Featured Cause and effect, singular versus plural - Jn. 6:44

I was once 'enlightened' as a hard core five pointer, but I guess God decided to take it away from me for a while...but maybe it will come back? :laugh:

Seriously, I think the fact the many believers are not Calvinistic is revealing in regard to man's freedom of the will. If Calvinism is true, either God has (1) left his children free to choose what soteriology they will believe even though he predetermined them to believe in Christ, or (2) he has decided to keep some of his children in the dark on this issue.

Either way, it doesn't make much sense for your system.

I agree. He is keeping individuals from believing by speaking to them in parables.

I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this particular individual who cries out 'crucify him' won't be provoked later and saved...see Acts 2 where over 2000 of those who helped to crucify him come to faith

Possibly... the Jews were stuck in their tradition and wouldn't have been likely to seek to better understand his teaching...but the point is had he not used parables they 'might have seen, heard, understood and turned' (something impossible if Total Inability is true)

Indeed.

Yep...and rest were being hardened...judicially hardened..sealed in their already blind and rebellious condition. But these disciples were being entrusted to come to Christ, the incarnate WORD, and to learn directly from him making them have the unique authority of Apostles.

I'm talking about judicial hardening...God's active blinding of the Jews which is what he specifically addresses throughout Romans 9, 10 and 11. God is giving them a 'spirit of stupor' and 'blindness' which is used interchangably with 'hardening.'

Plus, even those 'cut off' can be 'grafted back in' if they 'leave their unbelief.' Rm. 11

You may be confusing self hardening with the divine work of judicial hardening. I can post some commentaries that draw that clear distinction if needed. One can choose to reject truth, light, revelation over a period of time and grow calloused to it...this is 'self hardening.' Judicial hardening is when God actively seals them in darkness, and hides the truth from their eyes (i.e. parables) so as to prevent them from being convinced. We see both in the case of Pharaoh...so, you are right in that 'self hardening' leads to being 'judicial hardened' or 'cut off.'

BTW, when Rm 11 speaks of being 'cut off' he means being 'cut off' from revelation or truth, not from being saved, otherwise you would have being being saved, then lost then possibly saved again...grafted in, cut/broken off, grafted back in etc.

 

Wrong, Romans 8:9 says that if you do not have the Spirit dwelling "in you", then you are "in the flesh".

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

A person is only in the Spirit if the Spirit DWELLS IN YOU, otherwise you are in the flesh. That is the plain teaching of this verse, so we know that the disciples were "in the flesh" in the garden, as the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to any believer (John 7:39). The Holy Spirit being "with" the disciples is indeed revelation, but it is not regeneration.

Of course, this destroys your doctrine of Total Inability, so you will do everything you can to ignore and deny this truth. You are not a Biblicist, you are a fanatic Calvinist.

 

I know you still have a post of mine to reply to already, but I have interject here...don't we all agree that the spirit of God must dwell in us? Aren't we debating the means through which the spirit indwells? Look at Gal. 3:

'He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit...

But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. 26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus"​

Notice the means though which we become sons and receive the indwelling spirit?

 

Again, we are debating the means by which the spirit indwells...which the verses I presented clearly show is accomplish 'through faith' and not the other way around.

 

I don't like it when people do that to me, so I apologize if I'm guilty of doing that to you. If you can point it out when I do it then I'll try to avoid it. Labeling and dismissing is a temptation for all of us during a debate and its the lazy man's way out. However, sometimes tags or labels are used to 'summarize' or 'categorize' or even better 'define' a particular point of view. We all do it, but its always within the debaters right to correct that label or better define their position.

What is the other alternative?

Maybe you could tell me an author or notable scholar who espouses your views on these matters so I can do better to represent your 'system' as I tend to think most Calvinistic believers here fall into the Piper/Sproul/MacArthur/Driscoll 'brand' of Reformed theology.

The parables were a means used to keep them in the dark. See, you have a tendency to think of hardening or drawing as being just some kind of internal secret working, but God has always worked through means. He draws with the spoken words of messengers inspired to proclaim the gospel truth...he hardens with parables, etc.

Parables were the means God used to keep people in the dark so they wouldn't believe. He explained the parables to those he had entrusted with the truth, those He chose to teach, disciple and send into the world to be the foundation for his church...the rest he chose for the 'common use' of remaining in their unbelief and crying out, "crucify him!"...something they wouldn't do if they understood his teaching and repented.

I'm confused. He explains the truth to his disciples and he doesn't to the other Jews. How is that not a distinction? He wants some to believe it and others to remain in darkness for a time. Why do you feel that contradicts my view on this matter?

The 12 were representative of the remnant being entrusted to Christ...these were those from Israel given to Christ to be the foundation for the church and to take the message to the rest of the world. Jesus even pointed them out specifically in John 6...and its not meant to suggest their families and closest friends weren't involved, but just that God's purpose in hardening/blinding Israel while setting apart his messengers from Israel is redemptive in nature...its not a condemning purpose.

You are not responding to the argument being presented. I agree that self hardening is first and that God seals them in that hardened position by 'cutting them off' from further light. That is what Romans 11 is all about. Israel grew hardened...grew calloused, so God cut them off, which means he judicially hardened/blinded them from the truth, but this is NOT a condemning thing...its a redemptive thing. As Paul explains, it is in their being cut off that redemption is brought to all and that they too, even after being cut off, might be provoked to envy and saved...they might leave their unbelief and be grafted back in.

Can you explain what you think it means for an individual Jew to be 'cut off' then 'grafted back in again' if not what I've exposed above?

I'm confused by this...romans 11 speaks about the remnant so why are you concluding Rm 11 has nothing to do with individual salvation?

So explain how a individual Jew is broken off. Which tree is he, as an individual, broken off of. And what is he grafted back into? Lay it out clearly. What happens to the individual Jews who 'leave their unbelief' and are 'grafted back in.' Walk us through that step by step.

Convenient how in Romans 9 you think its all about individuals but now you don't...why not be consistent, like we are, and use the same hermeneutic for all of Romans 9-11? I'm fine talking about nations being made up of individual, but are you?

I doubt you'll be willing to talk about the individual Jew who is cut off and grafted back in, are you? I thought Calvinists believe that what is true of the nation is true of the individuals who make up that nation?

Not at all. The tree doesn't represent salvation, as I already stated. The TREE represents revelation, or truth. Its represents the means by which men come to faith and thus salvation. The Jews were plugged into revelation...they had the truth being revealed directly to them through the law and the prophets. They were a branch directly connected to that source of truth. But now they are being BROKEN OFF...meaning blinded from the source of truth (i.e.parables). And now that truth is being taken to the Gentiles...they are being 'grafted in' to the special revelation of God. That doesn't mean they are saved, it just means they have the means by which they too can believe and be saved. Understand? I'm not asking you to agree, but I need to know you are understanding our perspective because your reply reflects otherwise...

Incorrect. At least that is incorrect in our view. Is that what you believe? If its not, then explain to me what you believe about those individuals who are cut off and grafted back in to the vine?

Unpack that. How is an individual cut off from God's primary sourse of redemption and then grafted back into it later?

 

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Nonsense, it says that we are not "in the flesh" if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in us. Therefore a person IS "in the flesh" if he does not have the indwelling Spirit. Therefore the disciples were in the flesh and not yet regenerate in Matthew 26:41, because no believer had yet received the Holy Spirit (Jhn 7:39).

Here is what John Gill wrote of this verse;

The disciples had not yet received the indwelling Spirit in the garden when Jesus spoke to them, and were not yet regenerated, yet they were WILLING in their natural spirit.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This actually matches up perfectly with Paul's description of himself in Romans 7. In his mind and spirit he was willing to obey and serve God, but he was prevented from doing good by his flesh.

Likewise, the disciples were willing to pray with Jesus, but their flesh caused them to fall asleep.

 

Yes, but without the Spirit they were not "regenerated". That is why I showed you what Gill wrote, read again;

Nobody is regenerated UNTIL they have the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Exactly. Cornelius was a believer, but he was lost, he did not receive the Holy Spirit until he sent for Peter and heard the gospel.

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Cornelius did not have the Holy Spirit, and he was not saved, yet he had the ability to fear God for years and do righteous works that God recognized. He was not regenerated until he heard the gospel from Peter and the Holy Ghost fell on him.

I know the difference between plural "ye" and singular "you", and I know that neither of these verses is relevant to our discussion. The disciples did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit in Mat 26:41 and so were not yet regenerated, yet in their natural spirit they were able to be willing to obey Jesus. This matches perfectly with Paul's description of himself in Romans 7:14-25 where he desired to do good, but could not find victory over the flesh as an unregenerate person.

Your view would have Paul being an utter failure as a Christian in Romans 7 with absolutely no victory over the flesh. Your view has Paul saying he was "sold under sin" and a "servant of sin" as a born again Christian. Absurd. Note that Paul does not mention having the Spirit even one time in Rom 7:14-25, but repeatedly speaks of being in the Spirit in chapter 8.

What you will not see or admit is that Total Inability is completely false and easily refuted by much scripture, such as the disciples in the garden and the story of Cornelius. You do not read the Bible for what it says, you pour your Calvinism into it where it does not belong.

 

Which would be option 2... that God, for whatever reason, has chosen not to reveal the 'truth' of Calvinism to all his children. Why is that an incorrect assessment?

