Featured Good Debate 2

Luke, how is my comparing and contrasting YOUR POSITION with Gills POSITION on this issue interpreted as unwillingness to 'talk about POSITIONS?'

How is asking to read more about your POSITION, from scholars who support it, interpreted as unwillingness to 'talk about POSITIONS?'

Please realize, the impasse is not my unwillingness to discuss your POSITION, its your unwillingness to discuss the apparent contradiction of your POSITION (which you dismiss as 'emotive'), your unwillingness to provide documentation for your POSITION (which you dismiss as irrelevant), and now your unwillingness to even compare or contrast your POSITION with that of other Reformers. You're the only one who is unwilling to talk about POSITIONS here, brother. I'm waiting on you.

 

I just read back over the last several posts...are you saying you want to discuss your position alone, and not refer to anyone else's view on the subject? Is that what you are requesting?

Because I can approach this without using external quotes, if that is what is offending the process in your mind. I like quotes because for me they provide clarity and context to the intent of a particular view, but I can do without them if that will help?

I would like to be able to refer to distinctions between POSITIONS though, for how else can we debate if that isn't allowed?

It appears to me there is an internal and external blindness, wouldn't you agree? A parable would be a means for external blinding (a prevention of basic understanding), whereas the Total Depraved nature would be an internal condition of being spiritually blind. So, one would be preventing basic cognitive understanding of what is being taught (externally/parable), while the other would be preventing the adoption or spiritual belief of the truths (Depravity).

Do you think that is accurate?

 

I would just like you to admit that some Calvinists take a different approach on this topic than you do, that is all. I'd love to see you provide the quote from a respected Calvinist that is clearly saying something you disagree with and you owning that difference, because sometimes it appears you think they all agree with everything you say (though I KNOW you don't really believe that, I'm just saying it SEEMS that way in how you deal with distinctions).

It's okay to differ from other Reformers, as I'm sure you agree. I differ from those in my camp. Not a big deal, but the frustration you have against me for 'spinning' is the EXACT frustration I have against you. The difference is that I'm reading scholarly articles written by Calvinistic scholars who are discussing the various distinctions within their own camp while at the same time hearing you act as if there is no distinction and getting frustrated at me for 'spinning' quotes as if I'm creating distinctions that don't exist. Granted, as an opponent to the views of the entire camp, I may be highlighting the differences and grinding on it a bit to make a point regarding MY personal view on the subject, but that doesn't mean we all can't objectively acknowledge the clear distinctions.

Hodge is a perfect example. I'd be glad to send you links to articles written by Reformed scholars that openly and clearly discuss the various views of the atonement within the Reformed tradition. Hodge and the other 'Princeton Theologians' are marked as being a more moderate type of Calvinists because of their view of atonement, and that is fine. That doesn't negate anyone, it only reveals various approaches. It just gets frustrating when people shoot the messenger for pointing out what is KNOWN as FACT in Reformed scholarly circles. That's all I'm saying...

 

Well, that something that God "GIVES" or withholds is typically called 'regeneration' or 'the effectual call' or 'irresistible grace,' and so forgive me if I get confused when that gets changed to, "a gospel which is usually infused with the work of the Holy Spirit," because the word 'usually' negates the 'effectual' part while the 'work of the Holy Spirit' affirms the idea of regeneration, so it seems to be a form of "sometimes effectual Gospel regeneration." And I'm trying to unpack that....

 

To the elect alone, not to everyone who hears apart from extra divine preventative means. That is the difference.

 

I thought we were...

I thought I did?

You dismissed it as 'emotive' and 'silly.'

I thought I had.

How many times have I expounded on my views of the temporary judicial hardening of Israel for the purpose of ensuring the crucifixion and the ingrafting of the Gentiles?

Right now I'm not so much concerned about agreeing with your position, as I'm concerned about understanding it. That is why I'm asking for quotes, but I will stop asking...

Well, I think you and I have talked about cognitively understanding a concept without real spiritual understanding. When we discuss Romans 1 this often comes up because Paul speaks of the rebellious people having 'clearly seen and understood the divine attributes and eternal qualities of God.' And for this reason they stand 'without excuse.'

On the one hand, Cals argue that men can't understand unless first regenerated, but when verses like Romans 1 are mentioned they argue something like, "Well, they can have a cognitive understanding, but not a real spiritual understanding."

Personally, I don't think that is a distinction in 'understanding' something, it is a distinction in accepting something as truth. I believe men can understand something but choose to reject it, where as Cals tend to believe that if someone ever really understands a concept he WILL certainly adopt it and accept it.

SO, in regard to this passage, it seems some Calvinists argue that parables would be more of a means to prevent cognitive or external understanding, while still maintaining that their natures would never adopt or accept the things of God unless regenerated (because they could never really have internal spiritual understanding...i.e. 1 Cor 2:14). And that judicial hardening/blinding is just an extra measure of judgement on the non-elect preventing them from even cognitively understanding the gospel and even appearing to be healed. That is what I'm getting from reading Gill and some of these other articles on the subject.

 

Let's recap:

To the elect alone, not to everyone who hears apart from extra divine preventative means. That is the difference.

Did I say otherwise? It said Regeneration comes by the Gospel 'to the elect alone, and NOT to everyone who hears apart from extra divine preventative means. That is the difference.'

 

Which is typically known as 'regeneration,' not 'shine.'

 

And 'shining' represents what theological concept? Could it be 'regeneration?'

:sleeping_2:

 

And if an effectual work applied only to the elect is ANY PART of "shining" then how does your use of that word help draw a distinction in regard to our discussion?

 

What is 'shining' then? Proclamation? We just keep going in circles with different terms, Luke.

It was 'regenerate,' then 'effectuate' and then it was 'opening the eyes' and then it was 'moving' or 'quickening' or 'shining.' But in theological terms there are only two real things being discussed and you don't seem to draw a line between them at any point making our discussion next to impossible.

You have:

PROCLAMATION of the gospel
and
REGENERATION by the gospel
​

Traditionally, Calvinists have taught the PROCLAMATION isn't enough, and that REGENERATION must accompany the PROCLAMATION and God only does that for the elect ones. (at least that has been my understanding and one which I have had confirmed by several other Calvinistic friends.)

You, on the other hand seem to be arguing that the PROCLAMATION is usually enough to REGENERATE unless God prevents it with means like parables. Is that right? Please stick with these terms or clearly define your own terms so we don't keep going in circles with a new set of words.