A Summary of the Cal/Arm debate as I see it...

[Allan]

Do you believe the Spirit COULD have chosen to work on them to understand through normative means, like preaching? For example, a teenager is reading the gospel, but just doesn't get it. A minister sees him, feels a prompting to go sit down and speak with him. The teen says I just don't understand some of these things. The minister sits and explains the truth in a way the teen can understand. The teen repents and is baptized. Isn't that what happened to Philip and the Ethiopian? He asked for help and Philip taught him so he believed? How will they know unless someone tells them?

Notice Skan, that even in your illustrations (such as with the teen) He read them but didn't understand them.. why not? They had to be explained, but that explanation goes further than just words being conveyed but that his eyes must be spiritually opened to do. Thus the preacher was another means to convey the truth that the Spirit of God was revealing to him spiritually that he himself could not fathom just a minute or so prior.

Again, you are making an unneeded distinction. After all, what is the preacher preaching except the words themselves? I'm not sure I understand your point.

I'm not making the distinction he is. "He" makes the distinction that it is not the 'word' but the preaching that is the common normative means, the Spirit uses. However it is noted that he also does not state the Word or Preaching is independent of the work of the Spirit upon them as well to bring comprehension.

I'm not claiming Clarke and I agree on every aspect of this point. But this particular quote actually makes my point.

I disagree. You point of statement before was that the Word itself is the power and that anyone reading it will come to understanding, at any time or age they read it. Clark states differently however, the natural man CAN NOT learn nor comprehend the spiritual things of God and thus the Spirit must reveal it to them. What you bold is speaking to the fact the knowledge the apostles understand, that the Jews, having the same written works of the Holy Spirit did not. It had to be revealed to them by the Holy Spirit and could not have been grasped or understood any way apart from His bringing them to understand it. Remember your initial argument is that the Word IS the active working of the Spirit and thus anyone who reads it will have comprehension and understanding and thus your point in the age of accountability thread.

Notice the parts I left emboldened. The Gospel was Divine, and "these things" contained within it, which were just being made known, we mysteries, or "beyond man's wisdom and comprehension,"

Yes, but in respect to the point he previously established in the verses prior that no man (natural man) could come to this knowledge of himself, thus it was Divine of specifically derived or revealed by God to man.

but in the next line he says, "God was now in a certain way become manifest..." In other words, the gospel being revealed through the apostles, who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, is making God and these mysteries "manifest" or clear.

I disagree regarding the extent you wish to convey to his words here. He does not state it 'has become manifestation' but that in a 'certain way' become manifest. Since he holds that their is an independent internal working of Holy Spirit upon the person to understand, yet now there is a tangible external or normative means.

Actually, I believe his intent is to say that they were beyond man's wisdom and comprehension UNTIL they were revealed by the apostles through inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

No, he lays it out very clearly the natural man can not understand or comprehend the things of God. Again, his statement:

1Co 2:14
....The apostle did speak of those high and sublime spiritual things to these animal men; but he explained them to those which were spiritual. He uses this word in this sense, 1Co_3:1; 1Co_9:11; and particularly in 1Co_2:15 of the present chapter: He that is spiritual judgeth all things.

But the natural man - The apostle appears to give this - as a reason why he explained those deep spiritual things to spiritual men; because the animal man - the man who is in a state of nature, without the regenerating grace of the Spirit of God, receiveth not the things of the Spirit - neither apprehends nor comprehends them: he has no relish for them; he considers it the highest wisdom to live for this world. Therefore these spiritual things are foolishness to him; for while he is in his animal state he cannot see their excellency, because they are spiritually discerned, and he has no spiritual mind.

How did the apostles come to know this mysteries? By Divine Inspiration.

Yes, having the same Divinely inspired word the Rabbi's and other Jewish spiritual leadership had but they (like the rest of us) had to have the Spirit of God reveal that which no man could perceive on their own. If they needed it to grasp what the natural man could not, how much more so us.

How do we come to know this mysteries? By testimony of the those divinely inspired. (Preaching, scriptures, church---all of which are lead, carried, preserved and moved by the HS still today)

But even you acknowledged above in your illustration that the teenager couldn't understand it. Why not? In and of itself, it is not enough, but the Spirit needs to open the eyes of their understanding. And yes, though he uses (though not exclusively) normative means, He still operates in an independent way upon the person as well, to make known what He is bringing to them.

Really? Was regeneration another word for the quickening or awaking of the spirit? And I guess they believed everyone was regenerated but not saved? Do you know where this is written about so I can read it?

Yes they held that regeneration was not salvation and that everyone at some time, through the working of His Spirit would become regenerate (somewhat) to be 'enabled' to accept or reject the truths the Spirit revealed to them.
This is noted here in the 5 Remonstrance:

* Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.

Arminius before them stated this:

Concerning grace and free will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace.... This grace [prœvenit] goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and co operates lest we will in vain

Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, D.D., Formerly Professor of Divinity in the University of Leyden (Auburn, NY: Derby and Miller, 1853), 4:472.

It can easily be found in looking up Wesleyian, Prevenient grace

Where do you stand? If you are apart of the "divergence" then couldn't the same argument be made against your posts as the one you've leveled against mine?

You're misunderstanding me I think. I'm saying you can not state 'this' view is an Arminian view as it goes against the very understanding of THEIR view and the necessity of the Spirit's independent working of the Spirit of God.

Well, according to what you just said about Clarke and the classical Arminian view that regeneration proceeds faith view, I'd say there is not an Arminian among us, is there???

No, not many. That is why I get rather ruffled when the accusation is laid upon many who are not reformed, they are Arminian when most often, the people they lay the charge to can't even be considered such based on their theological construct.

Would you be interesting in defending the more classical Arminian view in light of the biblical data, rather than just through historical labels?

Not really, but thanks.

You didn't address the article I pointed on with regard to the Lutheran position on this particular subject, but clearly their is an historical precedence for the manner in which I view the working of God through normative means. I dare say, its a much more biblically support view as well, but maybe I'm biased?

Brother, I never said you view didn't have any historical precedence. My point was that it didn't have any in the 'Arminian' view

 

[Skandelon]

Notice Skan, that even in your illustrations (such as with the teen) He read them but didn't understand them.. why not?

I'm not saying he couldn't have come to understand it if he would have continued to study it, as is the testimony of many. I'm merely pointing out that this particular teen was not understanding and seeking help. The point of the illustration was to show that it was explained through NORMATIVE means, not through some inward light switch.

They had to be explained, but that explanation goes further than just words being conveyed but that his eyes must be spiritually opened to do. Thus the preacher was another means to convey the truth that the Spirit of God was revealing to him spiritually that he himself could not fathom just a minute or so prior.

But, like the "fun" threads you started a while back where you asked why did God fight a battle through angels etc, when he could have "done it himself," this same principle is at work. God COULD have made the TEEN understand by Himself, but he chose to WORK THROUGH the "normative means" of the scripture and a preacher, both of which would have been unnecessary components if the "light switch" theory" (i.e. doing it Himself) was employed.

I could tell another story (true btw) of a young man in China who got a secret copy of the book of John, read it and was saved. He met missionaries many years later and told his story... Now, just as in the prior illustration of the teen who had help from the preacher, you insert your presumption that the HS does some additional secret inward (light switch) working; so its not about whether the one reading understands or not, its about the sufficiency of the word, whether preached, read, taught or written in the sky.

Scripture teaches that the WORD of God does NOT return VOID, but ALWAYS accomplish the purpose for which it was sent. What is that purpose? To appeal for those who are enemies of God to be reconciled to God. The purpose is not to save them without condition. The purpose is to make an appeal and it always accomplishes that purpose...every time, even the times it is rejected, ignored, misunderstood or whatever.

I'm not making the distinction he is. "He" makes the distinction that it is not the 'word' but the preaching that is the common normative means, the Spirit uses.

But he is saying the preacher has his power from the words. There are many preachers preaching false words, so what separates the good/powerful preachers from the others? Their WORDS. That is his point. It is about the preachers revealing what the Spirit gave them to speak...the words of life. The TRUTH will set you free.

However it is noted that he also does not state the Word or Preaching is independent of the work of the Spirit upon them as well to bring comprehension.

And that is the point I thought we were debating, so now I'm confused??? I've been arguing that the word/preaching is a work of the HS ("not independent") used to bring comprehension, and now you are affirming that IS what Clarke is saying???

I disagree. You point of statement before was that the Word itself is the power and that anyone reading it will come to understanding, at any time or age they read it

That's not what I was attempting to argue, as the illustration I gave you above shows. I'm arguing that God/HS works through normative means...(whether its the word, scripture, preaching, circumstances etc) not through some "light switch" method where he "does it himself" without the use of means.

no man (natural man) could come to this knowledge of himself, thus it was Divine of specifically derived or revealed by God to man.

Agreed, but how? By WHAT MEANS does the Holy Spirit reveal himself to man?

Normative means (gospel, preaching, scripture, ministers, apostles, church)

or

Supernatural means (God doing it himself by inwardly turning on some kind of light switch making them just know/understand what they didn't know/understand before.)

No, he lays it out very clearly the natural man can not understand or comprehend the things of God.

Now, I've always understood Clarke to mean that lost men (those not yet believing and thus regenerated) can not comprehend the 'deep things of God.' In fact, even the 'natural/carnal' 'brethren' in the church of Corinth could not receive these same things. But now you are making the argument that Classical Arminians believe and teach that regeneration precedes faith? I can't find this idea supported anywhere. Please help.

