Do these scriptures deny human RESPONSIBILITY?

[The Biblicist]

Sorry, but I read all that twice and I still don't understand how it answers this question:

Can you explain to me how one is naturally able to 'see, hear, understand and turn to be healed' and someone who is spiritually able to 'see, hear, understand and turn to be healed.' Maybe give us an example of someone who has seen, heard, understood and been healed naturally but not spiritually?

Maybe I'm just too dense....is there a shorter, cliff notes, dumbed down version?

The text delcares their hardening condition makes that impossible not possible. Only if they had not responded by hardening could that be possible but they did respond that way and so it is not possible.

The issue is whether or not it is possible for them to respond any other way to light other than by hardening and my answer is no. If they could or would respond differently then it would be possible. However, hardening denies that possibility.

We have agreed that hardening originates only from a fallen nature. The issue is whether the fallen nature can respond any other way than hardening to light. The Biblical response is no - Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 3:9-18; 8:7-8.

 

[Skandelon]

The text delcares their hardening condition makes that impossible not possible.

Right, and it also equally declares that it "MIGHT" be possible "OTHERWISE."

"they have grown calloused...otherwise they might see, hear, understand and turn to the Lord for healing."


We agree that those hardened/blinded and cut off by God don't have ability, but what about those NOT YET calloused?

The issue is whether or not it is possible for them to respond any other way to light other than by hardening and my answer is no.

"my" answer?
That is the problem, its only YOUR answer, because Paul's answer is that 'otherwise they might' and further that the Gentiles 'will listen.'

We have agreed that hardening originates only from a fallen nature. The issue is whether the fallen nature can respond any other way than hardening to light. The Biblical response is no - Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 3:9-18; 8:7-8.

The biblical response IN THAT SAME VERSE is 'otherwise they might...' Your response is 'no' and its based on verses that frankly don't even address the judicial hardening of Israel as it relates to the nature of mankind.

John 3 states IN CONTEXT:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."​

Now, you can make your argument about who 'whosoever' is in reference to, but you can't presume onto this text the concept of inability, because it doesn't exist. I've yet to hear anyone say, 'whosoever does x, y, z' actually mean that no one can do 'x, y or z.' (see my sig line for the root of this error, the other two passages are the exact same error)

 

[The Biblicist]

Right, and it also equally declares that it "MIGHT" be possible "OTHERWISE."

This statement is no different than the following statement: If there was not but one God there could be other gods.

This statement does not provide the possibility for the existence of other gods for at least two essential reasons. (1) It is a possiblity only by denial of the actual fact; (2) The greater Biblical context also denies it is possible as well.

So it is also with your interpretation of this text as I will demonstrate in your quotation of John 3:18-20 and the text you have thus far refused to engage me in - Rom. 8:7-8.

John 3 states IN CONTEXT:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."​

1. No one comes into this world as a believer and so verse 18 does not provide the possibility that some are not under condemnation already.

2. Verses 19-20 explicitly describe the reaction of the fallen nature to light.

3. Verse 21 does not provide the possibility that anyone "lives by the truth" NATURALLY but rather only by divine intervention of which that is THE PRODUCT not the cause.

Romans 8:7 completely annihates your whole position as that verse does not describe or characterize the state of the new nature but the old and exegetically it "IS" the very antithesis of what is essential to make your unbiblical theory valid.

 

[The Biblicist]

"they have grown calloused...otherwise they might see, hear, understand and turn to the Lord for healing."


We agree that those hardened/blinded and cut off by God don't have ability, but what about those NOT YET calloused?

The perfect tense is used to describe an event that was completed in the past and continues as a completed act right to the present. Hence, this is descriptive of a done deal in regard to their condition which cannot be undone naturally. So from that point of completion it stands as an irreversible condition. This would indicate these persons have arrived at the Psalm 1:1c and Romans 1:32 stage of hardening.


The particular area of this completed action would seem to be the threshold reached in Matthew 12 when they blasphemed the Holy Spirit and purposed to kill Christ.

Prior to that point, they were somewhere between Romans 1:21-31 or Psalms 1:1ab and thus in the process rather than a completed action. Thus between Matthew 5 and chapter 12 they were in the process in regard to the person of Christ in connection with John's ministry that introduced him to them.

Therefore, if they committed the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit there would be no possiblity of forgiveness in this age or the age to come.

The blaspheming of the Spirit requires light in the mind, hate in the heart and purposeful attributing to the Spirit of God the works of Satan.

 

[BobRyan]

Right, and it also equally declares that it "MIGHT" be possible "OTHERWISE."

"they have grown calloused...otherwise they might see, hear, understand and turn to the Lord for healing."

...
That is the problem, its only YOUR answer, because Paul's answer is that 'otherwise they might' and further that the Gentiles 'will listen.'

Which "again" brings us to Paul's statement on what the lost can NOT do vs what they CAN do.

What the lost CAN do - vs what the Lost cannot do.

[FONT=&quot]Rom 8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Those who claim they are not "able to subject themselves" to the Law of God - are claiming the position of the lost - "in the flesh".

However Romans 10 points out what the lost CAN do that "results in salvation". (And I think they can do it by the power of the Holy Spirit who "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" - not just the born-again, not just the regenerate)

[FONT=&quot]Rom 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

And that ends up being one of the key problems between the Calvinist POV and the Arminian POV.

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT]

 

[Skandelon]

Which "again" brings us to Paul's statement on what the lost can NOT do vs what they CAN do.

What the lost CAN do - vs what the Lost cannot do.

[FONT=&quot]Rom 8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Those who claim they are not "able to subject themselves" to the Law of God - are claiming the position of the lost - "in the flesh".

However Romans 10 points out what the lost CAN do that "results in salvation". (And I think they can do it by the power of the Holy Spirit who "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" - not just the born-again, not just the regenerate)

[FONT=&quot]Rom 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

And that ends up being one of the key problems between the Calvinist POV and the Arminian POV.

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT]

:thumbs:
That is the exact point my signature line is pointing out...

 

[Skandelon]

The perfect tense is used to describe an event that was completed in the past and continues as a completed act right to the present. Hence, this is descriptive of a done deal in regard to their condition which cannot be undone naturally. So from that point of completion it stands as an irreversible condition. This would indicate these persons have arrived at the Psalm 1:1c and Romans 1:32 stage of hardening.

The particular area of this completed action would seem to be the threshold reached in Matthew 12 when they blasphemed the Holy Spirit and purposed to kill Christ.

Prior to that point, they were somewhere between Romans 1:21-31 or Psalms 1:1ab and thus in the process rather than a completed action. Thus between Matthew 5 and chapter 12 they were in the process in regard to the person of Christ in connection with John's ministry that introduced him to them.

Therefore, if they committed the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit there would be no possibility of forgiveness in this age or the age to come.

Take this to 10 objective believers, people without a dog in this hunt, and tell them to be honest with you. Then ask them if this seems at all plausible to them. Because I could tell you that it seems like one of the biggest stretches I've heard, but you'd think I was just being bias or trying to win a debate. You need some objective voices.

BTW, are their any commentaries on this passage that even go this route or is this original with you?

 

[Skandelon]

1. No one comes into this world as a believer and so verse 18 does not provide the possibility that some are not under condemnation already.

I never said otherwise. But the only reason anyone has to remain under condemnation is due to their unbelief. Nothing else stands in the way of their entering heaven save only their own unbelief.

2. Verses 19-20 explicitly describe the reaction of the fallen nature to light.

Yes, and the cure to that problem follows with the word BUT, a conjunction which indicates something else needs to be said that counters the bad news...."BUT whoever lives by the truth comes into the light."

Calvinist teach that one must come into the light in order to live by the truth (backward from the verse above), just like you teach one must be made alive before you believe (backward from John 20:31), just like you teach one must have the veil removed before turning to Christ (backward from 2 Cor. 3:16), just like you believe one must get a new heart before confessing (backward from Ez 18:31)...the list continues to grow.

3. Verse 21 does not provide the possibility that anyone "lives by the truth" NATURALLY but rather only by divine intervention of which that is THE PRODUCT not the cause.

True. And what is that divine intervention? THE GOSPEL..the very thing being penned for the first time by John in this chapter calling WHOSOEVER WILL

"Faith comes by hearing" the TRUTH...

 

[The Biblicist]

I never said otherwise. But the only reason anyone has to remain under condemnation is due to their unbelief. Nothing else stands in the way of their entering heaven save only their own unbelief.

Yes, and the cure to that problem follows with the word BUT, a conjunction which indicates something else needs to be said that counters the bad news...."BUT whoever lives by the truth comes into the light."

Calvinist teach that one must come into the light in order to live by the truth (backward from the verse above), just like you teach one must be made alive before you believe (backward from John 20:31), just like you teach one must have the veil removed before turning to Christ (backward from 2 Cor. 3:16), just like you believe one must get a new heart before confessing (backward from Ez 18:31)...the list continues to grow.

True. And what is that divine intervention? THE GOSPEL..the very thing being penned for the first time by John in this chapter calling WHOSOEVER WILL

"Faith comes by hearing" the TRUTH...

Can these ten objective persons honestly deny that the text in question occurs in Matthew 13 and the blaspheming of the Spirit occurs in Matthew 12? No!

Can they deny that Matthew 13 is explanatory for the consistent rejection of Christ from chapters 6-11 which climaxes in chapter 12?

Can they honestly deny the use of the perfect tense verbs used to describe this hardening as a completed action that stands completed in chapter 13?

 

[Winman]

Calvinist teach that one must come into the light in order to live by the truth (backward from the verse above), just like you teach one must be made alive before you believe (backward from John 20:31), just like you teach one must have the veil removed before turning to Christ (backward from 2 Cor. 3:16), just like you believe one must get a new heart before confessing (backward from Ez 18:31)...the list continues to grow.

I've been telling folks this for years Skan, Calvinism teaches the EXACT REVERSE of what scripture says. I can see that you also see this now.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I've been telling folks this for years Skan, Calvinism teaches the EXACT REVERSE of what scripture says. I can see that you also see this now.

Yes we all know......your that voice crying in the wilderness. :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

This statement is no different than the following statement: If there was not but one God there could be other gods.

I understand your argument, but the fact that Paul's very next sentence is, "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

He is clearly contrasting the condition of Israel with the condition of the Gentiles. Those being cut off and those being grafted in (ref. Rm 11). To suggest, as you are, that they are all born in the exact same disabled condition removes the CLEAR contrast of this statement. You have yet to show me what contrast Paul is drawing if not the one I'm suggestion, because there is NO WAY you can get away with dismissing the contrast all together.

This statement does not provide the possibility for the existence of other gods for at least two essential reasons. (1) It is a possiblity only by denial of the actual fact; (2) The greater Biblical context also denies it is possible as well.

In regard to #1, you are right. If Israel had not BECOME CALLOUSED (denial of what IS) then they might turn and be healed, but then he references the Gentiles as those who have not yet BECOME CALLOUSED, so there is no denial of that fact. Plus, was Paul lying by suggesting that they might do those things had they not grown calloused?

In regard to #2, I know you THINK you have provided biblical proof, but that is up for debate because not one of your proof texts even comes close to denying the clear implications of this passage, and others. Think about it objectively brother. Your number one proof text to prove that the gospel revelation, the sending of the HS at Pentecost, the inspiration of scripture, and the commissioning of the church to carry the good news to all creation is SOMEHOW insufficient to enable a response of man doesn't even mention the word gospel, or any of these gracious means of enabling and provision. You are making the mistake summarized in my sig line...again.

 

[Skandelon]

BTW, Biblicist, your respond in #49 was to the wrong post...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And what is that divine intervention? THE GOSPEL..the very thing being penned for the first time by John in this chapter calling WHOSOEVER WILL

"Faith comes by hearing" the TRUTH...

NOT FOR THOSE WHO DIE IN INFANCY. Not for those who are brain damaged & cant process it. To those, the gospel is useless. So how do you address that conundrum. Is there a loophole you got there?

 

[webdog]

NOT FOR THOSE WHO DIE IN INFANCY. Not for those who are brain damaged & cant process it. To those, the gospel is useless. So how do you address that conundrum. Is there a loophole you got there?

Yes, the denial of Augustinianism and the acceptance of Adamism, that we all die in like manner he did, by violating Gods law.

There is no way around it, as the thread I started last month shows the only 4 options, and only one is biblical.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, the denial of Augustinianism and the acceptance of Adamism, that we all die in like manner he did, by violating Gods law.

There is no way around it, as the thread I started last month shows the only 4 options, and only one is biblical.

Whats your point exactly......that there is some kind of dispensation for those folks? At least thats what I "Think" your saying. And Id rather "know" specifically what your saying.

My own personal conclusion is that the preaching of the gospel is not God's ordained means of bringing eternal salvation to the sinner. Only by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit can eternal life be brought to the dead sinner (John 3 : 6-8) .The gospel brings life and immortality to light, but doesn't produce life (2 Tim.1: 10).

 

[webdog]

Whats your point exactly......that there is some kind of dispensation for those folks? At least thats what I "Think" your saying. And Id rather "know" specifically what your saying.

My own personal conclusion is that the preaching of the gospel is not God's ordained means of bringing eternal salvation to the sinner. Only by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit can eternal life be brought to the dead sinner (John 3 : 6-8) .The gospel brings life and immortality to light, but doesn't produce life (2 Tim.1: 10).

No special dispensation at all. From that thread:

We agree on God's design for infants. I think most believers do with the exception of some hyper types that believe in both elect and non elect infants. The disagreement amongst many believers stems from the adherence of Augustinianism. The only options are...
1. Infants are sinners (guilty) and go to hell apart from grace alone through faith alone in the completed work of Christ as every other human does.
2. Infants are sinners (guilty) and go to Heaven in the same way every other human does, by grace alone through faith alone in the completed work of Christ.
3. Infants are sinners (guilty) and go to Heaven by grace alone apart from faith as they are incapable of faith as faith comes by hearing, a special dispensation of salvation granted.
4. Infants are not sinners (not guilty) due to not having transgressed Gods law. As with all creation, Christ's blood reverses the curse of Adam's sin allowing an infant to be in the presence of God apart from the cursed flesh.

1 believes all will burn in hell, 2 only works with this nebulous, pixie dust "gift of faith" superimposed on the infant, 3 is this special extra biblical dispensation of salvation you mention, and 4 is what I believe is the biblically supported position from start to finish.

Also, your personal conclusion is the exact opposite of what the Bible says...
6 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Also, your personal conclusion is the exact opposite of what the Bible says...
6 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Right, so you just ignore John 3 : 6-8 & 2 Tim.1: 10.


And then in summary, what was the general consensus of the poll ?

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand your argument, but the fact that Paul's very next sentence is, "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

But you are not fullly addressing WHY they will listen? From the naturalistic point of view, they have no differnent sin nature than the Jews, so that is not the basis for why they would listen and these Jews would not. The difference is that the Jews had been exposed to Christ and went through the process of hardening (Mt. 5-11) until they reached the climax of hardening to Christ which was so intense resistance and hatred they blasphemously attributed his works to Satan and purposed to kill him (Mt. 12). This completed hardened condition (Mt. 13) is reserved in God's purpose for the non-elect as He has purposed it is irreversable and thus the perfect tense verbs are used in Matthew 13 to describe an irreversable condition for these INDIVIDUALS who made up the majority of Israel and its reaction to Christ.

In contrast, Christ had not yet been manifested among the gentiles and so the Gentiles as a people had not gone through the same hardening processes toward Christ. However, because hardening is the response of the fallen nature, they would also go through this same process except the elect gentiles. God has a people among the Gentiles as He promised Abraham that will listen becuase they are His elect who are chosen "to salvation" and the full number of them will come to Christ (Rom. 11:25).

Remember, Paul said he was saved because He "blasphemed" ignorantly. Those in Matthew 12-13 blasphemened with full knowledge of whom Christ was and did so with intent and malice and it was manifested by the ultimate degree of hardening which is the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit which is irreversable by God's decree.

So Christ is referring to the ELECT gentiles rather than Gentiles in general because He is referring only to those to whom the Father gives such knowledge (Mt. 13:10-11) not to any of those among the Gentiles He never gave to come to the Son (Jn. 6:37-39).

 

[The Biblicist]

BTW, Biblicist, your respond in #49 was to the wrong post...

Yeah, slip of the pen. HOwever, I did answer that post also elsewhere.