Good Debate

[Yeshua1]

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?

God uses the message of the Cross of Christ to save His elect in Christ, its that the holy Spirit quickens/enables them to hear and receive it with joy, while the rest stay dead in their sins and have 'deaf ears" to it!

To them whom he has "given ears to ear"., they Will respond!

 

[Luke2427]

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.


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.

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

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

Skan, I have been very busy this week. We have the baptist building team here with us every day from 7am to 4pm helping us complete our family life center. In the evenings I've had prison ministry, visitation and prayer service.

I'll pick up here with you soon.

God bless!

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, I have been very busy this week. We have the baptist building team here with us every day from 7am to 4pm helping us complete our family life center. In the evenings I've had prison ministry, visitation and prayer service.

I'll pick up here with you soon.

God bless!

Take your time brother. I have similar seasons in ministry as evidenced by my periodic absences. I'd much rather you focus on that ministry anyway! I'll say a prayer for you today. Blessings.

 

[humblethinker]

I am not going to join the debate nor derail the thread. [Please everyone!] I just wanted to say that it seems there is no rationale for closing threads.

This is a good point. Providing that they do have a good reason, one thing we can do is at the creation of each thread (or at least on the 9th or 10th page) we can state what the title of the subsequent thread will be in the event that the discussion were to get too long... you can even create a link to the future thread that will actually work once the future thread is actualized ( such a metaphysical geek!).

I do think, though, regarding boards like this, that some admins may close a thread 'pre-maturely', so to speak, and it's funny how convenient it must have been if they were to post their 'final word' dig into the conversation before they close it. However, this board seems pretty good about that on the whole and I only suspected this one time that I can recall.

 

[Luke2427]

I know, but clearly he doesn't do that effectually for every one to whom he sends the genuine gospel appeal.

I agree. This is what I was saying.

It is apparent that the normative use of the Gospel is that it is accompanied by the Spirit of God who awakens the spirits of sinners.

God can, and apparently does, keep this from happening when he does not want someone to be saved at that moment in time.

How?

By at least three means:
1- he hides the Gospel (as with the parables of Jesus)
2- he hardens the sinner AGAINST the Gospel
3- he may simply stop the Spirit from his normal work of utilizing the Gospel to awaken the sinner.

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 the way that God does this (saving by the Gospel only the elect) is by keeping the Gospel from awakening the non-elect by the means I articulate above.

And if that is the case the gospel for the non-elect wouldn't have a regenerative effect due to their inborn fallen nature.

This is not true. Something else many Calvinists affirm is that God CAN save every single person who has ever existed. God CAN by regenerating men through the Gospel.

The Gospel is perfectly capable of saving ANYONE at ANYTIME because the Gospel is the power of God. Depravity is no obstacle to the power of God, i.e. the Gospel.

So God chooses to prevent the Gospel from doing this when he does not want a person to be saved (at least just yet- we both agree that God indeed does hinder people from coming to Christ at least temporarily).

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 deny the premise of the dilemma. I am offering perfectly reasonable alternatives to the premise you purport here.

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.

I affirm the former statement and deny the latter (at least the way you seem to mean it).

The Gospel is what the Holy Spirit uses to enable those who would otherwise be unable to make a move toward God.

Either the gospel is sufficient to draw the lost to faith, or it's not.

It is sufficient because it is the tool that the Holy Spirit utilizes to draw the lost to faith.

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.

Since it is this statement is not necessary.

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

Yes.

And why would God want to prevent someone from coming to him who would?

I don't understand why you would ask this question when you already agree with me that He does.

You yourself acknowledge that, at least temporarily, God DOES prevent some people 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?

I don't think so. I think the key point here is that God is able to make ALL people everywhere at any time willing. So there is a VERY real sense in which ALL WOULD WANT TO COME TO CHRIST if God made them all willing.

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'd say "mediate regeneration" seems to be the majority view point among Calvinists.

"Immediate regeneration" is the idea that God regenerates without means. The Spirit simply quickens the spirit of man and then brings the Word to bear upon him bringing him to salvation. Some Calvinists affirm this viewpoint. I believe R. C. Sproul does.

