God, That's not fair!

Skan and Eric

My apologies for the longer than expected delay in reply to remainder of your points. I've just finished relocating Mum to a residential home and the negotiations, consultations, and disposal of furniture, etc. was much more than I anticipated.

It did give me time to mull over your excellent objection to Total Depravity, Skan, so it has been spiritually profitable too.

The objection is that 'lest' or 'otherwise' in John 12:40 ("He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.")
means that these folk could have savingly believed had not God hardened their hearts, and consequently Total Depravity cannot be true.

I've never encountered this objection before and in the past few weeks I've been reading many commentators to see if they dealt with it. None so far. Even the works dedicated to the defence of Calvinism seem not to have encountered it. I then asked some friends had they thought about this and most said No.

My initial response to you (post 3125) - I'll paste it here for convenience: Now to this 'hard' text for T.D. We read that not only God but also the god of this age has blinded certain people, 2 Cor.4:4. When did these blindings occur? Were they born blind? Were they born blind and later confirmed in that blindness? Or did they see clearly and then become blind? Did their blindness deepen? Romans 1 suggests a progression of blindness: one is born blind - not seeing the truth about God in its saving fulness - but seeing enough with our conscience and reason to leave us without excuse. We then descend into further darkness as we reject the light we have. Then God gives us over to the consequences of such a mind. Then the elect are granted to see His glory in the face of Jesus Christ. But the non-elect are left in their blindness.

I think it consistent with Scripture to conceive that out Lord spoke here in John 12 in figurative terms of a hardening in blindness on the majority of Jewish nation. The 'lest' then is idiomatic, not literal. It is to point up the extremity of their unbelief in the face of His great signs.

To that I now add:
first, an article from a friend who had given it some thought:
I believe that this is a very good question from the Arminian perspective, and one that deserves serious consideration, and a reasonable response. If all of the unregenerate are already dead in trespasses and sins, blind and deaf to any perception of the truth of God’s revelation, and utterly incapable of responding via faith (as the doctrine known as “total depravity” teaches), then they (the Arminians) do well to wonder at the significance of what we find in this and other related passages.

If the "matter of saving faith" is in view, it is in the intentional prevention of this by God.

I have recently studied the following related passage:
Romans 11:7-10, 25 -
“7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day. 9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.” “25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.”

Compare also: Dt. 29:4; Ps. 69:22-23; Is. 6:9-10; Mt. 13:14; Mk. 4:11-12; Lk. 8:10; Jn. 12:40; Ac. 28:26-27; 2 Cor. 3:14-15

[Note: A. T. Robertson speaks of this as “a terrible imprecation” (_Word Pictures_).]

There are several possible responses to the issues raised by such passages that I can imagine:

1. On the part of semi-Pelagians such as Arminians who deny the doctrine of total depravity there could be several variants, for example –

1) They must be capable of seeing, hearing, and believing apart from this judgmental curse of God. Those coming at such passages from this doctrinal slant would see this as implicitly taught in these passages. They would no doubt insist that the judgment mentioned is meaningless if they were already blind, deaf, and incapable of faith, as taught in Reformed doctrine. They would see this as directly contradicting that doctrine, and would insist that those holding to total depravity have no reasonable explanation for the reality of this imprecation and its fulfillment.

2) Another variant common to the Wesleyan brand of semi-Pelagianism would teach that the ability to see, hear and believe, while not inherent in all the unregenerate, nevertheless comes to them coordinate with the ministry of the Gospel via the Spirit. Their take on these passages is that God deprives some of this normal spiritual blessing due to their prior failures to respond in faith.

2. For those who align themselves within the Reformed tradition as believing the doctrine of the total depravity and utter inability of the unregenerate -

1) Some may explain these passages as teaching that the blindness/deafness indicated there lies in the silencing of the prophets and teachers, and in the “dark” communications of the Word as in parables. This would then be focused on something quite external to the persons seen as objects of the imprecation.

2) While I see some justification for this viewpoint, my understanding of these passages thus far would, however, lead me to conclude that much more is intended, and indeed, something more focused on an internal level. I would characterize what these imprecations constitute as “the blinding of the blind” and “the deafening of the deaf”. For those familiar with Bunyan’s and Perkin’s charts depicting God’s sovereign dealings with mankind in election and reprobation this should be familiar ground. The fact of the matter is that the doctrine of total depravity, rightly understood, has never taught that the reprobate are necessarily as “bad” as they could be, or in as bad a condition as they could be. In other words, there is something worse than total depravity! There is something worse than mere reprobation! It is “progress” in depravity, or rather declension in reprobation (cp. Rom. 1:18ff.). . Just as there is progress in holiness for the elect, so there is declension in sin for the reprobate (cp. Mt. 12:45; Lk. 11:26).

What many seem incapable of comprehending is that God can and does increase the sinfulness of the reprobate merely by withholding His restraining grace in some measure, and by hindering the reprobate from experiencing the normal guilty response to the Spirit’s convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (cp. 2 Th. 2). Scripture seems to indicate that there is benefit in exposure to the Word of God (Heb. 3-4), and the people of God (1 Cor. 7:14), whereby the normal sinful behavior of the unregenerate may be lessened temporarily through these positive “influences”.

What God does in judgment (Rom. 1, 2 Th. 2, etc.) is to increase the declension of the reprobate away from Him and His truth and towards the Liar and his lies. What God appears to be doing to Israel in the passages in question is something worse than the natural blindness and deafness of the unregenerate. It is an additional blindness and deafness whereby they not only fail to see, hear and believe His Gospel, but negatively are incited to much greater opposition to it and more passionate adherence to error. The “veil” mentioned in 2 Cor. 3:14-15 is something beyond the ordinary experience of the rest of the unregenerate portion of mankind. There is something worse than blindness and deafness, and that is when God, in judgment, blinds the blind, and deafens the deaf. When God curses those under the curse, and judges those under the judgment, He apparently does more than merely withhold His goodness which would normally provoke at least movement towards repentance (Rom. 2:1-9). He adds His severity which has the opposite effect.

The bottom line here is that there is a blindness darker than that of the “run of the mill” unregenerate person, and a deafness deafer than that experienced by those reprobates not under Israel’s curse. There is a working out of depravity within the depraved, and an increasing decline of the reprobate in sinful rebellion against God. There is an aggravation coordinate with the light God has shed on an individual or a group, and wherein their judgment reflects their responsibility towards God for what He has exposed them to. There is a sense in which “the totality of depravity” has not been fully realized even within those who begin by birth as “totally depraved”. The manifestation of depravity can be accelerated by the judgment of God. I believe that is precisely what we see concerning Israel in these passages.

Secondly, I add my own agreement with this friend's view - that it is a deepening of the Jews' darkness that is in view. So much should have been expected of this favoured nation, but their rebellion is met with God's judicial hardening, so that it is only a remnant that believes and the rest are marked by unusual hostility and unresponsiveness to the gospel. That has characterised the Jewish nation down to this day. They are not like the rest of mankind who are merely blind with Total Depravity - the majority of the Jews have that blindness plus the special hardening God has consigned them to, until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.

God has cut them of from the means He uses to convert man; the hearing and understanding of the Word. The 'lest' is a way of saying that had He treated them like He does the Gentiles, then they would have had the same response as the Gentiles do. But He has shut the majority of the Jews up to disobedience, until His appointed time. He is perfectly just in doing so, just as He had shut up the Gentiles previously. All are guilty and deserve only wrath. But He has mercy on some, whom He will.

I'll respond to other issues raised in your and Eric's last posts later, DV.

In Him

Ian

 

Skandelon said,
How do you mean "idiomatic?" I know what the word means, it refers to a mode of expression peculiar to a language. So I assume you mean the phrase "lest they believe" is idiomatic to the Greek language in some way. Do you have any kind of support for this claim from a Greek scholar who could give examples of how this particular phrase was used as an idiomatic expression among the Greeks of that day? And since the phrase is translated from Hebrew originally as it was a quote from the prophets would also contend that it is idiomatic in the Hebrew language as well? I really don't see how that could be. Aren't idiomatic phrases from one language translated into what the really mean in another?

Yes, it is my poor grasp of English grammar that has led to my using ‘idiomatic’. Your definition is accurate.
Let me try to phrase it better: The Spirit was revealing the condition and fate of these Jews and in doing so expressed only the particulars that were relevant to His purposes. He reveals their hardening, and what they are hardened against, but leaves out other aspects of the whole truth about the matter. It is this telling of only the relevant parts of a story that I need the grammatical term for. We would not consider it grammatically incorrect to make such a statement. It is a way of communicating a truth. It is not exhaustive, but it adequately sets forth the central truth to be revealed.
The truth here set forth is that these Jews were to be hardened, blinded, deafened to God’s word to the end that they would perish in their sins. The truth not discussed is that of their already hard, blind, deaf condition due to Total Depravity.

So then the meaning of the prophecy was not that folk who were perfectly able to repent are barred from it by God; but rather that hard-hearted sinners, already enslaved by their sins, unable to change their behaviour, with minds at enmity with God, were to be wholly given over to that condition, with repentance being ruled out for them. They were to perish in their sins. Other sinners, some from among them and some from among the Gentiles, were to be granted repentance – but not them.


Ok, but this does seem to be a departure from historical teaching of Total Depravity. I know TD has never meant they are as bad as that could be but to say that they are less blind, less deaf, or more able to understand before hardening? That is quite a departure isn't it? And it puts quite a stress on that text especially in light of the fact that it reveals their ability had the hardening not been imposed with the "otherwise/lest" phrase.

I’m not sure it is a departure. Anything I’ve read on Calvinism accepts increase of blindness in the sense I’ve expressed. As to their ability implied by ‘otherwise/lest’, the point I’m making is that 'otherwise/lest' was not in immediate relationship to repentance but through the means of opportunity granted by God. He was withdrawing that opportunity.


How would a "dead" man be responsive to the exposure of the Word within your system? That doesn't seem consistant to me.

The ‘dead’ can respond to the Word in every respect except savingly. They can hate the message and the messenger and the One preached; they can be smitten with guilt/fear and seek to be reconciled to this One, but only on their own terms. The parable of the soils reveals the reaction of ‘dead’ sinners. It is only good soil that brings forth fruit. To speak plainly, it is only when those who are dead in trespasses and sins are made alive that they bear fruit to God.

But the text doesn't say the hardening was to deepen their depravity by making them blinder, deafer etc. and then incite them to greater opposition. That must be pressumed upon the text while completely ignoring the so-called "idiomatic" phrase that follows. Why would you want to practice such textual gymnatics if you don't have to?

The text does say that the hardening was to make certain the nation’s destruction, i.e. No repentance was to be granted them. It was to be spoken to an already rebellious nation, hard-hearted and blind. To me that entails a clear increase in blindness and rebellion. I don’t see any gymnastics involved.

I could understand working so hard to harmonize this passage with others that really support TD but there aren't any others. The verse you have like Romans 8 and I Cor. 2:14 are questionable at best and don't even mention man's ability to respond in faith to the gospel. I just can't think of any good reason to impose this type of explaination unless you are being driven to prop up an unbiblical system. Maybe instead of defending Calvinism and making the scripture bend to fit, try defending the scripture and bend your Calvinism to fit. Just a suggestion.

Rom.8: 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 1 Cor.2: 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
You may object that this applies to the regenerate man also, that ‘carnal’ Christians are in view, and they certainly are not Totally Depraved. But the case for T.D. is established by these verses, for that carnal mind that besets the Christian is now only an unwelcome lodger with whom we war daily, but it is the only occupier in the case of the unsaved. We as Christians cannot reconcile it to God, much less the lost, who are totally controlled by it. It is their mind, their nature; they have no other, and they CANNOT know God or be subject to His law.

To these verses let me add:
Gen.8: 21And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
Ps.51: 5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
Ps.58: 3The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Jer.13: 23Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.
John 6: 44No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 8: 43Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.
Acts 16: 14Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
Rom.6: 20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Eph.2: 1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.

Dead in sins, slaves to sin, needing our hearts opened: a good description of T.D.


