what makes a person believe?

In Rom 1, Skan, the point is that men know God and reject him. There is no smoking gun there. No Calvinist disputes that passage. We believe it and believe exactly what it says. Their "seeing and understanding" does not include their own need however. And that is the difference. The words, the ideas, the truth can be processed, but they will not apply it to themselves. Typically, the issue is termed in understanding "meaning" vs. understanding "significance."

No ...

3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

The god of this world has blinded their minds. They cannot see the glory of hte gospel because of their blindness. That did not come from God. It comes from the god of this world.

More in line with the passage, when God shines the light, then they see. He did it for creation; he did it for us; he can do it for them. But the fact remains that they are blind until he does it. And, according to the text, when he does it, then they see.

I realize that. The truth of what I said doesn't depend on me saying. It depends on the fact that is actually conforms to reality. You simply don't want to accept that that is what we believe.

And none of those things are true about the unbeliever. The Bible makes that clear. He has a choice, but that choice will always be to reject God. He can do whatever he wants to do; he wants to sin and reject God. He does know and understand; he simply does not have moral understanding to apply it to himself. Remember, the sentences and ideas are not what he does not understand. What he does not understand is that Christ is his only hope, that he has no other.

You continue down this road of straw men becuase you use "see and understand" in one sense; we are using it in another. You need to change your use so that when you talk about what calvinists believe about "see and understand" you are actually talking about what calvinists believe, rather than what you think we believe, or what you would like us to believe. This goes back to the age old discussion, and you will get mad at me for saying it again, but you still do not understand what the issues are that we are talking about. You keep misusing them. Please, take the time to figure out what it is that you are actually trying to refute.

[ August 05, 2004, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I understand.

However, I think the difference is understanding which leads to belief and understanding that leads to rebellion. Both those who believe and those who don't believe understand the same things one "acknowledges" that which they understand as truth and the other denies it as truth. The one who denies its truthfulness is held accountable because he did clearly see and understand. There is NO REASON why he couldn't have acknowledged God as God which is the reason he is without excuse.

I asked a simple question: In 2 Cor. 4 it speaks of a veil, right?

Yes, I know which is why I confirmed with you that there was a veil and yet because you have come to accustom to disagreeing with me you answered the question "no" when it is obvious that there is a veil spoken of in 2 Cor. 4. The veil represents their blindness. Right?

Larry, you know you don't have to disagree with me about everything.

I asked: I believe that when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

But which happen first, does God remove the veil first or do they turn to God first? Which one?

Its funny how you acknowledge something is not true just because you say it is and then defend that statement by saying "that is what we believe" as if that somehow makes what you believe true. Your system gives reprobates the perfect excuse. They can't clearly see and understand the things necessary for their salvaition. They don't have the moral capasity to respond to a choice laid before them by their God yet they are judged and held accountable for that choice. And on top of all that there is not one explaination in the scritpure for the difficulty of such non-sense. And don't you dare take me to Romans 9 because we all know that is not addressing the elect and the non-elect. It is addressing "those being shown mercy" (Gentiles) and "those being hardened" (Jews) which is clear in Paul's summary statement of that chapter. Read it. You have no defense for such a dogma. Why do you cling to it so?

I never said it was true of the unbeliever, I said it was true of the calvinistic reprobates. It would only be true if your system were true, so to just go quote other passages as if they are supporting your system is not accurate.

Here we go again. So now you say he "can" when before you have said is not able. Which is it Larry? You flip flop like Kerry depending upon where the pressure is coming from. If he is able to choose and follow God then why do you use passages such as John 6 to show that his is "unable?" Either he is able or he is not. You need to decide what you believe and stick to it or I'm going to start calling you Kerry.

Plus, if men have a real choice and they are only morally able to choose one then by defination that is not a choice. A choice involves the ability to choose two or more options. Your system doesn't have that so why do you so desperately try to perserve that?

Is that found in Larriation 3:16 ? If he is told Christ is his only hope then he can understand that Christ is his only hope. Then he make a choice as to whether he accepts that as truth. He must "acknowledge" the truth of God's clearly seen and understood revelation. Can men acknowledge truth when they clearly see it and understand it Larry?

Well I'm going to have to get Ken Star or someone to help me with that because with all of you definations switching all the time and such its difficult to keep up. Is there some kind of a chart or graph we can download to follow the meaning of Calvinistic words as they change? What does the word "is" mean Larry?

 

You can characterize is that way. I don't think many Calvinists would disagree with you as far as you have said here. But the issue comes in at moral ability. He prevented from acknowledging God only by his own sinfulness and blindness brought on by that sin. He knows that God exists and rejects it because of the blindness and hardness brought on by his own sin.

And I answered a simple question: No, it does not. Read it; I even quoted it for you here. 2 Cor 3 speaks of a veil. 2 Cor 4 speaks of being veiled, which is a verb to start with, not a noun (which a veil is). But more than that, the veiling is speaks of is “blindness” brought on by the god of this world. If you read my comments that is exactly what I said. They are blinded, not because of God, but because of Satan. When God removes the blindness, then they will see the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ. Until God removes that, they will not see.

[q/b]See above where this is refuted. 2 Cor 4 does not talk of a “veil.” It talks of blindness.

I know. I only disagree when you say something incorrect ...

2 Cor 4 does not speak of a veil, but rather a blindness. It describes that when that blindness is removed, then they see the glory of God in the face of Christ and that is when they turn to God. No one, having seen the true glory of God in the fact of Christ will fail to turn to that. When the blindness is taken away, they turn to the Lord. I don’t think the two are separable. God removes the blindness first.

But before you go to chapter 3 where the veil is removed, look and see what the veil is. It is law of Moses. Those who try to keep the law for salvation (salvation by merit) are blinded. Until they give up that attempt, they will not turn to the Lord. When the veil of the Law is removed, then they see Christ. The blindness of chapter 4 is different.

Not at all. It is funny though how you miss the point … This is an old discussion never solved. You must separate two ideas: 1) What we believe and 2) whether or not what we believe is true. You will not accept the first ... that we believe what we believe. You keep telling us we believe something else. That is what I was saying. You must first accept that we believe what we believe, and then debate about whether or not that belief is right. To fail to accept #1 is to set up straw men.

#2 is where the debate should be. Unfortunately, we keep having to debate #1.

And this is prima facie evidence of my preceding paragraph. In “our system” there is no excuse. They are willful sinners. They are rebelling against God because they want to. They are not physical unable to turn to God. They do not lack intellectual ability to understand it. They lack the moral ability because of the effects of their sin. Again, please learn what we believe and quit making it up as you go.

Actually there are plenty. We have given many of them. You just don’t like them.

Notice how you conveniently added words into Scripture that Paul doesn’t have. The point of Rom 9 is that God can do what he wants to do.

See above paragraph on the fallacy of you telling us what we believe. Much of your attempts to refute us are based on your own misunderstanding of what we believe.

This gets so absolutely ridiculous … You twist words. Calvinists have routinely said that man can do whatever he wants to do. He has a free will. He is not able to submit himself to the law of God or to please God. He doesn’t want to. Man’s freedom is limited by his nature. You have been here long enough to understand that. Why do you insist on these straw men? You twist what we believe and then act as if you know it all.

They can choose whichever option they want to choose. That is a real choice by any definition I know of.

Yes, when God removes the blindness from their hearts. That is found in Scripture time and time again. He can be told that Christ is his only hope but he will not accept it until the blindness is removed. If a man is told that Christ is his only hope, he can understand it intellectually. But moral understanding, or spiritual understanding, means that he would turn to Christ.

We haven’t changed meanings. You just never understood them. You have decided that your mind is the authority on what we believe. You are unwilling to listen to those who know more about what they believe than you do. That is not my fault. When you start paying attention rather than simply looking to argue, you will begin to understand.

I have said for a long time that you don’t have to agree with us. But at least disagree with what we actually believe. I quit posting here because of this kind of nonsense. You simply will not accept that we know what we believe and you don’t. Please start listening and learning.

 

I agree with your what you mean to say, but I can't pass up a great straight line when I see one.

Which is why the debate always degenerates into #2, if you catch my meaning.

I hope, by now, that you've figured out who skandelon is.

 

Skan,
You said:
when Luke writes, "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed" he is not introducing some new concept of preappointment of certain individuals unto faith, that doesn't fit the context of what is being discussed at all.

Me: The concept of preappointment of certain individuals to faith would not contradict what you said about these being Gentiles and it shocking the "we be Abraham's" Jews. The fact that God had elected individuals out of the gentiles was a shock to the Jews, no doubt. Yes, God even elected specific gentiles to salvation and their belief was proof of that and any attempt to make this to not deal with individuals as such does not deal with the individualistic character of this passage which is "personal" in nature. As many (individuals, not all gentiles) as had been ordained to eternal life believed. God has began working with the Gentiles, and it was "from" and "out of" this group (not the group) that individuals as such in Acts 13:48 were appointed to eternal life and it was proven by their faith. Your interpretation while not entirely wrong in its view of the context does not do justice to the force of the text dealing with individual election.

May God bless you

 

Listen, Southern I admit that your interpretation COULD be right, if it agreed with the whole of scripture. I just don't believe it does. You must objectively look at this passage and see if it COULD mean something else.

Remember that the term "Gentile" just means non-jew. There are hundreds of different kinds of Gentiles. There are greeks, Romans, ethopians etc etc. Why couldn't this verse just as easily read, "As many (different groups of gentiles) as had been ordained to eternal life believed. That is as many groups of people who were believing were proving by their belief that each group had indeed been chosen to enter God's covenant. That is so much more likely because it is not so shocking in the flow of the context which is speaking about God picking non-Jews and not God individually choosing some people to the neglect of all the rest. That type of dramatic statement would have deserved some commentary in light of all that had been said up to that point. My interpretation is simply a recap or concluding statement of the point he has been making all along.

You don't see it because you are looking at it through your lenses, I know I've been there. But if you can step away from that for just a minute and be objective with the text I think you can see that is a very plausiable interpretation of this text.

 

I agree, but notice that blindness and hardness are always spoken of in scripture as something one can BECOME and never as being born as such. Even in your words you indicate that the man's sin "brought on" that condition and not that he was born with it. That is a distinction that you seem to miss. Why? The people of Romans 1 became futile in their thinking AFTER clearly seeing and understanding yet refusing God's revelation. They weren't born that way. Isn't that a worth while question to discuss in a civil manner? I think so.

I asked a simple question: In 2 Cor. 4 it speaks of a veil, right?

Wow! This makes Bill's defination of what "is" is seem pretty tame. You have to admit you are apparently giving me the run around with this one. What is one veiled by? Maybe a veil? Which yes he does speak of in the previous chapter and carries the concept over into this one...why are you trying to be difficult???? Avoiding something?

The veil obviously represents blindness and the verse you are obviously trying to side step in chapter 3 clearly shows that one must turn to God in order to have the veil removed. That means one must turn to God to have his blindness taken away in case you couldn't follow that. Just like a blind man had to come to Jesus in faith to be healed we must turn to the Father to find healing. To bad you doctrine has God removing the veil and the blindness before one can turn to God or you might have a pretty good proof text here. :laugh

I know. I only disagree when you say something incorrect ...

This is quite entertaining Larry. I guess its a good thing those editors added those chapter divisions so you don't have that darn veil passage seaping over into chapter 4 and ruining you whole arguement.

I have to print this one off for latter if I ever need a good reminder of what isogesis can do to one's theology.

The problem Larry is that you redefine what you believe as we go. You say men can't understand, so I show you where men can understand, so you qualify understanding as being "moral" understanding without any textual support or even explaination. You just expect me to go, "Oh, moral understanding, that explains everything." As if there is some big difference, what is regular understanding if it is not the same as moral understanding.

If you say men are unable and I show you that they must be able then you say, "well they are able just unwilling." And then I say but John 6 speaks of ability, and you say they are unable to be willing, which affords they exact same arguement as what you were trying to avoid when the discussion began and when I point that out you say I'm just putting up a straw man. Its all quite amusing, really.

Believe me I want to debate #2 as well but when I confront #2 you seem to change around #1 to avoid the apparent contradictions in your dogma. You get upset because I can see through what you are doing and I call you on it. I don't blame you, its really your only defense.

Oh, now I get it. So, the people in Romans 1 had the phyical ability to understand the things of God (whatever that looks like??) and the intellectual ability to understand the things of God, but lacked the moral ability to understand the things of God so that made them unable to do it physically or intellectually afterall? SO WHAT'S THE POINT IN SAYING IT. It affords the exact same arguement Larry. If they can't do it morally it can't be done, period. What they can or can't do intellectually or physically is determined by what they can or can't do morally then it doesn't matter if they can intellectually or physically do something, if they can't do it morally it can't be done, period. Their moral ability determines the ability to do any of the others and if they can't morally see or understand then they can't do it, period; giving them the perfect excuse, "I couldn't do it." This completely undermines Paul's very point, which was that they were able and had everything they needed to see, understand and acknowledge God as God, yet they refused and stand without excuse because of the fact they were able to do these things. It is very simple Larry. Why complicate it so?

I wrote: And on top of all that there is not one explaination in the scritpure for the difficulty of such non-sense.

No, the passages you continually bring up have to do with completely different issues that you apply to your dogma as proof texts and the original author never intended them to be used in defense of such doctrines.

Paul summarized his teaching by including the two groups in question, I merely pointed out that truth. Yes, God can do what ever he wants so I guess that gives us the right to take Romans 9 to mean God does whatever we want him to do as well, that is what you have done. Romans 9 clearly reveals that he has mercy even on dirty Gentiles and he temporarily hardens even his chosen Jews and that he is just in doing so. I guess that means God decided that the Fall of men would cause most men to be born in a state of moral inability where they wouldn't have the capasity to see their need for a savior and respond in faith to the word by which they will one day be judged. What kind of leap is that???

There is quite a difference in teaching that God temporarily and purposefully hardened a group of people who continually rebelled to his numerous attempts to show mercy and a teaching that implies God decided for most of the world to be born virtually hardened and to remain such until they could be judged with eternal damnation for not responding to a message they had no "moral" capasity to even understand or recieve. That is what we call stretching the text.

Larry, I know you don't believe it but I do understand what you believe. Just because I know how to refute it you have to revert to this claim. I understand, its ok.

Unable is unable. If he is able in everyway but one then he is still unable and that affords ALL the same arguments that you are attempting to dodge. Sematic tactics just create diversions from the apparent contradictions in you flawed doctrine. I understand.

Yes, I know and they can't want to. Semantics! Does this help? They are unable to be willing and therefore are unable. Sounds like an excuse to me.

Here is your contradiction Larry. Lets see if you can respond to it without reverting to diversion tactics again:

2 Cor 4 about blindness (not the veil mind you ) says that they become blind by the god of this age but it doesn't say they are born blind as TD suggests. God warns people not to allow their hearts to grow hard (or their eyes to grow blind). Men are born with a sensitivity to right and wrong that they lose over time if they continually ignore it. (called conscience) This doesn't fit with your assumptions regarding the nature of men from birth. Could you explain please?

 

Skan, it is not plausible, because it is nonsensical. Not only must you insert the words "groups of Gentiles" into the text, you must also redefine the words "ordained to eternal life" to mean "ordained to have the opportunity to have eternal life." (Unless you are a universalist). On top of this you must also completely ignore the words "as many as were", by which Luke is distinguishing between the people present. I'm sorry to say it, but to force your "groups" into Luke's message is to sin against your God-given intellect.

- Paul

 

Tumbleweed,

Look up 'ordained' in Acts 13:48; it's not there. It is another Greek word. I'll let you study it through.

 

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:

Notice John Calvin was such a scholar that he had no idea of what the Book of Revelation was all about. The converted Catholic did not even try to exegete the last book of the Bible. He could not even get Romans straight in his own mind.

Frogman: Then he was honest enough to admit what he did not understand, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Ray Berrian:

The Divine justice, mercy and love of Almighty God precludes the true God from damning the majority of sinners by decree and saving His favored ones.

How could the Lord God tell Christians to love their enemies, while He is allowed the freedom to hate the majority of sinners, the enemies of God's holiness? God is fair in His dealing with human sinners. [Acts 17:30] ' . . . Now commands all men, everywhere to repent.'

Those who study church history/the history of the church soon realize that Calvin had a clear link back to Augustine, the greatest of Catholicism's theologians. In my reading, I have repeatedly come across this truth.

Some of you would like to think that because John Calvin became a Protestant that he changed all of his former, Roman Catholic theology.

Regards . . . .

Frogman:
The truth is in regard to man is that he is totally depraved, he is so depraved that even in service to God he often is no different than the greatest sinner, except for Grace alone.

The truth is that Calvin was no different than any other man who is in bondage to his nature, who also is bound by history and immediate circumstances.

BTW, why are the reformers called reformers?

May God Bless
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Frogman,

Greetings!

You said, 'The truth is in regard to man is that he is totally depraved, he is so depraved
that even in service to God he often is no different than the greatest sinner, except for Grace alone.'

Ray: It sounds like you are saying that the regeneration of a sinner, actually does not make much of a change within the person. I do not see it that way. Actually, Ephesians 2:10 declares that once we are regenerated that He produces 'good works' that we will bring forth in our lives as Christians. Justification is the judicial and legal change before God on our behalf, but we must never forget the continually activity of the Spirit of God that takes place within us.

I more than gladly agree with you that we are saved by His grace, plus nothing. [Ephesians 2:8]

Most of the Book of James shows us that we will produce 'good works' that God sanctifies and makes a blessing to others and worship toward Him.

Ray

 

Yes, I agree Brother Ray, but the Bible teaches us as well that he who says he hs no sin is a liar and the truth is not in him.

We are to submit to the will of God which is to do the good works, but have we, even after our redemption is made effectual to us, always submitted to that will of God which produces good works in us?

We must never make our focal point be the good works; we are saved by grace for the praise of the glory of His Grace and not for the showing of good works, it is possible for a man to be a depraved sinner in thought in deed at full enmity against God, but never to be found by man to be immoral, is it not?

God Bless
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Frogman,

You said, 'Yes, I agree Brother Ray, but the Bible teaches us as well that he who says
he hs no sin is a liar and the truth is not in him.'

Ray: Even people like you and me are not without sin, but our striving is to increase in holiness before the Lord. We are to flee from sin and not be a friend to it. It is frustrating when we do fail the Lord, because we 'grieve the Holy Spirit.'

You said, 'We are to submit to the will of God which is to do the good works, but have
we, even after our redemption is made effectual to us, always submitted to
that will of God which produces good works in us?'

Ray: I think that we as Christians fail more than we might even admit. Those who might be more Godly than us, without doubt, can see our shortcomings and even sins.

You said, 'We must never make our focal point be the good works; we are saved by
grace for the praise of the glory of His Grace and not for the showing of
good works,'

Ray: I agree that our focus should be on Jesus; He will produce good works in our lives, but I think we have to think of creative ways in which we can please the Lord and better serve His cause and ministry.

You said, 'it is possible for a man to be a depraved sinner in thought in deed at full enmity against God, but never to be found by man to be immoral, is it not?

Yes, I think there are millions of secular sinners who appear almost sinless, but will be held accountable by the Lord for ignoring His plan and call to salvation through His Name.

As to the Effecutal Call that you mentioned above, I do not believe it the way you do. I believe the Holy Spirit is always active where the witness has been given, but sinners can reject the call of the Holy Spirit. I know this seems foreign and perhaps even repulsive to you.

 

Here is a excerpt from your quotation of Clarke:
"Now, we should be careful to examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. Whatever tetagmenoi may mean, which is the word we translate ordained, it is neither protetagmenoi nor proorismenoi which the apostle uses, but simply tetagmenoi, which includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind."

This is unmitigated rubbish. The Gr. participle tetagmenoi is from the verb tasso which has abundant ancient evidence as meaning "enrolled" or "inscribed". Thus the NEB for example, reads "and those who were marked out for eternal life became believers." The most commonly used word in modern translations is "appointed" (NASB, NIV, RSV, etc.) Even the RC Jerusalm Bible which has a vested interest in denying sovereign grace reads "all who were destined to eternal life became believers."

Don't talk to me about objectivity and context when you wheel out these pseudo-scholars. The fact that 500 years ago Tyndale understood perfectly well what that word means leaves scoundrels like Adam Clarke, Ellicott and the like without excuse. These men "by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

- Paul

 

You tell 'em, Paul. It is amazing the moral and ethical depths to which people will plunge to avoid the plain meaning of the word in order to twist the Bible into conforming to their doctrines.

 

Paul,

You focused upon the least portion of his arguement. The latter portion of the argument is the point I was seeking to emphasize which you should have seen in my original post on the subject (you may not have seen that.)

I could go around and around with you about the interpretation of the word "appointed" but even if I were to concede to that word, my previous argument still stands.

One of the first questions in finding the correct meaning of the text is to ask: What was the question the author was attempting to answer?

You presume that he was answering the question: Why do some individuals believe and others don't?

Thus, you answer: Some have been appointed to eternal life and apparently others have not.

That is clearly incorrect. The question Luke is answering is: Why are you apostles teaching that Gentiles are worthy of eternal life when its clear that only Jews are worthy of such a honor? Don't you know that God has only chosen Jews and not dirty Gentiles?

Thus, the answer is: The gentiles are believing thus proving themselves worthy of eternal life and more significantly showing us that all the nationalities (or people groups who aren't Jewish) who have been appointed by God to eternal life prove it by believing. In short, proof of their appointment is in their faith.

You make the error of applying something that is clearly about nationalities to individuals. You accuse Arminians of doing the same with John 12:32 by insisting that "all" must mean "all types" instead of all individuals. Well, the same principle applies here. At least be objective and consistant with your hermenuetic.

 

One last time:
1) Your insistence on inserting "groups" into the text results in linguistic gobbledegook UNLESS you also believe that ALL WHO WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE - IE: ALL GENTILES were or will be saved. In other words, unless you are a universalist, your interpretation turns plain English into hamburger.

2) You accuse me of an inconsistent hermeneutic because I won't trade you "all men without distinction" in Jn.12:32 for your "groups" interpretation here. The reason is simply that there is no parallel. "All men without distinction" in Jn.12:36 is a perfectly legitimate reading that does not force the text in the least. "Groups" in Acts 13:48 is simply defending your theology even if it means mangling the scripture.

- Paul

 

Paul,

How many different subgroups of Gentiles are there?

How many of those subgroups did God choose?
(Example: Greeks, Romans, Ethopians)

In other words, how many nations does the word "Gentile" represent?

ALL OF THEM, EXCEPT THE ISRAEL. RIGHT?

You do know that many translations even translate the word "gentiles" as "nations," don't you?

So your text could simply mean, "And when all the NATIONS heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many {NATIONS) as were ordained to eternal life believed.

See your mistake is to assume that he is speaking about the smallest subgroup, which is the individual, but he clearly could be speaking of the larger subgroups which are the different nations, each one proving God has appointed nations other than Israel.....which IS the point the apostle has been striving to make throughout this context.

Why do you think he would throw in a statement about individual election in the middle of a discourse about why other nations besides Israel are worthy of eternal life? That doesn't fit the context which your interpretation totally ignores.

 

This is DEFINITELY my last shot at this, friend - (Well, maybe definitely!)

The bottom line remains, Skan, that your interpretation, irrespective of all the other problems, is a linguistic impossibility. The words and syntax found here simply cannot be made to say what you want them to say. It is equivalent to insisting that "Jack and Jill went up the hill" actually means "Burt and Ernie went duck hunting."

Let's look at this concoction:
"And when all the (nations) heard this -"Are you saying that all the Gentile nations to whom the Gospel would now be preached were represented there in Pisidian Antioch that day? - Maoris, Eskimos, etc, all glorifying the word of the Lord? Of course not, yet your scheme makes no sense unless they were.
But then you try to say that "As many nations as were ordained to eternal life (and again you have to say this means every nation on earth) believed" Were there Hawaiians and Mexicans who were saved that day? I doubt it.
Nor can you consign this believing by all nations to some future time, as Luke couches the whole thing firmly in the past tense.

Your insistence that somehow the context demands that we do this to the text is quite groundless. The scene simply illustrates that God was visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name (Acts 15:14)

- Paul