Cause and effect, singular versus plural - Jn. 6:44

[saturneptune]

Your objection to the illustration is all rooted on the basis of your presumptions about the text in question...that is the fallacy called 'question begging.'

The analogy is not meant to represent YOUR perspective of this passage, but ours, thus to attack it on the basis of your presumptions about the text is question begging at its worst. From our perspective, the term draw perfectly correlates with the idea of recruiting which is why it is a good illustration of OUR VIEW. It is our PERSPECTIVE being illustrated, period. It doesn't need to be debated or refuted, just understood. Once understood you can continue to argue for your perspective and in support of your presumptions, but you can't attack my analogy as if it exists within your presumptions....well you can, but it is a debate fallacy that accomplishes nothing.

Now that is rich, coming from the poster child of question begging and straw men when posting in the Calvin-free will debates.

If they have an internal inability to believe (there is no if about it), then they are still without excuse because that is what the Lord and Scripture says. Your logic does not trump the Bible.

 

[Skandelon]

Now that is rich, coming from the poster child of question begging and straw men when posting in the Calvin-free will debates.

You will need to support your accusations with actual quotes and then make your case (as I have done). These baseless accusations serve only to inflame and could be interpreted as combative. This isn't meant to be personal. We all can fall into using fallacies and it is well within anyone's right to call it out when they see it, but an honest debater will do so with kindness and then bring support for his charge. Your statement comes across as purely inflammatory. I think we can do better than that.

If they have an internal inability to believe (there is no if about it), then they are still without excuse because that is what the Lord and Scripture says. Your logic does not trump the Bible.

Aww, thank you for providing a perfect example of question begging. i.e. "Your interpretation of what the Lord says is wrong because my interpretation of what the Lord says is right."

Again, this is the lowest form of debate and I'd like to challenge us to strive for something deeper and more substantive than this.

 

[Winman]

If they have an internal inability to believe then they have a perfect excuse for not believing, and Paul says they don't have any such excuses (Rom. 1).

The internal will must be convinced or persuaded, yes, but don't you think the gospel truth is powerful enough to accomplish the purpose for which it was sent (i.e. to make an appeal to be reconciled?)


You say that as if it is a small thing. You do believe the gospel, the very Word of God, is powerful, effective and sharper than a double edged sword and able to cut through bone, marrow and even into the soul of a man, don't you? The WORD is TRUTH and truth can set men free...bring the dead to life...convict the most wayward heart. The WORD has power, don't you believe that?

The scriptures say God gives the spirit of man understanding through inspiration (not regeneration).

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

 

[saturneptune]

Again, this is the lowest form of debate and I'd like to challenge us to strive for something deeper and more substantive than this.

Then take your own advice.

 

[The Biblicist]

If they have an internal inability to believe then they have a perfect excuse for not believing, and Paul says they don't have any such excuses (Rom. 1).

Your whole statement presumes their innocence for their inability as that is the only possible way they could have an excuse. The very simple verse that says "the wages of sin is death" repudiates your whole presumption. Inability is not due to righteousness but sin and they sinned in Adam and the proof is that every human being coming into the world is subject to that WAGE of death which cannot be earned by righteousness.

The internal will must be convinced or persuaded, yes, but don't you think the gospel truth is powerful enough to accomplish the purpose for which it was sent (i.e. to make an appeal to be reconciled?)

There is no need to convince the will if the will is unaffected by sin. If the will is effected by sin then convincing is not the issue is it? Romans 7:18 clearly demonstrates the will cannot overpower the "law of sin" and therefore it is the indwelling power of the law of sin that is the prohibitor not the will. Hence, drawing must be the power of God that renders that deals with the real INTERNAL problem which is the power of "the law of sin."

Your illustration fails to be a proper application to John 6:44 because it is PURELY EXTERNAL without any kind of INTERNAL problem or solution found within the person of the recruit.

 

[Skandelon]

Then take your own advice.

I will, and when you can actually provide an instance when I'm not I'll look forward to you presenting it to me in a Christlike manner. :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

Your whole statement presumes their innocence for their inability

I have no idea what this is suppose to mean as I don't believe in 'inability' and thus wouldn't presume it. ???

Your argument presumes that 'spiritual death' equals 'man's innate total inability to respond to God's powerful life giving truth,' which is the very point up for debate and a very large leap to make without much biblical support. We can debate that point if you'd like...

There is no need to convince the will if the will is unaffected by sin.

Who believes that?

If the will is effected by sin then convincing is not the issue is it?

