is there A Difference between Depravity and Inability of man?

Here is the problem as I see it. What you (JesusFan and P4T) see as a "given" wasn't seen as a "given" in the first century.

You are so used to the gospel being readily available to us that you consider the grace of its provision a "given" reality and thus presume that some greater work of grace is necessary.

You must understand that that the mystery of the gospel's truth wasn't even known to the apostles until after Christ's ascension and after Paul was called to go to the Gentiles and Peter had his dream with the white sheet. Prior to this, the gospel truth wasn't known to the world, but once it was made known it became the "power of God unto salvation." It is the means through which God's gracious appeal for reconciliation is made known to the world.

Once the gospel entered our world we were no longer "left on our own." We are now responsible for this truth and our response to it. Those who perish do so because they refuse to love this truth and so be saved. (ref. 2 Thess 2:10)

 

We aren't arguing in the context of the first century. We are arguing in the context of right now.

 

Grandma gets regenerated

​

Baby gets regenerated


Actor gets regenerated


Evil past president gets regenerated

 

Exactly my point. That is why I believe you aren't understanding the points of the authors who were writing in the first century.

You read, "No one can come to me unless they are enabled," and you think that means God must do some inward secret regenerative work of "irresistible grace" by which someone is made willing to believe the gospel, but that interpretation ignores the FACT that when John 6 was happening the gospel hadn't been sent into the world so as to draw all man to himself yet. In fact, the truth of Christ's true identity was being hidden from Israel (John 12:39-41) and hadn't been sent to the Gentiles as of yet. The means by which God would graciously draw men to reconciliation wasn't even sent until after he was raised up. (John 12:32)

 

Sorry, but you cannot dismiss Scripture like that. John 6 was for the people then as much as it is today. It's very dangerous when we have to dismiss Scripture when dealing with theology.

 

To use an over used term here, you "misrepresent" me.

I never used the word "given" within the context you are using it, and no, it's not "exactly" your point as you make pretense, in fact, it's not your point whatsoever, as you try to force things said into a non-existent context. But I applaud your effort, as others might miss this, but not me.

I never "presumed" as you assume that some "greater" work of grace was necessary. Show me where I stated that without your "implication" excuse. Perhaps my understanding of Gods grace is simply "greater" than yours?

Don't put words in my mouth, OK? If I want to say a greater work of grace is necessary over and beyond, I'd just come out and say it plainly.

Gospel truth was known at Pentecost, not after the "white sheet" and not "after Acts 9." You are completely incorrect here.

After these events, the extension of Grace was known, not the Gospel. The Gospel was already known, i.e. the Death, Burial and Resurrection. It was preached at Pentecost. In this you clearly are incorrect, in that you say it was "known" later. The apostles got the Gospel right off, then they preached it, being emboldened by the Spirit to do so. Later? They saw the application of the Grace of the Gospel and extension of this truth.

Stop your condescension that I "misunderstand" and need you to help me. It's not necessary nor is it true, and quit pretending you know what I think things mean. You don't. You're assuming and flexing mod muscle, thinking I must bow to your assumptions in fear. I won't and you are clearly in the wrong, pretending you know what I think things mean.

Where in the world have I stated in this thread "No one can come unto me unless they are enabled?" Tell me and prove it or put a stop to it, OK? You talk in your replies as if you are quoting me, when you're not. Talk about total misrepresentation and paraphrasing. You're using that paraphrase against me? Go fetch a quote of me saying that or admit your fallacious accusation. Nowhere in this thread is this mentioned. I suppose you must add things so you can "win", no?

And...nowhere have I mentioned a thing about irresistible grace. Your bias toward thinking I'm a Calvinist by label bleeds through everything you say. So now you must add this too. Stcik to the facts wthout adding strawmen...

...I smell two strawmen.

Here is what I've said. One more time: We aren't arguing in the context of the first century, we are arguing in the context of right now. In other words, these things are a given right now, since we aren't arguing in the first century, where you would like to place us to prove some point of yours while adding and assuming what I've said in order to have an argument that concludes with you as some winner. Otherwise, you are incapable of sticking to what I've really said and to its context.

Whatever you want to eisegetically insert into that comes from you, not me.

- Peace

 

I was address "you" as the proverbial Calvinist, who would hold to the doctrine of "Irresistible Grace." If you don't hold to that doctrine, then it would not apply to you, which is fine.

Yes, certain aspects of the gospel were made known at Pentacost (which too was following Christ being raised up-which was the main point I was making in regard to the understanding of John 6), but the "mystery" involving God's plan to ingraft the Gentiles with the covenant of Grace was first made known through Paul and Peter later.

You are reading a tone into my words that in not intended. And I'm addressing you as if you hold to typical Calvinistic beliefs, but if you differ on certain points that is fine, but no offense is intended when addressing those views.

That is a quote from John 6:44 in which most Calvinists would turn to support their view of Total inability, but clearly this is not something familiar to you. No problem, just ignore it if it doesn't apply.

Keep in mind that I was also addressing JesusFan, whose views I'm a bit more familiar with than yours, so don't think it just you I'm attempting to address, ok? And please don't be offended. It's just a discussion. I have no ill will toward you.

 

Who said we should dismiss it? Heaven forbid!!! I'm only attempting to understand it within its historical context so as to know how it is to be properly understood and applied to us today. That is a basic rule of hermeneutics in which the intent is to properly understand and thus apply scripture, but never to "dismiss it."

 

What I'm saying is that what Christ said is still just as true for us. My "dismiss" is referring to saying that we don't have to be drawn/enabled to come to Christ anymore. At least that is what I gather from your post is that the enabling doesn't apply today. But that's not true.

 

I agree. We can't come to Jesus unless we've been enabled. You aren't enabled until you are invited (how can they believe unless they hear?).

It's not until Christ is lifted up that he draws all men to himself thus "enabling" them to come to him. Still today, someone can't come unless the gracious appeal of the gospel is carried to them through the means God has appointed.

Hopefully my statement above clarified my view. I do believe we must be enabled. I just believe that we are enabled through the grace that brings the powerful gospel appeal whereas those in John 6 had yet to receive that grace because the gospel had yet to be sent out.

 

Well Brother JF, heres how I see it. Whenever we call upon Jesus for salvation, it is Jesus who first calls out to us. We do not go looking for Him, but rather, He comes seeking us. Its like a Brother told me one time, "You don't answer the phone before it rings." Now, after He begans calling us, we then have something to "work" with-not "work" as in regards to working our way to heaven, but faith(I know the hounds will be after me about this). It is only those who put their faith to use, who will be saved.

So, in essence, God starts the ball rolling by calling us, seking after us, etc., but it is only they who put their faith to action(believing is faith IN action) that get salvation. I love these verses right here:

Deut. 32:10 He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

11 As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings:

12 So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.


Here is another passage I love:

Psalm 40:1 I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.

2 He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.

3 And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.

And finally:

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.

10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.


So what I am trying to get at is this. We will not want to seek after God by ourselves...or at least I didn't. I wanted to live my life my way. But, when God began drawing me, He changed my want to's and I began seeking after Him with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. I would have never did any of this if He didn't first seek me out. People have it backwards when they say, "Boy, I'm sure glad I found the Lord!" Really? How did they find the Lord? He has never been lost. It was us who were lost, ruined, and undone, without hope in this world. He first, seeks us out, because we are the ones lost. So I am thankful that He found me, and not I that found Him.

 

Be carefull with fully believing in Romans 3 indictment upon mankind, and also chapter 8:6-8, some will rail on you over this and bring proof-texts about mans goodness and ability!!!! :laugh:

- Peace

also, I loved the phone illustration!

 

Obviously in the first century this truth was a given, therefore they preached it to the saving of mens souls, and also wrote these theological truths in the NT Epistles.

So it was a "given."

- Peace

 

ROFL.....that's perverted Winman......(I just can't help myself sometimes)...

 

Hey Winman, you think David had that same look on that baby's face when he was made to hope while on his mother's breast?

 

Actually, if you read John 12:39-41 and Acts 28:23-28 you will see that this truth was unable to be seen, heard or understood by Israel because they had grown calloused to it. In fact, God was blinding them from the truth by speaking in parables (Mk 4; Matt 13 etc). But the Gentiles will listen (Acts 28:28). The truth is only effective to those who can hear it and at that time Israel was being blinded from the truth temporarily and it hadn't yet even been sent to the rest of the world.

God blinded the Jews so as to accomplish redemption for the world. Israel, in their hardened rebellion, killed Jesus and they were cut off so as to make room for the Gentiles. See Romans 11.

 

I used to think the same thing when I was a Calvinists first studying this view. I really do believe if you understand the historical context it all begins to make much more sense.

In the OT God hardened or blinded Pharaoh from the clear truth in order to accomplish the first passover. In the same way, in the NT God is hardening Israel from the clear truth in order to accomplish the real Passover. It all makes since when you read Romans 8, 9, 10, and 11 as one whole passage that flows together. Paul explains it all very clearly. Paul taught that God was patient with Israel for years ('holding out his hands to them' Rm 10:21), but they were unwilling, so they are being "cut off", "bound over to disobedience," "hardened," but are they cut off for good? Heaven FORBID! This is "temporary" and Paul has hope for their salvation as a result of his ministry to the Gentiles and the Jews growing jealous (Rm 11:14). This is not about God hardening certain reprobates and saving a select number of people. It's about God blinding Israel in their rebellion so as to ingraft the gentiles, but even that blinding process is an act of mercy, because in being "cut off/hardened" they may be provoked to envy and saved. Paul summarizes this truth at the end of the discourse saying, "God bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all."

I believe the grace is IN the gospel. IOW, the gospel is God's means of grace because it is the power of God unto salvation. It is "common" in the sense that it is meant for all to hear it and not "exclusive."

 

Come on Skandelon, that's a completely different topic altogether.

We're talking in context of believers being able to understand these "givens." We were talking about the apostles abilities and knowledge. Not the ones you bring in to bolster your point, which is yet another strawman friend.

Your switching gears fast, and I think I hear grinding. :laugh:

- Peace

 

Its nearly impossible Skan.