Good Debate

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Luke2427, Jul 20, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    Skandelon and I were having a good debate when the thread was closed.

    I'd like to pick it up here. The quotes are mine. The unquoted statements are Skandelon's.


    So, why earlier in our discussions did you also appeal to mystery regarding the origin of evil? By this standard why didn't you just say that God gave Satan the intent to rebel, and Adam the intent to rebel but for a good motive?

    Also, can you explain how this isn't equal to God' authoring evil? An author writes an evil intent into the lives of his made up characters and that seems to sum up exactly what you believe God has done to his creatures. How is that not the case?

    I used the word even because what you are saying is much more than mere tempting them to evil, it is giving them the motive or intent for evil. How can God not tempt men to do evil while giving them the intent to do evil and why would James even go to the trouble of saying this if what you believe about God's determining their sinful intent is true?

    Go back to the cookie jar illustration with the PILL of inability. If you gave your daughter a pill making her unable to resist the temptation of cookies, and you put the cookies in her line of site and even planned for her to walk into the kitchen and see the cookie jar with the intent that she would certainly attempt to steal a cookie, what would be the point in saying that you didn't even tempt her to eat the cookies? It makes no sense to me. Can you explain that?

    I agree. One is much, much, much worse and you have attributed it to a holy, holy, holy God.

    Think about it. If a man merely tempts a woman to commit adultery with him, that is bad, but how much worse is it for him to slip her a drug where she cannot willingly refuse his advances thus determining her to commit adultery? Determination is much much worse than tempting.

    Plus, in your system, where ALL THINGS are determined, how do you separate out all the temptations from God's 'sovereign control?' When a woman tempts a man, wasn't that equally 'ordained by God' to unchangeably happen according to his predetermined plan? Again, I'm not seeing how your view escapes God being the tempter and ultimately the tempted, as HE, not the sinning agent, make the determining choice.
    What does holiness mean if not 'separate from sin,' yet you have God determining all sin for all time. It's one thing to say God intervened for the sake of redemption by merely hiding truth or blinding Israel to ensure the crucifixion, and its a whole other to take that to mean God actively determines the sinful intent of every human and every act of sin for all time.
    So do you just ignore this one text?

    We are blind in the sense we do not know the truth, but as scripture teaches, "the truth will set you free." And as Paul explains, "how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?" IN that sense, they are blind. They can't come to the wedding banquet unless someone invites them first. But, your view goes beyond this 'blindness' and beyond scripture to insist that even when one is confronted by the powerful Holy Spirit wrought Gospel appeal for reconciliation, they remain blind to that revelation and unable to respond. That is NEVER taught in scripture. You use proof texts such as the ones quoted below, but notice what they all have in common! They are talking about the condition of lost man WITHOUT THE GOSPEL. For example...

    Is this talking about none understanding God's special revelation of the gospel and their inability to attain righteousness by Grace through faith in Christ? Of course not. Read on in the chapter and verse 21 shifts from the righteousness thought to be attained by Law through works to the righteousness attained by Grace through faith. You wrongly apply versus 10ff as proof texts against man's ability to attain righteousness by grace through faith, when clearly he is speaking of their inability to attain righteousness by works of the law.

    Right. Their deeds, as revealed by the LAW, are evil and they can't measure up. So what is the solution? THE GOSPEL, which teaches us that we can be saved regardless of how evil our deeds are and how much we continue to fail.

    Correct. So what is the solution? The Gospel. The appeal from God to be reconciled from their desperately wicked and deceitful condition. To insist that the gospel can't reconcile an enemy because they are born an enemy doesn't make much sense. Its like saying the cure for cancer can't cure a man born with cancer because he was born with too much cancer. That not much of a cure, just like that's not much of a gospel. I mean think about it, what is good about that news really for the mass of humanity?

    Right. And how does God discern the things of His Spirit? I'll let you pick:

    1. He regenerates a select few, effectually causing them to just know it when they hear it.

    or

    2. He chooses a messenger from his elect nation (like Paul or Peter) inspires them to preach and record God's very words in human language, which calls all men everywhere to be reconciled to God through repentance and faith in Christ.

