Good Debate

[Skandelon]

I showed you, brother. Calvin says that Christ VEILS the blind so that they will remain in darkness.

I understand that point, but I don't believe Calvin thinks Christ is veiling the blind for the same reasons you do. Do you understand what I mean? You think he is veiling the blind to prevent them from being regenerated by the proclamation of the gospel (something I've yet to hear a Calvinistic scholar say). Sproul (and I presume Calvin) would say that the blinding doesn't prevent their being regenerated/saved, but it only further hardens them in their already depraved condition revealing their condemnation....which honestly seemed to be the position you were taking when we began this debate. You even said these things (these are your actual quotes from this thread or the previous one):

1. "God does not blind them to keep them from being saved. They are already blind. God simply does not open their eyes." (Yet, aren't you now saying that God DOES in fact blind/harden them through these means to prevent them from being regenerated/saved?)

2. "And it is not enough just that people HEAR them with their physical ears; they must be willing to consider them....which a man's heart that is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things simply can not do." And "Both of us agree that all men are willfully blind from birth and that no one comes unless the father draws him. You consider this process to be prevenient grace whereas I call it regeneration." (thus the only way they are made "willing" is by the effectual work of regeneration---not merely the proclamation of the gospel, which is what you seem to be arguing now.)

3. "The Gospel has the power, when effectuated by the Spirit, to regenerate every single person in the world." (isn't 'effectuated by the spirit" another way of saying 'regenerated'? Aren't you now saying the gospel's proclamation IS ALWAYS 'effectuated by the spirit" UNLESS God intervenes to prevent it from being seen/heard?

It is both.

So, its both meant to prevent them from being saved AND a mark of judgement on them, right? But earlier you even said that it wasn't to prevent them being saved? This is why I got confused. You seemed to be taking Aaron's and Sproul's approach, but then switched on me...(at least that was my perception, as I could have misread your intent)

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.

:thumbs: Amen! Finally, someone who gets THAT here!!!! Yahooo!!!

 

[12strings]

: Thanks for the discussion. It has been one of the best on this forum!

: 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.

:thumbs: Amen! Finally, someone who gets THAT here!!!! Yahooo!!!

Seriously guys...by page 11 you should both be well on your way to making physical threats and condemning each other as apostate by now!!!

You're going to start making people think they can disagree with someone and still be friends with them at the same time! (Very Dangerous...a moderator should obviously close this thread before it gets any more out of hand).

:laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

I understand that point, but I don't believe Calvin thinks Christ is veiling the blind for the same reasons you do. Do you understand what I mean? You think he is veiling the blind to prevent them from being regenerated by the proclamation of the gospel (something I've yet to hear a Calvinistic scholar say). Sproul (and I presume Calvin) would say that the blinding doesn't prevent their being regenerated/saved, but it only further hardens them in their already depraved condition revealing their condemnation....

That simply is not what the words "that they may remain in darkness" mean.

He veils the blind so that they will not come out of darkness.

which honestly seemed to be the position you were taking when we began this debate. You even said these things (these are your actual quotes from this thread or the previous one):

1. "God does not blind them to keep them from being saved. They are already blind. God simply does not open their eyes." (Yet, aren't you now saying that God DOES in fact blind/harden them through these means to prevent them from being regenerated/saved?)

I don't fully remember the context of those words but I think what I meant was that he does not have to BLIND them because they are already blind. He simply has to withhold from them the thing that cures blindness.

2. "And it is not enough just that people HEAR them with their physical ears; they must be willing to consider them....which a man's heart that is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things simply can not do." And "Both of us agree that all men are willfully blind from birth and that no one comes unless the father draws him. You consider this process to be prevenient grace whereas I call it regeneration." (thus the only way they are made "willing" is by the effectual work of regeneration---not merely the proclamation of the gospel, which is what you seem to be arguing now.)

I thought we got through this. Regeneration wrought by the gospel.

3. "The Gospel has the power, when effectuated by the Spirit, to regenerate every single person in the world." (isn't 'effectuated by the spirit" another way of saying 'regenerated'? Aren't you now saying the gospel's proclamation IS ALWAYS 'effectuated by the spirit" UNLESS God intervenes to prevent it from being seen/heard?

No. I am still saying the exact same thing. The words not heard are not effectual. The words not listened to are not effectual. The words not considered are not effectual. The Spirit must bring all of these things to pass if the words of the Gospel are to be effectual.

So, its both meant to prevent them from being saved AND a mark of judgement on them, right? But earlier you even said that it wasn't to prevent them being saved? This is why I got confused. You seemed to be taking Aaron's and Sproul's approach, but then switched on me...(at least that was my perception, as I could have misread your intent)

Like I say, I don't remember the context of the words you are referring to. I can only say that have believed in Gospel regeneration for a good while now, long before we began this debate. I say that just to say that I have not changed on you mid stride.

:thumbs: Amen! Finally, someone who gets THAT here!!!! Yahooo!!!

:thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

I thought we got through this. Regeneration wrought by the gospel.

But there is a difference between:

1. Regeneration wrought by the gospel for the elect alone, who the Holy Spirit has chosen to bring to life (give a new heart) when they hear the gospel.

