Mistaken views held by Mainstream Believers

[Paleouss]

1. If you agree than natural, non-indwelt, lost people can hear and understand spiritual milk, then we agree, the lost have limited spiritual ability.

Thank you for your reply Van.

Regarding your #1 above, in general yes, I think we are in the same camp against the High Calvinist here. When we get into the weeds, we probably would find things we disagree on. But in general, I believe God sends certain opportunities for "spiritual milk" as "seeds" that the non-indwelt are then capable of understanding and "appraising" (seen in your three verses). This results in either acceptance and submitting (Jam 4:7, Num 14:11) or resistance and rejection (acts 7:51, Rom 13:2, 2Tim 2:8, Mark 7:9, Acts 13:46, 1Thes 4:8).

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Have a problem with the word foreknowledge Wesley?

God can be aware of all things and just have a total disregard to what happens, is that how you see God. Is He just some aloof God that yawns and says I have better things to do with my time?

I do not follow you thought. God is my Father because of His grace and love.

 

[Silverhair]

I do not follow you thought. God is my Father because of His grace and love.

Just trying to find out why you seem to have a problem with God's foreknowledge.

Foreknowledge is more that just being aware of something. Foreknowledge is future being aware of something is present or past. Do you see the difference?

God is gracious and loves all of His creation but He is not the Father of all of His creation.

We are a child of God because we received the free gift of salvation after we freely trusted in His risen son. By grace we are saved through faith.

Joh_1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

 

[Van]

Thank you for your reply Van.

Regarding your #1 above, in general yes, I think we are in the same camp against the High Calvinist here. When we get into the weeds, we probably would find things we disagree on. But in general, I believe God sends certain opportunities for "spiritual milk" as "seeds" that the non-indwelt are then capable of understanding and "appraising" (seen in your three verses). This results in either acceptance and submitting (Jam 4:7, Num 14:11) or resistance and rejection (acts 7:51, Rom 13:2, 2Tim 2:8, Mark 7:9, Acts 13:46, 1Thes 4:8).

I see you referring to "seeds" as if they were something more than "the word of the kingdom." That is all the gospel is, the good news, not the enabling grace for some. Your "certain opportunities" suggests something special, such as enabling grace to overcome "total spiritual inability."
That view, in my opinion is completely bogus. The word of God acts as a guide to lead the lost to Christ. Whether they fully accept the opportunity is up to them, and does not depend on some supernatural enablement for preselected folks.

 

[JesusFan]

Greetings again Van. I have been away for a little bit. Thought I would read what you wrote before church. Praise be to God.

Since my post was post #10, I'm assuming that all of the quoted paragraph above is regarding what I wrote. To be clear, what I have done in my post #10 is basically agree with you about your point #2, I think I'm agreeing anyway, that your stated #2 is false (I agree, it is false). Since I was basically agreeing with you, I didn't feel the need to address all your references. Those being, 1Cor 3:1 and the verse in Matthew regarding the soils.

In 1Cor 3:1, it seems reasonable, and correct, to interpret it as saying that Paul had to use spiritual milk, the kind used when speaking to the carnal, when first speaking to the those from the Corinthian church. Therefore, it follows that spiritual milk, i.e., the workings of the Spirit (because man is only the vessel of the message), is given to the carnal (as Paul suggests).

This reasoning in turn makes your #2 false (meaning you suggest your #2 is false and I agree).

Regarding Matt 13:18-23. Cleary it cannot be denied that the parable suggests that the carnal, to use verbiage from 1Cor 3:1, receive some spiritual milk in the form of using the word "seed". All receive this seed within the parable. Thus, all, as in all that literally hear, receive some kind of spiritual milk (aka a seed of truth). So again, this makes the phrase "the lost cannot understand any of the things of the Spirit of God"...false. At least how the High Calvinist wants to used it. This is where my analysis in post #10 comes into play in using the word "appraise".

Matt 13:18-23 does suggest, however, that God is the initiating acting agent in this scenario. God first sends this seed of truth, through His vessels and word, so that then man can be responsible for his part (because he was/is blind).

I didn't address your #1 because I'm not really interested in debating whether it's particular or corporate election. It seems to me that Particular election along with Surpralapsarianism demands that your #2 is correct (where you and I say it is false). Since I deny Supralapsarianism and assert a Postlapsarianism, it doesn't seem to logically follow that Postlapsarianism demands your #2 to be true (but again, Supralapsarianism does demand it).

In summery, I agree with your analysis of #2. And therefore, I disagree with the Calvinist. Regarding your #1, I disagree with the Calvinist that are Supralapsarians. This Supralapsarianism ultimately leads to them claiming your #2 (which we agree that your #2 is false).

Thank you for the conversation.


Peace to you brother

The Confessions would tend to this view of Gods decrees, as this is what I and a Majority of calvinists would hold with regrading this discussion
Infralapsarianism is a theological doctrine that describes the logical order of God's decrees, placing the decree of the "fall" (man's sinfulness) before the decree of "election" (God choosing who will be saved). It suggests that God's decree to create, permit the fall, and then elect some to salvation is a logical progression, with God's mercy in election being a response to the fall.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Logical Order:
  Infralapsarianism proposes that God's decrees are structured in a specific order. This order begins with the decree to create the world, followed by the decree to allow the fall of man, and then the decree of election (choosing who will be saved).
  
  
• • Relationship to the Fall:
    The decree to permit the fall is considered logically prior to the decree of election. This means God's decision to allow humanity to fall into sin is not a result of his election, but rather a separate decree that precedes it.
    
  • Emphasis on Mercy:
    Infralapsarians often emphasize that the decree of election is an act of mercy on God's part, a response to the universal condemnation brought about by the fall.
    
  • Contrast with Supralapsarianism:
    Infralapsarianism contrasts with supralapsarianism, which posits that God's decree of election precedes the decree to create and permit the fall.
    
  • Modern Calvinism:
    Most modern Calvinists and Reformed theologians tend to favor the infralapsarian perspective.
    
  • Example:
    An infralapsarian would say that God, in his eternal council, first decreed to create the world, then decreed to allow the fall of humanity, and then, in light of that fall, decreed to elect some to salvation.

 

[JesusFan]

Thank you for your reply Van.

Regarding your #1 above, in general yes, I think we are in the same camp against the High Calvinist here. When we get into the weeds, we probably would find things we disagree on. But in general, I believe God sends certain opportunities for "spiritual milk" as "seeds" that the non-indwelt are then capable of understanding and "appraising" (seen in your three verses). This results in either acceptance and submitting (Jam 4:7, Num 14:11) or resistance and rejection (acts 7:51, Rom 13:2, 2Tim 2:8, Mark 7:9, Acts 13:46, 1Thes 4:8).

Majority of us are Not "high calvinists" though

 

[Paleouss]

I see you referring to "seeds" as if they were something more than "the word of the kingdom." That is all the gospel is, the good news, not the enabling grace for some.

Good morning Van. I hope you are doing well. Many blessing in my life. Praise God for all things.

As an edit... I want to make sure that when I said "Regarding your #1" in post #61. You understand that I was referring to your #1 in post 60. Not your #1 in the OP.

The "word" is a light to our spiritual path (Psa 11:105), it is a light unto the world (John 8:12) it is the light unto spiritual truth. The word, which is the seed in Matt 13:19, is that which is "sown in his heart". That which is sown to the heart is a spiritual truth that was not there previously. The soil was incapable of having this seed of truth without it being sown.

Yes, the soil is capable of receiving that which is being sown (as in the heart is capable is receiving that which is being sown (unless it is hardened itself (rocky ground) and/or has been left to its own path (wayside)..soil #1)). But although it is 'capable' of receiving some spiritual truth...spiritual truth must be given (in this case, by the word).

Does not the light reveal...truth, knowledge, and understanding? Is not the light the revealing of life? And if we had not been given this light, i.e., the word. Would we all not be blind to God's truth (that is the word because it would not have been given)? And is it not true that the only reason the light was given to all mankind was because God is merciful? Was he compelled to give His word? Forced or obligated by what mankind might have been owed? After all these rhetorical questions, are we not saved by Grace alone because of His blood alone through faith alone? The first being required to be first, the second required to be before the last?

Clearly after all my rhetorical questions, above, it is clear that God must initiate reconciliation, must initiate the offer, must initiate the giving of light (which is the illumination of truth and knowledge through the word to the world). I hold that all mankind is "capable" (that is they have the capacity to receive truth). But mankind, although they may have the capacity, cannot appraise properly if not given light. Is this light not Grace?

Your "certain opportunities" suggests something special, such as enabling grace to overcome "total spiritual inability."

Well, by certain opportunities I meant opportunities to hear the word of God which the Spirit then uses to convict.

Yes, I think God is responsible for the light and the illumination of what mankind could not know if not shown. If you notice in Matt 13, the soil would not have sprouted fruit spontaneously. It took a sower and a seed (God sent both). Neither of which the soil had before he sower and the sowing. Neither of which the soil can come up with on its own.

I do think the Bible teaches that mankind is spiritually blind (this is everyone). However, what I also think is the Bible teaches that God overcomes this for all to some degree (speaking of the floor here, not the ceiling). Allowing spiritual light for all in some degree through His Grace (light). One way He sets the floor is by the giving of the word (notice I emphasized that He gave the word).

Obviously not all have the same spiritual depth and understanding, meaning all mankind. But although the ceiling may vary for each, which is God's good pleasure, the floor is consistent for all. Thus, all are given a degree of spiritual enlightenment (which is Grace).

Peace to you brother

The word of God acts as a guide to lead the lost to Christ. Whether they fully accept the opportunity is up to them, and does not depend on some supernatural enablement for preselected folks.

Considering that I agree with most all of this quote. It would appear that you have a preconceived understanding of my position that is not accurate. This may be from my lack of communication, I'm not sure at the moment.

Peace to you brother.

 

[Ben1445]

To be clear on what I am doing. I am making the distinction between (a) a call and (b) the actual point of salvation. My focus is on the call. The word “call” itself implies that God is the active agent. Before I can receive a call (prevenient or outward), I must be called.

I think also a lot of confusion could be cleared up by understanding what call is referred for when it is discussed. You are very clear here that the subject is a call to salvation.
I think often people hear the word call and associate it whenever they think it ought to be associated.
There are things that we are called to after salvation that should not be confused with a call to salvation.

 

[Van]

SNIP
The "word" is a light to our spiritual path (Psa 11:105), it is a light unto the world (John 8:12) it is the light unto spiritual truth. The word, which is the seed in Matt 13:19, is that which is "sown in his heart". That which is sown to the heart is a spiritual truth that was not there previously. The soil was incapable of having this seed of truth without it being sown.
SNIP

I am just address this point of your post. Here, again you seem to suggest "seed" is "sown" in his heart. Again you are using the parable illustrations, rather than the explanation. The "seed" is defined is Matthew 13:19.

“When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one sown with seed beside the road.​

Clearly the "seed" is the "word of the kingdom" and the sowing is the presentation of the word of the kingdom such that the person could hear it.
But if the person's heart has been hardened, they do not understand what they hear. Nothing supernatural is suggested or implied.

The Greek word translated "word" refers to "instruction" concerning salvation, i.e. spiritual milk. So some of the lost cannot understand spiritual milk. But the other three soils can!

 

[Ben1445]

I am just address this point of your post. Here, again you seem to suggest "seed" is "sown" in his heart. Again you are using the parable illustrations, rather than the explanation. The "seed" is defined is Matthew 13:19.

“When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one sown with seed beside the road.​

Clearly the "seed" is the "word of the kingdom" and the sowing is the presentation of the word of the kingdom such that the person could hear it.
But if the person's heart has been hardened, they do not understand what they hear. Nothing supernatural is suggested or implied.

The Greek word translated "word" refers to "instruction" concerning salvation, i.e. spiritual milk. So some of the lost cannot understand spiritual milk. But the other three soils can!

Not trying to change the subject, but I think Christians would be well served if they could recognize that the word of the kingdom is not limited to the gospel as it relates to salvation only. All of God’s Word directs the Christian in the kingdom and there are many believers who hear the Word on Sunday and are choked out by the cares of the world by the end of Monday if not Sunday.
There are indeed Christians who are fruitful and fruitless.
When the seed, the word of how we are to live as citizens of the kingdom, was sown at our ground by the preacher or by ourselves, what ground did the Word find. Was it prepared good ground or unkempt?

 

[Van]

Considering that I agree with most all of this quote. It would appear that you have a preconceived understanding of my position that is not accurate. This may be from my lack of communication, I'm not sure at the moment.

Here, you are addressing me, and saying I am not addressing your position. True, I am addressing the truth of scripture, and that "total spiritual inability" is false doctrine.

Did anyone say we believe before God's word is presented to us? Did anyone say God's word is not the work product of the Holy Spirit? All this change of subject insinuations are unnecessary.

The issue is that some falsely claim the lost must be supernaturally enabled to be led to Christ by the presentation of God's word. You have not said whether this is your belief, but I have said it is not my belief.

I point to Matthew 23:13 and say "irresistible grace" is false doctrine, as the people were entering thus having sufficient spiritual ability to be entering, yet were blocked, so they were not being irresistibly compelled.

I point to Matthew 13:19 and say "prevenient grace" is false because "soil #1" was unable to understand the gospel.

Prevenient grace is understood as universally available, enabling all individuals to have faith while leaving acceptance dependent on libertarian free will.​

 

[Ben1445]

Here, you are addressing me, and saying I am not addressing your position. True, I am addressing the truth of scripture, and that "total spiritual inability" is false doctrine.

Did anyone say we believe before God's word is presented to us? Did anyone say God's word is not the work product of the Holy Spirit? All this change of subject insinuations are unnecessary.

The issue is that some falsely claim the lost must be supernaturally enabled to be led to Christ by the presentation of God's word. You have not said whether this is your belief, but I have said it is not my belief.

I point to Matthew 23:13 and say "irresistible grace" is false doctrine, as the people were entering thus having sufficient spiritual ability to be entering, yet were blocked, so they were not being irresistibly compelled.

I point to Matthew 13:19 and say "prevenient grace" is false because "soil #1" was unable to understand the gospel.

​

Prevenient grace is understood as universally available, enabling all individuals to have faith while leaving acceptance dependent on libertarian free will. ​

Scenario,
A person is sharing the gospel with another.
The building across the street catches fire and there is a great disturbance in the street. Attention is lost and the thought of the gospel is lost.
The conclusion of your statement is that this person is not allowed to hear the gospel and so it was not universally and completely made available to him.
This is my understanding of your statement as applied to a real life hypothetical scenario.

Please correct any misunderstanding I have about what you said.

One could logically argue, which is not necessarily a profitable argument to undertake, that the fire was caused to prevent a person who was not allowed to hear the gospel.

I myself would say that the opportunity was there and was taken from him because his ground is not prepared to receive it. If he were interested enough, he would return to the conversation. ( this is also not meant to start any discussion about the moral obligation of responding to the fire. Let’s assume that the pair in question responded to the situation in the most perfect way possible, whatever that was)

 

[Van]

Not trying to change the subject, but I think Christians would be well served if they could recognize that the word of the kingdom is not limited to the gospel as it relates to salvation only. All of God’s Word directs the Christian in the kingdom and there are many believers who hear the Word on Sunday and are choked out by the cares of the world by the end of Monday if not Sunday.
There are indeed Christians who are fruitful and fruitless.
When the seed, the word of how we are to live as citizens of the kingdom, was sown at our ground by the preacher or by ourselves, what ground did the Word find. Was it prepared good ground or unkempt?

No problem in taking a side trip to assess the full scope of the phrase "word of the kingdom" as used in Matthew 13:19.

First the exact phrase only appears here, and is not found anywhere else is scripture. Now "the word of the Lord" or the word of God is found elsewhere and that I think is your view, i.e. the word of the kingdom refers to the word of God, with no narrowing of scope. I think otherwise, that only the gospel message is in view, for example, equivalent to the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23, 9:35 and 24:14).

 

[Van]

Scenario,
A person is sharing the gospel with another.
The building across the street catches fire and there is a great disturbance in the street. Attention is lost and the thought of the gospel is lost.
The conclusion of your statement is that this person is not allowed to hear the gospel and so it was not universally and completely made available to him.
This is my understanding of your statement as applied to a real life hypothetical scenario.

Please correct any misunderstanding I have about what you said.

One could logically argue, which is not necessarily a profitable argument to undertake, that the fire was caused to prevent a person who was not allowed to hear the gospel.

I myself would say that the opportunity was there and was taken from him because his ground is not prepared to receive it. If he were interested enough, he would return to the conversation. ( this is also not meant to start any discussion about the moral obligation of responding to the fire. Let’s assume that the pair in question responded to the situation in the most perfect way possible, whatever that was)

No, your scenario compares apples to orange. The lost have the ability to understand spiritual milk, unless that ability has been lost through the hardening of their heart, such as Soil #1, or Romans 11. It has nothing to do this externals, whether a person had an opportunity to hear, or whether the person was led astray as in Matthew 23:13. Prevenient Grace does NOT enable all individuals to have faith, as those with hardened hearts do not have that ability.

 

[Paleouss]

No problem in taking a side trip to assess the full scope of the phrase "word of the kingdom" as used in Matthew 13:19.

First the exact phrase only appears here, and is not found anywhere else is scripture. Now "the word of the Lord" or the word of God is found elsewhere and that I think is your view, i.e. the word of the kingdom refers to the word of God, with no narrowing of scope. I think otherwise, that only the gospel message is in view, for example, equivalent to the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23, 9:35 and 24:14).

So you are limiting "word of the kingdom" to just the message of God's reign and rule coming to earth. In other words, it's literally just the verbal message, i.e., the words.

 

[Paleouss]

Prevenient Grace does NOT enable all individuals to have faith, as those with hardened hearts do not have that ability.

Do you think that prevenient Grace was at one time available to those that currently have hardened hearts. That is, at one point they had an opportunity at a Prevenient Grace when their heart wasn't hard?

 

[Van]

So you are limiting "word of the kingdom" to just the message of God's reign and rule coming to earth. In other words, it's literally just the verbal message, i.e., the words.

Not what I said. Why run away from the topic, attributing obvious falsehood to me? I believe the word of the kingdom, as used in Matthew 13:19 means the same as "the gospel of the kingdom" as used in Matthew 423, 9:35 and 24:14.

 

[Paleouss]

Van, now I'm just asking questions so I might understand your position. I, at the moment, feel lost in what I thought you were saying. So I'm trying to back track and reform what I think you are saying.

I point to Matthew 13:19 and say "prevenient grace" is false because "soil #1" was unable to understand the gospel.

Do you think that the parable in Matthew 13:19 is speaking about only a one time event? That is, it seems to me that the parable of the sower is about many sowings and many sowers (not just one). So when I see soil #1, I see a soil that has previously received seeds and sowing. And has since hardened the heart against it and been left by God to the soils own wicked ways.

 

[Paleouss]

Not what I said. Why run away from the topic, attributing obvious falsehood to me?

Sorry Van. I am having a hard time understanding you. I'm honestly trying to make a lot of effort here to try and understand what you are saying. My post was more of a question than trying to pin something on you.

 

[Van]

Do you think that prevenient Grace was at one time available to those that currently have hardened hearts. That is, at one point they had an opportunity at a Prevenient Grace when their heart wasn't hard?

No, I have clearly said Prevenient Grace is false doctrine! Full Stop. I proved to anyone who reads scripture, that not everyone has the ability to have faith. They can loose that ability if their heart is hardened. Soil #1.

The lost, have limited spiritual ability, sufficient to understand spiritual milk, from the age of accountability, unless that ability is lost by the hardening of their heart.