The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Gods Character??

I agree I always am in need of study. But not becasue I disagree with you. I am in line with many "calvinist" teachers on the subject as well as historical documents.

Scripture does not make a difference between regeneration and the effectual call.

If you can somehow conclude those mentioned in James where the word draw is used were not dragged off to the judge against their will I will relent. But that is an impossiblity. Therefore when the same word is used elsewhere, I can logically conclude it means the same thing.

Here is an article that supports and explains my position.

http://www.sovgrace.net/born.htm

It is an involuntary response, below the level of consciousness, a perfect obedience to the Divine imperative of Jesus. The Lord God is the active cause; the sinner is the passive recipient. This is irresistible grace! The gift of faith enables the newborn soul to function in the spiritual realm, an ability he did not have prior to his quickening (Jno. 3:3b,5b; I Cor. 2:14). It also gives the individual the ability to believe, or, if you please, "ears to hear" (Rev. 2:7,11; Pro. 20:12; Mt. 11:15). The gospel is, subsequently, addressed to the regenerate (Acts 2:39; Acts 13:16, 26), for the unregenerate cannot believe (Jno. 8:43; Jno. 10:26; Rom. 3:10-18). Before an exploration of the purpose of the gospel in relationship to regeneration, let's further develop the concept of the immediacy of regeneration.

The word "draw" suggests the picture of someone drawing water out of a well. Does a man beg and plead for the water to get into the bucket? No, he reaches down and by an act of His own strength, he acts upon the water, dipping the bucket and pulling it to Himself. In the same way, sinners are regenerated. Interestingly, by comparing the Greek word for "draw" in John 6:44 with the few other places it is used in the New Testament, it becomes readily apparent that the idea of force, not invitation, was the popular usage of the term. For example, Acts 16:19 says that the masters of the demon-possessed girl "caught Paul and Silas and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers." Acts 21:30 says that the Jews "took Paul, and drew him out of the temple...and...went about to kill him...." It doesn't sound like they were begging and pleading with Paul. He was acted upon by external force. Finally, James 2:6 uses the word to describe the persecution of early Christians, as "rich men...draw you before the judgment seats." Though some commentators argue that the word "draw" in John 6:44 does not necessarily imply the idea of external force, the way the word is used in the larger context of Scripture suggests that this is not only the possible meaning, but the probable sense of the word. The Holy Spirit effectively and successfully draws the sinner to Christ in regeneration. There is no exception to this rule. The call of God in regeneration is always effectual.

I am not going to digres this into another topic of my belief of regeneration without means, and I am not in line with other stuff Gowens says, but this ONE Article is excellent on the subject at hand.

Joe,

Sorry, but I think the author has made several critical errors and IF this is one of your primary sources for holding to the view you do, I can now understand where you are coming from. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Again, I would suggest you read through several of the articles I have already referenced, particularly those on the "New Birth" and "Irresistible Grace", of which there are quite a number available.

But just briefly:

1) Regeneration: It is a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit of which a person does not experience, i.e., it is something which takes place without the person's knowledge and beyond his senses. However, the RESULT of regeneration which is conviction of sin, repentance of sin, a love of God, believing upon Christ, etc., IS experienced and is done by an act of the person's will, albeit irresistibly and infallibly. Again, the "will" is governed by one's intellect and affections, i.e., his predisposition, inclination.

2) Irresistible Grace: This is also known as the "inward call", which is ONLY perceptible by the new nature created in regeneration. Thus the "drawing" of the Spirit through the means of the Gospel appeals "compellingly", "forcefully" to the new nature. One illustration might be comparing this "force" to that of offering a cup of cold water to someone who is dying of thirst. Thus the "spiritual appetite" for God is so overwhelming that the person is "driven" to Christ... but this "compulsion" is NOT contrary to the will but IN FULL ACCORDANCE WITH the will.

3) Just because a word appears in more than one place in Scripture the idea that the definition of the word must be the same. This is nothing more than the old, "psycho-statistical-mean" hermeneutic used by Dispensationalists. Words have various meanings in all languages, including Koine Greek. It is the CONTEXT which determines which meaning is to be understood. To ignore this universal truth of grammar is to commit linguistic suicide and the resulting errors with it.

