Featured Good Debate

And yet not every sinner is captivated when they hear the gospel. Is that because:

1. They were not elected by God and thus not regenerated.

and/or

2. They were sent a spirit of stupor and the truth was hidden from their eyes.

If both, then haven't you just affirmed double predestination? And don't you think the MEANS of #2 are a bit redundant since simply being unregenerate makes them totally blind and incurable? Couldn't you disavow your view of TD and simply argue that God prevents men from coming through a variety of means?

They wouldn't put it in those words, certainly, but if you look at Calvinists application of 1 Cor. 2:14, that is exactly what they are saying: "Unless God regenerates a person, the gospel is powerless to have any affect on that person."

 

You do realize that is the view of what some call "semi-pelagian," don't you?

 

I don't understand this answer. Give us an instance of any sense in which this could be 'YES' in your system.

 

We are talking about being incurable apart from regeneration.

We are going in circles and I think you are smart enough to know why. You appear to be dancing around the obvious dilemma created by Calvinism. You even pointed out that this was a strong argument several months ago, if you recall.

Clearly the means of hiding the gospel in parables lest they repent and be forgiven, is completely unnecessary if the individual isn't regenerate. All you can do with this dilemma is appeal to mystery, which is fine, but I'd obviously appreciate your acknowledgment of that dilemma instead of the circular arguments which are clearly apparent contradictions. (i.e. 'the gospel is able to save the non-elect' vs. 'man is NOT capable of making a move towards God (being saved) apart from being first regenerate.')

And neither of those means actually prevents anything ULTIMATELY. Maybe in some unknown 'technical' universe (whatever that means?) it is possible, but "ultimately" these means prevent nothing in your system. That is the dilemma your system has to live with.

This is one of the main reasons I left Calvinism. I realized that much of the proof texts used to support Calvinism were easily explained by this historical context of God temporarily preventing the Jews from hearing the gospel so as to accomplish the cross and the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the church. Once that historical context is understood and accepted passage such as Romans 9-11 and John 6 make much more since from a non-Calvinistic perspective.

 

How so? Explain how an unregenerate non-elect man could technically have been saved in this immediate context?

I'll wait...

 

I am glad to see these answers Luke, you are coming around. I say that in sincerity.

What you are saying is that man is not so depraved that he cannot be convicted and enlightened by the gospel that he is enabled to believe.

Excellent.

 

:applause::applause::applause:

 

The only thing we are ever going to agree to is that Christ died, rose & will come again....& Im OK with that (Catholics even believe that). What I object to is being told Im wrong in my belief system.....I really dont believe that that type of negative behavior is Christlike or in keeping with Baptist distinctives much less American values of freedom of worship.

 

Very simple and very profound EWF, at the root, I think this is what we all "dislike" the most, speaking for myself,....... it is for both sides the communication of an overconfidence as opposed to humble hearts admitting we don't really KNOW as much as we think we do.

 

How so if indeed, no man "is capable of making a move towards God apart from being first regenerate," as you said earlier? You appear to continually contradict yourself on this point. You maintain that one cannot come to faith unless regenerated first, and that the gospel would save them if measures weren't taken to prevent it. I'm not seeing how you reconcile these two points?

 

#3 Because the person "refuses to accept the truth and so be saved." (2 Thess. 2:10) Because they "were not willing." (Matt. 23:37). Because they 'hardened their own hearts" as Israel did in the rebellion. (Heb. 3:8)

I actually see #1 and #2 as one in the same. God may harden a heart using a variety of means (parables, spirit of stupor, etc). But, we must understand and recognize that the active work of judicial hardening was (1) unique to Israel; (2) temporary, and (3) had a redemptive purpose even for those being hardened. It was NOT an example of God's active work to prevent everyone for all time from coming to faith. In fact, Paul specifically teaches that while Israel was being hardened, "salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" (Acts 28:28) He also explain, that in hardening Israel he may provoke them to envy so that they too may be saved as result of his ministry to the Gentiles. (Rm 11:14) Thus, these means cannot be blanketly applied to the way God prevents the non-elect from being saved.

