Featured Do these scriptures deny human RESPONSIBILITY?

The text delcares their hardening condition makes that impossible not possible. Only if they had not responded by hardening could that be possible but they did respond that way and so it is not possible.

The issue is whether or not it is possible for them to respond any other way to light other than by hardening and my answer is no. If they could or would respond differently then it would be possible. However, hardening denies that possibility.

We have agreed that hardening originates only from a fallen nature. The issue is whether the fallen nature can respond any other way than hardening to light. The Biblical response is no - Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 3:9-18; 8:7-8.

 

This statement is no different than the following statement: If there was not but one God there could be other gods.

This statement does not provide the possibility for the existence of other gods for at least two essential reasons. (1) It is a possiblity only by denial of the actual fact; (2) The greater Biblical context also denies it is possible as well.

So it is also with your interpretation of this text as I will demonstrate in your quotation of John 3:18-20 and the text you have thus far refused to engage me in - Rom. 8:7-8.

1. No one comes into this world as a believer and so verse 18 does not provide the possibility that some are not under condemnation already.

2. Verses 19-20 explicitly describe the reaction of the fallen nature to light.

3. Verse 21 does not provide the possibility that anyone "lives by the truth" NATURALLY but rather only by divine intervention of which that is THE PRODUCT not the cause.

Romans 8:7 completely annihates your whole position as that verse does not describe or characterize the state of the new nature but the old and exegetically it "IS" the very antithesis of what is essential to make your unbiblical theory valid.

 

The perfect tense is used to describe an event that was completed in the past and continues as a completed act right to the present. Hence, this is descriptive of a done deal in regard to their condition which cannot be undone naturally. So from that point of completion it stands as an irreversible condition. This would indicate these persons have arrived at the Psalm 1:1c and Romans 1:32 stage of hardening.


The particular area of this completed action would seem to be the threshold reached in Matthew 12 when they blasphemed the Holy Spirit and purposed to kill Christ.

Prior to that point, they were somewhere between Romans 1:21-31 or Psalms 1:1ab and thus in the process rather than a completed action. Thus between Matthew 5 and chapter 12 they were in the process in regard to the person of Christ in connection with John's ministry that introduced him to them.

Therefore, if they committed the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit there would be no possiblity of forgiveness in this age or the age to come.

The blaspheming of the Spirit requires light in the mind, hate in the heart and purposeful attributing to the Spirit of God the works of Satan.

 

Which "again" brings us to Paul's statement on what the lost can NOT do vs what they CAN do.

What the lost CAN do - vs what the Lost cannot do.

[FONT=&quot]Rom 8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Those who claim they are not "able to subject themselves" to the Law of God - are claiming the position of the lost - "in the flesh".

However Romans 10 points out what the lost CAN do that "results in salvation". (And I think they can do it by the power of the Holy Spirit who "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" - not just the born-again, not just the regenerate)

[FONT=&quot]Rom 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

And that ends up being one of the key problems between the Calvinist POV and the Arminian POV.

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT]

 

Can these ten objective persons honestly deny that the text in question occurs in Matthew 13 and the blaspheming of the Spirit occurs in Matthew 12? No!

Can they deny that Matthew 13 is explanatory for the consistent rejection of Christ from chapters 6-11 which climaxes in chapter 12?

Can they honestly deny the use of the perfect tense verbs used to describe this hardening as a completed action that stands completed in chapter 13?

 

I've been telling folks this for years Skan, Calvinism teaches the EXACT REVERSE of what scripture says. I can see that you also see this now.

 

Yes we all know......your that voice crying in the wilderness. :laugh:

 

NOT FOR THOSE WHO DIE IN INFANCY. Not for those who are brain damaged & cant process it. To those, the gospel is useless. So how do you address that conundrum. Is there a loophole you got there?

 

Yes, the denial of Augustinianism and the acceptance of Adamism, that we all die in like manner he did, by violating Gods law.

There is no way around it, as the thread I started last month shows the only 4 options, and only one is biblical.

 

Whats your point exactly......that there is some kind of dispensation for those folks? At least thats what I "Think" your saying. And Id rather "know" specifically what your saying.

My own personal conclusion is that the preaching of the gospel is not God's ordained means of bringing eternal salvation to the sinner. Only by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit can eternal life be brought to the dead sinner (John 3 : 6-8) .The gospel brings life and immortality to light, but doesn't produce life (2 Tim.1: 10).

 

No special dispensation at all. From that thread:

We agree on God's design for infants. I think most believers do with the exception of some hyper types that believe in both elect and non elect infants. The disagreement amongst many believers stems from the adherence of Augustinianism. The only options are...
1. Infants are sinners (guilty) and go to hell apart from grace alone through faith alone in the completed work of Christ as every other human does.
2. Infants are sinners (guilty) and go to Heaven in the same way every other human does, by grace alone through faith alone in the completed work of Christ.
3. Infants are sinners (guilty) and go to Heaven by grace alone apart from faith as they are incapable of faith as faith comes by hearing, a special dispensation of salvation granted.
4. Infants are not sinners (not guilty) due to not having transgressed Gods law. As with all creation, Christ's blood reverses the curse of Adam's sin allowing an infant to be in the presence of God apart from the cursed flesh.

1 believes all will burn in hell, 2 only works with this nebulous, pixie dust "gift of faith" superimposed on the infant, 3 is this special extra biblical dispensation of salvation you mention, and 4 is what I believe is the biblically supported position from start to finish.

Also, your personal conclusion is the exact opposite of what the Bible says...
6 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

 

Right, so you just ignore John 3 : 6-8 & 2 Tim.1: 10.


And then in summary, what was the general consensus of the poll ?

 

But you are not fullly addressing WHY they will listen? From the naturalistic point of view, they have no differnent sin nature than the Jews, so that is not the basis for why they would listen and these Jews would not. The difference is that the Jews had been exposed to Christ and went through the process of hardening (Mt. 5-11) until they reached the climax of hardening to Christ which was so intense resistance and hatred they blasphemously attributed his works to Satan and purposed to kill him (Mt. 12). This completed hardened condition (Mt. 13) is reserved in God's purpose for the non-elect as He has purposed it is irreversable and thus the perfect tense verbs are used in Matthew 13 to describe an irreversable condition for these INDIVIDUALS who made up the majority of Israel and its reaction to Christ.

In contrast, Christ had not yet been manifested among the gentiles and so the Gentiles as a people had not gone through the same hardening processes toward Christ. However, because hardening is the response of the fallen nature, they would also go through this same process except the elect gentiles. God has a people among the Gentiles as He promised Abraham that will listen becuase they are His elect who are chosen "to salvation" and the full number of them will come to Christ (Rom. 11:25).

Remember, Paul said he was saved because He "blasphemed" ignorantly. Those in Matthew 12-13 blasphemened with full knowledge of whom Christ was and did so with intent and malice and it was manifested by the ultimate degree of hardening which is the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit which is irreversable by God's decree.

So Christ is referring to the ELECT gentiles rather than Gentiles in general because He is referring only to those to whom the Father gives such knowledge (Mt. 13:10-11) not to any of those among the Gentiles He never gave to come to the Son (Jn. 6:37-39).

 

Yeah, slip of the pen. HOwever, I did answer that post also elsewhere.