Why not? Paul often spoke of persuading his audience, why wouldn't we?

Your illustration fails to be a proper application to John 6:44 because it is PURELY EXTERNAL without any kind of INTERNAL problem or solution found within the person of the recruit.

We went over this...external means can effect the internal soul of a man...remember the double edge sword quote from above? The word has power...right?

 

[The Biblicist]

I have no idea what this is suppose to mean as I don't believe in 'inability' and thus wouldn't presume it. ???


Your argument presumes that 'spiritual death' equals 'man's innate total inability to respond to God's powerful life giving truth,' which is the very point up for debate and a very large leap to make without much biblical support. We can debate that point if you'd like...

Who believes that?

Why not? Paul often spoke of persuading his audience, why wouldn't we?

We went over this...external means can effect the internal soul of a man...remember the double edge sword quote from above? The word has power...right?

You remind me of the demoncrats that come on Fox on the weekend. They are wrong and they know they are wrong but they come on to do one thing and one thing only. Confuse and divert the listeners while directly contradicting the facts and then say they did not.

You are the one who said this:

If they have an internal inability to believe then they have a perfect excuse for not believing, and Paul says they don't have any such excuses (Rom. 1).

The "if" presents a hypothetic consideration. Your hypothetic consideration is completely and totally based upon the presumption that those in Romans 1 have a "perfect excuse" only because you are assuming they are not accountable for their inabilty. For if they were accountable for their inability there can be no excuse at all even in spite of their inability.

So, your whole statement presumes that someone other then themselves are accountable for their own inability as that is the only possible way to claim they could claim "inabiltity" as a justified excuse.

What you don't understand is that they are accountable for their inability as spiritual inability is PART of the consequences of their sin IN ADAM. The absolute proof they acted IN ADAM is that all humans coming into the world partake of the WAGES of sin and that is UNJUST unless they also EARNED those wages in some sense. The whole human nature existed in "ONE MAN" and by "ONE MAN's disobedience many were made sinners" because ALL MEN existed in Adam as ONE HUMAN NATURE acting in unity and when he sinned "all men sinned." That is why we PARTAKE of the WAGES of sin because we PARTOOK in the EARNING of sin.

Therefore, inability is EARNED by all mankind in the fall and thus NONE, no not one, can use that for an excuse.

 

[saturneptune]

I will, and when you can actually provide an instance when I'm not I'll look forward to you presenting it to me in a Christlike manner. :wavey:

Here is one of your quotes "Your objection to the illustration is all rooted on the basis of your presumptions about the text in question...that is the fallacy called 'question begging.'"

How is it Christlike to tell a poster he is doing this, when you are doing the exact same thing, starting from a conclusion you have made to form the question?

 

[The Biblicist]

There is no need to convince the will if the will is unaffected by sin. If the will is effected by sin then convincing is not the issue is it? Romans 7:18 clearly demonstrates the will cannot overpower the "law of sin" and therefore it is the indwelling power of the law of sin that is the prohibitor not the will. Hence, drawing must be the power of God that renders that deals with the real INTERNAL problem which is the power of "the law of sin."

Your illustration fails to be a proper application to John 6:44 because it is PURELY EXTERNAL without any kind of INTERNAL problem or solution found within the person of the recruit.

Do you reject the indwelling "law of sin" also? If not, then how do you explain the INABILTY OF THE WILL in Romans 7:18 to overcome "the law of sin"? This fact alone repudiates your whole illustration and its total EXTERNAL problem and solution scenario as beng applicable to John 6:44. For if the will cannot overpower indwelling "law of sin" then what frees the will to come to Christ if it is not an INTERNAL power superior to the INTERNAL power of "the law of sin"?? It cannot be mere EXTERNAL exposure to the gospel or else every human being so exposed would be freed from the power of indwelling sin. Ephesians 4:18 denies the problem is external and 2 Cor. 4:6 denies the solution is external.

What you do not grasp is that John 6:45 completely repudiates your illustration and theory that the gospel always comes in power rather than many times in "word only" as John 6:45 demands "EVERY MAN" taught by God comes to Christ and that is not true to merely EXTERNAL exposure to the gospel and you know that.

 

[Skandelon]

Here is one of your quotes "Your objection to the illustration is all rooted on the basis of your presumptions about the text in question...that is the fallacy called 'question begging.'"

How is it Christlike to tell a poster he is doing this, when you are doing the exact same thing, starting from a conclusion you have made to form the question?

