2 peter 3:9

[Ian Major]

I had said 'Man is born blinded to the gospel: by what means? - The work of Satan in his heart. '

Skandelon said
What scripture are you refering to on this one?

Ps.58:3, The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. ; 2 Cor.4: 3But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. ; Col.1: 21And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled

I know you think the blindness to the gospel comes only through repeated sinning (or rejecting the gospel?), but I think the Scripture is saying the corruption of sin has blinded man from the beginning. We were born with bad hearts and time only exposes what we are.

Their hearts are what determined it to be foolish not God's unwillingness to remove the veil.

I agree. When God did not remove the veil, they continued to think the message foolish.

the veil is not irresisable.

Only God can remove the veil. When it is removed, conversion follows.

I had said, 'The means of salvation was God lifting the veil so that they could understand the gospel. The gospel alone is not effective - it requires God to give man a new heart to accept the gospel. The Spirit speaks through the gospel; the reprobate reject, the elect accept. Why? Because God has opened their minds to see the Truth/ their hearts to love Him.'
To which you replied
Sounds like good ol Calvinism to me. Where the scripture that teaches this?

Jer.33:31; Ezek.36: 26I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. ; Acts 16: 14Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.

In addition to heart surgery, here's what the Scripture shows about the gospel on its own , without the accompanying work of the Spirit:
1 Cor.1: 23but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, .

But WITH the work of the Spirit; 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Most choose the way of the world because, as Christ warns there are two roads and the one that leads to destruction is broad the other is narrow and difficult. Few find and follow that narrow path.

But if the gospel without the work of the Spirit is as powerful as you allege, then you are saying the temptations of the world are even more powerful, for most people. So the Arminian gospel is not a very powerful gospel at all. The gospel Calvinism holds is totally successful. It always accomplishes exactly what God sent it to do.

Why send something to all that is only meant for some?

To reveal how wicked the reprobate are. Their refusal is from their own hearts, not God imposing it upon them against their will.

Well, then by that logic Adam's choice should have been different. If his nature wasn't corrupt and he chose sin then doesn't that prove his choice didn't fully reflect his nature? The opposite with us is also true. Our nature may be corrupt but we can still be influenced to choose outside that nature, especially in light of the powerful gospel message. Think about it.

That's a good point. But it doesn't stand under scrutiny. Our fallen condition is not the mirror image of Adam's pre-Fall one. Scripture shows us that the comparison is to be made between our fallen state and our redeemed state. Our redeemed state is NOT like Adam's pre-Fall state.

We are not free to fall from grace again, to spiritually die, once we have come to Christ. Eternity will not be a waiting game to see if another Fall occurs.

Adam could choose to fall. Fallen sinners cannot choose to rise; neither can redeemed sinners choose to fall.

I had said, 'Yes, revelation precedes response. Revelation does not make man able to choose the good. He will always CHOOSE to reject the gospel, unless he has been changed within.'

You replied
Unfounded claim. I need scripture.

Jer.31, Ezek.36, etc. We've been over this many times. The New Covenant under which we are saved is the explicit affirmation of the need of God's sovereign grace.

That is my point. Its seems that we are getting new hearts, but that even is a process, not an instaneous act. I admittingly haven't studied on the "heart change" so you may be able to show me otherwise, but does scripture teach that our hearts are changed in an instant, or could it be that the change of heart is a reference to the sanctification process.

No, it is not just a process. It has a starting point: we get a new heart, other wise we cannot begin to follow Him. The new heart causes us to repent and believe. It causes us then to follow after in all the difficulties of life, learning more, rejecting more of our old ways. No new heart, no new life.

But you obedience is not your own so why reward you?

Because it is mine, in Him. Gal.2: 20I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

So, since you obey better than I do that must mean that you are smarter because you better heed God's punishment, right?

More spiritual, not smarter. Some believers are enabled by God to be more mature than others - but we all are going to be perfect one Day. (I understand the 'you and I' of your comment to refer to any believers, not us personally).

But then why would God reward you for what He did? And couldn't you boast because God gave you more "grace" than another?

I could boast if there was something of myself that caused me to receive this grace, but since every desire to do good is from Him, I've no reason to boast.

God does his own limiting. His plan is his plan, if you call it limited you need to talk to Him. In your system there is no room for punishment and reward because as you say all the punishment belongs to man and all the reward belongs to God, yet God rewards men for there deeds and punishes them according to their response to a gospel you say most of them can't hear. That is nonsense that you believe because of a few passage such as Romans 9 and Eph 1 that can be easily understood from another perspective if you are willing to few them objectively.

You are more than usually confused here.

1. The reprobate hear with their ear, their natural understanding, which brings condemation for rejecting the gospel. They do not hear so as to believe it is God speaking. Having ears to hear, they do not hear. They are deaf and blind in the sense that Satan persuades them to suppress the truth, to reject it as foolishness. Deafness and blindness in the sense Scripture uses them concerning the lost, do not refer to natural abilities, but to the spiritual. To hear spiritually is to understand and embrace.

2. God punishes men for ALL sin, not only for rejecting the gospel.


In Him

Ian

 

[npetreley]

Ian,

That was an extremely well-reasoned response with excellent scriptural support.

 

[Skandelon]

Ps.58:3, The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

This proves the doctrine of Original Sin which which we do not dispute. It says nothing about them being hardened or blinded in such a way as being unable to respond to the gospel message.

; 2 Cor.4: 3But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. ;

Actually, I see this verse contradicting your premise because it has the "god of this age" blinded them, not their fallenness.

Col.1: 21And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled

This proves the doctrine of Original Sin which which we do not dispute. It says nothing about them being hardened or blinded in such a way as being unable to respond to the gospel message.

Is that it? Two verses support a doctrine we aren't disputing and the other seems to contradict you.

I know you think the blindness to the gospel comes only through repeated sinning (or rejecting the gospel?), but I think the Scripture is saying the corruption of sin has blinded man from the beginning. We were born with bad hearts and time only exposes what we are.

You are presuming upon the text Ian. The scripture has to teach it, you can't just say, "I think" its this way so it is. I have texts that clearly show that blindness/hardeness comes through repeated sin and rejection of God's revelation. You don't have ANY that show these are characteristics of someone from birth.

In fact, Christ even uses a child as a model that we must become like in order to be fit for heaven. What is it about a child that differs from a man? His humility, innocence, lack of hardenness??? What?

Maybe it his size because the gate to heaven is small?

I agree. When God did not remove the veil, they continued to think the message foolish.

Adam Clarke wrote, "He refers to the subject that he had treated so particularly in the conclusion of the preceding chapter. If there be a veil on the Gospel, it is only to the wilfully blind; and if any man's heart be veiled that hears this Gospel, it is a proof that he is among the lost."

In the previous chapter Paul taught this:

2 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech-- 13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

When one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Notice it does NOT say, when the veil is taken away then one turns to the Lord, as you have presumed upon this text when you wrote:

Only God can remove the veil. When it is removed, conversion follows.

I had said, 'The means of salvation was God lifting the veil so that they could understand the gospel. The gospel alone is not effective - it requires God to give man a new heart to accept the gospel.

But as I have shown the veil is not lifted UNTIL one turns to God. You are going to have to find another proof text to support your premise. This one won't work.

The Spirit speaks through the gospel; the reprobate reject, the elect accept. Why? Because God has opened their minds to see the Truth/ their hearts to love Him.'
To which you replied
Sounds like good ol Calvinism to me. Where the scripture that teaches this?

Jer.33:31; Ezek.36: 26I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

It appears you could be doing the same thing with this verse as you did with the last one. You seem to presume that God is going to do all of these things regardless of men's choices and responses to Him. Couldn't it be that just as one must turn to God to have the "veil" removed that he must also turn to God to receive a new heart?

; Acts 16: 14Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.

We've talked about this one. This is about a woman who worshiped God, not a lost and "totally depraved" woman as you presume.

In addition to heart surgery, here's what the Scripture shows about the gospel on its own , without the accompanying work of the Spirit:
1 Cor.1: 23but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, .
In general the gospel was met with this reaction by these particular groups but to those who believed it, it was the power of God. Again, you must leave room for men's response.

But WITH the work of the Spirit; 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

You are presuming that there is an additional "work of the Spirit, for those who respond in faith to the calling but the text doesn't supply that information. Couldn't it simply mean, "But to those who accept the call, both Jews and Greeks,..."? How is that different than when Calvinists add the phase "all kinds of people in the" to the scripture when it says, "Christ came to save the world."

Their refusal is from their own hearts, not God imposing it upon them against their will.

I agree to an extent. However, God does seal some in their rebellion in order to accomplish His purpose through them which is why the Jew could not see, hear, understand and return to God during this time and I believe this truth is what has lead Calvinists to make their errors. I wish you could step back away from your doctrine and objectively see that.

God was in the process of hardening some and ingrafting others and that has lead some theologians throughout our history to think God wants to save some and not others, which in some since is true. He didn't want anyone to repent and come to him except a few while he was on earth because he had to be crucified, and even after his departure he didn't want the Jews to repent until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in and they were established as a part of the church. But that is not basis for a Calvinistic soteriology. Oh, how I pray that you will see that!

That's a good point. But it doesn't stand under scrutiny. Our fallen condition is not the mirror image of Adam's pre-Fall one.Scripture shows us that the comparison is to be made between our fallen state and our redeemed state. Our redeemed state is NOT like Adam's pre-Fall state.

Showing that our redeemed state is NOT like Adam's pre-fall state doesn't prove that my point is not valid. My point was that if Adam who had a good nature could choose evil when influenced, then why couldn't one with a corrupt nature choose good when influenced? The fact that a redeemed man can't choose evil again has nothing to do with the previous point. Plus, it's purely speculative.

Adam could choose to fall. Fallen sinners cannot choose to rise; neither can redeemed sinners choose to fall.

Is this the gospel according to Ian? My point is that you need scriptural support. I have shown that from a mere logical standpoint a corrupt nature could be influenced to choose good because your proof was based upon logic. But you still have no biblical support to show that men cannot be influence to choose good by the powerful gospel. Without that you have nothing because the scripture certainly implies that belief is possible for whosoever.

No, it is not just a process. It has a starting point: we get a new heart, other wise we cannot begin to follow Him. The new heart causes us to repent and believe. It causes us then to follow after in all the difficulties of life, learning more, rejecting more of our old ways. No new heart, no new life.

That seems to be one theory. How about this one. We choose to believe and God begins to mold and change our hearts over a period of time until one day we are glorified and get everything new and we no longer stuggle. That sounds more like the biblical process of Jusification (being made righteous in the eyes of God); Sancification (being conformed to the image of Christ); and Glorification (adoption of our bodies as Children of God).

More spiritual, not smarter. Some believers are enabled by God to be more mature than others - but we all are going to be perfect one Day. (I understand the 'you and I' of your comment to refer to any believers, not us personally).

So you could boast that God made you more spiritual than me? Why do you get a bigger reward in heaven than I do since really you didn't do anything better, God did. Is God partial to some of his elect? The scripture has God seeking obedient people and you have God making people be obedient without regard to their own choices. There is a problem with that.

I could boast if there was something of myself that caused me to receive this grace, but since every desire to do good is from Him, I've no reason to boast.

Sure you do. God gave you a bigger mansion than me. I hear kids boast all the time about gifts their parents bought them. They didn't by it themselves but yet they boast of it. Ian, in this line of questions I'm just helping you see that you have to leave room for human responsiblity and accountablity which means you have to leave room for human response.


1. The reprobate hear with their ear, their natural understanding, which brings condemation for rejecting the gospel. They do not hear so as to believe it is God speaking

If this is true than the gospel purpose for MOST people is to bring them condemnation. That is not "Good NEWS" for the world. It may be good news for a few people, but its not good news for the world as scripture says it is. Plus, it gives an impression of God that scripture NEVER gives as being one who calls people to repentance for the purpose of bringing more certain condemnation upon them. That is not meriful and loving. It would have been better for Him to just pass by and allow them to be condemned for their fallenness. You change the whole purpose and meaning of the "goodnews" by this statement.

Having ears to hear, they do not hear. They are deaf and blind in the sense that Satan persuades them to suppress the truth, to reject it as foolishness. Deafness and blindness in the sense Scripture uses them concerning the lost, do not refer to natural abilities, but to the spiritual. To hear spiritually is to understand and embrace.

Yes, you are correct. Blindness and deafness are spiritual and the scripture is clear that HAD THEY NOT BEEN HARDENED THEY COULD HAVE SEEN, HEARD, UNDERSTOOD AND REPENTED. Read it for yourself and notice the word OTHERWISE because it tells us their natural abilities before being hardened and their potential ability once the hardening is lifted.

