Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Most often? When would it not? Wouldn't it only accompany it with the elect according to most Calvinists?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Good Debate 2
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
Of course. Only an elect person can be regenerated. God is not going to regenerate anyone by mistake.
Yes. Which preventative means ensures.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I understand, but it is my understanding that Luke believes that if God didn't use external means of prevention (such as parables) and a non-elect person heard the clear teaching of the gospel that it most likely would regenerate them, which seems to contradict what other Calvinists teach. Maybe you two could discuss and see if their is truly a distinction in what you are saying?
I am not sure what Luke believes on that subject. I would be more than happy to discuss it with him if he is interested.
As far as "mean of prevention", the only real means of prevention is the will of God. If a person is non-elect, even if they are exposed to the Gospel, their non-elect status will not change. Of course, as I have said many times previously, that is in God's pervue, not man's. Whenever and wherever the Gospel is proclaimed it is the still the power of God unto salvation to all who will believe (Romans 1:16). My job (as a preacher) is to be faithful to my calling and proclaim it to all who will listen.
Very clear headed answer brother & well appreciated :thumbs:
Tom Butler
New Member
Let me approach this from a different direction.
When one is lost, it is not the will of God which prevents him from being saved. It is is own sinful nature which drives his rebellion.
That changes only when the Lord opens hearts and understandings, and gives the gift of repentance and faith, and the ability to exercise them for salvation.
I'm thinking of Lydia in Acts 16:14. Luke says the Lord "opened her heart" so that she paid attention to what Paul was teaching.
I recognize that not everyone sees it this way, but I throw this out to stir the pot a little.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
But who, if not God Himself, unchangeably decreed this "sinful nature which drives his rebellion?"
It just seems like a distinction without a difference unless you can somehow establish a basis on which to rest this view of rebellion as being "his" alone...
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
My point exactly. I look forward to Luke's reply...
You are driving at the heart of the rift between Arminianism and the Doctrines of Grace. On the one had I agree with you when you say, "It is is [his] own sinful nature which drives his rebellion." Yes. The sinner is responsible for his sin. And yes, Lydia's heart was opened by God, so that she could understand the Gospel. No DoG'er worth his salt is going to disagree with that. Where we most likely disagree is that Lydia came to faith in Christ because of the effectual work of the Spirit (i.e. the effectual call). Those whom the Father calls will come to faith in His Son (John 6).
Yes, but what Skan and I have been discussing is why Jesus said that he hid the Gospel in parables from some "lest they hear with their ears, believe in their hearts and be converted."
What I am purporting is consistent with what you contend here. Yes, it is God's will that determines who will be saved and who will not.
But it is also evident that the way God fulfills that will is by veiling the eyes of sinners' hearts who are not elect from the Gospel because they could be saved by it. They will not be saved of course- because God will prevent them from "hearing with their ears and believing with their hearts and being converted."
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
This concept of God working to actively prevent people from hearing and believing the Gospel is the point I'm taking issue with...as so would most Calvinistic scholars IMO. What do you all think?
psalms109:31
Active Member
God does desire all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth of Jesus to repent and live. He desires the destruction of no one, but rather them to repent and live. Those who are not in His will, will be destroyed. No reason to warn anyone if that was not true to repent(turn to God, for today not the one to come but the one who has already come Jesus Christ) and live the will of God for us.
He is hiding the truth from the wise and learned, wise in their own eyes, leaning on their own understanding and not trusting in the Lord. That is why they are always hearing and never understanding, because they already know the truth and don't need to come to something they already have. If someone has already made their mind up, they are not coming to learn they are coming to bring them to their truth; They are listening for something they can use to bring you to their truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you are wrong.
I don't think there is a lot of literature on it one way or the other but included in that is the fact that there is not a lot of literature that says that God suddenly STOPS using means in something he does- namely preventing the conversion of the non-elect.
We've been talking about this for better than a hundred posts at this point.
Why is this so important to you?
Could it be that this answer undermines the foundation of what you believe soteriologically so you need to discredit it by trying to paint it as void of historic, scholarly support?
What is most important is not that there be scores of literature on the subject. What is most important is that it is a fair historical grammatical interpretation of the text.
Now, I'm quick to say that I believe in the importance of the backing of scholarship. But you seem to be EXCLUSIVELY interested in that- and totally unwilling to discuss ANYTHING BUT THAT.
Where you need to go from here to make this meaningful, and rescue us from the gridlock into which you have thrust us, is to argue against the idea or admit that if the idea is the result of sound exegesis that you are henceforth without argument against Calvinism.
God bless!
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I don't 'need' to discredit it, but I do think its lack of historic support does help to reveal that its not a 'creditable' position.
Listen, Luke, we have been going around and around about this point for too long. To me its important because its a path God used to bring me out of Calvinistic belief...I know you wouldn't see it that way...but that is the way I see it, and what I think is happening is that instead of going down the path that I did (which is to leave Calvinism), you've created a new path...one that even other Calvinists don't support.
I have credited you for at least being honest enough with the text that you are willing to go against historic Calvinistic views on this point, but I get a bit frustrated when you attempt claim that scholarly Calvinists would agree with you.
Only because its the only way I know to make you reexamine the validity of your position, so that you will be forced to go down the same path I did... which was to leave Calvinism.
Then I'd be letting you off the hook and you'd not objectively and fully vet the conclusion you've come to on this point. I'm forcing you to study and research this point to find the answer and when you don't find in among the Calvinists (which you won't because none of them are saying what you have been saying) then you'll keep looking...
Usually I'd agree.
But the whole system of Arminianism had no historical support before Arminius and the Remonstrants.
Every answer that arises has no historical support when it arises.
Nonetheless, this position does have historical support, as I have shown.
But rather than discussing the position you only want to discuss what you perceive as a lack of historical support for the position.
Let me tell you why I think you will not discuss the position- you can't.
It is a fair handling of the text and a sufficient answer that undermines the very foundation of every argument you have against Calvinism.
But, Skan, you have not shown that they DISAGREE.
Can we both be honest here? There is not a superabundance of scholarly Calvinist work on this passage.
Calvin did say, AT LEAST IT APPEARS ON THE SURFACE he was saying, that Christ used parables as a preventative means to keep them from being converted.
Now you say that you can't see that. I have a hard time believing that you can't see the words of Calvin there as saying that but I believe you to be a godly man of strong integrity so I choose to believe that you are being sincere.
But I think if you'd try to be objective and read it again you'd have to at least admit that the words of Calvin there certainly do at least on the surface SEEM to be saying exactly what I am contending.
But ABOVE THAT- and here is the point of this post- since there is so little on the text either way you can no more show that a plethora of Calvinist scholars saying that God does not use means to prevent regeneration no more than I can show that a plethora of them say that he DOES use means.
But I want to make this clear. If your only argument against this position is that I cannot provide a bunch of scholars to support it- you're done- stick a fork in you. You lose. That argument is a good argument but, standing alone, it is TOTALLY insufficient.
If that's all you have it's time for you to yield.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
That is not accurate. That is like saying Calvin started all Calvinistic thought. Truth is, prior to Augustine there is no record of any scholarly believer or early church father who supported a Calvinistic interpretation of scripture. Now, while there are various forms of 'non-Calvinistic' doctrine (just as there are various forms of Calvinism) you cannot rightly claim it has no historical support prior to the Remonstrants. That is just a very short sighted view of history.
Even still, this attempt at a 'you too' fallacy doesn't dismiss the fact that your position has no historical credibility.
Those quotes say part of what you believe, but not the part I'm taking issue with...as I have shown.
Actually, I've done both...
I will admit that it is difficult to pin you down on your doctrine because when I ask a clarifying question you change the word, as if changing the word answers the question. For example, the introduction of the word 'shine' in post #32 when I was seeking clarity on your view of gospel regeneration, before that it was the word "cure" on the first page...
You think I don't want to discuss the content of your position but as I have said...
I provided TWO different Calvinistic approaches to this issue. How is that not dealing with content?
You seem to think my request for quotes is just a gotcha game, but it is a quest for content and CLARITY. It's fine not to provide any quotes supporting your view, but why not talk to me about the way Gill and other Calvinists approach this issue of Judicial hardening? That is all about CONTENT and the differing POSITIONS a Reformed believer might take. Just because it happens to be content that is different from your approach doesn't mean it's not content.
Plus, what more is there to say about your position except that you refuse to answer the major logical objection against it, dismissing it as 'emotive.' I've shown you the best I know how that it isn't emotive or silly, but I can't force you to respond. You also refuse to provide any documentation or scholarly support where I might find a scholars response to this apparent contradiction. So, what else is left? To deal with what other Calvinists, like Gill, say to reconcile this problem. He takes a bit different approach from yours and I'd be interested to know you feelings on that, but if you don't want to do that either, then I guess we are done....but please don't accuse me of not wanting to deal with the various positions or content of this issue. That is ALL I want to do. You are the one who is keeping that from happening (at least that is what it appears from my position)
You seem to think my request for quotes is just a gotcha game, but it is a quest for content and CLARITY. It's fine not to provide any quotes supporting your view, but why not talk to me about the way Gill and other Calvinists approach this issue of Judicial hardening? That is all about CONTENT and the differing POSITIONS a Reformed believer might take. Just because it happens to be content that is different from your approach doesn't mean it's not content.
Plus, what more is there to say about your position except that you refuse to answer the major logical objection against it, dismissing it as 'emotive.' I've shown you the best I know how that it isn't emotive or silly, but I can't force you to respond. You also refuse to provide any documentation or scholarly support where I might find a scholars response to this apparent contradiction. So, what else is left? To deal with what other Calvinists, like Gill, say to reconcile this problem. He takes a bit different approach from yours and I'd be interested to know you feelings on that, but if you don't want to do that either, then I guess we are done....but please don't accuse me of not wanting to deal with the various positions or content of this issue. That is ALL I want to do. You are the one who is keeping that from happening (at least that is what it appears from my position)
Also, I've said before...
Luke, how is my comparing and contrasting YOUR POSITION with Gills POSITION on this issue interpreted as unwillingness to 'talk about POSITIONS?'
How is asking to read more about your POSITION, from scholars who support it, interpreted as unwillingness to 'talk about POSITIONS?'
Please realize, the impasse is not my unwillingness to discuss your POSITION, its your unwillingness to discuss the apparent contradiction of your POSITION (which you dismiss as 'emotive'), your unwillingness to provide documentation for your POSITION (which you dismiss as irrelevant), and now your unwillingness to even compare or contrast your POSITION with that of other Reformers. You're the only one who is unwilling to talk about POSITIONS here, brother. I'm waiting on you.
How is asking to read more about your POSITION, from scholars who support it, interpreted as unwillingness to 'talk about POSITIONS?'
Please realize, the impasse is not my unwillingness to discuss your POSITION, its your unwillingness to discuss the apparent contradiction of your POSITION (which you dismiss as 'emotive'), your unwillingness to provide documentation for your POSITION (which you dismiss as irrelevant), and now your unwillingness to even compare or contrast your POSITION with that of other Reformers. You're the only one who is unwilling to talk about POSITIONS here, brother. I'm waiting on you.
Last edited by a moderator:
You've not pointed out any contradiction, brother.
You just keep saying, regardless of what quotes I provide, that I have no historical support.
I think that's it.
When you are in check and you can't move from the space you are on (namely the historical support space)- it's called checkmate.
Can you see it any other way?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
This whole thing can be summed up if we go back to the first page of this discussion. You dismissed this post as 'not being an argument' and you never expounded on what you mean by this, or where this view is supported.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I did several times. You dismissed my arguments as being 'emotive' and later by saying, "This is not an argument so I cannot offer a counter point."
You said,
And you've yet to show how that statement (1) is consistent with Calvinism's view of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace and (2) is supported historically by other Calvinistic scholars.
I, on the other hand, have provided documentation from Calvin and other notable scholars showing how they approach the issue of judicial hardening/parables in an attempt to compare/contrast them with your view, but to no avail. You refuse to engage, saying things like, "I would be a fool to let you dictate that we only talk about what you want to talk about from the angle that you want to talk about it."
And what space have you moved from there Luke? You've been on the same square since we started this discussion. Let's recap:
1. I point out the logical inconsistency with Calvinism's teaching of Total Inability and Irresistible Grace as compared to your view of God "typically infusing the proclamation of the Gospel" with effectual regeneration, so as needing to take an active role to keep the Gospel from effectually regenerating the non-elect.
You dismiss it as 'emotive' and later as 'not an argument.'
2. I provide quote after quote of Calvinists who take a differing approach on this subject, so as to compare/contrast with your view.
You dismiss it as an unwillingness on my part to discuss your position.
Listen, Luke, I'm not attempting to show that your view is illogical or inconsistent with itself (because I'm not even sure what 'it' is). I'm attempting to show that it is illogical, inconsistant and contradictory to Calvinism...because that is what YOU claim to be. How am I supposed to do that if you disallow, by some arbitrary new rules, appealing to the orthodoxy of Calvinism itself?