Good Debate

[Skandelon]

Using the Gospel. The Spirit uses the Gospel to captivate the attention of the sinner.

And yet not every sinner is captivated when they hear the gospel. Is that because:

1. They were not elected by God and thus not regenerated.

and/or

2. They were sent a spirit of stupor and the truth was hidden from their eyes.

If both, then haven't you just affirmed double predestination? And don't you think the MEANS of #2 are a bit redundant since simply being unregenerate makes them totally blind and incurable? Couldn't you disavow your view of TD and simply argue that God prevents men from coming through a variety of means?

I don't think you can find a reputable Calvinist in the world who would say that the Gospel is powerless period- in any circumstance. But even if you could, I would repudiate that idea as would, I think, many, if not most, Calvinists.

They wouldn't put it in those words, certainly, but if you look at Calvinists application of 1 Cor. 2:14, that is exactly what they are saying: "Unless God regenerates a person, the gospel is powerless to have any affect on that person."

 

[Luke2427]

I think you mean, "...the gospel is the MEANS whereby the Spirit regenerates the elect..." but what about the non-elect who hear the same gospel? Must the gospel be 'hidden from them in parables' or must they be 'given a spirit of stupor' or other such means to prevent them understanding the gospel and turning to be forgiven?

Yes.

Couldn't God just not regenerate them and still allow them to hear the clear gospel without any hinderances?

God could do whatever God wanted to do. But apparently God has chosen to make the Gospel able to save anyone elect and non-elect. And apparently God utilizes numerous means whereby he chooses to keep that Gospel from saving some people.

#1 He HIDES the Gospel as Jesus did in the parables.
#2 He HARDENS the condition of blindness so that the Gospel which can save anyone in their lostness cannot so easily save the ones who have been hardened.

And there are undoubtedly all kinds of other means God utilizes to accomplish this.

All I am saying is that these are means he uses that are revealed in Scripture.

Is their a risk a non-regnerate man might hear the gospel and decide to repent if God doesn't use these other means?

Yes, although not in an ultimate sense.

 

[Skandelon]

But apparently God has chosen to make the Gospel able to save anyone elect and non-elect. And apparently God utilizes numerous means whereby he chooses to keep that Gospel from saving some people.

You do realize that is the view of what some call "semi-pelagian," don't you?

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, although not in an ultimate sense.

I don't understand this answer. Give us an instance of any sense in which this could be 'YES' in your system.

 

[Luke2427]

And yet not every sinner is captivated when they hear the gospel. Is that because:

1. They were not elected by God and thus not regenerated.

and/or

2. They were sent a spirit of stupor and the truth was hidden from their eyes.

or perhaps any number of other reasons.

If both, then haven't you just affirmed double predestination? And don't you think the MEANS of #2 are a bit redundant since simply being unregenerate makes them totally blind and incurable?

Being unregenerate does not make one irreparable or incurable. If it did NNE COULD EVER BE SAVED.

Everyone who is ever saved was at some point just as unregenerate as everyone who is never saved.

So "incurable" is not applicable in the sense that you use it here.

Now God can take any person who is unregenerate whose condition, like all people born unregenerate, is technically curable and harden that condition so that it is not curable (at least by the regular means of preaching the Gospel).

Couldn't you disavow your view of TD and simply argue that God prevents men from coming through a variety of means?

It is not necessary to do so. Men truly are born totally depraved, totally blind spiritually.

God can introduce into the world something that can change that condition and God can employ means to ensure that not everyone is changed by that something.

That is indeed what he does by at least two different means:

#1 He HIDES the Gospel as Jesus did with parables.

#2 He hardens the blindness of men so that the blindness is not curable by normative means (the preaching of the Gospel).

 

[Luke2427]

I don't understand this answer. Give us an instance of any sense in which this could be 'YES' in your system.

Jesus said, "I speak to them in parables lest they should hear... and be saved."

So there is an immediate context whereby these people could technically have been saved.

But in an ultimate context, Jesus always intended to come to the earth and speak in such a way that these people would not be regenerated and be saved, so ultimately there never was any real risk in them being saved at that point.

 

[Luke2427]

You do realize that is the view of what some call "semi-pelagian," don't you?

No, it is not, I don't think.

Some Calvinists, like our primitve baptist brethren and others, tend to believe that God regenerates people without the Gospel.

Other Calvinists tend to believe that God regenerates WITH the Gospel.

Neither is saying that man is capable of making a move towards God apart from being first regenerate.

 

[Skandelon]

Being unregenerate does not make one irreparable or incurable. If it did NNE COULD EVER BE SAVED.

We are talking about being incurable apart from regeneration.

We are going in circles and I think you are smart enough to know why. You appear to be dancing around the obvious dilemma created by Calvinism. You even pointed out that this was a strong argument several months ago, if you recall.

Clearly the means of hiding the gospel in parables lest they repent and be forgiven, is completely unnecessary if the individual isn't regenerate. All you can do with this dilemma is appeal to mystery, which is fine, but I'd obviously appreciate your acknowledgment of that dilemma instead of the circular arguments which are clearly apparent contradictions. (i.e. 'the gospel is able to save the non-elect' vs. 'man is NOT capable of making a move towards God (being saved) apart from being first regenerate.')

That is indeed what he does by at least two different means:

#1 He HIDES the Gospel as Jesus did with parables.

#2 He hardens the blindness of men so that the blindness is not curable by normative means (the preaching of the Gospel).

And neither of those means actually prevents anything ULTIMATELY. Maybe in some unknown 'technical' universe (whatever that means?) it is possible, but "ultimately" these means prevent nothing in your system. That is the dilemma your system has to live with.

This is one of the main reasons I left Calvinism. I realized that much of the proof texts used to support Calvinism were easily explained by this historical context of God temporarily preventing the Jews from hearing the gospel so as to accomplish the cross and the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the church. Once that historical context is understood and accepted passage such as Romans 9-11 and John 6 make much more since from a non-Calvinistic perspective.

 

[Skandelon]

So there is an immediate context whereby these people could technically have been saved.

How so? Explain how an unregenerate non-elect man could technically have been saved in this immediate context?

I'll wait...

 

[Winman]

Skan asked;
Quote:
I agree with all this, but still confused as to how that works in your system. Isn't being born Totally Depraved a strong enough delusion to counter the gospel all by itself?

Luke responded;
No.

Skan asked;
Quote:
Does it really need these others means to help blind those who are hopelessly unregenerate from birth and destined to remain as such for ever?

Luke responded;
Yes.

I am glad to see these answers Luke, you are coming around. I say that in sincerity.

What you are saying is that man is not so depraved that he cannot be convicted and enlightened by the gospel that he is enabled to believe.

Excellent.

 

[Luke2427]

How so? Explain how an unregenerate non-elect man could technically have been saved in this immediate context?

I'll wait...

I did explain it, I thought.

The Gospel would save these people if measures were not taken to prevent it.

 

[Luke2427]

I am glad to see these answers Luke, you are coming around. I say that in sincerity.

What you are saying is that man is not so depraved that he cannot be convicted and enlightened by the gospel that he is enabled to believe.

Excellent.

No, Winman.

You just don't understand the positions well enough to be able to discern the difference.

I am still saying what I have said for years.


A man must be regenerated before he can trust Christ and be saved.

I am also saying that the Gospel is the means that the Spirit of God uses to regenerate a man.

 

[Luke2427]

We are talking about being incurable apart from regeneration.

We are going in circles and I think you are smart enough to know why. You appear to be dancing around the obvious dilemma created by Calvinism. You even pointed out that this was a strong argument several months ago, if you recall.

It is not only a good argument, it might be the best argument that Arminians have.

These Scriptures are problematic for Calvinists.

The answer to the problem is that God has chosen (there is not point in asking WHY he has- that's up to him) to introduce the cure for common spiritual blindness in the form of the Gospel.

But the Gospel does not save everybody to whom it is preached. Why?

#1 God HIDES it.
#2 God HARDENS sinners against it.

And a third reason might simply be that God's Spirit does not captivate the attention of all people to whom the Gospel is preached.

Now, you'll be tempted here to say, "WHY? Why doesn't God just always utilize option #3 instead of bothering with options 1 and 2?"

Who cares, why? It is not for you and I to know. But it is the case in Scripture that God certainly does these things.

Respectfully, Skan, this is not a circle of my making. It is simply me repeating over and over something that you seem to not grasp yet. It is not the problem with what I am saying, in my opinion. It is the problem of you grasping it (not that you are not intelligent because you know that I sincerely believe otherwise.)

Clearly the means of hiding the gospel in parables lest they repent and be forgiven, is completely unnecessary if the individual isn't regenerate.

It is not for you to say what is necessary. That's for God to say. And it may not have anything at all to DO with being "necesasary." It may simply be that that's the way God chooses to do it for reasons that are beyond us.

What we know is that the Bible clearly teaches that men are born totally blind spiritually.
We also know that the Gospel does open the eyes of the blind.
We also know that it does not open the eyes of ALL of the blind.
We also know that, for some people, God does not WANT their eyes opened (at least at a particular point).
We also know that God prevents their eyes from being opened by various means.
Some people have the Gospel hidden from them.
Others have their conditions hardened against it.
And others, apparently, just do not have the Spirit captivate their hearts with the Gospel like he normally does those who hear it.

That's enough. Pondering why options 1 and 2 are even necessary is futile, in my opinion.
Asking "Why does God...?" is utterly futile MOST of the time. Particularly at this level.

We just observe that he DOES. That's enough.

This is one of the main reasons I left Calvinism. I realized that much of the proof texts used to support Calvinism were easily explained by this historical context of God temporarily preventing the Jews from hearing the gospel so as to accomplish the cross and the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the church. Once that historical context is understood and accepted passage such as Romans 9-11 and John 6 make much more since from a non-Calvinistic perspective.

And I think that is the fairest way for any Arminian to approach those texts and I commend you.

I literally followed the opposite path. I was not dumb when I was an Arminian. Pardon my boasting, but I put a "whoopin" on numerous Calvinists over the years in debates along these lines. I think educated Free Will Baptists are some of the best, most consistent Arminians out there today. I was a Free Will Baptist for better than a dozen years. I was educated at a Free Will Baptist Bible college.

I said the EXACT same things about these texts that you argue here. And it is a VERY good argument.

But I literally started where you are and came to believe Calvinism.

I came to see a God who is not accountable to his creatures, who is not concerned with keeping human standards or even bound by the standards he places upon human beings (those are creature standards, not Creator standards). I came to see that I'd much rather trust the ultimate destinies of the souls of men and the future of the world to the hands of God than to the hands of men.

And when I saw that the Bible, to me, CLEARLY taught these things, I moved from where you are on these passages to where I am today.

But both positions are fair handlings of those texts.

 

[quantumfaith]

It is not only a good argument, it might be the best argument that Arminians have.

These Scriptures are problematic for Calvinists.

The answer to the problem is that God has chosen (there is not point in asking WHY he has- that's up to him) to introduce the cure for common spiritual blindness in the form of the Gospel.

But the Gospel does not save everybody to whom it is preached. Why?

#1 God HIDES it.
#2 God HARDENS sinners against it.

And a third reason might simply be that God's Spirit does not captivate the attention of all people to whom the Gospel is preached.

Now, you'll be tempted here to say, "WHY? Why doesn't God just always utilize option #3 instead of bothering with options 1 and 2?"

Who cares, why? It is not for you and I to know. But it is the case in Scripture that God certainly does these things.

Respectfully, Skan, this is not a circle of my making. It is simply me repeating over and over something that you seem to not grasp yet. It is not the problem with what I am saying, in my opinion. It is the problem of you grasping it (not that you are not intelligent because you know that I sincerely believe otherwise.)



It is not for you to say what is necessary. That's for God to say. And it may not have anything at all to DO with being "necesasary." It may simply be that that's the way God chooses to do it for reasons that are beyond us.

What we know is that the Bible clearly teaches that men are born totally blind spiritually.
We also know that the Gospel does open the eyes of the blind.
We also know that it does not open the eyes of ALL of the blind.
We also know that, for some people, God does not WANT their eyes opened (at least at a particular point).
We also know that God prevents their eyes from being opened by various means.
Some people have the Gospel hidden from them.
Others have their conditions hardened against it.
And others, apparently, just do not have the Spirit captivate their hearts with the Gospel like he normally does those who hear it.

That's enough. Pondering why options 1 and 2 are even necessary is futile, in my opinion.
Asking "Why does God...?" is utterly futile MOST of the time. Particularly at this level.

We just observe that he DOES. That's enough.





And I think that is the fairest way for any Arminian to approach those texts and I commend you.

I literally followed the opposite path. I was not dumb when I was an Arminian. Pardon my boasting, but I put a "whoopin" on numerous Calvinists over the years in debates along these lines. I think educated Free Will Baptists are some of the best, most consistent Arminians out there today. I was a Free Will Baptist for better than a dozen years. I was educated at a Free Will Baptist Bible college.

I said the EXACT same things about these texts that you argue here. And it is a VERY good argument.

But I literally started where you are and came to believe Calvinism.

I came to see a God who is not accountable to his creatures, who is not concerned with keeping human standards or even bound by the standards he places upon human beings (those are creature standards, not Creator standards). I came to see that I'd much rather trust the ultimate destinies of the souls of men and the future of the world to the hands of God than to the hands of men.

And when I saw that the Bible, to me, CLEARLY taught these things, I moved from where you are on these passages to where I am today.

But both positions are fair handlings of those texts.

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The only thing we are ever going to agree to is that Christ died, rose & will come again....& Im OK with that (Catholics even believe that). What I object to is being told Im wrong in my belief system.....I really dont believe that that type of negative behavior is Christlike or in keeping with Baptist distinctives much less American values of freedom of worship.

 

[quantumfaith]

The only thing we are ever going to agree to is that Christ died, rose & will come again....& Im OK with that (Catholics even believe that). What I object to is being told Im wrong in my belief system.....I really dont believe that that type of negative behavior is Christlike or in keeping with Baptist distinctives much less American values of freedom of worship.

Very simple and very profound EWF, at the root, I think this is what we all "dislike" the most, speaking for myself,....... it is for both sides the communication of an overconfidence as opposed to humble hearts admitting we don't really KNOW as much as we think we do.

 

[Skandelon]

The Gospel would save these people if measures were not taken to prevent it.

How so if indeed, no man "is capable of making a move towards God apart from being first regenerate," as you said earlier? You appear to continually contradict yourself on this point. You maintain that one cannot come to faith unless regenerated first, and that the gospel would save them if measures weren't taken to prevent it. I'm not seeing how you reconcile these two points?

 

[Skandelon]

But the Gospel does not save everybody to whom it is preached. Why?

#1 God HIDES it.
#2 God HARDENS sinners against it.

#3 Because the person "refuses to accept the truth and so be saved." (2 Thess. 2:10) Because they "were not willing." (Matt. 23:37). Because they 'hardened their own hearts" as Israel did in the rebellion. (Heb. 3:8)

I actually see #1 and #2 as one in the same. God may harden a heart using a variety of means (parables, spirit of stupor, etc). But, we must understand and recognize that the active work of judicial hardening was (1) unique to Israel; (2) temporary, and (3) had a redemptive purpose even for those being hardened. It was NOT an example of God's active work to prevent everyone for all time from coming to faith. In fact, Paul specifically teaches that while Israel was being hardened, "salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" (Acts 28:28) He also explain, that in hardening Israel he may provoke them to envy so that they too may be saved as result of his ministry to the Gentiles. (Rm 11:14) Thus, these means cannot be blanketly applied to the way God prevents the non-elect from being saved.

