Good Debate

[psalms109:31]

Micah 3 :
4 Then they will cry out to the Lord,
but he will not answer them.
At that time he will hide his face from them
because of the evil they have done.

5 This is what the Lord says:

“As for the prophets
who lead my people astray,
they proclaim ‘peace’
if they have something to eat,
but prepare to wage war against anyone
who refuses to feed them.

Matthew 23 :
29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[Psalm 118:26]”

Luke 11:50
Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,

1 Thessalonians 2 :
13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. 14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.[Or them fully]

2 Corinthians 3 :
13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

I can't go along with the thinking of some here because

Ezekiel 18:32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

We go to heaven for what Jesus has done and we end up in hell for what we have done and not done repent and live.

 

[Skandelon]

Here is a quote from Calvin that gives some insight:

"Lest they should see with their eyes." Let us remember that the prophet speaks of unbelievers who had already rejected the grace of God. It is certain that all would continue to be such by nature, if The Lord did not form to obedience to him those whom he has elected. At first, therefore, the condition of men is equal and alike, but when reprobate men have, of their own accord, and by their own wickedness, rebelled against God, they subject themselves to this vengeance, by which, being given up to a reprobate mind, they continually rush forward more and more to their own destruction. It is their own fault, therefore, if God does not choose to convert them, because they were the cause of their own despair. We are briefly instructed also, by these words of the prophet, what is the beginning of our conversion to God. It is when he enlightens the hearts, which must have been turned away from him, so long as they were held by the darkness of Satan; but, on the contrary, such is the power of Divine light, that it attracts us to itself, and forms us to the image of God.​

Luke, notice the underlined quote which says, "It is certain that all would continue to be such by nature." This is the PART of your explanation that I've been struggling with, because you've been arguing that the gospel "ALMOST ALWAYS" would heal their nature if not for God's preventative means.

The confusion comes because I ask for a scholarly quote making your full argument and you provide quotes supporting bits and pieces of what you believe, but they SEEM to believe things for different reasons than you do, and so I'm not seeing your entire argument ever made. You say God uses these means to prevent regeneration from happening, where as Calvin says God uses these means to further condemn them, but that their nature would have certainly prevented any change.

EXAMPLE:

Luke argues something like: God actively used various means to prevent the non-elect from the gospel lest they be regenerated, because they WOULD BE REGENERATED (almost always) if God didn't actively prevent gospel regeneration.

I ask for scholarly support...

And then Luke quotes Calvin supporting his view that God blinds the reprobate lest they see, but it says nothing about how the gospel would have regenerated them had God not used preventative means.

Then I provide a quote from Calvin which clearly confirms that he believed that man's nature ALONE certainly would have kept them in darkness.

So, which is it? Could have the Gospel, if not prevented by the use of God's means, have regenerated the nature of a reprobate? You say yes, but Calvin says, "It is certain that all would continue to be such by nature."

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, in our last exchange I wrote, "And given the fact that Calvin wasn't known to ever teach that the proclamation of the gospel is irresistibly regenerative"

And you responded...

No one I know is intimating such a thing.

Then I said, "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?"
And you reply...

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

That seems like a contradiction as both my quotes are saying virtually the same thing and you affirm one while denying the other??? In the first I accused you of believing the gospel's proclamation was "I" irresistible, which you deny... and in the second quote I ask for any scholar who affirms the gospel is "I" irresistible, and you respond by invoking your Calvin quote again...(which, btw, doesn't even mention the gospel or irresistibility.) Can you clarify your view?

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.

Again, I'm not asking you defend your supralapsarianism. I'm asking you defend your view of "Irresistible Gospel Regeneration Absent Divine Prevention." (IGRADP, for short). Meaning: "The Gospel would/could/usually might/normally should (or whatever) regenerate a reprobate IF God refrained from actively preventing it."

What God SAVES the elect with he WITHHOLDS from the non-elect.

And that is why Calvinism, if true, gives every unbeliever the perfect excuses for their unbelief on judgement day: "I wasn't granted belief....I was born hated by my maker...I was unloved from birth...I was made unable to willingly accept God's appeal for reconciliation...I was never able to change anything about status with God....I was unchosen...I never really understood...I was made like this...etc etc"

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

Does Gospel Regeneration mean:

1. The Gospel almost always regenerates, so God must prevent that using various means?

or

2. The Holy Spirit uses the Gospel to regenerate his elect alone, and passes by others?

I'd argue that MOST Calvinists would argue the latter and deny the former...

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."

Which, for Calvin, means #2 above, because he also believes that every individual would continue to be unwilling by nature and the veil is more of a nominal means used to emphasize their already inherently condemned natures and to further manifest that reality. Calvin believe that God "intends to make his word a punishment to the reprobate, that it may render them more thoroughly blind, and that their blindness may be plunged in deeper darkness." I see no where that Calvin teaches that the Gospel would probably have regenerated them absent such additional means, as he seems to clearly affirm that their own natures condemn them already.

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.

Luke, you are right, I'm too prideful to allow you rebut without a rebuttal, especially when I'm right.

If you recall, were only dealing with that one quote of Edwards (not his full doctrine of belief, or any other statement he may have made). And Edwards himself concluded that his statement, concerning the origin of evil, was consistent with that of the Arminian divines, yet it is without dispute (as you even affirmed) that your views on that subject were not consistent with the Arminian views and yet you claimed that your views were consistent with Edwards. One of you is incorrect. Again, your beef isn't with me. Its with Edwards. Here is the proof:

1. Edwards quote = consistent with Arminian divines (by Edwards assessment)
2. Luke's view = inconsistent with Arminian divines (by Luke's assessment--{Unless you are now admitting you agree with the Arminians on this point, in which case we shouldn't have been debating in the first place because I have always agreed with the Arminians.})
3. Therefore, Luke's view must be inconsistent with Edwards quote unless Edwards or Luke is mistaken in their assessments of their own views or the views of the Arminians. I have nothing to do with it except for pointing out the obvious.

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

Are you are accusing me of purporting that Edwards view was consistent what what Arminians believe? Because that is not my purport. That was Edwards who drew that conclusion, not me.

But, as you said, enough of that.

Okay, you're right, starting right NOW. :saint:

Why would God...????

Who cares?

This is the impasse. You are not willing to address the argument on this point and I think we all can see why. It is a very difficult response to consider, I understand, but I wouldn't be a very good debate opponent if I didn't press you and insist on an answer. Plus, the question isn't really so much about 'why would God' but about the NEED for such action. What is the NEED to do this? What is it accomplishing when He uses means to prevent the proclamation of the gospel from regenerating them, when clearly the Spirit could simply refrain from working through the gospel?

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

Again, this avoids the heart of the question. He may want to do it this way but that doesn't tell us the necessity of doing it this way.

And why do you suppose that He tells us why he hardened Israel for a time (to accomplish the crucifixion and allow room for the Gentiles), if He isn't interested in tell us why he does this type of thing sometimes? He reveals the redemptive purposes for hardening Pharaoh and Israel, why not for the mass number of reprobates?

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.

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."

If it could happen JUST ONCE that a non-elect person might be regenerated when hearing the gospel absent God's preventative means, that is enough to raise the conflict regarding the nature of man (Total Depravity?) and the nature of the gospel (regenerative) being discussed here. Either the gospel proclaimed (absent the preventative means, such as parables) can regenerate a lost man, or it can't. You have argued that it can and would, which is why God must actively prevent that from happening. I've still yet to see a Calvinist who takes that approach.

 

[Luke2427]

Here is a quote from Calvin that gives some insight:

"Lest they should see with their eyes." Let us remember that the prophet speaks of unbelievers who had already rejected the grace of God. It is certain that all would continue to be such by nature, if The Lord did not form to obedience to him those whom he has elected. At first, therefore, the condition of men is equal and alike, but when reprobate men have, of their own accord, and by their own wickedness, rebelled against God, they subject themselves to this vengeance, by which, being given up to a reprobate mind, they continually rush forward more and more to their own destruction. It is their own fault, therefore, if God does not choose to convert them, because they were the cause of their own despair. We are briefly instructed also, by these words of the prophet, what is the beginning of our conversion to God. It is when he enlightens the hearts, which must have been turned away from him, so long as they were held by the darkness of Satan; but, on the contrary, such is the power of Divine light, that it attracts us to itself, and forms us to the image of God.​

Luke, notice the underlined quote which says, "It is certain that all would continue to be such by nature." This is the PART of your explanation that I've been struggling with, because you've been arguing that the gospel "ALMOST ALWAYS" would heal their nature if not for God's preventative means.

I don't understand why you think that quote even addresses much less contradicts anything I have been saying- or anything that I have been saying that Calvin says.

They would most assuredly remain in darkness if God does not take active means to bring them to the light- certainly.

But that quote says absolutely NOTHING about the fact that the WAY GOD SEES TO IT that they remain in darkness is by "veiling the blind that they may remain in darkness."

I hate that we were doing so well and now you still keep us in this quagmire you plunged us in several pages back.

All sinners who hear not the Gospel will MOST ASSUREDLY remain in darkness.

All sinners from whom God withholds the cure for blindness will remain in darkness.

How does God withhold the cure for blindness?

No doubt a MYRIAD of ways but there are scripturally demonstrable ways such as speaking in parables, etc...

 

[Luke2427]

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

And you responded...
Then I said, "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?"
And you reply...
That seems like a contradiction as both my quotes are saying virtually the same thing and you affirm one while denying the other??? In the first I accused you of believing the gospel's proclamation was "I" irresistible, which you deny... and in the second quote I ask for any scholar who affirms the gospel is "I" irresistible, and you respond by invoking your Calvin quote again...(which, btw, doesn't even mention the gospel or irresistibility.) Can you clarify your view?

The Gospel is part of the effectual call- not the sum and substance of it.

I said that in the post. Did you miss it?

That is the answer that should quickly dispel any confusion you might have had.

Again, I'm not asking you defend your supralapsarianism. I'm asking you defend your view of "Irresistible Gospel Regeneration Absent Divine Prevention." (IGRADP, for short). Meaning: "The Gospel would/could/usually might/normally should (or whatever) regenerate a reprobate IF God refrained from actively preventing it."

I don't believe in this "IGRADP" that you speak of so it would be unseemly for me to defend it.

I believe that God will absolutely without fail save every single person hwo he ever intended to save invincibly.

Part of the way he does this is the effectual call. Part of THAT is the Spirit-empowered proclamation of the Gospel that leads to another PART OF THAT which is regeneration which leads to ANOTHER PART OF THAT which is conviction which leads to another part of that which is faith and repentance.

You seem stuck on the idea that I am saying the whole "I" of the tulip is Gospel proclamation which I do not think I have even HINTED at, much less given you a reason to think that.

Let's face it- this is an EXTREMELY complex subject. And saying because someone said A he must simply mean B, C, & D is not going to cut it.

Saying that the Spirit empowered Gospel regenerates unless prevented is simply not saying that Gospel proclamation is the sum and substance of the "I" in tulip.

And you should not make such a leap.

And that is why Calvinism, if true, gives every unbeliever the perfect excuses for their unbelief on judgement day: "I wasn't granted belief....I was born hated by my maker...I was unloved from birth...I was made unable to willingly accept God's appeal for reconciliation...I was never able to change anything about status with God....I was unchosen...I never really understood...I was made like this...etc etc"

Who cares?

*Enter powerful emotions- the enemy of level headed logic.

This quote from the unbeliever is emotional. What if God were willing to do that? Who are you and I to question him?

The question here should not be- do we find this palatable- it should be- do we find this biblical.

The emotions of it get in the way of getting to the bottom of it.

Let's get to the bottom of it and THEN deal with the emotions of it.

So at this point in the conversation, as we are far from the logical bottom of the issue, I repeat- Who cares?

Does Gospel Regeneration mean:

1. The Gospel almost always regenerates, so God must prevent that using various means?

or

2. The Holy Spirit uses the Gospel to regenerate his elect alone, and passes by others?

Either. It can mean that the Gospel regenerates the elect and would not regenerate anyone else if God took no means to prevent it whatsoever

Or...

it could mean, as Calvin said, that God veils the blind THAT THEY MAY REMAIN IN DARKNESS.

Luke, you are right, I'm too prideful to allow you rebut without a rebuttal, especially when I'm right.

At least you admit it. Confession is good for the soul.

Start another thread and argue the Edwards quote and I'll meet you there when I can.

You should know that this will just further bog down this thread that was going so well and you should not be willing to do that.

You were wrong about the Edwards quote and I and others tried to point that out to you to no avail.

2. Luke's view = inconsistent with Arminian divines (by Luke's assessment--{Unless you are now admitting you agree with the Arminians on this point, in which case we shouldn't have been debating in the first place because I have always agreed with the Arminians.})
3. Therefore, Luke's view must be inconsistent with Edwards quote unless Edwards or Luke is mistaken in their assessments of their own views or the views of the Arminians. I have nothing to do with it except for pointing out the obvious.

You're right- this is very prideful to be that determined to not be proven wrong.:thumbs:

This is the impasse. You are not willing to address the argument on this point and I think we all can see why. It is a very difficult response to consider, I understand, but I wouldn't be a very good debate opponent if I didn't press you and insist on an answer. Plus, the question isn't really so much about 'why would God' but about the NEED for such action. What is the NEED to do this? What is it accomplishing when uses means to prevent the proclamation of the gospel from regenerating them, when clearly the Spirit could simply refrain from working?

Saying "why would God" is futile. Saying why would God NEED to is silly.

Again, this avoids the heart of the question. He may want to do it this way but that doesn't tell us the necessity of doing it this way.

He does not need to, is my guess. He just wants to. He doesn't owe us an explanation as to why he does this.

But he does say in his word that he does.


That ought to be enough for any of us. We can scratch our heads and say "But why would God need to..." all day if we choose- but at the end of the day we'd better say- "I don't understand it, but he says that the way he does it so I accept it."

And why do you suppose that He tells us why he hardened Israel for a time (to accomplish the crucifixion and allow room for the Gentiles), if He isn't interested in tell us why he does this type of thing sometimes? He reveals the redemptive purposes for hardening Pharaoh and Israel, why not for the mass number of reprobates?

Why????? Again with the "why"? We need to focus more on the "what" than the "why". Respectfully, you seem at times more interested asking "Why" God does what he does than asking and discovering "What" his word says he does. The what is tons and tons more important than the why.

First of all he is speaking of NATIONAL Israel. The way he hardened national Israel is by hardening individuals for their whole lives.

The fact is that the Bible constantly speaks of God PERMANENTLY hardening people and gives this explanation- "because he would destroy him."

I don't like that either, Skan- but He's God- not me.

If it could happen JUST ONCE that a non-elect person might be regenerated when hearing the gospel absent God's preventative means, that is enough to raise the conflict regarding the nature of man (Total Depravity?) and the nature of the gospel (regenerative) being discussed here.

No it is not. This could not be further from the truth.

Elect people who ARE regenerated are as totally depraved as non-elect people from whom God withholds regeneration.

Either the gospel proclaimed (absent the preventative means, such as parables) can regenerate a lost man, or it can't.

It can.

You have argued that it can and would, which is why God must actively prevent that from happening. I've still yet to see a Calvinist who takes that approach.

You have seen it- Calvin himself said it.

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, clearly we are talking past each other. Your view is very unclear to me and here is why...

Skandelon: "Irresistible Gospel Regeneration Absent Divine Prevention." (IGRADP, for short). Meaning: "The Gospel would/could/usually might/normally should (or whatever) regenerate a reprobate IF God refrained from actively preventing it."

Luke: I don't believe in this "IGRADP" that you speak of so it would be unseemly for me to defend 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."

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."

Either the gospel proclaimed (absent the preventative means, such as parables) can regenerate a lost man, or it can't.

Luke: It can.

How can the gospel proclaimation regenerate a lost man if the Holy Spirit doesn't chose to regenerate him? And why would God need to blind a unregenerate man by means of a parable if the depraved nature sufficiently blinds him?

Luke: Saying why would God NEED to is silly.

Luke's comment several months ago: This is an excellent argument...

I guess what use to be 'excellent' is now 'silly' once pressed by the inconsistencies of your answers?

 

[Skandelon]

Lets take one more run at it and keep it short and simple:

Joe is an unregenerate non-elect soul who hears the gospel in a parable, lest he be converted. It is your contention that Joe could have been regenerated if the clear message of the gospel (absent the parable) had been presented, correct?

If so, how so? How does Joe even understand the gospel (even given in the most clearly presented means) unless first regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Isn't that why Calvinists turn to 1 Cor 2:14 to prove that the gospel needs 'spiritual discernment' (interpreted as 'regeneration') for it to be understood and accepted? How then can an unregenerate man EVER (even once) be regenerated by a clear presentation of the gospel?

 

[Luke2427]

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."

Right- except the word "almost". We're going in circles. You said this same thing just a few posts back about Heir's comments and I clarified it the EXACT same way I clarify it above.

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

Round and round we go. I said to this very comment of yours several posts back something to the effect of "You are too intelligent not to know what the word 'normative' means."

Either the gospel proclaimed (absent the preventative means, such as parables) can regenerate a lost man, or it can't.

... a pocket full of posies.

It can- assuming it is accompanied by the work of the Holy Spirit which, apparently, is almost always the case.

except for the obvious fact that it never will BECAUSE God will prevent it.

How can the gospel proclaimation regenerate a lost man if the Holy Spirit doesn't chose to regenerate him?

It cannot which I have said repeatedly. I have clarified that the "bare proclamation of the Gospel does not do it" multiple times now.

And why would God need to blind a unregenerate man by means of a parable if the depraved nature sufficiently blinds him?

Why would God need?... is a meaningless question.

It's like asking "Why is the sky 18?"

I guess what use to be 'excellent' is now 'silly' once pressed by the inconsistencies of your answers?

No brother. This conversation began as absolutely excellent and my opinion that your thoughtfulness on this matter is excellent is unabated.

That does not change the fact that asking "Why would God need to...?" is a silly question.

It is.

Why would God need to build galaxies that man will never ever even know exist? Why would God need to build planets upon which man will never walk?

Why would God NEED to do anything?

It's silly.

 

[Skandelon]

Right- except the word "almost". We're going in circles.
... a pocket full of posies.

Luke, I understand that, but if you notice I was recapping why your view was confusing to me, but then I moved to the next point . Allow me to repost it...

Skandelon: "If it could happen JUST ONCE that a non-elect person might be regenerated when hearing the gospel absent God's preventative means, that is enough to raise the conflict regarding the nature of man (Total Depravity?) and the nature of the gospel (regenerative) being discussed here."

And then your responded saying...

No it is not. This could not be further from the truth.

Elect people who ARE regenerated are as totally depraved as non-elect people from whom God withholds regeneration.

But how does that response even address the problem? I know the elect of your system are just a totally depraved as the non-elect, that is a given. But if they are BOTH equally depraved that depravity alone (without the preventative means) would sufficiently keep the non-elect from believing.

It can- assuming it is accompanied by the work of the Holy Spirit which, apparently, is almost always the case.

1. Give an example of when it would not be the case.
2. Is the Gospel 'accompanied by a work of the HS" when a non-elect man hears it? If so, why? If not, what is the need for preventative means?

Why would God need?... is a meaningless question.

You are appealing to mystery then because every point of debate on this forum is rooted in our asking questions about what God has revealed and his purposes in doing what he does. The fact that you single this one point out as 'silly' and unworthy of further discussion, speculation, theory, exegesis or even conjecture only reveals the trouble it causes for you system of belief. The hard truth of the matter (and this is not personal brother) is that I believe you hold to a system of belief where "means" really accomplish nothing.

Only a inner effectual working of the Holy Spirit (regeneration) actually accomplishes anything. Signs and wonders, convincing arguments, prayers for the lost, proclaiming truth, provoking with envy, are all means spoken of in the text that may bring salvation, but in your system they accomplish nothing toward that end that is not accomplished by the effectual regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, on the side of judicial hardening, the means such as a 'spirit of stupor,' parables, judicial blinding, etc, don't accomplish anything that man's inborn depraved nature hasn't already accomplished.

In Calvinism the only thing that accomplishes salvation is the "Irresistible Calling" (regeneration) and the only thing that really accomplishes man's unwillingness to come to Christ is his "Total Depravity." Various other means mention in the text, for all practical purposes, or logical necessity, mean nothing and accomplish NOTHING.

That does not change the fact that asking "Why would God need to...?" is a silly question.

It is.

Why would God need to build galaxies that man will never ever even know exist?

To display his Glory and the expansive endless nature of his creative powers and abilities. Do you have another "silly" question that I can at least offer a reasonable guess for? That is all I'm asking for Luke. Much of theology is man's speculation as to what we believe about God and His purposes, why do you refuse to offer you opinion on this matter? Why do you choose to dismiss this one specific point as 'silly' while continually addressing other mysterious matters without hesitation? I think it because your answer reveals the contradiction in your system of thought.

Blindness = natural condition of mankind according to Calvinism
Blind fold = the use of parables

Your view: If God didn't use the blind fold, it is possible that a totally blind man might see and be converted.
​

That view is obviously contradictory because regardless of whether or not a blind man is wearing a blind fold he could NEVER see, UNLESS healed from his blindness FIRST.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, I understand that, but if you notice I was recapping why your view was confusing to me, but then I moved to the next point . Allow me to repost it...

Skandelon: "If it could happen JUST ONCE that a non-elect person might be regenerated when hearing the gospel absent God's preventative means, that is enough to raise the conflict regarding the nature of man (Total Depravity?) and the nature of the gospel (regenerative) being discussed here."

And then your responded saying...

But how does that response even address the problem? I know the elect of your system are just a totally depraved as the non-elect, that is a given. But if they are BOTH equally depraved that depravity alone (without the preventative means) would sufficiently keep the non-elect from believing.

The depravity that gives way so the elect can be saved could not keep the non-elect from being saved unless God withheld from them that which he imparts to the elect.

Let's deal with that. These are getting too long. :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

The depravity that gives way

I'm stoping you mid-sentence because this is where I lose you. What Calvinist teaching suggests that man's DEPRAVITY ever 'gives way'? Isn't that the very reason for the word TOTAL in the doctrine of 'Total Depravity'? Isn't "Irresistible regenerative Grace" the ONLY means that would cause "TOTAL DEPRAVITY" to really "give way?"

It's like my analogy explains:

Blindness = natural condition of mankind according to Calvinism (TOTAL Depravity)
Blind fold = the use of parables (God's preventative means)

Your view: If God didn't use the blind fold, it is possible that a totally blind man might see and be converted.
That view is obviously contradictory because regardless of whether or not a blind man is wearing a blind fold he could NEVER see, UNLESS healed from his blindness FIRST.​

 

[Luke2427]

I'm stoping you mid-sentence because this is where I lose you. What Calvinist teaching suggests that man's DEPRAVITY ever 'gives way'? Isn't that the very reason for the word TOTAL in the doctrine of 'Total Depravity'? Isn't "Irresistible regenerative Grace" the ONLY means that would cause "TOTAL DEPRAVITY" to really "give way?"

Sin is what condemns men. Sin is what causes men to be incapable of coming to a holy God.

But that thing which keeps men from coming to God fails to continue to do so when God overcomes it.

Men do not come to God because they love darkness rather than light.

But men do come to God.

Contradiction? No. Their condition is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel. Now they are no longer JUST natural men. Their spirit is quickened toward God. The condition which kept them from God gives way.

It's like my analogy explains:

Blindness = natural condition of mankind according to Calvinism (TOTAL Depravity)
Blind fold = the use of parables (God's preventative means)

Your view: If God didn't use the blind fold, it is possible that a totally blind man might see and be converted.
That view is obviously contradictory because regardless of whether or not a blind man is wearing a blind fold he could NEVER see, UNLESS healed from his blindness FIRST.​

[/QUOTE]

The light is both the cure to blindness and that which enables cured eyes to see.

I illustrated this several posts back with Winman utilizing laser surgery. I'd like for you to check it out when you can.

 

[Skandelon]

Sin is what condemns men. Sin is what causes men to be incapable of coming to a holy God.

But that thing which keeps men from coming to God fails to continue to do so when God overcomes it.

Right, which according to Calvinism, God does by the work of effectual regeneration (Irresistible Grace/ Effectual Calling). Not just the proclamation of the gospel, a sign or wonder, a convincing argument, envy or any other means. There is NO rational reason to prevent these extra means if these extra means are powerless to overcome.

Men do not come to God because they love darkness rather than light.

But men do come to God.

Only regenerated men, according to your system.

Contradiction? No. Their condition is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel. Now they are no longer JUST natural men. Their spirit is quickened toward God. The condition which kept them from God gives way.

That is what happens to the elect who are effectually regenerated in your system, but not the non-elect, who is the subject of this point.

Are non-elects condition changed because they hear the gospel preached? No, not unless regenerated. So, why use a parable to prevent them from understanding what they were born unable to understand? This is the issue you continue to dance around...at least that is the way it appears from my perspective.

The light is both the cure to blindness and that which enables cured eyes to see.

But is the 'light' in your analogy representative of the simple proclamation of the gospel or the regenerative work of the Spirit through the proclaimed gospel. That is a blurred line right now in your system, IMO.

Can the gospel be proclaimed and the spirit choose not to work regeneratively on the hearer? If I turn to the guy next to me here at Starbucks and tell him the gospel message (which I plan on doing when I find the right opportunity), and presuming for argument's sake that he is not elect, will the spirit work regeneratively or not?

If so, why since he isn't elect?
If not, why would God need to blind him with extra means?

 

[Luke2427]

Right, which according to Calvinism, God does by the work of effectual regeneration (Irresistible Grace/ Effectual Calling).

According to most Calvinists by the work of effectual regeneration through the Gospel.

Not just the proclamation of the gospel,

Right.

The Gospel is the lead of the bullet. The firing process still requires gun powder, shell casing, firing cap, a gun and a shooter.

 

[Luke2427]

But is the 'light' in your analogy representative of the simple proclamation of the gospel or the regenerative work of the Spirit through the proclaimed gospel. That is a blurred line right now in your system, IMO.

Respectfully, Skan, I have clarified this very issue NUMEROUS times. NUMEROUS times in this debate.

I have said repeatedly that it is NOT, I repeat, NOT the SIMPLE proclamation of the Gospel.

I do not think I could have been clearer on that point.

My argument from the start has been that the Holy Spirit, apparently, almost always works in the hearts of those who hear the Gospel.

You have responded to that repeatedly by saying "Why not just not work on those who are non-elect?"

I have responded to that query repeatedly by saying, "It does not matter why. That is irrelevant. Asking why God does what he does is like an ant asking a nuclear scientist why he performs a particular action."

Can the gospel be proclaimed and the spirit choose not to work regeneratively on the hearer?

I think he can and probably rarely does.

If I turn to the guy next to me here at Starbucks and tell him the gospel message (which I plan on doing when I find the right opportunity), and presuming for argument's sake that he is not elect, will the spirit work regeneratively or not?

Unless prevented by God through providence chances are the Spirit will work in the heart of this man.

From the start I have offered at least three different ways that Scripture shows God prevents some from being born again when they hear the Gospel.

One of those ways is by simply withholding the work of the Spirit in the heart of the sinner.

I think it is apparent that this means is utilized less in Scripture than other means.

If so, why since he isn't elect?

There might be a million reasons why God would do this.

But ultimately it does not matter. God does not have to tell us why God would do this. It is enough that he tells us that he DOES this.

If not, why would God need to blind him with extra means?

Why would God need...?

It's a meaningless question.

It is like asking why the sky is 18.

However, the reason is revealed in Scripture. Calvin commenting on the Scripture said that God "veils the blind that they may remain in darkness."

I think my illustration to Winman several posts back is sufficient.

 

[Skandelon]

The Gospel is the lead of the bullet. The firing process still requires gun powder, shell casing, firing cap, a gun and a shooter.

So, why do you act as if someone might be shot by a bullet alone, absent the gun powered, shell casing, firing cap and gun?

Again, it avoids the issue as to why one must be protected from a bullet with no power?

Luke, we dance around this issue long enough. You know the question that must be answered. You have chosen not to answer it, deeming it 'silly' and pretending as if asking why God would need to use parables on an unregenerate soul to prevent their being converted is somehow unique to all the other questions and speculations thrown around here.

You and I both know why you've dismissed the question as 'silly.' You know there is NO good reason for God to put a blindfold on a man born blind. On the one hand you want to say the blindfold prevents the man from seeing, but on the other hand you continue to try and maintain that the man is complete blind from birth.

Is this what each component represents in your analogy?

Light = Gospel Proclaimed

Blind man = A totally depraved individual who cannot willingly respond to the light while still blind.

Regeneration = the Holy Spirit's effectual work in healing one's natural blindness so they see and are converted by the light

Blindfold = extra preventative means (such a parables), which if not used COULD convert a blind man.​

Is that about right?

 

[Skandelon]

I have responded to that query repeatedly by saying, "It does not matter why. That is irrelevant. Asking why God does what he does is like an ant asking a nuclear scientist why he performs a particular action."

Ok, this is the impasse... you appeal to mystery as to why God would blind a man born totally blind from birth. Yet, let it be noted that in my system there is a very clear redemptive reason why God would temporarily blind Israel, thus proving the point that started us down this rabbit trail, which is that WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME DILEMMA AS YOU DO regarding divine judicial hardening.

shewwwww... that took a long time to get to. :thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

So, why do you act as if someone might be shot by a bullet alone, absent the gun powered, shell casing, firing cap and gun?

I don't.

What you seem to be missing in this conversation is the repeated declarations of mine that, for whatever reason, God has apparently chosen to almost always work in the hearts of almost everyone who hears the Gospel.

Again, it avoids the issue as to why one must be protected from a bullet with no power?

Because the bullet almost always has power.

You and I both know why you've dismissed the question as 'silly.' You know there is NO good reason for God to put a blindfold on a man born blind.

I promise before my gracious Almighty Maker that that has not been my motive for calling the question "silly".

My motive, I think, has been very clear.

It is like asking why God chose to use gravity to hold us to the earth instead of making everything contain metal and using magnetism.

It is like asking God, "Why not just make it so ALL living creatures breathe oxygen instead of making the animal kingdom to breathe oxygen and the plant kingdom to breath in carbon dioxide?"

Why, God, do you make things the way they are?


It is MEANINGLESS- utterly MEANINGLESS to ask why God does things that he does when God does not choose to reveal these things to us.

However, it is OK to speculate if one chooses. But you should not need an answer to the question "why God does...." to accept and believe the clear revelation "THAT God does..."

On the one hand you want to say the blindfold prevents the man from seeing, but on the other hand you continue to try and maintain that the man is complete blind from birth.

I have answered this very clearly. The light of the Gospel is BOTH THE CURE TO THE BLINDNESS AND THE THING THAT ENABLES CURED EYES TO SEE.

 

[Luke2427]

Ok, this is the impasse... you appeal to mystery as to why God would blind a man born totally blind from birth. Yet, let it be noted that in my system there is a very clear redemptive reason why God would temporarily blind Israel, thus proving the point that started us down this rabbit trail, which is that WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME DILEMMA AS YOU DO regarding divine judicial hardening.

shewwwww... that took a long time to get to. :thumbs:

No, I'm afraid it is not that simple brother.

I don't think you have a redemptive reason for ALL of the hardening that God does in the Bible.

There is a lot of it and it usually gives the reason- "because God would destroy them".

 

[Skandelon]

No, I'm afraid it is not that simple brother.

I don't think you have a redemptive reason for ALL of the hardening that God does in the Bible.

Can you give examples and we'll look at them individually, because I'd bet my bottom dollar that love, mercy, redemption, and grace is at the core of it. Honestly, and this isn't me trying to win a point in a debate, but I've come to know Father as being deeply gracious and redemptive in all that He does in my own life and experiences. I can't imagine that the God I've come to know and love not having a redemptive purpose.

And I know what you are probably thinking. God is about HIS OWN GLORY, right? I agree, but I really do believe his own glory is best made manifest through the attributes of love, grace and redemption, so this point is not contradicting God's glory.

I think wrath/judgement is more to do with the Holiness of God, rather than his Glory. Sin is an offense against his holiness and because an Eternally HOLY God is offended by sin it deserves an eternally severe punishment. Anything less than an eternal hell as punishment is an insult to the one offended by the sin. God's glory is certainly revealed in this, but for humanity his Glory is really made most known through his redemption and grace, don't you agree?

There is a lot of it and it usually gives the reason- "because God would destroy them".

Where is this quote from? And what do you think it means? Please expound...