Adam.....made the choice for all that is. God entrusted Adam to choose for every one of us. Thus I fail to see how it is any less
(<------nice "word power" I think you call it) to believe
Than it is to believe:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Mental assent vs. Understanding vs. Acceptance
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
Adam.....made the choice for all that is. God entrusted Adam to choose for every one of us. Thus I fail to see how it is any less
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
No, I'm saying man is just as without excuse for rejecting God's revelation through the gospel as he is in rejecting His revelation through creation. Why? Because he clearly sees and understands the revelation. Calvinism's Total Depravity teaches man DOESN'T understand UNLESS the Holy Spirit provides some extra work of discernment (i.e. your reference to 1 Cor 2:14), which contradicts Romans 1 and provides men an excuse for their unbelief and unwillingness to accept.
Whoa, earlier you said they can't understand unless the Spirit discerns it for them??? Which is it?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Thus, you provide the PERFECT EXCUSE. "I couldn't receive it because I wasn't born of God...it wasn't granted by revelation."
You give unbelievers the perfect excuse for unbelief. I believe unbelievers are much worse than you do. I believe they were given all they needed to receive and accept God's revelation and thus stand without excuse. You have much too high a view of mankind.
Blame God for our lack of understanding then. He is the one who ordains what we come to understand and not understand so why do you fight Him? Any fight you get in is really against God because in your system it is all God's doing really. So, stop fighting God and just "BE."
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
No. They were bound over to blindness for two reasons. To accomplish redemption on the cross (it was the Jews who crucified Christ in their rebellion) and to make room for the Gentiles in the church (as they Jews wouldn't have readily accepted the dirty Gentiles into the church without making them follow the Law first). God 'cut them off' and 'grafted in the Gentiles' but...those who were 'cut off' might be provoked to envy and saved according to Paul in Romans 11:14. And they can 'leave their unbelief' and be grafted in again (vs. 14-31)
"He bounded all men over to disobedience so that he might have mercy on them all." Rm. 11:32
False. We believe that God has given man enough (Romans 1:20) anything else you say is an excuse is false. Romans 1:20 says they are without excuse BECAUSE God's eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen. THAT'S why. God has revealed himself yet man still rejects. thus he is without excuse.
Skan, Romans 1 says they are without excuse. We can't go to other places of Scripture and say that an interpretation is not correct because it gives man an excuse. Romans 1 says they are without excuse because we have clearly seen that God is divine and God's eternal power. That's why man is without excuse. God is the one that saves. He could save everyone but doesn't. Do we say man has an excuse for being in hell because God didn't save him? No, of course not! God could have not allowed sin in the first place(like it will be in heaven) Does that give man an excuse? No, of course not. Has everyone that has ever lived heard the gospel? No. Does that give man an excuse? No, not according to Romans 1:20. We can always divert from the Scriptures and come up with excuses, but that's not the biblical way of doing it. I Cor 2:14 says what it says. We don't change its meaning because we feel it would give man an excuse.
We do not have a higher view of man than you. We view man as corrupt and depraved.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Enough for what? Enough to live, die and go to hell? Calvinism doesn't believe God has given the non-elect anything except DAMNATION due to the Fall. You can't get around that no matter how you sugar coat it. Those are the facts of the matter. They are born dead and without hope and will stay dead and without hope, period. End of debate, end of discussion. Paint that hopeless fact into whatever pretty picture you'd like to paint it, but those are the cold hard facts.
Not as corrupt and depraved as I believe they are.
It is much worse to be genuinely loved, chosen and gracious provided all that is needed for your salvation by our creator God, but freely chose to reject those things than to be born unchosen, unloved (salvifically), and not provided all that is needed, and just doing what your inborn nature dictated that you must do.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Which is worse:
Criminal 1: Commits a crime and is rightfully convicted to the death penalty. The Governor hates him, doesn't choose to pardon him, and doesn't provide any measure of mercy. The criminal likewise despises the Governor.
Criminal 2: Commits a crime and is rightfully convicted to the death penalty. Despite his crime, the Governor loves him, chooses to provide pardon on the condition that he repents, provides mercy and all that the criminal needs to find freedom and reconciliation. The criminal freely chooses to reject every appeal of the Governor and hates him all the more.
The second criminal is clearly mored depraved and worthy of sever punishment.
Criminal 1: Commits a crime and is rightfully convicted to the death penalty. The Governor hates him, doesn't choose to pardon him, and doesn't provide any measure of mercy. The criminal likewise despises the Governor.
