Response-able??

[Protestant]

What are you talking about? Even in your cut and paste definition above (where you cut and pasted only the parts that suit you), the definition fits mine.

One part reads, "past participle stem of respondere "to respond""

What is a response for a corpse? Total Inability teaches that men are born unable to respond, yet you claim men are responsible even by this definition? HOW?

Men aren't responding in your system they are doing as programmed by their creator, period. Just own your system.

I quote from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

"respond (v.) c.1300, respound, from Old French respondere "respond, correspond," from Latin respondere "respond, answer to, promise in return," from re- "back" (see re-) + spondere "to pledge" (see spondee). Modern spelling and pronunciation is from c.1600. Related: Responded; responding"

If you will take note of the first root meaning of 'respond': 'answer to.'

Scripture promises all men will 'answer to' God on the Day of Reckoning.

Nowhere does it mean 'ability to achieve that which is commanded.'

I cannot help but encourage the Arminians and Pelagians on this Board to engage in biblical word studies.

There is much to be gained through such an endeavor.

 

[Protestant]

Even if God loves that man, send his son to die for that man, appeals for that man to be reconciled and send the Holy Spirit to convict that man of his sin? Even you believe its possible if God graces the man, the only difference is that we don't believe that grace is irresistibly applied, remember?

God's love cannot fail.

It is God's love that set Christ and salvation in motion. (John 3:16)

I have written and posted a few treatises explaining that those whom He loves He actually saves eternally.

Since love is a major attribute of the Trinity, then it would be a failure of God had He failed to save one person He loved.

Sin is failure to reach the mark of perfection.

If God is a failure, then He is imperfect.

If He is imperfect, then He is no God.

 

[Skandelon]

God's love cannot fail.

I agree, but we don't consider enabling one to freely respond a failure, while you do. We consider freedom to follow a necessity of true love. Anyone can create a robot who "loves" by programming, but clearly God doesn't do that. Why else would he say that the stones would cry out in worship if we don't? It would appear that Calvinist think we are no more than stones given that they would be controlled by the same irresistible force.

 

[Skandelon]

I quote from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

"respond (v.) c.1300, respound, from Old French respondere "respond, correspond," from Latin respondere "respond, answer to, promise in return," from re- "back" (see re-) + spondere "to pledge" (see spondee). Modern spelling and pronunciation is from c.1600. Related: Responded; responding"

If you will take note of the first root meaning of 'respond': 'answer to.'

Scripture promises all men will 'answer to' God on the Day of Reckoning.

Nowhere does it mean 'ability to achieve that which is commanded.'

I cannot help but encourage the Arminians and Pelagians on this Board to engage in biblical word studies.

There is much to be gained through such an endeavor.

1. That ignores the MANY other root definitions of the word RESPONSE-ABLE (amazing how one can ignore the two obvious roots of that word).

2. Even your attempt to skirt the clear meaning of the word RESPONSIBLE, by limiting it to 'answer to,' really doesn't help you much, because what is an answer except a RESPONSE? And what is the point of having the man answer to God when God is the one doing the answering? What does the man have to answer for? Doing what he was created to do? And what answer is the man going to give that God doesn't control in the first place?

God: Why didn't you come when I called you?
Man: Because you decided before the world began not to grant me the ability to come when you called me.
God: Oh, right, never mind...sorry I asked.

Just own your system. You don't really believe men are responsible, you believe men are punishable. You believe men are held culpable for God's decisions, period. Own that about your view, because that is really what your system teaches. You can call them answerable, responsible, accountable, or whatever you want to make you feel better, but it doesn't change the FACTS of the matter. God makes decisions and punishes people for those decisions.

 

[Skandelon]

No greater preacher exists than Jesus Christ.

Yet He was crucified, rather than embraced, honored and obeyed.

You consistently miss the HUGE message our Lord is signifying by not examining the most despicable act by sinful men in human history.

Furthermore, Christ's murder was instigated by the religious leadership who claimed to be favored sons of God.

Conclusion: It is possible to be very religious, yet be haters of the true God.

Even the people shouted for the release of a murderer, rather than Jesus.

They, too, lacked faith despite the works and words of the world's greatest preacher.

CONCLUSION: Faith is the gift of God to men, not the gift of men to God.

Why couldn't these Jewish leaders see that Jesus was the Christ? Was it because they were born Totally Depraved and thus by nature unable to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing? ORRRRRR

"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." John 12:39​

What? Nothing about an inborn nature? Instead its because they (Israel) is being hardened (cut off), blinded? Hmmm...

"...the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "​

Jesus is actually speaking in parables to prevent these Jewish leaders from hearing and believing. Why would that even be necessary if Total Inability were true?

Jesus is blinding them on PURPOSE. He speaks about eating his flesh, without qualification, for a REASON. He is provoking them. He is BLINDING THEM so as to accomplish redemption. They aren't going to crucify a man they believe in. If the Acts 2 invitation happens while Christ is still on earth there wouldn't have been a crucifixion. Jesus was hear to accomplish the passover and just as God had to hardened Pharaoh to accomplish the first passover He had to hardened Israel to accomplish the second and God is just in doing so...who are we to talk back to God? That is the issue Paul is addressing in Romans 9.

 

[The Biblicist]

couldn't these Jewish leaders see that Jesus was the Christ? Was it because they were born Totally Depraved and thus by nature unable to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing? ORRRRRR

"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." John 12:39​

What? Nothing about an inborn nature? Instead its because they (Israel) is being hardened (cut off), blinded? Hmmm...

First, they were born with a fallen nature and HARDENING can only occur from a fallen nature. Hardening has to do with the faculty of conscience. The conscience does have ability to RECOGNIZE light but as you know the conscience has no ability to make decisions in regard to what it is designed to recognize. That function is called the "heart" of man which in this case is the FALLEN HEART or the OLD heart. The scriptures make it clear that spritual ability does not originate from the fallen nature or the old heart but only from the NEW heart which only God can give (Deut. 29:4; Ezek. 36:26 with verse 27). However, the conscience will prod the fallen nature to seek to pacify the feeling of guilt and thus move the fallen nature to "works" designed to pacify or sear the uncomfortable feelings produced by conscience exposed to light. Hence, the conscience of the fallen nature, the old heart seeks a philosophical/religious pragmatic remedy to remove/sear the feeling of guilt or else insanity or suicide will be the consequence (2 Cor. 7:10 "worldly sorrow worketh death"). However, the fallen nature "IS" of such a nature that it is impossible for it to respond favorably to light (Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 8:7-8) but instead when exposed to more light (Rom. 1:18-20) begins the process of a downward spiral process of hardening (Rom. 1:23-32).

"...the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "​

Jesus is actually speaking in parables to prevent these Jewish leaders from hearing and believing. Why would that even be necessary if Total Inability were true?

Because they have already been exposed to more light than any other people upon the earth and it is their depravity which is seeking to destroy Christ (Mt. 12) already. Hence, Jesus purposely hides any additional light so that they will continue in their hardening process that will provoke them to not merely seek to destroy Christ but actually carry out that action (Acts 2:22) through wicked hands.

Jesus is blinding them on PURPOSE. He speaks about eating his flesh, without qualification, for a REASON.

Now you are jumping from one context (Mt. 13) to another (Jn. 6). John 6 is a treatise on why coming to Christ by faith is the work of God and not something found inherent in fallen man. John 6:64-65 completely annhilates your whole theory as "some" are separated from among "the disciples" of Jesus (not the pharisees and scribes as in Mt. 13) which Jesus explicitly says the Father NEVER DREW and that is why they NEVER came to Christ in faith but only in false profession.

 

[Skandelon]

First, they were born with a fallen nature and HARDENING can only occur from a fallen nature.

I agree.

But here is the problem:

1. Your dogma doesn't distinguish between the abilities of one who is merely fallen from one who has become hardened/cut off by God.

2. This hardening is not a condition of all mankind from birth, as Paul contrasts them with the Gentiles 'who will listen' (vs. 28) and he clearly points out what they 'might be able to do' otherwise.

3. Nothing says that becoming hardened (unable to see, hear, understand and respond to be healed) is inevitable. Abraham didn't become hardened. Now, you'd presume that was because he was regenerated to have faith, but that would be question begging as the text never states that.

Read that last one again, because that is the only authority you have...no offense but your opinion on the matter means little to me. You have to find a text that teaches becoming hardened is inevitable AND FURTHER EVEN THAN THAT, you need a verse that teaches the nature of man's abilities are virtually the exact same from birth as they are once they 'become hardened.' Good luck, because such a verse doesn't exist.

 

[Skandelon]

However, the fallen nature "IS" of such a nature that it is impossible for it to respond favorably to light (Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 8:7-8)

Allow me to reword your statement: "However, the fallen nature IS such a nature that is completely hardened."

This is the root of your error. You equate the natural (inborn) condition of mankind with that of being hardened. You leave NO ROOM at all for distinction...none. There is nothing for man to 'become' if your view of total inability is true.

Secondly, the two references you quote say NOTHING to effect of what you have just stated...not even close, but we've been down that road a couple of times now.

but instead when exposed to more light (Rom. 1:18-20) begins the process of a downward spiral process of hardening (Rom. 1:23-32).

Downward from where? Total inability? How do you become less able than totally unable?

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree.

But here is the problem:

1. Your dogma doesn't distinguish between the abilities of one who is merely fallen from one who has become hardened/cut off by God.

You need to finish reading my post because I most certainly did explain the relationship. As you admit hardening has a common source - the fallen nature. As I pointed out the conscience is designed to recognize light and is designed to produce the guilt feeling when that light is violated. However, the conscience is not designed to determine response to light. That is the function of the OLD heart which by nature will not because of what it "IS" by nature - Rom. 8:7-8. The STATE of enmity toward God "IS" by its very nature incapable of submission to God and neither indeed can be. Hence, the only other option is resistance just as Jesus says in Jn. 3:19-20 and refusal to come to the light it is confronted with. This begins the PROCESS of a downward spiral of hardening, which is designed to remove the feeling of guilt produced by conscience. All lost sinners when exposed to light are somewhere in the PROCESS of hardening, some are further along then others but all are in the process. They may be in the religious/philosphical process (Rom. 1:22-23) or they may be further along (Rom. 1:26-27) or may be in its final stages (Rom. 1:32) but they are all within this process.

 

[The Biblicist]

Allow me to reword your statement: "However, the fallen nature IS such a nature that is completely hardened."

Please read my last two posts more thoroughly and you will discover that I believe that hardening is a PROCESS (not a point action) and comes in DEGREES and this process begins just as soon as the conscience of fallen human nature is exposed to and recognizes light, this process begins with the first act of resistance the PROCESS of hardening begins. All cognant fallen human's are in the hardening process but not all are at the same level or degree. So your rewording of my sentence is completely inaccurate because your rewording demands that I believe hardening has ONE LEVEL and is therefore not a process and is not progressive but Romans 1:21-32 clearly shows different levels in the spiral process of hardening until the final degree is reached in Romans 1:32.

Likewise, Psalm 1:1 provides a summary of the same digressive process of hardening. It is not a ONE LEVEL experience but a varied level experience that is progressive to a final degree where a person takes pleasure when others sin and is thus completed in becoming a "scorner" of holiness.

This is the "root of your error" and so there is no sense to continue addressing this post because the same fundemental error that hardening is not a process but a ONE LEVEL event characterizes the rest of your post.

 

[Skandelon]

Biblicist, in one sentence can you tell me the distinction between the ability of one fallen, who has not grown calloused, and one fallen who has grown calloused?

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, in one sentence can you tell me the distinction between the ability of one fallen, who has not grown calloused, and one fallen who has grown calloused?

The difference is in degree of progression in the process of hardening

 

[Skandelon]

Biblicist, in one sentence can you tell me the distinction between the ability of one fallen, who has not grown calloused, and one fallen who has grown calloused?

I believe Paul answers that question when he writes:

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.'

Do you disagree?

 

[Skandelon]

The difference is in degree of progression in the process of hardening

So there is no difference in their abilities? The person who is fallen but not at all calloused is just as unable to see, hear, understand and turn as the one who is fully calloused? How do you reconcile that with the biblical evidence I've shown?

 

[The Biblicist]

So there is no difference in their abilities? The person who is fallen but not at all calloused is just as unable to see, hear, understand and turn as the one who is fully calloused? How do you reconcile that with the biblical evidence I've shown?

Your verse simply argues from the negative fact. Since they are this way this is the necessary consequence. The fallen nature or old heart does not have the attributes of the new heart (Deut.29:4) and therefore its response IS what Romans 8:7 characterizes and the natural result is progression in hardeness. If it were not for the fact of that kind of heart they could see and hear and be saved.

 

[Skandelon]

Let's really unpack this. Let's talk about real people and real life situations.

Clayton is a 12 year old boy who has never heard the gospel, doesn't really believe much about anything because he is young and hasn't thought about it enough for formulate his beliefs.

Carl is a 72 year old atheist whose father was a preacher and who has heard the gospel thousands of times and has sworn off the church and anything to do with religion or Christianity. He openly expresses his hatred the church, the scripture and anything to do with God.

Let's assume for the sake of this argument that both of these individuals are non-elect. Both born totally depraved, hated by God, unchosen, unregenerate. One is clearly calloused to the revelation of God the other hasn't had enough exposer to grow calloused yet. What specifically is the difference in the nature of these two men? Does one have any ability that the other doesn't have? Is there really any distinction at all in the abilities, nature or personhood of these two?

 

[Skandelon]

Your verse simply argues from the negative fact. Since they are this way this is the necessary consequence.

I don't understand. Are you saying there is no difference in their abilities despite what Paul says they 'might do?' And if this is the necessary and inevitable consequence why would Paul go on to say, so "the gospel will now go to the Gentiles and they will listen?" If they are under the same necessary consequence of their inborn nature then what distinction is Paul attempting to draw?

 

[Skandelon]

The difference is in degree of progression in the process of hardening

Again, this isn't addressing the question.

If someone is at 0 degrees in the progression and another is 100 degrees hardened, he has FULLY progressed to the most hardened state known to man; then what is the difference, if any, in their ability to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing?

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, this isn't addressing the question.

If someone is at 0 degrees in the progression and another is 100 degrees hardened, he has FULLY progressed to the most hardened state known to man; then what is the difference, if any, in their ability to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing?

Your passage is saying IF this were not the condition they would be able to do this and that but the fact is this IS their condition and so they cannot do this or that.

Second, the only fallen human who is 0 degree in progression are only those yet without capability of discerning truth from error. Those at the other far range of the spectrum are clearly and explicitly characterized in Romans 1:32 and Psalm 1:1c.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let's really unpack this. Let's talk about real people and real life situations.

Clayton is a 12 year old boy who has never heard the gospel, doesn't really believe much about anything because he is young and hasn't thought about it enough for formulate his beliefs.

Carl is a 72 year old atheist whose father was a preacher and who has heard the gospel thousands of times and has sworn off the church and anything to do with religion or Christianity. He openly expresses his hatred the church, the scripture and anything to do with God.

Let's assume for the sake of this argument that both of these individuals are non-elect. Both born totally depraved, hated by God, unchosen, unregenerate. One is clearly calloused to the revelation of God the other hasn't had enough exposer to grow calloused yet. What specifically is the difference in the nature of these two men? Does one have any ability that the other doesn't have? Is there really any distinction at all in the abilities, nature or personhood of these two?

When we exit the Bible and enter into conjured examples there is a complexity of unanswered problems to deal with that are purely subjective in character. This is why I don't like entering into speculative philosophy or illustrations.

For example, the fallen nature has a spectrum of responses that will determine the degree of hardening and advancement of hardening. For example, a person confronted with light of nature can simply choose to shelf it instead of choosing to struggle with it. There are various types of light - natural light, light of conscience, light of scripture, light of circumstances such as witnessing by others that he can either simply ignore, shelf, confront, struggle with, actively pursue intellectually, etc.

However, when God determines to force the depraved nature to confront the light due to divinely arrranged circumstances then the progress will quicken and be more explosive as in the case of the incarnation of light in the midst of Israel.

Your illustration opens a can that requires too much speculation and which has no possible way of concluding what you are attempting to draw conclusions from.

This is why doctrine is based upon precepts rather than illustrations, parables, spiritualizations, etc.