Featured Good Debate

God uses the message of the Cross of Christ to save His elect in Christ, its that the holy Spirit quickens/enables them to hear and receive it with joy, while the rest stay dead in their sins and have 'deaf ears" to it!

To them whom he has "given ears to ear"., they Will respond!

 

Take your time brother. I have similar seasons in ministry as evidenced by my periodic absences. I'd much rather you focus on that ministry anyway! I'll say a prayer for you today. Blessings.

 

This is a good point. Providing that they do have a good reason, one thing we can do is at the creation of each thread (or at least on the 9th or 10th page) we can state what the title of the subsequent thread will be in the event that the discussion were to get too long... you can even create a link to the future thread that will actually work once the future thread is actualized ( such a metaphysical geek!).

I do think, though, regarding boards like this, that some admins may close a thread 'pre-maturely', so to speak, and it's funny how convenient it must have been if they were to post their 'final word' dig into the conversation before they close it. However, this board seems pretty good about that on the whole and I only suspected this one time that I can recall.

 

So, let's be very clear. You believe God is preventing non-elect people, who would have willingly believed the Gospel if not hidden in parables? I thought Calvinists believed that God would never turn away people who want to come to Him, yet you seem to be saying that God is preventing people from coming to Him who may actually want to come to Him if the gospel had been clearly proclaimed?

Again, let's be VERY clear. Let's suppose a non-elect man named Joel was in the audience where Jesus spoke in parables. Is it your contention, that had the gospel been clearly proclaimed without parables that Joel may have repented and been saved? If so, how, considering his natural unregenerate totally depraved condition?

I'll respond to the rest after you answer this question...

 

While I'm waiting for a response I thought I should go ahead and make a few observation on these articles. First, thank you for posting them. They are very informative and well written, and they make a point that I've argued several times with "high Calvinists" on this forum.

"Reformed interpreters have traditionally held that God sovereignly employs his Word, the gospel, in bringing sinners to life. This position is sometimes referred to as mediate or gospel regeneration. Some among the “higher” Calvinists espouse a view of immediate regeneration and argue rather that God uses no such means at all in regeneration — he sovereignly brings the sinner to life apart from any means whatever." (from the first article)​

I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of falsely representing Calvinism because I respond to one or the other of these two perspectives. I'm glad to point them to these articles for clarity regarding gospel regeneration. BTW, have you adapted your view a little on this point, because I seem to remember you arguing that someone may be regenerated some time before hearing the gospel and responding. It seems like you all were discussing times when someone begins asking 'seeker' questions before even having heard the gospel. I think I remember you making the point that a person may be regenerated, causing them to seek God, and later hear the gospel and come to faith. Am I mistaken?

This article doesn't answer the question I've posed to you brother. It only restates the point I've affirmed about Calvinism, which is that the gospel is the means of regeneration. We are past that point and thus no new need to re-establish it. As I said, I'm grateful you've posted this article because it is difficult to get SOME calvinists to affirm this point.

Again, this article never seems to answer the question I've asked you, nor does it appear to ever respond in the manner you have.

Owen does, however, make an important distinction when he writes,

"Outward darkness is when men do not have that light by which they are enabled to see. So outward spiritual darkness is upon men when there is nothing to enlighten them about God and spiritual things . It is the work of the Holy Spirit to remove this darkness by sending the light of the gospel.

Inward darkness, on the other hand, arises from the natural depravity and corruption of the minds of men concerning spiritual things.​

So, if I were debating Owen, I would ask, why would God prevent someone from the 'outward light' "lest they repent and turn" (i.e. parables), if indeed they remain unable to respond due to their "inward darkness." And if Owens said the same thing you have said, then I'd have to conclude he believed that someone could have the 'inward light' turned on if God didn't actively prevent them from the 'outward light.'

Another quote that is important was this:

"Yes the Word of God is powerfully persuasive in itself, but until born again, unregenerate men cannot and will not be persuaded by it."​

Which leads to the question I've already posed to you, and which Owens never addresses. If the Word of God isn't powerful enough to persuade a man, then why did God prevent people from hearing it lest they be persuaded by it?

I read through a good portion of this one and skimmed the rest and I didn't find a particular response to the question I've posed, but if I missed it could you copy it and paste it for me? Thanks

 

Most Calvinists would say no such scenario can possibly exist, for no one can, nor can they wish to, give their life to Christ until and unless he or she is regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Regeneration precedes faith, not the other way around. Faith and conversion are the inevitable response to regeneration, not the cause.

We were dead in our sins, needing to be quickened first, enabling us to respond to God's inward call (the preaching of the gospel being the outward call) to repent and confess Jesus as Lord.

1 Cor 2:14, Romans 8:7, Eph 2:5, and others describe the absolute helplessness of the unregenerate. Luther describes it wonderfully in his very witty book, The Bondage of the Will. We are slaves, he writes, bound to think and to do "only evil continually." As a slave is held captive by force, he must be freed by force. The chains must first be broken before the will is truly free to choose anything.

If you put regeneration (rebirth) as the cause of faith and confession (conversion) rather than it's aftermath, it's easier to understand the Calvinist position.

Hoping that helps,
Robin

 

Since you are a Presbyterian you need to give Dr. J Vernon Mcgee through the bible a try looking into baptist faith read C. H Spurgeon a Calvinist who believes regeneration before faith is ridiculous

 

Seems to me that the most concise way to explain the confusion would be to say that according to Luke/"mediate regeneration" the Gospel being preached is ALWAYS concurrent with a regenerative work of the Spirit....As in, the Gospel as merely the factual statement of the "good news" never goes forth in a vacuum...and that since the Spirit is ALWAYS inherently concurrent with gospel presentation...a specific witholding of the Spirit is required to prevent "effectual" salvation from occuring. (If I mis-undertand....then please correct my interpretation).

The confusion may result from a possible Arm / Cal difference in definitions:

Arminianism: the "Gospel" IS, and only is defined as the "good news" that Christ has come to save sinners....provided they repent, respond et. al.

Gospel = the Good news + nothing

(Special "Prevenient Grace" is necessary for the enablement of the sinner to respond, but it isn't an integral part of the "gospel" per se.)

Calvinism (mediate form): The "Gospel" is inherently concurrent with a regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, and they are by default as interrelated as a prize and a Cracker-Jack box. Except for a specific decision to withold it.....If the "Gospel" (which implies the work of the Holy Spirit), is in any way unhindered...then the non-elect WOULD convert. Thus, the "Gospel" might itself...be described as "effectual".

Gospel= the Good news + work of Holy Spirit

Does this sum it up correctly Luke? I have been re-reading this thread and the articles for hours trying to understand myself....I hope this clarifies some.

 

So, wouldn't that necessitate conversion for anyone in hear shot of the gospel being proclaimed? Or, in this view, is God still actively blinding/hardening the non-elect from hearing the gospel so as to prevent their regeneration? If so, isn't that a form of double predestination, a view most Calvinists reject?

I agree that is a correct explanation, but for me (and many Baptist non-Calvinistic scholars) the gospel itself is the Holy Spirit's work of 'prevenient Grace.' Make sense? So, in that regard we would be in agreement with Luke's view (I.E. the gospel is the means of grace), we would just not agree regarding the effectuality of those means.

It seems to me that the Calvinistic belief in the irresistibility or effectuality of the means of grace is what causes all the dilemma. If you simply removed that one point most of the issue disappear. God loves people, provides the means for their salvation, graces them by sending them an appeal to be reconciled thus enabling them to respond and they are held to account for that response. Its that simple. It's only when you suggest that these means are irresistible that problems arise.

 

All good points Heir, but wouldn't you agree that the Gospel is referred to in scripture as being 'powerful,' 'effective', 'like a double edge sword, etc? Wouldn't you agree the Gospel was produced, preserved and proclaimed by the work of the Spirit Himself? Wouldn't you agree that the gospel appeal for all men everywhere to be reconciled to God is gracious and exceedingly merciful? Wouldn't you agree with Paul in Romans 10 that people can't believe it unless they hear it and that hearing is the means for faith ("faith cometh by hearing")?

I'm not sure on what grounds one can make the argument that the means of the Gospel itself fails to meet all the criteria for what you refer to as 'prevenient grace.' Help me understand why one would conclude that yet another gracious work of the spirit (besides the work of the gospel) is necessary and taught in the text? Thanks

 

MUST affirm to be biblically true that there IS a working o fthe Holy Spirit to apply effectually grace towards the sinner in order to have them abled to understand and receive jesus!

Just differ if THAT work of His can be resisted or not!

 

And I responded to what he said with a follow up question. Heir wrote:

And I asked:

So, wouldn't that necessitate conversion for anyone in hear shot of the gospel being proclaimed? Or, in this view, is God still actively blinding/hardening the non-elect from hearing the gospel so as to prevent their regeneration? If so, isn't that a form of double predestination, a view most Calvinists reject?​

To which Heir replied saying...

So, why would go on to presume he 'gets' something that I haven't gotten when his explanation of what you believe leaves us with the exact same questions I've been posing to you???

Just the opposite Luke. I'm saying that Calvinists typically teach that mean do NOT have the innate or inherent ability to respond to the Gospel, thus God's active means of hardening and blinding them from it doesn't seem to be necessary. You seem to be arguing on the one hand that the hardening means employed by God are necessary to prevent salvation for those who hear the gospel proclaimed, but on the other hand an inward work of regeneration is also necessary for salvation. I'm attempting to understand how these two views go together and how your view is not supporting double predestination...or the idea that God is actively preventing people from coming to Him, who WOULD come to him if not prevented.

Again, we ALL agree with this point, that is NOT our point of contention Luke. Our point of contention is regarding the effectuality and purpose of the means God employees.

If you agree with Heir's explanation then you obviously believe that if the Gospel is proclaimed that it WOULD be effectual if not for the preventative means of 'hiding it.' Is that what you believe? That the proclamation of the Gospel would effectually save EVERYONE who heard it IF NOT for God's preventative means, such as blinding with parables?

 

I understand what you are saying, but I'm baffled because this is the first I've ever heard you or anyone on this forum argue this point...and as I pointed out in the post you haven't responded to yet, those articles you sited never seem to make the point you are making in this thread (i.e. the gospel will effectually regenerate if God doesn't actively intervene to prevent it). Can you site an any Calvinistic scholar actually making that claim?

You assume he hasn't read through all the previous posts where I've had you explain all the nuances of your views. Plus, he didn't confirm anything I hadn't already restated in a different manner and you still haven't responded to the follow up questions about that view. See post #46 (prior to Heir's post). Can you respond to the questions I posed in that post, because their I have already confirmed what Heir restates...and while you are at it can you answer the questions I've posed on the basis of your affirmation of Heir's post?

Of course there is! There is a HUGE difference between our views of Judicial Hardening:

MY VIEW: God temporarily blinded the Jewish people (cutting them off from the tree for a time) in order to ensure the crucifixion and graft in the Gentiles, which in turn may provoke the Jews to envy so as to change their minds and be saved (Rm 11:14). It is an all loving, all merciful motive. God even hardened Israel out of a motive of showing them more mercy. Paul said it best, "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." That means he hardened them in order to be merciful to them! He is not hardening them to ensure their condemnation, he is actually doing it in hopes they will be provoked to envy by the Gentile's salvation and 'leave their unbelief." (11:23)

YOUR VIEW: God chooses to send the gospel to EVERYONE, but actively prevents most of mankind from really hearing or understanding it so as to prevent them from ever having any hope of being saved because He never really loved them or chose them for salvation.​

Now, brother, with all due respect, if you cannot affirm the obvious distinction in those two views of judicial hardening, then it clearly IS NOT me who is having the problem 'getting it."

Again, as post #47 clearly explains, I don't find where any of those articles make the claim you are making here. To affirm that regeneration comes through the means of the gospel is not an affirmation of your claim...."The Gospel would save these people if measures were not taken to prevent it."

Again, please provide a quote from a notable Calvinist who affirms this specific statement. Because it appears to me the articles only go so far as to say that God effectuates regeneration by means of the gospel for his elect. I never see them say anything about God using preventative means for the non-elect. If they do, please quote it here for us.

How is that different from saying, "People must be regenerated by it?"

 

Yes, I think so....I think Luke's view necessitates some form of Double-Predestination. But, it appears he owns up to it..

This is consistent. I would take umbrage at anyone who would describe things as Luke does and simultaneously attempted to deny double-predestination. Many Calvinists (at least on BB) seem to avoid the consequences of this Soteriology...Presbyterians are far more likely to be Supra's in my experience. If I were to be a Calvinist, I would have no option but to embrace "Double-Predestination" and "Supra-Lapsarianism"....I think Infra-lapsarian Calvinism is a cop-out view.
I don't think Luke can speak of God merely "passing-over" the non-elect with this view. This is an intentioned act of Divine Will to prevent what would otherwise be a default response in Faith unto Salvation....

Yeah...I don't get that distinction either.

 

I appreciate the irenic attitude displayed in this thread.