-
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!
2 peter 3:9
- Thread starter Rich_UK
- Start date
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
As a former Calvinist I realize that means are still very much apart of your doctrine, please don't mistake my questions as my being unaware of your beliefs. I ask to point out apparent contradictions in those beliefs with the scripture, which I have explained to you before.
The reason Hyper Calvinism does take hold of some Calvinists is because of these apparent contradictions (or paradoxes) within your system. Calvinists believe we must accept these things because they are biblically accuate, regardless of their apparent implications.
An immature believer or a lost soul who hears Calvinistic teaching will almost always ask the question, "So then what does it matter what we do or don't do if everything has been determined?" Scripture doesn't afford that question nor does it answer it for us, which is why I seriously doubt its teaching Calvinistic soteriology.
Then it seems that Calvinism is a moot point and should be ignored.
Sounds like a doctine that emphasizes men's responsiblity. Now that's a doctrine people can understand and will respond to. That sounds like a biblical doctrine.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
You know Me2, if I were a Calvinists I think I could just as easily be a Universalists or Unitiarian or whatever you call it. Why?
Calvinists believe God uses threats of "falling away" or "being cut off" as means of motivating the elect to perservere.
Calvinists, why not go ahead and just consider Hell another one of those "threats" that isn't really going to happen, like that of "falling away" or "being cut off?"
You all might as well be universalists since God uses empty threats anyway.
Calvinists believe God uses threats of "falling away" or "being cut off" as means of motivating the elect to perservere.
Calvinists, why not go ahead and just consider Hell another one of those "threats" that isn't really going to happen, like that of "falling away" or "being cut off?"
You all might as well be universalists since God uses empty threats anyway.
Skandelon,
are you overlooking the obvious here?.
the purpose of being called is to serve to fulfill a function.
wether the results be positive or negative will follow the individual who is called for an eternity.
the actions of the called in this world will be witnessed by every creature in heaven and hell until the evidence of the action no longer serves to bring God Glory.
Pro 3:35 The wise shall inherit glory: but shame shall be the promotion of fools.
Phi 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, [that they are] the enemies of the cross of Christ:
Phi 3:19 Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
men are called to witnesses to the mercy of God towards his creation, or professors of the lack of mercy of God towards his creation.
one or the other.
do you believe Jesus Died for all sins of all men or not?
this is the question of the New Testament and the resulting conclusion of wether one has, or has not the doctrine of Christ. if Jesus died for all sin.
then logic tells us that death is or will be abolished towards every man. if he didnt die for all sin, then death still has eternal power over mankind. and Jesus can not be declared Lord. Is Gods telling us a lie?.
Phi 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Phi 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
Phi 2:11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
these are absolute statements Skandelon. truth spoken in a state of timelessness.
someday this will be realized by every man woman and child created by God the father. some believe today through faith, while all others will follow in witnessing to this truth. its enevitable.
again back to 2 peter 3:9
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
reality seen here is that "not perishing" and "coming to repentence" (changing mind) fits with receiving the witness of truth that death has been abolished and Jesus declared Lord.
this statement is a reminder to finite man to remember the absolute statements of God the Father that Jesus has been declared Lord...not will be.
the resultant actions of mankind will follow to discover these truths.
there is a battle between good and evil coming and you and I will be participating combatants.
someone will lose and be remembered by every creature in creation that they represented the losing opinion.
Me2
are you overlooking the obvious here?.
the purpose of being called is to serve to fulfill a function.
wether the results be positive or negative will follow the individual who is called for an eternity.
the actions of the called in this world will be witnessed by every creature in heaven and hell until the evidence of the action no longer serves to bring God Glory.
Pro 3:35 The wise shall inherit glory: but shame shall be the promotion of fools.
Phi 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, [that they are] the enemies of the cross of Christ:
Phi 3:19 Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
men are called to witnesses to the mercy of God towards his creation, or professors of the lack of mercy of God towards his creation.
one or the other.
do you believe Jesus Died for all sins of all men or not?
this is the question of the New Testament and the resulting conclusion of wether one has, or has not the doctrine of Christ. if Jesus died for all sin.
then logic tells us that death is or will be abolished towards every man. if he didnt die for all sin, then death still has eternal power over mankind. and Jesus can not be declared Lord. Is Gods telling us a lie?.
Phi 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Phi 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
Phi 2:11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
these are absolute statements Skandelon. truth spoken in a state of timelessness.
someday this will be realized by every man woman and child created by God the father. some believe today through faith, while all others will follow in witnessing to this truth. its enevitable.
again back to 2 peter 3:9
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
reality seen here is that "not perishing" and "coming to repentence" (changing mind) fits with receiving the witness of truth that death has been abolished and Jesus declared Lord.
this statement is a reminder to finite man to remember the absolute statements of God the Father that Jesus has been declared Lord...not will be.
the resultant actions of mankind will follow to discover these truths.
I have a stinkin feelin you nor anyone else doesnt take Gods words as empty threats.
there is a battle between good and evil coming and you and I will be participating combatants.
someone will lose and be remembered by every creature in creation that they represented the losing opinion.
Me2
I
ILUVLIGHT
Guest
Hi Me 2;
A quote from you;
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Mans logic is the attempt to explain what God is saying. It never reveals what God actually said.
Yes Christ died for the sins of the world, but if we have no faith that he died for our sins, we won't be saved. The gospel message is much more than just one sentence. We must take it as a whole or it's meaningless. The words "through faith" in Eph 2:8 makes Salvation conditional upon faith. Yes the whole world can be saved and is God's will. But that condition is necessary to seperate those who will surrender and those who won't.
May God bless you;
Mike
A quote from you;
With out faith no one can be saved by grace.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Mans logic is the attempt to explain what God is saying. It never reveals what God actually said.
Yes Christ died for the sins of the world, but if we have no faith that he died for our sins, we won't be saved. The gospel message is much more than just one sentence. We must take it as a whole or it's meaningless. The words "through faith" in Eph 2:8 makes Salvation conditional upon faith. Yes the whole world can be saved and is God's will. But that condition is necessary to seperate those who will surrender and those who won't.
May God bless you;
Mike
Iluvlight,
does mankind have to lean on this faith to receive grace?.
no he doesnt.
for it is God who chooses who will be given this free gift. and when man possesses this faith via this spirit. it operates by the understanding of the nature of the spirit it is contained within.
what arminians dont accept is that God gives the spirit.... and then the understanding comes forth with comprehension by faith.
Me2
the faith has already been supplied. it is the selfsame faith that operated within the man jesus christ as he relied upon his father not to forsake him in death.
does mankind have to lean on this faith to receive grace?.
no he doesnt.
for it is God who chooses who will be given this free gift. and when man possesses this faith via this spirit. it operates by the understanding of the nature of the spirit it is contained within.
what arminians dont accept is that God gives the spirit.... and then the understanding comes forth with comprehension by faith.
Me2
Me2 said
or am I wrong in understanding the doctrine of Christ here? did He die for all men, or not? did he abolish death, or not? did he put all enemies of mankind under his feet? (meaning ..sin,death,hell)
I won't waste my time in debating Universalism with you any further, Me2, for you just dismiss all the contrary Scripture as 'riddles'. No one can reason from Scripture when one admits of that.
However, maybe our Arminian/free-will friends will try to give an answer to your 'all' texts - you certainly have such brethren in a bind I believe. Calvinists have no problem in restricting such texts to the elect, but Arminians?? I'm looking forward to that!
By His Grace
Ian
or am I wrong in understanding the doctrine of Christ here? did He die for all men, or not? did he abolish death, or not? did he put all enemies of mankind under his feet? (meaning ..sin,death,hell)
I won't waste my time in debating Universalism with you any further, Me2, for you just dismiss all the contrary Scripture as 'riddles'. No one can reason from Scripture when one admits of that.
However, maybe our Arminian/free-will friends will try to give an answer to your 'all' texts - you certainly have such brethren in a bind I believe. Calvinists have no problem in restricting such texts to the elect, but Arminians?? I'm looking forward to that!
By His Grace
Ian
Skandelon said
An immature believer or a lost soul who hears Calvinistic teaching will almost always ask the question, "So then what does it matter what we do or don't do if everything has been determined?" Scripture doesn't afford that question nor does it answer it for us, which is why I seriously doubt its teaching Calvinistic soteriology.
The folly of such a question is evident: a continuing refusal to obey the gospel brings eternal destruction. The foolish one may object, 'That must be the predestined outcome'. To which the reply is, 'Yes, but only for those who do so. For all who repent, eternal life is the predestined outcome.'
It must be affirmed again, it is not the sinner's business as to whether he is elect or not. His business is to obey God by accepting the gospel.
You said that would make Calvinism a moot point. It is a moot point for the sinner - or rather, not the critical point. The blessed truths of Calvinism should be precious to everyone, but the sinner has one great truth to deal with, God's call to repentance and faith. Without obeying that, every doctrine is useless to him. But once he obeys the gospel, the truths of God's sovereignty will bring great comfort and courage to him.
Sounds like a doctine that emphasizes men's responsiblity. Now that's a doctrine people can understand and will respond to. That sounds like a biblical doctrine.
Calvinism affirms both God's sovereignty and human responsibility. Both are true. I like the simple explanation Sam Doherty gives to those who teach children, 'The truth of predestination does not contradict the truth of man's responsibility - although it may seem to. The Bible teaches both truths: God chooses those who will be saved, and everyone who goes to Heaven will be there ONLY BECAUSE GOD HAS BROUGHT THEM THERE. Man is responsible to trust Jesus Christ, and everyone who goes to Hell is there ONLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BROUGHT THEMSELVES THERE. Don't try to reconcile these two truths. Our minds are too small and puny to do so. Just believe them both - because the Bible teaches them both. God is sovereign; and man is responsible!' Truths for Teachers, p.117.Child Evangelism Fellowship Inc.- Specialized Book Ministry, Lisburn, 2004.
In Him
Ian
An immature believer or a lost soul who hears Calvinistic teaching will almost always ask the question, "So then what does it matter what we do or don't do if everything has been determined?" Scripture doesn't afford that question nor does it answer it for us, which is why I seriously doubt its teaching Calvinistic soteriology.
The folly of such a question is evident: a continuing refusal to obey the gospel brings eternal destruction. The foolish one may object, 'That must be the predestined outcome'. To which the reply is, 'Yes, but only for those who do so. For all who repent, eternal life is the predestined outcome.'
It must be affirmed again, it is not the sinner's business as to whether he is elect or not. His business is to obey God by accepting the gospel.
You said that would make Calvinism a moot point. It is a moot point for the sinner - or rather, not the critical point. The blessed truths of Calvinism should be precious to everyone, but the sinner has one great truth to deal with, God's call to repentance and faith. Without obeying that, every doctrine is useless to him. But once he obeys the gospel, the truths of God's sovereignty will bring great comfort and courage to him.
Sounds like a doctine that emphasizes men's responsiblity. Now that's a doctrine people can understand and will respond to. That sounds like a biblical doctrine.
Calvinism affirms both God's sovereignty and human responsibility. Both are true. I like the simple explanation Sam Doherty gives to those who teach children, 'The truth of predestination does not contradict the truth of man's responsibility - although it may seem to. The Bible teaches both truths: God chooses those who will be saved, and everyone who goes to Heaven will be there ONLY BECAUSE GOD HAS BROUGHT THEM THERE. Man is responsible to trust Jesus Christ, and everyone who goes to Hell is there ONLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BROUGHT THEMSELVES THERE. Don't try to reconcile these two truths. Our minds are too small and puny to do so. Just believe them both - because the Bible teaches them both. God is sovereign; and man is responsible!' Truths for Teachers, p.117.Child Evangelism Fellowship Inc.- Specialized Book Ministry, Lisburn, 2004.
In Him
Ian
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Ian,
You gave a Calvinistic explaination for that common question--that almost any lost soul or even immature believer might ask when confronted by Calvinism, but that wasn't my point. My point was that scripture never gives such an answer and since it is such a common objection it certainly seems its one the apostles would have heard quite often. Certainly Calvinistic apostles would have answered such a common objection. Which is why I wrote, "Scripture doesn't afford that question nor does it answer it for us, which is why I seriously doubt its teaching Calvinistic soteriology. "
And the fact that your system's beliefs "seem" to "contradict" each other without any biblical explaination for that apparent contradiction again gives me great doubt that Calvinism was the system of the biblical authors.
Arminianism has no such contradiction. We can affirm both truths that man is responsible and God is sovereign. Its only when you remove men's capasity to respond that you create the contradiction.
You gave a Calvinistic explaination for that common question--that almost any lost soul or even immature believer might ask when confronted by Calvinism, but that wasn't my point. My point was that scripture never gives such an answer and since it is such a common objection it certainly seems its one the apostles would have heard quite often. Certainly Calvinistic apostles would have answered such a common objection. Which is why I wrote, "Scripture doesn't afford that question nor does it answer it for us, which is why I seriously doubt its teaching Calvinistic soteriology. "
And the fact that your system's beliefs "seem" to "contradict" each other without any biblical explaination for that apparent contradiction again gives me great doubt that Calvinism was the system of the biblical authors.
Arminianism has no such contradiction. We can affirm both truths that man is responsible and God is sovereign. Its only when you remove men's capasity to respond that you create the contradiction.
Skandelon said
You gave a Calvinistic explaination for that common question--that almost any lost soul or even immature believer might ask when confronted by Calvinism, but that wasn't my point. My point was that scripture never gives such an answer and since it is such a common objection it certainly seems its one the apostles would have heard quite often. Certainly Calvinistic apostles would have answered such a common objection. Which is why I wrote, "Scripture doesn't afford that question nor does it answer it for us, which is why I seriously doubt its teaching Calvinistic soteriology. "
Firstly, the apostles did not answer, in the Scriptures, lots of errors they encountered. Secondly, the answer to this particular error you ask about is so obvious that it hardly needs stating: God has ordained the means as well as the ends.
The MEANS: Repentance and faith lead to justification, and then a life of sanctification, terminating in the ENDS: glorification. Again and again the apostles tell us God has called us to be holy; predestined us to be conformed to the image of His Son. Again and again we are told that the true child of God does not practice sin, that everyone who loves God departs from sin. The fool who objects to that deserves no answer.
However, such folly is mentioned in Scripture, Rom. 9: 19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? being a good example. Another is found in Rom.6: 1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?
And the fact that your system's beliefs "seem" to "contradict" each other without any biblical explaination for that apparent contradiction again gives me great doubt that Calvinism was the system of the biblical authors.
Same can be said for God's sovereignty in the book of Job. No explanation of how God's love for Job and His treatment of Job are squared: the truth of God's perfect righteousness is just assumed. God doesn't even explain His actions to Job, never mind us. Doesn't make me doubt the truth of His omniscience, or sovereign providence. Or should we become Open Theists, seening there is no ' biblical explaination for that apparent contradiction '?
Arminianism has no such contradiction. We can affirm both truths that man is responsible and God is sovereign. Its only when you remove men's capasity to respond that you create the contradiction.
Oh, but you do deny that God is sovereign. You permit Him to be sovereign only so far, then man's free-will has an absolute veto concerning his salvation. That is Arminianism's way to avoid the 'apparent contradiction'.
Calvinism DOES NOT ' remove men's capasity to respond'. Man freely responds according to his heart's desire. Calvinism shows that all men can only do what their evil heart's will, and for a man to be saved he must first get a new heart. This God gives to each one of His elect.
In Him
Ian
You gave a Calvinistic explaination for that common question--that almost any lost soul or even immature believer might ask when confronted by Calvinism, but that wasn't my point. My point was that scripture never gives such an answer and since it is such a common objection it certainly seems its one the apostles would have heard quite often. Certainly Calvinistic apostles would have answered such a common objection. Which is why I wrote, "Scripture doesn't afford that question nor does it answer it for us, which is why I seriously doubt its teaching Calvinistic soteriology. "
Firstly, the apostles did not answer, in the Scriptures, lots of errors they encountered. Secondly, the answer to this particular error you ask about is so obvious that it hardly needs stating: God has ordained the means as well as the ends.
The MEANS: Repentance and faith lead to justification, and then a life of sanctification, terminating in the ENDS: glorification. Again and again the apostles tell us God has called us to be holy; predestined us to be conformed to the image of His Son. Again and again we are told that the true child of God does not practice sin, that everyone who loves God departs from sin. The fool who objects to that deserves no answer.
However, such folly is mentioned in Scripture, Rom. 9: 19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? being a good example. Another is found in Rom.6: 1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?
And the fact that your system's beliefs "seem" to "contradict" each other without any biblical explaination for that apparent contradiction again gives me great doubt that Calvinism was the system of the biblical authors.
Same can be said for God's sovereignty in the book of Job. No explanation of how God's love for Job and His treatment of Job are squared: the truth of God's perfect righteousness is just assumed. God doesn't even explain His actions to Job, never mind us. Doesn't make me doubt the truth of His omniscience, or sovereign providence. Or should we become Open Theists, seening there is no ' biblical explaination for that apparent contradiction '?
Arminianism has no such contradiction. We can affirm both truths that man is responsible and God is sovereign. Its only when you remove men's capasity to respond that you create the contradiction.
Oh, but you do deny that God is sovereign. You permit Him to be sovereign only so far, then man's free-will has an absolute veto concerning his salvation. That is Arminianism's way to avoid the 'apparent contradiction'.
Calvinism DOES NOT ' remove men's capasity to respond'. Man freely responds according to his heart's desire. Calvinism shows that all men can only do what their evil heart's will, and for a man to be saved he must first get a new heart. This God gives to each one of His elect.
In Him
Ian
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Oh, really? Even Sproul and other great Calvinistic minds admit to struggling with the question of determinism and there have been hundreds of Calvinists throughout history who have fallen into the heresy of Hyperism...I guess it's "so OBVIOUS" that all these people just missed it.
Please don't misunderstand me. I do believe true Calvinism answers this objection. Your system deals with Hyperism, but my point is that scripture never does which leads me to believe that its not the doctrine of the apostles. Why? Because that is the most natural and very first reaction to this doctrine, yet its not dealt with in the text.
I never objected to any of this. I objected to this in light of the teaching that God judges men by his word yet hasn't enabled most people to respond to that word.
Ahhh! But Paul is not speaking about the objection I have raised here. He is addressing the objecting Jew who has heard from Paul that God has chosen to show mercy to dirty Gentiles and Harden "God's chosen people" the Jews. That is the objection of their day, not the one we are dealing with presently.
Honestly, I don't know why you pointed out this one. It has nothing to do with our objection. We all agree that we should'nt continue to sin so grace will abound.
What? The whole point of the book of Job is written to show these truths about God. God is sovereign. He gives and takes away, blessed be His name. The point of the book is to show that his love shouldn't be measured by His treatment, so indeed it is addressed.
Its only a contradiction if you think that his plan is to save every single person. Its not about what God COULD do, its about what he plans to do. He plans to save those who choose to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Man only has power to do what God has granted him power to do. I believe it is clear by the intent and understanding of scripture that he enables and expects men to believe his word, therefore they are responsible. There is no contradiction in our system, only in yours.
Semantics. Man, within you system, is not free to respond to the word by which they are judged and that is the problem with your system. If you want me to say it this way I can..."They are not able to be willing." Same difference.
Skandelon said
Oh, really? Even Sproul and other great Calvinistic minds admit to struggling with the question of determinism and there have been hundreds of Calvinists throughout history who have fallen into the heresy of Hyperism...I guess it's "so OBVIOUS" that all these people just missed it.
