Apparent contradiction?

[canadyjd]

Ok, fine, that doesn't change the fact that they knew God and understood his divine attributes simply by the revelation of creation, whereas Calvinists teach that man is born so depraved he can't even understand truth plaining and clearly spoken in our own language in such a way as to believe it.

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.

This debate is really not about whether or not men seek God, we both agree that mankind doesn't. This is about man's ability to respond to a God actively seeking to save the lost.

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).

This is what I'm talking about. The bible clearly says they DO UNDERSTAND and that is the very reason they stand without excuse and you claim "they can't understand." The only people who can't understand are those being judicially hardened.

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:

 

[Skandelon]

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.

How is that really any different from, "Calvinists teach that man is born so depraved he can't even understand truth plainly and clearly spoken in our own language in such a way as to believe it."

Calvinists consistently quote 2 Cor. 2:14 to prove that lost people can't even understand the plain simple truth of the gospel unless the Spirit discerns it for them.

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.

Explain to me a clear distinction between understanding something well enough to accept it as truth and 'mental assent to certain facts.'

If I have mental assent to the fact that George Washington was our first president, doesn't that mean I understand that truth? What prevents me from either accepting or rejecting that truth statement once I understand it versus merely having 'mental assent to that fact?'

 

[canadyjd]

How is that really any different from, "Calvinists teach that man is born so depraved he can't even understand truth plainly and clearly spoken in our own language in such a way as to believe it."

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.

Calvinists consistently quote 2 Cor. 2:14 to prove that lost people can't even understand the plain simple truth of the gospel unless the Spirit discerns it for them.

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?

If I have mental assent to the fact that George Washington was our first president, doesn't that mean I understand that truth? What prevents me from either accepting or rejecting that truth statement once I understand it versus merely having 'mental assent to that fact?'

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:

 

[Skandelon]

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 still don't understand. Tell me the difference in these three people from your perspective.

Person 1: This person has mental assent of the gospel but doesn't understand it.

Person 2: This person has mental assent and understands the gospel but hasn't professed his faith in Christ yet.

Person 3: This person has mental assent, understanding and faith.​

What is the difference in these people? Specifically, what is it that Person 2 knows or understands about the gospel that Person 1 doesn't? I'm just trying to see a clear distinction between knowing and giving mental assent to truth versus knowing and understand that same truth. You seem to equate understanding with accepting, but isn't it possible to understand something you choose to reject?

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.

Read verse 10 and you will see he is speaking about "the deep things of God," that which he later refers to as the "meat," and which even the "BRETHREN" of Corinth weren't able to accept. (3:1-3) He wasn't speaking of lost people not being able to understand the clearly revealed truth of the gospel. If they can't understand it then they have a really good excuse for not accepting it. You let the unbeliever off way too easy. They don't reject the gospel because they don't understand it, they reject it because they consciously and rebelliously 'traded the truth in for lie' despite their understanding and God's gracious provisions for them. Don't make excuses for the lost. God has granted them all they need to believe and come to Him.

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

He's dead. God's not.

Let's try this analogy so you can't deflect on that unrelated point again. Suppose my 18 year old son rebells against me and we decide to kick him out of our house as a result of his rebellion. After a number of weeks I send him a note making an appeal for him to repent of his rebellion and for reconciliation. If he is able to give mental assent to the content of that letter, then (1) how is that different from understanding the content and (2) what, if anything, prevents him from returning home and reconciling with us?

If someone can give mental assent to the facts of an appeal to do something, why do you think they couldn't choose obey that appeal?

How is UNDERSTANDING different from MENTAL ASSENT?

 

[canadyjd]

I still don't understand. Tell me the difference in these three people from your perspective.

I'll do my best to answer directly.

Person 1: This person has mental assent of the gospel but doesn't understand it.
Person 2: This person has mental assent and understands the gospel but hasn't professed his faith in Christ yet.
Person 3: This person has mental assent, understanding and faith.

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.

Read verse 10 and you will see he is speaking about "the deep things of God," that which he later refers to as the "meat," and which even the "BRETHREN" of Corinth weren't able to accept. (3:1-3)

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)

.....Don't make excuses for the lost. God has granted them all they need to believe and come to Him.

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.

He's dead. God's not.

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

Let's try this analogy so you can't deflect on that unrelated point again....

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

If someone can give mental assent to the facts of an appeal to do something, why do you think they couldn't choose obey that appeal?

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:

 

[Skandelon]

I'll do my best to answer directly.The answer is that God showed grace to person #3...