And

2. Regeneration wrought by the gospel for everyone unless God actively intervenes to prevent them from seeing, hearing or understanding it.

See the difference? Just because someone affirms gospel regeneration doesn't mean they affirm what you have argued.

Luke, lets cut right to the main point, you are arguing:

1. That the proclamation of the gospel will effectually regenerate the non-elect.

And...

2. That God is actively intervening to prevent the non-elect from seeing, hearing and understanding the gospel so as to prevent this effectual regeneration.​

I'm simply asking for Reformed scholars who make these specific claims, because I can find plenty who appear to say otherwise...

Like I say, I don't remember the context of the words you are referring to.

They were all quotes from this thread or the one leading into this one and dealing with this context, so I'm not sure how else to take them.

The heresy that Sproul condemns is the idea that God actively works sin into the hearts of the non-elect.

I think its a bit more than that. He also seems to make the case that in the case of the non-elect he is simply 'leaving them to themselves" and "passing over them" thus making God 'passive' in their rejection and subsequent condemnation. While you, on the other hand, have God actively working to prevent the non-elect's salvation. That appears to be the 'positive-positive' view that Sproul is rejecting. And you yourself said you do affirm at least some aspect of Double Predestination, so may this be the point of contention between scholars like Sproul and yourself?

 

[Skandelon]

Seriously guys...by page 11 you should both be well on your way to making physical threats and condemning each other as apostate by now!!!

You're going to start making people think they can disagree with someone and still be friends with them at the same time! (Very Dangerous...a moderator should obviously close this thread before it gets any more out of hand).

:laugh:

:smilewinkgrin:

Funny.

But 12strings, I wish you would give us your opinion on this matter. You seem to be an objective Calvinistic leaning type who may add a fresh perspective on this point. I don't know how much of all this you have read, but I'd be interested to know if you agree with Luke's view that the gospel proclamation would regenerate the non-elect if He didn't intervene actively with means to prevent them from seeing, hearing or understanding the gospel?

 

[Luke2427]

But there is a difference between:

1. Regeneration wrought by the gospel for the elect alone, who the Holy Spirit has chosen to bring to life (give a new heart) when they hear the gospel.

And

2. Regeneration wrought by the gospel for everyone unless God actively intervenes to prevent them from seeing, hearing or understanding it.

See the difference? Just because someone affirms gospel regeneration doesn't mean they affirm what you have argued.

Right. But that Calvin believed that God "veils the blind THAT THEY MAY REMAIN IN DARKNESS" is without question.

Luke, lets cut right to the main point, you are arguing:

1. That the proclamation of the gospel will effectually regenerate the non-elect.​

No. It will NEVER regenerate the non-elect (at least in the sense that it will conclude in their salvation).

It will not because God will take means to prevent it from happening.

And...

2. That God is actively intervening to prevent the non-elect from seeing, hearing and understanding the gospel so as to prevent this effectual regeneration.

No. That is not accurate at all.

They cannot see or hear until they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.

I'm simply asking for Reformed scholars who make these specific claims, because I can find plenty who appear to say otherwise...

I've given you Calvin himself.

I think its a bit more than that. He also seems to make the case that in the case of the non-elect he is simply 'leaving them to themselves" and "passing over them" thus making God 'passive' in their rejection and subsequent condemnation. While you, on the other hand, have God actively working to prevent the non-elect's salvation. That appears to be the 'positive-positive' view that Sproul is rejecting. And you yourself said you do affirm at least some aspect of Double Predestination, so may this be the point of contention between scholars like Sproul and yourself?

Sproul is not a supralapsarian. I don't agree with Sproul on everything, but I do on most things.

But what Sproul is condemning as heresy is the idea of God coercing people to sin or working sin into their hearts.

He is in the midst of that disagreeing with the stance which is similar to my own that those heretics embrace- that God is active in both the salvation and reprobation of men.

The idea that God is active in the reprobation of men is simply not heresy and many very reputable Calvinists have held to this as you well know and as Sproul well knows.

What is heresy is that God is the author of evil in the sense that Sproul defines it in the article winman provided.​

 

[Skandelon]

Right. But that Calvin believed that God "veils the blind THAT THEY MAY REMAIN IN DARKNESS" is without question.

But even that comment is somewhat vague when spoken by a Calvinistic believer. I'm not saying that to be derogatory, but you have to admit Calvinists are masters at comments that explain how one thing really means another; like, "They are able but not willing," or "They can come to Christ, but they don't want to," or "The can't willingly respond but they are responsible," or "All means all kinds." Or whatever, and I'm not even trying to dispute the legitimacy of those comments, I'm only attempting to say that in the Calvinistic worldview there is often more than one way to view a particular statement, especially in light of other apparently contradictory comments.

So, what could Calvin mean by that comment? Maybe that the extra means (such as parables/blinding) are kind of like the extra means of miracles or convincing arguments are in the saving process. Hear me out....Calvinists don't believe a miracle or a very convincing sermon could provoke a will to change, right? You all believe that REGENERATION alone will change the will of man. But that doesn't mean you would negate those means as being unnecessary to accomplish that purpose, would you? Likewise, Calvin could simply be saying that the means of parables/blinding etc are like miracles...in that neither really make any difference as to the willingness of the recipient, but that doesn't mean we will negate them. Make sense?

No. It will NEVER regenerate the non-elect (at least in the sense that it will conclude in their salvation).

It will not because God will take means to prevent it from happening.

Right, that is what I meant...Apart from God's preventative means, "the proclamation of the gospel will effectually regenerate the non-elect."

No. That is not accurate at all.

They cannot see or hear until they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.

So what is God preventing?

If hearing and understanding the gospel WILL regenerate them, and they can't see or understand UNLESS they are regenerated then WHAT ON EARTH is God attempting to prevent by the use of parables and spirits of stupor????

I've given you Calvin himself.

And yet many, if not most, notable Calvinistic scholars today wouldn't classify Calvin as believing these things.

I mean do you think most Calvinist believe that the proclamation of the gospel IS the Irresistible/effectual calling? Do you think they all believe the "I" in TULIP refers to the gospel proclamation? Because that is what you are arguing...that the Gospel proclaimed, without God's active preventative means in place, would certainly regenerate all who heard it. What other Reformed scholar says this?

 

[Skandelon]

Luke,

I just went back and read one of the articles written by a Reformer on the topic of "Mediate or Immediate Regeneration."

And while he argues, as you do, "that God sovereignly employs his Word, the gospel, in bringing sinners to life," he also teaches, "God’s Word alone accomplishes nothing."

Now, here is the question. WHY does it accomplish NOTHING?

1. Because God actively prevents it from being understood, so that it won't accomplish anything?

OR

2. Because the Word of God is powerless to accomplish anything unless the Spirit first regenerates the hearer.
​

It seems to me the 'typical' Calvinists argues the latter while you are attempting to defend the former. Would that be an accurate assessment, and if not, why not.





BTW, if you tell me you believe both 1 and 2, I'll scream, because both statements are saying the gospel won't accomplish anything, but for much different reasons and if it won't accomplish anything for the reason stated in #2 then there is no reason for #1.

 

[12strings]

:smilewinkgrin:

Funny.

But 12strings, I wish you would give us your opinion on this matter. You seem to be an objective Calvinistic leaning type who may add a fresh perspective on this point. I don't know how much of all this you have read, but I'd be interested to know if you agree with Luke's view that the gospel proclamation would regenerate the non-elect if He didn't intervene actively with means to prevent them from seeing, hearing or understanding the gospel?

Very quickly, after skimming some (not all) of this thread...I think I would put it like this...

-I would say that man's condition is one of willful, unwavering rebellion and rejection of God's rule. I would not call it "irreparable" because obviously God can repair it. (Rom. 3:10, and others)
-Through the Gospel, Christ has made atonement, and as many as receive Christ receive adoption, forgiveness, and Christ's righteousness applied to them. (Roms 3:21-26, Ephesians 1, rest of NT)
-Now, this conversion is one wrought by the Holy Spirit, in which he draws the Elect to Christ (John 6), renews their heart (Ez. 36) and grants them repentance and faith in Christ (2 tim. 2;25, Phil. 1:29).
-It is currently my understanding that without the special effectual drawing of the H.S., a lost sinner will hear the Gospel and remain hostile to the Gospel, rejecting it.

[PAUSE...for interaction with a Previous Skan quote]...

To insist that the gospel can't reconcile an enemy because they are born an enemy doesn't make much sense. Its like saying the cure for cancer can't cure a man born with cancer because he was born with too much cancer.

No genius answer here, but your view begs the question, if hearing the Gospel is powerful enough, on its own, to change a sinners heart, then why are not all converted who hear the Gospel?

[RESUME ORIGINAL TRAIN OF THOUGHT]
-...a lost sinner will hear the gospel and remain hostile to the Gospel, rejecting it, without any further hardening from God.
-I see hardening being used 2 ways: (1) God can harden sinners further in their rebellion, so that they increase in their hostility and outright opposition to him (Pharaoh)...or (2) God may temporarily harden one of the Elect for his own purposes until the time he has ordained to regenerate them.

I realize Jesus words in Mark 4 put a big hole in this theory...but I don't have a good answer right now...a few possibliites:
-Perhaps he was not speaking about eternal salvation.
-Perhaps a hint is found in a parallel passage, Matt. 13, where he says: "13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." He then goes on to quote a longer section from Isaiah, where it says "their eyes THEY have closed"...that passage puts more blame on those listening for their state of hardenness. It doesn't nullify Jesus' words in Mark 4, but gives a bit more to think about.

 

[12strings]

(SKAN) So, what could Calvin mean by that comment? Maybe that the extra means (such as parables/blinding) are kind of like the extra means of miracles or convincing arguments are in the saving process. Hear me out....Calvinists don't believe a miracle or a very convincing sermon could provoke a will to change, right? You all believe that REGENERATION alone will change the will of man. But that doesn't mean you would negate those means as being unnecessary to accomplish that purpose, would you? Likewise, Calvin could simply be saying that the means of parables/blinding etc are like miracles...in that neither really make any difference as to the willingness of the recipient, but that doesn't mean we will negate them. Make sense?

Just saw this...and I think it is a decent way of explaining things...realizing we don't have it all figured out how God works...

 

[Skandelon]

-It is currently my understanding that without the special effectual drawing of the H.S., a lost sinner will hear the Gospel and remain hostile to the Gospel, rejecting it.
-...a lost sinner will hear the gospel and remain hostile to the Gospel, rejecting it, without any further hardening from God.(1) God can harden sinners further in their rebellion, so that they increase in their hostility and outright opposition to him (Pharaoh)...or (2) God may temporarily harden one of the Elect for his own purposes until the time he has ordained to regenerate them.

And that has been the more typical view of Calvinists that I have encountered, thus the confusion with Luke's insistence on his view being the 'norm.'

[PAUSE...for interaction with a Previous Skan quote]...Which was, "To insist that the gospel can't reconcile an enemy because they are born an enemy doesn't make much sense. Its like saying the cure for cancer can't cure a man born with cancer because he was born with too much cancer."

No genius answer here, but your view begs the question, if hearing the Gospel is powerful enough, on its own, to change a sinners heart, then why are not all converted who hear the Gospel?

Because some CHOOSE to reject it and rebel. That is why they perish (2 Thess 2:10). They trade the truth in for a lie. Being powerful ENOUGH, or SUFFICIENT to enable a response doesn't mean it has to be EFFECTUAL in causing a positive response. If a parent gives sufficiently clear instructions to his child but the child rebels against those instructions, was it because of a lack of clarity or some deficiency with the instructions, or was it just the rebellious choice of the child? Must the parent use physical force to make the child obey the instructions in order to call the work of the parent sufficient?

In our view, the gospel is not meant to cause an effectual response, it is meant to enable a free one. Understand the difference?

More later...got to run

 

[Luke2427]

But even that comment is somewhat vague when spoken by a Calvinistic believer. I'm not saying that to be derogatory, but you have to admit Calvinists are masters at comments that explain how one thing really means another; like, "They are able but not willing," or "They can come to Christ, but they don't want to," or "The can't willingly respond but they are responsible," or "All means all kinds." Or whatever, and I'm not even trying to dispute the legitimacy of those comments, I'm only attempting to say that in the Calvinistic worldview there is often more than one way to view a particular statement, especially in light of other apparently contradictory comments.

I don't really know what you want me to say in response to this.

So, what could Calvin mean by that comment? Maybe that the extra means (such as parables/blinding) are kind of like the extra means of miracles or convincing arguments are in the saving process. Hear me out....Calvinists don't believe a miracle or a very convincing sermon could provoke a will to change, right? You all believe that REGENERATION alone will change the will of man. But that doesn't mean you would negate those means as being unnecessary to accomplish that purpose, would you? Likewise, Calvin could simply be saying that the means of parables/blinding etc are like miracles...in that neither really make any difference as to the willingness of the recipient, but that doesn't mean we will negate them. Make sense?

No. It doesn't do anything, that I can tell, other than completely avoid the fact that Calvin said that the reason that God veils the blind is so "that they may remain in darkness."

I can't imagine anything being any clearer than that.

Unfortunately, and I'm sure you did not mean to, but you have dragged this conversation from talking about the merit of our two positions to talking about whether or not a plain statement by Calvin could possibly be interpreted to mean the dead level opposite of its apparent meaning.

Let me submit a recommendation. I think it is clear that Calvin, Beza, and others believed that God actively prevents the non-elect from coming to Christ and being saved by withholding from them the thing that will save them.

I don't think it is going to matter how clear a quote I provide from any of them, you are not going to believe that they are saying that. Words are too easy to spin.

So let's talk about the biblical merit of the positions and dig ourselves out of this hole in which we have become bogged down.

I am not against offering quotes from scholars or against asking for them, but, follow me here, we could literally not make another INCH worth of progress in the subject for a YEAR arguing over whether certain quotes support a position or not.

I recommend we keep utilizing scholarly quotes and we continue to feel free to ask for them, but once we come to an impasse where I think it is very clear that the quote obviously supports my position and you think it does not- then we move on.

We did this with an Edwards quote about a year ago and it killed the conversation. To this day I think, and others do as well, that you totally missed what Edwards was saying and we never came, nor are we likely to come to now, an agreement on that quote- neither are we going to come to agreement on whether or not the quote from Calvin means that "God veils the blind THAT THEY MAY REMAIN IN DARKNESS," as it says.

Right, that is what I meant...Apart from God's preventative means, "the proclamation of the gospel will effectually regenerate the non-elect."

It still requires a work of the Spirit.

So what is God preventing?

If hearing and understanding the gospel WILL regenerate them, and they can't see or understand UNLESS they are regenerated then WHAT ON EARTH is God attempting to prevent by the use of parables and spirits of stupor????

It still requires a work of the Spirit.

And yet many, if not most, notable Calvinistic scholars today wouldn't classify Calvin as believing these things.

I disagree.

I mean do you think most Calvinist believe that the proclamation of the gospel IS the Irresistible/effectual calling?