But, I think most Calvinists adhere to mediate regeneration like I do.

Both John Calvin and John Owen affirm this viewpoint.

God uses THE WORD to regenerate sinners.

This is not some fringe belief of mine, brother.
The following links discuss this view.

http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/soteriology/gospelregen.htm

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/owenoverthrow.html

http://www.the-highway.com/regeneration_Owen.html

 

[Skandelon]

God can, and apparently does, keep this from happening when he does not want someone to be saved at that moment in time.

How?

By at least three means:
1- he hides the Gospel (as with the parables of Jesus)

So, let's be very clear. You believe God is preventing non-elect people, who would have willingly believed the Gospel if not hidden in parables? I thought Calvinists believed that God would never turn away people who want to come to Him, yet you seem to be saying that God is preventing people from coming to Him who may actually want to come to Him if the gospel had been clearly proclaimed?

Again, let's be VERY clear. Let's suppose a non-elect man named Joel was in the audience where Jesus spoke in parables. Is it your contention, that had the gospel been clearly proclaimed without parables that Joel may have repented and been saved? If so, how, considering his natural unregenerate totally depraved condition?

I'll respond to the rest after you answer this question...

 

[Skandelon]

While I'm waiting for a response I thought I should go ahead and make a few observation on these articles. First, thank you for posting them. They are very informative and well written, and they make a point that I've argued several times with "high Calvinists" on this forum.

"Reformed interpreters have traditionally held that God sovereignly employs his Word, the gospel, in bringing sinners to life. This position is sometimes referred to as mediate or gospel regeneration. Some among the “higher” Calvinists espouse a view of immediate regeneration and argue rather that God uses no such means at all in regeneration — he sovereignly brings the sinner to life apart from any means whatever." (from the first article)​

I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of falsely representing Calvinism because I respond to one or the other of these two perspectives. I'm glad to point them to these articles for clarity regarding gospel regeneration. BTW, have you adapted your view a little on this point, because I seem to remember you arguing that someone may be regenerated some time before hearing the gospel and responding. It seems like you all were discussing times when someone begins asking 'seeker' questions before even having heard the gospel. I think I remember you making the point that a person may be regenerated, causing them to seek God, and later hear the gospel and come to faith. Am I mistaken?

http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/soteriology/gospelregen.htm

This article doesn't answer the question I've posed to you brother. It only restates the point I've affirmed about Calvinism, which is that the gospel is the means of regeneration. We are past that point and thus no new need to re-establish it. As I said, I'm grateful you've posted this article because it is difficult to get SOME calvinists to affirm this point.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/owenoverthrow.html

Again, this article never seems to answer the question I've asked you, nor does it appear to ever respond in the manner you have.

Owen does, however, make an important distinction when he writes,

"Outward darkness is when men do not have that light by which they are enabled to see. So outward spiritual darkness is upon men when there is nothing to enlighten them about God and spiritual things . It is the work of the Holy Spirit to remove this darkness by sending the light of the gospel.

Inward darkness, on the other hand, arises from the natural depravity and corruption of the minds of men concerning spiritual things.​

So, if I were debating Owen, I would ask, why would God prevent someone from the 'outward light' "lest they repent and turn" (i.e. parables), if indeed they remain unable to respond due to their "inward darkness." And if Owens said the same thing you have said, then I'd have to conclude he believed that someone could have the 'inward light' turned on if God didn't actively prevent them from the 'outward light.'

Another quote that is important was this:

"Yes the Word of God is powerfully persuasive in itself, but until born again, unregenerate men cannot and will not be persuaded by it."​

Which leads to the question I've already posed to you, and which Owens never addresses. If the Word of God isn't powerful enough to persuade a man, then why did God prevent people from hearing it lest they be persuaded by it?

http://www.the-highway.com/regeneration_Owen.html

I read through a good portion of this one and skimmed the rest and I didn't find a particular response to the question I've posed, but if I missed it could you copy it and paste it for me? Thanks

 

[A Faithful Sidekick]

So, let's be very clear. You believe God is preventing non-elect people, who would have willingly believed the Gospel if not hidden in parables? ... God is preventing people from coming to Him who may actually want to come to Him if the gospel had been clearly proclaimed?