'The question of determinism' sounds rather more than the simple question you put in the mouth of ignorant objector, ' "So then what does it matter what we do or don't do if everything has been determined?" ' I doubt Sproul or any great Calvinist are bothered with that. Yes, there are hypers who minimize means, but they relying on their 'logic' just like the Arminians in the other ditch.
I never objected to any of this. I objected to this in light of the teaching that God judges men by his word yet hasn't enabled most people to respond to that word.
He is not obliged to, for they are wicked, not innocents or even neutrals.
Ahhh! But Paul is not speaking about the objection I have raised here. He is addressing the objecting Jew who has heard from Paul that God has chosen to show mercy to dirty Gentiles and Harden "God's chosen people" the Jews. That is the objection of their day, not the one we are dealing with presently.
And I deny that. Paul is addressing the whole principle of God's sovereignty. Esau was not a Jew; neither was Pharaoh.
Honestly, I don't know why you pointed out this one. It has nothing to do with our objection. We all agree that we should'nt continue to sin so grace will abound.
Shows the mind-set of ignoring means.
What? The whole point of the book of Job is written to show these truths about God. God is sovereign. He gives and takes away, blessed be His name. The point of the book is to show that his love shouldn't be measured by His treatment, so indeed it is addressed.
The book of Job doesn't attempt to reconcile God's sovereignty and His love of Job. It just states it. Like with Calvinism's view of God's sovereignty and His justice regarding man's repsonsibility.
Its only a contradiction if you think that his plan is to save every single person. Its not about what God COULD do, its about what he plans to do. He plans to save those who choose to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Man only has power to do what God has granted him power to do. I believe it is clear by the intent and understanding of scripture that he enables and expects men to believe his word, therefore they are responsible. There is no contradiction in our system, only in yours.
Your bottom line is that God sovereignly chose to make Himself non-sovereign, dependent on the will of man. That is a pretty poor 'sovereignty'.
Men are responsible for their sin, else they are not sinners. Unbelief is a chief sin. Your logic would have them sinners only after they finally reject the gospel.
Semantics. Man, within you system, is not free to respond to the word by which they are judged and that is the problem with your system. If you want me to say it this way I can..."They are not able to be willing." Same difference.
Of course man is free to respond - millions of them freely reject the gospel daily, doing just what their hearts desire. As to 'Not able to be willing', yes, that is true. But whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that man has a sinful heart? That he was born in sin and shapen in iniquity? God's? Or do we share in the guilt of Adam?
In Him
Ian
Oh, really? Even Sproul and other great Calvinistic minds admit to struggling with the question of determinism and there have been hundreds of Calvinists throughout history who have fallen into the heresy of Hyperism...I guess it's "so OBVIOUS" that all these people just missed it.
'The question of determinism' sounds rather more than the simple question you put in the mouth of ignorant objector, ' "So then what does it matter what we do or don't do if everything has been determined?" ' I doubt Sproul or any great Calvinist are bothered with that. Yes, there are hypers who minimize means, but they relying on their 'logic' just like the Arminians in the other ditch.
I never objected to any of this. I objected to this in light of the teaching that God judges men by his word yet hasn't enabled most people to respond to that word.
He is not obliged to, for they are wicked, not innocents or even neutrals.
Ahhh! But Paul is not speaking about the objection I have raised here. He is addressing the objecting Jew who has heard from Paul that God has chosen to show mercy to dirty Gentiles and Harden "God's chosen people" the Jews. That is the objection of their day, not the one we are dealing with presently.
And I deny that. Paul is addressing the whole principle of God's sovereignty. Esau was not a Jew; neither was Pharaoh.
Honestly, I don't know why you pointed out this one. It has nothing to do with our objection. We all agree that we should'nt continue to sin so grace will abound.
Shows the mind-set of ignoring means.
What? The whole point of the book of Job is written to show these truths about God. God is sovereign. He gives and takes away, blessed be His name. The point of the book is to show that his love shouldn't be measured by His treatment, so indeed it is addressed.
The book of Job doesn't attempt to reconcile God's sovereignty and His love of Job. It just states it. Like with Calvinism's view of God's sovereignty and His justice regarding man's repsonsibility.
Its only a contradiction if you think that his plan is to save every single person. Its not about what God COULD do, its about what he plans to do. He plans to save those who choose to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Man only has power to do what God has granted him power to do. I believe it is clear by the intent and understanding of scripture that he enables and expects men to believe his word, therefore they are responsible. There is no contradiction in our system, only in yours.
Your bottom line is that God sovereignly chose to make Himself non-sovereign, dependent on the will of man. That is a pretty poor 'sovereignty'.
Men are responsible for their sin, else they are not sinners. Unbelief is a chief sin. Your logic would have them sinners only after they finally reject the gospel.
Semantics. Man, within you system, is not free to respond to the word by which they are judged and that is the problem with your system. If you want me to say it this way I can..."They are not able to be willing." Same difference.
Of course man is free to respond - millions of them freely reject the gospel daily, doing just what their hearts desire. As to 'Not able to be willing', yes, that is true. But whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that man has a sinful heart? That he was born in sin and shapen in iniquity? God's? Or do we share in the guilt of Adam?
In Him
Ian
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Esau was not a Jew? Are you sure?
Calvinists often confuse them. Romans 3:10 is a perfect example as it describes men's natural state before God's solution. Calvinists use it as a proof text to show that men can't respond in faith to God's solution to their problem.
Imagine if a group of people were born in a prison, for whatever reason. A good man decided to provide them a means of escape from that prison. In a letter he descibes the condition of the imprisoned people saying, "They are unable to escape on their own." Then he built them an escape route and they had to follow the instructions on a map he provided. Some followed the instructions and escaped, others refused because the costs seem to great. After the escapees got out they read the map and letter of the good man who provided their means of escape and there was a group of people who came to this conclusion:
The people who are in the prison can't escape because the good man wrote, "They are unable to escape on their own." They contend that because the good man taught that they couldn't escape before his solution was made available that somehow they were still unable to escape even after his escape was available. They use descriptions of the imprisoned men's former condition to prove their current condition is the same without regard to the change created by the good man's actions.
They can show that men were unable to escape before the escape was built and the map was provided, but they can't show that that men are unable to escape inspite of these provisions and revelations. So it is with Calvinists.
Oh, so God's decision to give man free will would be compromising to his sovereignity? Didn't Adam have free will? Did God forfeit his sovereignty then?
No, the scripture is clear that men are held responsible for their response to the word, not merely their being born in sin as you seem to presume. We all agree that men are born guilty and deserving of death and hell. But the fact that God offers salvation through his word and judges men by that word shows their culpability. Your system ignores that.
This is semantical games. Free to respond means able to say yes or no, not just no. Can men say yes? Not in your system. That is not free, period.
Again, you are confusing the issues. I agree that we are guilty of sin from birth because of "Original Sin." Where I disagree is that this guilt somehow prevents men from responding to God's word which provides the solution to that Original Sin. Proving that we are born guilty because of one man's sin does not prove that we are unable to be willing to obey God's solution to that problem. They are two seperate issues.
Calvinists often confuse them. Romans 3:10 is a perfect example as it describes men's natural state before God's solution. Calvinists use it as a proof text to show that men can't respond in faith to God's solution to their problem.
Imagine if a group of people were born in a prison, for whatever reason. A good man decided to provide them a means of escape from that prison. In a letter he descibes the condition of the imprisoned people saying, "They are unable to escape on their own." Then he built them an escape route and they had to follow the instructions on a map he provided. Some followed the instructions and escaped, others refused because the costs seem to great. After the escapees got out they read the map and letter of the good man who provided their means of escape and there was a group of people who came to this conclusion:
The people who are in the prison can't escape because the good man wrote, "They are unable to escape on their own." They contend that because the good man taught that they couldn't escape before his solution was made available that somehow they were still unable to escape even after his escape was available. They use descriptions of the imprisoned men's former condition to prove their current condition is the same without regard to the change created by the good man's actions.
They can show that men were unable to escape before the escape was built and the map was provided, but they can't show that that men are unable to escape inspite of these provisions and revelations. So it is with Calvinists.
Skandelon said
Esau was not a Jew? Are you sure?
Are you kidding? 'Jew' derived from the name of main tribe of Israel, Judah, and became synonymous with 'Israel' and 'Jacob'. Esau became father of the Edomites. Perhaps you were thinking of Esau and Jacob's common ethnicity as Semites (from Shem)?
Oh, so God's decision to give man free will would be compromising to his sovereignity? Didn't Adam have free will? Did God forfeit his sovereignty then?
No, Adam's free-will did not compromise God's sovereignty. Sovereignty is compromised where the final outcome is let up to others. If I say to someone that they can decide what they want initially, but everything they do will bring them to my predetermined ends, I think it would be obvious who is the master. Free-willism, however, has man vetoing God from beginning to end. God may decide He wants to save men, but He is powerless to make that sure. Instead of a great multitude being saved, it could just as easily been no-one saved. All down to man's choice, never mind what God desired. That's the naked truth about Arminianism.
No, the scripture is clear that men are held responsible for their response to the word, not merely their being born in sin as you seem to presume. We all agree that men are born guilty and deserving of death and hell. But the fact that God offers salvation through his word and judges men by that word shows their culpability. Your system ignores that.
Wrong. Calvinism holds man responsible BOTH for his other sins and for his sin of rejecting the gospel.
This is semantical games. Free to respond means able to say yes or no, not just no. Can men say yes? Not in your system. That is not free, period.
If I spend my rent money on alcohol, and therefore am UNABLE to pay my debt, does that make me not responsible? Likewise with the debt one owes to repent and believe the gospel. Adam squandered that, and the lost sinner fully agrees with his decision. Not responsible?
The sinner is free to do whatever his heart desires. But his heart only desires to reject God, unless God comes and gives him a new heart. He does so for everyone of His elect.
The people who are in the prison can't escape because the good man wrote, "They are unable to escape on their own." They contend that because the good man taught that they couldn't escape before his solution was made available that somehow they were still unable to escape even after his escape was available. They use descriptions of the imprisoned men's former condition to prove their current condition is the same without regard to the change created by the good man's actions.
But the scripture picture is more than that; it is of prisoners who do not want to leave their prison. They may not like some of the conditions, but they certainly prefer them to the rule of 'this Man'. That is why most folk reject the gospel. The reason some do accept the offer of freedom, is that they love the One who has sent them this message and fully trust him to free them and keep them safe.
The difference between free-willism and Calvinism is that we say man needs to have a new heart to so love the Lord and accept His call. You say man's present heart is enough to get him out of prison and then he will get a new heart. I don't find that in the Scripture.
In Him
Ian
Esau was not a Jew? Are you sure?
Are you kidding? 'Jew' derived from the name of main tribe of Israel, Judah, and became synonymous with 'Israel' and 'Jacob'. Esau became father of the Edomites. Perhaps you were thinking of Esau and Jacob's common ethnicity as Semites (from Shem)?
Oh, so God's decision to give man free will would be compromising to his sovereignity? Didn't Adam have free will? Did God forfeit his sovereignty then?
No, Adam's free-will did not compromise God's sovereignty. Sovereignty is compromised where the final outcome is let up to others. If I say to someone that they can decide what they want initially, but everything they do will bring them to my predetermined ends, I think it would be obvious who is the master. Free-willism, however, has man vetoing God from beginning to end. God may decide He wants to save men, but He is powerless to make that sure. Instead of a great multitude being saved, it could just as easily been no-one saved. All down to man's choice, never mind what God desired. That's the naked truth about Arminianism.
No, the scripture is clear that men are held responsible for their response to the word, not merely their being born in sin as you seem to presume. We all agree that men are born guilty and deserving of death and hell. But the fact that God offers salvation through his word and judges men by that word shows their culpability. Your system ignores that.
Wrong. Calvinism holds man responsible BOTH for his other sins and for his sin of rejecting the gospel.
This is semantical games. Free to respond means able to say yes or no, not just no. Can men say yes? Not in your system. That is not free, period.
If I spend my rent money on alcohol, and therefore am UNABLE to pay my debt, does that make me not responsible? Likewise with the debt one owes to repent and believe the gospel. Adam squandered that, and the lost sinner fully agrees with his decision. Not responsible?
The sinner is free to do whatever his heart desires. But his heart only desires to reject God, unless God comes and gives him a new heart. He does so for everyone of His elect.
The people who are in the prison can't escape because the good man wrote, "They are unable to escape on their own." They contend that because the good man taught that they couldn't escape before his solution was made available that somehow they were still unable to escape even after his escape was available. They use descriptions of the imprisoned men's former condition to prove their current condition is the same without regard to the change created by the good man's actions.
But the scripture picture is more than that; it is of prisoners who do not want to leave their prison. They may not like some of the conditions, but they certainly prefer them to the rule of 'this Man'. That is why most folk reject the gospel. The reason some do accept the offer of freedom, is that they love the One who has sent them this message and fully trust him to free them and keep them safe.
The difference between free-willism and Calvinism is that we say man needs to have a new heart to so love the Lord and accept His call. You say man's present heart is enough to get him out of prison and then he will get a new heart. I don't find that in the Scripture.
In Him
Ian
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
They were twins for goodness sake. The fact that they had the same father was the point Paul was making. Just being a Jew by seed didn't make you elect for a noble purpose. That's Paul's point.
But you have the scripture to contend with because throughout the scripture you have mankind going against God's desires. That is what sin is afterall. Your defination of sovereignity goes beyond scriptures defination. One can still be "in control" and still allow others to make free choices. You may think that is impossible but you are wrong. Anything is possible with God.
Exactly my point. Holding someone responsible implies they are actually response able. The bible teaches us that we are guilty due to the fall of Adam which is our problem, but you can't seem to show me that men are unable to respond to God's solution to that problem. Ian, tell me why would anyone just assume that men were unable to respond to God's powerful call in the gospel message? There must be some very convincing passage of scripture to convince you that we cannot respond to God's powerful solution.
Wrong. Bad analogy. Why? Because God is not offering salvation to guiltless men, he is offering it to fallen men. Your analogy has Adam squandering God's solution to man's problem when Adam is the one who gave us the problem. A better analogy for your system would be this:
A man spent all his money on alchol and wasn't able to pay his rent, so the landlord gave him another option, a solution to his problem, but the man was unable to respond to that solution because the landlord didn't speak his language. So, the landlord kicked him out-- Not merely because he hadn't paid the rent but also because he didn't respond to the solution.
Why are some Christian better Christians than others. Is the heart God's gives some of them better than the heart he gives others? What is the purpose of rewards in this system?
I think you read too much into scriptures teaching about a "new heart." The heart, or bowels in the 1st century, was the seat of the emotion, the will of a man. The heart can be renewed by exernal things. Envy can chnange the heart of a man. So can anger and joy. So can knowledge. So can signs and wonders. The gospel brings truth and has the power to change a heart. It is with man's heart that he believes. If that heart has grown calloused or hardened by continued rebellion and life in the world it is going to be much more difficult to have a change of heart. But the change is not some inward, secret irresisiable thing that scritpure never addresses. The change comes by the means God has appointed in his word. The gospel, prayer, circumstances, envy, love, and the like. Nothing is mentioned of God changing hearts apart from the means he has revealed clearly in his word.
Skandelon said
They were twins for goodness sake. The fact that they had the same father was the point Paul was making. Just being a Jew by seed didn't make you elect for a noble purpose. That's Paul's point.
Yes, Paul was making the point that they were of the same father. But that did not make Esau a Jew. Jews only descended from Jacob. Which makes my original point - Paul is discussing God's sovereignty with regard to all mankind, not just the Jews.
But you have the scripture to contend with because throughout the scripture you have mankind going against God's desires. That is what sin is afterall. Your defination of sovereignity goes beyond scriptures defination. One can still be "in control" and still allow others to make free choices. You may think that is impossible but you are wrong. Anything is possible with God.
No problem with people going against God's desires. It's a matter of whether He allows them the final say. The outcome is the determining factor for sovereignty. If God gives man a veto on being saved, then the outcome is not in His control. Heaven could end up empty just as easily as being filled with 'a multitude no man could number'.
Exactly my point. Holding someone responsible implies they are actually response able.
Not at all. It merely means they are accountable. If their sin has make them unable to do otherwise, they are still accountable.
The bible teaches us that we are guilty due to the fall of Adam which is our problem, but you can't seem to show me that men are unable to respond to God's solution to that problem. Ian, tell me why would anyone just assume that men were unable to respond to God's powerful call in the gospel message? There must be some very convincing passage of scripture to convince you that we cannot respond to God's powerful solution.
Yes, for a start, all the texts of John's gospel that speak of man's inability to come to Christ without that being granted them by the Father. To avoid that, you have asserted in other threads that this only applied to certain Jews of Christ's time.
Some more examples:
1 Cor.12:3... no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
Compare 1 Cor. 1: 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. with 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. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. 6For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. It requires God to shine in our hearts - and when He does so, we are saved. The message is no longer foolishness to us, but the wisdom of God.
1 Cor.2: 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Jer.13: 23Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil. [/I Can a wicked man repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Only if God enables him.
That is the difference between us, I think. you say God enables every man by the gospel. I say He enables only the elect by the gospel.
You have to explain why the vast multitude reject Him, if so enabled. If they have been set free from the power of Satan and sin, so that they are able to choose either way, why do most reject Christ?
Calvinism has no problem here: most reject Christ because they are still captive to Satan and sin. Their hearts are wicked. The elect accept Christ because He has set them free, has given them a new heart, a heart that gladly accepts Christ.
A man spent all his money on alchol and wasn't able to pay his rent, so the landlord gave him another option, a solution to his problem, but the man was unable to respond to that solution because the landlord didn't speak his language. So, the landlord kicked him out-- Not merely because he hadn't paid the rent but also because he didn't respond to the solution.
Your analogy doesn't make sense. Adam DID spend our rent money. When God requires it of us, providing a full pardon if we repent our debts/sins, we refuse. Why? Because we agree with Adam's choice, that's why. Are we then not responsible? Of course we are. The gospel is just another opportunity for us to obey God, and we are no more interested in that than Adam was. Unless God frees us from Adam's nature, before or after the Fall. God regenerates the elect sinner so that he wants to, and does, obey the gospel.
Why are some Christian better Christians than others. Is the heart God's gives some of them better than the heart he gives others? What is the purpose of rewards in this system?
No, we all have new hearts. But our sanctification, in God's wisdom, is something we are to progress in. Why did God chose to make it progressive rather than immediate? He doesn't say.
God certainly uses means. But it is irresistible means when it comes to the elect. He says, Jer.31:33... 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. No maybes, ifs, etc. The New covenant is UNLIKE the Old Covenant in that the New depends on God's actions, not God and man.
In Him
Ian
They were twins for goodness sake. The fact that they had the same father was the point Paul was making. Just being a Jew by seed didn't make you elect for a noble purpose. That's Paul's point.
Yes, Paul was making the point that they were of the same father. But that did not make Esau a Jew. Jews only descended from Jacob. Which makes my original point - Paul is discussing God's sovereignty with regard to all mankind, not just the Jews.
But you have the scripture to contend with because throughout the scripture you have mankind going against God's desires. That is what sin is afterall. Your defination of sovereignity goes beyond scriptures defination. One can still be "in control" and still allow others to make free choices. You may think that is impossible but you are wrong. Anything is possible with God.
No problem with people going against God's desires. It's a matter of whether He allows them the final say. The outcome is the determining factor for sovereignty. If God gives man a veto on being saved, then the outcome is not in His control. Heaven could end up empty just as easily as being filled with 'a multitude no man could number'.
Exactly my point. Holding someone responsible implies they are actually response able.
Not at all. It merely means they are accountable. If their sin has make them unable to do otherwise, they are still accountable.
