Calvinistic comments....hrm

Hello folks,

Sorry I've been away for a few days. Good to see you all again!

pinoybaptist wrote:

Even as a Calvinist, I will agree with Skandelon here, and say "All men are under "obligation" to repent and will be held accountable for not doing so". Why?

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

What I would ask of Skandelon, is how does responsibility negate inability? But we can talk about that later.

What is man's responsibility? What does the passage say? How can one go to extremes on the topic of the sovereignty of God? By assuming that God's sovereignty negates our responsibility. Why all of the exhortations to "be diligent" (2 Peter 3:14), "examine ourselves" (2 Cor. 13:5), be "devoted to prayer" (Romans 12:12), and the list goes on and on and on.

Of the three examples given by Skandelon, I can agree with the first one. According to the second, I do not deny that man has a will, but man's will (according to the Scriptures) is slave to sin and bound to sin. A slave must be set free. I would come closer to saying that until one is in Christ, they cannot have a free will. A will, when in Christ, is free to sin no more, but it doesn't, because our nature pulls us to do that which is self-centered too much. The third example would not apply to me, for I only ascribed to God the sovereignty laid out within the Scriptures.

Skandelon, could you show us a passage that clearly lays out that God, in His sovereignty, chooses to give man freewill, while at the same time revealing that man is inable to come unto Him? (John 6:44) How could man be free, yet inable?

pinoybaptist worte:

I guess that would depend upon how literal you take Acts 17:30.

pinoybaptist wrote:

I do not believe, and I don't think Skandelon has expressed that God *needs* anything. But if the Scriptures reveal that God is a God of means, and that He is pleased to use such means, then why ascribe anything other to Him? God uses the Gospel to convert:

You mentioned Romans 1:16, yet you stoped short of describing to whom Paul was describing:

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Looks like Paul was speaking of a much wider audience then you acsribe to the passage.

Jam 1:18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.

Eph 1:13 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,

1Pe 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

Notice what we are born again *through*!!!

These passages not only reveal the responsibilities of man, but also reveal the means by which God uses to regenerate.

Whether Frogman believes it or not, Skandelon has hit the nail on the head, and has said right that pinoybaptist, by his own words, has proven to be Hyper-Calvinistic, at least in this aspect. You can claim not to be Hyper-Calvinistic, but your doctrines are as such, either way, by saying things as:

This leads to alot of difficulities in passages such as "John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." If this be true, and someone never hears the Gospel of Christ, then are you saying that there will be those who stand before God the Father as elect, and will proclaim to Him "who is this Jesus You speak of?"??? No one has said God can't regenerate outside of the Gospel, only that He is pleased to do so. The passages above explain this.

pinoybaptist, could you give us an example of anyone being regerated outside of the use of the Gospel from the time of Christ's ascension till now?

I'm not saying God *needs* men or the Gospel, and I'm not saying all who hear the Gospel respond, I'm just saying that God is pleased to use the Gospel, and the Gospel is to be proclaimed to all, for knowing who the elect are is God's job alone!

This a little long now, and I've been warned about long posts, so I'll leave this here. I know this has left alot of things open-ended, so let me know about all the questions this will rise.

Theo

 

You cannot be one of the elect without hearing and KNOWING the Gospel. That is clear.

That said, I believe that all of God's elect WILL hear the Gospel!

All that the Father has given to Me WILL Come to Me and he that comes to Me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37)

 

Theo said:

But here again, Theo, my question is, is 'all men' to be taken as meaning all of fallen mankind ? Because like I said somewhere in this thread, if God will demand that all of mankind repent, and you and I know that spiritually dead man cannot and will not repent unless God quickens them first and grants them repentance, then why should God condemn to hell those who are not of His elect, who do not have the ability to repent, because He will not grant them the ability to do so the way He does those who are of His elect ? Do you follow what I am saying ? Therefore, I understand this verse you quoted to mean 'all men' to be the 'us-ward' of 2 Peter 3:9.

Oh, sure Skandelon did. He said the Gospel must be preached in order for men to be saved, perhaps not in this thread, but, in many other threads. That is his position. Therefore, without human agency, God is unable to regenerate His people. I say that God, the Holy Spirit, regenerates His elect, without the need of any means to do so, other than His own power, and having done so, may or may not use means to effect the conversion of His own. I reiterate, the gospel is not unto eternal salvation, but, the good news intended for regenerate sinners who feel the burden of their sins, that their God has secured their salvation, and opened the doors of Heaven, for them, thru the blood of the Lamb of Glory. Here's how the Lord put it:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Again, the question is, is this salvation eternal salvation ? Does the gospel save one eternally ?

And also, where in my post do I narrow down the recipients of this power ? Your adding the last sentence doesn't prove anything, except that now, God has broken down the partition, no more Jew, no more Gentile.

Whose will was exercised by whom ? Whose word was spoken when ? And what was the word of truth ?

What was it they listened to ? The gospel for their salvation, or the gospel of their salvation ? Let me reword it: the good news that brings their salvation, or the good news that tells them of salvation.

So what is the conflict here ? God decreed in eternity past, spoke if you will, worded if you will, that those whose names He wrote down He will cause to be born again, and in due time He did.

Let me ask you a counter question: According to John 1:12-13 why did those who received Jesus Christ in His time, receive Him ? How were they born again ?

Like I said, I cannot be hyper something I am not. I am Primitive Baptist. About the only thing I have in common with a Calvinist is the TULIP.

why should there be difficulties ? Their hearing the gospel or not hearing the gospel does not in anyway negate the truth that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Their knowing the Name of Jesus or not does not negate the fact that 'there is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved'.

That is why I refuse to judge a man's salvation on the basis of his earthly religion or affiliation, because his salvation does not depend on his theology or his church affiliation or his religion. It depends on the will of God, the election of God, and the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

His theology can lead him astray, cause him to be heretical, but it has nothing to do with his eternal salvation.

I don't understand this question. I am saying that there will be those who will be in heaven who never heard the gospel of their salvation proclaimed to them, or who probably never even heard the name of Jesus.

Well, you can try the Ethiopian eunuch for one.
Now, before you laugh, think about it. Did this Ethiopian eunuch believe and have himself baptized because Philip expounded the Isaiah passage to him more clearly, or did he believe because God had opened his heart previously, and then sent Philip to educate him further.

Then you can try Cornelius of Acts 10. Was he a believer before Peter came to him, or after ? Key verse:

But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Try Lydia also Acts 16:14 "whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. "

Try Paul in Acts 9. Be sure to read carefully.

Oh, come on, Theo. That's double speak. No disrespect intended. If God is as you say, pleased to use the gospel that man may be eternally saved, then he must need the agency of man. Does he still send angels today ? Do you believe in visions and dreams and tongues ? I surely hope not.

 

Wow pinoybaptist, you have done some great gymnastics here! Give me a little time, 'cause there is much to respond to in your post. Thanks for the correspondence though!

Theo

 

Why don't we discuss it point by point instead of doing it all at one sitting (or writing) ? Saves space, and we don't break the rule on long posts. Let's start with the gospel message, because that's part of the roots here. Is it meant to save ? Or is it meant to inform. Is hearing it a necessary ingredient of the elect's salvation, or not. Is every mention of the gospel in reference to eternity, or not ?

 

But Acts 17:30 is a little different from 2 Peter 3:9, now isn't it? The immediate context of 2 Peter 3:9 is clear how we should interpret it, but the burden of proof is on you to prove that Acts 17:30 did not mean "all men every where", as the text says. Though we agree that "spiritually dead man cannot and will not repent unless God quickens them first and grants them repentance", you are going way out on my question. What does "all men every where mean to you? We are not talking about regeneration, we are talking about repentance, right? Also, I will extend my question to Skandelon to you as well (only in reverse), how does inability negate responsibility? Answer this and you'll have your answer.

pinoybaptist wrote:

Ok, I'll let Skandelon answer for what he has said in the past. I was speaking in the context of this thread, so...

I say that God the Holy Spirit regenerates His elect by means of the Gospel, and until you answer the passages laid out against your theories, the question still stands. Please show me how the passages you quoted (Matt. 5:3-6) have any relevance within' this conversation???

pinoybaptist wrote about Romans 1:16:

Do what? Where do you get the notion that salvation must be qualified as eternal here? This is called lexical intrusion. You are eisegeting the text, not exegeting. Does the Gospel save? No, and I have not said it did. Does God use the Gospel? Well thats what you have yet to dis-prove, so until you do, it must be "yes", because explaining away the clear meaning of such a passage as this as you do, is quite scary.

pinoybaptist wrote regarding James 1:18:

Um, God's will was exercised. God's word was spoken. And if we let Scripture interpret Scripture, the word of truth is the Gospel. As has been shown. Your not making alot of sense here.

pinoybaptist wrote in regards to Eph. 1:13:

Wow, I don't think you see what you are doing here. If the Gospel is a Gospel of their salvation, then it is a Gospel for their salvation, and visa/versa. What are you asking? This sounds more like a smoke screen, than a defense. And once again, until you let Scripture define Scripture, the traditions you are holding on to just don't add up.

pinoybaptist wrote in regards to 1 Peter 1:23:

You are still avoiding the clear teaching of the text. The conflict is, you desire to claim that God is not a God means, and the Scriptures say He is, that is the conflict. If we are born again through the living and enduring word of God, then why get so huffy puffy when folks like to let the Scriptures speak for themsleves? Where does this passage speak of God's decree's in eternity past? Where does this passage speak of God writing down names?

pinoybaptist said:

I did not say you were a Hyper-Calvinist, I said you were Hyper-Calvinistic! You see the difference???

pinoybaptist wrote in regards to John 14:6:

If you do not know Who your "Way, truth, or life" is, how can you come to the Father? If there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved, how can one be saved otherwise? I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why you would say such things. Let's move on to the next question, for that is the one that tells the tale here.

Theo asked:

pinoybaptist responded:

The question is simple. Regarding your comments, please give us proof of what you are saying. If no man can come to the Father but by Jesus, then how can anyone stand before God as elect and say "Who is Jesus?" Please answer with Scripture, not tradition.

Theo asked:

pinoybaptist responded:

In every example you gace, the Gospel was proclaimed.

The Ethiopian Eunuch - Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
Act 8:37 [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]

Cornelius - Why did the angel tell Cornelius to send for Peter? What was the use in it? If they were saved, as you have suggested, why would Peter have need to come and tell them of the One who died for their sins, and the One whom God has appointed as Judge over them?

Who are the ones who fear God and work righteousness?

According to Lydia, I never said the Gospel saved her, nor that it is not up to God to "open the hearts" of those who hear it, so you should read a little carefully.

Try explaining what you mean about Paul in Acts 9. I'll read your comments carefully.

Theo wrote:

pinoybaptist replied:

How is this double speak? For you to respond in such a way just proves you have not read my response carefully. Because God is pleased to use the Gospel does not mean He needs anything! You are adding to my words now. It's really simple, because God is pleased to use the Gospel, God is pleased to use the "foolishness of the message preached"!!!

1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Your comments about angels, visions, dreams, tongues, etc... are irrelevant to this conversion, and really look more like a diversion, than a response, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Theo

 

Because the very word "responsible" means "response" "able", or able to respond. One who is not able to respond is by very defination of the word not responsible. A baby is not punished for dirty his diaper because he is not able to do otherwise. That is common sense and the very reason people, including believers even those who eventually become Calvinistic, rebell against Calvinistic dogma when they first come to hear it.

The problem Calvinists have is that the bible never addresses that most basic objection which seems quite odd if indeed the authors of scripture held to it. Don't you think the people of biblical times might have objected to such a doctrine in the same way Christians object to it today? I can't believe there is not one objection saying, "Why would God hold mankind responsible when the were born unable to respond?"

Instead, it says things like, they knew God...they clearly saw and understood his divine attributes and eternal qualities and denied him as God so they are without excuse.

And, 'I held out my hand to you all day long..." "I longed to gather you under my wings but you were unwilling." etc etc. Never once does it indicate that their unwillingness was inevitable because of their nature even in the face of God's revelations of Himself to them.

First, let me say that man's freedom is limited. I can desire to fly on my own power all day but no matter how much I flap my arms I'm grounded. I will is limited to my phyical ability. So too I'm limited in other areas by my God given abilities. And I do hold to the doctrine of original sin, so I admit that the consequenses of the fall limited that freedom.

But I must point out that Adam was a free as any man has ever been (except Christ of course) and yet God didn't compromise his sovereignty to create him as such, so the Calvinists that attempt to claim that men having some measure of "freewill" as Adam once had somehow impedes God's sovereignity is bogus. If that were the case then God must have compromised His sovereignity when he created Adam. So, we must at least be able to admit that we could be as free as Adam and still not infringe upon God's sovereign nature. Agreed?

Now, with that said. To what degree did the fall hinder man's God given freedom? Well, I think it is clear from the Genesis account that once man fell that he became more like God in one way, he knew both good and evil. The NT writers speak of this as man's "conscience," which we know is influenced by both good and evil in this world. It can be hardened and it can be broken.

Calvinists teach that men are essentially born hardened. Unable to see, hear, understand and believe the gospel, but the bible NEVER teaches such a doctrine. It does teach that men can and will naturally become hardened if God doesn't interviene. But there is a big difference between BECOMING hardened and being born already hard.

BTW, John 6:44 was Jesus speaking to the Jews, who were a group of hardened people who became hardened after years of rejecting God. God in return, "gave them over" or judicially hardened or sealed them in their unbelief in order to accomplish a purpose through them. From the Jews God selected and I believe effectually called out a remnant of Jews to carry his message to the world. God sovereignly interviened to accomplish his ultimate purpose. So, what we have in John 6 is Jesus telling the people, that they can't come to him because they are being hardened and it hasn't been granted to them to be apostles or among the firstfruits of the faith. Instead, he is going to accomplish a purpose through their unbelief (cross and ingrafting the Gentiles). This hardening wasn't necessarily unto certain death, however, because as we see in Romans 10 and 11, Paul fully expected that the Gentiles ingrafting would provoke the Jews to envy and possibly even salvation. Even God's hardening was an act of mercy as God attempted one last time to provoke their wills.

Sorry, I'm writing a book, I'll stop there.

 

I do not believe, and I don't think Skandelon has expressed that God *needs* anything. But if the Scriptures reveal that God is a God of means, and that He is pleased to use such means, then why ascribe anything other to Him? God uses the Gospel to convert:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRONG! I never said "NEED". I agree with Theo on this point. The Gospel is the means God has chosen to use in his sovereign plan. This is not about what God could do, we all agree He could do anything He wanted to do. This is about what God DOES DO based upon his revelation through the scripture. The scripture clearly points out, as Theo has quoted, that the gospel is the chosen means.

Now, whether or not God has chosen to save some apart from those means is really up to Him, but we can only go on what scripture has revealed. I know God has commanded us to go into all the world and preach this gospel to ALL CREATURES.

If you want to perform some more scriptural gymnatics and make "all creatures" mean "all the elect" go right ahead but your not convincing me unless you can get God to rewrite the words.

 

Theo and Skandelon:

Sorry I was not able to post back right away. I'll be right back. Just waiting for my eyes to clear up. I'm diabetic and sometimes when my blood sugar is really high, my eyes go blurred for days.

Check you out later.

 

Theo & Skandelon:

And others who may wish to participate in the discussion. In deference to Gina whose post was not about what we are now discussing, but about whether Calvinists pray or not, I will start a new thread.

Thank you.

 

Hey there Skandelon,

Thank you for your posts, and the demeanor in which you posted. These are heated discussions sometimes, and I'm as guilty as anyone of getting a little too overly worked-up because of them, so thank you for your demeanor and your correspondence.

You responded to the question "How does responsibility negate inability:

What you have done here is what you called "man-made philosophical or logical ideas" earlier in this thread. Let me create a scenario as well.

If you have a guy who goes out drinking and driving, and kills several people, when he stands before the judge, can he plead not guilty based on his inability's to drive? No! He is still held responsible for killing folks even though he was inable to operate his car properly.

You wrote:

Well, yeah, when you tell people that they are actually not in the driver's seat, when tradition has told them all along that they are, then rebellion is natural. Common sense tells me that, if you think your "decision" saved you, then you are at the very least, a co-savior, right? If it took your "decision" to initiate your salvation, then Christ's atonement, in that system, was only a plan, and the odds are, given Scriptures proclamation of the state of man, that no one would ever "choose" Christ, and His atonement would be in vain.

You wrote:

Actually, they did!

Joh 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."
Joh 6:66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

When Jesus taught these people of their inabilities, they "objected", so much so, that followed Him no more.

The rest of your discussion seems to be implying things out of context. Take your quotation of Matthew 23:37 for example:

Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Who is "Jerusalem" in the context of this passage? It is the religious leaders of that day. This is the summary of one of the most harsh rebukes from the Savior these people received. Often times people will quote this and imply that the religious leaders are the ones who were "unwilling" to be gathered as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but that is not what the passage is saying. Notice the context: "your children". It was Christ's desire to gather the religious leaders "children", but the religious leaders were "unwilling" to let Him gather them. This passage is in no way, shape, or form inplying that Christ desired to gather the religious leaders who were unwilling. Nothing in this passage suggests that Christ never gathered those whom He desired to gathered either, only that the religious leaders have been judged for not allowing it.

You wrote:

You hold to a limited form of original sin. I see that from Scripture that the Fall was a complete Fall, resulting in spiritual death. Paul uses such terms as "dead in sins". Paul doesn't say "sick in sins", or "limited in sins". As I have said before, one who is dead must be made alive. I too believe that Adam and Eve was created with what you would call a freewill, but after the Fall, that will was enslaved to sin, and bound to sin. Adam, as Federal Head of all mankind, has passed on to us a spiritual deadness that man is unable to remedy, hence, all the verses that describe inability.

This discussion could go back to such doctrines as Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, and I could ask "Did God know Adam would sin?", and if so, "why did God plant the tree there in the Garden knowing what the result would be"? To honestly answer such a question, you must either appeal to the sovereignty of God, or to Open Theism. I'll wait and see where you go with this one.

You wrote:

Agreed, if you mean after the Fall. I do not claim that man has no will, I only agree with the Scriptures to the fact that man's will is slave to sin, bound to sin, and dead in sin, not just sick, but dead.

You wrote:

It is a universal concept that all who are "dead" cannot see, hear, or be able to do anything. Agreed? If this be the case, then you have taken the term "dead" to mean just a little sick, or maybe going down for the last time but somebody throws a lifesaver to you, where I take it for what it means. You can throw a lifesaver to a dead man all day long, and he will not respond, he is dead. Maybe we should talk a little more about how you define the term "dead".

You wrote:

You will hard pressed with a burden of proof to fight for the inclusive/exclusive argument here in John 6:44, especially when these were things Jesus was teaching in the synogogue in Capernaum. There were Jews, yes, but some of these Jews were called His disciples (surface followers who wanted literal bread instead of spiritual food), yet we read later in that chapter that:

Joh 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."
Joh 6:66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

And after this, Jesus turns to the twelve. But even if you fight for the stance you are taking, at what point does the liberatrian freewill of not get imposed upon by God, as you said, judicailly hardens? Belief is not a work of man, it is a work of God:

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

Phi 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,

Also, thank you Skandelon for clearing up what I thought you were being charged with falsely. I never saw you say God *needed* anything, so thank you for responding to that. Also, since we both agree about the use of the Gospel, maybe this will factor in as we correspond about the things we have been corresponding about. I am really enjoying our conversation!

Theo

 

Problem. Was he able to not drink? Yes. Was he able to not drive after he drank? Yes. Was he able to get a designated driver before he drank? Yes. Was he able to give up his keys before he started drinking? Yes.

This is why he is responsible.

Now if he was born at the wheel as an infant and expected to drive effectively and wrecked killing several people and still held accountable, then you scenerio would match the Calvinistic premise.

To deny that there is a decision that must be made is no different than dening that the gospel must be preached. The means is a faith based decision, even Calvinists acknowledge this truth. Granted they believe the decision is caused by an effectual call of God, but still their is a decision. If you want to define that decision as the "cause" of salvation and dismiss it accordingly then you have a problem with the text not Arminianism. Just as one "cannot" be saved apart from the means of the gospel, so too one "cannot" be save apart from the means of a faith based choice of man. We can debate the resistability and source of faith if you would like, but I don't think you want to debate the causuality of that decision, it doesn't serve your purpose.

Don't you see that the Jews of that day were being hardened. The gospel was being hidden from them in parable and their eyes were being blinded by the "spirit of stupor." This is why they could not come to Christ, it has nothing to do with their being born Totally depraved, it has to do with their being temporarily and purposefully hardened in their rebellion. But the Gentiles will listen (Acts 28:28) when the message is sent to the world.

OH, so effectual calling is only effectual to those God calls but it might not be effectual to the religious leaders who govern the elect ones and they can apparently prevent people from coming to Christ?

The point is God was willing and they were not. Do you deny that? I can point to dozens of texts that indicate God's "holding out his hands to a rebellious and obstinate people." Its never been about God's lack of desire to save. (2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim 2:4) Its always been about man's lack of desire to believe God and obey. I think Calvinists believe that, don't they? Isn't that the "T" of TULIP? You need to ask yourself why you are arguing this point. It seems contradictory.

All those verses you are refering to speak of man's inability WITHOUT God's intervention. Even you have acknowledged in an earlier post that the Gospel is God's means of intervention. You must find a verse that teaches that means is not enough. You need a verse that says men cannot respond in faith to the truth of the gospel because they are born unable, or at least something to that effect.

Being a Calvinist for many year myself, I can tell you what you are going to find. You will find verses that tell you that man cannot do anything on his own. And you will find verses that man cannot submit to God's law. And you will find verses that speak of the Jews being hardened in there rebellion. But trust me, you will not ever find a passage that teaches the gospel in not sufficeint to save. You will not find a verse that says man is so fallen that the powerful Holy Spirit wrought Word is not capable of bringing a dead man to life. It doesn't exist.

I believe God put the tree in the garden knowing Adam's choice. I believe God bound ALL men over to disobiedience so that he might have mercy on them ALL. I believe God allowed the fall for a divine purpose. You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe that. You only have to read a bit of Arminius yourself to pick up on that. He sounds much more "Calvinistic" than most Calvinists today.

You wrote:

According to Paul you are dead to sin. So are you unable to see, hear or do sinful things? Dead is a metaphor discribing ignorance. A Jewish father would say to a rebellious son, "You are dead to me." Did it mean "unable" to be seen or heard? No, it meant that he was going to treat him as if he wasn't there. He was going to "ignore" him. "Ignore" is "ignorance". God is dead to those who don't know he is there. Why? Because they are ignorant. The gospel is knowledge. It is the light. Ignorance is darkness. The gospel overcomes ignorance. Some choose to continue in ignorance even after being exposed to the light and thus are self hardened. That is their own fault and according to Romans 1 they are without excuse.

But it really doesn't matter if I were to define "dead" as meaning unable to see, hear, understand. The question is this, "Can the gospel message overcome that condition?" Paul says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Jesus said his words were the power of the spirit. And the NT teaches that the word is sharper than any doubled edge sword. You believe that it is powerless unless it comes to those who have been effectually called, a means that is never expounded upon in the text.

Like I said, you need a verse that says God's sending Christ to preach and die and calling the apostles to preach and write the inspired word was not enough intervention to overcome man's fallen condition. You need a verse that says the means of the effectual calling is also necessary.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't being clear. No ONE could come to Jesus, the God-Man in flesh, unless it was granted by the Father. In other words, the apostles were hand picked. That wasn't granted to just anyone. All people, especially the Jews, were being kept at arms length from Christ. Why? He had a single purpose and it was not to convince everyone to believe in him. It was to offer himself as atonement. That could only be done in an unbelieving world. But he planned for his departure by selecting men to carry his message to the world. To them it was granted to come to Christ at that time. But as John 12 clearly teaches once Christ is raised up he will draw all men to himself. Until he is raise up he is hiding the message (Matt. 13).

Oh, I know that our conversation about the gospel will help you see the error of you ways.

I too enjoy this.

 

Hey Skandelon,

You said:

Hehehe, that was funny. Not being demeaning, I just didn't explain myself well enough, but the thing about being "born behind the wheel", that was cool.

Anyway, in resonse to your question "Problem. Was he able to not drink?", well yes, but are you able to not be born with a sinful nature? Do you hold to Pelagianism? Do you not see the parallel? Do you not see from the Scriptures that even though man is dead in sin, he is still gonna be held accountable? Liken the drunk driver to our sinful nature.

You said:

I'm not sure how you get that I'm denying a decision must be made from my response. I never said that. What I am saying is that no one will make that decision unless God opens their eyes to do so. Who is the Author and Finisher of our faith, the individual, or Christ? Who is it that grants it unto us to believe, God or ourselves? I do not deny that a decision must be made, as I do not deny that the Gospel must be preached. What text are you speaking of? A faith based choice of man is nothing generated through the man, but rather something generated foreign from the man. If you know these things, why are you charging me falsely? That doesn't serve any purpose.

You said:

To say "the Jews of that day were being hardened" goes against your purpose! If God violated their libertarian freewill, then how does that line up with your theories about freewill?

I agree, they were being hardened, but that doesn't mean they were not spiritually blind from the get go, your presuppositions demand you believe such, not the Scriptures.

