Just to mention, that it's funny that this, as you must know, is precisely the argument of the Primitive Baptists against mainstream Calvinism. So to them God can save apart from faith, and apart from the Gospel, which is just to feed the sheep.
The "push" analogy was good, but to make it better, how about "push out of a burning building into a net they were unwilling (afraid) to trust to catch them". Now, the analogy is much closer.
And the resistance is what keeps them in their sin, not God refusing to save them to begin with.
A Calvinistic contradiction
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Skandelon, May 30, 2004.
Page 2 of 2
-
Ooh, theology by analogy or allegory! Can I play? Here's one...
;) -
Mt 11:21
"What horrors await you, Korazin and Bethsaida! For if the miracles I did in you had been done in wicked Tyre and Sidon, their people would have sat in deep repentance long ago, clothed in sackcloth and throwing ashes on their heads to show their remorse.
Notice they are being rebuked for their lack of response.
Matt. 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me.
Notice they are being rebuked for not responding and not allowing the people they lead to respond to God's call to "gather them beneath his wings."
Romans 10:21 But regarding Israel, God said, "All day long I opened my arms to them, but they kept disobeying me and arguing with me."
Once again you see God calling and patiently holding out his hands to people and they reject him and recieve rebuke. It is not just the fact that they are sinful that they are rebuked and condemned, they are rebuked for their unbelief and lack of response. They are called to repentance for their sins and rebuked for not responding and its that rebuke that causes your contradiction. Why would God rebuke and even condemn a man for not doing something that he wasn't created with the ability to do? -
Your verses demonstrate that God wants people to respond, and they won't. These verses do not address WHY they do not respond, and they do not address IF they have the ability to respond.
For example:
Matthew 11:21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
What is this verse really saying?
1. That God could have saved the people of Tyre and Sidon if He had performed mighty works there? If so, then you have just proved that God elects some and not others, because God chose not to do what was necessary to save Tyre and Sidon.
2. If, in order to avoid this difficulty, you insist that this particular "repentance in sackcloth and ashes" was not unto salvation, but simply some other level of repentance, then you cannot use this verse to address soteriology, because being saved is not at issue here.
3. If you do insist that God could have caused Tyre and Sidon to repent unto salvation if He had done these mighty works, then that still leaves the question as to why Tyre and Sidon would have repented, Chorazin and Bethsaida would not. Nowhere in this verse does it say the difference is one of free will or some other ability or quality in man -- that is assumed on your part.
But here is a verse that shows that miracles and mighty works aren't effective unless God gives us ears to hear and eyes to see...
Deut 29:2 Now Moses called all Israel and said to them: "You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land-- 3 the great trials which your eyes have seen, the signs, and those great wonders. 4 Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day.
It does not say, "You have seen all that the LORD did, but you chose of your own free will not apply what you saw toward trusting the LORD." It says that the LORD had not given them a heart to perceive or eyes to see and ears to hear.
In Romans, Paul blends this verse with Isaiah 29:10, where it refers to blinding/hardening. But Deuteronomy 29:2 does not talk about hardening, it talks about an ability God withheld.
In Deuteronomy 30, God turns that around and talks about how He will change our hearts that we might love Him and live. Once again, it does not say God will give us a choice to love Him, it says God will actively circumcise our hearts and the hearts of our descendencts so that we will love Him. Big difference.
Deuteronomy 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. -
Well then, that is another qualifier put. It should have been "If God had given Tyre and Sidon the eyes to see, they would have repented". If He hadn't, then they would not have repented. (So, what's the point, then?) Thus Christ's words are rendered meningless.
-
You might have a desire for your child to do something beyond his abilities, but you are not going to beg him to do something you know he can't do and then punish him for not doing it. You wouldn't even do that to a stranger. Why would God be less merciful or kind than you?
Matthew 11:21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
Just because something may be "necessary" to break a persons will doesn't mean God is obligated to do it. I have never claimed that God could'nt change anyone's will he wanted to change. He is God. He could have convinced Hitler if He wanted to by some supernatural appearance or something like that, but that is not his desire. His desire is for us to have faith. To please God one must believe he exists Hebrews teaches us. The story of Thomas shows us that God can and sometimes does interviene to show himself to a doubter, but he also teaches us that he perfers and even blesses those who do not see and still believe. I've never claimed God is obligated to do anything and everything to convince the human will. I don't agree with Arminians who say that God has done everything He could do to save all the lost. That is silly. God has done everything he wanted to do to allow people to respond in faith and love to his provisions of mercy. He wants people to choose who they will follow. If He didn't He would have just made the rocks cry out in the first place.
I see no difficulty with my beliefs so I don't need to resort to this option, I only see the difficulty this verse creates for your beliefs because it directly highlights man's willful response to external stimuli which flies in the face of a dogma that excludes human will in salvation.
What other variable beside their wills is in play here? If it wasn't the signs and wonders that could have convinced Tyre and Sidon to repentance then why did Jesus even bring the signs and wonders up? As Eric pointed out, you make Jesus' words meaningless by suggesting that this passage isn't about man's response to God's revelation.
Here are just a few verses that you may have missed:
11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off... in that I command you today to love the Lord your God
I guess God is lying to some of the people here because according to your doctrine it is too mysterious and far off for the non-elect ones in the group, right?
17 "But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish...19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore CHOOSE life, that both you and your descendants may live
Hmmm, those "elect" people in verse 6 who were "made to love God" may turn away and worship other god's only to perish in the end. How does that fit? And it certainly seems as if man must make some kind of choice from this passage?
Earlier in Deut 13 it says:
1 "If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods'--which you have not known--'and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Please explain to me why God would need to test their love from them if it is He who made them to love Him? Does He think that His effectual call may not take with some of them? Please explain.
[ June 02, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Skandelon ] -
This is a spectacular verse to illustrate the point:
So here's God basically saying, "This commandment is easy, and I know you understand it. You have set before you life and death, blessing and curses, so choose life. But I know you're going to choose death and cursing. So I'm going to curse you and scatter you to the ends of the earth. Then I'm going to regather you, circumcize your hearts so that you'll love Me and live."
Sounds like there's a very hard lesson in all of this, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with free will. Indeed, it sounds like God is teaching man how fundamentally rebellious he is, unable to obey even easy commands that are easy to understand. And once God has proven to man just how unable he is to please God of his own free will, God will show them the only way to repent -- if God Himself circumcizes their hearts. -
The law was given to us as a tutor to show us our need for Him. You see there is a reason for God giving us the Law. Now what is the reason for God calling people who can't repent to repentance?
This is a spectacular verse to illustrate the point:
-
In short, God provided the law to help men know they need Grace which comes through faith.
Proof that men can't obey the law is not proof men can't have faith. The law was given to show men they can't measure up. Are you saying now the call to faith was given to show men they can't have faith either?
Page 2 of 2