What are you talking about? Quote where you believe I 'begged the question' and make your case. I don't think you read through the tread and even know what we were addressing...at least you don't appear to be up to date on the subject being addressed.

 

[Skandelon]

You remind me of the demoncrats that come on Fox on the weekend. They are wrong and they know they are wrong but they come on to do one thing and one thing only. Confuse and divert the listeners while directly contradicting the facts and then say they did not.

You calling me a democrat? Now its really getting nasty! :laugh:

You are the one who said this:

If they have an internal inability to believe then they have a perfect excuse for not believing, and Paul says they don't have any such excuses (Rom. 1).

The "if" presents a hypothetic consideration. Your hypothetic consideration is completely and totally based upon the presumption that those in Romans 1 have a "perfect excuse" only because you are assuming they are not accountable for their inabilty.

No, my not objecting to mankind being accountable for their inability within the Calvinistic system I'm objecting to inability on the basis of Paul's teaching for the reason that men are without excuse. Paul says they are 'without excuse' because they are ABLE to see and understand the revelation of God, while Calvinists say they are not able to see and understand God's revelation unless first regenerated.

Therefore, inability is EARNED by all mankind in the fall and thus NONE, no not one, can use that for an excuse.

I understand your position, as I used to believe it. You think the wages of sin is total inability. I get it. But you still haven't told us who, if not God, set those wages.

 

[The Biblicist]

You calling me a democrat? Now its really getting nasty! :laugh:

Well we see eye to eye on that:laugh:

No, my not objecting to mankind being accountable for their inability within the Calvinistic system I'm objecting to inability on the basis of Paul's teaching for the reason that men are without excuse. Paul says they are 'without excuse' because they are ABLE to see and understand the revelation of God, while Calvinists say they are not able to see and understand God's revelation unless first regenerated.

Since when does resisting light demand it can't be seen? Notice that in this context there is NONE WHO RECEIVE IT (Rom. 1:18-32) - "no, not one" which repudiates your view entirely that light is they need to receive it.

I understand your position, as I used to believe it. You think the wages of sin is total inability. I get it. But you still haven't told us who, if not God, set those wages.

Did God sin in setting wages for sin? Do you believe in "spiritual" death, and if so, do you believe it involves the mind, heart and will of man? If So, do you believe it is "separation" from God in those areas in a negative way?

 

[Skandelon]

Since when does resisting light demand it can't be seen?

I agree. I believe people can and do see and resist the light, but I also believe people can and do see and accept the light. The doctrine of total inability teaches men are born unable to actually even see it unless given the eyes to do so...given a new heart...regenerated. That is what I'm talking about...."total inability"...being 'dead' in that a "dead man" can't see or respond to light, remember?

Notice that in this context there is NONE WHO RECEIVE IT (Rom. 1:18-32) - "no, not one" which repudiates your view entirely that light is they need to receive it.

Abraham, among many others, received it...Abraham was declared righteous. How is that 'no, not one?'

Again, we went over this. You are confusing the two different views of 'righteousness' as distinguished by Paul in 3:21. No one is able to attain righteousness if they pursue it through works of the law, but does that mean they are unable to attain righteousness if they pursue it through faith in the one who fulfilled the law for them? You never addressed this distinction.

Did God sin in setting wages for sin?

Nope.

Do you believe in "spiritual" death, and if so, do you believe it involves the mind, heart and will of man? If So, do you believe it is "separation" from God in those areas in a negative way?

Yes...if you mean it in the way I do and sometimes that is hard to tell since some of the terms of the debate have not been defined.

 

[The Biblicist]

I
Abraham, among many others, received it...Abraham was declared righteous. How is that 'no, not one?'

Why play dodge ball?? You refer to Romans 1:18-20 but when it does not fit your theory you jump to Romans 4 where it talks about justified sinners unto whom the Gospel was preached (Gal. 3:6).

NONE IN Romans 1:18-31 came to the light - NONE. Romans 1:18-3:8 is about lost sinners left to light of nature, light of conscience, without any Divine transformation of nature will always supress light, always resist, always reject and that is the summary given by Paul of this section in Romans 3:9-18 - NO NOT ONE did good, became righteous but all "suppressed" the light. Romans 1:18-3:20 is about the JUST wrath of God revealed from heaven upon sinners due to their suppression of truth by Gentiles (Rom. 1:18-32) and their hypocrisy of self-righteousness (Rom. 2:1-3:8) when their true nature is revealed (Rom. 3:9-18) which the Law of God confirms to be ungodliness in God's sight (Rom. 3:19-20).