I don't believe that either.

Do you think they all believe the "I" in TULIP refers to the gospel proclamation?

I don't believe that either.

Because that is what you are arguing...that the Gospel proclaimed, without God's active preventative means in place, would certainly regenerate all who heard it. What other Reformed scholar says this?

No, it is not.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke,

I just went back and read one of the articles written by a Reformer on the topic of "Mediate or Immediate Regeneration."

And while he argues, as you do, "that God sovereignly employs his Word, the gospel, in bringing sinners to life," he also teaches, "God’s Word alone accomplishes nothing."

Now, here is the question. WHY does it accomplish NOTHING?

1. Because God actively prevents it from being understood, so that it won't accomplish anything?

OR

2. Because the Word of God is powerless to accomplish anything unless the Spirit first regenerates the hearer.
​

It seems to me the 'typical' Calvinists argues the latter while you are attempting to defend the former. Would that be an accurate assessment, and if not, why not.





BTW, if you tell me you believe both 1 and 2, I'll scream, because both statements are saying the gospel won't accomplish anything, but for much different reasons and if it won't accomplish anything for the reason stated in #2 then there is no reason for #1.

Gospel regeneration means that God's Spirit uses the Gospel to regenerate the elect.

So #1 is the way God accomplishes # 2.

In other words, WORDS by themselves do not accomplish anything- ANYTHING. They have to be heard. They have to be considered. They have to make sense. They have to be persuasive. Part of the work of the Holy Spirit is to cause men to hear, be convicted, ponder, etc... the words of the Gospel.

The work of the Spirit, according to you, is simply in giving us the Bible- and that's where He stops.

I think the Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit must accompany the words in order to bring about change in the hearts of man.

 

[Luke2427]

Very quickly, after skimming some (not all) of this thread...I think I would put it like this...

-I would say that man's condition is one of willful, unwavering rebellion and rejection of God's rule. I would not call it "irreparable" because obviously God can repair it. (Rom. 3:10, and others)
-Through the Gospel, Christ has made atonement, and as many as receive Christ receive adoption, forgiveness, and Christ's righteousness applied to them. (Roms 3:21-26, Ephesians 1, rest of NT)
-Now, this conversion is one wrought by the Holy Spirit, in which he draws the Elect to Christ (John 6), renews their heart (Ez. 36) and grants them repentance and faith in Christ (2 tim. 2;25, Phil. 1:29).
-It is currently my understanding that without the special effectual drawing of the H.S., a lost sinner will hear the Gospel and remain hostile to the Gospel, rejecting it.

That's exactly what I think is the case.

The thing Skan and I are discussing is why God veils the blind.

I contend alongside John Calvin that is so "that they may remain in darkness."

The Gospel, effectuated by the Holy Spirit, can regenerate any person who has ever lived.

It is apparently the case that the Holy Spirit tends to accompany the proclamation of the Gospel. This is apparent because the Scripture is clear that God takes active means to harden and blind men against the Gospel.

The Gospel is both the cure for blindness and the light to lights the way for cured eyes to Christ.

But, as you note, as almost ALL Calvinists believe, the Holy Spirit must effectuate the Gospel.

But he almost always does. That's why Paul said, "... the Gospel... is the power of God unto salvation..." That's why Jesus said that the Comforter would convict the world of sin, righteousness, etc...

So to keep some from being cured (why God would do this is up to God- it is enough for us that Scripture says he does, and we trust him) God takes active means. He hides it in parables, he hardens, he veils, etc, etc, etc...

No genius answer here, but your view begs the question, if hearing the Gospel is powerful enough, on its own, to change a sinners heart, then why are not all converted who hear the Gospel?

Yes, this is an issue, in my opinion, for Skan's position.

-Perhaps he was not speaking about eternal salvation.
-Perhaps a hint is found in a parallel passage, Matt. 13, where he says: "13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." He then goes on to quote a longer section from Isaiah, where it says "their eyes THEY have closed"...that passage puts more blame on those listening for their state of hardenness. It doesn't nullify Jesus' words in Mark 4, but gives a bit more to think about.

[/QUOTE]

The only thing is that the text TELLS us why Jesus speaks in parables. It is not in the least ambiguous.

It says, "Lest they... be converted."

 

[Skandelon]

INo. It doesn't do anything, that I can tell, other than completely avoid the fact that Calvin said that the reason that God veils the blind is so "that they may remain in darkness."

I can't imagine anything being any clearer than that.

Well, I do. He could say what you've continue to say in this thread... or at least something similar. The point I was making about Calvinistic explanations really wasn't meant to be a slam, but I've actually read an entire article by a Calvinist that made a case on the difference of the word 'can' and 'may.' Could that not apply to Calvin's comment? Why would he say 'may remain in darkness' if it is certain that they will? And how does Calvin's quote reveal the difference between the Calvinist who believes in Gospel regeneration (as described by you) and the Calvinists who believes in Gospel regeneration (as described in the article I posted, or by Aaron or 12strings)? I don't see how that one phrase can be taken to conclude that Calvin sides with your explanation of God actively working to prevent the gospel from certainly regenerating anyone who heard it. Sorry, but it doesn't say enough to draw any certain distinction.