I care because it reveals a inconsistency of your doctrine. It also shows God's actual intent in only enabling some to come to Christ in John 6 and His hardening souls in Romans 9-11. Calvinists falsely read Paul's motive in these texts to mean God hardens non-elect men to prevent them from ever being saved, when in reality he is only temporarily preventing Israelites from coming so as to ingraft the Gentiles, but they too may be saved.

This point reveals the ACTUAL nature of man which, according to Paul, 'may hear, see, understand and turn to be forgiven,' if these means were not employed. It also shows that these means are unique to Israel at this time and for a redemptive purpose, and not meant to be a description of the nature of all men for all time while God seeks to ensure their destruction using these preventative means. God's motives are gracious and loving and He desires to see all come to repentance. He is not trying to prevent most of humanity from coming to him.

And respectfully, I'm asking you to provide other Calvinistic scholars who take this approach because it seems like an apparent contradiction to me and I'd like to read how they reconcile it.

Agreed. Yet, I'm pretty sure most, if not all Calvinists, would be quick to say that the gospel itself isn't opening their eyes but the HS is opening them by the effectual work of regeneration. Thus, I still see no rational reason for God to blind men from the gospel using other means, if that is the case.

But scripture clearly tells us why he hardened the hearts of Israel:

1. To accomplish redemption through the crucifixion of Christ (as it was the hardened Jews who crucified Him, and they wouldn't have done so had they came to faith while Christ was on the earth).

2. To allow room for the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the Church (Rm 11). We know from the few Judiazers who did come to faith, that Jews were not fond of allowing Gentiles into their fellowship. The bias and bigotry of Jews against the "Barbarian nations" was strong, and God had to 'cut off' the Jews for a time to allow the fullness of the Gentiles to come in.

3. To provoke the hardened Jews by the conversion of the Gentiles. When the Jews saw the Gentiles live radically change and saw them worshiping their God they could be provoked by envy to reevaluate their unbelief and possibly change their minds. (Rm 11:14). "God have them all over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Rm. 11:32)​

 

I know, but clearly he doesn't do that effectually for every one to whom he sends the genuine gospel appeal. Even Calvinists affirm the gospel is meant to be sent to 'every creature,' thus to claim it is the means for regeneration isn't helpful, when we both know that you actually mean it is the means to effectually regenerate the elect alone. And if that is the case the gospel for the non-elect wouldn't have a regenerative effect due to their inborn fallen nature. Thus, there would be no need for the additional means of hardening to prevent the non-elect from being regenerated by the Gospel appeal. I think you know that as well as I do, but for whatever reason, aren't owning that dilemma.

But that is not all you are saying Luke. You are also saying that the Gospel could save the non-elect unregenerate if not for the hardening means that God employees to blind them from that gospel, while at the same time claiming that their being unregenerate makes it impossible for them to respond to the gospel appeal.

Either the gospel is sufficient to draw the lost to faith, or it's not. If its not then there is no practical reason for God's means to harden men from the gospel to keep them from being drawn.

Even the non-elect? ? Are you talking about 'regeneration' when you say, 'awakens the conscience?' Please explain?

And why would God want to prevent someone from coming to him who would? It's one thing to say that God is merely passing over those who wouldn't ever want to come to Christ (which is what Calvinists typically argue), but to claim that God wouldn't want to save someone who WOULD want to be saved if they clearly heard the gospel is a whole different thing. Right?

This is why I'm asking you to point me to a scholar who teaches your view. I SUSPECT, not trying to be rude or combative, but I just SUSPECT you won't be able to find any because you have ventured out on your own here in an effort to honestly answer a valid objection to your worldview. I say that as one who has taken that same venture. I may be mistaken, and I'm willing to own up to that if I am, but that is just what it appears to be from my perspective.

I'm not familiar with any Calvinistic scholars who argues this point in this manner, but I am more than willing to read any link you provide. Please take the time to do this. Thanks