Friends,
This is a catch-all thread to address something I see as a flaw in the logic expressed in the following thread's OP:
The Calvinistic system introduces the most disingenuous invitation known to manAll of these threads were started by Skandelon so it my seem like I'm picking on him, I'm not. Perhaps what I perceive to be a flaw in his logic is in each thread's OP, but I do not intend to "beat up" on Skandelon.
Jacob I loved and Esau I hated = individual election?
Explain why God is patient with men if indeed men have nothing to do with being saved
Now, on to the substance of this thread.
The above threads seems to suggest that, in the Calvinist theology, man is willing to be saved and yet God is unwilling to save him. In other words, the non-elect (in Calvinist terms) are desperately wanting salvation only to their surprise to have God reject their pleas. (Think The Wizard of Oz--nobody gets to see the wizard, not nobody, not no how).
We contend that this is an impossibility. Man, in his natural condition, does not desire the things of God. So, the non-elect (again in Calvinist terms) are happy to reject God and the general call of the Gospel.
Opponents of Calvinism (and Reformed Theology) would have us believe that Esau, for one, was a really good guy--though probably misunderstood--and God chose his little brother Jacob in spite of Esau's righteousness. Further, these same opponents would have us think that the Pharaoh of the exodus was thinking "you know, I really think this slavery thing is bad. We don't need this slave workforce...I think I'll just let them be free" and Moses and God show up and God forces Pharaoh's heart hard. (Please understand the hyperbole of these examples)
In reality, these two examples--Esau and Pharaoh--show man's unrighteousness and natural disposition against the things of God and in their lives are receiving their just deserts for their sinful condition--just as we all deserve.
So, what say you? What is man's natural condition?
Blessings,
The Archangel
God's Sovereign Choice and Man's Natural Condition
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Archangel, Jan 20, 2010.
Page 1 of 3
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
-
Amen!! I fully agree with what you're saying here. Scripture is clear that sinful man will not choose God. But we also know that anyone who comes to Him will not be turned away (John 6:37). There is not one person in the history of this world who truly desired to be saved but was not. Period. End of story. Amen.
-
Read "Cowboy Boots in Darkest Africa", by Bill Rice. -
Enemies of God
Dead in sin
In need of a Savior
In need of Reconciliation
Wicked
Depraved
Corrupt
Selfish
etc
But, what is God's revealed solution for this condition?
Answer: He sent Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, the Church and the Gospel...the message meant to bring reconciliation with God.
My objection with your view is that your dogma insists that his revealed solution is insufficient. You insist that there needs to be more..there needs to be an "irresistible" or "effectual" inward calling before any of these means will be effective. That is biblically unfounded. Can you find one verse which tells us that men are unable to willingly respond to the life giving message of the cross? Just one verse that shows us that the divine powerful message of reconciliation is not actually able in and of itself to reconcile anyone? Just one verse. -
Since I have not read the book, would you care to enlighten me as to what it says? -
-
It really is a good book, also it is not very expensive at all. Check it out at Amazon.com or BN.com. You will like it, I promise. -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
Blessings,
The Archangel -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
To say in our view that the Gospel is insufficient is like telling a farmer who neither prepares, tills, nor irrigates his land that his seeds are themselves insufficient or defective.
Also, you are suggesting that man, in his fallen state, has a desire to come to God--even through the Gospel. How does a desperately wicked, only evil continually heart desire God? How does dry, cracked soil become tilled, plantable, and productive ground? Does the seed do it? No, the farmer makes the ground ready for the seed.
It would seem Acts 13:48 shows an indiscriminate Gospel presentation and that same Gospel taking actual root in a pre-selected group: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed"
Blessings,
The Archangel -
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
Blessings,
The Archangel -
I wish I had known about this book yesterday when I placed an order with Amazon! I think my son would really like it (and I always read his books - LOL) -
Acts 28:24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " '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!"
Notice the condition of these people who would not believe Paul's persuasive message. They had GROWN hardened. It doesn't say they were born in that condition as your dogma suggests. It says they became like that over time. Additionally it goes on to tell us what their condition would have been OTHERWISE. They "might have seen, heard, understood and believed." In fact, Paul say Israel has grown hard, but the Gentiles will listen, proving that this "hardened state" is not the condition of all people, but only those who have heard and continually rebelled. How do you explain that?
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
It was an example of hyperbole. Nevertheless, Esau was not owed anything by God.Opponents of Calvinism (and Reformed Theology) would have us believe that Esau, for one, was a really good guy--though probably misunderstood--and God chose his little brother Jacob in spite of Esau's righteousness. Further, these same opponents would have us think that the Pharaoh of the exodus was thinking "you know, I really think this slavery thing is bad. We don't need this slave workforce...I think I'll just let them be free" and Moses and God show up and God forces Pharaoh's heart hard. (Please understand the hyperbole of these examples)
Had God purposed to save everyone, instead of some, the Gospel would be sufficient to and in saving all.
If there were no different types of soil, why would Christ use that parable and why would He explain it as He did?
