God's Sovereign Choice and Man's Natural Condition

[annsni]

You are both correct. I misread what she said. I thought she said that no one will seek God on their own.

Well, I do believe that. No one will seek God on their own.

But God obviously called this man.

I also said that no one who calls out to God will be turned away. If one desires to come to Christ, he will.

 

[The Archangel]

Now, that is not fair. I don't accuse your explanations of 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4, John 3:16-17; etc etc as "seeking to disqualify" them. You interpret them according to your view, just as I am. There are more "difficult" texts for each of our points of view and to be objective you must be willing to view all sides as being potentially correct.

The verses you cite above are facts not in evidence in our discussion. Therefore your use of them is moot. And it seemed--remember I answered your direct question with that text--you were dismissing the verse.

I am discussing this passage with you. I just pointed out that even your explanations of the Greek didn't address the point I had made (with regard to the passage in Acts 28). I'm not dismissing your arguments, just showing you where they don't apply.

Sure they did. I assume you just didn't like the explanations. My entire argument is that you misunderstood the quoting of Isaiah 6 because you misunderstood the earlier verse(s).

And I noticed in your reply you never really address my points of debate. Instead you redirect to focus on the points you want to discuss and introduce text that seem to better support your views.

See above.

Please objectively consider another viable understanding of this passage. If you approach this as just a debate you want to win, you will not understand my point, so please try to be objective and at least understand what I'm arguing. I believe this passage has to do with the national election or chose of the Gentiles. Let me explain fully:

Remember that is the major debate at this time in history. Everyone at this time was debating with the apostles the point that Gentiles weren't chosen by God and that they weren't "appointed to eternal life" by God. The apostles were trying to prove that indeed they had been chosen by God and that eternal life was indeed meant for the Gentiles too. Thus, I believe that Luke is speaking about the nations, which is consistent with what he says just a 2 verses prior:
Acts 13:46 NIV: Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

Notice he is speaking to the Jews, as a nation. He says, "since you reject it," now obviously not all Jews are rejecting, thus proving he is speaking in GENERAL TERMS. Notice what else he goes on to say, "you do not consider yourself worthy of eternal life," again speaking GENERALLY ABOUT THE NATION OF ISRAEL, and then in contrast he refers to the GENTILES IN GENERAL TERMS. See my point?

If we continue to understand the rest of this same passage in those GENERAL TERMS then we will read this verse to mean, "When the Gentiles (as a Nation in GENERAL TERMS) heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all (GENTILES IN GENERAL TERMS) who were appointed for eternal life believed."

So, verse 48 MUST be understood in light of verse 46. They correlate perfectly. The Jews are not considering themselves worthy of eternal life, but the Gentiles are. The Jews are not believing while the Gentiles are.

Other passages in Acts support this type of general understanding of the comparison of these two nations:

• Acts 10:45 NIV: The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
• Acts 11:1 NIV: [Peter Explains His Actions] The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
• Acts 11:18 NIV: When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

Acts 15:7 NIV: After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

I understand the "general" approach you are are suggesting. There are some merits to your argument--The Jews were amazed that God was saving some of the Gentiles. That, I'm sure you'd agree, is Jewish baggage--thinking themselves the only game in town because they were God's chosen people.

But, God had always planned to save some Gentiles. This is clear in His calling of Abraham in Genesis 12. All the world would be blessed through Abraham. This is further exemplified in Exodus 19 where God tells Moses that the Israelites are supposed to be a "Kingdom of Priests," the implication being to enlighten the non-Jews about the greatness and glory of God. Now, in Acts, as you rightly note, we can see this happening. Glorious!

But, when we get to Acts 13, the passage is different. The passage itself is not speaking in generalities. Rather, the passage is quite specific about which of the Gentiles would be saved--the ones appointed to eternal life. This is seen in the comparative ό͑σοι which the ESV translates (rightly, I might add) to be "as many as." So, Luke's purpose is to say some individual Gentiles were saved. Had Luke meant to write what you are suggesting he meant, he would not have qualified his statement.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I do believe that God does desire for all to be saved and I believe that he has provided all that is needed for anyone to be justified by faith and thus stand "without excuse."

Ok. I don't think anyone is without excuse--even the non-elect. But, if you are right, why, then is it the case that not everyone will be saved?

How does the ground share the gospel with others, pray, honor its father and mother? My point is that this is an analogy. We are like soil in that we might be fertile, hard, thorny or rocky, but as I pointed out and as the scriptures I presented (which you didn't seem to address) we have control over our "hardeness." Remember Heb 3: Do not let your heart grow harden? You become hardened when you hear and rebel over and over.

The ground doesn't do those things; the plant, on the other hand, does.

But there is a contextual issue in your Hebrews reference. As Paul explains in Romans 9, the Jews did know these things about God, they were the heirs of the promises of God, etc.

So, they were not neutral--ethnic Judaism. They should have known because they were told--by God Himself. To reject God, given the special revelation they had, which they did is unthinkable. But, as Paul will explain in Romans 11, God keeps for Himself a "faithful remnant"--spiritual, true Judaism.

God guarantees that spiritual Jews will, indeed, believe by His own intervention. The ethnic Jews are described as "stiff-necked" and obviously have heart problems--hard hearts. That is a problem they have already.

You said "see above" to answer my question, "why would that be necessary if indeed they were born totally depraved? Why would God need to blind and man born already blind?" but I didn't understand any thing that you said to be an answer to this question.

Because total depravity doesn't mean that they are as bad as they can be.

For a further, better answer on my part, please elaborate on what you mean by blinding the already blind along with the scripture you are alluding to.

We both affirm that God blind unrighteous people. My question is "WHY?" Could it be that he blinded the rebellious Pharaoh so that the obvious truth being revealed through the plagues might have convinced him to free the slaves prior to the Passover plague? Could it be that God blinded the rebellious Jews because the obvious truth being revealed by the miracles and teaching of Christ and his disciples might have convinced them to believe before the real Passover and crucifixion? Think about it.

I don't think Pharaoh was ever described as "blind," but I may be mistaken. Anyhow, I'll take that to mean with a hard heart. If my assumption is incorrect, please let me know.

Pharaoh was hardened for two reasons as I see it:

1. To magnify the glory of God in the eyes of the Israelites

2. To maximize His glory in the judgment and destruction of Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

There was no chance Pharaoh would have let the Israelites go too early. After all, we both believe that God is sovereign--directing events to suit His purposes, don't we?

The rebellious Jews were already blind (Jesus says the disciples are blessed because they have eyes to see and ears to hear--an obvious comment that no one else had them). This blindness was due to their already hard hearts and it suits God's purposes for saving Gentiles too.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

Well, I do believe that. No one will seek God on their own.

On this point we will have to disagree. I believe there have been some people who have sought God.

 

[annsni]

On this point we will have to disagree. I believe there have been some people who have sought God.

I believe that there are many who know that they are to seek something and instead of God, they look for something else. They will not submit to God Himelf but instead make up other gods, worship fame, fortune, other people, etc. But they do not seek God because when they DO hear about Him, they turn away.

 

[Skandelon]

But, when we get to Acts 13, the passage is different. The passage itself is not speaking in generalities. Rather, the passage is quite specific about which of the Gentiles would be saved--the ones appointed to eternal life. This is seen in the comparative ό͑σοι which the ESV translates (rightly, I might add) to be "as many as." So, Luke's purpose is to say some individual Gentiles were saved. Had Luke meant to write what you are suggesting he meant, he would not have qualified his statement.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this point. I think you have to interpret verse 48 like you obviously have to interpret verse 46, with a more "general" and "national" intent. Obviously, I understand why you would disagree with that conclusion, but I guess that is why none of us should base our whole theological stance on one narrative passage. We have to address the whole of scripture which I think will come into better understanding once we tackle Romans 11 and the whole illustration of the "vine."

 

[Winman]

That is not the only passage that addresses this, it is also shown in Acts 28.

Acts 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

Verse 22-23 shows many Jews desired to hear this doctrine. Verse 24 shows some Jews believed, some did not. In verses 25-27 Paul quotes Isaiah and speaks of the Jews in general terms and says their ears are dull of hearing and their eyes they have closed. We know this means generally, because in verse 24 it says "some believed". And then in verse 28 Paul says that the gospel will be sent to the Gentiles and they will hear it. We know this is speaking generally, because not all Gentiles who hear the gospel choose to believe it.

 

[Skandelon]

Ok. I don't think anyone is without excuse--even the non-elect.

I honestly don't see how Calvinists can make that claim. The entire point of Roman's 1 is that these people CLEARLY SAW and UNDERSTOOD the divine attributes and eternal nature of God...in other words they understood God's revelations but still refused to acknowledge him as God.

Calvinists use verses like 1 Cor 2:14 to insist natural men cannot understand the revelation of God unto salvation because it must be spiritually discerned.

This gives men the perfect excuse on judgment day.

Lord: Why didn't you come to me when I called?
Man: Because your revelation was only able to be discerned by the Spirit, which you never granted to me. I never really understood and I couldn't willingly believe you because I was never regenerated.

Perfect excuse.

But, if you are right, why, then is it the case that not everyone will be saved?

Same reason that every Christian doesn't live a sinless life. Does God want you, as his child, to resist temptation? Of course. Has he provided you all that you need in order to stand up against temptation? Yes. But do you still sin sometimes? I assume so. Did God fail? No. You did. God desired you to resist temptation and he provided you with all you need to resist, but sometimes you choose to sin anyway. That doesn't mean God has failed in accomplishing his desire. It simply means that his desire is for YOU to make that choice. We believe the same about the choice to believe and follow Christ. Maybe that is why Jesus told people to "consider the cost" of being his disciple. He knew it was their choice.

The ground doesn't do those things; the plant, on the other hand, does.

Ok, if you are going to nitpick my analogy, then how about this: The ground doesn't resist the seed, talk bad about the seed, rebel against its parents, abort its babies etc etc. In other words, there a lot of things the ground can't do...ITS AN ANALOGY. Whatever is true of dirt is not necessarily true of people.

But there is a contextual issue in your Hebrews reference. As Paul explains in Romans 9, the Jews did know these things about God, they were the heirs of the promises of God, etc.

So, they were not neutral--ethnic Judaism. They should have known because they were told--by God Himself. To reject God, given the special revelation they had, which they did is unthinkable. But, as Paul will explain in Romans 11, God keeps for Himself a "faithful remnant"--spiritual, true Judaism.

I couldn't agree more, but how is that "unthinkable" in your system? In your system they were never regenerated so what else could they have done but rebel? The reason it is UNTHINKABLE is because they WERE ABLE but still refused to believe (generally speaking). There were obvious exceptions.

Why warn people not to allow their heart to grow hardened if that is not within their control? If that is a condition they are born in then what is the point of the warning, even for Jews who had the "special revelation?" Is that special revelation able to accomplish anything without the "effectual call" of your system?

God guarantees that spiritual Jews will, indeed, believe by His own intervention. The ethnic Jews are described as "stiff-necked" and obviously have heart problems--hard hearts. That is a problem they have already.

I agree. And yet Paul believed that some of those hardened Jews might still be provoked by envy, leave their unbelief and be saved (Romans 11-21). Impossible if those hardened people are the non-elect reprobates of the Calvinistic interpretation.

Because total depravity doesn't mean that they are as bad as they can be.

That is not what I mean. I understand the TD does not mean that people are as evil as they could be. TD, however, teaches that men are so depraved that even the clear revelation of God could have NO effect on a child or an unhardened individual because of their spiritual blindness and deadness. But the passage I pointed out earlier (along with many others- Acts 28; John 12:39-41 etc) show that Israel was being blinded and it goes on to reveal what they MIGHT have been able to do OTHERWISE..."see, hear, understand and believe."

I don't think Pharaoh was ever described as "blind," but I may be mistaken. Anyhow, I'll take that to mean with a hard heart. If my assumption is incorrect, please let me know.

Correct. Synonyms. Pharaoh was already a rebellious person. God simply blinded/hardened him in that rebellion so he could not see and understand the obvious truth all around him.

Pharaoh was hardened for two reasons as I see it:

1. To magnify the glory of God in the eyes of the Israelites

2. To maximize His glory in the judgment and destruction of Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

There was no chance Pharaoh would have let the Israelites go too early. After all, we both believe that God is sovereign--directing events to suit His purposes, don't we?

I think we agree on this point. Assuming you mean what I think you mean. But, I will say that the REASON ther was NO CHANCE that Pharaoh would have let the Israelites go too early is because God was actively blinding him. Had God not intervened I suspect that a few plagues would have convinced him. But as you stated, God wanted his Glory to be made known and he had a lesson to teach in the Passover plague.

The rebellious Jews were already blind (Jesus says the disciples are blessed because they have eyes to see and ears to hear--an obvious comment that no one else had them). This blindness was due to their already hard hearts and it suits God's purposes for saving Gentiles too.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Again, I agree with this statement, but like Pharaoh, God was Judicially blinding them or hardening them in their rebellious state. He was "sending them a spirit of stupor." Why? Same reason as with Pharaoh. To accomplish a divine purpose. Because Israel was in rebellion they kill Christ and it allowed the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the church. Jews wouldn't have allowed dirty gentiles into their churches...as evidenced by the Judiaziers. God had to keep the Jews in darkness for time until the Gentiles had been established in the church. Again, I refer us to Romans 11.

 

[The Archangel]

I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this point. I think you have to interpret verse 48 like you obviously have to interpret verse 46, with a more "general" and "national" intent. Obviously, I understand why you would disagree with that conclusion, but I guess that is why none of us should base our whole theological stance on one narrative passage. We have to address the whole of scripture which I think will come into better understanding once we tackle Romans 11 and the whole illustration of the "vine."

I'm not basing an entire theological stance on this one verse. Again, I'll remind you, this came up because of a question you asked of me--to prove something with just one verse of scripture.

It's not a matter of "interpretation." It is a matter of grammar. Your interpretation, which, of course, you are entitled to, goes against the grammar of v. 48.

I dare say (and not meaning to be offensive) you have to ignore the grammar or else your presuppositions fall.

The question, as always, is this: What does the text itself say? Once we determine that, it can be determined how it fits into the greater context. The text itself of v. 48 clearly says that some, not all, Gentiles were appointed to eternal life. It is a qualified statement; it is not a general statement. Therefore it cannot mean what you want it to mean.

A more wooden translation of the verse would be this:

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord and believed--as many as were appointed to eternal life.

So it is crystal clear that this is not speaking generalities of the Gentiles. Luke goes out of his way to qualify which of the Gentiles believed--meaning that not all did, reinforcing that it is not a general statement about Gentiles in general.

So, we can agree to disagree, as you call it, but your disagreement is not, ultimately, with me. Your disagreement is with the text itself and that is always, at best, a precarious position.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I honestly don't see how Calvinists can make that claim. The entire point of Roman's 1 is that these people CLEARLY SAW and UNDERSTOOD the divine attributes and eternal nature of God...in other words they understood God's revelations but still refused to acknowledge him as God.

Calvinists use verses like 1 Cor 2:14 to insist natural men cannot understand the revelation of God unto salvation because it must be spiritually discerned.

This gives men the perfect excuse on judgment day.

Lord: Why didn't you come to me when I called?
Man: Because your revelation was only able to be discerned by the Spirit, which you never granted to me. I never really understood and I couldn't willingly believe you because I was never regenerated.

Perfect excuse.

You are conflating two passages--Romans 1 and 1 Cor 2:14--and, therefore your interplay between man and God is improper. The Romans passage clearly states that God's wrath is revealed against the unrighteous who clearly suppress the truth because they are unrighteous.

God's magnificence can be clearly seen but, because people are unrighteousness, they suppress that truth. This is the natural condition of man.

This also means that God's general revelation is quite enough to condemn--because people should have known (but because they are unrighteous they didn't). However, the general revelation is not enough to save. Obviously, you agree with that considering you believe it is the Gospel that is all-sufficient to save and not the creation.

Further, you assume that God is calling everyone in the same manner. Certainly He doesn't.

Same reason that every Christian doesn't live a sinless life. Does God want you, as his child, to resist temptation? Of course. Has he provided you all that you need in order to stand up against temptation? Yes. But do you still sin sometimes? I assume so. Did God fail? No. You did. God desired you to resist temptation and he provided you with all you need to resist, but sometimes you choose to sin anyway. That doesn't mean God has failed in accomplishing his desire. It simply means that his desire is for YOU to make that choice. We believe the same about the choice to believe and follow Christ. Maybe that is why Jesus told people to "consider the cost" of being his disciple. He knew it was their choice.

You make some very good points here. However your example, while excellent for the life of a Christian, does not apply to a non-believer. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I think this example and and your statement that God desires us to make a choice to follow Christ shows an underlying, errant presupposition.

For you to make that statement, you have to, at some level, believe man is neutral--neither naturally good nor bad.

Do I think God calls us to make a choice to follow Him? Absolutely! Again, how can an only-evil-continually and desperately-wicked heart desire to choose God? This is why we say that God must make the unwilling willing.

Ok, if you are going to nitpick my analogy, then how about this: The ground doesn't resist the seed, talk bad about the seed, rebel against its parents, abort its babies etc etc. In other words, there a lot of things the ground can't do...ITS AN ANALOGY. Whatever is true of dirt is not necessarily true of people.

Yes, it is an analogy. But the root (no pun intended) is in Jesus' parable and subsequent explanation. And, because Jesus uses this analogy--the types of soil--it is important and it is true of people.

I couldn't agree more, but how is that "unthinkable" in your system? In your system they were never regenerated so what else could they have done but rebel? The reason it is UNTHINKABLE is because they WERE ABLE but still refused to believe (generally speaking). There were obvious exceptions.

It was unthinkable from the human standpoint. Systemically, it is understandable and the "Obvious exceptions" were God's doing, not their own (ie. "I have kept for myself...).

Why warn people not to allow their heart to grow hardened if that is not within their control? If that is a condition they are born in then what is the point of the warning, even for Jews who had the "special revelation?" Is that special revelation able to accomplish anything without the "effectual call" of your system?

Calvinists call people to repent and believe even though we know some will never believe. The author of Hebrews is, perhaps, doing the same thing--calling them to repentance through imploring them not to harden their hearts.

I agree. And yet Paul believed that some of those hardened Jews might still be provoked by envy, leave their unbelief and be saved (Romans 11-21). Impossible if those hardened people are the non-elect reprobates of the Calvinistic interpretation.

But again, no one knows who the hardened, non-elect, reprobate, etc. are. It is never assumable that anyone is these things so as to preclude our imploring them to turn to Christ in repentance and faith.

More to come...

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

That is not what I mean. I understand the TD does not mean that people are as evil as they could be. TD, however, teaches that men are so depraved that even the clear revelation of God could have NO effect on a child or an unhardened individual because of their spiritual blindness and deadness. But the passage I pointed out earlier (along with many others- Acts 28; John 12:39-41 etc) show that Israel was being blinded and it goes on to reveal what they MIGHT have been able to do OTHERWISE..."see, hear, understand and believe."

Certainly God also blinds. But He did this to the Jews who had all the advantages--chosen people, law, etc.

And, God does blind, harden, etc. to suit His purposes.

Correct. Synonyms. Pharaoh was already a rebellious person. God simply blinded/hardened him in that rebellion so he could not see and understand the obvious truth all around him.

I can buy that.

I think we agree on this point. Assuming you mean what I think you mean. But, I will say that the REASON there was NO CHANCE that Pharaoh would have let the Israelites go too early is because God was actively blinding him. Had God not intervened I suspect that a few plagues would have convinced him. But as you stated, God wanted his Glory to be made known and he had a lesson to teach in the Passover plague.

Certainly possible. And, this is what I meant.

Again, I agree with this statement, but like Pharaoh, God was Judicially blinding them or hardening them in their rebellious state. He was "sending them a spirit of stupor." Why? Same reason as with Pharaoh. To accomplish a divine purpose. Because Israel was in rebellion they kill Christ and it allowed the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the church. Jews wouldn't have allowed dirty gentiles into their churches...as evidenced by the Judiaziers. God had to keep the Jews in darkness for time until the Gentiles had been established in the church. Again, I refer us to Romans 11.

Why did God send them a spirit of stupor? To accomplish His purposes. And I think one of the reasons can be said to graft in the Gentiles. However, grafting in Gentiles was not "Plan B." God had always planned to save Gentiles.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Certainly possible. And, this is what I meant.

Why did God send them a spirit of stupor? To accomplish His purposes. And I think one of the reasons can be said to graft in the Gentiles. However, grafting in Gentiles was not "Plan B." God had always planned to save Gentiles.

Exactly!!! I agree totally. That is why Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, is always writing to his predominately Gentile churches that they have been chosen from the beginning....that it was ALWAYS God's plan to chose them and grant them repentance....to GRAFT THEM IN. This is NOT a new doctrine that Paul and the other disciples made up (which is what they are being accused of by all the Jewish leaders), but this was God's "Plan A" from the beginning.

So, let's review. Why did he send Israel a spirit of stupor? To keep them from believing temporarily. Like Pharaoh, Israel might have been convinced by Jesus and his miracles, but that would not have accomplish God's ultimate purpose.

Now, it appears we agree to this point. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here is my next question. If what Calvinism teaches is true and all men are born Totally Depraved, meaning they CANNOT believe (apart from regeneration), then please explain to me why God would need to blind them in their rebellion? Why blind a man who was born totally blind? Why hardened a man born totally hardened and unable to believe?

In other words, the sending of the "spirit of stupor" was to keep them from believing, but if they were born "un-elect" and thus "unable to believe" what would be the point of blinding them so that they couldn't believe? Understand my question now?

 

[Skandelon]

I'm not basing an entire theological stance on this one verse. Again, I'll remind you, this came up because of a question you asked of me--to prove something with just one verse of scripture.

It's not a matter of "interpretation." It is a matter of grammar. Your interpretation, which, of course, you are entitled to, goes against the grammar of v. 48.

I dare say (and not meaning to be offensive) you have to ignore the grammar or else your presuppositions fall.

In your opinion and in the opinion of Greek scholars who support Calvinistic dogma.

However, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Greek scholars who don't support Calvinistic dogma we believe...well you already know...read the post above.

By the way, I wasn't meaning to accuse you of basing your whole system on this one verse...which is why I said "none of us can base our whole theology on one narrative passage." We must look at other texts too. Which we do...

 

[The Archangel]

In your opinion and in the opinion of Greek scholars who support Calvinistic dogma.

However, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Greek scholars who don't support Calvinistic dogma we believe...well you already know...read the post above.

By the way, I wasn't meaning to accuse you of basing your whole system on this one verse...which is why I said "none of us can base our whole theology on one narrative passage." We must look at other texts too. Which we do...

I dare say secular, atheist Greek scholars would agree with the so-called Calvinist reading.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

You are conflating two passages--Romans 1 and 1 Cor 2:14--and, therefore your interplay between man and God is improper. The Romans passage clearly states that God's wrath is revealed against the unrighteous who clearly suppress the truth because they are unrighteous.

God's magnificence can be clearly seen but, because people are unrighteousness, they suppress that truth. This is the natural condition of man.

Must they? It appears there were some through out history who did acknowledge God through the revelation of himself: Enoch, Job, Noah etc. Are you just assuming that because Paul tells us of the masses of people who did reject the clearly seen and understood revelation of God's divine attributes that we all must do the same thing because of our inborn fallen nature?

When I read the Genesis account of the Fall and the judgement passed on to mankind I see something about labor pains and having to work the ground along with a knowledge of both good and evil. I never see anything about God making men unable to even acknowledge Him as God, do you?

You make some very good points here. However your example, while excellent for the life of a Christian, does not apply to a non-believer. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I understand that would be true from your Calvinistic perspective. I was merely using this as an example of how God can allow men to make a "free choice" (to sin or not to sin) while still remaining sovereign and while not failing in accomplishing his expressed desire. In scripture, God also expresses the same kind of desire for everyone to be saved...but my illustration shows how not everyone HAS to be saved just because God desires it. Understand?

I think this example and and your statement that God desires us to make a choice to follow Christ shows an underlying, errant presupposition.

For you to make that statement, you have to, at some level, believe man is neutral--neither naturally good nor bad.

Not really. I just have to believe that he is not so "bad" that he is unable to respond to the powerful, Holy Spirit wrought, life giving, revelation of our God. In other words, I have to belive that he is not born "totally hardened." He isn't born blind. He might become that in time, but he is not born that way.

Look at Romans 1 again. It does say they were born defiled and "given over." It says that after the clearly saw and understood God's divine nature that they rebelled and over time their hearts become defiled and hard. And over time God "gave them over" to their own lusts. They were born hardened. They GREW into that condition only after understanding and rebelling.

If you can prove that is what everyone will do absent the effectual regenerative work of the Holy Spirit then you will have a solid soteriological doctrine.

Do I think God calls us to make a choice to follow Him? Absolutely! Again, how can an only-evil-continually and desperately-wicked heart desire to choose God? This is why we say that God must make the unwilling willing.

I agree. He can either do that irresistibly or not. He can do that by sending them the gospel truth through Holy Spirit filled people allowing them to accept or resist that message...or He can effectually/irresistibly draw them. I believe he does the former in most cases. There are some cases where he has used effectual means however. The blinding light on the road to Damascus is one example. A whale, in Jonah's case, was use to effectually bring about God's purpose.

I wonder why these means (blinding lights and whales) are necessary where there is an inward irresistible call? Seems redundant for God to use all these human means to do something that the spirit could do irresistibly, don't you think?

It was unthinkable from the human standpoint. Systemically, it is understandable and the "Obvious exceptions" were God's doing, not their own (ie. "I have kept for myself...).

All our theology is from a human standpoint, because we are all human. If Paul or the other author's of scripture believed as you do then they wouldn't have thought of any of this as being unusual or unthinkable.

As I have explained, the remnant that God kept for himself is in reference to the Jews who he is not hardening. He has kept them from the judicial blinding so as to use them from "noble purposes." So that they might take the message of hope to the Gentiles.

Calvinists call people to repent and believe even though we know some will never believe. The author of Hebrews is, perhaps, doing the same thing--calling them to repentance through imploring them not to harden their hearts.

Actually, isn't he speaking to believers when he says that?

But again, no one knows who the hardened, non-elect, reprobate, etc. are. It is never assumable that anyone is these things so as to preclude our imploring them to turn to Christ in repentance and faith.

No need to beg, implore or persuade (all biblical connotations seen throughout scripture) if indeed the irresistible call is the deciding factor. Simply walk up read a piece of paper that tells them the basic truth of the gospel and if they are elect they will eventually come to faith. No reason to act like Paul in Acts if that is what you believe. IMO

 

[Skandelon]

I dare say secular, atheist Greek scholars would agree with the so-called Calvinist reading.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Find me one and we'll discuss it.

 

[The Archangel]

Exactly!!! I agree totally. That is why Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, is always writing to his predominately Gentile churches that they have been chosen from the beginning....that it was ALWAYS God's plan to chose them and grant them repentance....to GRAFT THEM IN. This is NOT a new doctrine that Paul and the other disciples made up (which is what they are being accused of by all the Jewish leaders), but this was God's "Plan A" from the beginning.

So, let's review. Why did he send Israel a spirit of stupor? To keep them from believing temporarily. Like Pharaoh, Israel might have been convinced by Jesus and his miracles, but that would not have accomplish God's ultimate purpose.

Now, it appears we agree to this point. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here is my next question. If what Calvinism teaches is true and all men are born Totally Depraved, meaning they CANNOT believe (apart from regeneration), then please explain to me why God would need to blind them in their rebellion? Why blind a man who was born totally blind? Why hardened a man born totally hardened and unable to believe?

In other words, the sending of the "spirit of stupor" was to keep them from believing, but if they were born "un-elect" and thus "unable to believe" what would be the point of blinding them so that they couldn't believe? Understand my question now?

I understand the question. Again, the answer (which I think I'm repeating...but I don't know) is this: God actively blinds/hardens the non-elect to magnify His judgment on them which, therefore, maximizes His glory.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Find me one and we'll discuss it.

How convenient for you! (Said with tongue in cheek) You have yet to engage the text, referring instead to generalities outside the verse we are trying to discuss.

Once we can agree on what the text actually says, then we can see how it fits contextually, thematically, etc.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

I understand the question. Again, the answer (which I think I'm repeating...but I don't know) is this: God actively blinds/hardens the non-elect to magnify His judgment on them which, therefore, maximizes His glory.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Umm.. not be argumentive here brother but while you are answering his question, your answer is not to the question he is asking.

I believe he absolutely agrees with your statement regarding 'what' God is doing. However the question he is asking isn't what you are answering.

He asks:

If what Calvinism teaches is true and all men are born Totally Depraved, meaning they CANNOT believe (apart from regeneration), then please explain to me why God would need to blind them in their rebellion?

Then he gives a brief explanation in the form of a question but both are still asking the same type of question:

Why blind a man who was born totally blind?

It might be better said - Why the need to blind a man who is born totally blind already?

And then reiterates this yet again with another form of the same question:

Why hardened a man born totally hardened and unable to believe?

So while you did give an answer it was not an answer that addressed his question - why does God need to blind/harden a man who is already in this condition prior to God doing anything at all.

An example from me is this..
God goes up to a completely blind man, places duct tape over his eyes and then asks the blind man read what he has written.

Why the need to blind/harden a person who is already in this state of being.

 

[Skandelon]

Allan, thank you for clarifying that...

Archangel, with regard to Act 13:48, I have another question for you and it does relate even though it may not appear to relate: How do you interpret John 12:32: But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Please explain how you interpret this text and why and then I'll show you how it relates to our discussion on Acts 13:48