    You seem to think God's work in inspiring the recording of his words isn't a sufficient enough work of discernment, but that God needs to do more to make his message clear to man. That teaching only provides an excuse to those who never accept His clearly revealed truth for all they have to say on that last day is, "I couldn't really understand the gospel because it wasn't ever spiritually discerned for me."

    You said originally, "The Gospel has the power, when effectuated by the Spirit, to regenerate every single person in the world. The Gospel opens blinded eyes."

    Notice the phrase 'when effectuated by the Spirit.' That is your caveat to include regeneration, which means that the gospel for those who are unregenerate is powerless. So, to 'blind' a person from the gospel would merely mean to 'not regenerate them.' Right? Leave them alone. You don't need to 'send them a spirit of stupor' or 'speak to them in parables lest they repent and be forgiven,' you just don't regenerate them. That is what you are not addressing.

    You also said, "God does not blind them to keep them from being saved." But then I quoted you Jesus' actual words which say, "to those on the outside everything is said in parables (blinded) so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' " So, if he isn't blinding them to keep them from being forgiven, then why is he blinding them? Why doesn't he just leave them alone in their 'natural' condition? Why speak in parables when they couldn't have understood anyway? Why send a spirit of stupor when they are born "totally stupid"?

    This is what you haven't explained.
     
  2. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    Because we do not understand how evil came to be. That does not mean that we do not understand that God determined that IT WOULD.

    Evil is privation. Just as darkness is the absence of light and hunger is the absence of nutrition, so evil is nothing but the absence of good.

    I can turn off the light, but I did not thus CREATE darkness. Darkness is not created because darkness is NOTHING.

    Darkness, like hunger and cold, causes all kinds of terrible things, but darkness has no substance. It does not consist of time, space and matter. It does not age, it has no boundaries (except where light begins), and it does not have weight or mass.

    Darkness is not "created". It only "exists" due to the privation of light.

    Evil is the absence of good in the same way. What is hatred? The absence of love. What is lust? The absence of contentment. Etc, etc, etc...

    Therefore God, in order for evil to come to be, must only withhold good. Think about it. It is the ONLY way that evil ever COULD come to pass. Had God continually saturated all of existence with his perfect goodness, evil could NEVER have come to be.

    So God is not the author of evil in the sense that evil has no author because evil has no existence. Evil is just a word that we use to describe the ABSENCE OF GOOD.
    I can WILL that the room be dark. I can deprive the room of the light I provide it if I so choose. But I cannot CREATE the darkness- because darkness has no existence- it is nothing but the absence of light.

    So God cannot be charged with being the Creator of something that that has no existence. NOTHING has literally created darkness. And just so, NOTHING has literally created evil.

    That's not true. God does not have to ACTIVELY give someone "evil motives" in order to bring to pass the evil he determined that they should have.

    All he must do is withdraw his goodness to whatever extent his divine purposes dictate.

    This is neither tempting them to sin nor is it driving them to sin.

    Now, there is mystery here. It's not like Augustine, Calvin and I have have it figured out by any means.

    Somehow, in the midst of all of this, man is truly responsible for his own actions. Somehow, God cannot be blamed for his sin.

    Calm down.:thumbs: (I figure you are about to blow your top here).

    The Bible DOES teach that man is truly responsible. We have to chalk this up to "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

    And so, you'll probably want to say something here like- So you appeal to mystery just like I do. Why not just say that we don't understand how evil came to be but conclude that God did not determine it but that it originated in man?

    My answer is- because that scheme, played out, has TRILLIONS of things happening every day that are outside of the eternal purposes of God which he truly does not want to come to pass, THAT IF IT WERE UP TO HIM WOULD NEVER COME TO PASS.

    But it IS up to Him- if he is the God of the Bible.


    SOMEHOW man is truly responsible and accountable for the evil that he does which is AT THE SAME TIME both the evil that God HATES and yet ultimately wills (and has determined from eternity) to come to pass.

    That is exactly what we see, I think very clearly, in Acts 4 (and all over the Bible as well):

    27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
     
    #2 Luke2427, Jul 20, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2012
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I am not going to join the debate nor derail the thread. [Please everyone!] I just wanted to say that it seems there is no rationale for closing threads.
     
  4. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    Certainly God needs to do more than just inspire the Scriptures if someone is to be saved. A lot more.

    God must do dozens of things besides inspiring the Scriptures if someone is to get saved.

    He must have people carry those Scriptures to the lost, for example. An inspired book sitting in a vault somewhere uncopied, unheralded cannot save anyone. So there is one thing more that God must do in order that people be saved.

    Furthermore, God must ensure the salvation of the first Christians. If every single person in the Roman territory had chosen of their own perfectly free will NOT to believe the accounts of Jesus' resurrection, Acts woulds be a very short book and Christian history could be contained in a pamphlet.

    But to get at the heart of what you are saying, words are just words, even if divinely inspired, if no one hears them. And it is not enough just that people HEAR them with their physical ears; they must be willing to consider them. And this requires a willingness to acknowledge their own extreme sinfulness- an acknowledgement which does not come natural to man. They must also be willing to accept that the Maker of heaven and earth is at odds with them and that he will destroy them if they continue in their own ways- again not something that the natural man finds palatable nor does he wish to ponder. And they must be willing to receive Gospel truth, which a man's heart that is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things simply can not do.

    So the simple fact that the Bible is inspired is not enough to save people.


    Who cares what their excuses are? Why does it matter what excuses they would utilize against God since every mouth will be stopped before him at judgment anyway?

    No sir, it's not that simple. The Gospel is the normative means (if not exclusive means) whereby the Spirit of God regenerates men so that they can come to faith.

    We speak to the dry bones and they live (regeneration) and then we continue to speak to them and they obey (obey the Gospel and are thus saved).

    No sir. That's not what I have been saying. Do you recall when I spoke about hardening their blindness.? And then I said something like "Does this mean to make them MORE blind? No. Blind is blind. What it means is hardening their condition beyond repair. There is a blindness that some medicines will heal. And then there is a blindness that is incurable. There is a blindness that if caught in time can be healed but if the disease that causes it worsens then it renders the person incurable.

    Everyone is born spiritually blind. The Gospel can cure this blindness, if the Spirit applies it (some do not hear). But God can allow the disease to progress to where the condition is not curable by the Gospel. These are the types who can find no place of repentance though, like Esau, they have sought it with tears.

    The word "need" is not applicable here, in my opinion. It is not about what God "needs" to do. It is about what God "wills" to do here.

    God, apparently, wills to awaken some to some degree and then send them a spirit of stupor to keep them from awakening altogether. These are people of whom the Scriptures say, "It would be better for them not to have KNOWN the way of righteousness than after they have known it to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them," and "they are twice dead, plucked up by the roots..." etc...

    But I did address that, I thought. Do you not recall when I said that the Gospel opens the eyes of the blind? To keep this from happening to those who God does not want to be saved (at least at that particular time) God hides the Gospel in parables. This is one option God chooses at times.

    Another option God chooses at other times is to harden their already terrible condition so that the Gospel, NOT HIDDEN, does not open their eyes. This is, as you have ably articulated before, often referred to as "judicial hardening."
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,026
    Likes Received:
    47
    just to clarify! Do you hold to god have just a single Divine Will, that he dtermines all that comes to opass OR

    He has a dual Will, in that some things he causes to happen, others that he permits?

    For example... Either God determines/causes those who are saved, and permits rest to stay as they are /predestination for JUST saved OR

    He determines directly both lost/saved/Double predestination?
     
  6. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    (emphasis mine) Thought provoking. This is the first time I've heard this argument. Let me consider.....

    In my case, I could say that the absence of hair does not mean the existence of "baldness".:smilewinkgrin: Baldness doesn't exist, it is just a word used to describe the absence of hair.

    I'm gonna have to think more on this. Could you point me to some literature on this?

    peace to you:praying:
     
  7. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Luke,

    This is a good discussion and much has been covered thus far. (BTW, I didn't close that thread just in case someone was wondering...I rarely if ever close threads where I'm debating anymore.)

    Before moving on I think one point needs to be hashed out ...
    I asked this in another response: What was reparable about a non-elect man's blindness that God would need to make it 'irreparable?' Isn't it irreparable from birth?

    I think this question gets right to the heart of the Calvinistic dilemma. Calvinists have God preventing men from coming to repentance and forgiveness by hiding the gospel from them, when they are supposedly born unable to come to repentance and be forgiven.

    You said, "To keep this from happening to those who God does not want to be saved (at least at that particular time) God hides the Gospel in parables." But why doesn't He simply not regenerate those people? Why the need to 'hide the gospel' from them since they are born unable to understand it anyway? That is the point you aren't answering, at least from what I can tell.
     
  8. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,888
    Likes Received:
    37
    Has anyone ever considered that maybe neither Calvin nor Arminius understood or had the right concept.

    You have to ask the question. Why are things on the earth the way they are?
    Why, before the first man Adam was created, before he sinned, according to most before there was death, of which I disagree, Why was the Lamb of God, one born of a woman, slain before the foundation of this present system, the world? Why?

    Was salvation offered by God the creator to every creature, by birth created, that is who came into the world from Adam to Jesus of Nazareth?

    Just what is God doing?

    Hebrews 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world (the earth inhabited) to come, whereof we speak.

    Does that verse imply that either presently or in some point in time past the world (the earth inhabited) was in subjection to angels and or at one point in time beings that were called angels and are now demons?

    Later in this very same chapter it is stated, "But now we see not yet all things put under him." That is under MAN. It wasn't put under man at the creation of the first man Adam and isn't presently so, if my understanding is correct.

    Just what is God doing? I do not think John Calvin knew and I do not think Jacobus Arminius knew.

    IMHO God will deal with all mankind living and dead after he is through dealing with Satan. And he will do so through his Son Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God and those he calls out of this present inhabited earth for his name sake, which began at the beginning. See Acts 15:14-18 I will not C&P but will 19 which I find interesting: 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

    Are they turning themselves to God or is it as it was in the days of Elijah 1 Kings 18:37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou [art] the LORD God, and [that] thou hast turned their heart back again.

    Just my thoughts for what ever they are worth. Maybe less than 2 cents who knows? God knows.
     
    #8 percho, Jul 20, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2012
  9. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    I figured that was the case. :thumbsup:

    No sir. If man's condition were truly "irreparable" then no one could be saved.

    The Gospel is able to save man in his naturally sinful state.

    But God, as I noted earlier, employs at least two different options when he does not wish to save someone at a particular point in time (perhaps he wishes to save them later, as you noted).

    Those options are (as I understand the Scriptures):

    #1. He HIDES the Gospel from them. This is, I think you'll agree, clearly what Christ was doing with many of his parables. Because the Gospel is the cure to common spiritual blindness, Jesus spoke in parables lest some of the ones whose time to be saved had not yet come (perhaps it never would) would get saved.

    #2. He HARDENS them against the Gospel. Now, blind is blind. One who has absolutely no sight cannot be made MORE blind. But the ROOT of blindness does vary in degree and severity. Some blindness is curable by relatively easy applications of simple treatments. Other blindness has no known cure.

    Spiritual blindness, I contend, is similar. Common spiritual blindness (this is the natural condition of all people from birth) is cured by the Gospel of Christ. On this, I think, we agree (with some variations).

    But God can harden this condition (and I think every single person who believes the Bible must agree that God indeed does harden people). This does not mean that God makes them MORE blind in the sense that they see even less than before. This means God progresses the severity of the root of their blindness rendering their condition not so easily curable by the Gospel.

    How does God do this? I think there are probably numerous ways, many which are doubtlessly mysterious to us all, but one which is identifiable is Providence.

    God, via secondary means, sends strong delusions to counter the Gospel that is being proclaimed in their hearing. This could be the philosophies and ideals of friends, families and teachers.

    I gave several verse references earlier where I see this process coming to pass in the Scriptures.
     
  10. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    I'll tell you what might be more helpful to you- if I just try to point you in the right direction and let you search out tons of literature on your own.

    Here is a decent article on it.

    You might begin with a google search of the phrase "Augustine's evil as privation".

    That will give you access to various positive and negative reviews on the idea.
     
    #10 Luke2427, Jul 21, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2012
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think you REALLY believe that statement, not as it stands. I think you mean, "The Gospel is able to save man in his naturally sinful state, if the Spirit regenerates that man." (which of course he only does for the elect ones)

    How is that not accurate? Earlier you even said as much when you wrote, " "The Gospel has the power, when effectuated by the Spirit, to regenerate every single person in the world."

    Aren't you talking about the effectual work of regeneration for the elect when you say, "effectuated by the Spirit?" Thus, how can you say that the Gospel alone, when not effectuated by the Spirit, is able to save man in his naturally sinful state? Please expound.

    Have you changed your view on this point, because earlier you said that he wasn't blinding them to keep them from being saved, but now you seem to concede that point? I'm confused.

    But in Calvinism the effectual work of regeneration is the ONLY cure, right? Again I'm confused. If not regenerated a man is as blind as he can be...in fact one might say he is TOTALLY Depraved (blind, dead, deaf, etc). Isn't that the very root argument of Calvinism???? I know you don't believe TD means they are as evil as they can be, but I'm quite sure you all do believe that TD means mean are as unable to come, see, hear or respond as they can be, unless effectually regenerated by the HS.

    How am I wrong in my assessment?

    The variation is:

    LUKE: Effectual Regeneration of the Elect + Gospel = Certain Salvation of the elect

    ME: Gospel = Ability for all who hear to respond in faith unto Salvation

    So, if your view is right, God need only to "not regenerate." The idea of hardening or blinding people from the gospel to prevent their being saved only works with my model above.

    Again, how is the condition of a totally depraved non-elect individual ever more or less curable from the day he is born if the effectual work of regeneration is the ONLY cure?

    I agree with all this, but still confused as to how that works in your system. Isn't being born Totally Depraved a strong enough delusion to counter the gospel all by itself? Does it really need these others means to help blind those who are hopelessly unregenerate from birth and destined to remain as such for ever?
     
    #11 Skandelon, Jul 21, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2012
  12. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,888
    Likes Received:
    37
    Me: Salvation = deliverance from death. The only way one could be delivered from death is to be made alive again to die no more after death. That has happened once in history to one born of woman, therefore he became:

    Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

    That is regeneration.

    The elect are those whom God the Father has set apart by and have been given the assurance of that same regeneration through the gift of the Holy Spirit. All were under the law showing them to be sinners and condemned to death but by the baptism of the Holy Spirit they have been removed from that condemnation and as Jesus was raised from the dead, regeneration, they also shall be regenerated at his appearing. Jesus the author of eternal salvation has received the grace of God the Father and so also shall those set apart in Christ by the Holy Spirit.

    What scripture contradicts that above. Please take under consideration the being, in Christ, part.

    What does being in Christ mean?

    Is it not the difference of being an heir and having inherited, being an inheritor? Are we currently heirs or are we inheritors?
     
  13. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    No sir, you are mistaken.

    I believe the Gospel is the tool that the Spirit of God uses to regenerate the spirit of lost man.

    Part of the Spirit's work as the Gospel goes forth is to fix the attention of the hearer upon the substance of the Gospel that is going forth.

    We all know that when we preach to a crowd of sinners there are some who are moved and others who are totally unmoved.

    The same Gospel is going forth via the same words at the same decibel level into many sets of ears which are equally capable of hearing it.

    But some people do not even consider the words being proclaimed, while others consider it with a passion.

    It is not just enough that the Gospel go forth, or is even heard. The Spirit must captivate the attention of the sinner who cares not for spiritual matters if the Gospel is to lead that sinner to salvation.

    I did not say "alone".


    No sir, I have not changed at all to my knowledge.

    I have said from the start that man is born blind spiritually but that God can harden that condition beyond repair.

    I thought I was very clear here. Let me try again.

    Do you recall me saying, repeatedly at this point, that BLIND IS BLIND? But that the ROOT of blindness DOES vary in severity?

    There are people whose blindness is easily cured and others whose blindness is incurable. The first group, while blind, does not see one iota better than the second group. But the root of the first group is perfectly fixable while the root of the second is not. Hardening blindness does not mean decreasing sight. It means rendering the blindness less curable.

    No, like most things in life, not the least of which is theology, it's not that simple.

    The Gospel is the means whereby the Spirit of God regenerates the spirit of the sinner.

    Do you remember me illustrating it this way:

    We speak to the dry bones and they live (regeneration). We continue to speak to them and they obey (obey the Gospel and are saved).

    The Word of God is the means whereby dry bones live and come to Christ and are saved.

    No, because the Gospel can cure any one who is afflicted with simply the spiritual blindness with which they are born.

    So if God does not want to save a person at that moment God can do a couple of different things to delay that salvation.

    #1 He can HIDE the Gospel like Jesus did with parables. Let me illustrate. A blind man might receive a cure for blindness from his friend. The blind man's father knows the blind man will receive a million dollars in court if he can prove his blindness. If he is cured he will not be able to prove that he was blind at the time of the incident which affords the opportunity for the money. The father the locates the cure the friend was about to give and hides it until the trial is over (the ways in which the father can hide this cure are numerous and diverse- he can hide it from the friend who has already been cured by the same medicine, he can hide the actual pills themselves in some kind of coating that will cause the medicine to pass right through the blind man's system without releasing the active ingredient into his system, etc, etc, etc...). You seem to think that the hiding IS the blindness. This is not necessarily the case.
    #2 He can HARDEN the blindness so that it is not so easily cured by the Gospel. He is not here making them any MORE blind. He is hardening the source of their blindness rendering it less curable.

    No.

    Yes.
     
    #13 Luke2427, Jul 21, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2012
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, I'm really confused.

    You seem to argue above that a lost man can accept the gospel and repent without being regenerated, so God must use other means to prevent this from happening. Is that correct?

    And can you point me to other Calvinists who teach this view?
     
  15. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why not #3?

    #3 He can pass over them, do nothing to them, thus leaving them in their already totally depraved, blind and hopeless condition.

    Again, I don't understand what you mean by 'less curable.' The ONLY cure for Total Depravity is the effectual work of regeneration, right? Anything less than that CURE makes the individual hopelessly incurable, so why do you keep talking about being 'less curable?' It just makes no sense!
     
  16. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    No. I am contending that the Gospel is the MEANS whereby the Spirit regenerates man, awakening him and then bringing him further by that Gospel to Christ.

    I think I could if I had the energy to do the searching, which I do not right now.
     
  17. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    There may also be a #4, #5 and a #1,000.

    I am simply saying that these are things God does in the Scripture.

    I don't think the question "Why" is usually answerable when it pertains to the ways of God- at least not at this level.

    Yes, which is wrought by the Spirit using the Gospel.
     
  18. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Spirit must 'captivate the attention of the sinner,' which is another way of saying, "The Spirit must regenerate the sinner." Right? How is that different from what I'm saying?

    Calvinists believe the gospel is the means by which God regenerates (effectually calls) the elect to Himself, but for those who are not elect the gospel is powerless because they remain Totally Depraved (unregenerate). So, what does 'hiding the truth in parables' and 'spirit of stupor' (hardening) actually accomplish in your view? All God has to do in your system is 'not regenerate' them and they will remain TOTALLY incurable.
     
  19. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    Using the Gospel. The Spirit uses the Gospel to captivate the attention of the sinner.


    I don't think you can find a reputable Calvinist in the world who would say that the Gospel is powerless period- in any circumstance. But even if you could, I would repudiate that idea as would, I think, many, if not most, Calvinists.

    See if I did not answer this to your satisfaction earlier when I addressed that very thing.

    If you feel I did not, I'll try again.
     
  20. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you mean, "...the gospel is the MEANS whereby the Spirit regenerates the elect..." but what about the non-elect who hear the same gospel? Must the gospel be 'hidden from them in parables' or must they be 'given a spirit of stupor' or other such means to prevent them understanding the gospel and turning to be forgiven?

    Couldn't God just not regenerate them and still allow them to hear the clear gospel without any hinderances? Is their a risk a non-regnerate man might hear the gospel and decide to repent if God doesn't use these other means?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...