Mental assent vs. Understanding vs. Acceptance

[Skandelon]

"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.

Agreed.

But, it does say a little more than that..."18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

1. who suppress the truth by their wickedness [you have to know the truth in order to suppress it]
2. what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them [it is plain to them because of God's doing]
3. they knew God, [no, not intimately, but enough to acknowledge him as God in order to become intimate]
4. their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. [notice they weren't born that way, but 'became' that way]

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.

UNLESS it is 'spiritually discerned.'

Which the Good News has been. It was sent by inspiration to the Apostles for them to preach and write down for all to read, know and understand. You can't call that which the Holy Spirit has produced, preserved and proclaimed as not being spiritually discerned. Those things of God (the "deep things of God" vs 10) which have yet to be inspired (spiritually discerned) and written...(which in fact are being written down at that very moment Paul is writing his letter to Corinth) cannot be understood without special revelation, which is why Paul is writing and explaining it by inspiration of the Spirit. He is taking them from the milk to the meat as revealed in the following verses. (3:1-3)

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.

Enough for what? Enough to condemn them to hell? Seriously, I want to know what you think it is 'enough' for? Either it is enough for them to respond by acknowledging God or it isn't. Clearly, you believe it isn't, so what is the point of this argument? You say on the one hand they are without excuse because this general revelation is enough, yet on the other hand your doctrine teaches that general revelation isn't really enough to bring someone to a faith response in God. So, which is it? Is it enough or isn't it? If it is enough, what is it enough for since you clearly don't believe it is enough for a faith response.

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.

'Freely' defined as 'doing what one wants' is meaningless when what one wants is first ordained/decreed by their creator in such a manner that it couldn't be otherwise. There is nothing 'free' about that except your inappropriate use of the word.

No you don't, but if it makes you feel better. I'm curious though, what do you believe is more corrupt?

I showed you back on post #27

 

[kyredneck]

UNLESS it is 'spiritually discerned.'

Which the Good News has been. It was sent by inspiration to the Apostles for them to preach and write down for all to read, know and understand. You can't call that which the Holy Spirit has produced, preserved and proclaimed as not being spiritually discerned. Those things of God (the "deep things of God" vs 10) which have yet to be inspired (spiritually discerned) and written...(which in fact are being written down at that very moment Paul is writing his letter to Corinth) cannot be understood without special revelation, which is why Paul is writing and explaining it by inspiration of the Spirit. He is taking them from the milk to the meat as revealed in the following verses. (3:1-3)...

for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us -- those being saved -- it is the power of God 1:18 YLT
10 but to us did God reveal them through His Spirit, for the Spirit all things doth search, even the depths of God,
12 And we the spirit of the world did not receive, but the Spirit that is of God, that we may know the things conferred by God on us,
14 and the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know them, because spiritually they are discerned;
15 and he who is spiritual, doth discern indeed all things, and he himself is by no one discerned;
16 for who did know the mind of the Lord that he shall instruct Him? and we -- we have the mind of Christ. 2 YLT

You're saying the 'we' and 'us' here apply only to Paul and the apostles? Wow, you'll stop at nothing in order to discount the absolute necessity of the birth from above in order for the gospel to become the power of God to 'those being saved'.


3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;`
5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.`

because it is God who said, Out of darkness light is to shine, who did shine in our hearts, for the enlightening of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6

 

[Skandelon]

You're saying the 'we' and 'us' here apply only to Paul and the apostles?

No, I'm saying that Paul is addressing 'carnal' believers who can't accept these deep things of spirit either as reflected in the context of this passage, which goes on to say in the following verses:

"Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly--mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly."

Wow, you'll stop at nothing in order to discount the absolute necessity of the birth from above in order for the gospel to become the power of God to 'those being saved'.

Scripture teaches that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (new birth), yet you teach the power is in this new birth. You get the cart before the horse insisting men need to be 'saved' (reborn) first in order for the gospel to have any effect. That makes the gospel powerless to save, which contradicts scripture.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God

Right, and you wrongly interpret that to mean... "If any one may not be born from above, he is not able understand and accept God's appeal to be reconciled so that he might be saved and see the reign of God." That is an incorrect interpretation of this passage.

 

[jbh28]

Agreed.

