Dealing with ONE of many misconceptions of Non-Calvinistic Theology

I did understand that you did NOT hold this view, but that you did affirm the need of some "lessor" type of inward working so as to enable a faith response. I don't necessarily disagree with that view, I just think that the inward change is a direct result of the outward/normative means, not an additional working.

And I agree that is needed, in that mankind wouldn't understand the mysteries of the gospel had the gospel not been sent. Mankind wouldn't have understood the plan of redemption without the special revelation of God, so I affirm the NEED for God's revelation. However, I just believe that the means God chose to meet that need of mankind was accomplished through the normative/outward means of apostolic inspiration of scripture, the church, and the HS's indwelling and guiding of those who believe in His inspired revelation. IOW, I believe God must work inwardly to help man understand, but I believe He always accomplishes this through his appointed means.

So, to compare. When a 18 year old lost kid is confused about the scriptures and seeking answers is approached by a minister and lead to repentance and faith. You MIGHT say, "Had the Holy Spirit not inwardly worked to give the kid understanding he couldn't have come to faith." Where as I would say, "The Holy Spirit inspired the gospel, indwells the minister, prompts the minister to go, so if the kid doesn't believe its not the Holy Spirit's fault, its the kids."

If the means the HS used (gospel, messenger, church) doesn't work it doesn't mean those means are insufficient, it just means the person is resisting the clear revelation and thus are accountable for it. If the kid does accept then credit goes to the HS because he brought the means through which faith and repentance were granted. Make sense? I'm not asking for agreement, just that you see the distinction as I see it.

I agree, and Christ accomplished that through a blinding light and later sending Ananias, a messenger. He didn't just "flip a switch" so to speak so that Paul magically understands something he couldn't understand before (not saying that is your view, but just the simplest way I know how to describe that view). He has a messenger explain it so that Paul can understand it. He sent the sign so that he would believe the messenger. All outward/normative means.

I do have a question on this point: How is it that the natural men described by Paul in Romans 1 could "know God" and "clearly see and understand his divine nature and eternal qualities" by merely seeing His creation and know right from wrong through their inherent conscience, but somehow can't understand a clear explanation of what Christ did for them on the Cross when spoken in simple terms in their very own language?

I know there are several passages which indicate that some can't understand or accept the gospel, but those passages are in reference to Israel who the gospel is being hidden from. They are being sent a "spirit of stupor" and blinded from the gospel truth "lest they repent and are healed." This is a temporary condition and redemptive in purpose, not a condition of mankind from birth.

Again, I don't think we disagree on this principle. I think we only disagree as to the way (means) in which God has chosen to 'open the eyes.'

For example, have you seen the Charlton Heston version of The Ten Commandments, where Moses goes to Pharaoh and demands freedom for Israel? Remember the scene where after one of the plagues that Pharaoh is contemplating letting them go when a woman whispers in his ear, "Don't let him convince you with magic tricks," and the narrator says something like, "God used a woman to hardened Pharaoh's heart...." The means were a woman whispering in his ears, but ultimately it was God's will to blind Pharaoh for a time from the truth, so as to accomplish the Passover. In the same way, God hardens Israel for a time to accomplish the real Passover. I think he hardens and opens men's hearts through "normative" means simply because that seems to be his mode of operation throughout all of scripture. Sometimes it explains it in more detail than others, but I think God is consistent in the manner in which he deal with us, so when it says "God hardened him" or "God opened his eyes" or whatever, I think it means God worked through His normal means to accomplish that, but we should still recognize it as God's work.

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I do understand your view and as I explained, I'm not sure we disagree in principle, but just in practice.

 

I think there is an important distinction here. Here is one quote from a Calvinistic scholar describing Total Inability:

"Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God."

In this definition He has distinguished himself from the more classical view of depravity as held by Arminians, IMO. He did so when he said, "it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance..."

Another explanation from the Synod of Dort states:

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform. -Synod of Dort
I know that the authors of this article intended this to mean that the Holy Spirit must irresistably and inwardly regenerate the man before he can "return to God." But they don't say that. Arminians agree that it takes the grace of the Holy Spirit for regeneration to occur.

I agree with this statement from the Synod of Dort in the since that the Holy Spirit must work to bring regeneration, which I believe He does through the means of the gospel, not the means of some secret irresistable calling. So, it seems to me that some "Arminians" could claim to believe in some explanations and definitions of Total Depravity, but not others. If the definition of TD includes the presumption that only an irresistible working of regeneration will do, then it can't be consistently Arminian. Sproul makes a strong case for this in his book Chosen by God.