Now, you'll be tempted here to say, "WHY? Why doesn't God just always utilize option #3 instead of bothering with options 1 and 2?"

Who cares, why? It is not for you and I to know. But it is the case in Scripture that God certainly does these things.

I care because it reveals a inconsistency of your doctrine. It also shows God's actual intent in only enabling some to come to Christ in John 6 and His hardening souls in Romans 9-11. Calvinists falsely read Paul's motive in these texts to mean God hardens non-elect men to prevent them from ever being saved, when in reality he is only temporarily preventing Israelites from coming so as to ingraft the Gentiles, but they too may be saved.

This point reveals the ACTUAL nature of man which, according to Paul, 'may hear, see, understand and turn to be forgiven,' if these means were not employed. It also shows that these means are unique to Israel at this time and for a redemptive purpose, and not meant to be a description of the nature of all men for all time while God seeks to ensure their destruction using these preventative means. God's motives are gracious and loving and He desires to see all come to repentance. He is not trying to prevent most of humanity from coming to him.

Respectfully, Skan, this is not a circle of my making. It is simply me repeating over and over something that you seem to not grasp yet. It is not the problem with what I am saying, in my opinion. It is the problem of you grasping it (not that you are not intelligent because you know that I sincerely believe otherwise.)

And respectfully, I'm asking you to provide other Calvinistic scholars who take this approach because it seems like an apparent contradiction to me and I'd like to read how they reconcile it.

What we know is that the Bible clearly teaches that men are born totally blind spiritually.
We also know that the Gospel does open the eyes of the blind.

Agreed. Yet, I'm pretty sure most, if not all Calvinists, would be quick to say that the gospel itself isn't opening their eyes but the HS is opening them by the effectual work of regeneration. Thus, I still see no rational reason for God to blind men from the gospel using other means, if that is the case.

Asking "Why does God...?" is utterly futile MOST of the time. Particularly at this level.
We just observe that he DOES. That's enough.

But scripture clearly tells us why he hardened the hearts of Israel:

1. To accomplish redemption through the crucifixion of Christ (as it was the hardened Jews who crucified Him, and they wouldn't have done so had they came to faith while Christ was on the earth).

2. To allow room for the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the Church (Rm 11). We know from the few Judiazers who did come to faith, that Jews were not fond of allowing Gentiles into their fellowship. The bias and bigotry of Jews against the "Barbarian nations" was strong, and God had to 'cut off' the Jews for a time to allow the fullness of the Gentiles to come in.

3. To provoke the hardened Jews by the conversion of the Gentiles. When the Jews saw the Gentiles live radically change and saw them worshiping their God they could be provoked by envy to reevaluate their unbelief and possibly change their minds. (Rm 11:14). "God have them all over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Rm. 11:32)​

 

[Luke2427]

How so if indeed, no man "is capable of making a move towards God apart from being first regenerate," as you said earlier?

The Gospel is the means whereby the Spirit of God regenerates the heart of a sinner.

You appear to continually contradict yourself on this point. You maintain that one cannot come to faith unless regenerated first, and that the gospel would save them if measures weren't taken to prevent it. I'm not seeing how you reconcile these two points?

I'm really not contradicting myself.

I am saying that NO unregenerate person can come to Christ in his unregenerate state.

And I am saying that the Holy Spirit uses the Gospel to regenerate that sinner so that he can come to Christ.

There is nothing contradictory about that.

Apparently, because we see this in Scripture, the Holy Spirit awakens the conscience of most people who hear the Gospel.

So, if God does not want to save someone at a particular point he can employ some different strategies to keep someone from being saved who might be exposed to the Gospel and thereby be regenerated.