Oh, about the Gentiles, what about those in Acts 13:48? Keep with the chronology there please.

You said:

You should read more carefully! Did I not say "Nothing in this passage suggests that Christ never gathered those whom He desired to gathered either, only that the religious leaders have been judged for not allowing it.". Please read why I'm saying what I say before you accuse me of things I didn't say.

You said:

Who was He willing to gather? The religious leaders, or the religious leaders' children, as the text says? If this point seems contradictory to you, it is because you don't understand my position. Read what I have wrote, not what you think I believe.

Check this out when you get a chance if you want to see the Calvinist view of God's will:

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/2wills.html

You said:

Where have I said that God's means are not enough? Where have I said it is anything or anyone other than God that makes dead sinners alive? I don't understand where you are trying to go here.

You said:

Are there levels of fallen-ness? If not, why use terms such as so fallen? Are there levels of deadness? Man is fallen and dead, period! And I have said nothing other than it takes the mighty work of God the Holy Spirit to regenerate, and He is pleased to use the Gospel as a means of doing so. If you know my response, why accuse me of things I did not insinuate? C'mon Skandelon, what is your purpose? If you know the Calvinist argument (since you had been one for many years), then why insinuate an argument you know I'm not gonna agree with? I'm not looking for a verse that says God is hindered, you are. What your view tells us is that the God of the Universe can't do with His creations as He wills because of the almighty libertarian freewill of the creature.

You said:

Ah, the subtlety of such words. Did God "allow" it, or "decree" it?

You said:

The burden of proof is on you to prove your "Jewish father" analogy. I guess Lazarus was only ignorant, huh?

But anyway, once again, where have I said that the Gospel message, through the quickening of the Holy Spirit cannot overcome sin? Please tell me!!!

You said:

If all men are drawn in John 12, why did Jesus say what He said in John 6? The passage in John 12 is about "Kinds of men". Go back and catch the context:

Joh 12:20 Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast;
Joh 12:21 these then came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to ask him, saying, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus."

The context? Greeks and Jews. So clear is the context, that the NKJV renders this passage:

"... I will draw all peoples to Myself."

I'll be glad to talk more about John 12 if you like.

You said:

You may be a hairy tick, but I like your humor!!! Thanks for conversation. I know my folly is huge, and this is really fun!

Theo

 

No, I'm not Pelagian. I don't have a problem with believing the truth that we are born sinful and in need of a savior. Like I said, I confirm the historical doctrine of Original sin, its Total Depravity that I have issues with. Why? Because the Bible doesn't teach that men are born unable to respond in faith to God's revelations of himself. It says men are sinful, yes, guilty, yes, unable to respond to God's revelations of himself, only if they have been judicially hardened as the Jews were (Acts 28:21-28; John 12:38-41; Matt. 13; Mark 4; Romans 10-11 etc).

Correct. And the means God has appointed to open men's eyes is the gospel message, not some irresistable calling that the scripture never once expounds upon.

Christ is the author of our faith in the way that Muhammed authored his faith. It doesn't mean that Christ comes into us and has the faith for us, it is OUR faith in what He authored. Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense when Christ rebuked men for their lack of faith, would it? If you were correct then Jesus should rebuke himself for not having faith for them, or at least for not giving faith to them. That becomes silly non-sense. It would be like me rebuking my child for not knowing how to read when I never taught him. Now, if I taught him and he refused to read then my rebuke would be justified, but to rebuke someone for not having something you refuse to grant them is absurd.

God has granted for all to believe upon his word, first to the Jew then to the Gentile.

Yes its generated foreign from the man in that the gospel comes from God and generates faith when it is heard and heeded. "Listen and obey."

My theories, or what you think are my theories based upon what you know about "Arminian" theology? I was right where you are a couple of years ago because I had been debating ignorant Arminians. There are very few Armininans, it seems to me, that really even know the issues at hand which is why so many Calvinists today are so certain they are right. I beg of you to read Arminius and the men like Adam Clarke before you become overly certain of your doctrinal stance. Most would be Calvinists are disswaded, in my experience, if they do an honest study of historical Arminian theology and really deal with both side of the issue.

