Unable/Unwilling

[convicted1]

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.

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.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The gospel Paul presented to them is a call to the sheep only. It is what's effectually calls them out from amongst the goats. The sheep hear and rejoice, the goats reject it...

 

[DHK]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The gospel Paul presented to them is a call to the sheep only. It is what's effectually calls them out from amongst the goats. The sheep hear and rejoice, the goats reject it...

Inherent in your answer are some of the greatest fallacies of Calvinism.
1. Not to say the least that over and over again Christ himself has stated that he came into the world that whosoever should believe on him should be saved. The world is not the elect. Whosoever is not the elect. The "whosoevers" of the Bible, if denied, would be a denial of a good percentage of Scripture.

2. The separation of sheep and goats. This is a fallacy in Calvinism. Where is this separation in Scripture? Chapter and verse please. There is only one time it is given, and that is the "Judgment of nations, a prophetic event yet to happen. It will happen probably at the beginning of Millennial Kingdom and has nothing to do with us today. There are no sheep vs. goats today. We are all sheep. Some are lost; some not.

[FONT=&quot]Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.[/FONT]
--We are all sheep. Christ died for us all.

There wasn't a single "elect" person among them. They were all heathen idolaters. As Paul walked the streets of Athens his heart was grieved within him as he saw one idol after another. It was a city wholly given to idolatry. There were no believers--no "sheep" as you would call them--just idolaters.
This is the longest sermon of Paul to pagan unbelievers recorded in the NT.
He begins by telling them who God is. He describes how God does not live in houses or temples made by hands. He describes him as the Creator of all things. He would not have to do that if he were speaking to those of a Jewish background or Christians. There were no "sheep." They were pagans.

3. When they made the choice to believe then they became part of the family of God, rescued from the family of Satan by the Spirit of God. They came from darkness and entered into light; from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God;
It was their faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
They had heard the Word of God. Now the Spirit was able to work through the Word which they had heard.

[FONT=&quot]1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.[/FONT]
--The new birth is ALWAYS preceded by the hearing of the Word of God.

The rejoicing comes after they entered into the family of God, not because they were of the family of God, as you imply. You have it backwards.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Iconoclast,

Paul contrasts “those according to the flesh” with “those according to the Spirit.” I agree with you that this is ontological. Yes, Paul is contrasting the believer and the unbeliever. When I view verse 8 within the context of the entire passage, I still do not see it speaking to ability (by necessity, excluding willful disobedience) in terms of coming out of the flesh (they cannot please God because they are in the flesh….but we both agree on this).

In the 1 Corinthians passage, I believe this speaks more to our discussion:

1 Corinthians 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
Those who are not in Christ cannot understand the things of God. I agree with you here as well.

When I was asking about unwillingness vs. inability, I did not mean ability to understand (1 Cor. 2:14) or the ability to please God while remaining in the flesh (Rom 8:7). What I mean is unwillingness rather than the inability to repent from the flesh.

I understand that ontologically it can all be boiled down to those in the flesh cannot please God. But what I am asking for are verses that accuse those in rebellion for inability rather than unwillingness. Perhaps it isn’t a big issue, as Scripture at least says that none are righteous and all….as James points out….actively rebel against God. I still think that the doctrine inability, through emphasis, provides a reasonable excuse which is not present in Scripture. But I am open to being shown I’m wrong. Or perhaps I'm looking at inability vs. unwillingness when it may be both.

Sinners ahve always had a god of their own creation, for as paul stated to us in romans, fallen mankind substitute the worship of the real God for all sorts of false ones...

So Mankind has always been religious, but the truth is that God sought after and chose Abraham, God chose Moses, God chose the Apostles, God chose all those whom are to get saved, so its not that sinners cannot know what the bible and God is saying unto them, its their fallen natures will n ot allow them to bend their knees to jesus, as they are like satan in that regard"far better to rule in hell then serve in heaven"

 

[Van]

On and on it goes, with one Calvinist after another claiming total spiritual inability based on the selective use of parts of passages, while nullifying where scripture teaches the idea is bogus.

Scripture says the Law acted as a tutor to lead the fallen to Christ. But Calvinists say the fallen will only be lead to a false god.

Calvinists define "in the flesh" as being fallen, rather than as scripture teaches, someone whose mind is set on fleshly desires. Here is Romans 8:7, 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,

So we can add "in the flesh" to be redefined by Calvinistic thinkers as referring not to those whose mind is set on fleshly desire, but those who are unsaved.

Bottom line, there are no passages of scripture that teach inability of all fallen men at all times. They will cite 1 Cor. 2:14 and ignore 1 Cor. 3:1.

