Would also add that classical Arminianism sees that in same light, it just that once reawaken by god, the person can decide to 'go back to sleep"
-
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
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
- Status
Would also add that classical Arminianism sees that in same light, it just that once reawaken by god, the person can decide to 'go back to sleep"
No, not saying that YOU are, but don't PB teach that one is saved by elction regeneration, apart from faith, as the sinner will get to heaven even if never formally professed christ?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Respectfully, no, you didn't. I asked for any quote which specifically supports your view that, "the Gospel would regenerate EVERYBODY if God did not take active means to stop it."
I've yet to read Hodge or anyone who has made that specific claim. Yes, they support gospel regeneration and an all sufficient atonement, but I can't find where they teach about God's active work to prevent the proclamation of the gospel from effectually regenerating the non-elect peoples. Again, I ask you to find me a quote on this point.
Well, we do know from the texts that the judicial hardening was limited to Israel and was 'temporary.' Romans 11 explains that pretty clearly. Even Calvinists speak Israel's judicial hardening, and though there is debate about when that hardening is lifted, there is little debate over wether or not it will come to an end, thus showing most scholars do agree that the hardening of Israel is temporary.
That is a given. We both believe his glory is his motive, but in my view I show HOW what He does actually would glorify Him:
1. Hardening Israel temporarily allowed for the crucifixion and thus redemption for the world = God's Glory
2. Hardening Israel temporarily allowed for the ingrafting of the Gentiles into His Church = God's Glory
3. Hardening Israel temporarily allowed for ministry to the Gentiles with could provoke the Jews to envy and salvation = God's Glory
Now your turn (I'll start the sentence):
Hardening every unbelieving reprobate accomplishes ______ and brings God Glory by ___________?
Cannot or will not?
If you, as a father, choose not to use physical force to get your child to submit to your command would it be accurate for me to say that your not strong enough to control your kid? Or your kids will is stronger than yours? Of course not. It was your choice not to use physical force, not theirs. Likewise, it was God's choice not to use irresistibly means, not ours.
It is honestly not meant to be a 'low blow.' Even Jesus said that the road is narrow and "FEW" who will find it. And I DID say 'relative few,' meaning in comparison to the numbers of people lost.
Who? And on what basis?
A simple overview of history, population and stats will reveal this position to be quite untenable.
Quite contrary. Because we actually believe He is almighty, we also believe he is able to maintain his sovereignty and knowledge while other free independent moral creatures exist. Your view is the one who denies God's omnipotence by suggesting he is just not able to maintain those attributes while other truly free creatures exist.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
That seems to be a fairly accurate analogy. I've only encountered "Calvinist B" in all my debating and reading, and this is the first I've encountered "Calvinist A." So, it is somewhat confusing but still interesting. At least Luke is willing to try and address the issue of God's active judicial hardening, as most Calvinists tend to drop out when it comes up.
I suspect there isn't any notable scholars who support the "Calvinist A" position. Even the most strict 'double predestinarians' I've read don't take this particular approach. But I could be wrong. I'd be very interested to find any because I'd like to read up on how they respond to many of these objections, and how people have reacted to their views. I can only imagine how Sproul, MacArthur, Piper and other modern notable Calvinistic scholars would react to "Calvinists A." I do know that Phil Johnson (MacArthur's ghost writer) wouldn't hesitate to call him a "Hyper Calvinist."
Respectfully, no, you didn't. I asked for any quote which specifically supports your view that, "the Gospel would regenerate EVERYBODY if God did not take active means to stop it."
I've yet to read Hodge or anyone who has made that specific claim. Yes, they support gospel regeneration and an all sufficient atonement, but I can't find where they teach about God's active work to prevent the proclamation of the gospel from effectually regenerating the non-elect peoples. Again, I ask you to find me a quote on this point.
Well, we do know from the texts that the judicial hardening was limited to Israel and was 'temporary.' Romans 11 explains that pretty clearly. Even Calvinists speak Israel's judicial hardening, and though there is debate about when that hardening is lifted, there is little debate over wether or not it will come to an end, thus showing most scholars do agree that the hardening of Israel is temporary.
That is a given. We both believe his glory is his motive, but in my view I show HOW what He does actually would glorify Him:
1. Hardening Israel temporarily allowed for the crucifixion and thus redemption for the world = God's Glory
2. Hardening Israel temporarily allowed for the ingrafting of the Gentiles into His Church = God's Glory
3. Hardening Israel temporarily allowed for ministry to the Gentiles with could provoke the Jews to envy and salvation = God's Glory
Now your turn (I'll start the sentence):
Hardening every unbelieving reprobate accomplishes ______ and brings God Glory by ___________?
Cannot or will not?
If you, as a father, choose not to use physical force to get your child to submit to your command would it be accurate for me to say that your not strong enough to control your kid? Or your kids will is stronger than yours? Of course not. It was your choice not to use physical force, not theirs. Likewise, it was God's choice not to use irresistibly means, not ours.
It is honestly not meant to be a 'low blow.' Even Jesus said that the road is narrow and "FEW" who will find it. And I DID say 'relative few,' meaning in comparison to the numbers of people lost.
Who? And on what basis?
A simple overview of history, population and stats will reveal this position to be quite untenable.
Quite contrary. Because we actually believe He is almighty, we also believe he is able to maintain his sovereignty and knowledge while other free independent moral creatures exist. Your view is the one who denies God's omnipotence by suggesting he is just not able to maintain those attributes while other truly free creatures exist.
What verses directly say God hardened the Jews of that time, and not their own hard hearts caused them to reject Yeshua as messiah?
isn't a majority of the "angst' here on the board that gets directed towards cals really reflect reaction to Hyper cals views?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Yesh, we've been over this a few dozen times. Its not either/or, it is both/and. Pharaoh hardened his own heart, in that he is the one who decided to keep Israel as free slave labor. But, God at times hides the truth of his revelation from Pharaoh (judicially hardens him) to keep him from changing his mind before God accomplishes his purpose (passover). The same is true with Israel in the days of Christ. He blinds them from the clear revelation in order to bring about the Passover.
"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." Rom 11:8
There are MANY verses which speak of judicial hardening (John 12:30; Acts 28:21-28; Mark 4; Matt 13 to name a few)
No! Go ask Old Union in CC or Kyred in BB. They are both Elders in those type of churches. If you confront Old Union please do not do it in front of GF or P4T as they will cause an argument. Please be discreet & go private in CC.
That's it. The idea is that the Gospel regenerates. So to keep it from happening God must take active measures. God has chosen in his infinite wisdom to do so.
I don't understand what you're looking for, brother. At first you seemed to not be aware that most reputable Calvinists believe in Gospel regeneration. Then, when I showed you that they do, you seemed to change the question from "Who believes that the Gospel regenerates," to "Who believes it must be stopped from regenerating?"
The fact is that people who believe the Gospel regenerates while also believing that God, for his own wise and holy purposes, does not wish it to regenerate everyone- MUST also believe that God takes measures to KEEP it from regenerating everyone.
This is what the Scripture clearly demonstrates.
Calvin puts it this way in his Commentary on Matthew 13
"He says that he speaks to the multitude in an obscure manner, because they are not partakers of the true light. And yet, while he declares that a veil is spread over the blind, THAT THEY MAY REMAIN IN THEIR DARKNESS, he does not ascribe the blame of this to themselves, but takes occasion to commend more highly the grace bestowed on the Apostles, because it is not equally communicated to all."
Why the parable according to Calvin? "That they may REMAIN in their darkness." In other words, were it not for this active hiding of the Gospel in the parable, Calvin obviously believes that the Gospel would rescue them from their blindness.
Now, if I can be frank for a moment: constantly pressing me to give you quotes from Calvinists to prove that what I believe is consistent with what reputable Calvinists believe gets a little old.
I am not the smartest person on baptistboard. I am not the smartest Calvinist on baptist board. But I'm not an idiot, either. I'm not pulling this stuff out of some bodily orifice of mine.
I honestly think our limited time together would be better spent discussing the merits of the viewpoints we set forth rather than getting side tracked by the need to constantly hunt down quotes.
What I am saying is consistent with what Calvinists have believed since Calvin.
Now let's get back to discussing whether or not it is consistent with Scripture.
No we don't. That needs to be established, not just claimed.
Apples and oranges, I think. We are talking about, I thought, the way the Gospel saves individual people.
If God lifts this hardening from the NATION of Israel today, that means that the hardening of millions of individuals from the days of Christ until now was not temporary as it pertained to each individual.
As to individuals within the nation, this hardening is not temporary.
...their doom... demonstrating his wrath and holiness. But more importantly- it does not matter WHY. It does not matter WHY God does it. He doesn't have to give an explanation to you or I as to why he saves some and hardens others.
What matters is what he SAYS he does- not WHY he does it. We should be discussing what he SAYS he does, not trying to get what he says he does to fit our own sense of justice. God is unconcerned with what you and I think is just.
Cannot. Because you admit that he really WILLS to- he just can't.
Yes- if it is to be applied fittingly. If I ultimately want my child to do something- it is a primary desire of mine that he does it- and I cannot get that child to do it- it means that he is stronger than me. He is able to bring his will to pass above my will.
It is honestly not meant to be a 'low blow.' Even Jesus said that the road is narrow and "FEW" who will find it. And I DID say 'relative few,' meaning in comparison to the numbers of people lost.
Who? And on what basis?
A simple overview of history, population and stats will reveal this position to be quite untenable.
No sir, that is not true. If, like Spurgeon, you believe that God elects children the numbers of those in heaven will be innumerably more than those in hell.
We do too. But it depends on how you define "free."
It is not the denial of omnipotence to say that God can't do certain things. It is the confirmation of it.
For example, saying God can't fail is not denying his omnipotence, it is confirming it.
A person who says "God is so powerful that he CAN fail," DENIES omnipotence while pretending to confirm it.
That's like saying, "I am so wet I am dry." It is a meaningless statement- nonsensical.
The idea that "God is so much in control of everything, that TRILLIONS of things happen every day that he never intended to happen and are not up to him" is silly.
It's like saying the color of the sky is 18.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that's pretty good, actually.
Those who believe in regeneration apart form the Gospel would tend to be more of your hyper-calvinist folks. I think many primitives see it this way. God regenerates a person in the wilderness somewhere without any Gospel at all and either that person is already saved or will get saved the moment he hears the Gospel.
But, I think the traditional Calvinist stance is my own- Gospel regeneration.
A man is blind. The Gospel is both the light that heals his blindness so that he can see the light and it is the light that he can see having been healed by it.
Let me know if that last statement doesn't make sense. It may not.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
But those who hold to gospel regeneration, don't necessarily believe the gospel's proclamation will regenerate everyone who hears it unless God actively intervenes to prevent it. They believe, as Webdog illustrated, that the words (proclamation) must first be preceded by revival of the corpse (regeneration), which may happen simultaneously with the preaching of the gospel, but is unique for the elect alone. I've not seen any scholars which say what you have about God actively preventing the proclamation of the gospel from regenerating the non-elect. Have you? I'm only asking for a quote.
No, no, no. When I was a Calvinist I believed in gospel regeneration myself and much of the misunderstandings (and accusations of misrepresentations) came from me arguing with Calvinists who didn't believe this way. Even you argued that someone could be regenerated long before hearing the gospel in one of the thread, if you remember? So, what you may have taken as my being 'unaware' of this belief, was my surprise that you believed it. But again, believing in gospel regeneration IS NOT the belief that the gospel proclamation would regenerate everyone who heard it if not for God's active means to prevent that from happening. That view still appears to be unique to you.
As I've said, Gospel regeneration can simply mean that the Spirit works through the gospel to regenerate his elect. In other words, the effectual work of regenerating always works simultaneously with and through the gospel's proclamation, but that work (that effectual calling) is ONLY applied to the elect ones, not on everyone. Your concept of "TULIP" would need to change it's "I" to mean, "God irresistibly calls everyone who hears the gospel, but He steps in to prevent that effectual call from working with various means for those He has not elected." No Calvinistic scholar (that I'm aware of) takes this approach.
EXACTLY. Notice that Calvin "commend more highly the GRACE" (the Irresistible Grace/Effectually calling), because it is NOT EQUALLY communicated to all. In other words, the gospel proclamation comes with the HS regenerative power for the elect only. Nothing is said of God's active means to prevent his effectual grace from regenerating the non-elect.
I'm sorry this is frustrating you Luke, I really am. It is not my intention to upset you by pressing you on this point, but I'm not an idiot either and I have read ALOT of Calvinistic scholars over the years. My doctoral dissertation is on this topic, so I would think that in all my research and reading over the years that I would have come across at least one scholar who handles this point of disagreement in this manner. If it does exist in academia I want to read it for myself and study up on it. But does anyone you know define the "I" in TULIP like you do here in this thread? Does anyone call the general appeal of the gospel "irresistible?" Does anyone say God prevents that general appeal of the gospel from regenerating the non-elect through special means? If so, just point them out to me, but I just don't believe they exist.
Oh, I believe your view is MORE consistent than the typical Calvinistic view. At least you acknowledge the power of the gospel to bring the dead to life. The only difference in our views now is that I believe its man's free will which keeps them from being regenerated, and you believe its God's active means to prevent them from being regenerated. In other words, your view puts the blame on God, where as mine keeps the blame on mankind. The reason many Calvinists reject the idea of Double Predestination is to avoid this charge, but you gave up that inconsistency of the Calvinistic system long ago, so now I'm pressing you on the reality of that view, which squarely places the blame on God for man's rejection of what is supposedly called a genuine gospel appeal sent to every person. Your view actually has God out there actively working to prevent men from being regenerated when hearing the gospel. That is a rare position indeed.
Ok, lets pick one verse at a time:
26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" -Acts 28
Do you acknowledge the distinction Paul draws between Israel, who has 'become calloused" and the Gentiles who "will listen." If not, why not? We'll go to Romans 10-11, Mark 4, Matt 13, John 12:39, etc, next...
The rest of the post gets into the weeds a bit more, so I'll stop here for now and pick up on the other points in another post...
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Discussion with Luke continued...
1. Why does hardening accomplish 'their doom' if they are born doomed? And why would that be an 'accomplishment' which would glorify God?
2. Wouldn't a better demonstration of God's wrath be the condemnation of those who independently and freely rebelled against Him, rather than the condemnation of those he actively blinded and condemned from birth?
3. Isn't holiness 'separateness from sin?' So, how does arguing God's active determination of sin and active prevention of regeneration help better demonstrate his holiness?
I asked, "Cannot or will not?" which regard to God effectually saving souls.
I asked, "If you, as a father, choose not to use physical force to get your child to submit to your command would it be accurate for me to say that your not strong enough to control your kid? Or your kids will is stronger than yours?"
Are you saying God COULD NOT, even if he wanted to, create independently free creatures (free as we define free)?
1. Why does hardening accomplish 'their doom' if they are born doomed? And why would that be an 'accomplishment' which would glorify God?
2. Wouldn't a better demonstration of God's wrath be the condemnation of those who independently and freely rebelled against Him, rather than the condemnation of those he actively blinded and condemned from birth?
3. Isn't holiness 'separateness from sin?' So, how does arguing God's active determination of sin and active prevention of regeneration help better demonstrate his holiness?
I didn't say he had to give any explanations, but the fact that he does tell us why temporarily hardening Israel is important for the redemption of the world certainly suggests that my view is more in line with the biblical revelation. I mean, if the bible told us that God tortures puppies, I guess we'd just need to accept it without an explanation, but why believe that unless scripture specifically teaches it? And if it did teach that wouldn't it be reasonable to ask why God might do that?
I'm not debating what appears to be just, I'm debating what I believe the bible reveals. That doesn't mean we can't discuss what appears reasonable in accordance with what has been revealed.
I asked, "Cannot or will not?" which regard to God effectually saving souls.
You are mixing two different matters. You may WILL (desire) for your child to sit down, but you may not WILL (desire) to use irresistible physical force to accomplish that. You are not drawing the distinction between those two. God, according to our view, desires for men to make a choice and he desires them to choose life. No one questions God's ability to irresistibly save someone, we are questioning his will to do so. He may want the rocks to cry out and he may even effectually cause the rocks to do so, but that is only if the free moral creatures choose to refrain.
I asked, "If you, as a father, choose not to use physical force to get your child to submit to your command would it be accurate for me to say that your not strong enough to control your kid? Or your kids will is stronger than yours?"
Same mistake as above. You are blurring the lines between what God desires and what he sovereignly brings to pass. You must acknowledge the difference in God's desires (i.e. I don't want Luke to sin, even-though you do) and what he sovereignly decrees. (Piper refers to this as "the two wills of God."
Well, I see your point, but when I speak of 'few' I'm speaking of those who walk the narrow path, as Jesus spoke of... (whether by their own will, or God's effectual grace). When Jesus used the term 'few' he clearly didn't have babies who die in infancy in mind, so why should we?
So you are equating 'failing' as God allowing free creatures to fail independently of His determination of their failure?
Are you saying God COULD NOT, even if he wanted to, create independently free creatures (free as we define free)?
That statement presumes that the failure of God's creature equals His failure, which is presuming the very point up for debate. To assume that a creature choosing to act contrary to the Creator's expressed desire equals failure on the part of the Creator is unfounded biblically and logically.
But he DID intend the free activity of his creatures...He just doesn't determine their 'free' activity. If He does, then you certainly shouldn't call it 'free.' I believe God has the ability to remain sovereign OVER those free/independent actions while not determining them. You seem to believe the only way he can maintain sovereignty over everything is to determine everything. I think God is bigger than that perspective.
Last edited by a moderator:
I provided one by Calvin here.
There are others, but I don't understand why you want them so. I don't understand why you'd rather press me to spend time hunting down quotes rather than discussing the merit of the position exegetically.
The only thing I can conclude is that you think I am pulling this stuff out of an odious orifice of mine.
Is that the case?
What I argued was not that simple. But rest assured that what I argued then is consistent with what I am arguing now.
And how is it only applied to the elect ones? According to Calvin, "[Christ] spreads a veil over the blind THAT THEY MAY REMAIN IN THEIR DARKNESS."
You see that could not be clearer to me. Calvin declares that they would not remain in their darkness unless God veiled their blinded eyes.
I don't understand why you can't see that. I'm sure you're scratching your head on the other end of this connection saying the same thing, but we are at an impasse here- and I think that is unfortunate because we were doing so well.
For what it's worth, in an effort to be congenial, here is another quote by Calvin along these lines (I have to type this, not copy and paste because I am typing it from my copy of the Institutes so I hope you can appreciate my effort to give you what you request):
"God is very often said to blind and harden the reprobate, to turn their hearts, to incline and impel them. The extent of this agency can never be explained by having recourse to prescience or permission. We, therefore, hold that their are two methods in which God ma so act. When his light is taken away, nothing remains but blindness and darkness: when his Spirit is taken away, our hearts become hard as stones: when his guidance is withdrawn we immediately turn from the right path: and hence he is properly said to incline, harden, and blind those whom he DEPRIVES OF THE FACULTY OF SEEING, OBEYING, AND RIGHTLY EXECUTING."
There you have it again- not mere permission, but God's active agency in withholding from the blind the light which cures blindness. And he does this in various ways- one of which is by speaking in parables.
WHY??
The answer is obvious.
Many Calvinists, infra and supra, recognize that God intervenes by his active agency to PREVENT the non-elect from becoming regenerate.
But instead of talking about the merit of the doctrine, I have to spend precious time proving that the doctrine is not obscure.
He said nothing of the sort.
He said that God does not communicate the Gospel to all. How does he not communicate the Gospel to all? By veiling the blind from it.
I think you've come across dozens but you did not recognize what they were saying- like I think is evident that you are missing what Calvin himself is saying here.
Let's ask Heir to come in and see if he can see that Calvin is clearly saying that God actively PREVENTS people from being regenerated by the Gospel.
I bet he can see it.
Every Calvinist who has ever existed, I suppose.
I have and you cannot see it.
not "blame" but rather "control"
control not blame
We need to choose our words carefully when they pertain to God.
Only a fool BLAMES God for anything regardless of what God does.
Let's get this out of the way and then we'll talk about the rest of your post.
This post is getting to long as it is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting debate, and I have tried to stay out of it because it is going so well, but I have some interesting remarks by R.C. Sproul that directly relate to the discussion, especially Luke's view of God's active participation the reprobation of sinners. It might add to the debate;
Sproul says those who believe in a positive-positive view of both salvation and reprobation are hyper-Calvinists which has been rejected.
Now I will leave you two at it.
Sproul says those who believe in a positive-positive view of both salvation and reprobation are hyper-Calvinists which has been rejected.
Now I will leave you two at it.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I wonder how Luke would reply to Sproul's comment, "This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.
Maybe that is why I've never actually encountered it in all my study and have a difficult time imagining any notable scholar espousing this view. I know Luke doesn't want me to press him to find others who stand with him on this view, but I must, for in doing so maybe it will help him see he is on a island with very little company.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Where does he actually say that God actively works to prevent the gospel from regenerating the non-elect? I don't believe Calvin was known as a double predestinarian.... at least most Reformed scholars I've read don't think so.
Who?
So I can study your position more thoroughly and see what other conclusions scholars who hold to these conclusions draw about God.
Actually I've been doing both... To ask for scholarly support in a debate is pretty standard though Luke. There is nothing underhanded meant by it.
I suspect that you've kind of back yourself into this view because your honest enough of an individual to deal with a text as it is presented. It does APPEAR you are simply replying off the top of your head, so to speak, as you are confronted with various points, but I could be misreading you. If these view aren't unique to you, then it should be pretty simple to refer me to a scholar or two who actually cover the specifics of this particular point of view.
Do you mind giving a brief explanation as to how one can be regenerated prior to hearing the gospel since you are now affirming gospel regeneration?
I guess so... Maybe Sproul's quote provided my Winman will provide some clarity. I believe Sproul agrees with Calvin's particular view on this subject and clearly Sproul is not a double predestinarian. I really don't know what else to say to make it any clearer.
I do appreciate the quotes, and I have read similar ones before, but I think the distinction from what you are arguing and what Sproul and other Calvinists argue is in the WHY, which you think is an 'obvious answer.' Your answer being, "Because if God doesn't actively intervene with various means the proclaimed gospel will certainly regenerate them." But Sproul's answer (and I presume Calvin's answer) would be something like, "Because if God hasn't elected the person and doesn't actively regenerate them at the time of hearing the gospel, these external means (parables/blinding etc) are merely the manifestation of God's judgement upon them." I think Aaron has argued this before. He said something like, "God's hardening isn't to prevent them from being saved, its just a further sign of God's judgement on them." (In fact, I think I remember you make a similar argument in the past)
Sproul and many like him clearly don't think your view is true Reformed doctrine.
I'll guess I'll wait to hear what you have to say to his quote before we move on...
Thanks for the discussion. It has been one of the best on this forum!
I showed you, brother. Calvin says that Christ VEILS the blind so that they will remain in darkness.
That could not be clearer, in my opinion.
I appreciate your honesty- sincerely. But I have provided Calvin himself saying that God veils the blind that they may remain in darkness.
Why does God veil the blind? That they may remain in darkness.
So if God did not veil the blind.........
It really is very clear, I think.
Yes. Because we have enough to discuss here without opening up another can of worms.
I'll deal with Winman's quotation of Sproul next.
That is absolutely true. But it is not the sum and substance of the "why". Part of it is "that they may remain in darkness".
It is both.
I agree- and I appreciate you. I do get frustrated, but that's the nature of this kind of thing. Iron doesn't sharpen iron without resistance and friction.
But that does not mean that I don't really appreciate the exchange. I do.
I hope and believe we can continue this line of argumentation- both the substance and spirit of it.
The heresy that Sproul condemns is the idea that God actively works sin into the hearts of the non-elect.
I concur.
God does not actively work sin ever into anything period. This is why I said several posts back that the term "double predestination" comes with such baggage that I do not embrace it. That's some of the baggage.
Sproul is not condemning the idea that God prevents the non-elect from being regenerated by the Gospel.
Sproul is not denying what Calvin said in his commentray of Matthew 13 when he said, "...that a veil is spread over the blind, THAT THEY MAY REMAIN IN DARKNESS...."
Luke, I have tried to stay out of this debate because you and Skan are doing so well. I only posted Sproul because it seemed to directly relate to your view.
I would only ask this, why would God need to blindfold a blind person?
If a person could see, but they were in a dark room (no revelation), they would be blind so to speak. Now, if this were the case and God was going to turn on the lights in the room but did not want the person to see, then I could see him putting a blindfold on the person.
To me, this seems to be your argument, although it contradicts Total Inability because the person can see.
That is all I will say, you don't have to answer. I am content to let you and Skan carry on, it has been an interesting thread.
The light of the Gospel is that which both cures the blindness and is the focus upon which the cured eyes are now fixed which lights the way to Christ.
If a blind man is too see he needs two things: his condition cured and light.
An illustration: glaucoma is now cured by laser surgery. Laser is light. Light is the cure for vision problems and is also essential to seeing once cured. Cure a man's blindness but leave him in a totally dark room and he can see no better than he could before he was cured. So light is both the cure to the blindness AND that which enables cured eyes to see.
If the light of the Gospel falls on blind eyes it will almost invariably cure them. In order to assure that a blind man "remain in darkness" the eyes must be shielded from the cure for blindness- they must be shielded from the Gospel.
It is more complex than that. That explanation is too simple- but it will suffice to answer the core of the question that you ask, I think.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status