Featured Unable/Unwilling

I said you are adding to scripture by understanding "no one seeks after God" as indicating "no one seeks after God at any time." Not what it says.

One way to force man-made doctrine into scripture is to add a little here, and take away a little there. For example, for you to say all those seeking God were just seeking "a god" takes away from the clear teaching of scripture. The men of Matthew 23:13 cannot be said to be seeking after "a god" because they were entering heaven. Thus the effort to deny what scripture says fails.

Yes, I understand what you believe. The issue is what does the Bible teach. You say none on their own are willing, but offer no scripture. The parable of the four soils teaches 3 of 4 groups were willing to some degree to believe.

Next, you declare you cannot base doctrine of parables. But my view is based on Christ's explanation of the parable. To claim we cannot base our understanding on the teaching of Christ is unsound.

Can you provide from the "many" instances you cited where all men universally refuse to turn toward God?

Yes Psalm 19 agrees with my view that people, at least some fallen people, will learn from what God has made, and what God has revealed, including, according to Paul, the gospel.

 

I base my views on what scripture says, not on what it does not say.

It says no one seeks after God, but also says the men of Matthew 23:13 were seeking after God, for they were entering heaven. Therefore, Romans 3:11 must be interpreted to mean no one seeks God all the time or when they are sinning.

Psalm 14, 1- 7 supports my view, not yours. God looks down to see if any who understand, who seeks after God. Why would he do that if no one could seek after God. He would not. Who is in view with "they all have turned aside." Is this all mankind, or the wicked fools who say there is no God? Those that say there is no God! Why? Keep reading. Do all the workers of wickedness ... not call upon the Lord? There they are in great dread, for God is with the righteous generation. The wicked fools would put to shame the counsel of the afflicted, but the Lord is his refuge. So again, this passage supports that some seek the Lord as his refuge.

1 Cor. 2:14 says unregenerate men cannot understand spiritual things. Again, Calvinism says this means "all spiritual things" but that view conflicts with 1 Corinthians 3:1 where Paul speaks to new Christians as "men of flesh." They can understand spiritual milk but not meat. Therefore, back in verse 14, the spiritual things in view are spiritual meat.

Romans 8:7 refers to people who have their minds set on the flesh, i.e. fleshly desires, but does not say people are "unable" to set their minds of godly things. In verse 8, we see that Paul uses the term "in the flesh" to refer to people with their minds set on fleshly desires. Again, scripture does not teach people are unable to set their minds on spiritual milk, because it teaches the opposite, 1 Cor. 3:1.

Next you indicated you could cite "many more" passages, but the result would be the same, none actually teach what has been added to scripture, i.e. the total spiritual inability of the fallen.

Yes, I believe we do base doctrine on the explanation of parables. And yes, I believe the explanation can be relied upon for doctrine. The gospel writers felt it was so important a teaching, they included it in Matthew 13:1-15, Mark 4:1-12, and Luke 8:4-10. After each of these passages, Christ's explanation is given. Therefore the doctrine that some men are able to respond in various degrees to the gospel is rock solid.

 

Fruitlessl, imho. Same with DHK.

No effort to reason, the "conversation" always denigrates into regurgitating the same 12 passages - which, btw, never use the words choice or decide when it comes to believing the gospel

 

James - Just out of curiosity, how does one "passively receive" a gift? We acknowledge that salvation is the gift of God. But, to put this in human terms (solely for the sake of example), let's say that I was presenting you with a gift. I came by wherever you were, and sat the gift down in front of you and said, "I give you this as a gift."

You do nothing. You don't reject it, but you also don't take it. Have you truly received anything? In order to receive something as a gift, an action has to be taken. This should not be confused with "works." The notion that performing the act of receiving is a 'work' is not correct, in my opinion. When the Bible speaks of "works," it is speaking of the deeds we do for God. We are not saved because we do those deeds, but rather we do those deeds because we are saved.

If we do nothing to receive the gift of God, but we come by it passively, as you suggest, then we're back to the issue of God forcing salvation on a person, which has long been a stance the Cals on this board have rejected (in my conversations with them) at least on terminology if not on meaning.

 

Hi JonC, I thought you were an Arminian, and therefore buy into total spiritual inability rectified by enabling grace.

So by the numbers, you believe folks have limited spiritual ability in their fallen state without being enabled by enabling grace. If that is not right, we are back to square one.

Next, the rich young ruler had the ability to sell all his belongings and follow Jesus, but was unwilling because he still treasured his worldly treasure and he had a lot of it. Thus he is an example of the third soil from Matthew 13. He was seeking the God of the Bible, Yahweh, and not some other god. Note he had learned of the Law, i.e. the commandments. So for you to "interpret" that he was seeking some other god is unsound.

Here is what you said, "...there are many instances where Scripture affirms the unwillingness of men universally to turn towards righteousness (even using the NASB95)." I asked for an example and was greeted with silence. OTOH, I have offered numerous references in scripture where fallen mean were seeking God, i.e. Matthew 13:1-23, Matthew 23:13, the rich young ruler, and come to think of it, Romans 9:30-33 where men seek God through works and through faith. Thus the ability and occasional willingness to seek God using works or using faith is found throughout scripture.

 

Here is a link to an article where the Arminian view does endorse total spiritual inability. https://arminiantheologyblog.wordpress.com/category/arminianism/total-inability/

Here is an excerpt:

 

Jon, the issue is not a matter of power of choice. the lost man has the power of choice. The issue of total inability is in regard to what internally governs his choices. He does not choose or seek after God according to the right motive or right way that God demands, because he does not want to, (although he does seek after God according to his own self-centered motives and ways, just not according to God's motive and way) and his "want to" is determined by the state of his heart. Notice that Romans 8:7 says "enmity against God" is what is the cause for refusal to submit to God and it is that combination of cause and effect which call for the words which follow "indeed neither can be." Jesus says that man LOVES darkness RATHER THAN light and that he will not come to the light BECAUSE his deeds are evil - Jn. 3:19-20. Again, it is his desires that make him unable. If he does come to the light it is proof that result is "wrought of God" rather than of man.

The doctrine of universal total inability is plainly asserted by Christ in the words "no man can come". If that were not true, there would be no need for the exception clause that follows. So it is pure foolishness to deny universal total inability.

This does not mean that man cannot choose and do apparent good before men. The problem here is his motive. He does not possess the right heart motive behind any of his choices because an evil heart cannot bear "good" fruit, as even the apparent "good" that is seen arises from the wrong heart motive (1 Cor. 10:30). The motive/cause for any apparent good done by fallen man is never for the glory of God but for some other motive that always comes "short of the glory of God."

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” (John 6:65, NIV)

This illustrates a classic misinterpretation of scripture. If a person is not able, then he must be enabled. But if a person is able, then God must disable or disallow, and if God does not allow, if a person is able, means He disallows.
So we see in Romans 8:7 where no one is able to subject themselves to the Law, the Calvinist assumption is no one can because they are unable, but another assumption no one can with their mind set on fleshly desires is just as valid.

And again we see the argument from silence that those fallen who were seeking God did not have the right heart. But Matthew 23:13 demonstrates that deflection is bogus, for they were entering heaven.

 

Van, can you and I communicate in an agreeable manner without resorting to mockery or talking down to each other? I am willing if you are? If so, I would like to challenge your statements above, if not, then we will just forget it.

 

Lets just forget it Biblicist, you are offended when I say your arguments are irrational gibberish. Jonathan has observed the same issue. I try always to address positions rather than people, however when the arguments are nonsensical or absurd, the line gets blurred. But I refuse to quote and waste time addressing nonsensical arguments, or positions that are not in contention.

 

Here is your OP once again:

Back to Acts 17.
The pagan Athenians were more than willing to bring Paul to Mars Hill and hear him, entirely apart from the Spirit of God. This wasn't the Spirit's doing. This was their own curiosity.
"What will this babbler say?" They treated him with contempt, not respect.
But they would listen to him anyway, and Paul would never refuse an opportunity to preach. They were willing, no matter what their motive may have been.

The decisive point was the resurrection.
When they heard the resurrection some mocked and others believed.
There was an ability to make a choice. That choice was made and an obvious split between the hearers of the Word. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

 

No one denies you make the accusation "irrational gibberish" but YOU NEVER ARE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WHY you make that accusation. This is obvious as YOU NEVER QUOTE anything I say when you make that accusation. You simply make the accusation without giving ANY RATIONALE for that accusation. All the readers know that is the truth. If you COULD give rational reasons you would have but the record will show nothing is given to sustain your accusations. So your accusations without evidence are nothing but a personal attack.

For the record, I am not offended by you calling my statements "irrational gibberish." What offends me is that you give absolutely NOTHING to support your accusation. That is what offends me. A slander is simply an accusation without evidence.

 

I agree that the problem is not with the human will. Man has the full power of choice. But I think you are hitting the real problem when you said "no matter what their motive may have been." An evil tree cannot bring forth "good" fruit due to the nature of the tree. Jesus defines that "tree" to be the heart and the problem is a wrong motive which is the root of the heart as that motive always comes "short of the glory of God" which is the only proper motive that God will accept actions as "good" in his sight (1 Cor. 10:31) as God looks on the heart rather than the apparent actions of men.