In His grace,

OK pilgrim. We shall part ways on this and differ. I find the article in accordance with scripture. In fact, I am more comforted that God does not have to wait for me to be willing to be regenerated or come to him. The fact that the word draw IS used in the same way in all of the examples I provided is not refutable. We always use this "context' arguement to argue our opinion. Too many times though we use it as a blanket. At times, scripture is plain and simple.

Were those in James dragged according to their will? And why would this be different for salvation?

Once again you have gone off the path and conflated "regeneration" and "conversion". I do not hold nor have I ever stated that "God has to wait for a sinner to be regenerated"! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> In fact, I have laboured to show that regeneration is a sovereign and secret work of the Holy Spirit of which the person is NOT cognizant. But the AFFECTS of regeneration are experienced which infallibly and irresistibly result in conversion, i.e., repentance of sin and believing upon Christ, both of which are done freely and in full accordance with the will. No one is "dragged" to Christ against their will. But contrariwise, all who come to Christ do so most freely and willingly due to their new nature even though the impetus to do so is "forceful", i.e., the "drawing" to Christ is irresistible since it is what that persons enlightened mind and affections desire most.

PS... could you please only include those items in the quote(s) which are germane to your replies? Thanks!

In His grace,

JoeK,

While I believe I will be repeating much of what has already been been said, what you espouse is not historic Calvinism, nor more importantly the teaching of Scripture.

John emphatically states what this drawing is. You look at, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44) and see a violence of the will, but Jesus states what accomplishes this drawing, saying, “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32). However, John makes it clear earlier that this is not a violence of the will saying, “But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). Though others may disagree, the “draw” is being used metaphorically here for “believe” (see Calvin). To this end, I see a very close association between irresistible grace, faith, and repentance. Yes, they do indeed differ, but are close relatives.

Basically, through these chapters John is restating an earlier argument from John 3:14-15, “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (compare with John 12:32). Now when you have time trek back to Numbers 21:4f and see if there is ANY violence of the will. While you will not see a violence of the will of the Israelites, you will discover that they saw their depravity and just punishment for sin. Then Moses, a type of Christ, prayed for the people (compare, John 17:9), but God did not grab all the Israelite’s eyes and make them look – did he? What does the text say: “So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived” (Numbers 21:9). As Calvin states,

As far as James 2:6, the text says, “But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw [heleko] you before the judgment seats?” However, you do realize that individuals still had a will when they were drawn into [civil] court – both then and now. Their will could have opposed the so-called “drawing.” Now, they may have suffered flogging or even death, but none-the-less they could have made another decision rather than go to debtor’s court. James’ use of the term is to show a strong influence, but not such an influence that could have violated one’s will in some way. I have literally had to hold a gun on someone to attempt to convince them to do something – like not kill their kidnapped victim, but that did not always fully convince them to stop what they were doing – the gun was a strong influence, but they still made a decision to live or die.

Where have I straed at all from the meaning of scripture. I found the word HELKO, look up its definition and presented it. Then I am told that words dont always mean the same. I agree with that. But not in this case. IT means the same every time it is used.

There is no way those in james are willing to be dragged in front of the judge. God draws the unregenerate the same way, but not out of malicious force. Then one does become willing once we recognize His love for His sheep revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. I never said the will was not present, I am only stating scripture shows the will as completely passive in the event of regeneration/effectual call.

JoeK,,

The will can be convinced by means -- and that by very tough means (the meaning in James), but never forced -- not even by God. There is not a single Scripture that reveals that God forces the will. However, He does irresistibly convince the will.

Respectfully, there is more to being in line with historic Christianity than merely knowing the definition of a term, there is also the proper application of all terms in interpretation and a rational explanation proceeding there-forth-- this is where you are falling short.

Read: Freedom of the Will by Edwards.

Why is it my flesh boils when I am told I fall short, or study more, or I am some sort of Freshman. I wish I could curtail these emotions.

I gues sthe interenet provides a new venue for the enlightened ecclesiastical authority.

No disrestect Joe. I can read till the cows come home. The cumbersome edwards et all and still result with the same conclusion.

You appear to be equating the word force with malicious intent on my part. Ill tell you what, it is more than a wooing as so many reformers describe it. Words have meanings. Your last paragraph is too hard for me. The Gospel is much eaier than that. And I dont feel that if I say God forces the will of the unregenerate to love Him, that I wrest the writ to my own destruction. Especially when I find the word draw means exactly that. WHen I find His will oversoming mans will all the time in the writ, and yet still blames man for sin. That I dont have an answer for. But I can rest comfortably with the words of the inspired Paul in Romans 9.

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?


The will is not always willing even if it makes the choice that gives it the strongest impulse. Just becasue these men went in front of the judge, does not mean they chose to do it. After being dragged. Even if they went limp and cried uncle, their desire/volition/will/choice remained not to go

Joe,

Here is yet another example of your confusing terms and doctrines. Remember the little illustration I gave you about the young child who "wills" not to sit down when told to do so? An adult can without question physically force the child to sit down in a chair. But on the inside, i.e., his preference, desire, will remains to stand. So, the "will" isn't altered, violated, coerced, forced, etc.... only the circumstances can be changed which will present a situation which will restrict or expand which decisions can be made. In the case of those men being "dragged" before a Judge, even though they were compelled to do what they originally desired not to do, as they stood before the Judge, their preference was to not be there. Thus their "will" was not forced only their physical body was forced.

Now, in the case of the unregenerate, they CANNOT be forced to hate sin, repent of it and seek Christ by faith. They are incapable of such acts BECAUSE their nature prevents it. They have no ABILITY to repent and/or believe. Their natural hatred of God and all that is good is what controls their will. Thus their problem is a "moral inability" to do what is required of them in order to be saved. God does NOT "force" them to believe, but again as I have stated over and over again, God "re-creates" the will by implanting spiritual life in them. This "new birth" is a radical changing of their nature which involves an ability to comprehend truth (intellect) and a love for God and righteousness (affections). These two elements are what CONTROL the will. All decisions made are the result of either or a combination of these two elements of man. To change what a man "wills" you must either change how he thinks about something or feels about something or both. And until that happens, the will simply can't be changed.

So.... where does that bring us in the matter of the unregenerate and their will and salvation? The Holy Spirit "makes them alive" spiritually, i.e., their minds and affections are changed which then directly effects their will. Once they possess this new nature/disposition, the overtures of the Gospel are irresistible, forceful, compelling to their intellect and affections. And THIS is what is meant in John 6:44, where Jesus says that "No man CAN come to me UNLESS the Father Who sent me draw him." The word "draw" is in reference to the "inward call", aka: irresistible grace which applies only to one who has been regenerated, i.e., they have the ABILITY to hear, comprehend and desire the message of salvation. Their new nature "hungers" for God such as a man who is starving to death. This is the "forcing of the will" but as is always the case, it is in complete accord WITH the will and not contrary to it.

Sorry, but I simply cannot change what Scripture teaches about the nature of man in his unregenerate state or regenerate state nor the doctrines of grace which have been the foundation of the historic Protestant churches. What has been given you is truth. Whether you choose to embrace it or reject for something other which you deem "better" is your choice. I cannot force you to accept the truth. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

JoeK, we all fall short (Rom. 3:23). We all need to study more (John 5:39; 2 Tim. 2:15). Calvin, nor Luther knew it all. We never will know enough in this life. I am so dumb that I had to go to school to learn this stuff. We are all stronger in some areas than in others. We are all growing (2 Cor. 3:18). Moreover, we are far greater sinners than we ever thought we were, but far more forgiven than what we ever thought! Be happy, don’t worry, and don’t boil over. Relax, be more open, learn. Always be Reforming.

I do not recall using the phrase malicious intent!!! Neither am I calling God (or you) malicious at all. Actually, it would be malicious though for God to violate one’s will. Romans 9:19-20 speaks of God’s sovereignty in election and reprobation and not of God violating someone’s will. Look at verse 21: “Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” Unless your point is that God violates us in election (before we even are created and have a will, so this is not a possibility <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />) this verse in no way supports your thesis.

JoeK

Thanks for taking the time to answer my post at the same replying to all the others. I will be asking a question in a new thread it is necessarily for you to field.

William

.

Is it fair to say that it can boil down to a question of whether or not regeneration precedes conversion?

I believe the Scripture is expressly and explicitly clear on this point: Regeneration must precede conversion, because it is not within the unregenerate soul's ability to convert to Christ.

-Robin

Sorry,I forgot to add the word not and it is to late to edit.

Are you being sarcastic? I did not see a question from you.

Joe,

William was assuredly not being sarcastic. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You can see the question in the new thread HERE.