Act 28:27   FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'"

And was every hardened like the Jews? Keep reading..

Act 28:28   "Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen."

2. God punishes men for ALL sin, not only for rejecting the gospel.

But the scripture is clear that Jesus does not come to condemn the world for their sin, but to save the world from their sin. Therefore, he is not judging them because of their fallen nature, they will be judge by their response to his word. Read John 12 again.

Blessings. This is fun.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
Is that it? Two verses support a doctrine we aren't disputing and the other seems to contradict you.

OK, here's another. Rom.8: 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

Note the condition of the unsaved mind - it CANNOT be subject to the law of God. As lost sinners we are SLAVES to sin. When God's command to repent and believe comes to our attention, we reject it. We reject it because we hate God and 'will not have this Man to rule over us'.

As to the god of this world not being the same as our fallenness as author of our blindness: Satan is the one who caused our fallenness and who uses that fallenness to stir us up against God. It is no contradiction to ascribe our blindness to either our fallenness or its author and manipulator.


I have texts that clearly show that blindness/hardeness comes through repeated sin and rejection of God's revelation. You don't have ANY that show these are characteristics of someone from birth.

You have texts that show a special blinding of Istrael; you have texts that show an increasing descent into darkness by repeated sin, where God gives people over to gross immorality; but those texts do not set aside the veil that is over all men's hearts as new born sinners. Unless you want to say there is no relationship between spiritual blindness and man's natural enmity to God.

In fact, Christ even uses a child as a model that we must become like in order to be fit for heaven. What is it about a child that differs from a man? His humility, innocence, lack of hardenness??? What?

Those human characteristics of children speak to our need of the spiritual equivalents. Unless you say children aren't also at enmity with God. Children will not believe the gospel, unless they are supernaturally enabled.

When one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Notice it does NOT say, when the veil is taken away then one turns to the Lord

Your interpretation is possible, if one goes no further than this verse.

Mine is also possible, ie. the apostle speaks firstly of the full glory of the gospel being veiled to Israel under Moses; that this fullness of the Truth is revealed to us after the removal of the veil. Next, Paul goes on to apply the figure to all the lost, showing that Satan has put a veil over their faces, to exclude the light of the gospel from them. The veil keeps them from believing. But God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness at Creation, is the One who sovereignly shines in His people's hearts, revealing Christ's glory to them.

It appears you could be doing the same thing with this verse as you did with the last one. You seem to presume that God is going to do all of these things regardless of men's choices and responses to Him. Couldn't it be that just as one must turn to God to have the "veil" removed that he must also turn to God to receive a new heart?

He is going to do all these things in spite of man's previous responses. But He is also going to cause them to have a new set of choices and responses.

The new heart is the CAUSE of the repentance and faith. God gives it, then we walk in His ways. Otherwise the Old Covenant would have been sufficient: of our own wicked hearts we could have turned to Him and walked in His ways. But all His calls to repentance went unheeded, until He gave them a new heart.

Couldn't it simply mean, "But to those who accept the call, both Jews and Greeks,..."? How is that different than when Calvinists add the phase "all kinds of people in the" to the scripture when it says, "Christ came to save the world."

Yes, I suppose any verse can have an implicit qualifier. It's when we compare Scripture with Scripture that we see where the weight of each argument lies. Doing so in all the the debates on this list has been a reasurance to me that the doctrines of grace are rock-solid. Even further, seeing the logical outcomes to which Free-willism drives people, I am doubly convinced.

I agree to an extent. However, God does seal some in their rebellion in order to accomplish His purpose through them which is why the Jew could not see, hear, understand and return to God during this time and I believe this truth is what has lead Calvinists to make their errors. I wish you could step back away from your doctrine and objectively see that.

But I DO see His special hardening. I also see His general hardening.

Is this the gospel according to Ian? My point is that you need scriptural support. I have shown that from a mere logical standpoint a corrupt nature could be influenced to choose good because your proof was based upon logic. But you still have no biblical support to show that men cannot be influence to choose good by the powerful gospel. Without that you have nothing because the scripture certainly implies that belief is possible for whosoever.

You say Scripture IMPLIES belief is possible of whosoever. I'm glad you acknowledge it does not teach so explicitly. And I say it in fact teaches explicitly that belief is not possible for the natural man, eg. Rom.8:7.

Can man be influenced toward good? Certainly. But the bottom line is that unless the soil is good, no amount of good seed is going to avail, Mt.13:23.

That seems to be one theory. How about this one. We choose to believe and God begins to mold and change our hearts over a period of time until one day we are glorified and get everything new and we no longer stuggle. That sounds more like the biblical process of Jusification (being made righteous in the eyes of God); Sancification (being conformed to the image of Christ); and Glorification (adoption of our bodies as Children of God).

The only problem with this is that the New Covenant requires the new heart before the believer can even begin to live pleasing to God. It is not the end result.

So you could boast that God made you more spiritual than me? Why do you get a bigger reward in heaven than I do since really you didn't do anything better, God did. Is God partial to some of his elect? The scripture has God seeking obedient people and you have God making people be obedient without regard to their own choices. There is a problem with that.

Were the apostles better than us, in themnselves? How come they are to rule in the Heavenly kingdom? What about who sits on His right hand and left hand? Is that based on their inate qualities? No, it is all of God's gifting. He graces us, then rewards us for our display of grace. I know it is all very Calvinistic, in line with our salvation - Why me? for His glory, not my goodness or choice of Him.

Sure you do. God gave you a bigger mansion than me. I hear kids boast all the time about gifts their parents bought them. They didn't by it themselves but yet they boast of it. Ian, in this line of questions I'm just helping you see that you have to leave room for human responsiblity and accountablity which means you have to leave room for human response.

Have these kids a right to so boast? Certainly not. They should be giving God the glory for His gifts. They have no grounds to boast, neither do we. But we would if it was a matter of our deserving.

If this is true than the gospel purpose for MOST people is to bring them condemnation. That is not "Good NEWS" for the world. It may be good news for a few people, but its not good news for the world as scripture says it is.

It is good news for all who want it to be. 'Flee from the wrath to come' is a key message of the gospel, but it carries with it very bad news for all who won't obey it. The gospel was not meant to be good news to people who refuse it.

Plus, it gives an impression of God that scripture NEVER gives as being one who calls people to repentance for the purpose of bringing more certain condemnation upon them. That is not meriful and loving. It would have been better for Him to just pass by and allow them to be condemned for their fallenness. You change the whole purpose and meaning of the "goodnews" by this statement.

