Answering the major objection against Calvinism

[russell55]

You are committing the fallacy of non-sequitur: It goes like this.

"The bible teaches we cannot fully obey all of God's moral code (i.e. Ten Commandments) thus, we must not be able to believe in the One who fulfilled those commandments for us."

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the premise of your original challenge is that it is unjust for God to require from people what they are unable to do, and to condemn them for not fulfilling that requirement.

If you admit that it is just for God to require that people keep the law perfectly even though they are unable to do that, and that he condemns them for not keeping the law perfectly--and you seemed to have said you agree with that--then the premise the original challenge was based on is shot.

I understood your original challenge to not be about whether people could believe or not; but whether it was just, if they could not believe, to require them to do so. Why would someone think that's unjust, while admitting that God does the very same thing in regard to the fulfillment of the law? Is there some sort of fundamental difference between condemnation on the grounds of sin and condemnation of the grounds of not believing that I'm not seeing?

 

[Skandelon]

"If left to himself". What do you mean by 'if left to himself? It seems you are agreeing that natural man, in himself, lacks the 'ability' to respond positively to God. You seem to be saying that it requires the outside action of the HS to give man this ability. Correct?

I believe the presentation of the gospel is a work of the HS and that this work, accomplished through earthen vessels, is sufficient to enable a response.

Let's use an analogy. If you had a falling out with your earthly father and you literally hated him with every fiber of your being, would you ever just assume that this relationship could never be reconciled even if your father did something so amazingly merciful and redemptive? Suppose your dad, that you hated, sent you a message of reconcilation? Could that hatred not be absolved? Could that relationship not be healed? You seem to assume that because we are born unreconciled to God that this somehow proves that His acts and messages of reconcilation are insufficient to change that condition. That has not been established by the texts you have presented. The only thing that is established, from what I see, is that we are born in a state of being unreconciled to God. We are born enemies of God. Nothing has been shown to prove that we cannot be reconciled once confronted by the powerful and merciful message of reconcilation sent by God to "reconcile the world to himself." Has is?

 

[johnp.]

We are born enemies of God. Nothing has been shown to prove that we cannot be reconciled once confronted by the powerful and merciful message of reconcilation sent by God to "reconcile the world to himself." Has is?

MT 13:11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

2 Cor 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

john.

 

[Skandelon]

MT 13:11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

2 Cor 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

john.

John,

I'm glad you brought up these verses. Let's take a closer look at them:

First, the Matt. 13 passage...

You stopped quoting too soon: "[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

Notice that the passage says that their heart has "BECOME CALLOUSED," and not that it was born that way. Also, notice what it says they would have been able to do had they not "become calloused." It clearly says, "[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them," something that would never be possible in your system. So, had they not "become calloused" they might have seen, heard, understood and repented. Mark 4 explains this even clearly showing that the reason Christ chose to speak in parables was to keep "those on the outside" from coming to faith.

John, he has revealed the truths to the apostles but the rest he speaks to in parables, why? To keep them from believing. If they were born Totally Depraved that would not have been necessary, they couldn't have believed it with or without the parables. Christ didn't want the Jews to see, hear and believe because then they wouldn't have crucified him. He was blinding them. He had "sent them a spirit of stupor," but it is clear throughout scripture that this act of national judicial hardening was not unto certain condemnation. We can unpack this further if you would like, but this is just to show that I agree that Christ was preventing some people from coming to faith, but it is not for the reason you presume into this verse.

I'm not sure how the 2 Cor. passage addresses this issue...no one is denying anything that verse teaches...you may need to expound.
[/FONT]

 

[johnp.]

If we tie these two passages together:

Gal 5:17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

Rom 8:6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

That I see as explicit scripture without a mystery about it but the one that surrounds disbelief and that really is no mystery. Since you do not do what you want why are you are still held responsible for it and suffer whatever. (Not you. )

RO 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

But it is our responsibility. Why does God still blame us for who resists His will comes to mind.



john.

 

[Skandelon]

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the premise of your original challenge is that it is unjust for God to require from people what they are unable to do, and to condemn them for not fulfilling that requirement.

If you admit that it is just for God to require that people keep the law perfectly even though they are unable to do that, and that he condemns them for not keeping the law perfectly--and you seemed to have said you agree with that--then the premise the original challenge was based on is shot.

Did you read my reply? I said that God does not condemn men from "not keeping the law perfectly," thus your point is moot. God condemns men for their lack of faith. He rejects men for not believing in his Son. Yes, God demands that we keep the moral law even though we can't, but he doesn't condemn us for not being able to do so. Instead, he provides the means by which we can fulfill the demands of the law through faith in His Son...yet for some unfounded reason you want to say that His provision for fulfilling the law through faith is just as equally unattainable as fulfilling the law ourselves. Why do you do that? What is your support for such a huge leap?

 

[dwmoeller1]

I understand that you are defining freedom as simply, "doing what one desires," however I think this simplicitic understanding falls short in addressing true free human agency. This can be shown by simply taking your defination of freedom and applying it to the choices of a dog.

A dog chooses according his desires, right? Does that make it a free moral creature? No, of course not. It is an instinctive creature meaning it has an "[SIZE=-1]inborn pattern of behavior that is responsive to specific stimuli." Your definition of "free will" leaves no distinction between that which is an instictive response of a dog (afterall it is according to what the dog wants) and the free moral choices of men.

A good point...however you fail to take into account a key factor which creates the distinction you seek. That factor is that man is a moral being and a dog is not. A dog does not make moral choices, a man does. To a dog, there is only desire in relation to his instincts. To a man, choices and desires can be in relation to God and His commands. So, to a dog, there is no such things a moral choice - it chooses solely between what it desires based without consideration for wrong or right. Man however, takes into account the moral aspects of a choice and chooses on that basis.

So, when I say that free will is merely choosing what one desires, the fact that desires of a man have a moral element sets his free will totally apart from the 'will' of animals. Thus, because the natures of man and beast are essentially different, the exercise of their wills are essentially different as well.

Thus, the distinction you seek is found in the essential distinction between man and beast and how they relate to God and the cosmos.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose you lied to a friend yesterday at noon, could you have chosen to "not lie" given that all other circumstances were equal? Put another way, were you able to resist the temptation to lie?

Sure...but would natural man be able to act on anything other than a basis lacking in faith? No - natural man hates God and would thus never freely choose to act on the basis of faith in God.

So whether I lied or didn't lie is immaterial - free will exists and man can freely choose whatever they think best fits their goals and desires. The particular action is not what matters but the nature of the reason and basis for the action. What matters is that, at his core, man hates God and truth and will unerringly choose based on a basis of other than faith in God. So whether natural man lied one time, or didn't lie the next time, I can be certain that in both cases, he acted on a basis lacking in faith - that is, he acted on a basis which ultimately founded on a rejection of God as rightful Lord. Do you disagree?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Hello dwmoeller.
It's the same with the horse isn't it? The horse might have the equipment to eat meat but he has no desire to. If you concentrated on the desire instead then you would see that a horse cannot eat meat.

So are you merely saying that God has the 'facility' for doing 'anything'? If thats what you mean by 'able', then I don't disagree (excepting the logical absurdities - I would continue to deny that God has the facility for that).

So let me clarify: Is God able to freely choose anything, or is He 'constrained' by His nature such that He absolutely won't do anything against His nature - so absolutely that we can rightly say He "can't" in a real sense (even though He may still have the faculty for doing so in another sense)?

'Can God make a thing too heavy for Him to lift' isn't valid. It is contradictory and God is never contradictory. Same goes for a round square.

Ok glad to see that we agree on the logical absurdity part.

Paradox is a word to use when one cannot resolve a dilemma.

More specifically, it is the word used when one cannot resolve nor forsee a way to resolve what is still a resolveable dilemma.

I do not. And I'll give you another, Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience...

Yes, all are bound over to disobedience. This again is not the logical equivalent of "men are condemned for Adam's sin". The logic in Scripture is that men are condemned *as a result of* Adam's sin, but they are still condemned *for* their own sins. Adam's sin makes all other men's condemnation inevitable, but that does not equate to all men being condemned for Adam's sin. See the distinction?

 

[Skandelon]

If we tie these two passages together:

Gal 5:17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

Rom 8:6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

This doesn't address the issue of how one attains the Spirit. In fact, a very strong argument could be made that the spirit is attained through faith (which I can do in another post if necessary)...these verses only tell us the condition of the man without the Spirit it fails to address the ability or lack thereof for a man to attain the spirit through faith once confronted by the powerful gospel truth.

But it is our responsibility. Why does God still blame us for who resists His will comes to mind.



john.

Would you like to discuss this passage from Romans 9? I would because it is clear by this off hand remark that you are not clear on the context in which it is written.

 

[donnA]

God doesn't condem people to hell, all are deserving of hell, have earned hell. God in His grace and mercy chose to rescue some from that condemnation. The bible says we are dead in our tresspasses and in before we have Christ, we are slaves to sin, none seeks God, none does good, thats total depravity.

 

[Skandelon]

A good point...however you fail to take into account a key factor which creates the distinction you seek. That factor is that man is a moral being and a dog is not. A dog does not make moral choices, a man does. To a dog, there is only desire in relation to his instincts. To a man, choices and desires can be in relation to God and His commands. So, to a dog, there is no such things a moral choice - it chooses solely between what it desires based without consideration for wrong or right. Man however, takes into account the moral aspects of a choice and chooses on that basis.

So, when I say that free will is merely choosing what one desires, the fact that desires of a man have a moral element sets his free will totally apart from the 'will' of animals. Thus, because the natures of man and beast are essentially different, the exercise of their wills are essentially different as well.

Thus, the distinction you seek is found in the essential distinction between man and beast and how they relate to God and the cosmos.



Sure...but would natural man be able to act on anything other than a basis lacking in faith? No - natural man hates God and would thus never freely choose to act on the basis of faith in God.

So whether I lied or didn't lie is immaterial - free will exists and man can freely choose whatever they think best fits their goals and desires. The particular action is not what matters but the nature of the reason and basis for the action. What matters is that, at his core, man hates God and truth and will unerringly choose based on a basis of other than faith in God. So whether natural man lied one time, or didn't lie the next time, I can be certain that in both cases, he acted on a basis lacking in faith - that is, he acted on a basis which ultimately founded on a rejection of God as rightful Lord. Do you disagree?

DW, this is getting into a whole other more philosophical discussion...if you don't mind I'm going to carry this over to a new thread in which I will title: "Philosophical discussion about free will." Okay? Others feel free to join us...it should be fun.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I believe the presentation of the gospel is a work of the HS and that this work, accomplished through earthen vessels, is sufficient to enable a response.

But
a. will the gospel *always* go out with that power? Consider the parable of the hard soil.
b. will/has *everyone* receive(d) the gospel message? If so, on what basis do you make that assertion?

Let's use an analogy. If you had a falling out with your earthly father and you literally hated him with every fiber of your being, would you ever just assume that this relationship could never be reconciled even if your father did something so amazingly merciful and redemptive?

If he could do something to reconcile me then that would mean that I didn't really hate him - I merely hated him to a great, but limited extent. If I truly hated him with the core of my being, then *anything* my father did would be seen in that light. My father could not possibly be merciful and redemptive in my eyes if I viewed all his actions through the eyes of hate. They only way that could change would be if *I* changed somehow.

So, if man hates God with the core of his being, then any love and mercy God shows could not draw them closer. If hatred of God is at my core, then any action which moves me toward God would be contradictory to that. God might draw me, but hating Him I would resist with my very being. I might want something from God but I would never freely submit and would continue to hate Him. Somehow, the person has to change.

Suppose your dad, that you hated, sent you a message of reconcilation? Could that hatred not be absolved? Could that relationship not be healed?

If I truly hated my father, then that message would be filtered in my mind through the lens of hate and would be automatically miscounstrued as an insult, foolishness, a trap, or something else like that. If the message alone changed caused me to want to reconcile, then I never really hated my father to begin with.

