Unable/Unwilling

[JonC]

So long as you agree you are adding to scripture fine. But since the addition (at any time) conflicts with Matthew 23:13 where unregenerate men were seeking God, I cannot see why you would agree.

Van,
As normal, I’m glad that you have taken the time to reply to my post. We’ve had interesting discussions in the past. Perhaps not as much normal, you have decided to take the front of accusation (I’m adding to Scripture) rather than discussing differences in interpretation. I will assure you, however, that our differences are not based on a departure from Scripture but a difference in reasoning through Scripture. I’d add that my understanding is also gleaned from reading the NASB95, however it is the text behind the translation that I find authoritative so I am not “locked” into that or any translation.

Nothing in the parable of the soils makes mention of the Holy Spirit, you are correct. And I’d add that one cannot build doctrine on parable. That said, there are many instances where Scripture affirms the unwillingness of men universally to turn towards righteousness (even using the NASB95). When I read your comments about the rich young ruler, who went home disappointed, I think that you are mistaking “seeking a god” with “seeking God.” Either way I believe that there is a general call (read Psalm 19, for example) and that all men can believe (but none on their own are willing) which is my point of this thread. Read Psalm 19, for example.

 

[Van]

I said you are adding to scripture by understanding "no one seeks after God" as indicating "no one seeks after God at any time." Not what it says.

One way to force man-made doctrine into scripture is to add a little here, and take away a little there. For example, for you to say all those seeking God were just seeking "a god" takes away from the clear teaching of scripture. The men of Matthew 23:13 cannot be said to be seeking after "a god" because they were entering heaven. Thus the effort to deny what scripture says fails.

Yes, I understand what you believe. The issue is what does the Bible teach. You say none on their own are willing, but offer no scripture. The parable of the four soils teaches 3 of 4 groups were willing to some degree to believe.

Next, you declare you cannot base doctrine of parables. But my view is based on Christ's explanation of the parable. To claim we cannot base our understanding on the teaching of Christ is unsound.

Can you provide from the "many" instances you cited where all men universally refuse to turn toward God?

Yes Psalm 19 agrees with my view that people, at least some fallen people, will learn from what God has made, and what God has revealed, including, according to Paul, the gospel.

 

[JonC]

I said you are adding to scripture by understanding "no one seeks after God" as indicating "no one seeks after God at any time." Not what it says…One way to force man-made doctrine into scripture is to add a little here, and take away a little there.

I could offer Romans 3:11, Psalm 14:2, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 8:7 and many more. But you and I both know our disagreement is one of interpretation. I also believe that the issue with your understanding is that it is foreign to what the Bible teaches. It is man-made doctrine that was, for the majority of Church history, foreign to orthodox Christianity. The idea that man will come to God on his or her own volition, apart from God working towards that result, is foreign to Scripture period. It was foreign to the Israelites in the Old Testament and it is foreign to the Christians in the New. Our only options are that we can keep on letting each other know that we think the other’s beliefs are unbiblical or we can discuss the topic at hand…but we can’t do both and I have no interest in the former (and a waning interest in the latter).

The men of Matthew 23:13 ….

I really don’t understand your point with Matthew 23:13 here. I was speaking of the rich young ruler who was “seeking God” but when he found God it turned out that God was not what he was looking for and he went home disappointed.

Next, you declare you cannot base doctrine of parables. But my view is based on Christ's explanation of the parable. To claim we cannot base our understanding on the teaching of Christ is unsound.

We do not base doctrine on parables, period. You are not so foolish as to believe that we do, as evidenced by your insistence that you base yours on Jesus’ explanation in Matthew 13:19. I am sure (kinda hopeful anyway) that you are not forming doctrine on Matthew 13:19 alone).

 

[Iconoclast]

Hi Iconoclast,

But what I am asking for are verses that accuse those in rebellion for inability rather than unwillingness.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

No Spirit...no ability being in the flesh...is their condition. It is not a disposition.

 

[Van]

I base my views on what scripture says, not on what it does not say.

It says no one seeks after God, but also says the men of Matthew 23:13 were seeking after God, for they were entering heaven. Therefore, Romans 3:11 must be interpreted to mean no one seeks God all the time or when they are sinning.

Psalm 14, 1- 7 supports my view, not yours. God looks down to see if any who understand, who seeks after God. Why would he do that if no one could seek after God. He would not. Who is in view with "they all have turned aside." Is this all mankind, or the wicked fools who say there is no God? Those that say there is no God! Why? Keep reading. Do all the workers of wickedness ... not call upon the Lord? There they are in great dread, for God is with the righteous generation. The wicked fools would put to shame the counsel of the afflicted, but the Lord is his refuge. So again, this passage supports that some seek the Lord as his refuge.

1 Cor. 2:14 says unregenerate men cannot understand spiritual things. Again, Calvinism says this means "all spiritual things" but that view conflicts with 1 Corinthians 3:1 where Paul speaks to new Christians as "men of flesh." They can understand spiritual milk but not meat. Therefore, back in verse 14, the spiritual things in view are spiritual meat.

Romans 8:7 refers to people who have their minds set on the flesh, i.e. fleshly desires, but does not say people are "unable" to set their minds of godly things. In verse 8, we see that Paul uses the term "in the flesh" to refer to people with their minds set on fleshly desires. Again, scripture does not teach people are unable to set their minds on spiritual milk, because it teaches the opposite, 1 Cor. 3:1.

Next you indicated you could cite "many more" passages, but the result would be the same, none actually teach what has been added to scripture, i.e. the total spiritual inability of the fallen.

Yes, I believe we do base doctrine on the explanation of parables. And yes, I believe the explanation can be relied upon for doctrine. The gospel writers felt it was so important a teaching, they included it in Matthew 13:1-15, Mark 4:1-12, and Luke 8:4-10. After each of these passages, Christ's explanation is given. Therefore the doctrine that some men are able to respond in various degrees to the gospel is rock solid.

 

[JonC]

i.e. the total spiritual inability of the fallen.

Van, you are predispositioned by past conversations with Calvinists on this board. I never spoke of the total spiritual inability of the fallen. I spoke of their consistent unwillingness.

 

[JonC]

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

No Spirit...no ability being in the flesh...is their condition. It is not a disposition.

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

I understand why you say that this speaks to ability. I agree that while we are opposed to God we cannot please God. What I was speaking of was not pleasing God while opposed to Him, but that the lost are willfully opposed to Him (as JamesL put it, actively rather than passively opposed to God). But you and I agree that those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

[JamesL]

Van, you are predispositioned by past conversations with Calvinists on this board. I never spoke of the total spiritual inability of the fallen. I spoke of their consistent unwillingness.

Fruitlessl, imho. Same with DHK.

No effort to reason, the "conversation" always denigrates into regurgitating the same 12 passages - which, btw, never use the words choice or decide when it comes to believing the gospel

 

[JonC]

Fruitlessl, imho. Same with DHK.

No effort to reason, the "conversation" always denigrates into regurgitating the same 12 passages - which, btw, never use the words choice or decide when it comes to believing the gospel

I agree, this isn't going anywhere. I believe for some the Calvinistic/non-Calvinistic rut is too big. All they can do is try to drag other topics into that rut along with themselves.

 

[PreachTony]

The biggest flaw on both sides of the vicious debate...

Is the erroneous idea that there is a choice to make.

<snip>

And that is exactly how scripture portrays the gospel. Passively received, actively rejected

James - Just out of curiosity, how does one "passively receive" a gift? We acknowledge that salvation is the gift of God. But, to put this in human terms (solely for the sake of example), let's say that I was presenting you with a gift. I came by wherever you were, and sat the gift down in front of you and said, "I give you this as a gift."

You do nothing. You don't reject it, but you also don't take it. Have you truly received anything? In order to receive something as a gift, an action has to be taken. This should not be confused with "works." The notion that performing the act of receiving is a 'work' is not correct, in my opinion. When the Bible speaks of "works," it is speaking of the deeds we do for God. We are not saved because we do those deeds, but rather we do those deeds because we are saved.

If we do nothing to receive the gift of God, but we come by it passively, as you suggest, then we're back to the issue of God forcing salvation on a person, which has long been a stance the Cals on this board have rejected (in my conversations with them) at least on terminology if not on meaning.

 

[Van]

Van, you are predispositioned by past conversations with Calvinists on this board. I never spoke of the total spiritual inability of the fallen. I spoke of their consistent unwillingness.

Hi JonC, I thought you were an Arminian, and therefore buy into total spiritual inability rectified by enabling grace.

So by the numbers, you believe folks have limited spiritual ability in their fallen state without being enabled by enabling grace. If that is not right, we are back to square one.

Next, the rich young ruler had the ability to sell all his belongings and follow Jesus, but was unwilling because he still treasured his worldly treasure and he had a lot of it. Thus he is an example of the third soil from Matthew 13. He was seeking the God of the Bible, Yahweh, and not some other god. Note he had learned of the Law, i.e. the commandments. So for you to "interpret" that he was seeking some other god is unsound.

Here is what you said, "...there are many instances where Scripture affirms the unwillingness of men universally to turn towards righteousness (even using the NASB95)." I asked for an example and was greeted with silence. OTOH, I have offered numerous references in scripture where fallen mean were seeking God, i.e. Matthew 13:1-23, Matthew 23:13, the rich young ruler, and come to think of it, Romans 9:30-33 where men seek God through works and through faith. Thus the ability and occasional willingness to seek God using works or using faith is found throughout scripture.

 

[Van]

Here is a link to an article where the Arminian view does endorse total spiritual inability. https://arminiantheologyblog.wordpress.com/category/arminianism/total-inability/

Here is an excerpt:

What you don’t seem to grasp is that I have no argument with the doctrine of ‘Total Depravity’, per se. In fact, no informed Arminian has a problem with the doctrine. See for instance, Do Arminians Believe in Total Depravity? and A Puritan’s (Deluded) Mind

 

[The Biblicist]

I’ve been studying the doctrine that man will not believe on their own (apart from God). I know that this is not a Calvinistic distinctive as Arminianism also holds to this belief (as does other non-Calvinistic camps) so I am not posting in the Cal/Arm area…but I don’t mind it being moved to pacify the hyper-sensitive.

My question regards the inability of man to choose God. Reading Scripture I see many passages showing where man is unwilling (unwilling, stiff-necked, rebellious, etc....typically a result of an unwillingness) but the closest I can see from unable is the statement that the lost are spiritually dead (which goes more with being blind, deaf, hardened, etc). Are there any passages that specifically states that men are unable….that the failure of the lost is a failure in ability rather than willingness?

Jon, the issue is not a matter of power of choice. the lost man has the power of choice. The issue of total inability is in regard to what internally governs his choices. He does not choose or seek after God according to the right motive or right way that God demands, because he does not want to, (although he does seek after God according to his own self-centered motives and ways, just not according to God's motive and way) and his "want to" is determined by the state of his heart. Notice that Romans 8:7 says "enmity against God" is what is the cause for refusal to submit to God and it is that combination of cause and effect which call for the words which follow "indeed neither can be." Jesus says that man LOVES darkness RATHER THAN light and that he will not come to the light BECAUSE his deeds are evil - Jn. 3:19-20. Again, it is his desires that make him unable. If he does come to the light it is proof that result is "wrought of God" rather than of man.

The doctrine of universal total inability is plainly asserted by Christ in the words "no man can come". If that were not true, there would be no need for the exception clause that follows. So it is pure foolishness to deny universal total inability.

This does not mean that man cannot choose and do apparent good before men. The problem here is his motive. He does not possess the right heart motive behind any of his choices because an evil heart cannot bear "good" fruit, as even the apparent "good" that is seen arises from the wrong heart motive (1 Cor. 10:30). The motive/cause for any apparent good done by fallen man is never for the glory of God but for some other motive that always comes "short of the glory of God."

 

[convicted1]

Jon, the issue is not a matter of power of choice. the lost man has the power of choice. The issue of total inability is in regard to what internally governs his choices. He does not choose or seek after God because he does not want to, and his "want to" is determined by the state of his heart. Notice that Romans 8:7 says "enmity against God" is what is the cause for refusal to submit to God and it is that combination of cause and effect that the words which follow "indeed neither can be."

The doctrine of universal total inability is plainly asserted by Christ in the words "no man can come". If that were not true, there would be no need for the exception clause that follows. So it is pure foolishness to deny universal total inability.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

[Van]

He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” (John 6:65, NIV)

This illustrates a classic misinterpretation of scripture. If a person is not able, then he must be enabled. But if a person is able, then God must disable or disallow, and if God does not allow, if a person is able, means He disallows.
So we see in Romans 8:7 where no one is able to subject themselves to the Law, the Calvinist assumption is no one can because they are unable, but another assumption no one can with their mind set on fleshly desires is just as valid.

And again we see the argument from silence that those fallen who were seeking God did not have the right heart. But Matthew 23:13 demonstrates that deflection is bogus, for they were entering heaven.

 

[The Biblicist]

He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” (John 6:65, NIV)

This illustrates a classic misinterpretation of scripture. If a person is not able, then he must be enabled. But if a person is able, then God must disable or disallow.
So we see in Romans 8:7 where no one can, the Calvinist assumption is no one can because they are unable, but another assumption no one can with their mind set on fleshly desires is just as valid.

And again we see the argument from silence that those fallen who were seeking God did not have the right heart. But Matthew 23:13 demonstrates that deflection is bogus, for they were entering heaven.

Van, can you and I communicate in an agreeable manner without resorting to mockery or talking down to each other? I am willing if you are? If so, I would like to challenge your statements above, if not, then we will just forget it.

 

[Van]

Lets just forget it Biblicist, you are offended when I say your arguments are irrational gibberish. Jonathan has observed the same issue. I try always to address positions rather than people, however when the arguments are nonsensical or absurd, the line gets blurred. But I refuse to quote and waste time addressing nonsensical arguments, or positions that are not in contention.

 

[DHK]

Yes. One's spiritual status does not effect God's hearing. If the unsaved person calls on the Lord (for salvation) he will be saved. It is, I believe, a matter of the will here. But without the work of the Spirit, the man will remain unwilling (except in a self-centered/ on man's "own terms" context).

Here is your OP once again:

My question regards the inability of man to choose God. Reading Scripture I see many passages showing where man is unwilling (unwilling, stiff-necked, rebellious, etc....typically a result of an unwillingness) but the closest I can see from unable is the statement that the lost are spiritually dead (which goes more with being blind, deaf, hardened, etc). Are there any passages that specifically states that men are unable….that the failure of the lost is a failure in ability rather than willingness?

Back to Acts 17.
The pagan Athenians were more than willing to bring Paul to Mars Hill and hear him, entirely apart from the Spirit of God. This wasn't the Spirit's doing. This was their own curiosity.
"What will this babbler say?" They treated him with contempt, not respect.
But they would listen to him anyway, and Paul would never refuse an opportunity to preach. They were willing, no matter what their motive may have been.

The decisive point was the resurrection.
When they heard the resurrection some mocked and others believed.
There was an ability to make a choice. That choice was made and an obvious split between the hearers of the Word. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Lets just forget it Biblicist, you are offended when I say your arguments are irrational gibberish. Jonathan has observed the same issue. I try always to address positions rather than people, however when the arguments are nonsensical or absurd, the line gets blurred. But I refuse to quote and waste time addressing nonsensical arguments, or positions that are not in contention.

No one denies you make the accusation "irrational gibberish" but YOU NEVER ARE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WHY you make that accusation. This is obvious as YOU NEVER QUOTE anything I say when you make that accusation. You simply make the accusation without giving ANY RATIONALE for that accusation. All the readers know that is the truth. If you COULD give rational reasons you would have but the record will show nothing is given to sustain your accusations. So your accusations without evidence are nothing but a personal attack.

For the record, I am not offended by you calling my statements "irrational gibberish." What offends me is that you give absolutely NOTHING to support your accusation. That is what offends me. A slander is simply an accusation without evidence.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is your OP once again:

Back to Acts 17.
The pagan Athenians were more than willing to bring Paul to Mars Hill and hear him, entirely apart from the Spirit of God. This wasn't the Spirit's doing. This was their own curiosity.
"What will this babbler say?" They treated him with contempt, not respect.
But they would listen to him anyway, and Paul would never refuse an opportunity to preach. They were willing, no matter what their motive may have been.

I agree that the problem is not with the human will. Man has the full power of choice. But I think you are hitting the real problem when you said "no matter what their motive may have been." An evil tree cannot bring forth "good" fruit due to the nature of the tree. Jesus defines that "tree" to be the heart and the problem is a wrong motive which is the root of the heart as that motive always comes "short of the glory of God" which is the only proper motive that God will accept actions as "good" in his sight (1 Cor. 10:31) as God looks on the heart rather than the apparent actions of men.