It is your definition of 'merciful and loving' that is deficient. God is also angry with the wicked, as well as being longsuffering toward them, and merciful and loving to us. Ex. 5you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. ;

Is.6:9 And He said, "Go, and tell this people: "Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' The gospel being preached to people who definitely would not be saved. The more light, the greater the condemnation, 2 Peter 2: 21For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Yes, you are correct. Blindness and deafness are spiritual and the scripture is clear that HAD THEY NOT BEEN HARDENED THEY COULD HAVE SEEN, HEARD, UNDERSTOOD AND REPENTED. Read it for yourself and notice the word OTHERWISE because it tells us their natural abilities before being hardened and their potential ability once the hardening is lifted.

We've been around this bush twice before. It refers to the special hardening of the Jews. To God removing them from the same conditions as the Gentiles.

But the scripture is clear that Jesus does not come to condemn the world for their sin, but to save the world from their sin. Therefore, he is not judging them because of their fallen nature, they will be judge by their response to his word. Read John 12 again.

That's right, not on His first coming. On His second, things will be very different, 2 Thess.1: 6since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Blessings. This is fun.

Yes, I believe we have sharpened one another.

However, I may have to curtail my postings a lot, for a season. Our national holiday is tomorrow, 12 July, and I hope to wind up most of my contributions in that time. I'm about to become a Grandaddy for the first, DV, and have a lot of things I must see to. I'll post when I can.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

OK, here's another. Rom.8: 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

Note the condition of the unsaved mind - it CANNOT be subject to the law of God. As lost sinners we are SLAVES to sin. When God's command to repent and believe comes to our attention, we reject it. We reject it because we hate God and 'will not have this Man to rule over us'.

Are you being serious? A text that teaches men can't fully submit to God's law is supposed to be proof that men are BORN unable to respond to the gospel of salvation by Grace through faith????????

As to the god of this world not being the same as our fallenness as author of our blindness: Satan is the one who caused our fallenness and who uses that fallenness to stir us up against God. It is no contradiction to ascribe our blindness to either our fallenness or its author and manipulator.

The point is that its not ever said that it is from birth but instead implies that it is a process of hardening.

You have texts that show a special blinding of Istrael;

Yes, which I will remind you makes little since since you believe they were born totally blind.

you have texts that show an increasing descent into darkness by repeated sin, where God gives people over to gross immorality;

Yes, by which people BECOME what you describe as the nature of men from birth. NOTICE they are not born GIVEN OVER as Total Depravity of the reprobate would suggest.

but those texts do not set aside the veil that is over all men's hearts as new born sinners

As the scripture has established and I have clearly shown, the veil is removed when one "turns to God," it is not removed before one is able to "turn to God" therefore the "veil" can't be Calvinism's proof of TD.

Those human characteristics of children speak to our need of the spiritual equivalents. Unless you say children aren't also at enmity with God. Children will not believe the gospel, unless they are supernaturally enabled.

So childen have human characteristics that men should strive after? Explain.

Children are at enmity with God because of Sin. I accept the doctrine of Original sin, but notice how you just assume that MUST mean that a child can't believe the gospel without any scriptural backing.

More later, got to run.

 

[Skandelon]

Your interpretation is possible, if one goes no further than this verse.

Mine is also possible, ie. the apostle speaks firstly of the full glory of the gospel being veiled to Israel under Moses; that this fullness of the Truth is revealed to us after the removal of the veil. Next, Paul goes on to apply the figure to all the lost, showing that Satan has put a veil over their faces, to exclude the light of the gospel from them. The veil keeps them from believing. But God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness at Creation, is the One who sovereignly shines in His people's hearts, revealing Christ's glory to them.

Wow, you will really go to whatever extreme to make it say what you need it to say won't you? But STILL even in your interpretation here it doesn't say what you need it to say. You still have Satan PUTTING the veil over their face and it NEVER ONCE mentions the veil being their from birth.

He is going to do all these things in spite of man's previous responses. But He is also going to cause them to have a new set of choices and responses.

The new heart is the CAUSE of the repentance and faith. God gives it, then we walk in His ways. Otherwise the Old Covenant would have been sufficient: of our own wicked hearts we could have turned to Him and walked in His ways. But all His calls to repentance went unheeded, until He gave them a new heart.


So says Ian chapter 3 verse 2.

Yes, I suppose any verse can have an implicit qualifier. It's when we compare Scripture with Scripture that we see where the weight of each argument lies. Doing so in all the the debates on this list has been a reasurance to me that the doctrines of grace are rock-solid. Even further, seeing the logical outcomes to which Free-willism drives people, I am doubly convinced.

That funny because I see it exaclty the opposite. Why is that. I'm am a honest God fearing follower of Christ and I believe you are as well, yet we see this exactly opposite. Either God didn't predestine me to understand or you haven't chosen correctly?

But I DO see His special hardening. I also see His general hardening.

No you really don't otherwise IMHO you wouldn't still be hanging on so fervently to your dogma.

You say Scripture IMPLIES belief is possible of whosoever. I'm glad you acknowledge it does not teach so explicitly. And I say it in fact teaches explicitly that belief is not possible for the natural man, eg. Rom.8:7.

Yes, it is not explicit but it is implicit, I do agree. There are many such implications throughout scripture. There are many "whosoevers", "anyone whos" and "everyone thats" type phrases. And the explicit teaching that men cannot subject themselves to the Law doesn't even imply that man is unable to believe the gospel of grace!!! Where are you getting that?

Can man be influenced toward good? Certainly. But the bottom line is that unless the soil is good, no amount of good seed is going to avail, Mt.13:23.

You seem to assume that the soil can't be changed.

The only problem with this is that the New Covenant requires the new heart before the believer can even begin to live pleasing to God. It is not the end result.

Verse?

Have these kids a right to so boast? Certainly not. They should be giving God the glory for His gifts. They have no grounds to boast, neither do we. But we would if it was a matter of our deserving.

Do I need to list all the verses where MEN did things that pleased God and God credited them or rewarded them for their deeds? If it was God doing it in them and not them, why would that please God and why would he reward the man? It makes NO SENSE. You go further than most Calvinist go on this to avoid the implications of our debate here. You're out Calvining Calvin. Most Calvinists seem to believe that once they are free in Christ that it is their choice and thus their rewarded or disciplined accordingly.

The gospel was not meant to be good news to people who refuse it.

