Featured Why Does Satan Blind Those Born Already Blind?

Did you see the question marks? I was stating Y1’s position as I hear him saying and finished with a question mark, it is usually better to do that than to take such things for granted, although I’m pretty familiar with his beliefs and to be honest I don’t really expect him to answer a complex argument or deal with more than 1 premise in his response and was basically just passing a little time and messing wit em.

Let’s be clear, I’ve glanced at a few of your posts and I know the basic position you are coming from, whatever you want to call it, I do not think you merely came up with the systematic soteriological theology that you espouse with all the common proof-texts you use to support the TULIP on your own. You may just want to refer to your position as the “Biblical view” but you should probably realize that such is also a common occurrence of question beggars that are in the “Cage Stage” and who are anxious to throw out their proof-texts.

As for “everyone who gets” - “Sovereign Grace” I believe God is Sovereign in who He gifts grace and so when my opponents use terms like they hold to the “THE Doctrines of Sovereign Grace” I merely look at it as trying to monopolize on a phrase with question begging the conclusion about the administration of the grace of our Sovereign God. Now, I’d give it to you/them if they wanted to call it “THE Doctrines of Deterministic Sovereign Grace” but otherwise you’re going to have to share that term if speaking to me.

As per “predetermining ever action”, I can appreciate that some will deny God being “Sovereign” to mean determining every action because it at least demonstrates that one has enough sense to recognize and try avoid Theological Fatalism. I understand there are “Hard Determinists” and then there are “Soft Determinist” who typically hold to some form of “compatibilism”, although I’ve noted that many “Hyper Calvinist/Determinists” today are realizing that all 5 points of the TULIP must necessarily logically hinge on strict determinism to hold water and I can appreciate that too in that at least they are acknowledging this logical necessity. Hence, the latter is when I might include the term “Hyper”.

...this is whole nother thread and I really don't have time to go to the mat on this right now, but you'll probably see me around.

I suspect someone going into the Institutes may have had just a wee bit of influence with their systematic scriptural interpretations before they got there, but that’s just me.

Well, nothing personal, but origins doing with John Calvin aside, I believe rather you recognize it or not you have had a great deal of influence to arrive to your systematic theology, whatever you want to call it, and that is pretty obvious to someone who hasn’t just fallen off the soteriological TULI…Err…TURNUP Truck.

May you be blessed as well.

 

But you succeeded only in the eyes of those who accept your presuppositions, which many obviously do not. For such, it sounds like the OP has you stumped.

 

So then, it sounds like we agree that there is no full-fledged corpse when speaking of the spiritual, that the person is actually aware of his spiritual condition as you described and I pointed out.

 

Well Dave, just a question. What exactly do you think non-Calvinists are? Or non Augustine or however you want to put it. Do you not consider us as born again, filled with the Spirit do you believe our eyes (spiritual) are blind and our hears don't hear? I'd suggest to you we are born again and we likewise have the spirit of wisdom In Christ Jesus. No offense but just your statements above almost infer others outside of your beliefs are like the hard hearted Jews who hated Christ. Well the parables are codes that we just can't understand? I'd say we do understand them and it's crystal clear what the Prodigal Son means...He the Son was LOST....just like Jesus stated.

Well it seems my friend when Calvinists or people as yourself who claim independence from them but you're basically still in their camp on I suppose most issues....it seems anytime you know something just absolutely doesn't make sense you or others fall back on the leaning not to your own understanding verse, maybe as an escape hatch? Right or wrong?

Sure I agree with the Proverbs 3 verse in certain settings BUT Jesus did imply and infer many times that how mankind generally views justice and what is right and fair is not so dissimilar to how God does as well. If you then being evil know how to give good gifts...how much more.(Matt 7:11) Or if you had a ox or a son fall into the ditch wouldn't you do as it were the right thing and show it mercy? (Luke 14:5)

Honestly I think the religious leaders of Jesus day would have used the same basic verse to cover up their ludicrous and unfair way of thinking as in, "Look if it seems unreasonable for us to to tell the man from picking up his bed and walk to stop it and well yes it does....But just remember we don't lean on our own understanding but we trust in God. My point is can one really and rightly roll out the Proverbs 3 verse every times they get in a fix? I'd say not. If Calvinistic ways of thinking DO NOT seem or sounds reasonable.....it just might truly mean they're not. Why look for escape hatches when one intuitively knows somethings is amiss?

 

Lol. I've engaged noncalvinists countless times. Arguing is fruitless, but if you want to engage . . .

Let's talk about the blinding, because that's what the OP is really about . . . at whose will are unbelievers blinded? Their own? No, Satan's 2 Timothy 2:26.

Who can unblind them? Themselves? They don't even know they're blind. Only God. Perhaps God will give them repentance. 2 Timothy 2:25.

Now corpses: corpses don't have wills. All men do, but they're not free; they're corrupt. And corpses cannot love, yet all men love the darkness, because their deeds are evil. And corpses cannot hate, but all men hate the light.

So whether or not a man is a corpse isn't the issue. It's the whether or not the will is free, and whether or not it's God's sovereign choice to save one and not another.

Your turn. Try to keep it 500 words. No more than a 1000.

 

How is it not the issue? The very nature of the Particular claim that man is a corps is the very justification that you all assert that man's will is completely beholden to this "nature" you all claim man has.

 

It is an analogy.
Scripture is clear that all men start out "dead" (Ephesians 2:1-3) and just as being PHYSICALLY dead means that there are PHYSICAL things that the dead person cannot do, so also, being SPIRITUALLY dead means that there are SPIRITUAL things that the dead person cannot do.

The natural man is spiritually "dead" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

 

The prodigal was not physically dead. Scripture never presents spiritual death as equivalent to physical death.

 

The point of the parable is that the saved person can wander away from God, but they will find their way back home, to a loving and forgiving heavenly Father!

 

Those i have read, such as a Calvin, Hodge, Sproul et all, would be all marveling at the Grace of God that saved a wrench like them!

 

No, the point of the parable is the older brother's reaction to the father's acceptance of the returned younger brother, but that is another thread.

The Archangel

 

You do reralise that in your rant here, you are describing how Muslims view Allah, and not how calvinists view Yahweh though?

 

True, if irrelevent.

You were talking about what Particular Baptists claimed ...

... and it was that which I responded to by claiming it was an analogy.

 

he was not spiritual dead either!

 

I think both points are to be seen in that parable, but you are right in that few times is the response of the older brother ever addressed when this Parable is preached on!

 

His father called him dead and lost sooooo....I will stick with scripture. Man the twisting of scripture that has to be done in order to justify your doctrine is troubling.

 

I'd say it's a dual thing going on. It's similar to the hardening or the heart issue. Who hardened Pharaoh's heart God or Pharaoh? They both did. God said something to make Pharaoh mad as in "Let my people go" The pride which Pharaoh chose himself to have in his heart hardened him or made him resistant. God didn't give him the pride. That was Pharaoh's doing.

God merely gave him instructions to do something. My very words here can make people mad or harden your heart. It could be said I hardened your heart but not really, but it could be said that I did. How? By my giving you fine and wonderful teaching here from the word of God! See how you might have just got mad when I said that? You didn't need to. I didn't force you to. If you got mad it could be your pride. (and no seriously I don't claim in reality all that I say is wonderful great teaching but I try my best) So in similar type of a way Satan speaks to the pride that men choose to keep in their hearts and being so enticed light hating individuals accept Satan's reasoning and embrace their spiritual blindness. Yes the devil blinded them but only because they chose to have pride in their hearts.

Well they know that the Light has come and they saw the Light but willfully rejected it to stay in darkness. Thus they can't claim ignorance. They can't claim they couldn't have done something about it. That's really the crux of the whole matter. If people can't rightly do something about it then in the most enlightened way of thinking about justice one is not culpable. If they could do something about it they have no excuse to avoid the penalty for evil . Justice can rightly say, "No you were responsible and you were accountable to have having done something."

It's important I'd say to look at the first part of the verse. " In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 2 Timothy 2: 25 It's interesting here that how we conduct ourselves (that is as human co-workers with Christ) CAN DETERMINE as to whether someone becomes saved.

Well Calvinists believe if it was meant to be that A is saved well that's just the way it will go but we see the instruction to God's servants is to be gentle or show meekness in seeking to correct people. Our actions therefore have a direct effect which could mean yes or no of someone being saved.

So where is irresistible grace in this passage? Doesn't seem to exist. He's saying (if I can put it in modern street lingo..."Don't be unwise in not being kind and gracious...if you aren't you can thwart the work that God wants and wills to do in such an individual. Sobering thoughts. It does line up as well in a sense with Ezekiel 3:20

If I say to the wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ but you do not warn him or speak out to warn him from his wicked way to save his life, that wicked man will die in his iniquity, and I will hold you responsible for his blood Ezekiel 3:20

In other words there was a chance that he'd be saved and the very next verse points this out. It wasn't NO chance...there was a chance.

 

Actually, the father called Him his son throughout, where did he say no longer my son?

 

Unless God decided to have the Holy Spirit open our blind eyes, give to us ears to hear and heart to respond, none here would have gotten saved! None of us woke up one day and just said"I think I will command spiritually dead corpse to become alive again now"

 

still said he was lost and dead