But, it does say a little more than that..."18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

1. who suppress the truth by their wickedness [you have to know the truth in order to suppress it]
2. what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them [it is plain to them because of God's doing]
3. they knew God, [no, not intimately, but enough to acknowledge him as God in order to become intimate]
4. their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. [notice they weren't born that way, but 'became' that way]

Which is why man is without excuse. This has happened. God has revealed himself. That's why when we say that if God doesn't give the gift of faith, man cannot say that's an excuse because God has revealed himself. That's the point I'm making. I say man is without excuse because of Romans 1 and the reasons given in Romans 1. To nullify I Corinthians 2:14 by saying it would be an excuse is not true based on that God has revealed Himself though his creation thus making them without excuse.

UNLESS it is 'spiritually discerned.'

Which the Good News has been. It was sent by inspiration to the Apostles for them to preach and write down for all to read, know and understand. You can't call that which the Holy Spirit has produced, preserved and proclaimed as not being spiritually discerned. Those things of God (the "deep things of God" vs 10) which have yet to be inspired (spiritually discerned) and written...(which in fact are being written down at that very moment Paul is writing his letter to Corinth) cannot be understood without special revelation, which is why Paul is writing and explaining it by inspiration of the Spirit. He is taking them from the milk to the meat as revealed in the following verses. (3:1-3)

Without the Spirit, people will never understand. No one will be saved outside of the Spirit.

Enough for what? Enough to condemn them to hell? Seriously, I want to know what you think it is 'enough' for? Either it is enough for them to respond by acknowledging God or it isn't. Clearly, you believe it isn't, so what is the point of this argument?

Clearly I think it is enough for man to not have an excuse. But man still rejects God. Man is corrupt and though God has revealed himself, man continues to reject God.

You say on the one hand they are without excuse because this general revelation is enough, yet on the other hand your doctrine teaches that general revelation isn't really enough to bring someone to a faith response in God.

you mean the Bible. I have given the Bible. it is enough for man to know that there is a God and he's greater.

So, which is it? Is it enough or isn't it? If it is enough, what is it enough for since you clearly don't believe it is enough for a faith response.

What does the Bible say? God's revelation makes man with no excuse.

'Freely' defined as 'doing what one wants' is meaningless when what one wants is first ordained/decreed by their creator in such a manner that it couldn't be otherwise. There is nothing 'free' about that except your inappropriate use of the word.

No, God didn't make man to make evil decisions. That would make God the author of evil.

So here's where we are.

Man is without excuse because God has clearly revealed himself though his creation.(Rom 1) If you say man has an excuse, you are wrong unless you have a Bible passage to back it up. If man has an excuse because he is born depraved, while still having God revealed through creation, then show us the passage. If man has an excuse because he didn't receive the gift of faith despite the fact that god has revealed himself though creation, please give us the passage that says that.

 

[kyredneck]

....Scripture teaches that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (new birth),

I challenge you or anyone else to prove from scripture that sozo, 'saved', is synonymous with the birth from above. There's a couple places (at least) that it is used in the eternal sense, but by far it is in the temporal sense of deliverance from error and being brought into the fold, the kingdom, the Church, a covenant relationship with Christ.

'Those being saved' (1:18), literally, denotes an ongoing affair, not the one time abracadabra presto chango event that you gospel means folks interpret it to be.

Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee. 1 Tim 4:16

Are we to assume that neither Timothy or his flock were yet to be born from above? No, it denotes an ongoing affair, not the one time event that you gospel means folks interpret it to be.

.....work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. Phil 2:12,13

Are we to ssume that we are to work in order to be born from above? No, it denotes an ongoing affair, not the one time event that you gospel means folks interpret it to be.

......to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him: if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, Col 1:22,23

Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God`s goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. Ro 11:22

Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. 1 Cor 15:1,2

but Christ as a son, over his house; whose house are we, if we hold fast our boldness and the glorying of our hope firm unto the end...... for we are become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end: Heb 3:6,14

Are we to ssume that our birth from above is dependent upon our 'holding fast and continuing'? No, it denotes an ongoing affair, not the one time event that you gospel means folks interpret it to be. It also denotes that we CAN make shipwreck of our faith.

but hath now been manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2 Tim 1:10

The gospel does not impart life and immortality, it tells of it.

.... yet you teach the power is in this new birth. You get the cart before the horse insisting men need to be 'saved' (reborn) first in order for the gospel to have any effect. That makes the gospel powerless to save, which contradicts scripture.

The gospel (or the scriptures) has no power of it's own, if the Spirit is not present it's nothing but foolishness or dead letters on paper to those who hear or read.

Right, and you wrongly interpret that to mean... "If any one may not be born from above, he is not able understand and accept God's appeal to be reconciled so that he might be saved and see the reign of God." That is an incorrect interpretation of this passage.

You err again by willy nilly with a broad brush applying the eternal sense to 'sozo'. It requires a changed heart for one to perform the works of God, and that's exactly what believing on Christ is, a work of God.

 

[kyredneck]

No response to post #35?

 

[Skandelon]

Which is why man is without excuse. This has happened. God has revealed himself. That's why when we say that if God doesn't give the gift of faith, man cannot say that's an excuse because God has revealed himself.

Let me see if I'm understanding your reasoning here:

1. You affirm that God doesn't grant men faith to believe his revelation.

yet...

2. You affirm that God has revealed Himself to mankind enough for them to be without any excuse for their lack of faith?​

Is that accurate? I'll wait for a reply before moving on as this answer will affect the rest of the post... Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

No response to post #35?

I stopped reading after...

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.

If you think I believe (1) head knowledge is the only essential key to acquire eternal life and (2) the gospel means regeneration; then you have no more responded to my posts then I have yours.

 

[jbh28]

Let me see if I'm understanding your reasoning here:

1. You affirm that God doesn't grant men faith to believe his revelation.

yet...

2. You affirm that God has revealed Himself to mankind enough for them to be without any excuse for their lack of faith?​

Is that accurate? I'll wait for a reply before moving on as this answer will affect the rest of the post... Thanks

Has God given all men faith? No. Is man without excuse? of course because God has revealed himself through creation.

 

[Skandelon]

Has God given all men faith? No.

Has he given them ENOUGH revelation so as to believe he exists and acknowledge Him as God? Yes.

Is the Gospel ENOUGH of a revelation to make an appeal to be reconciled? Yes.

Faith cometh by hearing...

Is man without excuse? of course because God has revealed himself through creation.

Exactly, so why ruin that statement by also teaching that what is revealed is insufficient (not enough) for man to acknowledge God as God, refrain from 'trading the truth in for lies"... 'becoming defiled'...and "being given over to their lusts." ???

 

[jbh28]

Has he given them ENOUGH revelation so as to believe he exists and acknowledge Him as God? Yes.

Is the Gospel ENOUGH of a revelation to make an appeal to be reconciled? Yes.

Faith cometh by hearing...


Exactly, so why ruin that statement by also teaching that what is revealed is insufficient (not enough) for man to acknowledge God as God, refrain from 'trading the truth in for lies"... 'becoming defiled'...and "being given over to their lusts." ???

Where have I ever stated that it's insufficient "for man to acknowledge God as God? Even the devils believe that God is God. James 2:19.

However, my point still remains. You have falsely stated that we give man an excuse. This is false according to Romans 1.
Man is without excuse because God has clearly revealed himself though his creation.(Rom 1) If you say man has an excuse, you are wrong unless you have a Bible passage to back it up. If man has an excuse because he is born depraved, while still having God revealed through creation, then show us the passage. If man has an excuse because he didn't receive the gift of faith despite the fact that god has revealed himself though creation, please give us the passage that says that.

 

[kyredneck]

No response to post #35?

I stopped reading after...


If you think I believe (1) head knowledge is the only essential key to acquire eternal life and (2) the gospel means regeneration; then you have no more responded to my posts then I have yours.

What a cop out. OK, I'll eliminate the 'offensive' part so it doesn't hurt your lil' feelings so much. The fact is that the correct interpretation of Romans 1 & 2 totally blows the false premise of free will external means regeneration out of the water, which is what your whole war against sovereign grace is built upon.

"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."

 

[Skandelon]

Where have I ever stated that it's insufficient "for man to acknowledge God as God? Even the devils believe that God is God. James 2:19.

Now, the next step is for you to admit that such acknowledgement of God's existence (as opposed to trading that truth in for a lie) can lead to saving trust in the God who has been acknowledged.

However, my point still remains. You have falsely stated that we give man an excuse. This is false according to Romans 1.
Man is without excuse because God has clearly revealed himself though his creation.(Rom 1) If you say man has an excuse, you are wrong unless you have a Bible passage to back it up. If man has an excuse because he is born depraved, while still having God revealed through creation, then show us the passage.

That is like asking me, "Find a passage that says a Calvinistic view of total depravity contradicts scripture," but that assumes the Calvinistic view is true, which of course I reject. We both agree that Romans 1 teaches that men are without excuse. My argument is that this teaching is consistent with a non-Calvinistic soteriology, but not a Calvinistic one for the reasons I've already outlined.

If a man is born unable to really understand and willingly accept God's appeal to be reconciled, even when genuinely called by God Himself to do so, then that man has an excuse, period. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Now, you can argue that such excuses don't matter to God and appeal to Romans 9 or something, but you really can't deny that the non-elect reprobates of your system have a good excuse for never accepting God's revelation.

 

[jbh28]

That is like asking me, "Find a passage that says a Calvinistic view of total depravity contradicts scripture," but that assumes the Calvinistic view is true, which of course I reject. We both agree that Romans 1 teaches that men are without excuse. My argument is that this teaching is consistent with a non-Calvinistic soteriology, but not a Calvinistic one for the reasons I've already outlined.

Man is without excuse for a specific reason. God not choosing him is not one given. So anytime you say that, you are being unbiblical.

If a man is born unable to really understand and willingly accept God's appeal to be reconciled, even when genuinely called by God Himself to do so, then that man has an excuse, period.

Not according to Romans 1. You are directly contradicting Scripture here Skan. Directly.

That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Not according to Scripture. What are you basing this "fact" on. Otherwise it's opinion and an opinion that is false according to Scripture.

Now, you can argue that such excuses don't matter to God and appeal to Romans 9 or something, but you really can't deny that the non-elect reprobates of your system have a good excuse for never accepting God's revelation.

They do not have a good excuse. Sorry. But until you can back up your claim with Scripture, you are teaching something false.

 

[Skandelon]

Man is without excuse for a specific reason. God not choosing him is not one given. So anytime you say that, you are being unbiblical.

Fallacy: Argument from silence.

Surely you don't expect me to find a passage where the authors of scripture anticipated the error of Calvinistic teaching by making sure to write that God's not choosing to save a man wasn't an excuse, do you? :tonofbricks:

 

[jbh28]

Fallacy: Argument from silence.

No fallacy at all. It's very specific why man is without excuse. you are adding to it.

Surely you don't expect me to find a passage where the authors of scripture anticipated the error of Calvinistic teaching by making sure to write that God's not choosing to save a man wasn't an excuse, do you? :tonofbricks:

I expect you to find a passage that says that man has an excuse for his sinful nature despite the fact that God has clearly revealed himself though creating and that God said because he has clearly revealed himself though creation he is without excuse. So yes. So backup your excuse argument with Scripture.

 

[Skandelon]

This is the same merry go round no two different threads, so I'll leave it our discussion on the other one...

 

[Yeshua1]

Now, the next step is for you to admit that such acknowledgement of God's existence (as opposed to trading that truth in for a lie) can lead to saving trust in the God who has been acknowledged.


That is like asking me, "Find a passage that says a Calvinistic view of total depravity contradicts scripture," but that assumes the Calvinistic view is true, which of course I reject. We both agree that Romans 1 teaches that men are without excuse. My argument is that this teaching is consistent with a non-Calvinistic soteriology, but not a Calvinistic one for the reasons I've already outlined.

If a man is born unable to really understand and willingly accept God's appeal to be reconciled, even when genuinely called by God Himself to do so, then that man has an excuse, period. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Now, you can argue that such excuses don't matter to God and appeal to Romans 9 or something, but you really can't deny that the non-elect reprobates of your system have a good excuse for never accepting God's revelation.

You assume that mankind would actually want to have that 'free" choice to receieve jesus or not!

regardless if you hold to man born in original sin state as I do, or else choses to become a sinner...

One man has His sin state, he does NOT desire to come to God omn His terms, as that would require man to realise that its by grace ALONE gets saved, and we want to 'earn" it by our own works!

We cannot fault God for this, as he allows/permits us to do as we wish, all will be sinners, so its a miraclr and really garce that He chose to save ANY from this reprobate race!

it still seems that you are look for some type of 'fairness" or "justice' by the standards of Hopw we think it OUGHT to be done, while the Bible tells us the way god has chosen to have it done...

maybe its due to the fact that He could not actually it your way, the fall eliminated that possibility!