So, the picture is that their understanding was not of themselves, especially when you see that "disbelieve" is active (as opposed to passive). The ones who rejected Paul's message--their disbelief came from themselves. The ones who accepted Paul's message--their belief (or acceptance) came from outside themselves.
The phrase "...heart has become calloused" is also passive. This means they did not harden their own hearts, but their hearts were hardened, presumably by God.
Blessings,
The Archangel -
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
I am not aware of the Greek scholars that support your position, although I am sure they exist.
I find it funny that you appeal to the "whole council of scripture" while seeking to disqualify this part of the scripture.
You have quite the conundrum here: On the one hand you could discuss this passage with me. On the other hand you can discount it completely and make it off limits. Is it possible you have chosen option #2 because if I prove right in my exegesis your entire argument will fall apart? I don't mean that to be offensive, I'm pointing out what appears to be a retreat from our debate.
For the benefit of those reading along I'll press on with the discussion. In fact the word τασσω in the construction it appears (τεταγμενοι) is a perfect participle and it can be either middle or passive. Middle would mean that they appointed themselves; passive means they were appointed by someone outside themselves. Context, ultimately, is the determinative factor.
The perfect requires this to be taken as a passive. The perfect denotes something that happened in the past which has effect on the present time. So, it does absolutely no good and makes absolutely no sense to take it as a middle. It is absurd to say "So-and-so in time past appointed themselves with lasting effect in the present." That interpretation is a logical impossibility.
Because of the perfect, we must translate this as "So-and-so in time past was appointed (to eternal life) by someone and that appointment's effect is seen in their belief."
There is no way around that.
Blessings,
The Archangel -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
To clarify: God's did not purpose to save everyone.
This comports with the Old Testament in that not every nation was chosen and this comports with the Old Testament in that only Abraham was chosen and no one else.
In retrospect, I probably should have held my tongue on that issue for now, as we are dealing with textual things and facts in evidence, etc. Please forgive the opaque statement and the possibly offensive comment.
Again, in the case of Pharaoh as an example, this shows you are thinking Pharaoh as a neutral party that God made non-neutral in the direction of evil.
Be that as it may, we do see God hardening people's hearts. But, we don't see God hardening righteous people's hearts. In other words, He doesn't harden the hearts of Abraham or David. But He does harden Pharaoh's heart and a myriad of others--for His own purposes.
God seems to give the unrighteous exactly what they want--more unrighteousness and that leads to a further hardening of the heart. It makes their judgment and subsequent destruction far more reflective of God's glory and it makes God's saving of anyone unfathomably glorious.
But, again the passive is helpful to understanding the passage--especially understanding an appointment to eternal life (Acts 13). The "convinced" ones were convinced outside themselves (surely it could have been Paul and it may be pushing to call it a divine passive). But, I think it is, perhaps, a divine passive because the ones who disbelieved did so actively--in and of themselves. If we were to discount the divine passive (or at least the divine appointment of Acts 13) we should expect disbelieve and convinced to be the same construction of the different verbs.
Missing this--and Acts 13's appointment--skews the reading of the passage. Further, again, God hardens the unbelievers to magnify His judgment and therefore to magnify His glory.
Blessings,
The Archangel -
And I noticed in your reply you never really address my points of debate. Instead you redirect to focus on the points you want to discuss and introduce text that seem to better support your views.
Remember that is the major debate at this time in history. Everyone at this time was debating with the apostles the point that Gentiles weren't chosen by God and that they weren't "appointed to eternal life" by God. The apostles were trying to prove that indeed they had been chosen by God and that eternal life was indeed meant for the Gentiles too. Thus, I believe that Luke is speaking about the nations, which is consistent with what he says just a 2 verses prior:
Acts 13:46 NIV: Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.
Notice he is speaking to the Jews, as a nation. He says, "since you reject it," now obviously not all Jews are rejecting, thus proving he is speaking in GENERAL TERMS. Notice what else he goes on to say, "you do not consider yourself worthy of eternal life," again speaking GENERALLY ABOUT THE NATION OF ISRAEL, and then in contrast he refers to the GENTILES IN GENERAL TERMS. See my point?
If we continue to understand the rest of this same passage in those GENERAL TERMS then we will read this verse to mean, "When the Gentiles (as a Nation in GENERAL TERMS) heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all (GENTILES IN GENERAL TERMS) who were appointed for eternal life believed."
So, verse 48 MUST be understood in light of verse 46. They correlate perfectly. The Jews are not considering themselves worthy of eternal life, but the Gentiles are. The Jews are not believing while the Gentiles are.
Other passages in Acts support this type of general understanding of the comparison of these two nations:
- Acts 10:45 NIV: The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
- Acts 11:1 NIV: [Peter Explains His Actions] The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
- Acts 11:18 NIV: When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."
-
-
We both affirm that God blind unrighteous people. My question is "WHY?" Could it be that he blinded the rebellious Pharaoh so that the obvious truth being revealed through the plagues might have convinced him to free the slaves prior to the Passover plague? Could it be that God blinded the rebellious Jews because the obvious truth being revealed by the miracles and teaching of Christ and his disciples might have convinced them to believe before the real Passover and crucifixion? Think about it.
Page 1 of 3