Unfortunately, and I'm sure you did not mean to, but you have dragged this conversation from talking about the merit of our two positions to talking about whether or not a plain statement by Calvin could possibly be interpreted to mean the dead level opposite of its apparent meaning.

Well, the merit of a position can sometimes be validated or invalidated by those scholars who support it...at least to some degree. But, I do agree that is not the only aspect of this discussion which could be our focus. I only focus here because I really do want to read up on your view to better understand it and I'm seriously doubting that it is supported by any notable scholars. I know, you think Calvin supports your view, but I've shown you how that comment can be taken in more than one way. And given the fact that Calvin wasn't known to ever teach that the proclamation of the gospel is irresistibly regenerative unless actively prevented by God, I just have a very hard time swallowing that most other scholars have missed that point too.

Let me submit a recommendation. I think it is clear that Calvin, Beza, and others believed that God actively prevents the non-elect from coming to Christ and being saved by withholding from them the thing that will save them.

I don't think it is going to matter how clear a quote I provide from any of them, you are not going to believe that they are saying that. Words are too easy to spin.

Luke, you make it sound like I'm asking for a lot, and I'm really not. Surely Calvinists have many definitions of the "I" in TULIP. Can you find any who say that the gospel is the "I" but God prevents it from being irresistible for those he hasn't chosen? I've just honestly NEVER read that explanation.

...I think it is very clear that the quote obviously supports my position and you think it does not- then we move on.

I can do that, but please continue to keep your eyes open for any scholar who clearly makes the types of statements you have made in this thread (comments which even 12strings and others here obviously wouldn't support). I don't think that is asking too much. I mean, asking to study up on such an important doctrine as "God actively preventing people from being saved" is reasonable, I think.

Regarding the Edwards quote, allow me to just remind you that I never claimed anything about it that Edwards himself didn't claim; which was that HIS view was consistent with the 'Arminian divines,' and I think we can both agree that the Arminian divines didn't hold to a supra-hard deterministic view of the origin of evil. So, either Edwards was wrong about his own view, or he was wrong about the view of the Arminians, or you misunderstood Edward's intent. I can't see any other options. Thus, your beef isn't really with me as much as it is with Edwards... But enough of that...we've been down that road.

It still requires a work of the Spirit.

So then why would God NEED to use means to prevent the proclamation of the gospel from regenerating them when clearly the Spirit could simply refrain from working?

I said, "Do you think they all believe the "I" in TULIP refers to the gospel proclamation?"

I don't believe that either.

Yet earlier you wrote, "The Gospel would regenerate EVERYBODY if God did not take active means to stop it." How is that not equal to calling the Gospel the "Irresistible calling?"

And I said, "You are arguing that the Gospel proclaimed, without God's active preventative means in place, would certainly regenerate all who heard it"

No, it is not.

And yet earlier you wrote, "The idea is that the Gospel regenerates. So to keep it from happening God must take active measures....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...Many Calvinists, infra and supra, recognize that God intervenes by his active agency to PREVENT the non-elect from becoming regenerate."

Additionally, if you remember back on page 6 Heir offered an explaination of your view, which you commenting on by commending him for 'getting it." He 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."

And then you even said in response to that, "The normative employment of the Gospel regenerates if God does not stop it."

So, how is my statement above somehow NOT accurate now??? I'm confounded, Luke, I really am.

 

[Skandelon]

Ok Luke, after reading your last two post I've come up with another way to approach this matter. The Bible compares God's words with a sword, right. So, let's stick with that analogy. A sword is an instrument (a means), but in itself has no real power. It must be wilded in the hands of a master. Good so far?

Like wise, the Gospel is an instrument, a means, that the Master (Holy Spirit) uses to regenerate mankind. I think we would both agree with this thus far.

{NOTE: The only difference in our view might be that I don't think you will ever find the sword out of the Master's hand. In other words, the sword will never be left laying on the ground, powerless. Just as the gospel is never proclaimed or read absent of the Holy Spirit's work. They are one and the same. As Jesus said, "The very words I speak to you are spirit and life."}

So, Joe Blow goes to a Billy Graham crusade and hears the gospel plain and simple (he is pierced by the sword, so to speak). I believe that is a work of the Holy Spirit regardless of how Joe responds. The sword has cut his soul, thus enabling him to either repent and be reconciled or rebel and walk away. He is response-able for that decision and there is NO EXCUSE for his not coming to Christ. He can't say, "I didn't know or understand," or "I wasn't chosen," or "God hated me," or "God didn't give me what I needed to be reconciled."

SOOOO, supposing Joe Blow is a non-elect reprobate, born totally depraved and not chosen to regenerated. When he heard the gospel at the crusade is it your belief that....

1. The Holy Spirit is refraining from working in Joe's life when the gospel is being preached? The sword is lifeless and just laying their for Joe. It has no real power?

AND

2. God is actively preventing (through various means) the gospel from regenerating Joe? And if He didn't actively blind Joe, that he would be converted?​

Please explain...

 

[Luke2427]

Well, I do. He could say what you've continue to say in this thread... or at least something similar.

He is. Namely, that "God veils the blind that they may remain in darkness."

These are the very words I am declaring.

The point I was making about Calvinistic explanations really wasn't meant to be a slam, but I've actually read an entire article by a Calvinist that made a case on the difference of the word 'can' and 'may.' Could that not apply to Calvin's comment? Why would he say 'may remain in darkness' if it is certain that they will? And how does Calvin's quote reveal the difference between the Calvinist who believes in Gospel regeneration (as described by you) and the Calvinists who believes in Gospel regeneration (as described in the article I posted, or by Aaron or 12strings)? I don't see how that one phrase can be taken to conclude that Calvin sides with your explanation of God actively working to prevent the gospel from certainly regenerating anyone who heard it. Sorry, but it doesn't say enough to draw any certain distinction.

Well I think its pretty clear that Calvin thinks that God veils the blind "that they may remain in darkness."

Any further discussion on it seem futile.

Well, the merit of a position can sometimes be validated or invalidated by those scholars who support it...at least to some degree. But, I do agree that is not the only aspect of this discussion which could be our focus. I only focus here because I really do want to read up on your view to better understand it and I'm seriously doubting that it is supported by any notable scholars. I know, you think Calvin supports your view, but I've shown you how that comment can be taken in more than one way.

Respectfully, Skan, you haven't, in my opinion.

You have not, in my view, made the slightest dent in the idea that Calvin believes that God veils the blind "that they may remain in darkness."

And given the fact that Calvin wasn't known to ever teach that the proclamation of the gospel is irresistibly regenerative

No one I know is intimating such a thing.

Luke, you make it sound like I'm asking for a lot, and I'm really not. Surely Calvinists have many definitions of the "I" in TULIP. Can you find any who say that the gospel is the "I" but God prevents it from being irresistible for those he hasn't chosen?

Calvin himself will not suit you, brother. An angel from heaven could not make it any clearer.

I've just honestly NEVER read that explanation.
I can do that, but please continue to keep your eyes open for any scholar who clearly makes the types of statements you have made in this thread (comments which even 12strings and others here obviously wouldn't support). I don't think that is asking too much.

The asking is not the problem, brother. It's the never being satisfied with the giving you what you ask for.

I mean, asking to study up on such an important doctrine as "God actively preventing people from being saved" is reasonable, I think.

I have studied it. It is the view of basically ever supralapsarian who has ever lived plus numerous infralapsarians.

I hesitate to offer any more quotes for fear of being thrust into another invincible quagmire of argumentation over the quote rather than discussing the subject at hand.

But Luther says, Here, God Incarnate says: 'I would, and thou wouldst not.' God Incarnate, I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God's secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing and offering. . . .It belongs to the same God Incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish. Nor is it for us to ask why He does so, but to stand in awe of God, Who can do, and wills to do such things."

Luther, (maybe) Calvin, (certainly) Beza, William Twisse (the chair of the WCF) and many other of the most thoughtful and scholarly Calvinists are supralapsarians. This almost necessitates a belief that God actively reprobates the non-elect.

But what ought to be clear to ALL Calvinists, and I think IS clear to MOST Calvinists, is that God can save ANYONE and EVERYONE if he so chooses and that he chooses NOT to. Thus he witholds from some that which he grants to others. What is that? That which SAVES.

What God SAVES the elect with he WITHHOLDS from the non-elect. Every Calvinist on EARTH in history ought to embrace this clear fact.

If God gave to the non-elect everything he gives to the elect then NNE would perish.

But God must withhold from the non-elect that which he uses to save the elect if he wishes to save only the elect.

That includes regeneration.

Don't miss that- that includes regeneration.

So, since MOST Calvinists beleive in GOSPEL regeneration, God must withhold from the non-elect the Gospel that regenerates.

You are WAY too intelligent, Skan, to fail to see the logical necessity of this.

How then does God withhold from the non-elect the Gospel that regenerates? He does it the way Calvin said he does it as Calvin commented in his own commentary on the VERY PASSAGE which, perhaps above all, addresses this issue- He veils the blind "that they may remain in darkness."

Regarding the Edwards quote, allow me to just remind you that I never claimed anything about it that Edwards himself didn't claim;

Yes, you did. You could not seem to differentiate between what he did agree with the Arminian divines on and what he clearly did not agree with them on.

This is going to kill the conversation, isn't it? Are we both too proud to move on?

I'm afraid neither of us is mature enough to drop these issues and discuss the subject further.

which was that HIS view was consistent with the 'Arminian divines,' and I think we can both agree that the Arminian divines didn't hold to a supra-hard deterministic view of the origin of evil.

That wasn't the issue. Edwards leaned infra but he was not a thorough infra. He was a hybrid of the two positions.

So, either Edwards was wrong about his own view, or he was wrong about the view of the Arminians, or you misunderstood Edward's intent. I can't see any other options. Thus, your beef isn't really with me as much as it is with Edwards... But enough of that...we've been down that road.

No sir. No one on earth, I think, but you thinks that Edwards believes what you were purporting he believed. But, as you said, enough of that.

