The subject of Hardenig in its connections

[Skandelon]

John 6:44 and the words "no man can come to me" is the assertion of universal spiritual inability

No one can come unless they are ENABLED, but tell me what better enabling power is their than the cross and the powerful gospel appeal...which is being hidden from the Jews at that time (because God doesn't want them to be DRAWN/ENABLED until after the cross). How is that point not relevant to the obvious intent of the writer in John 6?

Israel was UNABLE except for the twelve chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship, but "the Gentiles will listen" because they are not judicially hardened...they "might see, hear, understand and turn."

So, you are right. No one can come unless enabled and the enabling power is TRUTH (the GOSPEL), which is being hidden in parables and blinded from the eyes of the Jews.

Agree or disagree and why?

 

[Skandelon]

Try being response-able to this command:

"Be ye therefore perfect EVEN AS God is perfect"

Believe in Christ and his perfection (righteousness) covers me.

Done.

Next.

"Be holy EVEN AS I am Holy"

Believe in Christ and His blood makes me Holy.

Done.

Next.

These are commandments of God and we are held accountable for obedience to them

Really? You are? There is no condemnation for those in Christ, so are you saying that you, a believer, is held to account for these? ARe you still under Law, or under Grace?

They who perish do so because they refused to accept the truth so as to be saved. They are not ultimately condemned for immorality, they are condemned for unbelief. There are going to be sinners in Hell and in Heaven, the distinction is FAITH.

I'm glad you brought this up because it reveals a KEY MISTAKE OF CALVINISM:

Equating the pursuit to attain righteousness by works with the pursuit to attain righteousness by faith and dismissing both pursuits as being unattainable.


Your PRESUME upon the text, as I once did, that because men cannot attain righteousness through works of the Law that they are also equally unable to attain righteousness through faith in the One who fulfilled the law. That is not only biblically unfounded, but it flies in the face of the common sense rendering of the word 'responsibility.' WE are ABLE to RESPOND and thus held RESPONSIBLE. For what? For our RESPONSE to HIS TRUTH.

Our response to Christ's revelation determines our destiny, not our law breaking.

Second, to argue we are not accountable for our own inability is to argue we are not responsible for our sinful condition but God is. If we are responsible for our inability then no one is to blame but the sinner (Rom. 5:12-19). The whole human nature existed in Adam and Eve and they acted as the respresentatives of humanity just as Christ acted in behalf all who are in him as the "second man" or second Adam. Mankind sinned in Adam just as Levi paid tithes in Abraham (Heb. 7).

If you want to argue for Federal Headship then you need to be consistent.

Paul argued, "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

condemnation for all men
brings life for all men.

The same "all men" who are condemned by headship are brought life by headship. I know, I know, you think that means universalism, but that has NEVER been the case. Atonement throughout scripture has always been applied provisionally through faith and one can be brought life without accepting it just as the provision of the passover sacrifice only benefitted those who actually swiped the blood over their doors in faith that it would save them. So, while the provision IS universal the application is only for those who believe...that has never changed.

 

[The Biblicist]

No one can come unless they are ENABLED, but tell me what better enabling power is their than the cross and the powerful gospel appeal...which is being hidden from the Jews at that time (because God doesn't want them to be DRAWN/ENABLED until after the cross). How is that point not relevant to the obvious intent of the writer in John 6?

Israel was UNABLE except for the twelve chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship, but "the Gentiles will listen" because they are not judicially hardened...they "might see, hear, understand and turn."

So, you are right. No one can come unless enabled and the enabling power is TRUTH (the GOSPEL), which is being hidden in parables and blinded from the eyes of the Jews.

Agree or disagree and why?

[/QUOTE]

Do you seriously believe that human nature is different after the cross than before the cross???

Jn. 6:44 teaches UNIVERSAL inability. You have already admitted that this text applies equally to lost Gentiles as much as Jews. So your attempt to restrict it to Jews or the twelve falls flat.

 

[The Biblicist]

Believe in Christ and his perfection (righteousness) covers me.

Done.

Next.

Believe in Christ and His blood makes me Holy.

Done.

Next.

Really? You are? There is no condemnation for those in Christ, so are you saying that you, a believer, is held to account for these? ARe you still under Law, or under Grace?

Peter is addressing born again Christians already righteous "in Christ" positionally so why is He wasting him breath telling them to be what they already are if your interpretation is true and it has nothing to do with your own person?????????

 

[Skandelon]

Peter is addressing born again Christians already righteous "in Christ" positionally so why is He wasting him breath telling them to be what they already are if your interpretation is true and it has nothing to do with your own person?????????

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that you are not Holy or Righteous?

You do believe that you are completely Holy and Righteous through faith in Christ, don't you?

Again, I'm just not sure what you are attempting to argue. You seem to be saying that God commands us to be righteous but we can't and God condemns us for not being righteous???


As I said...

Your PRESUME upon the text, as I once did, that because men cannot attain righteousness through works of the Law that they are also equally unable to attain righteousness through faith in the One who fulfilled the law.

 

[Skandelon]

Do you seriously believe that human nature is different after the cross than before the cross???

Huh? Not sure how you got that from what I said.

Listen, at this point I'm not even wanting to debate you, I'm just wanting you to understand our perspective because it is clear that you don't yet get what I am saying. I'm not meaning that in a negative way, I'm just wanting you to understand me even if you end up disagreeing with me. I just want you to fully vet that which you have seemed to already reject. Shouldn't you know what you are rejecting before rejecting it?

I'm not, nor have I ever, attempted to argue that men's natural condition was different after the cross. I'm not sure what I said that made you draw that conclusion.

I said...No one can come unless they are ENABLED, but tell me what better enabling power is their than the powerful gospel appeal...which is being hidden from the Jews at that time (because God doesn't want them to be DRAWN/ENABLED until after the cross). How is that point not relevant to the obvious intent of the writer in John 6?

Israel was UNABLE except for the twelve chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship, but "the Gentiles will listen" because they are not judicially hardened...they "might see, hear, understand and turn."

So, you are right. No one can come unless enabled and the enabling power is TRUTH (the GOSPEL), which is being hidden in parables and blinded from the eyes of the Jews. Re-read that again and tell me what you don't agree with...

 

[The Biblicist]

You keep saying that but without addressing Paul's actual words as presented on several occasions now. Hardening is specifically about inability of men to see, hear, understand and repent and Paul specificially tells us that had the Jews not been blinded/hardened they might have seen and turned. You have not rebutted that biblical point yet...

You have only restated your unfounded view...of which I used to believe and teach myself...I don't need more lessons, I need you to support your case after refuting mine.

you asked for my position, I gave it.

Romans 8:7 is the STATE of the carnal mindset found EQUALLY for all those "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8). The STATE OF BEING verb "is" (Rom. 8:7) demonstrates this is a STATE of the fallen or "carnal" nature. The term translated "mind" demonstrates it is a MIND SET or STATE OF MIND. The term "enmity" demonstrates it is a STATE of war. The words "is not subjectto the Law of God" demonstrates an ACTIVE STATE OF RESISTANCE. The words "is not" and "neither indeed CAN be" shows it is an irreversable CONDITION. John 6:44 and the words "no man can" demands EQUAL universal inability in an irreversable STATE that only drawing can reverse.

The above is UNIVERSAL of all men "in the flesh" thus a STATE OF TOTAL INABILTY and DEPRAVITY.

This CONDITION is UNIVERSAL but hardening is not. ALL equally "in the flesh" are without ability but not all have been hardened which proves they are not one and the same. Furthermore, hardening can refer to SPECIFIC light or truths and is a process involving the conscience being "seared" (1 Tim. 4:1-2).

The Hebrew and Greek term translated "hardenth" is found in the present tense or INCOMPLETED ONGOING ACTION proving it is a process (Rom. 9:

Pr 21:29 A wicked man hardeneth his face: but as for the upright, he directeth his way.
Pr 28:14 Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.
Pr 29:1 He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.
Ro 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Hardening is conditioned upon response to truth whereas total inability is characteristic state of all "in the flesh."

 

[The Biblicist]

Huh? Not sure how you got that from what I said.

Listen, at this point I'm not even wanting to debate you, I'm just wanting you to understand our perspective because it is clear that you don't yet get what I am saying. I'm not meaning that in a negative way, I'm just wanting you to understand me even if you end up disagreeing with me. I just want you to fully vet that which you have seemed to already reject. Shouldn't you know what you are rejecting before rejecting it?

