Featured Why Does Satan Blind Those Born Already Blind?

Figure of speech.

 

While both points can be seen, the main point is the older brother's response. So, the other points, while important, are nonetheless not the main point.

The Archangel

 

I can agree with that, was the Older brother representing the Pharisees then?

 

Yes.

The Archangel

 

You do realize that your claim of Satan's irrelevance due to predetermined election was merely laid out with the only possible logical conclusions to your claim?

 

Uh no the father's response is the main point

 

You do not agree that Satan cannot do anything to block the will of God getting accomplished?

 

Nope. Luke 15:

[1] Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. [2] And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
[3] So he told them this parable: (ESV)
​

Three parables follow--Lost sheep, Lost coin, Prodigal son. All three have the same point: Rejoicing over the return of what (or who was lost). The contrast in the end of the Prodigal Son of the older brother to the father demonstrates the older brother and his refusal to even go into the party for his younger brother is the point. And, that illustrates exactly what Luke tells us it does in Luke 15:2--the Pharisees and scribes grumbled. Why did Jesus tell the parable? Because the Pharisees and scribes grumbled. Who grumbles in the Prodigal Son? The older brother. The older brother is the Pharisees and scribes and, therefore, he is the point.

The Archangel

 

All of God's ways are judgment, or not? The answer is, YES. Deut 32:4. Did not God allow Satan to test Job? Does such an instance have to mean that His "will is blocked"? Was that test just an illusion? I'll answer for you, NO! The point is that because of your Determinist view you make the Devil insignificant, that is what I said which was according to your claim.

Claim:

Response:

 

The issue is election and the sovereignty of God.

Beholden? Is that the word you were wanting?

A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Why? Because it's beholden to corruption? or is it because it's just a diseased tree?

But it isn't said that men are corpses. It's not a Calvinist thing. Some well meaning yet misguided Calvinist may be carrying a corpse example he heard once a little too far, but it isn't asserted in the Scriptures that men are corpses. It is said that men are dead. Those who die the Second Death: are they unconscious? Do they not feel the heat of God's wrath and righteous indignation. Do they not gnash their teeth, so to speak? Do they not wail? Do they not weap?

But they're dead.

You must be arguing with the fringe element. A corpse can do no evil. That's what I would say to them.

 

Well, I wasn’t engaging, just pointing out that you did not address the OP, but claimed you had proved something you had not. And I agree that arguing is fruitless, if presuppositions are too strongly held. Many words won’t get us anywhere, but let’s see how we start out.

Regarding the heart of the matter, that’s what I was trying to get at in earlier posts regarding the fall, as it seems central to the issue. Was man unaware of his state after the fall?

You made a statement here that may not be supportable, namely that one blind does not know he is blind. This is possibly true, but not necessarily so. Still, we might be able to agree that he does not know what he does not see. Hearing about sight might intrigue him enough to want to see. But we can agree that he cannot will himself to see. However, if there is someone who has the power to give him sight, that is a different matter entirely. Now he can ask for sight. If he does not want to see, well, unless he is to be forced, then he will remain blind, and left with the consequences.

 

With respect and please forgive me for chiming in,

Why do you bring up "logic"? Most of the people at Mar's Hill rejected Paul's words because the words were not "logical"...they were spiritual. That's another subject for another time, IMO.


As a very logical man in the flesh, when I look at God's word, I have learned that the only way to do so is by faith.
I do it because I take Jesus at His words:

" Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." ( John 17:17 )
" Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. ( Psalm 119:105 )

I have come to believe that I can't trust my logic as far as I can throw it, and God tells me not to ( Proverbs 3:5-6 ).



Again, if I haven't stated it enough before, God's words are not addressed to logic, they are addressed to His children who by faith, trust Him, not their own understanding. They trust His word to be true, and gain their understanding of it from it. Scripture "interprets" Scripture, and precept is built upon precept. Besides all this, God's children are dull of hearing ( Hebrews 5:11 ) and it takes time to transform the mind:

" And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." ( Romans 12:2 )

How is this accomplished?

" But ye have not so learned Christ;
21 if so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22 that ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." ( Ephesians 4:20-24 )

" Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2 as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 if so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious." ( 1 Peter 2:1-3 )

Have you tasted that the Lord is gracious?
Then desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby...growth takes time, and God will reward those who diligently seek Him.


May God's blessings be upon you, and upon your every effort to do so.


His grace to you sir.

 

To you.

You're not going to sink Calvinism quibbling over trifles. The issue is God's sovereignty in salvation. Not His sovereignty in coming up with a plan where the sinner collaborates with God in his own salvation, but His sovereignty in choosing one over another to be an heir purely and solely on the basis of His purposes according to election.

The central question in Calvinism is, Does man choose, or does God? That will always be the question. Calvinsm says God chooses. That will always be the answer. And the objection to that answer will always be, But why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?

 

Which is to say God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh did.

That is not what is written.

Which is to say, the Devil didn't blind anyone.

But that is not what is written.

Why? Because they love the darkness.

And despite the destructive teaching to the contrary, love is not a choice. One loves what he loves. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

Ever and anon the cry of the noncalvinist is, Why doth He yet find fault?

And you're right, this is the crux of the issue.

But look at what you've just said. Those who are saved are saved because they did better than those who are not.

 

Oh my achin' back. weep. Not weap.

One weaps what he sows.

 

No, no one claims that, they are saved not because of their response but because of what Christ did on the cross. The response earns no merit only Christ's work on the cross.

 

So you made my point and then charged right over it. You said "Rejoicing over the return of what (or who was lost)." I agree with that statement fully. The Pharisees were not the point, the brother was not the point, the point is the ones who were rejoicing.

 

Not it's not to say that at all! I told you God did harden Pharaoh's heart! Just like it could be said I'm hardening your heart perhaps now by making you mad. You don't have to be mad or you don't have to harden your heart and close off what I'm saying? Isn't that your choice?

Well aren't you seeking to build a whole theological structure on small half a verse of scripture? What is generally considered civilized thinking of justice with man about culpability lines up with God as well. Do you believe genuinely mentally incompetent individuals from birth will make heaven their home? You probably do and why ...because they're not culpable. Do you believe young children go the heaven. I suppose you do as well. Why ? They're not culpable. So it would make no difference. If adults don't have the capacity in any way shape or form to make a decision for God or not God neither are they culpable as well. But you would claim off they go to Hell regardless?

Why should it be considered heretical to say one sinner did something better than another . Jesus warned is anyone harmed a little child "It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea..." Are all sinners doing that? No. But there could be some. So why do you resist that one sinner can't do something better than another in either doing something or not doing something? And this raises another question. If sinners are all totally and absolutely depraved the way Calvinists consider it then why therefore aren't all sinners committing the most extreme diabolical sins. Thank God they're not....But why?

 

No, I didn't make your point--as your point was wrong and my point was right. The father is rejoicing, that was never in question as it is plain in the text. However, the Pharisees and scribes--who refused to rejoice at the repentance of sinners--are analogues to the older brother who refused to rejoice at the return of his younger brother. The response of the older brother, which is the same response as scribes and Pharisees, is--according to Luke himself--the point.

There are many points to be taken from the parable of the Prodigal Son. But, the main point is the response of the older brother. If you or I am to do any justice to the text in preaching or teaching or studying it, the main point must be the main point. Otherwise, one is just doing violence to the text by missing Luke's (and Jesus') intended point.

The Archangel

 

Does anything ever happen outside of the control of God, in that he can either step in to have it done directly, or permit secondary means to get His will done?