Featured Apparent contradiction?

Is that what "Calvinists" believe? Really? I thought they believed man is born with a fallen nature which makes him unable to believe unto salvation the truth about God. As someone else has already pointed out, it is the difference between mental assent to certain facts and "knowing", or "being in" a relationship with, God.

I guess the question becomes "when is God actively seeking to save the lost"?

In the example of Romans 1, is "God actively seeking to save the lost" when it comes to natural revelation? If the answer is "yes", and you still acknowledge that (based on natural revelation) no one is saved... then you must admit there is something wrong. That is a 100% failure rate. Either something is wrong with natural revelation, or something is wrong with mankind.

If mankind has the ability to respond salvifically to natural revelation, then you might expect to find some evidence of that in scripture, and you could expect some evidence of that today. Is there any evidence that mankind can come to salvation through natural revelation? I don't know of anyone coming to salvation solely through natural revelation. It seems, as far as I can remember, that salvation comes through the special revelation that occurs when God intervenes in someones' life specifically for the purpose of furthering His cause in the world.

If you can point to any evidence of someone coming to salvation through natural revelation I will be happy to look at it.

If there is no evidence of anyone coming to salvation through natural revelation, then you must admit there is ZERO evidence that mankind has the ability to come to salvation through natural revelation.

And if it is true that mankind can come to salvation through natural revelation, you might logically conclude that Jesus didn't need to die on the cross at all, since there is another way to God and salvation (through natural revelation).

It is not accurate to say the "only people who can't understand are those being judicially hardened".

Paul tells us in I Cor. 2:14 that "...a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

peace to youraying:

 

The difference is transformation. You can believe something without it transforming your life. You can mentally assent to a certain set of facts without it having any impact whatsoever on the way you live your life.

I quoted 1 Cor. 2:14 to show you that what you said about the only people who are "unable" to understand (according to the bible) are Jews who are judicially hardened.

Will you now change your mind and include the "natural man" as being unable to understand the things of God, since that is what scripture clearly says?

You can understand the truth about George Washington being the first president, and give mental assent to it or not.

Giving mental assent to that truth doesn't mean you have entered into a personal relationship with George Washington, does it?

peace to youraying:

 

I'll do my best to answer directly.

The answer is that God showed grace to person #3 (according to the kind intention of His will and not according to anything #3 has done or will do in the future) by intervening in His life with the power of Holy Spirit to convict #3 of the truth of Jesus Christ, and his need for Christ as Savior, and Holy Spirit regenerated his fallen nature in such a way that he is able to respond, and in fact now desires according to his human will to respond, with faith. Holy Spirit then indwells #3 and seals this new relationship with God. #3 will now lead a transformed Christ-centered life.

There, I have answered directly. The difference between #3 and the others is the intervening Grace of God.

You have, imho, misunderstood the passage. In I Cor. 2:10 Pauls tells us "For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God." The emphasis is on Holy Spirit revealing those things to us, not on us coming to that knowledge on our own.

The things revealed to "us" (believers) are the mysteries of God (v.7) based on the wisdom of God, specifically dealing with the Cross of Jesus Christ. (1 v.18 +)

Paul clearly divides people into two groups in chp.1 v.18 (those who are perishing and those who are being saved). He continues that distinction in chp.2 v.14 +, when he compares the "natural man" with "he who is spiritual" (a spiritual man...i.e. one who has been taught by Holy Spirit)

I understand that your view is that I'm somehow making excuses for the lost. I can only assure you that I'm not and I know I have never made such an argument.

We will, of course, disagree on whether God has granted to every person all that they need to believe and come to Him. I take it that you are referring to the gospel and that you believe that people are able to respond to the gospel (believing onto salvation) without the intervention of God, Holy Spirit to convict them of the truth of the gospel, regenerate/draw/ and bring to faith in Christ. We just disagree.

The point is, mental assent to facts does not automatically bring a person into a relationship with another.

I will not respond to any questions using your children or mine as examples. It is just too personal.

We are not talking about "doing something" based on simply processing information mentally.

We are talking about coming into a relationship with Almighty God...passing from a state of hostility and rebellion into reconciliation and peace. That cannot be accomplished with simple mental exertion. There is a spiritual element involved... a change in our position before God that can only be brought about for the intervention of God, Holy Spirit.

peace to youraying:

 

Shame on you Brother Skan. I expected more from you than this. :love2: :wavey: :laugh:

PS Please don't shoot me!!! Gulp!!!

 

You keep focusing on what people "know" or "understand", absent the intervention of God, Holy Spirit in bringing someone into a salvific relationship. It doesn't matter the extent to which they "know" or "understand" the gospel on their own, imho, because the defining issue is whether God, Holy Spirit has intervened in their lives to bring their understanding of the gospel to that salvific level required by God.

And I am suggesting that God uses the gospel as the means by which His elect are drawn into that salvific relationship,.... in conjunction with the work of Holy Spirit in convicting them of that truth, among other works that Holy Spirit accomplishes in the lives of men.

That is a distortion of my view. Unbelievers don't come to faith because they don't want to. They have rejected God, rebelled, and stand condemned. They are not unable because God doesn't grant it to them. They are unable because they have rejected God and their very natures are against God and His truth.

And the ROOT of the problem with your view is the denial of the role of Holy Spirit in bringing men to salvation.

If I am a procastinator, by my very nature, and simple cannot act in a reasonable way on the information that I have given mental assent to, then I will effectively ignore your gracious call for action by continuing to live my life in the same manner as I did before I "believed" what you told me.

If, however, you changed my nature so that I am no longer a procastinator then what I "believed" will be joined with action, my life will be transformed and I will live.

Of course. I simply believe those things are not the only "elements" in God's plan. The role of Holy Spirit in bringing men to salvation cannot be ignored.

peace to youraying:

 

Canadyjd, is God's grace in view in Acts 17:26-27, and who is included in this grace, and who is excluded?

 

I have not suggested anyone has an excuse. I have explicitly stated the opposite, which is exactly what scripture says.

Let me ask you a question. You claim that God has "graciously given them all they need to come to Christ...." What about the billions of people who grew up never once hearing the gospel or even the name of Jesus. Did God "graciously give them all they need to come to Christ"?

God's punishment for the rebellion of Adam and Eve, besides banishment from the garden, was (for Adam) toil by the sweat of his brow to produce food and (for Eve) increased pain in labor. Where does scripture say that God punished them by making them and their decendents not want to come to Him?

Now, a consequence of their rebellion is a depraved nature, but that is not God's punishment, that is the consequence of their own actions.

The distortion comes from your claim that the "reason" people don't come to faith is because God doesn't grant it to them. That is not accurate. The "reason" that people don't come to faith is because of their own sinful nature, they don't want to, not because of God's failure to act to act in their lives.

The whole world has rejected God. The whole world does not want to come to Christ in faith because of their own rebellion and their own sinful natures. They have no desire to come to Jesus for salvation. That is not God's fault and for you to suggest that is what I believe is a distortion of the truth.

I doubt you using different words to restate what I have said will be any more accurate than what you have already distorted.

You are wrong. That is not what I have said nor is that what I believe.

Yes, I see that your thinking is backward, but that is not my thinking.:smilewinkgrin:

I have, of course, suggested no such thing.

No, that is not. You are denying the ongoing work of Holy Spirit in the gospel plan of salvation that includes the spead of the gospel, but also the intervention of Holy Spirit upon the elect to bring them to a recognition of the truth when they hear the gospel.

peace to youraying:

 

Your argument is wrong, imho.

What better answer is there than, "who are you, O man, who answers back to God?" Of course I understand you see that verse as the judicial hardening of Israel, which I reject as not supported by the context.

You continue to call God's mercy toward the elect unfair to the non-elect. Everyone deserves hell. Everyone, including the elect, deserves hell, because everyone, including the elect, rejected God.

That God doesn't choose anyone other than the elect doesn't make the condemnation of the rest unfair or unjust. It doesn't give the rest the perfect excuse, as you seem to believe, to argue against God's condemnation of them as unjust or unfair.

Where did I say "consequences are accidents?" I said consequences are not the same as punishment, which is what you said.

Apparently, you don't like the idea that God is in control, do you?

Matt: 11:27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

"All things" includes salvation, doesn't it? Yes, it must because Jesus immediately says no one can know the Father unless He (Jesus) wills to reveal the Father to that person.

But you will say, "Then the person Jesus decided not to reveal the Father to has the perfect excuse, because Jesus decided not to reveal the Father to him." Right?

Your argument may appear to you as sound, human reasoning; but it flounders on the truth revealed in scripture.

peace to youraying:

 

In Romans 9, Paul is specifically speaking about Pharaoh (non-Jew) when saying God hardens whom He will harden....etc... and "who are you, O man, who answers back to God?"

So, as I already pointed out, you are taking the passage out of context and attempting to make it about judicial hardening of Jews when the passage is specifically speaking of a non-Jew.

Your complaint against God.... "They have the perfect excuse God, because You didn't grant them faith"... is just a re-wording of "why does He still find fault...who can resist His will?"

peace to youraying:

 

Correct: Here is Romans 9 to that point: I will bold the references to Jews

Rom 9:1 ¶ I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,


Rom 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.


Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:


Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;


Rom 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.


Rom 9:6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:


Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.


Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


Rom 9:9 For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.


Rom 9:10 And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;


Rom 9:11 (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


Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.


Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


Rom 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.


Rom 9:15 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.

I might argue, that Skan's point about this chapter largely being about Jews is..well...at least worth passing consideration no? Inasmuch as no one even mentions a single gentile until vs. 17 as you so astutely point out.

 

Now if I am creative enough, I will bet I can turn Romans 1:18-20 into a Calvin-free will debate.

In fact, this verse and the other one you refer to has nothing to do with a Calvinistic agrument, it has to do with what the two verses say. The verse in Romans 1 refers to the basic ability of man within himself to recognize there is a Creator, or by looking at nature, the stars, all that is around, that something created all of this. We would refer to it as an innate awareness of God the Father.

Being aware of the Gospel and the saving work of Jesus Christ is a totally different subject. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. This is an awareness of Jesus Christ, not God the Father, although they are the same, they are in two different sacred positions. We cannot know the Gospel without hearing the Word. You equating the two events is a total fallacy. In fact, John says we must believe in God before we can believe the Gospel.

So now, your next step in establishing a Calvin-free will debate is to make an issue of the moment in time when the Word of God is heard by a lost person. Will that person respond with an inward ability, or only if regenerated? That is a legitimate argument, but Romans 1 has nothing to do with the situation. Apples and oranges. Many people know there is a Creator without coming to salvation.

Also, you are creating a strawman, in all fairness to Calvinists. Calvinists do not believe one must be regenerated to be aware there is God the Father, or a Creator. Knowing that fact does not save a person. Jesus Christ saves a person, and that message is brought by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. If you are going to define the debate, correctly define the point in time at issue, ie, when the Word of God is heard, not when one becomes aware of a Creator.

Here is your next project. Here is the opening line to one of Dr. Suess's books.

One fish
Two fish
Red fish
Blue fish

Now your assignment is to make that quote into a Calvin-free will debate.

 

To add, one must believe in the Creator and one must hear the Word of God. But that does not mean that everyone who hears will be saved. Something else has to happen in order for salvation to take place. God must open the hearer's understanding. He must open their spiritual eyes so to speak. This is done totally by God's will and not our own. That is when salvation will take place. If only hearing the word saves, then everyone who hears it would be saved, which we know isn't the case. I don't know why God chooses to save some and not others, but I do know that everything God does is based on His plan and purpose. He doesn't do anything randomly with no reason behind it.

One fish, two fish - In the beginning God created......

Red fish, blue fish - God preordained that one fish be red and one be blue. The fish cannot change the color of his scales.


:laugh::laugh:

 

BINGO!!!! hence the doctrine of "prevenient grace" so the Arms are covered there.......next?

erm...uh....yah of course

:laugh:

. :laugh:

Now THAT is Brilliant:thumbsup: I tried to make one of those up but that is GOOD, kudos!!:tongue3: