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

[Skandelon]

Yes, as a matter of fact that is precisely what you need - enlightening by the Holy Spirit.

I was once 'enlightened' as a hard core five pointer, but I guess God decided to take it away from me for a while...but maybe it will come back? :laugh:

Seriously, I think the fact the many believers are not Calvinistic is revealing in regard to man's freedom of the will. If Calvinism is true, either God has (1) left his children free to choose what soteriology they will believe even though he predetermined them to believe in Christ, or (2) he has decided to keep some of his children in the dark on this issue.

Either way, it doesn't make much sense for your system.

First, he is addressing INDIVIDUALS not Israel as the whole nation of Israel is not listening to his parables.

I agree. He is keeping individuals from believing by speaking to them in parables.

Second, he is addressing INDIVIDUALS whose hearts he knows to be seared and are looking to kill him.

I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this particular individual who cries out 'crucify him' won't be provoked later and saved...see Acts 2 where over 2000 of those who helped to crucify him come to faith

Third, if they did not already have this seared/hardened condition they would have sought for the explanation as did His disciples.

Possibly... the Jews were stuck in their tradition and wouldn't have been likely to seek to better understand his teaching...but the point is had he not used parables they 'might have seen, heard, understood and turned' (something impossible if Total Inability is true)

Fouth, His own disciples did not understand the parables either but had to have them explained to them.

Indeed.

They had ears to hear and eyes to see when God in the flesh EXPLAINED them.

Yep...and rest were being hardened...judicially hardened..sealed in their already blind and rebellious condition. But these disciples were being entrusted to come to Christ, the incarnate WORD, and to learn directly from him making them have the unique authority of Apostles.

No it is not! They are cut off because they are hardened to the truth.

I'm talking about judicial hardening...God's active blinding of the Jews which is what he specifically addresses throughout Romans 9, 10 and 11. God is giving them a 'spirit of stupor' and 'blindness' which is used interchangably with 'hardening.'

Plus, even those 'cut off' can be 'grafted back in' if they 'leave their unbelief.' Rm. 11

Furthermore, anyone can read romans 11 and see that hardening is the CAUSE whereas "broken off" is the consequence and thus not one and the same.

You may be confusing self hardening with the divine work of judicial hardening. I can post some commentaries that draw that clear distinction if needed. One can choose to reject truth, light, revelation over a period of time and grow calloused to it...this is 'self hardening.' Judicial hardening is when God actively seals them in darkness, and hides the truth from their eyes (i.e. parables) so as to prevent them from being convinced. We see both in the case of Pharaoh...so, you are right in that 'self hardening' leads to being 'judicial hardened' or 'cut off.'

BTW, when Rm 11 speaks of being 'cut off' he means being 'cut off' from revelation or truth, not from being saved, otherwise you would have being being saved, then lost then possibly saved again...grafted in, cut/broken off, grafted back in etc.

 

[Winman]

It was not said before they were regenerated as Jesus said the Holy Spirit was "with" them. Hence, they had two natures. A fallen nature - the flesh and the spiritual nature. I guess jesus understands the dual nature of His children better than you:laugh:

Wrong, Romans 8:9 says that if you do not have the Spirit dwelling "in you", then you are "in the flesh".

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

A person is only in the Spirit if the Spirit DWELLS IN YOU, otherwise you are in the flesh. That is the plain teaching of this verse, so we know that the disciples were "in the flesh" in the garden, as the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to any believer (John 7:39). The Holy Spirit being "with" the disciples is indeed revelation, but it is not regeneration.

Of course, this destroys your doctrine of Total Inability, so you will do everything you can to ignore and deny this truth. You are not a Biblicist, you are a fanatic Calvinist.

 

[The Biblicist]

Wrong, Romans 8:9 says that if you do not have the Spirit dwelling "in you", then you are "in the flesh".

That is not what it says! It says if you do not have the Spirit indwelling in you that you are "NONE OF HIS" - Read it!

Now He says they were given to the Father to him (Jn. 17:3). The Spirit was "with them" in and they were regenerated just as Nicodemus could be "born again.....born of the Spirit" (Jn. 3:3,6) long before Pentecost.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

 

[Skandelon]

I know you still have a post of mine to reply to already, but I have interject here...don't we all agree that the spirit of God must dwell in us? Aren't we debating the means through which the spirit indwells? Look at Gal. 3:

'He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit...

But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. 26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus"​

Notice the means though which we become sons and receive the indwelling spirit?

 

[The Biblicist]

I know you still have a post of mine to reply to already, but I have interject here...don't we all agree that the spirit of God must dwell in us? Aren't we debating the means through which the spirit indwells? Look at Gal. 3:

'He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit...

But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. 26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus"​

Notice the means though which we become sons and receive the indwelling spirit?

No debate. Romans 8:9 further demands that unless the Spirit is indwelling a person that person is "NONE OF HIS." The apostles were his, given to him by the Father and were saved people. The Spirit was "with" them individually in regard to personal indwelling but he was not "in" them corporately as the new house of God - the church.

 

[Skandelon]

No debate. Romans 8:9 further demands that unless the Spirit is indwelling a person that person is "NONE OF HIS."

Again, we are debating the means by which the spirit indwells...which the verses I presented clearly show is accomplish 'through faith' and not the other way around.

 

[The Biblicist]

I was once 'enlightened' as a hard core five pointer, but I guess God decided to take it away from me for a while...but maybe it will come back? :laugh:

Rarely, as once you have know the truth and then turned from it, the Lord rarely brings one back to what they have rejected.

S

eriously, I think the fact the many believers are not Calvinistic is revealing in regard to man's freedom of the will.

Your idea of the "Calivistic" doctrine of the will is not my position. I have confronted your idea several times and denied that was my position.

It is funny that I present scriptures and expositional treatment while you respond with tags and names.

If Calvinism is true, either God has (1) left his children free to choose what soteriology they will believe even though he predetermined them to believe in Christ, or (2) he has decided to keep some of his children in the dark on this issue.

Neither is true nor does your view of my soteriology fit your tags and definitions.

Either way, it doesn't make much sense for your system.

No, it does not make sense to the system you are imputing to me, which system I reject.

I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this particular individual who cries out 'crucify him' won't be provoked later and saved...see Acts 2 where over 2000 of those who helped to crucify him come to faith

Your whole system of Calvinism is different than my view of salvation. God not merely appoints who will be saved, how they will be saved but WHEN they will be saved and they could hear the gospel many times and reject it before that appointed time.

Possibly... the Jews were stuck in their tradition and wouldn't have been likely to seek to better understand his teaching...but the point is had he not used parables they 'might have seen, heard, understood and turned' (something impossible if Total Inability is true)

How is that possible, when his own disciples who were not hardened personally and were part of JUDICIAL HARDENED Israel also could not understand them either?????? You are attempting to make a dinction where none exists between His disciples and othere Jews. He had to secretly explain it to them because they could not understand them either. Therefore, the same would be true with the other Jews. Hence, this hardening had to do with ADDITIONAL enlightenng by Christ which was given to His disciples but not given to the others (Mt. 13:9-10).

But these disciples were being entrusted to come to Christ, the incarnate WORD, and to learn directly from him making them have the unique authority of Apostles.

Not so fast! Acts 1:21-22 demands more than the twelve were present and were being taught otherwise there could be no replacement for Judas. Moreover, the 120 also were taught and faithfully assembled with the twelve.

I'm talking about judicial hardening...God's active blinding of the Jews which is what he specifically addresses throughout Romans 9, 10 and 11. God is giving them a 'spirit of stupor' and 'blindness' which is used interchangably with 'hardening.'

Judial and self-harding are two sides of the same coin. The fallen nature hardens by its response to light. God hardens them by providing the light to the fallen nature. Nationally the same is true.

Plus, even those 'cut off' can be 'grafted back in' if they 'leave their unbelief.' Rm. 11

Romans 11 has NOTHING to do with INDIVIDUAL salvation as the "remnant" is about individual savlation. The two trees have to do with God's promise to Abraham concerning two SOURCES from which He would draw all His elect. The first source is the Jewish nation the natural seed of Abraham. The second source is Gentiles from among whom God promised to give Abraham a seed from among them.

God turns from one source (Israel) from which he calls out His elect to another source (Gentiles). The cutting off and grafting has to do with the sources or primary spheres of redemptive activity by God and NOTHING to do about INDIVIDUAL salvation. Your idea has individuals saved and then lost and then saved again because if they were once IN the olive tree and that equals salvation to be IN and to be cut off equals LOST then regrafted must be resaving again! That is simply not the case.

You may be confusing self hardening with the divine work of judicial hardening. I can post some commentaries that draw that clear distinction if needed. One can choose to reject truth, light, revelation over a period of time and grow calloused to it...this is 'self hardening.' Judicial hardening is when God actively seals them in darkness, and hides the truth from their eyes (i.e. parables) so as to prevent them from being convinced. We see both in the case of Pharaoh...so, youre right in that 'self hardening' leads to being 'judicial hardened' or 'cut off.'

Judicial hardening has to do with the NATION AS A WHOLE whose response to the Messiah of which is made up of individuals AS A WHOLE who individually are hardened to the Messiah

BTW, when Rm 11 speaks of being 'cut off' he means being 'cut off' from revelation or truth, not from being saved, otherwise you would have being being saved, then lost then possibly saved again...grafted in, cut/broken off, grafted back in etc.

No, that is not what it means they are cut off from. They are cut off from God's primary source of His active sphere of redemption.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, we are debating the means by which the spirit indwells...which the verses I presented clearly show is accomplish 'through faith' and not the other way around.

Do you know the difference between 1 Cor. 3:16 where the plural pronoun
("ye"] is used with the singular noun ("temple") and 1 Cor. 6:19 where the singular pronoun "you" is used with the singular noun "temple"????

Do you realize the Holy Spirit indwells two entirely different temples or bodies? He has always INDIVIDUALLY indwelt his children from adam forward and that is what Jesus refers to as the Holy Spirit being already "with" them as individuals but the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost to indwell a new house of God which was corporate assembly (Acts 2:1) as a church body.

Furthermore, your interpetation of Romans 8:9 is forced to deny that any human being prior to Acts 2:1 was "NONE OF HIS" and the only other alternative to those "in the Spirit" in Romans 8:8-9 is those "in the flesh" and all who are merely "in the flesh" from Genesis to Revelation are "NONE OF HIS"

 

[Skandelon]

Your idea of the "Calivistic" doctrine of the will is not my position. I have confronted your idea several times and denied that was my position.

It is funny that I present scriptures and expositional treatment while you respond with tags and names.

I don't like it when people do that to me, so I apologize if I'm guilty of doing that to you. If you can point it out when I do it then I'll try to avoid it. Labeling and dismissing is a temptation for all of us during a debate and its the lazy man's way out. However, sometimes tags or labels are used to 'summarize' or 'categorize' or even better 'define' a particular point of view. We all do it, but its always within the debaters right to correct that label or better define their position.

Neither is true

What is the other alternative?

No, it does not make sense to the system you are imputing to me, which system I reject.

Maybe you could tell me an author or notable scholar who espouses your views on these matters so I can do better to represent your 'system' as I tend to think most Calvinistic believers here fall into the Piper/Sproul/MacArthur/Driscoll 'brand' of Reformed theology.

How is that possible, when his own disciples who were not hardened personally and were part of JUDICIAL HARDENED Israel also could not understand them either??

The parables were a means used to keep them in the dark. See, you have a tendency to think of hardening or drawing as being just some kind of internal secret working, but God has always worked through means. He draws with the spoken words of messengers inspired to proclaim the gospel truth...he hardens with parables, etc.

Parables were the means God used to keep people in the dark so they wouldn't believe. He explained the parables to those he had entrusted with the truth, those He chose to teach, disciple and send into the world to be the foundation for his church...the rest he chose for the 'common use' of remaining in their unbelief and crying out, "crucify him!"...something they wouldn't do if they understood his teaching and repented.

You are attempting to make a dinction where none exists between His disciples and othere Jews.

I'm confused. He explains the truth to his disciples and he doesn't to the other Jews. How is that not a distinction? He wants some to believe it and others to remain in darkness for a time. Why do you feel that contradicts my view on this matter?

Not so fast! Acts 1:21-22 demands more than the twelve were present and were being taught otherwise there could be no replacement for Judas. Moreover, the 120 also were taught and faithfully assembled with the twelve.

The 12 were representative of the remnant being entrusted to Christ...these were those from Israel given to Christ to be the foundation for the church and to take the message to the rest of the world. Jesus even pointed them out specifically in John 6...and its not meant to suggest their families and closest friends weren't involved, but just that God's purpose in hardening/blinding Israel while setting apart his messengers from Israel is redemptive in nature...its not a condemning purpose.

Judial and self-harding are two sides of the same coin. The fallen nature hardens by its response to light. God hardens them by providing the light to the fallen nature. Nationally the same is true.

You are not responding to the argument being presented. I agree that self hardening is first and that God seals them in that hardened position by 'cutting them off' from further light. That is what Romans 11 is all about. Israel grew hardened...grew calloused, so God cut them off, which means he judicially hardened/blinded them from the truth, but this is NOT a condemning thing...its a redemptive thing. As Paul explains, it is in their being cut off that redemption is brought to all and that they too, even after being cut off, might be provoked to envy and saved...they might leave their unbelief and be grafted back in.

Can you explain what you think it means for an individual Jew to be 'cut off' then 'grafted back in again' if not what I've exposed above?

Romans 11 has NOTHING to do with INDIVIDUAL salvation as the "remnant" is about individual savlation.

I'm confused by this...romans 11 speaks about the remnant so why are you concluding Rm 11 has nothing to do with individual salvation?

The two trees have to do with God's promise to Abraham concerning two SOURCES from which He would draw all His elect. The first source is the Jewish nation the natural seed of Abraham. The second source is Gentiles from among whom God promised to give Abraham a seed from among them.

So explain how a individual Jew is broken off. Which tree is he, as an individual, broken off of. And what is he grafted back into? Lay it out clearly. What happens to the individual Jews who 'leave their unbelief' and are 'grafted back in.' Walk us through that step by step.

God turns from one source (Israel) from which he calls out His elect to another source (Gentiles). The cutting off and grafting has to do with the sources or primary spheres of redemptive activity by God and NOTHING to do about INDIVIDUAL salvation.

Convenient how in Romans 9 you think its all about individuals but now you don't...why not be consistent, like we are, and use the same hermeneutic for all of Romans 9-11? I'm fine talking about nations being made up of individual, but are you?

I doubt you'll be willing to talk about the individual Jew who is cut off and grafted back in, are you? I thought Calvinists believe that what is true of the nation is true of the individuals who make up that nation?

Your idea has individuals saved and then lost and then saved again

Not at all. The tree doesn't represent salvation, as I already stated. The TREE represents revelation, or truth. Its represents the means by which men come to faith and thus salvation. The Jews were plugged into revelation...they had the truth being revealed directly to them through the law and the prophets. They were a branch directly connected to that source of truth. But now they are being BROKEN OFF...meaning blinded from the source of truth (i.e.parables). And now that truth is being taken to the Gentiles...they are being 'grafted in' to the special revelation of God. That doesn't mean they are saved, it just means they have the means by which they too can believe and be saved. Understand? I'm not asking you to agree, but I need to know you are understanding our perspective because your reply reflects otherwise...

because if they were once IN the olive tree and that equals salvation

Incorrect. At least that is incorrect in our view. Is that what you believe? If its not, then explain to me what you believe about those individuals who are cut off and grafted back in to the vine?

No, that is not what it means they are cut off from. They are cut off from God's primary source of His active sphere of redemption.

Unpack that. How is an individual cut off from God's primary sourse of redemption and then grafted back into it later?

 

[Winman]

That is not what it says! It says if you do not have the Spirit indwelling in you that you are "NONE OF HIS" - Read it!

Now He says they were given to the Father to him (Jn. 17:3). The Spirit was "with them" in and they were regenerated just as Nicodemus could be "born again.....born of the Spirit" (Jn. 3:3,6) long before Pentecost.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Nonsense, it says that we are not "in the flesh" if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in us. Therefore a person IS "in the flesh" if he does not have the indwelling Spirit. Therefore the disciples were in the flesh and not yet regenerate in Matthew 26:41, because no believer had yet received the Holy Spirit (Jhn 7:39).

Here is what John Gill wrote of this verse;

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit,.... That is, ye are not carnal, but spiritual men; or ye are not in a state of unregeneracy, but in a state of grace: the reason proving this is,

if so be, or "seeing"

that the Spirit of God dwell in you; the inhabitation of the Spirit is a distinguishing character of a regenerate man; which is to be understood not of his omnipresence, nor of a participation of his gifts, whether ordinary or extraordinary: nor does the Spirit of God only dwell in his people by his graces, but in person as in office, and in a way of special favour; as a spirit of illumination, regeneration, sanctification, and faith, as a comforter, a spirit of adoption, an intercessor, and as a pledge and seal of happiness: which inhabitation is personal; is not peculiar to him to the exclusion of the Father and of the Son; is expressive of property and dominion; is not confined to the souls of men, for he also dwells in their bodies; it is operative, powerful, and perpetual; it is the security of the saints' perseverance, and the pledge of their resurrection and future glory. This is owing not to any goodness in them, or to any fitness and preparations of theirs to receive him; but to a federal union to Christ and relation to him, to our Lord's ascension and intercession, and to the love and grace of the Father; and this proves a man to be a regenerate man, to be in the Spirit, and not in the flesh; for the Spirit of God is never in this sense in an unregenerate man, nor is he in any such sense without his grace; so that the indwelling of the Spirit is the grand evidence of relation to God, of an interest in Christ and union to him, and of a man's state and condition God-ward;

now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. By "the Spirit of Christ", is not meant the human soul of Christ; nor his divine nature; nor his Gospel, which is the Spirit that gives life; but the Holy Ghost, the third person in the Trinity, the same which is called the Spirit before; and proves Christ to be God, he proceeds from him as from the Father, is sent by him, and with which Christ's human nature was fitted and filled. The JewsF24 often speak of רוח המשיח, or רוחא דמשיח "the spirit of the Messiah". Now to have him is not barely to partake of his gifts, but of his graces; to be possessed of him as one's own; to have communion with him, and to have him dwelling in us. There are some who have him not, nor never will have him, being none of Christ's; and God's elect, whilst in an unregenerate state, are without him; and whilst such, though they are his chosen and adopted ones, they are his by his Father's gift and his own purchase, they are his pardoned ones through his blood, and his justified ones through his righteousness; yet they are not his regenerated, called, and sanctified ones; nor can they claim any interest in him; nor are they known to be his by themselves or others; nor have they any communion with him, or enjoyment of him.

The disciples had not yet received the indwelling Spirit in the garden when Jesus spoke to them, and were not yet regenerated, yet they were WILLING in their natural spirit.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This actually matches up perfectly with Paul's description of himself in Romans 7. In his mind and spirit he was willing to obey and serve God, but he was prevented from doing good by his flesh.

Likewise, the disciples were willing to pray with Jesus, but their flesh caused them to fall asleep.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Your are completely ignoring the last statement of this verse. Again, were there any human beings prior to Pentecost that God claimed were "of His"?

Again, there are only two POSSIBLE kind of human beings contrasted in Romans 8:8-9

1. "In the flesh"
2. "in the Spirit"

To be "in the flesh" is the LOST condition. What option existed previous to Pentecost???

Do you know the difference between the plural "ye" with the singular "temple" in 1 Cor. 3:16 and the singular "you" and the singular "temple" in 1 Cor. 6:19??? Think about it carefully.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't like it when people do that to me, so I apologize if I'm guilty of doing that to you. If you can point it out when I do it then I'll try to avoid it. Labeling and dismissing is a temptation for all of us during a debate and its the lazy man's way out. However, sometimes tags or labels are used to 'summarize' or 'categorize' or even better 'define' a particular point of view. We all do it, but its always within the debaters right to correct that label or better define their position.

I appreciate the effort.

If Calvinism is true, either God has (1) left his children free to choose what soteriology they will believe even though he predetermined them to believe in Christ, or (2) he has decided to keep some of his children in the dark on this issue.........What is the other alternative?

First, there is no other soteriology to choose from as God has never provided but one Savior, one way of salvation, one gospel and it is characterized in one person who is PRE-Pentecost - Abraham - the Father of all who believe in regard to regeneration/justification/sanctification/glorification or spelled out in Romans 8:28-30 before the foundation of the world for ALL elect "in Him" as there is no salvation for anyone OUTSIDE of Him. So your first option is wrong.

Second, You are confusing areas of spiritual growth with salvation. Many of the parables had to do with different kingdom truths other than how the kingdom is entered. Growth in sanctification is not equal but varies and many truths in regard to kingdom service are withheld from many of God's elect while given to other elect. Just look at the whole body of His disciples. Jesus chose 12 OUT OF His disicples. Out of the 12 He chose three to reveal special truths. Out of the three there was one who was given special insights and he claimed to be loved above the rest.

Maybe you could tell me an author or notable scholar who espouses your views on these matters so I can do better to represent your 'system' as I tend to think most Calvinistic believers here fall into the Piper/Sproul/MacArthur/Driscoll 'brand' of Reformed theology.

I am far removed from the "reformed" Baptists. We differ from the "Reformed" in many, many things. Non-Reformed and Independent. Dr. Edward Overby, Dr. Rosco Brong, Dr. Roy O. Beaman were some teachers in my college and Seminary days but they differed among themselves on some finer points.

The parables were a means used to keep them in the dark. See, you have a tendency to think of hardening or drawing as being just some kind of internal secret working, but God has always worked through means. He draws with the spoken words of messengers inspired to proclaim the gospel truth...he hardens with parables, etc.

There are only two classes of human beings; (1) unregenerated; (2) Regenerated and never has been and never will be in this life any but these two. Light hardens the unregenerated in different degrees apart from Divine interventive power and light melts the regenerated in different degrees. Means in and of themselves are tools like a hammer and a saw - worthless in and of themselves. However, when they are in the hand of the carpenter from nazereth they can drive any nail all the way in and cut any hard board in half - and that is what it means when God says the gospel is "the POWER OF GOD" unto salvation.

Parables were the means God used to keep people in the dark so they wouldn't believe.

Paul said Satan had blinded the minds of the lost from seeing the light/truth found in the gospel(2 Cor. 4:4). So if the light in the gospel does not pentrate the darkened mind (and it does not unless God empowers it as HIs word of creative command - 2 Cor. 4:6) how do you imagine that parables keep men in the dark????? The gospel is clearly stated and yet the lost mind is blinded to it and you think parables are required to blind men???

Jesus did not want any more FALSE PROFESSORS in his crowd of disciples (Jn. 6:64) and so parables and pardoxes were used because the carnal mind apart from Divine enlightening would reject it as foolishness. The twelve were regenerated and the Holy Spirit was "with" them individually but even that was insufficent to understand these kingdom truths as saved persons.

 

[Winman]

Your are completely ignoring the last statement of this verse. Again, were there any human beings prior to Pentecost that God claimed were "of His"?

Yes, but without the Spirit they were not "regenerated". That is why I showed you what Gill wrote, read again;

and God's elect, whilst in an unregenerate state, are without him; and whilst such, though they are his chosen and adopted ones, they are his by his Father's gift and his own purchase, they are his pardoned ones through his blood, and his justified ones through his righteousness; yet they are not his regenerated, called, and sanctified ones; nor can they claim any interest in him; nor are they known to be his by themselves or others; nor have they any communion with him, or enjoyment of him.

Nobody is regenerated UNTIL they have the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Again, there are only two POSSIBLE kind of human beings contrasted in Romans 8:8-9

1. "In the flesh"
2. "in the Spirit"

To be "in the flesh" is the LOST condition. What option existed previous to Pentecost???

Exactly. Cornelius was a believer, but he was lost, he did not receive the Holy Spirit until he sent for Peter and heard the gospel.

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Cornelius did not have the Holy Spirit, and he was not saved, yet he had the ability to fear God for years and do righteous works that God recognized. He was not regenerated until he heard the gospel from Peter and the Holy Ghost fell on him.

Do you know the difference between the plural "ye" with the singular "temple" in 1 Cor. 3:16 and the singular "you" and the singular "temple" in 1 Cor. 6:19??? Think about it carefully.

I know the difference between plural "ye" and singular "you", and I know that neither of these verses is relevant to our discussion. The disciples did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit in Mat 26:41 and so were not yet regenerated, yet in their natural spirit they were able to be willing to obey Jesus. This matches perfectly with Paul's description of himself in Romans 7:14-25 where he desired to do good, but could not find victory over the flesh as an unregenerate person.

Your view would have Paul being an utter failure as a Christian in Romans 7 with absolutely no victory over the flesh. Your view has Paul saying he was "sold under sin" and a "servant of sin" as a born again Christian. Absurd. Note that Paul does not mention having the Spirit even one time in Rom 7:14-25, but repeatedly speaks of being in the Spirit in chapter 8.

What you will not see or admit is that Total Inability is completely false and easily refuted by much scripture, such as the disciples in the garden and the story of Cornelius. You do not read the Bible for what it says, you pour your Calvinism into it where it does not belong.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, but without the Spirit they were not "regenerated". That is why I showed you what Gill wrote, read again;

Gill is wrong!

Nobody is regenerated UNTIL they have the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Precisely! So you are telling us that Jesus wasted his breath in John 3:3-6
telling Nicodemus He must be born of the Spirit as this was long before Pentecost??? He never said, "Oh yeah, Nic! I forgot to tell you that I am just practicing telling people this because you really can't be born again until Pentecost!!"

Are you telling us that Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for knowing He needed to be regenerated when it was something He could not know about or experience until Pentecost?

Jn. 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Are you telling us that jesus using the PRESENT TENSE in John 3:8 describing the activity of the new birth in humans was misleading Nicodemus as he should have used the FUTURE tense because this work could not occur until Pentecost?

Jn. 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Are you telling us that Jesus used the perfect tense "born" in John 3:8 as a completed action in the past that continues to the present when there was no such thing as a perfect tense experience possible until Pentecost?

Are you telling us that the Old Testament equivelent to "born again" or "circumcision of the heart" or giving of a "new heart" was commanded since the book of Deuternony and yet it could not occur until Pentecost?


De 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Are you telling us that no Pre-Pentecostal person could "love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live"

Ps 80:18 So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name.

Are you telling us that no Pre-Pentecostal person could "call upon thy name" because David said that required a person to be quickened by God???

Are you telling us there is a third class of human who is neither "in the flesh" or "in the Spirit" as that is the only two options provided by Paul (Rom. 8:8-9)?

Do you know the difference between being indwelt by the Spirit of God as INDIVDUALS as your individual body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19) and the new temple built by Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost being a corporate new house of God made up of living stones (1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Pet. 2:5)???????

Do you know the difference between the Holy Spirit "with" that as individual indwelt persons and the promise to be "in" them as the new House of God?

Gill is wrong!

 

[Skandelon]

Out of the 12 He chose three to reveal special truths. Out of the three there was one who was given special insights and he claimed to be loved above the rest.

Which would be option 2... that God, for whatever reason, has chosen not to reveal the 'truth' of Calvinism to all his children. Why is that an incorrect assessment?

I am far removed from the "reformed" Baptists. We differ from the "Reformed" in many, many things. Non-Reformed and Independent. Dr. Edward Overby, Dr. Rosco Brong, Dr. Roy O. Beaman were some teachers in my college and Seminary days but they differed among themselves on some finer points.

So you can't refer me to any notable scholars/commentators who best represent most of your views on these matters? I know you may differ on some of the finer matter, and that is ok, but it would help to know your approach to these matters.

Light hardens the unregenerated in different degrees

1. Can you list the verses to support this premise?

2. How is speaking to someone in parables, as Christ does in order to keep the Jewish leaders from belief, considered 'more light' instead of 'less light?'

3. How is being given a 'spirit of stupor' more light and not 'less light.'

4. How is being 'cut off' from the vine (the light), considered more rather than less light?

5. How is being blinded by God considered in your mind to be more rather than less light?

Paul said Satan had blinded the minds of the lost from seeing the light/truth found in the gospel(2 Cor. 4:4).

Indeed. They have been VEILED from seeing the light, as we have discussed. But consider the entire context of this passage and I think you might see it supports my premise, not yours:

"13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 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."​

Again, the concept of being blinded/veiled is in the context of Israel being hardened. But notice the part in read...this is once again affirming human responsibility regarding the removing of that veil. Your view would say it just the opposite. A Calvinist would say, "But whenever the Lord removes the veil, they turn to the Lord." But Paul puts it in the RIGHT ORDER: "But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

It's the same in Romans 11...'they will be grafted back in if they leave their unbelief.'

So if the light in the gospel does not pentrate the darkened mind (and it does not unless God empowers it as HIs word of creative command - 2 Cor. 4:6) how do you imagine that parables keep men in the dark?????

Good question. That is a question YOU have to answer about YOUR VIEW. Why did God have to speak in parables to prevent them from seeing and believing if what you believe about total inability is true?

Don't you see, my view about the gospel truth is not at odds with the use of parables, like yours is. I believe the light of the gospel CAN and DOES penetrate the darkened mind...it is sharper than a double edged sword piercing through the soul. That is why he had to speak to them in parables. He didn't want them to hear and understand and possibly choose to turn. If what you believe is true, however, there is no reason to use parables because they wouldn't have been able to understand and turn either way...not unless God regenerated them first.

you think parables are required to blind men???

I'm just reporting what Jesus said, when asked why he spoke to them in parables he said 'so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'

HE specifically says what "MIGHT" happen if he didn't use parables. So you will have to ask why Jesus thought parables were required to blind men...

Jesus did not want any more FALSE PROFESSORS in his crowd of disciples (Jn. 6:64) and so parables and pardoxes were used because the carnal mind apart from Divine enlightening would reject it as foolishness.

But according to your view, the carnal mind would have rejected any truth as foolishness. If what you believe is true he could have sat them down explained every detail of the gospel in a clear and persuasive manner without any use of paradox or parables and the result would be the same, so there is NO REASON for using parables to blind men if you are correct...proving that your view is not the correct one.

The twelve were regenerated and the Holy Spirit was "with" them individually

But didn't the Spirit indwell them at Pentecost?

"26 "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning." - Jesus in John 15

How were they already regenerated if the Spirit hadn't indwelled them yet? Do you believe in a double blessing, like when the spirit awakens you and then later fills you or something? Just seeking clarity?

 

[The Biblicist]

Which would be option 2... that God, for whatever reason, has chosen not to reveal the 'truth' of Calvinism to all his children. Why is that an incorrect assessment?

The subject was "hardening" without any specific soteriological view but only truth in general. Now, you are specifying "Calvinism" a term which you said you would restrain from using in our discussion. Of course God does not sanctify all children equally.

So you can't refer me to any notable scholars/commentators who best represent most of your views on these matters? I know you may differ on some of the finer matter, and that is ok, but it would help to know your approach to these matters.

Notable according to who???? The men I referenced were giants in their denominational sphere. Dr. Roy O Beaman by man was viewed by Southern Baptists as one of the greatest Greek scholars in the 20th century. Sorry if I don't quote men I regard as heretics.

1. Can you list the verses to support this premise?

2. How is speaking to someone in parables, as Christ does in order to keep the Jewish leaders from belief, considered 'more light' instead of 'less light?'

3. How is being given a 'spirit of stupor' more light and not 'less light.'

4. How is being 'cut off' from the vine (the light), considered more rather than less light?

5. How is being blinded by God considered in your mind to be more rather than less light?

All this is political jockey without any veiw to truth. Do I really have to explain these things to you? I Don't think so. I have explained all of these aspects of hardening to you before? Will doing it again make any difference? I don't think so. The fallen nature is HARDENED by light and by giving light they are given a spirit of stupor and blindness - think about it a little more!

Indeed. They have been VEILED from seeing the light, as we have discussed. But consider the entire context of this passage and I think you might see it supports my premise, not yours:

More political jockey! Don't you ever get tired of playing these silly little intellectual games? Truth is not in your view, just making chess moves.

"13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 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."​

Again, the concept of being blinded/veiled is in the context of Israel being hardened. But notice the part in read...this is once again affirming human responsibility regarding the removing of that veil. Your view would say it just the opposite. A Calvinist would say, "But whenever the Lord removes the veil, they turn to the Lord." But Paul puts it in the RIGHT ORDER: "But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

The Law is light and light would call for the same reaction to a Lost Jew as a lost Gentile. I hate to break the is to you but the Jews don't have a different fallen human nature than Gentiles.

It's the same in Romans 11...'they will be grafted back in if they leave their unbelief.'

He is referring to Israel as a nation and he is also pin pointing the exact precise time when it will occur (Rom. 11;25-28). It will occur when God has finished calling all his people from the Gentiles (Rom. 11:25) when the nations of the Gentiles react to God the same way Israel did when He cut them off as the PRIMARY sphere of his redemptive work.

Good question. That is a question YOU have to answer about YOUR VIEW. Why did God have to speak in parables to prevent them from seeing and believing if what you believe about total inability is true?

It seems that you fella's like arguing from one extreme to the other extreme and never take things in balance. If we are talking about human accoutability then that is pitted against God's absolute sovereignty. If we are talking about God's sovereignty then that is pitted against human accountabiltiy. I believe both and so I don't have to run to one extreme to the other. God uses truth to save the elect and he uses truth to blind the non-elect. Responsible means in both cases.

Don't you see, my view about the gospel truth is not at odds with the use of parables, like yours is.

:laugh: Your view is so contradictory not merely to just that aspect of truth but the vast majority of truths concerning soteriology and human nature. Of course my view is contradictory when presented through YOUR MIND and your pretzel like twists you put it through. Your view of the gospel is an embarassment to God as it perverts his grace, his sovereignty and justice as well as perverts the whole Biblical doctrine of human nature as affected by sin. It is the truth that hardens the fallen nature, further blinds it and keeps them from coming to Christ. Without internal Divine quickening attending the truth it damns the unregenerated and increases their resistance and hatred to God. ONLY the unregenerated fallen nature responds this way and therefore hardening is not becoming unregenerate but it is the effects of truth upon the unregenerate.

I believe the light of the gospel CAN and DOES penetrate the darkened mind...it is sharper than a double edged sword piercing through the soul.

As usual you are confusing contexts, ignoring the facts of immediate context. Your reference to 2 Cor. 4:4 disregards 4:6. Your reference to Heb. 4:12 disregard the incarnate High Priest Word of God. God's Word is only POWERFUL when God empowers it.

That is why he had to speak to them in parables.

Sorry but that is rediculous! He spoke in parables because he did not want more unregenerated disciples following him. The same reason he told those he healed not to tell anyone who he was because Israel was not looking for a redeemer but a General to defeat Rome.

But didn't the Spirit indwell them at Pentecost?

That is what your teachers have taught you but that is not the Word of God. Look at my last post to Winman. Again, do you know the difference between individual indwelling and institutional indwelling as the house of God? Do you know the difference between the plural "ye" with the singular "temple' in 1 Cor. 3:16 and the singular "you" with the singular "temple" in 1 Cor. 6:19????

 

[Winman]

Gill is wrong!

Right, YOU are the only person who understands the scriptures. :laugh:

Precisely! So you are telling us that Jesus wasted his breath in John 3:3-6 telling Nicodemus He must be born of the Spirit as this was long before Pentecost??? He never said, "Oh yeah, Nic! I forgot to tell you that I am just practicing telling people this because you really can't be born again until Pentecost!!"

Are you telling us that Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for knowing He needed to be regenerated when it was something He could not know about or experience until Pentecost?

Jn. 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Are you telling us that jesus using the PRESENT TENSE in John 3:8 describing the activity of the new birth in humans was misleading Nicodemus as he should have used the FUTURE tense because this work could not occur until Pentecost?

Jn. 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Are you telling us that Jesus used the perfect tense "born" in John 3:8 as a completed action in the past that continues to the present when there was no such thing as a perfect tense experience possible until Pentecost?

Are you telling us that the Old Testament equivelent to "born again" or "circumcision of the heart" or giving of a "new heart" was commanded since the book of Deuternony and yet it could not occur until Pentecost?


De 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Are you telling us that no Pre-Pentecostal person could "love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live"

Ps 80:18 So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name.

Are you telling us that no Pre-Pentecostal person could "call upon thy name" because David said that required a person to be quickened by God???

Are you telling us there is a third class of human who is neither "in the flesh" or "in the Spirit" as that is the only two options provided by Paul (Rom. 8:8-9)?

Yep, that's what I'm telling you. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit had been shown in scriptures for centuries, this is why Nicodemus should have known of it.

Joe 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

The receiving of the Holy Spirit whereby men would be born again was foretold by the prophets, so Nicodemus should have known of this, but it was a future event.

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Again, a future event.

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Again, the receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit for believers was a future event. This is what the prophets told, and why Nicodemus should have understood. But no one had the indwelling Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, the Spirit would rest on a man, and could also leave a man, as he did with king Saul.

Do you know the difference between being indwelt by the Spirit of God as INDIVDUALS as your individual body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19) and the new temple built by Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost being a corporate new house of God made up of living stones (1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Pet. 2:5)???????

Yes, I understand the difference between being indwelt by the Spirit as an individual, which no believer received until after Jesus was glorified (John 7:39) and being baptized into the body of Christ corporately. Neither is relevant to this discussion as I said before. No one had the indwelling Spirit until after Jesus was raised from the dead and was glorified.

Jhn 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

This one verse alone refutes your view, because it is speaking of persons who believed on Jesus, and it says they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Therefore they could not possibly be regenerated, yet they had the ability to believe on Jesus. This verse alone completely refutes your view.

Jhn 17:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

It is true that the Spirit dwelled with the disciples at this point, but he was not INSIDE them, they did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is verified when Jesus told his disciples to receive the Spirit in chapter 20.

Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

If the disciples already had the Spirit and were regenerated as you say, there would have been no need for Jesus to breathe on them and tell them to receive the Spirit.

Yet the disciples believed on Jesus for at least three years before this, proving that unregenerate men have the ability to believe.

Jhn 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Do you know the difference between the Holy Spirit "with" that as individual indwelt persons and the promise to be "in" them as the new House of God?

No, show the scripture that supports this. I have NEVER heard of two different types of indwelling of the Spirit.

Gill is wrong!

Of course, of course, YOU are the ONLY person in the whole wide world that understands the scriptures. What was I possibly thinking?

 

[Skandelon]

The subject was "hardening" without any specific soteriological view

Actually, that was in reference to believers being able to accept the doctrinal views regarding election that you hold to...'enlightened' etc. There really is only three options:

1. All true believers will come to believe as you do (or they aren't true believers)

2. God gives all believers the contra-causal freedom to accept or reject those particular views.

3. God has decided to grant some believers these 'truths' but not others.

Now, you are specifying "Calvinism" a term which you said you would restrain from using in our discussion.

I actually never said that, but I explained how some labels are just the most concise way of communicating a point. Would you prefer that I call them "Reformed doctrines"? That is not a historically accurate label, but if it helps I can do that?

Of course God does not sanctify all children equally.

So, its not really my 'fault' (responsibility) whether or not I believe these particular views? After all, He has to be the one who makes me willing to accept them, so ultimately it is HIS response you are hoping for, not mine.

Notable according to who????

I just mean published and accessible to normal people like me... :wavey:

I have explained all of these aspects of hardening to you before? Will doing it again make any difference? I don't think so. The fallen nature is HARDENED by light

You have said that before, yes, but then I asked you several follow up questions and you've neglected to respond to those.

For example, you have yet to tell us how speaking in parables is 'more light' instead of 'less light' as you originally explained. As I said, the strongest points of one's argument are typically not reflected in the portions the opponent answers, but in the portions ignored or avoided. You appear to be ignoring these follow up questions for some reason.

and by giving light they are given a spirit of stupor and blindness - think about it a little more!

I've never thought of 'giving more light' and equal to blinding someone and I've yet to see any support for this view except your assertions.

More political jockey! Don't you ever get tired of playing these silly little intellectual games? Truth is not in your view, just making chess moves.

People tend to turn to personal ad hominem when they can't respond to the point of the debate.

Since when is quoting the entire scripture passage to better understand the context considered 'political jokey?'

Jews don't have a different fallen human nature than Gentiles.

I never said they did. One has BECOME HARDENED or GROWN CALLOUSED and the other has not. That distinction means something to those of us who don't believe all men are born in a total disabled condition by which no one could ever see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing.

"" 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"​

Explain Paul's distinction between the Jew, who has grown calloused and the Gentile who has not. He specifically tells us what the non-hardened individual might do OTHERWISE, yet you disagree with Paul.

He is referring to Israel as a nation

Agreed. And what is true of the nation must be true of the individuals within that nation, right?

It seems that you fella's like arguing from one extreme to the other extreme and never take things in balance. If we are talking about human accoutability then that is pitted against God's absolute sovereignty. If we are talking about God's sovereignty then that is pitted against human accountabiltiy. I believe both and so I don't have to run to one extreme to the other.

Funny, I think the exact same thing about what you believe as compared to what I believe...that is often a sign that this is a question begging fallacy.

God uses truth to save the elect and he uses truth to blind the non-elect.

Can you list examples of truth causing blindness? How does the use of parables support this assertion?

It is the truth that hardens the fallen nature,

You keep saying that but on what basis? It doesn't follow. Men's continued rejection of the light will hardened them to the light, but the light itself doesn't cause hardening.

In all of that response it is painfully obvious you are avoiding the question I've continually asked about how the use of parables to prevent his audience from turning fits your view.

God's Word is only POWERFUL when God empowers it.

You say that as if God's word can exist without power... The fact that the words ARE GOD'S make them inherently powerful. The difference with our views is that you think mens depraved heart is more powerful than God's appeal for reconciliation meant to enable a response.

Sorry but that is rediculous! He spoke in parables because he did not want more unregenerated disciples following him.

So, you believe they might have believed and turned to him for healing and not have been regenerated? That is what the texts says the might have done had he not used parables.

The same reason he told those he healed not to tell anyone who he was

I agree, it was for the same reasons that he gave this instruction. He was blinding them...again this is proof of LESS LIGHT, not more as you suppose (without biblical proof)

That is what your teachers have taught you but that is not the Word of God....

Whoa, slow down... I just asked you a clarifying question. I never told you what I believe on this point. I simply asked what your belief was concerning the apostles faith prior to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost...that is all.

 

[The Biblicist]

We have strayed far from the OP and now are involved in an exercise of futility jumping and hopping skipping through the Bible like on a merry go round with no end in sight.

Actually, that was in reference to believers being able to accept the doctrinal views regarding election that you hold to...'enlightened' etc. There really is only three options:

1. All true believers will come to believe as you do (or they aren't true believers)

All true believers are saved the very same way from Genesis to revelation and Abraham is the example set forth by Scriptures. So no! No one has to believe in the doctrine of grace to be saved. They merely need to recognize they are sinners in need of Jesus Christ as an all sufficient Savior who satisfied all of God's demands for them - receiving him in that way by simple faith.

2. God gives all believers the contra-causal freedom to accept or reject those particular views.

If you are talking about Calvinism versus Arminianism that is rediculous as many live and die and understand neither system. If you are talking about how God actually saves a person, he does it is an act of Creation whereby he effectually calls them out of darkness by command through the gospel (2 Cor. 4:6). He gives them SPIRITUAL eternal life by quicken WHEN he gives them JUDICIAL eternal life through justification by faith in the very gospel He empowered.

3. God has decided to grant some believers these 'truths' but not others.

Again, if you are talking about Calvinism versus Arminianism, yes he gives some clearer light than others. If you are talking about truth in general, yes he gives some more understanding of truth than others.

So, its not really my 'fault' (responsibility) whether or not I believe these particular views? After all, He has to be the one who makes me willing to accept them, so ultimately it is HIS response you are hoping for, not mine.

. You simply can't grasp that sovereignty and accountability are not opposed to each other can you? You want to always pit them. They do not contradict each other but they are pardoxical. The only way your mind thinks is by pitting one against the other or denying one or the other. This is another proof this whole discussion with you is an exercise of futility because the system of Calvinism you learned is warped.

I just mean published and accessible to normal people like me... :wavey:

If it is not one thing it is another with you. Our church uses the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. Is that sufficient for you?

For example, you have yet to tell us how speaking in parables is 'more light' instead of 'less light' as you originally explained. As I said, the strongest points of one's argument are typically not reflected in the portions the opponent answers, but in the portions ignored or avoided. You appear to be ignoring these follow up questions for some reason.

The carnal mind cannot harmonize God's Word in its thinking because it thinks according to human wisdom. The same is true of the regenerated man unless he is being led by the Spirit. However, the carnal mind when confronted, cornered and convicted by the light/truth bares its teeth (enmity) while actively resisting it through disobedience, unbelief and perversion of it and will not come to the light (Jn. 3:19-20).

The Jewish people as a nation expressed their carnality in a religous manner (perversion of truth) and had hardened in their systematization of error. Their minds were a sealed vault.

Mt. 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

They understood the Biblical words within their own framework of theology, within their own system of perversion but they could not understand the truth as intended by God. Just as many today understand God's Word within the framework of their own humanistic system of theology but can't perceive the truth intended by God in the very words they speak and teach much about.

They have closed their eyes and shut their ears by their own theological system of intepretations, which is a framework that prevents them from seeing and hearing the truth as God intended. When Jesus said the following words:

For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

He was not saying they have POTENTIAL to see and believe but rather because of their unregenerated hardened condition NO POTENTIONAL is possible "AT ANY TIME" due to that condition (2 Cor. 4:6). So Christ is denying the very thing you claim He is asserting.

I've never thought of 'giving more light' and equal to blinding someone and I've yet to see any support for this view except your assertions.

Have you ever seen a deer caught in bright headlights at night? Get the picture? Plenty of Light but it blinds the deer.

Since when is quoting the entire scripture passage to better understand the context considered 'political jokey?'

Never said it was. I simply said that you are politically posturing rather than actually seeking truth and it is plain by the way you argue. However, I will let that go.

I never said they did. One has BECOME HARDENED or GROWN CALLOUSED and the other has not. That distinction means something to those of us who don't believe all men are born in a total disabled condition by which no one could ever see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing.

You simply reject the truth of God's Word! The scriptures are as clear as the noon day sun in regard to the total depravity of fallen man (Rom. 3:9-18; 8:7-8; Psa. 14:2-3; etc., etc.) but no amount of scriptures no matter how plain will turn you from your system of thinking. You never could and never did respond to my exposition of the langauge in Romans 8:7-8 proving that Paul is describing a CONDITION of the fallen nature or mind set of the "law of sin."

"" 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"​

What translation did you select for the above passage? When all of these passages in all parallel counts are considered, it is clear he is not teaching they have POTENTIAL to be saved or POTENTIONAL he might save them but he is denying any POTENTAL due to their hardened state. In other words, IF THIS WERE NOT THEIR CONDITION, but it is, they would turn and I would save them, but since it is their condition no such salvation is possible by simply exposing them to light.

Explain Paul's distinction between the Jew, who has grown calloused and the Gentile who has not. .

I have but you simply reject my explanation. Both have the same depraved natue (Rom. 3:9) but the Jew has been exposed to more light than the Gentile and the more the totally depraved totally resistant sin nature is exposed to light the more corrupt it becomes in its resistance. Corrupt in its religious framework or in its immoral framework.

He specifically tells us what the non-hardened individual might do OTHERWISE, yet you disagree with Paul

No, I just disagree with YOUR interpretation of his words. I believe he is saying the very exact opposite of your intepretation. I believe he is saying you would turn and be saved if this was not your condition BUT IT IS and that prevents you from coming to the truth that I should save you. This will always be the case of the fallen nature when it is confronted with light. If it were not that condition they would turn and be saved.

 

[Skandelon]

Again, if you are talking about Calvinism versus Arminianism, yes he gives some clearer light than others. If you are talking about truth in general, yes he gives some more understanding of truth than others.

That's all that needed to be said. You believe, as I presumed from the beginning of this rabbit trail, that God (for whatever reason) has granted the 'truth' of Calvinism (reformed theology) to some of his Children, while leaving the others to believe a false view. Have you ever considered why He would do that? Or do you dismiss such questions as paradoxes?

You simply can't grasp that sovereignty and accountability are not opposed to each other can you?

In my view they aren't opposed to each other, so of course I can grasp it. We are debating which of our views is accurate, not making accusations about how the other is too dull to grasp things simply because they disagree with it.

the system of Calvinism you learned is warped.

Proof. Quote what I said and then refute it. Blanket unfounded accusations get us no where. Quote something I said and then make a case for why it is 'warp' and what the correct system should be... then we would be having a profitable discussion.

Mt. 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

They understood the Biblical words within their own framework of theology, within their own system of perversion but they could not understand the truth as intended by God.

Isn't that true whether or not he spoke in parables according to your point of view? I think you KNOW the answer is yes, which is why the use of parables as a prevention of these people believing undermines your entire system. The WORD is light and thus has POWER to persuade and bring clarity, and thus belief, which is why God had to use parables. He was blinding, provoking and confusing them, not showing them more light. And he was doing it for a redemptive purpose, not a condemning one.

For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

He was not saying they have POTENTIAL to see

I took the liberty to highlight the section you seem to want to avoid. Their eyes have closed...they have GROWN CALLOUSED...BECOME HARDENED...."OTHERWISE they might see, hear, understand turn and I would heal them."

Have you ever seen a deer caught in bright headlights at night? Get the picture? Plenty of Light but it blinds the deer.

Oh, so what Jesus is saying here is that the truth contained in the parable is so clear, so enlightening, so obvious as to their meaning that the Jewish leaders are blinded by the light of the clarity and blatant obvious truth being proclaimed to their ears? That seems backwards to what the parables are doing here in this context, don't you think?

In other words, IF THIS WERE NOT THEIR CONDITION, but it is, they would turn

THERE IT IS!

Right on! IF THIS WAS NOT THEIR CONDITION. Now, stop and ask yourself, "What is their condition?"

1. They were born totally unable to see, hear, understand or turn to God for healing due to an inherited sin nature from the fall.

OR...

2. They had 'grown calloused' after rejecting the light of God's revelation for years and years...​

What if #2 hadn't happened? What 'MIGHT' they be able to do. I agree with you that they can't, and that THIS is their condition, but what if it weren't. What if they had not "GROWN CALLOUSED" like the verse says? What if they were like the Gentiles instead who haven't grown calloused, would they be able to listen to these truths and accept them?

Paul says yes, "27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Think about it. Why would he say, "I'll take the message to the Gentiles who will listen," if he believed them to be in the same debilitating condition as the Jews? I'll leave you with that question as I believe it is the crux of this passage...