The total inability of the Gospel

[Skandelon]

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!

But its not just another book for real. It's God's inspired word given to bring understanding to otherwise mysterious truths of God. His WORD is the means by which He chooses to bring discernment, so there is no good reason to suggest that the Word of God is an insufficient work of God to bring understanding and enable a response.

To suggest otherwise only gives the rebellious and unbelievers a really good excuse for their rebellion and unbelief..."God didn't grant them the ability."

 

[The Biblicist]

.

To suggest otherwise only gives the rebellious and unbelievers a really good excuse for their rebellion and unbelief..."God didn't grant them the ability."

That is rediculous! God was not responsible for their loss of ability! They acted in Adam as one undivided human nature with FULL RESPONSIBILITY for forfeiting their ability. The willing forfeiture of that ability is found in the very nature of sin and death that separates man from all Spiritual life found in God.

 

[BobRyan]

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 !

The Holy Spirit "Convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" not just Calvinism's FEW of Matt 7.

Christ "Draws ALL " mankind unto Himself John 12:32. Even Calvinists admit that the Drawing of God enables the choice that depravity disabled.

The Holy Spirit says "COME" so that "Whosoever will may COME" to Christ. Rev 22:17

 

[The Biblicist]

The Holy Spirit "Convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" not just Calvinism's FEW of Matt 7.

Christ "Draws ALL " mankind unto Himself John 12:32. Even Calvinists admit that the Drawing of God enables the choice that depravity disabled.

The Holy Spirit says "COME" so that "Whosoever will may COME" to Christ. Rev 22:17

John 14-17 deals with apostles and the present work of salvation by the Holy Spirit as well as their future role in salvation to the gentiles/world. Revelation 22:17 does not say "whoseover WILL NOT may come" and no fallen mankind will come except through the regenerating work of the Spirit (Rom. 8:8-9).

 

[Skandelon]

That is rediculous! God was not responsible for their loss of ability!

Oh, so God did grant them the ability to respond? No, he didn't.

And who was it that decided the result of Adam's sin would be total inability? Mother Nature? Us? Satan? Is that the one determination God didn't make in your system?

that ability is found in the very nature of sin and death that separates man from all Spiritual life

And WHO if not God designed that "NATURE."

You can't get around this bro.

 

[webdog]

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!"

This actually supports Skan's commentary that the fallen nature is more powerful than the Spirit inspired Word of God.

The reason you didn't respond to the Gospel was not due to inability but suppression of the truth.

 

[Skandelon]

Two fathers.

Father 1: His son lies to him so he spanks him and makes him stay in his room for the rest of the day. Someone asks the father, "Why is the son confined to his room?" The father replies, "Because he lied to me and that is his punishment." "But who decided that punishment," they inquire? The father responds, "I did. And I will appeal to him later to be reconciled by repenting. If he refuses he will remain in his room, separated from fellowship with me."

Father 2: His son lies to him so he kills him. Someone asks the father, "Why is the son dead?" The father replies, "Because he lied to me and that is his punishment." "But who decided that punishment," they inquire? The father responds, "He did." They argue, "But, your son didn't decided the punishment for lying, you did." The father continues, "No, that just IS the punishment for lying, it is the nature of act that causes him to be killed. But, I'll still ask him to repent for lying so we can be reconciled." They continue, "But, huh, er, you already killed him..why would you ask him to repent for his lies if you already killed him? He can't repent now!" The father asserts, "He should have thought about that before he lied. It is his fault." "Well, it is his fault for telling a lie, I agree, but he isn't at fault for not responding to your requests now, you took away that ability when you decided to kill him," they protest. The father replies, "Naw, he made that decision, now leave me alone so I can be patient with him, hold out my hands to him, and ask him to respond." "Ok, sure, whatever you say. But I'm still calling the cops, cause you're crazy," they say.

 

[Skandelon]

The reason you didn't respond to the Gospel was not due to inability but suppression of the truth.

And how do you even "suppress a truth" that you never could actually understand because it wasn't spiritually discerned for you?

The TRUTH shall set you free! Unless of course you are just TOO enslaved and the 'truth' is just too weak to free you.

 

[The Biblicist]

Oh, so God did grant them the ability to respond? No, he didn't.

And who was it that decided the result of Adam's sin would be total inability? Mother Nature? Us? Satan? Is that the one determination God didn't make in your system?

And WHO if not God designed that "NATURE."

You can't get around this bro.

I have answered this fully and completely already and you could not respond and so you simply ignore it and reassert this nonsensical accusation.

The human nature with full ability acted in the person of Adam and freely forfeited its capability by the act of sin. Sin by its very nature is rebellion against God and rebellion by its very nature SEPARATES you from God, in whom IS LIFE. The nature of man FELL into SIN and DEATH and thus took on the very nature of sin and death which IS rebellion and which IS separation from God. That is the definition of the fallen nature in Romans 8:7-8. It "IS" enmity against God. That is what it "IS" by nature due to the fall into sin as sin "IS" by nature REBELLION AGAINST GOD.

It "IS" not subject to the law of God because sin by nature "IS" resistance against God's of will - this "IS" the Law of sin and this "IS" the fallen nature as this "IS" the nature of the fall in and of itself.

This "IS" the fallen nature by definition of the fall into sin. The fallen nature CANNOT love and yeild to God, it is totally without ability to do so ("neither indeed can be"), BECAUSE it is TOTALLY DEPRAVED, meaning it "IS" enmity against God as it continuous action state of being; and it "IS" not subject to the law of God as its continuous action state of being because that "IS" what sin "IS"!!!!

So if you have not yet figured it out, it was not God, nature or some external force, but THE VERY NATURE OF WHAT SIN IS, is the cause.
As you know "IS" is a STATE OF BEING VERB!

As you know "IS" is ON GOING CONTINUOUS ACTION

 

[Skandelon]

THE VERY NATURE OF WHAT SIN IS

Who designed that nature?

 

[The Biblicist]

Two fathers.

Father 1: His son lies to him so he spanks him and makes him stay in his room for the rest of the day. Someone asks the father, "Why is the son confined to his room?" The father replies, "Because he lied to me and that is his punishment." "But who decided that punishment," they inquire? The father responds, "I did. And I will appeal to him later to be reconciled by repenting. If he refuses he will remain in his room, separated from fellowship with me."

Father 2: His son lies to him so he kills him. Someone asks the father, "Why is the son dead?" The father replies, "Because he lied to me and that is his punishment." "But who decided that punishment," they inquire? The father responds, "He did." They argue, "But, your son didn't decided the punishment for lying, you did." The father continues, "No, that just IS the punishment for lying, it is the nature of act that causes him to be killed. But, I'll still ask him to repent for lying so we can be reconciled." They continue, "But, huh, er, you already killed him..why would you ask him to repent for his lies if you already killed him? He can't repent now!" The father asserts, "He should have thought about that before he lied. It is his fault." "Well, it is his fault for telling a lie, I agree, but he isn't at fault for not responding to your requests now, you took away that ability when you decided to kill him," they protest. The father replies, "Naw, he made that decision, now leave me alone so I can be patient with him, hold out my hands to him, and ask him to respond." "Ok, sure, whatever you say. But I'm still calling the cops, cause you're crazy," they say.

Here is the total foundation of Skandelon's theology - PURE PHILSOPHICAL RATIONALIZATIONS that are misleading and irrational.

I have directly and specifically answered this objection FOUR TIMES now and how many times has Skandelon responded to my specifics? "0" times! Why? Because he cannot respond so he acts like a parrot and repeats and repeats his nonsense!

I have answered this fully and completely already and you could not respond and so you simply ignore it and reassert this nonsensical accusation.

The human nature with full ability acted in the person of Adam and freely forfeited its capability by the act of sin. Sin by its very nature is rebellion against God and rebellion by its very nature SEPARATES you from God, in whom IS LIFE. The nature of man FELL into SIN and DEATH and thus took on the very nature of sin and death which IS rebellion and which IS separation from God. That is the definition of the fallen nature in Romans 8:7-8. It "IS" enmity against God. That is what it "IS" by nature due to the fall into sin as sin "IS" by nature REBELLION AGAINST GOD.

It "IS" not subject to the law of God because sin by nature "IS" resistance against God's of will - this "IS" the Law of sin and this "IS" the fallen nature as this "IS" the nature of the fall in and of itself.

This "IS" the fallen nature by definition of the fall into sin. The fallen nature CANNOT love and yeild to God, it is totally without ability to do so ("neither indeed can be"), BECAUSE it is TOTALLY DEPRAVED, meaning it "IS" enmity against God as it continuous action state of being; and it "IS" not subject to the law of God as its continuous action state of being because that "IS" what sin "IS"!!!!

So if you have not yet figured it out, it was not God, nature or some external force, but THE VERY NATURE OF WHAT SIN IS, is the cause.
As you know "IS" is a STATE OF BEING VERB!

As you know "IS" is ON GOING CONTINUOUS ACTION

So the answer? The answer is that this is the very essence of what sin "IS" and God warned man of sin and its inherent consequences.

 

[Skandelon]

The answer is that this is the very essence of what sin "IS" and God warned man of sin and its inherent consequences.

inherent = "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute"

consequence = "a result or effect of an action or condition"

So, based on this statement, is it correct to assume that you believe God had no control, power over, or decision regarding this "inherent consequence" of sin? It just "IS"?

In other words, God couldn't, even if he wanted to, enable a fallen nature to respond to his revelation? Sin's nature is more powerful than God? Is that your argument?

I'm not trying to be combative here...I'm honestly just wondering how you deal with this objection because as a Calvinist myself I never could. Eventually you must agree that God is the one who decided the consequences of sin, period.

 

[The Biblicist]

inherent = "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute"

consequence = "a result or effect of an action or condition"

So, based on this statement, is it correct to assume that you believe God had no control, power over, or decision regarding this "inherent consequence" of sin? It just "IS"?

In other words, God couldn't, even if he wanted to, enable a fallen nature to respond to his revelation? Sin's nature is more powerful than God? Is that your argument?

I'm not trying to be combative here...I'm honestly just wondering how you deal with this objection because as a Calvinist myself I never could. Eventually you must agree that God is the one who decided the consequences of sin, period.

Who can make sin righteousness? Can God? Sin IS what it IS and the fallen nature IS the "law of sin" at work. What IS sin? Is it not rebellion against God and thus "not subject to the law of God" or can sin BE righteousness???

Sin IS enmity against God can you change it to being LOVE for God?

Sin IS inherently enmity against God and resistance against God and not even God can make sin something that it IS not and your fallen nature IS what sin IS. That is why man MUST be born again and given a NEW nature as not even God can make SIN and the "law of sin" righteous.

 

[Skandelon]

Sin IS enmity against God can you change it to being LOVE for God?

Not alone, no. But what if God sent his son to die for me, inspired a dozen or so men to explain his love for me, sent his Holy Spirit to bring conviction, and his bride to be His very hands and feet to show me that love in action? Then can I respond to God's working through those means to HIS LOVE, HIS APPEAL, HIS GRACIOUS PROVISIONS?

Can a rebellious child, who has become estranged with his father in a horrible way, so much so that he is an enemy and hates his father deeply, be changed? If so, how so? Would a loving, gracious, overwhelming sacrifice help to soften the heart of the wayward child? It could. Would the father coming and pleading with the son to come back home make a difference? It could. If nothing else it would make it much more likely to happen if the father was making these efforts to seek and save his wayward son, wouldn't it? Of course it would. So why would it be different for God who is seeking to save the lost? His work through all these means certainly have enabling power.

Paul even says, "How will they believe in one whom they have not heard," which strongly implies that if they hear they may believe. That appeal of the gospel may not be effectual, but it certainly might be enabling...there is no reason not to believe it is considering that God holds us responsible for our response to that appeal.

Sin IS inherently enmity

By whose design? If its not God then just say so. If sin is eternal, like God, and has no beginning, then say so. But answer the question please. Who designed it so that when men sin they become incapable of even responding to God's very own appeal (or "command" if you insist) for reconciliation?

And is it your contention that God could not, even if He wanted to, have made the gospel appeal powerful enough to enable men to respond willingly to it? Please answer these questions. Thanks

 

[The Biblicist]

Not alone, no. But what if God sent his son to die for me, inspired a dozen or so men to explain his love for me, sent his Holy Spirit to bring conviction, and his bride to be His very hands and feet to show me that love in action? Then can I respond to God's working through those means to HIS LOVE, HIS APPEAL, HIS GRACIOUS PROVISIONS?

That is like asking if God could simply explain darkness into light without any creative act in Genesis 1:2-3. No amount of mere rationalization can change enmity into love.

What you are failing to grasp is that there is NO SALVATION for the fallen nature either before or after regeneration (Rom. 7:18, 24). The fallen nature does not change in the regeneated man, it is simply either subdued by the power of the Holy Spirit or else it assumes control. That is why anything a saved person does for the glory of God must originate from the new creation and by the power of God - "for it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure."

Can a rebellious child, who has become estranged with his father in a horrible way, so much so that he is an enemy and hates his father deeply, be changed? If so, how so?

First, he is a child OF SATAN and does not belong to God's family. Second, he is an enemy BY NATURE (and that is what you can't grasp) and it requires NEW BIRTH to become part of God's family and to love God. In the book of first John there is a repeated Greek construction that requires new birth before any man can do righteousness, love God or believe in Christ. In each case "born of God" is Aorist tense verb whereas the "doeth....loveth....beleiveth" are all present tense participles. The KJV translates them properly as IDENTFICAL or SIMLETANEOUS action "is born."

Would a loving, gracious, overwhelming sacrifice help to soften the heart of the wayward child?

First there is NO Father child relationship existent. Second the fallen nature does not change (you don't seem to grasp this). So your whole basis for rationalization is simply false.

Paul even says, "How will they believe in one whom they have not heard," which strongly implies that if they hear they may believe. That appeal of the gospel may not be effectual, but it certainly might be enabling...there is no reason not to believe it is considering that God holds us responsible for our response to that appeal.

Yes, the mind must obtain the right information as the "substance" of faith provides the basis for "hope" in regard to salvation. But correct informtion alone is not sufficient to obtain saving faith because saving faith requires more then correct mental facts. There must be comprehension by the mind in union with committment/trust through an embracing heart. The lost man is wholly without that ability due to what he is by nature - Rom. 8:7 - and nothing can reverse or change that nature due to what it "is." Salvation can only be obtained through divine creation of a "NEW HEART" and a "NEW SPIRIT" which are conducive to that message (Ezek. 36:26; 2 Cor. 3:3-6; 4:6; Deut. 29:4; Jer. 31:33-34; Heb. 8, 10; etc.).

By whose design?

The Bible says that inqiuiity was "FOUND IN" Lucifer! The Bible does not say sin was "designed" by Lucifer or by God. Man did not design sin. Satan did not design sin. Sin is the absence of righteousness, light and love. Sin by its very nature is enmity to God. Sin by its very nature separates from God. The fallen nature is a nature that operates by the "law of sin."

And is it your contention that God could not, even if He wanted to, have made the gospel appeal powerful enough to enable men to respond willingly to it? Please answer these questions. Thanks

You still don't understand the simple fact that there is no salvation for the fallen nature - never - at any time - but that it must be destroyed in death or in the rapture. It is not who shall save this "body of death" but rather who shall "DELIVER ME FROM" this body of death. This body must either die or be miraculously transformed so that the law of sin/corruption is destroyed.

There is no APPEAL that can woo the fallen nature which is governed by the law of sin to be anythng other than what it "IS" by nature. The law of sin is the nature of the lost man and only by creating a NEW HEART and a NEW SPIRIT by divine fiat can there be any aspect within fallen man that is gospel prone.

 

[Skandelon]

The fallen nature does not change in the regeneated man, it is simply either subdued by the power of the Holy Spirit or else it assumes control.

Ok, so you are arguing that a regenerate man doesn't get his nature changed, made new? But that a regenerate man simply has his fallen nature subdued by the HS? Is that correct?

If the HS's work through regeneration can subdue the fallen will enough to certainly bring man to faith, why couldn't the HS's work through the Gospel subdue the fallen nature enough to certainly enable a free response?

 

[Skandelon]

But correct informtion alone is not sufficient to obtain saving faith

Ok, I want to address this. Can we, and should we, reduce the spoken Word of God to mere transfer of information? Is truth powerful, or not?

Jesus said, "The very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." And there are MANY other texts which speak to the power of WORDS. Speaking of God's word is another way of saying "REVELATION." It is God means to REVEAL TRUTH...to DECERN his mysteries. To EXPLAIN Himself.

The only thing that would prevent truth from being effective is if someone chose to 'trade truth in for lies" OR if they didn't hear that truth. This is why Jesus purposefully hid the truth in parables to prevent the Jewish leaders from understanding the truth so as to possibly bring them to faith. (Mk 4; Matt 13). God is said to 'send them a spirit of stupor' to keep them from hearing the truth, because truth can set man free when they hear it.

The Bible says that inqiuiity was "FOUND IN" Lucifer! The Bible does not say sin was "designed" by Lucifer or by God. Man did not design sin. Satan did not design sin. Sin is the absence of righteousness, light and love. Sin by its very nature is enmity to God. Sin by its very nature separates from God. The fallen nature is a nature that operates by the "law of sin."

Ok, so this is something God is not sovereign over? He has no control over the nature of sin or its consequences? Is that your position? Again, just trying to understand.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok, so you are arguing that a regenerate man doesn't get his nature changed, made new?

Let's examine your choice of terms more closely that you are attempting to put in my mouth. The language above is really nonsensical.

1. First a "regenerate" man demands a change has already occurred as no man comes into this world regenerated.

2. Second, you want to confuse what an unregenerated man is by nature with what a regenerated man is NOT BY NATURE as the new birth is not a product of nature but by miraculous divine creation.

3. Third, my view properly worded and expressed by you would be, "so you are arguing that the unregenerated man doesn't get his fallen nature changed, made new, but God provides by divine fiat an ADDITIONAL NEW NATURE never existent within fallen man prior to that point?"

But that a regenerate man simply has his fallen nature subdued by the HS? Is that correct?

Your question infers you do not believe saved persons have two conflicting natures. So you would interpret Romans 7:14-25 as the lost man and Galatians 5:16-17 and Ephesians 4 (put on....put off) as external influences upon the saved man. Is that correct?

If the HS's work through regeneration can subdue the fallen will enough to certainly bring man to faith, why couldn't the HS's work through the Gospel subdue the fallen nature enough to certainly enable a free response?

Because the regenerate nature is gospel prone but the fallen nature is gospel resistant.

 

[Skandelon]

Let's examine your choice of terms more closely that you are attempting to put in my mouth. The language above is really nonsensical.
Your question infers you do not believe saved persons have two conflicting natures.

You are reading intent into my inquiries. I'm not attempting to express my view by asking these question. I merely asked you questions to gain clarity about your perspective...I'm not trying to 'put words in your mouth.' Please try to assume the best intent from my replies. I really am not attempting to misrepresent you.

I actually do believe we have internal conflict...flesh/spirit. And I believe that in order to make spiritual decisions we need spiritual assistance. I just believe that assistance is enabling (non irresistible), universal (not limited), and normative (not supernatural...meaning 'through the Word,' not a irresistible 'zapping')

Because the regenerate nature is gospel prone but the fallen nature is gospel resistant.

Prone? or Effectual?

And since we are talking about two separate natures here, on what basis do you insist that the soul of man cannot be enabled by a work of the Spirit to respond? If a work of the Spirit can irresistibly cause faith, why couldn't a work of the Spirit enable a free response? To presume that God is able to effectuate one, and not the other is kind of begging the question, isn't it?

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok, I want to address this. Can we, and should we, reduce the spoken Word of God to mere transfer of information? Is truth powerful, or not?

ALL truth is powerful, whether scientific truth, mathmatical truth, philsophical truth as it all dispells ignorance. However, the truth has no power whatsoever to make substantive changes. It can expose but not change anything inherently evil.

Jesus said, "The very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." And there are MANY other texts which speak to the power of WORDS. Speaking of God's word is another way of saying "REVELATION." It is God means to REVEAL TRUTH...to DECERN his mysteries. To EXPLAIN Himself.

Note the context of these words. The truth did not change unbelief to belief in those in verse 64 because it was not "given" unto them by the Father (v. 65). Verse 65 demands something additional to truth for faith to come into existence. Something that must be "given" unto them.

Note the contrast in the context. "The flesh profiteth nothing" and verse 64 provides an example of "the flesh" in response to truth. Truth did not have any effect on changing "the flesh" and NEVER WILL.

Jesus is referring to the CONTENT of his words. His words in CONTENT are spiritual and life. If merely by speaking such words they PRODUCE spirit and life then that is the effectual call.

Ok, so this is something God is not sovereign over? He has no control over the nature of sin or its consequences? Is that your position? Again, just trying to understand.

This is like asking if God is sovereign over a character trait! Is God sovereign over love or "IS" God love? Sin IS enmity to God and IS rebellion/resistance to God's will and NEVER CAN BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN IT IS. If its inherent nature is changed it no longer exists. God does not change, redeem, save the law of sin but DESTROYS it in death and glorification of the body.