 

[The Biblicist]

On and on it goes, with one Calvinist after another claiming total spiritual inability based on the selective use of parts of passages, while nullifying where scripture teaches the idea is bogus.

Scripture says the Law acted as a tutor to lead the fallen to Christ. But Calvinists say the fallen will only be lead to a false god.

Calvinists define "in the flesh" as being fallen, rather than as scripture teaches, someone whose mind is set on fleshly desires. Here is Romans 8:7, 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,

So we can add "in the flesh" to be redefined by Calvinistic thinkers as referring not to those whose mind is set on fleshly desire, but those who are unsaved.

Bottom line, there are no passages of scripture that teach inability of all fallen men at all times. They will cite 1 Cor. 2:14 and ignore 1 Cor. 3:1.

More irrational jibberish!

In Romans 8:8-9 the phase "in the flesh" is set in direct contrast to the phrase "in the Spirit" as direct opposites, and "in the Spirit" describes a SPIRITUAL CONDITION inseparable from being INDWELT BY THE SPIRIT (Rom. 8:9) rather than a mere inclination toward spiritual things as imagined by van. Therefore, "in the flesh" in this context also describes the reverse SPIRITUAL CONDITION, rather than mere inclination toward the works of the flesh. "In the Spirit" is inseparable from the Indwelling of the Spirit and that is more than mere inclination toward spiritual things but a SPIRITUAL CONDITION.

However, van's irrational jibberish just flows like water from a broken cistern.

 

[JonC]

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

Howdy Van. No, I'm not an Arminian. I don't base my soteriological understanding off of a Calvinistic scale.

 

[JonC]

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."

If I consider your post (and Icon's, now that I think about it a bit more) with JamesL, then I arrive at the conclusion that fallen men actively reject God because their minds are set on the flesh. Their motive is that they are unwilling. They are in active rebellion. This is descriptive of fallen man (it is ontological), therefore fallen man cannot come to God on his own terms (inability), but God draws those being saved to Himself. If JamesL is correct (and I believe he is) then acceptance of the gospel is passive, relying on God's will rather than one's own. If I have taken any of you out of context, my apologies, but this is how I understand your replies. If it is correct, then my error was trying to choose between unwilling and inability.

 

[The Biblicist]

If I consider your post (and Icon's, now that I think about it a bit more) with JamesL, then I arrive at the conclusion that fallen men actively reject God because their minds are set on the flesh. Their motive is that they are unwilling. They are in active rebellion. This is descriptive of fallen man (it is ontological), therefore fallen man cannot come to God on his own terms (inability), but God draws those being saved to Himself. If JamesL is correct (and I believe he is) then acceptance of the gospel is passive, relying on God's will rather than one's own. If I have taken any of you out of context, my apologies, but this is how I understand your replies. If it is correct, then my error was trying to choose between unwilling and inability.

I believe the fallen man is passive in regeneration but not in conversion. He is active in conversion due to regeneration. I believe they are inseparable but in a cause and effect relationship.

 

[Yeshua1]

If I consider your post (and Icon's, now that I think about it a bit more) with JamesL, then I arrive at the conclusion that fallen men actively reject God because their minds are set on the flesh. Their motive is that they are unwilling. They are in active rebellion. This is descriptive of fallen man (it is ontological), therefore fallen man cannot come to God on his own terms (inability), but God draws those being saved to Himself. If JamesL is correct (and I believe he is) then acceptance of the gospel is passive, relying on God's will rather than one's own. If I have taken any of you out of context, my apologies, but this is how I understand your replies. If it is correct, then my error was trying to choose between unwilling and inability.

the will of sinners will be to always resist and refuse to come unto Christ, as they are in the Kingdom of satan, so why would they be willing to do wjat their "daddy" refuses to do?

 

[JonC]

I believe the fallen man is passive in regeneration but not in conversion. He is active in conversion due to regeneration. I believe they are inseparable but in a cause and effect relationship.

I take it then to be saved one must first be born again (spiritually alive) and then they turn to God in repentance and faith for salvation. This would fit well with the notion that we are dead in our trespasses and as such cannot understand spiritual things (and cannot turn to God). It would also prevent the notion that salvation is man working with God. I like that this focuses on God as the author of our faith and not man. I disagree with the concept, perhaps mostly because I do not know that we can dissect salvation to such micro elements. But I'll have to consider it some more.

 

[JamesL]

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.

Like I stated earlier...passively received, actively rejected.

But the primary flaw in the "gift" rationale is in thinking of it as a box, a bag, a carton, or some other form of tangible "thing" that must be picked up and carried away.

In Ephesians 2:8-9, where it says "it" is the gift of God, there are three views:
1) grace is the gift
2) salvation is the gift
3) faith is the gift

So which is the gift? saved, by grace, through faith. "IT" is the gift of God.

Think about going through the drive-thru at McDonald's, and they tell you the guy in front of you paid for your food. You could rightly say that by that man's grace, your food was paid for. And "IT" was received by you.

So was the food free? Not at all. McDonald's doesn't give food away. It cost the guy in front of you. But was the food a gift from the guy? No. The PAYMENT was a gift from him. His grace paid for the food, and his grace was the gift toward you.

Now, what do you have to "do" to receive the gift? Nothing. It's done. He made the payment already. You don't have to thank him, or even appreciate it. There isn't a single thing you can do to receive it, it is 100% passive.

You would believe it - not by making a decision, but simply based on the veracity of the claim. The person working there would convince you, just by saying it. Would it take work to believe the guy? Hardly. He would say it, and you would believe it automatically.

But what if you refuse to believe the guy actually paid for your food? That would take work. You would have to actively work to refuse to believe the employee.

You could refuse the payment from the guy in front of you, and demand that you pay for your own food. It would take active work to reject the gift.


Or what if you owe money on your house? You find that your aunt died, and you go to hear a reading of the will. When it's read, you hear that her will says that your house is to be paid off. What do you have to "do" in order for it to become a reality? Nothing. The arrangement has already been made. It's a gift

What gift? Your house? Not at all. The gift is the PAYMENT. The house is already yours, and you're actively working to pay for it yourself. You would passively receive the gift, doing nothing to appropriate it. It would simply happen.

You would believe it, based on the veracity of the one reading the will. His job is to recite the will, and you would believe him.

However, you could actively reject the gift if you were crazy enough, or if you hated your aunt enough. You would have to go out of your way to reject that payment.


As for the gospel, scripture clearly declares that faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17), that we receive the Spirit when we believe what we heard (Gal 3:2), and that we are born again through the word that is preached (1Pet 1:23, 25)

We are told that no one can come to Christ unless the Father "drags" him (Greek helkuo). That the Spirit is in the world, convicting the world of sin, and righteousness, and judgment. What did Jesus say when Peter confessed "Thou art the Christ" ?

"Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven"


Men preach the cross, and the Holy Spirit is working in men to convince them of the truth. And if that man becomes convinced (strictly by the work of the Holy Spirit), then he has faith.

So is it because a man does a spiff job of presenting the gospel in an undeniable fashion? Not according to Paul. He said he did not come with slick words, but in the power of the Spirit. Most men today are trying with slick words, then presenting a "do" response.

And they ought to be ashamed of themselves, for they are trampling on the work of the Hole Spirit. God does the work, not men. Passive reception of truth. That's it. We hear the gospel of peace, and the Holy Spirit reveals Christ to us

It's like an epiphany. Whoever chose to have an epiphany? That's absurd

But how many actively reject the truth? Or how many have the word snatched away, as in the parable of the soils (sower)?

 

[DHK]

Like I stated earlier...passively received, actively rejected.

But the primary flaw in the "gift" rationale is in thinking of it as a box, a bag, a carton, or some other form of tangible "thing" that must be picked up and carried away.

In Ephesians 2:8-9, where it says "it" is the gift of God, there are three views:
1) grace is the gift
2) salvation is the gift
3) faith is the gift

So which is the gift? saved, by grace, through faith. "IT" is the gift of God.

You are entitled to your opinion (everyone always is)
But I believe you are wrong here.
Have you ever diagrammed a sentence, whether in Greek or in English. I learned how to do both. It was required. I have also learned a number of different languages which has taught me a lot about grammar.

[FONT=&quot]Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.[/FONT]

What is the basic noun and verb of this entire thought?
It is here: You are saved.
Everything revolves around those three words. Thus the topic of salvation is introduced.

By grace--a prepositional adverbial phrase. It tells HOW we are saved.
Through faith--a prepositional adverbial phrase telling the means by which we are saved.
AND--a conjunction joining two thoughts together.
(it) i.e. salvation is not of yourself.
(it) i.e. salvation is the gift of God.
(it) i.e. salvation is not of works.
--lest any man should boast
----boast of what? Boast of their salvation!

Salvation is the subject all the way through.
Salvation is the gift of God.
Romans 6:23

 

[JamesL]

Salvation is the subject all the way through.
Salvation is the gift of God.
Romans 6:23

Why did you reference a verse that speaks of PHYSICAL death and resurrection?

 

[The Biblicist]

In Ephesians 2:8-9, where it says "it" is the gift of God, there are three views:
1) grace is the gift
2) salvation is the gift
3) faith is the gift

So which is the gift? saved, by grace, through faith. "IT" is the gift of God.

Actually there is a fourth alternative that "it" refers to the whole phrase "By grace are ye saved through faith." And I believe this is the correct view. Because "grace" considered by itself means nothing. Saved is not by itself as it is "through faith" and so it is the whole phrase.

The periphrastic construction "are ye saved" demands it is a completed action in the past that remains completed right into the present. The "saved" completed action was "through faith" and therefore faith is inseparable from the completed action. Verse 10 declares "saved" to be a CREATIVE action by God. Verses 1,5 demand it is the act of quickening that the word "saved" contextually is being applied to. The preacher brings the gospel to us EXTERNALLY but it is the Spirit of God that makes it His creative word INSIDE of us by which he creates faith in Christ as described in 2 Cor. 4:6 where the analogy is taken from Genesis 1:2-3 where God by fiat calls light out of darkness, but here it is the removal of metaphorical darkness "in the heart" that is removed by the "light OF KNOWLEDGE of God in the face of Jesus Christ" thus a divine revelation of Jesus Christ in the heart that produces the same confession of faith given by Peter in Matthew 16:16 which did not come by way "of flesh and blood" but was directly revealed to Peter from the Father (Mt. 16:17). This is the creative act of God within the darkened human heart that creates faith in Christ.

 

[DHK]

Why did you reference a verse that speaks of PHYSICAL death and resurrection?

[FONT=&quot]Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--The gift of God is salvation.
The gift of God is eternal life. It is the same teaching.
[/FONT]

 

[JamesL]

Actually there is a fourth alternative that "it" refers to the whole phrase "By grace are ye saved through faith." And I believe this is the correct view. Because "grace" considered by itself means nothing. Saved is not by itself as it is "through faith" and so it is the whole phrase.

I considered that view after my post, and I do see a lot of merit there

 

[JamesL]

[FONT=&quot]Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--The gift of God is salvation.
The gift of God is eternal life. It is the same teaching.
[/FONT]

Do you deny that the Spirit will GIVE LIFE to your mortal body?

Inner man, outer man. Both must be made righteous.

 

[Van]

On and on it goes, with one scripture after another claimed to not mean what it says. Do we receive the gospel passively? Nope. In Matthew 13:20 the Greek word translated "receiving" is an active verb. Thus the person was not only "able" but willing (to some degree).

Bottom line: It is a fiction to assert all mankind is unable to receive the gospel because of the fall, and it is a fiction to assert all mankind at all times is unwilling to receive the gospel. Of course the gospel is a revelatory grace of God, i.e. the power of God for salvation.

 

[DHK]

Do you deny that the Spirit will GIVE LIFE to your mortal body?

Inner man, outer man. Both must be made righteous.

What do you mean "my mortal body"? My mortal body has had life since the day I was conceived. My heart has been pumping ever since it was formed.
The Bible says:
[FONT=&quot]Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.[/FONT]
--We wait for the redemption of our bodies. Our bodies will be redeemed at the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

On and on it goes, with one scripture after another claimed to not mean what it says. Do we receive the gospel passively? Nope. In Matthew 13:20 the Greek word translated "receiving" is an active verb. Thus the person was not only "able" but willing (to some degree).

Bottom line: It is a fiction to assert all mankind is unable to receive the gospel because of the fall, and it is a fiction to assert all mankind at all times is unwilling to receive the gospel. Of course the gospel is a revelatory grace of God, i.e. the power of God for salvation.

More irrational non-germane gibberish!

Of course we are active in reception of the gospel! It is absolutely foolish to deny universal natural inability as Jesus plainly states the doctrine "NO MAN CAN come"! He is specifically speaking of universal ("No man") Inability ("can) because the only possible exception is not NATURAL but SUPERNATURAL - "except the Father" intervention.

although generic faith is naturally inherent, saving faith is not naturally inherent for any fallen human - because if it were then Christ would never have said "NO MAN CAN COME TO ME" if all COULD come to him.

The absolutely ridiculous and totally irrational gibberish of van that coming to Christ is "arrival Spiritually" is completely repudiated by scriptures as coming is ACTIVE voice proving it is an action of the person coming. However, "arriving spiritually" into a STATE or CONDITION of "in Christ" is directly stated to be an CREATIVE act of God ("created in Christ Jesus" - Eph. 2:10) wherein we are PASSIVE.

However, it is this kind of absolute nonsensical and irrational gibberish that is just repeated over and over again like some parrot on steroids.