but Christianity is not nearly so proprietary as to demand exacting definitions or the educational equivalent of what the scribes and Pharisees had to experience. Calvinism makes the same theological demands on the average godly person that they attempted to, and in doing so it wrongly adds to God's word.

Koheleth, thank you for your time.

Koheleth wrote,

[b]"Calvinism with its complicated theological system will never allow a person to become as a little child and enter the kingdom of heaven."[/b]

We differ in what sense one must be "as a little child." The passage to which you refer presents the disciples arguing about who would be the greatest n the Kingdom; in contrast to their pretentious assumptions, Christ draws attention to the apparent unimportance of a nameless child, as becoming God's servants. The sense in which we must "become as little children" is not that we forfeit intelligence, but that we must own ourselves as insignificant dependents!

Contrary to your view, Paul requires Timothy to continue earnestly in his studies of the scriptures. Apparently years of ministry alongside the premier Apostle had not resolved all of what could be learned and taught for Timothy.

Moreover, neither I nor any other historic Predestinarian will say that one needs to understand the finest doctrinal minutiae to be saved; a sinner needs only to believe that all his running and willing are of themselves insufficient - even bloody rags - to appease God's Lawful wrath, and that through faith in Christ's redemption he may be counted righteous with the imputed obedience of Jesus. He must only know to look away from his will, and to the work of Christ on the cross!

Koheleth also wrote,

[b]"Do you think Peter the fisherman understood the difference between imperative and indicative?"[/b]

Yes, I do believe Peter understood the difference, just like you and every sensible person does. Whether or not Peter knew the Greek equivalent terms of "imperative" and "indicative" makes little difference; when Simon-Peter told the beggar at the gate to stretch forth his hand, the apostle knew a miracle was needed for the duty to be accomplished. He commanded something which was, for that man, humanly impossible. So yes, all reasonable persons, including Peter, understand that duty must not always imply ability, but that indicative commands are often a means of revealing inability.

For several years I was a manager over complicated water systems. During this time I often taught new employees certain tasks. If I saw one recklessly going ahead of my instructions, I would say, "The next step should be such-and-such. Now, do that." The heedless worker would soon realize that he could not continue, because he had botched several earlier steps which were necessary to proceed. Now, I did not tell him to perform that next step because I thought it was possible at that point for him to do it; I was reminding him that he had a job to do which he could not do without my assistance. I contend that the same is true in many portions of scripture.

Koheleth wrote,

[b]"Peter was a disciple, he was interested in serving, worshiping, being sanctified and used by the Master. There was no time for complex theology."[/b]

It sounds as if your idea of a "disciple" lacks any discipline in that portion of the command, "love the Lord your God with...all your mind." What may seem complex to you is apparently not so difficult amongst many children which attend our local fellowship, who have memorized portions of the various orthodox creeds and confessions, who can explain from the scriptures the very subjects we are discussion. It is not becoming of Christians to minimize the expectations of discipleship to exclude careful exegesis and thought.

I would argue that the greatest difficulty in understanding the Predestinarian model of sovereign grace in salvation, is trying to square it with twenty or more years of carnal reasoning which posits Man's Will is the center of all that revolves.

As for your statement "no time... interested in serving, worshiping, being sanctified and used by the Master," this is a false dichotomy (read: separation) between study and sanctification or worship. There is room enough in the boat of Christian living to carry on study without jettisoning practical devotion. In fact, your view seems to encourage going to sea with all sails and no anchor. It is enough to say that virtually all the men held in greatest esteem for their service to Christ, of various stripes and stains, are united against such misguided phobia of comprehensive learning, and so, if we must brandish our opinions, I will demure to balance yours with theirs.

Koheleth wrote,

[b]"Calvinism is opposed to the lives and spirits of many of the greatest saints"[/b]

And belief in the sovereign grace of God was likewise the blessed boon of many others, which proves nothing. Please interact with the cited scriptures.

Koheleth wrote,

[b]"Christianity is not nearly so proprietary as to demand exacting definitions or the educational equivalent of what the scribes and Pharisees had to experience." [/b]

I have no formal education in any of these subjects, and have walked with Christ in truth for less than four years. Excluding the bible, I read an average of less than an hour a day. What some persons must be doing with their time, who are able to memorize thousands of other points of interest, and yet be incapable of learning a handful of doctrinal distinctions, is beyond me.

Christ and His Church are worth a little study.

PS: If you would like an .mp3 of myself and a brother preaching the gospel on the streets, I will send the link to you. I wouldn't want anyone to suppose I was locked in an ivory tower! ;-)

Just adding to thread…



Not everyone finds the doctrines of grace difficult to understand. I would say on a personal level they are much harder to accept than understand. One does not need to be able to fully articulate the deeper intricacies of the doctrines of grace to be a Christian. Some are simply not called, gifted, or even interested in theological concepts. This does not necessarily mean that someone would/does not believe or accept them.

For years I attempted to twist and turn scriptures every way I could in order to make sense of the topics surrounding the doctrines of grace that opposed all I had been taught as a child. I finally cried out to God. I told Him I was done trying to understand and would simply read His Word and leave all the “understanding” and “theology” to Him.

It was when I approached the Word with this simple child like reasoning that it all began to make sense. The Bible came alive all over again. It was like reading it for the first time.

Through the clarity of hindsight I now see that understanding was not nearly as much of an issue as was simply laying down my misguided presuppositions and accepting the fact that I had wrong knowledge about certain concepts. I asked God to break me and reconstruct me into a vessel He could fill with whatever knowledge He wanted.

I would be telling a lie if I did not admit to seeing the doctrines of grace throughout the entirety of the Bible. What was once fuzzy is now shockingly clear. I believe the doctrines of grace are simple to understand if presented clearly. I also believe the problem most often lies in accepting ideas and constructs that are opposed to our modern presuppositions. This is why Peter had no problem accepting a truly and completely sovereign God.

_________________
TJ