Yes, that is exactly my point, and MOST people can only refuse it and cannot possibly accept it; therefore it only serves to further condemn them

It is your definition of 'merciful and loving' that is deficient. God is also angry with the wicked, as well as being longsuffering toward them

He is longsuffering or patient with men so that they might come to repentance. That is merciful. Why else would he be patient with his enemies?

The gospel being preached to people who definitely would not be saved. The more light, the greater the condemnation, 2 Peter 2: 21For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

This is just showing my point more clearly. When there are people who CANNOT respond then the gospel (the way of righteousness or the Holy Commandments) only serve to further condemn them. Whereas if they are able to respond it gives them an opportunity to respond and reap the consequenses.

We've been around this bush twice before. It refers to the special hardening of the Jews. To God removing them from the same conditions as the Gentiles.

We'll keep going around it as long as you keep saying things like this. It doesn't matter how SPECIAL you want to call this hardening. You can say that its hardening blue light special if you want to! The point is that OTHERWISE they COULD HAVE seen, heard, and repented. IF NOT FOR THEIR BEING SPECIALLY HARDENED THEY COULD HAVE BELIEVED. Ian, you haven't dealt with that my friend.

Yes, I believe we have sharpened one another.

However, I may have to curtail my postings a lot, for a season. Our national holiday is tomorrow, 12 July, and I hope to wind up most of my contributions in that time. I'm about to become a Grandaddy for the first, DV, and have a lot of things I must see to. I'll post when I can.

I'll miss having you around but stop in when you can. Replies can always wait, families come first. Thanks for your friendship and your diligent replies. You are a true brother.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by Skandelon:


Calvinists believe God uses threats of "falling away" or "being cut off" as means of motivating the elect to perservere.

You all might as well be universalists since God uses empty threats anyway.

Skandelon -
A few posts back you asserted that you are a "former Calvinist". You were surely pulling our leg, given that there has never been a Calvinist yet who believed the above! Brother, God does not grant indulgences regarding the 9th commandment just because we are defending what we imagine to be the true faith.
- Paul

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
Are you being serious? A text that teaches men can't fully submit to God's law is supposed to be proof that men are BORN unable to respond to the gospel of salvation by Grace through faith????????

My point is the utter hostility of the unsaved heart toward God. It is enmity against GOD, not merely His Law. Whether the word is 'Do not murder' or 'Repent and believe', the unregenerated heart will reject it.

Are you saying the wicked can truly say in their heart, 'Oh, What God says is true. I want to turn from my sins and have Christ's righteousness instead. I want to bow to His rule and serve Him forever'? Do you not see that his heart must first be changed before he will ever think that?


Consider further the parable of the soils. Luke 8: 15But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience. Note the crucial requirement; a good heart.

So childen have human characteristics that men should strive after? Explain.

The fully aware adult should bring himself back to the same dependent frame of mind as children have. The child is aware of how little they know, how they must trust their parent's judgement, provision,etc. Adults must submit to God the way children do to their parents. The earthly submission must be matched by the heavenward one.

Either God didn't predestine me to understand or you haven't chosen correctly?

OR - God didn't predestine you to understand and you haven't chosen correctly. Calvinists believe both in predestination and choice. You are responsible for your sins; God has allowed you (and me) to sin, according to His infinite wisdom.

I had said, 'The only problem with this is that the New Covenant requires the new heart before the believer can even begin to live pleasing to God. It is not the end result.' To which you replied
Verse?

Jer.31: 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Note the order; first the inscribing of His Law on their hearts, then their being His people. And Ezek.36: 26I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. ... 31Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities and your abominations.

Do I need to list all the verses where MEN did things that pleased God and God credited them or rewarded them for their deeds? If it was God doing it in them and not them, why would that please God and why would he reward the man? It makes NO SENSE.

Sounds strange to our natural thinking, I agree. But here's what God says, Philippians 2: 12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.


He is longsuffering or patient with men so that they might come to repentance. That is merciful. Why else would he be patient with his enemies?

To display His righteous wrath on ungrateful man. Rom.9: 22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

To display His righteous condemnation of them for their rejection of the gospel. Their inability to obey it is THEIR fault, not God's.


IF NOT FOR THEIR BEING SPECIALLY HARDENED THEY COULD HAVE BELIEVED. Ian, you haven't dealt with that my friend.

If not for special hardening, they would be treated as the Gentiles - opened up to the gospel, granted repentance. For them, that would have meant national repentance, ALL of Israel being saved.

I'll miss having you around but stop in when you can. Replies can always wait, families come first. Thanks for your friendship and your diligent replies. You are a true brother.

And thank you, dear brother, for those kind words. My daughter is still in one piece (was due yesterday), so I've still some opportunity to post.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

My point is the utter hostility of the unsaved heart toward God. It is enmity against GOD, not merely His Law. Whether the word is 'Do not murder' or 'Repent and believe', the unregenerated heart will reject it.

But the scripture doesn't call the law the power of God unto salvation. It doesn't call the the law shaper than any two edged sword. It doesn't say the law is brought by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It doesn't call the law spirit and life. You equate the law which was written on tablets and given to one man to take down to the Jews so they could obey with the Spirit wrought, God Breathed, inspired truth of the gospel of grace which was sent to all mankind to hear and know for salvation.

They are different. Men cannot fully submit to the law though they may successfully submit to parts of it, they will always fall short, but that in NO WAY proves or even implies that man cannot submit in faith to the one who could fully submit to the law in our stead.

1. Can we go without sinning? No.

2. Can we believe in someone who went without sin? YES.

I don't see how proof that the first question is answered "NO" implies that the second is also "NO". Please explain.

I'll stop here so we can just focus on this point, I really think it is the crux of our debate anyway.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
But the scripture doesn't call the law the power of God unto salvation. It doesn't call the the law shaper than any two edged sword. It doesn't say the law is brought by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It doesn't call the law spirit and life. You equate the law which was written on tablets and given to one man to take down to the Jews so they could obey with the Spirit wrought, God Breathed, inspired truth of the gospel of grace which was sent to all mankind to hear and know for salvation.

They are different. Men cannot fully submit to the law though they may successfully submit to parts of it, they will always fall short, but that in NO WAY proves or even implies that man cannot submit in faith to the one who could fully submit to the law in our stead.

1. Can we go without sinning? No.

2. Can we believe in someone who went without sin? YES.

I don't see how proof that the first question is answered "NO" implies that the second is also "NO". Please explain.

