One call...or two

[Allan]

Allan,

If there is a general call I think scripture reveals it to be that all men everywhere are called to repent (Acts 17:30). Unfortunately, I believe that all men everywhere are not capable of repenting. This is where you and I may disagree. I believe scripture teaches that only the elect will repent. Of course, I use the term "elect" from a distinctly Reformed view. For those who are not elect the Gospel is an "aroma of death."

Great, thank you for that.
I also realize there are distinctions in Reformed thought regarding the Calls and therefore my desire to know peoples understandings on them. We can deal individually as well as in general with the issue as it comes into being.

I like the fact you do not dismiss the other Call, even if you don't agree it is potentially there. I agree that men are incapable of repenting without the work of God upon them.. I don't know of any who disagree in my camp.. again, it is the mechanics we see different (to a degree) in operation and not the immutable truth of it.

Question for you if I may?
If the non-elect are called/commanded to repent just as the elect are, the question that must be asked if for what purpose/benefit are they to repent?
What good will it do them IF they do?

If the benefit is forgiveness, then is that not the same message of the gospel? If there is no benefit, why call/command them to do such?

From my perspective, God does not command we repent unless there is both a positive and negative in relation to the command. If we don't, a fearful judgement; If we do, a blessed Hope.

For me, I can not find where God ever commands any thing.. ie. like repentance.. with only a negative result (actually the same result) for either action (obedience or disobedience). Thus with call the non-elect to repentance.. if you do not repent - Condemnation; if you do repent; condemnation. (I realize they will not repent, but offer must have of itself something that establishes why repentance is important .. ie. a positive aspect).

2 Corinthians 2:14-16 14 But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. 15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?

So then, the general call is not an equal call.

I disagree this is dealing with or speaking to types of callings. In fact, from the text it is one call to all since it is the 'same fragrance' or the same message (the knowledge of Him [Christ]). Just because there are different results does not equate to the call not being equal.

Additionally, what needs to be looked at as well here and is important is to note the sweet fragrance spoken of is not the message but those giving the message among both the those being saved and those perishing. Who are the perishing.. they are of the same group that 'are being' saved.. those who are choosing (not disputing yet why they are choosing but that they ARE choosing.

Scripture states those will not repent will likewise perish, those who will not believe will perish, those who reject are condemned.. thus the statement of being is relating not to their nature regarding the call when it was offered but their nature in light of what they have done with the message.

 

[Skandelon]

Whereas those who hold to the doctrines of grace believe in the total depravity and total inability of the sinner, Arminianism teaches that the sinner is not completely fallen in his nature; there still remains both good and the capacity for good. Passages such as Genesis 6:5; Romans 3:10-23; and Ephesians 2:1 make such a position problematic.

Will you define what you mean by 'good' in this post?

Do you mean 'in accordance with God's command or desire?' Because many unbelievers follow the rules are do 'good things', as scriptures testify. Some even pay tithes and care for their family, etc.

OR

Do you mean 'meritorious' or 'deserving of salvation?'

 

[Allan]

Whereas those who hold to the doctrines of grace believe in the total depravity and total inability of the sinner, Arminianism teaches that the sinner is not completely fallen in his nature; there still remains both good and the capacity for good. Passages such as Genesis 6:5; Romans 3:10-23; and Ephesians 2:1 make such a position problematic.

Problem #1.. you are making the assumption those who are not completely in the Reformed thought are Arminian and thus making the assumption we all hold to Arminian views and how they come to them.

This is a big error and should be avoided and why I desired to address the topic in such a way that I can know what each person holds, while I also understand what the main view holds in general. We have already seen on here two distinctions for the gospel call as a definite dual call to all, and a definite single call with the potential a second calling might be possible. Yet both hold the same system of belief - Reformed.

 

[MorseOp]

Question for you if I may?
If the non-elect are called/commanded to repent just as the elect are, the question that must be asked if for what purpose/benefit are they to repent?
What good will it do them IF they do?

Man's purpose to is glorify God. Even the condemned glorify God in the sense that their judgment is proof that God cannot abide sin and will judge it. So, why present the Gospel to those whom God has not elected?

Philippians 2:9-11 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Part of the reason is that all creatures will confess that Jesus is Lord; even those who are judged because of unbelief. So, there is a judicial aspect to the Gospel.

From my perspective, God does not command we repent unless there is both a positive and negative in relation to the command. If we don't, a fearful judgement; If we do, a blessed Hope.

For me, I can not find where God ever commands any thing.. ie. like repentance.. with only a negative result (actually the same result) for either action (obedience or disobedience). Thus with call the non-elect to repentance.. if you do not repent - Condemnation; if you do repent; condemnation. (I realize they will not repent, but offer must have of itself something that establishes why repentance is important .. ie. a positive aspect).

The positive aspect applies to those whom God calls. One thing you do not see in scripture is God revealing to us who He has called and who He has not. That knowledge remains with God (Deuteronomy 29:29), and is not meant for us to know. God commands that the Gospel be preached. The minister of the Gospel is to preach it indiscriminately and without prerequisite.

I disagree this is dealing with or speaking to types of callings. In fact, from the text it is one call to all since it is the 'same fragrance' or the same message (the knowledge of Him [Christ]).

Additionally, what needs to be looked at as well here and is important is to note the sweet fragrance spoken of is not the message but those giving the message among both the those being saved and those perishing. Who are the perishing.. they are of the same group that 'are being' saved.. those who are choosing (not disputing yet why they are choosing but that they ARE choosing.

Scripture states those will not repent will likewise perish, those who will not believe will perish, those who reject are condemned.. thus the statement of being is relating not to their nature regarding the call when it was offered but their nature in light of what they have done with the message.

The only reason some are a sweet aroma is because of the positive work of the Gospel that works to their benefit. Why do some believe the Gospel and why do some not? Why did you believe and not your neighbor? I suppose you can say that you chose to believe, but we have already established that no sinner desires to believe, nor is capable. Something, or someone, has to change the status quo. Those that continue in unbelief, especially after being exposed to the Gospel, reject the same Gospel that others believe. I just happen to believe that all of us would follow their example if it were not for the intervening work of the Spirit through election, and its subsequent calling.

 

[Allan]

2) Sinful man cannot submit to God's law.

How is that proof that man cannot submit to God's grace? How is proof that we can't keep the law proof that we can't believe in the one who kept the law for us?​

I agree, but that is NEWS to the people of the first century. They felt as if they could attain righteousness by Law through works, which Paul clearly teaches them that they are TOTALLY UNABLE to do (there is your ONLY "Total Inability" in scripture), but on the other hand there is a righteousness being revealed from heaven which IS ATTAINABLE which is by Grace through Faith, which is not meritorious.

The first portion is a good question for the discussion as we progress.

I believe the later is a good statement regarding it as well.

Now I REALLY have to get off.. spent WAY to much time here.. sorry.
I will try to get back on in the next day or so

 

[MorseOp]

Problem #1.. you are making the assumption those who are not completely in the Reformed thought are Arminian and thus making the assumption we all hold to Arminian views and how they come to them.

This is a big error and should be avoided and why I desired to address the topic in such a way that I can know what each person holds, while I also understand what the main view holds in general. We have already seen on here two distinctions for the gospel call as a definite dual call to all, and a definite single call with the potential a second calling might be possible. Yet both hold the same system of belief - Reformed.

Allan, I understand your concern, and I certainly did not make my comment in order to be rude. It is my opinion that the opposite to the doctrines of grace is Arminianism/semi-Pelaganism. Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism are often used synonymously. The bottom line in determining one's stand on soteriology is whether God is completely sovereign in all aspects of salvation or whether man cooperates with God in salvation. If a person believes that man is not completely fallen then their de facto position is Arminian/semi-Pelagian. That is my opinion.

 

[Allan]

HEHEHE...Wife needs the vehicle.. I'm good for a bit longer and also working of Wednesday night study.. but I'm getting this and that mixed up now ...lol

Man's purpose to is glorify God. Even the condemned glorify God in the sense that their judgment is proof that God cannot abide sin and will judge it. So, why present the Gospel to those whom God has not elected?

This does not answer my question. For what purpose or benefit is it toward them to repent since God is calling them to do so?

You missed this question though and was curious about your thoughts on it:
"If the benefit is forgiveness, then is that not the same message of the gospel? If there is no benefit, why call/command them to do such?"

Part of the reason is that all creatures will confess that Jesus is Lord; even those who are judged because of unbelief. So, there is a judicial aspect to the Gospel.

I agree but that still does not answer my question posed above toward them (the non-elect) who are called to by God to repent?

The positive aspect applies to those whom God calls. One thing you do not see in scripture is God revealing to us who He has called and who He has not. That knowledge remains with God (Deuteronomy 29:29), and is not meant for us to know. God commands that the Gospel be preached. The minister of the Gospel is to preach it indiscriminately and without prerequisite.

I agree the gospel is commanded to be preached to all men because we do not know who is elect and who is not. However we are not speaking of who is elect and who is not but we are speaking of God in relation to His calling the non-elect to repent.

This goes back to my initial question

The only reason some are a sweet aroma is because of the positive work of the Gospel that works to their benefit.

Not some, all who proclaim.. it just happened to them, there, at that time

Yes, the gospel works to their benefit, and the gospel is a call to repentance, thus is the same message to the non-elect... therefore if the same message, both are offered the same benefit.

Why do some believe the Gospel and why do some not? Why did you believe and not your neighbor? I suppose you can say that you chose to believe, but we have already established that no sinner desires to believe, nor is capable.

No, we have not established, you have stated.. there is a difference.
And while I agree no man can come to know these things by himself, therefore no man of himself is able to believe because he doesn't know he needs to. The fact that man has no desire to believe is established in the fact he doesn't know he needs to. This again is established in the fact he has no knowledge or understanding of God due to his sin nature nor can he acquire this knowledge himself, so he is unable to believe.

However this does not necessitate man is 'unable' to believe at all, if say... God steps in (and on this I agree with you).

ANYWAY.. before we move into another area, I wish to maintain first the reason for the thread and refocus back there BEFORE we move into this area (Which I agree is of Great importance but the first needs to be established before we move into another area.)

So do you affirm the as Icon stated: The Gospel message is - offering the promise of life eternal in knowing Jesus

And do you affirm this is a message of repentance toward God?

And lastly, do you affirm this is the same message used to call the non-elect to repentance?

I just happen to believe that all of us would follow their example if it were not for the intervening work of the Spirit through election, and its subsequent calling.

If left to ourselves, yes.

 

[convicted1]

Allan, I understand your concern, and I certainly did not make my comment in order to be rude. It is my opinion that the opposite to the doctrines of grace is Arminianism/semi-Pelaganism. Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism are often used synonymously. The bottom line in determining one's stand on soteriology is whether God is completely sovereign in all aspects of salvation or whether man cooperates with God in salvation. If a person believes that man is not completely fallen then their de facto position is Arminian/semi-Pelagian. That is my opinion.

I would be lumped in the Arm/Pel/Semi-Pel group, but I aver that God is sovereign in salvation, and that I did nothing to merit it.


Just because I state that God called me, and I responded, doesn't allow me to boast one iota that it was I who saved me.


Just because I state that I humbled myself down when He crushed my hardened heart, doesn't mean I had anything to do with my salvation.


Just because I heard the gospel, and repented of my sins, doesn't mean I cooperated with Him.

Just because I say "I" doesn't meant I am pointing to myself for glory. "I" could not have been humbled down, answered the call, or heard the gospel, except He first call/draw me.


He saved me, and I glory in what He did, and not what "I" did.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I understand your concern, and I certainly did not make my comment in order to be rude. It is my opinion that the opposite to the doctrines of grace is Arminianism/semi-Pelaganism. Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism are often used synonymously. The bottom line in determining one's stand on soteriology is whether God is completely sovereign in all aspects of salvation or whether man cooperates with God in salvation. If a person believes that man is not completely fallen then their de facto position is Arminian/semi-Pelagian. That is my opinion.

I didn't take it as being rude. However your statement that Arminianism and semi-Pel as often used synonymously is only true regarding 'some' Reformed. In actuality they are nothing alike due to the fact that Semi-Pel holds that man must first comes to God and then God, when man realizes he can't make it completely, rewards man for his effort by saving him. Arminian view holds the direct and exact opposite in that God must first come to man and that salvation is a gift NOT a reward.

 

[MorseOp]

I would be lumped in the Arm/Pel/Semi-Pel group, but I aver that God is sovereign in salvation, and that I did nothing to merit it.


Just because I state that God called me, and I responded, doesn't allow me to boast one iota that it was I who saved me.


Just because I state that I humbled myself down when He crushed my hardened heart, doesn't mean I had anything to do with my salvation.


Just because I heard the gospel, and repented of my sins, doesn't mean I cooperated with Him.

Just because I say "I" doesn't meant I am pointing to myself for glory. "I" could not have been humbled down, answered the call, or heard the gospel, except He first call/draw me.


He saved me, and I glory in what He did, and not what "I" did.

I am sure you are as humble and desirous of giving God all the glory as your state. I do not doubt that for a moment. But whether you boast in your decision or not, the fact remains that if we bring anything to the table in salvation then we are cooperating with God. In other words our salvation pivots on something we must do. Salvation is then synergistic and not monergistic.

 

[convicted1]

I am sure you are as humble and desirous of giving God all the glory as your state. I do not doubt that for a moment. But whether you boast in your decision or not, the fact remains that if we bring anything to the table in salvation then we are cooperating with God. In other words our salvation pivots on something we must do. Salvation is then synergistic and not monergistic.

When God called and I answered, when I was humbled by Him, when I repented of my sins, after He showed me how vile I was, how is that cooperation? It took Him to call, convict, and convert me.

 

[MorseOp]

For what purpose or benefit is it toward them to repent since God is calling them to do so?

There is no benefit to the non-elect. Purpose? So that they will be without excuse.

While I believe their is a "general call" in the sense that all may hear, I do not believe there is a "free offer" of the Gospel to all since I believe only elect will believe. I think this answers most of your subsequent questions.

Yes, the gospel works to their benefit, and the gospel is a call to repentance, thus is the same message to the non-elect... therefore if the same message, both are offered the same benefit.

They are? I do not see that. I see only one Gospel that benefits the elect.

No, we have not established, you have stated.. there is a difference.
And while I agree no man can come to know these things by himself, therefore no man of himself is able to believe because he doesn't know he needs to.

It has nothing to do with knowledge, as in "no man of himself is able to believe because he doesn't know he needs to." It has to do with man's sin nature making him unable and unwilling (1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7). The sinner is spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1). There is a reason Paul used the word nekros to refer to the sinner's spiritual state. Someone that is dead is incapable of responding to any outside stimuli. Presenting the Gospel to a spiritually dead person is futile unless and until God changes their condition making them able to understand. It is the Reformed view that once that ability is granted (by God) the irreversible process of salvation has begun.

So do you affirm the as Icon stated: The Gospel message is - offering the promise of life eternal in knowing Jesus

No. The Gospel message is announcing, not offering. Only the elect can receive the offer.

And do you affirm this is a message of repentance toward God?

Repentance is part of the Gospel message.

And lastly, do you affirm this is the same message used to call the non-elect to repentance?

Yes. But I must add a qualifier. Only the elect are effectually called. The non-elect are commanded to do what they are unable to do. And lest that seem unfair we are all in that same category prior to God making us able to believe.

 

[MorseOp]

When God called and I answered, when I was humbled by Him, when I repented of my sins, after He showed me how vile I was, how is that cooperation? It took Him to call, convict, and convert me.

I am not saying it was. It is impossible to cooperate with God salvation. However, any theology that teaches man is not completely fallen, and totally unable without the divine intervention of God, advocates man cooperating with God in salvation. I thank God for a happy inconsistency among most in the Arminian camp.

 

[percho]

So...in this verse we see that God has predestined people who are spoken of as "called"....these same individuals who are predestined ,and called, are justified......:thumbs::thumbs::wavey::thumbs:



So...whatever this calling consists of...it does not include ...ALL MEN...... Does anyone see here that All men everywhere are predestined, called, justified, or glorified????

No and I repeat no, however I believe Christ died for all men therefore just what is this calling?

Luke 16:16 YLT the law and the prophets [are] till John; since then the reign of God is proclaimed good news, and every one doth press (forces himself) into it;

Christ died for all men. the passover
1st holy convocation day of unleavened bread-those now called, unleavened by the blood.
2nd holy convocation day of unleavened bread- ???
3rd holy convocation day - And they (120) were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
The beginning of Christ building his church. IMHO, How?
The feast of weeks, harvest, Pentecost, firstfruits - Romans 8:23 And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.

Are those not the same as spoken of in V28,29

Can we force ourselves into the kingdom of God? Or!
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Just what is the adoption in verse 23?

From Scripture4all.org interlinear Greek last part: And we ourselves in ourselves are groaning sonship awaiting the deliverance of the body of us.
Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1C15:50
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; J3:6

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. J3:7

and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. J3:6

They are being called out as a people for his name. Acts 15:15

What then.

Verse 16 After this: After I am through calling out a people for my name.

I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
4th holy convocation day. Maybe???

The kingdom of God

Next. 5th holy convocation day, again IMHO And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. Rev 20:1-3, Lev 16:

6th holy convocation day
Verse 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
7th holy convocation day - ???

OR

6th holy convocation day Romans 11;25,26 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

7th holy convocation day. Verse17 Acts 15 the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

 

[percho]

I am not sure whether it is man's purpose to glorify God or that it is that God can be glorified in man through redeeming and saving him. After all the Lamb was slain before the man was created and or sinned.

The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

 

[Skandelon]

No. The Gospel message is announcing, not offering. Only the elect can receive the offer.

You seem to contradict yourself. You say first that the gospel is "not offering," but then say the elect can receive the offer? How do they receive it as an offer if its only an announcement?

Plus, can you explain why Paul calls the gospel an 'appeal to be reconciled?' As my last post explained, it makes little sense to suggest that an appeal sent to an enemy can't be accepted because they are an enemy, which is ultimately what your argument for Total Inability has claimed.

 

[WITBOTL]

wow, sometimes this forum moves really fast and its hard to keep up!

I thought I would put this out there to take or leave:

In looking at some of the verses respecting “calling” I wonder if it would be useful to look at calling, not as a one time event (or two one time events) but as a continuum which has the gospel message as its beginning and glorification as its end. Or, more precisely say foreknowledge as its beginning as Rom 8:30 is an exposition of “called according to his purpose” of 8:28 The reason I say we should look at the call this way is that it consistent with scriptures speaking of us being called, and our calling and keeps in view that the call is not merely an invitation to be saved but is a call to, by, in, with and for.

While I see benefit in separating the outward call of the gospel from an inward aspect whereby the gospel becomes effectual, perhaps we should not go too far in separating them. The separation is made to distinguish between the called overwhelming spoken of in reference to the elect from the call of the gospel that goes out to all men but is not effectual for all men. However, it looks like a robust theology of calling can not limit the call to just the outward call of the gospel, OR the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration but spans from foreknowledge to glorification.

