If Total Depravity is true, why did Christ need to hide his message in parables?

[Winman]

In answer to Winman's post, you don't allow for any other possibility. Yes, you say the "Lord struck him down and changed him."
But Saul said: "What will thou have me to do."
His response was not: "I am not going to do thy will; I am not going to bow down to this so-called Messiah."
He had that choice. He could have gone either way. But you won't admit that.

Yes, Paul had in fact heard the gospel before and resisted, he was the witness when Stephen was stoned.

Acts 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

Paul heard Stephen and he was one of those who cried with a loud voice and covered their ears that they might not hear his words.

That is resisting the Holy Ghost. And Paul continued to resist for some time, and made havock of the church (Acts 8:1-4).

 

[DHK]

Any other possibilty? God made Nebuchadnezzar, a heathen, king of the Babylon Empire, eat grass.

Paul, one of God's own, had no choice in this matter. He was seperated from the womb to be the apostle to the nations. I really, really don't see how you can even begin to argue about this.

Hindsight is better than foresight.
You look back on history and say because this is what happened that is what had to happen and what God decreed to happen because that is what happened. That is pure circular reasoning on the part of any Calvinist. The fact is that God gave man free will. Despite what the Scripture says, Saul could have chosen either way. We simply have the record of which way he chose.

 

[kyredneck]

Yes, Paul had in fact heard the gospel before and resisted, he was the witness when Stephen was stoned.....

Post 24:

.... Salvation is of the Lord and only happens during his time.....

I know you dyed in the wool free willers just can't accept that, but that's just exactly the way it is. It's whenever the Lord is good and ready.

 

[kyredneck]

.... Saul could have chosen either way. We simply have the record of which say he chose.

So, DHK says that Paul had a choice.

The scripture says Paul was seperated from the womb to do what he did.

 

[DHK]

Post 24:

I know you dyed in the wool free willers just can't accept that, but that's just exactly the way it is. It's whenever the Lord is good and ready.

That is not true. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. God doesn't put time restraints upon people. They can come to the Lord any time they are ready. It is up to them to make that decision to come. The Lord doesn't force their hand.

 

[DHK]

So, DHK says that Paul had a choice.

The scripture says Paul was seperated from the womb to do what he did.

God in his sovereignty and omniscience that Saul would eventually come to Him. The Lord always gives a choice. He didn't force him. It is quite possible that Saul could have come to the Lord at a later date in his life. That is only speculation since we can't re-write history. The fact is God did not force his hand. It was not a forced conversion.

 

[Skandelon]

This blows my mind Winman. How on God's green earth can you even insinuate that Paul had a choice? PAUL WAS STRUCK DOWN ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS. HE WAS THE ENEMY OF THE CHURCH WITH EVERY FIBRE OF HIS BEING AND THE LORD STRUCK HIM DOWN AND CHANGED HIM.

I agree, but notice that God used means (blinding on the road) and not some secret inward irresistible transformation of his will.

Jonah, in the same way, had his mind changed through natural outward means. The same is true of the ancient cities who would have repented had the signs and wonders been shown them.

God uses these outward means to change man's will, not some secret work of regeneration by which man's will is changed to do God's will.

The fact that God has changed the mind of his messengers using these types of outward means in no way proves that God irresistibly changes the wills of all those who believe their message through some secret inward working.

Proof that God used effectual means to send Jonah to Ninevah doesn't prove that God uses effectual means to make Jonah's audience believe his message. Same is true of Paul. God used effectual means to ensure his message was sent, but that doesn't prove that God uses effectual means to ensure faith and love.

In other words, God has used effectual means to ensure his appeal for reconciliation is sent to the world, but that doesn't prove that God has used effectual means to ensure certain individuals will be reconciled to the neglect of all others.

 

[kyredneck]

I agree, the Spirit empowered them in every way, and that included revelation of truth. When He told them, “the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in dark sayings”, I think of that sermon He gave, after the resurrection and before Pentecost, in Lu 24:27:

“And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”

Oh, how I would have loved to have heard that discourse.

Heheh, I wonder what the significance is in this; He was now speaking plainly to them (Lu 24:27) without revealing to them who it was that was speaking:

15 And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. Lu 24

 

[DHK]

BTW, kyredneck, when I got saved it was in the quietness of a small room.
The Lord never sent a whirlwind, tornado, earthquake, vision of Himself, an angel to confirm his message; no miracle, no voice from heaven, absolutely nothing!!!
I guess I should have disregarded the simple message of salvation presented to me. It was the first time I ever heard it, though I was an adult. But I was convicted anyway, and got saved at that time. I could have put it off. Like many others I could have waited and thought about it a bit longer. But I didn't.

 

[kyredneck]

I agree, but notice that God used means (blinding on the road) and not some secret inward irresistible transformation of his will.

Totally disagree.

....the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God. Jn 16:2

If that doesn't describe Paul, I don't know what does. Just what do you think these words alone from Paul's God did to Paul's heart?:

"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?"

I can't help but feel for Paul when the enormity of the reality came crashing in on him:

"Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest"

What a dog he must've felt like.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Totally disagree.

....the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God. Jn 16:2

If that doesn't describe Paul, I don't know what does. Just what do you think these words alone from Paul's God did to Paul's heart?:

"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?"

I can't help but feel for Paul when the enormity of the reality came crashing in on him:

"Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest"

What a dog he must've felt like.

Clearly surprised..... now he(Saul) is being confronted with killing his very God. Funny he didnt say, why are you killing me.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree, but notice that God used means (blinding on the road) and not some secret inward irresistible transformation of his will.

Jonah, in the same way, had his mind changed through natural outward means. The same is true of the ancient cities who would have repented had the signs and wonders been shown them.

God uses these outward means to change man's will, not some secret work of regeneration by which man's will is changed to do God's will.

The fact that God has changed the mind of his messengers using these types of outward means in no way proves that God irresistibly changes the wills of all those who believe their message through some secret inward working.

Proof that God used effectual means to send Jonah to Ninevah doesn't prove that God uses effectual means to make Jonah's audience believe his message. Same is true of Paul. God used effectual means to ensure his message was sent, but that doesn't prove that God uses effectual means to ensure faith and love.

In other words, God has used effectual means to ensure his appeal for reconciliation is sent to the world, but that doesn't prove that God has used effectual means to ensure certain individuals will be reconciled to the neglect of all others.

Read the rest of my post where I explain my view...I don't believe you addressed it.

 

[kyredneck]

Read the rest of my post where I explain my view...I don't believe you addressed it.

I said all I felt like I needed to say. I'm not getting entangled into all your reasonings and objections against the doctrines of God's Sovereign Grace. I don't even have the desire to delve into your reasonings.

There's several points, if not most, in my posts to you that you've yet to address.

 

[Aaron]

I agree, but notice that God used means (blinding on the road) and not some secret inward irresistible transformation of his will.

Jonah, in the same way, had his mind changed through natural outward means. The same is true of the ancient cities who would have repented had the signs and wonders been shown them.

God uses these outward means to change man's will, not some secret work of regeneration by which man's will is changed to do God's will.

The fact that God has changed the mind of his messengers using these types of outward means in no way proves that God irresistibly changes the wills of all those who believe their message through some secret inward working.

Proof that God used effectual means to send Jonah to Ninevah doesn't prove that God uses effectual means to make Jonah's audience believe his message. Same is true of Paul. God used effectual means to ensure his message was sent, but that doesn't prove that God uses effectual means to ensure faith and love.

In other words, God has used effectual means to ensure his appeal for reconciliation is sent to the world, but that doesn't prove that God has used effectual means to ensure certain individuals will be reconciled to the neglect of all others.

Can one resist being born?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Can one resist being born?

Stewie did that in a Family Guy episode:laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I said all I felt like I needed to say. I'm not getting entangled into all your reasonings and objections against the doctrines of God's Sovereign Grace. I don't even have the desire to delve into your reasonings.

Now that was worth the ticket to the ballgame :laugh::thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

Can one resist being born?

A non sequitor of course.
It is like: Can one resist having Satan as your father?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A non sequitor of course.
It is like: Can one resist having Satan as your father?

I dont recall that in Family Guy.:tongue3:

 

[Skandelon]

Can one resist being born?

Can one resist dying?

 

[Skandelon]

Now that was worth the ticket to the ballgame :laugh::thumbsup:

Yeah, I love those games where the opponent quits before the end. :laugh: