Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
It is foolish becuase of the effect of sin on their minds. They are destined to perish because of their sin. They deem the message foolish because of their sinful minds.
I agree. But we had sinful minds and don't deem it as being foolish any longer. Why? We now have the mind of Christ. How did we recieve that? Through faith. Faith is accepting something that may seem foolish to us as fact.
[qutoe]
Then why isn't everybody saved?? Is the Spirit really that weak?? I don't believe he is. [/quote] Was the Spirit too weak in Matt. 23:37 when God longed to gather Israel under his wings but didn't because they were unwilling? Was the Spirit too weak to convict the Pharisees in Acts 7:51 as they stoned Stephen and resisted the Holy Spirit?
Just as the list you posted says Calvinists don't believe that the Spirit cannot be resisted. You just believe that the Spirit can't be resisted when its the secret, inward, irresistable call, not when its the general call. That is just inconsistant. You say that the Holy Spirit's general call can and will be resisted, but his special, inward calling cannot. Then you rebuke Arminians for believing that man can resist God's calling by saying that it makes the calling of God impotent to believe one can resist it. The problem is you believe one call is impotent and the other one is not. Why? What is different? Is one meant to save and the other one not? Why is God not considered impotent for making a general calling that is ineffective?
I think he effectually woos the elect to salvation. The Spirit's power is not just in the word itself. It is in the Spirit's illuminating work in teh life. The same word is preached to all, but not all respond.
You think the evidence that some do not respond to the gospel is evidence of what God did not do for them that He did do for others, I think it is evidence of man's unwillingness, period. Why? That's the reason scripture gives in Matt. 23:37, "because they were unwilling." Not "because God didn't effectually woo them."
What does it accomplish that the "effectual calling" does not?
Effectual calling opens the sind darkened mind to understand the gospel. The gospel provides the content of belief.
Ok, thank you. Now we are getting somewhere.
First, are there any scriptures that show this dual working of the dual callings of God?
Second, if man cannot understand the gospel because they hadn't been effectually called why does John 12 and Acts 28 teach us that the pharisees couldn't understand it because they were hardened and even goes on to imply that had they not been hardened they might see, hear and understand?
Third, why did Jesus feel it was necessary to veil the gospel to everyone except his close followers in parables if the world was unable to understand it until they had been effectually called? Why veil a message that is already veiled to those who are not effectually called?
No, this is according to your misunderstanding of my views. I don't think the gospel has failed at all. It has accomplished everything it is intended to accomplish. I do not think you believe this. It seems you are the one who would have say the gospel has failed.
It fails to convict or save unless their is a preceding effectual calling. So, the effectual call must come before the general calling in order for the hearer to understand it and believe. Why is there a need for the general call after the effectual one? What would the general calling accompling that the effectual calling could not?
Sigh ... You just don't get it. Their minds are darkened by sin. Their reasoning abilities are corrupt. That is why the reject it. They do not accept. It is not a matter of cognitive understanding.
Understanding is congnitive. Just because its understanding things that are about God doesn't mean that the mind is left at the door. Is it possible for someone to understand something in their spirit but not in their mind?
You say, "their reasoning abilities are corrupt." Are they so corrupt that the words of God could not persuade them? If so, why would God call lost men to reason with him?
Your analogy with your view of calvinism is a bad one because you give very little evidence that you even understand the simple meaning of it. The unsaved at least understand what we are saying; you don't appear to.
Larry, I used to think all Arminians didn't understand Calvinism too. It just your preception, trust me. Just because I press an issue or ask a question about your belief doesn't mean I don't understand it. There are hundreds of different ways to express ones view of a subject, don't wrongly interpret my methods as a lack of understanding. I'm pretty sure that if you and I knew eachother and sat down to talk we would be good friends. I also think our dialogue on these issues would be much clearer than they are in this forum. Believe me when I say that I fully understand the Calvinistic stance. I'm merely pressing the points of contradiction.
However, you say you judge it false because it doesn't fit your understanding. Who appointed your understanding as the measure of truth? I reject your understanding because I find it to be faulty, full of holes with a noticeable lack of Scripture. Scripture is teh judge of truth, not your understanding of it.
Wrong. I don't judge it false because it doesn't "fit my understanding." I understand it. I know what you are saying. I've argued the exact things you do for years. I just disagree with it. I don't believe that is what the Bible is saying.
[qutoe]
It is a lot more biblical. Lydia was a Gentile. The hardening was for the Jews. Again, this is pretty simple stuff. Total depravity is a biblical doctrine. [/QUOTE] Here is a quote from John Gills exposition of the Bible:
Acts 16:14
And a certain woman, named Lydia…
Whether this woman was a Jewess or a Gentile, is not certain, her name will not determine; she might be called so from the country of Lydia, which was in Asia minor, and where was Thyatira, her native place; Horace makes frequent mention of one of this name F7 and it might be a Jewish name; we read of R. Simeon ben Lydia F8; and as these seem to be Jewish women that met at this oratory, she might be one:
I believe Lydia was a Jew. But even if she was a Gentile God open her heart to listen just as he did rest of the Genitiles Paul refers to in Acts 28:28.
Also look again at this verse: "A woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God, was listening. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was spoken by Paul. "
Notice that she worshiped God before it says that God opened her heart to pay attention. I know that God has opened my heart to listen to preachers even after I was a believer. Couldn't that be what is being spoken of here?