I had said, ‘God has cut them of from the means He uses to convert man; the hearing and understanding of the Word.’
But why? So they won't see, hear and understand otherwise they might. That is the only logical answer and it's even the answer the text gives. Why give another?

It is not another; it is the same reason but mediated by the use of means. God removes them from the opportunity of repentance.

I further said, ‘The 'lest' is a way of saying that had He treated them like He does the Gentiles, then they would have had the same response as the Gentiles do.’
Which was to believe, right? That is my point. Had he not hardened them, they might have believed.

Hmm, I see how I confused you. Let me try again; The Gentiles only have T.D. to be removed by God. He removes that from those whom He has chosen among them. He could have treated the Jewish nation likewise. But for their wickedness in rebelling against so much light, He determines that the majority of them shall not have this mercy that their privileged position would suggest. It was expected that ALL of the nation would be saved, for they were the people of the Promise. It was expected that ALL would have had their naturally hard hearts changed, in accordance with Ezek.36. But God removed even the degree of mercy He shows to the Gentiles.

I had said, ‘But He has shut the majority of the Jews up to disobedience, until His appointed time. He is perfectly just in doing so, just as He had shut up the Gentiles previously. All are guilty and deserve only wrath. But He has mercy on some, whom He will.’
Where does it say his hardened the Jews previously? I know he withheld himself from them to some extent, but I don't think he ever hardened them in this manner. Where does it say his hardened the Jews previou

I assume you mean Gentiles? God had left them, ‘ without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. Eph.2:12. God had left the Gentiles to perish in their sins, while extending mercy to Israel. Now He does so to Israel, while extending mercy to the Gentiles.

I agree that all deserve only wrath but I have to take issue with only having mercy on some. Romans 11:32 says that all men are shown mercy. And you might try to contend that he means "all kinds of men" or "men from all the world" but its the same men who were bound over to disobedience who are shown mercy.

That can only be true if you define mercy as the possibility of repentance. If we take mercy to mean repentance unto life, then you must accept that such is not given to all without exception.

Thanks for your good wishes for Mum.

In Him

Ian

 

Eric said,
Both agree on something that can be called "reprobation". The difference is that the Reformed view assumes reprobation to be unconditional. But in other passages such as Romans 1) we see that it is in fact a result of rejecting previous revelation.

It depends on how far back one goes in the purposes of God. Reprobation is usually conceived of by Calvinists as God's response to fallen man's wickedness. Some do place His reprobation in a pre-fall setting, but I've not encountered much of that. But I'm not that well-read.

'Unconditional' means for me the same as in the case of Election - that God chose from among the mass of SINNERS a people for Himself.

Then we also must consider that reprobation, as election, is worked out in time. God uses means to establish His people in righteousness; likewise He uses means to establish the reprobate in their wickedness. He gives them over to their will; He darkens even the natural light they have, etc.

In Him

Ian

 

Eric said,
Still, that last statement seems to lead to the very supralapsarianism your first sentence disclaimed. The whole problem in this debate is the difference between God in eternity, and how He works thiongs in time. Calvinists want to focus on what He has decreed in eternity, but many do not like the resulting supralapsarianism, and then try to focus on the people's own sin in time making them "deserve" that judgment. But if God simply used time as a means to "establish" his people in righteousness, AND establishe the reprobates in wickedness, then ultimately, the reprobates are not really being condemned for their own sin, but rather their sin was merely part of a script (as I call it) that God wrote (in eternity; before the Fall), with the main objective being their condemnation (for some supposedly unrevealed other, higher purpose). This is supralapsarianism pure and simple.

I don't follow your logic. If God made them sin, that would hold water, but giving them over to their own sinful desires does not.

But let me ask you, is your system any 'fairer' in man's eyes? Do you not have God knowingly creating a universe that He knew would fall, and with that Fall millions of men and women would spend eternity in hell? Is that any better than either infra or supra lapsarianism?

In Him

Ian

 

Eric said, In other words, God "knew" two groups of people from eternity. Both would be born as sinners, because of Adam, but as God conceives of each individual soul, one He declares will be saved, and the other passed over and remain lost. Then, He creates the world, Adam, the Fall occurs, and all of this "plays out" in time exactly as God first decreed it. The lost people weren't there shaping this decision (as Origen essentially taught), so why did they "sin" in the first place? Because it was God's plan. So supralapsarianism is unavoidable, and yes, God did basically make the person sin to fulfill His plan; some will even add to provide an example of the wrath God was saving the others from so they can praise Him more.

The Calvinists always throw up this question [Is your system any 'fairer' in man's eyes? Do you not have God knowingly creating a universe that He knew would fall, and with that Fall millions of men and women would spend eternity in hell? Is that any better than either infra or supra lapsarianism?] to suggest it is still unavoidable even in our view, but that is where I say it can't be answered. In this issue, we will always come to a point where we can't understand or explain something (as it deals with God working in both eternity and in time-- way over our heads). The Calvinists say "God ordains all of this and leaves the reprobates "responsible", for "His secret counsel"; He "offers" them life, knowing they can't accept it, but it is still a "genuine" offer; etc. and we can't understand why, but just believe and accept the "tensions". But I think the idea of God specifically not wanting certain people saved, and ordaining and then then leaving them in this "sin" in order to fulfil that plan contradicts the good will the Gospel says is offered to all. It may have been His "sovereign right" to do that, but it does make God the author of sin, and is not what the scripture says He did do, and is misread into certain passages like Rom.9. We have crossed a line of understanding before we even get to that point. Why create a paradox between God offering salvation and essentially withholding at the same time? It's just to get around the implications mentioned above, but to me it is just better to say that God did leave the choice up to humans, and how this fit in with God's foreknowledge and sovereign control is the "tension" we cannot hope to figure out. One is a basic logical contradiction. The other by its very nature is something we cannot hope to comprehend this side of eternity.

Why did they sin in the first place? You say if it was God's plan, that makes Him the author of sin. I say it does not: the Scripture reveals both that God has ordained whatever comes to pass (like the crucifixion of Christ) but whatever is evil is the fault of the evildoer, whether demon or sinner. How this is so is hidden from us.

Why did they sin in the first place? You say it was due soley to their choice. That means that all of history, including the cross, might never have happened and God is hostage to the whims of His creation. Let me ask you, does free-will exist today, in either angel or man? If it does, what is to guarantee there will not be another Fall of angels or men? Answering that this is hidden from us seems to me to be a lot less credible than the Calvinist position.

As to the Calvinist position, 'specifically not wanting certain people saved' is a minority position. Most Calvinists hold to the 'two wills of God' idea, that He can both desire all of his creatures to walk in holiness before Him and yet decide not to enforce that on some.

In Him

Ian

 

Skandelon said,
The grammatical term you are look for is called "stretching" the scripture to make it fit your doctrine.

Yes, we both have claimed that regarding the difficult texts. That is something I have learnt in our discussions, that there ARE texts which on the face of it seem to contradict Calvinism. Not just the 'all' type that can be shown to be open to either argument, but texts that can only be accounted for by saying that the missing qualifier is implied. The Calvinist/Arminian understanding of the text must then be defended by comparing text with text. You have used this 'implicit' understanding to make 'granted repentance' mean granted the opportunity to repent'. Eric used it more exensively in defending an Arminian understanding of 'God has chosen' in 1 Cor.1:26-29. Here he made it to mean 'God has arranged the circumstances so that more of certain types will choose Him.'

I assert that the difficulties posed and the further difficulties raised in overcoming the original difficulties are far less for Calvinism than for Arminianism. For example, to defend your understanding of the hardening in Romans 9, you had to make the 'fulness of the Gentiles' occur in the apostolic generation. To refute sovereign election you have to allow the possibility of men being saved without hearing the gospel.

You still haven't proven the case that those who are hardened will certainly perish in their sins. Paul makes it quite clear that hardened Jews may be provoked to envy and be saved. (Romans 11:14)

I have already pointed out that he refers to the lost of Israel, not the hardened lost.

scripture teaches that men cannot respond in faith to the Holy Spirit wrought gospel message proves Calvinism cannot be true.

Depends what you mean by 'Holy Spirit wrought'. Calvinists believe that men cannot NOT respond in faith to the Holy Spirit wrought gospel message, if by that you mean the message coming in the power of Him who 'blows where He will'. If you mean however the convicting work of the Spirit, where He touches men's consciences but does not change their hearts, then Yes, men cannot respond in faith to that.

Whoa there! Hold it. You're saying God was withdrawing the opportunity granted to them to repent? So they had an opportunity it repent before but they didn't take it? They had the ability before? An opportunity implies ability, please explain.

Sure. All who hear the gospel have an opportunity to repent. They will not take it unless God gives them a new heart to desire so. However, my use of the term in this specific case was the opportunity the promises to Israel had accorded. Their rebellion had led to these promises being witheld from them.

But I must challenge your assertion that opportunity implies ability. Opportunity to obey the Law did not mean the Jews had the ability. 'Do this and live' brought no ability with it. It is God's sovereign grace under the New Covenant that brings ability with opportunity - I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.Jer.31:33.


Yes, and according to the parable of the soils a dead man can believe apparently. How does he manage to do that if he is "totally unable?"

I don't know what you mean - please explain where this is in the parable.

What text says that? [The text does say that the hardening was to make certain the nation’s destruction, i.e. No repentance was to be granted them.]

John 12:40.

How can you really believe that? The point of TD that we are debating about has to do with man's inability to respond in faith to the gospel. These verses [Rom.8: 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 1 Cor.2: 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.]don't mention nor refer to faith nor do they even refer to the gospel. Proof that we are unable to please God while in the flesh in no way proves we are unable to leave the flesh and walk in faith when confronted by the Holy Spirit wrought message of the cross. If I said to my child, "Son as long as you are lying you cannot please me." Would that infer that my son can't stop lying? Of course not. That would simply be showing that as long as he is lying he can't please me. So, too as long as we remain in the flesh we can't please God. This says nothing about man's ability to leave the flesh and walk in faith.

'Cannot receive' is a clear statement of inability. That applies to repentance and faith, to receiving the truth about God and embracing it.

So you don't believe lost man can know God? Read Romans 1 again, does Paul contradict your view? He says they "clearly saw", "understood" and "knew" God and his divine attributes. In fact, he goes on to say that these factors are what makes them without excuse.

Ther is 'know' and 'know'. For saving knowledge, man needs more than for condemning knowledge. The unbelieving Jews knew Jesus, some so well that they blasphemed the Spirit in their rejection of Christ, but they did not 'know' Him. John 7:28 Then Jesus cried out, as He taught in the temple, saying, "You both know Me, and you know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.John 8:19 Then they said to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also."

More later, DV.

In Him

Ian

 

Skandelon said, These verses express no points of contention between us. I believe in orginal sin and man's inability to save himself without God's divine intervention.

But you also say man can be saved without the gospel, merely from conscience and natural revelation. Those are common to all men. Divine intervention is God acting on the rebel to give him a new heart so that he will repent. These verses show not merely original sin, but SLAVERY to that sin. Slavery so that conscience, natural revelation and even the gospel will go unheeded, unless God changes the sinner's heart.

Acts 16: 14Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And? She was a believer in God and God told her to listen to Paul. So what's your point?

The point is that God had to open her heart to accept Paul's message (not 'tell her to listen to Paul'). A woman who was already being drawn by God had to have His intervention in order to believe the gospel. Much more so previously ignorant sinners.

I had said, 'Dead in sins, slaves to sin, needing our hearts opened: a good description of T.D.'
No, its a good discription of hardening, which is not from birth.

No, for the folk Paul referred to were the Ephesian Gentiles, not the Jews. Paul describes the state of every man who comes into the world, Jew and Gentile alike. Special hardening was added to the majority Jewish nation for its abuse of its priveleges.

So much light??? According to you they were born blind and unable to see the light yet you have God judging them for their rebellion to that which they never could clearly see or understand? If you're right they sure are going to have a good excuse on judgement day. (That is according to Paul in Romans 1)

As I pointed out before, there is a light that all can see - conscience, natural revelation, the gospel message - but it is the worth of that truth man is blind to. That is the part that man suppresses, denies. The metaphor of blindness God uses to describe our spiritual state does not rule out all recognition of the truth about God. It accurately describes man's utter enmity to this truth. It is their inborn hatred of God that prevents them acknowledging Him. Satan has blinded their minds so that they will not accept the truth set forth to them. The metaphor of blindness/sight speaks not of merely believing in God but embracing the One believed in.


He removed the mercy??? You make it seem as if God had originally planned on showing them mercy and then changed his mind, I know you don't believe that. The elect are chosen before the foundation of the world, right? How does God remove something they never had?

Because we are speaking of the nation which had the Law, the promises, God's goodness manifested to them. But unbelief and rebellion brought judgement eventually, and God gave the majority of them over to destruction - no repentance being granted to them. Mercy removed. That is the outward manifestation of His purposes, but behind that we know that He from eternity had elected a people for Himself and only they would experience His saving mercy. So my reference was to the outward working, the nation being denied mercy.

But even as you have implied throughout this post all men are given the possiblity (or opportunity) for repentance and that in and of itself is merciful, right?

It certainly is, just like not being immediately cast into hell. But that common mercy is not the saving mercy the 'vessels of mercy' are prepared for.

Must rush.

In Him

Ian

 

Eric said, All of this logic leads once again, to double-predestination, yet many of you refuse to accept/confess that position. This is a big hole in the theory. So yes, it IS best to say that it is hidden from us before we get to this point. We agree that man is guilty of sin, God is not, God is in control. You try to reason that He charges people with sin, to make them "guilty" and "deserving of condemnation" in order to justify Him choosing only some and deliberatly passing by all others. When asked "why", then you say "it is hidden from us". But we say that if God is really not the cause of sin, then somehow he must have left something open to the Creatures, and rather than not being in control, He somehow still is, and this is what is hidden from us.

We say that God is not the author of evil, yet He has ordained all that comes to pass; the reconciliation of these two truths is what is hidden from us. You call that a big hole in our theory.

You say that somehow he must have left something open to the Creatures, and rather than not being in control, He somehow still is, and this is what is hidden from us. That is the 'big hole' in your theory.

Which mystery do we see addressed in Scripture? We would expect such a fundemental problem to be raised somewhere - and it is. Romans 9: 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

But that is not an "opportunity" then, in any real sense. To us, who don't know God's decree, it may look like an opportunity, and we may tell such a non-elect person "Now you have an opportunity to repent. Now is the day of salvation...", etc. But if the "hidden" truth be known, it is NO opportunity, and this is where the two sides are clashing.

Your quarrell on the use of 'opportunity' is with God, not me. It is God who holds Israel guilty for not fulfilling the obligations of His Law. 'Do this and live' was the offer of the Law and everyone who despised that Law died without mercy. Everyone who failed to observe everything written in the Law was under its curse. Yes, they could not keep it because they were slaves to sin, but God still held them responsible. THEY were at fault; their evil nature made them responsible, even though they were born that way. Calvinists did not invent this, it is the clear record of Scripture.

You may try to say the Law was not meant as an opportunity to be saved, for it was given to prove to men that they must receive God's righteousness as they cannot be good enough themselves. That was indeed the ultimate intention of the Law - but it was given for both reasons, as the Scripture describes the moral guilt of those who broke the Law. Likewise with election and the free offer. Opportunity does not imply ability. It is God who determines what is 'true opportunity'.


But condemning knowledge in itself can be enough to lead one to seek what will save Him. "I'm in a bind, how do I get out of this?". Some may call out to God "Please save me!". Some may only think about all they would have to give up or whatever, and not want to go that way. Some from that latter group may later repent. Then, once they do, They will be converted, and become one of those who "know" Christ.

If we define 'condemning knowledge' as you just did, then I agree. That is the knowledge of the guilty conscience. But I used it in the narrower sense of merely being that knowledge, i.e. not leading to repentance and the knowledge of God. Not all who have the one have the other. True believers experience both.

In Him

Ian