Discussion of Predestination

[npetreley]

I'm certainly not ready to be "authoritative" on that point, but it begs the question, if the angels praise God, then why are we here? Or, if the angels worship God, why are we here? I see love as the only difference. We have a love-born relationship with God. If the angels do love God, it certainly wouldn't be the same love as the redeemed have, would it? Isn't redemptive love that which angels desire to "look into"?

Just speculating. Maybe someday I'll do a serious study on it.

I think this is good speculation, especially about redemptive love. That's certainly a big difference between us and the angels. As far as we know from the Bible, there's no redeemer for angels, so none of them can repent and be saved. If God plans something other than the lake of fire for any of the fallen angels, He hasn't shared that plan with us.

Keep in mind, too, that there are different types of angels and different types of demons. I don't know how that plays into any of this, if at all, but it's something we often forget.

 

[Rippon]

One can't worship God without love being primary . The angels have a purer love than we do in these earthly tabernacles . In glory we will surpass them in love toward the Lord . It doesn't specifically say that in Scripture -- just putting 2+2 together .

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I believe God could have saved everyone, or perhaps prevented anyone from falling in the first place (and thus needing salvation). Why didn't He? Just a guess: We wouldn't know anything about His righteousness, wrath against unrighteousness, or His mercy.

God is both righteous and merciful. His righteousness requires that he punish sin. His mercy compels him to forgive. It is God's justice that forces mercy to be considered. In order to satisfy both his righteousness and his mercy he elected some to salvation and others to perdition. Jesus is the means by which those whom are guilty of sin maybe forgiven for their sin and at the same time through his work on the cross and subsequent resurrection he is also the risen savior who will come back in judgment of those who have not received and believed the gospel. He is on both accounts a means by which God exercises his righteous judgment and extends his loving arm of mercy.

 

[webdog]

Please where have I ever or anyone who is credible in Reformed theology ever said this?

You can't be serious! Can a dead man respond to the Gospel?

Let me ask you this, are Christ and the Holy Spirit both equally God?

Yes.

How does the work of the Holy Spirit differ from the work of Christ?

Too broad of a question.

Deal with the passage I just posted. What does 1 Cor. 2 teach?

Since Paul was addressing believers, he was talking about how a person walking in the flesh...and not by the Spirit...cannot know the things of God. This has absolutely nothing to do with the unsaved being able to hear and respond to the Gospel. For a theologian, your context is way off.

 

[Blammo]

.....

1) The question then becomes does a Christian believe in order to receive election or because they were predestined to election?

2) Further, hypothetically, could God have chosen to save all men?

3) If so, why didn't he? If not, why couldn't he?

My answers (As I see it so far):

1) A sinner is elected to salvation when he believes, by faith, on the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Foreknown by God)

2) Yes, God could have chosen to save all men, and it is God's will that all men repent of their sins and be saved.

3) He did offer a way for all men to be saved, and it works. If any man spends eternity in a lake of fire, (prepared for the devil and his angels), it will not be because God failed, it will be because that man did not believe.

Unless God wanted "Stepford Worshippers" I do not yet see how your theology works.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

You can't be serious! Can a dead man respond to the Gospel?

Yes.

Too broad of a question.

Since Paul was addressing believers, he was talking about how a person walking in the flesh...and not by the Spirit...cannot know the things of God. This has absolutely nothing to do with the unsaved being able to hear and respond to the Gospel. For a theologian, your context is way off.

As to your first response.

"You can't be serious! Can a dead man respond to the Gospel?"

All of my Reformed buddies and I just had a real laugh. That is exactly the point we are trying to make to you. The funny thing is that what we are talking about is the spiritually dead. It is obvious from your reply that you thought I was talking about a physically dead person. But just so you will know, I believe that Jesus can and did reach even a physically dead person, Lazarus. Your reaction is telling. In the same way you respond with shock at the notion that Jesus reaches the decomposing corpse of a dead person with the gospel, I would argue that it is equally impossible for a spiritually dead soul to respond to the gospel apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. But in the same way he reached Lazarus who was previously dead, God would need to make alive again the spirit of man in order that he may understand the things of the Holy Spirit. READ my comments on 1 Cor. 2 below.

You say a question asking how the work of the Holy Spirit differs from the work of Christ is too broad. I say that is another way of saying I have not a clue.

The work of Christ individually is primarily in the area of atonement. The work of the Holy Spirit is primarily in drawing men to the atonement or revealing the truth of the atonement. You could have said we pray to the Father by the Son through the Holy Spirit. You could have said that Jesus is the Word and that he reveals the truth of God and the Holy Spirit brings illumination of the truth. This question was more of test to see where you are in your level of understanding. To say the question is too broad does nothing more than show your contempt for having been asked something that you were not able to discuss on a level that would be seen as credible.

Moreover, you do not want to interact substantively with 1 Cor. 2. Why? Because you claim it is taken out of context, which I as a theologian should have been more clever to recognize. OH MY.

Vs. 6
Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.

Contrasts human wisdom from wisdom from above.

vs. 7
But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.

Since this wisdom is secret and hidden wisdom and from God only God can reveal this wisdom. It is not wisdom that intellectual ascent can obtain.
So I ask you then, who can you obtain this wisdom apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, since it is secret and hidden?

vs. 8
None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

In ignorance the rulers of this age put to death God in human form.

vs. 9
But, as it is written,
“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him”—

This verse clearly states that no one has comprehended nor can man of his own imagine what God has prepared for those who love him. Now, if we cannot understand or comprehend on our own the things of God, how then can you claim that someone can receive the gospel apart from the work of the Holy Spirit?

vs. 10
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

BINGO! Camp out here and stay a while.

vs. 11
For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

You cannot comprehend the thoughts of God except through the work of the Holy Spirit and that certainly would apply to comprehending the gospel.

vs. 12
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

Why did they receive the Spirit? That they might understand the things freely given us by God. The gospel is the free gift of God. When making reference to the things freely given this is a clear reference to the gospel. Therefore, you receive the illumination of the Spirit or regeneration in order that you may receive the free gift of God, ie the gospel.

vs. 13
And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

Paul is a missionary proclaiming the gospel to the lost, yet he clearly states that he imparts this in words not taught by human wisdom. He is recognizing that he is not behind the power of the gospel nor is the intellectual curiosity of those who want to receive the gospel. Instead, he teaches and they are taught by the Spirit.

vs. 14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural person is not a reference to a believe but to a non-believer. Why? Because Paul goes not to say that the natural person is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned and a natural person is without the Holy Spirit.

vs. 15
The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

The person with God's Spirit is able to utilize the wisdom of the Spirit without being the ultimate arbiter of truth, that is the role of the Spirit.


vs. 16
“For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

We are in no position to judge the merit of revealed truth, we are simply given the benefit of that knowledge and the privilege of having access to the mind of Christ.

 

[J.D.]

My answers (As I see it so far):

1) A sinner is elected to salvation when he believes, by faith, on the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Foreknown by God)

2) Yes, God could have chosen to save all men, and it is God's will that all men repent of their sins and be saved.

3) He did offer a way for all men to be saved, and it works. If any man spends eternity in a lake of fire, (prepared for the devil and his angels), it will not be because God failed, it will be because that man did not believe.

Unless God wanted "Stepford Worshippers" I do not yet see how your theology works.

That sounds good except that your theology runs directly contrary to scripture when to you say "A sinner is elected to salvation when he believes". The question of when God elects is plainly answered in scripture - "before the foundation of the world".

Also, your statement is self-contradictory. You said "it is God's will that all men repent of their sins and be saved" and then you said "it will not be because God failed". You don't see the contradiction in those statements? God is not able to accomplish His own will?

I do not see how your theology lines up the scripture and sound logic.

I don't know what a "Stepford Worshipper" is but in context it seems you are alluding to the old worn-out "calvinism makes us robots" argument.

 

[webdog]

In the same way you respond with shock at the notion that Jesus reaches the decomposing corpse of a dead person with the gospel, I would argue that it is equally impossible for a spiritually dead soul to respond to the gospel apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.

