Featured The subject of Hardenig in its connections

No one can come unless they are ENABLED, but tell me what better enabling power is their than the cross and the powerful gospel appeal...which is being hidden from the Jews at that time (because God doesn't want them to be DRAWN/ENABLED until after the cross). How is that point not relevant to the obvious intent of the writer in John 6?

Israel was UNABLE except for the twelve chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship, but "the Gentiles will listen" because they are not judicially hardened...they "might see, hear, understand and turn."

So, you are right. No one can come unless enabled and the enabling power is TRUTH (the GOSPEL), which is being hidden in parables and blinded from the eyes of the Jews.

Agree or disagree and why?

 

Believe in Christ and his perfection (righteousness) covers me.

Done.

Next.

Believe in Christ and His blood makes me Holy.

Done.

Next.

Really? You are? There is no condemnation for those in Christ, so are you saying that you, a believer, is held to account for these? ARe you still under Law, or under Grace?

They who perish do so because they refused to accept the truth so as to be saved. They are not ultimately condemned for immorality, they are condemned for unbelief. There are going to be sinners in Hell and in Heaven, the distinction is FAITH.

I'm glad you brought this up because it reveals a KEY MISTAKE OF CALVINISM:

Equating the pursuit to attain righteousness by works with the pursuit to attain righteousness by faith and dismissing both pursuits as being unattainable.


Your PRESUME upon the text, as I once did, that because men cannot attain righteousness through works of the Law that they are also equally unable to attain righteousness through faith in the One who fulfilled the law. That is not only biblically unfounded, but it flies in the face of the common sense rendering of the word 'responsibility.' WE are ABLE to RESPOND and thus held RESPONSIBLE. For what? For our RESPONSE to HIS TRUTH.

Our response to Christ's revelation determines our destiny, not our law breaking.

If you want to argue for Federal Headship then you need to be consistent.

Paul argued, "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

condemnation for all men
brings life for all men.

The same "all men" who are condemned by headship are brought life by headship. I know, I know, you think that means universalism, but that has NEVER been the case. Atonement throughout scripture has always been applied provisionally through faith and one can be brought life without accepting it just as the provision of the passover sacrifice only benefitted those who actually swiped the blood over their doors in faith that it would save them. So, while the provision IS universal the application is only for those who believe...that has never changed.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that you are not Holy or Righteous?

You do believe that you are completely Holy and Righteous through faith in Christ, don't you?

Again, I'm just not sure what you are attempting to argue. You seem to be saying that God commands us to be righteous but we can't and God condemns us for not being righteous???


As I said...

Your PRESUME upon the text, as I once did, that because men cannot attain righteousness through works of the Law that they are also equally unable to attain righteousness through faith in the One who fulfilled the law.

 

Huh? Not sure how you got that from what I said.

Listen, at this point I'm not even wanting to debate you, I'm just wanting you to understand our perspective because it is clear that you don't yet get what I am saying. I'm not meaning that in a negative way, I'm just wanting you to understand me even if you end up disagreeing with me. I just want you to fully vet that which you have seemed to already reject. Shouldn't you know what you are rejecting before rejecting it?

I'm not, nor have I ever, attempted to argue that men's natural condition was different after the cross. I'm not sure what I said that made you draw that conclusion.

I said...No one can come unless they are ENABLED, but tell me what better enabling power is their than the powerful gospel appeal...which is being hidden from the Jews at that time (because God doesn't want them to be DRAWN/ENABLED until after the cross). How is that point not relevant to the obvious intent of the writer in John 6?

Israel was UNABLE except for the twelve chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship, but "the Gentiles will listen" because they are not judicially hardened...they "might see, hear, understand and turn."

So, you are right. No one can come unless enabled and the enabling power is TRUTH (the GOSPEL), which is being hidden in parables and blinded from the eyes of the Jews. Re-read that again and tell me what you don't agree with...

 

Here is another approach...maybe it will help bring clarity

Agreed, but does it teach Universal Inability in light of the truth of the gospel appeal or just Universal Inability for those blinded to the truth of the gospel appeal?

 

Inability to do what?

See, hear, understand God's revelation so as to turn to him for healing, or something else?

 

No, I was explaining that all of Israel was being blinded (NOT DRAWN/ENABLED) to come to Christ while he was here on earth, except for the TWELVE. Israel is being blinded from the truth of who Christ was, thus they were not able to come to him. Jesus says those EXACT words in John 12:39, as already discussed (and dismissed based on nothing more than it was in a different chapter)

God GAVE a remnant (few) from Israel to Jesus for him to disciple and equip to be the foundation for his Church. Read John 17 and this is clearly laid out.