I'm not, nor have I ever, attempted to argue that men's natural condition was different after the cross. I'm not sure what I said that made you draw that conclusion.

I said...No one can come unless they are ENABLED, but tell me what better enabling power is their than the powerful gospel appeal...which is being hidden from the Jews at that time (because God doesn't want them to be DRAWN/ENABLED until after the cross). How is that point not relevant to the obvious intent of the writer in John 6?

Israel was UNABLE except for the twelve chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship, but "the Gentiles will listen" because they are not judicially hardened...they "might see, hear, understand and turn."

So, you are right. No one can come unless enabled and the enabling power is TRUTH (the GOSPEL), which is being hidden in parables and blinded from the eyes of the Jews. Re-read that again and tell me what you don't agree with...

Do you believe in universal total spiritual inability? If you do what is this a condition of? God? Man's fallen nature? The regenerate nature? What?

Drawing has nothing to do with universal spiritual inabilty EXCEPT for countering it, it does not deny it but affirms it.

 

[Skandelon]

Here is another approach...maybe it will help bring clarity

Jn. 6:44 teaches UNIVERSAL inability.

Agreed, but does it teach Universal Inability in light of the truth of the gospel appeal or just Universal Inability for those blinded to the truth of the gospel appeal?

 

[Skandelon]

Do you believe in universal total spiritual inability?

Inability to do what?

See, hear, understand God's revelation so as to turn to him for healing, or something else?

 

[The Biblicist]

Huh? Not sure how you got that from what I said.

In a former post you stated that prior to the cross John 6 and the father works of giving, drawing and teaching concerned only the Twelve apostles.

If human nature is the same before as after the cross then the cross should make no difference concerning this passage as the sin problem is the same as well as the solution for sin.

Listen, at this point I'm not even wanting to debate you

Getting top warm and looking for an escape route?

 

[Skandelon]

In a former post you stated that prior to the cross John 6 and the father works of giving, drawing and teaching concerned only the Twelve apostles.

No, I was explaining that all of Israel was being blinded (NOT DRAWN/ENABLED) to come to Christ while he was here on earth, except for the TWELVE. Israel is being blinded from the truth of who Christ was, thus they were not able to come to him. Jesus says those EXACT words in John 12:39, as already discussed (and dismissed based on nothing more than it was in a different chapter)

God GAVE a remnant (few) from Israel to Jesus for him to disciple and equip to be the foundation for his Church. Read John 17 and this is clearly laid out.

Regarding universal inability to save oneself...No one can come to the wedding banquet unless they are invited. "How will they believe in someone they have not heard?" -Paul

So, yes, all must be drawn and the means God has chosen to draw both the Jews and the Gentiles is the gospel appeal...which is sent out AFTER Christ is raised up. "After I'm raised up I will draw all men to myself..." -Jesus

Getting top warm and looking for an escape route?

*sigh*

Aristotle is known for saying, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

But you cannot entertain a thought you have yet to grasp. I'm simply wanting to know that you understand our view of John 6 and nothing you've said thus far convinces me that you are following me. Stop debating me for a second and just let me know you are understanding me. Its fine to disagree with my view, but I need to know you understand what you are disagreeing with first.

 

[The Biblicist]

They who perish do so because they refused to accept the truth so as to be saved. They are not ultimately condemned for immorality, they are condemned for unbelief. There are going to be sinners in Hell and in Heaven, the distinction is FAITH.

Unbelief is but one of many sins that send a person to hell. Gentiles are judged by rebelling willfully against their conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). Others are "without excuse because they rejected ligth of nature that their is a Creator (Rom. 1:19-20). Not all men hear the gospel and so if failure to hear the gospel kept people out of hell, lets all keep it a secret so all can go to heaven. Sin against light of conscience, light of nature, light of the gospel equally condemn men to hell.

I'm glad you brought this up because it reveals a KEY MISTAKE OF CALVINISM:

Equating the pursuit to attain righteousness by works with the pursuit to attain righteousness by faith and dismissing both pursuits as being unattainable.


Your PRESUME upon the text, as I once did, that because men cannot attain righteousness through works of the Law that they are also equally unable to attain righteousness through faith in the One who fulfilled the law.

I said no such thing nor inferred any such thing. The righteousness of the law is only attained by Christ alone for us by faith. I do not deny imputed righteousness as that is the only basis for entrance into heaven and to justify us before God.

However, once your are justified by the righteousness of Christ YOU are to obey the commandments of the Lord BECAUSE OF LOVE and TO PLEASE and GLORY the Lord. Hence, you have a responsibility to PRESS TOWARD THAT MARK - sinlessness even though you cannot "attain it" (Philiip. 3:10-12) because there is no other proper mark to strive for.

In our persons we always "come short of THE GLORY of God" even after salvation but that does not execuse us from "reaching forth" and striving to be "holy EVEN AS He is Holy" as SAVED persons. Indeed, it makes us MORE RESPONSIBLE even though we are UNABLE to attain that mark here and now.

Coming short (sins of omission) is not God's fault but our fault and so our inability is not God's fault but our fault in Adam. Now about you false charge that I am not consistent with my view of representation in Adam.

If you want to argue for Federal Headship then you need to be consistent.

Paul argued, "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

condemnation for all men
brings life for all men.

The same "all men" who are condemned by headship are brought life by headship. I know, I know, you think that means universalism, but that has NEVER been the case. Atonement throughout scripture has always been applied provisionally through faith and one can be brought life without accepting it just as the provision of the passover sacrifice only benefitted those who actually swiped the blood over their doors in faith that it would save them. So, while the provision IS universal the application is only for those who believe...that has never changed.

Your failure to understand this passage properly is that you think that "all" represented by Adam is represented by Christ. That is simply not true. If it were it would teach universal salvation because "by one man's" obedience or disobedience many others WERE MADE sinners or righteous.

I don't think this is the thread to deal with Romans 5:12-19 in detail but Adam represented all who were naturally born from him and Christ represented all who were supernaturally born from him. Verse 17 refers to those who receive his representative work through regenerative faith. Not all in Adam are in Christ as those "in Christ" were chosen "in him" before the foundation of the world and "created in Christ Jesus" by new birth and justified by "faith in him." That is not true of all in Adam but it is absolutely true of all in Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

except for the TWELVE.

There were many more that beleived in Christ and followed him. In Acts 1 there is at least 120 names. John 17 in reference to the Apostles is greatly misunderstood and misapplied. He is referring to them in regard to their apostolic office and calling in fulfilling several functions that none but they could fulfill after the empowering of the Spirit (Isa. 8:14-18; 2 Cor. 12:12; Eph. 2:20). However, that is another thread.

Regarding universal inability to save oneself...No one can come to the wedding banquet unless they are invited. "How will they believe in someone they have not heard?" -Paul

It is not universal inability to save oneself! It is universal inability that includes not saving oneself but includes much more (Rom. 8:7-8). Did you read Matthew 22:14? Many called but "few chosen"?

*sigh*

*sigh*
You took this comment and the similar one in the other Calvin debate too serious! I was just digging at you. However, you are correct, I have never claimed to be a scholar or a good debater. I just do the best I can with what I have.

Aristotle is known for saying, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

But you cannot entertain a thought you have yet to grasp. I'm simply wanting to know that you understand our view of John 6 and nothing you've said thus far convinces me that you are following me.

I have understood it right from the beginning. What happened is that we have included so much in these discussions covering so much territory it has caused lots of miscommunication and confusion. Personally, I hate it when so many rabbit trails are introduced into a discussion. I like to keep it limited and simple and take one thought at a time. The other way is a merry go round that never stops turning.

 

[Skandelon]

Unbelief is but one of many sins that send a person to hell.

Funny how its the only one that distinguishes those in Hell from those in heaven, don't you think? Murders will be in both locations, adulterers will be in both..etc...unbelievers will only be in one.

Why are they condemned, you ask?

John 3:18 says "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Heb. 3:19 "So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief!"

Rm 11:23: "And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

2 Thess 2:10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

But you think God is holding men's sins against them, but what does Paul say?

2 Cor. 5:18 "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

Jesus says, "I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (Jn 12)

What condemn's mankind on the last day? Is it the imputed sin of Adam? NOPE! What does He say? The "very word which I spoke will condemn him." What is that "word?" The gospel truth!

I said no such thing nor inferred any such thing. The righteousness of the law is only attained by Christ alone for us by faith. I do not deny imputed righteousness as that is the only basis for entrance into heaven and to justify us before God.

However, once your are justified by the righteousness of Christ YOU are to obey the commandments of the Lord BECAUSE OF LOVE and TO PLEASE and GLORY the Lord. Hence, you have a responsibility to PRESS TOWARD THAT MARK - sinlessness even though you cannot "attain it" (Philiip. 3:10-12) because there is no other proper mark to strive for.

So, if you admit that we can attain righteousness and holiness through faith what is your point in listing those verses as proof text for things we can't actually do? Remember you listed those verses a proof texts to show that God hold us RESPONSIBLE for things we can't attain, yet you just admitted we can attain these things through faith.

Again, you are confusing man's inability to attain righteousness through works of the law and man's ability to attain righteousness by believing in the One who fulfilled the law in our stead. Proof of the former does not negate the latter.

Coming short (sins of omission) is not God's fault but our fault and so our inability is not God's fault but our fault in Adam.

But who, if not God, decided that the result of our sin through Adam would be that we would all be born unable to willingly respond to His very own appeal to be reconciled back to Him for that original sin? Didn't God have to make the decision that all mankind would be born totally unable to respond to His own appeal for reconciliation?

DO you understand the question?

Your failure to understand this passage properly is that you think that "all" represented by Adam is represented by Christ. That is simply not true. If it were it would teach universal salvation

Did you read my post, because I actually anticipated that very arguement and already rebutted it...since you failed to address that rebut I must presume that you didn't read it...please go back and do so...thanks

 

[Skandelon]

There were many more that beleived in Christ and followed him. In Acts 1 there is at least 120 names.

Yes, but were they entrusted to Christ?

Jn. 2:23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25 He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.

Even the apostles didn't really believe the whole of the gospel until after he was raised:

John 2:22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

You remember that in John 6 these are the 'believers/followers' that he drives away with his hard teachings and only the 12 are left...as Jesus points out at the end of that chapter. They may have wanted to believe in the conquering king, but they didn't believe the truth of a suffering servant...the truth of the gospel...no one really did until after the fact.

John 17 in reference to the Apostles is greatly misunderstood and misapplied. He is referring to them in regard to their apostolic office

Oh, I totally agree and it is in this context he refers to them as being 'given to him by the Father.' That is what I was referring to...God GAVE these men to Christ as apostles, thus enabling them to do that which no one else in Israel (or anywhere for that matter) was enabled/drawn to do. That is why only the 12 were left standing there in John 6 and the rest walked away.

It is universal inability that includes not saving oneself but includes much more (Rom. 8:7-8).

I asked you this once but I don't think you answered. Inability to do what?

Obey the law?
See, hear, understand God's revelation and respond?
Believe in Christ?
What specifically do you believe men are unable to do?

Did you read Matthew 22:14? Many called but "few chosen"?

Of course I know the verse. That verse seems to give much more trouble to Calvinism's view of Unconditional Election than to my view given that the reason the "few are chosen" is actually stated in the parable. Those chosen were those wearing the proper garments, remember? Not sure how that helps you?

*sigh*
You took this comment and the similar one in the other Calvin debate too serious!

Sorry, but tone can't be read in written text and these words came across very snide...nuf said about that. I really don't like getting personal or off topic.

I have understood it right from the beginning.

Your responses haven't reflected that to be honest with you. Your replies seem to be reflective of one who is addressing them for the first time.

Maybe you can BRIEFLY restate in your own words what you think I believe about it before you rebut it? Just a suggestion.

What happened is that we have included so much in these discussions covering so much territory it has caused lots of miscommunication and confusion. Personally, I hate it when so many rabbit trails are introduced into a discussion. I like to keep it limited and simple and take one thought at a time. The other way is a merry go round that never stops turning.

That is why I limited my responses to this one thread and have tried to respond in brief with clarifying questions.

 

[The Biblicist]

Funny how its the only one that distinguishes those in Hell from those in heaven, don't you think? Murders will be in both locations, adulterers will be in both..etc...unbelievers will only be in one.

Why are they condemned, you ask?

John 3:18 says "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Heb. 3:19 "So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief!"

Rm 11:23: "And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

2 Thess 2:10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

In every single case above it is a context where the gospel has been shared with them rather than people who have not heard the gospel. So you choice of scriptures skew your whole attempt to make this to be a universal sin that condemns people to hell.

But you think God is holding men's sins against them, but what does Paul say?

2 Cor. 5:18 "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

Jesus says, "I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (Jn 12)

God could have justly destroyed Adam and Eve IMMEDIATELY sending them and the whole human race into hell and could have done it with complete justicie. However, according to the "blood of the everlasting covenant" God had a chosen people to save in spite of total human nature rebelling in Adam. During the time from Adam until Jesus Comes again God does not "impute" sin against the world in the sene of immediate judgement but due to the reconciliation work of Christ delays destruction of this world until the end when God's redemptive purposes are finished. Howeer, INDIVIDUALLY sinners have gone to hell upon death due to their sins from the death of Cain to the last death of the last sinner living at the end of the world. Romans 1:18-20 makes it clear the gospel has not been preached to every single human living from Adam to the end of the world but God condemns them justly due to the light of nature, light of conscience which they violate as not one word about the gospel can be found in Romans 1:18-31 in regard to the just basis for God's wrath being revealed upon the Gentile world that did not have written revelation from God.

What condemn's mankind on the last day? Is it the imputed sin of Adam? NOPE! What does He say? The "very word which I spoke will condemn him." What is that "word?" The gospel truth!

None will be condemned for the imputed sin of Adam and this precisely why infants and others incapable of individual sin do not go to hell upon death. What sends people to hell is that they are judged according to "THEIR" works and rejecting the gospel is the primary sin for ALL WHO HEARD the gospel.

So, if you admit that we can attain righteousness and holiness through faith what is your point in listing those verses as proof text for things we can't actually do? Remember you listed those verses a proof texts to show that God hold us RESPONSIBLE for things we can't attain, yet you just admitted we can attain these things through faith.

Because they are commandments and we are still held accountable for keeping those commandments even though we are without ability. Christians do face judgement "according to their works" for rewards. Sin is classified in two different forms (1) sins of omission - what we come short; (2) sins of commission - willful transgression. Only as we are walking in the Spirit is that time being redeemed/saved (Eph. 6:16) but the rest of our time is being wasted and lost for the cause and glory of God and so that is why we are exhorted to be "filled" or "walk" or put on the new man and put off the old man or "have this mind in you" or "set your affections on things above" as that is how our daily life is being saved for the glory of God, for future rewards and positions in heaven - nothing about getting into heaven as Christ's righteousness obtained that once and for all. However, it is and will be a fearful thing for Christians to stand before the Lord (2 Cor. 5:10).

Again, you are confusing man's inability to attain righteousness through works of the law and man's ability to attain righteousness by believing in the One who fulfilled the law in our stead. Proof of the former does not negate the latter.

You are simply dealing with getting INTO HEAVEN but I am going beyond that because that is obtained instantly at the point of initial salvation due to Christ's imputed righteousenss alone. YOu were saved to live for Christ or else he would have instantly raptured you to heaven. You are stuck in the first moment of the Christian experience when the entire Christian LIFE is ahead and is all about YOUR WORKS whether or not they glorify God or are a waste of time, lost, burned forever in connection with glorifying God and spiritual growth, obtaiing rewards and experiiencing eternal life rather than merely obtaining eternal life but "life more abundantly." This is what Paul refers to in Philip. 3 as obtaining the "out from the dead" resurrection or the resurrection power or to know by experience the power of the resurrection life of Christ whereby "this body of death" and its works are "mortified" by the power of the Spirit of God thus raising you up from the sphere of the death and of the dead in this world who do not walk and live in the power of the Spirit of God whereby you are reaching forth to obtain the mark of the high calling.

But who, if not God, decided that the result of our sin through Adam would be that we would all be born unable to willingly respond to His very own appeal to be reconciled back to Him for that original sin? Didn't God have to make the decision that all mankind would be born totally unable to respond to His own appeal for reconciliation?

God's permission of sin was absolutely necessary with the creation of free will as that demanded the option of the reality of sin. If God had not of created free will sin would not be an option or reality. So God is the primary author of sin in that sense and God did it willfully. However, God created free will within a moral being held accountable for his own choice for that option and so accountable beings are the immediate and direct author's of sin due to their responsible choice. God did not make them sin as the Bible says sin was "found" in Lucifer.

 

[The Biblicist]

Oh, I totally agree and it is in this context he refers to them as being 'given to him by the Father.' That is what I was referring to...God GAVE these men to Christ as apostles, thus enabling them to do that which no one else in Israel (or anywhere for that matter) was enabled/drawn to do. That is why only the 12 were left standing there in John 6 and the rest walked away.

John 6 cannot in that context or any other context be limited the twelve any more than it could be limited to the 120 as it deals with all of God's people in all ages. The univeral negative (Jn. 6:44) applies as much then as it did with Adam as it does now to all lost men and all whom God saves among lost men. If you actually believe John 6:29-68 can be restricted to the twelve (applied yes, but restricted no) or any select group of God's people within the totality of God's people you are sadly mistaken. It is simply not true and cannot possibly be true for many reasons - God does not have a variety of ways to save His people but only ONE WAY, ONE SAVIOR, ONE GOSPEL, ONE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION and it is the same way prior to the Cross (Acts 10:43) as after because all men have the same precise spiritual problem and God has the same precise spiritual solution and the use of Abraham as THE EXAMPLE of all believers, who lived PRE-Moses/law and PRE-cross proves it (Rom. 4; Gal.3).

I asked you this once but I don't think you answered. Inability to do what?

First this is a "universal inability" inherent in all who are lost "in the flesh" as "NO MAN can" and is therefore the same as spelled out by Paul in Romans 8:7-8. Inability to have a spiritual mindset but dominated by a "carnal mindset" inabilty to love God but dominated by "enmity with God" inability to submit to the revealed will of God but "not subject to the Law of God" inability that is irreversable "neither indeed can be" except by Divine omnipotent intervention ("draw" "ye are not in the flesh but IN THE SPIRIT").

Of course I know the verse. That verse seems to give much more trouble to Calvinism's view of Unconditional Election than to my view given that the reason the "few are chosen" is actually stated in the parable. Those chosen were those wearing the proper garments, remember? Not sure how that helps you?

"MANY are called but FEW are chosen" demonstrates choosing is effectual but calling in this sense is not as in "you see your calling brethren....not many..but God hath chosen." The general call does not equal "chosen" but the effectual call does equal chosen. You cannot possibly deny that John 6:45 is an effectual call as "every man" thus taught comes to Christ and that is simply not true with the general call by the Gospel.

 

[Skandelon]

In every single case above it is a context where the gospel has been shared with them rather than people who have not heard the gospel. So you choice of scriptures skew your whole attempt to make this to be a universal sin that condemns people to hell.

I think you misunderstand my view. People are condemned for unbelief for what ever level of revelation they refuse to believe (not just the gospel).

Romans 1 addresses this. People who refuse to acknowledge God are without excuse because what can be known of God has been clearly revealed. Calvinism, IMO, wrongly gives mankind back their excuse by suggesting that all are born unable to see, hear or understand that which has been clearly revealed unless God first uses irresistibly means to regenerate them.

Regarding those who have never heard the gospel, you can read this link to better understand our perspective.

God could have justly destroyed Adam and Eve IMMEDIATELY sending them and the whole human race into hell and could have done it with complete justicie.

Agreed.

Romans 1:18-20 makes it clear the gospel has not been preached to every single human living from Adam to the end of the world but God condemns them justly ...

You seem to assume that no one since Adam has responded positively to the light of God's revelation, but that isn't true. Scripture reveals that many throughout history found favor in God's eyes. You can PRESUME, as you must, that God "found favor" because He irresistibly caused them to be favorable, but it would be just that...a presumption and an unfounded one at that.

 

[Skandelon]

Because they are commandments and we are still held accountable for keeping those commandments even though we are without ability.

This deserves a post of its own.

1. What do you mean by 'still held accountable for keeping those commandments?' Aren't those under grace forgiven even if they fail to keep those commandments? What are you suggesting that God is going to do to Christians who fail to keep these commandments? Withhold mansions or crowns? What are you suggesting might be the result of sin for the believer even if condemnation is not possible?

2. What do you mean 'without ability.' When you, as a child of God, are tempted to sin do you have the ability to resist that temptation or not?