You seem to assume that because we are born unreconciled to God that this somehow proves that His acts and messages of reconcilation are insufficient to change that condition.

Its not an assumption, its the *only* logical conclusion if we were truly born hating God by our nature. Now yes, if we didn't truly hate God, but merely were generally opposed to Him, then yes, that would be an assumption and a poor one at that. But if we truly hate God, then the only way around it logically would be if somehow our nature of hatred to God was changed.

That has not been established by the texts you have presented. The only thing that is established, from what I see, is that we are born in a state of being unreconciled to God. We are born enemies of God. Nothing has been shown to prove that we cannot be reconciled once confronted by the powerful and merciful message of reconcilation sent by God to "reconcile the world to himself." Has is?

If we are truly enemies of God, if we are truly unreconciled to God, then logically there can be no other conclusion than that any attempts by God to reconcile us (without touching on the nature which sets as enemies of God) would be opposed as strongly as possible by ourselves. An enemy which can be reconciled without compulsion is not truly 'at emnity'. If you posit that man can be reconciled without being first somehow changed away from true emnity, then you must logically conclude that the emnity was not total - that other considerations were of more significance than man's emnity with God. If emnity defines our relationship with God though, then no reconciliation is possible regardless of the nature of the offer of reconciliation. The one at emnity must first lose that emnity before considering the offer of reconciliation in its true light. Any of offer of reconciliation while one is still at emnity would be seen through that lens and thus could not be understood or seen in its true light. It would be warped and twisted in one's mind beyond recognition.

 

[dwmoeller1]

This doesn't address the issue of how one attains the Spirit. In fact, a very strong argument could be made that the spirit is attained through faith (which I can do in another post if necessary)...these verses only tell us the condition of the man without the Spirit it fails to address the ability or lack thereof for a man to attain the spirit through faith once confronted by the powerful gospel truth.

But one also needs to address the question of 'why faith'. If man is at emnity with God, for what conceivable reason would man, of his own accord, choose to have faith. Aren't faith and emnity mutually exclusive? After all, one who you are willing to have faith wouldn't truly meet the definition of 'enemy' would they?

 

[Skandelon]

But
a. will the gospel *always* go out with that power? Consider the parable of the hard soil.

The word carries power and it cannot be seperated. The condition of the heart, as illustrated in that parable simply shows that men are at different levels of "hardness." The condition of the heart is often dependant upon ones previous choices in life. However, one is not born hardened as the doctrine of Total Depravity suggests. He "BECOMES HARDENED" over time after continual rebellion, and NO not all men grow hardened in this manner. Consider those, like myself, who are raised in church and have never "grown calloused" to the gospel truth, but instead have accepted at an early age...men are not born hard. They are born able to see, hear, believe and repent just as the scripture clearly teaches (Acts 28; Mark 4; Matt. 13)

b. will/has *everyone* receive(d) the gospel message? If so, on what basis do you make that assertion?

No, but that is for another discussion...everyone is "without excuse" according to Romans 1. I do believe one can be saved through faith apart from the presentation of the gospel....but again this is for another discussion...

If he could do something to reconcile me then that would mean that I didn't really hate him - I merely hated him to a great, but limited extent. If I truly hated him with the core of my being, then *anything* my father did would be seen in that light. My father could not possibly be merciful and redemptive in my eyes if I viewed all his actions through the eyes of hate. They only way that could change would be if *I* changed somehow.

That is a fine explaination, now if you could just point me to the text which explain that our natural condition is such that we hate God so much that even a message sent by him for the purpose of "bringing reconcilation to the world" could not be accepted, then you may be getting somewhere. I'm sorry, but you seem to just presume that our fallen condition is much worse than what the scripture ever discribes it to me...especially in regard to our ability to respond to the powerful message of reconcilation.

If I truly hated my father, then that message would be filtered in my mind through the lens of hate and would be automatically miscounstrued as an insult, foolishness, a trap, or something else like that. If the message alone changed caused me to want to reconcile, then I never really hated my father to begin with.