Criminal 2: Commits a crime and is rightfully convicted to the death penalty. Despite his crime, the Governor loves him, chooses to provide pardon on the condition that he repents, provides mercy and all that the criminal needs to find freedom and reconciliation. The criminal freely chooses to reject every appeal of the Governor and hates him all the more.
The second criminal is clearly mored depraved and worthy of sever punishment.
You wrote in the present tense:
The Jews are still not grafted in, they're still in unbelief. Are you saying Jews aren't judged eternally for their unbelief, but non-Jews are judged eternally?
I'm really confused.
You don't get to ignore the testimony of the Scriptures simply because they don't jive with your carnal sense of justice.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
The present tense was meant for the present day of scripture, as I was speaking about the context of the scripture. Sorry for the confusion.
There is much controversy and very little agreement on the issue of how long the Jews were judicially hardened. I agree with those scholars who believe the judicial aspect of hardening was finished once the crucifixion was complete. However, there is still 'self-hardening' where people are hardened in their traditions and sin...and Jews may be more prone to such hardening due to their embedded traditions.
Jesus said that once he was raised up he would draw all men to himself. After the Holy Spirit is poured out at Pentecost 2000 people (most, if not all, of which were Jews) came to Christ. These were the same people who cried "crucify him." In their hardened condition they cry crucify him, but once Christ is raised and the HS comes down they are drawn to Him.
Romans 11, says, " if they (the hardened Jews) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." Which indicates they can be grafted back in at any time.
There is much controversy and very little agreement on the issue of how long the Jews were judicially hardened. I agree with those scholars who believe the judicial aspect of hardening was finished once the crucifixion was complete. However, there is still 'self-hardening' where people are hardened in their traditions and sin...and Jews may be more prone to such hardening due to their embedded traditions.
Jesus said that once he was raised up he would draw all men to himself. After the Holy Spirit is poured out at Pentecost 2000 people (most, if not all, of which were Jews) came to Christ. These were the same people who cried "crucify him." In their hardened condition they cry crucify him, but once Christ is raised and the HS comes down they are drawn to Him.
Romans 11, says, " if they (the hardened Jews) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." Which indicates they can be grafted back in at any time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I guess you equate interpreting scripture differently than you with ignoring? Convenient and sad. :tear:
Your view doesn't jive with the biblical teachings of justice... or any rational/objective since of justice for that matter.
What does Romans 1:20 say?
Yes we do. don't pretend to believe something different. We both believe man is corrupt. We believe he is totally depraved. Unless you think man is as evil as he can be, you in no way believe man is more corrupt and depraved. What you said is just false.
Nice evasion, but you didn't respond to what I stated. Nothing you said has any biblical basis to it.
Here is what you ignored as part of your "excuse" argument.
Skan, Romans 1 says they are without excuse. We can't go to other places of Scripture and say that an interpretation is not correct because it gives man an excuse. Romans 1 says they are without excuse because we have clearly seen that God is divine and God's eternal power. That's why man is without excuse. God is the one that saves. He could save everyone but doesn't. Do we say man has an excuse for being in hell because God didn't save him? No, of course not! God could have not allowed sin in the first place(like it will be in heaven) Does that give man an excuse? No, of course not. Has everyone that has ever lived heard the gospel? No. Does that give man an excuse? No, not according to Romans 1:20. We can always divert from the Scriptures and come up with excuses, but that's not the biblical way of doing it. I Cor 2:14 says what it says. We don't change its meaning because we feel it would give man an excuse.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Romans 1 says they 'know God' and clearly see, and understand his divine attributes and eternal qualities. It says they understand God's revelation of himself. It says this is why they stand without excuse.
Calvinism says they can't even understand anything spiritual unless they are born again first. Calvinism says they can't know God or understand any of his attributes unless the Spirit discerns it for them. How do you all deal with this? You make up a different kind of understanding called 'mental assent' in which man can intellectual comprehend the truths, but not accept them. You redefine understanding to mean acceptance. You don't leave room for the fact that someone can understand ENOUGH to accept, but still choose to reject.
You said God gave them enough, but you never answered the question. Enough for what?
I know. I just believe unbelievers are more corrupt than you do, that's all.
I've quoted text after text supporting the fact that God loves, genuinely appeals for all men to come to him. He longs for them to come to him. For them to freely rebel against God's gracious provisions is FAR worse than for them to do as God ordained for them to do from birth, as you believe with the doctrine of total depravity.
I didn't ignore that part. I answered it clearly if you read what I said with an objective heart.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Then you don't understand the difference between general revelation (which was given to everyone and saved no one as you have already acknowledged) and special revelation (which saves those who believe). Where you cry "foul" is that God intervenes in the lives of His elect in a way that He doesn't intervene in the lives of everyone else, enabling them to come to faith when they otherwise wouldn't. You are essentially telling God that His show of mercy toward those He has chosen is not fair to everyone else.
Again, you are not understanding the difference between general and special revelation.
peace to you
raying:
I'm not speaking for the Reformed folks, but I'm fairly certain there would be general agreement with me amongst the PBs.
You're 'hung up' (as are Reformed people in general) on head knowledge, i.e. correct understanding as the key that is essential in order to acquire eternal life. This comes from your preconceived notion of gospel means regeneration. This is wrong. It's not about head knowledge, it's about the nature of the heart and the deeds that spring forth from it.
Throughout Romans, Jews and Gentiles are lumped together while contrasting them at the same time, especially in chapters one through three. Much of chapter one is condemning the idolatrous Gentiles, while much of chapter two condemns the self righteous Jews who judge the Gentiles from their law while being guilty of the same transgressions as the Gentiles who have not the law. But God is no respecter of persons, and it's not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law that are just before Him:
6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
11 for there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2
So then, it didn't matter whether one was of Abraham or not, or of the Mosaic Covenant and had been a hearer of the law or not. It mattered only what deeds you had done, whether they were good or evil, and these deeds came by nature of the heart. This is why the third chapter opens with the question:
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? 3:1
...which is answered here:
Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God. 3:2
who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 9:4,5
Take note, eternal life was NOT one of the advantages the Jew had over the Gentile.
Last edited by a moderator:
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
So God's invisible attributes have been clearly seen. And they are "his eternal power and divine nature." That's why man is without excuse.
I Cor 2:14 "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."
So Paul says that the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God.
Any quotes on that? That's a bit of a different wording. And one of my points. Romans 1 says that God's divine nature and his eternal power have been seen? Where? in the world. He created the world. Look all around you and you see God's power his creation. THAT's Why they are without excuse. The only reason is because God's eternal power and divine attributes are all around the world and are seen by everyone. So anytime you say that man has an excuse, you are wrong because the Bible says that God's creation is enough.
I would agree that God has called all men to repentance.
Men do freely rebel against God. (oh, I thought you believe man is more depraved). I've never met a Calvinist yet that believes that man doesn't freely rebel against God. But let's get back to your false "excuse" argument.
No you don't, but if it makes you feel better. I'm curious though, what do you believe is more corrupt?
You did ignore, but you did addressed it in the first part of this post.
You do realize this passage underscores the absolute necessity of regeneration BEFORE belief, don't you?
9 but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him.
10 But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.
12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man`s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words.
14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Cor 2
There is no having the mind of Christ or knowing the things that were freely given to us of God except the Spirit first gives it and reveals it to us.
I don't believe man can be saved without the working of the Spirit. I believe that man believes at the exact moment the man is regenerated. But that's not really our discussion as more of it being that it's the Spirit that does the work and without the Spirit no one is saved. (I cor 2)
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Revelation never saves anyone. We are saved by grace through faith. Faith in what? God... through what He Himself has chosen to reveal. What Rahab knew of God is much "less" than what Moses knew of God, yet they both made the "Hall of Faith" in Hebrews 11. Why? Because they believed in what level of revelation they had been given. Any level of revelation from God can lead to an acknowledgement of God, which can lead to further revelation and a faith response.
Not just 'wouldn't,' I think you mean 'couldn't.' Because according to Calvinism men must act in accordance with their nature and man's nature, due to the Fall, is unable to WANT to come to Christ even when invited by God to do so. So, 'wouldn't' in your system really means, "couldn't want to." Thus...the EXCUSE.
Well, since I don't believe as you do (that God preselected a relative few people to effectually save to the neglect of all the rest), then I'm not 'telling God' anything. I'm telling YOU that your view of God's mercy is flawed. His mercy is much greater than you think it is, his love is much greater than you think it is, his gracious provisions are much greater than you think it is.
AND I'm telling you that your view of the reprobate is much too kind. You believe they are just acting as they were born to act (totally depraved). I believe they are acting in genuine free rebellion to a loving, gracious God who has provided all they need for reconciliation. You give them the perfect excuse for their unbelief and rebellion....("I was born this way...I wasn't granted faith.") You give them the perfect excuse for their hatred of God....("I was hated by God...born to perish for His glory.")
You can sugar coat that however you'd like, but those are the facts of the matter.
Wow, that's what I thought I said.
[edited] to omit "I believe that man believes at the exact moment the man is regenerated." (that's NOT what I said)
Last edited by a moderator: