What role could envy play in the salvation process?

I didn't presume that, it is what Jesus actually said, "if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago." No presumption there.

You will need to ask him that question. We both agree that God is not obligated to reveal himself through outward signs and wonders. He is please through faith (Heb 11) and those are the means HE has chosen.

I don't know that I would call that "faith." He saw and believed, so maybe that would be better described as "belief" or "trust?" "Faith" is typically a word used for that which is unseen. "Blessed are those who don't see and still believe."

Again, you will need to ask him. He could write his name in blood across the sky right now and cause a lot of people to change their minds and believe in him, but he doesn't. Sometimes I wish he would do more miracles and such, but I suppose that is just not his pleasure. Calvinists don't have the market on claiming that God has a sovereign purpose or will, we affirm such truths too whether you recognize them or not.

Plus, we do not believe God's desire is just to save all man. His desire, according to our view, is to save all who have FAITH.

No, I've considered it amply, thank you. Now, you're turn to defend your view. How could it be that the signs and wonder would have lead them to repentance if indeed they were born "Totally Depraved" and in need of the "Effectual calling?"

 

But Calvinists don't typically affirm that men are brought to faith through any other means than regeneration, do they?

That response for me is consistent with my other claims, whereas it appears to contradict the claims of Calvinism....i.e. "no one can come to faith apart from the effectual work of regeneration."

Probably not, but that doesn't negate the fact that is revealed in his statement, which was that these people would have repented had more signs and wonders been shown them, which contradicts the claims of Calvinism which require a prior work of regeneration.

Ok, what scripture would you like to compare with this one so as to explain away what Jesus clearly said?

 

I understand that, but I'm asking what purpose do those means serve since regeneration serves the purpose of effectually changing man's will and the gospel serves the purpose of informing the regenerate man of his need to repent and believe. What purpose does envy serve? What purpose do signs and wonders serve? How could either of those means lead men to repentance as Jesus said they would? What else could Jesus mean if what you believe is true?

No, he said they WOULD have IF they had been shown the same signs and wonders, which clearly gives power to the outward means to convince men's wills to change. In the same way, Paul affirms that the outward means which provoke men to envy can also have the power to affect change in man's will, something Calvinism denies.

We have to explain away what you consider to be a clear passage supporting your view in Acts 13:48 and I'm merely asking you to compare the verses you need to compare in order to explain away what otherwise appears to be clearly supporting our view. You seem to be avoiding wanting to take on that challenge whereas I quickly tackled the Acts 13:48 challenge... Why?

 

Naw, it was meant to be more of a prod to provoke your will to engage the debate, you know kind of like envy did for the hardened Jews? :smilewinkgrin:

 

So, you are saying you don't know what purpose envy might serve? Why not simply accept that it might serve the purpose of provoking them to change their mind, as Paul said?

Quite the opposite. I'm trying to maximize the God's chosen purposes in utilizing means such as signs and envy. If any view minimalizes these purposes and means, it is one in which says those means have no power or known purpose.

And now that you have dismissed my argument with that simple rebuttal, I'll pack it away and use its reverse to rebuttal all your so called interpretations according to Calvinistic systematic theology.

I'm not claiming that Jesus was intending to make a comprehensive view of how salvation works. I'm ONLY talking about what he actually said and the facts that are revealed. If you believe that those cities wouldn't have repented after seeing those signs and wonders then you believe in contradiction to what Jesus actually said, period.

BTW, you still haven't told us what Jesus' point was if indeed those people wouldn't have repented if shown signs and wonders? You mentioned wanting to compare scriptures, but I didn't see any that explained these verses intent. Which the Acts 13:48 passage I presented some possible alternative intents of the author and you haven't done that for this passage. What was Jesus' intent if not what he clearly seems to state?

 

You now think it is a waste of a day to do what was decreed by God for you to do today? Please explain how that can be? :smilewinkgrin:

 

Ok, we agree that God chose those means to save people. Now, God chose those means to accomplish what purpose? The effectual call (regeneration) accomplishes the purpose of changing man's will so that they believe and the gospel informs regenerate of their need to repent and believe. What do envy or signs do?

You are not a simpleton, the reason you don't feel or see the need to expound beyond that is because you are smart enough to see the inconsistency of these means being used in a system where they serve absolutely no purpose. This is one of the reasons I begin to objectively question my Calvinistic beliefs several years ago. I challenge you to do the same.

Ok, I'll be objective. Let's concede that point. Let's assume you are right and the people in Tyre and Sidon need both signs and for God to elect them from eternity past and regenerate them.

So, what is now the intent of Jesus' rebuke to the modern day cities considering this truth is also in play?

Was His intent to say, "Woe to you cities, if God would have elected the people of Tyre and Sidon in eternity past and effectually regenerated them and then shown them the signs and wonders you have seen, they would have repented long ago. But you haven't been elected either and you haven't been regenerated either and you still refuse to believe these signs and wonders for some reason! Shame on you!"

That's not intended to be in any way misrepresentative of what you believe, I honestly just can't see any rational intent of this rebuke from the Calvinistic perspective. Please explain.

1. Why rebuke them for something only He can effectuate through regenerative means?

2. Why point to great number of sign and wonders they had received as the source of that rebuke if it could not have lead them to repentance?

3. Why claim that the same amount of signs and wonder WOULD have resulted in repentance in the ancient cities if the sign and wonders is NOT the factor in question?

 

The gospel informs the regenerate, so they are not alike in that the gospel has a stated and known purpose.

In concert to accomplish what exactly?

That wasn't my intent. I'm just calling it like I see it and you appear to be avoiding the implication of speculating as to the purpose of these means because they do not match your systematic theology.

I purposefully followed up that comment with the explanation of my intent and that I wasn't meaning to misrepresent your view. I asked you to tell us what other intent Jesus might have, but you avoided answering that question in order to accuse me of being "snarky." Could that be because you don't have an answer to the question and find it easier to label and dismiss my arguments as being "snarky?"

Exactly my point! Preaching to them has a purpose in both our views. We both understand the purpose of those means within our systems. We both agree God didn't choose to save by edict. But where we seem to part ways is regard to the purpose and power of the signs and wonders. Jesus clearly seems to indicate that they have the power to lead others to repentance, but you don't so it incumbent on you to explain what other intend he may have had in saying this...

Regeneration would be the only purposeful factor from your perspective though and that is why this rebuke and the implications of it seem out of place, don't you think? What is Jesus' intent in saying this if not what I have proposed?

 

So, are you affirming that envy and signs with the gospel apart from regeneration can sufficiently lead a man to faith in Christ? Please expound what the purpose the signs and envy accomplish in the process.

(assuming you have kids) So, do you often rebuke your kids for things you know full well you haven't given them the ability to accomplish?

And why would he point to the signs and wonders if they aren't the factor that really could make the difference in the ancient cities?

I think you have a false perception of LFW. Outward influences and provoking of the will are very much a part of the process of self determination. Clearly the signs didn't have effectual power over these cities, but what is equally clear is that Jesus believed the signs to be sufficient enough to invoke a repentant response.

But there was MORE than a rebuke, there was a reference to ancient cities and reference to the signs that would lead them to repentance...what is the INTENT of that part of the quote?