And are you a classical arminian in this respect or not? If not, how do you explain this passage?

Yes, having the same Divinely inspired word the Rabbi's and other Jewish spiritual leadership had but they (like the rest of us) had to have the Spirit of God reveal that which no man could perceive on their own. If they needed it to grasp what the natural man could not, how much more so us.

So, you believe that we too could be saved by faith in Christ even if God hadn't sent the apostles, the NT scripture and his church? So, what do this means actually accomplish that God himself through this inward secret working couldn't and hasn't?

Again, we both affirm God COULD do it "ON HIS OWN," but scripture clearly reveals that he works through means. Thus, it seems presumptuous and unnecessary to teach that God works independently of means and in addition to those means in order to accomplish what those means were sent to accomplish. What is the scripture (a normative means) meant to accomplish? What is the preacher (a normative means) meant to accomplish? What are the recorded words inspired by God to the apostles (though supernatural inspiration) meant to accomplish?

If the "light switch" of God doing it 'himself' is the ONLY thing that really accomplishes all these things then the chosen means really accomplish nothing.

In and of itself, it is not enough, but the Spirit needs to open the eyes of their understanding. And yes, though he uses (though not exclusively) normative means, He still operates in an independent way upon the person as well, to make known what He is bringing to them.

Now, this presents the problem for your view (assuming you hold to this view). Why does God work through these normative means sometimes but not others? What do they accomplish that the 'light switch' wouldn't? And why doesn't God use the light switch alone in every instance instead of making it appear that he is using the means to accomplish the purpose that secretly the light switch actually accomplished? More importantly, where is such a view expounded upon in the text?

Yes they held that regeneration was not salvation and that everyone at some time, through the working of His Spirit would become regenerate (somewhat) to be 'enabled' to accept or reject the truths the Spirit revealed to them.

First, you say that as if you don't hold to this view, yet don't I remember you claiming to be ok with the general term "Arminian" in reference to yourself, or was that someone else?

Second, the statement you quoted says, "But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible," yet you said that "everyone at some time...would become regenerate...enabled." If they can resist becoming regenerated then how can everyone become regenerate/enabled and thus accountable to either accept or reject what they finally have been given the ability to understand?

Brother, I never said you view didn't have any historical precedence. My point was that it didn't have any in the 'Arminian' view

Well, I think you know both the term Calvinism and Arminianism today are used quite loosely in reference to the more general nature of the two views. How many differing forms of Calvinism are there, yet do we insist they only label one particular view as "Calvinistic?" If so, which one? Some debate that Calvin himself really didn't affirm Limited Atonement, so do we correct every Calvinists who does as not being historically Calvinistic enough?

Don't get me wrong. I actually appreciate the distinction, because it highlights a point that hasn't really been expounded upon here (at least to my knowledge). And since you often complain about the nature of the repetition on this board I thought you would welcome a new adventure. If it has been explored, maybe you can direct me to the thread, if you recall it, because I'm interested in this particular distinction...

 

[Allan]

I'm not saying he couldn't have come to understand it if he would have continued to study it, as is the testimony of many. I'm merely pointing out that this particular teen was not understanding and seeking help. The point of the illustration was to show that it was explained through NORMATIVE means, not through some inward light switch.

And that is where you and he (and I) disagree.
Note his statement on Eph 1:18:

Eph 1:18
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened -
The understanding is that power or faculty in the soul by which knowledge or information is received, and the recipient power is here termed the Eyes of the understanding; and we learn from this that ὁπερ ὁ οφθαλμος εν τῳ σωματι, τουτο ὁ νους εν τῃ ψυχη, as Philo expresses it: What the eye is to the body, the understanding is to the soul; and that as the eye is not light in itself, and can discern nothing but by the means of light shining, not only on the objects to be viewed, but into the eye itself; so the understanding of man can discern no sacred thing of or by itself, but sees by the influence of the Spirit of wisdom and revelation; for without the influence of God’s Holy Spirit no man ever became wise unto salvation, no more than a man ever discerned an object, (no matter how perfect soever his eye might have been), without the instrumentality of light.
...

So yes, even he holds to that 'light switch' idea as I do. It is a historically held position of the church. That meaning simply - it has always been the predominant view of the church.

But, like the "fun" threads you started a while back where you asked why did God fight a battle through angels etc, when he could have "done it himself," this same principle is at work. God COULD have made the TEEN understand by Himself, but he chose to WORK THROUGH the "normative means" of the scripture and a preacher, both of which would have been unnecessary components if the "light switch" theory" (i.e. doing it Himself) was employed.

