Praying for the Lost

In my view, Irresistible Grace and "Granting Repentance" are not necessarily the same thing. To me, granting repentance is giving one the ability to repent, accompanied by all the means of securing that repentance that I mentioned in an earlier post. The context of the scripture verse (Acts 11:18) suggests that it is not granted to everyone.

 

I'll say it E V E N S L O W E R...

Follow the exchange and you will see what was said which was exactly what I replied to that you said.

 

Tom, I would suggest you look back at that verse again. The context does not imply any such thing. In fact the very wording of that passages implies the exact opposite. Note to 'whom' repentance was granted.. The Gentiles. There is no qualifier designating that it was a specific group or even just that group of Gentiles. But that God granted (meaning to allow) the Gentiles (as a group) to be saved like the Jews.

 

Allan, I understand your point, but this is not the only reference to God's granting repentance.

In addition to Acts 11:18, there is Peter also in Acts 5:30-31.

And Paul, writing to Timothy (II Tim 2:25):

So we have three different passages where this phrase appears.

First, Acts 5:30, God grants repentance to Israel.
Second, Acts 11:18 God grants repentance to the Gentiles, as well
Third, Paul expresses a desire that God might grant repentance to opponents of the Gospel.

That covers folks of every kind, seems to me.

Now obviously, not every Jew repents; not every Gentile repents, and not every opponent of the gospel repents. But Peter, Paul, and the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem understood that for those who did, their ability to repent was given by God. And it seems also to me that with that ability also came the desire to repent.

And to relate all this to the OP, this is what we believers ought to pray when praying for the salvation of the lost--that God would grant them repentance.

Beyond all this, if for no other reason, we ought to pray for the lost because it is certainly biblical. Paul himself prayed the salvation of all Israel. If he can do it, so can, and should, we.

 

Never did figure that you would get it...

 

Van, the opposite of God's granting repentance is God's NOT granting repentance.

 

Of this I am well aware.

While I agree with point 1 and 2, I think you are reading something into 3 that is not intended. The passage regarding point 3 is not fixated on or about God having to grant repentance as it's theme or main point.. but is more to the point of Paul was telling Timothy that while instruncting these people to know the truth, God might allow them to repent while he is engaging them. IOW - Paul is speaking the potential of him being used by God through or in meekness and correction toward those who misunderstand or don't know the truth of God - for the purpose of salvation.

Since we know, and both agree, that no man desires to know anything about God on his own, nor of/on his own will he come to God in repentance unless God first work on man. We also know there is no specific age at which God chooses to reveal His truths to anyone. Therefore it is our work as believers to spread the good news so that if God is working on them, they might come to salvation through your/our obedience toward God in sharing and correcting of His word with others. Thus you have in other places where Paul says much the same thing.. how will they know unless they hear.. and how will they hear unless someone is sent..ect.

I am not arguing the fact that God must grant these things, but to assume the term 'grant' means to give to someone what they did not have is, I believe, going beyond the text, the context, and intention of the author. And we have already established that God granting repentance was to the Nation Israel and to the Gentiles without any qualifier to show or allude to exclusion but more accurately, total inclussion.

However I think this is part of the problem between both groups. It is not necessarily the term grant.. but what it means or entails.
While the Reformed group says it (faith, repentance, ect..) is something God must give because it is not something they actaully have. -ie. like giving a kid a bike who does not have one.

While the other group believes God 'grants' as well, yet not in the sense that man does not have the capcity to do so but that his current fallen nature has blinded him to the truth making them useless. Therefore man has no knowledge that or what he needs to use them for regarding his salvation because he doesn't even know he needs saving. As such his ablity of faith or repentance toward God, is nullified or rendered uselss because they are unaware that they need to do anything of the sort. Thus God 'granting' is the giving of knowledge necessary to 'enable' what was useless prior.

Both believe God must grant, and that God enables, we just disagree on the mechanics and scriptures supporting eachs view. In fact we both hold to many of the same scripture to establish 'our' view.. that is what I find most humorous.

I will agree here, yet let us read the texts again..
..to give repentance to Israel..
..grants repentance to the Gentiles..

Exactly who is excluded in the giving of repentance here?
Note there is no such qualifier. The qualifier of whom God grants repentance is actually everyone in that group and does not say, allude to, or insinuate a sub-group within that group.

The third aspect you give, is not about God granting repentance (as the main idea or theme) but is secondary to us being obedient to God in reaching out to all men.. so that as we are obedient to Him, He might use our obedience to bring another to salvation as He grants them repentance. Don't misunderstand me though. I am not saying God doesn't allow/grant/give men repentance. If God did not work upon man, then no man would ever repent or even consider it an option. Thus repentance, according to scripture is given to all men, just not all at the same time

I find it note worthy that in 1 Tim 2:4 it tells us that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. The context of this in preveous and following passages establish beyond all doubt the 'all' is inclusive and not exclusive. Paul doesn't switch gears and then is 2 Tim state only some, but is still expressing the same thing but with respect to individuals at various times and why we need to be proclaiming the word - to be used of God in the salvation of His elect.

Here is where you seem to be adding to the text 2 seperate assumptions.

The first assumption, is presuming 'ability' is something they did not have.
.. let me qualify this however. I agree that God must give them the ability to believe, but the distinction is what constitutes them obtaining said 'ability' - I'll explain further down.

And the second assumption is repentance is something like an object that is given to man and thus once he has it, he will then 'desire' to us it due to now having the abilty to repent.

To the first - just because a person does not know what a back flip is or that they can do a back flip, does not mean they do not have the ability.
But I will grant that ability, in a sense, is given/obtained once we have knowledge and with that are now able or maybe better, enabled to consider it or do it
Thus my point is that they did in fact have the ability to repent just as man does to believe/have faith, but without any undiluted knowedge (IOW- apart from us obtaining the knowledge ourselves) we will never know what to do or on whom to call, if anyone.

To the second assumption that repentance itself is something that must be given because we don't have it, and as I see it not biblical or contextual.
Men can repent of anything thus repentance, like faith is a natural condition within man. The issue is how they come to doing either in a godly manner (that is key and I know you agree). Of themselves no man will do either toward God because he does not know or care about the things of God. Thus it is God who must come to man and reveal Himself and spiritual truths to man, and it is in this sense, God gives them to man as now man is faced with the truth he never knew prior. Will he believe it or not and if so, repentance is what naturally follows.

But see, here is where you have a disconnect with Pauls theology. If Paul taught, as you believe, that only the elect will be granted repentence and thus salvation.. you also state, with scripture, that Paul prayed for the salvation of all Isreal, the Jewish nation. That just doesn't fit his theology, and we would have to say he is mixed up on what he is teaching.

 

Allan, you make many points, and I don't have time to deal with all of them, but this paragraph got my attention.

To me, it's perfectly consistent for Paul to pray for the salvation of every Jew, just as it is consistent for me to pray for the salvation of every lost soul.

God will save some of them, according to his perfect will. But I don't know who they are. He does. Paul's prayer reflected an intense personal desire on his part. It was a reflection of his deep love for his fellow Jews, just as we should pray out of love for the lost.

I'm being sorta facetious here, but I can't imagine praying , God I know you won't save 'em all, but will same some, so those are the only one's I'm praying for.

 

So Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, states something that has no basis in his theology, but falls back on his emotion (personal desire). Hmm.. don't think so Consistency necessitates you pray in accordance with your theological view. However if his theological view holds that God will save the nation of Israel (as prophesied in the OT) then it IS consistent for him to pray for God to save them all, though he does not know when God will do such

I wasn't really looking to debate on this per-say as I was simply try to state how we hold to much the same views but also showing the distinctions and try to explain the view of opposing side to your view.

However, what I will.stress once again as I did in the beginning, is that for ANYONE to question why another group prays is both silly and ignorant - at best! It shows they have little to almost no understanding of the other position.

To your last statement where you speak "facetiously".. it is funny that Spurgeon is known for making the statement (and I know many of the reformed view that agree) .. 'O God save thy elect and then elect some more'. Thus it appears both sides have the same issue

 

I like the Spurgeon statement. Wish I'd thought of it.

Regarding Paul's prayer for the salvation of Israel, I think it's perfectly consistent with his theology. He is acknowledging that salvation is of God; that God can save every Jew. Since I obviously believe Paul taught unconditional election, I think Paul understood that God could employ all means at his disposal to bring about their salvation.

I do confess that my sinful nature rears its head when the subject of praying for the lost comes up. But I do think it's a topic for reasonable discussion, even if I have to fight my impulses toward gigging the non-Cals.

Suffice it to say, all of us are Calvinists on our knees.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

Of course not... hehe. Well, blessing to you brother.

 

And blessings to you and your family, as well.

How current is your picture? How old are those kids of yours now.

They surely are good-looking kids.

I didn't mention your lovely bride, but she triggered memory of a scene in the old Cosby show, where Cliff and Claire were discussing the relative intelligence of men and women. Clair said to Cliff, "of course men are smarter than women. You married me, and I married you."

I'm kidding, of course. If I had meant it I would have said it behind your back instead of to your face.

 

LOL :thumbs:

It is an older pic (6 or so years). I just haven't thought about changing it till now I have 5 kids and our marriage this September, will be 11 years to date.