The Offer of the Gospel

[Luke2427]

In the SBC a recent report from a group of Calvinistic Baptists made this declaration:

"The Offer of the Gospel
We affirm that the Gospel is to be made known freely to all in the good faith offer that if anyone confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord and believes in his heart that God has raised Christ from the dead, he will be saved.
We deny that the Gospel lacks any power to save anyone who believes in Christ and receives him as Savior and Lord. Anyone who understands the Gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit may, in prayer and petition, trust Christ through repentance and faith, and we should plead with all sinners to do so."​

Historically, Calvinists (the not hyper version) have affirmed that the gospel appeal is to be made to all equally and with a genuine desire and expectation that all may respond. Agreed?

Yes.

If so, here is my question for Calvinistic believers: When God chose to make an appeal for fallen sinners to be reconciled from that fallen condition (which we all agree he did), why do you believe he made that appeal such that it was not powerful enough to enable the fallen hearer to respond willingly?

Two things:
1- It doesn't MATTER why. Why God did what he did is irrelevant to us because usually that is a question too great for us.

If he did not TELL us why, then we don't CARE.

2- The call IS powerful enough to do exactly what he intended for it to do- to save the elect.

Isn't that a lot like a doctor saying, "I have found the cure for cancer but you are unable to receive the cure for cancer because you have cancer???"

No, it isn't like that, but who cares if it is. It is God's prerogative to make things the way he wants to make them and he doesn't have to tell us why.

Do you understand my question? It just seems that at some point God had to either decide that man's nature would be 'too fallen' for the gospel, OR that the gospel would be 'too benign' for the fallen nature...or both?

No, that's not the only options. He could cause some to hear and leave the others to be deaf to it.... Which is what he DID.

Why would he make such a decision? And is there biblical support for this?

You don't need biblical support to answer a hypothetical. You are saying HYPOTHETICALLY it SEEMS like God is doing this... Why?

How could anything BE any more meaningless. There is no call for anyone to answer such nonsense.

 

[Luke2427]

Things that are dead cannot he held accountable for being dead, nor can they be punished. Things that are dead also were once alive.

Why can't they be punished?

Why can't they be held accountable?

Because you say so?

I don't think God CARES what you have to say on the matter.

 

[webdog]

Why can't they be punished?

Because they are DEAD, unconscious. Are you really that dense? Tell me what is accomplished by fining a corpse, putting a corpse in prison, or sitting a corpse in an electric chair.

Why can't they be held accountable?

You cannot be serious. Try sending a bill to a cemetery, or a police officer to arrest a corpse and tell me how that goes.

Because you say so?

Am I talking to an adult here?

I don't think God CARES what you have to say on the matter.

So God doesn't care what I say...but He cares about that the foolishness you spouted above? OK :thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

webdog

You cannot be serious. Try sending a bill to a cemetery, or a police officer to arrest a corpse and tell me how that goes.

We can be sure the corpse will not resist arrest:laugh: Or we could say he offered "stiff" resistance:wavey:

Hello WD, now to answer from the closed thread....

Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
When you abandon scripture....you have to say something so carnal logic and human speculations and philosophy rush in to fill the void.

To which you replied;

Your entire doctrine is carnal, built on the backs of men.

You are free to express your pov. I do not share it.
My entire doctrine[as much as can be faithfully expounded from scripture] is spiritual and must be spiritually revealed to a person...1cor2
2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:



God has "ordained these truths" for those sinners he has ordained to save: That is what is taught here. The men upon whose "backs " have been used to bring us the complete revelation of scripture are the Apostles and Prophets ..Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.

They are used to receive this word and inscripturate it.Then the Spirit is given to Natural men...At Regeneration....transforming them into Spiritual men who can begin to understand...SAVINGLY...the word of God.

before that as natural men...they had an inability to correctly understand it as Paul continues.

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Each and every one of you deny this is so...as you would say that the princes in vs8...could know or as some suggest...the natural man can indeed understand truth savingly,,,apart from and prior to the Spirit's work....

What purpose does your backhanded post serve, IC?

My post was in response to Lukes comments. I stand by my post because everyday We see this pattern ..over and over. The poster known as Protestant started yet another short lived thread on this...where he quoted about half a dozen examples...direct quotes...that avoid dealing with scripture directly.

You say my post is backhanded....I see it as getting to the heart of the issue.
If Paul states what he does in vs 1-8...then we are to be about scripture.
When I see The puritans and reformers being about scripture...and about Jesus....I am drawn to that and want to feed on it.

You have more of an appetite for....debate fallacy language...red herring, begging the question, non sequitor, etc....then offering any scriptural discussion....more than half of your posts are of this sort....are you saying it is not so????

Is it possible for you to make a scriptural presentation without using these philosophical reasonings to avoid the truth being discussed?
Give your version of the truth...from scripture.

Another passive, aggressive calvinist ...talk sweetly about the 'doctrines of GRACE'...while showing very little of it.

I am sure that I have many defects that need to be mortified as sinful...and lacking in grace....That being said....here on BB I do not think that is what is the root issue.It seems as if the real issue is......You and others are increasingly uncomfortable when we ask you to use scripture and clarify a point...instead we get attacked, and called names.

When we respond and demonstrate this...we are "the passive aggressive" calvinist...or RM cannot wait to say...The "arrogant' calvinist....so rude.

Then a plea goes out to the Mods....look what he said to me:laugh: hide these guys in a new forum....help us....give us a forum where we can make a drive by post or two...then when they answer we can wilt , and sneak way before we have to answer the verses they keep supplying for us to look at.

many of us would prefer to see the BB become more of a place for edification and learning...that will only come from scriptural interaction...not carnal philosophy , debate fallacies, and out of context musings from hate sites...

I do not see it as "back handed" at all.I see it as direct communication that at this time you perhaps only agree with in part.:wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

Why can't they be punished?

Because they are corpses and they wouldn't know the difference. I think that is common sense and why we don't see anyone torturing dead bodies as a means of punishment.

Why can't they be held accountable?

Because dead corpses are not able to give an account, the very meaning of the word "ACCOUNT-ABLE"

I don't think God CARES what you have to say on the matter.

I think He cares about truth and it is clearly true that the Prodigal son was considered dead when he rebelled and separated himself from the father, and then alive when he chose to return home. Any doctrine which intentionally or unintentionally denies human responsibility should be soundly rejected and rebutted. Your doctrine does that by teaching that men are born 'unable to respond' to God revelation (corpse like deadness).

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, in the other thread (which got shut down), you affirmed that God himself appeals to the sinner to repent while at the same time decreeing him unable to respond to that appeal, while still holding him responsible.

That doesn't strike you as an untenable position?

 

[Iconoclast]

Luke, in the other thread (which got shut down), you affirmed that God himself appeals to the sinner to repent while at the same time decreeing him unable to respond to that appeal, while still holding him responsible.

That doesn't strike you as an untenable position?

The sinner does not respond....not because of what is decreed.....the sinner does not respond because being dead in Adam...he responds in rebellion because he loves his sin, More than God. The sinner has no way of knowing what God has decreed in His plan...other than that which is revealed in scripture....which the sinner also hates because of his own sinful lusts and desires as well as satanic blindness....

You will see this also....when you stop trying to blame God for the sinfulness of the sinner,,,,dead,spiritual corpse in Adam.

 

[Skandelon]

The sinner does not respond....not because of what is decreed

I'd be interested to know if Luke agrees with you on this point.

 

[Herald]

The sinner does not respond....not because of what is decreed.....the sinner does not respond because being dead in Adam...

Correct. Skan and webdog are hung up on the corpse analogy of Ephesians 2:1. Being spiritually dead means dead to righteousness. In Romans 8 we read that the mind set on the flesh is death (8:6). The mind set on the flesh belongs to those who are according to the flesh (8:5). The fleshly, carnal man is the same man who is described in 1 Corinthians 2:14 as the natural man.

The fleshly, carnal, natural man is dead to righteousness. He does not desire righteousness and cannot understand it, spiritually. The result of the Fall is complete and utter.

 

[Iconoclast]

I'd be interested to know if Luke agrees with you on this point.

Skan,

Over time I have noticed that your questions seen to ignore, or not take into account the fact that salvation...or the lack of it ...unfold in real time.

What I mean is you take a theological word...like decree, or foreordain and question it's application. You do not seem to think in terms of what happens in real time.Sinners are sinning. Most have no fear of God. Most have no interest in any of these topics....the thoughts and intents of their heart are only evil continually.
God reveals His eternal purpose to the church.We learn of these things,the world does not.Having a correct view of the doctrine allows for a correct gospel presentation.Denying these truths about mans inability will not further the gospel.

 

[webdog]

Correct. Skan and webdog are hung up on the corpse analogy of Ephesians 2:1. Being spiritually dead means dead to righteousness. In Romans 8 we read that the mind set on the flesh is death (8:6). The mind set on the flesh belongs to those who are according to the flesh (8:5). The fleshly, carnal man is the same man who is described in 1 Corinthians 2:14 as the natural man.

The fleshly, carnal, natural man is dead to righteousness. He does not desire righteousness and cannot understand it, spiritually. The result of the Fall is complete and utter.

We aren't hung up on the analogy, we were merely commenting on it. We don't believe the corpse mentality.

Death is separation from God. That is it. Adding man cannot understand his condition and Gods solution is not found anywhere in Scripture.

 

[Luke2427]

Because they are corpses and they wouldn't know the difference. I think that is common sense and why we don't see anyone torturing dead bodies as a means of punishment.

Because dead corpses are not able to give an account, the very meaning of the word "ACCOUNT-ABLE"

I think He cares about truth and it is clearly true that the Prodigal son was considered dead when he rebelled and separated himself from the father, and then alive when he chose to return home. Any doctrine which intentionally or unintentionally denies human responsibility should be soundly rejected and rebutted. Your doctrine does that by teaching that men are born 'unable to respond' to God revelation (corpse like deadness).

They are only corpses in the sense that they are no more capable of doing righteousness than a corpse is. I should not have to explain this to you.

 

[Herald]

They are only corpses in the sense that they are no more capable of doing righteousness than a corpse is. I should not have to explain this to you.

Thank you. Skan and webdog are complicating the obvious.

 

[webdog]

Thank you. Skan and webdog are complicating the obvious.

No, we were replying directly to Sltzr Mtn.'s quote. Take it up with him.

 

[Herald]

No, we were replying directly to Sltzr Mtn.'s quote. Take it up with him.

Webdog, well, it is well documented (at least with my previous debates with Skan) that I believe Ephesians 2:1 teaches that all sinners are spiritually dead and incapable of any positive spiritual actions. It takes a unilateral act by God, Himself to make the sinner capable of a positive spiritual action such as faith/belief.

 

[Skandelon]

Two things:
1- It doesn't MATTER why. Why God did what he did is irrelevant to us because usually that is a question too great for us.

Well, for one we are debating whether or not God actually did this, so to speculate as to why or why He might not do it is very much in question. If it makes no sense for God to do this, or if it appears to go against his nature somehow, then this makes for a strong case against such conclusions. Granted, its not a full proof slam dunk against Calvinists. It is just a strong case against your speculations that God would do this. I understand why you wouldn't want to speculate as to why...it makes no sense.

2- The call IS powerful enough to do exactly what he intended for it to do- to save the elect.

Now, wait. Remember the call was sent to ALL indiscrimately, so it's not meant to just save the elect, even in the Calvinistic worldview. It is meant to appeal for all to be reconciled 'without prejudice' and 'in good faith.'

The purpose of the gospel, I believe, is powerful enough to do what it was intended, which is to make an appeal and enable a response...for which men are held RESPONSE-ABLE.

No, it isn't like that, but who cares if it is. It is God's prerogative to make things the way he wants to make them and he doesn't have to tell us why.

But you're attempting to make a case for what YOU THINK HIS WAYS are, thus asking you to speculate as to why is well within the purview of our discussion.

No, that's not the only options. He could cause some to hear and leave the others to be deaf to it.... Which is what he DID.

But you know full well he didn't merely 'leave the others to be deaf,' He had to decree for them to be born deaf as that was GOD'S decision. Who, if not God, decided what the result of the fall would be, Luke? The inability of man from birth was decreed by God, was it not? So, please don't pretend God just 'leaves them to do something,' because that is not true to your actual viewpoint. He decreed for them to be such, period.

 

[webdog]

Webdog, well, it is well documented (at least with my previous debates with Skan) that I believe Ephesians 2:1 teaches that all sinners are spiritually dead and incapable of any positive spiritual actions. It takes a unilateral act by God, Himself to make the sinner capable of a positive spiritual action such as faith/belief.

I'm aware of that. I believe any spiritual life apart from Christ is a false doctrine as Scripture states life is in Him. I do agree without God reaching out to man, man would never seek Him.

 

[Skandelon]

With all due respect, you don't appear to be addressing my arguments...

"Not even able to do"

Able to do what? Submit to God's law or trust in the one who fulfilled the law for us? You seem to assume the former proves the latter, but provide NOTHING to back up your assumptions.

"He cannot understand them"

Understand what? The 'deep things of the spirit of God'...'the meat of the word,' which even the 'brethren' in the church of Corinth weren't able to accept, OR the gospel appeal which has been discerned for us through the inspiration of Holy apostles sent to us by God himself? Again you seem to assume the former proves the latter without proof.

"Dead in trespasses and sins"

Dead meaning separated in rebellion as the prodigal son was from his father, or dead meaning like a corpse which would not only be unable to respond positively but also unable to respond negatively? Again...assumptions without proof.

I quadruple down.

That's not a rebuttal.

I love how you just brush away the truth even when it jumps up, bites you on the hindquarters, and refuses to let go.

Again, not a rebuttal...

James is warning Christians about the seriousness of sin. That is the context it needs to be understood in.

Yes, and? How does that context disavow James' clear teaching that death is an eventual result of sins dwelling in rebellion over time versus a condition from birth, as you PRESUME?

Different context.

Not a rebuttal...make your case.

The fact that you are tone deaf and cannot realize I already did list them is not surprising.

You do not need to get personal, that isn't necessary. There is a difference from listing biblical cases for why you disagree with my interpretations (as I have done above), and making accusation of 'fallacy.' A fallacy is like "ad homeinum" (turning from the content to personal attack). HERE is a list of common debate fallacies. If you would like to quote a specific thing I said that you believe was a fallacy, please do so and then make your case. I will then have something of substance I can rebut.

 

[Skandelon]

They are only corpses in the sense that they are no more capable of doing righteousness than a corpse is. I should not have to explain this to you.

The point is that you have to ASSUME that. You are assuming their inability to willingly respond to GOD'S APPEAL! The Prodigal son was said to be 'dead and now alive,' yet the son is the one who 'came to himself' and decided to humble himself enough to return home and beg for forgiveness. Being 'dead' (in rebellion and separated) doesn't NECESSARILY mean inability to respond to a life-giving powerful appeal of God...that is merely your PRESUMPTION.

Not one of you has produced even one text that even comes close to suggesting that men are unable to willingly respond to God's appeals to be reconciled. The closest thing you have are in regard to Israel's being judicially hardened so as to prevent them from coming to faith until redemption is accomplished for the world (i.e. grafting in the Gentiles/hardening the Jews...Rm 11)

 

[Herald]

Not one of you has produced even one text that even comes close to suggesting that men are unable to willingly respond to God's appeals to be reconciled.

We have produced MULTIPLE passages that you disagree with. What a surprise.