You are asking the wrong questions. You are comparing the Law with Faith, so of course it doesn't make sense.

1. Remember, my key point 'is the utter hostility of the unsaved heart toward God. It is enmity against GOD, not merely His Law.' It is not a matter of being unable to keep the Law, it is the cause of that inability that is crucial. The unregenerate mind is opposed to God. It wants nothing to do with Him. It needs God to remove that enmity before it will repent and believe.

The essential need of a new heart for obedience is a cardinal doctrine of Scripture. To obey the gospel requires the same sort of heart that obeying the Law requires. But you confuse meriting salvation by the keeping of the Law with obedience to the Law. The former is impossible - a wicked heart will not do so. The latter is made possible, by the giving of a new heart.

Our keeping of the eternal Law after conversion is still not the basis of our salvation. Faith, the faith God gave us in giving us a new heart, that is the reason we are justified. By grace we are saved, through faith.

2. The gospel is certainly the power of God unto salvation. But that doesn't say it empowers all unbelievers to repent. We know it empowers some - those who actually believe - but nothing is said about it doing so for the rest. The power resides in the One who speaks the saving word - He brings it in power to those He is sent to save. His word always accomplishes that for which it is sent.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Ian,

You post proves my point. You are purely speculating as to the nature of man in regard to the gospel based upon the nature of man in regard to fully submitting to the law. The Law's purpose was never to bring one to repentance and faith, therefore it wasn't successful in doing so. The gospel's purpose is to bring men to repentance and faith and therefore to just assume that it doesn't have that power unless further empowered by an effectual call is not a biblical concept.

You need to show me a verse that tells us that men are unable to respond in faith to the gospel. If you can't do that you have no foundation for such a concept.

 

[Stratiotes]

I have heard both perspectives from Calvinists - that it is to believers and also to all.

I don't think there is any problem with it being to all. One could just as easily say that God is not willing that any unborn child should perish or that he is not willing that any should break his commandments. It depends on what we mean by his will - is it referring to his declarative will or his permissive will? That's the question. If it is his declarative will (i.e., "x, y, z shall happen!") then it must be referring to those who are or will be saved. If it is simply his permissive will (i.e., "I am not willing that any should break my commandments") then it could be believers or it could be anybody. I think it is closer to the latter myself.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
You post proves my point. You are purely speculating as to the nature of man in regard to the gospel based upon the nature of man in regard to fully submitting to the law. The Law's purpose was never to bring one to repentance and faith, therefore it wasn't successful in doing so. The gospel's purpose is to bring men to repentance and faith and therefore to just assume that it doesn't have that power unless further empowered by an effectual call is not a biblical concept.

No speculation involved: it clearly says that the unsaved man's mind is at enmity with God. Not just with some or all of His commandments - with HIM. You fail to explain how such a heart can repent and believe.

You say the gospel enables repentance and faith. What you really mean, if you are consistent with your former posts, is that the gospel merely brings a command that man is already able to respond to. No power needed - the gospel is merely the means to salvation in your scheme.

My point is: Man's heart is not able of itself to repent and believe. It is bitterly opposed to God. Therefore something has to happen to that heart before it will turn to God.

I am the one saying the gospel has power to effect this change. I say that God the Spirit by this gospel converts the soul; at His chosen time, the gospel brings the 'Let there be light' sovereign command of God to the darkened soul. A new heart is given, the new heart accepts this gospel and the soul is justified. Just as Christ commanded Lazarus to come forth, so His word in the gospel empowers us to rise from our spiritual death.

You are the one saying that man has this natural ability to obey the gospel. That the gospel doesn't give him this ability.

You need to show me a verse that tells us that men are unable to respond in faith to the gospel. If you can't do that you have no foundation for such a concept.

Here's two for the price of one: Rom.8: 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Yes, the verse we are discussing clearly says that the unsaved mind is enmity against God. It not only cannot be subject to His law, it cannot regard Him with love.

Note then the following verse - the unsaved man cannot please God. But if an unsaved man can respond in faith and repentance, then that would please God. No, the truth is God must enable this man to turn. He must give him a new heart.

In Him

Ian

 

[npetreley]

Note then the following verse - the unsaved man cannot please God. But if an unsaved man can respond in faith and repentance, then that would please God. No, the truth is God must enable this man to turn. He must give him a new heart.

Isn't that patently obvious from Rom 8 and Hebrews 11? I just finished a book by AW Pink, and was delighted to see that he made exactly the same observation.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:

No speculation involved: it clearly says that the unsaved man's mind is at enmity with God. Not just with some or all of His commandments - with HIM. You fail to explain how such a heart can repent and believe.

If you were being objective you would admit that the ability is very much implied by the fact that all men are called to repentance and faith and then judged by their response to that calling.

You say the gospel enables repentance and faith. What you really mean, if you are consistent with your former posts, is that the gospel merely brings a command that man is already able to respond to. No power needed - the gospel is merely the means to salvation in your scheme.

What about my "former posts" is not consistant with the fact that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation? You can't respond to a call before you hear the call, can you? The call itself is what gives you the ability to respond to the calling. On top of that the gospel's calling is made by the Holy Spirit and therefore comes in power. That power doesn't have to be effectual to be truely powerful. To assume that it does is not consistant with the rest of scripture.

The burden is on you to prove that those God calls by the gospel are not able to respond to that calling.

My point is: Man's heart is not able of itself to repent and believe. It is bitterly opposed to God. Therefore something has to happen to that heart before it will turn to God.

Yes, something had to happen. Christ had to come and die, the Spirit had to come, the apostles had to be sent, the scriptures had to be written etc. The POWERFUL gospel was wrought by God and without the provisions of God we couldn't be able or willing to do anything because we wouldn't even be aware of those provisions. You can't respond to something you are ignorant of. Once it is made known to you then you can respond to it.

You are the one saying that man has this natural ability to obey the gospel. That the gospel doesn't give him this ability.

Says who? That is exaclty your problem. You make unfounded claims. You have proof that man cannot fully submit himself to the LAW, now where does it say men can't obey the gospel of grace through faith which was given in response to the fact that we couldn't obey the law?

Here's two for the price of one: Rom.8: 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Yes, the verse we are discussing clearly says that the unsaved mind is enmity against God. It not only cannot be subject to His law, it cannot regard Him with love.

Note then the following verse - the unsaved man cannot please God. But if an unsaved man can respond in faith and repentance, then that would please God. No, the truth is God must enable this man to turn. He must give him a new heart.

