Featured Am I Calvinist or Arminian II

Right. Absolutely.
But what supernatural work of God was done in them when they are said to have received the knowledge of the truth?

 

I heard Dr Vernon mgee teach on Hebrews 6, and he stated something I hasd never thought of before, as he sad not referring to salvation at all, but saying saved people who cannot be renewed to repentance and to good works again, so basically saved, but no eternal rewards!

 

That's dangerous ground. But fortunately we wouldn't need to head there yet - since Hebrews 10 clearly talks about having no more sacrifice for sins but a fearful expectation of judgement. No ambiguity on whether it's about rewards or salvation - it spells out that it is the latter alone.

Do you see the difficulty posed by these passages that kind of makes you hesitant to answer the simple question directly - what supernatural work of God was done in these Hebrews people. Calvinism shies away from acknowledging they haven't got a consistent explanation for this yet and distracts away to other passages without concluding on this - why the reluctance to reconsider their inferences and really listen to other doctrinal systems?

 

Calvinism, at least in regards to salvation proper, to me addresses the issue starting from the Fall and its effect upon all of us afterwards, for if one errs from that beginning, then get into free will, not really sin natured etc!

 

Oh no, like I've stated before, I do not believe calvinism is wrong in totality just because it's incorrect in a couple of doctrines. I seek reform within calvinism and not its rejection. In fact, conceding that God does show conditional mercy to the non-elect does not take away any of the core doctrines of calvinism. For why should it matter to the calvinist that God destroyed the non-elect in the wilderness having saved them from Egypt or that God destroyed the non-elect in Egypt itself?

 

I do not see god really doing anything supernatural towards those in Hebrews 6!

 

Do you then see it in Hebrews 10? I don't understand what your argument exactly is... my questions would follow the same pattern in Heb 6 as in Heb 10 -

Base Premise: One is still blinded in their minds and hardened in their hearts and cannot ever come to true repentance and true knowledge unless supernaturally worked upon by God.

Q: would you agree that to receive the knowledge of the truth, one must be supernaturally worked upon by God?
A: yes.
Q: what supernatural work of God was done in the people referred to in Heb 10:26?
A: ?

Q: would you agree that to be renewed unto repentance, one must be supernaturally worked upon by God?
A: (assuming yes, given the base premise above that we both agree to)
Q: what supernatural work of God was done in the people referred to in Heb 6:6?
A: ........

My argument is quite straightforward - if at all we must disagree, you must hold the above base premise to be false, which i think you don't. So why the reluctance to accept the conclusion when this is directly from Scriptures not requiring additional interpretation?

 

Are you arguing for double predestination here?

 

Not at all, what ever did I say that seemed to allude to that?

I'm arguing that God can and does show conditional mercy to a non-elect person in supernaturally washing them once, but from which they fall away later to their own perdition. This is opposed to the calvinist position that God does no supernatural work in enlightening or leading the non-elect to repentance even once conditionally.

 

I would say that God shows general grace towards lost sinners, as in many have good jobs, healthy, have good marriages etc, but he only deals with his elect in Christ in regards to salvation itself!

 

I hear that's what you believe. But you will have to deal with the Hebrews passages - how were those people enlightened with the knowledge of the truth and renewed unto repentance once if not for the supernatural work of God in them?

 

I see them as in same boat as those in the Exodus who saw miracles of god, heard Moses, saw fire of God etc, and yet still refused to believe, even though part of the Covenant people of God!

 

Sure, and as foreshadowed parallels go, delivering them from slavery and revealing His glory is the spiritual equivalent of God removing hardened hearts unto repentance and enlightening them with the knowledge of His truth and glory.

Again, whether you wish to see it as common grace or as the Exodus Israelites, it still doesn't change the fact that these people are described as renewed unto repentance once and enlightened with the knowledge of the truth - these are terms exclusively used to denote a supernatural work of God in the context of salvation. How can any side-step seeing this for what it is?

 

Due to the lord only has elect and lost sinners, so there would be no third maybe, used to be class!

 

By that reasoning, there should be only people entering the promised land and people lost in egypt. There should be no third saved initially but destroyed later class.

 

Also, at the end of time, there will be only the elect saved and the non-elect lost - there aren't three classes. It's just that the process in which the non-elect are destroyed are either in Egypt or by having conditional salvation offered them which they fall away from and then destroyed in the wilderness.

 

This is where the Perseverence of the Saints Doctrine comes into play!

 

Those who were in the exodus experienced some of these concepts, but many of them fell away and at some point did not believe any longer, it was impossible to renew them to repentance as they had rejected God and so then were under judgement.

In the OT, people may have believed at one time and then no longer did believe. The reasons they no longer believed were entirely unspiritual reasons having to do with external things like food and fear of being destroyed by their enemies. They even accused Moses and God of leading them into the wilderness to destroy them. Today I know of Christians who used to believe but fell away and say they no longer believe. Apostasy is a very real thing. But, there is a difference about them versus those who continue in faith as those who apostatize were never born of God, John says they were not 'of us', they experienced some good spiritual things but they fell away from the faith. The ones who did continue in faith, John says have an anointing from God to know the truth and follow Christ.
1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[d] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you[e] know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

And this John tells them they are of the truth as in of God, and due to that, they will not fall away.

24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life.

26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to [deceive you.

27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

 

So in the NT, those who fall away and dont believe do not have an anointing from God to know the truth and abide in Him. I can only relate that to being born of God, as those who are born of God are taught by the Father and granted to come to Christ, they are His sheep and they Christ says follow, believe in and follow Him and He gives them eternal life and they will never perish.

 

As you can see, we've always been in agreement that the difference between the elect and the non-elect is in the elect being born of God while the non-elect aren't. Where we disagree is that I distinguish between the giving of a new heart in regeneration and the giving of a new nature in rebirth while you hold the two to be the same. For example, I wouldn't say king Saul was reborn in 1Sam 10:9. But that's for another conversation probably.

Given that we agree that apostasy is real, how do you account for the apostates coming to repent in the first place from which they fall away later?