I really was meaning the difference between 1 and 2 which is why I said, "Specifically, what is it that Person 2 knows or understands about the gospel that Person 1 doesn't?"

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.

I never suggested that we would or could come to any knowledge of God on our own. I'm suggesting that once God goes through all the trouble of sending his own Son (The Word made flesh) to speak words in human language, to select and disciple 12 men, to inspire them to write the words in scriptures by the Holy Spirit's power, to preserve those words for generations to come and to disperse those words throughout the entire world by Holy Spirit indwelled ambassadors, that would count as Holy Spirit discernment.

when he compares the "natural man" with "he who is spiritual" (a spiritual man...i.e. one who has been taught by Holy Spirit)

Yet in the very follow verses he called the brethren "carnal" and unable to receive these deep things.

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.

I know that is not your intent, but nevertheless that is what your view does. According to your view, why don't unbelievers come to faith? Because God didn't grant it to them. According to my view, why don't unbelievers come to faith? Because despite God's gracious provisions and appeal to come they freely rebelled. Your view gives them an excuse for their unbelief, mine does not.

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

Here is the ROOT of the problem with your view, IMO. The GOSPEL IS THE INTERVENTION OF GOD. It is the "POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION."

Is the gospel from God? Did He inspire it? Did He send it? Does He preserve it? Does He empower it? Is the Gospel gracious? Is the Gospel unmerited favor? Is the Gospel sufficient?

YES, YES, YES....

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

I totally agree. But those facts give a free moral agent the information he needs to make a determination.

If I tell your house's insulation has a deadly chemical that will cause you cancer in 10 years, you have a choice as to what to do with that information. You may reason that I'm probably a sales man just exaggerating to make a sale. Or you might thing I'm crazy. Or you might have an expert come check it out to be sure. Once you have the facts (mental assent) you have to decide what you are going to do with those facts. You can ignore them, trade them for lies or act on them.

I will not respond to any questions using your children or mine as examples.

Ok, pretend it is just some random father and kid.

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

I understand that but it just appears to me that Calvinists dismiss one of the most spiritually powerful divine interventions of all time as being some insignificant, powerless thing. The sending of Christ, the WORD of God, and his chosen apostles to proclaim the Gospel appeal to all the world and establish His bride, the church, to continue with that proclamation as His ambassadors to every creature is certainly a very POWERFUL, SPIRITUAL element, don't you think?

You've got to remember that when the NT is being writing that gospel was new and just being recorded for the very first time. I know the truth of it was ancient and the law and prophets pointed to it, but the mystery was just being made known. So, when they speak of men's condition prior to Christ's working and the sending of the HS at Pentacost along with the powerful gospel appeal, you have to understand everything has changed. God IS intervening. These are the MEANS God is using to seek and save the lost.

 

[convicted1]

Steve, we are actually supposed to present an argument. I get in over my head and bow out and admit I don't know how to respond. I make unkind accusations and pretend to be righteously indignant in response to an otherwise cordial and well meaning rebuttal on a DEBATE FORUM.

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

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

 

[Skandelon]

Shame on you Brother Skan. I expected more from you than this.
PS Please don't shoot me!!! Gulp!!!

Your editing skills are getting better and better. You will be a political speech writer in no time! :thumbs:

 

[canadyjd]

I really was meaning the difference between 1 and 2 which is why I said, "Specifically, what is it that Person 2 knows or understands about the gospel that Person 1 doesn't?"

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.

...I'm suggesting that once God goes through all the trouble of sending his own Son (The Word made flesh) to speak words in human language, to select and disciple 12 men, to inspire them to write the words in scriptures by the Holy Spirit's power, to preserve those words for generations to come and to disperse those words throughout the entire world by Holy Spirit indwelled ambassadors, that would count as Holy Spirit discernment.

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.

I know that is not your intent, but nevertheless that is what your view does. According to your view, why don't unbelievers come to faith? Because God didn't grant it to them.

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.

Here is the ROOT of the problem with your view, IMO. The GOSPEL IS THE INTERVENTION OF GOD. It is the "POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION."

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 tell your house's insulation has a deadly chemical that will cause you cancer in 10 years, you have a choice as to what to do with that information. You may reason that I'm probably a sales man just exaggerating to make a sale. Or you might thing I'm crazy. Or you might have an expert come check it out to be sure. Once you have the facts (mental assent) you have to decide what you are going to do with those facts. You can ignore them, trade them for lies or act on them.

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.

The sending of Christ, the WORD of God, and his chosen apostles to proclaim the Gospel appeal to all the world and establish His bride, the church, to continue with that proclamation as His ambassadors to every creature is certainly a very POWERFUL, SPIRITUAL element, don't you think?

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:

 

[webdog]

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

 

[Skandelon]

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.

I matters because if someone is never granted the ability to understand that which they are being expected to accept as truth, then they have the perfect excuse for their not accepting it. Ever had a kid tell you, "But, I didn't know." or "But, I didn't understand." or "No one told me." ??? You are suggesting all men have that excuse, and I'm suggesting that God has graciously given them all they need to come to Christ and their rejection is totally on them, not on God's failure to provide sufficiently what was needed.

And I am suggesting that God uses the gospel as the means by which His elect are drawn into that salvific relationship

That implies then the gospel is only intended for the elect, which clearly is not the case.

That is a distortion of my view. Unbelievers don't come to faith because they don't want to.

And they don't want to because they were born unable to want to due to God's punishment for the fall of man. Plus, Calvinist always speak of God God granting faith to some and not others. Why is that a distortion of your view? If someone doesn't have faith in your system, its because God didn't give it to them. How can you get around that?

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.

Let me restate what you just said in different words:

They are not unable to have faith to accept God's appeal to be reconciled because God hasn't granted them the faith to believe the gospel. They are unable to accept God's appeal for reconciliation because they are not yet reconciled. Enemies are unable to accept a divine appeal for enemies to be reconciled because they are enemies. If they weren't enemies then they'd be able to accept the appeal to stop being enemies.

Do you see the backwards thinking here? You are suggesting that because men are broken they can't be fixed through the means God has sent to fix them, unless they are first fixed thus making the means for fixing them useless and unnecessary.

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

That is only the case IF you deny the work of the Holy Spirit in producing, securing, preserving and dispersing the powerful Gospel appeal.

 

[canadyjd]

I matters because if someone is never granted the ability to understand that which they are being expected to accept as truth, then they have the perfect excuse for their not accepting it. ....You are suggesting all men have that excuse, and I'm suggesting that God has graciously given them all they need to come to Christ and their rejection is totally on them, not on God's failure to provide sufficiently what was needed.

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"?

And they don't want to because they were born unable to want to due to God's punishment for the fall of man.

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.

Plus, Calvinist always speak of God God granting faith to some and not others. Why is that a distortion of your view? If someone doesn't have faith in your system, its because God didn't give it to them. How can you get around that?

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.

Let me restate what you just said in different words:

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

They are not unable to have faith to accept God's appeal to be reconciled because God hasn't granted them the faith to believe the gospel.

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

They are unable to accept God's appeal for reconciliation because they are not yet reconciled. Enemies are unable to accept a divine appeal for enemies to be reconciled because they are enemies. If they weren't enemies then they'd be able to accept the appeal to stop being enemies.

Do you see the backwards thinking here?

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

You are suggesting that because men are broken they can't be fixed through the means God has sent to fix them, unless they are first fixed thus making the means for fixing them useless and unnecessary.

I have, of course, suggested no such thing.

That is only the case IF you deny the work of the Holy Spirit in producing, securing, preserving and dispersing the powerful Gospel appeal.

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:

 

[Skandelon]

I have not suggested anyone has an excuse.

As I said, I know you don't believe that, but nevertheless, my argument is that your position just does that. What better excuse is there than, "God didn't choose me?" You know as well as I do that the only difference between someone who goes to heaven and someone who goes to hell in your system is God's doing. That is what monergism is all about.

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"?

Well, that is a whole other subject. But, in short, they are too 'without excuse' because God has granted them enough revelation of himself through creation for them to acknowledge Him as God. Scripture seems to indicate that mankind will be held to account for what has been revealed. THIS ARTICLE expounds on this point.

Where does scripture say that God punished them by making them and their decendents not want to come to Him?

IT doesn't, which is my point. Remember I don't affirm the doctrine of Total Depravity, which teaches that God has ordained that all men be born totally depraved due to the Fall.

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.

So consequences are accidents? I don't understand? Didn't God ordain all things? Who, if not God, decided that the consequence of the Fall would be Total Depravity? Who, if not God, decided not to make all men able to willingly respond to His revelation?

If a child lies and the parent spanks him, the child is responsible for his lie, but the parent is responsible for decided the method and severity of the punishment. Who, if not God, decided the severity of the punishment/consequence for the Fall?

 

[canadyjd]

As I said, I know you don't believe that, but nevertheless, my argument is that your position just does that.

Your argument is wrong, imho.

What better excuse is there than, "God didn't choose me?"

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 know as well as I do that the only difference between someone who goes to heaven and someone who goes to hell in your system is God's doing. That is what monergism is all about.

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.

So consequences are accidents? I don't understand?

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

Didn't God ordain all things? Who, if not God, decided that the consequence of the Fall would be Total Depravity? Who, if not God, decided not to make all men able to willingly respond to His revelation?......Who, if not God, decided the severity of the punishment/consequence for the Fall?

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:

 

[Skandelon]

Your argument is wrong, imho.

How? What have I said that is factually incorrect about your position? Is it not true that those who don't have faith weren't granted faith by God? Is not not true that those who don't accept the gospel didn't have it spiritually discerned for them, so that they could understand it? (ref. 1 Cor. 2:14)

How is that not an excuse for unbelief and not accepting?

What better answer is there than, "who are you, O man, who answers back to God?"

Had Paul being addressing this issue then you'd have valid point, but since Paul is responding to a Jew being sealed in his rebellion (ref. John 12:39; Rm 11 etc) it has nothing to with the natural man's inability to understand or believe.

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.

"The wonder of God's mercy and grace is NOT that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves ANYONE!"

This is the very essence of what I believe, even as a non-Calvinist. God is not in any way morally obligated to save anyone because we deserve it. Again, this is a point upon which we can all agree.

However, God has obligated Himself, both morally and judicially, to save whosoever will come (believe). Not because they deserve it, but because He sent forth His Son to be a propitiation for sins of whole world, which is to be applied only through faith. His universal call to "every creature" to faith and repentance obligates him to save whosoever repents and believes. The doctrine that teaches that God only grants this ability to willingly repent and believe to a select few while appearing to call "every creature" is what causes the non-Calvinists to cry, "Foul!"

I don't believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because he condemns certain people to hell. I believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because He offers a pardon to all mankind while only granted a few of them the ability to receive it, all the while expressing a desire for all to come to repentance and a frustration for those who remain unwilling.

It is deceptive to offer someone a gift you fully know they cannot willingly receive. Especially if you, the giver, are the one who determines the receivers natural abilities. That type of offer cannot be geniune!

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?

What?!? I didn't say you said that consequences are accidents. I asked you if that is what you believed, because you seem to be suggesting that God didn't have a say in what the consequence for the fall would be. Did God determine that all men would be born totally depraved as a result of the fall or not? If so, then why did you deny it? You are the one appearing to suggest God isn't in control over those consequences.

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."

Amen. And while the Son was on earth He hid the secrets of the kingdom from the 'spiritual leaders' by using parables so they could not repent. Explain why he would need to do that if indeed they were born unable to believe and repent? Jesus is temporarily blinding them so they won't believe and so they will crucify him. This has nothing to do with their natural inability from birth; it has to do with God's hardening of Israel to accomplish redemption.

"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.

No one is denying that. I'm just explaining the historical context of day

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?

Wrong. Because that person has been rejecting the revelation of God for years. God has held out his hands to him (Rm 10:21) and longed to gather him (Matt. 23:37) but he remained unwilling. Now, God is sealing him in that blindness to accomplish a redemptive purpose through him. And one day he might be provoked to envy and saved (Rm 11:14). There is a big difference in that and what your system suggests, which is that he was born blind without ever having hope of being saved and will certainly die and go to hell as was his destiny from before the beginning of time.

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

Only if you misapply the revelation of scripture to fit your system. If you understand the historical context of God's judicial hardening of Israel you will not make this error in interpretation.

 

[canadyjd]

Had Paul being addressing this issue then you'd have valid point, but since Paul is responding to a Jew being sealed in his rebellion (ref. John 12:39; Rm 11 etc) it has nothing to with the natural man's inability to understand or believe.

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:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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:

In Romans 9, Paul is specifically speaking about Pharaoh (non-Jew) when saying God hardens whom He will harden

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.

 

[saturneptune]

Can someone explain to me how a lost person can, on the one hand, know 'what may be known about God' and clearly understand "His eternal power and divine nature" simply by the general revelation of creation, BUT on the other hand not understand the Holy Spirit inspired gospel revelation, presented in their very own language using basic terms?

How do they understand more from what is revealed in creation than what is revealed by the Word Himself? And HOW is the claim that they CAN'T understand the gospel not giving them an excuse?



Here is the passage I'm referring to:

Rom 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.​

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.

 

[Amy.G]

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.

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.

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.

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:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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.

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

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.

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

:laugh:

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:

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