God uses the message of the Cross of Christ to save His elect in Christ, its that the holy Spirit quickens/enables them to hear and receive it with joy, while the rest stay dead in their sins and have 'deaf ears" to it!
To them whom he has "given ears to ear"., they Will respond!
Good Debate
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Luke2427, Jul 20, 2012.
Page 3 of 8
-
-
I'll pick up here with you soon.
God bless! -
-
I do think, though, regarding boards like this, that some admins may close a thread 'pre-maturely', so to speak, and it's funny how convenient it must have been if they were to post their 'final word' dig into the conversation before they close it. However, this board seems pretty good about that on the whole and I only suspected this one time that I can recall. -
It is apparent that the normative use of the Gospel is that it is accompanied by the Spirit of God who awakens the spirits of sinners.
God can, and apparently does, keep this from happening when he does not want someone to be saved at that moment in time.
How?
By at least three means:
1- he hides the Gospel (as with the parables of Jesus)
2- he hardens the sinner AGAINST the Gospel
3- he may simply stop the Spirit from his normal work of utilizing the Gospel to awaken the sinner.
The Gospel is perfectly capable of saving ANYONE at ANYTIME because the Gospel is the power of God. Depravity is no obstacle to the power of God, i.e. the Gospel.
So God chooses to prevent the Gospel from doing this when he does not want a person to be saved (at least just yet- we both agree that God indeed does hinder people from coming to Christ at least temporarily).
The Gospel is what the Holy Spirit uses to enable those who would otherwise be unable to make a move toward God.
You yourself acknowledge that, at least temporarily, God DOES prevent some people from coming to him who would.
I don't think so. I think the key point here is that God is able to make ALL people everywhere at any time willing. So there is a VERY real sense in which ALL WOULD WANT TO COME TO CHRIST if God made them all willing.
"Immediate regeneration" is the idea that God regenerates without means. The Spirit simply quickens the spirit of man and then brings the Word to bear upon him bringing him to salvation. Some Calvinists affirm this viewpoint. I believe R. C. Sproul does.
But, I think most Calvinists adhere to mediate regeneration like I do.
Both John Calvin and John Owen affirm this viewpoint.
God uses THE WORD to regenerate sinners.
This is not some fringe belief of mine, brother.
The following links discuss this view.
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/soteriology/gospelregen.htm
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/owenoverthrow.html
http://www.the-highway.com/regeneration_Owen.html -
Again, let's be VERY clear. Let's suppose a non-elect man named Joel was in the audience where Jesus spoke in parables. Is it your contention, that had the gospel been clearly proclaimed without parables that Joel may have repented and been saved? If so, how, considering his natural unregenerate totally depraved condition?
I'll respond to the rest after you answer this question... -
While I'm waiting for a response I thought I should go ahead and make a few observation on these articles. First, thank you for posting them. They are very informative and well written, and they make a point that I've argued several times with "high Calvinists" on this forum.
"Reformed interpreters have traditionally held that God sovereignly employs his Word, the gospel, in bringing sinners to life. This position is sometimes referred to as mediate or gospel regeneration. Some among the “higher” Calvinists espouse a view of immediate regeneration and argue rather that God uses no such means at all in regeneration — he sovereignly brings the sinner to life apart from any means whatever." (from the first article)
I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of falsely representing Calvinism because I respond to one or the other of these two perspectives. I'm glad to point them to these articles for clarity regarding gospel regeneration. BTW, have you adapted your view a little on this point, because I seem to remember you arguing that someone may be regenerated some time before hearing the gospel and responding. It seems like you all were discussing times when someone begins asking 'seeker' questions before even having heard the gospel. I think I remember you making the point that a person may be regenerated, causing them to seek God, and later hear the gospel and come to faith. Am I mistaken?
Owen does, however, make an important distinction when he writes,
"Outward darkness is when men do not have that light by which they are enabled to see. So outward spiritual darkness is upon men when there is nothing to enlighten them about God and spiritual things . It is the work of the Holy Spirit to remove this darkness by sending the light of the gospel.