Most Calvinists would say no such scenario can possibly exist, for no one can, nor can they wish to, give their life to Christ until and unless he or she is regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Regeneration precedes faith, not the other way around. Faith and conversion are the inevitable response to regeneration, not the cause.

We were dead in our sins, needing to be quickened first, enabling us to respond to God's inward call (the preaching of the gospel being the outward call) to repent and confess Jesus as Lord.

1 Cor 2:14, Romans 8:7, Eph 2:5, and others describe the absolute helplessness of the unregenerate. Luther describes it wonderfully in his very witty book, The Bondage of the Will. We are slaves, he writes, bound to think and to do "only evil continually." As a slave is held captive by force, he must be freed by force. The chains must first be broken before the will is truly free to choose anything.

If you put regeneration (rebirth) as the cause of faith and confession (conversion) rather than it's aftermath, it's easier to understand the Calvinist position.

Hoping that helps,
Robin

 

[psalms109:31]

Since you are a Presbyterian you need to give Dr. J Vernon Mcgee through the bible a try looking into baptist faith read C. H Spurgeon a Calvinist who believes regeneration before faith is ridiculous

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Seems to me that the most concise way to explain the confusion would be to say that according to Luke/"mediate regeneration" the Gospel being preached is ALWAYS concurrent with a regenerative work of the Spirit....As in, the Gospel as merely the factual statement of the "good news" never goes forth in a vacuum...and that since the Spirit is ALWAYS inherently concurrent with gospel presentation...a specific witholding of the Spirit is required to prevent "effectual" salvation from occuring. (If I mis-undertand....then please correct my interpretation).

The confusion may result from a possible Arm / Cal difference in definitions:

Arminianism: the "Gospel" IS, and only is defined as the "good news" that Christ has come to save sinners....provided they repent, respond et. al.

Gospel = the Good news + nothing

(Special "Prevenient Grace" is necessary for the enablement of the sinner to respond, but it isn't an integral part of the "gospel" per se.)

Calvinism (mediate form): The "Gospel" is inherently concurrent with a regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, and they are by default as interrelated as a prize and a Cracker-Jack box. Except for a specific decision to withold it.....If the "Gospel" (which implies the work of the Holy Spirit), is in any way unhindered...then the non-elect WOULD convert. Thus, the "Gospel" might itself...be described as "effectual".

Gospel= the Good news + work of Holy Spirit

Does this sum it up correctly Luke? I have been re-reading this thread and the articles for hours trying to understand myself....I hope this clarifies some.

 

[Skandelon]

Seems to me that the most concise way to explain the confusion would be to say that according to Luke/"mediate regeneration" the Gospel being preached is ALWAYS concurrent with a regenerative work of the Spirit....As in, the Gospel as merely the factual statement of the "good news" never goes forth in a vacuum...and that since the Spirit is ALWAYS inherently concurrent with gospel presentation...a specific witholding of the Spirit is required to prevent "effectual" salvation from occuring. (If I mis-undertand....then please correct my interpretation).

So, wouldn't that necessitate conversion for anyone in hear shot of the gospel being proclaimed? Or, in this view, is God still actively blinding/hardening the non-elect from hearing the gospel so as to prevent their regeneration? If so, isn't that a form of double predestination, a view most Calvinists reject?

The confusion may result from a possible Arm / Cal difference in definitions:

Arminianism: the "Gospel" IS, and only is defined as the "good news" that Christ has come to save sinners....provided they repent, respond et. al.

Gospel = the Good news + nothing

(Special "Prevenient Grace" is necessary for the enablement of the sinner to respond, but it isn't an integral part of the "gospel" per se.)

I agree that is a correct explanation, but for me (and many Baptist non-Calvinistic scholars) the gospel itself is the Holy Spirit's work of 'prevenient Grace.' Make sense? So, in that regard we would be in agreement with Luke's view (I.E. the gospel is the means of grace), we would just not agree regarding the effectuality of those means.

It seems to me that the Calvinistic belief in the irresistibility or effectuality of the means of grace is what causes all the dilemma. If you simply removed that one point most of the issue disappear. God loves people, provides the means for their salvation, graces them by sending them an appeal to be reconciled thus enabling them to respond and they are held to account for that response. Its that simple. It's only when you suggest that these means are irresistible that problems arise.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So, wouldn't that necessitate conversion for anyone in hear shot of the gospel being proclaimed? Or, in this view, is God still actively blinding/hardening the non-elect from hearing the gospel so as to prevent their regeneration? If so, isn't that a form of double predestination, a view most Calvinists reject?

Well.....I would agree that that were so, but....I am merely trying to get us all on the same page of understanding. I await our noble opposition to either agree with, or correct, what my understanding of their position is....whatever we Arminians do....I think we avoid "straw-men". I may have not correctly defined their position though...So I await any possible clarification

I agree that is a correct explanation, but for me (and many Baptist non-Calvinistic scholars) the gospel itself is the Holy Spirit's work of 'prevenient Grace.' Make sense?

Well...SURE!!! It makes sense...it may also be accurate...but it probably isn't the only definition of "Prevenient Grace" or even, "The Gospel" available...Quite frankly...I don't see it that way. I supplied my own definition of Arminianism (only as I understand it). I think that I would separate the "Gospel" as a message anyway...from the act of "Prevenient Grace" itself. I do not (I guess) assume that they are automatically concurrent. That is what I was trying to convey. That the message and the action of the Spirit are not necessarily concurrent be it "Prevenient" or "Effectual" as it were. That is only as I understand or define it, of course...

So, in that regard we would be in agreement with Luke's view (I.E. the gospel is the means of grace), we would just not agree regarding the effectuality of those means.

Maybe not.....I don't think I percieve them as the same. I don't "define" the gospel as anything other really, as the factual "news" about Christ's taking the payment for sin of all who choose to believe...I may be wrong, but that is, at least, as I understand it. The "Gospel" and the "Work of the Spirit" are not necessarily always concurrent...Regardless of whether it is "enabling/Pre-venient" or "effectual"....I simply don't (personally) define the "gospel" as a "force" in any way...that is a discussion all by itself I suppose....I was only trying to put our view and that of Luke into terms which might advance understanding....And he has yet to verify my interpretation of his ideology.

It seems to me that the Calvinistic belief in the irresistibility or effectuality of the means of grace is what causes all the dilemma.

Yes

If you simply removed that one point most of the issue disappear.

Yes

God loves people, provides the means for their salvation, graces them by sending them an appeal to be reconciled thus enabling them to respond and they are held to account for that response.] Its that simple. It's only when you suggest that these means are irresistible that problems arise.

Well, yes...agreed completely...hence my status as an Arm...(with Molinistic tendencies)....but whether the "Gospel" automatically ENTAILS an "Enabling" or "Effectual" action of the Spirit may be the source of confusion.....at least as I see it....I don't assume they are always concurrent I guess. I suppose I think that the "Gospel" might conceivably be preached in a vacuum......Maybe you do not. If so, then I do not understand why you don't comprehend Luke's view....That was, (quite frankly) the only way I could think of to understand the difference without accusing him of "double-speak"....I tried to charitably find a way we might have diagreed with you by trying to find a misunderstanding....I actually think that that is what it was....I could be wrong:

Luke: Gospel= Good-news + Spirit...(whether "effectual" or "enabling" immaterial for these purposes)

Me: Gospel= Good-news + nothing (Work of Holy Spirit....is aside from or additional to....)

That was the only way to hopefully try to:

1.) insert myself into an amazing debate I desperately wanted to be a part of :tongue3:
2.) Explain what I guessed might have been a source of misunderstanding by playing "Devil's Advocate" somewhat for why Luke's posts might make sense (as I thought he expressed them) without the accusation of double-speak...
Of course I disagree with him and, am not a Calvinist...but when we Ultimately destroy his Soteriological views...we will do so fairly...

Think like a general in a war Skan....Smart as this guy is...(We must admit he is)...it is worth the effort to SSS...LL...OOOOOOO...WW...LLLL..YYY bring him back into the fold... He would become the most AMAZING Arminian there is...if he be re-converted... I secretly hold some Molinistic plans for him myself... (You need not concern yourself with it, it is none of your business...move along..nothing to see here). It's worth the time and effort for now, even if we must humor him for now....

He may yet merely shoot down my explanation of his views...and then I will be back to square one....But, I await Him to do it....They are His views...I was trying to make sense of them, so that the debate might continue. I might have mis-understood them after all.

 

[Skandelon]

All good points Heir, but wouldn't you agree that the Gospel is referred to in scripture as being 'powerful,' 'effective', 'like a double edge sword, etc? Wouldn't you agree the Gospel was produced, preserved and proclaimed by the work of the Spirit Himself? Wouldn't you agree that the gospel appeal for all men everywhere to be reconciled to God is gracious and exceedingly merciful? Wouldn't you agree with Paul in Romans 10 that people can't believe it unless they hear it and that hearing is the means for faith ("faith cometh by hearing")?

I'm not sure on what grounds one can make the argument that the means of the Gospel itself fails to meet all the criteria for what you refer to as 'prevenient grace.' Help me understand why one would conclude that yet another gracious work of the spirit (besides the work of the gospel) is necessary and taught in the text? Thanks

 

[Luke2427]

All good points Heir, but wouldn't you agree that the Gospel is referred to in scripture as being 'powerful,' 'effective', 'like a double edge sword, etc? Wouldn't you agree the Gospel was produced, preserved and proclaimed by the work of the Spirit Himself? Wouldn't you agree that the gospel appeal for all men everywhere to be reconciled to God is gracious and exceedingly merciful? Wouldn't you agree with Paul in Romans 10 that people can't believe it unless they hear it and that hearing is the means for faith ("faith cometh by hearing")?

I'm not sure on what grounds one can make the argument that the means of the Gospel itself fails to meet all the criteria for what you refer to as 'prevenient grace.' Help me understand why one would conclude that yet another gracious work of the spirit (besides the work of the gospel) is necessary and taught in the text? Thanks

Good stuff guys.

I'll be with you as soon as I can.

Heir represented what I am saying pretty well. It is not a problem for him to get it, so I don't understand why you can't get it.

I know it is not an issue of intelligence. I know you to be very intelligent.

But Heir got it in the first post.

You keep demanding that I am saying that man has the innate or inherent ability to respond to the Gospel and so hardening and blinding are not necessary.

But I am not saying that. I think I am CLEARLY not saying that.

I am saying, with Calvin, that the Gospel IS THE MEANS whereby the Spirit of God regenerates the sinner.

They are not one and the same by any means.

As to the question of whether or not I have changed on this view since the previous discussion you referenced- I haven't.

But if I go into how what I am saying now coincides with what I was saying then we will sidetrack this thread and have to talk about the merits of natural revelation and just how much God can use it to regenerate the sinner. I think if we are going to discuss that, then we need to start a new thread- but to be honest I would not be able to participate in that one very much due to my schedule right now.

I'll try to post here as often as possible.

 

[Yeshua1]

All good points Heir, but wouldn't you agree that the Gospel is referred to in scripture as being 'powerful,' 'effective', 'like a double edge sword, etc? Wouldn't you agree the Gospel was produced, preserved and proclaimed by the work of the Spirit Himself? Wouldn't you agree that the gospel appeal for all men everywhere to be reconciled to God is gracious and exceedingly merciful? Wouldn't you agree with Paul in Romans 10 that people can't believe it unless they hear it and that hearing is the means for faith ("faith cometh by hearing")?

I'm not sure on what grounds one can make the argument that the means of the Gospel itself fails to meet all the criteria for what you refer to as 'prevenient grace.' Help me understand why one would conclude that yet another gracious work of the spirit (besides the work of the gospel) is necessary and taught in the text? Thanks

MUST affirm to be biblically true that there IS a working o fthe Holy Spirit to apply effectually grace towards the sinner in order to have them abled to understand and receive jesus!

Just differ if THAT work of His can be resisted or not!

 

[Skandelon]

Good stuff guys.

I'll be with you as soon as I can.

Heir represented what I am saying pretty well.

And I responded to what he said with a follow up question. Heir wrote:

Seems to me that the most concise way to explain the confusion would be to say that according to Luke/"mediate regeneration" the Gospel being preached is ALWAYS concurrent with a regenerative work of the Spirit....As in, the Gospel as merely the factual statement of the "good news" never goes forth in a vacuum...and that since the Spirit is ALWAYS inherently concurrent with gospel presentation...a specific witholding of the Spirit is required to prevent "effectual" salvation from occurring.

And I asked:

So, wouldn't that necessitate conversion for anyone in hear shot of the gospel being proclaimed? Or, in this view, is God still actively blinding/hardening the non-elect from hearing the gospel so as to prevent their regeneration? If so, isn't that a form of double predestination, a view most Calvinists reject?​

To which Heir replied saying...

Well.....I would agree that that were so, but....I am merely trying to get us all on the same page of understanding. I await our noble opposition to either agree with, or correct, what my understanding of their position is

So, why would go on to presume he 'gets' something that I haven't gotten when his explanation of what you believe leaves us with the exact same questions I've been posing to you???

You keep demanding that I am saying that man has the innate or inherent ability to respond to the Gospel and so hardening and blinding are not necessary.

Just the opposite Luke. I'm saying that Calvinists typically teach that mean do NOT have the innate or inherent ability to respond to the Gospel, thus God's active means of hardening and blinding them from it doesn't seem to be necessary. You seem to be arguing on the one hand that the hardening means employed by God are necessary to prevent salvation for those who hear the gospel proclaimed, but on the other hand an inward work of regeneration is also necessary for salvation. I'm attempting to understand how these two views go together and how your view is not supporting double predestination...or the idea that God is actively preventing people from coming to Him, who WOULD come to him if not prevented.

I am saying, with Calvin, that the Gospel IS THE MEANS whereby the Spirit of God regenerates the sinner.

Again, we ALL agree with this point, that is NOT our point of contention Luke. Our point of contention is regarding the effectuality and purpose of the means God employees.

If you agree with Heir's explanation then you obviously believe that if the Gospel is proclaimed that it WOULD be effectual if not for the preventative means of 'hiding it.' Is that what you believe? That the proclamation of the Gospel would effectually save EVERYONE who heard it IF NOT for God's preventative means, such as blinding with parables?

 

[Luke2427]

So, why would go on to presume he 'gets' something that I haven't gotten when his explanation of what you believe leaves us with the exact same questions I've been posing to you???

Because he's trying to explain the same thing I am trying to explain to you. It is not that he agrees with my position, but he understands it.

We can't move on because I cannot seem to get you past this point.

It is very simple. Heir pointed it out. The normative employment of the Gospel regenerates if God does not stop it.

Heir got that in the first post.

The ability is not in the sinner. The power is in the Gospel granted by the Spirit. The Spirit normally accompanies the Gospel.

You seem to be arguing on the one hand that the hardening means employed by God are necessary to prevent salvation for those who hear the gospel proclaimed, but on the other hand an inward work of regeneration is also necessary for salvation.

Exactly.

Why can you not see that these are not exclusive of one another?

I'm attempting to understand how these two views go together and how your view is not supporting double predestination...

Just for the record, I don't have a problem with double predestination. I am a supralapsarian.

or the idea that God is actively preventing people from coming to Him, who WOULD come to him if not prevented.

You believe God does this too- at least temporarily. If he can do it temporarily as you believe, there is no debate here betwixt us.

Again, we ALL agree with this point, that is NOT our point of contention Luke.

We have not been agreeing on this point until I pointed you to articles that show that "mediate regeneration" is the majority view among Calvinists.

If you agree with Heir's explanation then you obviously believe that if the Gospel is proclaimed that it WOULD be effectual if not for the preventative means of 'hiding it.' Is that what you believe?

It's not that simple, but basically- yes.

That the proclamation of the Gospel would effectually save EVERYONE who heard it IF NOT for God's preventative means, such as blinding with parables?

Basically- yes, with a caveat. The Gospel message simply proclaimed within the HEARING of people would not automatically regenerate people.

People must be gripped by it.

 

[Skandelon]

Because he's trying to explain the same thing I am trying to explain to you. It is not that he agrees with my position, but he understands it.

We can't move on because I cannot seem to get you past this point.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm baffled because this is the first I've ever heard you or anyone on this forum argue this point...and as I pointed out in the post you haven't responded to yet, those articles you sited never seem to make the point you are making in this thread (i.e. the gospel will effectually regenerate if God doesn't actively intervene to prevent it). Can you site an any Calvinistic scholar actually making that claim?

Heir got that in the first post.

You assume he hasn't read through all the previous posts where I've had you explain all the nuances of your views. Plus, he didn't confirm anything I hadn't already restated in a different manner and you still haven't responded to the follow up questions about that view. See post #46 (prior to Heir's post). Can you respond to the questions I posed in that post, because their I have already confirmed what Heir restates...and while you are at it can you answer the questions I've posed on the basis of your affirmation of Heir's post?

You believe God does this too- at least temporarily. If he can do it temporarily as you believe, there is no debate here betwixt us.

Of course there is! There is a HUGE difference between our views of Judicial Hardening:

MY VIEW: God temporarily blinded the Jewish people (cutting them off from the tree for a time) in order to ensure the crucifixion and graft in the Gentiles, which in turn may provoke the Jews to envy so as to change their minds and be saved (Rm 11:14). It is an all loving, all merciful motive. God even hardened Israel out of a motive of showing them more mercy. Paul said it best, "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." That means he hardened them in order to be merciful to them! He is not hardening them to ensure their condemnation, he is actually doing it in hopes they will be provoked to envy by the Gentile's salvation and 'leave their unbelief." (11:23)

YOUR VIEW: God chooses to send the gospel to EVERYONE, but actively prevents most of mankind from really hearing or understanding it so as to prevent them from ever having any hope of being saved because He never really loved them or chose them for salvation.​

Now, brother, with all due respect, if you cannot affirm the obvious distinction in those two views of judicial hardening, then it clearly IS NOT me who is having the problem 'getting it."

We have not been agreeing on this point until I pointed you to articles that show that "mediate regeneration" is the majority view among Calvinists.

Again, as post #47 clearly explains, I don't find where any of those articles make the claim you are making here. To affirm that regeneration comes through the means of the gospel is not an affirmation of your claim...."The Gospel would save these people if measures were not taken to prevent it."

Again, please provide a quote from a notable Calvinist who affirms this specific statement. Because it appears to me the articles only go so far as to say that God effectuates regeneration by means of the gospel for his elect. I never see them say anything about God using preventative means for the non-elect. If they do, please quote it here for us.

People must be gripped by it.

How is that different from saying, "People must be regenerated by it?"

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If so, isn't that a form of double predestination, a view most Calvinists reject?

Yes, I think so....I think Luke's view necessitates some form of Double-Predestination. But, it appears he owns up to it..

Just for the record, I don't have a problem with double predestination. I am a supralapsarian.

This is consistent. I would take umbrage at anyone who would describe things as Luke does and simultaneously attempted to deny double-predestination. Many Calvinists (at least on BB) seem to avoid the consequences of this Soteriology...Presbyterians are far more likely to be Supra's in my experience. If I were to be a Calvinist, I would have no option but to embrace "Double-Predestination" and "Supra-Lapsarianism"....I think Infra-lapsarian Calvinism is a cop-out view.
I don't think Luke can speak of God merely "passing-over" the non-elect with this view. This is an intentioned act of Divine Will to prevent what would otherwise be a default response in Faith unto Salvation....

People must be gripped by it.

How is that different from saying, "People must be regenerated by it?"

Yeah...I don't get that distinction either.

 

[humblethinker]

I appreciate the irenic attitude displayed in this thread.