That is a stretch Ian. This verse could simply mean that as long as one continues in the flesh, avoiding faith, he cannot please God. The man remaining in the flesh cannot please God, but if he leaves the flesh to walk in faith he will please God.

If a father says to a rebellious son, "Living that lifestyle, you cannot please me." Does that indicate that he doesn't have the ability to change his lifestyle? Of course not. It indicates that as long as he continues in that lifestyle he will not be pleasing and therefore needs to change the lifestyle.

So too, when confronted with our sin and the truth of redemption we must decide to leave the flesh and walk in faith so that we can be pleasing to our father.

Come on Ian, you have to have stronger foundation for such a pivital doctrine than this one verse?

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
If you were being objective you would admit that the ability is very much implied by the fact that all men are called to repentance and faith and then judged by their response to that calling.

One could take that implication out of it. But the whole weight of explicit texts that teach the inability of sinful man to turn to God reveal otherwise. The 'sheep' texts of John's gospel, for example, have to be given a very unnatural sense if one wants to deny man's inability. The state of the natural mind as revealed in Rom.8:7 has to be ignored, and the focus kept on its opposition to the Law rather than its enmity to God Himself.

What about my "former posts" is not consistant with the fact that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation? You can't respond to a call before you hear the call, can you? The call itself is what gives you the ability to respond to the calling. On top of that the gospel's calling is made by the Holy Spirit and therefore comes in power. That power doesn't have to be effectual to be truely powerful. To assume that it does is not consistant with the rest of scripture.

In your sense of 'power', the gospel is no more powerful than any invitation. It entitles one to get into the party, but does not make one want to do so. But in the Calvinist understanding of power, when the gospel comes to the elect at the moment God has appointed to save them, it comes with POWER. The Holy Spirit speaks in it, giving a new heart. The new heart embraces the gospel and the sinner is justified.

This is the picture of His word we find in Scripture; Heb.4:12, For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.;
Jer.23:29, "Is not My word like a fire?" says the LORD, "And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? ;
Isaiah 55:11, So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

If a father says to a rebellious son, "Living that lifestyle, you cannot please me." Does that indicate that he doesn't have the ability to change his lifestyle? Of course not. It indicates that as long as he continues in that lifestyle he will not be pleasing and therefore needs to change the lifestyle.

Your analogy breaks down when we see it is not the lifestyle only that is at fault, but the heart of the person. We have to have the slave of sin's heart changed to the slave of righteousness' heart before we grieve over our sin, mourn over Him Whom we pierced, and repent and believe. Your system has the sinful, unregenerated heart able to do just that.

Come on Ian, you have to have stronger foundation for such a pivital doctrine than this one verse?

All the other texts I also gave support this one. You of course said they established only original sin, not Total Inability; or you said they applied to only a few people in the apostolic age. Not a lot more I can say to bring home the force of these texts and the force you have to use against them to fit them into your doctrine of natural ability. You would have the leopard changing its spots, but I think its just your specs need adjusting, my brother.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ray Berrian]

Ian Major,

You said, 'My point is: Man's heart is not able of itself to repent and believe. It is
bitterly opposed to God. Therefore something has to happen to that heart
before it will turn to God.'

Ray: 'While sinners are depraved they are not Totally Depraved as Calvinists insist. While we were all sinners, we also must factor into theology, that we are all made after the likeness of God. [James 3:9] Please, note the Lord's half-brother, James lived about 4,000 years after the Fall in the Garden and yet he says that we are created after the 'similitude' of the Lord our God.

The Lord God has feelings, emotions, volition, and Being. And because we are created after His likeness, we have all of the above and the facility with which to make a conscious decision to either believe in Jesus or to refuse His offered love.

We also agree with the Bible and God's Word that the Holy Spirit ministers to and on the life of the unsaved, until they are convinced as to who Jesus is and are also convicted of their sins and lost condition before Him. [John 16:8]

The Lord has free reign to do as He pleases throughout the entire world and universe and God has decreed that sinners will make their choice as to either turn from their sins or remain in them and bring to themselves the 'second death.' [Revelation 20:14]

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[Ian Major]

Ray Berrian said
The Lord God has feelings, emotions, volition, and Being. And because we are created after His likeness, we have all of the above and the facility with which to make a conscious decision to either believe in Jesus or to refuse His offered love.

Calvinists also believe in man being in the image of God. But we do not have the innocence we had in Eden. Our will is now contaminated by our evil heart. We are free to choose, but what we choose is going to be what we desire. Having evil hearts, we will always reject the gospel.

We also agree with the Bible and God's Word that the Holy Spirit ministers to and on the life of the unsaved, until they are convinced as to who Jesus is and are also convicted of their sins and lost condition before Him. [John 16:8]

We agree. Will that in itself make them repent and believe? No, multitudes have even trembled under conviction but have still turned away. A new heart must be given, as the New Covenant indictates.

The Lord has free reign to do as He pleases throughout the entire world and universe and God has decreed that sinners will make their choice as to either turn from their sins or remain in them and bring to themselves the 'second death.' [Revelation 20:14]

Again, we agree. All will make their choice. But what will cause some to choose Christ over the world? A new heart.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ray Berrian]

'Ray Berrian said: 'The Lord God has feelings, emotions, volition, and Being. And because
we are created after His likeness, we have all of the above and the
facility with which to make a conscious decision to either believe in
Jesus or to refuse His offered love.'

Ian said, 'Calvinists also believe in man being in the image of God. But we do not have
the innocence we had in Eden. Our will is now contaminated by our evil
heart. We are free to choose, but what we choose is going to be what we
desire. Having evil hearts, we will always reject the gospel.'

Ray is saying, 'We too agree that men and women as sinners are not as innocent as in Eden. Some sinners with evil hearts of the worst sort, have received Christ and have had that inner change that only Jesus can accomplish. Therefore, your last statement that starts saying, 'Having evil hearts . . . ' is not a true statement.'

We also agree with the Bible and God's Word that the Holy Spirit ministers to and on the life of the unsaved, until they are convinced as to who Jesus is and are also convicted of their sins and lost condition before Him. [John 16:8] Until this happens, God cannot give them a clean heart.

Ian said, 'We agree. Will that in itself make them repent and believe? No, multitudes
have even trembled under conviction but have still turned away.

Ray is saying: 'That is correct; some do reject Christ. This proves that Irresistible Grace is a serious error.' [John 5:40 & Acts 7:51]

Ian said, 'A new heart must be given, as the New Covenant indictates.'