Inward darkness, on the other hand, arises from the natural depravity and corruption of the minds of men concerning spiritual things.
So, if I were debating Owen, I would ask, why would God prevent someone from the 'outward light' "lest they repent and turn" (i.e. parables), if indeed they remain unable to respond due to their "inward darkness." And if Owens said the same thing you have said, then I'd have to conclude he believed that someone could have the 'inward light' turned on if God didn't actively prevent them from the 'outward light.'
Another quote that is important was this:
"Yes the Word of God is powerfully persuasive in itself, but until born again, unregenerate men cannot and will not be persuaded by it."
Which leads to the question I've already posed to you, and which Owens never addresses. If the Word of God isn't powerful enough to persuade a man, then why did God prevent people from hearing it lest they be persuaded by it?
-
We were dead in our sins, needing to be quickened first, enabling us to respond to God's inward call (the preaching of the gospel being the outward call) to repent and confess Jesus as Lord.
1 Cor 2:14, Romans 8:7, Eph 2:5, and others describe the absolute helplessness of the unregenerate. Luther describes it wonderfully in his very witty book, The Bondage of the Will. We are slaves, he writes, bound to think and to do "only evil continually." As a slave is held captive by force, he must be freed by force. The chains must first be broken before the will is truly free to choose anything.
If you put regeneration (rebirth) as the cause of faith and confession (conversion) rather than it's aftermath, it's easier to understand the Calvinist position.
Hoping that helps,
Robin -
Since you are a Presbyterian you need to give Dr. J Vernon Mcgee through the bible a try looking into baptist faith read C. H Spurgeon a Calvinist who believes regeneration before faith is ridiculous
-
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Seems to me that the most concise way to explain the confusion would be to say that according to Luke/"mediate regeneration" the Gospel being preached is ALWAYS concurrent with a regenerative work of the Spirit....As in, the Gospel as merely the factual statement of the "good news" never goes forth in a vacuum...and that since the Spirit is ALWAYS inherently concurrent with gospel presentation...a specific witholding of the Spirit is required to prevent "effectual" salvation from occuring. (If I mis-undertand....then please correct my interpretation).
The confusion may result from a possible Arm / Cal difference in definitions:
Arminianism: the "Gospel" IS, and only is defined as the "good news" that Christ has come to save sinners....provided they repent, respond et. al.
Gospel = the Good news + nothing
(Special "Prevenient Grace" is necessary for the enablement of the sinner to respond, but it isn't an integral part of the "gospel" per se.)
Calvinism (mediate form): The "Gospel" is inherently concurrent with a regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, and they are by default as interrelated as a prize and a Cracker-Jack box. Except for a specific decision to withold it.....If the "Gospel" (which implies the work of the Holy Spirit), is in any way unhindered...then the non-elect WOULD convert. Thus, the "Gospel" might itself...be described as "effectual".
Gospel= the Good news + work of Holy Spirit
Does this sum it up correctly Luke? I have been re-reading this thread and the articles for hours trying to understand myself....I hope this clarifies some. -
It seems to me that the Calvinistic belief in the irresistibility or effectuality of the means of grace is what causes all the dilemma. If you simply removed that one point most of the issue disappear. God loves people, provides the means for their salvation, graces them by sending them an appeal to be reconciled thus enabling them to respond and they are held to account for that response. Its that simple. It's only when you suggest that these means are irresistible that problems arise. -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
All good points Heir, but wouldn't you agree that the Gospel is referred to in scripture as being 'powerful,' 'effective', 'like a double edge sword, etc? Wouldn't you agree the Gospel was produced, preserved and proclaimed by the work of the Spirit Himself? Wouldn't you agree that the gospel appeal for all men everywhere to be reconciled to God is gracious and exceedingly merciful? Wouldn't you agree with Paul in Romans 10 that people can't believe it unless they hear it and that hearing is the means for faith ("faith cometh by hearing")?
I'm not sure on what grounds one can make the argument that the means of the Gospel itself fails to meet all the criteria for what you refer to as 'prevenient grace.' Help me understand why one would conclude that yet another gracious work of the spirit (besides the work of the gospel) is necessary and taught in the text? Thanks -
Skandelon said: ↑All good points Heir, but wouldn't you agree that the Gospel is referred to in scripture as being 'powerful,' 'effective', 'like a double edge sword, etc? Wouldn't you agree the Gospel was produced, preserved and proclaimed by the work of the Spirit Himself? Wouldn't you agree that the gospel appeal for all men everywhere to be reconciled to God is gracious and exceedingly merciful? Wouldn't you agree with Paul in Romans 10 that people can't believe it unless they hear it and that hearing is the means for faith ("faith cometh by hearing")?
I'm not sure on what grounds one can make the argument that the means of the Gospel itself fails to meet all the criteria for what you refer to as 'prevenient grace.' Help me understand why one would conclude that yet another gracious work of the spirit (besides the work of the gospel) is necessary and taught in the text? ThanksClick to expand...
I'll be with you as soon as I can.
Heir represented what I am saying pretty well. It is not a problem for him to get it, so I don't understand why you can't get it.
I know it is not an issue of intelligence. I know you to be very intelligent.
But Heir got it in the first post.
You keep demanding that I am saying that man has the innate or inherent ability to respond to the Gospel and so hardening and blinding are not necessary.
But I am not saying that. I think I am CLEARLY not saying that.
I am saying, with Calvin, that the Gospel IS THE MEANS whereby the Spirit of God regenerates the sinner.
They are not one and the same by any means.
As to the question of whether or not I have changed on this view since the previous discussion you referenced- I haven't.
But if I go into how what I am saying now coincides with what I was saying then we will sidetrack this thread and have to talk about the merits of natural revelation and just how much God can use it to regenerate the sinner. I think if we are going to discuss that, then we need to start a new thread- but to be honest I would not be able to participate in that one very much due to my schedule right now.
I'll try to post here as often as possible. -
Skandelon said: ↑All good points Heir, but wouldn't you agree that the Gospel is referred to in scripture as being 'powerful,' 'effective', 'like a double edge sword, etc? Wouldn't you agree the Gospel was produced, preserved and proclaimed by the work of the Spirit Himself? Wouldn't you agree that the gospel appeal for all men everywhere to be reconciled to God is gracious and exceedingly merciful? Wouldn't you agree with Paul in Romans 10 that people can't believe it unless they hear it and that hearing is the means for faith ("faith cometh by hearing")?
I'm not sure on what grounds one can make the argument that the means of the Gospel itself fails to meet all the criteria for what you refer to as 'prevenient grace.' Help me understand why one would conclude that yet another gracious work of the spirit (besides the work of the gospel) is necessary and taught in the text? ThanksClick to expand...
Just differ if THAT work of His can be resisted or not! -
Luke2427 said: ↑Good stuff guys.
I'll be with you as soon as I can.
Heir represented what I am saying pretty well.Click to expand...
Seems to me that the most concise way to explain the confusion would be to say that according to Luke/"mediate regeneration" the Gospel being preached is ALWAYS concurrent with a regenerative work of the Spirit....As in, the Gospel as merely the factual statement of the "good news" never goes forth in a vacuum...and that since the Spirit is ALWAYS inherently concurrent with gospel presentation...a specific witholding of the Spirit is required to prevent "effectual" salvation from occurring.Click to expand...
So, wouldn't that necessitate conversion for anyone in hear shot of the gospel being proclaimed? Or, in this view, is God still actively blinding/hardening the non-elect from hearing the gospel so as to prevent their regeneration? If so, isn't that a form of double predestination, a view most Calvinists reject?
To which Heir replied saying...
Well.....I would agree that that were so, but....I am merely trying to get us all on the same page of understanding. I await our noble opposition to either agree with, or correct, what my understanding of their position isClick to expand...
You keep demanding that I am saying that man has the innate or inherent ability to respond to the Gospel and so hardening and blinding are not necessary.Click to expand...
I am saying, with Calvin, that the Gospel IS THE MEANS whereby the Spirit of God regenerates the sinner.Click to expand...
If you agree with Heir's explanation then you obviously believe that if the Gospel is proclaimed that it WOULD be effectual if not for the preventative means of 'hiding it.' Is that what you believe? That the proclamation of the Gospel would effectually save EVERYONE who heard it IF NOT for God's preventative means, such as blinding with parables? -
Skandelon said: ↑So, why would go on to presume he 'gets' something that I haven't gotten when his explanation of what you believe leaves us with the exact same questions I've been posing to you??? :confused:Click to expand...
We can't move on because I cannot seem to get you past this point.
It is very simple. Heir pointed it out. The normative employment of the Gospel regenerates if God does not stop it.
Heir got that in the first post.
The ability is not in the sinner. The power is in the Gospel granted by the Spirit. The Spirit normally accompanies the Gospel.
You seem to be arguing on the one hand that the hardening means employed by God are necessary to prevent salvation for those who hear the gospel proclaimed, but on the other hand an inward work of regeneration is also necessary for salvation.Click to expand...
Why can you not see that these are not exclusive of one another?
I'm attempting to understand how these two views go together and how your view is not supporting double predestination...Click to expand...
or the idea that God is actively preventing people from coming to Him, who WOULD come to him if not prevented.Click to expand...
Again, we ALL agree with this point, that is NOT our point of contention Luke.Click to expand...
If you agree with Heir's explanation then you obviously believe that if the Gospel is proclaimed that it WOULD be effectual if not for the preventative means of 'hiding it.' Is that what you believe?Click to expand...
That the proclamation of the Gospel would effectually save EVERYONE who heard it IF NOT for God's preventative means, such as blinding with parables?Click to expand...
People must be gripped by it. -
Luke2427 said: ↑Because he's trying to explain the same thing I am trying to explain to you. It is not that he agrees with my position, but he understands it.
We can't move on because I cannot seem to get you past this point.Click to expand...
Heir got that in the first post.Click to expand...
You believe God does this too- at least temporarily. If he can do it temporarily as you believe, there is no debate here betwixt us.Click to expand...
MY VIEW: God temporarily blinded the Jewish people (cutting them off from the tree for a time) in order to ensure the crucifixion and graft in the Gentiles, which in turn may provoke the Jews to envy so as to change their minds and be saved (Rm 11:14). It is an all loving, all merciful motive. God even hardened Israel out of a motive of showing them more mercy. Paul said it best, "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." That means he hardened them in order to be merciful to them! He is not hardening them to ensure their condemnation, he is actually doing it in hopes they will be provoked to envy by the Gentile's salvation and 'leave their unbelief." (11:23)
YOUR VIEW: God chooses to send the gospel to EVERYONE, but actively prevents most of mankind from really hearing or understanding it so as to prevent them from ever having any hope of being saved because He never really loved them or chose them for salvation.
Now, brother, with all due respect, if you cannot affirm the obvious distinction in those two views of judicial hardening, then it clearly IS NOT me who is having the problem 'getting it."
We have not been agreeing on this point until I pointed you to articles that show that "mediate regeneration" is the majority view among Calvinists.Click to expand...
Again, please provide a quote from a notable Calvinist who affirms this specific statement. Because it appears to me the articles only go so far as to say that God effectuates regeneration by means of the gospel for his elect. I never see them say anything about God using preventative means for the non-elect. If they do, please quote it here for us.
People must be gripped by it.Click to expand... -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite SupporterIf so, isn't that a form of double predestination, a view most Calvinists reject?Click to expand...
Just for the record, I don't have a problem with double predestination. I am a supralapsarian.Click to expand...
I don't think Luke can speak of God merely "passing-over" the non-elect with this view. This is an intentioned act of Divine Will to prevent what would otherwise be a default response in Faith unto Salvation....
People must be gripped by it.
How is that different from saying, "People must be regenerated by it?"Click to expand... -
I appreciate the irenic attitude displayed in this thread.
Page 3 of 8