The bible teaches us that we are guilty due to the fall of Adam which is our problem, but you can't seem to show me that men are unable to respond to God's solution to that problem. Ian, tell me why would anyone just assume that men were unable to respond to God's powerful call in the gospel message? There must be some very convincing passage of scripture to convince you that we cannot respond to God's powerful solution.
Yes, for a start, all the texts of John's gospel that speak of man's inability to come to Christ without that being granted them by the Father. To avoid that, you have asserted in other threads that this only applied to certain Jews of Christ's time.
Some more examples:
1 Cor.12:3... no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
Compare 1 Cor. 1: 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. with 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. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. 6For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. It requires God to shine in our hearts - and when He does so, we are saved. The message is no longer foolishness to us, but the wisdom of God.
1 Cor.2: 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Jer.13: 23Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil. [/I Can a wicked man repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Only if God enables him.
That is the difference between us, I think. you say God enables every man by the gospel. I say He enables only the elect by the gospel.
You have to explain why the vast multitude reject Him, if so enabled. If they have been set free from the power of Satan and sin, so that they are able to choose either way, why do most reject Christ?
Calvinism has no problem here: most reject Christ because they are still captive to Satan and sin. Their hearts are wicked. The elect accept Christ because He has set them free, has given them a new heart, a heart that gladly accepts Christ.
A man spent all his money on alchol and wasn't able to pay his rent, so the landlord gave him another option, a solution to his problem, but the man was unable to respond to that solution because the landlord didn't speak his language. So, the landlord kicked him out-- Not merely because he hadn't paid the rent but also because he didn't respond to the solution.
Your analogy doesn't make sense. Adam DID spend our rent money. When God requires it of us, providing a full pardon if we repent our debts/sins, we refuse. Why? Because we agree with Adam's choice, that's why. Are we then not responsible? Of course we are. The gospel is just another opportunity for us to obey God, and we are no more interested in that than Adam was. Unless God frees us from Adam's nature, before or after the Fall. God regenerates the elect sinner so that he wants to, and does, obey the gospel.
Why are some Christian better Christians than others. Is the heart God's gives some of them better than the heart he gives others? What is the purpose of rewards in this system?
No, we all have new hearts. But our sanctification, in God's wisdom, is something we are to progress in. Why did God chose to make it progressive rather than immediate? He doesn't say.
God certainly uses means. But it is irresistible means when it comes to the elect. He says, Jer.31:33... 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. No maybes, ifs, etc. The New covenant is UNLIKE the Old Covenant in that the New depends on God's actions, not God and man.
In Him
Ian
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Yes, Paul was making the point that they were of the same father. But that did not make Esau a Jew. Jews only descended from Jacob. Which makes my original point - Paul is discussing God's sovereignty with regard to all mankind, not just the Jews.
I agree. The reason Esau's decendants were not later consider Jews was because of this choice, which is Paul's point. You are not a "JEW" because of the seed of your father. You are a Jew, used for noble purposes (ie bringing redemption to the world) if God chooses you for that purpose. Plus, I don't know why we are debating this. Pharoah wasn't a Jew. The point wasn't that God only ever hardened Jews, the point was that God was THEN hardening the Jews and Paul was using history to show them the precident that God can hardened anyone he wants and he can show mercy on whomever he wants, YES even those dirty Gentiles.
No problem with people going against God's desires. It's a matter of whether He allows them the final say. The outcome is the determining factor for sovereignty. If God gives man a veto on being saved, then the outcome is not in His control. Heaven could end up empty just as easily as being filled with 'a multitude no man could number'.
What is wrong with the idea that man has a say in his salvation. That certainly seems to be the clear meaning of the text. "If you believe you will be saved." That is a basic IF/THEN clause which gives the idea of cause and effect. If we do X then Y will happen. Do you really think God would have created a plan where N
NE would choose to say yes. At least we all agree God has enough foresight to know that some would respond in faith. That is, afterall, what he is seeking, "those who worship him in spirit and in truth." He is a rewarder of those who earnestly seek him. Why would he reward someone for seeking him if He is the one who MADE them seek Him, that makes no sense.
Not at all. It merely means they are accountable. If their sin has make them unable to do otherwise, they are still accountable.
You mean if their sin made it impossible for them to hear and accept God's solution for their sin by which they will be judged? Come on! Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
You get thrown into jail for something YOU did. The judge comes to you speaking in a foreign language that you can't possibly begin to understand and says, "I'm not coming to judge you for what you did in the past, I'm hear to tell you good news. This news will set you free and on the day of your trail you will be judged by this news that I'm giving you now. My words, today, will judge you. If you believe and obey me for the rest of your life I will set you free, but if you stay sitting in your prison you will die a suffer for all eternity."
This message to you sounded like gibberish because it wasn't spoken in your language. Worse of all, the judge KNEW you couldn't understand him.
What is going to happen on the judgement day Ian? What would you say when you found out the message that the judge spoke to you in a foreign tongue? As you are being cast into the eternal flame what will your thought be!!!
Will it be, "STUPID ME. I didn't listen to the warning of the judge!" Or will it be, "STUPID JUDGE! I didn't know or understand his message and he judged me based upon my response to that message!!!! Why didn't he just tell me in my own language????"
Your system leaves men with the best defense known to man. The scripture teaches they are "without excuse" because they DO know and understand.
I'll pick up there in the next post...
I agree. The reason Esau's decendants were not later consider Jews was because of this choice, which is Paul's point. You are not a "JEW" because of the seed of your father. You are a Jew, used for noble purposes (ie bringing redemption to the world) if God chooses you for that purpose. Plus, I don't know why we are debating this. Pharoah wasn't a Jew. The point wasn't that God only ever hardened Jews, the point was that God was THEN hardening the Jews and Paul was using history to show them the precident that God can hardened anyone he wants and he can show mercy on whomever he wants, YES even those dirty Gentiles.
No problem with people going against God's desires. It's a matter of whether He allows them the final say. The outcome is the determining factor for sovereignty. If God gives man a veto on being saved, then the outcome is not in His control. Heaven could end up empty just as easily as being filled with 'a multitude no man could number'.
What is wrong with the idea that man has a say in his salvation. That certainly seems to be the clear meaning of the text. "If you believe you will be saved." That is a basic IF/THEN clause which gives the idea of cause and effect. If we do X then Y will happen. Do you really think God would have created a plan where N
NE would choose to say yes. At least we all agree God has enough foresight to know that some would respond in faith. That is, afterall, what he is seeking, "those who worship him in spirit and in truth." He is a rewarder of those who earnestly seek him. Why would he reward someone for seeking him if He is the one who MADE them seek Him, that makes no sense.Not at all. It merely means they are accountable. If their sin has make them unable to do otherwise, they are still accountable.
You mean if their sin made it impossible for them to hear and accept God's solution for their sin by which they will be judged? Come on! Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
You get thrown into jail for something YOU did. The judge comes to you speaking in a foreign language that you can't possibly begin to understand and says, "I'm not coming to judge you for what you did in the past, I'm hear to tell you good news. This news will set you free and on the day of your trail you will be judged by this news that I'm giving you now. My words, today, will judge you. If you believe and obey me for the rest of your life I will set you free, but if you stay sitting in your prison you will die a suffer for all eternity."
This message to you sounded like gibberish because it wasn't spoken in your language. Worse of all, the judge KNEW you couldn't understand him.
What is going to happen on the judgement day Ian? What would you say when you found out the message that the judge spoke to you in a foreign tongue? As you are being cast into the eternal flame what will your thought be!!!
Will it be, "STUPID ME. I didn't listen to the warning of the judge!" Or will it be, "STUPID JUDGE! I didn't know or understand his message and he judged me based upon my response to that message!!!! Why didn't he just tell me in my own language????"
Your system leaves men with the best defense known to man. The scripture teaches they are "without excuse" because they DO know and understand.
I'll pick up there in the next post...
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Yes, for a start, all the texts of John's gospel that speak of man's inability to come to Christ without that being granted them by the Father. To avoid that, you have asserted in other threads that this only applied to certain Jews of Christ's time.
No, I didn't. I asserted that NNE, Jew or Gentile, could come to Christ at that time because it hadn't been granted to them to learn from the incarnate God. Only apostles were really allowed into that circle and even one of them was a devil according to chapter 6 if you continue to read on. This was about only certain people being drawn to Christ while he was on earth, but we learn latter in that same book that when Christ is raised up that he will draw all men to himself. By what means you ask? The speading of the gospel into all the world. That is the purpose of the great commission.
Before = Jesus was saying, "Keep it quite...don't tell anyone...I'm hiding the message from those on the outside...etc."
After = Jesus was saying, "Go into all the world..."
See the difference? Before = Only those specifically chosen and appointed for a unique purpose were being drawn
After = The world was being drawn to him as it was Christ's ultimate mission to reconcile the world to God.
1 Cor.12:3... no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
Out of context. This is Paul addressing the Corinthian church on how to reconize the tongues of a evil spirit versus a spirit from God.
Compare 1 Cor. 1: 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. with 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. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. 6For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. It requires God to shine in our hearts - and when He does so, we are saved. The message is no longer foolishness to us, but the wisdom of God.
Ian, I'm glad you brought up these verses, look at them closely with me and allow me to ask you some questions. Why is the light of the gospel veiled to these men? Were they born that way, OR did the world make them blinded? Was it foolish to them because God didn't select them to recieve his means of salvation? No, it is because the means, the gospel, was being veiled. By whom? By our God, who didn't what them saved? NO. By the god of this world. What was the means of salvation mentioned in this text? Was it a secret irresistable light that God shines or was it the light of the gospel that is preached by them?
1 Cor.2: 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
We've discussed this numerous times. Paul is speaking of the natural man's inability to understand the "deep things of God" as verse 10 indicates. Even the carnal "Brothers" in Corinth were unable to recieve the "spiritual things" to which Paul is refering in this passage as is revealed in the following verses. You need to do better. You still have nothing conclusive to believe that men are unable to respond to God's powerful Holy Spirit wrought solution.
Jer.13: 23Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil. [/I Can a wicked man repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Only if God enables him.
We both believe God must "enable" men to change. The question is by what means. I believe Christ's coming to earth as a man, speaking in our human language, leaving the Holy Spirit, inspiring the apostles and the scripture to bring us the gospel is a pretty enabling force, don't you?
That is the difference between us, I think. you say God enables every man by the gospel. I say He enables only the elect by the gospel.
That is the difference. If only you had the scriptural backing to show that the gospel is meant only for the elect, then you might have something. But, not even ortahodox Calvinism attempts to make that claim, they know its unfouded.
But your problem is that the gospel doesn't enable the elect, the effectual call does that. The so called "regenerating work" that precedes the gospel is what does the enabling in your system and that concept is only found in your dogma, not the scripture. You have nothing that states that the gospel is not sufficient to enable a man to respond in faith to its claims. NOTHING.
You have to explain why the vast multitude reject Him, if so enabled. If they have been set free from the power of Satan and sin, so that they are able to choose either way, why do most reject Christ? Who said that they have been set free from the power of Satan and sin? I, as a believer, still await that ultimate freedom when I recieve a new body at the time of my adoption as God's son. They are able to choose when the KNOW both good and evil, which we learned in the garden, even after the fall that men have the capasity to know.
Ian, Its about REVELATION. God reveals himself and man responds. Revelation must precede response. While it is impossible for man to know and seek God apart from his revelation, it is not impossible for man to respond to the revelation once it comes. Revelation enables response. No revelation, no response. Revelation is what makes men without excuse on that final day, because they DO know and fully understand what is necessary and they will be judged by that revelation, namely the word.
Calvinism has no problem here: most reject Christ because they are still captive to Satan and sin. Their hearts are wicked. The elect accept Christ because He has set them free, has given them a new heart, a heart that gladly accepts Christ.
I don't know about you, but my heart is still pretty darn wicked. I can't trust myself much at all. Is that just me? I thought we were BEING comformed to Christ's image and that process was finalized at glorification? Maybe I'm the only one here who still desprately struggles with sin and purity. Maybe I don't know real freedom like you know it??? My life is a battle and though I know there is no condemnation, I also know I am responsible for me choices and my actions. I will be punished for my disobedience as a son and I will be rewarded for my deeds of righteousness as I store treasures in heaven. That whole process really doesn't make sense to me from the Calvinistic perspective because HE is completely responsible for my obedience, so why reward me? And I'm completely responsible for my disobedience which I can't really control because He is the is the only one with the power to MAKE me obey, so why punish me? Its not like punishment is going to make me more able to obey or even more willing to obey, its God doing it all, right?
I said, "A man spent all his money on alchol and wasn't able to pay his rent, so the landlord gave him another option, a solution to his problem, but the man was unable to respond to that solution because the landlord didn't speak his language. So, the landlord kicked him out-- Not merely because he hadn't paid the rent but also because he didn't respond to the solution."
Your analogy doesn't make sense. Adam DID spend our rent money. When God requires it of us
Whoa, let me stop you there. The rent money is righteousness, right? Adam spent that. Its gone. Right? God requires it. "Be holy as I'm holy..." We tried by keeping the law and doing works God required, which we know were only there to point us to our desperate need for his grace.... now go on...
providing a full pardon if we repent our debts/sins, we refuse.
Now, here is the solution God has provided and notice how you just assume that we refuse it. I didn't refuse it. You didn't refuse it. Did you? No. Like Abraham you agreed with God and believed his revelation and that was credited to you as righteousness, just as it was to him. How? By the imputation of Christ's righteousness which is only applied to us through faith, not works, but faith alone.
Now my question is this: Why did you assume that we must refuse the solution simply because Adam ate the fruit? His eating the fruit is what created the problem and lead to God offering the solution. Why would showing us that Adam made a bad choice in the first place prove that we can't respond to God's solution to that bad choice in the second place? I don't get that?
I asked: Why are some Christian better Christians than others. Is the heart God's gives some of them better than the heart he gives others? What is the purpose of rewards in this system?
No, we all have new hearts. But our sanctification, in God's wisdom, is something we are to progress in. Why did God chose to make it progressive rather than immediate? He doesn't say.
Why do some progress faster than others? Are some better people? Can you boast because you have a better understanding of God's plan of redemption than I do? What do you have that others don't and why did you get it?
You see, your system doesn't leave room for human folly and Godly reason.
No, I didn't. I asserted that N
NE, Jew or Gentile, could come to Christ at that time because it hadn't been granted to them to learn from the incarnate God. Only apostles were really allowed into that circle and even one of them was a devil according to chapter 6 if you continue to read on. This was about only certain people being drawn to Christ while he was on earth, but we learn latter in that same book that when Christ is raised up that he will draw all men to himself. By what means you ask? The speading of the gospel into all the world. That is the purpose of the great commission.Before = Jesus was saying, "Keep it quite...don't tell anyone...I'm hiding the message from those on the outside...etc."
After = Jesus was saying, "Go into all the world..."
See the difference? Before = Only those specifically chosen and appointed for a unique purpose were being drawn
After = The world was being drawn to him as it was Christ's ultimate mission to reconcile the world to God.
1 Cor.12:3... no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
Out of context. This is Paul addressing the Corinthian church on how to reconize the tongues of a evil spirit versus a spirit from God.
Compare 1 Cor. 1: 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. with 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. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. 6For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. It requires God to shine in our hearts - and when He does so, we are saved. The message is no longer foolishness to us, but the wisdom of God.
Ian, I'm glad you brought up these verses, look at them closely with me and allow me to ask you some questions. Why is the light of the gospel veiled to these men? Were they born that way, OR did the world make them blinded? Was it foolish to them because God didn't select them to recieve his means of salvation? No, it is because the means, the gospel, was being veiled. By whom? By our God, who didn't what them saved? NO. By the god of this world. What was the means of salvation mentioned in this text? Was it a secret irresistable light that God shines or was it the light of the gospel that is preached by them?
1 Cor.2: 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
We've discussed this numerous times. Paul is speaking of the natural man's inability to understand the "deep things of God" as verse 10 indicates. Even the carnal "Brothers" in Corinth were unable to recieve the "spiritual things" to which Paul is refering in this passage as is revealed in the following verses. You need to do better. You still have nothing conclusive to believe that men are unable to respond to God's powerful Holy Spirit wrought solution.
Jer.13: 23Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil. [/I Can a wicked man repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Only if God enables him.
We both believe God must "enable" men to change. The question is by what means. I believe Christ's coming to earth as a man, speaking in our human language, leaving the Holy Spirit, inspiring the apostles and the scripture to bring us the gospel is a pretty enabling force, don't you?
That is the difference between us, I think. you say God enables every man by the gospel. I say He enables only the elect by the gospel.
That is the difference. If only you had the scriptural backing to show that the gospel is meant only for the elect, then you might have something. But, not even ortahodox Calvinism attempts to make that claim, they know its unfouded.
But your problem is that the gospel doesn't enable the elect, the effectual call does that. The so called "regenerating work" that precedes the gospel is what does the enabling in your system and that concept is only found in your dogma, not the scripture. You have nothing that states that the gospel is not sufficient to enable a man to respond in faith to its claims. NOTHING.
You have to explain why the vast multitude reject Him, if so enabled. If they have been set free from the power of Satan and sin, so that they are able to choose either way, why do most reject Christ? Who said that they have been set free from the power of Satan and sin? I, as a believer, still await that ultimate freedom when I recieve a new body at the time of my adoption as God's son. They are able to choose when the KNOW both good and evil, which we learned in the garden, even after the fall that men have the capasity to know.
Ian, Its about REVELATION. God reveals himself and man responds. Revelation must precede response. While it is impossible for man to know and seek God apart from his revelation, it is not impossible for man to respond to the revelation once it comes. Revelation enables response. No revelation, no response. Revelation is what makes men without excuse on that final day, because they DO know and fully understand what is necessary and they will be judged by that revelation, namely the word.
Calvinism has no problem here: most reject Christ because they are still captive to Satan and sin. Their hearts are wicked. The elect accept Christ because He has set them free, has given them a new heart, a heart that gladly accepts Christ.
I don't know about you, but my heart is still pretty darn wicked. I can't trust myself much at all. Is that just me? I thought we were BEING comformed to Christ's image and that process was finalized at glorification? Maybe I'm the only one here who still desprately struggles with sin and purity. Maybe I don't know real freedom like you know it??? My life is a battle and though I know there is no condemnation, I also know I am responsible for me choices and my actions. I will be punished for my disobedience as a son and I will be rewarded for my deeds of righteousness as I store treasures in heaven. That whole process really doesn't make sense to me from the Calvinistic perspective because HE is completely responsible for my obedience, so why reward me? And I'm completely responsible for my disobedience which I can't really control because He is the is the only one with the power to MAKE me obey, so why punish me? Its not like punishment is going to make me more able to obey or even more willing to obey, its God doing it all, right?
I said, "A man spent all his money on alchol and wasn't able to pay his rent, so the landlord gave him another option, a solution to his problem, but the man was unable to respond to that solution because the landlord didn't speak his language. So, the landlord kicked him out-- Not merely because he hadn't paid the rent but also because he didn't respond to the solution."
Your analogy doesn't make sense. Adam DID spend our rent money. When God requires it of us
Whoa, let me stop you there. The rent money is righteousness, right? Adam spent that. Its gone. Right? God requires it. "Be holy as I'm holy..." We tried by keeping the law and doing works God required, which we know were only there to point us to our desperate need for his grace.... now go on...
providing a full pardon if we repent our debts/sins, we refuse.
Now, here is the solution God has provided and notice how you just assume that we refuse it. I didn't refuse it. You didn't refuse it. Did you? No. Like Abraham you agreed with God and believed his revelation and that was credited to you as righteousness, just as it was to him. How? By the imputation of Christ's righteousness which is only applied to us through faith, not works, but faith alone.
Now my question is this: Why did you assume that we must refuse the solution simply because Adam ate the fruit? His eating the fruit is what created the problem and lead to God offering the solution. Why would showing us that Adam made a bad choice in the first place prove that we can't respond to God's solution to that bad choice in the second place? I don't get that?
I asked: Why are some Christian better Christians than others. Is the heart God's gives some of them better than the heart he gives others? What is the purpose of rewards in this system?
No, we all have new hearts. But our sanctification, in God's wisdom, is something we are to progress in. Why did God chose to make it progressive rather than immediate? He doesn't say.
Why do some progress faster than others? Are some better people? Can you boast because you have a better understanding of God's plan of redemption than I do? What do you have that others don't and why did you get it?
You see, your system doesn't leave room for human folly and Godly reason.
Skandelon said
See the difference? Before = Only those specifically chosen and appointed for a unique purpose were being drawn
and
After = The world was being drawn to him as it was Christ's ultimate mission to reconcile the world to God.
This explanation of why 'No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.' doesn't hold water. It refers to ANY, not to a wider drawing. He sent the disciples out preaching the gospel, 'Repent and believe', making disciples among the Jews.
But of some Jews Christ said, John 6:43'... "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.6:64'... For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
Ian, I'm glad you brought up these verses, look at them closely with me and allow me to ask you some questions. Why is the light of the gospel veiled to these men? Were they born that way, OR did the world make them blinded? Was it foolish to them because God didn't select them to recieve his means of salvation? No, it is because the means, the gospel, was being veiled. By whom? By our God, who didn't what them saved? NO. By the god of this world. What was the means of salvation mentioned in this text? Was it a secret irresistable light that God shines or was it the light of the gospel that is preached by them?
1. Man is born blinded to the gospel: by what means? - The work of Satan in his heart.
2. It was foolish to them because their hearts were wicked. God's selection of the elect isn't affected by that - the elect too were born with just the same blindness. God removes the veil for His elect.
3. 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.
We've discussed this numerous times. Paul is speaking of the natural man's inability to understand the "deep things of God" as verse 10 indicates. Even the carnal "Brothers" in Corinth were unable to recieve the "spiritual things" to which Paul is refering in this passage as is revealed in the following verses. You need to do better. You still have nothing conclusive to believe that men are unable to respond to God's powerful Holy Spirit wrought solution.
You limit Paul's meaning to the deep things. But I think it just as appropriate to understand it as it stands - ' But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'. Taken along with the other references, John's 'No one', etc. it makes perfect sense.
We both believe God must "enable" men to change. The question is by what means. I believe Christ's coming to earth as a man, speaking in our human language, leaving the Holy Spirit, inspiring the apostles and the scripture to bring us the gospel is a pretty enabling force, don't you?
If it was so powerful, why are most not saved? My answer is that these things were totally effective, for those they were sent to save. You must say they were totally ineffective for most people.
That is the difference. If only you had the scriptural backing to show that the gospel is meant only for the elect, then you might have something. But, not even ortahodox Calvinism attempts to make that claim, they know its unfouded.
The gospel is meant to SAVE only the elect. But it is sent TO all. Your inference is totally unfounded.
But your problem is that the gospel doesn't enable the elect, the effectual call does that. The so called "regenerating work" that precedes the gospel is what does the enabling in your system and that concept is only found in your dogma, not the scripture. You have nothing that states that the gospel is not sufficient to enable a man to respond in faith to its claims. NOTHING.
We've been here before, so you should know you misrepresent me. The effectual call cannot be separated from the gospel message that saves the elect. It is the Spirit applying that gospel message to the sinner's heart, giving him a new heart in the process, that is the effectual call.
Who said that they have been set free from the power of Satan and sin? I, as a believer, still await that ultimate freedom when I recieve a new body at the time of my adoption as God's son. They are able to choose when the KNOW both good and evil, which we learned in the garden, even after the fall that men have the capasity to know.
Adam before the Fall was free from the power of Satan and sin. His choice was not affected by an evil heart. Sinners can certainly choose - but their choice always reflects their nature.
Ian, Its about REVELATION. God reveals himself and man responds. Revelation must precede response. While it is impossible for man to know and seek God apart from his revelation, it is not impossible for man to respond to the revelation once it comes. Revelation enables response. No revelation, no response. Revelation is what makes men without excuse on that final day, because they DO know and fully understand what is necessary and they will be judged by that revelation, namely the word.
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.
I don't know about you, but my heart is still pretty darn wicked.
If that were so, then you are not a participant in the New Covenant. A New Heart is what you get on entry.
I can't trust myself much at all. Is that just me? I thought we were BEING comformed to Christ's image and that process was finalized at glorification? Maybe I'm the only one here who still desprately struggles with sin and purity. Maybe I don't know real freedom like you know it??? My life is a battle and though I know there is no condemnation, I also know I am responsible for me choices and my actions. I will be punished for my disobedience as a son and I will be rewarded for my deeds of righteousness as I store treasures in heaven.
That is a different matter. All believers have an old nature within, as well as the new one. But it the new one that is the real them. They are new creatures. Old things have passed away, sin no longer has dominion over us. We can still fall into sin, but we are not slaves to sin, as before. We can freely choose to do good, to love God and follow Him. The unregenerate cannot.
That whole process really doesn't make sense to me from the Calvinistic perspective because HE is completely responsible for my obedience, so why reward me? And I'm completely responsible for my disobedience which I can't really control because He is the is the only one with the power to MAKE me obey, so why punish me? Its not like punishment is going to make me more able to obey or even more willing to obey, its God doing it all, right?
Because He loves me, and I am in Him and He in me. My sin is my own, so He is right to punish me. Why did He not make me perfect on regeneration? He doesn't say. But I am happy that He demonstrates His goodness to sinning saints in chastising them and leading them back into His way. And it IS 'going to make me more able to obey or even more willing to obey'. MEANS, Skan, MEANS!
Here's a couple of verses I think expresses it well:
Our blest Redeemer, ere He breathed
His tender last farewell,
A Guide, a Comforter, bequeathed
With us to dwell.
And every virtue we possess,
And every conquest won,
And every thought of holiness,
Are His alone.
Harriet Auber, Spirit of the Psalms, 1829.
Now, here is the solution God has provided and notice how you just assume that we refuse it. I didn't refuse it. You didn't refuse it. Did you? No. Like Abraham you agreed with God and believed his revelation and that was credited to you as righteousness, just as it was to him. How? By the imputation of Christ's righteousness which is only applied to us through faith, not works, but faith alone.
Now my question is this: Why did you assume that we must refuse the solution simply because Adam ate the fruit? His eating the fruit is what created the problem and lead to God offering the solution. Why would showing us that Adam made a bad choice in the first place prove that we can't respond to God's solution to that bad choice in the second place? I don't get that?
Because making that choice CHANGED Adam. He FELL. His will became chained to his sinful nature. The same sinful nature you and I had. Before we were saved, the rent money was spent, and we were happy it was. We would have done the same, given the chance.
God has to do more than inform us of a way back to Him. Adam in his unfallen state proved information and warning alone are useless. Much worse are we as sinners. No, we need to be CHANGED again, before we will repent and believe.
The facts also back up the doctrine I expressed. Most of mankind refuse the gospel. Surely, if they were able to repent and believe we could expect a better response?
Why do some progress faster than others? Are some better people? Can you boast because you have a better understanding of God's plan of redemption than I do? What do you have that others don't and why did you get it?
Precisely my point: it is ALL of His grace. What do I have that I didn't receive? Nothing. Am I more mature than another brother? Then God did it, not me. Do I see great grace in another? Then I rejoice in what God has done for him.
You see, your system doesn't leave room for human folly and Godly reason.
Not so. In my system all the folly is man's , all the wisdom, honour, glory is God's. It is Arminianism that exalts man and limits God.
In Him
Ian
See the difference? Before = Only those specifically chosen and appointed for a unique purpose were being drawn
and
After = The world was being drawn to him as it was Christ's ultimate mission to reconcile the world to God.
This explanation of why 'No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.' doesn't hold water. It refers to ANY, not to a wider drawing. He sent the disciples out preaching the gospel, 'Repent and believe', making disciples among the Jews.
But of some Jews Christ said, John 6:43'... "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.6:64'... For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
Ian, I'm glad you brought up these verses, look at them closely with me and allow me to ask you some questions. Why is the light of the gospel veiled to these men? Were they born that way, OR did the world make them blinded? Was it foolish to them because God didn't select them to recieve his means of salvation? No, it is because the means, the gospel, was being veiled. By whom? By our God, who didn't what them saved? NO. By the god of this world. What was the means of salvation mentioned in this text? Was it a secret irresistable light that God shines or was it the light of the gospel that is preached by them?
1. Man is born blinded to the gospel: by what means? - The work of Satan in his heart.
2. It was foolish to them because their hearts were wicked. God's selection of the elect isn't affected by that - the elect too were born with just the same blindness. God removes the veil for His elect.
3. 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.
We've discussed this numerous times. Paul is speaking of the natural man's inability to understand the "deep things of God" as verse 10 indicates. Even the carnal "Brothers" in Corinth were unable to recieve the "spiritual things" to which Paul is refering in this passage as is revealed in the following verses. You need to do better. You still have nothing conclusive to believe that men are unable to respond to God's powerful Holy Spirit wrought solution.
You limit Paul's meaning to the deep things. But I think it just as appropriate to understand it as it stands - ' But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'. Taken along with the other references, John's 'No one', etc. it makes perfect sense.
We both believe God must "enable" men to change. The question is by what means. I believe Christ's coming to earth as a man, speaking in our human language, leaving the Holy Spirit, inspiring the apostles and the scripture to bring us the gospel is a pretty enabling force, don't you?
