Is the will free after regeneration?

Bob Ryan said
The problem for Calvinism is that "ALL" is "unqualified" rather than "highly qualified and limited".

So the Calvinist must face the challenge "how to qualify that which in scripture is unqualified and unlimited in the text"!

Context for any author - any book starts in chapter 1.

In Chapter 1 of John - we find that the SAME world that God MADE -- is the SAME World into which He comes and ministers and calls and drawns and goes to as "light".

Global context: "The LIGHT OF MEN" unqualified.
"Light shines in DARKNESS" - the entire world is said to be in darkness not just the jews.
"so that ALL might believe through Him" Unqualified - the message of John in the Gospels has gone to all the WORLD.

In vs 12 we see that the action of those who received Christ is what determines the result and in the Greek the reception is in the "active voice". It does not state that some other action was taken forcing them to be children of God and then merely note that they also "received Christ". (Analytical Greek NT - "indicative mood" and "active voice" used for receive in John 1:12)


God's part: Sending His Son as LIGHT into the WORLD - the SAME WORLD that was MADE through Him - (GLOBAL unqualified non-restrictive context.)
Not only into the WORLD but also to HIS OWN (those HE CHOSE for HIMSELF) -

Man's part - history (those CHOSEN as "His OWN" FAILED - they DID NOT RECEIVE HIM).
- standing offer - BUT To as many as RECEIVED Him (by contrast to HIS CHOSEN "OWN" - who did NOT receive Him)

God's part - TO THEM He GAVE the right to BECOME children of God.

God's part - to CAUSE those that RECEIVE Him to be born again.

Calvinism "hope" of course is to ignore the sequence - to LIFT God's part out - and delete man's part so that NO sequence appears - JUST God causing man to be born again - arbitrarily selecting PRIOR to any reference of man RECEIVING anything. Calvinism's attempt to ignore the complete text fails.

The Arminian principle of
-God FIRST acting to supernaturally BRING salvation to ALL,
- then calling for man to RESPOND and RECEIVE,
- THEN SUBSEQUENTLY
providing that those who ACT and RECEIVE - shall THEN have the RIGHT to BECOME children of God FOLLOWING THEIR act of RECEIVING.

John establishes world wide scope as the "context" of Christ's mission. John also established this Arminian model as the correct form for telling of the work and mission of Christ as well as the duty of man.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The problem with restricting to mission and message of Christ to "just some among the Greeks" failes in John 12 as a close review will show us.

When the Pharisees “See the people” following Christ and increased interest after raising Lazarus from the dead they say “the WORLD is going after Him” NOT intending to limit their statement to the few dozen people in the crowd, nor to the few Greeks there -- but rather to point to the universal problem they faced. They clearly do not mean “just a FEW among the jews and a FEW among the Greeks” as some Calvinists try to insist here.

This statement of Christ is true for MORE than just “SOME Greeks and SOME Jews” - obviously

Satan is said by Paul to be “the god of this world” in 2Cor 10. The idea is NOT that he has influence “on SOME people among ALL TYPES of cultures”. To limit the meaning of world to “SOME from among all KINDS” is to abuse not only the “unqualified ALL” but also to abuse the term “WORLD”. Indeed in the case of Satan the god of this world “goes around as a roaring lion” according to Peter and is OUR enemy. His influence dictates to the wicked (Eph 2:1-5) and oppresses the saints. “World” means “ALL” just as it does on John 3 “God so Loved the WORLD”.

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

I notice you refused to stick to the exegesis of the use of Ps 19 IN Romans 10.

Not surprising.

It is "obvious" that the Romans 10 context is salvation and the Gospel - it is into that context that Paul pulls in his PRIME EXAMPLE from Ps 19.

And here your argument appears to be stuck.

I can re-post it if you like.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan said
Global context: "The LIGHT OF MEN" unqualified.
"Light shines in DARKNESS" - the entire world is said to be in darkness not just the jews.
"so that ALL might believe through Him" Unqualified - the message of John in the Gospels has gone to all the WORLD.

To point to global meanings of some of John's message is fine - but you cannot force that upon every use of 'all'. Your example here proves this: '"so that ALL might believe through Him" /Unqualified - the message of John in the Gospels has gone to all the WORLD.' How might all without exception believe through Him, since the message of John's gospel has not been heard by all without exception? The message has gone to all nations, but not every person has heard.


In vs 12 we see that the action of those who received Christ is what determines the result and in the Greek the reception is in the "active voice". It does not state that some other action was taken forcing them to be children of God and then merely note that they also "received Christ". (Analytical Greek NT - "indicative mood" and "active voice" used for receive in John 1:12)

This is not the subject under discussion, but I'm happy to respond. Calvinism agrees that man has an active role in receiving Christ, and it is not forced upon him. It is your misrepresentation that claims we violate the will. God says He changes the heart, and then that heart gladly receives Christ.


God's part: Sending His Son as LIGHT into the WORLD - the SAME WORLD that was MADE through Him - (GLOBAL unqualified non-restrictive context.)

We agree.

Not only into the WORLD but also to HIS OWN (those HE CHOSE for HIMSELF) -

Yes, the chosen NATION, the Jews. Not those chosen for salvation, as in 2 Thess.2: 13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Man's part - history (those CHOSEN as "His OWN" FAILED - they DID NOT RECEIVE HIM).

We agree, most of the Jews rejected Him.

- standing offer - BUT To as many as RECEIVED Him (by contrast to HIS CHOSEN "OWN" - who did NOT receive Him)

We agree, some of the Jews and some of the Gentiles did/do believe.

God's part - TO THEM He GAVE the right to BECOME children of God.

Correct.

God's part - to CAUSE those that RECEIVE Him to be born again.

WRONG. You equate 'the right to become' with regeneration - and that is falsified by the very next verse, John 1:13who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Note: they, the ones God gives the right to become the children of God, are those who WERE - past tense - born of God.

The 'right to become' is given to those who were already regenerated. The authority, right is theirs to be co-heirs of Christ. Their regeneration and justification permit no-one to dispute their place.

Calvinism "hope" of course is to ignore the sequence - to LIFT God's part out - and delete man's part so that NO sequence appears - JUST God causing man to be born again - arbitrarily selecting PRIOR to any reference of man RECEIVING anything. Calvinism's attempt to ignore the complete text fails.

Calvinism sticks to God's sequence. God chose them in eternity past; He called and regenerated them; they believed; He justified them and gave them the right to become the children of God.

The Arminian principle of -God FIRST acting to supernaturally BRING salvation to ALL,

But this salvation has not come to every person. Most have not heard.

- then calling for man to RESPOND and RECEIVE,

All who hear are called to receive. But not all hear the gospel.

- THEN SUBSEQUENTLY providing that those who ACT and RECEIVE - shall THEN have the RIGHT to BECOME children of God FOLLOWING THEIR act of RECEIVING.

We agree. But you mistakenly equate regeneration with 'being given the right'.

John establishes world wide scope as the "context" of Christ's mission. John also established this Arminian model as the correct form for telling of the work and mission of Christ as well as the duty of man.

No problem with the first sentence, except to clarify that it is true only in the sense of His ultimate purpose, the salvation of the Church. It was NOT His mission while He was on earth, for He came only unto His own, the Jews. Even the apostles, whilst Christ was on earth, were forbidden to go to any but the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Your latter sentence is expected, but amazing in its self-deception nonetheless. John's gospel is THE gospel to read to find God's sovereign grace set out time and again. The 'Sheep' texts are a death knell to Arminian theology. Just look at the desperate attempts to avoid their teaching we have seen on this list.

In Him

Ian

 

Bob Ryan said
The problem with restricting to mission and message of Christ to "just some among the Greeks" failes in John 12 as a close review will show us.

Who restricts it so? The gospel is to all who hear it. We are to preach it to every man. It will be believed by only some.

When the Pharisees “See the people” following Christ and increased interest after raising Lazarus from the dead they say “the WORLD is going after Him” NOT intending to limit their statement to the few dozen people in the crowd, nor to the few Greeks there -- but rather to point to the universal problem they faced. They clearly do not mean “just a FEW among the jews and a FEW among the Greeks” as some Calvinists try to insist here.

So the Pharisees knew the Gentiles were to be evangelised?? Of course they didn't; even the apostles had to be persuaded of this after Pentecost. What the Pharisees meant by 'the world' was the vast crowds that greeted Him on His truimphal entry to Jerusalem, v12.

This statement of Christ is true for MORE than just “SOME Greeks and SOME Jews” - obviously

You say 'much fruit' means more than some. Do you hold that MOST people are going to be saved? If not, then you must hold that SOME people are to be saved. I think Christ's words are pretty plain on the proportions of lost to saved: Luke 13: 23Then one said to Him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?"

Satan is said by Paul to be “the god of this world” in 2Cor 10. The idea is NOT that he has influence “on SOME people among ALL TYPES of cultures”.

Correct. Satan rules over every unbeliever.

To limit the meaning of world to “SOME from among all KINDS” is to abuse not only the “unqualified ALL” but also to abuse the term “WORLD”.

Correct. In this context of Satan's rule, 'world' does not mean 'some'. Who said it did?

Indeed in the case of Satan the god of this world “goes around as a roaring lion” according to Peter and is OUR enemy. His influence dictates to the wicked (Eph 2:1-5) and oppresses the saints. “World” means “ALL” just as it does on John 3 “God so Loved the WORLD”.

True what you say about Satan. But that does not allow you to make 'world' refer to the same thing in every use. It can mean
1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars,
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth 5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

Still insisting that 'world' must mean 'all without exception'?

In Him

Ian

 

Bob Ryan said
I notice you refused to stick to the exegesis of the use of Ps 19 IN Romans 10.

I'm certainly refusing to stick to your exegesis. Even Adam Clarke had to stop there.

It is "obvious" that the Romans 10 context is salvation and the Gospel - it is into that context that Paul pulls in his PRIME EXAMPLE from Ps 19.

I must admire your boldness, though it is scary to see any man stick to an interpretation that negates the need of the gospel, not to mention the whole thrust of the rest of Scripture.

Bob,think of the logic of your arguments - that Paul and the early church risked their lives daily to bring the gospel so that men might be saved, but if what you say is true he could have stayed at home and allowed nature's light to evangelise the lost.

In Him

Ian

 

I think the key scripture on this would be Acts 17:30 "and the times of this ignorance God winked at (overlooked), but NOW commands men everywhere to repent".
The principle of "to whom much is GIVEN, much is expected" is always ignored in this debate, and it is now assumed that living before Christ outside of Israel was just another means to damn helpless "vessels of wrath" by "holding them [just as] responsible" for coming to the truth as those who did hear about Christ. But this passage shows that God did take into consideration their situation. But since He now revealed His ultimate plan for salvation, of course he would now order it proclaimed to the world. That is much more effective than the witness of creation.

This makes it sound as if their knowledge of Christ was as clear and systematic as ours. They may have heard bits and pieces of the Plan, but even when Jesus was there, His disciples still misunderstood many things, to the point of coming close to abandoning Him themselves. But then the pagans had bits and parts of the Plan as well, such as those that became corrupted in their religions (e.g. all the "mother and child" figures).
So all before Christ only had at most, parts of the Gospel. They all were responsible for what they did know, and were shown mercy according to their level of knowledge; rather than being "held responsible" to believe all the details about the future Christ. Israel did not yet have the whole Gospel. It was then in the process of being revealed to them in Christ.

Even those sheep texts have been answered. You may not agree with the answer, but it is a stretch to proclaim this as a "death knell". It is a debate whether "Sheep" is a preordained state or whether people become sheep when they take on its defnintion: "hearing His voice".

 

Eric B said
I think the key scripture on this would be Acts 17:30 "and the times of this ignorance God winked at (overlooked), but NOW commands men everywhere to repent".
The principle of "to whom much is GIVEN, much is expected" is always ignored in this debate, and it is now assumed that living before Christ outside of Israel was just another means to damn helpless "vessels of wrath" by "holding them [just as] responsible" for coming to the truth as those who did hear about Christ. But this passage shows that God did take into consideration their situation. But since He now revealed His ultimate plan for salvation, of course he would now order it proclaimed to the world. That is much more effective than the witness of creation.

I certainly never made this assumption of equal guilt. ALL are guilty, but those who refuse clearer light will receive the stricter judgement.

That is quite different from arguing that the ignorant are not guilty. Or even that they can be saved by obeying the light they have. The Scripture tells us the Gentiles were without God and without hope before the gospel came to them, Eph.2: 12that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

It is not a matter of the gospel being 'more effective' than the witness of creation, it is the ONLY effective means of salvation.