Ray is saying, 'God will never give a new heart, as you phrase it, until the sinner opens the door of his heart to the Lord Jesus.' He is the Savior not a Divine Manipulator.'

Ray said before: 'The Lord has free reign to do as He pleases throughout the entire world and universe and God has decreed that sinners will make their choice as to either turn from their sins or remain in them and bring to themselves the 'second death.' [Revelation 20:14]

Ian said before, 'Again, we agree. All will make their choice. But what will cause some to choose Christ over the world? A new heart.'

Ray is saying, 'Your question is valid; but your answer is incorrect. A person has to hear the Gospel message of salvation and of his, or her own free will and accord, chose to receive Christ. God never overrides the sinner's will to bring about faith. Faith is always a sinners response to the Lord. [John 1:12, Hebrews 4:2, I Peter 1:7,9,21]

Yes, we have a depraved nature, through Original Sin, but we are also created after the likeness of the Lord God. [James 3:9]

Also, you will seldom to almost never see a Calvinist explaining John 1:9, because it smacks against their view of a mistaken, Total Depravity. If we were totally depraved not one sinner would have ever come to know the Lord in that inner and personal sense.

Jesus 'was/is the true Light, Who lighteth every person who comes into the world.'
Before Jesus birth He for the most part was not in human form under the Old Covenant; but with His coming through the incarnation He showed human, sinners what God is really like. Now when we read the Bible we are illumined as to Who and what God is in His relationship toward sinners and saints.

Dr. Everett F. Harrison, Th.D., Ph.D. says 'the noun "faith" does not occur in this Gospel of John, but the verb is almost a refrain. {John 20:31}' (The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Moody Press, p. 1073, the right column.

Ray is saying, 'Actually the word is 'believe' and not the same, exacting word, faith. It is theologically unethical to talk about depravity without including my references in the Book of James and St. John chapter one; to be fair theology must be studied thoroughly and understood with clear balance.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[Skandelon]

One could take that implication out of it. But the whole weight of explicit texts that teach the inability of sinful man to turn to God reveal otherwise.

Yes, but all those "explicit" texts are in reference to the temporarily hardened Jews and not necessarily to natural man.

The 'sheep' texts of John's gospel, for example, have to be given a very unnatural sense if one wants to deny man's inability.

Perfect example. There are two folds. The first flock is the Israelites that God has selected to take the message of the cross to the world, the second fold is those who believe throught their message. The people of Christ's day couldn't believe because they were Jews who were being hardened. They were not of the first fold of sheep chosen to come and learn from Christ.

The state of the natural mind as revealed in Rom.8:7 has to be ignored, and the focus kept on its opposition to the Law rather than its enmity to God Himself.

You can't seem to get the fact that the work of Christ on the cross and the gospel message was God's solution to that state of "enmity with God" and therefore to assume that men cannot respond to that solution simply because there are passages about their previous condition is nonsense!

In your sense of 'power', the gospel is no more powerful than any invitation. It entitles one to get into the party, but does not make one want to do so. But in the Calvinist understanding of power, when the gospel comes to the elect at the moment God has appointed to save them, it comes with POWER. The Holy Spirit speaks in it, giving a new heart. The new heart embraces the gospel and the sinner is justified.

Oh, I admit the gospel is more powerful in the Calvinistic system for those who are elect. Its so powerful infact that it is irresistable, I don't debate that point except to say its not ever expounded upon in the pages of scripture. Instead, we see that many are invited and many refuse that invitation and are judged because of that. There is nothing that indicates that they were unable to respond, but that they were unwilling and thus accoutable and without excuse. But to say that our doctrine makes the gospel no more powerful than any invitation is not fair and I think you know it. Something can be powerful with out being irresistable. It can supply all that one needs to be saved without forcing one to accept. That is still powerful in that it does what is needed, it does what God intended it to do, which IMO is to give men the opportunity to respond in faith.

I wrote: If a father says to a rebellious son, "Living that lifestyle, you cannot please me." Does that indicate that he doesn't have the ability to change his lifestyle? Of course not. It indicates that as long as he continues in that lifestyle he will not be pleasing and therefore needs to change the lifestyle.

Your analogy breaks down when we see it is not the lifestyle only that is at fault, but the heart of the person. We have to have the slave of sin's heart changed to the slave of righteousness' heart before we grieve over our sin, mourn over Him Whom we pierced, and repent and believe. Your system has the sinful, unregenerated heart able to do just that.

But you have to add all that commentary to the text yourself, with your own presuppositions. My point is that the text doesn't teach what you need it to teach to draw your conclusions. This passage doesn't say, "those who live in the flesh have a heart that must be changed by God before he can please God." It simply says, "Those who live in the flesh can't please God." Shoot, that could apply to you and I as believers when we slip up and begin living life in the flesh instead of walking in faith. I can't please God as long I'm living in the flesh. Face it Ian, this verse just doesn't say what you need it to say. Keep looking.

All the other texts I also gave support this one. You of course said they established only original sin, not Total Inability;,

Read back through them. That is all those verses did.

or you said they applied to only a few people in the apostolic age.

I merely pointed out the texts that refer to the temporarily hardened Jew. Don't you think its important when we are talking about the natural ability of men to note the fact that there was a large group of people during the time of Christ that had been sent a spirit of stupor so that they couldn't see, hear, understand and repent unto salvation? Don't you agree that is a significant piece of information? Especially in light of the fact that the scripture says in contrast to that truth that the Gentiles WILL LISTEN. (Acts 28:28) And that had the Jews not become hardened they MIGHT have seen, heard, understood and believed. That is a very important bit of context, don't you agree?

Seriouly Ian, even if you believe the hardening was merely a deepening of the natural depravity of men don't you at least agree that such contextual information is important to be aware of when discerning such things?

Not a lot more I can say to bring home the force of these texts and the force you have to use against them to fit them into your doctrine of natural ability. You would have the leopard changing its spots, but I think its just your specs need adjusting, my brother.

What is so ironic about this Ian is that you even admit that Isreal is being hardened yet you are the one who doesn't want to allow that to affect the context of the passages you bring up so you avoid such passages by saying that its just making the blind blinder and the dead and bit deader to set them apart from the Gentiles who btw are also just as dead and blind. It is amazing to me the extent you will go to avoid the obvious contradictions in your own system. My specs may be cloudy at times but at least I took off my blinders

Love ya man!