To Sin or Not

[glfredrick]

Being alienated does not mean Total Inability. Cain did not give a suitable sacrifice to God, but God said he could and "if" he did so he would be accepted. So Cain COULD HAVE given an acceptable sacrifice, he was not unable. The fact that he chose not to obey God does not prove he was unable.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

The word "if" shown twice in this verse shows that Cain had the option to give or not give an acceptable sacrifice. This verse shows ABILITY.

Cain was alienated from God, but he did not have to remain so. He could have given an acceptable sacrifice and been reconciled to God.

And notice that God said Cain would rule over sin, not the other way around as Calvinism falsely teaches. Total Inability is false doctrine and is not supported by a single verse of scripture.

Show me even one verse that says unregenerate men are unable to believe. Just ONE verse.

You can't do it and you KNOW it. You believe a doctrine that is not shown even once in all of scripture. Unbelieveable!

Yes, actually total inability does mean precisely that. You have given it a completely different understanding -- a strawman that you can argue against and knock down -- but in fact, total inability means precisely that we cannot come to God in a SALVIFIC WAY based on our own works. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.

So, again, DO WE HAVE TOTAL INABILITY or are we Pelagians who have ability in our own right?

 

[glfredrick]

Sounds like we have an "accord". Ushering in the "Hallelujah Chorus"!!


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: and one more for good measure :thumbsup:

I'd not start singing the halleluah chorus with the likes of MB, Winman, Benjamin, and yourself as the leaders of the singing...

None of you has adequately dealt with the true meaning of total inability as yet. What you are all suggesting is that Pelagianism is in fact truth -- and that WE have some ability within us to come to God in a salvific way.

Yes or no? Can WE come to God in some salvific way or do we totally lack the ability to do anything in the nature of a human work that brings us to God for salvation?

Ball is in your court...

 

[Winman]

Yes, actually total inability does mean precisely that. You have given it a completely different understanding -- a strawman that you can argue against and knock down -- but in fact, total inability means precisely that we cannot come to God in a SALVIFIC WAY based on our own works. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.

So, again, DO WE HAVE TOTAL INABILITY or are we Pelagians who have ability in our own right?

It is you that is changing the meaning. I never said man is able to earn or merit salvation through his own works. You are putting words in my mouth, a common form of false argument from Calvinists.

I am saying that Cain was able to respond to God and give an acceptable sacrifice if he would have chosen to do so. The fact he did not does not prove he was unable, the word "if" implies he could have.

There is no "if" in Calvinism. In your view, unless God regenerated Cain, it would be impossible for him to be willing to give an acceptable sacrifice. And if God did regenerate him, it would have been impossible for him not to give an acceptable sacrifice. There are no "if's" in your doctrine.

So, the word "if" in this verse refutes Total Inability.

 

[glfredrick]

It is you that is changing the meaning. I never said man is able to earn or merit salvation through his own works. You are putting words in my mouth, a common form of false argument from Calvinists.

I am saying that Cain was able to respond to God and give an acceptable sacrifice if he would have chosen to do so. The fact he did not does not prove he was unable, the word "if" implies he could have.

There is no "if" in Calvinism. In your view, unless God regenerated Cain, it would be impossible for him to be willing to give an acceptable sacrifice. And if God did regenerate him, it would have been impossible for him not to give an acceptable sacrifice. There are no "if's" in your doctrine.

So, the word "if" in this verse refutes Total Inability.

Winman, I am making no false argument here. Total Inability means precisely what I said. Look it up instead of making up your own definition.

Because you HAVE made up your own definition, you go off the deep end to defeat something that is not even real.

 

[MB]

Yes, actually total inability does mean precisely that. You have given it a completely different understanding -- a strawman that you can argue against and knock down -- but in fact, total inability means precisely that we cannot come to God in a SALVIFIC WAY based on our own works. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.

So, again, DO WE HAVE TOTAL INABILITY or are we Pelagians who have ability in our own right?

This makes a new meaning for this total depravity. No more inability to hear or understand now it's an inability to come to God. Does that works part include faith? I sense a wavering in your faith. It all sounds so desparate. What's next?
MB

 

[HankD]

Winman, I am making no false argument here. Total Inability means precisely what I said. Look it up instead of making up your own definition.

Because you HAVE made up your own definition, you go off the deep end to defeat something that is not even real.

Just out of curiosity brother, what do you make of the conversation between Cain and God?

If Cain was reprobate and totally unable to respond then why did God even bother encouraging him to do the right thing?

God never does this with satan (for example) or his angels i.e. to do the right thing as He knows truely that he/they cannot.

Yet God reasons with Cain as if he had this ability.

Again, I'm curious about your interpretation as to what was going on between God and Cain in the light of calvinistic dogma concerning the human will.


HankD

 

[glfredrick]

This makes a new meaning for this total depravity. No more inability to hear or understand now it's an inability to come to God. Does that works part include faith? I sense a wavering in your faith. It all sounds so desparate. What's next?
MB

No, not at all!

That IS the historical understanding. Those who HATE Calvinism have applied the other definition -- something that those of us who actually understand Calvinism have been trying to say often.

Calvin's own explanation is as I have said, not that Calvin is the author of the theology that bears his name -- that is but another strawman argument.

 

[glfredrick]

Just out of curiosity brother, what do you make of the conversation between Cain and God?

If Cain was reprobate and totally unable to respond then why did God even bother encouraging him to do the right thing?

God never does this with satan (for example) or his angels i.e. to do the right thing as He knows truely that he/they cannot.

Yet God reasons with Cain as if he had this ability.

Again, I'm curious about your interpretation as to what was going on between God and Cain in the light of calvinistic dogma concerning the human will.


HankD

You seem to presuppose that God is limited in HIS ability to speak to us, though we are indeed spiritually dead. That would negate salvation at all, right?

And is not the call of God constantly and continually for us to obey Him -- even though we cannot? I believe that was a big part of Paul's argument in Romans... We remain fully culpable for our sins though we can do nothing to halt them (double culpable in a fashion as we are both unable and yet we also do sin all the more!).

 

[convicted1]

I'd not start singing the halleluah chorus with the likes of MB, Winman, Benjamin, and yourself as the leaders of the singing...

Who said we'd invite you? :tongue3: :laugh: j/k

None of you has adequately dealt with the true meaning of total inability as yet. What you are all suggesting is that Pelagianism is in fact truth -- and that WE have some ability within us to come to God in a salvific way.

Look, anything other than Calvinsim does not default to Pelagianism. I have never stated that we have any ability in ourselves to save ourselves, but there are many passages where God spoke with unregenerated man. If you have a problem with that, take it up with God.

Yes or no? Can WE come to God in some salvific way or do we totally lack the ability to do anything in the nature of a human work that brings us to God for salvation?

Ball is in your court...

So, you let all the air out of the ball, and then say it's in my court?

No one can come to God on their own. They must be drawn first. However, we were still dead in our sins at this point. Only when we are saved, then placed in Christ, are we made spiritually alive.

 

[kyredneck]

Just out of curiosity brother, what do you make of the conversation between Cain and God?

If Cain was reprobate and totally unable to respond then why did God even bother encouraging him to do the right thing?

God never does this with satan (for example) or his angels i.e. to do the right thing as He knows truely that he/they cannot.

Yet God reasons with Cain as if he had this ability.

Again, I'm curious about your interpretation as to what was going on between God and Cain in the light of calvinistic dogma concerning the human will.


HankD

You seem to presuppose that God is limited in HIS ability to speak to us, though we are indeed spiritually dead. That would negate salvation at all, right?

And is not the call of God constantly and continually for us to obey Him -- even though we cannot? I believe that was a big part of Paul's argument in Romans... We remain fully culpable for our sins though we can do nothing to halt them (double culpable in a fashion as we are both unable and yet we also do sin all the more!).

not as Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his works were evil, and his brother`s righteous. 1 Jn 3:12

Pink:

“"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door; and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him" (Gen. 4:7). This verse has always been a difficult one to expositors and commentators, and we have never yet seen any explanation of it that fully satisfied us. The interpretation most widely received is as follows: Why art thou wroth, Cain? If thou doest well if you will present the proper and specified offering it will be accepted; and if thou doest not well—if the offering you brought has been rejected the remedy is simple "sin lieth at the door," i.e., a suitable and meet offering, a sin offering is right to your hand, and if you present this you shall "have the excellency’’ (margin), that is, you shall retain the right of the firstborn and have the precedence over Abel your younger brother.......Undoubtedly the words "If thou doest well" have reference to the bringing of a proper offering to the Lord. In case Cain was willing to do this Jehovah asks, "Shalt thou not have the excellency" (margin), which means, Shalt thou not retain the right of primogeniture over Abel? "And if thou doest not well sin lieth at the door," which we understand to mean, If you refuse to bring the required offering, sin lieth (Hebrew, is crouching) at the door, and like a wild beast is ready to spring upon you and devour you. The remainder of the verse referring back to the matter of Cain’s rights by virtue of his seniority.”
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis_07.htm

Which jives perfectly with the type (36 similarities):

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1528709&highlight=margin#post1528709

"It was Cain’s God-given privilege to rule over his brother (Gen. 4:7).
Had Israel walked in God’s statutes they would have been the head of the nations (Deut. 28:13).

Cain forfeited his God-given privilege to rule over his brother.
But through sin the Jews forfeited the place and privilege (Isa. 9:14).

Being envious of Abel, Cain wickedly slew him.
It was the Jews who crucified the Christ of God (Acts 5:30)."

 

[DaChaser1]

Calvininism seems to think that the only way God can look good is for man to look horribly evil, even though the scriptures continue to say man is made in the image of God after the fall.

Jam 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Calvinism is actually doing what this verse is condemning, it is speaking evil of men who are made after the similitude of God.

That this "extreme" view is false is easily shown by Jesus himself. When Jesus wanted to teach the people how good our heavenly Father is, he compared God to men.

Luk 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Here Jesus points out that if a son is hungry and asks for bread from his father, what father would give his son a stone? Or if the son asks for a fish, will his father give him a serpent? Or if he asks for an egg, will his father give him a scorpion?

So Jesus is showing that even sinners are able to do good, and if we can do good, how much more is our heavenly Father good? Jesus is comparing God to men here to demonstrate how good God is.

If everything an unsaved person does is evil, it would be ridiculous to compare God to man in this fashion.

It is true that the scriptures clearly teach that all men are sinners and come short of the glory of God, but the scriptures DO NOT teach the extreme view that everything that a sinner does is evil.

Total Inability is false.

No, rather the meaning that you gave/defined it by was wrong!

We hold that man can still do good works, can still have faith in some religion, be "falsely spiritually", do not have Jesus, but multitude are religious, in false cults/religions/gospels/christs...

Just per the scriptures...

general revelation in nature/creation allows all to know there is a God

special revelation from chrsit/Bible tells us how to get saved by that god, our need as sinners to have Grace of God etc

ONLY those whom God has chosen to reveal that too will be able to have saving faith, those are ones called the Elect!

 

[DaChaser1]

Hi Winman.

I just said that man is able to do good works but not to be confused with spiritual status.

Where and when on the BB now or ever did I say that the unregenerate do not have the ability to believe the gospel?

Before you ask, I don't know with conviction whether they do or not and I will honestly admit to that.

There are passages which could be interpreted either way.

e.g. (that they can believe):

NKJ Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.​

Would God command that which we cannot do?​

That they can't:​

John 8
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.​

I do know that with God all things are possible.

If He wants to unlock the door of each man's mind in order to make a free will decision, He is able to do just that.

If He wants to limit it to the "elect" then that is His business.

In either case it is "after the counsel of His own will" of which we have not the details.

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:​

Usually I avoid such posts as these because they almost always end up as a demonstration of the works of the flesh and in particular - hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife (Galatians 5:19) - in whichwe each (myself included) talk the talk of our particular point of view but do not walk the walk of scripture (the fruit of the Spirit).

Galatians 5

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.​

HankD

Bottom line, either the basis for salvation is something that we can do ourselves, belive in jesus, or else something God has to do Himself!

 

[glfredrick]

Who said we'd invite you? :tongue3: :laugh: j/k

Okay...

Look, anything other than Calvinsim does not default to Pelagianism. I have never stated that we have any ability in ourselves to save ourselves, but there are many passages where God spoke with unregenerated man. If you have a problem with that, take it up with God.

I completely agree. But in this instance the conversation DOES default to Pelagianism for what is being said by you and others who have re-defined total inability to a strawman position is that we in fact HAVE ability in a salvific sense to do some work necessary to cause our salvation or at the very least God's attention to our salvation. That, my friend, is in fact a Pelagian position, for neither Calvinism, Arminianism, or Amyrauldism stipulate anything other than our total dependence on God, who initiates the salvific act. Anything other is in fact Pelagianism (or hyper-Calvinism, but you are certainly not arguing for that with an argument in the positive for human effort!).

I do not use the term lightly, nor have I used it toward any persons, but rather because that is where the argument currently on the board leads and it is against the argument itself.

No one can come to God on their own. They must be drawn first. However, we were still dead in our sins at this point. Only when we are saved, then placed in Christ, are we made spiritually alive.

Okay... On that, we are in the same boat. Where then is the argument AGAINST total inability as properly defined?

 

[DaChaser1]

Okay...



I completely agree. But in this instance the conversation DOES default to Pelagianism for what is being said by you and others who have re-defined total inability to a strawman position is that we in fact HAVE ability in a salvific sense to do some work necessary to cause our salvation or at the very least God's attention to our salvation. That, my friend, is in fact a Pelagian position, for neither Calvinism, Arminianism, or Amyrauldism stipulate anything other than our total dependence on God, who initiates the salvific act. Anything other is in fact Pelagianism (or hyper-Calvinism, but you are certainly not arguing for that with an argument in the positive for human effort!).

I do not use the term lightly, nor have I used it toward any persons, but rather because that is where the argument currently on the board leads and it is against the argument itself.



Okay... On that, we are in the same boat. Where then is the argument AGAINST total inability as properly defined?

just curious here...

is it just as simple as 5 points holders to DoG are calvinists, while the 4 pointers are in the Amyrauldism camp?

And didn't calvin Himself at times appear to state what 4 pointers say as regards to Jesus death upon the Cross, in that His death sufficient to save all, bot ONLY the elct benefit in a specific sense from that act?

 

[MB]

No, not at all!

That IS the historical understanding. Those who HATE Calvinism have applied the other definition -- something that those of us who actually understand Calvinism have been trying to say often.

Calvin's own explanation is as I have said, not that Calvin is the author of the theology that bears his name -- that is but another strawman argument.

I don't really care what Calvin said or believed. He did not write the Bible. Total depravity is not ever found in scripture as you have described it or as anyone else has described it. It simply doesn't exist. I admit man doesn't come to God by his own volition. However that in no way means that he can't. Man doesn't come on his own because man before the intervention by God doesn't know he has a need of God or Salvation. Once this has been explained to man he is then drawn to it. Which again doesn't mean he will come because man loves darkness. He is affraid of the light. He doesn't want his deeds exposed. Some are caught by the light and are exposed anyway because with God working through us can shine his light on them by preaching the gospel.

It is a fact that man must be drawn and scripture even says that all will be drawn once Christ has been lifted up. There again you will probably redefine the word "ALL" again.

I believe the Bible is best understood as each word used in it has the most common meaning. There was not all the meanings of one word 2000 years ago like there is today. Beside redefining a word in scripture is in reality trying to change the word of God. Something no one should ever do.
MB

 

[Winman]

Winman, I am making no false argument here. Total Inability means precisely what I said. Look it up instead of making up your own definition.

Because you HAVE made up your own definition, you go off the deep end to defeat something that is not even real.

I have not made anything up. I and others have been debating Total Inability or Depravity with you and others for quite some time. I get it. I don't agree with it, but I understand your view. Here is a common definition of Total Depravity I found at several Calvinist and Reformed sites.

[FONT=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the Gospel. The sinner is dead, blind and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free; it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not—indeed he cannot—choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ—it takes regeneration, by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation; it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.[/FONT]

This statement is refuted by the words of God himself in Gen 4:7 by the word "if".

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

We know from the NT that Cain was never saved. If your doctrine is correct, this verse would make God deceptive and misleading. If God had chosen to pass by Cain and leave him in an unregenerate state (which MUST be so in your view), it is impossible that he could have done "well" and given an acceptable sacrifice to God.

To answer Hank concerning John 8:43;

Jhn 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

First, this verse does not say that all unregenerate men cannot hear Jesus's word. Jesus himself said the dead shall hear his voice and those that hear shall live.

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

This verse alone shows that John 8:43 is not speaking of all men, but of the particular men Jesus was addressing in John 8. Jesus said the "dead" (the unregenerate) shall hear his voice, and they that hear shall live. So, the unregenerate can hear and believe Jesus's words.

John 8:43 is similar to the verse that says Joseph's brothers could not speak peaceably to him.

Gen 37:4 And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.

This verse is not saying that Joseph's brother lacked the ability to speak peaceably to him, they had that ability, but because of their jealously and hatred for Joseph they could not speak peaceably to him. And we know it was not impossible for them to speak well to Joseph, as later on they were reconciled to Joseph.

Gen 45:15 Moreover he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them: and after that his brethren talked with him.

Joseph and all his brothers were reconciled later and spoke kindly to each other. And there is no mention of his brothers being supernaturally regenerated to do so.

It is the same with those Jesus spoke to. These particular men were stubborn and proud, this is why they could not listen to Jesus at the time.

You cannot take a verse spoken to particular men and apply it to all men. There is nothing in this passage that suggests it is speaking of all unregenerate men everywhere, and in fact, verses like John 5:25 prove it is not.

 

[convicted1]

Okay...

I pray that you did not take offense to my kidding you, Brother.

I completely agree. But in this instance the conversation DOES default to Pelagianism for what is being said by you and others who have re-defined total inability to a strawman position is that we in fact HAVE ability in a salvific sense to do some work necessary to cause our salvation or at the very least God's attention to our salvation. That, my friend, is in fact a Pelagian position, for neither Calvinism, Arminianism, or Amyrauldism stipulate anything other than our total dependence on God, who initiates the salvific act. Anything other is in fact Pelagianism (or hyper-Calvinism, but you are certainly not arguing for that with an argument in the positive for human effort!).

Look, T.I. was a concept penned by Saint Augustus of Hippo, and centuries later Calvin(who apparently was a BIG fan of Augustine), also carried it out. T.I. is a concept derived from man's philosphies, and is not correct biblically. Man can not, and will not come to God, until God draws him/her. That doesn't mean that can't hear what God is saying in an unregenerate state. Many instances in the bible, Adam, Eve, Cain, etc, spoke with God as sinners. The rich man in hell spoke with Father Abraham, for crying out loud.
I do not use the term lightly, nor have I used it toward any persons, but rather because that is where the argument currently on the board leads and it is against the argument itself.

Okay... On that, we are in the same boat. Where then is the argument AGAINST total inability as properly defined?

There is no argument against T.I. You can not argue against something that really does not exist.

 

[DaChaser1]

I don't really care what Calvin said or believed. He did not write the Bible. Total depravity is not ever found in scripture as you have described it or as anyone else has described it. It simply doesn't exist. I admit man doesn't come to God by his own volition. However that in no way means that he can't. Man doesn't come on his own because man before the intervention by God doesn't know he has a need of God or Salvation. Once this has been explained to man he is then drawn to it. Which again doesn't mean he will come because man loves darkness. He is affraid of the light. He doesn't want his deeds exposed. Some are caught by the light and are exposed anyway because with God working through us can shine his light on them by preaching the gospel.

It is a fact that man must be drawn and scripture even says that all will be drawn once Christ has been lifted up. There again you will probably redefine the word "ALL" again.

I believe the Bible is best understood as each word used in it has the most common meaning. There was not all the meanings of one word 2000 years ago like there is today. Beside redefining a word in scripture is in reality trying to change the word of God. Something no one should ever do.
MB

man cannot see thir need to even be saved, as we do not see ourselves as lost siiners in need of salvation, for we are living and seeing things 'natural man:, so we think this is the normal way to think and live, as seperated and apart from God!

 

[DaChaser1]

I have not made anything up. I and others have been debating Total Inability or Depravity with you and others for quite some time. I get it. I don't agree with it, but I understand your view. Here is a common definition of Total Depravity I found at several Calvinist and Reformed sites.



This statement is refuted by the words of God himself in Gen 4:7 by the word "if".

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

We know from the NT that Cain was never saved. If your doctrine is correct, this verse would make God deceptive and misleading. If God had chosen to pass by Cain and leave him in an unregenerate state (which MUST be so in your view), it is impossible that he could have done "well" and given an acceptable sacrifice to God.

To answer Hank concerning John 8:43;

Jhn 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

First, this verse does not say that all unregenerate men cannot hear Jesus's word. Jesus himself said the dead shall hear his voice and those that hear shall live.

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

This verse alone shows that John 8:43 is not speaking of all men, but of the particular men Jesus was addressing in John 8. Jesus said the "dead" (the unregenerate) shall hear his voice, and they that hear shall live. So, the unregenerate can hear and believe Jesus's words.

John 8:43 is similar to the verse that says Joseph's brothers could not speak peaceably to him.

Gen 37:4 And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.

This verse is not saying that Joseph's brother lacked the ability to speak peaceably to him, they had that ability, but because of their jealously and hatred for Joseph they could not speak peaceably to him. And we know it was not impossible for them to speak well to Joseph, as later on they were reconciled to Joseph.

Gen 45:15 Moreover he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them: and after that his brethren talked with him.

Joseph and all his brothers were reconciled later and spoke kindly to each other. And there is no mention of his brothers being supernaturally regenerated to do so.

It is the same with those Jesus spoke to. These particular men were stubborn and proud, this is why they could not listen to Jesus at the time.

You cannot take a verse spoken to particular men and apply it to all men. There is nothing in this passage that suggests it is speaking of all unregenerate men everywhere, and in fact, verses like John 5:25 prove it is not.

read the book of Romans...

How many people strive to seek after the Lord, to come to Him from their "own free wills?"

natural man comdemned as worshipping a god of thier own creations...

NONE seeks to find God, to do right...

ALL need to have mercy and Grace of God applied to them, the elected as part of the faithful remanant...

Where is One that seeks after God?

 

[HankD]

To answer Hank concerning John 8:43;

Jhn 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

First, this verse does not say that all unregenerate men cannot hear Jesus's word. Jesus himself said the dead shall hear his voice and those that hear shall live.

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

This verse alone shows that John 8:43 is not speaking of all men, but of the particular men Jesus was addressing in John 8. Jesus said the "dead" (the unregenerate) shall hear his voice, and they that hear shall live. So, the unregenerate can hear and believe Jesus's words.

Hi Winman,

I was using this as an example of why this debate is endless and will be until the Lord returns.

I agree that all men can hear because all men (though they be spiritually dead in sin and separated from God) are given the light of understanding without which we would all perish.

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.​

What they do with that light I would categorize under Man's Responsibility to God.

The pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking had hardened their hearts against the light of the world and that without remedy.

Proverbs 29:1 He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.​

HankD