If it was so powerful, why are most not saved? My answer is that these things were totally effective, for those they were sent to save. You must say they were totally ineffective for most people.
That is the difference. If only you had the scriptural backing to show that the gospel is meant only for the elect, then you might have something. But, not even ortahodox Calvinism attempts to make that claim, they know its unfouded.
The gospel is meant to SAVE only the elect. But it is sent TO all. Your inference is totally unfounded.
But your problem is that the gospel doesn't enable the elect, the effectual call does that. The so called "regenerating work" that precedes the gospel is what does the enabling in your system and that concept is only found in your dogma, not the scripture. You have nothing that states that the gospel is not sufficient to enable a man to respond in faith to its claims. NOTHING.
We've been here before, so you should know you misrepresent me. The effectual call cannot be separated from the gospel message that saves the elect. It is the Spirit applying that gospel message to the sinner's heart, giving him a new heart in the process, that is the effectual call.
Who said that they have been set free from the power of Satan and sin? I, as a believer, still await that ultimate freedom when I recieve a new body at the time of my adoption as God's son. They are able to choose when the KNOW both good and evil, which we learned in the garden, even after the fall that men have the capasity to know.
Adam before the Fall was free from the power of Satan and sin. His choice was not affected by an evil heart. Sinners can certainly choose - but their choice always reflects their nature.
Ian, Its about REVELATION. God reveals himself and man responds. Revelation must precede response. While it is impossible for man to know and seek God apart from his revelation, it is not impossible for man to respond to the revelation once it comes. Revelation enables response. No revelation, no response. Revelation is what makes men without excuse on that final day, because they DO know and fully understand what is necessary and they will be judged by that revelation, namely the word.
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.
I don't know about you, but my heart is still pretty darn wicked.
If that were so, then you are not a participant in the New Covenant. A New Heart is what you get on entry.
I can't trust myself much at all. Is that just me? I thought we were BEING comformed to Christ's image and that process was finalized at glorification? Maybe I'm the only one here who still desprately struggles with sin and purity. Maybe I don't know real freedom like you know it??? My life is a battle and though I know there is no condemnation, I also know I am responsible for me choices and my actions. I will be punished for my disobedience as a son and I will be rewarded for my deeds of righteousness as I store treasures in heaven.
That is a different matter. All believers have an old nature within, as well as the new one. But it the new one that is the real them. They are new creatures. Old things have passed away, sin no longer has dominion over us. We can still fall into sin, but we are not slaves to sin, as before. We can freely choose to do good, to love God and follow Him. The unregenerate cannot.
That whole process really doesn't make sense to me from the Calvinistic perspective because HE is completely responsible for my obedience, so why reward me? And I'm completely responsible for my disobedience which I can't really control because He is the is the only one with the power to MAKE me obey, so why punish me? Its not like punishment is going to make me more able to obey or even more willing to obey, its God doing it all, right?
Because He loves me, and I am in Him and He in me. My sin is my own, so He is right to punish me. Why did He not make me perfect on regeneration? He doesn't say. But I am happy that He demonstrates His goodness to sinning saints in chastising them and leading them back into His way. And it IS 'going to make me more able to obey or even more willing to obey'. MEANS, Skan, MEANS!
Here's a couple of verses I think expresses it well:
Our blest Redeemer, ere He breathed
His tender last farewell,
A Guide, a Comforter, bequeathed
With us to dwell.
And every virtue we possess,
And every conquest won,
And every thought of holiness,
Are His alone.
Harriet Auber, Spirit of the Psalms, 1829.
Now, here is the solution God has provided and notice how you just assume that we refuse it. I didn't refuse it. You didn't refuse it. Did you? No. Like Abraham you agreed with God and believed his revelation and that was credited to you as righteousness, just as it was to him. How? By the imputation of Christ's righteousness which is only applied to us through faith, not works, but faith alone.
Now my question is this: Why did you assume that we must refuse the solution simply because Adam ate the fruit? His eating the fruit is what created the problem and lead to God offering the solution. Why would showing us that Adam made a bad choice in the first place prove that we can't respond to God's solution to that bad choice in the second place? I don't get that?
Because making that choice CHANGED Adam. He FELL. His will became chained to his sinful nature. The same sinful nature you and I had. Before we were saved, the rent money was spent, and we were happy it was. We would have done the same, given the chance.
God has to do more than inform us of a way back to Him. Adam in his unfallen state proved information and warning alone are useless. Much worse are we as sinners. No, we need to be CHANGED again, before we will repent and believe.
The facts also back up the doctrine I expressed. Most of mankind refuse the gospel. Surely, if they were able to repent and believe we could expect a better response?
Why do some progress faster than others? Are some better people? Can you boast because you have a better understanding of God's plan of redemption than I do? What do you have that others don't and why did you get it?
Precisely my point: it is ALL of His grace. What do I have that I didn't receive? Nothing. Am I more mature than another brother? Then God did it, not me. Do I see great grace in another? Then I rejoice in what God has done for him.
You see, your system doesn't leave room for human folly and Godly reason.
Not so. In my system all the folly is man's , all the wisdom, honour, glory is God's. It is Arminianism that exalts man and limits God.
In Him
Ian
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
1. Man is born blinded to the gospel: by what means? - The work of Satan in his heart.
What scripture are you refering to on this one?
2. It was foolish to them because their hearts were wicked. God's selection of the elect isn't affected by that - the elect too were born with just the same blindness. God removes the veil for His elect.
Their hearts are what determined it to be foolish not God's unwillingness to remove the veil. The veil was placed their by their choices in rebelling against his revelation over the many years. They weren't born with the veil, the god of the world put it there over time and the veil is not irresisable.
3. 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.
Sounds like good ol Calvinism to me. Where the scripture that teaches this?
You limit Paul's meaning to the deep things. But I think it just as appropriate to understand it as it stands -
No, Paul limits it to the deep things in verse 10 and that is proven the in fact that even the brethern of Corinth can't recieve these things.
If it was so powerful, why are most not saved? My answer is that these things were totally effective, for those they were sent to save. You must say they were totally ineffective for most people.
Most are not saved because God lied and doesn't really want to see all men come to repentance. Oh wait, never mind that is what you believe...
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.
The gospel is meant to SAVE only the elect. But it is sent TO all. Your inference is totally unfounded.
Why send something to all that is only meant for some?
Adam before the Fall was free from the power of Satan and sin. His choice was not affected by an evil heart. Sinners can certainly choose - but their choice always reflects their nature.
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.
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.
Unfounded claim. I need scripture.
That is a different matter. All believers have an old nature within, as well as the new one. But it the new one that is the real them. They are new creatures. Old things have passed away, sin no longer has dominion over us. We can still fall into sin, but we are not slaves to sin, as before. We can freely choose to do good, to love God and follow Him. The unregenerate cannot.
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.
Because He loves me, and I am in Him and He in me. My sin is my own, so He is right to punish me.
Right, I agree with that. But you obedience is not your own so why reward you?
... it IS 'going to make me more able to obey or even more willing to obey'. MEANS, Skan, MEANS!
So, since you obey better than I do that must mean that you are smarter because you better heed God's punishment, right?
Precisely my point: it is ALL of His grace. What do I have that I didn't receive? Nothing. Am I more mature than another brother? Then God did it, not me. Do I see great grace in another? Then I rejoice in what God has done for him.
But then why would God reward you for what He did? And couldn't you boast because God gave you more "grace" than another?
Me: You see, your system doesn't leave room for human folly and Godly reason.
Not so. In my system all the folly is man's , all the wisdom, honour, glory is God's. It is Arminianism that exalts man and limits God.
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.
What scripture are you refering to on this one?
2. It was foolish to them because their hearts were wicked. God's selection of the elect isn't affected by that - the elect too were born with just the same blindness. God removes the veil for His elect.
Their hearts are what determined it to be foolish not God's unwillingness to remove the veil. The veil was placed their by their choices in rebelling against his revelation over the many years. They weren't born with the veil, the god of the world put it there over time and the veil is not irresisable.
3. 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.
Sounds like good ol Calvinism to me. Where the scripture that teaches this?
You limit Paul's meaning to the deep things. But I think it just as appropriate to understand it as it stands -
No, Paul limits it to the deep things in verse 10 and that is proven the in fact that even the brethern of Corinth can't recieve these things.
If it was so powerful, why are most not saved? My answer is that these things were totally effective, for those they were sent to save. You must say they were totally ineffective for most people.
Most are not saved because God lied and doesn't really want to see all men come to repentance. Oh wait, never mind that is what you believe...
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.
The gospel is meant to SAVE only the elect. But it is sent TO all. Your inference is totally unfounded.
Why send something to all that is only meant for some?
Adam before the Fall was free from the power of Satan and sin. His choice was not affected by an evil heart. Sinners can certainly choose - but their choice always reflects their nature.
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.
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.
Unfounded claim. I need scripture.
That is a different matter. All believers have an old nature within, as well as the new one. But it the new one that is the real them. They are new creatures. Old things have passed away, sin no longer has dominion over us. We can still fall into sin, but we are not slaves to sin, as before. We can freely choose to do good, to love God and follow Him. The unregenerate cannot.
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.
Because He loves me, and I am in Him and He in me. My sin is my own, so He is right to punish me.
Right, I agree with that. But you obedience is not your own so why reward you?
... it IS 'going to make me more able to obey or even more willing to obey'. MEANS, Skan, MEANS!
So, since you obey better than I do that must mean that you are smarter because you better heed God's punishment, right?
Precisely my point: it is ALL of His grace. What do I have that I didn't receive? Nothing. Am I more mature than another brother? Then God did it, not me. Do I see great grace in another? Then I rejoice in what God has done for him.
But then why would God reward you for what He did? And couldn't you boast because God gave you more "grace" than another?
Me: You see, your system doesn't leave room for human folly and Godly reason.
Not so. In my system all the folly is man's , all the wisdom, honour, glory is God's. It is Arminianism that exalts man and limits God.
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.