So you can't refer me to any notable scholars/commentators who best represent most of your views on these matters? I know you may differ on some of the finer matter, and that is ok, but it would help to know your approach to these matters.

1. Can you list the verses to support this premise?

2. How is speaking to someone in parables, as Christ does in order to keep the Jewish leaders from belief, considered 'more light' instead of 'less light?'

3. How is being given a 'spirit of stupor' more light and not 'less light.'

4. How is being 'cut off' from the vine (the light), considered more rather than less light?

5. How is being blinded by God considered in your mind to be more rather than less light?

Indeed. They have been VEILED from seeing the light, as we have discussed. But consider the entire context of this passage and I think you might see it supports my premise, not yours:

"13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."​

Again, the concept of being blinded/veiled is in the context of Israel being hardened. But notice the part in read...this is once again affirming human responsibility regarding the removing of that veil. Your view would say it just the opposite. A Calvinist would say, "But whenever the Lord removes the veil, they turn to the Lord." But Paul puts it in the RIGHT ORDER: "But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

It's the same in Romans 11...'they will be grafted back in if they leave their unbelief.'

Good question. That is a question YOU have to answer about YOUR VIEW. Why did God have to speak in parables to prevent them from seeing and believing if what you believe about total inability is true?

Don't you see, my view about the gospel truth is not at odds with the use of parables, like yours is. I believe the light of the gospel CAN and DOES penetrate the darkened mind...it is sharper than a double edged sword piercing through the soul. That is why he had to speak to them in parables. He didn't want them to hear and understand and possibly choose to turn. If what you believe is true, however, there is no reason to use parables because they wouldn't have been able to understand and turn either way...not unless God regenerated them first.

I'm just reporting what Jesus said, when asked why he spoke to them in parables he said 'so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'

HE specifically says what "MIGHT" happen if he didn't use parables. So you will have to ask why Jesus thought parables were required to blind men...

But according to your view, the carnal mind would have rejected any truth as foolishness. If what you believe is true he could have sat them down explained every detail of the gospel in a clear and persuasive manner without any use of paradox or parables and the result would be the same, so there is NO REASON for using parables to blind men if you are correct...proving that your view is not the correct one.

But didn't the Spirit indwell them at Pentecost?

"26 "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning." - Jesus in John 15

How were they already regenerated if the Spirit hadn't indwelled them yet? Do you believe in a double blessing, like when the spirit awakens you and then later fills you or something? Just seeking clarity?

 

Right, YOU are the only person who understands the scriptures. :laugh:

Yep, that's what I'm telling you. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit had been shown in scriptures for centuries, this is why Nicodemus should have known of it.

Joe 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

The receiving of the Holy Spirit whereby men would be born again was foretold by the prophets, so Nicodemus should have known of this, but it was a future event.

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Again, a future event.

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Again, the receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit for believers was a future event. This is what the prophets told, and why Nicodemus should have understood. But no one had the indwelling Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, the Spirit would rest on a man, and could also leave a man, as he did with king Saul.

Yes, I understand the difference between being indwelt by the Spirit as an individual, which no believer received until after Jesus was glorified (John 7:39) and being baptized into the body of Christ corporately. Neither is relevant to this discussion as I said before. No one had the indwelling Spirit until after Jesus was raised from the dead and was glorified.

Jhn 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

This one verse alone refutes your view, because it is speaking of persons who believed on Jesus, and it says they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Therefore they could not possibly be regenerated, yet they had the ability to believe on Jesus. This verse alone completely refutes your view.

Jhn 17:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

It is true that the Spirit dwelled with the disciples at this point, but he was not INSIDE them, they did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is verified when Jesus told his disciples to receive the Spirit in chapter 20.

Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

If the disciples already had the Spirit and were regenerated as you say, there would have been no need for Jesus to breathe on them and tell them to receive the Spirit.

Yet the disciples believed on Jesus for at least three years before this, proving that unregenerate men have the ability to believe.

Jhn 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

No, show the scripture that supports this. I have NEVER heard of two different types of indwelling of the Spirit.

Of course, of course, YOU are the ONLY person in the whole wide world that understands the scriptures. What was I possibly thinking?

 

Actually, that was in reference to believers being able to accept the doctrinal views regarding election that you hold to...'enlightened' etc. There really is only three options:

1. All true believers will come to believe as you do (or they aren't true believers)

2. God gives all believers the contra-causal freedom to accept or reject those particular views.

3. God has decided to grant some believers these 'truths' but not others.

I actually never said that, but I explained how some labels are just the most concise way of communicating a point. Would you prefer that I call them "Reformed doctrines"? That is not a historically accurate label, but if it helps I can do that?

So, its not really my 'fault' (responsibility) whether or not I believe these particular views? After all, He has to be the one who makes me willing to accept them, so ultimately it is HIS response you are hoping for, not mine.

I just mean published and accessible to normal people like me... :wavey:

You have said that before, yes, but then I asked you several follow up questions and you've neglected to respond to those.

For example, you have yet to tell us how speaking in parables is 'more light' instead of 'less light' as you originally explained. As I said, the strongest points of one's argument are typically not reflected in the portions the opponent answers, but in the portions ignored or avoided. You appear to be ignoring these follow up questions for some reason.

I've never thought of 'giving more light' and equal to blinding someone and I've yet to see any support for this view except your assertions.

People tend to turn to personal ad hominem when they can't respond to the point of the debate.

Since when is quoting the entire scripture passage to better understand the context considered 'political jokey?'

I never said they did. One has BECOME HARDENED or GROWN CALLOUSED and the other has not. That distinction means something to those of us who don't believe all men are born in a total disabled condition by which no one could ever see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing.

"" 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" ​

Explain Paul's distinction between the Jew, who has grown calloused and the Gentile who has not. He specifically tells us what the non-hardened individual might do OTHERWISE, yet you disagree with Paul.

Agreed. And what is true of the nation must be true of the individuals within that nation, right?

Funny, I think the exact same thing about what you believe as compared to what I believe...that is often a sign that this is a question begging fallacy.

Can you list examples of truth causing blindness? How does the use of parables support this assertion?

You keep saying that but on what basis? It doesn't follow. Men's continued rejection of the light will hardened them to the light, but the light itself doesn't cause hardening.

In all of that response it is painfully obvious you are avoiding the question I've continually asked about how the use of parables to prevent his audience from turning fits your view.

You say that as if God's word can exist without power... The fact that the words ARE GOD'S make them inherently powerful. The difference with our views is that you think mens depraved heart is more powerful than God's appeal for reconciliation meant to enable a response.

So, you believe they might have believed and turned to him for healing and not have been regenerated? That is what the texts says the might have done had he not used parables.

I agree, it was for the same reasons that he gave this instruction. He was blinding them...again this is proof of LESS LIGHT, not more as you suppose (without biblical proof)

Whoa, slow down... I just asked you a clarifying question. I never told you what I believe on this point. I simply asked what your belief was concerning the apostles faith prior to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost...that is all.

 

That's all that needed to be said. You believe, as I presumed from the beginning of this rabbit trail, that God (for whatever reason) has granted the 'truth' of Calvinism (reformed theology) to some of his Children, while leaving the others to believe a false view. Have you ever considered why He would do that? Or do you dismiss such questions as paradoxes?

In my view they aren't opposed to each other, so of course I can grasp it. We are debating which of our views is accurate, not making accusations about how the other is too dull to grasp things simply because they disagree with it.

Proof. Quote what I said and then refute it. Blanket unfounded accusations get us no where. Quote something I said and then make a case for why it is 'warp' and what the correct system should be... then we would be having a profitable discussion.

Isn't that true whether or not he spoke in parables according to your point of view? I think you KNOW the answer is yes, which is why the use of parables as a prevention of these people believing undermines your entire system. The WORD is light and thus has POWER to persuade and bring clarity, and thus belief, which is why God had to use parables. He was blinding, provoking and confusing them, not showing them more light. And he was doing it for a redemptive purpose, not a condemning one.

I took the liberty to highlight the section you seem to want to avoid. Their eyes have closed...they have GROWN CALLOUSED...BECOME HARDENED...."OTHERWISE they might see, hear, understand turn and I would heal them."

Oh, so what Jesus is saying here is that the truth contained in the parable is so clear, so enlightening, so obvious as to their meaning that the Jewish leaders are blinded by the light of the clarity and blatant obvious truth being proclaimed to their ears? That seems backwards to what the parables are doing here in this context, don't you think?

THERE IT IS!

Right on! IF THIS WAS NOT THEIR CONDITION. Now, stop and ask yourself, "What is their condition?"

1. They were born totally unable to see, hear, understand or turn to God for healing due to an inherited sin nature from the fall.

OR...

2. They had 'grown calloused' after rejecting the light of God's revelation for years and years...​

What if #2 hadn't happened? What 'MIGHT' they be able to do. I agree with you that they can't, and that THIS is their condition, but what if it weren't. What if they had not "GROWN CALLOUSED" like the verse says? What if they were like the Gentiles instead who haven't grown calloused, would they be able to listen to these truths and accept them?

Paul says yes, "27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Think about it. Why would he say, "I'll take the message to the Gentiles who will listen," if he believed them to be in the same debilitating condition as the Jews? I'll leave you with that question as I believe it is the crux of this passage...