Regarding universal inability to save oneself...No one can come to the wedding banquet unless they are invited. "How will they believe in someone they have not heard?" -Paul

So, yes, all must be drawn and the means God has chosen to draw both the Jews and the Gentiles is the gospel appeal...which is sent out AFTER Christ is raised up. "After I'm raised up I will draw all men to myself..." -Jesus

*sigh*

Aristotle is known for saying, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

But you cannot entertain a thought you have yet to grasp. I'm simply wanting to know that you understand our view of John 6 and nothing you've said thus far convinces me that you are following me. Stop debating me for a second and just let me know you are understanding me. Its fine to disagree with my view, but I need to know you understand what you are disagreeing with first.

 

Funny how its the only one that distinguishes those in Hell from those in heaven, don't you think? Murders will be in both locations, adulterers will be in both..etc...unbelievers will only be in one.

Why are they condemned, you ask?

John 3:18 says "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Heb. 3:19 "So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief!"

Rm 11:23: "And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

2 Thess 2:10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

But you think God is holding men's sins against them, but what does Paul say?

2 Cor. 5:18 "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

Jesus says, "I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (Jn 12)

What condemn's mankind on the last day? Is it the imputed sin of Adam? NOPE! What does He say? The "very word which I spoke will condemn him." What is that "word?" The gospel truth!

So, if you admit that we can attain righteousness and holiness through faith what is your point in listing those verses as proof text for things we can't actually do? Remember you listed those verses a proof texts to show that God hold us RESPONSIBLE for things we can't attain, yet you just admitted we can attain these things through faith.

Again, you are confusing man's inability to attain righteousness through works of the law and man's ability to attain righteousness by believing in the One who fulfilled the law in our stead. Proof of the former does not negate the latter.

But who, if not God, decided that the result of our sin through Adam would be that we would all be born unable to willingly respond to His very own appeal to be reconciled back to Him for that original sin? Didn't God have to make the decision that all mankind would be born totally unable to respond to His own appeal for reconciliation?

DO you understand the question?

Did you read my post, because I actually anticipated that very arguement and already rebutted it...since you failed to address that rebut I must presume that you didn't read it...please go back and do so...thanks

 

Yes, but were they entrusted to Christ?

Jn. 2:23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25 He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.

Even the apostles didn't really believe the whole of the gospel until after he was raised:

John 2:22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

You remember that in John 6 these are the 'believers/followers' that he drives away with his hard teachings and only the 12 are left...as Jesus points out at the end of that chapter. They may have wanted to believe in the conquering king, but they didn't believe the truth of a suffering servant...the truth of the gospel...no one really did until after the fact.

Oh, I totally agree and it is in this context he refers to them as being 'given to him by the Father.' That is what I was referring to...God GAVE these men to Christ as apostles, thus enabling them to do that which no one else in Israel (or anywhere for that matter) was enabled/drawn to do. That is why only the 12 were left standing there in John 6 and the rest walked away.

I asked you this once but I don't think you answered. Inability to do what?

Obey the law?
See, hear, understand God's revelation and respond?
Believe in Christ?
What specifically do you believe men are unable to do?

Of course I know the verse. That verse seems to give much more trouble to Calvinism's view of Unconditional Election than to my view given that the reason the "few are chosen" is actually stated in the parable. Those chosen were those wearing the proper garments, remember? Not sure how that helps you?

Sorry, but tone can't be read in written text and these words came across very snide...nuf said about that. I really don't like getting personal or off topic.

Your responses haven't reflected that to be honest with you. Your replies seem to be reflective of one who is addressing them for the first time.

Maybe you can BRIEFLY restate in your own words what you think I believe about it before you rebut it? Just a suggestion.

That is why I limited my responses to this one thread and have tried to respond in brief with clarifying questions.

 

I think you misunderstand my view. People are condemned for unbelief for what ever level of revelation they refuse to believe (not just the gospel).

Romans 1 addresses this. People who refuse to acknowledge God are without excuse because what can be known of God has been clearly revealed. Calvinism, IMO, wrongly gives mankind back their excuse by suggesting that all are born unable to see, hear or understand that which has been clearly revealed unless God first uses irresistibly means to regenerate them.

Regarding those who have never heard the gospel, you can read this link to better understand our perspective.

Agreed.

You seem to assume that no one since Adam has responded positively to the light of God's revelation, but that isn't true. Scripture reveals that many throughout history found favor in God's eyes. You can PRESUME, as you must, that God "found favor" because He irresistibly caused them to be favorable, but it would be just that...a presumption and an unfounded one at that.

 

This deserves a post of its own.

1. What do you mean by 'still held accountable for keeping those commandments?' Aren't those under grace forgiven even if they fail to keep those commandments? What are you suggesting that God is going to do to Christians who fail to keep these commandments? Withhold mansions or crowns? What are you suggesting might be the result of sin for the believer even if condemnation is not possible?

2. What do you mean 'without ability.' When you, as a child of God, are tempted to sin do you have the ability to resist that temptation or not?