Featured The total inability of the Gospel

Skan,

Can you help me a bit before I engage? I am not sure why you believe Calvinism believes in the total inability of the Gospel. Can you provide me with the exegetical basis for your claim?

 

That is a good point considering that Paul said:

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

 

Okay. I understand what you are trying to do. I am looking for the scriptural basis for your position. It will help me in responding. Thanks in advance.

 

:applause::applause::applause:

Now this is the posture one should use when engaging in debate. Thanks and I hope this example continues, regardless of how distinct the differences might be.

 

Ahem ....no such animal...

Yes, I was going through your list. While I did it was with my Calvie glasses on and a Calvie tricks my sleeve upon which I could turn each scripture away from the meaning of having Gospel power to "all" men. This is not difficult to do. The problem is that although you gave a great outline of a good logical argument the opponent will typically suggest the power of the Word is only speaking/enabling to the pre-elect.

Result, you can go on forever about the genuineness of the call...but the C will say, I turn to the scripture and then he will interpret it to mean genuine to the elect, those with predestined ears to hear.

Problem for the C, while he preaches the Gospel to all men, he does not believe it is applicable to all men. The C does not typically include this (little apparently insignificant point) in his gospel. I like to ask about the morality of not including this bit of info in the Gospel, I get many excuses, like that it not part of the Gospel. But I still think there is a moral dilemma in not telling the whole truth, for God is nothing but Truth. Why keep the secret??? As Rev said Rom 1:16.

Frustrating is that you point to the logic of this argument forever, but it will be avoided. How? Well the C will tell you they go by the scriptures not man's logic. Oh, but they don't use logic when they read their presuppositions into it that the scriptures are speaking to the elect??? Try to pin them on this and they will take you in circles forever going back to the scriptures.

...and the saga continues...

Yes, I agree too that he is typically very cordial, this is, until you try to forcibly pin him to his Determinist' logic. Of course, they way one tries to pin could probably be improved upon and I would admit that I personally could do better at using a more gentle approach in doing so. I just haven't found a very good way yet to forcibly pin someone with gentleness if they refuse to be pinned. Problems, problems...

 

Skan,

I am not ignoring what you have to say. I certainly do see its logic. But logic must also be tied to the clear teaching of Scripture. I must weigh every teaching against the Word of God. If it passes that test then so be it.

Let me add that although you were thorough in posting scriptures, that is not exactly exegesis. I would much rather take a specific text and unpack it. What does that passage have to say to us within its context? For example, you cite Romans 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." You believe this verse provides equal access to the Gospel to all who hear it. A person does not have to be regenerated prior to being able to exercise faith (believe). I look at this passage and praise God that the Gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. When I preach the Gospel, I preach it as though everyone who hears it is able to respond. I do not qualify the hearer to check whether or not they are elect. But while I believe that the Gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, I also know that only those whom the Father has called will believe it (Eph. 1:4, 5). I also know that the unregenerate sinner is incapable of saving faith while still in his sin (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13).

Hebrews 4:12 describes the function of the Word of God, not the ability of man to believe the Gospel. I am not sure why you cited this passage.

You cite John 6:63. I assume you cite it in defense of the individual being able to respond to the Spirit who gives life. But two verses later we read these words:

John 6:65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father." The elect are chosen by the Father and given to the Son.

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

1 Peter 1:22-25 is written to believers. Any appeal made in this passage is made to those who already have the Spirit.

Again, John 12:46-50 must be balanced by earlier passages such as John 6:37, 35.

Romans 10:9-17 I hope you do not mind that I expanded the passage you cited to include these additional verses. I would say "Amen!" to the promise contained in this passage. "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." But Skan, here is the rub. Once again we are left with a passage that stands alone. When faced with the myriad of other passages that point to man's inability, and the Father giving the elect to the Son, they color inside the lines. It does not negatively effect how the Calvinist preacher proclaims the Gospel. I have already gone on record stating that I preach the Gospel to all, as if all are able to believe. When I preach I am just part of the means God uses to proclaim the good news. Nothing more.

Isaiah 40:8 expresses the truth of the eternality of the Word of God. Great truth but I am not sure how that fits into this discussion.

Isaiah 55:11 states that God's will of decree, His purpose, will be accomplished. Again, a fantastic truth, but how does not fit into our discussion?

 

Skan, please believe me when I say that I will make every effort to continue our discussions in a manner befitting a child of God. That does not mean that either one of us should be afraid to speak the truth as we see it. Sometimes that means being a bit blunt. Such is the manner of debate. But I have been guilty of getting personal in my past debates. As a minister of the Gospel I am appalled when I read some of my old posts. I have not always been Christ-like and I have repented of that. The fact that others have noticed a change in my behavior is a testimony to God. Soli Deo Gloria!

 

No doubt there are men who are our betters on both sides of the debate. I borrow the phrase, "I stand on the shoulders of giants". But I believe it is important that we exegete the Word for ourselves; especially in a message board venue where our words may influence others.

I do not know why this should appear strange to you. The Reformed view of regeneration has been well-stated on this board ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. Now, I can understand why you would disagree with it. I hate to keep going back to Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; and Eph. 2:1 but they are bedrock verses that attest to the fact that sinful man is not able to understand the things of the Spirit of God. Unless God makes the first move no man can believe.

Perhaps part of the strangeness you refer to has to do with your view of equity? Many Arminians believe that God must give each person an equal chance to hear and respond to the Gospel. In other words God must be fair. But the truth is that God is not equitable or fair; at least not in human terms. God is not beholding to anyone.

I STRONGLY disagree with this. The framers of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith wrote:

No one is saved without the preaching of the Gospel, i.e. the Word of God. It is the Holy Spirit that regenerates the dead sinner allowing him to believe the words of life. Regeneration and the preaching of the Gospel, through the Word, are inexorably linked.

We are generally in agreement here, although we differ in our respective conclusions in respect to man's ability.

You are conflating means (God hardening) with the fact that the sinner is unwilling and unable to believe apart from divine action (1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7).

If by "until the Gospel is commissioned" you mean at Pentecost, then we are agreed.

If that was your point, the sufficiency of Scripture in salvation, that we are agreed. That has never been a point of contention for Calvinists. In fact it is embedded in Dordt's credo of Sola Scriptura.

See my last comment.

Take away the constructed word "response-able" and we are in agreement. There is side of me, specifically the "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" American side, that would love to be able to say I was "response-able" in regards to the Gospel. It would put me in charge. It would become my decision as to whether I would believe in Christ. God would be on the sidelines rooting for me, but ultimately it would come down to whether I was willing to believe. But I cannot get away from 1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:1; and Col. 2:13.

We simply disagree. Yes. Christ called the Apostles. Yes. He commissioned them and gave them authority. But effectual calling was not limited to the Apostles. The Samaritan Woman, the Roman Centurion, Zacchaeus et. al are examples of individuals chosen during Christ's first advent.

I have already strongly objected to this statement and sufficiently dealt with it earlier in this post.

 

the Holy Spirit MUST do His work to open the eyes/ears/hearts of sinners, for the natural man receives not the things of the Lord, for they cannot understand and grasped what is really being said/meant apart from the Holy spirit making them understand with hearing and believing!

the Gospel is indded the power of God to salvation, and it accomplished its task among the Elect to receive it!

 

the Bible is just another book to a sinner, until the Holy Spirit quickens him to read/hear with understanding, and turn to jesus and be saved!

I heard Billy graham preach many crusades while a teenager, but not until college one night did He make me understand 'what it all meant!"