There are probably numerous strategies that God employs here, but some of which we see in Scripture are:

#1 He can HIDE the Gospel.
#2 He can HARDEN the sinner. This is where you seem to get confused. It seems very plain to me, but I am not able to get you to understand this point. You respond here, repeatedly, "But hardening a sinner is not necessary if they cannot come anyway. All that is necessary is for God not to regenerate him."
The thing you seem to miss is that I am saying that the normative application of the Gospel is that the Spirit DOES awaken the consciences of those who hear it. But God CAN and DOES render the consciences of some people HARDENED against the Gospel that would, IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN HARDENED, regenerate them. But this regeneration IS A WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (yet he, as with most things He does, uses means- namely the Gospel).

Why doesn't God just keep the Holy Spirit from using the Gospel to awaken the consciences of all who God does not wish to save (at least at that particular point)? It does not matter why. It does not matter why God causes the Holy Spirit to go with the Gospel at least ALMOST everywhere it goes. It does not matter why God hardens some against it and it does not matter why God HIDES it from others. It does not matter, to us, why God does these things. I do have some ideas based on the Scriptures that venture to touch on some of these "why's" but ultimately it does not matter.

What matters is that God DOES do these things.

There is one other means I'll mention that God might use to keep someone from being saved who is in range of the Gospel. Though normally the Holy Spirit goes with the Gospel and opens the eyes by it of those who are not hardened against it- God may simply interrupt the normal employment of the Gospel and NOT cause the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of some by the Gospel.

God can do as he pleases and he does not offer us an explanation for why he works the way he works.

It's enough that he tells us he does these things. And we believe him.

 

[Skandelon]

The Gospel is the means whereby the Spirit of God regenerates the heart of a sinner.

I know, but clearly he doesn't do that effectually for every one to whom he sends the genuine gospel appeal. Even Calvinists affirm the gospel is meant to be sent to 'every creature,' thus to claim it is the means for regeneration isn't helpful, when we both know that you actually mean it is the means to effectually regenerate the elect alone. And if that is the case the gospel for the non-elect wouldn't have a regenerative effect due to their inborn fallen nature. Thus, there would be no need for the additional means of hardening to prevent the non-elect from being regenerated by the Gospel appeal. I think you know that as well as I do, but for whatever reason, aren't owning that dilemma.

I'm really not contradicting myself.

I am saying that NO unregenerate person can come to Christ in his unregenerate state.

And I am saying that the Holy Spirit uses the Gospel to regenerate that sinner so that he can come to Christ.

There is nothing contradictory about that.

But that is not all you are saying Luke. You are also saying that the Gospel could save the non-elect unregenerate if not for the hardening means that God employees to blind them from that gospel, while at the same time claiming that their being unregenerate makes it impossible for them to respond to the gospel appeal.

Either the gospel is sufficient to draw the lost to faith, or it's not. If its not then there is no practical reason for God's means to harden men from the gospel to keep them from being drawn.

Apparently, because we see this in Scripture, the Holy Spirit awakens the conscience of most people who hear the Gospel.

Even the non-elect? ? Are you talking about 'regeneration' when you say, 'awakens the conscience?' Please explain?

So, if God does not want to save someone at a particular point he can employ some different strategies to keep someone from being saved who might be exposed to the Gospel and thereby be regenerated.

And why would God want to prevent someone from coming to him who would? It's one thing to say that God is merely passing over those who wouldn't ever want to come to Christ (which is what Calvinists typically argue), but to claim that God wouldn't want to save someone who WOULD want to be saved if they clearly heard the gospel is a whole different thing. Right?

This is why I'm asking you to point me to a scholar who teaches your view. I SUSPECT, not trying to be rude or combative, but I just SUSPECT you won't be able to find any because you have ventured out on your own here in an effort to honestly answer a valid objection to your worldview. I say that as one who has taken that same venture. I may be mistaken, and I'm willing to own up to that if I am, but that is just what it appears to be from my perspective.

I'm not familiar with any Calvinistic scholars who argues this point in this manner, but I am more than willing to read any link you provide. Please take the time to do this. Thanks