Blinding Their Minds to the Gospel

[Jerry Shugart]

Here we see Paul speak about the "god of this age" blinding the minds of people so that the light of the gospel does not shine unto them:

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this age hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor.4:3-4).

From this we can understand that even those who are "lost" and "believe not" have the ability to understand and believe the gospel. If it were not for the fact that their minds have been blinded its light would shine unto them--"lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

Therefore we can understand that all men have the ability to understand and believe the gospel, even those who do not believe it and remain lost.

That completely contradicts the Calvinists who say that only some men can believe because God only gives some men the gift of faith.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry: Therefore we can understand that all men have the ability to understand and believe the gospel, even those who do not believe it and remain lost.

That completely contradicts the Calvinists who say that only some men can believe because God only gives some men the gift of faith.

HP: If man is born in a sinful state, salvations offer becomes mere justice, not grace. If God is going to blame man for a state of nature that could not be avoided, it would be justice that God provide them an escape from such a necessitated injustice.

Of a truth, those that start from a position of inherited moral depravity (a misnomer just for starters) change the glorious gospel of grace to mere justice. Then, many go beyond even that and demeanor justice by saying that an arbitrary God just chooses arbitrarily some lucky ones, leaving all others with no possibility at all of choosing a salvation not ever in reality meant for them to accept or reject. They destroy the true meanings of both grace and justice, and in doing so paint a horrible blight on the character of a Loving, Merciful, and Just God.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

HP: If man is born in a sinful state, salvations offer becomes mere justice, not grace. If God is going to blame man for a state of nature that could not be avoided, it would be justice that God provide them an escape from such a necessitated injustice.

Of a truth, those that start from a position of inherited moral depravity (a misnomer just for starters) change the glorious gospel of grace to mere justice. Then, many go beyond even that and demeanor justice by saying that an arbitrary God just chooses arbitrarily some lucky ones, leaving all others with no possibility at all of choosing a salvation not ever in reality meant for them to accept or reject. They destroy the true meanings of both grace and justice, and in doing so paint a horrible blight on the character of a Loving, Merciful, and Just God.

LOL & clearly you have little or no capacity to understand DoG theology so you throw rocks at it.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

EW&F, when you quit laughing, show us where we have misrepresented or went wrong in our understang.:thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

Here we see Paul speak about the "god of this age" blinding the minds of people so that the light of the gospel does not shine unto them:

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this age hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor.4:3-4).

From this we can understand that even those who are "lost" and "believe not" have the ability to understand and believe the gospel. If it were not for the fact that their minds have been blinded its light would shine unto them--"lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

Therefore we can understand that all men have the ability to understand and believe the gospel, even those who do not believe it and remain lost.

That completely contradicts the Calvinists who say that only some men can believe because God only gives some men the gift of faith.

But they are "blinded" already! It is not they become blinded but are blinded by Satan. Apparently you don't understand what "blindness" is? It is the inability to see. (Deut. 29:4).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

EW&F, when you quit laughing, show us where we have misrepresented or went wrong in our understang.:thumbsup:

Considering use guys comments.... that may take some time..... cuse my while I change my pants, kinda wet!

 

[savedbymercy]

jerry

From this we can understand that even those who are "lost" and "believe not" have the ability to understand and believe the gospel.

Please ! I do not see how you came to that conclusion. Those who are Lost cannot believe the Gospel because satan has blinded their minds.

vs 3 tells us those people are Lost ! This means only those who are saved can believe the gospel. They are saved from satan's dominion !

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But they are "blinded" already! It is not they become blinded but are blinded by Satan. Apparently you don't understand what "blindness" is? It is the inability to see. (Deut. 29:4).

The Calvinist teach that a man comes out of the womb with an inabilty to see the light of the gospel. According to the Calvinsts a person is blind from birth to the light of the gospel.

So how is it possible for Satan to blind someone who is already blind?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Please ! I do not see how you came to that conclusion. Those who are Lost cannot believe the Gospel because satan has blinded their minds.

Perhaps another translation will make it clear to you:

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (NIV).

The reason that the god of this age has blinded their minds is so that they cannot see the light of the gospel. That means that the ones blinded could indeed see the light if not for the fact that they are blinded. Otherwise there would be no reason for them to be blinded.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Calvinist teach that a man comes out of the womb with an inabilty to see the light of the gospel. According to the Calvinsts a person is blind from birth to the light of the gospel.

So how is it possible for Satan to blind someone who is already blind?

The blindness of human nature has its source in the fall and the fall occurred by Adam submitting to Satan and thus resulting in a spiritual blind nature self-evident in infants from the womb.

Dear Reader, Jerry has yet to give an EXPLANATION why SINFUL ATTITUDES AND ACTIONS are self-evident in infants without personal rational choice!! These are sins by definition of OMISSION because who can deny such attitudes and actions COME SHORT of the glory of God? Can you attribute such attitude and actions to the IMAGE of God??????

 

[savedbymercy]

jerry

Perhaps another translation will make it clear to you:

it does not even help you. The Lost cannot believe the Gospel because their minds are blinded by satan 2 Cor 4:3

3But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

Its hid from them ! So they are imprisoned in Unbelief !

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Dear Reader, Jerry has yet to give an EXPLANATION why SINFUL ATTITUDES AND ACTIONS are self-evident in infants without personal rational choice!!

HP: Dear reader: Biblicist has yet to prove that one single infant is sinful according to Scripture or reason. Biblicist denies both Scriptural accounts of the nature of infants as given by our Lord, and common sense in this area.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Dear reader: Biblicist has yet to prove that one single infant is sinful according to Scripture or reason. Biblicist denies both Scriptural accounts of the nature of infants as given by our Lord, and common sense in this area.

Oh yes I have! However, if you are an honest person I will let you prove it for me by simply answering the following questions:

1. Why do infants without training or rational choice, naturally express attitudes and actions that by all Bibical standards are immoral by defintiion of God's Word (hate, anger, deception, selfishness, stubborness, etc.)?

2. Can ignorance redefine them as moral attitudes and actions? I am not speaking about being held accountable for them but speaking only about ignorance changing what they are by definition - wrath being non-wrath; hate being non-hate; selfishness being non-selfishness; stubborness being really submission; etc.??

3. Do not such attitudes and actions COME SHORT of the glory of God? Or do they reflect the glory of God? Isn't anything that comes short of the glory of God defined as sin?

4. Can attitdues and actions due to ignorance change their nature from immoral to moral attitudes and actions?

5. Why is it that there is no need to train infants to express evil attitudes and actions but parents must restrain them and discipline them if they do not come by NATURE from birth?

Are you an honest man? If you are, you will attempt to use scriptures to deny what is obvious! If you are, you will not attempt to change the subject to something different? Are you an honest man? Let's see by your responses!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Disagreeing with your philosophy concerning infants does not necessitate dishonesty on my part. Reframe your questions if you desire answers from me. :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

Disagreeing with your philosophy concerning infants does not necessitate dishonesty on my part. Reframe your questions if you desire answers from me. :thumbsup:

1. Why do infants without training or rational choice, naturally express attitudes and actions that by all Bibical standards are immoral by defintiion of God's Word (hate, anger, deception, selfishness, stubborness, etc.)?

2. Can ignorance redefine them as moral attitudes and actions? I am not speaking about being held accountable for them but speaking only about ignorance changing what they are by definition - wrath being non-wrath; hate being non-hate; selfishness being non-selfishness; stubborness being really submission; etc.??

3. Do not such attitudes and actions COME SHORT of the glory of God? Or do they reflect the glory of God? Isn't anything that comes short of the glory of God defined as sin?

4. Can attitdues and actions due to ignorance change their nature from immoral to moral attitudes and actions?

5. Why is it that there is no need to train infants to express evil attitudes and actions but parents must restrain them and discipline them if they do not come by NATURE from birth?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: 1. Why do infants without training or rational choice, naturally express attitudes and actions that by all Bibical standards are immoral by defintiion of God's Word (hate, anger, deception, selfishness, stubborness, etc.)?

HP: The Jews as well as all reasonable men recognize there is an age of accountability, with no sin being attributed to anyone antecedent that age, whatever it may be. Scripture affirms this over and over in many ways, Sin is attributed from ones youth up. Jer 32:30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.

Just to remind the list how silly the approach of Biblicist has been, let me illustrate his tactics. What if I were to say, se there. The Scripture mentions the 'children of Israel. Waht does the word children mean? (Then he could produce his dictionary meaning of the word Children along with the verb tenses used. From this he could conclude that the children spoken of here could not have adults, because the text proves that they were not adults, but rather children.

His arguments over verb tenses have been no one wit sillier than the argument I just set forth. Let us be reminded, the Word of God is not to be treated as a piece of meat, nor is any language, GK or otherwise, to be treated as am exacting science. Language often defies strict definitions and strict verb tense usage in communicating thought concepts. It is often not the precise language used , nor the verb tense used in common parlance, that determines the real meaning that is being conveyed. In common parlance, that which Scripture is written in, common sense is often called upon to discern the true meaning of the text.

The hate, anger, deception, stubbnorness etc you talk of in infants is far from sin. I agree with others that have commented on you having a poor idea, a very low esteem, as to the nature of children, contrary might I add, to the words of our Lord. For sin to be predicated, one has to understand the intrinsic value of the command apart from rewards or punishments. Until they do, no sin can be predicated or any moral judgments predicated of their actions. Sin is a violation of the law, and moral law only rules over moral being, of which infants are not.



Scripture nor reason tell us why any one period has sinned. We cannot know the cause because the cause lies in the heart itself and we are not God. At time even God seems perplexed. He has stated that He has not even imagined in His heart some of the wicked acts of men. It should suffice every man to simply believe what Scripture says is true regarding the state of man, and be satified to simply go as far as Scripture goes and no furhter. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. In doing so all are in need of a Savior.
One thing I refuse to do, it to try and make up some Augustinian notion of original sin just to satisfy a question of 'why' that God does not even appear to know.

Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: 2. Can ignorance redefine them as moral attitudes and actions? I am not speaking about being held accountable for them but speaking only about ignorance changing what they are by definition - wrath being non-wrath; hate being non-hate; selfishness being non-selfishness; stubborness being really submission; etc.??

HP: You are not separating evil influences or inclinations from sin. One is an occasion to sin and the other sin itself. Sin is not conceived in the heart by mere temptation or proclivity, but rather must be acted upon by the will. You also error in not distinguishing between the sensibilities and the will itself. Read James 1 again. He sets forth the clear progression to sin, and it is not conceived in the heart from birth, nor in the heart of infants.

Biblicist: 3. Do not such attitudes and actions COME SHORT of the glory of God? Or do they reflect the glory of God? Isn't anything that comes short of the glory of God defined as sin?

HP: No. Sin is a transgression of the law. No knowkledge, no sin, for sin is not imputed, intents and actions are not judges as sin without knowledge. Infants have no such knowledge. Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Knowledge is a prerequisite of sin.

Biblicist: 4. Can attitdues and actions due to ignorance change their nature from immoral to moral attitudes and actions?

HP: You first have to have an understanding of the word 'moral.' You exhibit absolutely no knowledge of the subject of morals when you tell us infants are sinful.

Biblicist: 5. Why is it that there is no need to train infants to express evil attitudes and actions but parents must restrain them and discipline them if they do not come by NATURE from birth?

HP: We are clearly born with depraved sensibilities. They serve as a formidable influence to sin, yet are not sin in and of themselves until one first has knowledge of the intrinsic value of the command, and then willingly yields their intents in the direction of disobedience to a known commandment of God. Read James 1 on the progression that takes place for sin to be conceived.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: The Jews as well as all reasonable men recognize there is an age of accountability, with no sin being attributed to anyone antecedent that age, whatever it may be. Scripture affirms this over and over in many ways, Sin is attributed from ones youth up. Jer 32:30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.

Just as I predicted! NO ANSWER! Your very argument of "accountability" is a confession such attitudes and actions are immoral ("sin") but they simply are not being held accountable for such! That is admission they do such! Your chosen text is admission they do such! However, NO ANSWER as to the souce of what they are not held accountable for!!!!

His arguments over verb tenses have been no one wit sillier than the argument I just set forth. Let us be reminded, the Word of God is not to be treated as a piece of meat, nor is any language, GK or otherwise, to be treated as am exacting science. Language often defies strict definitions and strict verb tense usage in communicating thought concepts. It is often not the precise language used , nor the verb tense used in common parlance, that determines the real meaning that is being conveyed. In common parlance, that which Scripture is written in, common sense is often called upon to discern the true meaning of the text.

The hate, anger, deception, stubbnorness etc you talk of in infants is far from sin. I agree with others that have commented on you having a poor idea, a very low esteem, as to the nature of children, contrary might I add, to the words of our Lord. For sin to be predicated, one has to understand the intrinsic value of the command apart from rewards or punishments. Until they do, no sin can be predicated or any moral judgments predicated of their actions. Sin is a violation of the law, and moral law only rules over moral being, of which infants are not.

NO ANSWER! Just as I predicted instead of giving a source for such things he simply denies the existence of hate, anger, stubborness, selfishness, etc, in infants all of which are SELF-EVIDENT to anyone who has been a parent of children for at least through five years of age, when they are capable of full expression of themselves.


No honesty here at all! Just political maneuvering and denial! No answer to what souce such attitudes and actions originate from!

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: You are not separating evil influences or inclinations from sin. One is an occasion to sin and the other sin itself. Sin is not conceived in the heart by mere temptation or proclivity, but rather must be acted upon by the will. You also error in not distinguishing between the sensibilities and the will itself. Read James 1 again. He sets forth the clear progression to sin, and it is not conceived in the heart from birth, nor in the heart of infants.

You are operating on only one defintion of sin -willful sn. There is sin by definition of OMISSION - coming short of the glory of God. Are you going to say with a straight face that anger, wrath, selfishness, defiance, stubborness, etc., do not come short of the glory of God???? [/QUOTE]

Again, NO ANSWER - just another form of denial. However, let the reader understand that he has already admitted non-accountability for such attitudes and actions and that is a tacit admission such is sin.

HP: No. Sin is a transgression of the law. No knowkledge, no sin, for sin is not imputed, intents and actions are not judges as sin without knowledge. Infants have no such knowledge. Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Knowledge is a prerequisite of sin.

Again, NO ANSWER! But he admits again they do sin but simply are not held accountable because of ignorance. However, from whence does this sin originate which they are not held accountable for????

Israel had to offer sacrifices for sins of ignorances - thus admission it is still sin in God's sight whether they are held accountable or not!

Again, he operates only on one definition of sin - willful sin! The fact is they do sin and that sin originates from some source whether or not they are held accountable.

Just another attempt to deny rather than address the facts.

HP: You first have to have an understanding of the word 'moral.' You exhibit absolutely no knowledge of the subject of morals when you tell us infants are sinful.

The attitudes and actions of a person are either moral or immoral because such attitudes and actions are not judged by age, ignorance, willfulness BUT BY CHARACTER and by the absolute standard of God's Word for what they are by definition.

Stubborness, regardless of age, accountability, intention, is still stubborness by the unchangable definition of scripture. Lying is still lying! Anger is still anger, etc.

The CHARACTER of the attitude or action does not change because of the age, accountability or intention of the person doing it!

HP: We are clearly born with depraved sensibilities.

If the heart is pure in an infant then why are they not born with righteous sensibilites without depraved sensibilities? Why do they naturally express evil attitutes and actions which parents must restrain???

Here you admit they are "CLEARLY BORN WITH DEPRAVED SENSIBILITIES" but then you turn around and deny such are sin because you operate on only ONE defintion of sin? Can you honestly claim that such sensibilites that manifest themselves in attitutes and actions that the Bible defines as lying, anger, wrath, selfishness, stubborness, and etc., do not COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD???

Can you honestly assert that such attitudes and actions reflect THE IMAGE OF GOD?

They serve as a formidable influence to sin, yet are not sin in and of themselves until one first has knowledge of the intrinsic value of the command, and then willingly yields their intents in the direction of disobedience to a known commandment of God. Read James 1 on the progression that takes place for sin to be conceived.

[/QUOTE]

Again, he operates on only ONE definition of sin when God's word gives several definitions of which one is OMISSION or coming short of the glory of God!


CONCLUSION:

1. HP begins the questions by admitting they are sins but simply not held accountable because of the age of accountability but that does not answer the question as to the source of such admitted sins.

2. HP then proceeds turn around and flatly deny such are sins based upon one definition of sin - willful sin - instead of admitting that any attitudes and actions that COME SHORT of the glory of God of the image of God is also defined as sin.

3. HP then proceeds to admit again that infants are born with depraved sensibilities but demands the attitudes and actions or fruits of those depraved sensibilties cannot be called sin (even though he has repreated admitted they are though not held accountable) based upon one definition of sin - willful sin. However, here is his first real attempt to answer the question of source of what is self-evident sin in infants. He admits they are born with "depraved sensibilities" but then denies the fruits of these sensibilties (anger, wrath, selfishness, deceit, stubborness, etc.) are sins based upon one definition of sin.

Reader, if you read what he says he admits, denies, admits, denies and then finally answers the question of source by positive admission that they are BORN WITH DEPRAVED SENISBILITIES and then denies!

4.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The blindness of human nature has its source in the fall and the fall occurred by Adam submitting to Satan and thus resulting in a spiritual blind nature self-evident in infants from the womb.

Are you saying that the following passage is only in regard to Adam and Eve and no one else?:

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this age hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor.4:3-4).

There in nothing in this passage and nothing in the context that even hints that Adam and Eve are in view!

Again, Calvinism teaches that a person comes out of the womb blind to the gospel. So how would it be possible for Satan to blind people who are already blind?