What role could envy play in the salvation process?

[Skandelon]

You presumed that the only missing element that kept Tyre and Sidon from repenting were signs and wonders,

I didn't presume that, it is what Jesus actually said, "if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago." No presumption there.

so I was just wondering why God didn't provide that missing element?

You will need to ask him that question. We both agree that God is not obligated to reveal himself through outward signs and wonders. He is please through faith (Heb 11) and those are the means HE has chosen.

Was God not please with Thomas' faith?

I don't know that I would call that "faith." He saw and believed, so maybe that would be better described as "belief" or "trust?" "Faith" is typically a word used for that which is unseen. "Blessed are those who don't see and still believe."

So why didn't God send miracles to Tyre and Sidon and likewise be pleased with their eventual faith?

Again, you will need to ask him. He could write his name in blood across the sky right now and cause a lot of people to change their minds and believe in him, but he doesn't. Sometimes I wish he would do more miracles and such, but I suppose that is just not his pleasure. Calvinists don't have the market on claiming that God has a sovereign purpose or will, we affirm such truths too whether you recognize them or not.

Plus, we do not believe God's desire is just to save all man. His desire, according to our view, is to save all who have FAITH.

Maybe that verse needs more consideration on your part before you try to use it as a proof-text against Calvinism.

No, I've considered it amply, thank you. Now, you're turn to defend your view. How could it be that the signs and wonder would have lead them to repentance if indeed they were born "Totally Depraved" and in need of the "Effectual calling?"

 

[Andy T.]

You will need to ask him that question.

And that's the same response I would give you to your question about the inner workings of the Holy Spirit's conviction and regeneration. I don't claim to understand it all - just that it is evident that he brings people to faith through different means, circumstances and avenues.

Again, you will need to ask him. He could write his name in blood across the sky right now and cause a lot of people to change their minds and believe in him, but he doesn't. Sometimes I wish he would do more miracles and such, but I suppose that is just not his pleasure. Calvinists don't have the market on claiming that God has a sovereign purpose or will, we affirm such truths too whether you recognize them or not.

Plus, we do not believe God's desire is just to save all man. His desire, according to our view, is to save all who have FAITH.

Here is where are views are much closer together and we share a common bond. I appreciate that.

No, I've considered it amply, thank you. Now, you're turn to defend your view. How could it be that the signs and wonder would have lead them to repentance if indeed they were born "Totally Depraved" and in need of the "Effectual calling?"

Was Jesus' statement intended to be a comprehensive view on the workings of salvation? Comparing Scripture with Scripture would provide a fuller view of how the people of Tyre and Sidon would've been saved had God chosen to save them.

 

[Skandelon]

And that's the same response I would give you to your question about the inner workings of the Holy Spirit's conviction and regeneration. I don't claim to understand it all - just that it is evident that he brings people to faith through different means, circumstances and avenues.

But Calvinists don't typically affirm that men are brought to faith through any other means than regeneration, do they?

That response for me is consistent with my other claims, whereas it appears to contradict the claims of Calvinism....i.e. "no one can come to faith apart from the effectual work of regeneration."

Was Jesus' statement intended to be a comprehensive view on the workings of salvation?

Probably not, but that doesn't negate the fact that is revealed in his statement, which was that these people would have repented had more signs and wonders been shown them, which contradicts the claims of Calvinism which require a prior work of regeneration.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture would provide a fuller view of how the people would've been saved had God chosen to save them.

Ok, what scripture would you like to compare with this one so as to explain away what Jesus clearly said?

 

[Andy T.]

But Calvinists don't typically affirm that men are brought to faith through any other means than regeneration, do they?

Sure they do. Regneration is always accompanied by the preaching of the Gospel, and it can be accompanied by other means as God works on the sinner's heart. You keep trying to minimalize regeneration into a simple formula that works the same way in every person's heart. Every believer has a different testimony of how he was brought to salvation, no?

Probably not, but that doesn't negate the fact that is revealed in his statement, which was that these people would have repented had more signs and wonders been shown them, which contradicts the claims of Calvinism which require a prior work of regeneration.

How does it contradict? Jesus didn't say that these people could've been saved without the prior working of the Holy Spirit, did he? Again, this statement wasn't intended to be a comprehensive statement of salvation.

Ok, what scripture would you like to compare with this one so as to explain away what Jesus clearly said?

Nice quip here - "explain away". Didn't you just the other day acknowledge that each side has to do systematic theology and explain certain "difficult" passages? "Explain away" quips do not help the discussion.

 

[Andy T.]

But I didn't expect much Calvinistic interaction with this thread.

BTW, sorry to have disappointed your less than charitable expectations of your brothers in Christ.

 

[webdog]

BTW, sorry to have disappointed your less than charitable expectations of your brothers in Christ.

You haven't. The fact you are the only one to engage this thread (besides glf's attempted character assassination) speaks volumes.

 

[Skandelon]

Sure they do. Regneration is always accompanied by the preaching of the Gospel, and it can be accompanied by other means as God works on the sinner's heart.

I understand that, but I'm asking what purpose do those means serve since regeneration serves the purpose of effectually changing man's will and the gospel serves the purpose of informing the regenerate man of his need to repent and believe. What purpose does envy serve? What purpose do signs and wonders serve? How could either of those means lead men to repentance as Jesus said they would? What else could Jesus mean if what you believe is true?

How does it contradict? Jesus didn't say that these people could've been saved without the prior working of the Holy Spirit, did he?

No, he said they WOULD have IF they had been shown the same signs and wonders, which clearly gives power to the outward means to convince men's wills to change. In the same way, Paul affirms that the outward means which provoke men to envy can also have the power to affect change in man's will, something Calvinism denies.

Nice quip here - "explain away". Didn't you just the other day acknowledge that each side has to do systematic theology and explain certain "difficult" passages? "Explain away" quips do not help the discussion.

We have to explain away what you consider to be a clear passage supporting your view in Acts 13:48 and I'm merely asking you to compare the verses you need to compare in order to explain away what otherwise appears to be clearly supporting our view. You seem to be avoiding wanting to take on that challenge whereas I quickly tackled the Acts 13:48 challenge... Why?

 

[Andy T.]

You haven't. The fact you are the only one to engage this thread (besides glf's attempted character assassination) speaks volumes.

1. Per Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over. Thread isn't anywhere near to being closed yet, is it?

2. Maybe other people have more than enough to keep them busy and away from debates like this. Shoot, I go months and months without posting in here. Doesn't mean I don't have an answer to every single thread that is posted here.

3. I still see the quip as rather arrogant and uncharitable - kind of like, "Ha ha we got you now - no way your gonna beat me this time."

 

[Skandelon]

I still see the quip as rather arrogant and uncharitable - kind of like, "Ha ha we got you now - no way your gonna beat me this time."

Naw, it was meant to be more of a prod to provoke your will to engage the debate, you know kind of like envy did for the hardened Jews? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Andy T.]

I understand that, but I'm asking what purpose do those means serve since regeneration serves the purpose of effectually changing man's will and the gospel serves the purpose of informing the regenerate man of his need to repent and believe. What purpose does envy serve? What purpose do signs and wonders serve? How could either of those means lead men to repentance as Jesus said they would? What else could Jesus mean if what you believe is true?

I don't claim to know all the purposes of God. You keep trying to minimalize it, and I won't go there. The purposes of God of too high for me at times. Just like you recently admitted that your view of LFW is mysterious as to how a choice is determined, and also how it is a mystery why God doesn't stop evil, I guess I will have to appeal to mystery here. Why couldn't God just save everyone without messing around with spreading the Gospel? I don't know, but that's how he chooses to work. And sometimes he may choose to work through envy or signs and wonders.

No, he said they WOULD have IF they had been shown the same signs and wonders, which clearly gives power to the outward means to convince men's wills to change. In the same way, Paul affirms that the outward means which provoke men to envy can also have the power to affect change in man's will, something Calvinism denies.

That's your interpretation in accordance with your Arminian systematic theology.

We have to explain away what you consider to be a clear passage supporting your view in Acts 13:48 and I'm merely asking you to compare the verses you need to compare in order to explain away what otherwise appears to be clearly supporting our view. You seem to be avoiding wanting to take on that challenge whereas I quickly tackled the Acts 13:48 challenge... Why?

As soon as you provide a convincing argument that Jesus's statement was intended to be a comprehensive view of how salvation works and that Jesus denied any prior work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the the Tyre and Sidon people, then we can go from there.

 

[Andy T.]

Naw, it was meant to be more of a prod to provoke your will to engage the debate, you know kind of like envy did for the hardened Jews? :smilewinkgrin:

Yep, thanks for tempting me to waste a better part of my day.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't claim to know all the purposes of God.

So, you are saying you don't know what purpose envy might serve? Why not simply accept that it might serve the purpose of provoking them to change their mind, as Paul said?

You keep trying to minimalize it

Quite the opposite. I'm trying to maximize the God's chosen purposes in utilizing means such as signs and envy. If any view minimalizes these purposes and means, it is one in which says those means have no power or known purpose.

That's your interpretation in accordance with your Arminian systematic theology.

And now that you have dismissed my argument with that simple rebuttal, I'll pack it away and use its reverse to rebuttal all your so called interpretations according to Calvinistic systematic theology.

As soon as you provide a convincing argument that Jesus's statement was intended to be a comprehensive view of how salvation works and that Jesus contradicted any prior work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the the Tyre and Sidon people, then we can go from there.

I'm not claiming that Jesus was intending to make a comprehensive view of how salvation works. I'm ONLY talking about what he actually said and the facts that are revealed. If you believe that those cities wouldn't have repented after seeing those signs and wonders then you believe in contradiction to what Jesus actually said, period.

BTW, you still haven't told us what Jesus' point was if indeed those people wouldn't have repented if shown signs and wonders? You mentioned wanting to compare scriptures, but I didn't see any that explained these verses intent. Which the Acts 13:48 passage I presented some possible alternative intents of the author and you haven't done that for this passage. What was Jesus' intent if not what he clearly seems to state?

 

[Skandelon]

Yep, thanks for tempting me to waste a better part of my day.

You now think it is a waste of a day to do what was decreed by God for you to do today? Please explain how that can be? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Andy T.]

Quite the opposite. I'm trying to maximize the God's chosen purposes in utilizing means such as signs and envy. If any view minimalizes these purposes and means, it is one in which says those means have no power or known purpose.

The "purpose" of any means God so chooses to use is to save his people, of course. But you keep asking me "why" God would use that means, and my answer is that God chose that means. I guess I'm a simpleton, because I don't feel or see the need to expound beyond that.

If you believe that those cities wouldn't have repented after seeing those signs and wonders then you believe in contradiction to what Jesus actually said, period.

I take Jesus at His word, so your accusation against me does not stand. What I deny is that the ONLY cause of the would-be converts from Tyre and Sidon was for God to send them signs and wonders. Jesus did not say that the people needed only the signs and wonders, he just said if those signs and wonders had occurred, they would've repented. So I fail to see how Jesus contradicted the Holy Spirit's would-be work in these would-be coverts' hearts. Jesus said the signs and wonders were a necessary condition for them to be saved. But he didn't say it was the only or sufficient condition.

BTW, you still haven't told us what Jesus' point was if indeed those people wouldn't have repented if shown signs and wonders? You mentioned wanting to compare scriptures, but I didn't see any that explained these verses intent. Which the Acts 13:48 passage I presented some possible alternative intents of the author and you haven't done that for this passage. What was Jesus' intent if not what he clearly seems to state?

His intent was to rebuke the hearers' unbelief and lack of repentance.

 

[Skandelon]

The "purpose" of any means God so chooses to use is to save his people, of course. But you keep asking me "why" God would use that means, and my answer is that God chose that means.

Ok, we agree that God chose those means to save people. Now, God chose those means to accomplish what purpose? The effectual call (regeneration) accomplishes the purpose of changing man's will so that they believe and the gospel informs regenerate of their need to repent and believe. What do envy or signs do?

I guess I'm a simpleton, because I don't feel or see the need to expound beyond that.

You are not a simpleton, the reason you don't feel or see the need to expound beyond that is because you are smart enough to see the inconsistency of these means being used in a system where they serve absolutely no purpose. This is one of the reasons I begin to objectively question my Calvinistic beliefs several years ago. I challenge you to do the same.

I take Jesus at His word, so your accusation against me does not stand. What I deny is that the ONLY cause of the would-be converts from Tyre and Sidon was for God to send them signs and wonders

Ok, I'll be objective. Let's concede that point. Let's assume you are right and the people in Tyre and Sidon need both signs and for God to elect them from eternity past and regenerate them.

So, what is now the intent of Jesus' rebuke to the modern day cities considering this truth is also in play?

Was His intent to say, "Woe to you cities, if God would have elected the people of Tyre and Sidon in eternity past and effectually regenerated them and then shown them the signs and wonders you have seen, they would have repented long ago. But you haven't been elected either and you haven't been regenerated either and you still refuse to believe these signs and wonders for some reason! Shame on you!"

That's not intended to be in any way misrepresentative of what you believe, I honestly just can't see any rational intent of this rebuke from the Calvinistic perspective. Please explain.

His intent was to rebuke the hearers' unbelief and lack of repentance.

1. Why rebuke them for something only He can effectuate through regenerative means?

2. Why point to great number of sign and wonders they had received as the source of that rebuke if it could not have lead them to repentance?

3. Why claim that the same amount of signs and wonder WOULD have resulted in repentance in the ancient cities if the sign and wonders is NOT the factor in question?

 

[Andy T.]

What do envy or signs do?

Just like the preaching of the Gospel, they work in concert with the Holy Spirit's regenerative work.

You are not a simpleton, the reason you don't feel or see the need to expound beyond that is because you are smart enough to see the inconsistency of these means being used in a system where they serve absolutely no purpose.

Thanks, but I'd rather be called a simpleton than a liar, which is what you are implying here.

Was His intent to say, "Woe to you cities, if God would have elected the people of Tyre and Sidon in eternity past and effectually regenerated them and then shown them the signs and wonders you have seen, they would have repented long ago. But you haven't been elected either and you haven't been regenerated either and you still refuse to believe these signs and wonders for some reason! Shame on you!"

I suppose both sides of this debate could insert snarky comments like this to try and paint the other side as absurd. I don't see the term LFW in Scripture, either.

1. Why rebuke them for something only He can effectuate through regenerative means?

Why preach to them at all, since God could just save them with a simple edict? God chose the means.

2. Why point to great number of sign and wonders they had received as the source of that rebuke if it could not have lead them to repentance?

Again, means.

3. Why claim that the same amount of signs and wonder WOULD have resulted in repentance in the ancient cities if the sign and wonders is NOT the factor in question?

I never said the signs and wonders would not be a factor in the would-be salvation of Tyre and Sidon. It would have been a necessary condition/factor according to Jesus. But not the only condition/factor.

 

[Skandelon]

Just like the preaching of the Gospel,

The gospel informs the regenerate, so they are not alike in that the gospel has a stated and known purpose.

they work in concert with the Holy Spirit's regenerative work.

In concert to accomplish what exactly?

Thanks, but I'd rather be called a simpleton than a liar, which is what you are implying here.

That wasn't my intent. I'm just calling it like I see it and you appear to be avoiding the implication of speculating as to the purpose of these means because they do not match your systematic theology.

I suppose both sides of this debate could insert snarky comments like this to try and paint the other side as absurd. I don't see the term LFW in Scripture, either.

I purposefully followed up that comment with the explanation of my intent and that I wasn't meaning to misrepresent your view. I asked you to tell us what other intent Jesus might have, but you avoided answering that question in order to accuse me of being "snarky." Could that be because you don't have an answer to the question and find it easier to label and dismiss my arguments as being "snarky?"

Why preach to them at all, since God could just save them with a simple edict? God chose the means.

Exactly my point! Preaching to them has a purpose in both our views. We both understand the purpose of those means within our systems. We both agree God didn't choose to save by edict. But where we seem to part ways is regard to the purpose and power of the signs and wonders. Jesus clearly seems to indicate that they have the power to lead others to repentance, but you don't so it incumbent on you to explain what other intend he may have had in saying this...

I never said the signs and wonders would not be a factor in the would-be salvation of Tyre and Sidon. It would have been a necessary condition/factor according to Jesus. But not the only condition/factor.

Regeneration would be the only purposeful factor from your perspective though and that is why this rebuke and the implications of it seem out of place, don't you think? What is Jesus' intent in saying this if not what I have proposed?

 

[Andy T.]

In concert to accomplish what exactly?

Salvation.

That wasn't my intent. I'm just calling it like I see it and you appear to be avoiding the implication of speculating as to the purpose of these means because they do not match your systematic theology.

Nope, I've already given you my answers - you just don't like them, because they don't fall in line with your argumentation. God uses signs and wonders (at times) to bring about salvation.

I purposefully followed up that comment with the explanation of my intent and that I wasn't meaning to misrepresent your view. I asked you to tell us what other intent Jesus might have, but you avoided answering that question in order to accuse me of being "snarky." Could that be because you don't have an answer to the question and find it easier to label and dismiss my arguments as being "snarky?"

I already told you what I think Jesus's intent was - based on v. 20 - to rebuke the lack of repentance to his hearers.

Jesus clearly seems to indicate that they have the power to lead others to repentance, but you don't so it incumbent on you to explain what other intend he may have had in saying this...

Actually, I don't see how the signs and wonders could have "power" over anyone's LFW, in your system. If the miracles are invoking any kind of power over the individual then they no longer have LFW.

What is Jesus' intent in saying this if not what I have proposed?

To rebuke the hearers. Like I said before.

 

[Skandelon]

Salvation.
Nope, I've already given you my answers - you just don't like them, because they don't fall in line with your argumentation. God uses signs and wonders (at times) to bring about salvation.

So, are you affirming that envy and signs with the gospel apart from regeneration can sufficiently lead a man to faith in Christ? Please expound what the purpose the signs and envy accomplish in the process.

I already told you what I think Jesus's intent was - based on v. 20 - to rebuke the lack of repentance to his hearers.

(assuming you have kids) So, do you often rebuke your kids for things you know full well you haven't given them the ability to accomplish?

And why would he point to the signs and wonders if they aren't the factor that really could make the difference in the ancient cities?

Actually, I don't see how the signs and wonders could have "power" over anyone's LFW, in your system. If the miracles are invoking any kind of power over the individual then they no longer have LFW.

I think you have a false perception of LFW. Outward influences and provoking of the will are very much a part of the process of self determination. Clearly the signs didn't have effectual power over these cities, but what is equally clear is that Jesus believed the signs to be sufficient enough to invoke a repentant response.

To rebuke the hearers. Like I said before.

But there was MORE than a rebuke, there was a reference to ancient cities and reference to the signs that would lead them to repentance...what is the INTENT of that part of the quote?

 

[Andy T.]

So, are you affirming that envy and signs with the gospel apart from regeneration can sufficiently lead a man to faith in Christ? Please expound what the purpose the signs and envy accomplish in the process.

At this point, we are just going in circles. I've given you my answer. I said that signs and wonders can work in concert with the Holy Spirit's work on the sinner's heart. Nothing more, nothing less. I can't expound on it further than that. I deny that signs and wonders are in themselves sufficient, and I think you would have to say the same thing, because in your view the person's LFW still is the final arbiter of the end result.

And why would he point to the signs and wonders if they aren't the factor that really could make the difference in the ancient cities?

They can be a factor; I haven't denied that. Just not the only factor. That's at least the 3rd time I've stated this. Anything beyond this is fruitless at this point.

I think you have a false perception of LFW. Outward influences and provoking of the will are very much a part of the process of self determination. Clearly the signs didn't have effectual power over these cities, but what is equally clear is that Jesus believed the signs to be sufficient enough to invoke a repentant response.

I'm sorry, but I don't see this as consistent. True LFW must maintain that there are no influences on the LFW itself, else it's not truly LFW. What's interesting is that you have been getting on me for not believing that the signs and wonders don't have effectual power, but you state the same thing here. Let me ask you: What do you think Jesus intended with his statement about Tyre and Sidon? Jesus said they would've repented. That sounds pretty efficient to me. You see, both of us have to interpret that verse in light of other parts of Scripture - you read your Arminian LFW view into it and say, "Well, the people of Tyre and Sidon still had to exercise their LFW for it to be efficient," while I say that the Holy Spirit still had to work in the hearts of Tyre and Sidon for it to be efficient.

But there was MORE than a rebuke, there was a reference to ancient cities and reference to the signs that would lead them to repentance...what is the INTENT of that part of the quote?

I don't think Jesus was intending to provide a comprehensive view (or even a basic teaching) on how salvation works in the individual. I think his intent was to rebuke the hearers, as explicitly stated in v. 20. Apparently, you do not. That's fine. I guess we just disagree. This is likely my last post on this, since we are just re-covering the same old ground.