Apparent contradiction?

[webdog]

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:

So the gospel is ineffective unless a further work of the Spirit is first performed? There is no Scripture that supports that view. The gospel isn't a divine tazer that everyone who hears WILL believe, but it is the work of the Spirit to convict sinners. The problem with your doctrine is it tries to play theopsychologist by pretending to know the heart and mind of the one who rejects it which nobody knows but the Lord.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

We've gone over this before>>>>

As I told you then, I'll tell you now: Pharaoh is an example of one who was blinded in his rebellion from the obvious truth for a time so as for God to accomplish a greater purpose of redemption. Likewise, Israel now is being blinded in their rebellion from the obvious truth for a time so as for God to accomplish a greater purpose of redemption. What is SOOO cool about this is that both acts of judicial hardening, the first with Pharaoh and the second with Israel, lead to the PASSOVER. This is foreshadowing. Pharaoh was judicially hardened to bring about the first passover and Israel was NOW being hardened to bring about the real Passover, thus the context is about the Jews being hardened. It certainly isn't about people being born totally depraved and non-elect, as your application suggests.

The story of the Exodus is a perfect historical narrative that foreshadows what is to come. Jesus is compared to Moses, the one who has come to bring freedom!

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?"

You beg the question by presuming the point up for debate. Did God grant them, the Jew, plenty of opportunity to come to Him? Did not God "hold out his hands in mercy to them all day long..." (Rom 10:21), did He not "long to gather them under his wings of salvation...yet they were unwilling???" (Matt. 23:37). For God to temporally seal them in their already rebellious condition so as to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose is certainly just and consistent with His other words and deeds. But to suggest this means God sealed them from birth in their rebellion (total depravity), never choosing to save them (unconditional election), never choosing to atone for them (limited atonement), or never graciously calling them to repentance (irresistible grace), is completely unfounded.

 

[Skandelon]

Being aware of the Gospel and the saving work of Jesus Christ is a totally different subject.

Agreed. But not unrelated subjects, for both are examples of God's revelation of himself to man. If man can 'know God' and clearly see, understand and know all that is to be known of God simply through the revelation of creation, how much more can man clearly see, understand and know and respond to the redemptive plan of the gospel appeal? God is successful at revealing himself in both situations.

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.

I never equated them. I compared them. There is a difference.

In fact, John says we must believe in God before we can believe the Gospel.

Yes. I agree. Why wouldn't I?

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.

Again, you misunderstood the point. The point was that if men are able to acknowledge the truth of God through general revelation, thus making them without any excuse for 'trading in [that clearly revealed] truth for a lie," then it certainly bares to reason that men are able to acknowledge the truth of God through special revelation, thus making them without any excuse for 'trading in [the clearly revealed truth of the gospel] for a lie." Understand now?

Jesus Christ saves a person, and that message is brought by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

Amen.

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.

FYI, any objective observer can see right through your "attack the enemy of your enemies to gain public approval and appear objective" methods here. They are quite obvious, but nice try nevertheless. :love2:

 

[Skandelon]

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.

Right, because God's supernatural work in sending his Son, as God incarnate, to live a perfect life, reveal his plan of redemption, establish his Church, train his apostles, and be crucified, buried and raised to life again, commission his apostles to go into all the world preaching (and recording in scripture) this inspired gospel to 'every creature,' sending down the Holy Spirit like fire to convict the world of sin, establishing his Church full of Holy Spirit indwelled believers, who are likewise commissioned ambassadors sent to make an appeal to all people to be reconciled to God....WELL...that just isn't enough. He needed to do "something else"...something more.

What is that? I know! Let's call it an 'irresistible calling,' by which God's Spirit secretly and inwardly enters a preselected few and changes their hearts to want accept and believe all those other less powerful and effective things mentioned above. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Amy.G]

So the gospel is ineffective unless a further work of the Spirit is first performed? There is no Scripture that supports that view. The gospel isn't a divine tazer that everyone who hears WILL believe, but it is the work of the Spirit to convict sinners. The problem with your doctrine is it tries to play theopsychologist by pretending to know the heart and mind of the one who rejects it which nobody knows but the Lord.

I do not pretend to know anyone's heart. I never said anything like that.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Luke 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Skandelon]

I do not pretend to know anyone's heart. I never said anything like that.

But generally speaking, Calvinism does 'pretend to know men's hearts' and why the reprobates reject Christ's appeals (i.e. Total Depravity). I think that is what Webdog is referring to. The Calvinist appeals to mystery as to why God chooses to save one man over another, but insist that man's choices are determined and thus can be defined.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

And how did they do that? By some inward secret working, or did they sit down with them and explain it? The context of that passage reveals the answer...

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

And who determined it was foolish? Was it because they deemed it foolish that they perish? Doesn't Paul say elsewhere, "They perish because they refused to accept the truth and so be saved?" Or do you believe the gospel is foolish thus causing them to perish? I'm not seeing how this supports your view?

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

And what means does God use to discern or explain spiritual truth? Doesn't he inspire men like Paul to write carnal believers, like those in Corinth he is addressing, to help them move from the milk to the meat of the Words (3:1-3) so they too can accept the 'deep things of God?' (2:10)

 

[webdog]

I do not pretend to know anyone's heart. I never said anything like that.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Luke 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Well, I did say your doctrine...but at any rate if you believe in this doctrine, it in fact does claim to know the heart of the reprobate...why not openly embrace it instead of deny it?

 

[Amy.G]

Well, I did say your doctrine...but at any rate if you believe in this doctrine, it in fact does claim to know the heart of the reprobate...why not openly embrace it instead of deny it?

We're all reprobate until salvation. What am I denying? You're confusing me (which isn't hard to do btw! :laugh

 

[jbh28]

1. So the gospel is ineffective unless a further work of the Spirit is first performed? There is no Scripture that supports that view. 2. The gospel isn't a divine tazer that everyone who hears WILL believe, but it is the work of the Spirit to convict sinners.

webdog, I'm seeing some sort of inconsistency with your post here. In part one, you stated that a further work(more than just hearing the gospel) is not required. At least that's how I'm interpreting what you said. But then in part two, you talk about the work of the Spirit.

 

[Skandelon]

It's only inconsistent to those who refuse to acknowledge that the gospel itself is a powerful work of the Spirit.

 

[jbh28]

It's only inconsistent to those who refuse to acknowledge that the gospel itself is a powerful work of the Spirit.

Not so, but again a clever non response.

Let met refresh.

1. So the gospel is ineffective unless a further work of the Spirit is first performed? There is no Scripture that supports that view. 2. The gospel isn't a divine tazer that everyone who hears WILL believe, but it is the work of the Spirit to convict sinners.

So does the gospel itself convict or does the Spirit convict their hearts?

Webdog stated that we believe tha tafter the gospel is ineffective without a word of the Spirit and that there was no Bible to back that up. But then in the next sentence stated that the "gospel isn't a divine tazer that everyone who hears WILL believe, but it is the work of the Spirit to convict sinners.

 

[Skandelon]

Not so, but again a clever non response.

But it was a response, as your remark below proves...

So does the gospel itself convict or does the Spirit convict their hearts?

Yes.

See, I affirm the gospel IS a work of the Spirit. The spirit uses the means of the gospel to convict, which is why I said what I did before.

Webdog stated that we believe tha tafter the gospel is ineffective without a word of the Spirit and that there was no Bible to back that up. But then in the next sentence stated that the "gospel isn't a divine tazer that everyone who hears WILL believe, but it is the work of the Spirit to convict sinners.

Right, that is because he understands that the Gospel is a powerful, though not irresistible, work of the Spirit. He gives credit where credit is due. The gospel is produced, preserved and carried by the Holy Spirit.

"The words that I speak to you are spirit and truth." - Jesus

 

[jbh28]

But it was a response, as your remark below proves...

Yes.

See, I affirm the gospel IS a work of the Spirit. The spirit uses the means of the gospel to convict, which is why I said what I did before.


Right, that is because he understands that the Gospel is a powerful, though not irresistible, work of the Spirit. He gives credit where credit is due. The gospel is produced, preserved and carried by the Holy Spirit.

"The words that I speak to you are spirit and truth." - Jesus

Let me ask you this, can the gospel without the Holy Spirit using it convict lost man?

 

[webdog]

Let me ask you this, can the gospel without the Holy Spirit using it convict lost man?

What you are asking is essentially "can the Holy Spirit without the Holy Spirit convict sinners"?

 

[jbh28]

What you are asking is essentially "can the Holy Spirit without the Holy Spirit convict sinners"?

The gospel is the truth that Jesus did on the cross and was raised up again. The Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the trinity.

 

[webdog]

The gospel is the truth that Jesus did on the cross and was raised up again. The Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the trinity.

semantics. How did Scripture come into existence and under who's inspiration?

This kind of thinking is similar to those that didn't think Christ calling Lazarus out of the grave was powerful enough, he had to be made alive by the Spirit to respond. That cheapens the power of my Savior and I'll have none of it! If the Word is not powerful enough to respond to when called, what good is our faith?

 

[jbh28]

semantics. How did Scripture come into existence and under who's inspiration?

This kind of thinking is similar to those that didn't think Christ calling Lazarus out of the grave was powerful enough, he had to be made alive by the Spirit to respond. That cheapens the power of my Savior and I'll have none of it! If the Word is not powerful enough to respond to when called, what good is our faith?

Let's do a refresher of what you said.

1. So the gospel is ineffective unless a further work of the Spirit is first performed? There is no Scripture that supports that view. 2. The gospel isn't a divine tazer that everyone who hears WILL believe, but it is the work of the Spirit to convict sinners.

What you said above wasn't based on the Bible but your opinion. (ok, the story of Lazarus was on the Bible...) The Holy Spirit convicts the heart. Just giving the gospel alone doesn't save. I've given the gospel to people and they were not saved.

 

[Skandelon]

Let me ask you this, can the gospel without the Holy Spirit using it convict lost man?

That's like asking, "Can the book you wrote without you having written it be used to teach others?"

The Gospel IS A WORK of the Holy Spirit. The gospel is the means by which the Holy Spirit has made his appeal to man. It is the means God discerns his desire for all men to come to faith and repentance. It is the "POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION."

 

[Skandelon]

What you are asking is essentially "can the Holy Spirit without the Holy Spirit convict sinners"?

EXACTLY!!! :applause:

 

[Skandelon]

Just giving the gospel alone doesn't save.

Let's reword this statement replacing the word "gospel" with Paul's definition of gospel, shall we?

"Just the power of God for salvation alone, doesn't save."

So, why did he call the gospel the power of God for salvation if it doesn't have the power to save?

The Holy Spirit convicts the heart. Just giving the gospel alone doesn't save.

How does the Holy Spirit convict the heart? What means, if any, does the Holy Spirit use to convict men's hearts?

I'll give you a clue. It starts with the letter "G" and sound's like "ospel."

I've given the gospel to people and they were not saved.

Thus the proof that God's gracious Holy Spirit wrought calling is not irresistible. Thanks!