KenH
Well-Known Member
They aren't.
No. As I previously stated, my position is justification from eternity.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The False Gospel of Arminianism
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
They aren't.
No. As I previously stated, my position is justification from eternity.
And God does know that I reject it!
I've never read any commentary by Hawker, but I have read some commentary by Gill, but not enough to know off the top of my head what he said on any given subject, including this subject of Matt. 23:37.
Hawker denies straight up that Christ is speaking of the Grace to save in Matt. 23:37. I haven't read Gill's commentary on this verse, but I don't believe Gill is so quick to make that determination.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Yes, Gill does, in accordance with Biblical teaching. Here is a longer quote from his commentary on Matthew 23:37:
"Our Lord is to be understood not of his divine will, as God, to gather the people of the Jews internally, by his Spirit and grace, to himself; for all those whom Christ would gather, in this sense, were gathered, notwithstanding all the opposition made by the rulers of the people; but of his human affection and will, as a man, and a minister, to gather them to him externally, by, and under the ministry of his word, to hear him preach; so as that they might be brought to a conviction of, and an assent unto him as the Messiah; which, though it might fall short of faith in him, would have been sufficient to have preserved them from temporal ruin, threatened to their city and temple, in the following verse. Instances of the human affection, and will of Christ, may be observed in Mark 10:21 which will of his, though not contrary to the divine will, but subordinate to it, yet not always the same with it, nor always fulfilled: whereas his divine will, or his will as God, is, always fulfilled: "who hath resisted his will?" this cannot be hindered, and made void; he does whatsoever he pleases: and further, that this will of Christ to gather the Jews to himself, is to be understood of his human, and not divine will, is manifest from hence, that this will was in him, and expressed by him at certain several times, by intervals; and therefore he says, "how often would I have gathered", &c. whereas the divine will is one continued, invariable, and unchangeable will, is always the same, and never begins or ceases to be, and to which such an expression is inapplicable; and therefore these words do not contradict the absolute and sovereign will of God, in the distinguishing acts of it, respecting the choice of some persons, and the leaving of others. And it is to be observed, that the persons whom Christ would have gathered, are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should, and be made proselytes to him, and come under his wings. It is not said, "how often would I have gathered you, and you would not!" nor, "I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not"; nor, "I would have gathered thy children, and they would not"; but, "how often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!" Which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favour of free will. Had Christ expressed his desire to have gathered the heads of the people to him, the members of the Jewish sanhedrim, the civil and ecclesiastical rulers of the Jews: or had he signified how much he wished, and earnestly sought after, and attempted to gather Jerusalem, the children, the inhabitants of it in common, and neither of them would not; it would have carried some appearance of the doctrine of free will, and have seemed to have countenanced it, and have imputed the non-gathering of them to their own will: though had it been said, "they would not", instead of, "ye would not", it would only have furnished out a most sad instance of the perverseness of the will of man, which often opposes his temporal, as well as his spiritual good; and would rather show it to be a slave to that which is evil, than free to that which is good; and would be a proof of this, not in a single person only, but in a body of men. The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend his ministry, as appears from the vast crowds, which, at different times and places, followed him; but the chief priests, and rulers, did all they could to hinder the collection of them to him, and their belief in him as the Messiah; by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by menacing the people with curses, and excommunications, making a law, that whoever confessed him should be turned out of the synagogue. So that the plain meaning of the text is the same with that of Matt 23:13 and consequently is no proof of men's resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace of God; but only shows what obstructions and discouragements were thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word. In order to set aside, and overthrow the doctrine of grace, in election, and particular redemption, and effectual calling, it should be proved that Christ, as God, would have gathered."
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
I have to ask where you find this concept in scripture? Do you have a specific verse or verses in mind?
Charles Spurgeon is said by some here to be a 5-point Calvinist, Let's see what he said.
"This verse shows also that the ruin of men lies with themselves. Christ puts it very plainly, “I would; but ye would not.” “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and ye would not!” That is a truth, about which, I hope, we have never had any question; we hold tenaciously that salvation is all of grace, but we also believe with equal firmness that the ruin of man is entirely the result of his own sin. It is the will of God that saves; it is the will of man that damns. Jerusalem stands and is preserved by the grace and favour of the Most High; but Jerusalem is burnt, and her stones are cast down, through the transgression and iniquity of men, which provoked the justice of God."
This is one of Spurgeon's sermons from 1888.
The Spurgeon Library | “I Would; but ye Would Not.”
www.spurgeon.org
It's based on faith being given to man when he hears the Word of God.
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."
This is not to be confused with the gift of faith, which is one of the nine gifts of the Spirit.
