• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Preparation of the Heart: Divine Drawing and the Natural Man

Anthony Pritchard

Well-Known Member
Why does scripture attribute the actions of draw, convict, and opened her heart to God. As I said, God took those actions, The message, the gospel was given to the eyewitnesses and they described the gospel to the inspired by God NT writers. When we are convicted of sin, by what we have learned from God's inspired word, we are convicted by the work product of the Holy Spirit. When Lydia heard the gospel message, the inspirited words of Paul, which were in a way she could understand,, that action by the Lord, "opened her heart"
I do not dispute that God uses His Word. My question remains unchanged.

If opening Lydia's heart merely means she heard an understandable presentation, why does Luke attribute the opening of her heart to the Lord rather than simply to the presentation itself?

Likewise, if conviction is nothing more than exposure to information, why does John 16:8 attribute conviction to the work of the Spirit?

My point is not that these actions occur apart from the Word, nor am I arguing for any particular theory of grace. My point is that Scripture consistently attributes these actions to God. The means by which God acts does not negate the fact that God is presented as the actor.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I do not dispute that God uses His Word. My question remains unchanged.

If opening Lydia's heart merely means she heard an understandable presentation, why does Luke attribute the opening of her heart to the Lord rather than simply to the presentation itself?

Likewise, if conviction is nothing more than exposure to information, why does John 16:8 attribute conviction to the work of the Spirit?

My point is not that these actions occur apart from the Word, nor am I arguing for any particular theory of grace. My point is that Scripture consistently attributes these actions to God. The means by which God acts does not negate the fact that God is presented as the actor.
1) Because our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave Paul the gospel he presented!

2) As I said, because the conviction arises from the work product of the Holy Spirit.

3) Yes, exactly, the means by which God accomplishes the action (be it draw, convict or enlighten) does not negate the fact God caused the action. All this supernatural action conjecture is never indicated or suggested in scripture.

4) You may disavow advocacy of "enabling grace" but they are mainstays of those who erroneously claim the lost cannot understand spiritual milk, even though Paul used spiritual milk to talk to the lost. Fiddlesticks
 

Anthony Pritchard

Well-Known Member
1) Because our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave Paul the gospel he presented!

2) As I said, because the conviction arises from the work product of the Holy Spirit.

3) Yes, exactly, the means by which God accomplishes the action (be it draw, convict or enlighten) does not negate the fact God caused the action. All this supernatural action conjecture is never indicated or suggested in scripture.

4) You may disavow advocacy of "enabling grace" but they are mainstays of those who erroneously claim the lost cannot understand spiritual milk, even though Paul used spiritual milk to talk to the lost. Fiddlesticks
Then we appear to be closer than it first seemed.

My point throughout this discussion has been that Scripture attributes drawing, conviction, enlightenment, and the opening of the heart to God Himself. If we agree that God causes these actions, then we agree on the central point of the article.

Where I would differ is on the suggestion that acknowledging these actions somehow requires advocacy of Calvinistic irresistible grace or Arminian prevenient grace. My article was not written to defend either position.

If God draws, convicts, enlightens, and opens hearts, then those actions are gracious in the biblical sense of the term. They are acts of unmerited favor, which is grace as Scripture defines it. The sinner does not earn them, merit them, or initiate them.

Because God's gracious activity accomplishes what God intends, it is rightly said to enable. Lydia could not respond to an opened heart unless the Lord opened it. The world cannot be convicted by the Spirit unless the Spirit convicts. Men cannot be drawn unless the Father draws. These things are not the result of human merit or initiative, but of God's gracious activity.

My point is therefore quite narrow. Scripture repeatedly presents God as the actor in these things. The Father draws. The Spirit convicts. The Lord opened Lydia's heart. Whatever theological framework one prefers, the actions themselves are attributed to God and therefore constitute gracious acts of God toward sinners.

The question is not whether God acts. Scripture says He does. The question is how far we should go beyond the text in explaining those actions.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Then we appear to be closer than it first seemed.

My point throughout this discussion has been that Scripture attributes drawing, conviction, enlightenment, and the opening of the heart to God Himself. If we agree that God causes these actions, then we agree on the central point of the article.

Where I would differ is on the suggestion that acknowledging these actions somehow requires advocacy of Calvinistic irresistible grace or Arminian prevenient grace. My article was not written to defend either position.

