Two major objections against Non-Calvinists answered

[The Biblicist]

I'm attempting to highlight the HISTORICAL CONTEXT, which involves:

1. Christ being here on earth in the flesh (a) to train a preselected few from Israel as apostles to start his Church and (b) to accomplish redemption on the cross.

No one denies that. However, John 6 far exceeds that particular application. The "all' in John 6:37-40 includes all the elect that will ever be saved from Genesis to Revelation and it is a mistake to restrict its application to merely those few who left their homes and habitually travelled with Jesus as there were over 500 whom Paul called "brethren" which witnessed his resurrection.

2. Israel is being hardened/blinded/cut off from the truth of Christ's teachings, so as to accomplish His redemptive purposes. (They won't kill a man they believe in thus they are being blinded from the truth by use of parables, spirit of stupor, cutting off, etc.)

Again, no one denies that this is being applied to the greater part of the Jewish people but it is a general truth that is applicable to anyone who is exposed and resists the truth. It is a process that has its cause already in the person - his fallen nature - and apart from divine intervention itis the normal process due to the fallen nature as Christ explains in John 3:19-21.

The fallen nature is PRONE to resistance (Rom. 8:7) and as the fallen nature is exposed to light this process begins and will increase unless there is supernatural divine intervention (Acts 7:51). The fallen nature is a universal fact and hardening is the universal response of the fallen nature when exposed to light - Jn. 3:19-21.

That doesn't mean it is not applicable to us all, or that the truth is limited to only Jews. It simply helps to understand the context and thus the intent of why he might say some are enabled to come and others are not.

I never objected to specific application. I objected to any denial this was the NORM in regard to "ALL" the Father gives the Son and hardening was the NORMAL response by the fallen nature to light. I never confused the fallen nature with the reaction of hardening. I never denied hardening is a process. I simply denied that it is something special to a selective class of people. It is the NORMAL response of the fallen nature to exposure to light just as Jesus says in John 3:19-21.

That being said, I've not once EVER denied that for ANY man at ANY time and of ANY nationality to come to Christ and be saved, he first must be DRAWN. So, to accuse me of believing that this truth only applies to apostles or to some Jews, or whatever, is a gross misrepresentation of what I'm attempting to explain about the historical context and thus the intent of the author from our perspective on this passage.

Do you not admit that you are basing the theory of corporate election on that restriictive interpretational aspect? Why else would you have responded to my assertion that John 17:2-3 and John 6:37-65 have NOTHING to do with election to apostolic office but deal ONLY with giving by the Father to the Son for eternal life??? I see no other purpose for that kind of response in view of this text? Why else would you argue that being given to Christ for eternal life is inseparable from being given to Christ for apostolic office in regard to John 6:37-65 and John 17:2-3 unless it was to defend your "corporate election" view against individual personal election?

 

[The Biblicist]

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Who is the "every one" that beleiveth on him in verse 40? It is the individuals that make up the "ALL" and "OF ALL" in verses 37-39 as NONE OTHERS have been given by the Father TO COME to the Son. The words "every one" simply INDIVIDUALIZES those included in "ALL" and "OF ALL."

Absolute proof of this is the fact that the same conclusion to verse 39 in regard to "OF ALL" is the same conclusion in verse 39 in regard to "every one".

Hence, "every one" is equal to and included within "ALL".

The same is true in John 6:45 between the words "ALL" and "every man".

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

The prophet does not say "SOME" shall be taught of God but "ALL" shall be taught of God. The words "every man" simply individualizes those included in this "ALL."

Furthermore the prophets of whom Jesus is quoting did not use the term "ALL" to mean all human beings without exception but confined it to "ALL" new covenant people or "ALL" those given by the Father to the Son for eternal life (Jn. 6:37-40; 17:2-3).

Last the KNOWLEDGE provided is defined by Christ in John 17:3 which is defined as "eternal life" that is restricted in verse 2 "to as many as" the Father hath given Christ rather than "ALL FLESH."

Hence, this KNOWLEDGE" imparted in John 6:45 by God is not something heard EXTERNALLY but is revealed solely by God INTERNALLY and always results in salvation because IT IS ETERNAL LIFE. In contrast what is revealed EXTERNALLY is conveyed by human instrumentality and is not eternal life but only the message of eternal life. It is the difference between knowing ABOUT God and KNOWING GOD.

 

[Skandelon]

Just a quick question before I go into teach my course: Do you believe the 'spirit of stupor' sent by God is sent to everyone also? Because above you seem to argue that the hardening process is universal to all mankind, and yet the scripture seems to indicated clearly that God was specifically sending a spirit of stupor to Israel...that they in particular were being cut off. This is contrast to Paul's conclusion that the "Gentiles will listen" (Acts 28:28) and are being 'grafted in' (Rm 11). Just wondering if you acknowledged the clear distinction between being 'cut off' and 'grafted in' that Paul is explaining.

BTW, I agree that all peoples (both Jews and Gentiles) can grow hardened, which is why Heb. 3 and Rom 11 warns against such tendency, but you seem to PRESUME (without biblical proof) that it is the inevitable fate of all mankind to become hardened/cut off from God's revelation. Can you speak to that briefly before I continue?

Thanks

 

[The Biblicist]

Just a quick question before I go into teach my course: Do you believe the 'spirit of stupor' sent by God is sent to everyone also? Because above you seem to argue that the hardening process is universal to all mankind, and yet the scripture seems to indicated clearly that God was specifically sending a spirit of stupor to Israel...that they in particular were being cut off. This is contrast to Paul's conclusion that the "Gentiles will listen" (Acts 28:28) and are being 'grafted in' (Rm 11). Just wondering if you acknowledged the clear distinction between being 'cut off' and 'grafted in' that Paul is explaining.

BTW, I agree that all peoples (both Jews and Gentiles) can grow hardened, which is why Heb. 3 and Rom 11 warns against such tendency, but you seem to PRESUME (without biblical proof) that it is the inevitable fate of all mankind to become hardened/cut off from God's revelation. Can you speak to that briefly before I continue?

Thanks

You are taking a general truth and making a correct specific application but then denying it has any other application then that one specific application.

Romans 11 warns the Gentiles of the EXACT SAME consequences due to the EXACT SAME condition in Romans 11:6-9 as later summarized as "unbelief." They too are threatened with being "cut off" due to the same condition and will be cut off for the same condition (Rom. 11:20-25).

When confronted with the light of truth, the unregenerated condition always responds in resistance and thus begins the process of hardening. This process is inclusive of many more factors. I think it would quite easy to provide individualized examples throughout scripture to prove what I am saying. When I get the time I will provide individualized examples to demonstrate this is not merely a national phenomena but a personal phenomena common to the fallen nature.

 

[Skandelon]

You are taking a general truth and making a correct specific application but then denying it has any other application then that one specific application.

What other application? I'm not following what you are saying.

Romans 11 warns the Gentiles of the EXACT SAME consequences due to the EXACT SAME condition in Romans 11:6-9 as later summarized as "unbelief." They too are threatened with being "cut off" due to the same condition and will be cut off for the same condition (Rom. 11:20-25).

Right, its a warning of what COULD happen to them IF they get prideful, its not saying that it has already happened to them from birth due to their fallen inherent nature, as Calvinism's dogma of Total Inability asserts.

When confronted with the light of truth, the unregenerated condition always responds in resistance

Well, I'd be glad to point to all the times where people in scripture who express interest, belief, and a general "lack of resistance" PRIOR to being indwelled by the Spirit, but I suppose you will presume that being born of the Spirit came before their interest, and then the indwelling of the Spirit...or something to make your system fit...so I'm not sure its worth the effort.

My point is that pointing to those who don't resist doesn't help because the PRESUMPTION of pre-regeneration on your part, so I'm not sure how to rebut this except to call it what it is...a presumption.

and thus begins the process of hardening.

And what is the condition of a person who has not yet gone through this process?

How is there condition any better or different than the condition of a total depraved/totally disabled unregenerate fallen reprobate in your Calvinistic system?

I ask, because Paul CLEARLY tells us what a non-hardened person might do...

"For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'​

See, that is the condition of someone who hasn't gone through the process of hardening. They "might see and turn"...something your dogma denies.

The only totally unable individual is one who has been judicially hardened and cut off by God, and those people were the Jews of that day being TEMPORARILY hardened for a redemptive purpose, just like Pharaoh was. Being judicially hardened IS NOT a condition from birth and it is not universal to all mankind at all time. NOTHING in scripture suggests it is.

 

[BobRyan]

The two accusations I hear most from the Calvinistic types against non-Calvinists are: (1) You lesson the Sovereignty of God and (2) you have too high of a view of man.

If that is it - well then they say the same things about the Arminian position because they reject the right of God to sovereignly "choose" the "whosoever will" model. They seem to think that God must bow to the Calvinist notion that God would need "better living through better programming" in order to be sovereign and know the future -- you know... the way a Calvinist would have to do it if he/she were required to know all about the future.

The flaw in Calvinism is that they under estimate just how tough it is to BE God.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

If that is it - well then they say the same things about the Arminian position because they reject the right of God to sovereignly "choose" the "whosoever will" model. They seem to think that God must bow to the Calvinist notion that God would need "better living through better programming" in order to be sovereign and know the future -- you know... the way a Calvinist would have to do it if he/she were required to know all about the future.

The flaw in Calvinism is that they under estimate just how tough it is to BE God.



in Christ,

Bob

NOT tough at all for God to be God, for He knows all things, all powerful, only full free willed, eternal, basically all everything!

 

[The Biblicist]

The only totally unable individual is one who has been judicially hardened and cut off by God, and those people were the Jews of that day being TEMPORARILY hardened for a redemptive purpose, just like Pharaoh was. Being judicially hardened IS NOT a condition from birth and it is not universal to all mankind at all time. NOTHING in scripture suggests it is.

You are simply wrong! Pharoah is an individual example of a non-Jew that went through this same process. In his unregenerated state he was committed to false religion and thus went through the process in Romans 1:18-32. Somewhere in that process he was exposed to special revelation through Moses and his reaction was that like every unregenerated man. Pharoah is an example of what is common to the depraved nature of man and there are many more individual examples other than Pharoah:

De 2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

1Sa 6:6 Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?

2Ki 17:14 Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the LORD their God.

2Ch 36:13 And he also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God: but he stiffened his neck, and hardened his heart from turning unto the LORD God of Israel.

Ne 9:16 But they and our fathers dealt proudly, and hardened their necks, and hearkened not to thy commandments,

Ne 9:17 And refused to obey, neither were mindful of thy wonders that thou didst among them; but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage: but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not.

Ne 9:29 And testifiedst against them, that thou mightest bring them again unto thy law: yet they dealt proudly, and hearkened not unto thy commandments, but sinned against thy judgments, (which if a man do, he shall live in them and withdrew the shoulder, and hardened their neck, and would not hear.

Steven said that those Jews he faced were just like all their fathers in resisting the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). No difference.

Romans 11 not only applies this to Israel but clearly demands that such will be applied to the Gentiles AS A PEOPLE when God is through with calling his people out of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:20-25). No ifs, or but's but a clear prediction of a specific time is given when it will occur and Israel will be regrafted in and God will turn away from the gentiles as a people to Israel as he turned from Israel to the Gentiles (v. 25).

In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 there is first exposure to truth (v. 1a) and then a summarized process of hardening in verses 2-3.

Here is the issue. What you are doing is a common mistake made by many interpreters about many subjects. They take a specific application of a general truth and then demand it restricted to that specific group. You reject the very characteristics the Scripture attribute to the fallen nature (Rom. 3:10-20;8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; etc.) and rather claim these only apply to a special segment of lost humanity just like you do hardening.

God allows SAVED PEOPLE to experience this same process in various degrees as well as they too still have a fallen nature and the law of indwelling sin. He does not allow some saved to understand and receive some truths but allows them to harden their hearts against certain truths. The old saying is if you don't use it you loose it or if you abuse it you lose it and that is the case among professed Christians in regard to truth.

Now, it is clear to me that God has blinded your eyes against this truth and absolutely no amount of evidence is going to turn you now or ever in this life without special grace from God. You already have been exposed to the truth, embraced it and then rejected it and it is doubtful that God will be gracious and reestablish what you have rejected.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are simply wrong! Pharoah is an individual example of a non-Jew that went through this same process. In his unregenerated state he was committed to false religion and thus went through the process in Romans 1:18-32. Somewhere in that process he was exposed to special revelation through Moses and his reaction was that like every unregenerated man. Pharoah is an example of what is common to the depraved nature of man and there are many more individual examples other than Pharoah:

De 2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

1Sa 6:6 Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?

2Ki 17:14 Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the LORD their God.

2Ch 36:13 And he also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God: but he stiffened his neck, and hardened his heart from turning unto the LORD God of Israel.

Ne 9:16 But they and our fathers dealt proudly, and hardened their necks, and hearkened not to thy commandments,

Ne 9:17 And refused to obey, neither were mindful of thy wonders that thou didst among them; but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage: but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not.

Ne 9:29 And testifiedst against them, that thou mightest bring them again unto thy law: yet they dealt proudly, and hearkened not unto thy commandments, but sinned against thy judgments, (which if a man do, he shall live in them and withdrew the shoulder, and hardened their neck, and would not hear.

Steven said that those Jews he faced were just like all their fathers in resisting the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). No difference.

Romans 11 not only applies this to Israel but clearly demands that such will be applied to the Gentiles AS A PEOPLE when God is through with calling his people out of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:20-25). No ifs, or but's but a clear prediction of a specific time is given when it will occur and Israel will be regrafted in and God will turn away from the gentiles as a people to Israel as he turned from Israel to the Gentiles (v. 25).

In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 there is first exposure to truth (v. 1a) and then a summarized process of hardening in verses 2-3.

Here is the issue. What you are doing is a common mistake made by many interpreters about many subjects. They take a specific application of a general truth and then demand it restricted to that specific group. You reject the very characteristics the Scripture attribute to the fallen nature (Rom. 3:10-20;8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; etc.) and rather claim these only apply to a special segment of lost humanity just like you do hardening.

God allows SAVED PEOPLE to experience this same process in various degrees as well as they too still have a fallen nature and the law of indwelling sin. He does not allow some saved to understand and receive some truths but allows them to harden their hearts against certain truths. The old saying is if you don't use it you loose it or if you abuse it you lose it and that is the case among professed Christians in regard to truth.

Now, it is clear to me that God has blinded your eyes against this truth and absolutely no amount of evidence is going to turn you now or ever in this life without special grace from God. You already have been exposed to the truth, embraced it and then rejected it and it is doubtful that God will be gracious and reestablish what you have rejected.

Pharoah is an example of an unregenerate human being who went through the process of Romans 1:18-32 in regard to light of concience and nature and then was additionally exposed to SPECIAL REVELATION through Moses. His response was the same as it was to NATURAL REVELATION because the character of the unregenerated nature (Rom. 8:7-8).

In contrast the Jews were raised with exposure to SPECIAL REVELATION and their depraved nature made it into a religion.

Total inability is the product of total depravity not vice versa. In Romans 8:7 the lost man's mindset IS ENMITY towards God and total resistance to the Law of God and that is why there is total inability. Total inability is the product of total enmity towards God. This is the condition of the human nature from birth and as a human develops and matures and is exposed to light of nature, which reveals the God it hates, it will always respond the same way and refuse to submit and respond to the light it is exposed to by appeasing conscience into a religious expression (humanism, paganism, false Christianity, etc.).

Resistance is always the response of the fallen nature (Acts 7:51) to direct light whether it comes by way of NATURAL light or SPECIAL light and that is precisely why men "must" be born again - all men, not merely a special class of men.
One absolute evidence of total human depravity and total inabilty is the denial of total depravity and inability.

 

[Reformed]

You already have been exposed to the truth, embraced it and then rejected it and it is doubtful that God will be gracious and reestablish what you have rejected.

Biblicist, you are I are agreed on total depravity and total inability, but I must take you to task over this statement.

First, it closes down the debate and puts you in the position of God in determining whether Skandelon will or will not be the recipient of God's grace in regards to correct doctrine.

Second, it caters to those who are opposed to the Doctrines of Grace and reinforces their contention that Calvinists are arrogant elitists.

With all due respect and Christian charity, I ask you to reconsider your choice of words.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, you are I are agreed on total depravity and total inability, but I must take you to task over this statement.

First, it closes down the debate and puts you in the position of God in determining whether Skandelon will or will not be the recipient of God's grace in regards to correct doctrine.

Second, it caters to those who are opposed to the Doctrines of Grace and reinforces their contention that Calvinists are arrogant elitists.

With all due respect and Christian charity, I ask you to reconsider your choice of words.

You are right! I let my feelings and gut instincts over rule better judgement. Thanks for the kind rebuke. I apologize to Skandelon for that statement.

 

[Reformed]

You are right! I let my feelings and gut instincts over rule better judgement. Thanks for the kind rebuke. I apologize to Skandelon for that statement.

Grace and peace to you brother.

 

[preacher4truth]

The fact is we do see God throughout Scripture working out situations, changing hearts, minds, wills, intents of persons and doing so to order things according to His purpose. This is part of what makes Him God. Psalm 135:5ff; Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:16; Psalm 115:3; Jeremiah 24; 1 Corinthians 1:26ff; Titus 3:5; Exodus 33:19.

Some take this revealed truth and paint, according to the avenues of their mind, the Godhead as having to control both sides of the chess board to ensure a win. Just think about that type of statement and the commentary it makes upon persons who make it. First off God doesn’t have to ensure a win, so that is a faulty premise in the first place. The fact is He will win and has won and all of this was assured before the foundation of the world. Yet this alleged indictment that God has to do so 'to ensure victory' is purported and is seen (if God in fact does so) as a denigration of the nature, attributes and character of God. This Scriptural view of God has been deemed a 'small' God by proponents of this error. Even so Scripture clearly reveals that God in fact does direct all things according to His purpose. God also employs secondary means to accomplish His purpose, via many types of men, Satan, Kings, the wicked, angels &c.

If God simply allowed man in his supposed free will to be sovereign, giving up His Sovereignty in order to do so (another fallacy and misnomer which is not in Scripture) the world would be in much more chaos than it is now. It is, has been, and will always be that the only saving grace in this world is when God Himself intervenes Sovereignly in the affairs of men, in the salvation of men, and, it is only when this takes place that there is any hope.

What we see when these truths are being assailed is nothing short of witnessing a ‘calling out of God’ on His being just (fair). I’m certain none of us with a half-ounce of wisdom truly desire God to act fairly toward us, but then I am reminded of the unfortunate fact that some will rebut this simply because they believe they’ve always been good, loved God, were seeking God all their lives and were ‘chosen’ accordingly as if deserved (conditionally elect).

All in all this is decrying God as unfair, since He does in fact ‘control both sides of the chess board’. This Scriptural depiction of God is held in disdain by many in Christendom and is nothing new, and is a commentary on the person and does nothing against the truth it opposes. Rather than this 2 Corinthians 13:8 should be employed by these. But this is none other than men replying against God which is forbidden in Scripture, yet nonetheless some do it to which Paul via the Holy Spirit declares ‘who are YOU that replies against God’? In other words it is through fleshly pride and arrogance that this is done. Somehow God must, to be a ‘fair” (just) God, allow man, not Himself to be in control, or thus comes the old ad nauseum accusations of being ‘robots’ ‘not fair’ ‘I don’t like the facts of Sovereignty’ and on and on it goes.

This battle against biblical Sovereignty is a carnal attempt to give man a bigger piece of the pie, and then and only then is God fair to those who attempt to do so. Said position is plainly unscriptural.

Does God control both sides of the chess board? Certainly. Why? Because both sides of it belong to Him, and frankly, I trust Him in it and will not reply against this revealed truth.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The fact is we do see God throughout Scripture working out situations, changing hearts, minds, wills, intents of persons and doing so to order things according to His purpose. This is part of what makes Him God. Psalm 135:5ff; Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:16; Psalm 115:3; Jeremiah 24; 1 Corinthians 1:26ff; Titus 3:5; Exodus 33:19.

Some take this revealed truth and paint, according to the avenues of their mind, the Godhead as having to control both sides of the chess board to ensure a win. Just think about that type of statement and the commentary it makes upon persons who make it. First off God doesn’t have to ensure a win, so that is a faulty premise in the first place. The fact is He will win and has won and all of this was assured before the foundation of the world. Yet this alleged indictment that God has to do so 'to ensure victory' is purported and is seen (if God in fact does so) as a denigration of the nature, attributes and character of God. This Scriptural view of God has been deemed a 'small' God by proponents of this error. Even so Scripture clearly reveals that God in fact does direct all things according to His purpose. God also employs secondary means to accomplish His purpose, via many types of men, Satan, Kings, the wicked, angels &c.

If God simply allowed man in his supposed free will to be sovereign, giving up His Sovereignty in order to do so (another fallacy and misnomer which is not in Scripture) the world would be in much more chaos than it is now. It is, has been, and will always be that the only saving grace in this world is when God Himself intervenes Sovereignly in the affairs of men, in the salvation of men, and, it is only when this takes place that there is any hope.

What we see when these truths being assailed we witness a ‘calling out of God’ on His being just (fair). I’m certain none of us with a half-ounce of wisdom truly desire God to act fairly toward us, but then I am reminded of the unfortunate fact that some will rebut this simply because they believe they’ve always been good, loved God, were seeking God all their lives and were ‘chosen’ accordingly as if deserved (conditionally elect).

All in all this is decrying God as unfair, since He does in fact ‘control both sides of the chess board’. This Scriptural depiction of God is held in disdain by many in Christendom and is nothing new, and is a commentary on the person and does nothing against the truth it opposes. Rather than this 2 Corinthians 13:8 should be employed by these. But this is none other than men replying against God which is forbidden in Scripture, yet nonetheless some do it to which Paul via the Holy Spirit declares ‘who are YOU that replies against God’? In other words it is through fleshly pride and arrogance that this is done. Somehow God must, to be a ‘fair” (just) God, allow man, not Himself to be in control, or thus comes the old ad nauseum accusations of being ‘robots’ ‘not fair’ ‘I don’t like the facts of Sovereignty’ and on and on it goes.

This battle against biblical Sovereignty is a carnal attempt to give man a bigger piece of the pie, and then and only then is God fair to those who attempt to do so. Said position is plainly unscriptural.

Does God control both sides of the chess board? Certainly. Why? Because both sides of it belong to Him, and frankly, I trust Him in it and will not reply against this revealed truth.

Again you nailed it..... your beginning to impress me with some of these scholarly commentaries Ive seen out of you lately. :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

Pharoah is an example of an unregenerate human being who went through the process of Romans 1:18-32 in regard to light of concience and nature and then was additionally exposed to SPECIAL REVELATION through Moses. His response was the same as it was to NATURAL REVELATION because the character of the unregenerated nature (Rom. 8:7-8).

I agree up to the part I emboldened. You are begging the question, because that is the point up for debate as you will have to establish that he was determined to desire and thus act this way based on his totally depraved nature, as opposed to making a CHOSE to act this way (in a contra-causal free manner). After all, we have examples of other non-Jews (Rahab) who did choose to believe God's revelation. You can presume that is because God regenerated her first, but it would be just that...a presumption on the text.

In contrast the Jews were raised with exposure to SPECIAL REVELATION and their depraved nature made it into a religion.

Again, you presume they were determined to "make it into a religion" based upon a predetermined nature imposed on them by God as a result of the Fall, rather than making that choice in a contra-casual free manner. Again, that is question begging, as that is our very point up for debate.

Now, if you are just trying to restate and explain your view, it is not necessary. I know what you believe. I just don't find that view supported biblically in light of the full revelation.

Total inability is the product of total depravity not vice versa. In Romans 8:7 the lost man's mindset IS ENMITY towards God and total resistance to the Law of God and that is why there is total inability.

I refer you to my signature as rebuttal to this. Proof that we can't be saved through works does not equate to proof that we can't be saved through faith.

Total inability is the product of total enmity towards God

So, you believe man's fallen nature is more powerful than the enabling power of the gospel appeal to be reconciled from that fallen condition? His Word is not even powerful enough to enable a response, for which mankind is held response-able? Is that your position?

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree up to the part I emboldened. You are begging the question, because that is the point up for debate as you will have to establish that he was determined to desire and thus act this way based on his totally depraved nature, as opposed to making a CHOSE to act this way (in a contra-causal free manner). After all, we have examples of other non-Jews (Rahab) who did choose to believe God's revelation. You can presume that is because God regenerated her first, but it would be just that...a presumption

Well, if that is begging the question then we better deal directly with the fallen nature of man.

Are you with a few others on this forum who deny that human beings come into this world with a fallen nature? Do you restrict Romans 1:18-2:5; 3:9-23 8:7-8 to a special class of "ungodly" men somewhere between physical birth and new birth??? A THIRD CLASS of human beings who are neither "in the flesh" or "in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:8-9).

Again, you presume they were determined to "make it into a religion" based upon a predetermined nature imposed on them by God as a result of the Fall, rather than making that choice in a contra-casual free manner. Again, that is question begging, as that is our very point up for debate.

I love how you make an argument based upon your own preassumptions and you say I am begging the question by doing that! Wow! Obviously you don't proof your own arguments. I am referring to the words "based upon a predetermined nature imposed on them by God" when you fully well know we believe no such thing and so there is no excuse for describing our position in that manner. That is your preassumptive view of our position not ours.

Yes, I believe when the fallen nature is exposed to light due to its on inherent character it reacts in a limited number of ways all of which are forms of resistance.

1. Pacify conscience by perverting the light into religous expressions - Rom. 1:20-22

2. Sear the conscience by repetitively violating conscience

3. Silence conscience by suicide - 2 Cor. 7:10 "death"

I refer you to my signature as rebuttal to this. Proof that we can't be saved through works does not equate to proof that we can't be saved through faith.

Again you are just building another straw man as I believe we are "saved through faith" just not as you attempt to describe and define it.

So, you believe man's fallen nature is more powerful than the enabling power of the gospel appeal to be reconciled from that fallen condition? His Word is not even powerful enough to enable a response, for which mankind is held response-able? Is that your position?

That is correct. The Word alone saves no one. The Word alone has no power to regenerate anyone and no one is saved without regeneration.

What you fail to understand or refuse to understand, is that the gospel is the power of God only when the HOly Spirit accompanies it and uses it as His creative word of command - 2 Cor. 4:6-7; Rom. 10:17 (Rhema); 1 Thes. 1:4-5; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 2:23-25; etc., etc.

If the Gospel alone was inherently able to save sinners WITHOUT THE PRESENCE AND POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT then it should save everyone exposed to it UNLESS THE FALLEN NATURE IS MORE POWERFUL than the gospel. Think about what I said very carefully and consider my words just as carefully before whitewashing my views by your preassumptions of my views.

 

[Skandelon]

Are you with a few others on this forum who deny that human beings come into this world with a fallen nature?

Why would I deny that? I don't deny that we are fallen, I deny the concept that God's powerful appeal to be reconciled from that fallen condition is not powerful enough to enable a response...especially given that mankind is held RESPONSE-ABLE for their response to that appeal.

I love how you make an argument based upon your own preassumptions and you say I am begging the question by doing that! Wow!

Begging the question is when you presume true the very point up for debate. It is fine to state your position and then defend it by making an argument in support of what you believe and why. It because fallacious when a point that is being debated is merely presumed to be true.

Obviously you don't proof your own arguments. I am referring to the words "based upon a predetermined nature imposed on them by God" when you fully well know we believe no such thing and so there is no excuse for describing our position in that manner. That is your preassumptive view of our position not ours.

Ok, so what is the alternative? Who, if not God, decided that their natures would be total unable to willingly respond to God's own divinely inspired appeals to be reconciled? Satan? Man? Mother Nature? Chance? Who?

Yes, I believe when the fallen nature is exposed to light due to its on inherent character it reacts in a limited number of ways all of which are forms of resistance.

1. Pacify conscience by perverting the light into religous expressions - Rom. 1:20-22

Just a note, this is NOT question begging because you are making an argument in support of what you believe to be true, rather than presuming what you believe to be true as a point within your argument. Sorry, I was a LD Debater for years and later a judge, so I can't help but point out debate fallacies.

I agree with this point, btw. I do believe, however they are not determined by God to respond in this manner, but by their own will. They could have responded differently, in other words.

2. Sear the conscience by repetitively violating conscience

Yes, I believe this is what 'hardening' is. They aren't born in that condition but can become calloused to God's revelation over time. You seem to believe that is the inevitable result of all mankind who are not effectually regenerated by the Holy Spirit, right? Can you prove that biblically?

3. Silence conscience by suicide - 2 Cor. 7:10 "death"

Indeed, but again, not a response determined by anyone other than the one making that choice. They are responsible. I don't believe we can say, "They did that because God decreed for them to do it." or "They couldn't have chosen otherwise." or "God rejected them, so they rejected God." or "God didn't grant them the ability to believe." or whatever other excuse a system of doctrine might provide. I believe that goes beyond the text IMO.

Again you are just building another straw man as I believe we are "saved through faith" just not as you attempt to describe and define it.

Well, actually, to be more exact your view teaches we are saved to faith, for I cannot imagine a case where a regenerate soul would be considered unsaved.

And my sig is actually referring to what you argued above from Rom. 8. You used a passage which speaks of men's inability to attain righteousness by works to prove your belief that men cannot attain righteousness by faith unless they are first regenerated. That is unfounded.

That is correct. The Word alone saves no one. The Word alone has no power to regenerate anyone and no one is saved without regeneration.

I agree, I think. We both agree that one must be regenerated to be saved, but you appear to mean that the word is not powerful enough to enable a response which I reject and I don't believe is supported biblically:

Jesus said, "the very words I speak to you are spirit and life."

Paul said, "the gospel is the power of God for salvation..." and "faith comes by hearing"

Peter said, " For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God...And this is the word that was preached to you."

There are many, many more passages which speak to the power of God's words, His life giving, freeing truth! Truth is powerful.

What you fail to understand or refuse to understand, is that the gospel is the power of God only when the HOly Spirit accompanies it

Here is my problem with that statement: It presumes the gospel itself is NOT a work of the Holy Spirit...and when I have time I can go through each of your references to show you how not one of them supports your view.

If I preach the gospel and someone rejects it, dies and goes to hell, is it the Holy Spirit's fault for not 'working?' NOOO. It is that man's fault for freely choosing to take that truth and trade it in for lies. Don't let that man off the hook by suggesting that the Holy Spirit didn't work when the truth of God, inspired by the Spirit Himself and carried by a Holy spirit indwelled messenger was clearly proclaimed. THAT IS A GRACIOUS and POWERFUL WORK OF GOD!

Got to run...

 

[The Biblicist]

Why would I deny that? I don't deny that we are fallen, I deny the concept that God's powerful appeal to be reconciled from that fallen condition is not powerful enough to enable a response...especially given that mankind is held RESPONSE-ABLE for their response to that appeal.

First, I must question your definition and characterization of "fallen" because we obviously must disagree.

Second, You already know my response and so why not deal with it instead of just asserting your own position which you know I will dispute? The "RESPONSE-ABLE" was found when the human race existed in one human being - Adam - with full ACCOUNTABILITY for the full consequences - including total inability due to response-able action. The totality of human nature acted when one man acted - Rom. 5:12-19. In order to rationally dispute that, you have to deny there can be any consequences further reaching than to the individual Adam for his one action. Furthermore you must deny responsible connection between Adam and his offspring that conveys consequences upon them for his one action. YOu cannot raitionally deny either because every consequence God warned Adam is found in his offspring AND the whole argument of romans 5:12-19 is based upon representation by ONE MAN'S ACTION in direct connection with his offspring.

Begging the question is when you presume true the very point up for debate.

That is precisely what you did in making your argument against my position. You assumed the very thing we are arguing over to be fact in the statement I noted. Indeed, you do this constantly. You word your arguments against my position that assumes the very thing in question is a fact.

Ok, so what is the alternative? Who, if not God, decided that their natures would be total unable to willingly respond to God's own divinely inspired appeals to be reconciled? Satan? Man? Mother Nature? Chance? Who?

Your argument is irrational at its very foundation. Your argument is based upon the irrational assumption that such a condition cannot be due to JUST consequences of sin and that mankind literally and actually was NOT present and existent in Adam when Adam acted and therefore was not fully responsible for those just consquences. However, if that is so, then neither could the consequences of his action be conveyed to them.

Your counter argument is equally irrational in its foundation. First, there is no "appeal" as the scriptures use the imperative mode making it a COMMAND. Do you understand the difference between "appeal" and "command"?

Second, you assume that God's command to be reconciled must be based upon ability to obey that command or else such a command is unjust. However, those assumptions rest solely upon the false assumptions that either God is responsible for their inability or they are not responsible for their own inability. As Christians we are called to be sinlessly perfect "EVEN AS" God is sinlessly perfect yet we have no such ability to obey that command. God is not unjust to make that command because it is the only proper goal and our inability is not due to God's responsibility to make us able but to our own responsibiility for our own inability due to our own sinfulness.

I agree with this point, btw. I do believe, however they are not determined by God to respond in this manner, but by their own will. They could have responded differently, in other words.

Again, your reasoning is irrational. Just consequences of sin is the determining factor and complete ability of human nature as existent and active in Adam forfeited that ability and suffers the just consequences.

Yes, I believe this is what 'hardening' is. They aren't born in that condition but can become calloused to God's revelation over time. You seem to believe that is the inevitable result of all mankind who are not effectually regenerated by the Holy Spirit, right? Can you prove that biblically?

Neither do I believe they are born "hardened" but that it is a process. What they are born with a nature that IS ENMITY toward God/light and thus with exposure to God/light hardening begins as the natural consequence of having that kind of nature. As that nature is exposed to MORE light the hardening process increases. This downward spirling process is spelled out in Romans 1:20-32 with each successive step "God gave them over."

Indeed, but again, not a response determined by anyone other than the one making that choice. They are responsible. I don't believe we can say, "They did that because God decreed for them to do it." or "They couldn't have chosen otherwise." or "God rejected them, so they rejected God." or "God didn't grant them the ability to believe." or whatever other excuse a system of doctrine might provide. I believe that goes beyond the text IMO.

Again, your reasoning processes exclude JUST CONSEQUENCES which include inability. Again, inability is the natural consequenes of ENMITY to God and resistance to be submissive to the Law of God - Rom. 8:7-8.

Well, actually, to be more exact your view teaches we are saved to faith.

No, that is totally inaccurate of our view. We are elected "to salvation" through predetermined means which includes "through faith." Faith is possible only for those "given" to the Son by the Father as none outside the "ALL" are able to come to Christ in faith - Jn. 6:37-39. Hence, "whosoever' in John 6:40 is an INDIVIDUAL application found WITHIN the "ALL" given to come to Christ (Jn. 17:2).

And my sig is actually referring to what you argued above from Rom. 8. You used a passage which speaks of men's inability to attain righteousness by works to prove your belief that men cannot attain righteousness by faith unless they are first regenerated. That is unfounded.

You are distorting my consistent stated position by this argument. I do not bellieve there is any chronological order where regeneration precedes faith. I believe there is a logical order where life precedes faith but not chronologically. Chronologically there is no faith where there is no regeneration and there is no regeneration where there is no faith as they are mutally inseparable with each other. Grammatically this is demonstrated in Ephesians 2:8 in the Greek grammar with the perfect tense that demands a completed action that stands completed up to the present. The prepositional phrase "through faith" occurred within the boundaries of that completed perfect tense action. That cannot rationally be disputed if the grammar is accepted as inspired. Just think it through. If the "saved" action was accomplished "through faith" then they must be simeltaneous events within the boundaries of that completed action.

I agree, I think. We both agree that one must be regenerated to be saved, but you appear to mean that the word is not powerful enough to enable a response which I reject and I don't believe is supported biblically:

Jesus said, "the very words I speak to you are spirit and life."

That is in reference to their doctrinal content not to any inherent ability found with the ink on the pages. This is proven by the fact that the scriptures repeatedly state "he that hath an ear to hear let him ear" demonstrating the power is not in what is spoken but in the relationshp between the spoken word and internal ability to receive it. Now, all humans have ears that PHYSCIALLY hear but that is not what Jesus or the writers of scripture refer to when they say "he that hath an ear to hear let him hear" because Jesus distinctly and explicitly states such ability must "given" by the Father and he does not give it to all men:

Mt. 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Here is my problem with that statement: It presumes the gospel itself is NOT a work of the Holy Spirit.

You are confusing "inspiration" with "regeneration" in regard to the Holy Spirits relationship with the Word of God. The two are not the same. Just because I deny the word of God in and of itself has no regenerative power does not mean I reject the "inspiration" of the Scripture as the work of the Holy Spirit. James 1;18 presents the balance in regard to regeneration:

"OF HIS OWN WILL HE BEGAT us by the Word of truth" - James 1:18

We are not born of the "will of man" or the "will of the flesh" but of God's will and this refers to His WILL OF COMMAND as in the creation of light out of darkness:

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

If I preach the gospel and someone rejects it, dies and goes to hell, is it the Holy Spirit's fault for not 'working?' NOOO.]

It is the fault of the sinner regardless if the Holy Spirit empowered it or not as God cannot be justly held liable for any sinner going to hell nor is God responsible to save any sinner from hell. The only accountability of God is to serve justice to sinners and anything other than that is mercy and grace, and that is what you really don't grasp. God does not owe salvation to anyone but He does owe ETERNAL VENGENACE.

 

[Skandelon]

dang...I don't have an hour and half to reply to that...

I'll give you my definition of 'fallen' and leave it at that for now. I believe we are separated from God and in need of reconciliation. I believe the gospel is God's appeal for man to be reconciled from that fallen condition. We all know God holds mankind responsible for their response to that appeal, thus I don't believe there is any reason biblically or otherwise to suggest mankind is not able to respond to His appeal.

Think about it. Why make an appeal to be reconciled from a fallen condition if that very condition prohibits you from responding to that appeal?

There is NO BIBLICAL teaching which even comes close to suggesting that the gospel appeal is insufficient to enable those who hear it to respond.

Good night.

 

[Skandelon]

I have just one more in me...

Your argument is irrational at its very foundation. Your argument is based upon the irrational assumption that such a condition cannot be due to JUST consequences of sin and that mankind literally and actually was NOT present and existent in Adam when Adam acted and therefore was not fully responsible for those just consquences.

No, I am fully willing to accept the headship of Adam. I am asking you WHO, if not God, decided the just consequences of the fall would be total inability?

Who is the arbitrator of justice? Who sets the rules? Who determines the consequences? If what you believe is true, then God had to be the one who decided that it was just for mankind to be born in a fallen condition by which they were unable to willingly respond to His appeal to be reconciled from that condition. What is the alternative?