This is extra faith to accomplish a task God has appointed to an individual.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Even though man does not have a free will, it is man that actually commits sins; just as God's elect do not have a free will, but it they who actually believe in Christ and His finished work and actually repent of their dead works.
Psalm 110:3
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power,
In the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: Thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Oh. but you are wrong Brother Ken!
Matt. 23:37 clearly shows man's free will by Christ desiring to bring them in the fold, "but they would not."
Clear and simple, Christ wanted to save them, but He couldn't because they refused to believe.
In vs 39 Christ told them, For I say unto you, you shall not see again till you say, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."
Christ is referring to Jerusalem seeing Him again at the Second Coning, that's when they will know beyond a doubt He is their Messiah.
Paul said, "All of Israel shall be saved" and it will be at the Second Coming when Jerusalem will see him again and say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." They won't deny Him them!
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
If faith, as I understand you meaning, is given by God and He desires all to come to repentance then why does He not give that faith to all? Or am I misunderstanding you?
As the text Rom 10:17 says "faith comes by hearing" but what are they hearing?
Paul has told us, it's the gospel Rom 1:16 as we see worked out in Rom 10:9-10 or Eph 1:13.
The information is provided but the person has to evaluate that information and choose to trust or reject it.
Faith is an act of the Intellect and Will
Some philosophical perspectives, like that of Thomas Aquinas, view faith as an act of the intellect assenting to the truth based on the will.
In essence, faith is about believing in something, often something that can't be fully seen or proven, and committing to that belief.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
If either do not have a free will then it is not them sinning or believing, it is God controlling them to that option so it is God the sins and God that believes in Himself.
There is no saving faith in the intellect of man. Isaiah and Paul plainly told us "no man searches for God" in other words as John Calvin rightly said, man is totally depraved.
Only the hearing of Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit cutting that truth in the heart and soul of man, can break that depravity with truth.
Here is what the Holy Spirit does with the Word of God when it's heard by totally depraved man.
Heb. 4:12
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Christ said that when He left He would send the Comforter (Holy Spirt) and He would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.
Heb. 4:12 is how He does it.
Its been so many years that I can't remember all of them, but I remember enough.
Times when I would be reading the Scripture, and be reading of the sins of David, or Solomon, or maybe Israel, Moses, whoever, and I felt a dart pierce my heart (figuratively speaking) and at the snap of a finger the Holy Spirit revealed my own sin.
It's not a good feeling, but He has to do it for our own good, and He will do it if your heart is open to God.
So it's not only the lost and depraved that He convicts of sin.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
If there is as you say no saving faith in the intellect of man then we have to question the character of God.
How do you reconcile Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
If man cannot do anything to move toward God then why does God say they have no excuse, why does the Holy Spirit convict man of sin, why preach the gospel.
When you say "only" by this or that then you have made God the one responsible for those that believe and also for those that do not. You have removed all responsibility from the man.
God has made man responsible for trusting in Him Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Since God desires all to come to repentance why does He not overcome the resistance of all people?
Calvin's view is not total depravity it is in reality total inability which is not a biblical view but it is the view we see coming from the C/R religion.
Calvin got his idea of total inability from Augustine who in turn got it from Manichaeism an offshoot of Gnosticism.
Paul goes on in Rom. 3, I believe it is, to say that man has a conscience, that even the Gentiles who have no Law as the Jews, do the things in the Law. The conscience of man reveals there is a Creator, man has no excuse not to to know this.
But this is not salvation, it's the awareness of God the Creator and right and wrong. Salvation can only be found in Jesus Christ.
That's where the hearing of the Gospel is so very important. It's the only way man can be saved.
No I got it wrong, it's not Rom. 3, it's Rom. 2:14-16.
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another,
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."
The Gentiles that did not have the Law and no way of knowing salvation will be judged in the end on what light they did have.
No man is without any light at all, the conscience bears witness of that. Christ is the criteria, but judgment will be based on what man knew at the time he lived and the light that was given.
This is a touchy subject and highly debated among the scholars.
Some say that those who listened to their consciences and recognized the Creator and made attempts to to do right, will receive mercy from God, considering they were without the light of the Gospel, and only had the conscience and nature/creation to guide them.
Others say there will be no mercy based on salvation being by faith in Christ.
It's a complicated argument. I see it as God having mercy on those who recognized and tried to do right, believing they had a Creator to answer to. I think it was even possible that the Holy Spirit may have revealed to these people who the Messiah was, as He did with Abraham.
But there's no way of knowing for sure, or at least I don't think so, the Scripture is actually silent on the matter except for Paul.