If God draws, convicts, enlightens, and opens hearts, then those actions are gracious in the biblical sense of the term. They are acts of unmerited favor, which is grace as Scripture defines it. The sinner does not earn them, merit them, or initiate them.

Because God's gracious activity accomplishes what God intends, it is rightly said to enable. Lydia could not respond to an opened heart unless the Lord opened it. The world cannot be convicted by the Spirit unless the Spirit convicts. Men cannot be drawn unless the Father draws. These things are not the result of human merit or initiative, but of God's gracious activity.

My point is therefore quite narrow. Scripture repeatedly presents God as the actor in these things. The Father draws. The Spirit convicts. The Lord opened Lydia's heart. Whatever theological framework one prefers, the actions themselves are attributed to God and therefore constitute gracious acts of God toward sinners.

The question is not whether God acts. Scripture says He does. The question is how far we should go beyond the text in explaining those actions.
We are on the same page for your paragraphs 1 through 4. But then we part ways.

"Lydia could not respond to {with/} an open heart unless God opened it." This claim has no support in scripture. If what Paul spoke was from the Lord and was understandable to Lydia, then the text saying "the Lord opened her heart so she could respond to what Paul was saying" does not require supernatural enabling of her mind. Revelatory Grace, presenting something spiritual in a way understandable to natural, unregenerate people, is described in scripture. God's attributes are revealed by what God has made, not by having their minds altered, enabled by supernatural means. Paul spoke to the lost using spiritual milk, given to him by the Lord, and some of the lost understood, having their mind opened by revelatory grace.

It does not matter how the Spirit convicts, such as through God's inspired word. And people are drawn through the gospel, which is spiritual milk.

No one said or suggested our understanding comes from human merit, it comes from revelatory grace.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Likewise, if conviction is nothing more than exposure to information, why does John 16:8 attribute conviction to the work of the Spirit?

Jn 16:8 is yet another passage that evangelicals have gommed up. 'The world', i.e. the Jewish arrangement, was repeatedly convicted of the murder of Christ by the Spirit through the mouths of His witnesses. John 16:8, a misunderstood, abused, and misused passage by evangelicals:

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.
8 And he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

This is the coming of 'the Comforter':

1 And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place.
2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Acts 2

This is 'the world' that the Comforter convicted through the mouths of His witnesses:

20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Jn 18

This is 'the Comforter convicting the world'. It was CHRIST HIMSELF speaking through Peter and His witnesses in convicting the Jews of the heinous crime of crucifying the Lord of Glory. Read the record of the Spirit convicting the apostate ecclesiastical system of the Jews, through the testimony of His witnesses, of the murder of the Righteous One, and declare Him indeed to be righteous. Take note, in all these examples given, of the redundancy of the message from the Comforter to the Jews; YOU KILLED HIM, BUT GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD:

Acts 2:
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words.
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;
23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:
24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.
40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation.

Acts 3:
12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this man? or why fasten ye your eyes on us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made him to walk?
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.
14 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you,
15 and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.

Acts 4:
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders,
9 if we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means this man is made whole;
10 be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Acts 5:
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
28 saying, We strictly charged you not to teach in this name: and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man`s blood upon us.
29 But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree.
31 Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Acts 6:
8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people.
9 But there arose certain of them that were of the synagogue called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen.
10 And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake.
15 And all that sat in the council, fastening their eyes on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.
Acts 7:
51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52 Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers;
53 ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7

Acts 10:
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom also they slew, hanging him on a tree.
40 Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest,
41 not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he charged us to preach unto the people, and to testify that this is he who is ordained of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead.

Acts 13:
16 And Paul stood up, and beckoning with the hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, hearken:
27 For they that dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him.
28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet asked they of Pilate that he should be slain.
29 And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.
30 But God raised him from the dead:
31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people.
 
Last edited:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John 16:8 refers to born anew believers when indwelt with the Holy Spirit will be supernaturally led to an understanding of sin, righteousness, and judgement. The verse provides no support for the false premise that the lost's minds are supernaturally enabled to understand spiritual milk.

Ditto for Acts 2.

In Acts 3, we see that "every soul that did not harken" clearly teaches that lost souls have the ability to "harken" to spiritual milk.

Acts 4, another example of Peter after being indwelt, not while unregenerate.

ACts 6, Ditto for Stephen, speaking with the aid of his Helper, his indwelt Holy Spirit.

Acts 10 and 13 appeas to be irrelevant, I see no support for the false claim from witnesses being chosen beforehand.
 

Anthony Pritchard

Well-Known Member
We are on the same page for your paragraphs 1 through 4. But then we part ways.

"Lydia could not respond to {with/} an open heart unless God opened it." This claim has no support in scripture. If what Paul spoke was from the Lord and was understandable to Lydia, then the text saying "the Lord opened her heart so she could respond to what Paul was saying" does not require supernatural enabling of her mind. Revelatory Grace, presenting something spiritual in a way understandable to natural, unregenerate people, is described in scripture. God's attributes are revealed by what God has made, not by having their minds altered, enabled by supernatural means. Paul spoke to the lost using spiritual milk, given to him by the Lord, and some of the lost understood, having their mind opened by revelatory grace.

It does not matter how the Spirit convicts, such as through God's inspired word. And people are drawn through the gospel, which is spiritual milk.

No one said or suggested our understanding comes from human merit, it comes from revelatory grace.
"...whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul."

The text itself connects the opening of Lydia's heart with her response to Paul's message. If the Lord had not opened her heart, the event described by Luke would not have occurred as described.

Beyond that, the text does not explain the mechanism. It simply attributes the opening of her heart to the Lord. My point is not to argue for irresistible grace, prevenient grace, or any other theological system. The Lord opened Lydia's heart, and Lydia herself responded to the things spoken by Paul. The text attributes the opening of the heart to God and the response to Lydia. It does not tell us that her response was compelled, irresistible, or caused by some prior regenerative act.

Biblical Grace: God's unmerited favor toward us.
Irresistible Grace: The doctrine that God's inward call to the elect effectively and unfailingly brings them to faith, so that the grace extended cannot ultimately be resisted.
Prevenient Grace: The doctrine that God grants a preceding grace to sinners that overcomes the inability caused by the Fall and enables them to respond freely to the gospel, though that response may still be resisted.

I hold to Biblical Grace. Scripture says the Lord opened Lydia's heart; Scripture says Lydia attended to the things spoken by Paul. I affirm both statements. I do not find it necessary to insert either irresistible grace or prevenient grace into the text in order to affirm God's action or Lydia's response.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"...whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul."

The text itself connects the opening of Lydia's heart with her response to Paul's message. If the Lord had not opened her heart, the event described by Luke would not have occurred as described.

Beyond that, the text does not explain the mechanism. It simply attributes the opening of her heart to the Lord. My point is not to argue for irresistible grace, prevenient grace, or any other theological system. The Lord opened Lydia's heart, and Lydia herself responded to the things spoken by Paul. The text attributes the opening of the heart to God and the response to Lydia. It does not tell us that her response was compelled, irresistible, or caused by some prior regenerative act.

Biblical Grace: God's unmerited favor toward us.
Irresistible Grace: The doctrine that God's inward call to the elect effectively and unfailingly brings them to faith, so that the grace extended cannot ultimately be resisted.
Prevenient Grace: The doctrine that God grants a preceding grace to sinners that overcomes the inability caused by the Fall and enables them to respond freely to the gospel, though that response may still be resisted.

I hold to Biblical Grace. Scripture says the Lord opened Lydia's heart; Scripture says Lydia attended to the things spoken by Paul. I affirm both statements. I do not find it necessary to insert either irresistible grace or prevenient grace into the text in order to affirm God's action or Lydia's response.
I did not see where you addressed my posted understanding of the text.

"If what Paul spoke was from the Lord and was understandable to Lydia, then the text saying "the Lord opened her heart so she could respond to what Paul was saying" does not require supernatural enabling of her mind. Revelatory Grace, presenting something spiritual in a way understandable to natural, unregenerate people, is described in scripture. "
 

Anthony Pritchard

Well-Known Member
I did not see where you addressed my posted understanding of the text.
I did address it indirectly, though perhaps not explicitly enough. My point is that Acts 16:14 does not identify the opening of Lydia's heart with the revelatory nature of Paul's message. Paul was speaking God's truth, certainly, but Luke does not say the Lord opened the message or clarified the revelation. Luke says the Lord opened Lydia's heart.
My concern is not whether God can make truth understandable. My concern is that your explanation appears to relocate the action from Lydia's heart to the message itself. The text explicitly places the action in Lydia: "whose heart the Lord opened." If you believe that opening occurred through revelatory grace, that is an explanation of the mechanism. My position is simply that the text does not explain the mechanism and only attributes the action to the Lord.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I did address it indirectly, though perhaps not explicitly enough. My point is that Acts 16:14 does not identify the opening of Lydia's heart with the revelatory nature of Paul's message. Paul was speaking God's truth, certainly, but Luke does not say the Lord opened the message or clarified the revelation. Luke says the Lord opened Lydia's heart.
My concern is not whether God can make truth understandable. My concern is that your explanation appears to relocate the action from Lydia's heart to the message itself. The text explicitly places the action in Lydia: "whose heart the Lord opened." If you believe that opening occurred through revelatory grace, that is an explanation of the mechanism. My position is simply that the text does not explain the mechanism and only attributes the action to the Lord.
My view reflects the minimum scope of the vague phrase. Going beyond the minimum necessary scope, may be adding to scripture. My statement only attributes the action to the Lord, in accordance with other scriptures where what was observed or heard "opened" the person to understanding.

It does not borrow from the use of "opened his eyes" referring to a miracle of causing a blind person to see. Mixed metaphors lead to false doctrine.

Consider Acts 17:3 NASB


"...explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”

The word translated as explaining is dianoigō G1272 literally means to open, as in the passage of a first born, but metaphorically means to expound or explain.

My view has not been an addition, but simply a studied view, based on the text. Opened her heart simply means providing an understandable explanation.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
@Anthony Pritchard @Van,
I am utterly sick of all these types of discussion. They have been going on for hunderds of years, and it seems as if they have been going on for hundreds of years on this forum. All I am going to post now I have posted several times over the years, but here we go again:

Acts 6:14. 'Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.'

So who or what opened Lydia's heart. Did she herself open it? Surely not. If she had, there would have been no need for the Lord to open it. Did Paul's wonderful teaching open her heart? No, for has the Lord not opened it she would have heard him but not heeded him. Who opened Lydia's heart to heed rather than only to hear? 'The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.'
Both Old and New Testaments bear witness to this:
Jonah 2:9. "Salvation is of the LORD.'
Rev. 7:10. "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb."
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
@Anthony Pritchard @Van,
I am utterly sick of all these types of discussion. They have been going on for hunderds of years, and it seems as if they have been going on for hundreds of years on this forum. All I am going to post now I have posted several times over the years, but here we go again:

Acts 6:14. 'Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.'

So who or what opened Lydia's heart. Did she herself open it? Surely not. If she had, there would have been no need for the Lord to open it. Did Paul's wonderful teaching open her heart? No, for has the Lord not opened it she would have heard him but not heeded him. Who opened Lydia's heart to heed rather than only to hear? 'The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.'
Both Old and New Testaments bear witness to this:
Jonah 2:9. "Salvation is of the LORD.'
Rev. 7:10. "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb."
Yet another absurd post spewing obfuscation.

Did anyone say or suggest someone other than the Lord opened Lydia"s heart? Nope - but there Martin goes flailing against his strawman.

The issue is how or by what mechanism did the Lord open her heart. And the most reasonable, least conjectural means is by providing with revelatory grace an explanation of the mystery of Christ to Paul, and through Paul to Lydia, and through the inspired New Testament, all the believers who put their faith in Christ, either directly or indirectly.

All this "enabling grace" is a fiction conjectured from the dark ages.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dianoigō G1272 is used about 8 times in the New Testament, and when used in the phrase "opened eyes, or heart or mind" the meaning is the Lord provided an understandable situation which resulted in the person grasping the truth.

1) In the passage, Luke 24:31-32, our word appears two times:

​

And then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. They said to one another, “Were our hearts not burning within us when He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” ​

Here we see the vague phrase "eyes were opened" used to indicate they recognized Christ's familiar way of breaking bread. Nothing supernatural is suggested. Then in the same passage the word is used to indicate the provision of an explanation. Again nothing supernatural is suggested. But of course, when He disappeared, that was apparently supernatural. :)

2) Luke 24:45 NASB

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,​

Here we see the vague phrase "opened their minds," but with the contextual meaning that He explained the scriptures in a way they understood. Nothing supernatural is suggested.

3) Acts 16:14 is explained in Post #28.

4) Acts 17:3 is explained in Post #30

​

​
 
Top