I guess that would depend on how you would define hatred, wouldn't it? You just seem to assert these things without any biblical support.

we are truly enemies of God, if we are truly unreconciled to God, then logically there can be no other conclusion than that any attempts by God to reconcile us (without touching on the nature which sets as enemies of God) would be opposed as strongly as possible by ourselves. An enemy which can be reconciled without compulsion is not truly 'at emnity'. If you posit that man can be reconciled without being first somehow changed away from true emnity, then you must logically conclude that the emnity was not total

So, obviously you define hatred and emnity as being irreversible lest one is changed...but even if I were to accept this unfounded premise this doesn't address the irresistablity of that change required by your system. In other words, even we as "non-Calvinists" agree that a change takes place, we just believe that the change is not irresistiblity effectual. We believe the truth of the gospel is sufficient for the man to hear and thus believe....this is a change, is it not? It is a change initiated by the gospel and thus credited to God, but what about all this demands that it is an irrestible change that has nothing to do with the choice of the man? This is what you seem to presume.

- that other considerations were of more significance than man's emnity with God. If emnity defines our relationship with God though, then no reconciliation is possible regardless of the nature of the offer of reconciliation.

Translation: The powerful gospel message is not powerful enough. The Spirit wrought truth of scripture which is sharper than a double edged sword and able to perce bone and marrow and soul is just not sufficient to bring about the needed "change" in ones heart.

Biblical support????

The one at emnity must first lose that emnity before considering the offer of reconciliation in its true light. Any of offer of reconciliation while one is still at emnity would be seen through that lens and thus could not be understood or seen in its true light. It would be warped and twisted in one's mind beyond recognition.

So, if taken into the 'real world' this would mean that any one who seemingly had hatred or emnity toward another person and who came to a point of reconcilation that really there was no hatred or emnity at all, right? This makes no sense! Are you saying that if a person reconciles with another that true hatred and emnity never really existed?

 

[dwmoeller1]

The word carries power and it cannot be seperated. The condition of the heart, as illustrated in that parable simply shows that men are at different levels of "hardness." The condition of the heart is often dependant upon ones previous choices in life. However, one is not born hardened as the doctrine of Total Depravity suggests. He "BECOMES HARDENED" over time after continual rebellion, and NO not all men grow hardened in this manner. Consider those, like myself, who are raised in church and have never "grown calloused" to the gospel truth, but instead have accepted at an early age...men are not born hard. They are born able to see, hear, believe and repent just as the scripture clearly teaches (Acts 28; Mark 4; Matt. 13)

Ok, we will set that aside for now.

No, but that is for another discussion...everyone is "without excuse" according to Romans 1. I do believe one can be saved through faith apart from the presentation of the gospel....but again this is for another discussion...

So would it be fair to say that your position is 'God acts with power on everyone'?

That is a fine explaination, now if you could just point me to the text which explain that our natural condition is such that we hate God so much that even a message sent by him for the purpose of "bringing reconcilation to the world" could not be accepted, then you may be getting somewhere. I'm sorry, but you seem to just presume that our fallen condition is much worse than what the scripture ever discribes it to me...especially in regard to our ability to respond to the powerful message of reconcilation.

First of all, let me repeat again a clarifier that I have been arguing from. I am viewing man in and of himself, not in terms of what God's power works in Him. The consideration of the power of the gospel brings in a different element. When I hear you speak of power of the gospel, I think in terms of an active power - a power that acts directly on the hearer, not simply a 'powerfully persuasive message'. Is it fair to say that you view the power of the gospel in the same general manner - as a power which actively acts on the hearer?

If so, then whenever you mention the 'ability to respond to the powerful message of the gospel' you have stepped outside of the constraints in which I have been arguing. If the power of the gospel is active, then when one considers man's response to the gospel, one is no longer considering simply man 'in and of himself'. Do you see the distinction?

I guess that would depend on how you would define hatred, wouldn't it? You just seem to assert these things without any biblical support.

Right now I am working on understanding, I will come back to Scriptural support later - that will me/us avoid any prooftexting.

So, obviously you define hatred and emnity as being irreversible lest one is changed...

No, I don't define them that way, I would merely point out that there is no possible impetus for their being changed. IOW, if one hates God, what possible impetus would there be for changing from love to hatred? If there is no impetus which is reasonable, then logically the hatred and emnity would have to be viewed as unchangable.

but even if I were to accept this unfounded premise this doesn't address the irresistablity of that change required by your system. In other words, even we as "non-Calvinists" agree that a change takes place, we just believe that the change is not irresistiblity effectual. We believe the truth of the gospel is sufficient for the man to hear and thus believe....this is a change, is it not? It is a change initiated by the gospel and thus credited to God, but what about all this demands that it is an irrestible change that has nothing to do with the choice of the man? This is what you seem to presume.

No presumption, merely logic which is not yet clear to you. Let me see if I can explain.

Premise: Hatred and eminty toward God are integral to fallen man's makeup and nature.
Assertion: Consequently, some change must take place for man to accept the gospel.
Assertion: That change must be a moral change which somehow negates the hatred and emnity toward God such that man can now freely choose God.
Argument: The moral change is either partial or total. If partial, then one must be able to account for why one man would accept while another would reject the gospel...preferably without resorting to some sort of 'causeless choice' argument.
Argument: If the change is total however, then, just as it was true that fallen man hated God such that he, without some inward change, could not bring himself to accept God, it is equally true that man, loving God by nature could not ultimately reject God.
Conclusion: Thus, the 'irrestability' of the power of the gospel is a reflection of the power of the gospel, not a lessening of man's free will.

Translation: The powerful gospel message is not powerful enough. The Spirit wrought truth of scripture which is sharper than a double edged sword and able to perce bone and marrow and soul is just not sufficient to bring about the needed "change" in ones heart.

No, again, I was arguing specifically within the framework of man 'in and of himself'. Consideration of the power of the gospel would change that. Please try to read my argument in light of the qualifications I placed on them.

So, if taken into the 'real world' this would mean that any one who seemingly had hatred or emnity toward another person and who came to a point of reconcilation that really there was no hatred or emnity at all, right? This makes no sense! Are you saying that if a person reconciles with another that true hatred and emnity never really existed?

In the 'real world', hatred of another man is simply a reflection of hatred of God. The difference between 'real life' hatred' and 'hatred of God' is that only in the latter are there true opposites at work. What is true of God-man relationship which is not true of man-man relationship is that God and self are truly and fully opposed. To accept God means total loss of self, and to retain any part of self is to reject God. No other emnity of that sort can exist in the 'real world'. In the real world, any reconciliation never involves such opposites being reconciled.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Skandelon.

I've spent hours on your other post and I think I have whittled it down to this.

Total inability can be proved by GE 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Since God says we must not be allowed to reach out and take from the tree of life then we are totaly unable to. Just in case, a sword is awaiting those who approach too close.

This doesn't address the issue of how one attains the Spirit.

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

No one can attain the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit must attain us.

How's that? Is that addressing the issue?

john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello dw. Post #28.

So are you merely saying that God has the 'facility' for doing 'anything'? If thats what you mean by 'able', then I don't disagree (excepting the logical absurdities - I would continue to deny that God has the facility for that).

God does as He pleases and it pleases Him to do as He pleases without regard to any outside influence. He causes all that is and what isn't isn't.

So let me clarify: Is God able to freely choose anything, or is He 'constrained' by His nature such that He absolutely won't do anything against His nature - so absolutely that we can rightly say He "can't" in a real sense (even though He may still have the faculty for doing so in another sense)?

It is no constraint to be Almighty, Holy and Righteous is it? If He could be less then He wouldn't be Almighty so I suppose He isn't Almighty because He can't make Himself less than Amighty. He is certainly not constrained by only being able to do as He pleases. That He can't do as He displeases is meaningless.

JN 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
Jesus isn't constrained because He can only do what His Father does. God cannot be less than He. I don't accept that this reduces His Sovereignty.

[Paradox] More specifically, it is the word used when one cannot resolve nor forsee a way to resolve what is still a resolveable dilemma.

God is Sovereign and man has free will is a nonsense to my ears. They oppose each other to the same degree justice and mercy oppose each other. It isn't paradoxical it is a contradiction. To prove it paradoxical you will have to resolve it and then you can say it was a paradox but it's all right now. I know an illogical when I hear it, I think. I believe God to be Sovereign in the absolute sense of the word.

Yes, all are bound over to disobedience. This again is not the logical equivalent of "men are condemned for Adam's sin".

Yes it is. God bound Adam over to disobedience and that took us with him. All men were bound over at the same time. We are then conceived in that compulsion.

The logic in Scripture is that men are condemned *as a result of* Adam's sin, but they are still condemned *for* their own sins.

Twice damned? The reprobate will get what's coming to him for what he has done, or to be more particular on this occassion, the reprobate will get what's coming to him for the things God caused him to do. Where he obeyed the law that will not count against him or for him. If he loved his parents that will not count for him if he did not that will count against him.

Adam's sin makes all other men's condemnation inevitable, but that does not equate to all men being condemned for Adam's sin.

That is illogical. If by his actions Adam caused my condemnation, I'm not guilty, but condemnation was on me from conception because of him, guilt was attributed to me because of him, I'm not guilty, I am innocent. I've been fitted up. Guilt by association it is. I do not see a distinction. But we must be otherwise we could not be considered righteous in Christ if we were not considered unrighteous in Adam. As we have nothing to do with being in Christ so we had nothing to do with being in Adam. Symmetry is cool.

More specifically, it is the word used when one cannot resolve nor forsee a way to resolve what is still a resolveable dilemma.

How does one know it is resolvable if one cannot resolve it? Paradox sounds like an head ache tablet.

Any use?

john.

 

[J.D.]

When people are confronted with Calvinistic teaching their first and most difficult objection is typically something like this:

"How can God rightly condemn mankind with eternity in hell for not fulfilling a requirement that they are not even given the ability to fulfill."

This is an objection to Total Depravity. The belief that mankind does not have the ability to respond positively to the call of gospel message.

I'm interested to discuss, in a civil manner, with Calvinists on this board how they biblically respond to this objection and defend this view of Total inability.

The objection is natural. It was fully anticipated by Paul:

Romans 9:11-24 (KJV)

PAULS DECLARATION:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

MAN'S PROTEST: 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?

PAUL'S ANSWER: God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Notice that Paul's answer to the objection was not a compromise, but was an expansion of his first declaration. God is not unrighteous, precisely because he is God. God does is not obliged to meet our demands. Neither is He obligated to render anyone "able" to live righteously or believe savingly. GOD IS NOT OBLIGATED TO MAN IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, AND HE REMAINS JUST WITHOUT ANY MERCY TOWARD HIM.

PAUL'S DECLARATION: 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

MAN'S OBJECTION: 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

PAUL'S ANSWER: 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

ANOTHER OBJECTION BY MAN: Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

AGAIN PAUL ANSWERS: 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

How can we say that God is unjust if He executes His wrath upon the vessels of wrath, which he has fitted to that end? The text is clear, but we don't like the message. He has power over the clay.

The question for those of us that have been saved is this: Why did God save me? I shall never forget the night that verses 23 and 24 above changed my life - how I finally realized that my salvation was totally the work of God. Why he chosen to save any of us in mercy only He knows. And we should be forever grateful.

 

[Skandelon]

Hello Skandelon.

I've spent hours on your other post and I think I have whittled it down to this.