I have no problem with the biblical teaching that God hardened rebellious men in their rebellion after years of patient longsuffering, but to say that must mean it is ok to teach that due to the fall God chose to hardened all men from birth is quite a different doctrine. Romans 9 is about God's hardening a rebellious people who he sought after for centuries, its not about people being born hardened and non-elect without hope of ever being saved. In fact, those hardened in Romans 9 might be saved according to Romans 11. Hardened does not mean certainly condemned to hell, it was temporary. And being shown mercy doesn't mean certainly saved. God shows all men mercy, but not all are saved.

Please explain to me the purpose is blinding a blind man? The Jews were a stubborn self hardened group of people and God sealed them in that state of rebellion with the exception of a remnant who he reserved to carry the message of the cross to the world. Even in hardening them he was showing them mercy for the ingrafting of the Gentiles might provoke some of them to envy and they too could see the error of their ways and be saved (Romans 11:14). What does provoking men to envy have to do with salvation in the Calvinistic system? Is the effectual calling not provoking enough to do the trick? Provoking has to do with the human will and envy is quite a powerful tool. God used it for good.

To answer that question let me ask you one. How would the Christian Jews of the 1st century have known that the Gentiles were also chosen by God to enter his covenant through faith? Besides being told by Paul or Peter, what would convince them that God really had chosen those dirty Gentiles too? Think about that and give me a honest answer.

Read the last verse of Romans 10 and tell me that is a God who doesn't desire to gather them ALL, even the obstantant ones.

I'm basing my statements upon your believe in the "I" of TULIP. Also refered to as "effectually calling," without which the gospel is powerless to do anything within your system. You add to the means of the gospel by teaching it must be preceded by the effectual calling of God. (When I say "you" I mean historical Calvinism, but if you want to redefine something please go ahead.)

You said:

You think I am because you think you understand Arminianism. Maybe I've gone to far too fast with you on this thread. I've just debated this through so many times that sometimes I'm not as clear. Forgive me.

Let me start again. My purpose first is to show you that Total Depravity is a false doctrine. The scripture never teaches that man cannot respond in faith to the gospel. That is a man made doctrine. That is why I've been asking for verses that teach men cannot be regenerated apart from the gospel. You see, I equate the gospel with "a divine work of God." Calvinists seem to teach that the gospel is just one part of the divine work that is only effective if it comes after the effectual calling. See my point. I'm arguing the gospel is the only call of God and Calvinists argue that there are two calls. The effectual calling (irresistable) and the general calling (the gospel.) I don't see that supported in the text. I hope that is more clear.

Ahh Ahh Ahh, we agreed that if God could create Adam with a "free will" without limiting His own sovereignty then he could have left us with some form of that freedom without any such limitations. This is not about what God can or can't do, we all agree He can do anything. This is about what God chooses to do.

Depends on your defination. If decree means to allow, yes. If it means to cause, no. God did not cause evil. James is clear that God has tempted no man to evil, much less caused it.

You're connecting phyical death to spiritual death as perfectly innerchangable and the point of my analogies was to show that doesn't have to be the case. Sproul wrote it in "Chosen By God" and now it must be true, I guess. Death has more than one meaning and as I have stated unless you are unable to see, hear or do sin then how can you be dead to it? Face it, dead can have more meanings than the simplicitic link to physical deadness.

Notice you add, "the quickening of the Holy Spirit" through which the gospel must accomplish its power. Thats is just another term for what Calvinists refer to as the effectual calling. I believe the quickening comes through faith, not faith through the quickening. We are made alive through faith in the gospel. Read those verses you quoted about the gospel earlier and notice that the means for life is through the gospel, not some secret effectual calling.

You said:

Did you read my post? In John 6 he is talking to them in the present tense. None of them can come to him while he is on earth and learn from him unless it had been granted by the Father. In fact, until his job was completed on the cross no one could come to him unless the Father drew them, but once that was accomplished he would draw all men. Which yes could refer to both Jews and Greeks. Just as when the scripture speaks about choosing people, he could be refering to the group and not necessarly individuals. It goes both ways.

If I'm a hairy tick that makes you a dog. BTW, Theo I've been wandering how is Rudy, Vanessa, Bill and the rest of the family?

 

Skandelon,

Hey bro, I'm kinda busy for a few days, but I will get back to you soon on your comments. Thanks for your patience.

You said:

Woof Woof!!! I'm thinking maybe you have me mixed up with another Theo. I don't have anyone in my family by that name, but Kelly (my wife), and my three daughters (Chloe' age 6, Sophia age 4, and Lydia age 2) are all doing great! Thanks for asking...I think...

Theo