One call...or two

[percho]

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.

I assume you mean this verse.

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Maybe he is doing that through the format I laid out in my post.

 

[Skandelon]

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,

All three of these passage are communicating basically the same message, which is...

Natural man, if left to himself, (1) cannot please God, (2) cannot understand things of the Spirit of God, and (3) cannot make themselves alive UNLESS enabled by an act of Grace. But praise be to God, man is not 'left to himself,' and God's gracious work, through means of His Bride, is sent into all the world. God steps into humanity, dies for their sin, is resurrected to new life, and inspires a powerful appeal for reconciliation sent to everyone of His enemies. Is that work sufficient to enable his enemies to respond? I believe so. Nothing in the scriptures suggests it isn't. In fact, Christ himself says that man will be judged by that message (John 12:42) and thus there is NO rational reason to suggest that men are incapable of willingly responding to it.

Notice that not one of the verses you list even mentions the gospel, yet these are the three most referred to text to support the Calvinistic concept that man is unable to willingly respond to the gospel.

Romans 8 refers to man's inability to submit to God's law, not his inability to respond to God's gracious appeal for reconciliation. And it tells us that acting in the flesh won't ever please God, it never suggests that acting otherwise once confronted by Grace isn't possible.

1 Cor 2:14, simply tells us that we need help understanding the things of the Spirit, which we all affirm, but does such help have to be effectual for God to get the credit for helping? If so, why?

And in Ephesians, were it speaks of being dead in our sin, should we also conclude that since corpses can't respond positively to the gospel appeal that they likewise can't respond negatively to it too? And since elsewhere Paul also concludes that believers are 'dead to sin,' so does that mean Christians can't choose to sin? And doesn't James (ch 1) use the analogy of spiritual death to describe someone who has grown hardened over a period of continual rebellion, and not as a condition from birth? Plus, if the Gospel is, as reported in scripture, a powerful life-giving truth, then why conclude that 'spiritual death' prevents a response to such a powerful work of God?

Men are born enemies of God, thus God sends an appeal for reconciliation
Men are born unable to understand God, thus God sends supernaturally inspired messengers and breathed scriptures
Men are born dead in sin, thus God sends a life giving message of hope
Men are born slaves to sin, thus God sends truth which sets men free​

Why do Calvinists insist God's work in sending the Gospel is insufficient to enable men to respond willingly? And please don't quote John 6, because the gospel hadn't been sent yet...and the truths of the kingdom where being hidden from Israel in parables as they were being blinded from the truth of who Christ was. It was ONLY after Christ was lifted up that he sent his appointed messengers with the gospel appeal to preach to every creature. That is when he begins the work of drawing all men to himself.

 

[Bronconagurski]

All three of these passage are communicating basically the same message, which is...

Natural man, if left to himself, (1) cannot please God, (2) cannot understand things of the Spirit of God, and (3) cannot make themselves alive UNLESS enabled by an act of Grace. But praise be to God, man is not 'left to himself,' and God's gracious work, through means of His Bride, is sent into all the world. God steps into humanity, dies for their sin, is resurrected to new life, and inspires a powerful appeal for reconciliation sent to everyone of His enemies. Is that work sufficient to enable his enemies to respond? I believe so. Nothing in the scriptures suggests it isn't. In fact, Christ himself says that man will be judged by that message (John 12:42) and thus there is NO rational reason to suggest that men are incapable of willingly responding to it.

Notice that not one of the verses you list even mentions the gospel, yet these are the three most referred to text to support the Calvinistic concept that man is unable to willingly respond to the gospel.

Romans 8 refers to man's inability to submit to God's law, not his inability to respond to God's gracious appeal for reconciliation. And it tells us that acting in the flesh won't ever please God, it never suggests that acting otherwise once confronted by Grace isn't possible.

1 Cor 2:14, simply tells us that we need help understanding the things of the Spirit, which we all affirm, but does such help have to be effectual for God to get the credit for helping? If so, why?

And in Ephesians, were it speaks of being dead in our sin, should we also conclude that since corpses can't respond positively to the gospel appeal that they likewise can't respond negatively to it too? And since elsewhere Paul also concludes that believers are 'dead to sin,' so does that mean Christians can't choose to sin? And doesn't James (ch 1) use the analogy of spiritual death to describe someone who has grown hardened over a period of continual rebellion, and not as a condition from birth? Plus, if the Gospel is, as reported in scripture, a powerful life-giving truth, then why conclude that 'spiritual death' prevents a response to such a powerful work of God?

Men are born enemies of God, thus God sends an appeal for reconciliation
Men are born unable to understand God, thus God sends supernaturally inspired messengers and breathed scriptures
Men are born dead in sin, thus God sends a life giving message of hope
Men are born slaves to sin, thus God sends truth which sets men free​

Why do Calvinists insist God's work in sending the Gospel is insufficient to enable men to respond willingly? And please don't quote John 6, because the gospel hadn't been sent yet...and the truths of the kingdom where being hidden from Israel in parables as they were being blinded from the truth of who Christ was. It was ONLY after Christ was lifted up that he sent his appointed messengers with the gospel appeal to preach to every creature. That is when he begins the work of drawing all men to himself.

What about this verse from Acts? Acts 13:48 (NET1)
48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began to rejoice and praise the word of the Lord, and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed.
On one hand they were appointed for eternal life from God's point of view. From man's side, they believed the gospel. I can't explain that, yet there it is.

 

[WITBOTL]

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.

Skandelon, when you say "the spread of the outward Gospel appeal is likewise a gracious work of the Holy Spirit" are you speaking of the Holy Spirit in the men spreading the Word and the Holy Spirit as he had worked in the inspiring of that Word? In other words you can take this view and deny that the Holy Spirit is operating directly on the heart with (and using) the Word that goes out If this is the argument then I would take issue with it not because I deny that the Holy Spirit is involved in the inspiration of his Word and in the moving of men to spread that Word but because I believe the operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart is necessary for one to be saved. As I understand it, many (most?) of those who do not hold to the Doctrines of Grace DO hold to a present operation of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men through and with the gospel as well.

Please explain to us all why the powerful/gracious Holy Spirit work of sending the gospel is insufficient to enable a response?

I understand this is in dispute, but one of the ways I am led to this conclusion is that there are men who do not believe in that operation of the gospel going forth, and I cannot see anything within man himself that accounts for why Person A believed and Person B did not. Sometimes, the most unlikely and surprising man repents and believes and the one you'd expect (humanly speaking) remains dead in sins. If you think about it, if it comes down to merely a choice, it is a kind of absurd choice if you have all the facts. Let me see, eternal life, eternity with Saviour, Adoption by God, Friendship with God etc. vs. (granted) the pleasures of sin for a season (if you have the facts this one loses its lustre pretty quick), eternity without God, eternity in torment etc. etc. All things being equal there would be none who would reject this proposition.

I am driven to a perspective that suggest that why I am saved and many in my extended family are not is that God gave me grace (ie. favour I don't deserve) that he did not give to them. He gave me an understanding that he did not give to them. He gave me a heart to understand that he did not give to them. He gave me faith to believe that he did not give to them etc. I say it is that grace that has made the difference. I say that grace is the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in my heart.

So, to bring this back to the call, if the call went out to me and them, it was effectual in me, and not in them. My view is that the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in me is what made the difference, produced faith in me, produced repentance in me. I believe he drew me particularly with intention as a lost sheep that he already knew.

When he says "depart from me for I never knew you" I believe the flip side of that is "come unto to me for I always knew you.

 

[MorseOp]

All three of these passage are communicating basically the same message, which is...

Natural man, if left to himself, (1) cannot please God, (2) cannot understand things of the Spirit of God, and (3) cannot make themselves alive UNLESS enabled by an act of Grace. But praise be to God, man is not 'left to himself,' and God's gracious work, through means of His Bride, is sent into all the world. God steps into humanity, dies for their sin, is resurrected to new life, and inspires a powerful appeal for reconciliation sent to everyone of His enemies. Is that work sufficient to enable his enemies to respond? I believe so. Nothing in the scriptures suggests it isn't. In fact, Christ himself says that man will be judged by that message (John 12:42) and thus there is NO rational reason to suggest that men are incapable of willingly responding to it.

Notice that not one of the verses you list even mentions the gospel, yet these are the three most referred to text to support the Calvinistic concept that man is unable to willingly respond to the gospel.

Romans 8 refers to man's inability to submit to God's law, not his inability to respond to God's gracious appeal for reconciliation. And it tells us that acting in the flesh won't ever please God, it never suggests that acting otherwise once confronted by Grace isn't possible.

1 Cor 2:14, simply tells us that we need help understanding the things of the Spirit, which we all affirm, but does such help have to be effectual for God to get the credit for helping? If so, why?

And in Ephesians, were it speaks of being dead in our sin, should we also conclude that since corpses can't respond positively to the gospel appeal that they likewise can't respond negatively to it too? And since elsewhere Paul also concludes that believers are 'dead to sin,' so does that mean Christians can't choose to sin? And doesn't James (ch 1) use the analogy of spiritual death to describe someone who has grown hardened over a period of continual rebellion, and not as a condition from birth?

The Gospel does not have to be mentioned in order for sinful mans condition to be rightly diagnosed. Sinful man is spiritually dead according to Ephesians 2:1. There are consequences to being dead. The primary consequence is the absence of life; the absence of being able to act in any capacity. Paul was writing about the prior spiritual state of the Ephesian believers. They were dead to the things of God. To underscore their spiritual inability, Paul elaborates on their need for a radical change in the status quo:

Ephesians 2:4-7 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead [f]in our transgressions, made us alive together [g]with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

1. Motivated by love, the Father made us alive together with Christ. This He did while were were still spiritually dead.

2. He blessed us as joint heirs with Christ and seated us in the heavenly places (c.f. Ephesians 1:3; 1:11).

He elaborates even more about how this is accomplished:

Ephesians 2:8,9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

You wrote, " Notice that not one of the verses you list even mentions the gospel, yet these are the three most referred to text to support the Calvinistic concept that man is unable to willingly respond to the gospel."

If Ephesians 2 does not mention the word "Gospel" it certainly infers it! How else is salvation conferred if not by the hearing of the Gospel; and how can a spiritually dead person hear spiritual truth unless God enables them?

Skandelon, I hope you believe me when I say that I am not trying to avoid your questions. I have taken great care to answer most of them to the best of my ability. What I see plainly in the text, you do not. I suppose the converse is also true. We are both ruled by our presuppositional approach to scripture. It is the way we see things. I see sinful man us unable and unwilling; unwilling and unable. If presented with the Gospel he cannot respond. I see this plainly in the text. I do not need to see the word "Gospel" in the next sentence because I know the ramifications of spiritual death. I see the totality of Ephesians 2 dismissing the notion that spiritual death does not have a Gospel context.

I did not address the other two passages I originally quoted because they culminate here in Ephesians 2.

I am not trying to shut down the debate, but this where we start going in circles; repeating the same things over and over again. I honestly do respect your opinion even if I do disagree with it. By respect I mean that I consider you to be an honest man who has studied his own position and is convinced of it. Better that than to buy into a system in which you have no skin in the game.

The doctrines of grace attempts to see man in his rightful place and God in His, as scripture reveals them.

Now, if I am honest with myself I have to state there is only one real call. In Reformed parlance we call that the effectual call. The general call is not effectual to all, and therefore is not really a call. It is more of a pronouncement. It has no benefit to the non-elect. So, what keeps me from lacking evangelistic zeal? The fact that God commands the Gospel to be preached. We dealt with this in another thread; the one where a few of us (me included) blew our tops. There is no great honor for the preacher than to proclaim the Word of God. Since the word for "gospel" (euangellion) means "good news"; and the scripture says, "How lovely on the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news, Who announces peace And brings good news of happiness, Who announces salvation, And says to Zion, “Your God reigns!” (Isaiah 52:7); the preacher should proclaim it as though it is lovely. The manner in which it is preached does not make the message greater or worse, it displays the deep affection that God has for His own word, and that preacher should have as well.

 

[Skandelon]

What about this verse from Acts? Acts 13:48 (NET1)
48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began to rejoice and praise the word of the Lord, and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed.

Israel is a nation, right?

Is Gentiles a nation? Obviously not. It just means, "non-Jew." Right?

The Gentiles are made up of MANY nations...Samaritans, Philistines, Egyptians etc etc etc.

Which of these nations did God appoint to eternal life? Which of these nations did God grant entrance into his covenant of Grace? As many as believed.

If you read all of Acts 13 you will see the extensive discussion about nations. Israel and the Gentiles and how the Jews are rejecting the gospel. In fact, in just two verses prior it says, " Then Paul and Barnabas boldly said: "It was necessary that God's message be spoken to you first. But since you reject it, and consider yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles!"

Which of those Gentiles nations were "worthy" of eternal life? Those who don't reject it, like the Jews did. Again, this is obviously speaking generally because the apostles are Jewish, so too when it talks about the Gentiles nations being appointed and believing it is speaking in general terms and not about individual salvation. (there are also explanations about the various uses for the word 'appointed' but this interpretation seems viable as well considering the context)

 

[Bronconagurski]

Israel is a nation, right?

Is Gentiles a nation? Obviously not. It just means, "non-Jew." Right?

The Gentiles are made up of MANY nations...Samaritans, Philistines, Egyptians etc etc etc.

Which of these nations did God appoint to eternal life? Which of these nations did God grant entrance into his covenant of Grace? As many as believed.

If you read all of Acts 13 you will see the extensive discussion about nations. Israel and the Gentiles and how the Jews are rejecting the gospel. In fact, in just two verses prior it says, " Then Paul and Barnabas boldly said: "It was necessary that God's message be spoken to you first. But since you reject it, and consider yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles!"

Which of those Gentiles nations were "worthy" of eternal life? Those who don't reject it, like the Jews did. Again, this is obviously speaking generally because the apostles are Jewish, so too when it talks about the Gentiles nations being appointed and believing it is speaking in general terms and not about individual salvation. (there are also explanations about the various uses for the word 'appointed' but this interpretation seems viable as well considering the context)

I get the Jew/Gentile thing, as God was in the process of showing the Jews that the gospel was for all men. Wonder what would have happened if the Jews didn't reject the message? But I digress. I looked up the Greek word the Net Bible translated as appoint, and here all are the ways it is used in the NASB:

Matthew 28:16 (NASB)
16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 13:48 (NASB)
48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 15:2 (NASB)
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 22:10 (NASB)
10 "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 28:23 (NASB)
23 When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romans 13:1 (NASB)
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Corinthians 16:15 (NASB)
15 Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints),

It seems to me that appointed is the correct translation. Designated, determined or set would still imply election. Devoted or established really doesn't make as much sense in the context.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, when you say "the spread of the outward Gospel appeal is likewise a gracious work of the Holy Spirit" are you speaking of the Holy Spirit in the men spreading the Word and the Holy Spirit as he had worked in the inspiring of that Word?

Yes, and the Holy Spirit's work in first bringing the gospel to mankind through divine inspiration. The dispersion of the gospel appeal to all the world, through the means of the church, is a WORK of God! It is God in Christ reconciling the world to himself and we have been given the ministry of reconciliation.

In other words you can take this view and deny that the Holy Spirit is operating directly on the heart with (and using) the Word that goes out If this is the argument then I would take issue with it not because I deny that the Holy Spirit is involved in the inspiration of his Word and in the moving of men to spread that Word but because I believe the operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart is necessary for one to be saved.

But words, especially the true words of God, do work on the heart. Jesus said, "...the very words I speak to you are spirit and life." What do you suppose that means? Words have power...or I should say that HIS words have power and yes he works on the heart, but he does so through the means of the WORD.

As I understand it, many (most?) of those who do not hold to the Doctrines of Grace DO hold to a present operation of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men through and with the gospel as well.

I believe the Holy Spirit works on the heart through the means of HIS WORD, as do most scholars...some even Calvinistic (look up 'gospel regeneration' to see what I mean)

I understand this is in dispute, but one of the ways I am led to this conclusion is that there are men who do not believe in that operation of the gospel going forth, and I cannot see anything within man himself that accounts for why Person A believed and Person B did not.

Can you see anything within a believer that accounts for why Person A accepts Calvinistic theology and Person B doesn't? We are free moral creatures who make free moral choices. Why does one choose to murder, molest and eat children and another become a case worker that helps children? Is it God, or man? Men are FREE and held to account for their choices. The actor determines his act. A chooser determines his choice. And to define what, beside the agent himself, determines his choices is to presume a deterministic response is necessary, which I do not.

I am driven to a perspective that suggest that why I am saved and many in my extended family are not is that God gave me grace (ie. favour I don't deserve) that he did not give to them.

Don't you realize that you just gave them an out? You just gave them the perfect excuse for not believing and turning to God for repentance. To suggest that those who go to hell are there because there is something God didn't give them that he gave you is simply unfounded. He gave them all they needed but they reject it and that is why they perish. Don't give them an excuse for their rebellion against the gospel. They have everything they need to be saved. Nothing is keeping them from salvation save their own unbelief.

So, to bring this back to the call, if the call went out to me and them, it was effectual in me, and not in them. My view is that the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in me is what made the difference, produced faith in me, produced repentance in me. I believe he drew me particularly with intention as a lost sheep that he already knew.

Well, I have no problem giving all credit to God while still placing full blame on mankind for their rejection of Christ's appeal. Why? Because I don't believe a gift has to be effectually applied for the giver to receive full credit for giving it. In fact, I think God should get credit for making salvation possible for those family members who reject it. He should get credit for that grace too. He held out his hands to them despite their unwillingness and rebellion (Rm 10:21; Matt. 23:37)

 

[WITBOTL]

Which of those Gentiles nations were "worthy" of eternal life? Those who don't reject it, like the Jews did. Again, this is obviously speaking generally because the apostles are Jewish, so too when it talks about the Gentiles nations being appointed and believing it is speaking in general terms and not about individual salvation.

Skandelon,

perhaps I am misunderstanding you, in Acts 13:48 which gentile nations heard, which gentile nations were glad, which gentile nations glorified the word of the Lord? All gentile nations did not hear in this verse, but individual gentiles did. It must be as many of the Gentiles that heard this as were ordained to eternal life believed. The promises are no longer just for the house of Israel, but to all men everywhere. Nevertheless, in Acts 13:48 it is individuals hearing and believing... It is not "when the gentile nations heard" it is "When the Gentiles heard" which gentiles? The ones spoken of in v 44 "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God"

 

[Skandelon]

The Gospel does not have to be mentioned in order for sinful mans condition to be rightly diagnosed.

If your comparing the severity of that condition with the power of its potential cure, it most certainly does.

Sinful man is spiritually dead according to Ephesians 2:1. There are consequences to being dead. The primary consequence is the absence of life; the absence of being able to act in any capacity.

I address this in the post you quoted, but you didn't address those arguments, so I'll just refer you back to them...

1. Motivated by love, the Father made us alive together with Christ. This He did while were were still spiritually dead.

Yes, but by what means? What means are said to be powerful and life-giving? His Word!

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John 20:31​

Notice that it is the WORD that enables faith and by believing one may have life. Not the other way around. Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rm 10)

So, I agree that God made them alive, but he does so by sending his word so that they might believe and by believing may have life, not by some secret inward irresistible working. God works through means.

How else is salvation conferred if not by the hearing of the Gospel;

My point exactly!

and how can a spiritually dead person hear spiritual truth unless God enables them?

He can't unless God inspires it, preserves it and sends it, which PRAISE GOD, He does! (Rm 10). What may cause confusion is that He hides these truths from Israel for a time; he 'cuts them off'; he hides it in parables lest they repent; he sends them a 'spirit of stupor' (Mark 4; Matt 13; John 12:39-41; Acts 28:21-28; Rom 11). This is the judicial hardening of Israel, which if people are not familiar, could cause confusion about the issue of inability...

If presented with the Gospel he cannot respond. I see this plainly in the text. I do not need to see the word "Gospel" in the next sentence because I know the ramifications of spiritual death.

Believe it or not, I understand. I used to believe and teach the exact same thing. I was a 5 pointer for about a decade of my life and I used to see it the exact same way you do now, but I challenge you to reconsider and vet your current views. Now, to me this argument sounds like this: A cancer patient can't be cured by the new cancer antidote because he has cancer. You seem to think that proving men are born dead, slaves and enemies of God somehow proves that the very means sent by God to cure those conditions is insufficient to do so.

I honestly do respect your opinion even if I do disagree with it. By respect I mean that I consider you to be an honest man who has studied his own position and is convinced of it.

And I you! :thumbsup:

The doctrines of grace attempts to see man in his rightful place and God in His, as scripture reveals them.

I can make a strong argument that your view actually gives mankind too much credit....more so than my view does. I think your view gives unbelievers justification for their unbelief, whereas my view gives them absolutely no excuse. Your view teaches that men ultimately don't believe and repent because God didn't grant them what they needed. My view says that God did graciously grant them all they needed and they rebelled in the face of God's provision and grace. Unbelievers in my system are far worse because they choose to reject a God who loves and wants them, where as in your system the unbelievers are merely rejecting a God who first rejected them and they couldn't have done otherwise.

It is more of a pronouncement.

So why does scripture call it an 'appeal?'

It's interesting to me that in your system God must reconcile someone in order for them to respond to his appeal to be reconciled. Confusing.

 

[MorseOp]

If your comparing the severity of that condition with the power of its potential cure, it most certainly does.

I disagree, but we have already established that.

Notice that it is the WORD that enables faith and by believing one may have life. Not the other way around. Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rm 10)

The Word accomplishes nothing if it cannot be received. God first makes the heart capable of receiving. Yes. This is what the Reformed call regeneration. That is the point of Ephesians 2:4, 5 and Ezekiel 36:26. We can get into a discussion about the ordo salutis, but I think that will be unnecessary as we are both pretty much convinced on where we stand.

This is the judicial hardening of Israel, which if people are not familiar, could cause confusion about the issue of inability...

I see no confusion at all, as I am quite confident that the doctrine of total inability is biblical.

Believe it or not, I understand. I used to believe and teach the exact same thing. I was a 5 pointer for about a decade of my life and I used to see it the exact same way you do now, but I challenge you to reconsider and vet your current views.

My friend, I have elucidated, discussed, and debated the doctrines of grace ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. I would turn the tables and appeal to you to change your views in light of scripture!

Now, to me this argument sounds like this: A cancer patient can't be cured by the new cancer antidote because he has cancer. You seem to think that proving men are born dead, slaves and enemies of God somehow proves that the very means sent by God to cure those conditions is insufficient to do so.

For one who claims to understand what I believe you sure have it wrong. I believe that the cure for sin is only intended for those whom God has chosen. Praise God that we do not know who the chosen (the elect) are.

I can make a strong argument that your view actually gives mankind too much credit....more so than my view does. I think your view gives unbelievers justification for their unbelief, whereas my view gives them absolutely no excuse.

Shall the pot say to the potter, "Why have you made me thus?" At a practical level every doctrines of grace preacher I know appeals to all within earshot to repent and believe. It is the Word of God that gives the sinner no excuse. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Do not for one minute think that I say to people, "You may not be elect, so this message is not for you." That is the only way we can be accused of giving mankind too much credit.

Your view teaches that men ultimately don't believe and repent because God didn't grant them what they needed.

They were not chosen. The fact the were not chosen does not exonerate them from their sin. Remember, we are sinners because we are born in sin, just as much as we are sinners because we sin.

My view says that God did graciously grant them all they needed and they rebelled in the face of God's provision and grace. Unbelievers in my system are far worse because they choose to reject a God who loves and wants them, where as in your system the unbelievers are merely rejecting a God who first rejected them and they couldn't have done otherwise.

Anyone who continues in rebellion against God, through unbelief, has it bad. Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all, but intended only for the elect.

It's interesting to me that in your system God must reconcile someone in order for them to respond to his appeal to be reconciled. Confusing.

That is because your reject the ramifications of total inability.

 

[kyredneck]

One call...or two

Do you not see the 'two calls' in Jn 1:12,13?

 

[Iconoclast]

Allan

Gospel - offering the promise of life eternal in knowing Jesus

So I am presuming you hold the gospel to both groups is the same message, correct?

The historic facts of the gospel are identical

OH I AGREE!!
But I believe we need the foundation established first in order to progress together from the same beginning, and in the same direction, toward a more sure and understood culmination or end. Therefore while there is more to it than the general call, we must first examine what the general call is since the rest is established upon it.

Yes...no need to rush...this is a great topic.

Clarification please for the discussion.
Quickening - (short definition) to make alive so one can see and understand.
Correct?? (more to it I know but for simplicity sake, I TRYING for brevity - can't you tell :laugh: )

Yes

If so, here is a question for you.. how can man come to know these facts if God is the one who must reveal them to man? What I mean is, if man does not seek after God nor can he, through his intellect, know of God and therefore God righteousness and thus his own sin, how can a non-spiritual person perceive/understand even these general things that are spiritual?

It is not that men cannot learn the historical facts, teachings of the church,etc. Because of sin and the fall...they seek to give another meaning to God's word and commands so as to turn away from saving truth as truth supressors as per Romans 1. This usually leads to idolatry or a works based religion.
In Hebrews 6 we read this:

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

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

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

They heard of the way of righteousness and were around true believers and yet turned away,...not having the Spirit.

So would this not be considered a quickening if man understands even these basic things since no man can come to understand them or even come to know them apart from God revealing them to a person?

No. a man can be told facts and enlightened...but this is not being quickened as inEph2.

 

[Iconoclast]

Do you not see the 'two calls' in Jn 1:12,13?

Hello Kyred-

I see two calls...with two separate and distinct responses to one common message.

One is external through the eyes and ears. The difference in response is the inward work of the Spirit giving a new heart to the elect,enabling them to rightly think God's thoughts after Him.

 

[Iconoclast]

WITBOTL

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.




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.

One man explained it this way: In the OT

Why was God calling a people in the first place?

What was he calling them to?

What was he calling them for?

God's basic call was to a mission.God was engaged in a redemptive task in the world,and he was calling a people who would give their lives to join with him in this redemptive mission.

God called them to be a kingdom of priests...His special people for his special purpose.


Over-all...they failed. Now we are called to be the reality of the promises that in Abraham...all nations of the earth will be blessed.

Jesus person and work is what we proclaim to the nations...God uses this means to call out His people from darkness to light.

 

[convicted1]

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.

With all due respect, Brother, you are attempting to slay a dragon that doesn't even exist. No one on this board advocates what you just posted(not that I am aware of, at least), and if they did, I would be quick to call their hand.


None of us has the ability to come to God of our own accord. None of us has the "want to" dwelling in us, in our fallen state. None of us has the ability to believe that "He is and He is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek Him", w/o the Holy Ghost first drawing us. God always is the first to act in the salvation process. God is always the One that draws us unto Himself. God is always the One who saves us from our sins. God is the One who brought us from death unto life. God is the One who keeps us from the wicked one.


God is my redeemer, and He lives in me. Praise be to His sweet name.

 

[MorseOp]

Pelagius was a contemporary of Augustine of Hippo. He is best known as an antagonist to Augustine's teachings on predestination. Pelagius taught a radical view of free will; that man is born tabula rasa (blank slate) and is morally neutral. Depending on how a person lives their life they will either earn or lose merit with God. In any event God will not violate man's free will. Pelagianism taught that man can earn his own righteousness and salvation by doing good. I am not accusing anyone on the BB of being Pelagians.

Semi-Pelagianism is a less radical view than full Pelagianism. It teaches that man is born with a measure of faith. Man's free will is able to act on that measure of faith when presented with the Gospel. As a consequence man is not completely fallen because of sin. This where the difference with the doctrines of grace comes into play. The latter teaches that man is, indeed, completely fallen in all his faculties, and is incapable of saving faith without intervention by God. The sinner does not have a measure of faith, capable of believing the Gospel.

When pressed on this matter most Christians I know, who believe in free will in regards to salvation, respond in one of two ways. 1. They "come clean" and admit they do not believe that man is completely fallen (total depravity). 2. They display cognitive dissonance on the issue by maintaining their belief in total depravity and man's free will.

This is where the accusation of "man cooperating with God in salvation" comes from. If man is completely and utterly fallen in his nature (incapable of exercising faith), and has to be made capable of believing by God, then God is completely sovereign in all facets of salvation. If man possesses a measure of faith from birth, then man is not completely fallen in his nature. Man can cooperate with God in salvation by exercising that measure of faith. This is the source of much of our disagreements.

Lastly, most Christians I know who believe in the free will position have little to know idea about Pelagius, Pelagianism, or semi-Pelagianism. They have been taught the free will position and that is all they know. They maintain a happy inconsistency in their understanding in that they unwittingly hold to a semi-Pelagian understanding while at the same time rejecting it. I do not doubt the veracity of their profession. I hardly ever discuss this subject with people I meet. I do not want you or anyone else to think I on a witch hunt looking for semi-Pelagians. I most certainly am not! I am explaining what I believe to be the genesis of the modern free will theology.

How does this effect the subject of the call of God in respect to salvation? Well, if God must first make man able to believe then the Gospel call cannot be to all men even if all men hear it. Yet the preacher is to appeal to all men. This I do not deny. He appeals to all men because who God has prepared for salvation remains in the mind of God alone. He has entrusted to us the message of reconciliation and we are to proclaim it indiscriminately.

 

[MorseOp]

I am heading out of town this morning, so I will be unable to respond to posts for about a week. I do not want anyone to think I am ignoring them.

Blessings.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon,

perhaps I am misunderstanding you, in Acts 13:48 which gentile nations heard, which gentile nations were glad, which gentile nations glorified the word of the Lord? All gentile nations did not hear in this verse, but individual gentiles did.

I didn't mean to suggest that all the nations hear it, I meant to suggest that all the different nations being represented by all the different Gentile individuals were proving that they were appointed to eternal life by God through their faith in the message.

I've actually always argued that the word 'appointed' means 'inclined' or 'disposed' as linguistic scholar Adam Clarke argues HERE. And that indeed may be the better non-Calvinistic defense of this verse, but an actual Israelite I talked to convinced me that this was more likely the meaning because in that culture they spoke about groups more often than individuals, as the context of Acts 13 indicates.

You see, at that time people were VERY divided by their nationality and some nationalities were despised much more than others. So, you might convince a Jew that an Egyptian was granted entrance into covenant (grafted in, ref Rm 11), but surely not a dirty Samaritan! And John's intent here would have been to show that God had appointed all nations to eternal life and the proof of that was in the responses of the individuals from these various nations. So, John was simply meaning, "as many kinds who were appointed (proved that God had chosen them too) believed..." The apostles were constantly having to prove that other nations, even the most hated of them, were appointed to eternal life.

Now, considering that Calvinists are masters as adding in the phrase "all kinds" or "kinds from all the world," this interpretation shouldn't be too much of a stretch for you to understand and at least appreciate.

 

[Skandelon]

The Word accomplishes nothing if it cannot be received.

Oh, I agree. And the hardened Israelites of the first century couldn't receive it, but that is not a natural condition of all mankind from birth as Calvinism's "Total Inability" suggests. Consider as proof Acts 28:

26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"​

Notice what Israel might have done OTHERWISE, if they had not 'become hardened.' And notice the stark contrast with the Gentiles who 'will listen.' Men are NOT born hardened (unable to receive the Word), they BECOME hardened after years of rebellion, and for Israel they were sealed in that hardened condition (judicially hardened) while Christ was on earth so as to accomplish the crucifixion and the ingrafting of the Gentiles within the church. (See Rom 11; Mark 4; Matt 13; John 12:39-41, etc)

My friend, I have elucidated, discussed, and debated the doctrines of grace ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.

Of which I have no doubt, but have you fully vetted the corporate view of election, or have you only considered the lessor more methodist version of 'foresight faith?' Most Calvinists I speak with think they fully understand the 'other side' but after a bit of digging I discover they have lumped us all into the foresight faith camp and dismiss all argument accordingly. Frankly, if my only choices were Calvinism's view of election or the view that teaches that God looked through the corridors of time to see which individual would believe and then chooses them, I too would pick Calvinism.

For one who claims to understand what I believe you sure have it wrong. I believe that the cure for sin is only intended for those whom God has chosen. Praise God that we do not know who the chosen (the elect) are.

With all due respect, I think you misinterpreted my argument. Your view teaches that men are born with 'cancer' (dead, slaves, enemies), but that the 'cure' for cancer (the gospel) isn't able to cure them because they have cancer. But that they must first be cured by another cure, the REAL cure (regeneration). I'm saying that you haven't established the first charge that the gospel isn't a sufficient cure.

When I ask for proof that men are unable to respond willingly to the gospel you point me to verses which tell me how sick they are, but that ASSUMES the gospel isn't sufficient to provide a cure for their sickness. You have to point me to a passage which teaches that men are unable to willingly respond to the gospel, because thus far I don't believe you have done so.

I know you and I see it differently, and I know you'll push on me just as I'm now pushing on you. It is all done with respect brother. We should both be open to learn and question our own views. I'm pretty open, as I've been both Calvinistic and now a Corporate View supporter, proving I am willing to question my own views and adapt as I learn from scripture.

They were not chosen. The fact the were not chosen does not exonerate them from their sin.

Maybe not, but it would certainly seem to exonerate them from the very words of Christ by which they will be judged (John 12:42). The bible is clear to say that people perish for their unbelief. And no one perishes for lack of atonement, because Christ's blood is certainly sufficient to cover the sin of whoever believes, thus nothing keeps anyone from entering the gates of heaven save their own unbelief.

Have a good week. See you when you get back. Blessing brother.