Total inability can be proved by GE 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Since God says we must not be allowed to reach out and take from the tree of life then we are totaly unable to. Just in case, a sword is awaiting those who approach too close.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]When they were shut out from the heavenly paradise man was only sent to till the ground out of which he was taken. He was only sent to a place of toil, not to a place of torment. He was sent to the ground, not to the grave. Why? Why not just send them all on to torment in hell? Because they would be given the opportunity (through faith) to be reconciled to God. This passage doesn't address this point. Certainly their is much symbolism and meaning beyond this discussion in regard to the trees, but I don't see how anyone can come to any hard and fast conclusions on which to base a doctrine such as total inability, especially in light of the power which is spoken of in the gospel.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Correct. And at the time this was stated you must understand that Christ had not yet accomplished redemption on the cross and sent the apostles into to world to draw all men unto him. Instead, if you recall Israel (which is the audience in Jn 6) was being blinded from the truth. Christ was hiding the truth in parables otherwise they might have repented and been saved (Mark 4). As the prophets told he had sent Israel a "spirit of stupor" so they could not hear and repent (Rom. 11). Why? God had a purpose to accomplish through their unbelief...the cross. This hardening of Israel was temporary and purposeful, but as Paul explains in Romans 9, it was just. Calvinists make the mistake of taking what was happening at this time in history and applying it to a holistic view mankinds nature. I know, I was a Calvinists all through college and seminary. I was wrong.

You quoted Jn. 6:44 when Christ had not yet been raised up, but consider John 12:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

So, you are correct in asserting that only those who are drawn to Christ will come to him, and when he said this to Israel in Jn 6 they weren't being drawn to him, instead they were being judicially blinded from the truth...this was for a very good reason though. Once the redemption was accomplished however then the WORD would be spread throughout the world through the church and by these means he would draw all men to himself.
[/FONT]

 

[Skandelon]

The objection is natural. It was fully anticipated by Paul:

Was it now? Or could it be that Paul was anticipating the protest of a Jew who was being judicially hardened? read on...

Romans 9:11-24 (KJV)

PAULS DECLARATION:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

MAN'S PROTEST: 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?

PAUL'S ANSWER: God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Notice that Paul's answer to the objection was not a compromise, but was an expansion of his first declaration. God is not unrighteous, precisely because he is God. God does is not obliged to meet our demands. Neither is He obligated to render anyone "able" to live righteously or believe savingly. GOD IS NOT OBLIGATED TO MAN IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, AND HE REMAINS JUST WITHOUT ANY MERCY TOWARD HIM.

I could not agree more. However, you must consider who Paul is addressing in this passage. He is not addressing the idea of God saving some random individual and rejecting other random individuals. He is addressing the idea that God is hardening his chosen people, the Jews, all the while saving dirty sinful Gentiles. So it not of the Jew who runneth after the law, but it it up to God who can show mercy even to dirty Gentiles.

PAUL'S DECLARATION: 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

This is a key verse. Why? Because it clearly tells us that God is speaking of judicial hardening. Have you studied the doctrine of judicial hardening? It is very different from the Calvinistic teaching men being born totally depraved and unable to respond. Being hardened is something that happens over time, not from birth. A man grows hardened only after continual rejection of the truth and judicial hardening of that individual only happens when God chooses to seal that man in his unbelief...which is show to be done for a greater purpose of mercy.

Men are not born hardened, they become hardened. If your doctrine of Total depravity were true then explain to me how a man who is born blind could "grow blind." Read Acts 28:21-28. Notice how it teaches that they grow hardened and especially notice what they might been able to do had they not grown hardened. Also notice the difference in the condition of the Jews and the Gentiles as they are contrasted in verse 28.

MAN'S OBJECTION: 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

PAUL'S ANSWER: 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

ANOTHER OBJECTION BY MAN: Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

AGAIN PAUL ANSWERS: 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

How can we say that God is unjust if He executes His wrath upon the vessels of wrath, which he has fitted to that end? The text is clear, but we don't like the message. He has power over the clay.

The question for those of us that have been saved is this: Why did God save me? I shall never forget the night that verses 23 and 24 above changed my life - how I finally realized that my salvation was totally the work of God. Why he chosen to save any of us in mercy only He knows. And we should be forever grateful.

I was 19 when I first was confronted with the doctrine of Calvinism and I too had a similar "awakening" when reading Romans 9, but 10 years later I realized my error and I pray you do too. This has nothing to do with supporting Calvinistic doctrine. It has to do with God hardening Israelites while ingrafting the Gentiles. I'd be glad to talk it through with you if you are open to exaiming your own beliefs, but typically Calvinists are so entrenched in being right they rarely are willing to even ask "what if." I know because I was one of you....