Featured Inability of the Will is Never Literal

I can see why a Calvinist might want to say that.

This is specious as a reply to me. We are "to dump what 'seems right'" to the natural man; but we are not to dump what seems right to the spiritual man seeking God's truth in Scripture. Calvinism is funny in that it takes the general principle that fallen sinners find God's truth repugnant, and then uses the repugnancy felt by non-Calvinists to their doctrine as an indication that Calvinists are in line with the truth. I've even heard some Calvinists testify of their own initial repugnancy with Calvinism, who tell of how they struggled to accept what their minds and common sense fought so hard against, but now they wear it as a badge of honor--as if the degree of repugnancy were the degree of truthfulness and as if their acceptance of it were an example of a superior reliance of God's ways and truths. But the truthfulness of a doctrine should never be measured by how difficult it is for Christians to accept, as that method could be used to defend all manner of false ideas that would also--by all common sense--be repugnant.

The fact that immature believers who need the milk of the Word might be tempted to rely on the natural understanding instead of the deeper doctrinal truth could be applied to your side as easily as to mine. You charge that the common sense of my doctrine is due to not understanding God's truth in the matter, but I change you with the same. Not only may a believer who's relying on his fleshly mind fall into error on the side of his common sense, but he also may fall into error on the side of going to specious extremes and carrying a principle of Scriptural truth to an extreme not intended by God to be carried so far. And when that happens, it would be quite natural for such a man to then claim that all who disagree--all who balk at the repugnancy--ought to lay down their "common sense of the natural man" as he did and accept God's truth.

Neither do I. The middle is not centrally located as a compromise between two positions. It's just located between two opposite errors, each taking a principle of truth too far one way or the other (like a path between two ditches).

Agreed.

 

I had said:

So let's examine the context:

Matthew 11
20 Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”
25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
What we find in the context is the Lord's condemning of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum for not repenting from their unbelief when the previously destroyed cities of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom would have so repented if they had seen the mighty works of Jesus that Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum had seen. It is clear from the context that men choose whether to believe and repent or reject God and incur His judgment. And while it is also clear that such things are hidden from the wise and revealed to children--to those whom the Lord chooses to reveal it--it is still affirmed that men re responsible for choosing what they ought to choose and believing what they ought to believe.

I had said:

You replied:

Again, let's examine the context:

2 Cor. 5
18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Verse 18 speaks of when Christ reconciled "us" to Himself, meaning those who believe in Him. Then it says that "God gave us the ministry of reconciliation." This is the Great Commission--to preach the good news of the gospel--that sinners may be reconciled to God by believing in Christ--to every creature. Verse 19 tells us that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself by carrying out His plan of redemption through what Christ accomplished. And God is still carrying out His plan today, by "making His appeal through us"--entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. For those whom God reconciles through faith in Christ, He will not count their trespasses against them. They will instead be reconciled to Him. Verse 20 says, therefore, "we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." A ruler does not need an ambassador to speak to his own citizen or subject. An ambassador is a picture of a ruler speaking to a foreigner. In this case, the picture of ambassadorship is used to illustrate that the message is being preached to those who have not yet been reconciled--unbelievers. Why?--It is because the whole ministry of reconciliation whereby we implore men, "Be reconciled to God!" is a ministry where we preach the gospel to unbelievers and implore them to believe. Your rendering of the meaning here--claiming that Paul's message of reconciliation was intended for believers, is very poor indeed.

more to follow...

 

You've missed the point entirely. I cited this to show you that there is such a thing as "obedience to the faith"--that to believe God is to obey His imploring us to do just that. The purpose of Paul was not merely to spread the gospel, but also that it might be obeyed and believed.

What you seem to have missed is that a reason for the vengeance, along side other reasons, is their disobedience of the gospel by not believing. Your attempt to drive a wedge between "taking vengeance" and "obey not the gospel" rips the true meaning in half.

I had said:

You replied:

The word (ἐλέγχω, elegchō) G1651 means to convict as much as it means to reprove. You may struggle to establish the difference, but you cannot succeed. It is clear from the text that the Holy Spirit will "convict the world concerning sin... because they do not believe in Me." If the text of Scripture is your standard of truth, then you cannot separate one half from the other--you cannot read this plain and clear statement and then think that the sin with which the Holy Spirit is concerned with here is not the sin of not believing in Christ. If you can, then you're resorting to some gymnastics that I cannot accept.

Okay. That's plausible... except when other Scriptures are brought to bear, such as the next one:

Your theory that all this has to do only with the old covenant fails by the fact that none of the cities mentioned as those who would have believed if they had seen Jesus' might works were in the covenant--not even Ninevah. No, it is a clear statement of condemnation for refusing to repent and believe, and holds up others who would have repented under the same circumstances. The dancing you must resort to keeps getting more complicated.
[QUOTE="Dave Gilbert, post: 2514767, member: 14226"]
As you can see, I look at things very differently, sir.
I'm sorry if it confuses you, but there it is.[/quote]
I'm not confused.

John 1
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

First, we receive Him, and then we're made sons of God.

Be blessed, Dave!