Yes, He works through normative means to covey the information, this I have not disputed. Yet all men must have the Spirit of God reveal what that information means. When God chooses to do this, is what we call 'age of accountability'. But the Word by itself can not convey to the natural man spiritual truths he can grasp, unless the Holy Spirit illuminates the Word of Truth for him.

I could tell another story (true btw) of a young man in China who got a secret copy of the book of John, read it and was saved. He met missionaries many years later and told his story... Now, just as in the prior illustration of the teen who had help from the preacher, you insert your presumption that the HS does some additional secret inward (light switch) working;

Funny, you state it is presumption when the fact is, scripture states just that very thing. In fact, as I stated previously, it is and has been the main historical teaching within the church. Note please that I did not say your view is not taught, but that it has been the prevailing view all the way back to the early church.

so its not about whether the one reading understands or not, its about the sufficiency of the word, whether preached, read, taught or written in the sky.

Yes, and that is where you diverge. The Word is sufficient to convey the truths of God to men, but men of and by themselves can not come to understand those truths by themselves. As you state, the Spirit of God must 'turn on the light' so to speak. Even Clark agrees.

Scripture teaches that the WORD of God does NOT return VOID, but ALWAYS accomplish the purpose for which it was sent. What is that purpose? To appeal for those who are enemies of God to be reconciled to God. The purpose is not to save them without condition. The purpose is to make an appeal and it always accomplishes that purpose...every time, even the times it is rejected, ignored, misunderstood or whatever.

Of course it does not return void. When God makes a declaration or promise to someone it fulfills the purpose He determined for it. However you can not equate every use of the term 'word' as being - the bible. The purpose of scripture is not specifically to reconcile, that is the purpose of the gospel message. Two different functions. But in either case, as says scripture, the Spirit of God opens their eyes/hearts.

Consider this, if a believer needs the Spirit of God open our eyes or enlighten us, how much more so the lost and natural man?

But he is saying the preacher has his power from the words.

No that is not what he was saying.

It is about the preachers revealing what the Spirit gave them to speak...the words of life. The TRUTH will set you free.

Yes it will, once it is revealed (light turned on) by the Spirit of God regarding those "WORDS" of Truth.

And that is the point I thought we were debating, so now I'm confused??? I've been arguing that the word/preaching is a work of the HS ("not independent") used to bring comprehension, and now you are affirming that IS what Clarke is saying???

Your contention as shown above is that the preaching and reading the bible is all the natural man needs to understand the gospel .. and as such there WAS NO personal revealing work of the Spirit of God as they read/heard the scriptures.

That's not what I was attempting to argue, as the illustration I gave you above shows. I'm arguing that God/HS works through normative means...(whether its the word, scripture, preaching, circumstances etc) not through some "light switch" method where he "does it himself" without the use of means.

Then why are you arguing with me?
My point is and has ALWAYS been (the very point you challenged me on) was that the means (the bible) is not enough for a person to come to understand spiritual truths. That the Holy Spirit MUST turn on the light 'switch' for them to understand.

Normative means (gospel, preaching, scripture, ministers, apostles, church)

or

Supernatural means (God doing it himself by inwardly turning on some kind of light switch making them just know/understand what they didn't know/understand before.)

See, this is how I know you've not been listening to me as I have never once stated or insinuated God flips a switch and they just suddenly have knowledge'. When you challenged my position is was that God must bring/reveal to man understanding of His word, and that by itself (just sitting down to read it) the natural man can not come to understand it's spiritual truths. If you are now hearing me and saying you agree.. then great :thumbs:

But now you are making the argument that Classical Arminians believe and teach that regeneration precedes faith? I can't find this idea supported anywhere. Please help

I have already listed the Remonstrance and a quote from Arminius himself. You can find others on the Wesleyan side by searching Wesleyan preveient grace.. as well as Reformed or Classical Arminianism.

And are you a classical arminian in this respect or not? If not, how do you explain this passage?

Actually, that view is both Mainstream and Classical Arminian/Wesleyan/Calvnist. And yes, I hold to that view.

So, you believe that we too could be saved by faith in Christ even if God hadn't sent the apostles, the NT scripture and his church? So, what do this means actually accomplish that God himself through this inward secret working couldn't and hasn't?

Answered this above

If the "light switch" of God doing it 'himself' is the ONLY thing that really accomplishes all these things then the chosen means really accomplish nothing.

What? The means is the vehicle by which the truth is conveyed, but the revelation/understanding of it is not something the natural man can comprehend apart from the inward secret, light switching one, work of the Spirit to bring the truth light they could never know themselves.

Now, this presents the problem for your view (assuming you hold to this view). Why does God work through these normative means sometimes but not others?

The 'others' I spoke of were creation and the conscience, and no, it presents no problems whatsoever.

 

[Allan]

Part 2 -

First, you say that as if you don't hold to this view, yet don't I remember you claiming to be ok with the general term "Arminian" in reference to yourself, or was that someone else?

No, I do not hold to Arminain theology. And while I agree with the substance of the view, I disagree with the wording and some subtle points of that particular view itself.

Second, the statement you quoted says, "But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible," yet you said that "everyone at some time...would become regenerate...enabled." If they can resist becoming regenerated then how can everyone become regenerate/enabled and thus accountable to either accept or reject what they finally have been given the ability to understand?

"I" do not use the term regenerate to describe God's revealing work, that is the term most (including and excluding various aspects of) Arminians and Cals use.

Second I did not state they can 'resist being regenerate' as I hold regeneration is conceptually synonymous with salvation. However if God reveals His truths to man, man can choose to believe what has been revealed to him, or reject and trade the truth for a lie.

Well, I think you know both the term Calvinism and Arminianism today are used quite loosely in reference to the more general nature of the two views.

While yes this is true, there are concepts that can not be divorced from the theological construct, and still be called one or the other.

Some debate that Calvin himself really didn't affirm Limited Atonement, so do we correct every Calvinists who does as not being historically Calvinistic enough

As you are well aware, Calvinists do not follow Calvin but since Calvin was the front man of the time for the view.. it gets his name as a pejorative moniker. As such, the theological system can exist just as solidly without the atonement being limited. Now if we were to make a more accurate equation to my point of your view not being Arminian would be to say -

I am speaking for the Calvinist position, and we hold that man does not need the Spirit of God to enlighten/reveal His word to the natural man, since the Word is the work of the Spirit and therefore whoever reads it can come to understand the spiritual truths therein, in due time through study.

You know as well as I do that I would be hit with 10 pages of posts telling me I don't hold to the historically or mainstream view of Calvinism. But since we have very very few actual Arminians here (and I haven't seen them in a while) I was just making the statement to clarify their view.

And since you often complain about the nature of the repetition on this board I thought you would welcome a new adventure. If it has been explored, maybe you can direct me to the thread, if you recall it, because I'm interested in this particular distinction...

Did I say, it was not a good topic. My statement simply revolved around the point of contention I showed was not actually, an Arminian position - at least how you have described it. It actually would be in 'contrast to' the Arminian (general or mainstream views) position.

 

[Skandelon]

Allan,

Because our threads are getting so long, allow me to summarize and hopefully clarify:

1. A boy sits and reads the New Testament. He understands it. He is saved.

----> I say the work of the HS was in producing the scripture (inspiration of apostles), preserving it and guiding it to the boy through normative means. The act of reading/hearing the words is the process by which one is "enlightened" or made to understand. They can either accept or reject what has been made known.

----> You say he understood it because the HS did an additional work in "enlightening" the boy to make him understand.

Question 1: Does God always eventually "enlighten" everyone in your view? If so, does he always do it the first time they read or hear the truth? If not, how do you know whether they just rejected it or weren't enlightened yet? In other words, is there any way to know that God doesn't "enlighten" who ever reads/hears the truth as they are reading it or hearing it?

I ask this, because if you could confirm that God's word doesn't return void but always accomplishes its purpose (which is to "ENLIGHTEN" its hearers), then you and I really wouldn't have much of a disagreement at all, now would we? We would both be saying that God enlightens through the use of normative means. If he is working in some supernatural way inwardly every time someone hears/reads the truth, how is that really different from my view that the two can't be separated? See my point? You said this:

Your contention as shown above is that the preaching and reading the bible is all the natural man needs to understand the gospel .. and as such there WAS NO personal revealing work of the Spirit of God as they read/heard the scriptures.

And while that is not an inaccurate representation of my argument, if you would confirm that the HS is always illuminating truth every time the word is preached or read, then there really wouldn't be much of a distinction in our views, would there?

Question 2: You seemed to indicate some difference in Adam Clarke's view regarding the mere reading of scripture versus the preaching of it. I see both of those as normative means that God uses to spread his Word. Are you saying that Clarke believes one of those means to be more 'enlightening' than the other in some way?

Question 3: Can you give me some insight on what the difference in what you see as basis comprehension of language (such as an atheistic scholar who has studied the scriptures might have) and what you call "spiritual understanding" that comes from the inward "enlightenment" of the HS?

I'm just trying to understand the difference between someone understanding the claims and doctrines of Christianity and someone being "enlightened?" And if everyone IS eventually "enlightened" how does one ever really make that distinction?

I'll stop there for now...

 

[Iconoclast]

Good and helpful work in these posts Allan. This can and does offer some nice distinctions in attempting to sort this out.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

On a note regarding historical Arminianism. I am familiar with the concept of Prevenient Grace, but hadn't heard it equated with the word 'regeneration,' which caused the confusion. I've just always believe that God's prevenient work of Grace was accomplished in and through the normative means clearly revealed in scripture. And from what I've read, I believe many scholars who held to that view wouldn't have attempted to separate the illuminating work of the Spirit from those means, but instead would have said, as I presented in the last post, that the Spirit is always illuminating through the words of scripture and preaching regardless of whether man accepts it or rejects it.

It would be comparable to what is called the 'common grace' of God's revelation through nature. Is the tree, the sunset and the beautiful complex nature all around us ALWAYS enlightening men to "know and understand his divine attributes and eternal qualities?" (Rm 1) Or, is nature only illuminating a particular person at some particular time as the spirit chooses to bring inward illumination? I think God is ALWAYS using His normative means to bring illumination and if you (and others scholars) explain that he is doing that through some inward working, that is fine as long as its ALWAYS being done through the means he has revealed in scripture that he works though.

Going back to Jonah. We both admit God could have just told him to go to Ninevah, flipped a switch to make him willing, and then he would have gone immediately. Instead, God "flipped the switch" through normative means (storm/big fish). So, the switch is still being flipped (illumination is still happening) in my view, it is just done THROUGH the means and not separate from them. In the same way, the HS flips the switch through the preacher, He flips the switch through the scripture. Make sense?

 

[Allan]

Allan,

Because our threads are getting so long, allow me to summarize and hopefully clarify:

1. A boy sits and reads the New Testament. He understands it. He is saved.

----> I say the work of the HS was in producing the scripture (inspiration of apostles), preserving it and guiding it to the boy through normative means. The act of reading/hearing the words is the process by which one is "enlightened" or made to understand. They can either accept or reject what has been made known.

----> You say he understood it because the HS did an additional work in "enlightening" the boy to make him understand.

What I don't get, is you keep saying an 'additional' work. It is the only work not an additional one. These are different facets of the same cumulative work

Question 1: Does God always eventually "enlighten" everyone in your view? If so, does he always do it the first time they read or hear the truth? If not, how do you know whether they just rejected it or weren't enlightened yet? In other words, is there any way to know that God doesn't "enlighten" who ever reads/hears the truth as they are reading it or hearing it?

Yes, God enlightens everyone to at least the most basic spiritual truths such as there being a God, sin, righteousness, and judgment to come. Yet, these basic truths alone will not save a person, though the rejection of these basic truths is also a rejection the Full truth they speak to - ultimately being Christ Himself.

We are not to concern ourselves about whether or not a person has been enlightened but we 'are' to be watchful for those who being enlightened are seeking out the truth with humble and repentant hearts. We are to teach and preach the word of God and let God tend to hearts and minds of the people.

I ask this, because if you could confirm that God's word doesn't return void but always accomplishes its purpose (which is to "ENLIGHTEN" its hearers), then you and I really wouldn't have much of a disagreement at all, now would we? We would both be saying that God enlightens through the use of normative means. If he is working in some supernatural way inwardly every time someone hears/reads the truth, how is that really different from my view that the two can't be separated? See my point?

I agree He uses normative means, but that does not necessitate He is working to enlighten them at that moment just because a person is sitting in church service one Sunday. As I said, my own testimony is that I knew the Word a great deal when I was 5 and continued to grow in knowledge of it till I was 17. But it was not till I was 17 that I had obtained understanding of what I thought I knew. That was the first time that God revealed Himself and His truth to me. It was the first time I understood.

I also have a friend who will tell you of one of his best friends (which is much the same story as mine with a twist), but when God revealed Himself and truths to him, through tears he turned away and wanted nothing to do with it. He has lived his life, and even on his death bed rejecting it (though by then there was no more tears).

You can hear other similar stories of people of various ages declaring a specific time in which God opened their eyes and hearts to see Him and truths.

And while that is not an inaccurate representation of my argument, if you would confirm that the HS is always illuminating truth every time the word is preached or read, then there really wouldn't be much of a distinction in our views, would there?

I haven't stated that as I don't read anywhere in scripture that happens.
The word being preached or taught does not 'have to have' an immediate effect (as in - they hear and suddenly grasp). Gods word being sent out can take years to bring about the desired effect, or moments - that depends on His timing and when He desired to have it come into effect.

Question 2: You seemed to indicate some difference in Adam Clarke's view regarding the mere reading of scripture versus the preaching of it. I see both of those as normative means that God uses to spread his Word. Are you saying that Clarke believes one of those means to be more 'enlightening' than the other in some way?

Clark draws the distinction not me, though I would agree because in the preaching you can be more informative to the whole of the truth being presented, where as reading there is more involved to get that level information.

Question 3: Can you give me some insight on what the difference in what you see as basis comprehension of language (such as an atheistic scholar who has studied the scriptures might have) and what you call "spiritual understanding" that comes from the inward "enlightenment" of the HS?

I already have quite few times. While the atheistic scholar can know what is being said by the scripture (in an academic sense) it remains foolishness to him. Scripture attests to this:

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
...
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Note what it is saying - the natural (unsaved man) does not receive/believe the things of the Spirit of God. This speaks to the bible, preaching, any normative means through which the natural man gains understanding via the common conveyance of information. We know this because it is the natural man in this passage is the subject doing the action - not receiving or better - will not receive/believe the things of the Spirit of God. Why does scripture state this?Because they (the things of the Spirit) are foolishness to them. How can these truths be foolishness (making no sense) if they can come to understand these spiritual truth of and by their own dutiful studies?

In fact scripture states of their own ability to study - neither 'can' they know them. Note that it does not state they can not receive or believe these truths, it states they can not know - or comprehend them. Thus the reason the natural man can not receive or believe the things of the Spirit because he can not come to know them by himself. This statement posits there is information of and about the things of God before him because the passage references the 'things of the Spirit' which he, as the subject taking the action to come to know- can not. In conjunction with that we take note of the term 'know' in the passage, which means to comprehend or understand. Why? Because one must have a spiritual mind in order grasp them. That spiritual mind is referencing the the Spirit of God who leads us into all truth - us having the mind of Christ. The only way the natural man can come to know spiritual truth is by the Spirit of God revealing or enlightening him - as he hears, sees, or studies it.

As I said, even believers NEED the Holy Spirit to lead "us" into all truth, revealing truth from the Word we might have not gotten right, or missed entirely, when we tried to grasp it apart from His guidance. If we being spiritual still need His guiding and revealing, how can we presume the lost do not?

I'm just trying to understand the difference between someone understanding the claims and doctrines of Christianity and someone being "enlightened?" And if everyone IS eventually "enlightened" how does one ever really make that distinction?

Hmmm... Just because a person understand the doctrine of why someone else believes others need to be saved, does not necessitate they comprehend the doctrine of salvation itself. For them they have the knowledge but it is foolishness. (ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of truth - so-to-speak)

Again, we are not to worry about the distinction. We present the truth in love, and if they believe, we are to help them grow in grace and truth by teaching them and equipping them to do the same. And if they don't believe, we are still to continue preaching and teaching to them as they allow us to, in the hopes that God in His glory might still work in their hearts to save them later on. But even then, that is not for us to worry about either.

Whether or not someone is 'enlightened' is merely the point at which they comprehend sin and righteousness (according to God) and thus understand there IS a God, and if so - there is a Judgment. It is not about the depth of that knowledge one might know but the personalness those truths etch upon the heart of the one who has been told. Even those who reject have those truths etched on their hearts and they will even judge themselves by that etching as well as a future judgment which will call it forth (so-to-speak) as a testimony against them.

 

[Allan]

I've just always believe that God's prevenient work of Grace was accomplished in and through the normative means clearly revealed in scripture. And from what I've read, I believe many scholars who held to that view wouldn't have attempted to separate the illuminating work of the Spirit from those means, but instead would have said, as I presented in the last post, that the Spirit is always illuminating through the words of scripture and preaching regardless of whether man accepts it or rejects it.

You still don't seem to understand. Let me put it this way:
No one I know separates the Work of the Spirit from the normative means in that there is no correlation to the normative mean. Not even I have made such a statement. The revelation of truth is produced in conjunction with the normative means of conveying information, thus there is no separation. However I have not found any scholar in the mainline views who states the Spirit of God is not the one who enlightens (reveals) the word that has been brought to them through normative means so they 'can' understand it.

That is our distinction here. You state that man can come to understand spiritual truth of and by himself apart from the Spirit of God enabling him to understand because (in your view) you posit the normative means in and of itself is efficient in conveying to the natural man, spiritual truths which he by virtue of intellect, is sufficient to comprehend spiritual things.

I think God is ALWAYS using His normative means to bring illumination and if you (and others scholars) explain that he is doing that through some inward working, that is fine as long as its ALWAYS being done through the means he has revealed in scripture that he works though.

Again, the fact He uses normative means does not necessitate He is always illuminating, as I stated in my previous post.

Going back to Jonah. We both admit God could have just told him to go to Ninevah, flipped a switch to make him willing, and then he would have gone immediately. Instead, God "flipped the switch" through normative means (storm/big fish). So, the switch is still being flipped (illumination is still happening) in my view, it is just done THROUGH the means and not separate from them. In the same way, the HS flips the switch through the preacher, He flips the switch through the scripture. Make sense?

Sorry, no one has said the Spirit works are separate with no correlation to the normative means. The means through which God instructs us works in conjunction with His Spirit that is educating us.

Additionally, the fact Jonah was already a believer shows he was already under the guidance and directive of the Holy Spirit. Especially since he didn't function necessarily by normative means since God actually came to him and spoke one-on-one with Him. Not quite normative :tongue3:
We were speaking of the unbelievers or the natural man

 

[Skandelon]

What I don't get, is you keep saying an 'additional' work. It is the only work not an additional one. These are different facets of the same cumulative work

But for you it is additional because you affirmed that producing the scripture WAS/IS a work of the Holy Spirit. You just insist that work is not sufficient without an additional work of "enlightenment." Right? How is that not accurate?

I agree He uses normative means, but that does not necessitate He is working to enlighten them at that moment just because a person is sitting in church service one Sunday

This is where we part ways. If the normative means ARE a work of God (which you and I both claim they are), then HE IS AT WORK whether or not the person responses positively or not. This is why I accuse you of beleiving in the need for an 'additional' working. If they are in church, being taught scripture then they are being affected by THE WORK OF GOD. How can you know what they are hearing is not sufficient for them to come to faith just because they don't? They could have simply rejected or ignored what they heard. There is nothing to suggest that God didn't provide them all they needed to respond, that is something you presume.

You can hear other similar stories of people of various ages declaring a specific time in which God opened their eyes and hearts to see Him and truths.

And I bet everyone one of them will talk about someone or something in their lives that God used. That special friend. That praying mother. That youth pastor who took time to come to my game. That bible in the bed side table. That church on the corner that brought us food. etc etc etc... So, YES, it is God bringing enlightenment, but it just appears to me that he does it through normative/outward means.... Big Fish, Blinding Light, Messengers (Nathan/Ananias) etc etc

I haven't stated that as I don't read anywhere in scripture that happens.

I showed you were it teaches that God word is powerful and never returns void and always accomplishes its purpose, right? Why would you insist that his Work in bringing His word is only effective sometimes when an 'additional' (light switch) work is also done? Why not say that the spirit is always working through His word and if someone rejects or misunderstands it, that is their fault and not a short coming of God's working?

See, I think that is what your view does. Look at your own testimony. You make it appear as if God's work in bringing you all the scripture and godly parents and ministers etc fell short until you reached age 17 and God sent an additional work making you enlightened so that you could accept. Why not say that it was YOUR FAULT that you didn't understand prior to age 17 because of your own sin and immaturity rather than suggesting it is because God's work just wasn't sufficient until you turned 17? See my point?

The word being preached or taught does not 'have to have' an immediate effect (as in - they hear and suddenly grasp)

I totally agree. The difference is WHY doesn't it have the effect?

1. God's fault because he hasn't enlightened them thus giving them all they need to respond?

or

2. Man's fault because they are sinful, immature, distracted, or whatever?

I say #2. God's word does not return void but ALWAYS accomplishes it intended purpose.

Gods word being sent out can take years to bring about the desired effect, or moments - that depends on His timing and when He desired to have it come into effect.

Again, you make men's rejection of the gospel God's doing rather than their own by this line of reasoning.

I already have quite few times. While the atheistic scholar can know what is being said by the scripture (in an academic sense) it remains foolishness to him.

What I'm not understanding is this. Earlier you said, "Yes, God enlightens everyone to at least the most basic spiritual truths," so that would suggest that at some point even this atheistic scholar was "enlighten" by God and "knows what is being said in an academic sense," yet still rejects the truth. So, what is the difference in the "academic understanding" and the "spiritual enlightenment" if both are rejected equally?

Scripture attests to this:

I think I'll start a thread to address this passage because it comes up a lot, plus this post is getting too long...

As I said, even believers NEED the Holy Spirit to lead "us" into all truth, revealing truth from the Word we might have not gotten right, or missed entirely, when we tried to grasp it apart from His guidance. If we being spiritual still need His guiding and revealing, how can we presume the lost do not?

Please remember that I DO AFFIRM THE NEED OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO LEAD US INTO ALL TRUTH, AND THE LOST AS WELL. My point is that He does so IN an THROUGH the means He has revealed in scripture.

You must remember that those MEANS weren't fully enacted at the time the NT was being written, so verses which speak of the need for the work of the HS very well could be in reference to those MEANS just being launched such as the church, the NT scriptures, the preaching of gospel, the indwelling of the HS in believers... So, when Paul speaks of the need for Spirit Revelation he very well could be referring to the WORK the HS is doing in and through these means...

Hmmm... Just because a person understand the doctrine of why someone else believes others need to be saved, does not necessitate they comprehend the doctrine of salvation itself. For them they have the knowledge but it is foolishness. (ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of truth - so-to-speak)

But again, even you affirm that everyone is enlighten by the HS at some point, right? So how are they still "not understanding?" They should be fully understanding but rejecting freely, which is what makes them "without excuse." It sounds to me like you equate "understanding" with "acceptance."