You did it again. In essence the Word is powerless UNLESS the work of the Holy Spirit happens. The Words of Christ (spoken, preached, written) are powerless UNLESS the work of the Holy Spirit happens. Thanks for playing.

You say a question asking how the work of the Holy Spirit differs from the work of Christ is too broad. I say that is another way of saying I have not a clue.

Oh wise one...don't put words in my mouth. I said what I said. The fact you cannot state further shows you are the one without a clue.

Moreover, you do not want to interact substantively with 1 Cor. 2. Why?

Why? Because I have discussed this very chapter before in great detail, and do not wish to spend the time doing it again. That's what a search function is for. Use it.

 

[Blammo]

1) That sounds good except that your theology runs directly contrary to scripture when to you say "A sinner is elected to salvation when he believes". The question of when God elects is plainly answered in scripture - "before the foundation of the world".

2) Also, your statement is self-contradictory. You said "it is God's will that all men repent of their sins and be saved" and then you said "it will not be because God failed". You don't see the contradiction in those statements? God is not able to accomplish His own will?

3) I do not see how your theology lines up the scripture and sound logic.

4) I don't know what a "Stepford Worshipper" is but in context it seems you are alluding to the old worn-out "calvinism makes us robots" argument.

1) That is why I said "(Foreknown by God)". I agree that it was "before the foundation of the world".

2) That is not a contradiction. God's plan works perfectly. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." It is God's will that all men would believe, but, unless God wants a bunch of robots worshipping Him, it must be that man accept by faith what God has offered.

3) I didn't expect you would.

4) Yes, that is what I meant. I am still fairly new to this type of discussion, so the "stepford worshipper" label is based on what I've learned thus far.

Before I came on BB, I knew very little about Calvinism and Arminienism. From what I have learned so far, I don't think I agree with either.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

You did it again. In essence the Word is powerless UNLESS the work of the Holy Spirit happens. The Words of Christ (spoken, preached, written) are powerless UNLESS the work of the Holy Spirit happens. Thanks for playing.

Oh wise one...don't put words in my mouth. I said what I said. The fact you cannot state further shows you are the one without a clue.

Why? Because I have discussed this very chapter before in great detail, and do not wish to spend the time doing it again. That's what a search function is for. Use it.

Please refute my interpretation of 1 Cor. 2. I am obviously in error, show me. But if you come into this thread be prepared to do more than offer criticism, offer responses to the criticisms of your position.

So I guess according to your view someone can get saved apart from God, since you seem to minimize the role of the Holy Spirit. Where do we get power according to Act 1:8 except through the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is God. You need God in order to be saved. Apart from the role of Holy Spirit you will never come to an understanding of your need to be saved much less how to be saved.

Questions you need to ask yourself is does the Holy Spirit draw the elect on the basis of Christ's work or not? Can there be such a thing as a Holy Spiritless effectual call?

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

My answers (As I see it so far):

1) A sinner is elected to salvation when he believes, by faith, on the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Foreknown by God)

2) Yes, God could have chosen to save all men, and it is God's will that all men repent of their sins and be saved.

3) He did offer a way for all men to be saved, and it works. If any man spends eternity in a lake of fire, (prepared for the devil and his angels), it will not be because God failed, it will be because that man did not believe.

Unless God wanted "Stepford Worshippers" I do not yet see how your theology works.

I am glad this is not a Blammoless discussion after all.

There is evidently a need to constantly state in these discussions that God does not violate the free moral agency of man in order to accomplish his desired will.

Blammo, can we at least recognize that due to God's infinite wisdom that he would be perfectly able to orchestrate the events of creation in order to allow for both free moral agency and moral evil all the while with in the parameters of his perfect will? Yet, even so he has a causal relationship to the events because he is the orchestrator.

 

[J.D.]

1) That is why I said "(Foreknown by God)". I agree that it was "before the foundation of the world".

2) That is not a contradiction. God's plan works perfectly. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." It is God's will that all men would believe, but, unless God wants a bunch of robots worshipping Him, it must be that man accept by faith what God has offered.

3) I didn't expect you would.

4) Yes, that is what I meant. I am still fairly new to this type of discussion, so the "stepford worshipper" label is based on what I've learned thus far.

Before I came on BB, I knew very little about Calvinism and Arminienism. From what I have learned so far, I don't think I agree with either.

I'm glad your you're interested in the discussion. I hope for you that it doesn't take twenty years to see the truth like it did for me.

Let's focus on your first statement. "1) A sinner is elected to salvation when he believes, by faith, on the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Foreknown by God)"

Then you defended your position by saying this: "That is why I said "(Foreknown by God)". I agree that it was "before the foundation of the world"."

First, when you say that God "elected" when he believes, you're indicating that election is contingent upon individual belief in a sequential, chronological, and logical manner. Elect means chosen. Election is the act of God choosing. Now if God elects before the foundation of the world, how can that election be contingent on an event in time? Also, consider the hierarchy of election. If God chooses only that which man first chooses, how can be sovereign? He can't. Either God is sovereign or man is sovereign. There is no democracy in God's Kingdom.

Secondly, belief is either the work of (1) God, or (2) man. Which one?Would you accept the Bible answer to that question? Here it is:

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Now don't wrestle with it, just let the scripture speak to you with great plainness of speech.

Again, "64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. "

Will you now walk away from the word of God? "66:From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. "

Or will you accept, as the eleven elect did, the truth of God's plan: "67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? "

 

[Blammo]

I am glad this is not a Blammoless discussion after all.

I am glad the name of the thread and the OP changed.

There is evidently a need to constantly state in these discussions that God does not violate the free moral agency of man in order to accomplish his desired will.

I don't see how you can be calvinist and believe in "the free moral agency of man". How is it "free moral agency" if it is designed to succeed or fail in hearing and believing the word of God? Is man truly exercising "free moral agency" in making a choice he was designed to make? Furthermore, if he is predestined to salvation or damnation, does he even have a choice?

Blammo, can we at least recognize that due to God's infinite wisdom that he would be perfectly able to orchestrate the events of creation in order to allow for both free moral agency and moral evil all the while with in the parameters of his perfect will? Yet, even so he has a causal relationship to the events because he is the orchestrator.

If I understand you right, we do agree, and I don't think you are calvinist. That is if we both agree on the definition of "free moral agency". You don't think God would intentionally keep a man from believing, do you?

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I am glad the name of the thread and the OP changed.

I don't see how you can be calvinist and believe in "the free moral agency of man". How is it "free moral agency" if it is designed to succeed or fail in hearing and believing the word of God? Is man truly exercising "free moral agency" in making a choice he was designed to make? Furthermore, if he is predestined to salvation or damnation, does he even have a choice?

If I understand you right, we do agree, and I don't think you are calvinist. That is if we both agree on the definition of "free moral agency". You don't think God would intentionally keep a man from believing, do you?

I believe in double predestination, it does not get any more Reformed than that. I do not prefer the term Calvinist however I am comfortable in that group. I prefer to be called a Biblical Christian... lol. Everybody thinks that the Bible is on their side until I turn around and smack them upside the head with their Bible.

I digress. I do not want to keep rehashing old stuff but let me offer you a series of analogies in order to establish the nature of the terms. Right now if I say predestination you hear God is the author of sin, which he is not. So in order for me to say predestination and for you to understand what I mean let me offer the following:

God sets in place a system or means through which he will judge the moral nature of individuals. Their own freewill is a factor in the process. But God is not dependent on man to determine his own fate.

1)The Maze
If I were to set up a maze and put a rat in the maze. I would not have any control directly over the rat and he would not be like a remote control car, and yet I could put in place stimuli that would give the rat impetus to negotiate the maze in whatever way I deemed appropriate. If I put food in the maze the scent of the food could lead him, or I could put negative feedback like electric shock to direct him. Regardless if I wanted to setup a maze I could set it up in such a way that the rat would negotiate to the exact point I desired. There would not be any violation of the rats ability to make decisions. He just would have the necessary eliminates in place to lead him to the eventual end.

2)Bug Zapper
Now if I were to put a bug zapper outside my window, I can know that there will be some bugs that get zapped and others that do not get zapped for whatever reason. If I were to have foreknowledge of the individual bugs and their names and I decided to go ahead and put the bug zapper outside my window, one could conclude that I knew who and who would not get zapped and did so with that knowledge. The names of those who get zapped are the elect and the names of those who do not get zapped are the reprobate. It was my decision to put the zapper outside the window and therefore I determined that I would allow for the elect to be numbered and the reprobate to be numbered according to what I foreknew. Yet what determined the fate of the bugs could be viewed much differently. Some bugs were more prone to being drawn to the zapper and others were not. Some bugs never got within a close enough range to even be drawn. In order to be drawn to the zapper you had to be in range [hear the gospel] and you had to feel compelled to respond to the light.

3) Brushfire
Let's suppose that the creation of the world is similar to burning brush. The fire that results from God attempting to burn off brush results in what some view as a controlled burn, while others view the burn as resulting in catastrophic loss of wildlife. In truth if you do not burn off brush every so often the undergrowth with build up to a level that if it does catch fire it will compound on a multiple level the devastation of a wild fire. So since God knows the future and set fire to the brush, can we say that resulting loss was factored into God's thinking? But one other factor should be considered, all of the wildlife's training and survival instincts have been provided by God, so that everything thing known about fire was provided by God, ie the knowledge of good and evil in the garden. God set the fire and yet God also gave the wildlife the means by which to survive forest fires. So how can we now view the loss of life due to the controlled burn that God determine to bring into existence?

From my point of view because God is sovereign therefore any and all perceived loss can be recovered and any loss that is not recovered is predetermined to be an acceptable loss or else God would not be perfect because the controlled burn would have in that case lost containment and resulted in an out of control burn which would have incurred unacceptable or undesired loss.

Now one of two things is true in this analogy: either it is a controlled burn or it is an out of control run away inferno! Which is it?

4)Driver's License
I offered the analogy of the state issuing drivers licenses. They issue the license but are not liable for damage done while violators are guilty of DWI. Neither is God liable for damage done due to sin, hence, the phrase "free moral agency."

Now the question is not if man is a moral being. The question regards the extent or power that man has to make choices. It is not a matter of whether man makes a choice of his own freewill. It is a matter of what is man's will free to chose?

 

[saturneptune]

Fantastic comparisions. Maybe you should start a book of parables.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Fantastic comparisions. Maybe you should start a book of parables.

Do I sense false praise in them there words?

 

[Blammo]

1)The Maze - If I were to set up a maze and put a rat in the maze. I would not have any control directly over the rat and he would not be like a remote control car, and yet I could put in place stimuli that would give the rat impetus to negotiate the maze in whatever way I deemed appropriate. If I put food in the maze the scent of the food could lead him, or I could put negative feedback like electric shock to direct him. Regardless if I wanted to setup a maze I could set it up in such a way that the rat would negotiate to the exact point I desired. There would not be any violation of the rats ability to make decisions. He just would have the necessary eliminates in place to lead him to the eventual end.

Does this only describe the "rat" that gets saved? Or, does the "maze and rat maker" intentionally lead some of the rats to eternal punishment.

2)Bug Zapper - Now if I were to put a bug zapper outside my window, I can know that there will be some bugs that get zapped and others that do not get zapped for whatever reason. If I were to have foreknowledge of the individual bugs and their names and I decided to go ahead and put the bug zapper outside my window, one could conclude that I knew who and who would not get zapped and did so with that knowledge. The names of those who get zapped are the elect and the names of those who do not get zapped are the reprobate. It was my decision to put the zapper outside the window and therefore I determined that I would allow for the elect to be numbered and the reprobate to be numbered according to what I foreknew. Yet what determined the fate of the bugs could be viewed much differently. Some bugs were more prone to being drawn to the zapper and others were not. Some bugs never got within a close enough range to even be drawn. In order to be drawn to the zapper you had to be in range [hear the gospel] and you had to feel compelled to respond to the light.

That one sounds like what I believe.

3) Brushfire - Let's suppose that the creation of the world is similar to burning brush. The fire that results from God attempting to burn off brush results in what some view as a controlled burn, while others view the burn as resulting in catastrophic loss of wildlife. In truth if you do not burn off brush every so often the undergrowth with build up to a level that if it does catch fire it will compound on a multiple level the devastation of a wild fire. So since God knows the future and set fire to the brush, can we say that resulting loss was factored into God's thinking? But one other factor should be considered, all of the wildlife's training and survival instincts have been provided by God, so that everything thing known about fire was provided by God, ie the knowledge of good and evil in the garden. God set the fire and yet God also gave the wildlife the means by which to survive forest fires. So how can we now view the loss of life due to the controlled burn that God determine to bring into existence?

From my point of view because God is sovereign therefore any and all perceived loss can be recovered and any loss that is not recovered is predetermined to be an acceptable loss or else God would not be perfect because the controlled burn would have in that case lost containment and resulted in an out of control burn which would have incurred unacceptable or undesired loss.

Now one of two things is true in this analogy: either it is a controlled burn or it is an out of control run away inferno! Which is it?

Again, I'm pretty sure that lines up with what I believe. God did not decide who would not survive, and He did not decide who would. God provided a way of escape for all, and, though He foreknew the outcome, He did not decide the outcome.

4)Driver's License - I offered the analogy of the state issuing drivers licenses. They issue the license but are not liable for damage done while violators are guilty of DWI. Neither is God liable for damage done due to sin, hence, the phrase "free moral agency."

I agree.

Now the question is not if man is a moral being. The question regards the extent or power that man has to make choices. It is not a matter of whether man makes a choice of his own freewill. It is a matter of what is man's will free to chose?

Yep.... I think.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Does this only describe the "rat" that gets saved? Or, does the "maze and rat maker" intentionally lead some of the rats to eternal punishment.

Keep in mind my analogies are like all analogies, flawed on many levels. This analogy was not given to illustrate the fate of anyone in particular as much as it illustrates the means by which God can influence the process without violating the free moral agency of man.

Again, I'm pretty sure that lines up with what I believe. God did not decide who would not survive, and He did not decide who would. God provided a way of escape for all, and, though He foreknew the outcome, He did not decide the outcome.

This is where you must determine to be consistant with what is revealed in Scripture or to go with an emotive response that judges God on the merit of human reason. Consider the following Scriptures and tell me how you would respond to your concerns in light of what these passages say?

Prov. 16:4 The Lord has made everything for its purpose,
even the wicked for the day of trouble.

Rev. 17:17 for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.

Rom. 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.

John 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
[Why could they not believe?]
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.”“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.”

Duet. 2:30 But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day.

Josh. 11:20 For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the Lord commanded Moses.

 

[webdog]

Please refute my interpretation of 1 Cor. 2. I am obviously in error, show me. But if you come into this thread be prepared to do more than offer criticism, offer responses to the criticisms of your position.

I take it your search function is broke? Mine works fine. Hmmm...

So I guess according to your view someone can get saved apart from God, since you seem to minimize the role of the Holy Spirit.

Strawman. I don't "minimize" anything. I also don't put the Holy Spirit above Christ as you do.

The Holy Spirit is God. You need God in order to be saved. Apart from the role of Holy Spirit you will never come to an understanding of your need to be saved much less how to be saved.

I don't disagree with any of this.

Questions you need to ask yourself is does the Holy Spirit draw the elect on the basis of Christ's work or not?

Substitute "elect" with "mankind" and you would be correct.

Can there be such a thing as a Holy Spiritless effectual call?

No. The Holy Spirit draws...the Holy Spirit doesn't "allow" mankind to understand the Word.

 

[Brother Bob]

I have to go to an Association meeting in the morning around 3 hours away so I have to go to bed. Then on Sunday, I got a call tonight to baptize a man in his 70's so I am excited about that also for he is a good man. I hate to leave now that I am in but must get some sleep.