This makes it sound as if their knowledge of Christ was as clear and systematic as ours. They may have heard bits and pieces of the Plan, but even when Jesus was there, His disciples still misunderstood many things, to the point of coming close to abandoning Him themselves. But then the pagans had bits and parts of the Plan as well, such as those that became corrupted in their religions (e.g. all the "mother and child" figures).

No, they did not have the full picture, but enough for it to be rightly called the 'gospel'. Abraham looked for Christ's day. Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, etc. It is modern critics who assume the OT believers knew little of Christ. They knew enough.

The pagans had some perverted knowledge - but how would that help them? It rather deceived them into worshipping false gods. God does not accept the worship of the calves or any other substitute for Himself. C.S.Lewis and other non-evangelicals may think God accepts all sincere worshippers, but that is not what Scripture teaches.

In Him

Ian

 

True enough. And as Romans 2 points out "Those without the Word of God as judged as having been without it" - then Paul goes on to show the SUCCEEDING case being a Gentile WITHOUT God's word being "justified" though not having access to the Word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric B said
Well, actually, since you once claimed that all saved under the Law "kept the New Covenent" (i.e. by faith), then that could extend to all those under "the witness of Creation" as well. In fact, it could be so, even under a premise of unconditional election (as the Primitives will all attest)! So the fate of all those before Christ still is no proof of Calvinistic preterition.

The difference is that those saved while under the Law were not saved by the Law. The were saved by faith in God's revealed promise, something there before the Law. But the ignorant Gentiles had not that truth. God did not reveal Himself to them, as He did to Abraham. They could not believe God, only believe about Him as revealed in nature.

The witness of Creation reveals God's majesty.

The Law, apart from its covenantal aspect, spoke of Christ. The revelation given to Abraham was built upon in the Law and prophets. they all spoke of Christ. The saints of the OT had revelation of God's promised Messiah and His salvation. The Gentiles did not. Those Gentiles who heard of it from Israelites, had to enter Israel's covenant to be saved.

I don't know what the PBs teach about salvation without the gospel. But the Scriptures teach that the Gentiles were 'without God and without hope'. That is plain enough for me.

In Him

Ian

 

Well one thing I've noticed, is that the word "hope" means "expectation". We look at "no hope" as "they have no chance to escape Hell". But all it seems to mean is that they are not aware of the good news that they are saved by faith. That doesn't mean that they can't wind up saved by it (through the light they do have) regardless, though I admit this seems a long stretch.

The Law ultimately pointed to Christ, and in retrospect could these statements be made —that what Abraham, Moses and the rest of the Patriarchs looked forward to was the Christ we know of personally. Abraham and Moses had faith in God (Who actually was the one who came in the Person of Christ, but that was only faintly hinted at as well). But you still make it sound like they both were directly thinking of "Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who died for our sins and rose the third day". All of that was revealed in bits and pieces through them ("her seed shall bruise your seed"; "look on Me whom they pierced", etc), but they still could not have put it together that much. The prophecies made it sound like Christ would restore the physical kingdom in one coming, and this is what the Israelites still looked for, right up to the apostles at the crucifixion and even afterward after the resurrection. But a physical kingdom for Israel was not the Gospel, and those who still looked for that after Christ (using all the same passages of Moses and the others) were not seen as still believing the Gospel. The point was, they had faith in God and His promises, and were open enough to accept the full revelation when it came.

The pagan's knowledge had become perverted over time —Just like Israel, except for God constantly reminding them. That does not mean that it always had to be like that, and no, the argument is not that God accepted the idol worship from them, or just "sincerity" by itself (at least not from me, anyway).
It seems God did touch some people, like the Persians, who developed a monotheistic religion (which yes, did also become perverted over time into fire-worship). This before they came into contact with Israel. The Persian kings of Daniel and the wise men who came to see Jesus were of their native religion, and seemed to know the God of Israel, and in the case of the latter, even the Messianic prophecy!

 

Dear Eric, Bob and all.

I'm sorry I must break off for a while. May our Heavenly Father guide you all by His Spirit into more and more truth. I hope to meet up with you in the not too distant future.

In Him

Ian