No, righteousness by the law in contrast to faith is dealt with in Romans 3:24-5:2.

Again, we went over this. You are confusing the two different views of 'righteousness' as distinguished by Paul in 3:21. No one is able to attain righteousness if they pursue it through works of the law, but does that mean they are unable to attain righteousness if they pursue it through faith in the one who fulfilled the law for them? You never addressed this distinction.

No, I am not confusing anything. Romans 1:18-32 is a flat denial that any responded to the light of nature or the light of conscience or any other light but expressly states they suppressed it and then progressive hardening developed in more and more corruption.

Yes...if you mean it in the way I do and sometimes that is hard to tell since some of the terms of the debate have not been defined.

It is the nature of sin (separation) that demands inability in mind, heart and will. a "carnal" mindset of ENMITY is a STATE OF WAR which by definition does not unite but divides producing INABIITY to love. a "carnal" mindset that "is" (STATE OF BEING) in active resistance to the revealed will of God does not unite but divides producing INABILITY to submit. It is this STATE of inability that sin is by nature.

 

[Winman]

Biblicist is misrepresenting Romans 1:18-32. This passage teaches that lost unregenerate men have ability, not inability. And this passage is not speaking of all men, but only men who are finally lost forever.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

None of these persons are EVER regenerated as God "gave them up" (vss. 24,26) and God "gave them over" (vs. 28).

Therefore you cannot say that verses 18-33 are speaking of all men, but only those men who repeatedly rejected the revelation of God which they could clearly know, see and understand (vs. 19-20)

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The last thing this passage is teaching is inability. It is speaking of lost persons whom God gives up and gives over to a reprobate mind, yet these persons KNOW of God, they can SEE his revelation and UNDERSTAND it. This is why they have no excuse.

Biblicist teaches the exact opposite of scripture. This passage teaches that lost unregenerate men have ability. They know, see, and understand what may be known of God, but reject God anyway, and so finally God gives up on them and gives them over to a reprobate mind. This passage is not speaking of persons who become saved.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

None of these persons are EVER regenerated as God "gave them up" (vss. 24,26) and God "gave them over" (vs. 28).

Therefore you cannot say that verses 18-33 are speaking of all men, but only those men who repeatedly rejected the revelation of God which they could clearly know, see and understand (vs. 19-20)

Paul is speaking about ALL mankind in his natural state and their response to light. The progressive hardening in sin is because of the universal reaction of the fallen nature to light - it SUPPRESSES light "holds the truth IN UNRIGHTEOUSNES". Romans 3:9 is Paul's own summary of Romans 1:18-3:8 and it is a UNIVERSAL summary of the fallen state of man.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The last thing this passage is teaching is inability. It is speaking of lost persons whom God gives up and gives over to a reprobate mind, yet these persons KNOW of God, they can SEE his revelation and UNDERSTAND it. This is why they have no excuse.

Inability does not deny ability to recongize light only the inability to respond correctly to light - "hold the truth in unrighteousness" The fallen nature recognzies truth but SUPPRESSES it.

They know, see, and understand what may be known of God, but reject God anyway, and so finally God gives up on them and gives them over to a reprobate mind. This passage is not speaking of persons who become saved.

This passage is speaking of ALL humanity in their fallen state as Paul concludes "there is NONE good....there is NONE that doeth good, NO, NOT, ONE" but "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. That is man in his fallen natural state - all fallen mankind. Whether you like it or not, Jesus said, "NO MAN can" and that is universal inability stated in the clearest terms possible.

 

[Skandelon]

Why play dodge ball?? You refer to Romans 1:18-20 but when it does not fit your theory you jump to Romans 4 where it talks about justified sinners unto whom the Gospel was preached (Gal. 3:6).

The problem is that the rest of the scripture doesn't fit your interpretation of Rom. 1 and you don't know how to deal with that so you accuse me of 'dodging.'

Tell me this, if no one is righteous and no one has responded to the light of God's revelation then what about Abraham, Job, Enoch, Rahab, David, Solomon, etc etc...

Both of our camps believe that there have been people all throughout history who have come to faith...the question for debate is HOW. You can presume that its through some inward effectual work of regeneration but once again you'd be question begging as that is the very point up for debate here.