So then why would God NEED to use means to prevent the proclamation of the gospel from regenerating them when clearly the Spirit could simply refrain from working?

Why would God...????

Who cares?

Who cares why God would... anything? Asking why God does what he does is futile. If he doesn't reveal it in his word, speculation is foolish.

Because he WANTS to do it that way. Why does he want to do it that way?

Who cares?

I said, "Do you think they all believe the "I" in TULIP refers to the gospel proclamation?"
Yet earlier you wrote, "The Gospel would regenerate EVERYBODY if God did not take active means to stop it." How is that not equal to calling the Gospel the "Irresistible calling?"

Because there is more to it than the bare proclamation of the Gospel. There is providence, the work of the Spirit, etc, etc, etc...

And I said, "You are arguing that the Gospel proclaimed, without God's active preventative means in place, would certainly regenerate all who heard it"

No sir. That is not what I have argued. The bare proclamation of the Gospel in a vacuum is not what does it.

And yet earlier you wrote, "The idea is that the Gospel regenerates. So to keep it from happening God must take active measures....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...Many Calvinists, infra and supra, recognize that God intervenes by his active agency to PREVENT the non-elect from becoming regenerate."

Right, in context with what I have been saying all along- that the Spirit effectuates it by doing all of the things that I have been repeatedly saying he does this whole conversation.

Additionally, if you remember back on page 6 Heir offered an explaination of your view, which you commenting on by commending him for 'getting it." He 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."

But brother, I suppose I have clarified by saying no less than a DOZEN TIMES the word "ALMOST" in conjunction with the word "always" as I have described this position.

And then you even said in response to that, "The normative employment of the Gospel regenerates if God does not stop it."

You are too sharp not to know what "normative" means. It is amazingly consistent with the other phrase that I just spoke about that I have used throughout this conversation: "almost always."

So, how is my statement above somehow NOT accurate now??? I'm confounded, Luke, I really am.

Hopefully now you see it.

 

[Luke2427]

Ok Luke, after reading your last two post I've come up with another way to approach this matter. The Bible compares God's words with a sword, right. So, let's stick with that analogy. A sword is an instrument (a means), but in itself has no real power. It must be wilded in the hands of a master. Good so far?

Like wise, the Gospel is an instrument, a means, that the Master (Holy Spirit) uses to regenerate mankind. I think we would both agree with this thus far.

{NOTE: The only difference in our view might be that I don't think you will ever find the sword out of the Master's hand. In other words, the sword will never be left laying on the ground, powerless. Just as the gospel is never proclaimed or read absent of the Holy Spirit's work. They are one and the same. As Jesus said, "The very words I speak to you are spirit and life."}

So, Joe Blow goes to a Billy Graham crusade and hears the gospel plain and simple (he is pierced by the sword, so to speak). I believe that is a work of the Holy Spirit regardless of how Joe responds. The sword has cut his soul, thus enabling him to either repent and be reconciled or rebel and walk away. He is response-able for that decision and there is NO EXCUSE for his not coming to Christ. He can't say, "I didn't know or understand," or "I wasn't chosen," or "God hated me," or "God didn't give me what I needed to be reconciled."

SOOOO, supposing Joe Blow is a non-elect reprobate, born totally depraved and not chosen to regenerated. When he heard the gospel at the crusade is it your belief that....

1. The Holy Spirit is refraining from working in Joe's life when the gospel is being preached? The sword is lifeless and just laying their for Joe. It has no real power?

AND

2. God is actively preventing (through various means) the gospel from regenerating Joe? And if He didn't actively blind Joe, that he would be converted?​

Please explain...

Basically #2.

I think number 1 may sometimes happen and I think there is a better variation of number 1 that probably happens more often.

But number 2 is what happens more often than not in my opinion.

 

[12strings]

I can do that, but please continue to keep your eyes open for any scholar who clearly makes the types of statements you have made in this thread (comments which even 12strings and others here obviously wouldn't support).

Just thought I'd point out that using me as verification for your view of God's hardening is akin to asking David Beckham for his expert opinion on the fine rules of golf. It might actually hurt your case! :tonofbricks:

 

[Winman]

Well, to throw a little fuel on the fire, here is a fellow who absolutely believes God actively hardens the hearts of the non-elect. There are quite a few quotes from well known Calvinist scholars on this page.

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/reprobation.htm

Here is the first quote this author disagrees with, from John Gill;

"... 'Whom he will he hardeneth', Romans 9:18, this he does not by any positive act, by infusing hardness and blindness into the hearts of men; which is contrary to his purity and holiness, and would make him the author of sin; but by leaving men to their natural blindness and hardness of heart; for the understanding is naturally darkened; and there is a natural blindness, hardness, and callousness of heart, through the corruption of nature, and which is increased by habits of sinning; men are in darkness, and choose to walk in it; and therefore God, as he decreed, gives them up to their own wills and desires. ... and also God may be said to harden and blind, by denying them that grace which can only cure them of their hardness and blindness ... not that God infuses any delusion or deceit into them, but ... he suffers their corruptions to break forth and prevail, not giving restraining grace to them ..." (John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity).