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

[freeatlast]

I read the board a lot, and don't post that often. I'm almost reluctant to post this because it feels like I repeat these verses a lot over the years in the few posts I make, but it's so direct I seem to come back to it often.

The people were "so depraved" in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom that Christ says His miracles would have caused them to repent. Now Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum repented not, even with the miracles.

He states pretty clear though that Tyre, Sidon, and even Sodom would have turned to Him IF He had done the miracles there.

God's utter sovreignty as exercised by choosing to perform miracles in cities He knew would reject them is another issue. The fact is that He KNEW who would and would not respond and He acted according to his will.

This and the parables issue at the least should let us know that this sovreignty/command/ability to respond issue is not cut and dried according to our finite understandings of time, space, etc.

I think you are correct. The matt passage does seem to show that pedertmind election is not the deciding factor but the hearing of the word and personal choice to accept or reject is.
It really is an interesting passage and even seems to place all the burden on man, even the burden to get to the lost and tell them.
Mat 11:21-24 (KJV)
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

 

[kyredneck]

"To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12*so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN." (Cross reference Luke 8; Matt. 13)

Notice that this passage tells us that Jesus used parables so that certain Jews wouldn't believe and be forgiven. But why?

Because, 'it must needs be'. It was the time for it. 'That generation' of Christ's day was 'the flock of slaughter' of Zech 11:4-13. And parables (riddles, dark sayings) was what 'The Prophet' fed that flock of slaughter. They weighed for His hire thirty pieces of silver, He fed them riddles. Besides, the Song of Moses (DT 31:19- ch 32) makes it plain about 'that generation', they weren't His children (Dt 32:5), and any seeming return or repentance on their part would have been feigned; like John the Baptist said to them, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” Mt 3:7. 'The Prophet' had no intention of warning 'the flock of slaughter' of the wrath to come, but to His disciples He expounded all things:

22 For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath unto this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished. Lu 21

 

[kyredneck]

So give us the solid answer ... if there really is one.

I gave it in post #25.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

"To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12*so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN." (Cross reference Luke 8; Matt. 13)

Notice that this passage tells us that Jesus used parables so that certain Jews wouldn't believe and be forgiven. But why?

If Calvinists assumption, that men are born unable to believe in Christ without an effectual calling, is true, then why would Christ need to hide the message in parables to prevent them from believing? Notice that it says they "might return and be forgiven," proving that the parables kept that from possibly happening.

Jesus must have believed that they could have believed and "returned" to Him, otherwise why would he say this?

In short, why would you hide a message from people so they can't believe it when those people were born unable to willingly believe or even understand that message in the first place?

Please refrain from personal attacks, questioning other's intentions, or responding in a non-Christlike way. Such posts will be reported and ignored. Just respond to the topic at hand or refrain from posting. Thank you.

I just saw this. I would like to commend you an an interesting topic. Great question! Below is the answer.

The answer is in the Trinity itself and in the sovereignty of God and his purpose of election and predestination.

God is a God of unity and never lies when he works he works in unity Jesus the Son could not preach the gospel clearly to people without the sincere attempt at saving them and he doesn't fail because if his attempt is sincere then the Holy Spirit will regenerate that person and that is because the Father elected and predestined them in eternity past.

Just like God predestines things to be done because of prayer, he also predestines regeneration to take place during the hearing of the gospel for those who are elected to salvation when the time is right.

In this case Jesus spoke in parables because he was dealing with an overall plan of salvatin for only the elect. Part of that plan was to take the gospel truth to the elect gentiles. In God's plan it is best to do that in part because of unbelieving Jews.

He consigned the Jews to disobedience that he might have mercy on all peoples.

Any of them who believed and repented of their sins would be saved. The very fact that Jesus did indeed speak in parables and did indeed exclude them from believe shows that they were either not elect at all, or were simply not predestined to be saved at that particular time. Salvation is of the Lord and only happens during his time.

Romans 11:32 ESV
32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

 

[Skandelon]

I'll be glad to.

But I want you to commit to stick with the other while we discuss this too.

Sure, what post of yours have I not replied to? If I miss one, just point it out. I'm glad to respond.

 

[Skandelon]

I just saw this. I would like to commend you an an interesting topic. Great question! Below is the answer.

Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic. :thumbsup:

He consigned the Jews to disobedience that he might have mercy on all peoples.

Why if they were born totally consigned to disobedience from birth? That is the point of the OP, to question as to why God would need to blind men who were supposedly born totally blind.

Any of them who believed and repented of their sins would be saved. The very fact that Jesus did indeed speak in parables and did indeed exclude them from believe shows that they were either not elect at all, or were simply not predestined to be saved at that particular time. Salvation is of the Lord and only happens during his time

And the fact that they MIGHT have believed had the gospel been preached plainly proves that regeneration didn't need to precede their faith.

Romans 11:32 ESV
32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Correct. The SAME "all" he has consigned to disobedience is the same "all" he shows mercy.

 

[kyredneck]

....He consigned the Jews to disobedience that he might have mercy on all peoples.

Agreed. The time had come for Japheth to dwell in the tents of Shem. Many would come from the east and the west and recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the sons of the kingdom would be cast forth into the outer darkness: there would be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

Any of them who believed and repented of their sins would be saved....

....from the wrath that was to come upon that generation:

.... Save yourselves from this crooked generation......Acts 2:40

And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. Acts 3:23

The very fact that Jesus did indeed speak in parables and did indeed exclude them from believe shows that they were either not elect at all, or were simply not predestined to be saved at that particular time. Salvation is of the Lord and only happens during his time.

Amen.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic. :thumbsup:

Sure. It's a thread that shouldn't go off topic. I just noticed it though. Good idea for a thread.

Why if they were born totally consigned to disobedience from birth? That is the point of the OP, to question as to why God would need to blind men who were supposedly born totally blind.

God works in a unified way. If Jesus was to speak to them plainly showing them clearly who he was with the intent to bring them to faith, then they would hav surely come to faith because the Holy Spirit would have regenerated them because of Christ's intent and Christ's intent would only have been because the Father had elected them. The entire Godhead works in harmony in salvation.

Now, had Christ, not intended to bring them to faith and simply plainly told them the plain understandable truth about himself then their condemnation would have been multiplied for their inevitable rejection of him.

So the reason Christ spoke in parables was so that only his elect would understand and believe, and those who didn't believe had a lesser condemnation placed upon them. So it was in part an act of mercy.

JOhn 8:43-47 ESV
43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

And the fact that they MIGHT have believed had the gospel been preached plainly proves that regeneration didn't need to precede their faith.

Not at all. This passage actually supports total depravity and supports the theology of the Trinity and the mercy of God.

As explained IF Jesus intended to bring them to faith they would have certainly come to faith because the Godhead works in harmony. IF Jesus did not intend to do that but simply intended to speak the gospel plainly they would have understood it and rejected it multiplying their condemnation.

Correct. The SAME "all" he has consigned to disobedience is the same "all" he shows mercy.

If he showed mercy to every soul ever then there would be no one in hell and universalism would be true, but that can't be the case because the bible is clear that hell is real and people will be there.

He is speaking of the mystery of the salvation of the Jews. He will have mercy on all nations and all nations have been consigned to disobedience.

Romans 11:25-32 ESV
25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27 “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

 

[Skandelon]

God works in a unified way. If Jesus was to speak to them plainly showing them clearly who he was with the intent to bring them to faith, then they would hav surely come to faith because the Holy Spirit would have regenerated them because of Christ's intent and Christ's intent would only have been because the Father had elected them. The entire Godhead works in harmony in salvation.

So, you are saying that because it was the Christ speaking, if He would have preached the gospel plainly they would have CERTAINLY been regenerated and come to faith?

If so, then why does it just say they "might"?

Second, why couldn't the Spirit just not "enable" or "draw" them to come as is the case in John 6:44? I mean, what makes the spirit "HAVE" to regenerate them, especially if they aren't elect?

Third, where does it explain this in scripture?

Now, had Christ, not intended to bring them to faith and simply plainly told them the plain understandable truth about himself then their condemnation would have been multiplied for their inevitable rejection of him.

First, how do you "multiply" their condemnation when its already certain burning in hell for eternity?

Second, are you saying Jesus is sparing them further condemnation by speaking in parables? If so, see question one.

Third, if their rejection is inevitable what would it matter if he hid or didn't hide the gospel in parables? And why does it say they "might have repented" had he not used parables?

So the reason Christ spoke in parables was so that only his elect would understand and believe, and those who didn't believe had a lesser condemnation placed upon them. So it was in part an act of mercy.

But, the elect understand because of regeneration, not because its not in parables...and non-elect wouldn't understand and accept it if was explained on a 3rd grade reading level. And again, what is a lessor being born condemned to burning in hell for eternity?

If he showed mercy to every soul ever then there would be no one in hell and universalism would be true, but that can't be the case because the bible is clear that hell is real and people will be there.

That begs the question by presuming that the mercy being shown is irresistible, which is a question up for debate. They perish because they reject the truth, not because the truth wasn't offered to them to freely believe.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

So, you are saying that because it was the Christ speaking, if He would have preached the gospel plainly they would have CERTAINLY been regenerated and come to faith?

If so, then why does it just say they "might"?

Indeed if Christ intends to save someone they will be saved because he never fails.

It doesn't say might. In Luke it uses the word "may" but not in the context of possibility but permission. Matthew doesn't use the word at all.

Second, why couldn't the Spirit just not "enable" or "draw" them to come as is the case in John 6:44? I mean, what makes the spirit "HAVE" to regenerate them, especially if they aren't elect?

If Christ were to intend to save them the Spirit would regenerate them because the were indeed elected by the Father. The Godhead works in harmony. The Spirit isn't going to effectually call anyone that isn't elect. Christ doesn't intend to save anyone that isn't elect. The Father elected the elect to adopt into his family the Son and the Holy Spirit cooperate in that plan.

Third, where does it explain this in scripture?

We see that that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work in harmony everywhere they are mentioned. They are three distinct persons in one divine being. There is no one verse that gives a detailed portrait of the Trinity but there are many that together reveal the doctrine.

First, how do you "multiply" their condemnation when its already certain burning in hell for eternity?

What happens in eternity is justice. We know that each will be judged according to their works. Some will have more condemnation than others. There will only be justice in hell, never injustice or unjustice.

Second, are you saying Jesus is sparing them further condemnation by speaking in parables? If so, see question one.

Yes, as usualy God does things for multiple reasons and speaking in parables is one of those things he does for multiple reasons.

Third, if their rejection is inevitable what would it matter if he hid or didn't hide the gospel in parables? And why does it say they "might have repented" had he not used parables?

As stated he didn't say "might" and it has been explained that there is less condemnation for those who are not exposed.

Romans 5:12-13 ESV
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

This shows that sin is counted. So there are some cases like speaking in parables that are an act of mercy to the reprobate.

But, the elect understand because of regeneration, not because its not in parables...and non-elect wouldn't understand and accept it if was explained on a 3rd grade reading level. And again, what is a lessor being born condemned to burning in hell for eternity?

The elect understand because they are reborn children of God. They understand if it is a parable or not a parable. I have already answered above.

That begs the question by presuming that the mercy being shown is irresistible, which is a question up for debate. They perish because they reject the truth, not because the truth wasn't offered to them to freely believe.

There are many reasons they perish. The perish because they are predestined to perish. They perish because they are evil. They perish because they reject the word. They perish because they are sinners. They perish because they are not holy....etc

So the conclusion is this:

1 Assuming the Jews who heard his voice were reprobate:

Christ spoke in parables because he did not intend to save those particular Jews yet he did not want to heap further condemnation upon their evil heads. So he was being merciful.

2. Assuming those Jews who heard his voice were elect:

Christ spoke in parables because it was not time for them to understand the gospel and be regenerated yet.

 

[Luke2427]

Sure, what post of yours have I not replied to? If I miss one, just point it out. I'm glad to respond.

No, no. You haven't missed any to my knowledge.

We just had some threads that were closed before we could hash them out thoroughly.

I was not saying you were avoiding anything. I don't see that as your practice at all.

I just wanted us to continue our useful discussion on the problem of evil and omniscience.

 

[kyredneck]

Ky—I’m trying to get my Father (whose an older gentlemen mind you) interested in theology, so I invited him to come check the BB out--- after doing so he told me one thing, & it was----- “I sure liked that Kentucky red neck guy’s name, he seemd like my kinda guy!”---I thought really of all the debates that go on that’s the one thing you took from it—lol—but I did think you might find that amusing.

LOL, that is funny. I'd druther he'd took some Sovereign Grace Theology though, but, who knows?

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

LOL, that is funny. I'd druther he'd took some Sovereign Grace Theology though, but, who knows?

He is a Bama “Roll Tide” fan—so you can’t expect 2 much from him---lol—(I went to Auburn btw)—

 

[rsr]

Gentlemen, I have tried to clean up this thread as best as I could to eliminate the name calling, personal attacks and backbiting, as well as discussion of who should or shouldn't be disciplined. If you have a complaint, report it to the moderators and administrators.

Please discuss the topic at hand.

 

[kyredneck]

Question

On the topic of parables:

25 These things have I spoken unto you in dark sayings: the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in dark sayings, but shall tell you plainly of the Father.
26 In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you;
27 for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father.
28 I came out from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go unto the Father.
29 His disciples say, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no dark saying.
30 Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? Jn 16

This was from the Farewell Discourse, so evidently He had used 'the parabolic method' to teach up untill the end. In verse 25 He says 'the hour cometh' when He would drop the parables and speak to them plainly. A 'mere' four verses later the disciples are remarking about how He was no longer speaking in dark sayings but was speaking plainly.

Question: In v 25, was 'the hour that cometh' intended to mean the short time span between vv 25 & 29? Or was Christ referring to an even later time?

 

[Skandelon]

On the topic of parables:

25 These things have I spoken unto you in dark sayings: the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in dark sayings, but shall tell you plainly of the Father.
26 In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you;
27 for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father.
28 I came out from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go unto the Father.
29 His disciples say, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no dark saying.30 Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? Jn 16

This was from the Farewell Discourse, so evidently He had used 'the parabolic method' to teach up untill the end. In verse 25 He says 'the hour cometh' when He would drop the parables and speak to them plainly. A 'mere' four verses later the disciples are remarking about how He was no longer speaking in dark sayings but was speaking plainly.

Question: In v 25, was 'the hour that cometh' intended to mean the short time span between vv 25 & 29? Or was Christ referring to an even later time?

He was clearly telling them about his "parabolic method," they still were not privy to the all the real mystery of the gospel. They believed in Him, but didn't really understand what was yet to be revealed through the coming of the Holy Spirit and His Gospel of reconciliation for the world. In fact, if you look earlier in that same chapter Jesus says,

"7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. 12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you."

This is a very important passage because it tells us what the Holy Spirit's coming accomplishes in our world that wasn't being accomplished before. He is CONVICTING the world of sin BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF. Conviction leads to humility and humility leads to faith in the one who can save. Until the gospel is sent into the world by the HS the Jews remained hardened to it and the Gentiles remained ignorant of it. It is not until the gospel goes into all the world that all men are being drawn to Christ. This is what I believe has lead to false interpretations of passages like John 6. The reason men can't come to Christ is not because they were born totally depraved. It is because they are hardened (Jn. 12:39-41) and have not received the gospel appeal to be reconciled to God. They haven't been sent the HS who is to come and convict the world of sin.

 

[Skandelon]

I just wanted us to continue our useful discussion on the problem of evil and omniscience.

What thread are you engaging in this discussion and I'll join you there? Meanwhile, feel free to engage this OP. I'm interested in your take on this question. Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

Indeed if Christ intends to save someone they will be saved because he never fails.

This is a form of question begging because it presumes that Christ is intending to irresistibly save someone, which is a point up for debate. At this time, Christ is intending to select a remnant of Israel to be his apostles to take the gospel of reconciliation to the rest of the world. The rest of Israel is being left in their rebellion (hardened). Once the gospel is sent and the HS comes to convict the world of sin, then He will draw all men to himself (through the means of the gospel). This drawing is not 'irresistible," but it is an appeal to be reconciled that must be received by faith. Understand?

It doesn't say might. In Luke it uses the word "may" but not in the context of possibility but permission. Matthew doesn't use the word at all.

Acts 28:27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Matt. 13:14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

Mark 4:12 so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "

These are the NIV, but this is also the word used in the Holman and the ASV says, "lest haply they should turn again." And the NAS says, " OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN."

Either way, the idea of the word "may" as giving permission betters support my view than yours any way, because what is the point in giving someone permission to do that which you are going to irresistibly draw them to do? You give them the permission by appealing to them to be reconciled. That appeal is being hidden in parables so as not to give them that permission YET.

What happens in eternity is justice. We know that each will be judged according to their works. Some will have more condemnation than others. There will only be justice in hell, never injustice or unjustice.

I'm not disputing this point, just asking for clarity and more info. What verse to you base the concept of "more condemnation" than eternal hell?

Yes, as usualy God does things for multiple reasons and speaking in parables is one of those things he does for multiple reasons.

Ok, you assert that Christ is speaking in parables to prevent further condemnation, yet the text itself tells us WHY he spoke in parables. So, they won't "repent and be healed." How do you support your assertion since it never says that is the reason in the text and instead says this?

The elect understand because they are reborn children of God.

That is what I just said about what you believe when I wrote, "the elect understand because of regeneration."

They understand if it is a parable or not a parable.

Exactly. So, in your view, they understand because they have been reborn (regenerated). But, then why did Jesus need to pull them aside and explain the parable?

He spoke in parables to keep Israel in darkness so they wouldn't believe and repent, because if they did repent and believe (as they do in great numbers in Acts 2 after Peter's sermon) they would have never crucified Him. He must keep them in darkness for a time.

So the conclusion is this:

1 Assuming the Jews who heard his voice were reprobate:

Christ spoke in parables because he did not intend to save those particular Jews yet he did not want to heap further condemnation upon their evil heads. So he was being merciful.

The problem for this view is that the text never says this is the reason he spoke in parables. In fact, it says the reason he spoke in parables is so they would not believe and repent unto salvation. You can't just dismiss that.

2. Assuming those Jews who heard his voice were elect:

Christ spoke in parables because it was not time for them to understand the gospel and be regenerated yet.

The problem with this view is that the Holy Spirit is not forced to regenerate the elect just because they clearly hear the gospel. Many believers hear the gospel for years and reject it only to come to faith later in life. Calvinists explain this by saying that God hadn't yet regenerate them...they weren't born again until they came to faith. So, if God wanted to keep the elect in darkness for a time he would just need to refrain from regenerating them. He wouldn't need to hide his message in parables or send "a spirit of stupor." He could just leave them in their natural "totally depraved" state.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

This is a form of question begging because it presumes that Christ is intending to irresistibly save someone, which is a point up for debate. At this time, Christ is intending to select a remnant of Israel to be his apostles to take the gospel of reconciliation to the rest of the world. The rest of Israel is being left in their rebellion (hardened). Once the gospel is sent and the HS comes to convict the world of sin, then He will draw all men to himself (through the means of the gospel). This drawing is not 'irresistible," but it is an appeal to be reconciled that must be received by faith. Understand?

As you know I disagree. I believe all men is all types of people. For "all men" to be every soul that ever lived then that would lead to universalism. It also is impossible given that we know that faith comes from hearing and there are and have existed in the past many people who lived and died without ever hearing the gospel.

Acts 28:27

Matt. 13:14

Mark 4:12

Acts 28:27 ESV
27 For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed;
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’

Matthew 13:14 ESV
14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.

Mark 4:12 ESV
12 so that
“they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.”

I prefer the ESV because of it's textual accuracy and readibility. The NIV is loose.

Here is a god link where you can try the various translations against the various greek manuscripts and the latin vulgate.

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/

Either way, the idea of the word "may" as giving permission betters support my view than yours any way, because what is the point in giving someone permission to do that which you are going to irresistibly draw them to do? You give them the permission by appealing to them to be reconciled. That appeal is being hidden in parables so as not to give them that permission YET.

God works salvation in only his elect. Any permision or logical work of salvation in them is always done in the harmony of the Godhead in the context of election.

I'm not disputing this point, just asking for clarity and more info. What verse to you base the concept of "more condemnation" than eternal hell?

We don't know a lot about hell. I showed you where sin is counted. You have seen that all will be judged by their works. What makes you think that hell is the same for everyone? The one thing we realy know about the punishment of the reprobate is that is it just, holy and good. All of heaven will rejoice in God's judgements becuase they are righteous.

Ok, you assert that Christ is speaking in parables to prevent further condemnation, yet the text itself tells us WHY he spoke in parables. So, they won't "repent and be healed." How do you support your assertion since it never says that is the reason in the text and instead says this?

As stated it's not black and white. There are a multiplicity of reasons for everything God does. As I told you if Jesus spoke the gospel plainly to them with intent to save them then they would repent and be healed because the Godhead works in harmony.

Since he did not do that it is apparent he did not want to save those at that time.

That is what I just said about what you believe when I wrote, "the elect understand because of regeneration."

If a person is elect a time will come during a gospel call when he is effectually called by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit that leads to faith and repentance that leads to life as a man is justified after repentance and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and adopted into the family of God after justification.

Exactly. So, in your view, they understand because they have been reborn (regenerated). But, then why did Jesus need to pull them aside and explain the parable?

He explained the parable because there is more to understanding than just understanding savingly. For a multitude of reasons God decreed that he would explain that to them because it is better that way.

He spoke in parables to keep Israel in darkness so they wouldn't believe and repent, because if they did repent and believe (as they do in great numbers in Acts 2 after Peter's sermon) they would have never crucified Him. He must keep them in darkness for a time.

As we spoke of before God in his plan of election has decreed that things be worked out correctly in time so they will all take place. So indeed that is a reason he didn't want them to embrace him at that point.

The problem for this view is that the text never says this is the reason he spoke in parables. In fact, it says the reason he spoke in parables is so they would not believe and repent unto salvation. You can't just dismiss that.

I didn't dismiss that. I explained the Godhead works in harmony a few times now. He spoke in parables because he did not mean to save them at that time. Many conclude, myself and John Macarthur among them, that he did that also to minimize the condemnation of the reporbates among them.

The problem with this view is that the Holy Spirit is not forced to regenerate the elect just because they clearly hear the gospel. Many believers hear the gospel for years and reject it only to come to faith later in life. Calvinists explain this by saying that God hadn't yet regenerate them...they weren't born again until they came to faith. So, if God wanted to keep the elect in darkness for a time he would just need to refrain from regenerating them. He wouldn't need to hide his message in parables or send "a spirit of stupor." He could just leave them in their natural "totally depraved" state.

That is why we believe that he spoke in parables as stated earlier, 1. That he didn't want to regenerate them and didn't want to tell them plainly who he was and what he was about because if he did that with intent to save it would of course happenand he didn't want that for many good reasons. 2. To limit the condemnation of the reprobates that were there.

That is the answer to your question.

 

[Skandelon]

As you know I disagree. I believe all men is all types of people. For "all men" to be every soul that ever lived then that would lead to universalism.

It would only lead to universalism IF you presume IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. Do you understand?

I want to clear this point before we move to the others.