Looking this way then, and taking up the call at the point where the gospel goes out and following it to the point where the new birth is a reality I think that we can come to some agreement. Let’s see if we indeed do agree here:

The gospel call goes out through preaching and evangelism by imperfect men
The gospel as the Words of God is perfect, but it is through the “base things of the world” and the “foolishness of preaching where this word, this call goes out and there is a fallibility in the preaching of the gospel because of it.
The Holy Spirit must work in the message going out and this includes in the hearts and minds of men. This is due to the depravity in man (regardless of the degree of its totality understood) as a sin nature as well as the fallibility of the preacher.
Some to whom this message is sent forth receive it effectually in that they are put into a state whereby the finality of the call (glorification) is assured.
Some to whom this message is sent forth do not receive it effectually.
The difference in those who receive it effectually and those who do not is the new birth.
The Holy Spirit must work in those who receive it effectually.

I have tried to avoid controversial statements in this list, please let me know if I have not succeeded.


If in fact these statements are acceptable, then perhaps we can look more closely at what makes the call effectual, how it happens and is there an order to it etc. This is where I think we will find our disagreements.

I am suggesting that we (as hold to the Doctrine’s of Grace) can see the call as a single call in which those not elect have a part in as far as the message of the gospel is concerned as well as being recipients of the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, but ultimately no part in as the call is not effectual in them. Furthermore, I suggest that framed as above, the “Arminian” position can accept that there is a call that is effectual only to those who have put their faith in Christ and “the called” in scripture refers to these exclusively. We can speak of the “effectual call” in this way suitable to both sides.

In dispute concerning this call then would be:
The purpose of the call (from the continuum of foreknowledge through to glorification) only applies to the elect of God and the non-elect are never in view to glorification.
The gospel message has a two fold purpose: one of glorification for the elect and one of condemnation and damnation for the non-elect (through rejection of it, though condemnation is not predicated upon rejection but upon sin nature and sin)
The main point of contention with respect to the call (as I see it): is faith a fruit of the Spirit wrought by a work of regeneration, or is faith the fruit of man stimulated by prevenient grace of the Holy Spirit which results in regeneration. (I would love to find a civil way to approach this issue)



Also, can we not say that the call is not really an invitation as much as it is a summons closer to a command.

I am curious if either side of the debate likes/dislikes it framed in this way...

 

[Skandelon]

it looks like a robust theology of calling can not limit the call to just the outward call of the gospel, OR the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration but spans from foreknowledge to glorification.

What becomes confusing in this discussion (among other things) is that Calvinists readily refer to the work of Regeneration as being a 'work of the Holy Spirit,' as you did above, while at the same time seeming to forget that the spread of the outward Gospel appeal is likewise a gracious work of the Holy Spirit.

The Gospel was inspired by the Holy Spirit, preserved by the Holy Spirit, and proclaimed by those indwelled and compelled by the Holy Spirit. So, to suggest, as SOME Calvinists do, that the non-Calvinist believes that men can come to salvation apart from Gracious work of the Holy Spirit is unfounded (and confusing).

We both affirm the need of a powerful, gracious working of the Holy Spirit to enable a natural man to come to Christ, but please explain to us all why the powerful/gracious Holy Spirit work of sending the gospel is insufficient to enable a response? I find NO text of scripture which even suggests that the gospel appeal is lacking in this regard.

 

[MorseOp]

You seem to contradict yourself. You say first that the gospel is "not offering," but then say the elect can receive the offer? How do they receive it as an offer if its only an announcement?

I suggest you read my words carefully. There is an offering of the Gospel. The question is who that offering is made to.

Plus, can you explain why Paul calls the gospel an 'appeal to be reconciled?' As my last post explained, it makes little sense to suggest that an appeal sent to an enemy can't be accepted because they are an enemy, which is ultimately what your argument for Total Inability has claimed.

How did I explain it? What did I say vis-a-vis total inability?

 

[MorseOp]

Skandelon,

Please share with me your interpretation of the following three passages and whether there is a connection between them in any way:

Romans 8:7-8 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 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.

Ephesians 2:1 1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,