Total depravity or total inability?

[Silverhair]

Yes people from all nations are saved according to Jn 12:32. Like here Rev 5:9

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of
every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

The words out of means from!

Jn12:32 says "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw everyone to Myself.”

All are drawn but only those that freely trust in God will be saved. Which is just what we are told in Rev 5:9

It really is not that complicated BF once you get past the false narrative found in calvinism.

 

[Brightfame52]

Not at all. I oppose your version not the biblical one.

Then you not paying attention good

 

[Brightfame52]

Wrong, I oppose calvinism because it is not biblical.

Your TULIP/Dog is just one of the reasons that I disagree with that man-made religion.

Then you disagree with the Gospel

 

[Brightfame52]

Jn12:32 says "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw everyone to Myself.”

All are drawn but only those that freely trust in God will be saved. Which is just what we are told in Rev 5:9

It really is not that complicated BF once you get past the false narrative found in calvinism.

Jn 12:32 is all groups of people from out of different nations, like this Rev 5:9

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain[Lifted up on the cross], and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every[ALL] kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

 

[Silverhair]

Then you disagree with the Gospel

NO BF I disagree with what calvinism has misrepresented as the gospel message.

 

[Silverhair]

Jn 12:32 is all groups of people from out of different nations, like this Rev 5:9

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain[Lifted up on the cross], and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every[ALL] kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

ALL people BF. You can disagree with scripture but that does not change what Christ said.

Why do you have such a hard time just believing what Christ said?

 

[Brightfame52]

NO BF I disagree with what calvinism has misrepresented as the gospel message.

You disagree with the gospel and have been deceived that is just Calvinism

 

[Brightfame52]

ALL people BF. You can disagree with scripture but that does not change what Christ said.

Why do you have such a hard time just believing what Christ said?

All nationalities

 

[Silverhair]

You disagree with the gospel and have been deceived that is just Calvinism

You follow your theory BF and I will follow the word of God.

 

[Silverhair]

All nationalities

You are going in the right direction but still have a way to go to clear up the false theory you follow.

ALL would logically include all nationalities. Which is just what Christ said. He would draw all to Himself.

It seems you just cannot bring yourself to admit that Christ draws ALL.

 

[Brightfame52]

You follow your theory BF and I will follow the word of God.

No you following your theory and scoff the word of God

 

[Brightfame52]

You are going in the right direction but still have a way to go to clear up the false theory you follow.

You not though, all means all out of every nation. God saves a remnant out of the gentiles Acts 15 14

14 Simeon did declare how at first God did look after to take out of the nations a people for His name,

 

[Van]

Hey Van

I did not say that I did not believe in prevenient grace. God's Word could be considered a form prevenient grace. The presence of God is a form of prevenient grace. His tabernacle, the Temple, Jesus Himself in His incarnation. Remember, before the Holy Spirit indwelling was given to believers, In John, Jesus said "I am with you, and I will be in you", speaking of His Spirit, the Holy Spirit (see John 14:17, connect to John 12:35-36 below). Therefore, anyone "in Christ" brings that presence and prevenient grace (drawing) with them when they evangelize non believers. Prevenient grace can be rejected.

John 14:17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

John 12:35-36 Then Jesus said to them, "A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them.

Rejection of that grace....

Acts 7:51 "You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

Dave

We all knew you were advocating by implication, prevenient grace, Sir. That is why I addressed it, even though you never used those words.

Van said,

"But I did not see where you addressed my view that the lost are able to truly repent without being enabled by prevenient grace." ​

Yes, posters can claim they define "prevenient grace" as simply the grace of God's revelation provided to humanity, but that is not how the published definition reads.

​

"Robert E Picirilli suggests that it is better called “enabling grace” or “pre-regenerating grace”, and explains:​

Pre-regenerating grace simply means that the Spirit of God overcomes that inability by a direct work on the heart, a work that is adequate to enable the unregenerate person to understand the truth of the gospel, to desire God, and to exercise saving faith." ​

Thus the predicate of the actual doctrine is total spiritual inability.

 

[Van]

Hey Van

I think that unbelievers understand it, at least intellectually. This Idea that unbelievers cannot grasp what the Gospel message is a farse. It's not that they didn't understand what Jesus was saying. They hung Him on the cross for it. They didn't see Him, as He told it, in the OT, which they were very familiar with. He didn't fit what they understood it to be. Jesus told them, if you believed Moses, you would also believe Me, he spoke of Me. THIS they could not see and it angered them (John 5:46-47). This goes into the John 6:44 video as well from post #19, the Sheep.

That hardening is natural and progressive. But God can escalate that process judicially. The Jews who were hardened judicially opened the door for the Gentiles to be grafted in, but they could still themselves believe and be grafted back in (Romans 11:23). Romans 11 describes the Jews who rejected the Gospel as being in a state of spiritual blindness and being God's "enemies" for the sake of the Gentiles, yet still beloved by God due to their forefathers, and subject to His judgment but with the possibility of future salvation.

There comes a point in time when God can finalize that judicial hardening. It's just gone too far and there's no turning back. Like blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. If you've had complete revelation, and you call Jesus the exact opposite of what He is, like some of the Scribes and Pharisees did, then there's no hope for you.

The point of the video is that spiritual blindness has many layers, and Arminianism believes in most of those layers. They just reject that a person is completely blind and unable to do anything from birth. They believe that it is a process and is a direct result of sin, and sometimes this is judicial on top of that as well, as the cups represented in the video in post # 20 explained.

Dave

According to Matthew 13:19, some unbelievers, those classified as soil #1, do not intellectually understand the gospel.

And as demonstrated in an earlier post, Prevenient Grace presupposes total inability from birth. You need to pick a side.

If as you correctly suggest, the lost start out with the ability to grasp the gospel, then their is no need for "enabling grace."

 

[Silverhair]

No you following your theory and scoff the word of God

The word of God is not theory BF.

On the other hand your 4th century philosophy is just that, a theory.

 

[Silverhair]

You not though, all means all out of every nation. God saves a remnant out of the gentiles Acts 15 14

14 Simeon did declare how at first God did look after to take out of the nations a people for His name,

So you still do not believe the words of Jesus Christ but rather believe the words of men. That is rather foolish of you BF.

 

[Dave...]

According to Matthew 13:19, some unbelievers, those classified as soil #1, do not intellectually understand the gospel.

And as demonstrated in an earlier post, Prevenient Grace presupposes total inability from birth. You need to pick a side.

If as you correctly suggest, the lost start out with the ability to grasp the gospel, then their is no need for "enabling grace."

Van

Arminians believe in prevenient grace. Though, I believe that you're framing it wrong in your mind. It's not that prevenient grace ensures one will be saved, as you believe, rather, it's that it actually allows them to to make the choice. Arminians believe that prevenient grace can be rejected. I believe that's the point of contention and why people are claiming that you'd have to also be a universalist based on your understanding of God's drawing people.

Matthew 13:19. What was sown into this persons heart that the devil can snatch away, if not the intellectual understanding?

The light, as Jesus is, as God is, as believers are called to be, has one of two reactions. A person will be drawn to it or want to put it out, to suppress it and what it represents. The light is the truth. Everyone sees the light, but some want to suppress that truth in unrighteousness. You can't suppress it if you don't understand it and what it represents.

One element that is missing in your equation, is that maybe, at least in many cases, judicial hardening is an act of mercy. It doesn't work out for everyone the same, as some, like the alcoholic, never bottom out and take that disease, as they call it, to their grave. Everyone sees the light and knows what it represents. Some want to suppress it, as they are still holding onto the lies of the world, still suppressing the truth. These will do almost anything to put that light out. It's the basis for our being persecuted. A light doesn't hide under the table, right?

It isn't until one bottoms out in their sin that they stop gnashing their teeth at the light and are drawn to it. They actually want the truth. So in hardening one judicially, I believe that for many, God is actually trying to get them to a point that they let go of the lies of the world and stop suppressing the truth, and actually need and seek it Him and His mercy. It's only then that they are ready to hear and receive the Gospel.

God hardened Israel to provoke them to jealousy. It's tough love, Van.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Even ‘moderate Calvinist’ Norman Geisler

I'm fairly certain Geisler was not a Calvinist. I believe he debated James White on the matter.

 

[Dave...]

We all knew you were advocating by implication, prevenient grace, Sir. That is why I addressed it, even though you never used those words.

Van said,

"But I did not see where you addressed my view that the lost are able to truly repent without being enabled by prevenient grace." ​

Yes, posters can claim they define "prevenient grace" as simply the grace of God's revelation provided to humanity, but that is not how the published definition reads.

​

"Robert E Picirilli suggests that it is better called “enabling grace” or “pre-regenerating grace”, and explains:​

Pre-regenerating grace simply means that the Spirit of God overcomes that inability by a direct work on the heart, a work that is adequate to enable the unregenerate person to understand the truth of the gospel, to desire God, and to exercise saving faith." ​

Thus the predicate of the actual doctrine is total spiritual inability.

Regeneration means born again. If you're born again you're in Christ and already have justification, all of it. Spurgeon's point then stands. Why does one need faith?

 

[Dave...]

I'm fairly certain Geisler was not a Calvinist. I believe he debated James White on the matter.

I used to own James White and Dave Hunts book on their debate over TULIP. I threw it away about ten years ago because is was mauled from being kept in moldy places. I wished that I still had it now.