Romans 1 never says that NNE CAN RESPOND, it says that NNE WHO REJECTS HAS ANY EXCUSE (more specifically it says that Gentiles who didn't have the special revelation are still RESPONSE-ABLE because they ARE ABLE TO RESPOND to the revelation they received through nature). And on what basis does Paul make this claim that they are without excuse? ON the basis that men CAN see, hear, understand God's revelation and are ABLE to RESPOND to it, something Total Inability denies.

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem is that the rest of the scripture doesn't fit your interpretation of Rom. 1 and you don't know how to deal with that so you accuse me of 'dodging.'

Where do you get that idea? Romans 1:18 opens up the subject of God's wrath revealed from heaven against all who SUPPRESS righeousness in unrighteosness. Paul then provides proof of that SUPPRESSION to remove any excuse to claim this wrath is unjust:

1. They are provided with light they both recognize and understand which inability does not prevent.
2. This light is revealed by creation both TO them and IN them by conscience
3. They willing reject the truth revealed and demonstrate that rejection by refusing to give God thanks but elevate their own selves to the level of God and reduce God to the level of created things. For this cause God progressively hardens them in their sin and a devolution begins where NONE REPENT or COME TO THE LIGHT. (Rom. 1:18-31) and therefore his wrath is just (Rom. 1:32).

Then there are those class of sinners who in their total depravity believe their own hypocritical self-righteosness will be vindicated by the Law of God and keep them from God's Wrath - Romans 2:1-3:8.

Their totally depraved character of hypocrisy is clearly set forth by Paul in Romans 2:1-5. Paul again sets forth the just basis for God's wrath against them (vv. 6-16) whether they are Jew or Gentile. God's method of judgement will be just based upon their own works with just consequences for both good and evil works (vv. 6-11). It will be according to the laws they have received whether under the law of Moses or under the law of conscience (vv. 12-15) and the just interpretation of both laws will be according to the Person of Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospel (v. 16).

Christ alone is the doer of the Law (v. 16) and therefore it is insufficient merely to possess the Law of God but one must be a doer of the Law of God to be justified in the day of judgement by the Law of God (vv. 17-29). One must be not merely conformed to the outward law as illustrated in circumcision but one must be conformed to the law of God as illustrated in the circumcision of the heart. The uncircumcised gentile who is circumcised in heart is more righteous than any Jew with only external righteousness. A true Jew is without hypocrisy but circumcised outwardly and inwardly (vv. 17-29).

Being a Jew has certain advantages over being a Gentile as more light is provided but more light only brings more condemnation upon the Jew and exposes his depraved nature (Rom. 3:1-8).

Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

God's wrath is just upon all fallen mankind as there is no difference between them as "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and only God's grace can justify them (Rom. 3:24-27).


Romans 1:18-3:19 demonstrates NONE RESPOND due to their fallen nature but all SUPPRESS the truth.

 

[Skandelon]

Where do you get that idea? Romans 1:18 opens up the subject of God's wrath revealed from heaven against all who SUPPRESS righeousness in unrighteosness.

Right, all who suppress it....it never says everyone has suppressed it. In fact, we both agree that some (i.e. Abraham) have NOT suppressed it, but have in faith proclaimed it. Now, we should debate the means by which he, and others, came to believe as that is our point of contention.

1. They are provided with light they both recognize and understand which inability does not prevent.

Is that what you believe? If so, can you tell me why so many Calvinists quote 1 Cor 2:14, emphasizing the statement, "he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned," as proof for their doctrine of Total Inability?

Can they understand or can't they?

2. This light is revealed by creation both TO them and IN them by conscience

Is it? I thought Calvinists taught that the light was hidden from them by a 'veil' making them unable to see it and it was only when that veil was removed by the effectual calling that they could then see it?

This doesn't seem consistent? Can you explain the apparent contradictions?

Romans 1:18-3:19 demonstrates NONE RESPOND due to their fallen nature but all SUPPRESS the truth.

But some DID respond (i.e. Abraham, and the rest) proving that interpretation to be the wrong one. Romans 1:18-3:19 demonstrates that NNE, not even Abraham can attain righteousness through works of the law and all are responsible (response-able) for the revelation they receive (whether special or general), and all have broken the law (whether by conscience or Torah). But that is the bad news...keep reading.

21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.​

Notice the two different types of righteousness in view.

1) Righteousness through law (which is no righteousness at all, but filthy rags)

2) Righteousness through faith

Calvinism's mistake is presuming that because mankind is unable to attain righteousness through the works of the law that they are equally unable to attain righteousness through faith. That is unbiblical. You have provided proof texts to support the first type of righteousness is unattainable, but not the second.