Let's hash out the distinction between Original Sin and Total Depravity.

[Skandelon]

Got swamped this week.
Let me ask the question this way. Do men possess the ability to receive the Gospel by nature like hearing men can respond to speech, or are they like deaf men who need their hearing restored in order to receive the Gospel?

Sounds like you are you asking if a man must be regenerated before he can receive the gospel and I think you know I have rejected that view of Calvinism...so I'm not sure why you keep asking.

Let's cut to the chase Aaron, we've been down this road before. We both believe God intervenes to brings about faith. You just believe that invention is irresistible (regeneration), whereas I believe the Gospel itself is God's means of intervention and is not irresistible, but it is sufficient for a response. You keep dismissing this issue as unimportant, remember?

If it is the former, then you're adding a pagan mystique to the preaching of the Gospel, where the mere hearing of the "words" by itself transforms an existing carnal trait into a spiritual one. Preaching is more like a sorcerer's incantation in your estimation than like the sowing of a field.

Do I need to quote all the verses again about the power of God's words? We are not talking about our words here, we are talking about God's inspired truth. "Truth shall set you free!" Words of God brought us into existence yet you think they carry no weight for us today??? I'm not talking about casting spells and reciting incantations here Aaron, and you know it. I'm talking about 'speaking the truth in love.' Jesus said, "The words that I speak to you are spirit and life," yet you want to dismiss those words as having no power? The burden is on you to show that words don't carry power since there are so many verses which indicate otherwise.

Does the seed contain the power to plow and till the ground and cultivate itself?

If I believe the seed worked alone that might be a decent argument, but remember I actually affirm the use of other means.

You still haven't told us what provoking men to envy would accomplish, as spoken of by Paul in Romans 11. What about signs and wonders? What about Thomas who saw and then believed? What about the countless circumstances of life which influence the soil and the seed? If you are going to speak using the analogy then be willing to consider all aspects of that analogy, such as what it was that hardened the soil on the path and caused the thorns in other locations. In your deterministic world view God must be viewed just as in control of the hardening of one soil as He is the softening of another, thus making the obvious point of the analogy virtually meaningless.

 

[Skandelon]

How can someone have the ability to respond to a message they have not heard? But I think what you are asking is if the ability to respond to the message is 'natural' (of the flesh) or 'spiritual' (of God). And the answer to that is the latter. Why? Because the the message itself is Spiritual and thus OF GOD, so any response to it is thusly spiritual in nature. The power is in the messenger and His message, not in the one hearing it. That is what makes it 'spiritual' in nature. That is why it baffles me when you accuse us of believing men redeem themselves or come to faith by the flesh. That makes no sense, when we clearly affirm that faith comes by a spiritual working...the gospel! "Faith cometh by hearing His WORD."

The mere ability of man to resist and rebel against that message doesn't make it less powerful (or non-spiritual) in nature.

It is like asking if it was within Jonah's ability to preach to Nineveh prior to being called to Nineveh, versus prior to spending three days in a fish.

He was always physically able to go preach to Nineveh, but no one would suggest that he would have 'naturally' (by his own flesh) just decided to go do that 'on his own' (which is equal to what you falsely accuse of us believing about free will in Salvation). Jonah had to be CALLED to go. After he was called to go to Nineveh was he then able to go? Of course. He CHOSE to rebel. Does that act of rebellion somehow prove God's call for Jonah to go preach was insufficient or powerless? No. It only goes to prove that God leaves room for a free response. Could God have snapped his fingers and magically changed Jonah's mind? Sure, but God doesn't work like that. He uses circumstances to persuade and convince men to change their minds....thus the storm and big fish. Now, after the three days in the fish, was Jonah able to rebel again and still refused to go? Sure, and maybe God would have either killed him and gotten someone else, or intervened in some other way to bring him to his senses. Either way, you have a parallel example of how God calls men to a response.

Aaron, by the way, you didn't deal with any of the content of this post. You just keep re-asking the same questions over and over as if I'm going to eventually give you the answer you want to hear.

Please deal with my explanations above avoid setting up straw-men.

 

[Aaron]

You just keep re-asking the same questions...

If you would give a straight answer, we could move on.

Do men possess the ability to receive the Gospel by nature like hearing men can respond to speech, or are they like deaf men who need their hearing restored in order to receive the Gospel?

What is it that the words of the Gospel changes about a man, that enables him to either receive or trade it for a lie? 25 words or less, please.

 

[Skandelon]

If you would give a straight answer, we could move on.

By 'straight' you mean like you want me to. Just because my answers don't fit into your pre-erected straw-man's suit doesn't mean I'm avoiding your question. Just deal with the actual answers instead of putting words in my mouth over and over to try to make our view sound preposterous. People see right through that...people with objectivity do anyway.

Do men possess the ability to receive the Gospel by nature like hearing men can respond to speech, or are they like deaf men who need their hearing restored in order to receive the Gospel?

The reason I'm not giving a simple 'this or that' reply is because you've posed the question in such a way to presume that my view is 'by nature like hearing men responding to speech,' when I just explained to you that the work of the Gospel is a WORK OF THE SPIRIT thus it is not a 'natural' interaction. My view is JUST LIKE YOUR VIEW except the intervention is not irresistible. How many times do I have to explain that? And how many times are you going to dismiss effectuality as being inconsequential to our discussion?

What is it that the words of the Gospel changes about a man, that enables him to either receive or trade it for a lie? 25 words or less, please.

It informs and empowers a response, as I already explained countless times.

Inform: "How can then know unless they hear?" - Paul

Empowers: "Faith comes by hearing..." "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation." - Paul

Prior to hearing the gospel they lack spiritual discernment of the mysterious truth that God loves them and is making the appeal for them to be reconciled through the work of His Son.

Aaron, again, it is really just like your view except I don't believe that men must be changed before the gospel can have an effect. I believe the gospel is the power, not some prior working. Why? Because that is what scripture says. The idea that God has to reconcile someone (make them new), so they can accept the appeal to be reconciled is a bit ridiculous. The appeal is sent to enslaved sinful enemies, not people already made new.

 

[Aaron]

Prior to hearing the gospel they lack spiritual discernment of the mysterious truth that God loves them and is making the appeal for them to be reconciled through the work of His Son.

Yes, and the high school freshman lacks the mathematical knowedge of the mysterious Pythagorean theorem that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse...

I don't believe that men must be changed before the gospel can have an effect.

Ignoring the contradiction in your statement, and going with your drift, I can say that neither does the highschool freshman.

So a man is not changed prior to receiving the Gospel. He accepted it under his own power, and according to his own will, and own love for the truth. Which means the only difference between him and one who doesn't accept it, is that the former is just a bit better.

You can't escape it. You must either have some sovereign, irresistible work of God in one's salvation, or one's election is based entirely on his merit.

 

[Amy.G]

.....to the square of the hypotenuse...

Oh great...now I'll be singing songs from The Pirates of Penzance all night. :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, and the high school freshman lacks the mathematical knowedge of the mysterious Pythagorean theorem that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse...

And because there is a parallel in acquiring knowledge of math with acquiring knowledge of God that somehow makes it invalid? You are attempting to diminish my view by drawing this parallel as if they are equal, but as I've explained countless times, there is a distinction. I know you like short answers, so I'll just defer to go back and re-read my previous responses as to what that difference is.

Ignoring the contradiction in your statement

Be specific, what was contradicted?

So a man is not changed prior to receiving the Gospel. He accepted it under his own power

ARRRGGGGG!

No, Aaron. <sigh>

One more time... THE GOSPEL IS THE POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION. It's not his OWN POWER!

When I say that man is not "changed" I was obviously referring to his being "regenerated." The Gospel changes men by (1) informing them of the truth and (2) empowering them to respond to that truth. In your system regeneration changes men, not the gospel. That is not biblical. The gospel is the means of change, but that is not irresistible.

I know you are an intelligent fellow, so I get the feeling you are just being purposefully aggravating. I could be misreading you but that is the only explanation I can come up with in light of how you are responding to me, so it may be best for me to leave it at that.

 

[Aaron]

(2) empowering them to respond to that truth.

What is that power? Is it faith? Is it life? Is it sight? Opposable thumbs? What?

What is the power with which one is endowed through the hearing of the Gospel? Did the hearing of the Gospel merely unlock a man's potential like the hearing of Pythagorean's Theorem, or did it add something to him that he did not have before?

A Calvinist can answer the question concisely in 25 words or less. So can an Arminian. Let's see if one can who is attempting to mingle the two incompatible systems.

 

[Aaron]

Oh great...now I'll be singing songs from The Pirates of Penzance all night. :laugh:

Or Martin's (of Frazier) version thereof...the scarey hippopotamus! :type:

 

[Winman]

What is that power? Is it faith? Is it life? Is it sight? Opposable thumbs? What?

What is the power with which one is endowed through the hearing of the Gospel? Did the hearing of the Gospel merely unlock a man's potential like the hearing of Pythagorean's Theorem, or did it add something to him that he did not have before?

A Calvinist can answer the question concisely in 25 words or less. So can an Arminian. Let's see if one can who is attempting to mingle the two incompatible systems.

The scriptures themselves explain what it is like.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

This is a picture of salvation. God has revealed himself through his word. His word begs us to be reconciled unto him. It is just as Jesus knocking on your door and asking entry. A man must simply be willing to open the door and invite him in.

Could the man be saved if Jesus did not come to the door first? No. Could a man hear unless Jesus knocked? No. But when Jesus does come to the door and knock, all the man has to do is open the door. It is a decision of the will.

God does not require us to do anything supernatural, God does all that is supernatural in salvation. He sends his word and convicts us of our sin. He tells us of Jesus who is ready and willing to save us if we are willing to receive him. All we have to do is say YES. When we do say yes to Jesus, when we open the door of our heart and invite him in, then the Holy Spirit comes in and supernaturally regenerates us.

Look, if we being spiritually dead cannot hear Jesus, then Jesus also cannot speak to us. You are limiting his power when you say Jesus must make us alive before we can hear and believe. Jesus has the power to speak to the dead, and the dead therefore have the ability to hear Jesus. And if the dead will hear and believe, then and only then are they made alive.

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Jesus said THE DEAD shall hear his voice, not the living. And he said "they that hear" (the dead) SHALL live. The verse proves the spiritually dead have the ability to hear and believe Jesus, and if they do they SHALL live.

 

[Darrell C]

A passage I believe to be relevant to this conversation, submitted for consideration (and critique...lol):



Hebrews 6

4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,


First let me say that the initial response to this passage concerning the context of the discussion at hand is going to be...I am pulling this out of context and proof-texting to make a point.

I can assure you, I am not.

Here we see men enlightened, "tasting" of the heavenly gift, and made partakers of the Holy Spirit.

When we look at this verse in the context of the passage and understand the writer's (and ultimately the Holy Spirit Himself) intent in writing to his brethren, we understand we are looking at a warning not to return to Judaism.

Can born again believers do that? I believe the answer is no, not in truth.

We see here the very work of the Spirit of God in the lives of unregenerate men, and what He does in order to bring them to a place where they can believe, repent, and turn to Christ for salvation.

Think of Judas, casting out demons and preaching the Gospel...how were these works performed in the life of one that would do exactly what our writer warns against here? Pretty obvious, isn't it? By the power of God, the Holy Spirit working in him.



5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,


That God has worked in the lives of these men that our writer warns is indisputable, as is also clearly seen in the previous verse, but what happens if...


6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


It is repentance they is said cannot be renewed, not salvation, and why is that? Just as in ch. 10, the sacrifice of Christ, their only hope...is rejected.

How can they "crucify the Son of God afresh?" Quite simply, because they are laying again a foundation which is forbidden them at the beginning of this chapter. This is not a reference to personal sin, but a return to the first principles that "crucified Christ in picture."


7For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

8But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

The earth is given as a picture of mankind. Here, his point is that the gospel is given to all men, but with differing results. And just as the herbs, thorns, and briars are no more involved in the rain coming upon them, neither is man involved with the work of the Holy Spirit which convicts the unregenerate of sin, rightousness, and judgment.

All men are in need of Christ, and they are moved to belief through the work of the Holy Spirit, apart from this work, they cannot believe.

And apart from being in Christ, which is Who the Holy Spirit testifies, they cannot have life.

God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Skan,

1The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

2Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
3To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

4An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.


Skan......if plowing is considered as a neutral activity..or even a good work....why are we told the plowing of the .....wicked.......is sin?

] Why can this person be called "wicked"?

] Why when He plows is it sin?

 

[agedman]

Got swamped this week.
Let me ask the question this way. Do men possess the ability to receive the Gospel by nature like hearing men can respond to speech, or are they like deaf men who need their hearing restored in order to receive the Gospel?

If it is the latter, then the work of the Spirit in the preaching of the Gospel is a simple enabling, like a temporary opening of the ears. It's still an irresistible work of grace, you've just reduced it to something that doesn't save.

If it is the former, then you're adding a pagan mystique to the preaching of the Gospel, where the mere hearing of the "words" by itself transforms an existing carnal trait into a spiritual one. Preaching is more like a sorcerer's incantation in your estimation than like the sowing of a field.

Does the seed contain the power to plow and till the ground and cultivate itself? Can pearls transform swine? You say yes, because the seed and the pearls are "powerful," by which you mean magical. But the testimony of the Scriptures is that the seed must fall on ground which the husbandman has prepared beforehand, and swine will trample pearls under their feet.

This is an excellent post, Aaron.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[agedman]

The scriptures themselves explain what it is like.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

This is a picture of salvation. God has revealed himself through his word. His word begs us to be reconciled unto him. It is just as Jesus knocking on your door and asking entry. A man must simply be willing to open the door and invite him in.

NO!!!!!!! It is NOT a "picture of salvation!!!!!!!!


Some would grab at ANY verse and apply it to what it was never meant to mean.

Look in the context. John is recording what Christ is saying to THE CHURCH in the ancient city of Laodicea. Christ is talking to the SAVED not the lost. Christ is telling the SAVED that their need is exactly opposite of what they think. That he is knocking on THEIR door. NOT the unsaved heart!!!

If you think that I am wrong - prove it by the context of the passage.

Because you miss applied the Scriptures to claim what it was not intended to support, the rest of the argument fails.

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Jesus said THE DEAD shall hear his voice, not the living. And he said "they that hear" (the dead) SHALL live. The verse proves the spiritually dead have the ability to hear and believe Jesus, and if they do they SHALL live.

Again, you are taking a Scripture out of the original meaning.

Dead - are those who are dead, physically - examples found in every graveyard.

When and why shall the dead hear? When Christ speaks for them to "come forth" - example Lazarus.


This passage is NOT referring to the unsaved and the saved.

 

[convicted1]

NO!!!!!!! It is NOT a "picture of salvation!!!!!!!!


Some would grab at ANY verse and apply it to what it was never meant to mean.

Look in the context. John is recording what Christ is saying to THE CHURCH in the ancient city of Laodicea. Christ is talking to the SAVED not the lost. Christ is telling the SAVED that their need is exactly opposite of what they think. That he is knocking on THEIR door. NOT the unsaved heart!!!

If you think that I am wrong - prove it by the context of the passage.

Because you miss applied the Scriptures to claim what it was not intended to support, the rest of the argument fails.




Again, you are taking a Scripture out of the original meaning.

Dead - are those who are dead, physically - examples found in every graveyard.

When and why shall the dead hear? When Christ speaks for them to "come forth" - example Lazarus.


This passage is NOT referring to the unsaved and the saved.

Per John Calvin?

Look, there would be no need for Jesus to be knocking on the door, desiring to come in to one of His own. He said He would be with us all the way, even to the end of the world. If He is knocking, wanting to come into sup with one of His own, that would make Him on the outside looking in.

 

[OldRegular]

NO!!!!!!! It is NOT a "picture of salvation!!!!!!!!


Some would grab at ANY verse and apply it to what it was never meant to mean.

Look in the context. John is recording what Christ is saying to THE CHURCH in the ancient city of Laodicea. Christ is talking to the SAVED not the lost. Christ is telling the SAVED that their need is exactly opposite of what they think. That he is knocking on THEIR door. NOT the unsaved heart!!!

.

I have heard the above passage from Revelation misused for many years. I believe you are essentially correct!

 

[preacher4truth]

Revelation 3:20 is not an invitation for the lost to be saved. Its context does not support this. I know, many here want to argue against this, that's OK too, you're just simply mistaken.

Many church people have heard this used through the years as such, but this familiarity doesn't change the fact that the context doesn't support such an application, nor can this change it's opriginal meaning or context. You may get goose bumps hearing it presented as salvific, but this doesn't mean it's presented truthfully, it simply means it supports what you always thought it meant.

 

[Amy.G]

I just read Albert Barne's commentary on Rev 3 and I agree with him that it is speaking to both saved and unsaved. The church at Laodicea was on the verge of death. They were so repulsive to God that He wanted to vomit them out of His mouth.
There were some in the church that were nothing more than professing Christians and there were some who had lost their love of God and the brethren.
Jesus stands on the outside of this church because both groups are in need of Him. Some need salvation and some need to repent.

I would post the commentary, but it's long and I doubt anybody would read it.

 

[convicted1]

I just read Albert Barne's commentary on Rev 3 and I agree with him that it is speaking to both saved and unsaved. The church at Laodicea was on the verge of death. They were so repulsive to God that He wanted to vomit them out of His mouth.
There were some in the church that were nothing more than professing Christians and there were some who had lost their love of God and the brethren.
Jesus stands on the outside of this church because both groups are in need of Him. Some need salvation and some need to repent.

I would post the commentary, but it's long and I doubt anybody would read it.

I agree. If Jesus is standing on the outside of His body wanting to come in, something's wrong.

 

[agedman]

I just read Albert Barne's commentary on Rev 3 and I agree with him that it is speaking to both saved and unsaved. The church at Laodicea was on the verge of death. They were so repulsive to God that He wanted to vomit them out of His mouth.
There were some in the church that were nothing more than professing Christians and there were some who had lost their love of God and the brethren.
Jesus stands on the outside of this church because both groups are in need of Him. Some need salvation and some need to repent.

I would post the commentary, but it's long and I doubt anybody would read it.

I am of the opinion that the Laodiceans were the most problematic to God.

If they were unbelievers, then they would be "cold" - that is without the Holy Spirit and therefore it is improbable that they would be claimed as lukewarm.

But, carnal, and just caring enough through emotional and psychological manipulation that the average believer never realized the real presence of the work of the Holy Spirit would be more likely.

This church is (as is in our time) too shallow to stand in the judgment of God as He sifts each church. He finds nothing of real value in its doctrine and its stand against sin is without strength. This church does not with stand the evil of this world, rather seeks no limit of inclusion and agreement in impressive desires never to make the ungodly "uncomfortable" and rather bring shame upon themselves rather than suffer the rebuke of the cross. It is so that one can scarcely separate the world from the assembly.

This is the last of the representative churches spoken to by Christ for the next event is the great and terrible tribulation.


I think Laodicean is the direction of the modern churches throughout the world.