Is the problem "unwillingness" or "inability" ?

I want to approach this topic like the Bereans, eager to consider what some of my brothers here on the forum have written, and then carefully examine the scriptures diligently to see if what has been posted aligns itself with the testimony of the scriptures. I count the opportunity to discuss some of these topics with those who challenge my own understanding to be a great blessing. I am driven by a desire to understand the truth and to genuinely consider a viewpoint that I am unfamiliar, even uncomfortable, with.

One of the fruits of having been stimulated by the topic of
"depravity" and man's inability is that it has led me to search out and examine "the mind of the flesh." "The mind of the flesh" is often referenced in discussing man's inability to respond to God without prevenient grace quickening the sinner unto life.

For the benefit of sharing my own discovery with the brothers here on the forum, I offer the following thoughts for our consideration and possible discussion.

Here is the passage from Romans 8:
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

What is "the mind of the flesh" or "to be carnally minded"?
Paul uses the Greek word φρόνημα (Strong's 5427) which scholars translated as "mind". This word φρόνημα has a fascinating use throughout the Greek Septuagint, particularly prevalent in the book of Proverbs. As I searched out the uses, and meaning of this particular word, I began to understand why Paul chose it in Romans, and possibly what he intended to be understood by its use.

Here is the basic information on φρόνημα from Bible Hub
Cognate: 5427 phrónÄ“ma (a neuter noun) ”“ properly visceral opinion (the innermost, personal level of opinion); inner perspective as it determines (regulating) outward behavior, especially as it bears on the outward results (i.e. of exercising personal insight). Note the suffix, -ma, pointing to the result of the verbal idea. See 5429 (phronimos).

5427 /phrónēma ("the results of gut-insight") connects how the individual processes opinion-making to how they act.

The corresponding verb is given this treatment:
5426 phronéō (from 5424 /phrḗn, "the midriff or diaphragm; the parts around the heart," J. Thayer) ”“ properly, regulate (moderate) from within, as inner-perspective (insight) shows itself in corresponding, outward behavior. 5426 (phronéō) essentially equates to personal opinion fleshing itself out in action (see J. Thayer). This idea is difficult to translate into English because it combines the visceral and cognitive aspects of thinking.

The adjectival use is also classified
Cognate: 5429 phrónimos (an adjective, derived from 5424 /phrḗn, "personal perspective regulating outward behavior," and the root of the English term "diaphragm" which controls key body functions from the inside out) ”“ properly, "how we size things up," reflecting our personal ("visceral") opinions, i.e. what we consider "savvy" (smart). This always roots to our personal perspective ("inner outlook") which regulates our definition of being "shrewd," i.e. reflects personal mind-set (insight).

Having reflected upon how to boil this down to a concise expression, I currently use the term "mind frame" or "frame of mind". A "mind frame has been developed over time by the individual into his or her own personal "mind set." It is like their own mental IOS that they have developed through interaction with information, picking and choosing what to accept, what to reject, and how it all works in their own developed mental system.

Thus the "mind of the flesh" is that "mind frame" that a sinner has personally developed through his or her multiple encounters with truth and knowledge in general. It is not so much that they have been born with their mind frame, no, they have developed the way they have come to think over countless opportunities to consider wisdom and knowledge and decide what they are to do with it.

This idea of φρόνημα becomes apparent in the way it is used throughout Proverbs. The "fool" in proverbs is ἄφρων, the "a" is the negative alpha prefix added to φρων to identify an individual as being "non"-prudent or non-phronimos.

Chapter 1 identifies the ἄφρων (fool) this way:
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
But fools despise wisdom and instruction"
Solomon was asserting that at the root of the fool's condition is the disdain of wisdom and correction.
"We know that as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."
A person who disdains wisdom will disregard what he hears and consequently develop a way of thinking void of wisdom's instructions.

Wisdom calls out to all who are simple to leave their simple ways and live. She pleads with them to listen to her, for she has worthy things to say. She promises that all who embrace her will love life. Wisdom built her house, hewn with seven pillars, she prepared her feasts and sent out her maids to everyone, everywhere, inviting all who are simple to feast at her house and be filled with her riches. She is willing to make everyone wise.

Interesting that "wise" is the Greek word "sophia". It is where we get the English word sophisticated. A sophisticated person is one who has large stores of wisdom in their mental framework.

It is this wisdom σοφία who calls out to the "innocent"- yes the Greek word is άκακοι

172 ákakos (an adjective, derived from 1 /A "not" and 2556 /kakós, "malignant") ”“ properly, not harmful, describing someone innocent, down to their very intentions (motives), i.e. a person without any desire to hurt (harm).

Does "wisdom" consider men "innocent"? YES. Over and over again this word is used in Proverbs. Wisdom calls out to the innocent to run to her for safety and she will save them from the ways of crooked and ungodly men, who have left the straight ways to walk in crooked paths.

But the "fool" - the "non-phronimos" individual has disdained the instruction wisdom is offering and even the correction she attempts to bring. The fool's mindframe is developed without wisdom's words and knowledge and instead is personally developed using their own thoughts and ideas.

In Proverbs 10:23, this verse reveals that it is wisdom that generates or gives birth to "phronimos" a (sound mind. Here is the verse - "a fool (ἄφρων) commits evil with laughter, but wisdom "Sophia" gives birth phronimos (a sound mind) to a man." The man with a sound mind is a man who has heard, considered, taken heed, stored up, guarded and remembered the instruction and correction wisdom continually offers. His "mind frame" is filled with wisdom's knowledge. He has a "sound mind", a mental framework developed through hearing, embracing and guarding the information wisdom has taught him.

This study has influenced my consideration of Paul's use of "the mind of the flesh" in Romans 8. Here are my own thoughts for you to consider and test. A person who has consistently disregarded wisdom's continual pleading, and has developed their own personal way of thinking void of wisdom's counsel, creates a mental framework hostile to God. The mind of the flesh is a thought process based upon fulfilling lusts and personal satisfaction. It is a way of thinking built to justify itself against the instruction and correction wisdom has continually offered through life.

Paul is correct when he asserts that a person with that current mind frame does not, and can not submit to God. Such a person's mind will not convict themselves of sin, righteousness or judgment. It takes the active work of the Spirit of God to produce such conviction over the mind fame that the individual is operating by. Such a person has disdained wisdom for years in favor of personal satisfaction and justification for personal pursuit.

The description of sinners given by Paul in Romans 3 is an overview or summary of men's character from God's observation. The condition described is most certainly affected by "indwelling sin" with which everyone is born, but the fruition of a life given over to sin has resulted from thousands upon thousands of conscious decisions to reject what the heavens are declaring and wisdom has been declaring continually.

Allow me to say, that I am NOT attempting to change the position of any Calvinist. I am simply trying to explain how I view some of the same passages with a different perspective. "Total depravity" is both an inherited and a personal condition caused by thousands and thousands of decisions to ignore wisdom, disdain her counsel and reject her attempt to correct.

mak

Thanks for all the work it took to set forth that understanding and the support behind it. One question.

You address the issue of the darkened mind which becomes more and more so over time by active sin. That I agree with totally. Do you make a distinction between the thinking of the natural mind that is hardened as a consequence of sinful choices and the desires/passions of the flesh and its members that I think Scripture says control that mind? That is, Romans 1 says men suppress the truth because of evil desire. The mind blinds itself to the truth (believes the lie) so that it can continue in its sinful desires. That's why Jesus would say that the darkened mind will not come to the truth. Do you read Romans 1 and John 3 that way?

Brother Mak,

Firstly I wanna say I truly enjoy your contributions here and have benefited from them immensely as well as your demeanor:)
Also it’s not intended to derail your thread, however I have a totally different understanding of Paul’s passage (R8) -

In my understanding, there are two very simple and consistent options throughout scripture. First there is the "flesh” or to be mindful of such, and this is constantly being contrasted with the second-the "spirit” or being mindful of such-
It ALL comes down to fellowship,... we are encouraged/admonished to respond to God in faith and warned/rebuked not to react or plan in our flesh.
Calvinist and Arminians will always debate the finer points of doctrine and theology but this is no different than Pharisee’s & Sadducee’s .... it’s nothing more than an exercise of the flesh as is demonstrated by its ends- which more often than not clearly reflect the "works of the flesh”; envy, strife, contentions and the like-
If we are reacting to any situation in our flesh, even when we’re right- we’re wrong....
for anyone who has not yet been reborn of the spirit, that is the only option "knowledge of good/evil” but there is no life in this no matter which path they take.
However for one who is born of the spirit, let them walk in the spirit (fellowship with God) and if we walk in the spirit let us keep step with the spirit (staying current in our fellowship with God).
We see on several occasions where Jesus was tempted to react in His flesh but gave pause, retreating into fellowship with the Father, only responding from that place:)))

Great Question.

I believe through "yielding unto sin" the natural mind becomes more and more corrupted. The more the natural mind yields to sin's influence the darker and darker it becomes.

Paul's description of the way the Gentiles live in Ephesians 4 describes this progression.

I hope that helps.

mak

Amen brother Fletcher,

I am hoping to build fellowship among brothers who hold different doctrinal perspectives.

I refuse to see brothers as either "Calvinist" or "Arminians", we are not to call "men" our spiritual fathers. I choose to see only brothers in Christ and I am grieved when discussions become hostile and combative because we have come to view someone as an "enemy".

The early church made it through a tremendous test caused by devout and sincere Jews insisting upon their own understanding. I give praise to God that He was able to guide those early saints to preserve the work that God had begun among them. May we all receive that same help to recognize the difference between a differing opinion and a damnable heresy.

mak

The reason I asked the question is because total depravity is a depravity of the total man. His mind (thinking), his will and his desires. Most people don’t know that. So, according to this position, the desires have to be changed so that the mind and will can be changed. Desire is at the root of choices. Do I desire God or self? If God, I turn. If self I don’t. Thus the change of the heart is the genesis of a change of mind. Good tree good fruit. Bad tree. Bad fruit. Good soil, bad soil. The desires of the flesh wage war with the desires of the Spirit even in the new man.

Brother Fletcher. Fellowship of the Spirit and true love of the brethren is so very iimportant. Agreed. Discussing God’s work in salvation and man’s true need is more to me than a finer distinction. The NT and the OT are full of so many Scriptures where God addresses these issues. God’s grace is the central point of creation itself.

Brother Robert,
Agreed:)
And why did God create us to begin with...?
In my understanding it was because He wanted offspring to fellowship with-
When Adam sinned EVERYTHING fell with him because it had all been placed under his care/dominion, and fellowship with God was broken. But... God was busy in Christ reconciling the world/kosmos unto Himself:)))
Again in my understanding, Jesus is the exclusive way/means by which creation itself has fellowship with the Father. It is as if a failsafe in that all things are created by,for,in etc... Christ and nothing that was created is outside Him. He is our fellowship... hence no one can come to the Father except through me, for I am the door- and other quotes also follow this narrative. If we abide in Him, (abide in fellowship) we will bear fruit. As slaves if we, as Paul says, obey the flesh we will die- full stop. So in other words who is our fellowship with?
I remember once a visiting Pastor stopped preaching mid sermon, as if to receive inspiration pausing briefly to confirm its origins, he looked up and spoke with a totally different demeanor, one of authority, and said "Jesus is the only thing that ever really happened” this befuddled me in no small measure and I’ve meditated on it for years as there’s allot of meat on that bone;). One day it occurred to me how true that statement was as nothing outside of Christ will last but everything in Him is eternally preserved:)))

Those who have read the Proverbs will recognize that God's wisdom is personified as a woman calling out to the sons of men. A truth that can be deduced from her perspective is that she calls certain men "innocent" or "guileless" in contrast with other men whom she describes as "ungodly" and "insolent".

The significance of this distinction should not be overlooked, especially considering that the Greek word in the LXX (Septuagint) is "akakia". Kakos is translated as "bad" or "evil" throughout the word of God. Therefore "a" + "Kakos" means "not" evil or "not" having guile.

Here are a list of scriptures where this word is used in the LXX - (Septuagint).
Proverbs 1:4
Proverbs 1:22
Proverbs 2:20
Proverbs 8:5
Proverbs 13:6
Proverbs 14:15
Proverbs 15:10
Proverbs 21:11
Jeremiah 11;19
Romans 16:18
Hebrews 7:26

We know that such distinctions contrasting the righteous and the wicked proliferate the biblical record.

Not all sins are counted equal and the reparation for certain sins is far more serious than for others. The "sins of ignorance" were all atoneable on the day of atonement through fasting and confession. Sins of presumption were non-atoneable, but called for the death penalty when the testimony was established by two or three witnesses.

The generation under twenty years old which were present when God swore an oath in His anger that no one 20 years or older would ever step foot into the Promise Land, were not held to the same degree of accountability as their older relatives.

God's judgment is based upon an "accountability" factor. To whom much is given, much is required. The servant who does not know his master's will and does not do it, shall be beaten with few blows. The servant who knows his master's will and does not do it shall receive many blows.

Teachers will be judged more strictly than non teachers.

"It would have been better not to have known the way of righteousness than after having known to turn their back on the sacred commandment.

There is a sin unto death and there is a sin not unto death. If we see a brother commit a sin not unto death, we are to pray and God will give him or her life. We are not told to pray for those whose sin is unto death.

Jeremiah and Ezekiel were told not to pray for the generation that they had prophesied to. Ezekiel was told that even if Noah, Daniel and Job were to pray, they would only save themselves by their righteousness.

Having carefully considered this distinction between "sins of ignorance" and "sins of presumption", sins unto death and sins not unto death, it becomes apparent that God Himself makes these distinctions. Men such as Cornelius are not viewed by God in the same light as the teachers of the law in the days of our Lord.

In Paul's introduction of the gospel in Romans 1, he introduces the good news in the setting of God's wrath being currently revealed from heaven against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. He then carefully lays out the degenerative process whereby the minds of men become reprobate. "Because they did not think it worthwhile to retain God in their full knowledge, God gave them over to a disapproved mind."

These men "knew God, but they neither glorified Him as God or gave thanks to Him, but their thinking BECAME FUTILE and their foolish hearts "WERE DARKENED." This is just what wisdom preached to the "innocent", calling for them to leave their simple ways and live.

Paul concludes his treatise on men's accountability with an amazing distinction that contrast the actions of certain men against the actions of others.

He wrote "to those who by perseverance of good work seek glory, honor and incorruption, eternal life, but to those who are contentious, unpersuaded by the truth, but persuaded by unrighteousness, rage and wrath."

If Paul saw the importance of emphasizing such distinctions and exhorting men to pursue righteousness, then we would do well to heed his exhortation and follow his example.

God does not see all men the same. Every other man on earth may have been wicked continually, but God did not see Noah like He saw other men. God even mentioned Job to Satan as one who stood out among the people of his time.

Perhaps men themselves have a hand in determining these distinctions. Noah's great grandfather was Enoch, and Enoch's son Methuselah likely related the messages that Enoch preached to the ungodly men of his day. Can you imagine Noah sitting at the feet of his grandpa, hearing about the life of Enoch? Does God use godly parents to influence and direct the hearts of some men to live differently than others.

Whatever our view is of total depravity, it must not be allowed to blur the distinctions God Himself makes throughout the record of scripture He has left us.

mak

allow me to add that the attitude of the "fool" whose state is caused by his disdain of wisdom and correction, is summed up in the word "lawlessness". Lawlessness is an attitude of defiance, disregarding the law of God. Lawlessness is not error, it is sin. Lawlessness is a conscious rejection of the law of God. Israel is called "lawless" more than any other people in scripture. Why, they are the ones who had received the Law and thrust it away from them.

Thanks Brother Alan,

I'll give that treatment of Romans 1 some thought. Your understanding or application of Romans 1 is different than most I've read. Romans 1 seems on its face to address the sins of Gentiles generally and then in Romans 2 Paul seems on the face of it intending to then sweep the Jews into the same sinfulness in an effort to include "all men" under judgement and thus to conclude in Romans 3 that all men are accountable to God and that all men are without excuse. Your exclusion of the ignorant foolish would leave one large party out of the treatment of sinfulness or at least unaddressed in God's salvific plan . It seems that your limitation on Romans 1 to the wicked foolish runs counter to the overall flow of Paul sweeping all mankind under God's just condemnation thus ushering in God's salvation in Romans 4. Maybe you could if you are interested address that objection or counter point.

Thanks Robert,

Here is one reason I see the Jews in Romans chapter 1 and not merely Gentiles. Jeremiah said that "No other nation had exchanged their god for a different god."

Only the Jews had a true covenant with the glory of God and they were the only nation who exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for idols made in the image of corruptible man. They did this knowing having received the Ten Commandments directly from God Himself.

I hope that helps.

mak

I forgot to mention that the Jews are the most likely ones to be identified as having known God because God made Himself known to them.

To your original point/post...

For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to EVERY man the measure of faith.
(emphasis mine)

Does this not address the question?
How could one be totally depraved and yet have received a measure of faith (by grace) that would surely help to predispose them to turn to God in repentance...?

Amen Fletcher,

I agree, Paul said as much in his address to the men on Mars Hill. God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one [j]blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being.

God created men, and appointed their place and time in order that they should seek Him. He wants to be found and He is not far from any of us.

mak

I don't know if I am being helpful or just stirring the pot but in an attempt to discover the truth I will say to my Brothers' responses first that Paul is addressing "every man among you" which addresses Christians who truly already have faith in God and Jesus.

As to the Mars Hill quote. I enthusiastically agree that God has made Himself clearly known to man in what He has made not just for a self declaration but also for the motive that not only would man seek Him as quoted but also so that man would glorify Him and give Him thanks as previously noted in the Romans 1 conversation. The fact that God makes Himself clearly evident to mankind is actually a confirmation of God's mercy and grace to all man and a confirmation of man's guilt because God did not hide Himself from man and an indictment of mans' depravity of mind, will and desires because God discloses His power and divine goodness to Him and man still chooses self if left to himself.

I can tell from my brothers' tone that we won't descend into quarreling, disputing for no reason or anger so I sincerely appreciate the conversation very much. Thanks.

Brothers and Sisters,

I know this is probably a dumb analogy but I will put it forward anyway for the sake of maybe bringing some light to the view of "inability" and "unwillingness" because they are actually related in the total depravity position. Here's a dumb analogy followed by a Scriptural teaching that is more clear.

A pig is able to clean itself up and stay out of the mud. It won't do that for long though because its' love and desire is for mud. Eventually, it will always return to the mud no matter how often it is externally cleansed because the mud is its happiness and love. At its nature and core, a pig loves the mud.

The cat on the other hand, hates the mud. Hates it as a matter of nature. It can certainly decide to jump into the mud and if it does, it immediately is sorry it did so because it is against his nature and the cat works feverishly to get clean because it hates the mud and can't bring itself to stay anywhere near it for long.

Both animals are certainly "able" to avoid what it hates and to do what it hates. But, because of their loves and hates, their decisions are directed against what they hate and for what they love.

Such is the nature of man. He is able to turn to God in one sense but because he loves himself more than God by nature, he is never going to do it. This is his inability.

In 1 John, the apostle says the born again man ( the cat in my analogy) loves righteousness, loves the light and does not practice sin because he "unable" to do so. Inability there doesn't mean he can't. It means practicing sin is so against his new nature that he can't bring himself to do consistently that which he intrinsically hates. That wasn't true of himself before the new birth ( when he was a pig)

My second point is this. When Jesus was on the cross, He was to the human eye, a bloody mess and a criminal about to expire. There were two criminals next to Him who saw Jesus just that way, a bloody mess. Suddenly though, one of the criminals saw Jesus differently. Even though he saw the same bloody mess as before, suddenly he said to Jesus "remember me when you come into your kingdom". Question, what in the world changed? All of sudden this man "saw" this bloody suffering Jesus as THE KING OF KINGS and saw him as someone who could save him in eternity; be his Savior. Again, what all of a sudden changed? Same Jesus on a cross. But this man's vision changed whereas the other criminal's limited fleshly vision remained the same.

When Peter rightly understood Jesus to be the Messiah, Jesus said to Peter that flesh and blood did not reveal this understanding to Peter but that the Father had revealed this to him. This spiritual sight and insight of the criminal on the cross and of Peter was "given" by God. Only those who have heard and learned from the Father come to Jesus. Clearly, Scripture is consistent that not all hear and learn even though they can physically hear and intellectually learn.

What changed? God shone the light of the knowledge of the glory of Himself in the face of Jesus into their hearts. All men need this light to shine into their spiritual darkness. The simple preaching of the Gospel is not the shining of the light. It is the opening of the heart that allows one to spiritually see the light of Jesus in the Gospel and clearly not all receive that shining light because not all hearts are opened. Jesus says men will not come to that light because they love the darkness. They on their own close their hearts to the light preferring and loving the darkness. Before any will come to the light, they must first in their hearts have their "loves" and "hates" modified or changed. That is what new birth accomplishes. The blinding influence of the flesh is circumcised from the heart so that it can truly see the light of Jesus and the Father's glory in Him.

Not once have I read or heard of a person who said yes, I know Jesus is the Messiah and my only hope and I still don't want Him. That should tell us that not all see and not all learn and not all have Jesus revealed to them even if they hear the Gospel, see the miracles, see Him rise from the dead. He may be revealed to the physical eyes but spiritual blindness caused by self love is the problem. The only issue is why don't they see what we have seen. It's a heart problem. They love the darkness because they prefer their love of sin and self. So did we but the Father changed that blindness by an act on the heart.

Inability and unwillingness go hand in hand with spiritual darkness caused by self love.

In this viewpoint of total depravity, man is actually the monster, not God.

Btw, Makrothumia, thanks for suffering long with me in this conversation. :)

Dear Robert

We are in complete agreement that it takes God shining His light into the heart of man to enable the man to see. It takes the work of the Holy Spirit convincing men of sin, righteousness, and judgment for them to be granted a godly sorrow unto repentance unto life.

The area where we differ hinges on the question of "inability" or "unwillingness". I understand the reasons you have put forth asserting that God must grant man the ability to decide. I believe that sending His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and the establishing of the church, and the preaching of the gospel of grace is just that - His granting men the ability to be saved.

God has decided that men must "choose" to "receive" His gift of grace. He initiates every mercy necessary for men to be able to make this choice.

The entire record of the prophets establishes that God attempted to turn His chosen people, His elect, back to Himself. He spoke to them, He disciplined them, He suffered long with them because He wanted their hearts to be restored to Him. The record is clear - His people were "unwilling" to hear. His people refused to be persuaded to turn from their ungodliness and unrighteousness. God judged them for their prolonged and obstinate rejection of His mercies.

If I were to embrace your way of reasoning, that entire history would mean that God never intended to turn the hearts of His people back to Himself, because despite every description He Himself gave of His attempts to turn them back, He did not "open their hearts" for them.

Is my logic flawed in this, or is this how you would express the reason why Israel did not repent?

I see our Lord Jesus as the light that lighteth every man having come into the world. The fact that this light has come into the world establishes the basis for God's righteous judgment. "Light has come, but men LOVED darkness MORE THAN the light...". This is why men will be condemned, for their unwillingness to receive the light of the gospel. This is where we appear to differ, you do not believe that men are capable of receiving the word that is preached apart from God opening their hearts. I believe that the preaching of the word of God is sent to open men's heart. We agree that apart from God's work, man cannot respond. Where we disagree is that I believe God's spirit and His grace can be resisted and rejected.

Thank you for your participation in these discussions.

If you would like to continue, I am willing to provide more scriptures where the grammar the New Testament writer used clearly points to the issue of "the will."

The Greek word for "ability" is dunamis and the Greek word for will is either thelo or Boulamai. It is significant to note that the New Testament writers could have used the term "not able" far more often, but it is scantly seen anywhere. There are passages in Isaiah that our Lord quotes where "inability" and "unwillingness" are a debatable interpretation.

Our Lord could have said, but did not say - "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I have longed to gather you as the hen gather her chicks under her wings, but you were "unable".
He chose the word "unwilling" instead, because I believe, His coming, His works, His words were all meant to "enable" them to believe.

mak

//In this viewpoint of total depravity, man is actually the monster, not God.//

True, if you leave out the part that in one view God only chooses an exceedingly small number of people to whom He reveals Himself and that the other 99% he dooms to burn.

Dear brother thank you, it’s nice to read by someone whom has their emotions in check:)
And yes Paul was speaking TO a group of Christians, but was he not speaking ABOUT every man?
Why would you think otherwise?

Also if the Bible clearly says man has freewill how can it be denied by bible believers?
Leviticus 22:21
And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a FREEWILL (x26) offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.

(emphasis mine)
Edit to add: I have in fact witnessed to someone who fully understands that Jesus is the savior and their only hope but they openly and calmly rejected Him saying ,”Fletcher I know what you are saying and I completely understand it, but it seems difficult for you to understand that I simply don’t want that”

Marvin

God is sovereign and that is so well established in scripture you have to be ignorant of scripture to deny it.

Allow me to jump in with the stir stick and make a few assertions.

1. People do not get saved simply because Jesus is a means to that end.
2. People do not get saved simply because they have found a better alternative to a bad situation.
3. People do not get saved simply by reason of making confessions, accepting creeds, 'willing' to acquiesce to various Church rules and demeanor.
4. People do not get saved unless God himself has determined to save you.

Many folks don't like #4 because if its true, you don't get to hold the "If I am willing to believe" ace. You might think that such a thing is not an ace but a duce and will not win you anything.
But when it comes to working out ones theology where man's will and its response/ability/inability/incapability are considered...that "If I am willing to believe" becomes more than a response to the gospel it becomes the pivot upon which the gospel must move.

That little piece of theology for them trumps any "election" or "predestination" or "making" or "determining" by God. They have a theology that elevates their decision as the pivotal point upon which God is permitted to move.
Due to this kind of reverse-engineering of the sovereignty of God, you must do away with Election altogether, you must silence any texts dealing with predestination, and by all means relegate any divine decisions under the 'if man cooperates with God's spirit'.

For me, it is these things that create the dissention/disagreement between brothers. (I mean this in a theological way not carnal fighting).

There is unanimous thought among the orthodox as to the willingness of man to believe and disbelieve as there are myriads of scripture and current examples to be had.
But behind disbelief for many is a theology of an absent/inactive/disconnected God.
God seems to sit back and wait it out...'who's going to believe today God says?" For many, since they believe God has no elect except "those who elect themselves" These must focus their faith and attention on the condition of a man's heart, they by reason of their own theology must put the emphasis upon man acting.

The post is running long, I'll end here. I assert that prayers to God to bring in an Elect he knows he will save and he knows where they are and who he will send to them, should be prayed. My faith is focused upon the God who elects and because of that I have genuine hope. Those who do not believe that, must turn to hoping in a right heart, a right condition, a right atmosphere, a right word because the pivotal point is 'man's right to autonomous willing'.

Brother Alan,

Here are a couple of Scriptures about Jews in OT to consider:

Deu 10:16 - Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deu. 30:6 - And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Then there is Ezekiel 26:36 which is God’s reasoning for establishing the New Covenant.

Then there is the OT passage where God says one day He would put a Spirit of fear in His people so that they would no longer walk away from Him.

Paul says not all Israel is true Israel. Only those with circumcised hearts are true Israel.

Paul also says the law was weak and unable to give the power to obey God.

Finally Jesus says in John 3 that unless one is born again he cannot "see” which means "perceive” the Kingdom of God. He was surprised that a teacher of the OT didn’t understand that basic teaching.

Proverbs chapter one equals Romans chapter one.

Mak, one more question also which you didn't address yet.

Are you ok with the notion that 1 John 3 says that the born again man is "not able" to practice sin because God's seed abides in him? Is that "not able" really a "not able"? If it is and if you don't have an objection to that "inability" to practice sin because of new birth, then shouldn't you likewise be ok with the notion that in order to see or perceive the kingdom of God you must be born again? In like manner, 1 John 5 says in the proper translation that the born again man believes. It's the reverse of the believer is born again. That is entirely consistent with the other passages in 1 John that say the born again man loves, practices righteousness. No one I don't think would argue that prior to being born again, someone loves God supernaturally. If that is what someone thinks then they have basically rendered 1 John irrelevant. This book was written to help people have assurance they are born again by pointing to the fruit of a new heart, ie., the love, they practice righteousness, they do not practice sin and they are believing. Faith in this book of the Bible is clearly a fruit of salvation ( born again ) not a root.

Fallacies

A logical fallacy is any mistake in reasoning. An invalid argument results when logical
fallacies are introduced into the process of reasoning. Listed below are some commonly
occurring logical fallacies including definitions and some examples.

Over-Generalization (Secundum quid)
Over-generalization in an argument takes place when one makes a generalization from a
limited number of cases. The premises of the argument may be true but the conclusion is
exaggerated because of the limited database.
The two people I met in Anytown, USA were dishonest,
Therefore, all residents in Anytown, USA are dishonest.

Personal Attacks (Ad hominem)
A personal attack draws attention away from the argument or premises and seeks to
discredit that argument by attacking the maker of the argument. This can be done in many
ways from a direct insult to an inferred incompetence.
How can you believe what he says considering that he is an arminian?

Cause and Effect (Post hoc ergo propter hoc)
This fallacy takes place when someone claims that a particular truth naturally follows
from circumstances when in fact no direct connection has been made.
The rooster crowed each morning.
Each morning that he crowed the sun rose afterwards.
He then concluded that his crowing was the
cause of the sun rising.

Appeal to Authority (Ad verecundiam)
This is a common fallacy employed in theological debate. When a famous person
agrees/agreed with a conclusion there is a tendency to ascribe trueness to that conclusion
based on the reputation of the famous person. Sometimes the person will claim the
authority of the Bible when no connection has been made or the argument is inconsistent
with Scripture. The conclusion is either true or untrue based on necessary laws of the
mind. Agreement/disagreement of any individual does not influence the truth of a
statement.
This view on the atonement was also held by Augustine or Calvin or Warfield or . . . (anyperson revered as authoritative).

Appeal to the Crowd (Ad populum)
This fallacy is related to the Appeal to Authority in that no valid argument is given, only hearsay. The difference is that the argument is based on mass appeal rather than
individual agreement. Regardless of the number who have held the view in the past, the
argument is either valid or invalid on its own.
This view on the atonement has been held by all orthodox believers in the history of the
church. Or, everyone knows that the world is flat.

Circular Arguments (Circulus in probando)
This fallacy takes place when the truth to be proven is assumed true as a premise.
My view on the atonement is the true one.
Your view is different from my view and is therefore false.
Since your view is obviously false, mine must be true.

Two-Valued Or Black/White Approach
This fallacy states that there are only two possible sides to an argument or that a side
under consideration is either right or wrong, hence, black/white.
You are either Calvinist or Arminian. There are no other
choices/possibilities.

I found this caution necessary to post.
It is taken from the work

"Critical Review of B. B. Warfield's
"Perfectionism: The Theology of
Charles G. Finney"
by Bill Nicely"

Which is fascinating to read by the way.

I urge all to examine yourselves if you are not using any, some , or all of these logical fallacies.

Blessings

I wanted to thank you brother Alan.
I believe you are a man with deep reverence to God's word and love for truth and that could and will upset and shake some deeply held errors.

Thank you brother, oops - sister

I am grateful that God our Father has shown me His kindness and mercy. I have erred many times, and were it not for His loving and sovereign help and correction, I would have no reason for hope and confidence.

Knowing my own frailty and past and present potential for error, I do strive, and hope to continue to strive to search out every truth of recorded scripture. Even knowing that no matter how much progress I make, I will still know only in part. I trust that God's mercy and the atonement our Lord gave His life to provide for the entire world will preserve me unto the end.

In my love journey with God's word, I have not yet come to the same understanding as Robert, but dear Robert, if in my searching the scriptures I do come to understand what you have attempted to explain to me, then let me THANK YOU for trying ahead of time.

I hope for you that same spirit as we discuss God's amazing grace. Over the years, these type of discussions have so provoked me to dig and search out the exact wording of the text that I have encountered treasures I would never have discovered otherwise.

There are some great resources out there to help us compare our expression with the actual grammar of the New and Old Testament. I have been forced to amend my own expressions by carefully examining the actual texts. If anyone on the forum would like more information about some of the resources that I have found so helpful, just ask and I will gladly discuss with you what I have found so helpful.

Dear Marvin,

Thank you for your last post. It prompted such a wonderful meditation on how much God has and still does to make Himself known. It is a strangely wonderful benefit to being provoked by something so disagreeable that it stimulates back to your mind many wonderful truths that you have feasted on before but now they are refreshingly new all over again.

Much thanks to all the brothers who take time to contribute to these discussions.

mak

In this or any other discussion of God’s word., I have repeated this text to myself so that my mind is always open to the Father to give me a Spirit of wisdom and revelation:

If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood. - John 7:17-18

I use this on myself. Am I willing to learn and do God’s will and embrace it no matter what I think I know. Staying teachable. Blessings.

There is a declaration that has welled up in my heart to go on record to make my personal thoughts about God's grace known to those who may be led to read it on this forum.

I believe that I may be speaking for a number of likeminded brothers and sisters who have been troubled by gross and obtuse generalizations that they have read on this forum.

I declare that it is by God's grace and mercy that my sins have been atoned and cleansed by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that it was the power of the word of the truth of the gospel and the convicting work of the Holy Spirit that enabled my heart to respond in faith. I heard the word of truth and I believed and it was at that moment that I was included in Christ and received the Holy Spirit. I believe that all that God the Father had predetermined to do in Christ, to redeem mankind unto Himself, and all that He accomplished through His Son in offering Him up as a sacrifice for sin and raising Him from the dead by His power to declare Him to be the Son of God, made this salvation possible. I declare that I was weak and powerless, in an ungodly state, when God demonstrated His love for me and for all of mankind in the death of His Son on the cross. This gospel came to me by His sovereign grace and having heard the word of truth I believed.

I vehemently disavow any gross characterization that my simple act of receiving God's wonderful salvation by faith undermines, or robs God of the glory of His precious grace. Such a thought is reprehensible to me. I strongly disavow that my belief that God has chosen to allow men to receive or reject His gracious gift, shifts the entire focus away from all God's proactive initiative to redeem man and turns the gospel into a man saving himself by the act of faith. I utterly reject such logic as ludicrous and divisive. I declare that a simple act of faith, enabled by the power of the word of the truth of the gospel is not worthy of boasting and can and does in fact still fully glorify God for being so merciful, gracious and sovereign.

I could not overlook this cry which welled up within my spirit today. God is glorified by men receiving His gift, and He will still be glorified in the end when He fully and finally judges those who have refused His mercy and grace. Their ability to resist and reject His gracious gift does not undermine His sovereignty, for He will be glorified in the day of His visitation.

I also declare that I can welcome and honor my brothers in Christ who have embraced a theology that has led them to sincerely attempt to acknowledge God's sovereignty in every facet of our wonderful salvation. I simply disavow some of the logical conclusions that I have heard and read that have arisen out of their sincere desire which grossly mischaracterize my precious faith.

mak

To God be the glory.

Mak, I have a similar understanding of grace and soteriology as you do. The idea that if we respond positively to the gospel message in faith that we thereby somehow partially take credit for our salvation is utterly ludicrous. If we want to receive a gift we do have to hold out our hand to receive it but the act of holding out our hand to receive is not some meritorious act that earns, even partially, our possession of the gift.

I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. There are some things I agree with from both camps. The soteriology that I hold to is much more aligned with Arminianism than Calvinism but again, I don't subscribe to any particular "ism". Roger E. Olson explains well my understanding of the point we are discussing here in one of his books. He states:

//Arminian theology (and many non-Calvinist theologies that are not so labeled) places the initiative in salvation and all the work of salvation squarely on the divine side of the equation. God’s grace is the effectual cause of salvation, but the human person’s faith as response to prevenient grace is the instrumental cause of salvation. What is that faith? simply trusting God; it is not a "good work” or anything meritorious of which the saved sinner could boast. But what about the Calvinist attacks on Arminian theology as a form of self-salvation and works righteousness akin to (they would say) Roman Catholic theology? Knowledgeable Calvinists do not say that Arminians believe they have to work for their salvation; they say that Arminians and other non-Calvinists make the human decision of faith the "decisive factor” in salvation and therefore bring it back, however unintentionally, to salvation by good works. To Arminians, however, this accusation is ridiculous. Imagine a student who is starving and about to be evicted from his room due to lack of money. A kindly professor gives him a check for $1,000””enough to pay his rent and stock his kitchen with food. Imagine further that the rescued student takes the check to his bank, endorses it, and deposits it in his account (which brings his balance up to $1,000). Imagine also that the student then goes around campus boasting that he earned $1,000. What would everyone’s response be who knew the truth of the situation? They would accuse the student of being an ungrateful wretch. But suppose the student said, "But my endorsing the check and depositing it was the decisive factor in my having the money, so I did a good work that earned at least part of the money, didn’t I?” He would be ridiculed and possibly even ostracized for such nonsense. In what situation in human experience is merely accepting a gift "the decisive factor” in having it? It is a factor, yes””but hardly the decisive one. Merely accepting a gift does not give one the right to boast.//

-Daniel

Mak, thank you for articulating so well the postion that many of us hold to.

Indeed, if our repentance and faith/trust could merit/earn salvation, there would have been no need for the cross.

A hearty Amen brother Alan, and brother Daniel.

Well said :)

Mak,

You wrote "I heard the word of truth and I believed and it was at that moment that I was included in Christ and received the Holy Spirit."

Are you saying that before this happened to you that you were excluded from Christ?

This is just a question.

Yes

11Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done in the body by human hands)”” 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Mak

Thank you also brother Daniel for sharing that portion from Roger Olson's book. While I do not agree with some of Olson's and Arminianism's distinctives, I agree with the main point and analogy in that quote. I think the only thing I wouldn't agree with in that quote is Olson's mention of "previenient grace," because by that term he means something I and others don't embrace as being true.

Mak,

13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Where you not brought near by Christ's blood that was shed over 2000 years ago?

Vern, you asked
"Where you not brought near by Christ's blood that was shed over 2000 years ago?”

Yes, in the sense that 2000 years ago the price for atonement was fully paid for my liberation and justification from sin.

His justification and victory over sin became mine when I received Him and He gave to me His authority to become a son of God. Then I was born of God by the Holy Spirit and became united with Him in all He had already obtained.

Mak

Hi Alan: If my post spurred on that clear of a declaration, I have succeeded.

To the rest.

Though to Alan and others some of my 'conclusions' seemed a gross mis-characterization, to hundreds of others it is spot on. You see, my conclusions were simply the responses from others who took their 'free-will' and their human ability to a more powerful position than Alan's claim.

My obtuse generalizations are not the product of my own logic errors, but the claims of my arminian and non-arminian brothers/sisters. Not everyone believes like Alan and though he seem to find a lot of comforters here and I get to look like the meanie-calvinist I've had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of others on this subject and they don't come to the conclusions some of you do, instead they fit the 'obtuse generalization' with a proud amen from them.

As to Roger Olson, he sounds well rounded until you dive deeper into his open-theism which I find heretical and abhorrent. As long as a few quotes from someone who bolsters your position is quoted...he must be right-on. I have commented numerous times on Roger Olson's site and I found his perversions of God's attributes nothing short of heresy. I told him so in no uncertain terms, which were shortly purged from the comment section.

Charles finney's abhorrent pelagianism is anathametized by the orthodox everywhere, but as long as he can bolster another position he is all good too. Have I read Finney? I've read through his systematic theology when I was an admirer of him and another 8 other books written by him, edited by Parkhurst. I know what he believes.

Lots of us like 'exact wording' and precise understandings of Hebrew and Greek and you can add the Ad populum argument to either side who stack up theologians in their favor.

Just remember, what is reprehensible to you, is an amen and hallelujah to others.

It's important to me to get to know what Alan actually believes, dancing around with novel interpretations of Romans 1 simply skirts the issue as far as I am concerned.

The best way to find out is to categorize Alan's claims with the other arminians of similar strain...Alan has his own nuances and his own (very fortunately)superior interpretation of scripture. Some folks don't like that and that's fine, it happens to me all the time. As a Calvinist I am automatically assumed in terms of burning babies in hell and majoring on some elitist knowledge/election gnosticism non-sense.

But, as I read carefully, no one can deny God Elects, God determines salvation as much as he has determined to conform the elect to Christ. As long as you will not come to grips with the realities of our Covenant and God, you will always have a god to complain about. For Todd, God cant chose, God cant punish eternally in hell, for others God cant chose, God cant know ahead of time who are his own and still tell us to 'preach to every creature'. For them, God is unfair. If every man woman and child does not have an equal chance at salvation God is patently unfair. That thinking borders on blasphemy.
To all of that kind of "God is unfair if he" thinking...it's reprehensible to me, its abhorrent, its ungodly and a false-hood about God.

These limitations on God are not what I have grossly misconstrued upon you all, but what you all insist for yourselves.

I don't give your favored theologians a free-pass because they have a doctorate, Bart Ehrman has one too and is utterly apostate yet another website I was kicked out of because I told them so; a doctorate and an apostate equals an apostate who will be condemned greater because he was given more.

I realize Alan and Roger O. agree that their decision to believe cannot undermine God's glory in giving the free gift of salvation. Yet, there are no reasonable Calvinists that would disagree either.

What Alan and Roger both do is say "my belief doesn't negate or taint the prevenient grace that brought me to Christ"
The fact is, I made no argument that your response did negate God's free grace. I make the argument that our response is because of free-grace, it is because of God's electing work...choosing us before we chose him. We are always responder-s not initiators and therefore the greater praise and focus should be directed to the 'guy who gave the 1000 dollars' and not to the guy who says "yea ill take it"

Yet, somehow my precious faith in God's electing and sacrificial love needs to step aside to Heretical open Theists and Heretical Pelagians. Go figure.

Dear brother,

While I can understand from your doctrinal allegiance Charles G Finney would be on the "other side of the world” from your understanding. However please dear brother, for the Namesake of Jesus & your own souls sake,... please reconsider openly attacking a man God used mightily to win 100,000’s of well saved souls to our beloved Lord Jesus, who’s doctrines and theologies you happen to take issue with....

Please be reminded that the 1st century Pharisees did much the same to our Savior and it didn’t work out so well for them-

Brother Fletcher: Please allow me...Charles Finney's Hamartiology contains pure Pelagianism, it is un-orthodox, heretical and poison. The reason why it's considered poison is because it diminishes the atonement of Christ while pretending to improve the actual condition of man.

I am not a Pharisee to refuse heresy. I am not some unsaved, un-spirit filled judge just trying to denigrate someone who disagrees with me, he is errant and it does you good to read him and why he's considered errant.

If you cannot attack heresy, then why pretend to love truth? You really cant Fletcher, no matter how unifying your gesture toward him or others may be.

The reason why so many are in error and ignorance is because to preserve unity and the appearance of love, we tolerated evil in the form of heresy.
This same argument can be raised to defend homosexuality, lesbianism, idolatry and a variety of other popular and trendy sins which are approved by the masses today. Ignorance of what the scriptures say and an emphasis on silencing anyone telling the rest of us...these guys are full of bologna.

My point was not to derail the thread by my position on these men and their abhorrent doctrines, it was to show that until you really know what people believe anyone can quote anyone and the simple will take it as good as gold.

By the way, Finney didnt save anyone, that praise belongs to Jesus. Charles Finney will be judged for being faithful to the biblical message and his heart to obeying Jesus in all related matters.
I will be judged by the same standard as will we all. Finney had no qualms whatsoever about calling out who he thought were errant and spending a good amount of ink to show his system of thought over theirs...if you read much of Finney you would know this. You are asking me to sit down and shut up while Finney gets a free pass? Look carefully at what you are defending.

Do not learn cowardice from others by means of silence to complete error. Speak up. God is our Judge, but if I cannot judge the doctrines of these men and let heresy creep in by way of 'supposed credibility'. You find out, whatever good came from Finney's preaching was inspite of his doctrinal error, not because of it.

Fletcher you are an excellent and beloved poster here, your posts, insights and wisdom are without dispute but you must also know that new converts build upon the first fundamental teachings they receive, and if those first teachings be uprooted because they are error you find out Sermons from Finney and others like him have done the new convert no favors at all because the teachers and pastors who will disciple those converts now have the job of destroying the errors planted in those new and susceptible hearts.

lastly

Again, must every post I make become a point of defense, are there any here who actually read the folks they quote?

I value my soul and when I give account, I want to be able to say, "Jesus you gave me courage to tell the truth among a people who loved peace more than truth and backslapping approvals more than honoring God's word".

About 16 years ago I had come to a real crossroads in my Christian walk...and it literally had come down to "should I believe Charles Finney and his doctrines or Charles Spurgeon and his doctrines". I tell you I loved them both, but their teaching on the sinful condition of men are diametrically opposed to one another and they both cannot be right...neither can some Hegelian dialectic satisfy an in-between ground. By the grace and mercy of God, I believe I was lead away from Finney. It was not until I dissected his systematic theology that I realized I had made the right choice. His Hamartiology was not fundamentally biblical, his was liberal ( though you could hardly call Finney a liberal).

I will not post further on this subject, I am simply explaining my reasoning.

Someone might assert "yea, well who really knows the truth about these things?" and so dismiss any actual question and debate as "going no where".

All I will say is what I said months ago to Brother Blaine,

"what hill of truth is not worth dying on"?

For some...there is no hill of truth worth dying on and for that reason they remain ignorant. Their skepticism is of more value than belief in any actual word of God. The only time a person like this believes anyone else is because their own personal proclivities are satisfied by such a belief. The Devil has this same identical faith.

Dear Brother,
It was not my intent to rile you in anyway shape, form or fashion...
and yes Finney’s tendency to attack Calvin and his doctrine is not lost on me, however 2 wrongs don’t make a right (as my mother would say). So if the situation were the same but Finney was posting on a public forum I’d say the same...
There’s a proper (godly) way to disagree on these matters beautifully displayed by Lord Jesus- "woe unto them that”... and the like-

I’m simply encouraging you to consider the effect an attack from within the body has on the body.

Brother Marvin, you are a fiercely intelligent gentleman and a beloved brother and lover of Christ, for that is as clear as the noonday sun being made evident here on SI by your contributions which both comfort and challenge us in our own perseverance as we build up the body of Christ together:)
It’s just that sometimes we (myself included) can come off as less than gentle, meek and lowly and in this way we fail the grace God gives us to build up the body, striving for unity-
It wasn’t my intention to equate you as a brother with a 1st century Pharisee in personhood, rather I (clumsily) was attempting to illustrate the effects of such a position of opposition.
While I completely understand what you’re sayin about defending the truth, surely you know that Finney would make a similar claim and no good (for God) would come of it. Whereas being respectful in disagreement is a thing that can bring God glory.

Incidentally I was in no way suggesting Charles G Finney saved anyone ever,... simply that in spite of his misgivings God was able to use him to advance His kingdom in quantifiable ways. Much like He used Edwards, Wesley, Whitfield, etc... in spite of their obvious differences in doctrine/theology etc... tho even to them, if the situation was comparable, I’d encourage the same.

Just for the record, in my walk with the Lord, the man whom has best navigated these situations without compromising the truth as revealed to Him is brother Keith Daniels😇

Again, I applaud and rejoice in your conviction and efforts,...just trying to get you to see how our words can cut and injure our brethren-
There’s a wonderful sermon by brother Daniels from the 2011 SI conference (if memory serves) entitled "the war with the most casualties is the war between the saints” where he addresses the CALvsARM issue in a godly and profitable way:)

Blessings dear brother and may the peace of God reign in and over us all~

Brother Fletcher: Thanks for the reply, I hear you, believe you and consider what you said to be a godly admonition to me.

Thank you for it.

I'll check out the sermon from Keith Daniels...he is a pulpit slapper isnt he...

Brother Marvin,
Yes he is!
He is one of my favs for sure...

The way he taps the pulpit with his finger as he pauses, drawing the listener into a direct engagement makes me smile every time;)
Seems a quite effective tactic.
While describing him once to a friend, " it’s like God plucked him up out of the 17th century and plopped him down in the mid-20th century,.. this place is not his home-he just doesn’t fit in and it’s a beautiful thing”

Accusations presented by Marvin.
Quote""
Charles Finney's Hamartiology contains pure Pelagianism, it is un-orthodox, heretical and poison. The reason why it's considered poison is because it diminishes the atonement of Christ while pretending to improve the actual condition of man."" Quote

Answering the accusations with a quote on the subject of moral depravity, (a quote taken from the writtings of Charles Finney:)

Quote""
That men are morally depraved is one of the most notorious facts of human experience, observation and history. Indeed, I am not aware that it has ever been doubted, when moral depravity has been understood to consist in selfishness.

The moral depravity of the human race is everywhere assumed and declared in the Bible, and so universal and notorious is the fact of human selfishness, that should any man practically call it in question--should he, in his business transactions, and in his intercourse with men, assume the contrary, he would justly subject himself to the charge of insanity. There is not a fact in the world more notorious and undeniable than this. Human moral depravity is as palpably evident as human existence. It is a fact everywhere assumed in all governments, in all the arrangements of society, and has impressed its image, and written its name, upon every thing human.

VI. Subsequent to the commencement of moral agency, and previous to regeneration, the moral depravity of mankind is universal.

By this it is not intended to deny that, in some instances, the Spirit of God may, from the first moment of moral agency, have so enlightened the mind as to have secured conformity to moral law, as the first moral act. This may or may not be true. It is not my present purpose to affirm or to deny this, as a possibility, or as a fact.

But by this is intended, that every moral agent of our race is, from the dawn of moral agency to the moment of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, morally depraved, unless we except those possible cases just alluded to. The Bible exhibits proof of it.

1. In those passages that represent all the unregenerate as possessing one common wicked heart or character. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."--Gen. vi. 5. "This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead."--Eccl. ix. 3. "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?"--Jer. xvii. 9. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."--Rom. viii. 7.

2. In those passages that declare the universal necessity of regeneration. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."--John iii. 3.

3. Passages that expressly assert the universal moral depravity of all unregenerate moral agents of our race. "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin."--Rom. iii. 9-20.

4. Universal history proves it. What is this world's history but the shameless chronicle of human wickedness?

5. Universal observation attests it. Whoever saw one unregenerate human being that was not selfish, that did not obey his feelings rather than the law of his intelligence, that was not under some form, or in some way, living to please self? Such an unregenerate human being I may safely affirm was never seen since the fall of Adam.

6. I may also appeal to the universal consciousness of the unregenerate. They know themselves to be selfish, to be aiming to please themselves, and they cannot honestly deny it.

VII. The moral depravity of the unregenerate moral agents of our race, is total.

By this is intended, that the moral depravity of the unregenerate is without any mixture of moral goodness or virtue, that while they remain unregenerate, they never in any instance, nor in any degree, exercise true love to God and to man. It is not intended, that they may not perform many outward actions, and have many inward feelings, that are such as the regenerate perform and experience: and such too as are accounted virtue by those who place virtue in the outward action. But it is intended, that virtue does not consist either in involuntary feelings or in outward actions, and that it consists alone in entire consecration of heart and life to God and the good of being, and that no unregenerate sinner previous to regeneration, is or can be for one moment in this state.

Hi Fifi: This is Mak's thread, the subject is off topic, start another thread and I will address it there.

This all sounds really good, but Finney has more to say as to the 'causation' than is discussed here.

Edit to add: Fifi: you will need to remove your interpretational grid and put on another set of glasses to look at Finneys teachings, namely his own interpretational grid, then you will be able to understand what Finney is saying. At the moment you are interpreting him through your own definitions...and that would be wrong. Let him define his own terms so you can weigh out my claims and his own declarations.

but please start another thread if you want to pursue this.

Dear Marvin, I will not start anything with you here or in another thread for the following reasons:

You have some argumental tactics that I do not appreciate, some of which are personal attack, character assassination, confusion of terms, generalization, assuming wrong motives, attributing ignorance to your opponent (which here happen to be your brothers), logical fallacies, and much more..besides your ability to write a thousand words a minute, something I can not compete with. Just reading your posts makes me so tired.

However, you did attack Finney, who happened to be one of my favorite theologians, and I had to respond. I only have very few that I have found to posses a rare integrity. In fact of all out there, only he, John Wesley, and much but not all of Jonathan Edwards. These are people who suffered greatly for standing for truth when it was and still is least popular.

Besides, I do not see how this is irrelevant to this thread when Finney also believed that it was unwillingness, and not inability that was the problem. He believed that man possesses the ability to obey all the law of God. The problem is, he had an evil heart, desires,and will not do it. Only through regeneration and the new birth when his heart and affections are changed can he be restored again to first state of conformity to the law of God.

And lastly, it was not me but you who brought Finney into this by your attack on him. I merely quoted a small portion of the introduction of a critique by Bill Nicely to b.b. Warfield criticism of Finney's doctrine of Christian perfection, a portion which contained some logical fallacies Warfield made in his attack on Finney, which I found would be useful to avoid making here.

Now I must leave this thread and wish you and
brother mak the best.

// open-theism which I find heretical//

Marvin- of course you and many others think this, but I was wondering if you could state **succinctly** (like in two sentences of reasonable length) WHY you think this. I obviously don’t want to derail this thread which is why I am looking for a very pithy response. We could start another thread but I don’t really want to.

Hi Fifi: We all hate it when our faves get a beat down.

It is no doubt true I am all you've said and more besides, some days are worse than others.

In the last analysis, I retract nothing I've said in regards to the doctrines of Roger Olson and Charles Finney.

My candid remarks, my opinionated posts and my refusal of various doctrines generate all kinds of summations of my posting, character and tactics. My one regret is you feel the need to leave the thread.

It's ok if you don't read my posts...skip over them and read Mak's and the others.

In response to the poster who asks..."WHY"...

I'd be one of the many others who think that open-theism is heretical. I'd go beyond it being merely heretical. I'd go so far as to say that it is damnably heretical, being idolatrous at its root.

Succinctly why I think this;

"The future is not entirely knowable, even for God.”

"Though God’s knowledge is coextensive with reality in that God knows all that can be known, the future actions of free creatures are not yet reality, and so there is nothing to be known, leaving open the possibility that God might be mistaken about some points, as the biblical record acknowledges.”

"God foreknows that certain things are going to take place, but other things he does not know."

The above quotes are from leading advocates of this recent damnable heresy which has infiltrated some churches and taken captive a number of men.

Hi Todd: Open Theism redefines the attributes of God, these attributes are always lessened as to their extent. In the lessening of God, humanities need for an unchangeable, all wise all powerful God is eroded and replaced with a new "learning god", a "not-almighty" but improving god.
Gods omniscience, omnipotence and his immutability are now all lessened to fit the necessary and all important libertarian free-will of man.

Gregory Boyd and his adherents are basically saying the Church got it wrong for the last 2000 years. The Jews got it wrong for the previous 2000 years.

//Open Theism redefines the attributes of God, these attributes are always lessened as to their extent. In the lessening of God, humanities need for an unchangeable, all wise all powerful God is eroded and replaced with a new "learning god", a "not-almighty" but improving god.
Gods omniscience, omnipotence and his immutability are now all lessened to fit the necessary and all important....//

No open theist I know of says that God is not omniscient. They just say the future does not exist *now* so there is nothing to know. They would equate God not knowing a future that does not exist to God’s inability to create cube shaped spheres. God cannot be said to lack omniscience if he cannot do logical impossibilities.

So I think that understanding should remove any condemnation of heresy. Because we really have no idea whether the future exists NOW. I strongly doubt it but obviously I am not 100% certain. Are you?

Todd, don't mean to make you defend something you may not believe, but how do open theist deal with inerrant prophetic words, especially about Jesus?

That is the bone of contention for my favorite Bible teacher- particularly Jesus’s prediction of Peter’s denials.

Others say that God has every available and possible fact at his disposal, and also that he can certainly coordinate events if He wants to because He is omnipotent.

I find the idea interesting but I am certainly not sold on it. It helps answer some particularly thorny problems which is why I find the idea attractive, but there are definitely some hurdles.

But I think the hurdles are infinitely higher and thornier for a view that say God meticulously causes and foreknows everything that ever happens.

Guys we gotta take this off topic elsewhere.

I won’t post any more on it here. I don’t have much to add anyway.

Dear Marvin,

I apologize for not specifying which small portion of your post that I regard as over generalized, and gross (as in not refined).

"But behind disbelief for many is a theology of an absent/inactive/disconnected God.
God seems to sit back and wait it out...'who's going to believe today God says?" For many, since they believe God has no elect except "those who elect themselves" These must focus their faith and attention on the condition of a man's heart, they by reason of their own theology must put the emphasis upon man acting."

Your attempts to describe the understanding of those who understand the involvement of man's will in responding to God falls very short of accuracy. The description serves more as a "contrast" to your own thoughts than a real belief among those who have not embraced or understood election in the same way that you have.

"absent/inactive/disconnected" - please re-consider whether this is hyperbole merely used to cast others in a bad light. It is hard for me to believe you genuinely believe that others actually think this way.

In addition you describe that you have met believers who almost boast about men's will in a callous and proud manner. I will admit that it is difficult for me not to question whether a leaven of exaggeration has corrupted your otherwise better worded and well thought out posts.

Overall, your posts do not reflect this, but it seems there is some trigger that overrides your usual good judgment and allows something less than your best to slip by.

I am not blameless in this myself, but may we help each other in refining out the dross in our posts regardless of how small its content.

mak

Hi Mak:

I appreciate the critique...and no doubt there are better ways of expressing my own thoughts let alone those to whom I have encountered. Thanks for a discerning and helpful suggestion.

The above quote was a contrast (my own words) but not without ample evidence where I was the hearer of just that kind of thinking.

Mak, things like this are framed in sermons and lessons that do not depict a loving, seeking, giving God. He is depicted as "doing all he is going to do to save you, now its up to you". If this were simply a one-off message by an extreme emphasis I wouldn't bother bringing it in. But this kind of thing I found present in so many sermons over the years I didn't think for a moment it was a mis-representation of 'human ability, responsibility'.

Marvin has expressed no more,no less,than CHS.

"...it is the great fact that you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him.

You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer””for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, "Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not””that is the difference between me and them." That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said, "I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?" If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, "My dear sir, I quite believe it””and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity."

Do I hear one Christian man saying, "I sought Jesus before he sought me; I went to the Spirit, and the Spirit did not come to me"? No, beloved; we are obliged, each one of us, to put our hands to our hearts and say””

"Grace taught my soul to pray,
And made my eyes to o'erflow;
'Twas grace that kept me to this day,
And will not let me go."

Is there one here””a solitary one””man or woman, young or old, who can say, "I sought God before he sought me?" No; even you who are a little Arminian, will sing””

"O yes! I do love Jesus””
Because he first loved me."

The words above are the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, from just one of his many sermons.

I do not serve the god of the Arminians at all! I have nothing to do with him and I do not bow down before the Baal they have set up! He is not my god, nor shall he ever be! I fear him not, nor tremble at his presence. A mutable god may be the god for the Arminian””he is not the god for me.
Charles spurgeon 1858

There is some truth in Calvinism and some in Arminianism, and he who would hold the whole Truth of God must neither be cramped by the one system nor bound by the other, but take Truth wherever he can find it in the Bible
Charles spurgeon 1862

I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both
Charles spurgeon 1876

We had better far be inconsistent with ourselves than with the inspired Word.
I have been called an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian and I am quite content so long as I can keep close to my Bible
Charles spurgeon 1881

http://beyondcalvinism.blogspot.com/2016/08/from-cage-stage-to-arminian-calvinist.html?m=1

I agree that Marvin has said no more than Spurgeon, in fact little more than imagined conversations of an Arminian within himself about thanking God that he has willed himself to God.

I would have hoped that there would be a realization that some of us have drawn our understanding not from some imagined self-willing ourselves to God, but from reading multiple historical texts where God was attempting to turn His own people back to Himself and they refused His initiative.

Texts such as Jeremiah 6:
Thus says the Lord:
"Stand in the ways and see,
And ask for the old paths, where the good way is,
And walk in it;
Then you will find rest for your souls.
But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
17
Also, I set watchmen over you, saying,
‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’
But they said, ‘We will not listen.’
18
Therefore hear, you nations,
And know, O congregation, what is among them.
19
Hear, O earth!
Behold, I will certainly bring calamity on this people””
The fruit of their thoughts,
Because they have not heeded My words
Nor My law, but rejected it.

It is passages like this, and there are many more very similar, that can be posted one at a time. These passages are not imaginary conversations, but inspired scripture that clearly indicate that God desired to turn His own elect back to Himself but they "refused".

Since it is the multitude of passages such as this where some of us draw the conclusion or develop an understanding of man's will being involved in God's initiative, it would be helpful for Marvin and Savanah to address the real textual evidence of man's ability to "resist" God's initiative, rather than to post hypothetical imaginary scenarios about men willing themselves to God. While it is possible that some Armenians reason this way, would it not be far more profitable to exegete and discuss the real historical evidence of Israel's refusal and rejection of God's repeated and prolonged attempts to bring them to repentance?

Whether it is Marvin or Spurgeon, their hypothesis of the imaginary Arminian does little to dissuade me from the clear implication I draw from actual biblical text such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Haggai, Malachi, etc.

If you can present reasonable answers that address men's ability to "reject", "thrust away", "resist", all words actually used throughout real historical biblical texts, then we would have better ability to discuss the issue of 'inability" vs "unwillingness."

If you are familiar enough with such "imaginary" arguments, then certainly you must be able to find where men such as Spurgeon address the refusal of Israel to respond to God's initiative to them.

mak

I am willing to consider such a godly man's understanding and interpretation of actual biblical texts where men refuse God's initiative. I have not been very moved by the imaginary scenarios based upon supposed Armenian logic.

Hi Mak: Im going to ask for a day off, I have tonsilitis and i'm really run down today. Stayed home from work, your questions are excellent questions and deserve a good answer from me.

Maybe Savannah can answer.

"Is the problem "unwillingness" or
"inability"?"

The problem is your presupposition!

You've titled your thread,

"Is the problem "unwillingness" or "inability"?"

It's not either the one, or the other!

With such a foundation,you're whole house is being built upon sand. And your contractor has no credentials nor does he have the blueprint.

You see, inability is the root, and unwillingness is the fruit.

The two are one. You cannot separate them.

That which is born of the flesh,i.e unwillingness and inability, is flesh or natural.

That which is born of the spirit, i.e willingness and ability, is spirit or supernatural.

If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation!

The flesh profited nothing toward that!

"Is the problem "unwillingness" or
"inability"?"

The problem is your presupposition!

You've titled your thread,

"Is the problem "unwillingness" or "inability"?"

It's not either the one, or the other!

With such a foundation,you're whole house is being built upon sand. And your contractor has no credentials nor does he have the blueprint.

You see, inability is the root, and unwillingness is the fruit.

The two are one. You cannot separate them.

That which is born of the flesh,i.e unwillingness and inability, is flesh or natural.

That which is born of the spirit, i.e willingness and ability, is spirit or supernatural.

If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation!

The flesh profited nothing toward that!

Dear Savannah,

Please try to understand that I am closer to your position than your realize. I fully agree a sinner is not able in himself or herself to respond to God without the initiative taken by God. In that sense, I agree that the sinner is "unable" to help themselves. God must begin the work, continue the work and complete the work.

So I can see your point that "unwillingness" is the fruit of "inability". That is an understanding I already had. Yet, there is a reason that I have put forth the matter for discussion that you seem to have missed, so please allow me to invite your consideration once again.

Given that it takes God's initiative to enable anyone to respond to Him, there are passages in scripture where it seems apparent He HAS TAKEN the initiative and IS ACTIVELY seeking to "convict", to "turn", to "correct" His own people, His elect, the people of Israel. In these passages, God Himself describes the response of the people as "unwilling" to hear, and "refusing" to be corrected.

I believe that brothers like yourself have thoughts about such passages, for I trust that you love and know the scriptures well. Since it is in these type of passages where God seems to be actively drawing, compelling, correcting His people, and He Himself describes their response as "unwilling" to hear - that I see the element of the "will of man" as involved and even a "dynamic" part of the result.

It is pointless to argue about what we already agree on. God is the initiator in redemption and salvation. Please carefully consider my offer to discuss the passages where God's initiative is abundantly clear. I have provided one such passage already, but I don't think you understood my reason for providing it.

I am honest that I see men "resisting", "refusing" grace and mercy that God is actively offering and bringing to them. You have read these same passages and perhaps at one time, that is how they appeared to you as well, or may still appear that way. Since, it is passages like these where we see a conflict between God's active attempt to turn His people away from their sins and back to Himself and a stubborn refusal on the part of those He is attempting to turn, the "will of man" is a decisive factor in the outcome.

Once again, I am offering the opportunity for you and other brothers to share your understanding on those type of passages. I am opening my heart and acknowledging that I see "man's will" as a key factor in such passages.

Please let me know if that is still unclear. I assume that you know exactly the type of passages that I am referring to. They proliferate the record of Kings, Chronicles, the major and minor prophets and are often summarized in the prayers of the Nehemiah, Ezra, Daniel, etc.

I also see in the prophets evidence of God's sovereign grace moving to gather a scattered people for His own name's sake. He gathers, He cleanses, He circumcises the heart, He puts His Spirit in them and moves them to fear Him and continue faithfully. I love that He is willing to do that for His own name sake and to maintain His promises to Abraham and to David.

I KNOW God can override men's will, for His own sake, and those who are affected have no causal affect at all. What about those who God is actively seeking to turn away from sin and to return them to Himself and He describes them as being "unwilling"?

Can you discuss those scenarios please?

mak

Ditto what Mak said, gotta learn from that gracious, temperate example.

Oracio said,

"Ditto what Mak said, gotta learn..."

Mak said,

"So I can see your point that "unwillingness" is the fruit of "inability". That is an understanding I already had."

So Oracio, am I to understand that you have been corrected and are now turning from your error which you just posted;

"We’d argue it’s actually the other way around, i.e. the "inability” of which the Bible speaks in certain scriptures such as Romans 8:7-8 is the fruit of man’s unwillingness to turn to and trust God. To say that man’s unwillingness is the fruit of man’s inability when it comes to man’s rejection of Christ, is to put the cart before the horse imo. So we we'd encourage reconsidering and laying aside that type of presupposition imposed on Scripture, with all due respect."

Do you recant from the words you are quoted writing above?

Or maybe you missed that part of Mak's post.

Hi Marvin, you wrote:

As to Roger Olson, he sounds well rounded until you dive deeper into his open-theism which I find heretical and abhorrent. As long as a few quotes from someone who bolsters your position is quoted...he must be right-on. I have commented numerous times on Roger Olson's site and I found his perversions of God's attributes nothing short of heresy. I told him so in no uncertain terms, which were shortly purged from the comment section.

Charles finney's abhorrent pelagianism is anathametized by the orthodox everywhere, but as long as he can bolster another position he is all good too. Have I read Finney? I've read through his systematic theology when I was an admirer of him and another 8 other books written by him, edited by Parkhurst. I know what he believes.

Regarding Roger Olson being an open theist, that is simply untrue and here's an article that proves it:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/08/why-i-am-not-an-open-theist/

But there are some well-known Arminians, such as Greg Boyd, who do believe in open theism, and I don’t believe it’s a reason to "cast them out of the kingdom.”

Towards Finney’s theology, particularly his "moral governmental” view of the atonement, I realize there are several Atonement theories within Christendom. While I personally hold to the Penal Substitution view, I do see other views as being acceptable within Christianity and I would not completely discard them but would see them as also being at least in part biblical and complimentary (e.g. the Christus Victor/Ransom theory-which seems to have been a dominant view among early church leaders, and the Moral Government theory-Jonathan Edwards seems to have held to both the Penal Substitution and Moral Government views of it based on some of his writings).

When it comes to the Atonement, one thing we all agree on is that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. We also all agree with the Apostle’s Creed as it is a statement that declares explicit Scriptural teaching. Of course, there are other "essentials” explicitly taught in Scripture which are also of upmost importance.

Sometimes I’ve asked myself the question, "What exactly is Essential Christian Doctrine and how is it determined?” Maybe I or someone else should start a thread on that topic. Hmmm.

Hi savannah, you wrote:

Oracio said,

"Ditto what Mak said, gotta learn..."

Mak said,

"So I can see your point that "unwillingness" is the fruit of "inability". That is an understanding I already had."

So Oracio, am I to understand that you have been corrected and are now turning from your error which you just posted;

"We’d argue it’s actually the other way around, i.e. the "inability” of which the Bible speaks in certain scriptures such as Romans 8:7-8 is the fruit of man’s unwillingness to turn to and trust God. To say that man’s unwillingness is the fruit of man’s inability when it comes to man’s rejection of Christ, is to put the cart before the horse imo. So we we'd encourage reconsidering and laying aside that type of presupposition imposed on Scripture, with all due respect."

Do you recant from the words you are quoted writing above?

Or maybe you missed that part of Mak's post.

Yeah, I thought there may be a misunderstanding on that. No, I don’t recant anything I said there because I believe it is reconcilable with what Mak wrote. I’ll try to explain.

Scripture is clear that after God blessed man with life and all good things, man chose to rebel against and depart from God; man initiated breaking fellowship with God, he was first "unwilling” in that sense. As a result of that "unwillingness,” he became "unable” to perfectly obey God’s moral law; he became sinful or morally depraved; yet God still allowed man to maintain a certain level of freedom of will.

Ever since the fall, God has always initiated salvation, and apart from God’s initiative man cannot and will not be saved. However, once man rejects God's revelation of Himself and His offer of salvation, man becomes more hardened/calloused and "unable" in his evil ways. That "inability” is both "volitional” and "natural” (natural in the sense of there being a bent toward sin), but the volitional aspect came first and is the decisive factor, not God. The "inability” is a sort of judgment from God in that He withdraws His enabling grace from sinners and allows them to become hardened in their sins on account of them first choosing to rebel against Him and on account of their refusal of His mercy and grace. Hope that helps.

Hi Oracio: Thank you for the article. I reviewed it.

But there are more articles to consider, I responded to numerous of these as they came out in 2010.

Here's a quote from Roger Olson that I totally disagree with.
"Many evangelical "scholars” and leaders have simply lumped people like me, who defend open theism as a legitimate evangelical option, into the same camp with the open theists”“as dangerous subversives of the evangelical faith. That’s fine; I’ll stand with my open theist friends in that camp over against the neo-fundamentalists who seem to be largely controlling the evangelical establishment today. I have higher hopes for the future of the evangelical academy and there are hopeful signs (e.g., the new direction Baker publishers is taking). But I know that many evangelical college and university and seminary administrators are so under the spell of the neo-fundamentalists’ fear factory that they are reluctant or totally unwilling even to consider hiring an open theist.

To me, open theism, though mistaken, is much to be preferred over five point Calvinism, with its belief that Christ died only for the elect."

Open theism to me is not 'misunderstood, or actually misrepresented'. I understand open theism because I have read the articles favoring it, I have debated dozens of open theists and those attending seminary where they were being taught open theism and were fresh with ideas from the professors. I conversed with Roger Olson directly on the subject and he like others who have a disdain for Calvinism regard Calvinistic rebukes and warning of heresy with little regard.

I would in fact throw on open-theist out of the pulpit in milliseconds upon approving it.
His logic of accepting Molinism which I cannot stand either is just 'another perspective' to him. He has little sensitivity to error in my opinion.

What Roger does is issue out 'double-speak'. I like many approve and regard my Arminian brothers as true brothers in the faith, yet I regard arminianism as errant. Roger goes farther, he regard the doctrine as orthodox too, which I cannot stomach. Roger does not 'believe it' but yet, makes room for it in the pulpit and classroom. That is compromise, doublespeak or just plain duplicity; either way technically he may not be an open theist but he is happy to share the pulpit, classroom and congregations with open theists.

Brother mak,
My advise to you is to go grab yourself a Snickers, cuz you may be waiting a while for the answers😉

Hi Mak: When you finish your snickers bar you can respond.

Sorry Mak about the Finney Olson stuff I had no intention of side-tracking the thread.

As to the Jeremiah text, There really isn't much difference of opinion here. They are poster kids for 'rebellion against God'.

The rub seems to lay in how the rebellious Israelites are considered elect and yet they fail to bring forth fruit.

As to bringing forth textual evidence for their rebellion in the face of repeated moves of God to restore them, there's no real variance there either.

The rubs seems to lay in God's word not having the power, efficacy to bring about what God intends, even for his own people.

I find answers in Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Here we begin to get a clearer picture of why Israel fell and God's word seems to fall with them. But Paul was given insight, and that insight brings answers to who is elect and who is not, who received the good seed and who did not.

Thanks Marvin

I hope you are fully recovered and back to 100%. There is no need to rush through these matters, and I don't mind the extra time to give careful consideration to what I read and what I write. We all benefit from "weighing our thoughts" before we speak or write.

I think I understand your reference to Romans 9. We would probably agree that "children of the promise" here is a reference to those Jews with faith in Christ. Children of the flesh refers to mere biologically related descendants.
Is that how you understand Paul's expression? This passage in Galatians came to mind about "children of promise."

Galatians 3

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

We may understand it differently, but we agree that election and faith are inseparable. The true Israelite was a Jewish person who believed in the seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ. Am I correct in that you would express that their faith is evidence of their predestined election? In Galatians Paul expresses that they are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Am I correct in saying that you would affirm that only the elect are given saving faith?

If you have the time, I would like to know more of your thoughts on this statement: "The rubs seems to lay in God's word not having the power, efficacy to bring about what God intends, even for his own people.

Can you please expound on your thoughts about "what God intends" as it relates to the question of "unwillingness" or "inability". For example, would you attempt to further define or explain God's "intention" in those passages where He is pleading with His people through His prophets. Are you saying that what He intended in those type of passages is a "lesser form of mercy" than the grace the elect are given?

We agree that the people rejected what God was "intending." Do you believe He was extending His grace to them?

I am trying to avoid even the appearance of setting a "word trap." I don't like it when it is attempted on myself, and I do not want to manipulate words in such a manner. In the attempt to simplify or clarify your position, I DO NOT want to be guilty of putting words in your mouth. I want to hear how "you would express it yourself" and I do not want to lump you in with any other person or camp.

One of the benefit of these type of discussions is a refining of our own thoughts into clearer more precise expressions. Thank you again for your willingness to take part in the process.

mak

Mak,

There are many distortions and misunderstandings of the viewpoints being fleshed out, on both sides. As a noble Berean yourself and me a poor communicator, I would recommend you listen to a sermon that so eloquently and lovingly sets out the understanding that differs in part with what you have discovered. I am dumb with computers and don’t know how to link a sermon, but the title is God So Loved the World Part 2 by John Piper. It is really focused only on what God has said and it full of gentleness and love. Hope you can find the time. Blessings.

Hi Mak:

Your first question about biological and spiritual Jew, I fully agree.

I do affirm only the elect are given saving faith.

What I meant by "what God intends" was an allusion to the prophet...Isa 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Meaning, when God sends his word it will not fail to work and accomplish/proper where it was sent.

How is it then the word was sent by the prophets and Moses to the Israelites and they rebelled? Instead of moving toward God they lived like the pagans around them?

Paul answers this in Romans 9, where vs 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

The above denotes the word was 'sent'

yet...vs 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Yet...'taken none effect', meaning that gaging by appearances, God's word did return to him void, he didn't see the prosperity of his word in his people.

now, If I were asked that question I would have stated "Well, the old covenant was deficient which the prophets told us, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel all gave prophecy of a new covenant and a new start for Israel."

But that's not the answer Paul gave, he gave one that's even more difficult to explain. Namely, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"
meaning Abrahams seed at large were all given the law and the temple and its service but only those whom God 'made children of promise' were able to prosper from that law, temple and service.

Here, God made a division, not by way of unbelief or sins, but by his choosing, and so we see (if you will receive it) that God's choosing and God's word together bring a saving faith to his people.

Now, someone will say Marv, your are just spouting your Calvinistic nonsense.

I say Paul by the Spirit anticipated questions like that or even accusations, so he clarified the issue of Abraham's seed and what is a child of promise'.

Then as I go on in Romans 9, I see Paul now going straight to the heart of the matter, God's determination to 'make' one vessel to honor and another to dishonor.

The vessel is not getting a say, nor do they have the right to call God into question for that making.

So, this was Paul's answer to why a rebellious unbelieving Israel...even in the face of all that Jesus did, and said and was then crucified.

So, I have my answer, though how God's election is seen and evidenced in all his providential dealings is way past my abilities.

I hope this helps you to see how this revelation by Paul serves as an interpretive principle for Israels actions and God's dealings in the past.

Hello brother Robert,
I listened to the sermon by John Piper and had to scratch my head as to why you'd recommend it on this thread.

Have you encountered here someone who says, I have with my own self will conquered my spiritual deadness, removed my hardened heart, eradicated my rebellion, imparted sight and created faith in my self?

Have you not read any of brother mak's posts?

For some reason whenever I enter into a conversation with our Calvinist brothers a parallel situation immediately comes to mind.

You see, I have been watching many videos of what God is doing in the Muslim world lately and it is absolutely amazing what God is doing, it can truly be said that at the present time God had opened the door of repentance to the Muslim world, using the cyper world of Internet and satalite tv.

But it is truly facinating to watch the process a Muslim goes through before the truth dawns upon his heart.

As a Muslim watches the evangelist on TV speaks of the trinity for example, the first thought comes to his mind is polytheism.

Some get so angry they shoot the infidel speaker in the head on the TV screen only to discover he is still alive on the other tv screen.

As the evangelist tries very hard to explain the concept of the trinity and how that Christians don't really worship 3 gods but only the one true God who manifested himself in three persons, the evangelist understands that he is coming against centuries of error and indoctrination.

He know that his is not an easy task, and that the war is not physical or even intellectual but spiritual, and that patience, perseverance, and much much repetition is required.

Sometimes he becomes hopeful prematurely only to receive a shock that nothing was grasped and that he has to begin from square one all over again..
The trinity to a Muslim means 3 gods and that's that.
Sometimes I feel like the poor evangelist that not only in Islam but even in our Christian faith there are bulwarks and syrongholds of indoctrination that only the Spirit of God can bring down, And therefore, patience, perseverance and much much repetition is required.

UntoBabes. The part I thought Mak would take interest in is the portion speaking of regeneration coming prior to faith.

I think what we all agree on is that REVELATION, not regeneration comes prior to faith.

Revelation of who we are, our sinful condition, who God is, His holiness and the impossibility of reconciling the two but through the son.

Yes. I know that’s what you believe and I respect that. Piper’s point was that our unwillingness to come to Jesus originally is because we are spiritually dead in sin and God overcomes that unwillingness through the revelation of Jesus and regeneration or being made alive and then we are willing. As to inability, Piper points to John 10 and 6 to assert that people don’t believe because they are not Jesus’ sheep and can’t hear His voice. The non-sheep don’t believe because they aren’t made His sheep.

I only thought the sermon helped explain the asserted proposition of unwillingness and inability being tied to spiritual death and regeneration or being made alive first in order to remove both maladies.

Thanks Marvin and Robert and others who are contributing to the discussion.

We would agree that Paul considers the "elect" those who had believed. Romans 10 and 11 elaborate on faith's role in obtaining God's righteousness.

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Romans 11 makes it clear that the fall of Israel is not final, but an opportunity for the Gentiles. He speaks of Israel's future recovery, even the possibility of recovery for those who he called "the rest" who were hardened - or (the non-elect). There are only two groups, "the elect" and "the rest". Paul leaves the door of hope open even for "the rest".

This group (the rest) who were hardened, the non-elect, were broken off because of unbelief, but Paul writes that if they do not persist in unbelief, God is able to graft them in again.

It is for this reason, that I see "faith" as being the decisive factor in "who is elect" and "who stands".

Have you ever heard or read that Paul's reference to the Potter in Romans chapter 9 may be best understood in the context of Jeremiah Chapter 18? The context of Jeremiah is Israel and God's sovereign choice to make a different vessel than the vessel He first intended to make - "because the vessel failed in His hands."

Jeremiah 18
And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make...Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. "Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

We know that Paul considered men's role prominent in what type of vessel that they might become. His letter to Timothy includes this understanding.

I say this to offer a different consideration regarding vessels of honor or dishonor. Men's response to God can determine what type of vessel they are made.

It is by faith that men subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again.

The vast majority of these were Israelites, but the difference between these Israelites and their peers was "faith". I believe Paul is making this same distinction in Romans. The elect are those who have believed.

I believe God genuinely desired to save and bless the people of Israel through His grace and mercy extended to them through His disciplines and the pleading of His prophets. I believe His desire for them was "Life". He was genuinely extending His grace to them so as to turn them so they could live and not die.

Those who heard and turned back to Him received mercy, those who refused to hear, hardened their heart and rejected His grace were hardened.

I believe God "willed" and "purposed" for the people to live. This is what He commanded His prophet to tell the people. "I DO NOT WILL the death of the wicked."

This is why Paul could state so emphatically, God wills for all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

God does not change what He says - "Tell the people, I DO NOT WILL the death of the wicked."

If God said it once, it is immutable, and I for one do not intend to take away from that word or add to it.

mak

Hi Mak: Yes, this quote is true for all of us...
"If God said it once, it is immutable, and I for one do not intend to take away from that word or add to it."

Rom 9:9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son."
Rom 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad””in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls””

I too believe since it is said in God's word
"Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad””in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls””"

And again.

Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Mak, scripture nullifying is poor exegesis, you cannot just dismiss Romans 9 texts as 'mans rebellion' answers to the reason for Israels failure.
That is only part of it. Paul could have said many things, but what he did say clearly is Gods election makes all the difference (see vs 11)

So, you can pick chose a scripture that befits what you want to believe about God, but the scripture is explicit, God chose.

If God's choosing them to failure was simply their rebellion as you state "Those who heard and turned back to Him received mercy, those who refused to hear, hardened their heart and rejected His grace were hardened."

So, you introduce Jeremiah 18 where the generality of the term 'potter' is used. But Pauls usages of God as the potter is different than Jeremiah...and you should know this. Jeremiah was told God as the potter was going to 'remake' Israel...and their 'plucking up' was going to happen under the siege of the Babylonians.

But Pauls usage was not portraying God as 'remaking' by way of breaking down Israel with chastening and punishments But 'making' and that making was cast in the light of Elect and non-elect, honor and dishonor, my people and not my people.
Paul was speaking of a divine choice of his own.

The whole chapter is to frame the deep concern Paul had for his own people who for the most part missed the coming of the Messiah, while the Gentiles were coming to him in multitudes. Why would God's word 'take none effect' in Israel and yet take effect in godless pagans? Because God's choice in the matter plays a vital part in mans salvation.

Step beyond man, look to the author of 'faith' who is God, to the giver of repentance who is God, the giver of grace who is God. God calls to those who do not know him to make them his children.
No one minimizes faith for a second, but I know where that faith comes from, it is the gift of God, it is not the manufacture of men and its presence in one man and not another is not due to some intrinsic 'will' or capability of one man over another it is the working of God's grace to have mercy on whom he will have mercy.

I have neither added or taken away anything from the word of God, nor am I seeking to nullify other texts by putting them in opposition to one another...for the scripture does not nullify itself nor contradict itself.

Marvin

God's sovereign choice of those THROUGH WHOM grace is given is indisputable, "the older will serve the younger".

You believe God's sovereign choice is TO WHOM grace is given.

The difference is huge.

God chose Abraham to be the one THROUGH WHOM many would be blessed. Who would be blessed is determined by this:
"those who bless you I WILL BLESS, those who curse you I WILL CURSE."

Malachi is the one, looking back on the life of Esau, chosen as God's spokesman to declare - "Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated." Did God hate Esau before he was born or had even done anything good or bad? NO! God had many years to watch Esau's carnal, degenerate life. God watched Esau "despise His birthright". Esau was "profane" and "immoral" - this is why God hated him.

God's prerogative to show mercy upon whom He will show mercy is demonstrated throughout the prophets. He declares that His eye will not spare, nor will He show mercy on His own people, Israel, only after their prolonged refusal to hear His words, receive His correction, and return to Him and walk in His ways.

To His people, through Ezekiel, when discussing the issue of life and death - He makes His heart unmistakably clear - HE DOES NOT WILL THE DEATH of the wicked. He pleads with them to turn - because HE DESIRES MERCY.

I am NOT cherry picking any scriptures. I do not accuse you of this, because I believe you are consistent in how you understand and interpret the scriptures. When I explain how I understand and interpret them differently, you resort to such phrases because it is different than yours.

Here is the bottom line of a huge difference between how you see sovereignty and how I understand it. We both believe God makes sovereign decisions.

We both believe God chose Jesus Christ to be His means of grace to the world. We both believe He chose Isaac rather than Esau as the means through which the promise would be fulfilled. That choice was not based upon anything either of them had done.

The huge difference between our views is that I see these choices as being those THROUGH WHOM grace is given. You see God's sovereign choice to be His prerogative to decide "TO WHOM" His grace is given.

I stand by His declaration: "As surely as I live, I DO NOT WILL the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from His way and live. Turn from your evil ways! For why should you die O house of Israel?"

Another big difference, is that I do not accuse you of misquoting, or cherry picking scripture. I am not attempting to convince you of my position, rather I am merely explaining how I understand it. You are so convinced of the superiority of your own view, that you simply cannot accept that I understand it differently - with the same degree of integrity that I afford you.

mak

Hi Mak,

How would you respond to the issue from Romans 9 that God makes a very direct and intentional statement for purpose that He bestowed His electing grace on Jacob in the womb before he had done anything good or evil ( been faithful or rebellious)? The grace in this instance was on Jacob, not through him. Did grace come through the line of Jacob? Of course. But there was also great grace on Jacob individually and on his family.

God seems constantly in Scripture to bestow His favor on the Israelite people in spite of their faithlessness in ways He almost never does on those outside the covenant of His choice of Israel who exhibit equivalent lack of faith. Arguably, and God says this at times, the Israelites exhibited greater rebellion than those not God's people because His people had the greater light and yet acted just like those not His people.

Thanks for the question Robert,

I would explain it as the scripture records it "the older will serve the younger.”

How do you see this as grace being upon Jacob and not Esau?

Judah is given authority to rule over the other tribes of Israel. Does that mean he received grace and they did not?

Mak

Good morning Mak

I totally agree that grace came through the line of Jacob. But, in the context of Romans 9, the text says Jacob I "loved" and Esau I "hated" ( before either had done anything) The election of Jacob was an election unto God's love upon him and those who would descend through him. God's electing love is what is being described in Romans 9.

And, just to follow through on your point, God did not "choose" the Gentiles and harden the Jews so that He could bestow grace "through" the Gentiles. He chose to bestow grace on the Gentiles and Paul by the Spirit exemplifies this choice by pointing to two men, Jacob and Esau in the womb, all in order to prove the point that this electing love is not due to what man does ( good or evil...faithful or rebellious) I think your argument by extension necessarily leads to the statement that election is by something someone does good ( faith ) and I see Scripture anticipating that thought and using Jacob in the womb to help us avoid that path of thinking .

Hi Mak: Reading your response to me...I must have really biffed it last night.

I know we disagree and we articulate somethings differently as well, but I would ask your forgiveness if my post contained a tone, condescension, or insult. My heart toward you is for our discussion to be pure, if I have dirtied it with offense, I pray your forgiveness and patience.

I have high respect for you and for your willingness to engage me on these issues. You are among the best of the posters here Alan I know this and so does everyone else.

I should take my cues from Robert who is much better at engaging the issue without the friction.

My sincere apology to you and to any other who felt my post can be characterized in like manner.

Truly, I really wish we could sit side by side to discuss these things so that laughter, prayer and fellowship could be intermixed with our conflicting views.

Well Done Marvin!! Blessings.

Hi Marvin,

Food Ministry day. We served 60 lbs of food to 60 families from our neighborhood here in San Antonio. I am just back home and wanted to touch base with you. Thank you for your post. I don't want to leave you or anyone else in the dark about what troubled me. I am not always fully aware of what it is in the moment. But after reflecting on it, here are my thoughts. First let me say - peace to you as a brother in Christ and may the unity of the spirit be preserved in this bond of peace. It is the peace of Christ which is to "umpire" in our hearts. When two teams see a close play from a different angle - the "umpire" has the authority to make the call. When two believers see a passage from a different angle, the ruling of the umpire will be "PEACE." I am looking for the same kind of fellowship you described - even via this forum.

You wrote:
"Mak, scripture nullifying is poor exegesis, you cannot just dismiss Romans 9 texts as 'mans rebellion' answers to the reason for Israels failure.
That is only part of it. Paul could have said many things, but what he did say clearly is Gods election makes all the difference (see vs 11)"

"So, you can pick chose a scripture that befits what you want to believe about God, but the scripture is explicit, God chose."

Here is where I want to be fully at peace and in perfect agreement with you. I do not believe you would ever want to nullify a single scripture, for I trust you love every part of scripture too much to even consider doing so. Neither do I ever want to nullify a single letter, much less a sentence or a passage. There may be many passages where I am still unclear on the full meaning, but I just like you, would never change one letter, much less a word. All I want is to know and understand the truth, not just part of a truth, but the "full knowledge of the truth." I believe Robert, Ray, and Yourself feel the very same way.

We don't agree perfectly yet, but what Paul wrote in Philippians chapter 3 covers that area where believers "think differently." "Let everyone who is perfect be thus minded, and if on some point you think differently, that too God will manifest, only let us live up to what we have already attained."

I do believe there is room for difference in the topic of "election". I believe I understand your position, but it is not the same position that I currently hold. I am not finished studying, and when I am given an answer through one of these threads, I try to consider it carefully. Maybe I am naïve, but that is what I hope to encounter from others in discussing the scriptures. There is an iron sharpening iron benefit to be obtained, while at the same time being careful to avoid wrangling over words to the ruin of others who may be drawn into the matter.

So, in summary, I want to regard every chapter, every sentence, and every individual letter within a word, as God's mercy to us. Peter himself, acknowledged that Paul's letter contained some difficult matters, but I am not worthy to untie Paul's sandals, so if I don't fully understand what he wrote in some passages, the ignorance is on me.

Also, I am entirely to blame for my understanding. If I think it, I own it, because I know better than to merely accept what anyone says without testing it. I claim to be a teacher, and accept a stricter judgment that comes with claiming to know. If I express something, even if the thought did not originate with me, if it is erroneous, I am responsible for failure to test it and prove it.

I was an In School Suspension Supervisor in a public high school for 10 years. That position allowed me to study the scriptures for as many hours per day as my body could handle. There were 8 hours in a school day, and I was able to study without interruption for at least six and one half hours Monday through Friday. Over that ten year period, I learned to read the Greek New Testament and studied it diligently. I also became aware of the Apostolic Polyglot with the Greek Septuagint and the glossary which list every place a particular Greek word is used from Genesis to Revelation. Does this mean that I know the scriptures better than anyone else, not really, what it does mean is that I have no one else to blame but myself for any area where I have misinterpreted or misapplied scripture.

Please believe me when I say, I have NO desire to nullify any part of anything Paul ever wrote. The more I understand what Paul wrote, the more I love every word. I simply believe that I understand the book of Romans differently than you do.

If you desire, I will attempt to summarize how I view his letter in a broad sense, because it is in my meditation of Paul's overall purpose where I have developed a perspective of his letter to Rome that has influenced how I read, and understand chapters 9, 10, and 11.

If in the view of others, we should simply move on, I will happily return to my personal study and bid you a fond farewell.

mak

Hi Mak:

you said..."Also, I am entirely to blame for my understanding. If I think it, I own it, because I know better than to merely accept what anyone says without testing it. I claim to be a teacher, and accept a stricter judgment that comes with claiming to know. If I express something, even if the thought did not originate with me, if it is erroneous, I am responsible for failure to test it and prove it."

I'm in the exact same shoes and I've seen what it has done in others.

When I was young in the Lord I received free from a pastor 3 large 8 tape sets from Kenneth Copeland. I listened to them all numerous times and I ended up giving them to a brother who to this day has followed Copeland...even after my attempts at righting my wrong to him.
Ministered with a guy that Loved Finney, I devoured his books and used many of Finney's ideas in my own sermons...to which I wish all of them should be forgotten ( and probably are).
I went to a Peter Popov meeting in Anaheim Ca way back in the day...hoping to hear a word from God from the man who was just shortly afterwards busted for secret earphones and reading prayer cards...pretending it was a 'word from God'.
I cut my teeth on Kenneth Hagin for years I listened to his radio broadcasts.

Many of these men and others too I absorbed their teachings and shared their books, tapes and bought their study bibles.

Eventually I came away from all of it

If there was anyone who is a poster kid for not checking things out thoroughly and receiving things based simply on the popularity of a preacher I'm that guy.

I've grown some (hopefully) over the years...not in cynicism
but it diligence to compare scripture with scripture and make some kind of attempt to sort through all the winds of doctrine flying by.

I am always learning and by the grace of God "coming to a knowledge of the truth" to live out and share with others.

I love greek too, In past years I was proficient in it as well as Latin, Hebrew I was always a clod.

There is no doubt Brother Alan you will walk in the light, understand the truth and bear fruit to God's glory in the future even as you do so now. I pray I do the same.

Whether you post or whether you privately study God blesses his people because of it.

Hello Marvin, I wish to go back just a little bit,
You said this with regard to brother mak's s question about the passage in Jeremiah. You said: ""What I meant by "what God intends" was an allusion to the prophet...Isa 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater""

I find this passage to be misapplied and taken out of context.
I know this passage often used as a reference to preaching. You hear it often said that the word of God preached will not return to him void but will accomplish what God intended by it, and consequently you find people on the street corners and preachers from pulpits that are not anointed, have not spent any time before God pleading for souls thinking that all they have to do it proclaim the word. And when no fruit is evidenced, they claim that God' s word have achieved all that it was sent to achieve. It hardened some and softened the elect, while in truth no hardening or softening ever took place, only false conversions or no conversions at all..
When John Wesley preached against the sin of drunkenness, drunkards were set free, because the man was filled with the Holy Spirit and the word preached was charged with Power and life, but today you find fruitless preaching that only sends people to hell because now they know what the law of God is and yet no life was imparted to them, so, now they can not plead ignorance. You see people preaching against the sin of homosexuality, yet homosexuals are not set free from it because there is no life in the word preached, no burden for lost souls that keeps the preacher on his knees all night before God pleading for his hearers but they will always quote this verse that God's word will not turn to him void, and if you ask. If that is true then where are the converts, they would say that God's word was sent to harden..

The davestating results of the misapplication of one single verse.
This verse is applicable only when God issues forth a promise or a decree. It is not to be used for preaching because preaching consists of pleading or giving a plea, it reflects the desire of God's heart for turning and repenting, but it does not involve something God says by way of an unconditional decree that would discredit him if it doesn't happen.
Here are 2 examples one for which the verse in Isiah 55 applies and the second is a verse where Isiah 55 doesn't apply.
You quoted Isiah 55: 10,11
Here is the decree in verse 12,13
""
For you shall go out with joy,
And be led out with peace;
The mountains and the hills
Shall break forth into singing before you,
And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
13 Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress tree,
And instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree;
And it shall be to the Lord for a name,
For an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.”.

Now here is a verse that involves a plea

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

Also the verses brother mak gave in Jeremiah are preaching verses which involve a plea that reflects God' s heart and desire for the wicked to turn and repent

Jeremiah 6:16
"Stand in the ways and see,
And ask for the old paths, where the good way is,
And walk in it;
Then you will find rest for your souls.
But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’"

Now, let's examine that verse. God here is speaking precisely to unbelieving Israel.
His plea is for them to go back to the good way and walk in it.
His heart' s intention was for them to turn back and repent.
Did that happen?.
It says there that it didn't. The people didn't turn back, and his word in a sense turned to him void if you are to apply Isiah 55 to it. Then how can the scripture be true.
But the scripture is true because God didn't say : " you will turn to the good way " by way of decree. Instead he says: " please turn to the good way" by way of a plea.

Now we go back to brother mak's question to you.
If God's heart was for the people to turn, why didn't they ?

Marvin said:

Quote""The above denotes the word was 'sent'

How is it then the word was sent by the prophets and Moses to the Israelites and they rebelled?....

yet...vs 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:""quote

Answer.
No, he is not talking about the word that was sent through the prophets and Moses as you have stated. He is talking about the word of promise given to Abraham. Read verse 9.

Rom 9:9
""For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

If you go to chapter 4 verse 13 you know that Paul is making a distinction between the word of promise God made by way of decree to Abraham and Abraham receiving it by faith not by the law. The word had to take effect because it was a decree..

""
And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.” 5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be.”

6 And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.""

""15 Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: "By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son”” 17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.""

Rom:4:13
""For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

Abraham received Isaac the son of promise twice , ones from Sarah's womb and the second from the alter of sacrifice. Both times Abraham received Isaac by faith

Paul is making a distinction between the righteousness of faith that receives the promise and the righteousness of the law that caused Israel to stumble on the rock of offense ( Jesus) .

I want to address a misconception to everyone who use passages from the Bible about God desiring everyone to repent, or Jesus desiring that everyone in Jerusalem repent or God not taking pleasure in the death of the wicked as proof that man therefore is able to respond affirmatively to the Gospel. Those who hold to the position of man's inability to come to Jesus absent God's miraculous intervention don't dispute those texts in the least. We embrace them as glorious expressions of God's heart and thinking.

Another glorious expression of God's heart, however, is the passage that is a seminal expression of God's heart and that is that all men everywhere for all time would love Him with all their heart, mind, and soul. God really desires that. It's His greatest command and thus is His greatest desire. Yet, men don't and we know that they don't because they cannot do that. And they cannot do that because the sinful nature in man is so strong and does not desire that and hence does not do that. Not one of us I think disputes that. So we all agree that what God desires, man does not always do because of a problem in man. Are we "OK" if God holds man eternally responsible for disobeying a command that we all agree man is morally unable to do ? Or, if we aren't ok with that, do we then assert that God must by implication give every man everywhere and every time the ability to love Him with all his heart all the time?

John Wesley agreed that man was unable. Yet, he believed that God miraculously gives all men "ability" at some point in time in their life to believe and obey when it comes to the Gospel. The other position says God does not do that except for some. Wesley had no Scriptures to affirmatively and directly support his position. His was an argument of implication.

No one should take the expressions of God's desire that man do something as the end all proof that He gives them the ability to do what He desires. He doesn't do that with His command that we all love Him with all our heart. Yet, there are millions of people who will be condemned for not loving Him with all their heart. That is Biblical. I get the discomfort we all have with the fairness of that notion. This difficulty and dilemma is not what matters though. We can't impose our own fallen wisdom and thinking on God. It's a huge theological trap.

Here again is my challenge to those who hold that all men have the ability or obtain from God the ability to believe and obey the Gospel.... what verses would you point to that say that expressly and explicitly? It is the elephant in the room because it is a critical issue if we all agree that absent some miraculous action by God, all sinful men are unable to respond to the Gospel without that action.

I'm not mocking anyone, but often when guys like Marvin put forth texts that very arguably and often expressly indicate man has a moral inability ( not physical inability) to believe and that only some are given that ability, three things invariably happen. The basic theological arguments are....1) the texts we use to support our understanding don't mean what we think and so there is a focus and dispute about our proofs, 2) there is an assertion that God's agreed upon desire that all men everywhere and at all times repent requires and mandates by our notions of fairness and sincerity that God must give the ability to do so even though no Scripture says that, and then the show stopper, 3) the God that would not give the ability to all when He desires all is a terrible God. That is the course of every debate.

You guys know from years of thinking about and debating this issue which Scriptures the "inability" side of the debate argue to assert that men are morally unable to come to Christ unless God does some miraculous work in their heart. Just for the sake of a broader debate, What is/are your Scriptural text(s) that say expressly that either all men are able or second, that God shines the light of the knowledge of His glory in Jesus into every heart?

I'm sincerely not mocking. I don't know about Marvin or anyone else, but I personally would be happier in a human way if you had those texts and you were right. I used to argue hard for all having the ability but I couldn't satisfy for myself the challenge I just put forth and I found myself having to accept the Scriptures that plainly say that the man of the flesh who is expressly defined as a man who does not have the new nature, is unable to understand, is unable to truly receive the seed of the word in a fruit bearing way, and is unable to say from the heart that "Jesus is Lord". That was the primary purpose of the New Covenant, to make the people of God "able", "willing" and "wanting" to perform and walk in the ways of God by giving those in the Covenant the power and desire to do so which was lacking in men otherwise as the giving of the law without any power was used by God to show the Jews and us.

People who do not believe In Jesus are described by Jesus, not by those of us, as those who hate the light and thus are unwilling. He also says that no one can come to Him ( which He says is the same thing as believing) unless they have heard AND learned from the Father and He says that His sheep hear His voice and all follow Him. Those who are not His sheep do not hear His call and only His sheep will follow Him. The rest do not hear and do not follow because, HE says by way of explanation, they are not His sheep.

Those are some pretty strong texts. What are the strong texts that everyone who hears also learns. What are the texts that say that everyone is a sheep of Jesus and hear His call but then they refuse to believe and follow. I'm not mocking. Those texts have to be in the Scriptures to nullify or help us better explain the ones that create the basis for saying only some hear, only some come, only some can believe if they are of His sheep. I know the texts I just cited are texts you guys embrace and believe. Please don't tell me what they don't mean. Please give those texts that expressly say that all men everywhere are given sufficient light to believe. Its an honest and sincere need of the debate.

Hi Fifi: glad to see you back. you asked

Now we go back to brother mak's question to you.
If God's heart was for the people to turn, why didn't they ?

I don't know, if you do, let me know.

Hi Fifi: I read through your last post a couple of times, I don't see in it anything that necessitates a change of opinion or interpretation on my part. In fact it enhances my position because faith is the resultant outcome of those who are chosen of God to believe and receive...they hear because they are Jesus sheep.

The necessity of living by faith was incumbent in the Old Testament as well as the new; your distinction reveals another 'mode' by which sinful man attempts to placate God without actually loving God.

Thanks though for responding and engaging you bless me when you do so.

Robert asked:

"What is/are your Scriptural text(s) that say expressly that .... God shines the light of the knowledge of His glory in Jesus into every heart?"

Answer: John 1:9 The true Light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

Contrary to some, I believe God's grace is absolutely resistible and there are plenty of verses warning us to obey the voice of God and not resist Him with unbelief. God gives grace to the humble but not everyone who hears the truth will necessarily submit to the truth and repent and obey.

I believe that fallen man does not have the ability to do anything to commend himself to God or otherwise obtain reconciliation or fellowship with God without first HUMBLING himself and confessing his sinfulness and inability to please God. God does give every person the ability to humble themselves before God but they must choose to actually do it. After that, great light, grace and ability to receive God's further gifts of revelation and grace are available to them. Christ mourned over Jerusalem because they would not humble themselves and receive Him and so be saved. He did not mourn for them because they could not humble themselves and repent and believe.

-Daniel

Amen Daniel,

Robert, you asked a fair request.
Here is a verse I found immediately as I opened the Bible, and you would have too if you had opened yours.

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”

This was given by God to Cain, the first prodigal and the father of all the sons of perdition

The language is very similar to what God says to Eve by way of judgment, your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.

The Bible further expounds on the meaning of " rule"
Eve had to submit to Adam, be under his dominion, accept his headship, be in subjection to his rule..
Adam was to lead, have authority over, be head of Eve ( I am sure you agree with that 😉)

Now, apply this same language to Cain ( or all fallen mankind) and sin.

Quote""
I don't know, if you do, let me know."" Quote

I asked you to take it from the mouth of God, Marvin, "But you were not willing"

Hi Daniel and Fifi

So every human being on earth has the light of Jesus shone in their hearts by the text you are quoting.

Daniel, are there any other texts for the idea that God gives grace to every man to believe. I'm not talking about the requirements of God to humble yourself, or repent, or believe. I'm not getting at what we all might think or decide is true. I'm sincerely trying to get to the Scriptures that say that every human being on earth has been given the grace to be humble, to repent and to believe. If you think Scripture says that we are born with that ability, then I would certainly want to know that alternatively or as well. Most believe God has to give the grace for sinful man to see the light of Jesus. Some believe all are given that light. I'm just asking for the Scripture that says that. Clearly, there are maybe billions of people who have not heard of Jesus so I'm struggling to understand your Scripture quote to address that fact. Maybe there are Scriptures you have that address the apparent discrepancy between the light
of the truth of Jesus being brought to everyone and the fact that billions haven't heard His name much less His Gospel. I'm not trying to trap you or anyone else. We have to have Scriptures to support a solution for sinful man's problem which almost all I know say is his natural inclination not to submit to God.

Robert says: quote""As to inability, Piper points to John 10 and 6 to assert that people don’t believe because they are not Jesus’ sheep and can’t hear His voice""

I don't care what conclusions Piper draws from the word. Let's examine John 10.

"My sheep hear my voice"
Where does Jesus say that being his sheep preceds hearing his voice.
My sheep hear my voice is an equation sentence ( by the way you will not find this in grammar books, this is a word of my own making )
Hear is what I mean. He is simply saying that what characterises my sheep is that they hear my voice. He was saying that to make a contrast between those who listen to the voice of a stranger, and those who recognize the voice of the shepherd...
But it was not his intention to place one characteristic before the other. He could've also said those who hear my voice are my sheep.

You see Jesus make these kinds of statements quite often where you would be able to place an equation mark between the two characters and invert the order without doing any change to the meaning.

For example, he says to Peter, "If you love me, shepherd my sheep". It means : you love me=shepherd my sheep.He is simply saying, if you want to prove you love me, you must shepherd my sheep.
You could invert the statement by saying
If you shepherdy my sheep, you prove to me that you love me

Another example.
If you love me= you obey commandments
If you obey my commandments=you love me

As with regards to John 6:27,44,65, I have posted the answer on another thread a while back. So, I am just pasting it here:

""
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.) John 6:44. Does this verse address human inability? In the first glance it appears so, In order to understand the meaning of this verse we have to take it within the context of the teachings of Jesus in John.. Who are the audience Jesus is addressing? What are their objections? Do they believe in human ability to come to God in ones own power and therefore Jesus is correcting them. Is he playing the Calvinist correcting His Arminian audience. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. If anyone could fit in the Calvinist shoe, it would be his audience, the religious leaders who believed they are God’s chosen people. If we look at the whole context we find Jesus confronting the religious leaders who insist on asserting two facts. 1: That they know the Father, and 2: That Jesus can not be from the Father. To Jesus, this is a logical and spiritual impossibility because, in Jesus mind, and in consistency with the rest of his teaching that spiritual knowledge comes by revelation , not by education, so much so that babes and suckling infants, and not, the wise and the prudent are those who are qualified to enter the kingdom. if someone truly knows the Father, the Father in turn will open his or her eyes and show him the Son. If someone rejects the Son it is because they do not know the Father. So, here we find the statement take on a slight twist. He is not so much emphasizing the truth that no one can come to the Son except he be drawn by the Father( although that is true too but in a completely different sense that what‘s being taught today), but rather, in Jesus Words, the reason you are not coming to Me is because you are not being drawn by my Father, and the reason you are not being drawn by my Father is because you do not know Him and He does not know you. If you knew Him as you claim, He will automatically reveal my deity to you and you will not stumble over Me. The father does not know you even though you think you are God ‘s elect. But you do not know me nor Him since the only ones the Father will draw are the humble, and lowly, You can not believe because you care more about the glory you receive from one another than God’s glory. Wow, truly that is so simple that the wise and the prudent who are so caught up in theological and philosophical debates will completely miss it. As we can see, this verse does not fall in the Arminian, nor the Calvinist camp, but rather addresses something much simpler, yet, to Jesus, it was much more relevant and profound.

Hi Fifi: , sorry I am still not 100% yet, in fact about 30%, foggy head today. I don't understand what you mean. Every word that proceeds from the mouth of God is my desired food, every interpretation of that word is not always accepted and we all testify to that.

So, I need a little more help seeing what youre getting at.
Sorry for being slow or tedious, it's not my intention to deny your point.

Daniel wrote:

Contrary to some, I believe God's grace is absolutely resistible and there are plenty of verses warning us to obey the voice of God and not resist Him with unbelief. God gives grace to the humble but not everyone who hears the truth will necessarily submit to the truth and repent and obey.

I believe that fallen man does not have the ability to do anything to commend himself to God or otherwise obtain reconciliation or fellowship with God without first HUMBLING himself and confessing his sinfulness and inability to please God. God does give every person the ability to humble themselves before God but they must choose to actually do it. After that, great light, grace and ability to receive God's further gifts of revelation and grace are available to them. Christ mourned over Jerusalem because they would not humble themselves and receive Him and so be saved. He did not mourn for them because they could not humble themselves and repent and believe.

Exactly my thoughts on it. But I’m sure our friends would have us believe that unregenerate man is also unable to humble himself apart from God’s "irresistible” grace; they would include the command to humble oneself as part of God’s "impossible” commands to man. However, I think the burden of proof is on them to prove that man cannot choose to humble himself and acknowledge his need of a Savior apart from some "irresistible” grace.

The truth is, if you are unsaved, God is not responsible to make you humble yourself or to make you choose to repent and believe the gospel. That is your responsibility before God.

The only places in the Bible where we see the idea of God forcibly humbling someone is in places that speak of God’s judgment coming upon the wicked for their refusal to humble themselves (Matt. 23:12; Isa. 2:11; Ps. 18:27; etc.). So if you wait for God to humble you, He surely will do that, but in judgment not salvation.

My concern is that some unsaved people wrongfully get the impression that they must wait on God to irresistibly humble them and to "grant” them repentance and faith. There are indeed some who think that way after hearing that type of message from certain Christians or preachers. I know of one former famous "reformed” Christian singer turned atheist who argues that way. He says that if God is real, He will irresistibly draw him and save him regardless of his current condition as an atheist. You can look up "Derek Webb: A Reformed Atheist?” on YouTube or google "Steve Frailey blogspot What Happened to Derek Webb?”.

It is that type of message that Finney so adamantly opposed during his era (he found that that type of message was very prevalent at the time), though I do think and acknowledge Finney went too far in some things in his "knee jerk reaction” and fierce opposition to it.

edit added: The former Christian singer says that If God is real and if God has chosen Him for salvation, God will irresistibly draw him and save him in His time.

Robert wrote:

//2) there is an assertion that God's agreed upon desire that all men everywhere and at all times repent requires and mandates by our notions of fairness and sincerity that God must give the ability to do so//

Little children who know no better may wish for things that can never be, but you are suggesting that God does the same thing. But in His case it’s even worse, because HE is the one making it impossible.

Isn’t that kind of, well, dumb?

It simply cannot be said that God truly and sincerely wants something if He is the one making it impossible. If your position is true, God doesn’t want it. Let’s be honest.

But scripture says he DOES desire all men to repent. That has to mean that God is not the one making it impossible.

Marvin,
I wish you a speedy recovery.
We all know how boring discussing these topics would be without your presence.

Edit added to my last post: The former Christian singer turned atheist says that if God is real and if God has chosen him for salvation, God will irresistibly draw him and save him in His time.

Hi all, I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth. So,
do you guys believe all men can humble themselves or repent or have faith apart from intervening grace? If you believe that, then that’s fine, many share that view. , I just want to make sure that’s what you are saying. If you believe on the other hand as many do that grace is required to humble yourself, repent or believe, then share the Scripture that all men get that. Not trying to anger or insult in the least. If you think I’m being a jerk or just not very smart, then I understand if you just want to ignore me. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what I think or say and I’m totally ok with that in truthfulness.

Robert,

You well know we believe no man can come to God without divine revelation.but what man does with this revelation is up to him..

Two people went to a revival tent meeting. Two people experienced the presence of God. Two people fell under conviction of sin.

One is a Satanist, well known in twon by his terrible reputation, drug use, and the other a church treasurer who has been dipping his hand in the money box but no one knows it. In fact he has the respect and admiration of the whole community, and known to be a man of great integrity.

As the holy Spirit brings conviction of sin, .reveals their sinfulness, God's holiness, and the way of salvation and demands a public confession of sin.

The one, having nothing to lose, embraces the revelation and is saved while the other, having much to lose, rejects that same revelation and is damned.

God desired for both to be saved, gave the same revelation, same conviction of sin, same drawing love with two completely different outcomes.

As to the necessity of evangelism you only have to read Ezekiel 3

""
I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: 18 When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; BUT HIS BLOOD I WILL REQUIRE AT YOUR HAND. 19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.""

thanks Fifi, I really don't know what everyone believes. For some reason i'm coming off in my emails like I'm playing around with you guys. I'm not. This is really holy stuff we are tallking about and I take it really seriously as do you.

We do both know that God presents the Gospel in love to many. Certainly not all. I think I hear you saying that when we present the Gospel it is presented by God and hopefully us in love to the sinner. Agreed. I also think I hear you saying that the presentation of the Gospel carries with it the grace necessary to humbly turn, repent and believe. All I'm asking is.... is there a Scripture that supports the idea that the agreed upon grace necessary to turn is contained in the Gospel truth presented to the sinner.

Also, clearly, if billions don't hear the Gospel, what is your idea from Scripture about God's desire for them and His grace for them to believe. I'm not being cute here. I think it is a legitimate question for the idea that the Gospel itself contains the grace required for salvation.

These are issues I've tried to think through using Scripture and to account for what Scripture says about sinful man's spiritual problems. Even if you find the Scriptures that cause me concern not a concern to you, then it still leaves open the question of God desiring all men to come believe in Jesus but literally billions never hearing about Him. Does anyone have a Scriptural based idea about that? I know a lot of very Biblically smart people that struggle with that given their very strongly held view that all men are able to believe. The only solution I've heard is that God already knows that billions of people won't believe so He has judged them already not worthy to hear the Gospel I don't think from what I've read from some on the site that they would be satisfied with that answer either.

Todd, you said this:

"It simply cannot be said that God truly and sincerely wants something if He is the one making it impossible. If your position is true, God doesn’t want it. Let’s be honest."

Just asking again, you then believe that His desire that men love Him with all their heart all the time is possible for man to do because God has given sufficient grace to do that. If you do, then I can see your thinking on that and can see why you think my thinking is dumb. :) No offense taken.

Robert wrote:

Daniel, are there any other texts for the idea that God gives grace to every man to believe. I'm not talking about the requirements of God to humble yourself, or repent, or believe. I'm not getting at what we all might think or decide is true. I'm sincerely trying to get to the Scriptures that say that every human being on earth has been given the grace to be humble, to repent and to believe. If you think Scripture says that we are born with that ability, then I would certainly want to know that alternatively or as well. Most believe God has to give the grace for sinful man to see the light of Jesus. Some believe all are given that light. I'm just asking for the Scripture that says that. Clearly, there are maybe billions of people who have not heard of Jesus so I'm struggling to understand your Scripture quote to address that fact. Maybe there are Scriptures you have that address the apparent discrepancy between the light of the truth of Jesus being brought to everyone and the fact that billions haven't heard His name much less His Gospel. I'm not trying to trap you or anyone else. We have to have Scriptures to support a solution for sinful man's problem which almost all I know say is his natural inclination not to submit to God.

But to answer your question, "are there any other texts for the idea that God gives grace to every man to believe?” here’s another one that comes to mind which I’ve shared before:

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’”-Acts 17:26-28

Clearly, we read there that God has placed all people in different places in order that ALL PEOPLE may "seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.”

We see examples of this reality in the Old Testament with Ninevah and other Gentiles. God has always desired/willed the salvation of all people regardless of where they are born.

Hi all, I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth. So,
do you guys believe all men can humble themselves or repent or have faith apart from intervening grace? If you believe that, then that’s fine, many share that view. , I just want to make sure that’s what you are saying. If you believe on the other hand as many do that grace is required to humble yourself, repent or believe, then share the Scripture that all men get that. Not trying to anger or insult in the least. If you think I’m being a jerk or just not very smart, then I understand if you just want to ignore me. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what I think or say and I’m totally ok with that in truthfulness.

We agree that God must initiate salvation by His grace, but He has already "initiated” it through various means, partially through what some call "general revelation” and "common grace.” Through that kind of revelation and grace which extends to all, God convicts of sin and seeks to draw all men to Himself; He often "strives” with all men by His Spirit (Gen. 6:3). That kind of general revelation and common grace is sufficient to leave man without excuse in terms of their refusal to acknowledge and seek God (Rom. 1:20). If men will respond to God’s general revelation of Himself and His common grace, God will grant them more revelation and more grace. In fact, He offers and extends His "divine revelation” and "divine, saving grace” to all, but some resist it and reject it of their own free will to their own peril. Nowhere in Scripture do we read that God must absolutely or irresistibly grant men some sort of special and particular "infusement” of divine grace or special "infusement” of divine revelation for them to acknowledge their sin and need of a Savior and to humble themselves and cry out to God in repentance/contrition and faith.

We argue that you have to read into the scriptures that man cannot acknowledge his sin and humble himself before God apart from an "irresistible” type of grace.

Robert wrote: //If you do, then I can see your thinking on that and can see why you think my thinking is dumb. :) No offense taken.//

Just to clarify- I was not talking about you when I used the word "dumb.”

My point was it would be sort of dumb to wish for something that you yourself make impossible.

By the way- I don’t think God is dumb either. 😉

Robert says:
""also I think I hear you saying that the presentation of the Gospel carries with it the grace necessary to humbly turn, repent and believe. All I'm asking is.... is there a Scripture that supports the idea that the agreed upon grace necessary to turn is contained in the Gospel truth presented to the sinner"'

No I don't believe that..The gospel presentation by itself is not sufficient.The Holy Spirit must accompany the word, otherwise the word by itself is the letter that kills. I have expressed that in my previous posts when I made the comparison between John Wesley, a man who was filled with the Holy Spirit and praching we have today.

Why do you think Jesus asked the deciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father before they do any preaching? But John Wesley wasn't supposed to be an elite kind of Christian. He was an ordinary Christian who lived the normal Christian Life. We all need to be John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Charles Finney.

But why is this not the case, the answer to that question is long and complicated. God has left the church in the world as a place for his dwelling that the lost may be drawn to and come to the light.
Times of revival and awakening were not meant to be a rare occasion but the constant state of the church.
Again, why is that not what we see happening?
Because God can not dwell in a sinfull environment. God is holy and the place of his habitation must be holy as well.
When the church begins to lose it's holiness, God must as he did in the old testament with Israel take himself outside the camp lest his holiness consume the people. But as he withdraw his presence the church becomes more and more corrupt and the world goes to hell in a hand basket. In the end , their blood will be on the hand of the adulterous church that left it's God and compromised with the world.

This is the short answer, but this is the one single topic that I can talk about for hours on end. It is a gloomy picture that most prefer to brush aside, but that is mainly why I hate Calvinism, because Calvinism takes the guilt off the church and places it on God. If the world is going to hell it is because God predistinated it to be so. Enough with the guilt trip , I am just glad I am saved and no one can snatch me out of the father's hand.. End of story. Now hand me the TV remote.

Thanks Oracio,

Daniel's Scripture says that Jesus is the light that has come into the world. Are you saying that every man has received the light of the truth of Jesus, even those who haven't heard of Him?

Second, God places men in different locations that they might seek Him. Scripture plainly says that. Just placing men in different locales though doesn't answer the question of do they have the grace to believe. We both agree that God desires all men everywhere would turn to him. But, what is the the verse that says God grants the grace sufficient for all to come. Romans 1 speaks of the common grace of general revelation and how all men suppress or reject that revelation because of their sinful hearts which is exactly like what Jesus said when He said that men see the light but they will not come to the light because they love the darkness. He also says men will not come to Him because they are not His sheep.

What grace of God stated in Scripture gives all men the spiritual eyes to see Jesus, the spiritual ears to apprehend that His voice is the voice of God, the spiritual desires to treasure Him as Savior and honor Him as King whether they choose to do that or reject Him?

Does the preaching of the Gospel itself have the grace necessary infused in it? What Scripture?

The preaching and call of the Gospel to anyone is a great grace of God. We all agree on that. Is that sufficient?

These are honest questions. I have thought about this over many years and tried to understand all angles and issues. I don't have a good answer for my question and I have searched and searched. I just want the truth of it. Simple or complex, I don't see what I'm diligently seeking after. I didn't arrive at the position I now assert because of an agenda or preconceived ideas that I superimpose on Scripture. Not that you do, but I am after the truth and only the truth will suffice for such a critical question. If God gives all men sufficient grace, great. IF its unstated in Scripture and we are left with having to infer it, that is great too but, then we are left having to explain away so much Scripture that I for one am entirely uncomfortable doing.

Fifi, I would feel horrible if I thought the salvation of man or their damnation was due to my failure to get the Gospel to them. And for the record, I'm a lot more active at sharing the Gospel than most of my brothers and sisters, Arminian or Calvinist.

The level of guilt if it were up to us, would be unbearable for me. Not sure I could live with that. If you are right, the church is responsible for billions of people going to Hell forever.

And maybe this goes without saying but I don't find God guilty for men going to Hell. God doesn't sin. Men do.
If God did not give mercy in Christ to any man and all perished, He would be fully vindicated and right. Mercy by its definition is totally under God's free will and good pleasure. Like you said, praise God Sister for His mercy to you. What a Savior

Robert says""
Fifi, I would feel horrible if I thought the salvation of man or their damnation was due to my failure to get the Gospel to them. And for the record, I'm a lot more active at sharing the Gospel than most of my brothers and sisters, Arminian or Calvinist.

The level of guilt if it were up to us, would be unbearable for me. Not sure I could live with that. If you are right, the church is responsible for billions of people going to Hell forever."""

Here you go, brother. You perfectly articulated why people embrace Calvinism.

//If God did not give mercy in Christ to any man and all perished, He would be fully vindicated and right. Mercy by its definition is totally under God's free will and good pleasure.//

That the ‘ol "super-fair” argument. I heard it from my high school youth pastor.

Since everyone deserves hell, it’s not unfair that God unilaterally chooses for some to go there, rather it’s super-fair that he chooses any to go to heaven.

It didn’t sit right with me then, nor does it now.

Hi Todd. I’m 60 and wasn’t ever a youth pastor. It wasn’t me that tried to mess up your theology so early. :). Blessings brother.

If men were to come before the judgment seat of men, they will surely be condemned.

Rom. 9:15-16 ”“
THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,

Who is the sinner saved who heartlessly shuts other sinners in hell?

Matt. 18:21-34 ”“

21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus *said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

23 "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. 26 So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ 27 And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ 30 But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. 31 So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. 32 Then summoning him, his lord *said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

ADD:

Acts 17:25-28 ”“
…………He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’

BranchinVINE,

I'm reposting a response I just gave from another thread on this thread in response to your concerns.

Oracio,

It would probably be better to say that we both have a view hopefully based on a sincere understanding of Scriptures. It isn't a view of God that should be separated from God's own declaration of Himself and nothing more or less.

God does get glory when both His mercy and His justice are displayed. So, there is glory in mercy to sinners and there is a kind of glory in the punishment of sinners. Revelation and the Psalms most clearly say that, not me. I'm sure you know the passages that say that explicitly and very clearly so I won't restate them here. that is just a Biblical fact. So, I'm hoping you believe that as well and your criticism is misunderstood on my part.

That is why the cross is such a glorious display of God. It is a consummation of God's love, mercy, grace, Holiness, justice all intersecting at the cross and in the person of Jesus. At the cross, God's love and mercy to sinful men are totally declared while at the same time
God's justice and holiness are vindicated because the sins He previously passed over are dealt with. You know that from Scripture too.

God loves the world and desires that all men repent and turn to Him and trust in His Son. Virtually all the people who share the views I've tried to express believe that. This thread has not been an attempt to deal with that. God's Spirit strives with the conscience of men in many varied ways to turn them back to Him. The Bible says that. This is the common grace of God reaching out to sinners. The conscience is God's gift to all men to steer them by the Spirit's striving.

The view I think I share with others much more spiritual than me is that God freely offers the Gospel in great love to many and whosoever wants to believe in Jesus may repent and believe and they shall be saved. In love, He additionally freely displays His glory in all that He has made and in all the blessings He bestows with the express intention that mankind would worship Him. The problem is man. He to a man refuses God's gracious outreaches and strivings. That is what Romans 1 says.

God is lovingly and mercifully gracious to mankind in a myriad of ways. HE gives families, food, rain, happiness of heart and health to men. He gives men life and doesn't destroy them at the first sin. He is patient and long suffering in the hopes that His kindness would turn men to repentance.

Here's the problem. Mankind rejects God's self declaration, His kindness, His mercy, His love. Every day. That rejection is man's fault. Not God's. If God sends a man to Hell it is to punish that man for His sins.

Does that rejection by man of God's manifold and daily grace stop God from having a people that would worship and praise Himself through Jesus which is the point of creation as I read Colossians 1, Absolutely not. God goes a step further. In spite of evil mankinds' rejection of God's daily goodness, God mercifully, graciously and in extravagant love saves some by overcoming their rebellion, unwillingness, hostility and sinful rejection by giving them new life and His Spirit.

So, God daily and in great love grants man opportunities daily to turn to Him. He sent His Son in great love to die for sin so that whosoever would turn to Him might have life. None want that offer because their hearts are evil and they desire the darkness. So, in spite of God's outreach in general revelation and in daily mercy and in the general offer of the Gospel which all are amazing acts of mercy and loving kindness, God also, then, mercifully secures a people for His glory who in spite of their rebellion, God makes them alive in His Son by effectively giving them new birth and changing their wants, desires, affections and wills so that they will desire Him and come to Him.

I don't know why He doesn't do that for all men. I don't know why He did that for me. However, as to all who don't receive that grace, they had previously received so much amazing grace in daily revelation, daily patience and long suffering, daily gifts of love and kindness, and the free loving offer of the Gospel. God cannot be indicted in any way for a lack of grace to all. God is unbelievably gracious in daily and glorious mercy and love to men. To suggest that going further and being merciful to an undeserving people that He chooses for Himself makes God look unloving is a very strange read and understanding of all that.

When God's grace in every man's life is revealed in that day, no one will fault God for not saving all. He daily reaches out to men and they in their sinful natures daily reject the lover of their souls. That is the great indictment. I think we will all one day be completely shocked by the exceeding sinfulness of sin and of sinful man. Right now we see a lot of God's grace in the life of men that restrains their true self. When the day of ultimate revelation comes, we will see clearly that God has been so very good and man has been very evil.

I think you know this is the position of those who share my view so I'm not sure why your gross recasting of the position is done.

It has now gotten to the point in the back and forth that people are angry at me so I'm bowing out. Just let me add that some of you guys really do mischaracterize and conflate the views of the sovereign grace believer. It is a shame that when we disagree that there is an attempt to demonize the opposition and then try to make their position irrelevant or heretical. There are some extremely Godly saints on whose shoulders your faith stands that share in substantial measure what I have shared. Recognizing that doesn't make you wrong, it just avoids you making them into believers and teachers in the doctrines of demons.

Brother Robert: There is nothing I can add to such an accurate portrayal of my own belief in the Love and grace of Jesus Christ and the sovereignty of our Lord.

It's my opinion you did a masterful job of displaying the salvation of man and the grace of God by means of God's own willing and purposing.

Thank you brother for also demonstrating a gracious and godly attitude toward your dissenters...an area that I obviously need to grow in.

Whenever people begin to actually think over these things, conflict and disagreements are necessary and to be foreseen as normative, it happens anytime a bible study goes beyond mere sentiments and shallow pleasantries.

God have mercy upon us all.

Thank you Marvin. I really appreciate the encouragement.

Hello Robert,

You said something that intrigued me and would like some more clarification.

Quote"
UntoBabes. The part I thought Mak would take interest in is the portion speaking of regeneration coming prior to faith.""Quote

I was wondering if you would further expound on the meaning of " Regeneration"

Just write a list of all that you think regeneration means?

Thanks

I don't have a list of what I think it means. I'll just give you what the Scriptures say:

1. A man who has a new heart made of flesh instead of stone (Ezekiel 36) described in Luke as a pure and noble heart and also a heart upon whom the law of God is written.
2. A man who has spiritual life and partakes of the divine nature.
3. A man who is a new creation.
4. A new Man
5. A man with a clean conscience
6. a spiritual man as opposed to a fleshly man or a natural man.
7. a cleansed temple within whom God by the Spirit dwells.
8. a man created after the likeness of God in holiness and righteousness.
9. a man in whom God's seed abides who practices righteousness, loves, cannot practice sin and who is continuously believing in the Son of God.
10. a man with a renewed mind and who has the mind of Christ.

Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more but that's a good start.

Hey, that's a pretty good list.

And are you saying that all this takes place before faith?

Fifi,

Regeneration is all that is necessary for a dead man be made alive in order to see and hear by the heart the beauty and majesty of Jesus. As I read the Scripture in John 3, Jesus said you cannot see or perceive the Kingdom of God ( Jesus as King ) unless you have been previously born from above. That's what Jesus said. Not my viewpoint. To be born again, appears by Scripture to require a new heart and spiritual life. To have the seed of the word take true root in the heart requires good soil or a pure and noble heart. A sanctification and washing by the water of the Word. Living faith requires that kind of good soil in order for the seed of the word to germinate and take root in. That is the simple and purposely simple teaching from the parable of the soils.

Jesus says that no one will repent and turn in faith in response to Jesus unless he is first born from above so that he can perceive Jesus as more than a good teacher and instead see Him as God, a beautiful savior, consider Him the greatest of treasures and the majestic King of Kings.

My list I'm hoping is a compendium of Scriptures describing all the ins and outs of a new heart and the infusion of spiritual life. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned and only the spiritual man understands them.

So, when the word is preached with the Spirit's power, life is created, a new heart is given, faith and repentance are fruits of that process and the Spirit is given for indwelling. All of that is salvation's beginning. Sanctification and glorification to follow.

I know you don't share in the viewpoint of the necessity of new life preceding the ability to see Jesus as He really is, but that is the Biblical basis for that view as best as I can describe it.

I sincerely don't think I'm interpreting anything but rather describing in slightly different words what the Scripture says. I can give a Scripture or Scriptures for every single sentence i wrote if I thought you didn't already know them or thought you genuinely wanted to learn this view.

I've now found that most people who comment here are very hardened in their positions and this isn't really a dialogue but rather, it is just a place to counter punch or bring out the knives. It saddens me really. There is little gentleness or love in much that is meant to pass as a debate of views. Lots of snarkiness and personal slashing of others that is sometimes thinly veiled and at other times is just outright slugging it out.

I find when people write long paragraphs instead of giving simple answers is because they are standing on unbiblical ground that they could not defend in simple language.

All I was looking for is a YES or NO. But you knew you couldn't do that. Instead, you went into motive interpretation, and character assassination mode..

What I see in Jesus encounter with Nicodemus is a confrontation of the man's long held belief that he is a child of God and an heir of the kingdom as long as he can trace his ancestory line to this tribe or that.

Jesus gives him a new revelation he couldn't grasp that being born from above by believing in him who came from above is the only way to enter the kingdom of God in contrast to his long held belief in genealogical Salvation.

This is a practical story and a live example that reinforces the teachings and new revelation of the whole Bible and especially the book of John summed up in the following verses

John 1 11-13
11 He came to His own( the Jews), and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him ( both Jew and gentile), to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood( ancestory) nor of the will of the flesh( human flesh) nor of the will of man( Abraham or any other ) but of God

You, in turn, put a spin of the word of God, take it out of it's simplicity, and interpret it in a way to serve your dearly held ideas and theological systems. You are no different from Nicodemus who desperately needs a revelation from heaven.

How hard it is to break the stronghold of long held belief systems.

Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Acts 16:30-31

When was the jailer born again- before or after he believed? Paul seemed
to think believing was a prerequisite.

Paul said this in Athens: "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
Acts 17:30-31

Isn’t it strange that God commands people everywhere to repent? Shouldn’t Paul have said: "If God gives you a new heart, He commands you to repent?” If that is what Paul meant, why did he not say it? And note he did not say that God commanded some people(ie those he has regenerated) to repent, he said God commands ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE to repent. Perhaps it’s because in Paul’s view repentance and belief leads to regeneration and not vice versa.

Actually Fifi, I wasn't talking about you. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I didn't think you wanted a simple yes or no about my opinion. Sorry about that too. I could easily do that. Yes, I believe regeneration precedes faith. Hope you'll forgive the appearance that I was referring to you. I was just indicating I'm reluctant to share more because of what seems to happen when you stick your head out of a hole.

Robert,

I hope you see how unorthodox your position is. For to say that a man can be made a new creation, given a new heart, become partaker of the divine nature and created after the likeness of God before Christ is offered to him in the gospel and he receiving the offer by faith is make Christ work and incarnation WITHOUT EFFECT.

If that is the case, then CHRIST HAS DIED IN VAIN.

It is a heresy and voidance of the cross of Christ.
It is the blood of Jesus that cleases the heart and temple. It is the spirit of Jesus that imparts the divine nature and new creation.And it is the body of Jesus that crucifies the flesh . AFTER he is received by faith can a man expect this change , not before.

Fifi. That’s not what I said. I said the word of Christ is preached and life comes through that word and faith comes forth. It all happens together through the Gospel of Jesus being preached.

And it isn’t an unorthodox position. Many of the greatest theologians, evangelist and church planters in the history of the church have held that view. As to whether it’s heresy, I’m not sure of your definition but to say that the Gospel has the power by the Spirit to give life doesn't take away the work of Jesus. The New Covenant in His blood purchased by Jesus forgiveness, a new heart, new spirit and the in dwelling of the Spirit.

No problem Robert. I know you believe that you have the truth and want to help others see it and I really appreciate your humility and attitude, but I think deep down maybe you think that people who hold other opinions are not coming from a place of intergrity of conscience. Maybe you think they just want to take the glory and credit for their salvation from God and to themselves. Just think about us as ones who would take the truth of the word as it is, and we can not see your position simply because we have done our studies, asked God for revelation and clarity and treated the word with most integrity and this is really what we see. I for myself am ready to take whatever the Lord gives and reveals. I do not have any inner motives to want the word to say something or the other. But I also CAN NOT violate my conscience. If I see the word teach a simple truth, my conscience does not allow me to go beyond that.

Blessings to you

Robert, you said:
Quote""
to say that the Gospel has the power by the Spirit to give life doesn't take away the work of Jesus. The New Covenant in His blood purchased by Jesus forgiveness, a new heart, new spirit and the in dwelling of the Spirit.""Quote

I agree but there is an order to the events in the salvation process.

Christ or the divine nature can not be imparted to man before Christ is offered and believed upon.

I found this quote in the book ( Religious Affections) by Jonathan Edwards. Here Edwards is quoting other men to explain that if the distress that is created by the revelation of man's sinfullness and the holiness of God and the impossibility of reconciling the two. If that distress is followed by assurance of being accepted in God's family without Christ first being offered in the gospel and believed upon. This assurance maybe safe to say is produced by Satan, not the Holy Spirit.

Here is the quote:

"""Mr. Stoddard in his Guide to Christ, p. 8, says, that "sometimes men, after they have been in trouble a while, have some promises come to them, with a great deal of refreshing; and they hope God has accepted them:" and says that, "In this case, the minister may tell them, that God never gives a faith of assurance, before he gives a faith of dependence; for he never manifests his love, until men are in a state of favor and reconciliation, which is by faith of dependence. When men have comfortable Scriptures come to them, they are apt to take them as tokens of God's love: but men must be brought into Christ, by accepting the offer of the gospel, before they are fit for such manifestations. God's method is first to make the soul accept of the offers of grace, and then to manifest his good estate unto him." And p. 76, speaking of them "that seem to be brought to lie at God's foot, and give an account of their closing with Christ, and that God has revealed Christ to them, and drawn their hearts to him, and they do accept of Christ," he says: "In this case, it is best
to examine whether by that light that was given him, he saw Christ and salvation offered to him, or whether he saw that God loved him, or pardoned him: for the offer of grace and our acceptance goes before pardon, and therefore, much more before the knowledge of it."
Mr. Shepard, in his Parable of the Ten Virgins, Part II. p. 15, says, that "Grace and the love of Christ (the fairest colors under the sun) may be pretended; but if you shall receive, under this appearance, that God witnesseth his love, first by an absolute promise, take heed there; for under this appearance you may as well bring in immediate revelations, and from thence come to forsake the Scriptures."
And in Part I. p. 86, he says, "Is Christ yours? Yes, I see it. How? By any word or promise? No; this is delusion." And p. 136, speaking of them that have no solid ground of peace, he reckons "those that content themselves with the revelation of the Lord's love without the sight of any work, or not looking to it." And says presently after, "The testimony of the Spirit does not make a man more a Christian, but only evidenceth it; as it is the nature of a witness not to make a thing to be true, but to clear and evidence it." And p. 140, speaking of them that say they have the witness of the spirit, that makes a difference between them and hypocrites, he says, "the witness of the Spirit makes not the first difference: for first a man is a believer, and in Christ, and justified, called and sanctified, before the spirit does witness it; else the spirit should witness to an untruth and
lie."

Thanks for putting that together Fifi. What would you say to this apparent sequence?

One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. - Acts 16:14

Also, in the parable of the soiils, the word of Jesus is thrown onto 4 soils or types of hearts. One is pure and noble. I take that to mean it is a necessary heart condition that receives the word.

Then there is the passage that says that we are washed and regenerated by the word itself.

Do you not think it reasonable to say that a new clean or pure heart produced by the word and the power of the Spirit is a precondition to that word taking root ?

1 Corinthians 2

4My speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith would not rest on human wisdom, but on the power of God.
6We speak wisdom, however, among those who are mature, but a wisdom not of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are passing away. 7But we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the wisdom that has been hidden, which God foreordained before the ages for our glory, 8which none of the rulers of this age has understood. For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9But as it is written, No eye has seen, and no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined the things which God has prepared for those who love him.

10But to us God revealed it through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For what person knows the things of a person except the spirit of the person that is in him? So also, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God. 13And we speak of these things, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.

14Now the natural person does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15But he who is spiritual discerns all things, and he himself is judged by no one. 16For "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Who will instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Lydia, The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. -

This is what's called divine revelation produced by annoited preaching. Remember, this was a time of revival and the pouring of the Holy Spirit. Lydia, probably a gentile, alienated from the covenant of promise, has no hope and without God in the world.
She would not have thought in her wildest dreams that the holy one of Israel would take any interest in her. The holy Spirit opened her eyes to understand what Paul was saying, God's invitation to her.

I think we make very little of divine revelation because very few have experienced it. Most Christians today have a decisional salvation. They just decided to follow Jesus, and be good and moral. They don't know the Jesus they are claiming to follow because there was no divine revelation of his person given to them.
I know for a fact that revelation is huge. A man ( or woman ) without spiritual revelation that brings eternity into view is a little more than a beast. He goes to his work dreaming of the evening to come so he can unwind watching a movie, or dreaming of the weekend, so he can finally do the things he really likes..No thought of eternity, or the after life whatsoever, but suddenly, something dawns upon his soul of the privity of life. Maybe an accident that brings things into the right prespective and suddenly everything changes. Now, he goes on a search for the meaning of life. But revelation is not salvation, revelation is the light of truth dawning upon the heart. Some men quinch that light while others welcome and embrace it which takes us to the parable of the soils..Notice that the sower And the word are unchanging factors, but the soil is what makes the difference. It was a reference to Israel and the prophecy " and hearing you will hear but not understand, their ears have become dull of hearing). It was given to a people who refused to listen to the exhortation " plow up your fallow ground and sow to yourselves in righteousness), a people who were given much light but Allowed the forces of darkness, cares and riches to snatch, choke the word..And so the word was given to someone like Lydia where it found furtile ground, whom God chose to save Not by works of righteousness which she had done, but according to his mercy he saved her, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

You are very right about divine revelation being so huge. When God shines the light of Jesus into a heart, transformation and life happen. I would dispute that everybody gets that divine revelation at some time but we can agree that Jesus revealed is critical. Thanks.

Real quick, I believe Lydia was already seeking the true God; it's probable she was already saved in a "pre-Christ" sense, like all other saved Jews and Gentiles prior to their hearing of Christ come in the flesh, crucified, resurrected and ascended. All they needed was more divine revelation concerning the Messiah/Christ having already come. Food for thought.

Guys, The Scripture about Lydia says her heart was opened so that she could understand the Gospel. That is the point I was trying to focus on. In spite of the fact that Lydia worshipped God, her heart had to be changed in some way so she had the ability to understand Paul’s preaching of Jesus. This should be a very curious point. Some heart work is required before someone can understand . Not understand that a man died on a crosss to forgive sins. That isn’t hard. It may seem like foolishness or it may be a stumbling block, but not hard to understand. The understanding required is spiritual in nature and must be spiritually discerned by spiritual wisdom.

In Luke 24 when Christ appeared to His disciples, we read that "He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures” (v.45).

They were already saved. They just needed further instruction by the Spirit.

In John 7:17 Jesus said, "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.”

If Lydia was already a worshipper of God and saved (which I lean heavily toward), it makes sense that she would readily receive the Spirit-inspired revelation and truth of Christ. The same could be said of others like Cornelius and Apollos. God was faithful to reveal Christ to them after they had a saving relationship with Him, a relationship based on a saving faith which they possesed in that type of "pre-Christ, transitional phase.”

I believe John 6:44-45 comes in to play here as well: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”

Christ is referring to those who were already sincerely seeking the true God and were being drawn by the Father to Him. They were open to the truth Christ proclaimed. The Pharisees were accusing Christ of being sent by the devil; they were saying His ministry was of Satan and not of the Father. Jesus essentially responded with, "You guys have it all wrong. All those that are sincerely following Me and My ministry are those that are open to the truth and are being drawn by the Father to Me.”

Hi Robert,

Did I say anything that is outside scripture?

Blessings.

Dear brothers,

Having read and considered the ideas presented in many of the posts regarding the topic of election, I am led to an impasse with what "to me" (admittedly) appears to be a necessary contradiction that I can not resolve. The impasse involves a logical necessity I am unable to reconcile, in the sense that to maintain the integrity of the argument that has been set forth, I would be forced to interpret certain passages in a way other than by the specific grammar with which they were originally written.

I want to set forth my own "impasse" so that someone here might possibly speak to it in a way that they have resolved that I have not considered.

Here is what I have ascertained regarding the views of election that I have read here on the forum. If I have misunderstood, or have erred in the attempt to express this view, I welcome anyone's help. Here is what I "think" has been expressed by others who hold to the view of election that has created the impasse for myself:

God does not grant saving grace to all men, but limits saving grace to the predestined, foreknown, elect. Because of being dead in trespass and sin, no man is able to respond to the hearing of the gospel with saving faith unless God has chosen to quicken that man to life so as to enable him to believe unto eternal life. This quickening unto life and gift of repentance and faith is limited to the elect alone. God is not unjust to limit saving grace to the elect in order to preserve an elect remnant people to Himself, because all men are deserving of condemnation; therefore God is not unjust to elect a people to Himself for His own sovereign purpose. No man can call into question God's sovereign prerogative to preserve a remnant by election. Only the elect will be saved, because they are the only ones God enables to be saved.

This is what I have understood from the views I have read here on this forum. This understanding, (if I have correctly ascertained it) is what I carry with me to certain passages wherein I come to an impasse because I am unable to reconcile its logical necessity with the specific grammar chosen by the New Testament writer. I want to present one such impasse for you to consider with me.

Romans 5:18-19 (translated from the Koine Greek)

"So therefore, as through one trespass unto all men unto condemnation in similar manner also through one righteous act unto all men unto justification of life. For in the exact same manner through the hearing aside (disobedience) of the one man the many were constituted sinners, also in the same way through the hearing under (obedience) of the one man the many will be constituted righteous."

This is the literal interpretation from the Greek syntax and grammar. Here is the impasse I face when attempting to reconcile the views of election I have read here on the forum; that view of necessity forces specific grammar Paul used in this passage to be interpreted in a manner I am unable to do without violating my conscience.

Here is the same passage with the forced interpretation that the view of election necessitates: I have capitalized the changes for easy identification, not to force my own biased emphasis.

"So therefore, as through one trespass unto all men unto condemnation in similar manner also through one righteous act unto THE ELECT unto justification of life. For in the exact same manner through the hearing aside (disobedience) of the one man the many were constituted sinners, also in the same way through the hearing under (obedience) of the one man THE ELECT will be constituted righteous."

The impasse is that I can not interpret οἱ πολλοί "the many" to be "the elect". There is too great a contradiction with the grammar he chose to justify such an interpretation. Interpreting "the many" to be "the elect" removes the grammatical similarity "the many" is intended to present.

Similarly in verse 18, I can not interpret "πάντας ἀνθρώπους" (all men) to mean "the elect". I am simply unable to reconcile so great a literary alteration in order to align the grammar used with the understanding necessitated by the concept of election presented on this forum. Again, interpreting "all men" to mean "the elect" alters the specific grammatical comparison to give it an all together different meaning.

Perhaps those who have expressed the views of election have worked through this particular passage in a way that I have not yet considered. I hope that by this post, my own conflict with the views of election that I have read here may be explained, so that it may become clear that my reluctance does not come from some psychological human sympathy, rather a conscientious difficulty that arises from respect to reconcile every thought to God's specific revelation in scripture.

mak

In terms of human inability and responsibility on the one hand, and God’s saving grace in salvation on the other, I like what Matthew Henry wrote about it in his Bible commentary.

In reference to the paralytic in John 5:6-9, Henry wrote:

"a strange command to be given to an impotent man, that had been long disabled; but this divine word was to be the vehicle of a divine power; it was a command to the disease to be gone, to nature to be strong, but it is expressed as a command to him to bestir himself. He must rise and walk, that is, attempt to do it, and in the essay he should receive strength to do it. The conversion of a sinner is the cure of a chronic disease; this is ordinarily done by the word, a word of command: Arise, and walk; turn, and live; make ye a new heart; which no more supposes a power in us to do it, without the grace of God, distinguishing grace, than this supposed such a power in the impotent man. But, if he had not attempted to help himself, he had not been cured, and he must have borne the blame; yet it does not therefore follow that, when he did rise and walk, it was by his own strength; no, it was by the power of Christ, and he must have all the glory…Christ did that for us which the law could not do, and set that aside.”

And in reference to the man with a withered hand in Matthew 12:9-14, Henry wrote:

"This, as other cures Christ wrought, had a spiritual significance. (1.) By nature our hands are withered, we are utterly unable of ourselves to do anything that is good. (2.) It is Christ only, by the power of his grace, that cures us; he heals the withered hand by putting life into the dead soul, works in us both to will and to do. (3.) In order to our cure, he commands us to stretch forth our hands, to improve our natural powers, and do as well as we can; to stretch them out in prayer to God, to stretch them out to lay hold on Christ by faith, to stretch them out in holy endeavors. Now this man could not stretch forth his withered hand of himself, any more than the impotent man could arise and carry his bed, or Lazarus come forth out of his grave; yet Christ bid him do it. God's commands to us to do the duty which of ourselves we are not able to do are no more absurd or unjust, than this command to the man with the withered hand, to stretch it forth; for with the command, there is a promise of grace which is given by the word. Turn ye at my reproof, and I will pour out my Spirit, Prov. 1:23. Those who perish are as inexcusable as this man would have been, if he had not attempted to stretch forth his hand, and so had not been healed. But those who are saved have no more to boast of than this man had of contributing to his own cure, by stretching forth his hand, but are as much indebted to the power and grace of Christ as he was.”

Matthew Henry was a Presbyterian minister and Bible commentator whom reformed brethren claim as one of their own, and I think with good reason, considering that he seems to support many traditional reformed perspectives throughout his writings. But I’ve found it interesting to note that in some places in his writings, such as the above, he seems to support a concept of free will which disagrees with the reformed view on it. He seems to have a certain type of healthy balance when it comes to this issue. I'm thinking that may be one reason both reformed and non-reformed Christians have loved and consulted his Bible commentary throughout the years.

Reading Mak and Oracio, and Fifi this morning makes my heart rejoice.

Their honest and straightforward questions are the same questions thousands of others have or have had.

The answers of the reformed here may suffice, they may not but what I rejoice in are men and women here who really love Jesus Christ and want to know the truth of God's word and they are bold enough to put their thoughts and understandings on the table to be scrutinized by all.

I believe that is precious in the sight of God and its my privilege to be among men and women like this.

Now, if everyone believed like me...the world would be absurd.

Westminster Shorter Catechism Project

A Scripture Catechism in the Method of the Assembly's by Matthew Henry

Q. 31. What is effectual calling?

A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he does persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.

1. Is the common call given to the world? Yes: he sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden, Matt. 22:3. Can ministers make that call effectual? No: for who hath believed our report, Isa. 53:1. Is it the work of God to make it effectual? Yes: for it is God that giveth the increase, 1 Cor. 3:7. Does he do it in a way suitable to our nature? Yes: I drew them with cords of a man, Hos. 11:4. Is it necessary to our salvation that the call should be effectual? Yes: who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, 2 Tim. 1:9.

2. Are all who are effectually called convinced of sin? Yes: I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, Rom. 7:9. Is it the Spirit's work to convince? Yes: when he is come he will convince the world of sin, John 16:8. Is the word the ordinary means of conviction? Yes: for by the law is the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3:20. Is it necessary we should be convinced of sin? Yes: for they that are whole need not a physician, Matt. 9:12. Must we be convinced of the fact of sin? Yes: These things thou hast done, Ps. 50:21. And of the fault of sin? Yes: Know therefore, and see, that it is an evil thing, Jer. 2:19. And of the folly of sin? Yes: Herein thou hast done foolishly, 2 Chron. 16:9. And of the filth of sin? Yes: For how canst thou say, I am not polluted? Jer. 2:23. And of the fruit of sin? Yes: Your sins have separated between you and your God, Isa. 59:1, 2. And of the fountain of sin? Yes: They shall know every man the plague of his own heart, 1 Kings 8:38.

3. Must we also be convinced of our misery? Yes: Thou art wretched and miserable, Rev. 3:17. And of our danger? Yes: Flee from the wrath to come, Matt. 3:7. Must we be convinced of our helplessness in ourselves? Yes: when sin revived I died, Rom. 7:9. And of the possibility of our being helped by the grace of God? Yes: How many hired servants of my father have bread enough, and to spare! Luke 15:17. Will these convictions put us in pain? Yes: When they heard this, they were pricked to the heart, Acts 2:37. And bring us to be at a loss within ourselves? Yes: Men and brethren, what shall we do? Acts 2:37. And put us upon inquiry? Yes: They shall ask the way to Sion with their faces thitherward, Jer. 1. 5. Are these convictions necessary to prepare us for an invitation to Christ? Yes: Come unto me all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, Matt. 11:28.

4. Does the Spirit, when he has convinced us of sin and misery, leave us so? No: for he has torn, and he will heal us, Hos. 6:1. When he has showed us our wound, does he show us our remedy? Yes: O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is thy help, Hos. 13:9. Does he enlighten our minds? Yes: the Spirit of wisdom and revelation is given, that the eyes of our understanding may be enlightened, Eph. 1:17, 18. Does he enlighten them with the knowledge of Christ? Yes: he gives the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. 4: 6. Does he discover to the soul Christ's ability to save? Yes: I have laid help upon one that is mighty, Ps. 89:19. And his willingness to save? Yes: I will, be thou clean, Matt. 8:3. Should we be most ambitious of the knowledge of Christ? Yes: counting all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord, Phil. 3:8. Does the Spirit direct convinced sinners to Christ? Yes: Turn ye to the B hold, ye prisoners of hope, Zech. 9:12.

5. Is it enough to have the mind enlightened? No: for we are called into a professed subjection to the gospel of Christ, 2 Cor. 9:13. Must the will therefore be renewed ? Yes: for it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure, Phil. 2:13. Is it the work of the Spirit to incline the will to do that which is good ? Yes: Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, Ps. 119:36. And is that the renewing of the will? Yes: A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, Ezek. 36:26. Does that make the will pliable? Yes: I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh, Ezek. 11:19. Does it bring it into subjection to the will of God? Yes: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? Acts 9:6. And is that a cheerful subjection? Yes: because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Rom. 5:5.

6. Is Christ offered to us in the gospel? Yes: Behold, I stand at the door and knock, Rev. 3:20. Is he freely offered? Yes: Come buy, without money, and without price, Isa. 55:1. Are we concerned to embrace that offer? Yes: Come eat of my bread, and drink of the wine that I have mingled, Prov. 9:5. Are we by nature averse to it? Yes: Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life, John 5:40. Do sinners perish then through their own wilfulness? Yes: I have called, and ye have refused, Prov. 1:24. Does the Spirit in effectual calling overcome this aversion? Yes: With loving kindness have I drawn thee, Jer. 31: 3. Does he persuade us to embrace this offer? Yes: For every man that hath heard, and learned of the Father, cometh unto me, John 6:45. Does he enable us? Yes: For you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins, Eph. 2:1.

7. Can we turn to God by any power of our own? No: for we are not sufficient of ourselves, 2 Cor. 3:5. Is it the grace of God that turns us to him? Yes: Turn thou me, and I shall be turned, Jer. 31:18. Is it free grace? Yes: He went on frowardly in the way of his heart, I have seen his ways and will heal him, Isa. 57:17, 18. Does it turn us by a work upon the will? Yes: The Lord opened the heart of Lydia, Acts 16:14. Is it special grace? Yes: It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, Rom. 9:16. Shall this grace be given to all the elect? Yes: All that the Father hath given me shall come unto me, John 6:37. Shall it be effectual? Yes: His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain, 1 Cor. 15:10. May we. in faith pray for this grace? Yes: I will for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, Ezek. 36:37. Can any turn to God without this special grace? No: for no man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him, John 6:44. Must that grace therefore have all the glory? Yes: we must show forth the praises of him that hath called us, 1 Pet. 2: 9.

Hi savannah, I didn't read anything in what you shared that would necessarily conflict with the concept of free will some of us hold to.

Here is another portion from Henry's commentary, it's on Proverbs 1:23 (and again, there are more portions from his commentary that seem to support this concept of free will):

"The promises are very encouraging. Those that love simplicity find themselves under a moral impotency to change their own mind and way. They cannot turn by any power of their own. To this God answers, "Behold, I will pour out my Spirit unto you. Set yourselves to do what you can, and the grace of God shall set in with you, and work in you both to will and to do that good which, without that grace, you could not do." Help thyself, and God will help thee; stretch forth thy withered hand, and Christ will strengthen and heal it. [1.] The author of this grace is the Spirit, and that is promised: I will pour out my Spirit unto you, as oil, as water you shall have the Spirit in abundance, rivers of living water, John 7:38. Our heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to those that ask him. [2.] The means of this grace is the word, which, if we take it aright, will turn us; it is therefore promised, "I will make known my words unto you, not only speak them to you, but make them known, give you to understand them." Note, Special grace is necessary to a sincere conversion. But that grace shall never be denied to any that honestly seek it and submit to it."

My understanding of regeneration with respect to man's will is not that different than the Calvinists' except that I would describe God's working on man's heart, mind and will preceding coming to faith and regeneration as having the quality of "wooing", convincing and persuading man and not some mechanical flipping a switch by God.

I am not Pelagianist. In salvation God takes the initiative. A person must receive conviction and enlightenment by the Holy Spirit of their need and of Jesus who is the answer to that need. But God does not believe or surrender for us. We must consent to submit and surrender to the Lordship of Christ and true regeneration only happens after God prepares a soul's heart by His Holy Spirit first. God gets all the credit for saving us. Even our surrender and consent would have never happened without God first reaching out to us in love and opening our blinded eyes to the truth of the gospel.

Savannah: excellent insertion of Henry's catechism it's right that his thoughts are depicted with the background of his own foundations. Otherwise we make authors say what they do not say (Im not accusing Oracio of that) but it's nice to get the broader scope of Henry's wonderful insight into his own doctrines.

Oracio alluded to something common among the puritans of the time. I wonder if we may have forgotten this in our own day?

The puritans/reformers encouraged unbelievers/sinners to engage in works and duties that put them where grace was available. To attend the preaching of the word, to inquire in believers households, to pray for God to open their minds and hearts and give grace, to show them what they must do to be saved etc.
You might also notice Jonathan Edwards encouraging towards moral action despite their sinful condition (saved or unsaved) as it is always right for everyman to honor God in all moral actions and thoughts. Though these do not equate to a man' salvation, they were encouraged as a 'means' of obtaining grace.
For some this raises red-flags in that the reformed are backtracking on their solas by grace alone, through faith alone etc. For them, what I understand was to encourage the sinner to expose himself to preaching, to prayer, to the Holy Spirit and to seeking God for mercy.
Though none if it salvic in and of itself, they were not shy at all to put mens' 'will-to-save-themselves' to work with the understanding they were seeking God's bestowal of grace and forgiveness.
This is how conversions were to be gained in those centuries. Our altar calls and 'going forward' are recent methodologies.

It maybe that some of us have misunderstandings of how the puritans/reformers understood conversion to take place.
I cannot think of one of them that ever advocated 'waiting for God to change my mind' so I'll just live like the devil in the mean time. Finney characterized the reformed as guilty as of that and taught such. But, obedience to God, whether saved or unsaved is required of all men. God's demands upon men do not change because others have received grace and some have not. Either way God deserves the obedience he has commanded.
You find that saving grace is the answer to 'loving God' as God commands so that love and obedience are then united in the heart and with that a new man is created by God.

In our modern times this is how Paul Washer teaches regarding conversions. This is why he is so adamant against the 'sinners prayer' because in a very real way the heart/mind/will of man is left out of the equation, where all that need be done is recite a prayer and the Judge of the Universe is placated satisfactorily.

If you brothers can find and share an explicit statement of Henry's wherein he denies the type of "pre-conversion" free will choice I suggest he seems to support, I'd really appreciate it. Until then I believe he leaves room for both unwillingness (free will) and inability when it comes to man's rejection of the gospel.

Romans 8

There is, therefore, a certain number predestinated, that the end of Christ’s undertaking might be infallibly secured. Had the event been left at uncertainties in the divine counsels, to depend upon the contingent turn of man’s will, Christ might have been the first-born among but few or no brethren-a captain without soldiers and a prince without subjects-to prevent which, and to secure to him many brethren, the decree is absolute, the thing ascertained, that he might be sure to see his seed, there is a remnant predestinated to be conformed to his image, which decree will certainly have its accomplishment in the holiness and happiness of that chosen race; and so, in spite of all the opposition of the powers of darkness, Christ will be the first-born among many, very many brethren.II. Whom he did predestinate those he also called, not only with the external call (so many are called that were not chosen, Mt. 20:16 Mt. 22:14 ), but with the internal and effectual call. The former comes to the ear only, but this to the heart. All that God did from eternity predestinate to grace and glory he does, in the fulness of time, effectually call. The call is then effectual when we come at the call; and we then come at the call when the Spirit draws us, convinces the conscience of guilt and wrath, enlightens the understanding, bows the will, persuades and enables us to embrace Christ in the promises, makes us willing in the day of his power. It is an effectual call from self and earth to God, and Christ, and heaven, as our end-from sin and vanity to grace, and holiness, and seriousness as our way. This is the gospel call. Them he called, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand: we are called to that to which we were chosen. So that the only way to make our election sure is to make sure our calling, 2 Pt. 1:10 .III. Whom he called those he also justified. All that are effectually called are justified, absolved from guilt, and accepted as righteous through Jesus Christ. They are recti in curia””right in court; no sin that ever they have been guilty of shall come against them, to condemn them. The book is crossed, the bond cancelled, the judgment vacated, the attainder reversed; and they are no longer dealt with as criminals, but owned and loved as friends and favourites. Blessed is the man whose iniquity is thus forgiven. None are thus justified but those that are effectually called. Those that stand it out against the gospel call abide under guilt and wrath.IV. Whom he justified those he also glorified. The power of corruption being broken in effectual calling, and the guilt of sin removed in justification, all that which hinders is taken out of the way, and nothing can come between that soul and glory. Observe, It is spoken of as a thing done: He glorified, because of the certainty of it; he hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling. In the eternal glorification of all the elect, God’s design of love has its full accomplishment. This was what he aimed at all along-to bring them to heaven. Nothing less than that glory would make up the fulness of his covenant relation to them as God; and therefore, in all he does for them, and in them, he has this in his eye. Are they chosen? It is to salvation. Called? It is to his kingdom and glory. Begotten again? It is to an inheritance incorruptible. Afflicted: It is to work for them this exceeding and eternal weight of glory. Observe, The author of all these is the same. It is God himself that predestinated, calleth, justifieth, glorifieth; so the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange God with him. Created wills are so very fickle, and created powers so very feeble, that, if any of these did depend upon the creature, the whole would shake. But God himself hath undertaken the doing of it from first to last, that we might abide in a constant dependence upon him and subjection to him, and ascribe all the praise to him-that every crown may be cast before the throne. This is a mighty encouragement to our faith and hope; for, as for God, his way, his work, is perfect.
Matthew Henry

Hi savannah, sorry, I should gave qualified my inquiry. I forgot that the MH commentary is only up to Acts purely by Henry. The rest was put together partially from Henry's notes and partially by some who succeeded Henry after his death.

John 6

The reason why they did not believe his report was because the arm of the Lord was not revealed to them (v. 65): Therefore said I unto you that no man can come to me, except it be given unto him of my Father; referring to v. 44. Christ therefore could not but know who believed and who did not, because faith is the gift and work of God, and all his Father’s gifts and works could not but be known to him, for they all passed through his hands.

There he had said that none could come to him, except the Father draw him; here he saith, except it be given him of my Father, which shows that God draws souls by giving them grace and strength, and a heart to come, without which, such is the moral impotency of man, in his fallen state, that he cannot come.

Jesus Christ is of God in a peculiar manner, God of God, light of light; not only sent of God, but begotten of God before all worlds. It is the prerogative of Christ to have seen the Father,perfectly to know him and his counsels. Even that illumination which is preparative to faith is conveyed to us through Christ. Those that learn of the Father, forasmuch as they cannot see him themselves, must learn of Christ, who alone hath seen him. As all divine discoveries are made through Christ, so through him all divine powers are exerted.

Their wills shall be bowed. If the soul of man had now its original rectitude there needed no more to influence the will than the illumination of the understanding; but in the depraved soul of fallen man there is a rebellion of the will against the right dictates of the understanding; a carnal mind, which is enmity itself to the divine light and law. It is therefore requisite that there be a work of grace wrought upon the will, which is here called drawing, (v. 44): No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. The Jews murmured at the doctrine of Christ; not only would not receive it themselves, but were angry that others did. Christ overheard their secret whisperings, and said (v. 43), "Murmur not among yourselves; lay not the fault of your dislike of my doctrine one upon another, as if it were because you find it generally distasted; no, it is owing to yourselves, and your own corrupt dispositions, which are such as amount to a moral impotency; your antipathies to the truths of God, and prejudices against them, are so strong that nothing less than a divine power can conquer them.’’

And this is the case of all mankind: "No man can come to me, can persuade himself to come up to the terms of the gospel, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him,’’ v. 44. Observe, (a. ) The nature of the work: It isdrawing, which denotes not a force put upon the will, whereby of unwilling we are made willing, and a new bias is given to the soul, by which it inclines to God. This seems to be more than a moral suasion, for by that it is in the power to draw; yet it is not to be called a physical impulse, for it lies out of the road of nature; but he that formed the spirit of man within him by his creating power, and fashions the hearts of men by his providential influence, knows how to new-mould the soul, and to alter its bent and temper, and make it conformable to himself and his own will, without doing any wrong to its natural liberty.

It is such a drawing as works not only a compliance, but a cheerful compliance, a complacency: Draw us, and we will run after thee. (b. ) The necessity of it: No man, in this weak and helpless state, can come to Christ without it. As we cannot do any natural action without the concurrence of common providence, so we cannot do any action morally good without the influence of special grace, in which the new manlives, and moves, and has its being, as much as themere man has in the divine providence.

(c. ) The author of it: The Father who hath sent me. The Father, having sent Christ, will succeed him, for he would not send him on a fruitless errand. Christ having undertaken to bring souls to glory, God promised him, in order thereunto, to bring them to him, and so to give him possession of those to whom he had given him a right. Matthew Henry

Thanks savannah. Interesting stuff to consider. Cant comment too much right now. He does say the will is not forcefully made willing though. May comment more later if I have time.

"He does say the will is not forcefully made willing though."

I don't know any who'd say, the will is forcefully made willing.

Could you please furnish me with one who does say that?

The word "forcefully" is not used by any I've ever come across.

That kind of language gives me a picture in my mind of several police officers subduing a criminal by tasing him to get him to comply so that they can place handcuffs on him and take him into custody.

None I know paint any such picture of the miraculous divine grace of God bringing a man to Himself who had previously been an obstinate rebel and enemy of God.

As a Presbyterian Minister he'd have adopted and adhered to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Which states in chapter 9,

Of Free Will

I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin,is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he frees him from his natural bondage under sin;and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.

Hi savannah, what I meant by "forcefully" is "apart from, or without one's consent."

I've used this example before: Imagine a man slipping a drug in a smoothie he made for his wife; the drug will make the wife change from hating him and wanting to leave him for another man to loving him more than ever. Imagine the wife being reluctant to drink the smoothie at first but finally giving in to her husband's persuasion. The wife then changes from hating him to loving him, but not by consent, but rather "forcefully."

Again, it seems Henry allows for a sinner's willing consent when it comes to the general gospel call. He asserts in the passages I shared that if sinners do their part in response to God's call (as small a part as it may be in their undeserving, wretched condition), God'd grace will set in and radically convert them and work in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure. Henry does not say that God may or may not respond in favor toward sinners who use their "natural" abilities to respond to Him and seek Him; he affirms that God will certainly respond in favor toward sinners if they humbly respond to Him.

Hi Marvin, you wrote:

Reading Mak and Oracio, and Fifi this morning makes my heart rejoice.

Their honest and straightforward questions are the same questions thousands of others have or have had.

The answers of the reformed here may suffice, they may not but what I rejoice in are men and women here who really love Jesus Christ and want to know the truth of God's word and they are bold enough to put their thoughts and understandings on the table to be scrutinized by all.

I believe that is precious in the sight of God and its my privilege to be among men and women like this.

Now, if everyone believed like me...the world would be absurd.

Thanks brother, I appreciate your reconciliatory heart and encouragement!

Here is another example where I have attempted to reconcile the concept of election presented on this forum with the Paul's own expression.

The understanding of election presented here on the forum is that saving grace is only given specifically to the elect. Men can not respond to the gospel without God's quickening them to life first, and He only quickens His elect.

Here is another verse in Romans 5:15 where the concept of grace being limited to the elect appears to me to be irreconcilable with the actual text. Once again, I am willing to consider how some here who have presented their views of election have reconciled this verse in their own mind. I invite the brothers here to share with me your own personal understanding; it is your thoughts I am interested in, rather than a third party's.

Romans 5:15 - "But not as the trespass so also the grace; for if from the one trespass the many died, to many more the grace of God and the gift by grace by the one man Jesus Christ unto the many abounded."

Paul uses specific personal pronouns to compare the extent of the trespass to the extent of the grace and the gift of grace. In his comparison, the extent of grace is not only specifically designated by "to many more" but he adds the exclamation of "abounded" to further his point.

Those who believe that the gift of grace is only given to the elect, by logical necessity must limit the extent of grace to a lesser extent than the extent of the trespass. There is not a man on earth where the trespass has not reached. How am I to understand that "the grace and the gift of grace" reaches to "many more" than the trespass has reached according to the view that saving grace is only given to the elect - which are a mere remnant in comparison?

I am still very interested in considering the personal understanding of those who have presented their views of election here on the forum regarding Romans 5:18-19 which contain the same grammatical construct of extent and effect as Romans 5:15.

Please help me understand why Paul would use such specific language when you believe he understood that God does not offer saving grace to everyone affected by Adam's trespass?

mak

Hi Mak,

With regard to "the many" of Romans 5:15, we know that all men die through Adam, is it your reasoning that Paul is stating that because of Jesus, the grace unto salvation has been given to all men as in every single man? I'm trying to figure out through the text and your question who "the many" are in the two references in the text and what the "grace" is that the text as you are seeing it refers to.

Also, remind me please if you would, does the Greek say "the many" or is it rendered also "many" ? The translations vary.

Thank you for your question Robert,

The definite article οἱ πολλοὶ is used both times. This means that Paul has "the same many" in mind both times.

The text is clear that Paul has the same "many" in mind, so the question is what does Paul mean by indicating that the "grace" and "the gift of grace" BY the one man Jesus Christ abounded "to the many"?

What do you understand Paul meant by "the grace" and "the gift of grace?"

What type of "grace" and "gift of grace" abounds to the "same" many that death came to because of the trespass?

mak

Added: the same question regarding verses 18 and 19 apply. The same group "all men" that condemnation came to, Paul states that "justification unto life" came to.

What type of "justification of life" came to "all men" that condemnation had come to?

Thanks Mak, I know you definitely aren't arguing for this, but universalist say that the grace in the context of the passage is a grace unto justification of life so that when Paul uses the many in the second reference in the text he is saying that all receive justification unto life ( grace ) through Christ.

Here is something I found on line about how to interpret "the many" and whether it does or should in every case refer to all. Let me know your thoughts.

The Uses

All four instances of the adjective πολύς in v.15 and 19 that are used substantively to refer to "the many" people are articular masculine plural forms, three being nominative case (οἱ πολλοὶ), with the second articular version in v.15 an accusative case (τοὺς πολλοὺς) as the object of the preposition εἰς ("to").

Two instances of the anarthrous dative singular neuter are found in v.15 and v.17 as part of the comparison constructions there (πολλῷ μᾶλλον; "much more"), working as adjectives adding the descriptive emphasis of "much" to μᾶλλον's "more."

A final instance in v.17 is an anarthrous πολλῶν μᾶλλον (genitive plural; neuter here, since it is paired with the neuter noun παραπτωμάτων, "trespasses"). It is functioning to describe the extent of the trespasses.

Two Significant Points
First, the articular versions are all being used to contrast a group of people with the "one" (εἷς is found in the genitive singular ἑνὸς, "of one," a total of 12 times, 11 of those in v.15-19 and once back in v.12). The "one" man, whether Adam or Christ, or that man's "one" particular work, trespass or righteous act (v.18; referring back to Christ's death noted in v.6, 8, 10) are being referenced by each use.

Second, the articular versions are specifically being used where they are in juxtaposition to the references to "all" (πάντας, accusative plural of πᾶς; v.12, 18 [x2]). That is, none of the "many" are equal to "all."

Discussion of Your Specific Points
"The many" is an indistinct way of referring to a group. The Greek's would easily pick up, as we do in English, the contrast of one to many. But the term allows for a flexibility of addressing a number between "one" and "all" without being too specific, nor necessarily having one reference of "the many" be of equal numerical value to another reference of "the many."

The first "the many" of v.15 does not, in fact, mean "all," for two reasons. First, there is One in particular, Jesus Christ, who did not die "through" or "by" one man's trespass, but rather because He chose to die (cf. Jn 10:15-18). Second, the verb is aorist indicative (past tense), so the reference, strictly speaking, is to those who have indeed physically died already (such as v.14 emphasized, but not limited to just that group). The "much more" that follows is not a mathematical reference of a greater number of "the many," but a greater effect that occurs by the action of Christ versus Adam.

The references to "the many" are not tied to specific previous groups in v.15. Again, it is indistinct. However, the second reference in v.19 does tie back to v.17, where one must receive grace and the gift of righteousness (the latter only coming by faith, so Romans 4) in order to be included as one of "the many" who "will be made righteous" in v.19.

So here is how it works out that Christ's effect is "much more" than Adam's:

Adam sinned, so the penalty of death is upon all men (v.12), and many have already died because of it (v.15), and all but Christ were made sinners (v.19; Christ was made to be sin for us, but was not made a sinner [2 Cor 5:21; cf. Rom 8:3; 1 Jn 3:5]).

Christ incarnated in order to die (Heb 2:14), to partake of the penalty of mankind (1 Pet 3:18), and was obedient to the death of the cross (Phil 2:8). In v.15 it outlines this payment was an expression of the grace of God, which v.18 clarifies had an effect upon all men (just as Adam's affected all men) by giving justification for life, that is justification for all men to be resurrected from the penalty of death. So at this point, Christ's work equals Adam's work in effect, as all people will be resurrected (cf. Jn 5:29; Acts 24:15). But His work also opened the door for a further gift by grace (v.15), the gift of righteousness (v.17), given to many men (v.19), that is, those that would believe. So Christ's work becomes "much more" in its effects than Adam's, because it also brings righteousness to believers, and ultimately for them, reigning in the resurrected life (v.17) eternally (v.21).

For a more detailed discussion of this passage arguing these points and more, see pages 288-321 of "Pananastasism””A Penal Substitutionary Model of a Definite Universal Atonement" (Ph.D. Diss.; Piedmont International University, 2015).

Conclusion
"The many" allows an indistinct number between the "one" and the "all" found elsewhere in verses 12-19. The "much more" does not expand the number of people, but rather the greater effect (both reversing and improving) by the work of the "one" man Christ over the "one" man Adam.

Mak, to answer your question back to me, I think "grace" in this passage of Romans 5:15-17 refers to "the gift" which further on in the passage refers to "the gift of righteousness". Thus, if "the many" in the second part of Romans 5:15 refers to "all", then by equivalence, "all receive the grace of "righteousness" through Christ.

So, we can I think conclude a couple of things.
First, we could say "the many" means every single man which then means every single man receives the gift or grace of righteousness. I don't think that is what it means of course and I know you don't either.

Second, we could conclude that "the many" does not mean all but is a reference to a group so that those in Adam die which is in fact all, but those who are in Christ receive the gift ( not potentially but as the text says actually ) which is many and of course is all for those who are in Christ.

Third, we could conclude that the many is all in both instances but whereas in Adam all actually die, but the second reference is that all receive the "potential" of the gift of righteousness. I don't think this is the right conclusion though because the text speaks of "the many" actually and in fact receiving the gift of righteousness.

I don't know if any of that is helpful to the discussion much less right. Hopefully so though.

Thank you Robert for granting me the benefit of not being a universalist, for I am definitely not advocating that.

I agree with the conclusion. Paul is comparing the dynamic effect of Christ's grace to the effect of sin. There is no doubt he was saying that the same group has encountered both. The grace of Christ abounded to the same "many" with greater power than the affect of Adam's transgression. The grace BY the one Man - the Last Adam - super abounds beyond the affect of the first man.

Please, in your own words, attempt to explain what you believe Paul meant by this.

mak

Hi Mak, I read the author of the piece I posted to be saying that the grace of righteousness is given to those who believe, "all men" in that group and not to all men generally as you seem to conclude from the article. Am I not reading him and you correctly?

Thanks Robert,

I agree, verse 17, is the key. The grace of God and the gift of righteousness is given by the one man Jesus Christ to all.

verse 17 "for if by the trespass of the one man death reigned through the one man, much more those the abundance of grace and gift of righteousness receiving will reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ."

"receiving" is λαμβάνοντες - a present active participle which Paul uses to designate those who will reign in life.

This is in perfect agreement with John - "to those who receive Him, to them He gave the authority to become sons of God."

This is why Paul goes on in Romans to explain why the Jews stumbled, although not beyond recovery. They stumbled because they did not know the righteousness of God which is by faith. Their stumbling opened the door of opportunity to the Gentiles, those whom God had said are "not My people".

Those who were "not His people" become His people by faith through the grace of the one man Jesus Christ. And the Jews who were broken off because of unbelief, if they do not persist in the same unbelief can be grafted into Christ again - through faith.

Romans is a letter about the righteousness of faith from first to last.

The grace of God and the gift of grace (righteousness) is through the One man Jesus Christ unto all who believe.

mak

Are we agreeing that " the many" in the second reference of the text is then "all" those who believe? And therefore, all those who believe and only those who believe are the the ones Paul is referring to in Romans 5:15 as those who receive the grace? If that is the agreement, then we should be able to reconcile Romans 5:15 with election. Election applies only to those who believe and the meaning of grace of righteousness lead us to conclude that that grace only applies in this text to those who believe. It would be the same group.

We are narrowing the difference towards the key distinction.

Paul states that the same grace and the gift of grace comes to the same all that died. That all is extensive, you and I and everyman were dead in trespass and sin because when sin entered the world and death through sin, death passed unto all of us because we all sinned.

It is to THIS GROUP, THIS ALL, that grace and the gift of grace has come. We can not change the reference here to "all who believe" - not yet. Paul is saying that grace and the gift of grace came to ALL WHO DIED.

Here Paul is consistent. "For I am convinced that one died FOR ALL, therefore ALL DIED."

The writer of Hebrews affirms this as well - "we see Jesus who because of the suffering of death having been crowned with glory and honor, so that by grace of God He might taste death in behalf of everyone."

Here is Bible Hub's explanation of the pronoun

3956 pás ”“ each, every; each "part(s) of a totality" (L & N, 1, 59.24).
3956 /pás ("each, every") means "all" in the sense of "each (every) part that applies." The emphasis of the total picture then is on "one piece at a time." 365 (ananeóō) then focuses on the part(s) making up the whole ”“ viewing the whole in terms of the individual parts.
[When 3956 (pás) modifies a word with the definite article it has "extensive-intensive" force ”“ and is straightforward intensive when the Greek definite article is lacking.]

Thank you so much for the opportunity to work through this together.

mak

added: By the way - I do believe that election applies only to those who believe

thanks Mak, but if grace is the actual gift of righteousness, does that mean by your view that all receive that gift? Because "all" has to be interpreted by the "grace" that all receive. That is why I was asking you what grace means. All receive the grace. You are saying I think that all receive the grace and all means every single man. So what does "grace" mean to you within the statements and definitions Paul is using in the text?

Excellent question.

I believe grace comes to all. Paul states that this grace of God that brings salvation has appeared unto all men. Neither of us believe all men receive grace. Some men show despite unto the spirit of grace and trample under foot the blood of the covenant that had sanctified them.

What do I have in mind by "this grace". Jesus Christ is the grace of God. From His fulness we have ALL received grace for grace.

This grace was given unto us (ALL who died) in Christ Jesus before the world began.

Jesus is God's grace to mankind. He is God's life. He is God's light. He is ETERNAL LIFE. The gift of eternal life has come to ALL WHO DIED. His name is Jesus.

mak

Mak,

who does "the many" refer to in this text?

Romans 5:19

For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (ESV)

Every man was made a sinner, every man will be made righteous just can't be right in the context of this passage. The use of "the many" in this text really just has to be the same "many" in Romans 5:15 doesn't it.

The Key to understand verse 19 is the comparative

ὥσπερ - this means "in the exact same way". So Paul is comparing "the way" men are constituted disobedient to "the way" men will be constituted righteous.

Paul is comparing two groups, the many who were made sinners though Adam's hearing aside, to the many who "WILL BE" constituted righteous through the obedience of Christ."

The first "were constituted" is in the Aorist tense. Paul used aorist here because it is the Aorist tense that allows the focus to be placed on "HOW" something transpires rather than "when" it happened. Men are constituted sinners by the same means of Adam's hearing aside. Men are made sinners through sinning like Adam - that is how they are constituted sinners. That group is the first "the many".

The second "the many" are those who "WILL BE" made righteous - Future tense. When will "that being made righteous take place?

When did "righteousness" take place for Abraham? When he believed God it was accounted unto him as righteousness.

And this was not written for him alone, but for those to whom it is about to be imputed righteousness - to those believing upon the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead."

Jesus has become the source of eternal life unto all the ones who are obeying Him. This is the gospel that Paul preached - the obedience of faith.

mak

So grace in this text ( it has different meanings elsewhere) is for those who will believe but, only in this text, not for every single man right?

Please let me know if I am correct in what I am about to state.

It seems to me that you equate "grace" with "election". If you understand grace in this way, you read into the text "every man being elect", which you and I both know can not be the meaning.

I equate grace with Jesus. Jesus is the grace of God, He alone is our wisdom, our righteousness, our sanctification.

Jesus came for ALL men, so I do not wrestle with the language of "grace" coming to ALL like you do.

Does that make sense?

mak

Thank you so much for the discussion this morning (at least here in the US) I don't know what time it is for you brother Robert.

I need to get to work, so I will bow out for a while and check back in later. I hope this has been helpful and that others can carry on from here for a while.

Grace, mercy and peace to all who love our Lord Jesus with an undying love,

If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be accursed.

mak

Thank you so much for the discussion this morning (at least here in the US) I don't know what time it is for you brother Robert.

I need to get to work, so I will bow out for a while and check back in later. I hope this has been helpful and that others can carry on from here for a while.

Grace, mercy and peace to all who love our Lord Jesus with an undying love,

If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be accursed.

mak

Hi Mak. I don’t equate grace with election. I was just trying to suggest Roman 5 doesn’t eliminate election. No matter which side of the conversation you are on, Romans 5 is referring to believers.
Election, whether viewed from predestination or foreknowledge only applies to believers as well.

"Grace” has many different aspects in the Bible. Grace is in one context Jesus, in another it is the giving of the law, in another, it is temporal blessings, in another supernatural. In Romans 5 grace by the context is the gift of righteousness and I would argue from the text it is either or both imputed righteousness or it might be the actual righteousness that comes
from sanctification.

In any event., given the text of Romans 5:19, it seems like the many is the group of believers to be who would receive this gift by faith and not every man who might receive other forms of grace.

Thank you Robert,

I have enjoyed our discussion and yes I agree that Paul is speaking of both the imputed righteousness of Christ and the Spirit empowered dynamic righteousness demonstrated in character and conduct.

I can tell from your posts that in this we share a strong agreement. The elect will demonstrate the grace that brings salvation by their God given ability to deny ungodliness and worldly lust and , even in the midst of this corrupt age, will live soberly, righteously, and godly.

Praise be to our God through our Lord Jesus Christ for His grace so evidently at work in you.

Mak

Hi savannah, I read a bit more of Henry's commentary this morning. When commenting on scriptures which seem to support free will, He seems to agree with and defend that concept and it seems he's not shy about it; and when commenting on scriptures which in the minds of those who hold to your view, deny free will, he also seems to lean in favor of that view, yet without completely or explicitly denying free will (i.e. still leaving a small space for the concept of a free will consent prior to conversion). So it can come across as being inconsistent. And it does seem to me that many who deny free will are in fact inconsistent when it comes to reconciling their beliefs with their daily practical lives. In other words, they believe there's no such thing as free will but live practically as though there is, which practicality I appreciate, otherwise there would be way more who hold to your view who are "hyper" ;). I'm not saying that exact same type of inconsistency applies to Henry though, just something similar, because it seems to me that he does not flat out deny free will altogether when it comes to the general gospel call.

Hi Mak and Robert: Paul speaking in Romans 5 comparing Adam and Christ is being done in generalities. Paul isn't introducing election in these texts, he does that later. But he does introduce the idea of the a second Adam that brings in life instead of death.

'the many' that are grace-given is answered in numerous texts outside this text and just who are those grace-given-one is explained.

Paul has already declared in Romans 4 and the front of 5 who are recipients of righteousness...we need only look back at those verses to know 'who' the many are that Christ has grace-given.

To me, in these texts we don't need a microscope, we need a telescope to look at a much larger picture of God's dealings in order to receive Paul's teachings and remain consistent with other texts that deal specifically with saved/unsaved or elect/non-elect.

Thanks Marvin. Agreed.

Oracio, Charles Spurgeon would say that there are many people who say they agree that there is free will in the unconverted but then pray on their knees like they know it is God who does 100% of the saving. :) that is meant merely as a counter humor to your wink and a nod to Savannah.

Good one Robert :)

When it comes to praying for the lost, it can get a bit deep in terms of how God orchestrates things and answers prayer.

I've also heard it argued that if the matter of salvation has already been completely settled before one is born, why pray for the salvation of those who may not be chosen by God? After all, wouldn't that be praying against God's will for them? But I can also see the come-back response to that in terms of us not knowing who is or isn't elect.

Personally, I like to pray for the Lord to draw them to Himself and to do whatever it may take via whatever means or circumstances He deems fit to employ. I do believe God works miracles (including salvation) in answer to prayer, and I do believe people have a choice in the matter of salvation. How to reconcile those two things is deep I admit.

Oracio, This question I have is not a set up or a trap. Just an innocent question.

Paul in his epistles often uses the terms enslavement to sin or enslavement of the will to the flesh. Corrupt sinful nature. Active suppression of the truth by the Gentile. Gentiles are generally described as without hope of salvation prior to Jesus because they were outside the covenant of promises. Predestination unto to election. Predestination to conformity to Christ. All the called are justified. Salvation is all of grace through. and through. Faith is a gift or fruit of the Spirit. God choosing not many rich, noble, or worldly wise.

These are common theological notions Paul intersperses and focuses on in his letters.

Yet, not once does he mention free will in the unconverted. We debate free will like it is a common well known theological word but even with its extremely limited use in Scripture, it isn’t ever applied to the unconverted as a Scriptural verse.

I know the word "Trinity” isn’t used in Scripture either. But, given Paul’s generous use of the terms election, predestination, enslaved will and utterly sinful nature in man, don’t you find that missing mention of free will odd or at least curious.

I ask this question with a sincere interest to discover if this is something you’ve noticed and what would be a reasonable explanation for the absence of the use of free or voluntary will. We know the phrase was used in the OT and by Paul in a letter to his brother Philemon, so it isn’t as if it wasn’t known to Paul.

Hi Robert,

One prominent place that addresses your inquiry is Hebrews 10

"For if we sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remains no sacrifice, but only a fearful expectation and judgment...”

The same Greek word Paul used in Philemon εκούσιον is used here.

I would think you do not believe the elect capable of this, is that correct? Who do you think has this εκούσιον - "voluntary will” that the writer of Hebrews is referencing?

Mak

Hi again Mak, of course I believe the warning in Hebrews is to the converted.

Thanks Robert,

I admit that this surprises me, but very pleasantly. Are you also saying that you believe sinning willfully is a real possibility for the converted and that they could incur the same fate as the enemies of God?

mak

Hi Mak, not so fast :)

I think Scripture teaches that God takes the initiative to put the love of Himself and the fear of Him into the hearts of His people. When God’s people are close in fellowship with the Lord, His loving entreaties have their desired effect on the tender heart. Sometimes when God’s people are hardened in sin by the temptations of the world or they are afraid of man much more than they should be, then the wooing love of God is less effective and He issues stern rebukes and even dire warnings to draw them back. In the new heart, then, these warnings have their desired effect. Here is a Scripture to support the "fear” of God He created in the new man:

I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. - Jeremiah 32:40

I can welcome that explanation, for God has consistently used threats of severe judgment to attempt to turn the hearts of His people back to Himself. I consider the possibility of "drawing back" very real, in fact apostacy is warned about throughout Paul's letters and all of His letters were written to the converted.

The book of Hebrews has quite a few instances of these warnings. Especially relevant are chapters 3 and 4 where the history of Israel's provocation is the backdrop of admonishing the believers to fully enter into His rest.

Another place where willful sinning is prominent is in the church of Thyatira where the woman who called herself a prophetess was leading others into immorality. The Lord gave her time to repent, but she was unwilling.

I certainly agree with you that God will actively work to discipline those He loves, and yet the warning of what happened to those who were redeemed out of Egypt, who were baptized into the sea, who drank from the rock who accompanied them - that rock being Jesus, who afterward did not believe and were destroyed.

These things happened to them as examples, and were written down for us as admonitions. Many do not take them serious enough.

Paul's letter to the Corinthians is very sobering and his own example given as a safeguard to those saints was - "Therefor I beat my body and make it my slave, lest after having preached to others, I myself should be disapproved."
mak

Mak, I've tried to make the point that for me, as I read Scripture, the issue is less one of the will and more one of desire. We always choose to do what we want to do the most. The will is the outworking of desires. That is why the Scripture focuses more on the desires of the flesh being at war with the desires of the Spirit. Thus, the sinful heart desires its evil and then willfully chooses to reject God and/or suppress the truth in unrighteousness. This is why the new man hates sin and loves righeousness. It is a matter of new desires. This is also why God says I will given them a heart to love Me and a fear of Me so they will not depart. The will follows the desires of the heart and thus God works to create a new nature that desires and loves Him instead of a heart that hates and rejects Him. First the desires and then the will. He uses the mind to inform and inflame the desires and then the heart moves the will in a particular direction. This is not my own pshyco babble. I think this is how the whole of Scripture speaks of mankind. This is why Jonathan Edwards would write a book called Religious Affections. My favorite verse:

Psalm 73:25”“28

Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. For behold, those who are far from you shall perish; you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you. But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, that I may tell of all your works. (ESV)

Desiring Jesus so much that we would sell all, endure all, forsake all to possess Him. The renewed desires informed by the renewed mind driving the renewed will is the new man.

Hebrews 10 is not teaching us that if we sin willfully ( too much) we will finally fall into a wrathful God's hands.

It is teaching us that Heb 9 the old covenant sacrifices are being done away with and are for the most part gone, the superior sacrifice is what God has chosen and sacrifice was the death of his own Son.

Therefore...if the old covenant sacrifices are no longer accepted and you repudiate Jesus as your sacrifice...when you sin willfully ( and we all do) there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins...and consequently all that is left is the law of God to judge us for our sins.

The warning is to believers, but the intent is not to 'worry' a believer about the 'willfully sinning act' but what happens when a believer apostasies from Jesus...there is no more sacrifice for sin.

If you look at mere terms eg. willfully; you do not arrive at the conclusion of the apostle, but it's when you look at the context taken as a whole you see clearly the intent was to show apostasy has no return...you cannot crucify the Son of God afresh.

The context of Hebrews 10 is not setting up an argument for the human will, it is using the negative to clarify Jesus is the last and final accepted blood sacrifice, there is no others and there will no other required. Our faith is to center on his sacrifice; any thought of returning to the old system of sacrifice will bring the worshipper into wrathful judgment.

Hi Robert, thanks for the honest q and thanks mak for the biblical reply. Cant comment much right now. I do want to briefly point out that we dont find terms like "unconditional election" or "total inability" in Scripture. I believe those concepts are read into the scriptures that teach on election and the sinfulness of man. So we come to those same scriptures with different presupposions and interpret them differently. I've heard it compared to a duck and rabbit illusion (you can google it if unfamiliar with it). One person sees a rabbit while the other sees a duck when looking at the same picture.

We probably all read things posted here on the forum and are left to wonder where did that come from. I guess that is the challenge of communication.

The writer of Hebrews chose to express the danger of a believer deliiberately rejecting Christ by comparing it to what happened to those who under the first covenant rejected the Law of Moses. Willful rejection of Christ is death without mercy. What kind of punishment could be worse than physical death without mercy?

The superiority of Christ presents a greater condemnation for willful rejection of His ministry than death without mercy by those who rejected the lesser ministry of the Law.

Mak

By the way, thank you Robert for that beautiful word and meditation on Psalm 73

I just realized Asaph wrote this

Mak

Hi Oracio. I wasn’t trying to establish unconditional election or any other
Tulip idea by the absence of a mention of free will. Clearly free will is a term mentioned in the Bible but it is only applied to the people of God. Isn’t that curious to you?

Robert can you elaborate on the scriptural basis for only God’s people having free will. Was Israel free to choose when Joshua called them to choose this day whether they would serve the Lord? Were the people of Ezekiel able to choose life? Are you saying only born again believers who have been set free from sin are free too choose?

Thanks

Mak

Hi Mak. I’m not trying to prove whether the unconverted have free wool or only the converted. I’m merely trying to suggest it is odd that such an important thing as free will is not expressly mentioned in Scripturr is applied to the unconverted. What conclusion one draws from that is a different issue based on other Scripture. I honestly think it’s a fair question to ask.

I am simply trying to understand the concept being presented. Honestly, I have not spent much time on this particular concept. I trust that brothers like you have considered longer than I have and so I am interested in knowing others’ thoughts.

I am really not looking for proof, just an opportunity to contemplate the idea since it has been brought up in the thread. Each time I read the expression only God’s people have free will - it simply caught my attention.

I am sincerely not attempting to argue a point, especially one that I have not spent much time meditating on.

Mak

Hi Robert, you wrote:

Clearly free will is a term mentioned in the Bible but it is only applied to the people of God. Isn’t that curious to you?

In Proverbs 1:29 the word "choose” is exclusively applied to the unsaved. There God rebukes the wicked for not choosing the fear of the Lord, thereby incurring His wrath. The implication is that they could have chosen the fear of the Lord but did not do so and therefore God is righteously indignant/angry with them.

That same type of implication seems clear throughout the scriptures in various cases.

Mak and Oracio, we kind of come back full circle on this. :)

Does the mere fact that God calls someone to choose something necessarily mean they must have the free will to choose to obey? And if not, can they be held morally responsible for not obeying?

I've tried to use this example before and will try again for the sake of responding to that concern.

God tells people to love Him with all their heart and soul. Does He hold them responsible if they don't. The answer to both questions is for sure yes. Now the rub, can men, is man able to, love God with all their heart all the time as God commands? Yes or no?

So, there is the conundrum. We say in our human reasoning that isn't fair. God says otherwise.

The only explanation that Scripture provides explicitly is that man desires evil and even though he inherited that irresistible desire from Adam, God still holds him responsible for acting on that desire. What is really on trial here is our view that God is not fair for holding Adam's progeny responsible for sin they commit according to a nature they inherited. One out we seem to have is to suggest that if God commands something to be done then He has a moral imperative based in love and fairness to give men the means necessary for man to overcome his own nature and obey God. If God commands it, then man must have the free will given to him to obey. The other option is to say that man did not inherit a sinful nature and that each man is free from birth to act as he chooses. Not many hold that view.

So, if we hold to the idea that man inherited a sinful nature then we must either hold that God gives each man free will in every moral decision he makes, thus effectively and completely nullifying the sinful nature for all men every day and in every way rendering all Paul's discussions of the sinful nature in Scripture as purely hypothetical, or, we say that God gives a new nature to some men so that man can obey, even obey the command to repent and believe. Or, I guess we could also say, God gives man free will only when the Gospel is presented. I've not heard that argument but I guess its possible.

All this to say that the fundamental issue to me is that God's command to choose does not in any way necessarily prove free will as my example of loving God with all our hearts I think proves.

So, if the grace of free will is so essential to solve man's fundamental sin problem that his will is enslaved to his own fleshly desires so much that he cannot bring himself to obey the commands of God, don't you think it meaningfully interesting that God in His own Word never mentions giving this amazing grace of free will daily to the unconverted of heart?

Again, to come back to this question I've asked and say God commands us to choose so therefore we must have free will is circular I think. Not to demean a position, but in reality that is not a Scriptural argument. Yes, God commands us to choose. What I was seeking was a Scriptural support for free will. Without that, we are left with a fairness argument and those kinds of arguments can certainly be right but when other words spoken by God speak against it like the ones we've been analyzing and probing, then the general fairness argument really has to take a secondary place to direct revelation.

mak, one more thing to ponder. Can the will of the unconverted man act independently of and apart from the sinful and strong desires of his own flesh? That I think is the crux of the question you originally asked......is man "unwilling" or "unable". Could you theoretically have a mind and a will that want to obey the commands of God but are unable to do so because of the sinful flesh? Romans 7 seems to indicate you can. So, the key to freeing the mind and will of man to obey the commands of God is a new set of desires or, alternatively, at the least, freedom of the man's will from the control of his own sinful nature. I see Scripture explicitly pointing to the former, that is a new birth, new desires, new heart. I think others, maybe yourself, see that freedom of the will from the flesh granted by God daily. I just honestly don't see that solution spoken of in Scripture. The solution spoken of by God in the OT for a disobedient people is a circumcised heart, circumcised by the hand of God and not of or by the flesh. A cutting away of the fleshly sinful nature and a freeing of the heart. That does not happen for everyone. A "free will" requires a circumcised heart. In the NT covenant, it is called a new heart, a new spirit. The will must be freed. I totally agree. You agree that God must do it only that he does it daily in gifts of daily grace. I don't see that in Scripture as God's stated solution of what He would do to solve man's sinful nature. God says He will circumcise the heart of some. Not all.

Paul asks the same question in Romans 7. Who can free me from this body of death? The answer is given in Romans 8. God has to do it by the Spirit but His work is complete and effectual. Who can free us from the law of sin and death ( its a law ), only God can and He does it by giving us a new nature that is alive to God according to the law of the Spirit of life. That is how man is freed from the fleshly sinful nature that controls his decision making.

If daily grace is sufficient for man to choose to obey God everyday and in every way, then why the new birth, why the New Covenant, why the indwelling of the Spirit, why all the discussion about the sinful nature of the unborn again human ? If the unconverted is freed by daily grace to obey God's commands, what is the reason for us to be made alive in Christ when we were once dead? What does needing to be made alive spiritually have to do with anything if we are already alive enough to desire to and to be able to obey all God's commands. Daily grace to sinners sufficient to obey God's commands obviates the need for being born again. That seems like a logical question begged by daily grace of free will.

Thank you Robert for continuing to share your understanding.

I fully agree that the ultimate answer to being free from slavery to sin is the redemption of Christ Jesus and the circumcision of the heart along with the infusion of the Holy Spirit.

I also acknowledge the inward corruption of man caused by sin and the ensuing slavery to sin that Romans 7 so clearly describes. Indeed it is a "body of death" with a mindset hostile to God and according to Paul is not able to submit to God.

I also see the principle of "accountability" based upon "response + ability" throughout scripture. You see it as well, for it is so prevalent that it can not be missed.
I trust that you also accept this principle because I know you love the scriptures.

This is where we differ in our understanding. I want to make sure you know that I have not ever considered God to be unfair in holding men "accountable", primarily because I see men as "response + able", despite fully accepting the corrupt condition of sinful man. Nor, I do see God "giving men gifts of daily grace."

How do I reconcile man being "response + able" and their sinful state? I don't! I accept the fact that both truths are clearly presented throughout scripture. This is where I differ from you. I don't feel the need to take Romans 7 or 8 into every other passage where God is calling out to men. I simply believe that God desires for them to turn to Him and He hold them fully accountable for their "response" to His initiative. God certainly knows the state of men that He is dealing with, and since He chose to present His dealing with men in the way the record has been left to us, I believe it is the best way to understand it.

Those descriptions of men's refusal are God breathed accounts. The words God inspired create the picture that He intended for us to see as an example and learn from as a warning. These are God breathed words -"Refused correction, rejected my Laws, stiffened your neck, turned your back, closed your ears, annulled My covenant, etc.

Systematic theology attempts to reconcile these God breathed words with man made concepts such as "total depravity". I am not compelled to do join in that attempt. I do not discount some benefit in men's catechisms and confessions, but I believe God's inspired approach is the better way.

Jesus, His apostles, and the prophets all used the language of "accountability" and "response + ability". Why would I want to undermine God's sovereign choice to describe His dealings with man by injecting "IN or NON ability" into passages where God inspired words describe "willful" action?

I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, and having read and considered your thoughtful attempts to insist that it is necessary to overlay man's sinful condition over every instance where God is dealing with men, I am not moved to agree that it is either necessary or beneficial.

These are my own thoughts, I have never entertained the idea that God is unfair. I embrace men's depravity and their "response + ability". I am not attempting to systematize my theology, I am simply attempting to come to the full knowledge of the truth so I can fully fear and love my Lord and my God.

mak

Let me add that this is the same way I approach faith.

God's sovereign choice is to present faith as man's response and His gift. I am not compelled to make it one or the other. Abraham believed God, is how God breathed the word. I am not compelled to overlay that inspired description with the idea of God gifted faith to Abraham.
Polarity is seen throughout God's creation. The tension between poles creates a force that makes beautiful vibrations and powerful forces in nature. From our low vantage point, some things may appear to be "opposites" - but His ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts.

Romans 5:17,18

For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

By one man’s offense ”” rather, by the offense of the one man. The margin has ‘by one offense,’ for which there is no foundation. Death reigned. ”” It is here said that death reigned by the offense of the one man; consequently every one over whom death reigns is involved in that one offense of that one man. The empire of death, then, extends over infants and all men, on account of the one man. Instead of dying for their actual sins, death is to all men the penalty of the first sin. Reigned. ”” Those who die are here supposed to be the subjects of death, and death is considered as their king. If infants were not guilty in Adam, they could not be under the dominion of death. If they are not worthy of condemnation till they sin actually, they would not die till they sin actually. Much more. ”” Here the abounding of the gift over the evil is specified. Those redeemed by the death of Christ are not merely recovered from the fall, but made to reign through Jesus Christ, to which they had no title in Adam’s communion.

The saved are described as receiving abundance of grace, or the superabundance, ”” that is, the grace that abounds over the loss. This applies to all the redeemed. They all receive the superabundance of grace; they all receive more than was lost. They are also said to receive the super abounding of the gift of righteousness. This refers to the superior righteousness possessed by the redeemed, which is better than that which in innocence was possessed by Adam; for theirs is the righteousness of Christ, the righteousness of Him who is God. To this the righteousness of Adam and of angels cannot be compared. Shall reign in life. ”” Believers are to be kings as well as priests. All this they are to be through the one Jesus Christ; for as they were one with Adam in his fall, so they are one with Christ in His victory and triumph. If He be a king, they also are kings; for they are one with Him as they were one with Adam. They shall not be re-established in the terrestrial paradise in which man was first placed subject to the danger of falling, but shall be conducted to honor, and glory, and immortality, in the heavenly world, before the throne of God, without the smallest danger of ever losing that blessing. They shall eat of the tree of life, which, says Christ, ‘I will give’ them, not on earth, but in the midst of the paradise of God. Speaking of His sheep, in the character of a Shepherd, Jesus Christ Himself says, ‘I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.’ ‘I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of My hand. My Father, which gave them Me, is greater than all, and none is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand.’ ‘Your life is hid with Christ in God,’ Colossians 3:3. By all this we learn the excellence of that life in which believers shall reign, by whom it is conferred, its absolute security, and eternal duration.

Verse 18 

Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Therefore, or wherefore, then. ”” There are two words in the original: the one word signifies wherefore, the other signifies then, or consequently. It states the result of what was said. By the offense of one, or by one offense. ”” Both of these are equally true, but the latter appears to be the design of the Apostle, as the word one wants the article. There is nothing in the original corresponding to the terms judgment and free gift, but they are rightly supplied by an ellipsis from verse 16. Condemnation. ”” Here it is expressly asserted that all men are condemned in the first offense. Infants, then, are included. If they are condemned, they cannot be innocent ”” they must be sinners; for condemnation would not have come upon them for a sin that is not theirs. The whole human race came under the condemnation of death in all its extent ”” spiritual, temporal, and eternal. Even so, ””that is, in the same manner. By the righteousness of one, or rather, by one righteousness. Mr. Stuart prefers the former because of the antithesis, di ’ eJno>v dikaiw>atov, which, he says, ‘naturally cannot mean anything but the righteousness of one(not one righteousness). ’ But the phrase alluded to can very naturally and properly signify one righteousness, as the obedience of Christ is summed up in His act of obedience to death.

Righteousness here, Mr. Stuart renders obedience, holiness, righteousness.

But it is righteousness in its proper sense. By the one act of giving Himself for our sins, Christ brought in everlasting righteousness. The free gift came upon all men. ”” How did the free gift of the righteousness of God come upon all men, seeing all are not saved? Mr. Stuart explains it as signifying that righteousness is provided for all. But this is not the Apostle’s statement. The coming of the free gift upon all is contrasted with the coming of condemnation on all, and therefore it cannot mean that condemnation actually came upon all, while the free gift was only provided for all. Besides, it is added, unto justification of life. ”” This is the issue of the coming of the free gift. It ends in the justification of life. Upon all men. ”” The persons here referred to must be those, and those only, who are partakers of justification, and who shall be finally saved. What then? Are all men to be justified? No; but the ‘all men’ here said to be justified, are evidently the ‘all’ of every nation, tribe, and kindred, whether Jews or Gentiles, represented by Christ. All who have been one with Adam were involved in his condemnation, and all who are one with Christ shall be justified by His righteousness.

No violence is necessary in order to restrict the universality of the terms ‘all men’ as they appear in this verse. General expressions must ever be construed with reference to their connection, and the context sufficiently defines their meaning. There is here an obvious and specific reference to the two heads of the human race, the first and the second man; and the ‘all men,’ twice spoken of in this verse, are placed in contrast to each other, as denoting the two families into which the world is divided. 32 The all men, then, must be limited to their respective heads. When this is understood, the meaning is alike clear and consistent, but without this all is dark and incongruous. If the ‘all men’ in the latter clause of the verse are made to apply to mankind without exception, then it follows that all men are justified, and all are made partakers of eternal life. But as this would contradict truth and Scripture, so the whole tenor of the Apostle’s argument proves that the interpretation already stated is the true one. On account of the offense of Adam, sentence of death was pronounced upon allwhom he represented. On account of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, sentence of justification unto life was pronounced in favor of all whom He represented. ‘That the two multitudes,’ it is observed in the Presbyterian Review, ‘are co-extensive, that the point of the similitude is in some effect common to the whole human race, ’ Mr. Stuart infers, quite as a matter of course, from this 18th verse, "As by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.” And were we to confine our view to that verse, the inference might appear sufficiently probable. But we must attend to the scope of the whole section, and take care that we do not affix to one clause a signification which would make it a downright contradiction of another, of which the meaning is written as with a sunbeam. Now the sacred penman is throughout comparing Adam and Christ in their influence on two great bodies of human beings, and illustrating, by the comparison, the doctrine of justification. He states the likeness at first broadly, but lest his readers should be disposed to extend it too far, he accompanies it, in verses 15-17, with some explanations and restrictions. In these verses, therefore, the two contrasted multitudes must be the same as those mentioned in the general statement of verses 18 and 19, unless we wish to make the Apostle guilty of the deception of changing his terms upon us in the course of his argument, and while he is developing a similarity between A and B, interposing some limitations which have no reference to the connection of these terms, but which bear upon the relative positions of A and C. Now the multitude mentioned in the latter member of the contrast, which verses 15-17 express, is not the whole of mankind. It will not be pretended that all men obtain justification (ver. 16), or that all "shall reign in life through Jesus Christ” (ver. 17). In these verses the second member cannot be understood as comprising the entire human race; and as, confessedly, the phrase "all men” (see John 12:32; 2 Corinthians 3:2) may be used in a limited signification, there is no obvious reason why, in verse 18, it must be so used.

There is just one objection to this exegesis which it is worth while to notice. Mr. Stuart thus states it: ”” "If we say that sentence of eternal perdition, in its highest sense, comes upon all men by the offense of Adam, and this without any act on their part, or even any voluntary concurrence in their present state and condition of existence, then, in order to make grace superabound over all this, how can we avoid the conclusion that justification, in its highest sense, comes upon all men without their concurrence?” It is always a great convenience to a reviewer when an author refutes himself. This is the case in the present instance. "In regard to the superabounding of the grace of the Gospel,” says Mr. Stuart in the very same page, "it must be noted, in order to avoid mistake, that I do not construe it as appertaining to the member of the subjects, but to the number of offenses forgiven by it.” Now, on this principle, our view of the diversity of the two multitudes does not abolish the superabundance of grace. To the elect, not merely the penal consequences of Adam’s sin are remitted, but those of all their own innumerable transgressions, and thus grace still maintains its due pre-eminence. ‘This objection vanishing so easily by a wave of the same wand which conjured it up, we are enabled fully to conclude, that although the whole of mankind are comprehended in the first number of the comparison, only the elect are included in the second; that the notion of placing extent of influence ”” the number of persons to whom the condemning or saving energy reaches ”” among the points of resemblance, obtains no countenance from Paul; and that the opinion resting upon it, that sentence of condemnation can be passed upon none except for actual transgression, has no foundation.’ 33
- Robert Haldane -

Footnote:

32: This division was announced by God in pronouncing sentence on the serpent, ‘I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, Genesis 3:15. 
33: Here it may be observed, that if all men had been saved, it would have given countenance to the supposition that fallen men had some claim upon God, that there was some hardship connected with their being brought under condemnation, not by their individual transgression, but by that of Adam, and thus the riches of grace would have been tarnished.

Why do men wrestle with things that Paul himself had no conflict?

I can still remember when I first realized what Paul actually wrote in Romans 3:23 and 24. I was reading along in the Greek text and Paul's words stood out like a billboard.

" for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,"

It's right there for all to examine. Who is justified? Who is the subject? Whatever the implication is, there is no question about the "who". Accepting the fact that Paul actually wrote this statement does not make a man a "universalist". It simply makes a man honest with the text as it is actually written.

All who sinned are the ones being justified.

mak

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/unconditional

I’m blessed that this sermon was posted this morning. I don’t know of any who will listen but I’m hopeful you will. For lovers of truth from Scripture ,you will love the reasoning and Bible fidelity of the sermon even if you don’t agree.

Robert, that link you posted doesn't work. Is it perhaps this one:?

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/unconditional-election-session-5

I did not listen to the whole message. However, what I did listen to was Piper talking about God CONQUERING the will of the elect just prior to their coming to faith. Well, that language to me is just too strong. I choose to characterize God's work upon the heart and mind of someone who is about to be regenerated as a "wooing, convincing and persuading" work. "Conquering" makes it sound that God is a puppeteer which He most certainly is not.

-Daniel

Hi Robert, you wrote:

Mak and Oracio, we kind of come back full circle on this. :)

Does the mere fact that God calls someone to choose something necessarily mean they must have the free will to choose to obey? And if not, can they be held morally responsible for not obeying?

I've tried to use this example before and will try again for the sake of responding to that concern.

God tells people to love Him with all their heart and soul. Does He hold them responsible if they don't. The answer to both questions is for sure yes. Now the rub, can men, is man able to, love God with all their heart all the time as God commands? Yes or no?

I’ll start my answer to your first question with a question of my own brother. Does the mere fact that someone is sinful/corrupt/morally depraved and cannot keep God’s moral law as required mean they must not be able to accept the help/grace/deliverance God offers them? And if it does not mean that, does it necessarily take away from the truth of their moral impotency and/or sinful/wretched/depraved condition?

I think your answer would be that yes, it does minimize man’s depravity, because you see it as being "total” in the sense of one’s desires being completely enslaved to sin and not being able to change apart from an irresistible grace totally removed from any kind of willing consent on the part of the sinner. And that is where we differ. I don’t see the fall of man as being that "total” to the point of completely removing the ability to choose God when God extends His offer of salvation.

Over and over throughout Scripture God makes an appeal to be reconciled to Him from the fall. Yes man is fallen, yes man is sinful, yes man is depraved, yes man is a rebel. Yet God essentially says to all sinners, "I offer you terms of peace and reconciliation if you humble yourself and repent and trust in Me. I offer to deliver you from the depraved condition in which you were born and from the sinful desires you’ve acted upon over and over throughout your life. I do not desire that you perish in your sins in hell. I am willing to save you. What will you do with my offer? Choose this day whom you will serve!” Respectfully, that to me implies and means something more than your system allows for brother.

So, there is the conundrum. We say in our human reasoning that isn't fair. God says otherwise.

I personally don’t see it that much as a matter fairness vs unfairness. First and foremost I see it more in terms of what Scripture seems to plainly teach and/or imply all throughout. That is, I see it more as a matter of accepting the plain testimony of God’s Word. But I would say that as a by-product that kind of acceptance is very reasonable to me and does not force me to try to reconcile certain difficulties that would otherwise present themselves in my mind and heart. In other words, by taking the plain testimony of Scripture when it comes to this issue, I don’t have to "swallow the hard pill” that your system presents.

You say that God commands sinners to love Him with all their heart and soul yet they can’t do that, thereby proving that God commands what is impossible for men to do or choose to do. However, I would disagree with that premise. I believe that even though we cannot keep God’s moral law in terms of obeying it according to its strict demands and perfect standard, when God reaches out to us and offers us His saving grace, we can choose to begin to turn in that direction. Once we receive God’s saving grace through the gospel, we begin to fulfill the requirements of the law by the power of Holy Spirit working in and through us, though we still do not obey the law perfectly as we should this side of heaven. But it all begins with God initiating salvation and offering it to us, and us humbly accepting that offer in repentance and faith in Christ. So in other words, when God commands sinners to love Him with all their heart and soul, first they can and must acknowledge their failure to do that by the conviction of the Spirit through the law, then they can choose to turn in the direction of loving God by His grace, and they can begin to obey that command by the Spirit’s power, though not perfectly.

Hi Daniel. That is the one. Thanks a lot for linking. Still not up to speed on getting a link done.

I humbly suggest you listen to the whole thing as he unpacks the eternal "purposes "of God from Scripture. If not, thanks for tuning in as far as you did.

"Overcoming " a sinner’s natural fallen nature to hate God is true in either camp’s view. The grace, if indeed given to all by God, to free a will enslaved to fleshly nature and sinful desires so that one is able to respond to the Gospel is done to "overcome” the sinner’s normal nature. Otherwise, man isn’t depraved in any degree at all in the first place. He’s just ignorant. That of course, no one would argue is the case. Thus, there is some level of overcoming the sinner’s natural darkness and bent against God without the sinner’s prior permission. Some people overlook that necessary conclusion.

Thanks again for posting the link.

Thought I’d share a few links to a few YouTube videos for any who may be wrestling with this issue and/or interested:

Michael Brown & James White:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEU2IuC1d24

Sonny Hernandez/Theodore Zachariades & Leighton Flowers/Johnathan Pritchett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfyOmkaDtMg&t=1729s

James White & Leighton Flowers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbEnNiIlujw

Message preached by Leighton Flowers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHhTlb1_Loo

Hi Oracio.

This passage from Galatians is for believers and describes the war going on in the believer, a new creation, with the "old man”. How intense do you think the sinful nature is for the unconverted who have neither a new heart or the indwelling Spirit. It isn’t even a war in the unconverted. The desires of the flesh completely rule the unconverted. This is the spiritual deadness that Paul by the Holy Spirit speaks of concerning the unconverted.

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. - Galatians 5:16-17

Hi Robert, you wrote:

This passage from Galatians is for believers and describes the war going on in the believer, a new creation, with the "old man”. How intense do you think the sinful nature is for the unconverted who have neither a new heart or the indwelling Spirit. It isn’t even a war in the unconverted. The desires of the flesh completely rule the unconverted. This is the spiritual deadness that Paul by the Holy Spirit speaks of concerning the unconverted.

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. - Galatians 5:16-17

The fact that believers experience an internal struggle between the flesh and the Spirit does not mean or prove that unbelievers cannot experience a pre-conversion struggle when God’s Spirit strives with them (Gen. 6:3). God’s Spirit strives with sinners through the conviction of sin He brings to bear upon their consciences. When that striving is taking place in a sinner’s heart and life, they can choose either to keep resisting, quenching, and striving against God's Spirit, or they can choose to give up the fight and humble themselves before God in contrition. Over and over we see those two options being presented before all sinners by various admonitions from God throughout His Word.

Towards the spiritual deadness of unbelievers, I don’t see it taught as being a corpse-like inability to respond to God’s invitation to be saved. Rather, it carries the idea of lostness and separation from God through sin. For example, when the prodigal son returned to the Father, the Father said, "for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.” The son was not literally in a corpse-like condition unable to respond to stimuli. It’s a figure of speech. It’s like when a parent says to a wayward and rebellious son or daughter, "You’re dead to me.” It can also connote the idea of impending ruin or destruction, like saying, "You’re as good as dead or doomed to destruction.” For example, when God came to king Abimelech in a dream after he took Sarah, He said to him, "Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife”(Gen.20:2-3).

Thanks Oracio,

I understand and agree about the conscience being convicted and the Spirit striving in the unbeliever. I agree. Both of these would be working to keep the flesh from doing the sin it desires to do. That is a restraining grace of God which I think we can both embrace. As far as doing good, that is obeying God's love commands with a gladness of heart as Deut. 28 calls for, is the old man capable of such "good" ?

Paul says in Romans that the flesh has been put to death and that we should no longer let sin "reign" in our lives ( as it did previously.)

How wold you consider sin and the flesh to "reign" in the unbelievers hearts? Is it a rule of the heart, mind and soul functioning to effectively defeat the Spirit's striving and the conscience's influence or is its rule just a "strong influence" to the conscience or something else?

I'm asking...... Is the power of the sin and the flesh so strong that when they exert their power that the conscience and human will are powerless to keep the soul from practicing sin in spite of the conscience and the striving of the Spirit?

Is it a fair fight in the unconverted? Is the flesh too much in control for the conscience to rule in the fallen man especially when it comes to turning to God to have God thereafter rule in the heart? You see, turning in faith to Christ requires the flesh and sin to cede control of the heart to God. A complete abdication of the throne. I would think the passions of the flesh and the desires of sin would rise up in a great torrent at the moment that is a possibility which is what is happening when the Gospel is presented.

Please share your reasoning and the Biblical truth that forms the conclusion you personally have reached on this question. I am personally hesitant to just issue personal conclusions or opinions to questions because usually that is not helpful to furthering growth in the truth. You don't do this. However, many think that Biblical discussions about holy matters is an opportunity to discuss "how we feel" about a matter or "what we think" the answer should or ought to be which is just another form of reading our own preferences or systematic beliefs into Scripture.

This is another way Scripturally to probe the "unwilling only" versus "unwilling because man is unable" question.

Thanks Robert,

I’m glad we agree on the striving of the Spirit in the unbeliever and God using that to restrain them.

Towards the possibility vs the impossibility of unbelievers choosing to love God as He commands, I want to point out a few things.

First, when it comes to obeying that command in the strictest sense, I would say that not even believers can obey that command, because the demands of that law are much too high for us to meet in these earthly bodies. Yet God "accepts” our efforts (not in the sense of merit but in the sense of being pleased) to strive to obey that command, being that the bent of our will is in that direction and we make progress by the power of His Spirit as we yield to His influences in our hearts and lives.

When it comes to unbelievers choosing to obey that command, something similar, though not quite, applies to them. Again, I would say it’s more a matter of choice as opposed to one of ability or inability to obey that command according to its strictest demands. I’ll explain from two passages of Scripture which are correlated.

In Deuteronomy 30:11-14 God says through Moses to both the saved and unsaved Israelites present (the context shows it’s applicable to both saved and unsaved):

"For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.”

God is telling the Israelites (both saved and unsaved) that His commandment to love Him with all their heart and soul (v.10) is not as hard as some of them may think. God is seeking to remove that kind of objection or excuse from their minds. Although they cannot keep that command perfectly according to its strictest demands, they can choose to turn in that direction by faith and make progress by the power of His Spirit at work in their hearts and lives. And God will "accept” their devotion though it’s not totally perfect.

In Romans 10:6-8 Paul quotes from that same exact passage in Deuteronomy 30 in reference to the general gospel call that goes out to all. Here’s what Paul says in Romans 10:6-10:

"But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, "Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) 7 or, " ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”

So Paul, like Moses in Deut. 30, through the inspiration of the Spirit, seeks to also remove any objection or excuse from any who may be tempted to say it’s too hard to obey the gospel. God says in essence, "No, it’s not too hard or "mysterious.” It’s a matter of a simple choice to believe/trust in Me and My salvation.” It’s a matter of simple repentance and faith in Christ as opposed to obeying the strict demands of God’s law to obtain salvation.

Sometimes we can make things more complicated than God intended them to be, and we can read into God’s Word complicated and mysterious things God never intended. We do well to accept the plain testimony of God’s Word on this and other issues or topics.

HI Oracio,

I wanted to ask if you would then help me understand how sin and the sinful flesh reign in the heart. In what sense do they reign or rule and in what sense would the ruler of the heart willingly relinquish its rule ?

Here's a couple of texts that seem on their face to address this issue and seem to create a black and white situation among mankind. It seems that there are two kinds of natures and two kinds of people. One is inclined to sin and is ruled by an evil spirit that rules the world and the second is those who have been made alive and inclined away from sin and towards rightwousness. The second passage from Romans likewise says there is the man of the flesh and the man of the Spirit. One is hostile to God and cannot submit to His laws and cannot please Him ( obey Him ) and the second is, in the context, the man who has the Spirit of God IN him ( not just striving with him )

Ephesians 2:1”“5

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins [2] in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience””[3] among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. [4] But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, [5] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ.... (ESV)

and,

Romans 8:5”“8

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (ESV)

I'm not trying to impress upon the texts the understanding I have from Scripture. Just taken as they speak to us, the situation for the unconverted is more dire and evil than your view would allow.

Thanks Robert,

Good question and good, relevant scriptures. Firstly, I want to say that my view does not minimize the sinfulness, wretchedness or depravity of unconverted sinners as much as you seem to think it does from reading your last post. While I don’t go as far as you do in your belief of man’s total inability to respond to God’s own appeals for reconciliation, I do acknowledge that the heart of unconverted man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9).

You say you are not trying to impress upon those texts (Eph. 2:1-5 & Rom. 8:5-8) the understanding you have from Scripture, namely, the understanding of man being totally unable to respond to God’s own appeals to be reconciled from the fall. However, I would respectfully say that there may be a certain kind of subtle or "subconscious” (as opposed to deliberate) "impressing” on those scriptures the idea of a total inability to respond to the gospel call.

I honestly don’t see anything in those passages that would necessarily imply that type of inability to respond to the gospel when God sends it in the way of the unconverted by His Spirit.

Based on my understanding of the whole counsel of God’s Word, I see in those passages a willing deadness in and enslavement to sin, a willing setting of the mind on the desires of the flesh and a willing refusal to submit to God’s law and to please God. By "willing” I have in mind the ability to choose otherwise. Again, I don’t see anything in them that would preclude a willing response to the gospel call and/or a willing change of mind (repentance) and a willing faith in the Lord Jesus Christ when God calls and invites sinners to repent and believe the gospel and to be reconciled to Himself from the fall.

In other words, the fact that men are dead in sin and willing slaves to sin and Satan does not mean they absolutely cannot acknowledge and admit their bondage and need of a Savior when God strives with them by His Spirit, when He brings conviction of their sin and seeks to convince them of their need of the Savior. To say that those passages teach that type of total inability to respond to God is to beg the question.

I’ll share an illustration I’ve heard from someone else. Imagine a homeless alcoholic who is severely addicted to alcohol. Imagine one of his family members pleading with him and offering to get him help by taking him to a good rehab. Does the fact that the homeless alcoholic is severely addicted to alcohol mean he cannot accept the family member’s gracious offer, and does it mean he cannot choose to check himself into the rehab for help and deliverance from his bondage? Of course not. Even though he’s in a helpless and hopeless condition in his addiction, he can still choose to accept help when it’s offered to him.

Similarly, even though sinners are willingly in bondage to their sin and Satan, and even though they are in a helpless and hopeless condition apart from Christ, they can choose to accept the saving grace God offers them through the gospel. That is what God truly desires for them all without exception. He is not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance, that all would be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

God says,

"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

But Oracio says,

The mind that is set on the flesh does submit to God's Gospel and can do so, and that those who are in the flesh can please God.

__________

I say this because, to repent and believe on Jesus pleases God. Which Oracio says can be done.

What Oracio says contradicts what God says.

Oracio, The Romans passage comes amongst a set of verses distinguishing two kind of men.....one with the Spirit, one without. The one without is callled a mind set on the flesh. That man says the passage cannot submit to the will of God. I’m totally confused by your interpretation.

Hi savannah, you wrote:

God says,

"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

But Oracio says,

The mind that is set on the flesh does submit to God's Gospel and can do so, and that those who are in the flesh can please God.

__________

I say this because, to repent and believe on Jesus pleases God. Which Oracio says can be done.

What Oracio says contradicts what God says.

Okay, let’s take a closer look at Romans 8:7-8 bit by bit.

Rom. 8:7a "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God”

Your interpretation from what I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) is:

"Unconverted sinners cannot choose to repent of setting their minds on the flesh and of being enemies of God in their minds; they cannot choose to repent even when God makes His own appeals to them to be reconciled to Him from their enmity toward Him."

Rom. 8:7b "for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.”

Your interpretation from what I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) is:

"Unconverted sinners cannot choose to repent of their insubordination to God’s law or of giving themselves over to their sinful desires or their fleshly/sinful state of mind in which they cannot obey God’s law.”

Rom. 8:8 "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Again, your interpretation from what I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) is:

"Unconverted sinners cannot choose to repent of being displeasing to God by being in (living according to) the flesh.”

Here’s how I understand those same verses bit by bit:

Rom. 8:7a "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God”

Unconverted sinners willingly set their minds on the flesh and are willingly hostile to God. By "willingly” I mean they can choose otherwise when God makes His own appeals to them to be reconciled from their enmity toward Him.

Rom. 8:7b "for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.”

While willingly setting their minds on the flesh, and while willingly continuing to be at war with God, unconverted sinners do not and cannot submit to God’s law in any kind of acceptable obedience to Him. Why? Because they are willingly in a state of mind in which they are continuously giving themselves over to their sinful desires and are willing slaves of them. While being in this fleshly/sinful state of mind, all their righteousnesses are as filthy rags in God’s sight (Isa. 64:6).

Rom. 8:8 "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Unconverted sinners willingly live according to the flesh and therefore they cannot please God while continuing to live in that fleshly/sinful state of mind. However, there is no indication that unconverted sinners cannot choose to repent of living in the flesh and of being displeasing to God. God makes His own appeals to them to be reconciled to Him and to save them from their fleshly/sinful state of mind and condition.

You say sinners cannot repent because repentance pleases God. But I think you are misunderstanding the kind of "pleasing” Romans 8:8 is referring to. It is not referring to pleasing God in the sense of choosing to repent and believe the gospel. It is referring to pleasing God in the sense of obeying God’s law as a born-again believer in Christ. Of course, they cannot please God in that sense until they are born again. As long as they remain unconverted they will continue to be at war with God and will continue to displease Him.

Hi Oracio,

Acts 17:30 - The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

God's will of command is that men everywhere repent. Agreed ?

Romans 8:7 - For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot

The man without the Spirit, the man whose mind is on the flesh, "cannot submit to the will of God", therefore clearly he cannot repent which is the will of God.

If Scripture says that natural man cannot do the will of God, and the will of God is to repent, then natural man cannot repent. That is crystal clear application of Scripture, not interpretation. I don't say it that way to offend. I say it in this abrupt way because I guess if we can't agree on what these two Scripture say, then we aren't going to find any common ground on this issue.

As to the problem in all men, their sinful flesh controls their heart. It is like a cancer attached to their heart. Men naturally in this condition hate God and are hostile to God because the sinful flesh has not been removed. The removal of the fleshly nature's control of the heart is God's revelation of the problem and of its solution.

It must be removed in order for the heart to be free of its control. That was true in the OT and the NT. Here is the support:

Romans 2:29 - But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. God does the removing of the sinful flesh from its control of the heart by the Spirit.

Deuteronomy 10:16 - Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn . (rebellious and hostile to the will of God.)

Deuteronomy 30:6 - And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. ( loving God and gladly submitting to God's will instead of hating Him and being hostile to His sovereignty)

God by the Spirit does the heart work necessary (spiritual circumcision) to cause the sinful natural man with an inclination to sin and a natural hostility to God by nature to have an inclination to love God and be submissive to God by a new nature.

Oracio, if I understand you correctly, you believe a man can change his mind anytime he wants to so that he loves God and surrenders to God.

I actually agree with that.

What Scripture says, what Jesus said, is that a man of the flesh not born again does not want to submit to God and come to the light. The flesh passions, loves and desires are for self love and self rule. Men cannot repent because men love self and hate God.

Sure they could change their mind theoretically but the desires of the flesh and the power of sin therin say absolutely no to such a thing and the flesh rules.

Brother Robert,

This last post is an example of what I describe as taking a verse from Romans 8 and overlaying upon other passages. Overlay may not be your preferred way of expressing this, but you do seem to lay Romans 8:7 as a type of cornerstone text that sets the direction and scope all other passages must conform to. I see the sincerity and logic in your presentation. Because you believe that indwelling sin has such a grip on a man, although the willingness may be there, the doing simply cannot be because the mind of the flesh will prevent it. God must first circumcise that heart and overrule that mind so that the man can be set free to respond to God.

To support this you quoted Deuteronomy 30:6 - here is this verse in the context in which it was given.

"Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you [a]call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God drives you, 2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 that the Lord your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the Lord your God has scattered you. 4 If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you. 5 Then the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers. 6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."

According to your logic, God's circumcision of the heart must take place before verse 1 of this passage. Yet, God Himself is speaking here, and His own description of when He will circumcise the heart differs from yours.

In the Septuagint, the same word for "receive" (δέξη) the active subjunctive form of the word "dekomai" underscores that the person considers the events that have come upon his life, takes it to heart, and consciously turns back to the Lord. THEN God circumcises his heart.

I simply ask you to acknowledge that it is not necessary to impose God circumcising the heart to enable a man to respond upon all other passages when God Himself does not choose to describe it that way.

The truth that God will forgive and cleanse and heal men who "humble themselves" is in perfect harmony with "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Your logic prevents the possibility of men humbling themselves because you insist that "God must give grace for a man to humble himself." You have clearly stated that even if a man wanted to humble himself, he can't because the mind of the flesh will not allow him.

Your logic only works by "eisegesis". You must read into multitudes of passages your "cornerstone verse" of Romans 8:7 to keep them logically consistent.

Everywhere a man is described by God as having been righteous, you must by "eisegesis" read into the text that God had already circumcised the man's heart to free him from the grip of the sinful mind. This process is not found by "exegesis" of the actual texts because God did not choose to describe the process this way.

I am not attempting you to move you from your position, but I hope you will acknowledge that your approach to interpreting Old Testament passages is clear indication that you have made Romans 8:7 a cornerstone verse in your own mind.

Again, I am not saying this approach is insincere or inconsistent logically, I am simply saying it is not the method God used. He had at His disposal, the grammar and means to express this explicitly but chose not to. Over and over again, God chose to express His initiative in dealing with men as "IF YOU - THEN I WILL!" I believe it is unwise to undermine this clear written revelation by "eisegesis".

mak

Thanks Mak, I don’t view Romans 8:5 as a cornerstone at all. I think there are a multitude of texts that set forth the hardness of the Gentile’s heart, Here’s another one:

Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.
They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. - Ephesians 4:18-19

I only used the Romans passage because it is simple and clear and then paired it next to another simple passage and read them together. That isn’t eisegesis at all as far as I can tell.

I was trying not to string cite to buttress what I think Scripure says because that turns people off, but rather I tried to pick out what would seem most clear and simple. Obviously not only was it not clear to you but my failure to include all Scriptural support made it seem like I was being myopic as well as dishonoring to God’s overall counsel.

What is difficult is when we draw conclusions and then dispose of Scriptures that run contrary to what we conclude by explaining what they do not or cannot mean. Many do that. I try not to because I love the truth and however it falls is good for me. I am 100% devoted to embracing what God says. Could you please tell me what Romans 8:7 means and not just what it can’t mean. Which minds are hostile to God and will not submit to Him. Is it a hypothetical group ?

Add, while you are thinking of the response, please also help me better understand what Jesus was saying when he said the majority would not come to the light because they loved the darkness. Why do some people love the darkness and reject the light and alternatively why do some love the light and come to it. What is the difference in the two groups?
I ask that help honestly because that text was taught in context by Jesus within 16 versus of His statement that one must be born again to (in context) see the light.

I will offer this explanation for how God overcomes the hardness of heart in man and the mind of the flesh and then later I will share my thoughts on John 3, but my simple explanation offered now may be enough for you to anticipate how I will answer John 3.

How is the hardness of man’s sinful heart and rebellious mind of the flesh overcome? God gives the grace of "reproof ". This is work of the Spirit - to reprove the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.” The carnal mind is hostile and resistant to God’s view of sin, so God through the Holy Spirit "RE- proves” the man thus enabling the man a way of escape from his own darkened, enslaved mind. God brings the conviction the sinful mind will not come to on its own. This is the drawing work of the Holy Spirit. The mind of the flesh will never "reprove” itself, only the Holy Spirit can overcome the stronghold of reasoning in the carnal mind.

This grace of reproof opens the door for a man to respond in faith, but does not force the decision - rather allows for the possibility. This is my understanding of BY GRACE - through faith.

Mak

Hi Mak. At your behest I went back and reviewed Deuteronomy 30. Take a look at the text again if you would. You are looking at the text as a sequence of events. From your view, God implores the people to return to Him and obey Him with all their heart and soul.....that would mean as I understand the law, "loving Him with all their heart and soul”. Would you agree?

Then, God says , in your view, if they do that, that is return and love Him with all their heart and soul, then God will circumcise their heart so that they will love Him with all their heart and soul. Does that sequential interpretation you made of that passage make sense ?

Mak, I understand that God reproves and convicts. Totally Biblical. Please provide Scriptural support that within that rebuke or conviction is the requisite power, ability or desire to obey.

Add: Mak, does repentance or faith in you view of those terms include love? That is does a true turning to God mean loving Him or is a love for God something separate and apart from changing your mind about God and trusting God? I think the answer actually plays a huge part in the difference in our two views.

Sure - "I am not ashamed of the GOSPEL for IT is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.” This is the word of truth of the gospel that was at work in the entire world as Paul so wonderfully described and still is today. The gospel provides the all the power necessary to set men free.

Mak

All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood the grace of God in truth.

To your follow up question, I believe a man receives the Spirit by the hearing of faith. The Spirit then sheds the love of God abroad in his heart and begins the process of sanctification and renewal of the mind.

Such a man is no longer in slavery to the flesh, but has the mind and willingness of the Holy Spirit.

Mak

We agree that sometimes in the Gospel God powerfully saves (that text is not about mere conviction only ). Sometimes when the Gospel is preached there is zero conviction. In conviction, what is the work of God that overcomes natural hostility. Obviously, in those who believe, the Gospel power has worked. What about what is happening in those who don’t. Did the Gospel work powerfully but fail to save.?

Add, Jesus said sometimes the seed of the word falls on the hardened path. No penetration. No overcoming of the hardness. Clearly by that teaching the Word of Jesus or the power of the Gospel does not overcome the hardness.

So, repentance and faith do not contain love in their motives or inspirations ?

So, repentance and faith do not contain love in their motives or inspirations ?

Faith works through love. When the Holy Spirit reproves a man of sin, righteousness and judgment, is it not in the context of God’s willingness to forgive? Conviction of sin comes along with the revelation of God’s love so that a man turning to God in repentance and faith is responding in love to the God who first loved him. The love of God is part of the power of the gospel.

What happens when the gospel is preached and men are not saved by its power? That depends, we are told to consider the long suffering of God to be salvation, knowing that God desires all men to be saved. However, when men act abusively to the preaching of the gospel, they judge themselves unworthy of eternal life.

Mak

Mak said:

"Faith works through love. When the Holy Spirit reproves a man of sin, righteousness and judgment, is it not in the context of God’s willingness to forgive? Conviction of sin comes along with the revelation of God’s love so that a man turning to God in repentance and faith is responding in love to the God who first loved him. The love of God is part of the power of the gospel."

So, we do love at the moment of repentance and faith. The circumcision of the heart is necessary at the least to love correct? Why do you restrict the effect of the circumcision of the heart to the affections. Would the heart not also include the mind and will. Is circumcision of the heart necessary to bring about freedom of the mind, will and affections? It seems like your limitation of the circumcision necessary to love God is strained given that true repentance and true faith are a call to decide and move towards a true love of God.
"
It seems strange to me that we can "decide" to love God without actually loving God. Maybe that is not strange for you.

I am saying God’s love enables us to believe and respond to the grace He is extending us. This grace enables our response of faith and we then receive the Holy Spirit through faith and then the spirit circumcises the heart. It is your insistence that the circumcision take place before the hearing of faith. That is not how I understand it.

Mak

Understood Mak, The simple idea I made too complicated is that it is logical and also very arguably seems consistent with Scripture that prior to Christ, our loves are wrong, our thinking is wrong and our decisions are wrong. In sum, our hearts are wrong. Thus, if God has to circumcise the heart so that the loves are right because the flesh hates God, then it is necessary that for our mind to see or perceive God as loving when the flesh mind sees Him as nonexistent or not good and thereafter, for the will to change direction from hating Him toward believing Him and loving Him when the fleshly will is strongly predisposed to follow the hateful mind and affections, then a circumcised heart is required.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Bible does include a definition of "heart" as the mind and the will in addition to the affections. If so, then a circumcised heart is able to free the mind, will and affections all at the same time and to turn the heart to God, to believe the truth God that God speaks, to see a revelation of Jesus as beautiful and to love God.

Since I know you also hold to the Biblical definition of "heart" that you then believe that there is some intervening power or move of God that suspends the natural evil bent of the mind and will to allow for the later full circumcision. I just don't see that plainly or even indirectly spelled out in Scripture. I don't think you see that directly spelled out either. I think you see it by implication.

i do see the opposite though in Scripture. Men suppress the truth, the light, and refuse to turn to the truth and love God because they love their darkness, their evil sin and their self rule. That's what I see.

Thanks a lot for all your sharing and patient instruction. I don't mean for my thanks to be the last word but I do appreciate your time and care.

Dear brother Robert,

I may be the one wrong - it is not the man who commends himself who is approved, but the man commended by God.

I don’t think our difference is that great. We both see God’s initiative and grace as the enabling necessary for men to respond to Him. The order or way that He does this is where we differ.

I believe the hearing of the gospel and the reproof of the Spirit penetrates deep enough to shine the light of the knowledge of the glory of God into the chamber where sin and darkness holds us prisoner. We hear His voice and His word of power awakens us to faith.

The gospel and the Holy Spirit are clearly working together. I simply do not call that work the circumcision of the heart. Just like Abraham was justified by faith first, and then received the sign of circumcision afterward, I believe the circumcision of our old man follows the justification by faith.

Mak

Mak, Oracio, Robert, witness, Fifi:

really really good stuff, I loved reading through it this am.

I feel much better so I can engage at a better level.

The tricky part is to jump in without pulling the discussion backward toward what has already been stated.

Hi Mak: you said..."I believe the circumcision of our old man follows the justification by faith."
In the sense of sanctification that would be true as I see it. In the sense of Justification our justification/new-birth/circumcision are simultaneous by the working of God when we were made a 'new creation in Christ'.

Is that how you all see it?

Thanks Robert and Mak. Robert, after your last post addressed to me I felt I was not going to have time to engage much for a bit due to having to go to work; so I was concerned your post would remain unanswered for a while; but thankfully Mak provided answers I agree with.

Greetings Marvin,

I don’t want to claim expertise on the exact steps or order involved, but I leave room for a little bit of room within man’s fallen state and enslavement that a God aided calling and reproof can result in the opportunity to respond to grace. I am not opposed to considering "circumcision” as having some part simultaneously, I simply would not insist on it.

Mak

What we do know is that the entire process is not done in one instant. Having been justified by His death, we shall be saved by His life.
We also have a part in the putting off of the old man. We know that our old man was crucified with Him so that the body of sin "might be” (potentially) rendered inoperative so that we might no longer be slaves to sin.

It is not necessary to see this process as a one time and everything is done. I love the reality of from faith to faith. From glory to glory. We have received grace to receive more grace. The hearing of faith by the gospel unto the justification by faith is not a singular event in time without continuing active faith. We walk in the footsteps of faith like Abraham.

Mak

Hi Mak and Oracio,

I think we can all agree that as to the one who ultimately believes in Jesus it matters little whether the heart is regenerated an instant before faith or whether repentance and faith come instantly first. Praise God it happens at all. :)

The real issue had to do with those who hear but don't come or with those who never hear at all.

One troubling thought to me.... It doesn't have to trouble anyone else but here it is. If we say that God shines the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus into every sinner's heart at the preaching of the Gospel as the precursor to responsive repentance and faith, then is understanding given to every hearer and non hearer of the Gospel? If you say only to the hearer or perhaps rarely to the thief on the cross, or Paul on the Damascus Road or to a muslim in a dream, then what about the many who never hear the Gospel if the Gospel is the key to conviction? Indeed the Gospel hasn't been heard at all by a lot of people.

Like I said before, I'm thrilled if the truth is God saves every person or only some. Whatever His will is in the matter. But, I think an explanation is in order if anyone is to argue that God doesn't soveriegnly choose some to believe or at least some to hear.

If you argue that light is required and received through the Gospel for all who hear and many don't hear, what's the explanation for the rest?

Hi Mak: We know circumcision is a sign...given by God to denote a covenantal relationship to God.

Here, in Colossians' 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Pauls speaks of this kind of circumcision done by Christ himself calling it "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh".
I interpret this as representative of new birth. The reason why is because our partnering with Christ, or some synergism with the Spirit of God is not included. So, by this text I believe that 'new covenant circumcision' is done solely by the work of Jesus Christ and it is equivalent to new Birth or regeneration of the Spirit.

I looked through the texts in the new testament regarding circumcision, I found no reference using that word to subsequently interpret as the on-going work of sanctification of the Spirit.

This term, like election, new birth, predestination, calling become verbs only in terms of God's acting upon his own plans and purposes.

This does not negate God's command to repent and believe; what do see it doing is answering the question proffered by many who regard the work of man a necessary component of their salvation.

I forgot to add Savannah to the 'really really good stuff list'.

Hi Robert: I posed this same question some time back, maybe at the beginning of this thread or another? Not sure.

you said...If you argue that light is required and received through the Gospel for all who hear and many don't hear, what's the explanation for the rest?

Go to any Arminian Church and you will find out their missionary work is predicated upon exactly that, namely the gospel is to be preached to every creature...otherwise they are destined for hell. I've heard this taught for the last 40 some years of my walk with Jesus.

It's not as if we all don't know what happens to sinners who do not believe, they die in their sins and are judged.

Even a cursory study of Church history shows huge gaps in missionary efforts and locale over the centuries.
With those gaps that we know and an Omnipotent God whom we know...who can send anyone anywhere anytime without going to the expense of a miracle...is the Church blood red with the sinners who died without the gospel given to them? or is there another factor? Namely election and providence?

I believe the Church shares some responsibility...but I also believe God send his Church and his word in his time according to is will.

There was nothing stopping Jesus from sending the apostles much farther in a much shorter time...if in fact there were people whom God intended to save but couldn't because of some lack in the Church, giving, faith etc.

Hi Marvin,

Sometimes I feel like Robert and yourself would like me to just cry "uncle" and give in to the "indisputable fact" that there is simply NO WAY a man dead in trespass and sin, enslaved to the law of sin in the flesh and under the dominion of a mind that is hostile to God and unable to submit to the law of God, could possibly have ANY PART AT ALL in responding to God's initiative.

Am I getting that feeling right? :) I admire the tenacity of your conviction. I can assure you that I have contemplated total passivity on man's part. I have considered whether man has ANY PART at all in responding to God's initiative. I realize that you are convinced that man is so dead that he must be first quickened by the Holy Spirit to even be able to hear in the sense of "the hearing of faith." Really, I get it. "UNCLE" - NOT!!!!

Perhaps none of us will ever budge, but I will not demean or disrespect your sincerely held conviction. I realize that you are convinced in your heart and by your diligent understanding of the scriptures, that this truth secures ALL GLORY to the Lord alone in the saving work of the elect. I fully respect that desire as commendable.

I have recognized this godly desire in many dear brothers who share a similar view as yours. I am frequently asked by such brothers upon meeting me for the first time - "Do you believe in the doctrines of grace?." I am always amused at the question and have wondered what would happen if I were to reply "no, I do not believe in the doctrines of grace." But I have never gone there, instead I have sought to enjoy sharing the truths of the glory of Christ with them, even as I have with yourself, Robert and Ray.

We share a deep appreciation for God's gracious initiative in saving men, apart from which - NO MAN could or would be saved. What then is that little hesitation in me that keeps me from fully embracing what you, Robert, and Ray have wonderfully and carefully set forth?

It's quite simple - grammar. Present ACTIVE Indicative, Aorist ACTIVE Indicative, Imperfect ACTIVE Indicative. The "ACTIVE" voice means that the writer wanted the reader to understand that the subject did the action.
"Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him unto righteousness." God inspired the use of the ACTIVE voice to preserve in the record. The passive voice was available to the writer; other grammatical expressions could have been used, but the ACTIVE voice was intentional. God intended for the reader to consider the ACTIVE participation of the subject.

Even in the passage in Colossians, the ACTIVE voice of receive is there. "Just as you RECEIVED (παρελάβετε) Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in Him." This is one of multitudes of grammatical examples of why I simply continue to stop short of the full embrace of what you hope to convince me. There is simply too much grammatical evidence of the ACTIVE voice describing believing to allow me to go as far as you have gone.

I assume, sincerely, that you would place that ACTIVE believe or receive, after the passive "circumcision" of the Spirit. I still cannot do so. I can only hope you will understand my reason and continue the fellowship that has reinforced my own respect of precisely how a matter is stated in every verse.

mak

I hope this is not too late to add. There is a something that I find interesting. From what I have read of yours, Roberts and Rays posts, none of you have an issue with dead men ACTIVELY refusing, or rejecting, the truth and ACTIVELY believing a lie, and taking pleasure in unrighteousness. You do not believe dead men are unable to reject or disbelieve, yet you insist that they are unable to believe or receive.

Mak,

You've gone from this, in your OP;

"I am driven by a desire to understand the truth and to genuinely consider a viewpoint that I am unfamiliar, even uncomfortable, with."

To this;

"Sometimes I feel like Robert and yourself would like me to just cry "uncle" and give in...Really, I get it. "UNCLE" - NOT!!!!

_____________

Momentarily, after reading thru the thread, I questioned your "genuinely consider", "unfamiliar", "uncomfortable with", statements in the OP. But, I have been made willing, after at first being unwilling, to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are/were sincere in your offer to discuss this.

____________

Mak said,

"From what I have read of yours, Roberts and Rays posts, none of you have an issue with dead men ACTIVELY refusing, or rejecting, the truth and ACTIVELY believing a lie, and taking pleasure in unrighteousness. You do not believe dead men are unable to reject or disbelieve, yet you insist that they are unable to believe or receive."

_________

No issue at all with dead men.

A fish need not evolve gills to breathe in its natural habitat/state. To become, as the evolutionists tell us, a land animal, they'd have to evolve lungs. Then, and only then, are they able to live above water.

They may have been unwilling to do so, but they didn't even desire to, being unable to do so or even will to do so. Fish won't come to the air, they love the water. They're fish!

Hi Mak: This discussion on this topic has been one of the best I've read, all the posters were candid, faithful to their convictions and willing to be scrutinized. That takes some courage and humility. I thought this hot-topic was handled very well considering the negative attitude held by many that it would turn into a slug-fest.

It is very commendable that you care to know what the scripture says...there are those on both sides who are content to believe whatever they are spoon-fed and so they adopt whatever doctrines that cause the least disruption in their personal lives.

As I said in an earlier post, the more you know about what someone really believes-in-detail the more you will come into conflict with that person. Because of this, you will find leaders who do not want anything more than a cursory study of doctrine...because when they try to work it out with others conflict will arise. So, stay stupid so you can stay at peace with each other. I warned my own pastor that theology and apologetics are seed beds for this sort of thing and there is a danger something can happen.

While teaching my first apologetics class, I so enraged one of my students that he wrote a defamatory email to the whole class calling me a heretic and calling for my resignation as an elder of the Church.
What was the topic? It was this exact topic we are discussing now.

My pastor used the exact same line of reasoning you gave in your last post paraphrasing..."there are godly men on both sides of this debate and have been for centuries, we love and appreciate the men on both sides for both are brothers in the faith, do not allow division among yourselves because you are being introduced to this subject and now you forming your own opinions".

As to Active voice...this detail is important, so important the reformed know that the man who is to be converted must be able/capable/empowered to believe and receive then obey what God has commanded. For that, the reformed believe in the regeneration-that-leads-to-conversion interpretation of scripture.

This is why discussions like this are valuable and profitable...because the reformed do not believe man is passive in conversion they believe he is active as you show the greek demonstrates grammatically.
But his regeneration is passive in that he cannot birth himself in a spiritually-dead condition. God births in order to bring about an active and willing conversion of the sinner where heart and mind are ready to partake of God's goodness with knowledge and faith.

bending Alan's big toe waaaaaay back...now say it

Thanks Marvin. Agree with your most recent post. I was thinking the exact same thing. Mak’s Argument for the "active” willing of the man in responding to the Gospel in no way refutes the idea that man must be regenerated at the time he is called to believe. In fact, as you say, it actually supports the idea of regeneration. God makes it possible for an active response from an otherwise spiritually unresponsive deadness.

Mak, sorry you felt pressured. Iron sharpens iron but we shouldn’t try to crush each other.

Hi Robert, my early pastors taught that regeneration and conversion where the same thing...or at least implied it.

Imagine my shock when I found out there is a difference. It is not until one deals with the seeming contradictions we read in scripture that one is forced to re-think regeneration/conversion. I admit most of it stemming from young bible teachers reading John 3 telling them 'they must be born again'. So, taking that as an imperative they tell their friends "Jesus said to be born again, so believe right now and you will be born again". And of course Jesus saves them, not because the teacher got it right about the interpretation (since it's in the indicative) but because the person actually believed and received...yet Jesus saving them is now reverse-engineered to mean 'believing on Jesus equals being born again'.

I know this for a fact because I did this exact same thing when I was younger in the faith and didn't know the difference. Now, did that stop anyone from coming to Jesus? No, not at all. I am not making an argument to say
doctrine really doesn't matter; I am saying Jesus loves us and uses us despite our errors in understanding and interpreting scripture...even what is supposed to be the 'easy stuff'.

Truth is, Jesus uses me despite my error in understanding and faulty interpretation...we all think we have it nailed down until we find out we don't. I am the poster child for God's grace in that area.

I too agree, I don't want mak to feel pressured...but then again the man has slain his 10,000 so I don't feel that bad about it.

Thanks Ray, Marvin and Robert,

This discussion has helped me come to a clearer understanding of your position on the "inability" side of the thread's opening question.

I have spent some time today attempting to apply your view by looking back through the history of the scriptures with the your view of complete inability apart from "regeneration"/"conversion". I would like to think "outloud" and give you the opportunity for input in the process.

If I understand what you have written correctly, it is impossible for any man born after Adam to obey God's law unless that man has experienced "regeneration"/"conversion". I do not want to be guilty of oversimplification, that is why I say "if I understand" your thoughts correctly.

I assume you believe the domination of the mind of the flesh is a universal experience for every descendent of Adam ever born, except for our Lord Jesus. To put it another way, every single man and woman in history, except for Jesus Christ, and possibly John the Baptist, were born slaves of sin and therefore completely unable to obey God's Laws unless they experienced the grace of "regeneration".
I have derived this from your explanation that a person must experience "regeneration" to even hear and believe.

Is this an accurate assessment? Please confirm or modify my assessment if you feel it is over general or mischaracterizes your view in any way.

I am attempting to understand how you would view any individual or group recorded in the biblical record as having followed the Lord and walked in His ways.

Please allow me to prevent several examples of what I am attempting to work through by applying your view.

Would you say that the citizens of Nineveh experienced "regeneration" so that they could hear, and repent at the preaching of Jonah? In other words, would you say that anytime any individual or group repented, they had to have been "regenerated" by grace to even be able to have done so?

Would you say that only Joshua and Caleb were "regenerated" by grace out of the other 603,498 men of their generation who died in the wilderness?

If any king of Judah who was described as following the way of the Lord, even for a time, would you say that he could only have done so because God granted him the grace of regeneration?

How do you view men like Solomon? Did he experience "regeneration" during the time God had appeared to him and gave him wisdom and understanding?

I think you can get a feel for what I am thinking. I do not want to be accused of misrepresenting your own view, but I am attempting to apply your understanding of "inability" as extensively as you have described it.

Please explain how your own view would differ from what I am working through or confirm that this is how you apply what you have described to the individuals and groups who "for a season" were described as obeying and pleasing God.

mak

Hi Mak.

That is the question that I ask myself a lot. First, no man can truly please God which I think you would agree with. Second, there were people who were considered "blameless” in His sight in the OT and pleased God in the NT. Paul says that "True Israel” was circumcised in heart. I think circumcision of the heart is the key to being a part of the covenant people of God in the OT and in the NT as I understand that text.

and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. - Romans 9:7-8

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. - Romans 2:28-29

So with that said and with that support and other support, it is those who are circumcised of heart who are of the covenant people of God who, freed from the sinful nature of the flesh, are able to practice righteousness. In the NT, the Holy Spirit indwells all the believers giving life and power that allows the child of God to become like Jesus which is far superior to what The OT saints were capable of.

The key is that Jesus is true Israel and the Jews inwardly, Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles who are in Him, are saved. Can please God.

That’s my understanding of Scripture. Can’t speak for rest.

Add. Mak, I want to add for the conversation that I’m a firm believer in charismatic gifts and do not adhere to "traditional church” ecclesiology preferring house chuches and the ministry of the saints and would be disowned by Calvinist, conservative Presbyterians and Baptists and most reformed believers I’m not coming at this from a system of theology. I take Scripture literally no matter where it divides me from others.

Thanks Robert,

What is your view of people like Solomon, who have a mixed testimony? Were they "circumcised" for a time? Do you consider those who did well for a time, but ended very poorly to have been the "elect" circumcised by God?

mak

Mak, please check out my "Add” to my most recent post.
To answer your question, as far as we can speculate, Solomon fell as many do but the question is whether their fall was final and without repentance. No indication of that in Scripture w/r to Solomon.

Thank you so much Robert, I can not express how much my own experience has brought me to the same place you have so beautifully expressed.

I am grateful to have had these opportunities to connect through this forum with such precious brothers.

mak

I would also be interested in reading your understanding of the Parable of the Sower. I consider it a parable about the different way men hear. How does your understanding of the man dead in sin and in need of a circumcised heart apply to our Lord’s admonition to "be very careful HOW you hear, for with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. However has will be given more and he will have an abundance, who does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him”

How do you see the 4 types of hearers? Are the first three all "unregenerated”? Is Jesus describing three different ways spiritually dead men hear the gospel and interact with it? Is the second soil, the man who receives the word and believes for awhile, someone who was never regenerated but allowed by sin to go so far before putting his faith to an end?

I think you get the idea. I would like to know your views on these different ways of hearing and your thoughts on why the Lord would categorize different ways of hearing in men if the real problem is that none of them are able to hear because they need to be regenerated first.

Mak

So far in this discussion I have not seen the real Good news of the gospel shared. Some have given an evil report magnifying what the 1st Adam did while neglecting and dismissing what Jesus Christ, the last Adam accomplished. Many have simply have disregarded what Christ did.

Here is the Good report ”“ the PERSON, Jesus Christ, the Living word came to earth as a human man He was the LAST ADAM who would totally nullify ”“ MAKE VOID and completely set aside all that the first Adam did. Christ became the NEW HEAD of the entire human race. The Word became flesh.

At one time the whole human race was in the first Adam because he was once the head of mankind in that he once represented all mankind. Every single person was in him. No one was excluded. We were all in his seed. When he sinned, we all sinned in him.

Then God sent Jesus Christ as the Last Adam and then the whole human race was in Jesus Christ. He became the NEW head of mankind in that He now represented all mankind. Every single person was mow in Him. No one was excluded. We were all in His seed. When He obeyed, we all obeyed in Him.

That means that the whole of mankind was in Christ as much as they were once IN the First Adam. No one was excluded by what the first Adam did and no one was excluded by what Christ did. That is impossible.

The first Adam did effect all of mankind but Christ ”“ the last Adam, nullified and MADE VOID all that 1st Adam did and then Christ re-effected the whole human race in the opposite direction,

Now what Adam did has NO EFFECT on any person. I do not have a sinful nature within me. There is no war taking place inside of me.

I AM NOT AN universalist and I not teaching that. You do need to believe that the PERSON of Christ - The Living Word is living, dwelling and abiding within you this very second.

Before you load your guns and shoot at me please take time to read the entire text from the Two Creations - Watchman Nee posted here.

Vern

If all are "in Christ” and Paul says there is now no condemnation for all who are in Christ, aren’t all therefore not condemned, that is saved? That sounds like universalism. How is it not?

It does not appear that you have read the entire text from the Two Creations - Watchman Nee posted here like I asked.

Here is the truth - God has already united you with Christ Jesus. That is your present reality.

1 Cor. 1:30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. NIV

God has united you with Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made him to be wisdom itself. Christ made us right with God; He made us pure and holy and He freed us from sin. NLT

Here is a section of the Watchman Nee post

How do we abide? `Of God are ye in Christ Jesus.' It was the work of God to put you there and He has done it. Now stay there! Do not be moved back onto your own ground. Never look at yourself as though you were not in Christ. Look at Christ and see yourself in Him. Abide in Him. Rest in the fact that God has put you in His Son, and live in the expectation that He will complete His work in you. It is for Him to make good the glorious promise that "sin shall not have dominion over you" (Rom. 6:14).

I would like to know from those who hold the "regeneration precedes faith" position, does a lost person need to hear the Word to be regenerated? If so, do they need to respond positively to the gospel message to be regenerated? Also, how does one know that they are regenerated prior to receiving faith? How much time can elapse between being regenerated and subsequent believing?

-Daniel

Vern , I read the article. I’m asking the question that if every man is in Christ then are all no longer under condemnation so long as they continue to abide in him. If so, isn’t that universalism.

Hi Daniel. It’s an instaneous thing which happens when the Gospel is heard by those in whom God chooses to reveal His Son. I’m again not speaking for everyone.

No it is not universalism because we still need to believe the gospel.

You left out an important part of that verse.

Rom 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Do you walk after the Spirit?

Are you in the 1st Adam or the Last Adam? How did you get there?

Vern. Ok. So only those who believe are in Christ then?

Robert said about regeneration:

Hi Daniel. It’s an instaneous thing which happens when the Gospel is heard by those in whom God chooses to reveal His Son. I’m again not speaking for everyone.

Does the person have to understand the Gospel before being regenerated? Do they have to have any particular opinion about the Gospel as it relates to them before being regenerated? Does the person have to respond in any way to the Gospel message before being regenerated?

-Daniel

No! all of mankind is now in Christ because of what the last Adam - CHRIST did.

The first Adam did effect all of mankind but Christ ”“ the last Adam, nullified and MADE VOID all that 1st Adam did and then Christ re-effected the whole human race in the opposite direction.

So you do not - and you can not put yourself in Christ by anything you do or not do. It was an act of God in Christ. Now we need to believe that we are NOW in Him!

Do you believe that you are now in Christ and that Christ is now in you?

That isn’t the gospel Vern

When David and Goliath faced off in battle, the agreement was simple. If David won, the entire army of the Philistines suffered defeat. If Goliath won, every person in Israel would become slaves to the Philistines. As "federal heads" of these two nations, David and Goliath were the Israelites and the Philistines. The lives and destiny of the two nations were contained in these two men at that moment. Now All of Israel was in David.

So when David won, the entire nation won no matter what they did or did not do. Now if an Israelite was asleep at home in bed he also was included in this victory just because David had represented him. Now if another Israelite was robbing and killing his neighbor at this time he was still included in this victory. David’s victory over Goliath included every single Israelite. Even If another Israelite was hiding in a cave because he was afraid of the Philistines would be included. This person still would be included even he did not believe the good news about how David defeated Goliath and as a result decided to remain in the cave. Now this person would not experience the joy of David’s victory for himself because of his refusal to believe but his refusal could never change the fact that David’s victory included him. Even when an Israeliet was born after this battle they still would enjoy David's victory, without doing anything just because David had won that battle

So it was with Jesus Christ. Mankind’s destiny had been wrapped up in Adam, but the Last Adam came and in His vicarious life defeated the Goliath of sin that threatened our destiny. Through His victory, we all have become victorious. His life was our life before the Father. His death was the end of our old lives. His resurrection was our birth. His indwelling life today is the bond of love between our Triune God and us. Humanity and Deity mix and mingle in an ever flowing river of pure love through Him. Jesus has succeeded at what He came to do. He has joined us to Himself and His Father through the communion of His Spirit. The Divine Agape who spoke all things into existence is your Life-Source. Whatever may be happening in our circumstances, we can live with the assurance that "we stand in Him complete." This is indeed "good tidings of great joy for all men."

What you are stating about God's work in Christ is true, however, taking from your example:
David represented Israel, God's chosen and elect people, not the whole world of men.
Even so, Christ's work, all encompassing as it may be, can only effectually apply to those who are in Him by living active faith, as part of the "elect" of God... not so?

Blessings,

Did not Adam represent the whole human race?

Then The Last Adam had to represent the whole human race. How could He not?

No one so far has answered this question.
So which Adam are you in and how did you get in?

The 'cup' you're attempting to get us to drink is diluted with toxic poison.

Methinks I'll drink the Cup of Blessing which Christ told us,His disciples to drink.

If you keep drinking from that 'cup', 'cup', you may get a DWI or worse. You may have a fatal crash.

Just a reminder, the subject of Mak's thread is about inability and unwillingness.

Rather than spill your 'cup' all over this thread, maybe you'd consider taking your 'cup' and pouring it out on another thread far away.

Daniel, At the time the Gospel is presented, God calls in an effectual way, the heart is changed, made new, spiritual sight and understanding is given for the first time, the eyes of the heart are enlightened to see the glory of God in Jesus and like Isaiah’s experience, to then see their own sin, to desire Jesus as savior, acknowledge Him as King and to value Him as the treasure of their heart. It’s a work wrought by God. Repentance and faith are granted by God in this grace filled miracle.

I suggest you consider the thief on the cross who sees with his natural eyes and understanding Jesus on the cross as a criminal and in an instant, he suddenly sees Him with new eyes as a savior and King. How’d he do that?

Like the disciples, it wasn’t flesh and blood who revealed the truth of Jesus
to him, it was the Father. One minute he sees a criminal, next he "sees” the Christ and the Kingdom. Jesus, said, unless one is born again from above he cannot see the Kingdom ( his King ).

Thank you Robert. I would just suggest that God's drawing the sinner to Himself prior to him believing and repenting is not "regeneration". It is a work of grace and of the Holy Spirit making the Word of God come alive to the person and they have revelation of their sin, their need for salvation, who Christ is and His being the necessary solution to their need, etc. This is God granting the sinner repentance and faith. That does not mean that God repents or believes for them but rather gives them the ability to do so at that point after the Spirit presses and reveals the truth of the gospel to them. Paul is very clear that faith is never a work, certainly not anything we do meritoriously. It is a simple responding to and receiving the gift of God offered to us through Jesus as we surrender ourselves to Him as Lord.

The word regeneration does not appear in the Bible as far as I know but the term "born again" does in John 3. A person cannot be said to be "saved" without experiencing regeneration or being "born again". We are saved by grace through (by means of) faith. The ability to believe is a gift from God after His Spirit works on the sinner's heart in manifold ways described previously. God gives the sinner who is moved upon by His Spirit the ability to repent and believe but God does not "pull the trigger" for him. He must do it out of humble submission and not from being strong armed or otherwise having his will "conquered". Martin Luther is most known for starting the Reformation with his recovering the truth of salvation by faith. I think he would roll over in his grave to hear his followers come to the position that personal faith has no bearing on becoming born again (regeneration). And I have never heard anywhere or at any time anyone boast that they saved themselves because they responded positively to the gospel by God's grace.

I do agree with Paul Washer and others who object to "easy believeism" where people hear a shallow presentation of the gospel that pulls at people's emotions and self-interest (go to heaven, avoid hell). I think there are scores of people who said the "sinner's prayer" in such a presentation which did not allow the Spirit to do a thorough work on the heart and they did not truly believe and weren't born again. Mental assent to certain salient facts about Jesus is not true faith.

Thanks Daniel.

Hi Vern you intermingle a lot of truth about the believer in Jesus with a re-invented universalism.

It allows you to deny it while building your foundation upon it. It's slick and tricky but not gospel.

In short as much as I agree with the truth about Jesus being our new life, that life is not 'automatic' since the death of Christ. That life is by way of regeneration/conversion. There is a place an time where the unbeliever becomes a believer.

Unless I mis-understand you, you are asserting we are all 'in Christ' Hitler is in Christ, Manson is in Christ, Murderers and destroyers of mankind are all in Christ...they just didn't follow the rules very well.

Your teachings make Jesus the minister of sin, and his Church is not differentiated from the world.
Jesus and all the Apostles teach that we were once sinners at birth now saints, once darkness, now light, one enemies, now friends, once alienated, now brought close. This happens in our life time as an event, a work of God.

If I was in Christ actually...then by change of mind became Christian where is the new birth? Where is regeneration? Where is my conversion? Is all that done away...and why are all those 'in Christ' folks going to the lake of fire? It's sounds like being 'in Christ' and being damned are the same thing.

Savannah is right, Vern take this to another thread.

Robert: you said...Add. Mak, I want to add for the conversation that I’m a firm believer in charismatic gifts and do not adhere to "traditional church” ecclesiology preferring house churches and the ministry of the saints and would be disowned by Calvinist, conservative Presbyterians and Baptists and most reformed believers I’m not coming at this from a system of theology. I take Scripture literally no matter where it divides me from others.

Oh how you are sing the same song as me. I'm the same brother. I have been booted from every reformed site but one online and the charismatics/pentacostals have a fit about my 'reformed' theology. Most folks know this about me already but I wanted to let you know there are two of us out there.

This is the ONLY site that has allowed me to be what I am openly without banning me.

Hi Witness Titus 3:5He saved us not by works of righteousness which we had done, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration, and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost,

If you peruse the others translations, almost all of them equate 'regeneration' with being Born-again...new birth.

It is interesting to note that what God did to 'save us' required 3 word pictures to explain it. Washing...new birth...renewing...equating to what God did when he made us new creations in Christ.

Titus 3:5 is absolutely true. It does not give a full account of how regeneration occurs but I cannot find anyone being saved in the New Testament who did not hear the word of God and respond by humbling themselves and believing the word first. And we know that believing is not a work of righteousness that we do. It is simply accepting the truth of God's word for ourselves and submitting and surrendering to Him.

The Philippian jailer asked Paul "What must I do to be saved?" For him to ask about "being saved" meant he must have heard or overheard Paul's gospel message. Notice Paul (and Silas) answer: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” He didn't say, "There's nothing you can do because any response to my preaching would be considered a work and not a gift. You just have to hope you're one of the predestined elect and if so God will save (regenerate) you so you can believe. Notice Paul's words are "believe ... and you will be saved" not "be saved and you will believe".

This whole argument about regeneration preceding faith is inferred (not explicitly stated) from a METAPHOR found in Ephesians 2 where sinners are said to be dead in trespasses and sins. In Romans 6 we (as Christians) are said to be DEAD to sin yet of course that doesn't mean we can't sin. It means the relationship we had of being slaves of sin has been broken by Christ. We no longer have that relationship to sin hence we are dead to sin. Sinners are dead to God because they have no relationship with Him (don't seek Him, listen to Him or obey Him). In the same way we find in the story of the prodigal son where after coming back and being reconciled to his father, the father rejoices that though his son was dead (during the time of being prodigal), he is now alive. Dead means there is no relationship. The Holy Spirit can powerfully give ability to dead sinners upon hearing the gospel to believe and thereby be saved (regenerated).

-Daniel

Daniel,

the argument for regeneration preceding faith isn't inferred. If it were an inference or supported merely by some sort of implication, I wouldn't make it at all. That to me is not the basis for any matter of God. That doesn't make me right or those who share my views right, it only means you shouldn't dismiss the Scriptures we focus on so lightly.

The basis of the argument begins with Scriptures that make statements about the limitations of the "natural man" to discern or understand spiritual matters and other Scriptures that you point out that speak of man's spiritual deadness. Next, are the Scriptures in John 3, John 6, John 8 and John 10, and John 17 explaining why some believe and some do not. It is clear I think that only those who are the sheep of God, the born again, who actually believe. Check out 1 John 5 and make sure you use the right Greek tenses to see that those who are believing "have been born again".

I know where you are coming from. From experience and from some Scriptures, the description is that we repent and believe and thus assume that is when we are then born again because that is when we are filled with the Holy Spirit. Being born again, however is more than receiving the Holy Spirit. It includes receiving a new heart and new spirit that are able to do certain things that were not possible to do before....... primarily to understand spiritual things and to obey God in the way God desires.

God commands people to repent and believe. It isn't a suggestion certainly and it is more than an invitation or offer. It is a command. If man's heart is unwilling and does not desire to obey God in worshipping God prior to the preaching of the Gospel because of a heart problem, then he is likewise unable to obey God because he hates God when it comes to obeying the command to repent and believe or at least that is the argument.

I just ask you to consider whether you are just assuming man is able to believe because God asked him to and the man did believe so therefore, believing comes first. What is going on in the heart is what is at issue. Not what he does in response to the heart. We all agree men repent and believe. The question being asked is what takes place in the heart that frees him to repent and believe. What is the root cause of men repenting and believing.

There are 3 choices. Men can believe without God's help. Men can only believe if God gives them the help and he gives the aid to all but only enough aid for the heart to be morally neutral. Or, finally, God must change the heart for men to believe because men's hearts desire the darkness and evil by nature and God solves that problem by giving a kind of heart ( a new creation) that desires God instead of hating God and He only does that for some ( billions perhaps but not all).

At the root of this for me is a kind of salvation that isn't just about wanting to avoid hell and trusting Jesus to bail them out, but one which involves a man or woman
seeing Jesus as a Savior, King and treasure in such a way that causes them to desire Him above all things. Only a life changing transformation of a heart that was self worshipping and God hating could accomplish that as I read Scripture.

Hi Witness: A couple of things.

Youre right about regeneration not being 'mapped out'. Because as Jesus explained it...
Jn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

The invisible working of God for regeneration/newbirth/born-again remains invisible to us. Jesus didn't elaborate on where and how the Spirit births a man into Jesus.

Second; the preaching of the gospel does not contain an element of 'guessing if I'm the elect'. I don't know of anyone ever who has stated to unbelievers "now if you know you are elect go ahead and pray to receive Jesus". No one does this. Why? Because the secret things of God belong to God, we don't preach the secret things of God, nor do we preach as if an unbeliever should 'know who's names are written in the Lambs book of Life".
What do we preach? Exactly as Paul stated in Act's 16 that you quoted.
Why? Because we trust God to do his part, which is regeneration/newbirth and we deliver the message that God has come into the world to save sinners.

As Gospel ministers our domain is the mind/will/emotion of a man. God's domain is transcendent, he is able to make alive what was dead...namely the spirit of man.
So, while I don't consider 'dead in sin' a metaphor, it is only one of many texts that require the working of God for man to become a new creation in Christ.

Robert,

You wrote:
"………and He only does that for some ( billions perhaps but not all).”

Paul urges us to pray for ALL men to be saved.

1 Tim. 2:1-6 (YLT) ”“
I exhort, then, first of all, there be made supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, for ((((( all men ))))):
2 for kings, and all who are in authority, that a quiet and peaceable life we may lead in all piety and gravity,
3 for this [is] right and acceptable before God our Saviour,
4 ((((( who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth )))));
5 for one [is] God, one also [is] mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus,

Are you heeding this scripture and praying for ALL men to be saved?

Are you praying for God's will to be done?

Is God able to answer our prayers and give grace to ALL to believe and repent?

Blessings

Thank you Robert and Marvin. If I haven't made it clear already, I am not a Pelagianist. The Holy Spirit must work on a lost sinner's heart and mind prior to believing and regeneration. This work includes, convicting and convincing, revealing who Jesus is and the work He did through the finished work of the Cross and being raised from the dead. All of this work is what Jesus called "drawing" to Him and can also be described as wooing and persuading. Only then can a person believe unto salvation. The instant a person believes, the very next instant he is regenerated and is sealed with the Holy Spirit. I suppose you could say it happens almost instantaneously together.

From what you have said Marvin it sounds like you use the term regeneration to describe this work of the Holy Spirit on the sinner's heart prior to him believing. I don't think that is the correct term to use but I would not break fellowship with you over it. I would like to ask one question to help me understand your position though. Can a person be regenerated (born again) without hearing (or reading) the Word of God? Notice I am not asking if everyone who hears the Word will be regenerated. We know many are not. But can a person be born again without receiving the Word of the gospel? This is a simple yes or no question.

I am also curious about how you go about witnessing\\evangelizing. I know you said you go street witnessing in a previous post. Do you tell the masses that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life? If someone seems hungry to receive Christ as Lord and Savior, what do you do at that point?

-Daniel

Just think:

God said to Abraham in Gen.15:5 (YLT) ”“
'Look attentively, I pray thee, towards the heavens, and count the stars, if thou art able to count them;' and He saith to him, 'Thus is thy seed.'

Gal. 3:16 (YLT) ”“
and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ;

Gal. 3:26 (NASB) ”“
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Number of stars in universe:

According to one estimate (which admits that it is a gross underestimation), there are about 1 septillion stars in the universe, or a "1” with 24 zeros after it, or 1000000000000000 billion.

https://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html

Number of people ever lived:

According to one estimate, by 2050 about 113 billion people will have ever lived on Earth.

https://www.prb.org/howmanypeoplehaveeverlivedonearth/

So, even if all the 113 billion people who ever lived (by 2050) are saved, this number falls vastly below the 1000000000000000 billion stars in the sky!

Do you limit God?

Will our infinite God have a glory limited by the smallness of our minds?

Hi Jade,

Paul was the writer that wrote the most about man's moral inability, his depravity, about the sin nature. He wrote the most about election, predestination and God choosing. He's the writer who wrote the most about suffering all things for the sake of the elect

He also said said that he wished he was accursed for the sake of all his Jewish brethern in the flesh if they could be saved.

I would like to get to that place because it is most Christlike because he actually was accursed for his brethern in the flesh.

Don't forget Jade, Jesus came to his own and wept that they would not come. Yet, He knew full well what was in men's hearts and knew that His Father had hardened the hearts of most of the Jews for their sinful rebellion and
did not open their hearts that they might see, hear and understand. In fact, Jesus knew that in 40 short years Jerusalem and most of it's inhabitants would be destroyed and like Jeremiah, he was a weeping prophet who had come to save the people from their rebelliousness and yet knew their hearts were already hardened by God's judgement. It was like Isaiah, who was told by God to go warn the people to turn back or face certain judgement, but God also told him that his mission would fail in the sense of any turning back because none would listen.

Jade, you can't see into my heart or the way I live my life and those things aren't actually relevant when we are trying to understand God, His word, His works, and His ways.

Obviously, you think and have said that the doctrine of election as many understand it is heartless which would render the God they worship heartless as well. That is where all the defensive responses start to arise.

Hello Robert,

Can we steer the discussion back towards how you, Marvin, and Ray apply your view of being "dead in trespass and sins" and "the mind of the flesh" (does not and can not submit) to any reference in the Old Testament where a group of people were said to have repented or walked in the ways of the Lord.

Please include your thoughts on the kings of Judah who followed the Lord for a significant period before turning away from Him. How do you apply your views for people like Solomon, the people of Nineveh.

Before the thread took off in a different direction, I was seeking to understand how just how extensive your view of complete inability is. If I understand what you have written previously, no one since Adam (except for our Lord) has ever been able to obey except for those He Himself has circumcised and regenerated. Is that correct?

If that is correct. Please explain your view of election regarding Old Testament characters, people groups, time periods like Joshua's first five years of conquest and that generation.

Please refer back to my last post for a more thorough question, it seems to have been buried some time back.

I would also be interested in reading your understanding of the Parable of the Sower. I consider it a parable about the different way men hear. How does your understanding of the man dead in sin and in need of a circumcised heart apply to our Lord’s admonition to "be very careful HOW you hear, for with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. However has will be given more and he will have an abundance, who does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him”

How do you see the 4 types of hearers? Are the first three all "unregenerated”? Is Jesus describing three different ways spiritually dead men hear the gospel and interact with it? Is the second soil, the man who receives the word and believes for awhile, someone who was never regenerated but allowed by sin to go so far before putting his faith to an end?

I think you get the idea. I would like to know your views on these different ways of hearing and your thoughts on why the Lord would categorize different ways of hearing in men if the real problem is that none of them are able to hear because they need to be regenerated first.

Mak

thanks

and to others, I respectfully ask that the thread be allowed to stay in this direction for awhile.

mak

Hi Mak,

The OT does not have much to say on how God worked or didn't work in men's hearts to accomplish His purposes. Of course, the ultimate "proof" would be that God gave the people His great favor and presence and laws for their good, but He said generally that they would nevertheless not obey Him, but rebel against Him and incur the wrathful judgments He warned them of. God's ultimate solution after showing all of History His goodness and mankinds' sinfulness was to tell men that in spite of their obstinate rebellion that He would solve man's sin problem not just with a Messiah for forgiveness and deliverance, but with a new covenant promise unto obedience.

However, in answer to your question, here are some Bible passages that I think will help you see the gist of how God was at work changing and directing hearts in the OT. These aren't all there are and they don't go as far in explanation as the NT does in the revelation of what God is doing today that was different than the OT generally.

Mak, don't forget that the Gentiles were generally, without hope and without God and excluded from the OT people of God. They were not as a whole part of the covenant people nor partakers of the promises to Abraham. There were a few exceptions, pointing as foretastes to the mystery of the Gospel, that is the Jews and Gentiles being together as one people reconciled in Christ after Jesus came. You generally find that God looked upon sinful mankind like he did when He destroyed them in the flood......their hearts are evil with evil intentions all the time. That's God's description, not mine.

1 Samuel 10:26 - Saul also went to his home at Gibeah, and with him went men of valor whose hearts God had touched

1 Samuel 10:9”“11

When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day. When they came to Gibeah, behold, a group of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them. And when all who knew him previously saw how he prophesied with the prophets, the people said to one another, "What has come over the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?” (ESV)

Proverbs 21:1 - The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.

Genesis 20:5”“6

Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this.” Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her. (ESV)

Exodus 36:2 - And Moses called Bezalel and Oholiab and every craftsman in whose mind the LORD had put skill, everyone whose heart stirred him up to come to do the work.
Ezra 1:5 - Then rose up the heads of the fathers' houses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites, everyone whose spirit God had stirred to go up to rebuild the house of the LORD that is in Jerusalem.

I think that before, I mentioned the verse Paul gives us that says that only those who are true Israel whose hearts had been circumcised are the covenant people of God even if they were Jews by natural descent. The fact is that is impossible to tell whose hearts were circumcised and whose were not from the limited record in the OT.

However, if you looked at the NT and saw all those Pharisees diligently but externally obeying everything God said to do in a most exact way, we might conclude, "boy, look at their obedience, they are certainly responding to God in positive way", what about their hearts?

Yet God would say they honor me externally but their hearts are far from me.

As to the kings that God said they pleased Him for a while but then they turned away, I honestly don't know their final eternal outcome. I won't say that they all had their hearts changed and you can't say that their obedience was from their own integrity. The Scripture just doesn't say that.

Look at King Saul, God changed His heart and yet he failed as a king. Whether failing as a King and the high standards God set for his obedience as God's representative is equivalent to damning himself, I don't know. God changing a man's heart doesn't make him into a religious robot. The changed man, new man, has a heart inclined to good and he still wars against his old nature that was inclined to evil at least that is what Scripture says as I see it. He still wars with the flesh and fails many times.

Mak,

As between you and I and our back and forth, it occurs to me that your main focus is on the decisions of the mind and the actions of the will. My main focus is on the desires of the heart.

Man's sin problem of course impacts the mind, the will and the desires. The NT Scriptures do often speak of a man's unwillingness and of his mind being darkened. We can converse about those aspects of sin's impact and man's nature. However, my point and I think the Bible's point in many places, is that it is evil desires that are at the root of man's sin problem. A strong lustful desire for self rule, self determination, self focus, and self love is man's ultimate sin problem.

If you stay at the mind and will level, we can go round and round about how man is active in exercising his decisions and active in executing on his own will. I will agree with you on that completely. Man makes responsible decisions and takes responsible actions.

The problem of inability however lies in the desires so we don't really get anywhere if you don't agree with that premise. That's why I keep going back to John 3:19. God's assessment is that men don't come to the light because of evil desires. The mind and the will aren't at the root of why someone comes or doesn't come.

That is further why I think God wrote Romans 1, to show us that men in their minds and wills suppress the truth because of their evil desire for self rule and for unrighteous evil they desire to do. They would rather worship wood so that they can pursue their evil desires than turn to God and give up self rule and their own desires.

I hope all that makes sense. Not that it making sense is right or convincing. I'm merely pointing out that I speak of desires as the inability ( which impacts inability in understanding and doing ) and you challenge inability solely at the mind and will level.

I am never going to make up my mind and execute my will to do something I naturally hate and despise with all my heart to do. That isn't just opinion from experience from knowing myself. That is actually what Jesus and the Holy Spirit say is the problem as I read the Gospels and Epistles. I am either a child of God, joyfully doing the will of my Father ( not perfectly but directionally ) or I am a child of the devil doing his will, not begrudgingly, but happily because I like and love my evil. Out of that love of my own evil, I willfully and intentionally deny the truth God so graciously reveals of Himself in all He has created and does.

As I said, we can go on about the mind and the will, but I will never satisfy your questions because my focus and I think Scriptures's ultimate focus is on evil desires controlling the man. Until those desires change, by a heart change, then man is caught up in a never ending cycle of sin, and constant struggle with his own conscience that is ultimately unable to change those evil desires.

Robert,

Whatever way you choose to describe the "problem” with bondage to sin, please discuss your thoughts on the parable of the sower and how you understand our Lord’s analogy of how men hear.

Again, however you yourself choose to describe man’s condition, I am not focusing upon "sin”, rather upon the men God described as fearing Him, walking in His ways, even those whose testimony is mixed.

It is your insistence on total inability because of sin that I am interested in considering how you understand men like Enoch, Job, Solomon, and Israel in general.
Added: it is good to remember that my focus has not been on "inability”, rather "unwillingness.” Yourself, Marvin, and Ray have kept the focus upon man’s complete inability to even hear or respond to God "before” He circumcises the heart and frees them to be able to believe.
Mak

Ok Mak, I appreciate you wanting to narrow it down. I thought I had answered the question in the previous two posts but maybe I rambled or seemed evasive. Here is the simple response I think you are asking for:

The parable of the soil explicitly says that only the heart that is pure and noble can receive God's word, including the word of Christ, and bear fruit. Jesus clearly said that the only people who are his true disciples are those who bear fruit. Simply, you must have a pure heart to receive the word in a living fruit bearing way. All other hearts have been left meaningfully unchanged and are not able to receive the word with a "living faith" that bears life. They are either completely hardened, rocky and man fearing or infested with worldly sinful desires. Whatever faith, appears to be evident in the rocky or sin infested heart is not a "living faith" but rather a "dead deceptive to the human eye faith" as James would describe it. As to how men get that pure heart that receives the word with living faith, I think God does that heart work by the New Covenant in Christ's blood. A pure heart made alive by God receives the living word with a living faith and bears the fruit of eternal life.

As to the men of old, the OT speaks of the hearts of men being changed by God but it only speaks in limited ways. Clearly, if Paul in the NT says that only those with circumcised hearts are the covenant people of God then all the men you list must have had their hearts circumcised in order to be men of God. God doesn't circumcise their hearts because they are His children. he takes their hearts and circumcises them to be His children.

I know that sounds abrupt but I want to be clear on what I've been saying I think Scripture teaches about God's salvific ways.

Thank you.

What about the men who had a "circumcised” heart and departed from the Lord?

Mak

By the way, thank you, for this is how I would have understood your view, because it is consistent.

Also, In your view the Lord’s whole point of the parable was to say it’s impossible to bear fruit unless you are regenerated by God first.
Or what do you think He was trying to convey?

Mak

Mak said,

it is good to remember that my focus has not been on "inability”, rather "unwillingness.” Yourself, Marvin, and Ray have kept the focus upon man’s complete inability to even hear or respond to God "before” He circumcises the heart and frees them to be able to believe.

Mak, I'm confused now. Your title says "inability" or "unwillingness" I should probably apologize for seeming to "insist" on anything. My point is that you can't talk about men being willing or unwilling if that isn't really the question. People say, we must be able or free to will to turn to God if He requires it or if we would want to. That I thought was much of the early debate. Of late, you have moved the conversation to saints of old which I'm happy to discuss. The problem is that much of the OT is silent about what is going on in men as they refuse God or turn to God.

However, God's statement about the super majority of mankind is that their hearts are evil with evil intentions all the time. I'm pretty sure then that the reason that the super majority of men don't turn to God is because of an evil heart problem. You didn't ask me about the super majority of men who refuse God and why they do, but that is also a relevant question to address from the OT. If you only want to focus rather on the hearts of the those who do please God, the super minority, then we can but that is a limited group and thus a limited conversation in terms of helping us understand man and his willingness or lack thereof to please God.

Robert, the reason I did not need to ask you about the majority of men is that you have thoroughly explained that all men are born in that condition of bondage and a corrupt heart.

Mak

I feel I must say this. Robert your explanation of the Parable of the Sower is a demonstration of how the original intent of a text can be warped by our theology.

Mak

Mak said,

What about the men who had a "circumcised” heart and departed from the Lord?

I'm not trying to be cute, but do you mean departed permanently or temporarily?

We are not always told what the end was, but they did so with a circumcised heart.

Mak

Mak, one other thing I want to add for your benefit, I work mostly in remote villages where there the churches are comprised of maybe 5 families. Do you know how many times we talk about these things? None. Which is not to say that it isn't important.

I obviously think the work of God in our salvation is glorious and praiseworthy. When we are in these villages and speak of salvation we only praise God for saving us. We don't get into the cause issue really at all and especially, we don't let anything preclude us from sharing with everyone the glory of Jesus in the Gospel and the desires of God that all would repent.

In fact, it is a great encouragement to me that I know that God can change any man's heart no matter how far into evil he has gone and I'm always hopeful and anticipating that the family of God will grow beyond all we can think or imagine. Nothing about the doctrine of the work of God in changing man's heart precludes God from saving every single man or woman left on earth!

Robert I am grateful to hear of your ministry there.

You entered into these discussions and have thus far expressed your views in a convincing way. I have considered them carefully and sought to apply them fairly to my own understanding of the scriptures.

I believe I have come to understand your position, for your explanation of the Parable of the Sower was nearly word for word how I anticipated you would answer, because it is the only explanation logically consistent with what you have shared thus far.

Please consider that the view you expressed is not consistent with the original purpose of the parable itself. I have considered your explanation and have found it irreconcilable with the actual emphasis on the importance of how carefully men need to hear. Please try again if you desire or believe it might be helpful, but your explanation is one of the main reasons that not only I, but many others do not fully embrace or agree with your understanding.

Our Lord's own explanation of the parable is that "no one lights a lamp for it to be hidden, but the lamp is put on to a pedestal so that ALL might see. There is nothing hidden that is not meant to be disclosed. His explanation for why some men do not see, hear, and understand, is the different ways they hear. The last soil is a man "who with a good and noble heart, by perseverance brings forth fruit." Those who work the ground know that if at any point the ground is not thoroughly worked in the beginning, it will be shallow and difficult for any plant to survive long. They also realize that if ground is neglected even after it has been prepared initially, the seeds that existed in the soil will spring back up and choke out what was planted. It takes "cultivation" to prevent weeds from choking out good plants. Good soil is soil that is thoroughly cultivated from beginning to the end.

I believe you have taken our Lord's original focus upon the responsibility of the hearer and warped it into a theological idea that the original hearer or reader would never perceive without a presupposition - ie. yours.

mak

Thanks Mak. :). Not biting on that one.

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." - John 8:47

Jesus said to Nicodemus, you must be born again to see or understand the Kingdom.

Jesus said, My sheep "hear” my voice and they will follow Me.

Mak, right hearing according to Jesus has only to do with being "of God”., being born again, being one of His sheep. Like Nicodemus, the meaning of that was lost on the hearers for the most part. I’’ll leave it to you figure out what being "of God” means from Scripture.

Mak said,

"Please consider that the view you expressed is not consistent with the original purpose of the parable itself."

__________

The original purpose of the parable(s).

Mark 4

As soon as Jesus was alone with the Twelve and those around Him, they asked Him about the parable.He replied, "The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside, everything is expressed in parables, so that,

‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,

and ever hearing but never understanding;

otherwise they might turn

and be forgiven.”

With many such parables Jesus spoke the word to them, to the extent that they could understand. He did not say anything to them without a parable. But privately He explained all things to His own disciples.

Matthew 13:34-36

Jesus spoke all these things to the crowds in parables. He did not tell them anything without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:

"I will open My mouth in parables;

I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world.”

Then Jesus dismissed the crowds and went into the house. His disciples came to Him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”

Luke 8:9,10

Then His disciples asked Him what this parable meant.

He replied, "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,

‘though seeing, they may not see;

though hearing, they may not understand.

Luke 10:21-24

In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.b All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

Then turning to the disciples he said privately, "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.”

Thanks Savannah. That was exactly Jesus’ response to Mak.

Ray,

These disciples "asked” for the parable to be explained. Everyone who asks receives. Everyone who seeks finds. Everyone who knocks the door is opened. The disciples had received the message from John the Baptist, this was the beginning of their relationship.

Jesus was clearly saying "there is nothing concealed that was not meant to be revealed. This is why He answered their question with a question. "Which of YOU lights a lamp to cover it up?” No one does that!

He was saying that anyone who wants to know can know! That is why men should be very careful HOW they hear. To the one who has, he will be given more....

The reference to Isaiah was a rebuke to the people for the same spiritual dullness that Isaiah dealt with. Just as the Lord longed for them to know, Jesus longed for the people to know and everyone who asked Him for understanding will receive understanding.

Mak

And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. - Matthew 13:11

Mak, your response to Savannah, given this Scripture appears to be error.

Hi Mak: I read the responses concerning the parable of the sower. A few remarks.

1. 3 out the 4 'sowings' failed. Either offense, the devil, or worldliness derailed these people, only one had the 'good heart' and that heart cannot be made good by their own efforts, works, prayers etc. God's working in that heart is the only effectual working that manifests change toward genuine repentance and faith.
2. The fact that the disciples asked about the meaning of the parable should be obvious. They were called of God, chosen by Jesus and anointed by him for his ministry. This in itself indicates another 'electing' work of grace and with that substantiates why the crowd received unexplained parables and the disciples received interpreted parables.

It appears you conflated the receiving of an interpretation by the disciples as equal to Jesus is willing to interpret to everyone the parables. He didn't do that at all.

3. Eschatologically the parable sits in front of the outpouring of the Spirit and the entrance of the New Covenant, where those who may have heard parables and didn't understand them and weren't granted an interpretation of them...did later receive the parables and the interpretation by means of the 'born-again' disciples empowered to declare the whole counsel of God.
Yet this also displays God's prerogative to reveal when what and to whom he choses according to his own plan.

The reality was then as now...no you don't just get to 'know' all about God and Christ by means of your just asking. The fault does not lay with God 'hiding the truth', it lay in the human nature suppressing the little truth that can be known and has been given. In my dealings with all sort of people the only ones that truly ask about the things of God are those whom God is convicting and convincing of his love and grace. The others through hundreds of conversations can recite the gospel and hate every word of it. Even to them even the interpretation of a parable is as senseless and meaningless as the parable itself.

In my unredeemed state, I was told many times to read the bible...and when I did, it was like reading hieroglyphics I could understand the story but it's importance and relevance were completely hidden from me.

Point is, our interpretation of this parable is not an attempt to show God in a negative light, but rather show that unless God intervenes, makes the heart good, and calls you unto himself you are destined to fail like the other 3 seed-beds who 'received' the word of God too.

This parable far from needing a twist from a reformed perspective validates God's prerogative in the salvation of man.

I simply think our Lord’s point was unless you hear carefully you will never bear fruit unto life.

Mak

Hi Robert you wrote

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." - John 8:47

Jesus said to Nicodemus, you must be born again to see or understand the Kingdom.

Jesus said, My sheep "hear” my voice and they will follow Me.

Mak, right hearing according to Jesus has only to do with being "of God”., being born again, being one of His sheep. Like Nicodemus, the meaning of that was lost on the heaters for the most part. I’’ll leave it to you figure out what being "of God” means from Scripture.

"Whoever was predetermined to be of God by irresistible means is irresistibly caused to hear the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is because God did not choose for you to be saved.”

Hears how I along with many other believers would interpret it:

"Whoever is willing to repent and believe the gospel when God draws them through the convicting/convincing work of the Spirit, hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you have willingly resisted the Spirit of grace and have refused to repent and believe the gospel, and have thus become hardened/calloused; you have chosen not to be of God and have no one to blame but yourself."

Towards John 3:3 and not being able to "see” the kingdom of God apart from new birth, Jesus goes on to say in verse 5 that one cannot "enter” the kingdom of God apart from new birth. So, we see that "seeing” the Kingdom is synonymous with "entering” the Kingdom in terms of the miraculous phenomena that occurs when one is saved.

The Greek word for "see” (εἴδω/eidō), has the following biblical usages (adapted from Blue Letter Bible):
I. to see
A. to perceive with the eyes
B. to perceive by any of the senses
C. to perceive, notice, discern, discover
D. to see
i. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything
ii. to pay attention, observe
iii. to see about something
a. i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it
iv. to inspect, examine
v. to look at, behold
E. to experience any state or condition
F. to see i.e. have an interview with, to visit

II. to know
A. to know of anything
B. to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive
i. of any fact
ii. the force and meaning of something which has definite meaning
iii. to know how, to be skilled in
C. to have regard for one, cherish, pay attention to (1Th. 5:12)

Depending on the context in which the term is used, it can connote either a surface level "seeing” or a more intimate and deeper type of experience. In other words, it can mean either to simply "outwardly” see something or someone, or to come to "know” something or someone through a deeper knowledge or acquaintance. In His talk with Nicodemus Jesus is referring to the latter. He is basically telling him he cannot come to know/experience or enter the kingdom of God apart from new birth.

Jesus explains that it is God’s Spirit using the Word of God who miraculously and mysteriously does that work of grace in the heart and soul of those who are saved (vv. 5-7).

Then in verses 14-21 Jesus goes on to explain to Nicodemus how one can be born again, that is, how one can experience the new birth; namely through faith in Him and all that He would go on to accomplish in His atoning death for our sins on the cross.

So, Jesus first mentions the new birth and then He goes on to explain how it is applied to the sinner, namely via the channel of a humble repentance and faith in Himself.

And that accords with certain scriptures which seem to provide a certain "Ordo Salutis” (order of salvation).

John 20:31 says, "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Notice the order there. By believing we may have life in his name. It does not say that by being regenerated first we may believe.

Ephesians 1:13 says, "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.”

Again, we are not told that we are first sealed with the Holy Spirit through regeneration so as to hear and believe in Christ. Rather, we first hear the word of truth, believe in Christ, then we are sealed with the Holy Spirit.

I do believe salvation happens in one "instance” though. But in that instantaneous moment there seems to be a certain order of steps. And that seems to leave room for a free will decision to believe upon Christ on the part of the sinner when the gospel is being presented to him or her.

Jesus said, My sheep "hear” my voice and they will follow Me.

"Jesus said, My sheep "hear” My voice because they are irresistibly "made” to hear My voice and they follow Me because they are made to follow Me through irresistible means.”

And again, mine and other believers’ understanding and interpretation is:

"Jesus sheep willingly (of their God-given free will) hear His voice and willingly (of their God-given free will) follow Him."

So I’d respectfully argue that there is no need to understand or interpret those passages in terms of God making sinners want Him by irresistible means.

Mak said,

"Jesus was clearly saying "there is nothing concealed that was not meant to be revealed."

__________

JESUS said,

"I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was well-pleasing in Your sight.

All things have been entrusted to Me by My Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.”

Luke 10:21,22

_______________

Mak,

You said that "nothing" was meant to be concealed. But rather that all was meant to be revealed.

You may want to recant that statement.

You may want to say, "nothing...with the exception of ______." (fill in the blank)

You may want to "simply think"...again!

Oracio,

Do you think that when Jesus says "you do not hear because you are not of God" that he is also saying that those who actually do hear do so because they are "of God".

I am not neglecting your other responses but that is the one that you left out. If you agree that Jesus is saying that those who hear do so because they are "of God", please tell me what Scripture says "of God" means.

Here are a few verses that I would go to:

John 8:44 - You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

so, there are those who are "of the devil".

John 1:13 - who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 1:34 - And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

1 John 4:7

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. (ESV)

1 John 3:9”“10

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (ESV)

So, children of God and children of the devil. When Jesus said to the unbelievers that they could not hear Him and then told them that their father is the devil do you really think it is crazy to draw the obvious conclusion that to hear God you must be of God or born of God?

Jesus said, you do not believe because you are not my sheep. He did not say you are not my sheep because you do not believe. Please teach me Biblically, how you become one of Jesus' sheep. It can't be because you believe because Jesus has already ruled that out.

Ray, it was Jesus who said that ... remember - I was only the echo.

Added:

Remember that Jesus told those to whom it was revealed. What I tell you in secret proclaim openly.

The great commission is go into ALL the world making disciples teaching them to obey ALL THINGS whatsoever I have commanded you.

There may be a timing involved. God reveals things to stewards so they will in turn make those things known to others.

Mak

Mak said,

(Remember that Jesus told those to whom it was revealed. What I tell you in secret proclaim openly.)

Mak, you are conflating Scriptures. Jesus said to you it has been given to understand, to them, the hearers of the parable, it has not been given to understand.

You can't change Jesus' words like that. It is clear that it was God's intention that the hearers of the parable would not understand. The understanding of the simple parable was not given to them by God. It was hidden from them. Why? You are running away from plain teaching and meaning.

Oracio said,

"...in verses 14-21 Jesus goes on to explain to Nicodemus how one can be born again, that is, how one can experience the new birth;

No, Jesus does not explain how one can be born again in verses 14-21. Here, He proclaims the Gospel. The facts, the truths which are to be believed.

He already went on to explain to Nicodemus how one can be born again, in the preceeding verses,

Jesus replied, "Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

"How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. "Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time to be born?”

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit. Do not be amazed that I said, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

To be conceived physically as we all have been is being born of the flesh. Even that birth is miraculous, as God must breathe life into us and make us a living soul.

I know numerous couples who have done everything in their power to produce a child, but to no avail. Only God opens and closes the womb.

To be born from above is God imparting His life into us by His Spirit, and so we are born of His Spirit and made alive unto God. Only God creates life in the spirit.

Oracio, you make the new birth, being 'born/generated from above' (as it is literally translated) less than the miracle it is.

Again, remember that God's salvation is also likened unto a resurrection, and also a new creation.

To the glory of God alone!

Thanks Robert,

First I'd say I never said it's crazy for you to draw those conclusion. I'd say it's not the correct interpretation but I wouldn't say it's a crazy one. I do admit there are certain verses that may seemingly "sound" Calvinistic but upon further proper exegesis they do not mean what they may appear to mean to some.

Towards the scriptures you shared which deal with "being of God" or being born of God, I'd say the burden of proof is on you to prove that they must be interpreted in terms of God irresistibly making sinners "be of God" or become born again apart from any free will choice of theirs. I'd say that when comparing scripture with scripture, we find that sinners do in fact have a choice in the matter.

Towards unrepentant sinners not believing in Christ because they are not part of His sheep, I'd say again that the burden of proof is on you to prove they don't have a choice in the matter of being or not being part of His sheep.

In other words, because they are willingly of their father the devil and refuse to be part of His sheep when He calls out to them to be saved, they refuse to hear His words and to believe upon Him so as to be saved.

If on the other hand it means as you seem to imply, that they have no choice but to be of the devil and that God is the one preventing them from being part of His sheep, would that not give them an excuse to continue in their rebellion against Christ?

In other words, if Christ is essentially telling them, "You do not believe in Me because God has not made you willing to believe in Me through irresistible means," would that not give them good reason to turn around and say to Him, "If we cannot but remain in our unbelief and have absolutely no choice in the matter, there is no hope for our salvation but must remain in our unbelief."

Yet that would contradict so many scriptures which speak of God calling out to all sinners to be saved and holding them responsible (able-to-respond) for their refusal to be saved. Unfortunately I do not have the time right now to share several of those scriptures.

Hi savannah, I think you hinted on something very relevant and revealing in this discussion. You implied that if we believe man has a choice in the matter of receiving the salvation God offers, man gets some of the glory instead of God getting all the glory for salvation.

But I'd say respectfully that you are conflating God's prerogative to save sinners with their ability and responsibility to respond to God's offer.

In other words, it is God alone who offers salvation and does all the saving, 100% of it. But that does not mean man cannot receive that salvation (which again is offered and wrought 100% by God) through a free will choice of his own.

Oracio said,

"I do admit there are certain verses that may seemingly "sound" Calvinistic but upon further proper exegesis they do not mean what they may appear to mean to some."

_______________

George said,

Before this period I had been much opposed to the doctrines of election, particular redemption, and final persevering grace; so much so that, a few days after my arrival at Teignmouth I called election a devilish doctrine. I did not believe that I had brought myself to the Lord, for that was too manifestly false; but yet I held, that I might have resisted finally.

And further, I knew nothing about the choice of God's people, and did not believe that the child of God, when once made so, was safe for ever. In my fleshly mind I had repeatedly said, "If once I could prove that I am a child of God for ever, I might go back into the world for a year or two, and then return to the Lord, and at last be saved."

But now I was brought to examine these precious truths by the word of God. Being made willing to have no glory of my own in the conversion of sinners, but to consider myself merely as an instrument; and being made willing to receive what the Scriptures said; I went to the Lord, reading the New Testament from the beginning, with a particular reference to these truths. To my great astonishment I found that the passages which speak decidedly for election and persevering grace were about four times as many as those which speak apparently against these truths; and even those few, shortly after, when I had examined and understood them, served to confirm me in the above doctrines.

As to the effect which my belief in these doctrines had on me, I am constrained to state, for God's glory, that though I am still exceedingly weak, and by no means so dead to the lusts of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, as I might and as I ought to be, yet, by the grace of God, I have walked more closely with Him since that period.

My life has not been so variable, and I may say that I have lived much more for God than before. And for this have I been strengthened by the Lord, in a great measure, through the instrumentality of these truths. For in the time of temptation, I have been repeatedly led to say:

"Should I thus sin? I should only bring misery into my soul for a time, and dishonour God; for, being a son of God for ever, I should have to be brought back again, though it might be in the way of severe chastisement."

Thus, I say, the electing love of God in Christ (when I have been able to realize it) has often been the means of producing holiness, instead of leading me into sin. It is only the notional apprehension of such truths, the want of having them in the heart, whilst they are in the head, which is dangerous. - George Mueller

George read through the entire Scriptures over 100 times.

Thanks Oracio for responding.

There is no burden of proof on anybody. The Scriptures I put forth supply similar meanings of what "of God” means. When you have time, please give the Scriptures that would help us know the meaning of 'of God'. We can and should first use Scripture to better understand Scripture and clearly "of God” needs a definition because Jesus says you cannot hear Him unless you are of God.

I understand you don’t think my verses gives us a good explanation of the term, so when you have time give me the Scriptures that you would use to define that term. That’s not putting a burden of proof on you. It’s asking for a definition of a term from Scripture rather than an interpretation.

Hi Daniel: God uses his own word to bring about the power of God for salvation so yes it is necessary. Individual occurrences of dreams or visions or warnings will lead them back to confirmation in the word of God.

When I witness, I do share both the sinful condition they are in, the punishment for that sinful condition and how God through Christ is calling all men to repent and believe.
Those who are engaging, questioning and I sense the working of God upon them are especially encouraging to me. I will pray with them, invite them to believe and receive Jesus Christ. I will offer them a bible or invite them to Church.

I do let sinners know there is love from God for sinners, but their case is sad...they have not sought to know God, but rather run from him, sinned hoping he would never invade their lives. Such suppression of God's convictions proves God exists...otherwise suppression, avoidance and denial would be of no consequence. No one creates excuses and suppresses a thing unless that thing truly has power.
No one avoids flying spaghetti monsters...but God they avoid.

I exhort them, now is the time to stop running.

This and many other kinds of confrontative witnessing I do.

Hi Robert,

I did not mean to confuse you or Ray, Jesus is the one who made both statements. Jesus said: "There is nothing hidden that is not meant to be concealed..." and "what I tell you in secret proclaim openly".

You can not read Isaiah without seeing the heart of God to be known by His people and their own stubborn refusal to turn back to him. Jesus' words were to "fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah" because God foreknew the condition of His people.

Jesus was being asked a question by His disciples, Why do you speak to the multitudes in parables? He quoted Isaiah, to explain why the secrets of the kingdom of God were given to those able to understand it. He did not stop there that is why he answered their question with His own question to them.

"Which of you light a lamp only to cover it with a bowl? Or Who lights a lamp and then places it under a bed?. Robert, can't you SEE the reason for His question? NO ONE LIGHTS a LAMP to "CONCEAL" anything. Jesus was making it clear, that it was NOT HIS FATHER who is trying to hide the light from the people, it was their condition, foreseen and foreknown to be similar to the hearts of the people in Isaiah's day, that was the cause of their blindness.

You can not read and understand Isaiah without seeing how great God's longing was for His people to know and understand Him. He pled with them - "COME let us reason together says the Lord..." Their response to His clear and passionate desire for them to know Him is the backdrop behind "they have eyes but do not see, ears but do not hear." His desire for them is so evident in the very same passage. 'If they saw with their eyes, and heard with their ears. and understood with their hearts, THEY WOULD TURN, and I would heal them." That is what God wants, but the people -"closed their eyes, shut their ears, and hardened their hearts." God gives people over to their stubborn refusal to hear and that is why we have this admonition. "Today if you hear His voice, harden not your hearts."

I believe a little child can see God's heart for His people, if someone were to simply relate to them all that God has done and how the people had responded. But the "wise and the learned" just won't see it that way.

mak

Thanks Mak,

I think you are misinterpreting the light under a bushel passage. Jesus in Matthew 5 told his apostles that they would be persecuted but blessed because they would be going out to proclaim Jesus as resurrected and the Christ, being peacemakers. He warned them not to back down from the persecution that would come and to proclaim what He whispered to them ( Matthew 10 ). He said in Matthew 5 and Matthew 10 that if they failed in their mission to be salt and light that they would be dung. Strong words but that was what Jesus was telling them with the light/bushel teaching.

God likewise told Isaiah that he would go forth with a warning to the people but they would not listen to Isaiah. Yet God sent him anyway. Same thing happened to Jeremiah and all the prophets.

Again, Mak, God makes entreaties in spite of His knowing they won't respond. It is because He wants their repentance but He also knows their hearts. Further, God wants to reveal His own goodness by continually reaching out and to reveal the evil in men's hearts by their continual refusal.

The really amazing thing is that God decides to reserve for Himself a remnant. Now you will likely say they are a remnant because they decide they won't bow the knee to Baal and I would agree. Why they don't bow the knee is the question. You say its because they freely choose to listen to God and I would agree with that. The question beneath even that answer is why do they freely choose to hear God and not close their ears to hear His warning and entreaty ? Because they are wiser, more humble, or because they worked up a good heart? I think Scripture has a clear answer.....God gives them that compliant, understanding, listening and freely loving heart.

The fact that He gives them a heart that by nature that is inclined to good seems to be objectionable because somehow if that is what happens God is thereby "forcing" someone to have a good heart and decide for Him when they don't really want to. I don't think that way. I think God is creator and He can form a lump of clay into anything He wants and I for one am grateful He gave me a heart that naturally is inclined to love Him, fear Him, treasure Him, understand Him, believe in Him and be so ready to be with Him.

ADD, Mak, just saying someone is more willing or was willing at all isn't an answer to why? The question is why were they willing? What made one man more willing than another man. Saying that someone is more willing just because they freely willed is not an explanation but a conclusion. Why is one guy more willing when many were not?. Is it because the willing guy possessed more Wisdom, Humility, more Knowledge
or a better heart or was just a "better"responder to grace? I think one would need to be really careful about making that the answer because there are Scriptures that would speak directly against that claim.

Robert,

Please look at the context again of the light under a bushel. To understand the analogy, simply put the sentences together.

No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed, but sets it on a lampstand, that those who enter may see the light. 17 For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light. 18 Therefore take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him.”

The statements that follow expand upon the prior ones. It is light that makes visible. Light is given for "visibility". Whoever has will be given more - "Visibility", but whoever does not have (lack of visibility), even what he thinks he has, will be taken from him."

Where do you get any idea of persecution or hiding from this passage. That interpretation is very subjective. The theme of the parable is the different conditions of men's hearts and this is the reason for differing results.

The path of the righteous is as the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter unto the full light of day. He who follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.

This is the verdict, Light has come, but men loved darkness more than light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who loves the truth, comes into the light....

Light represents God's revelation. Jesus came a light. Those who receive His light, will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Those who refuse to come to the light, even the light they think they have will be taken from them. BECAUSE they did not approve to have God in full knowledge, He gave them over to a disapproved mind. Their ignorance was not His desire, but the result of their own choice.

mak

Thank you Marvin for responding. I am relieved to find that you agree that God's gospel word is His power to save (regenerate) lost sinners. For a minute there I thought you were going to tell me that God just "zaps" people into regeneration without any gospel being presented at all.

I also applaud your witnessing. If you encourage the lost to believe on the Lord Jesus and then suggest that their believing (true faith of course and not mental assent or just saying a prayer) is evidence or confirmation that they are saved I can also live with that even though I think technically the order is reversed. I have decided ideas about how our positive response to hearing the gospel doesn't earn salvation for us but does receive the free gift. But as long as you preach the gospel and let people know that believing and salvation are inextricably tied together I won't fault you. If you believe, salvation is yours. God grants faith and repentance in the sense that only after He enables us by His Spirit working with the Word upon our heart can we actually repent and believe. But after enabling, it is us who does the repenting and believing and neither are "works" that earn us anything. Grace is not opposed to effort, it is opposed to earning. Earning is an attitude. Effort is an action.

I, like you, came from a Charismatic background and believe in the exercise of spiritual gifts and the working of miracles. I can imagine the eyebrows you raise in Reformed circles. I'm so glad you are not cessionist like they are. Be blessed.

-Daniel

Thanks Mak, I'll revisit the passage as suggested and come back. Would you mind letting me know your thoughts as to why some are willing and some are not?

Hi Robert, real quick since I'm pressed on time; I meant that "unconditional election" and "total inability" are read into those passages without biblical or exegetical warrant. I'm saying the overall teaching of God's Word (i.e. a proper contextual, biblical exegesis) negates those two correlated doctrines.

Hi Mak, I went back and looked at the light and bushel passage:

Here is what I was looking at:

Matthew 5:11”“16

"Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (ESV)

Are we using the same passage for this discussion? Assuming we are, then read the persecution passage continuously through with the salt and light warning. I think you get to the same place I was alluding to. If its another passage you are referring to, please let me know.

Jesus carried through with this same warning to his prophet/apostles in Matthew 10 telling them He was sending them out as sheep among wolves, that they would be persecuted for their testimony ( of the light ) and that they should not fear man but fear Him because He could cast their body and soul in Hell. It's the same thing He warned them about when he instructed them to be faithful as good managers or stewards.... that they should be found doing what He called them to do when He returned. That understanding of these passages has zero theologically to do with with my understanding of the new heart so please don't put that on me. This is simply how I naturally read the progression in Matthew 5:11-16.

Honestly a great question Robert. I am not certain that I can do more than make some observations.

We know that men can harden their hearts, so it stands that not all hearts are hard at all times. Men therefore can have different conditions of their hearts.

We also know that wisdom calls out to the "innocent" and to the "simple." By this we can derive that for a time some men are "innocent" and "simple", while others have become "haughty", "proud, and "abusive." These distinctions between men abound throughout the scriptures. Proverbs chapter 1 is filled with instructions for teaching the "simple" and "the young". We also know that "fools" die for lack of discipline, led astray by their own great folly" and their fate is set in contrast with those who "listen to wisdom." Men are blessed for watching at wisdom's house, waiting at her doorway. Men who embrace wisdom lay hold of life, while men who hate wisdom love death.

It is interesting to note, that the a simple reading of the proverbs would lead one to conclude that the difference between some men and others is their "folly" and their attitude towards wisdom and discipline. That is sufficient to me because it makes so much sense.

mak

We also know that Paul makes it plain because, "although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." By this we derive that at one time their hearts had more light and their thoughts BECAME vain only after not glorifying the God they knew.

I believe we already agree that men have a role in their depraved state. I believe we also agree that God is not unjust to give them over to that state they have chosen. I, like yourself, am grateful that God has chosen to preserve a remnant to Himself. I simply am not convinced it is all one or the other.

The eyes of the Lord run back and forth throughout the whole earth, to show Himself mighty in behalf of the man whose heart is perfect towards him. These were the words of a prophet speaking to the people of God. I understand that you believe God must make the heart of such a man perfect, but why would God choose to say it the way He did then. The prophet did not say, God runs back and forth throughout the entire earth to show Himself mighty to the man whose heart He has made perfect towards Him."

Hi Mak. I know you do t mean this but to say that We are able to hear and thus answer affirmatively is because of prior good works like being humble or innocent or responding well to earlier grace. Those are all works which would imply some merit in the man.

Hi Robert, now we are getting into whether repentance and faith are meritorious works that can earn salvation, which I think is good to discuss here. Wish I had more time.

Oracio said:

Robert, now we are getting into whether repentance and faith are meritorious works that can earn salvation, which I think is good to discuss here. Wish I had more time.

Ok Oracio. But let me be the first to plant the flag to say that the burden of proof is on you to prove that they are not. :). :)

Thanks Robert, my thoughts are limited to why some men appear to be more open to God’s initiative than others.

For example, we would think Enoch had an impact on Methueleh’s life and that Methuseleh in turn impacted the life of Lamech and Noah. Having a godly father certainly does not guarantee a godly son, but fathers are encouraged to train up their children and teach them to walk according to the Lord’s laws.

Doesn’t scripture encourage us to consider the potential impact we can have on others? This may be at least part of the reason some men are more responsive to God than others.

This certainly does not take away from God’s power to pluck a completely pagan man out of his ungodly heritage.

Abraham’s family line may have had a part in his own responsiveness to God’s call.

Mak

Mak, the history of God’s work in choosing a man or a people as his own has almost always been in spite of their gifting, abilities, prior responsiveness , age, entitlement, wealth or wisdom. He said He chose Israel and loved Israel not because of their strength, numbers or humble compliance but rather because of His own free will choice and love. Paul tells the Corinthian church the exact same thing and Paul repeats that exact same theological principle in Romans 9 and elsewhere. God describes the Israelites as stiffnecked and rebellious and says He chose them anyway. To be honest Mak, the principle that it is God’s free will that determines His people and not their free will is simply overwhelming to me. I wish it were likewise for all. Sincerely.

Good one Robert :)

Amen Robert and we rejoice that God does this, but are we to believe because God has instructed Fathers to train up and discipline their children that some beneficial significance is intended. Or are we to parent in the light of "this won’t mean a hill of beans to God but here goes nothin.”

The question is NOT about what makes us "attractive” to God, but what factors may be involved in what makes some men more responsive to Him.

Are you hyper sensitive to "merit” based striving? Fathers are commanded to train up their children in righteousness because this is pleasing to God. Are they guilty of trying to gain merit by following God’s commands. Should not a father hope to influence his son or daughter to have a sensitive heart and a good conscience?

From your vantage point -would you say why bother - it doesn’t make any difference?

Mak. I’m not hypersensitive to merit based striving. God is. The Catholic Church is totally based on merit based striving. They believe our cooperation with God’s supplied grace is a secondary cause and source of our salvation.

God goes to great length in Scripture to dispel the notion in man that he is even partially responsible in the merit sense for his own salvation. We in my view of Scripture see God granting the conviction, repentance, love of
the truth, faith , new heart and indwelling Spirit and obedience that are part of our calling, justification and glorification or in total, our salvation. If man inserts his own abilities in the middle of that, God gets sensitive. The Bible says clearly He grants repentance, He grants belief and He gives new heart, new power, Holy Spirit, and He gives in grace justification, sanctification and glorification. In total..,salvation. Everything I just wrote is a verse from Scripture.

Robert, you correctly point out that both repentance and faith do not merit or earn us salvation. Yes, Catholics do believe that they partly earn salvation by their good works and this is heresy that will doom them to reprobation. None of us here think either repentance or faith earn us, in any way, favor or right standing with God. That is not to say the they don't have value. God commands us to repent and believe. I think the difference in our viewpoints is that because the Bible does say God grants someone repentance or faith that you either think God does both for them or that they cannot resist repenting or believing as if God is some kind of sovereign puppeteer. I believe God works on the hearts and minds of lost souls by His Holy Spirit and the fruition of that work causes the person to willing (not forcefully) submit to God and repent and believe. Such a soul dealt with by God is humbled by the experience to know that God is the one who saved him and worked on his heart to lead him to repentance and faith willingly. I cannot find one person (except Pelagianists and/or some Catholics) who goes around boasting that they earned or merited salvation to any degree because they exercised faith or repented.

-Daniel

The law of the Lord is perfect
converting the soul
Making wise the simple
Enlightening the eyes
Rejoicing the heart
For by them is your servant warned
In keeping them there is great reward.

Mak

Hi Robert, regarding humble, child-like faith/trust in Christ as Savior and Lord, I’d argue that there is no biblical support for seeing it as a meritorious work of the law even if understood in terms of a sinner being able to exercise it via a God-given free will. If faith was a work of the law that merits salvation, the cross could not be our sole ground of justification; rather, our faith would have to atone for our sins at least in part if not fully. Yet Scripture clearly declares that the cross of Christ is the sole ground of our justification; i.e. Christ crucified is the only thing that has paid for, atoned for, merited and purchased our salvation, not our faith or anything else we may do.

Scripture is clear that faith is not a meritorious work of the law, but rather that faith and works of the law are diametrically opposed to each other. Here are some explicit scriptures on that:

Romans 3:20-21 "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.”

Romans 3:27-28 "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

Romans 4:1-5 "What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness”

God does choose to reward faith, but not based on merit. It is purely by His grace that He chooses to reward faith. He is not obligated to reward our faith. True faith is something that pleases Him, but again, not in terms of merit.

When the prodigal son returned in repentance to the father, the father did not have to forgive him. The father could have justly withheld forgiveness from the son despite his repentance. The son’s repentance did not earn or merit the father’s forgiveness. The father graciously chose to reward his son’s humility and repentance though he was not obligated to do so.

That’s exactly how it is with our heavenly Father. He delights in pardoning repentant sinners. That is His heart toward all sinners; But they must choose to repent and trust in Him. They must choose to lay down their rebellion and wave the white flag of sweet surrender to Christ.

It’s like a king who has rebellious subjects seeking to overthrow him and his kingdom. Let’s suppose the king could easily execute the rebels at any time he wanted. But let’s say that instead, the king graciously offered them terms of peace upon their repentance; and let’s say the rebels did repent and made things right with the king upon the king’s terms. Would it therefore follow that the rebels somehow earned the king's pardon by their repentance? Of course not. Even though the king chose to be pleased with the rebels' repentance, it does not mean their repentance merited or earned the pardon and reconciliation.

Robert,

The doctrine of election and predestination that consigns the majority of mankind to eternal torment and hopelessness IS heartless. Can you say it is not? Man, NOT God, is the author of that doctrine. God is Love.

I do not judge you. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ and each one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Mak has requested that we keep to his OP so this is my last word here and I am leaving this thread.

Guys,

People have different motives when sharing on this forum. For me, I hoped to respond to a question Mak started with and. as he suggested, to work like nobel Bereans and sort through Scripture to arrive at an answer to the question of what is man's problem that must be overcome in order for him to be converted. I jumped in with both feet in the hope of sharing any insights I had into that question and Scriptures that might speak to that. I was certainly very open to hearing out others' views but obviously more interested in "what does God say"?

I think that generally has been the attitude of all.
I probably participated too much in the conversation but I honestly thought I could convince others through Scriptures of what I saw God's view to be of man's problem and of what God's gracious solution was. At this stage of the conversation, though, I'm wondering what fruit may come from further discussion.

I'm sure that my tone was off in many responses and my passion for truth was a put off for many. I would apologize for that. I'm sure that if we could all gather in a living room somewhere, then it would be a lot easier to see the love of each other brought forth in a conversation about these issues and I personally would enjoy that fellowship a lot more.

I don't know if I'm breaking forum rules or decorum, but if any of you guys would like to talk off forum, my email is scottprice207@gmail.com.

I think it is an appropriate time to say thank you to Mak, Savannah, Marvin and Oracio especially for their contributions and to wish everyone a great Christmas with family celebrating Jesus supremely. Blessings

Hi Jade: It is a shocking thing to realize the words of Jesus are actually true...even when it's not good news.

Matt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

There will be few...but yet...

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

God has an elect and here they are both depicted.

This numberless multitude is to God 'few'.

To All:

We may have exhausted the conversation for now, but I want to mention this.

Oracio: I would count it a privilege and honor to witness/preach/share on Santa Monica Pier with you.
Alan: I would count it an honor and blessing to serve food with you.
Daniel: I would consider it a wonderful thing to witness by your side on any street corner.

For the rest who have not mentioned some service to Christ that you do, I would happily serve with you all.

I know we disagree on these points, but we agree on a great deal more.

I praise the Lord for you all, I thank God for this conversation and website I wish you all a Merry Christmas.

Your brother in the faith and fellow soldier

Marvin Torgeson

Amen Marvin, the same here brother!

Robert, thank you for your patience with my candidness, bluntness, and maybe borderline if not full on harshness in some instances. I know I have to work on choosing my words better so as not to come across too blunt or harsh.

And thanks everyone else for your contributions here. I think overall we've managed to keep things quite civil comparatively when considering that this can be such a hot, controversial and divisive topic among Christians.

Merry Christmas all!

Just as a note:

Back in the late 70's and 80's I used to preach on Santa Monica Pier, all the way down to Laguna Beach Pier. Mostly around Huntington beach pier, Laguna beach board walk, and most all of the open-air malls.

For several years I did open air preaching at 7th and Broadway downtown Los Angeles, preached for about 4-5 hours on weekends; handed out tracts witnessed one-on-one numerous ones came to Christ...In Firestone Mall in Downey God blessed with 3 people in one day coming to Christ and many more over the years.

It's an ole stompin ground for me as lived in Downey and Anaheim for a combined 25 years.

This was back in the day when I could use a megaphone to preach from the sidewalk into a Safeway parking lot or at the beach or at a mall. Loved preaching at Belmont Shores and Long Beach pier too, we would walk the streets downtown Long beach witnessing and handing out tracts.

So, if you've been to any of those areas too...we are seeding the same fields brother.

Brother that really blessed my heart to hear! Just about all those places you mentioned have been where I too have been open air preaching, handing out tracts and sharing one on one. I live in uptown Whittier so sometimes I just go down the street to evangelize.

I have not read every post extremely closely since a while back, but I do not believe anyone has explained why God commands men to do something that only God can do, according to one view.

Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
Acts 17:30

Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”
Mark 1:14-15

Think about the illogic, and if you don’t like that word, silliness, of God commanding men to repent, believe etc IF GOD IS THE ONE WHO DOES THIS FOR THEM, or at minimum, makes it possible for them to do so.

The problem, however, is that God commands ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent. A plain understanding of this is that all men everywhere are capable of doing just that. Not just some men who God somehow enables, but all men everywhere.

Personally I do not think God commands the impossible. Perhaps that is where some folks and I differ, but it is a monumental difference and speaks to the character of God. If a tyrant punishes his subjects for not doing the impossible, we would call him monstrous. But some folks seem to say God does just that without hardly batting an eye.

Hi Todd:

Without kickstarting this thread again, I'll just say

God knows who will repent and who will not. God knew this from the beginning. Yet, he issued the command. Why bother? Why issue a command that (whether your free-will or not) he knows will not be obeyed? For that matter God knows specifically who will not repent and who will.

Because in light of this, God uses the foolishness of preaching to save some. And for that matter he knows the universal call to repent Acts 4 text will be given knowing it will fall on deaf ears whether you are calvy or not.

God's omniscience didn't stop his wisdom in making a universal call to all men, yet simultaneously God is not surprised when someone he knew would not believe...did not believe. He didn't consider his own knowledge of their doom as sufficient reason to withdraw a universal call.

Was there any hope at all for those individuals? None at all from the perspective of God's omniscience. But God has not commanded us to guess, speculate, throw the dice or cast lots to see who we should preach to next. God's command to us is to preach to every creature and so armed with that knowledge I preach and so do the rest of us.

For those who want to start a new thread on this kind of omniscience superimposed upon the fluidity of human action in the present...be my guest.

Another side note just for fun here brother:

I moved to Whittier a few years ago from near the downtown area of Long Beach, lived there several years; so the Downtown Long Beach area (The Pike, Shoreline Village, LB Convention Center, Pine Ave & some areas along Long Beach Blvd and occasionally Belmont Shores area) was my principle go-to evangelism area for several years (there was also a small homeless park named Lincoln Park by Ocean Blvd and Pacific Ave where I’d go with brethren to give out food and preach the gospel, had awesome times there sharing Christ, matter fact this is a small clip of our outreaches at that small park: https://goo.gl/vShuH4 .

Since you’ve left, there have been significant changes in Downtown Long Beach. I've heard that back in the day (70s and 80s) the Pike and Shoreline Village area was a huge tourist attraction that competed with places like the Santa Monica Pier in terms of huge crowds on weekends. When I was living there, there weren’t that many big crowds except when there were big special events (such as the annual Long Beach Grand Prix). In recent times they’ve been trying to renovate the Pike, and it seems like it’s been picking back up little by little in terms of attracting crowds. Firestone Mall has been named the Stonewood Center Mall for many years. But yeah, Huntington Beach Pier, Venice Beach Board Walk, Hollywood Blvd/Highland Ave walk of fame, 7th & Broadway & Skid Row L.A. have all been go-to evangelism places for me over the years.

Thought you might be curious to know about some of the changes since you've left brother.

Oracio: I thought I had responded to this, but hadn't.

Preaching on the streets in all those locales was such a tremendous blessing to me.

Just a few blocks over from 7th and Broadway...LA is a big park ( don't remember the name of it) and adjacent to that park was a ministry that printed all kinds of gospel tracts. I used to buy tracts from them when we ministered there. I don't know if they are still around.

I remember when they changed firestone mall to Stone-wood mall. When it was Firestone, it was an outdoor open court style mall, we used to do one-on-one ministry there. My wife and I had many new converts to Jesus from that locale.

In the past larger churches would host one-on-one witnessing at the beaches. I loved to go on those, but, as is normal only a few actually witnessed the rest were timid and stayed with other Christians. But no matter, they would gather for prayer, encourage those who were witnessing and pray with those who came to believe on Jesus. Those were different days too, a church group at the beach was an event where people would meet other people and get to know a stranger.

My final street witnessing days were with Melodyland Christians witnessing on Harbor and Ball right near Disneyland. That was always enjoyable and they didn't mind me tagging along since I had more experience than most of them.
After that is was mostly parks and strip malls around Pico Rivera and Bell.

I met up with a Salvadorian woman who loved to witness in the parks, she was older than me... about 20 years...she was the best of the best, her faith and love for Jesus was inspiring I loved witnessing with her...she too handed out food and would sing in Spanish and preach in Spanish.
We would go down to Mexico together ( my wife, son, daughter, her daughters) and hand out food and clothing in Tijuana and Rosarita Beach.

Anyway...just a little memory lane, thankful to Jesus that I was privileged to be a part of anything glorifying to his name.

Great to hear brother, I think you may be referring to MacArthur Park; I've done street witnessing there with several brethren a few times as well.

This morning while reading the scriptures, I came across two more examples of the specific ways a truth was worded that has shaped my own understanding of God's heart toward men and their own defiant resistance.

I was reviewing the prayers of Ezra the scribe as he recounted Israel's history and came to verse 30 in chapter 9 of Nehemiah: from the LXX - the Septuagint

"You were longsuffering upon them many years and drew upon them many years and witnessed to them many years by Your Spirit by the hands of Your prophets and they did not give ear."

The Greek word for "drew" in this verse is είλκυσας - (draw, pull, persuade). This same word is found in two passages in John where our Lord indicates that no man can come unto Him unless they are "drawn".

John 6:44 - " No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;..."

John 12:32 - "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."

The passage in Nehemiah clearly indicates that God was drawing His people to Himself in the very same manner that our Lord described was necessary to enable men to respond to the gospel. It is also evident that this "drawing" by the Spirit of God can be rejected, for these people who God was drawing to Himself gave their back to "resisting persuasion" and hardened their neck against the "drawing" of God's Spirit.

Our Lord surely knew this passage well and chose His words carefully. We can all agree that it takes God drawing men to Himself to enable them to respond to the gospel. Can we also agree that this "drawing" does not equate what some men assert - (prevenient, irresistible, grace)?

Another discovery in the same passage in Nehemiah was the description Ezra gave of God's history with Abram, who was given the name Abraham. Here are Ezra's words, as found in the LXX - the Septuagint

"You FOUND his heart faithful before you and ordained with him a covenant."

The Greek word for "FOUND" is εύρες. There have been discussions regarding how "faith" originates in a man's heart. Various passages express "faith" as God's gift and as man's response to hearing God's word.

The history of God's dealing with Abram/Abraham tell us that God is looking at how men respond to His promise. Abraham's response was "he believed" - given in the Aorist Active Indicative as a summary looking back from Moses who was the author of the verse.

God was not testing what He Himself placed in Abraham's heart rather He was testing Abraham's heart to see how he would respond to God's promise and commands. Abraham believed God and his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness. When God tested Abraham, He FOUND Abraham's heart faithful.

mak

God gifts us with the ability to believe it and receive it. With the revelation of a truth comes the gift of believing it.

The declaration of the good news does not demand faith, it supplies - provides faith, inspires faith, enables faith within us. This is the key because Galatians 3:5 states, "Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?" In other words, it is the ongoing work of the Spirit to enable us to believe.

Abraham was inspired by the LIVING WORD given him and received it by believing that word.

//The declaration of the good news does not demand faith,//

I disagree. The gospel demands faith, and repentance and submission.

Jesus is the Supreme Ruler of all the universe and demands that all men everywhere submit to His rule. Those who refuse do so at their own peril.

Abraham responded with faith as he heard the LIVING word, The LIVING WORD - Jesus Christ the only source of true faith.

Abraham heard the LIVING word being spoken to him, faith arose in his heart to agree with God and take Him at His word. It was The Living Word (Christ Himself) that contained and supplied faith to Abraham. The LIVING Word gave him the ability to respond to God's message to him.

One minute before Abraham heard the word he did not have this necessary faith.

We might be speaking past each other- I’m not sure. My point is that once the gospel is heard, a positive response is demanded.

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:9-11

When God spoke by His Spirit through His prophets, was it His living word?

Are their words less than "living" when God speaks, when the scripture indicates that it is His Spirit speaking? No such distinction between God's speaking exists in scripture. The distinction between how men hear does exists, but EVERY word of God is living and active, whether spoken by Moses, a prophet, Jesus, or one of the apostles - as long as it is the Holy Spirit declaring what the Father has said.

Is someone asserting that the words spoken by the prophets were NOT living words?

Mak

What I am seeking to ascertain is someone advocating that God speaks a certain way that quickens faith in some men, but His speaking to other men at other times, is not "living" because it did not produce in them "faith"? Please clarify if I am misunderstanding how "living word" is used.

God's words are ALL living. ALL SCRIPTURE is GOD BREATHED. Jesus could say His words are "spirit" - they are "life" because every word He speaks is always spirit and life. Just because men refuse God's word to them, does not mean that they did not hear the "living word".

Abraham heard God's promise to him, just like Joshua and Caleb heard God's promise to their entire generation. The same "living word" they heard was "mixed with faith" by Joshua and Caleb and "disbelieved" by the other 603,498 men over twenty who died in the wilderness for their refusing to be persuaded.

ALL Israel heard the living word of God. His promise was for the entire generation that He saved out of the land of Egypt and made covenant with at Sinai, but the unbelief of those who disobeyed provoked Him to swear an oath that none of those who disbelieved Him would ever enter the land God had promised THEM. The difference between those who entered unto life and those who were shut out unto death was their own response.

NO - I am NOT asserting that the words spoken by the prophets were NOT living words.
----

God's words are ALL living. ALL SCRIPTURE is GOD BREATHED. Jesus could say His words are "spirit" - they are "life" because every word He speaks is always spirit and life. Just because men refuse God's word to them, does not mean that they did not hear the "living word".

The difference between those who entered unto life and those who were shut out unto death was their own response.

YES I agree with you.

--

They did more then disbelieve - They embraced a LIE and an EVIL report instead of responding to the real truth. So they rejected the truth and accepted a LIE in its place.

Yes, thank you Vern,

This is the focus of the account we have in Numbers and the writer of Hebrews, recounting the event, maintains that same focus. The good news (God's promise) was proclaimed to them, "I have given you the land, go in and take it", but the people did not mix with faith, the good news they heard.

This focus should be maintained by ALL teachers, rather than turning the focus away from the peoples' accountable, active, unbelief and placing it upon their "theologically arguable inability." I use the term "theologically arguable inability", not lightly or in sarcasm; I recognize that this theology is a sincerely held belief based upon certain scriptures and brothers here on the forum have done very well in expressing their scripturally based understanding.

My concern is that the focus remain where the biblical writer placed it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There are certain passages where "inability" is expressed, one for example even in Hebrews, where the inability of the people to enter is specifically tied to their active unbelief. I am concerned that adding a "theologically arguable inability" to such passages can take away from the intended admonition and exhortation that the writer intended - thus distracting or diverting the necessary attention from the problem of "responsible", active unbelief.

I recognize that "theologically arguable inability" is logically consistent and sincere, and that is why I consider it "arguable" in the sense of it being sound reason. I do not believe that the first recipients of the New Testament letters would have read into the examples they were given the same theologically arguable inability that has been discussed here on the forum.

I believe God given grace offered to those who disbelieved the good news and refused the love of the truth so as to be saved is the foundation that makes them fully accountable for THEIR OWN sin, rather than changing the focus to their being under the unavoidable inability inherited from Adam's sin. Whatever "inability" indwelling sin and its corrupt inner working enslavement held over men, God bringing His grace through His prophets and His son brought a door of opportunity to escape and be set at liberty through faith.

mak

This is the focus of the account we have in Numbers and the writer of Hebrews, recounting the event, maintains that same focus. The good news (God's promise) was proclaimed to them, "I have given you the land, go in and take it", but the people did not mix with faith, the good news they heard.

This focus should be maintained by ALL teachers, rather than turning the focus away from the peoples' accountable, active, unbelief and placing it upon their "theologically arguable inability." I use the term "theologically arguable inability", not lightly or in sarcasm; I recognize that this theology is a sincerely held belief based upon certain scriptures and brothers here on the forum have done very well in expressing their scripturally based understanding.

My concern is that the focus remain where the biblical writer placed it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There are certain passages where "inability" is expressed, one for example even in Hebrews, where the inability of the people to enter is specifically tied to their active unbelief. I am concerned that adding a "theologically arguable inability" to such passages can take away from the intended admonition and exhortation that the writer intended - thus distracting or diverting the necessary attention from the problem of "responsible", active unbelief.

I recognize that "theologically arguable inability" is logically consistent and sincere, and that is why I consider it "arguable" in the sense of it being sound reason. I do not believe that the first recipients of the New Testament letters would have read into the examples they were given the same theologically arguable inability that has been discussed here on the forum.

I believe God given grace offered to those who disbelieved the good news and refused the love of the truth so as to be saved is the foundation that makes them fully accountable for THEIR OWN sin, rather than changing the focus to their being under the unavoidable inability inherited from Adam's sin. Whatever "inability" indwelling sin and its corrupt inner working enslavement held over men, God bringing His grace through His prophets and His son brought a door of opportunity to escape and be set at liberty through faith.

mak

There’s a dear brother I know who holds to this "theologically arguable inability.” Recently I saw an open-air preaching video of him in which he was reasoning with his hearers concerning their accountability and responsibility before God, exhorting them and warning them of the dire consequences of rejecting the gospel message they’ve heard.

While I believe that that type of reasoning and exhorting from this brother is inconsistent with his view of man’s inability, I do appreciate that "inconsistency.” I guess it can be argued that those types of exhortations are part of the means God uses to draw and save His elect. But still, that type of reasoning and exhorting seems to clearly give the impression to all hearers that they do in fact have a choice in the matter of receiving or rejecting the gospel.

Others, on the other hand, I have heard being seemingly more "consistent” with that view of man’s inability in their presentation of the gospel. I’ve heard them tell sinners that they cannot choose to repent or believe on Christ unless God irresistibly draws them and saves them, unless they are part of God’s elect. I think that that kind of preaching is done by those brethren largely due to their interpretation of certain verses in John 6 and John 10 where Jesus is telling hardened Jews that no one can come to Him unless it is granted to them by the Father and that they are not part of His sheep. While that type of preaching seems more "consistent” with that view of man’s inability, to me it seems to give sinners an excuse for refusing to turn to Christ. I don’t think it was our Lord’s intention to tell those hardened Jews that they had no hope whatsoever of ever being saved.

In John 5 we see our Lord also addressing hardened Jews. In verses 38-40 He tells them, "But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.”

In verse 34 He told those same hardened Jews, "I say these things that you may be saved.”

So, even though he exhorted and rebuked them for their unbelief, He made it clear to them that He wished for them to be saved. It was their own willful unbelief that kept them from being saved, not God’s decree.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”
Matthew 23:37

T.A.I. would arguably be silly, and when the preacher urged repentance and faith, such inability would be quench every effort, discourage every meeting, dissuade anyone from offering a gospel message...only knowing it would be refused and not only refused but impossibly responded to.

Yet, this is not the situation we are in. We all know the text Rom 1:16...it is the power of God unto salvation? What word? What preaching? That which is done by the Spirit through a man or woman of faith.

It is not 'incapable men' we are expecting to respond, but men enabled by the word, quickened in their hearts and beyond our wildest hopes...God blessed to see what is offered, able to hear and believe, able to put faith in Christ which the sinful-natured man cannot do outside the intervening work of the Spirit.

When any man preaches the gospel, God in his time will honor his own word and do to that man/woman boy or girl what is necessary to bring them to conversion.

We put faith in God to save, faith in God to right-now open their hearts and give them faith and belief in Jesus Christ. God may do this over time with many sowers and water-ers and he brings the increase in his time.

But what I do not do is go out expecting T.A.I people to respond when I know they cannot. But this is the essence of preaching the word of God. God working with us with signs and wonders following.
So I plant or I water or I reap, but no matter what, our calling is to declare the gospel for his sake, not theirs, for his glory not ours, for his increase of his Church not ours.

Appreciate that post Marvin. Btw, I think maybe subconsciously, at least part of the reason I called some who hold to your view "inconsistent" with their view when they preach the gospel, is because my view has been called inconsistent by that same dear brother I mentioned and by others, in terms of our praying to God to save specific lost folk and our crediting God alone for our salvation. So I guess I'm kind of partially "getting back" here in a sense ;)

Here is an aspect of this topic that I have been pondering and I would like to consider the input of others.

We know that not all sins are equal in God’s sight. There are sins of ignorance and presumptuous sins. There were a class of sins that according to the Law were non-atoneable except by the death of the offender. Adultery, idolatry, divination, kidnapping, etc. were sins that called for immediate capital punishment. No mercy was available or even offered by God.

Why would God create varying degrees of punishment unless men had varying degrees of responsibility. Adultery was never a sin of ignorance. Idolatry was never a sin of ignorance. God held the people of Isarel more accountable for choosing to transgress "willfully” - "presumptuously”.

This to me indicates some "ability” within their "sinful state” to avoid serious capital offenses by taking heed to the Law. If men had some "ability” to avoid certain sins through the fear of the Lord while in their fallen Adamic state, why would they not also have some ability to hear and respond to God’s word upon hearing the message?

If men had no ability to deny sin and temptation, what is the point of God’s distinctions regarding the nature of certain sins which He deemed presumptuous and worthy of death. Does not the law of accountability underscore the relationship of ability and accountability?

Mak

Hi Mak:

For me, that kind of reasoning equates to 'non-sequitur'.

All natural men have a natural ability to dodge the bullet, we know it as self preservation, some wont go beyond that 'line' which for them has no return.
Even the worst of sinners may pick the safe route to accommodate their friends or themselves, but this does not equate to Holy Spirit aided revelation of truth whereby they are acting in a God-given faith toward God.

Man is a moral being, he has partaken of the knowledge of good and evil and as such is able to distinguish which good and which evil are permissible in his own conscience.

The severity of punishment for some sins is due to God's own reasons, he esteems the life of man as precious and men cannot take unto themselves the power of Judge/jury/executioner. Nor can men/women break the covenant bond of marriage without repercussions. The marriage covenant is a 'double-jeopardy' kind of covenant where if one mate divorces the other, neither of them are free from that covenant unless death or adultery nullifies the covenant or presents an option to put them away.

None of these things carry more intrinsic responsibility than being honest, truthful, grateful and honorable which are the positive traits of commandment keeping.

A greater responsibility is man is made in the image of God, therefore he is to be more than a moral man, he is designed to be a spiritual man, more than kind to family and friends but kind to the unjust, patient and prayerful toward his enemies. God's design is and always has been man and woman glorifying God by revealing what God is through their own lives.
This element is vastly different than morality which we all know can serve exclusively the sinner while hating God.

Most atheists will boast of their superior living over against some Christian hypocrite or boast of their use of intellect or skills over against superstitious religionist

But this 'true spirituality' is out of reach for all men, they cannot attain to Christlikeness without the direct intervention of God. Sinful men to some degree or another can boast of their morality or their good works done for self or others, but they cannot boast in what we know to be 'righteousness' which is not mere morality it is acts of faith and love springing from devotion to God.

This is the essence of gospel preaching, it is to bring men to the knowledge of Christ whereby God is most glorified in their minds and hearts being conformed to Jesus Christ. All of this is the work of the Holy Spirit. The moral man can and does know he may suffer for his many sins, so he attends church, gives in the offering plate, prays or even memorizes bible verses. Yet, these actions constitute little more than beastly self-preservation. They conform based upon the delusion their good choices in these matters will gain them favorable outcome judgment day.

The scriptures teach us that in our fallen state our righteousness is as 'filthy rags', we need not think that man is less than a moral being unable to make moral choices. But as I said earlier God's design is for man to be 'spiritual' like Jesus Christ and that transition from failed-moral-man to a new creation in Christ only comes by way of God's divine word and Holy Spirit working.

Hi Marvin,

I had to look up non-sequitor to see what it meant. Maybe my mind is wired in a non-sequitor sequence, because it still seems reasonable to me that the God endowed moral capability you described makes it possible to understand and respond to the good news.

You recognize the preaching of the good news as the power of God unto salvation. We both know that God’s righteousness is imparted to man through the hearing of faith. I was simply pondering man’s moral ability to receive and reject truth. How is it logically consistent that man can receive or reject certain truths but not be able to receive or reject the gospel?

Mak

Added: If men are able in their fallen state to make moral choices based upon consideration of God’s law, why is it not reasonable that upon hearing the gospel and the drawing work of the Holy Spirit that they exercise that same ability to receive the truth by faith?

Hi Mak:

you said: why is it not reasonable that upon hearing the gospel and the drawing work of the Holy Spirit that they exercise that same ability to receive the truth by faith?

It is reasonable because the promise of God to honor his own word changes the outcome.
Our faith is placed upon God who works in the background drawing and enabling. Our faith is not in the moral man's choice because that moral man cannot 'will' himself into Gods favor, God's favor-grace is by God's own choice and it is this that effects the difference between a rejecting hearer and an accepting hearer.

Marvin-
If what you say is true, how can one explain the seeming "blanket” commands, admonitions, urging by God to all men to believe and repent, etc. throughout scripture?

If these blanket "invitations” are not seriously intended for all men, doesn’t that make God dishonest?

It’s sort of like me promising all 5 of my grandkids a treat if they read quietly for an hour, all the while knowing in my heart of hearts that I am only going to give treats to Luke and Avery. Doesn’t that make me sort of a nasty Papa T (what they call me)?

So that I understand you Marvin, you are saying God does not help the rejecting hearer with grace. Is that correct? The atonement of Christ for the sins of the whole world, God’s desire for all men to be saved, the preaching of the gospel, the drawing of all men since Christ has been lifted up, all lacks "grace” to save because God withholds it.

Is that a fair summary of your understanding?

Mak

Hi Todd:

Ive answered this before God is not on our level. He knows already who will repent, who will believe and who will be with him in glory. So, why bother with the rest? Because God's knowledge of who is in the lambs book of life is not our knowledge, none of our preaching is predicated upon it.

Our preaching is predicated upon a universal call even though God knows only a select will believe. Our gospel is hidden from a sinners mind because Satan darkens it, but God knows who he will bring away from that deception, we don't.

God is not to be judged by reason of what we esteem to be fair/just. My insistence upon God having knowledge of who are his and who are not is not a problem for God, nor is it somehow dishonest because scripture itself affirm this very thing.

It appears that I am dishonest if I don't believe all men have equal access to grace and mercy. No apostle seemed to think that. They gave their general calls, they put it out that all kinds of men (jew and gentile) could now be saved, but the apostles also knew apostates were not saved, the unbelieving, liars, whoremongers who died in their sins will be in the lake of fire. In the end it matters little whether God didn't elect them or they went their by their own wishes. Their damnation is because of their sins, not because they had equal access to salvation, the gospel or grace.

God will not stand trial in front of men who think they can raise hypotheticals against him. "There were pagans that could have been saved, would have been saved and should have been saved had you exerted your power to send the gospel and a missionary to them".
Because God will not stand trial, I need not think God is unjust or unfair in any of his dealings with men.

The question asked by Robert and myself...which is plainly never answered and avoided.
"What should we make of the multitudes of millions who died not having the gospel or a missionary or a bible or even dreams or visions of God's good will toward them?"

Remember multitudes died in the flood, multitudes more over the millenniums who were never the recipient of the gospel or scripture teaching. Are we concerned that some in our day are not hearing the gospel? What shall become of them?
Should we say they are 'heaven bound"? Should we conclude that their own consciences will not condemn them on judgment day?
These things are inescapable and they point to God making decisions about how he builds his Church and who he puts into it.

I think some of us don't like who he choses and how he builds his Church.

There are no escape routes from the reality we live in. We live in a world where some men/women will be recipients of grace born in the right place in the right time...and others are not and because of that live out their lives as God intended for them.

What are the alternatives.
God didn't know about them? God didn't rule while they were alive? God didn't have a plan of salvation in place? All of this indicts God, not me or my understanding of scripture.

lastly your analogy is so loose and so inaccurate it cannot be comparative to God's offer of salvation to men.

Maybe this would be more accurate. You have 5 grandchildren, all of them hate you, none of them seek you, all of them have gone astray, none of them obey your laws of our own house, but instead in mercy offer a general call "come children have some candy", but you know you have selected two of the 5 to received what you offered because if you didn't none of them would come to you or receive what you have for them.
This is how I see scripture displaying grace to sinners.

If you portray God like yourself 'hoping someone will receive', you have equated God to that of a human grandfather with all its limitations. If you portray the grandchildren other than complete rebels to the grandfather, just where in scripture could you find such a teaching as "children who were just waiting for their grandfather to do something good for them, but he wouldn't"

Hi Mak:

I am saying our preaching is to be done consistently toward the glory of God in obedience to his calling.

The gospel preached must be attended to by the Holy Spirit and with the will of God to save that individual.

Otherwise what are your alternatives?

God offered grace to all because he doesn't know who will believe?
God's atonement was for all but he didn't have power to effect salvation for those whom Christ died?
God desires all men to be saved but knows all too well multitudes died in their sins and multitudes of them he didn't send the gospel a missionary or a bible to them.

All of this protracted effort is an attempt to remove the biblical truth that God has an elect people. It's plain and simple. God has a say in it, but it seems no matter what God's voice must sit silent until we have cast our vote.

We are elect, not because we believed; we believed because we are elect.

Mak; why should God withhold grace from the apostate? Why shouldn't he save them too? Why not believe like the universalist who thinks all will be saved eventually?
No one is elect because all are elect? No one is elect because we cannot elect ourselves...yet it seems if all are not equally 'desired by God' then God is unfair and his word is deceptive.

God makes vessels of dishonor...God hated Esau, God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and hardeneth whom he will harden. But none of those texts ever seem to carry any weight, its always about what man is responsible for, is man responsible for making himself the elect of God? He is not, it's by grace we are saved. Our choices and our repentance all spring forth from Divine workings.

When those Corinthian gentiles were coming to faith, what about the American Indians dying in their sins? Couldn't God just zip peter or Paul to North Dakota and offer the gospel there? No, he didn't and because of that they died in their sins and God knows this and left it to stand that way.

This is so blatant and so stark a truth, yet for some reason instead of acknowledging God's choice in the matter of salvation...we just pretend the Indians never lived and so their pagan lives were never to enter into the realities of God's plan of salvation for men and the lack thereof for others.

//The question asked by Robert and myself...which is plainly never answered and avoided.
"What should we make of the multitudes of millions who died not having the gospel or a missionary or a bible or even dreams or visions of God's good will toward them?" //

My answer is the same as Abraham’s rhetorical question in Gen. 18: "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

Hi Todd: Gen. 18: "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

This is the heart of the question isn't it? God's "right" and our right should be the same. This is what we are all trying to understand...God's rightness in what he does.

One of the things I do in my older-magoo thinking is "I take no account of a man' ability to choose, make a right moral decision or believe what I have told them".

I do this because over the decades of preaching the gospel from street to pulpit...what appears to be the hardest and most evil man can come to Jesus in an instant. What appears to be the softest, receptive and pleasant of them will harden against truth and seek to destroy the messenger of it. You know this well and so do so many other here.
Some sinners hear the gospel for decades and finally come to faith...others hear once and are killed in a car wreck or some other tragedy.
Appearances lead us astray, nice words and happy smiles do not make the Christian.
A persons past...and Ive met all kinds only appear to be some hindrance to the working of God. A persons demeanor though gracious can conceal a hateful heart.

I do not consider someone 'non-elect because they have refused the gospel...I would have to judge myself as damned if that were the case for I too refused the gospel when several attempted to share it with me. I mocked them and ridiculed their attempts, I blasphemed God often...who would have given me a snowballs chance in the infernal region since no one in my family ever believed.

We always thank God for all of you, making mention of you constantly in our prayers. We recall, in the presence of our God and Father, your work produced by faith, your labor motivated by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, in the Holy Spirit, and with full assurance. -- 1 Thessalonians 1:2-5 (CSB)

Todd, you are not being consistent. You have said that if God doesn't give mercy to all then He is not a good God because He has said He desires all to be saved. Now, you say that if He doesn't give the mercy of the Gospel being preached to billions as the means to be saved that He will still be just in some way to make it right. Justice requires that all who have not repented of their sins and turned to God will be destroyed. There is no consistency there unless you believe that after death there is some kind of second chance to hear the Gospel.

When Jesus was asked if HE would give the disciples more faith to respond to what HE commanded, He did not answer with " "you are responsible to create your own faith, why do you ask me to give you more faith?"

It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who gives mercy. Romans 9:16. God's mercy is His and if He wants to give mercy to all through the hearing and opportunity of the Gospel, then what is standing in His way of making that happen? Humans and their will to preach the Gospel or not? I doubt that very much given God's plans and power.

Christ's blood is sufficient for any who desire to come. Without God's changing of the desires of men ( more than their wills ) none would. That is the nature of sinful flesh. But God's plan to have a people for HIs Son cannot be thwarted and Christ's blood and the Father's will, power, plan and mercy will have a people for His Son so HE graciously saves some in spite of mankinds' rejecting hearts.

Look at Revelation when a horse and rider are sent out to remove God's peace from restraining men's hearts. As a result of this restrain being removed, men naturally start killing each other all over the world. All men are involved in this other than the saints. That is what man's heart looks like when restraining grace is removed. Rather than repenting when God's wrath is poured out, men shake their fist at God. That is man's natural heart towards God. I would be included among the killers and the rock throwers but by the grace of God I am not.

Mak, the heart is the issue. Hate of God is the issue. The will is a servant of desire and I know you don't agree with that because if you did, the focus would be less on the willingness and more on desire. Yes Jesus said men were unwilling but the question is why were they unwilling. Jesus says because they loved their darkness and their sin. This is all mankinds' problem, not just the really bad ones. Man loves Himself and His self rule and His sinful pleasures. Many people don't see mankind that way mostly because they see friends and family and they just don't see into their hearts in a clear way.
We judge according to the flesh and God discerns the motives and intentions of the heart. That is what the Bible says. Not my opinion.

Devotional by John Piper

It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Romans 9:16)

Let us make crystal clear at the beginning of the year that all we will get from God this year, as believers in Jesus, is mercy. Whatever pleasures or pains come our way will all be mercy.

This is why Christ came into the world: "in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” (Romans 15:9). We were born again "according to his great mercy” (1 Peter 1:3). We pray daily "that we may receive mercy” (Hebrews 4:16); and we are now "waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life” (Jude 1:21). If any Christian proves trustworthy, it is "by the Lord’s mercy [he] is trustworthy” (1 Corinthians 7:25).

In Luke 17:5”“6, the apostles plead with the Lord, "Increase our faith!” And Jesus says, "If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.” In other words, the issue in our Christian life and ministry is not the strength or quantity of our faith, because that is not what uproots trees. God does. Therefore, the smallest faith that truly connects us with Christ will engage enough of his power for all you need.

But what about the times that you successfully obey the Lord? Does your obedience move you out of the category of supplicant of mercy? Jesus gives the answer in the following verses of Luke 17:7”“10.

"Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and recline at table’? Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

Therefore, I conclude, the fullest obedience and the smallest faith obtain the same thing from God: mercy. A mere mustard seed of faith taps into the mercy of God’s tree-moving power. And flawless obedience leaves us utterly dependent on mercy.

The point is this: Whatever the timing or form of God’s mercy, we never rise above the status of beneficiaries of mercy. We are always utterly dependent on what we do not deserve.

Therefore let us humble ourselves and rejoice and "glorify God for his mercy!”

I hope some find this short article helpful as they continue to ponder the possible paths of understanding one can take in these discussions and contemplations.

Atheistic beliefs

("Theology Explained" Timothy Dwight, 1752-1817)

"The fool says in his heart: There is no God!" Psalm 14:1

Atheism has its seat in the heart, and not in the understanding. "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." John 3:19-20

Nothing can be more evident, than that atheistic beliefs can never be embraced from reason, or conviction, or by an unbiased understanding. They are certainly adopted under the influence of the heart. They are believed only because they are loved--or because God is dreaded and hated. Thus the heart is the true source of the belief that there is no God; and he is a fool, who, governed by his desires, thus believes against all reason and evidence.

The great danger lies in the heart--and in its hostility to God and His character. What we desire--we easily believe; and what we dread or hate--we easily disbelieve. As we dread the anger of God against sin, and against ourselves particularly as sinners, and all His designs to punish sin; and as we hate to renounce sin and its pleasures--we easily and naturally contrive to disbelieve God's designs, character, and existence. Especially is this the case, when God, provoked by our rebellion and opposition, gives us up to a reprobate mind.

"Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity!" Romans 1:28-29

"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

"So also these men oppose the truth--men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are reprobate." 2 Timothy 3:8

How greatly ought we then to fear this mass of atheistic guilt, danger, and ruin! How earnestly ought we to watch, and strive, and pray that we fall not into this train of temptations and miseries! Let us resolve to receive and love the truths of Scripture at all events, however humbling or painful.

Hi Robert, good to hear from you. You said - Quote: "the heart is the issue. Hate of God is the issue. The will is a servant of desire and I know you don't agree with that because if you did, the focus would be less on the willingness and more on desire."

I am honestly not sure how you "know" what you have concluded, but I will admit my focus is not on "man's" desire. I hope my focus is upon GOD'S desire for men. HE DESIRES all men to be saved. This is why All of us have strong reason to focus on God's DESIRE for all men to be saved. His DESIRE is explicitly stated multiple times and in multiple ways. Fully embracing this truth, does not force me into having to explain why not ALL men are saved. You believe you have that answered satisfactorily. I have my own thoughts upon this as well. God alone knows.

Paul was "compelled" by the revelation of God's desire, having been convinced that ONE DIED FOR ALL...". It is clear and simple statements like this that I refuse to corrupt by reading "the elect" into the text. Paul could have easily worded it that way and chose to use ALL. We are reminded not to add to or take away from what is written.

Peter was also convinced of God's DESIRE for all men to come to repentance. The Greek word "thelo" used by both Paul and Peter combines the idea of DESIRE and WILL together. Men, like myself, who believe that God DESIRES and WILLS for all men to be saved, stand in pretty good company, don't you think. If our Lord Himself and His apostles stated this explicitly, we are safe to fully embrace and proclaim it.

It is my focus on God's DESIRE that inspires me to be longsuffering towards ALL men because we are told that His longsuffering means salvation. God's passion is long for men to come to repentance and to be saved. His long passion is seen in His WILLINGNESS to hold out his hands all day long to a disobedient and obstinate people. If "will is slave to desire" regarding men - how does this relate to God's desire and will?

When God revealed His glory to Moses by passing by Him and declaring His name - this is declaration of His glory - "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Moses wanted to see God's glory and this is the revelation He was given. How amazing and wonderful to know that His desire for mercy triumphs over His judgment.

I have not lost sight of that glory, because that glory is God's DESIRE and WILL for men. You are probably right about man's will being slave to desire (more accurately sin's desire within), but don't be too quick to assume that men like myself just don't get it. The real question is how does your theory work out when contemplating GOD'S DESIRE and HIS WILL? You know from scripture He DESIRES all men to be saved, this is His WILL.

I will continue to focus upon God's DESIRE and WILL for ALL men to be saved. This is why He sent His son into the world that whosoever believes in Him should not perish..."

mak

I believe the Lord brought this to my heart for my brothers Marvin, Robert and Ray.

I have been given the opportunity to serve in the ministry of pastor/teacher for many years now and my experience in both teaching and preaching has led me to the realization that it takes God's mercy to help the hearer hear.

I may not see election in the same way you dear brothers see it, but ALL my hope has come to be placed upon God's mercy softening, preparing and drawing the hearer to be enabled to hear in such a way as to fully receive.

I would be greatly discouraged if I had nothing to hope for but that men could hear adequately on their own. Unless the Lord builds the house - all my own labor would be in vain. I am utterly dependent upon Him to save men - even through the foolishness of my preaching and teaching.

mak

Thank you Mak. Praising God for you brother.

I found what follows below from Phil Johnson's website. If you don't know, Phil is a full 5 point Calvinist. This particular web page discusses hyper-Calvinism. However, this particular point #5 "The denial of faith as a duty" I'm finding being espoused or at least strongly suggested by plenty if not most plain-ole Calvinists. The doctrine of regeneration precedes faith arguement comes from this notion that since faith cannot be the sinner's duty, God has to zap them into regeneration first. Here is the salient part of the post:

//The denial that faith is the sinner's duty illustrates how hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism arise from the same false notion. The one fallacy that lies at the heart of both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism is the erroneous assumption that human inability nullifies responsibility.

The Arminian reasons, If sinners are incapable of faith apart from God's enabling grace, then the gospel would not call them to believe. Therefore sinners must not really be in so helpless a state. And so the Arminian adjusts the message in a way that nullifies the doctrine of human inability.

The hyper-Calvinist, on the other hand, reasons thus: If sinners are incapable of faith apart from God's enabling grace, then the gospel would not call them to faith. Therefore the gospel cannot really mean that faith is the sinner's duty. And so the hyper-Calvinist adjusts the message in a way that nullifies the sinner's responsibility.//

He goes on to say something along the lines of how man's inability to respond to the gospel is the sinner's fault. I guess it was my mistake being born with original sin. Excuse me while I go out to the woodshed and flog myself.

Here is where I found this:

http://www.romans45.org/articles/hypercal.htm

Just so you know, I do believe that God must do a work of grace in the heart and mind of a sinner prior to salvation to draw them and convict their heart of their need by the work of the Holy Spirit using the Word of God. Yes, God can open blinded hearts and minds first before he actually regenerates them.

-Daniel

Hi Daniel.

This is from John Piper’s website.

"The most immediate and decisive work of God in the new birth is that the new life he creates sees the superior value of Jesus over all else. And with no lapse of time at all, this spiritual sight of the superior value of Jesus results in receiving Jesus as the Treasure that he is. That is faith: Receiving Jesus for all that he is because our eyes have been opened to see his truth and beauty and worth.”

Please be assured, Phil Johnson would never call John Piper a hyper Calvinist. There are many more well respected reformedit sovereign grace preachers and theologians who would share Piper’s view and no one would assert them to be hyper Calvinist. Using that phrase is for the idea that regeneration precedes faith is not appropriate.

Not having read Phil's article...

I understand God to call men to obedience whether he saves them or not.

God calls all men to obey his commands regardless of whether they are saved or not.

An Atheist is forbidden to murder even if he is offered no salvation by obeying that command...and so examples can be added ad nauseum.

I hope we all can see God made men moral agents and as such are required to obey a morality divinely authored by their creator.
But as I said in an earlier post morality is not equivalent to spirituality nor is excellent morality a way to God's saving grace or his eternal heaven.

It seems this point is being overlooked? Maybe not, but certainly it should not be.

In short God can and has since the beginning of creation delivered his commands to all men, that they should obey him, repent if they have not and love one another. Yet, Salvation is not offered on the basis of obeying the commands of God it is offered on the basis of grace through faith.

This I believe is the stumbling block (maybe) that a moral man equates his responsibility to obey a moral code with the ability to become a child of God. The one is not the other and as I understand scripture, it is this very thing moving from the kingdom of this world and its moral code to the kingdom of God with its life of the Spirit which does both, it is moral and it is true spirituality; this is the design of God, that men be more than moral agents, they are to become children of God.

But, this is where some would like to leave it, the truth of God goes beyond transferring kingdoms, God enters into it and says 'an elect shall obtain' that blessedness.

If I think in terms of this world and the commands of God ( Ten Commandments) though saved or unsaved, atheist or Christian I am to obey the commands of God. Yet, because I don't kill someone or commit adultery or steal that 'willing and doing' does not equate to righteousness, nor does it follow that because I am able to restrain myself in order to preserve myself that I am able to believe or manufacture faith in God with the same intrinsic ability.
Add into this equation the enmity in a sinners heart, his estrangement, his unwillingness to release his god-hold on himself you quickly see God's commands for sinful men to obey him are for their direct preservation and has nothing to do with innate ability to 'become a child of God' at their own whim.
Add to the equation the absolute necessity of God's word and Spirit working on that sinful heart and a picture begins to emerge that a very moral man is equally distant from God as a wicked man...because both of them are living a life by the flesh.

Years ago when I discovered the wonderful truth of election, I began to see it everywhere in scripture, I recognized it in old and new testaments and its usage in the new as 'God's chosen'.

For many who see this as I do, they feel a sense of guilt ( best way I can describe it), why me? What is it about me? After scouring my heart...I have nothing, zero to recommend myself above anyone else...and in one sense there is guilt, but looking past the carnal mind of that, there is joy and thankfulness indescribable, its inexpressible I need not feel guilt I let myself be loved as I truly am.

Marvin-

You seem to be suggesting that a non-elect person has a duty to obey the commands of a God who is going to toss them into perdition on His whim alone.

TMK say,

"...His whim alone."

I've heard that it has been said, we're saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone!

But I've never heard of this new doctrine of "His whim alone."

I've also heard that it has been said, "If it's new it's probably not true, and if it's true it's probably not new."

So...my guess would be that this "His whim alone" doctrine, is probably not true.

The written record of one man's encounter with Jesus is on this wise;

Mark 10

17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to Him, "Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

23 And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They were even more astonished and said to Him, "Then who can be saved?” 27 Looking at them, Jesus said, "With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”

JESUS had expectations of this man! The same expectations He has for every man.

JESUS words in verse 27 sum up the equation;

Jesus said, "With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”

But...

"Some men cannot endure to hear the doctrine of election-I suppose they like to choose their own wives, but they are not willing that Christ should select His bride, the church." -
Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Hi Todd: Ive never implied...ever...that God by mere whim tosses folks into hell, they go there because of their sins

(Arbitrariness is mostly a concoction from Arminian theology where such a term is used to cast mud upon God's electing choice.)

Sins committed against God while they disobeyed his commands. God has the right to require obedience without reward for doing so.

As God's own creation he has the right to command what is his. As God's image bearers he has the right to insist they imitate his own person.

God is so good that he will reward (I use the word reward very loosely here) for obedience, he will bless and help those who obey him even when they are not saved/children of God.

His temporal blessings are not equivalent to gospel salvation, therefore the scriptures are filled with injunctions to love and know God, it is this very thing that transcends obedience to a Lord, Loving that same Lord fulfills all commands and it is understood when men love one another.
As I said earlier the sinful nature of man interferes with all of that and refuses even moral obedience let alone a willingness to carry a cross and be a disciple.

A failed moral agent will not sacrifice his own god-self for a God whom he knows he has offended and he knows inwardly he has avoided and refused. But God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son; God's initiative was to give commands that school-master us into the reality we are sinners and God in an even kinder and mightier way gives his own Son as a sacrifice for the moral mans failure and the moral mans substantial hope that he can actually live unto God with a right heart.

Whimsical...fair...or...?

"But there are some who say, ‘It is hard for God to choose some and leave others.’ Now, I will ask you one question. Is there any of you here this morning who wishes to be holy, who wishes to be regenerate, to leave off sin and walk in holiness? ‘Yes, there is,’ says some one, ‘I do.’ Then God has elected you. But another says, ‘No; I don't want to be holy; I don't want to give up my lusts and my vices.’ Why should you grumble, then, that God has not elected you to it? For if you were elected you would not like it, according to your own confession. If God this morning had chosen you to holiness, you say you would not care for it. Do you not acknowledge that you prefer drunkenness to sobriety, dishonesty to honesty? You love this world's pleasures better than religion; then why should you grumble that God has not chosen you to religion? If you love religion, he has chosen you to it. If you desire it, he has chosen you to it. If you do not, what right have you to say that God ought to have given you what you do not wish for?

Supposing I had in my hand something which you do not value, and I said I shall give it to such-and-such a person, you would have no right to grumble that I did not give to you. You could not be so foolish as to grumble that the other has got what you do not care about. According to your own confession, many of you do not want religion, do not want a new heart and a right spirit, do not want the forgiveness of sins, do not want sanctification; you do not want to be elected to these things: then why should you grumble? You count these things but as husks, and why should you complain of God who has given them to those whom he has chosen? If you believe them to be good and desire them, they are there for thee. God gives liberally to all those who desire; and first of all, he makes them desire, otherwise they never would. If you love these things, he has elected you to them, and you may have them; but if you do not, who are you that you should find fault with God, when it is your own desperate will that keeps you from loving these things””your own simple self that makes you hate them?

Suppose a man in the street should say, ‘What a shame it is I cannot have a seat in the chapel to hear what this man has to say.’ And suppose he says, ‘I hate the preacher; I can't bear his doctrine; but still it's a shame I have not a seat.’ Would you expect a man to say so? No: you would at once say, ‘That man does not care for it. Why should he trouble himself about other people having what they value and he despises?’ You do not like holiness, you do not like righteousness; if God has elected me to these things, has he hurt you by it? . . . If any of you love to be saved by Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ elected you to be saved. If any of you desire to have salvation, you are elected to have it, if you desire it sincerely and earnestly. But, if you don't desire it, why on earth should you be so preposterously foolish as to grumble because God gives that which you do not like to other people?”
(Charles Haddon Spurgeon)

Hi Mak: I meant to say, I praise the Lord for you and your calling to minister the word of God. In my profile I have an email, if you would like I would love to hear one of your sermons, send one off to me...I'd love to be edified by your preaching.

//A failed moral agent will not sacrifice his own god-self for a God whom he knows he has offended and he knows inwardly he has avoided and refused. //

You left out the part where it is God who has made it impossible for him to do so.

For the life of me, this whole idea of God holding allegedly helpless men accountable because He does not elect them (and yes, it is by His choice alone who He elects) is so horrible that I cannot understand how anyone who loves God can say such a terrible thing about Him.

What actually squares with the overall tenor of scripture is that God holds men accountable who refuse all on their own to avail themselves of His mercies.

Hi Todd: Mans nature has made it impossible, but with God all things are possible.

Brother sinful men are not helpless victims of a mean God. Sinful men are mean and will be judged by a good God.

Ive never implied that God doesn't hold men accountable, all mankind is accountable and God will do rightly.

You are right though, men refuse all on their own to avail themselves of mercies. The difference between us is God knows the condition of man and intervenes, this is election.

I don't know if Ive ever mentioned this but I am not a double predestination believer. I don't see anywhere in scripture God needs to decree a mans damnation, God only needs to let the sinful nature of man display itself (as it does in all mankind) thereby setting a destination for themselves. Why bother with a decree when their sins will do the job without it? God knows all will sin, therefore to 'damn them' ahead of time does not make biblical sense to me. I know other reformed brothers believe the opposite but I disagree with them.

By this same understanding of scripture that I have, it would be gracious and merciful of God to elect out of a whole condemned race, a people unto himself that show forth his praises.

Splitting hairs, God does know who will die in their sins, but that knowledge of their fate does not equate to a 'decree' or a will of God that even those men should die in their sins. This splits off into even more abstractions that normally are so full of conjecture its a tedious job to discuss it.
Suffice it to say I have ample proof of God's divine election, I can only come to predestinated to damnation by an inverse theological reasoning. Inversing theological truth is a dangerous way to interpret scripture...if it can be called that.

//Brother sinful men are not helpless victims of a mean God. Sinful men are mean and will be judged by a good God. //

But you’ve said again and again that they ARE helpless and that unless God regenerates those He elects they can do nothing to move toward God.

It just seems like doublespeak to me. But maybe that’s just me.

"But maybe that’s just me."

No Todd, it's not just you!

John Wesley came to the same conclusion, saying to his dear friend George Whitefield, "Your God is my devil."

Todd, you see the great divide, and state it (which I appreciate your doing so), which most, on both sides, either avoid, or are afraid to face and admit to it.

Thanks for engaging in this discussion Todd.

It's been good Todd, so that others may read this as well, and that they may search and study the Scriptures to be approved of God, and come to a conclusion on the matter.

Thanks again.

So, I have a question for Marvin, Robert or Ray (Savannah). If faith is purely a gift of God which doesn’t involve a freewill choice on the part of individuals, how do you account for our Lord being amazed when he encountered the great amount of faith the Roman centurion exercised? In Matthew 8:10, we’re told that Jesus "marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!”

If a theology devoid of free will when it comes to exercising faith in Christ were true, I’d think Christ would not have marveled because He would have known that theology like the back of His hand, right? It would seem our Lord would have instead thought and/or said something to the effect of, "That’s great that that Gentile has been given that great faith by the Father.”

I do affirm that there is a Spiritual gift of faith per 1 Cor. 12:9. But I do not believe that that’s the kind of faith being referred to regarding the centurion, considering that it was prior to Pentecost, prior to the bestowal of Spiritual Gifts upon Christ’s Body. Besides, even if it were referring to that kind of faith, just the same it would hardly seem plausible that our Lord would be amazed at it (it would mean He was amazed at the Spirit's bestowal of that gift upon the centurion).

Great question Oracio: I dont know. I suspect the Gentile Centurion believed who Jesus was for he said so, and he articulated that confidence in who he was, Jesus it seems took the centurions confidence as faith (in many instances they are not equivalent but here Jesus speaks as if they are).

I dont think the topic of this discussion can be laid upon the context of Matthew; simply because it forces us to look for implications, nuances, hints instead of the obvious testimony of the apostle in declaring the gentiles displayed far more confidence in Christ than Israel. I believe that is the intention of the apostle.

Any kind of testimony from a gentile at this stage is prophetic/eschatological and Jesus declares that both times gentile/greeks come to seek him.

The faith displayed by the Samaritan woman and the woman with the demon possessed daughter all display God's grace to give understanding to gentile hearts. Samaritan=half jew half gentile.

Whether this is saving faith I don't know, but it is plain from the text the centurion had confidence/faith in Christ. Who but God would give such a gift? Free-will is not to be found in the context anymoreso than election because this instance is not a theological corrective to anyone in the story. You may claim the text implies it, but you would have to imply it outside of the context of this event. What I read is a rebuke to unbelieving Israel and a forecast of what is going to happen later.

We also know devote greeks heard and received Jesus teaching.
Joh 12:20 Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks.
Joh 12:21 So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus."
Joh 12:22 Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.
Joh 12:23 And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.

Jesus response was to declare his final days are here, that his crucifixion is at hand. Why? Because the greeks were believing, these were a foretaste of the grace of God to come...and what must be done to effect it.

I will leave this to better theologians ( which is pretty much everyone discussing this topic).

Thanks Marvin, fair enough. I agree it's not certain whether or not it was saving faith being exercised by the centurion. Like you said, it could have been a sort of confidence in Christ being the long-awaited Messiah. But still, you seem to deny that that confidence could have involved a free will choice on the part of the centurion. So even if it was a "non-salvific" confidence in Christ, I still don't see how Jesus could have marveled at it if the centurion had no choice in the matter.

Hi Oracio,

Here is Jesus speaking to Paul about how He is sending Paul to men in order to make it possible for them to make a choice for Him.

...,. I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' - Acts 26:17-18

Men’s wills can’t be free if it is God who must first open their eyes so that they may turn to God and have faith in Jesus.

So, the only question is whether God opens all men’s spiritual eyes or only some. If we say He opens all, then there are a ton of questions begging for an explanation. The agreeable point I think should be that the will isn’t free to turn in faith to Jesus until eyes have been opened, that is to have the eyes of the heart enlightened.

I would like to humbly suggest that the following passage explains the "eye opening” event that Jesus is referring to :

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. - 2 Corinthians 4:6

I don’t believe this event is given to all.

I understand the argument that sinners do not have a "free will", emphasis on the word "free". Being born into corruption and having practiced base desires predisposes one to not be inclined to make choices that are holy or righteous. And before I was born again I had absolutely no desire to be a Christian or repent of my lifestyle because 1) I would have to concede control to Another and 2) all the "fun stuff" is in some of those sinful practices.

But God was patient and merciful with me. I came to a place in my life where life was so unfulfilling it left me fairly miserable. On a lark I decided to join the "Jesus Freaks" who met under the oak trees at school before the start of school and just lurked quietly listening. Listening to the Word of God and noticing the wonderful and sunny dispositions these Christians had I saw my need and felt a hunger for what they had. God was removing the blinders off of my eyes and drawing me with a hunger for Him and what He has to offer me. This all happened before I actually became born again (regenerated). God was mercifully and graciously giving me the ability to make the right choice and accept His Son Jesus as Lord. The only Christians I know who did not have this type of pre-salvation experience were people like Preacher's kids who got saved at a really early age. I can only speculate that they did not need much drawing or coaxing as me. My main point in this post is to say that God prepares the heart of the sinner by drawing them and showing them their need and giving them a hunger for new life in Jesus by the work of the Holy Spirit using the Word so that the sinner can make an informed and free choice to accept God's offer of salvation. God gets all the credit here. Nobody would have made the choice to be saved without God's working on their heart first. So there is no room for boasting at all.

I came across an essay dealing with free will, compatabilism, does God's foreknowledge mean God ordains or decrees everything that happens, etc. It is an interesting read and moderately long. You can find it here:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Hamilton.%20Philosophical%20Reflections%20on%20Free%20Will.pdf

Add: I do believe that children who get saved at a really early age do in fact have a pre-salvation work on their hearts by the Holy Spirit. It just isn't as dramatic or noticeable as the work done on hardened sinners hearts.

-Daniel

If individuals have no "free-will" in receiving Christ... do they have no "free-will" in serving Christ?

Thanks Robert. Towards God opening eyes spiritually, I’d humbly suggest that there is no basis or warrant for viewing it as an irresistible act of God. We see throughout Scripture that God’s saving grace can either be received or resisted. This is what Stephen had to say to the hardened Jews regarding their resistance of God’s grace:

"You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.”-Acts 7:51

If individuals have no "free-will" in receiving Christ... do they have no "free-will" in serving Christ?

Good question. I think there are different views among our reformed brethren regarding that. I think some would say believers do have a free will when it comes to their sanctification, while others would view the sanctification process as meticulously controlled by God; some seem to be afraid of giving believers any type of credit at all for their spiritual growth, so they seek to make sure to attribute it all to God alone. I think that the latter view tends to stunt spiritual growth in many cases. I’ve known and seen some believers who seem to be quite passive in their spiritual growth, seemingly on account of that type of understanding. In other words, they think, "Since I cannot of my own will do anything to further my spiritual growth, I must just wait on God to produce it in me as He deems fit in His own timing.”

My mistake on the free will comment. I was only speaking about those who had not turned and believed. After new birth, the will is free of the penalty and power of death, sin and the devil and their old sinful nature. The will is free to then follow the new nature's desires and the leading of the Spirit. Of course the influence of sin, flesh, world and devil is still there but the spiritual slavery is no longer there. Oracio, I'm not aware of any reformed believers that think otherwise nor have I heard or read any that say that the will isn't free after conversion, but maybe.

I also think it is also a misnomer to speak of the freedom of the will as if it functions independently of the mind, the desires of the heart, and the nature of the man himself. Whether a man in total is an independent agent is of course a valid consideration but the will is not an independent agent apart from the man himself.

ADD:

Hi Oracio, you use the term "irresistible". Going with that word, many would interpret that to mean that God is making man come to Christ against their will, compelling them to do something they don't want to do.

While some may think that is what God does, most reformed believers hold to the truth that when God changes a man's heart, He changes their desire, what they find beautiful, valuable, attractive and worth everything. Thus, it isn't that God's call is irresistible in the sense of forcing the will but rather that Jesus Himself through revelation in the Gospel has Himself become irresistible to their hearts, so much so that they perceive Him and find Him to be worth joyfully laying down their life in this world to possess Him.

It's a different way to view "irresistible" and a way that is sound in the Bible. What was foolishness is wisdom. What was undesirable is now most desirable. Whom we once hated, we now adore. We now love the light that we once hated and come to it because that is where our beloved beckons us. Those are not just words but truths Jesus preached about salvation and Himself.

I was preparing for bible study tomorrow, which happens to be in Ephesians 6. The verse "children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right" prompted this question in my mind.

Marvin, Robert and Ray, do you brothers believe a child can obey his or her parents while still under the dominion of sin before they are born again?

mak

added: I hope you see this before you reply. If a child is able to respond positively to a parent's directive and this act is righteous before God, then does this indicate that some part of the human state is still capable of making moral choices? I don't believe any of you have ever insisted men are not capable of doing good or making good decisions, but yet you all have insisted that men are not able to respond to the drawing of the Holy Spirit unless they are first quickened to life so that they can believe
.

Hi Mak,

I don't know if this is a full Biblical answer to your question or not.

In 1 Corinthians 13, the Holy Spirit says that we can give all our goods away to the poor but if we lack love, it profits us nothing. Clearly the poor are blessed and there is an external obedience that results in some good for others, but for the one doing the giving it profits nothing, that is, it isn't real obedience. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 28, God pronounces tremendous curses upon the Israelites because they did not obey the Lord's commands " with joy and a glad or cheerful heart". Again, there were commands of the Lord that could be done for the benefit of others according to the Law but the Lord would only be pleased and not curse the people unless they did them out of joy and gladness of heart.

External obedience through the Law and by conscience has very real and impactful benefits to the family, mankind and to society and culture in a temporal way but that obedience is of no spiritual or eternal value before God unless it is done from the heart of love and joy, supernatural love and supernatural joy, in faith, and for the glory of God and not just to get blessings, praise of man or to avoid adverse consequences. Again, temporal external obedience has some value to society and mankind, but not spiritual.

Paul tells Timothy the goal of all instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith.
Apart from this, it isn't true obedience.

Hi Robert, I did a bit more research and further confirmed that there are indeed differing views within reformed theology when it comes to sanctification. I found that many do see it as "synergistic” as you seem to affirm (seemingly the vast majority see it that way), but there are some who do see it as entirely "monergistic” and see the believer as passive in terms of how much he or she grows in spiritual maturity in Christ. The founder of monergism.com holds to the latter view for example.

Towards me using the term "irresistible” in reference to the reformed view of God’s grace, I use that term because it is part of TULIP, and because it is widely consented to as a biblical term by virtually all modern reformed Christians I’ve known or come across.

You wrote

Hi Oracio, you use the term "irresistible". Going with that word, many would interpret that to mean that God is making man come to Christ against their will, compelling them to do something they don't want to do.

You then explained:

While some may think that is what God does, most reformed believers hold to the truth that when God changes a man's heart, He changes their desire, what they find beautiful, valuable, attractive and worth everything.

Thus, it isn't that God's call is irresistible in the sense of forcing the will but rather that Jesus Himself through revelation in the Gospel has Himself become irresistible to their hearts, so much so that they perceive Him and find Him to be worth joyfully laying down their life in this world to possess Him. It's a different way to view "irresistible" and a way that is sound in the Bible. What was foolishness is wisdom. What was undesirable is now most desirable. Whom we once hated, we now adore. We now love the light that we once hated and come to it because that is where our beloved beckons us.

Those are not just words but truths Jesus preached about salvation and Himself.

"Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me. 29 Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord, 30 They would have none of my counsel and despised my every rebuke. 31 Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way and be filled to the full with their own fancies. 32 For the turning away of the simple will slay them, And the complacency of fools will destroy them; 33 But whoever listens to me will dwell safely, and will be secure, without fear of evil.”

Verse 28 says that they "did not choose the fear of the Lord.” To me the plain implication is that they could have chosen the fear of the Lord when God called them to repentance. But because they refused to make that choice, they will suffer terrible consequences. On the other hand, as an encouragement to those who would take heed to God’s salvation call, we read, "whoever listens to me will dwell safely, and will be secure, without fear of evil.” Again, by implication sinners can choose to listen to God when He calls them to repentance.

But maybe that’s just me seeking to take that passage at face value too much. I just can’t seem to get away from what to me seem to be the plain and simple implications of that and many other passages like it throughout God’s Word.

Hi Oracio,

Well, I didn’t have a vote when I was born the first time into a world of misery and I was bound for Hell because of my sin. I’m sure for myself that not having a vote about God giving me new birth the second time to love Him and to be with Him is just fine. Mercy is God’s free will for my eternal life. I’m not worried about my willl. Just His. I’m not being cute.

As for choices, of course we have them. Before Christ we freely choose sin all the time. After, we freely choose Him. It’s a question of desire. Choice is a fruit of desire, not its cause. That’s where I think the title to this thread needs to be changed to "Inability” or "unwillingness” or "undesirability ". They all are joined as one in the nature of man.

Our Lord told His disciple that "unless you turn and humble yourself and become as little children you will not enter the kingdom of God.”

Children have the God given ability to humble themselves under their parents authority. Those who embrace that ability experience things going well for them and longevity upon the earth. This is grace they receive by humbling themselves.

This same grace is offered to all who will humble themselves and submit to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. God gives grace to the humble. Knowing that the Spirit inspired this precise expression, it is sound to say with the Spirit that if men will humble themselves and hear under (obey) the Holy Spirit, God will give them grace.

Mak

I think there is agreement between my position and the reformed position on the "drawing" that has to happen right before someone is saved. The lost sinner is being "drawn" by the Holy Spirit to the Lord by the Word of God convicting, convincing, causing hunger, giving revelation, sensing need in the heart, etc. We see this in the NT in both the Jews whose hearts were pricked at Pentecost at Peter's preaching and with the Philipian jailer who all asked, What must we do to be saved? Apparently, the reformed crowd would have us believe that at that point they were already saved (regenerated). But did Peter or Paul tell them to do nothing? Of course not. They were told that they needed to repent and believe. We know that salvation is a free gift from God that was fully paid for by the Savior. But a person does have to stretch out their hand to receive the gift. Neither repentance nor faith are meritorious acts that earn someone in any degree anything. They are however the preconditions to salvation that are commanded. Paul says plainly in Romans that faith and works are mutually exclusive with respect to the issue of merit or earning. The Bible is replete with exhortations to make a response to God's call and commands to repent and believe. Responses always involve making a choice of the will. I've already gone over how nobody can respond without their heart being drawn by the HS and that their response is not a "work" that earns or merits them anything. But I find it so odd that followers of Martin Luther who recovered the truth of being saved by faith are now telling us that recognizing your need is evidence you are already saved because they have a crazy idea that any positive response to the gospel that a sinner makes would be a work that he could boast in and take partial credit for his own salvation, therefore faith comes after regeneration. God calls the sinner to respond precisely because God's grace is resistible and their positive response is necessary as a definitive act of turning from darkness to light and letting God and others know that they are receiving the free gift of God in Jesus Christ.

-Daniel

Hi Mak,

The argument you and many others make consistently is at its root that if God commands something to be done and connects a promise and a curse to that command, then by definition, man must be able, in some way either naturally in themselves or by some supernatural help to do the command and receive the promise and avoid the consequence. Otherwise, the command and promise cannot be genuine or sincere. Makes perfect logical sense.

The second piece of that argument is that men did in fact please God in the OT by their "obedience" and therefore, that automatically proves that all men are able to obey. Again, makes perfect logical sense. This part of the argument still, however, does not explain whether those men who obey and please God have been helped or changed in order to make it possible for them to obey and whether that help or change has in fact been provided or occurred for all men.

The answer to the second piece we have debated as many have. On one hand, many would argue that all men by definition MUST receive the help because of the first argument I set forth above, that is that God would be insincere not to provide that help given the command and the promise of obedience and the consequences of disobedience. That is absolutely an argument of implication. There are no verses in the Bible to support that implication. It is one drawn from logic, or fairness or a resort to the character of God. That doesn't make the argument invalid but it must be recognized as that or I think those who make it are being evasive.

The final piece of the argument on that side is that it is simply not just for God to hold men responsible for disobedience and sins they commit by virtue of a sinful nature that they can neither resist nor be held at fault for inheriting. Again, logical.

I don not resist the "logic" of the first, second or third arguments as far as man's logic will take us. Of course, many would just stop there and say the debate is over. I've admitted to the human logic of the other side.

If human logic is the sole basis for this argument, then it is finished. But human reasoning and man's wisdom isn't the sole basis to resolve the question nor is it even the right one. We must and you and others have, gone to the Scriptures for God's wisdom and His stated truths.

I find there to be "logic" in the reformed position as well given the Scriptures that speak directly to man's sin nature problem and the state of men's hearts. The fact that God gives commands that men can't perform without help is something I think you would concede. The sole question is does God give sufficient help to all in every situation and with regard to every command of God?

If He does, then the argument is fundamentally a Pelagian argument. That is to say that man may be born with a sinful nature, however, each and every day, each and every man lives faced with moral choices commanded by God, has the God given, sin nature overriding, ability to obey God as to each and every command man knows.

That means man's sin nature is in practice, just a theoretical idea and has no practical meaning because God takes it away every day and every day as each man makes moral decisions in his life. No more sin nature to impede man from desiring, loving and obeying God. This is effectively what the Catholic church has argued since the 1500s even though they condemned Pelagius as a heretic long before. Man is unable to obey God but God makes Him able all day and in every way as to God's commands. The sinful nature is just a hypothetical idea from day one of mankinds' existence after the Fall.

Instead of man being naturally sinful, man is only born that way but God removes that stigma every day and in every way so the nature can be overcome and the commands of God obeyed.

That is all just logic as well. It's not in Scripture. Anywhere. None of the logic I've previously addressed is why I or most reformed people hold that natural man hates God and is unwilling to come to God absent God's supernatural change of man that He does not give to all in mercy. Our views would "naturally" want to go the way that all men receive adequate and sufficient mercy to come to Christ. I would personally prefer that all men be saved period. That blanket salvation would be granted to all without any preconditions or requirements that would be a hurdle to all men being saved That is the truth.

What forms the reformed position, however I believe, is strictly Scripture. A myriad of very clear and some less clear Scriptures that speak of sovereign grace and mercy, the wickedness of man's hearts, the fact that men are responsible even if they are born with an ultimate inclination to sin caused by an inherited curse. We cannot and sometimes we feel dare not question God if He says He is merciful to some in choosing a people and at the same time holds all of mankind responsible for sins that are committed by their very nature. I get that that rubs people or offend peoples' logic, sense of compassion or their own view of the character of God or counters Scripture that God desires all men to be saved.

The situation is this simple to me and that because of Scripture, not my logic.

Mankind fell and we inherited sinful natures that predispose us to love self and self rule, hate God and His rule and love evil and darkness and thus we are easily led by Satan to question the existence, character or relevance of God. We are responsible for our sin, our love of sin and our failure to believe God and give Him thanks and Glory in spite of His manifold witnesses to Himself in creation and in the heart. That is a very close paraphrase of Scripture.

God chose a people in the OT to be His own royal priesthood, people, sheep and kingdom and He intentionally and very expressly excluded millions and billions of people from that kingdom, people just like us. The inclusion of the Jews was not because they were humble or compliant or desiring. HE says HE chose them in spite of their rebellious stiff necks. He excluded the rest not because of their greater sinfulness than the Jews. He loved the Jews and not the Gentiles because, HE says, HE loved them. He loved one and not the other because HE did. Again, all that a very close paraphrase of Scripture. No logic, no fairness, no character explanations other than He did so because of His own sovereign free will.

God repeats that same thematic "choosing" and loving of a specific people in the NT without a break in character or modification of approach. Not many wise, not many powerful, not many at all have been chosen by God as His people. I'm not ashamed or embarrassed by those words. they are Scripture. God has chosen a remnant people not on the basis of their choice of Him, or because they are less rebellious or smarter than the rest of mankind but because of His sovereign free will. He says that. Its not an argument, it's a statement of God. At that point, I stick my logic, my preference, my arguments of unfairness or insincerity away and like Job and Paul in Romans 9 just accept the counsel of God.

The only thing for me that is unexplainable by Scripture is how men are responsible for sins we commit due to a sinful nature we inherited. Don't have an answer for that. God hasn't given one. That fact doesn't force me to go against the Scriptures that are clear about God's sovereign choice of a people who will be saved. I just accept in all humility that God has said both are true. I won't apologize or shrink back because God hasn't explained that to me or anyone else.

God pleads and commands through general revelation, conscience and the Gospel to all men with sincerity, lovingkindness and pity that all men would repent from their sinful rebellion and hatred of Him and come to Him. He makes very clear the promise and the curse. Men, prefer and love the themselves, their evil passions and their darkness. God hold them accountable. They won't as God says because they do not desire to, do not want to, are not willing to and because of their evil hearts are not able to. That is God's word and explanation. In spite of all this, God has determined and will act to have a people for His Son so in His sovereign mercy he effectually and most unilaterally saves some. Like I said, my very great preference is that all my brothers in the flesh would come to repentance and believe. I minister in a dark country right now with that hope and that effort. I also minister with great encouragement that He has a people where I am and I know some will be saved not because of their merit or worth but because of His mercy based on Scripture promises and God's sovereign wisdom, power and will and His love for His Son who will, despite man's rebellious stiff necked nature, have a kingdom and a people.

Hi Mak. I know I wrote a lot to take issue with.

I have a question that I think creates a conundrum for your position and ask your thoughts.

Fact. God loves mankind and desires all to be saved.

Fact. Salvation requires faith in Jesus.

Fact. Faith in Jesus requires a personal revelation of Jesus.

Implication. In order for God to be sincere in His love and desire, all men must receive a personal revelation of Jesus to have the opportunity to have faith and be saved.

Is that logic right? Is that what happens? If that logic is right but that is not what happens, is God insincere in His love or desire?
What does actually happen where all men can have faith in Jesus.? That isn’t a parlor game question. It is a use of the same arguments that have been used to oppose the reformed position. Just turned the other way to ensure internal logical consistency.

ADD. Mak, if that isn’t your position I know it has been expressed in various ways by others and so the question is of course open to Oracio, Todd, Daniel or anyone else.

Hi all: I believe what we are reading is a reiteration of what was discussed previously. In the end some will believe God has an elect, others accept it only in metaphorical terms.

They believe God chooses them because they chose God. God cannot elect anyone simply because our western mindset thinks that to save someone without their consent is worse than going to hell. For them such a trespass against the god-self is tantamount to all heresy combined...and evil never to be tolerated. The only mind that would think deliverance from hell...even if I didnt want it at the time, is a carnal-worldly god-self mind.

It seems God as potter has no power over the clay. For them, the scriptures are twisted and I mean contorted to mean 'man has a say in the kind of vessel he is to become'.

None of you think twice about correcting an errant child, or saving a fool from his own drunk driving...but to save a soul from hell without his permission...why that is worse than hell, its worse than all injustice and crime combined.
Im sure no one would agree with that...but as I said in earlier posts, arminianism when it is confronted with God's sovereignty, absolutely demands God to take a backseat to human will and sovereignty.
Do you see the boasting? It's cloaked in pious words and analogies, overlaid with reason and logic all pointing in one single direction...What is that direction? Man's sovereignty and his final say in whether he will be saved or not.

So, I get it that Wesleys' devil is my God, because the same reasoning that denies God the right as a potter or a creator shifts that power to man's will and reasoning. Pardon me while I anathematize it.

Instead of believing the explicit teaching election in the new covenant, we must return to the old covenant, find 'free-will analogies' and then remove explicit teaching in favor or free-will analogy.
This is poor, horrible and false ways of handing the word of God. Yes, I am claiming some of you are doing this.

Now, I have a new set of analogies to wade through, a new set of implications and vagueries that supposedly substantiate man's inviolable free-will...if not I am guilty of declaring God has power over the clay, or a creator who has power over his creation. Now, that's got to be heretical?

You see, when you read enough of this, you finally see what's at the bottom. What is at the bottom? Well, as far as I can see it is human will is absolutely sovereign and accordingly God has given his creation a trump card that beats all other scripture to the contrary.

Can God elect? No, not unless I say so.
Can God make a vessel unto honor or dishonor? No, unless they say so.
Can God be declared holy and righteous and good? No, not unless everyone has equal ability to be saved, equal ability to believe, equal ability to obey anything or everything ever commanded.
How am I sanctified? Why it's by reason of giving God permission to sanctify me.
How am I justified? By reason of giving God permission to change my status with him.

None of this is gospel, but it's what's being passed off as legitimate scriptural interpretation, legitimate and credible exegesis of scripture.

I can hear it now...No one is saying this Marv. Really, not as I just stated it, but in essence you are and loudly.

Mak: Your gracious and kind demeanor is hiding this kind of horrible teaching. In the end, there is no election for you except in metaphorical terms.
Of course...I am quite willing to call this error a real error there is nothing else that it can be called.

I do believe in a God that saves people who cannot see their danger, do not understand their condition, they do not understand who God is and what their meaningless lives will eventually lead to. Yes, I believe God has the right to put that lump of clay on the wheel and smash it, remake it and ( horror of horrors) asks no permission to do it.
I believe God will not ask permission of a man who's self centeredness, self-will, unbelief, hatred for God himself, disregard for God's way of living and thinking. Why would any sane person let alone God ask such a person if they "would like to be delivered from an eternal damnation, an endless misery and an eternal existence devoid of everything they ever would enjoy"

But, probably some of you have already dismissed everything I said and have now determined in your own hearts...There is no such God as the one Marvin has been speaking of.
Marvin's God is a real despot, but mine is gentle. Marvin's God is a real creator who makes his own plans for me and exactly what he wants, but mine is a reasonable God, one who will not 'spin any wheel or mash any clay' unless we are in agreement'.
Marv's God doesnt give us the option of 'choosing what we will do and where we will go and how we will do it', he has his own plans and if they are deviated from, Marv's God calls it a distortion, a corruption, a tree bearing no fruit, I have a God that recognizes my needs, sees my will and looks upon my choices with love and tenderness, he will not push or shove me around, he will not raise his voice or call me to account because he loves me.

In the end, I see a different God than many of you portray on this forum, you are nice about it, gracious and kind to me and others...but in the end I cannot believe what you claim, nor can I agree with your interpretations.

God open the eyes of men who are your enemies, reveal yourself to them, give them understanding of your word and be merciful to them in the midst of their unbelief.

This prayer and millions just like it are prayed to God for our friends and relatives. We pray this because we KNOW inwardly they are lost and cannot see or understand what we as Christians have come to know.

But the theology I just condemned on a previous post would necessitate a re-stating of this prayer.

Here is a more accurate presentation of the theology I read, so I suggest a redo of their prayers to match their theology.

God get permission to open their eyes so they can see they are enemies, if they let you God, reveal yourself to them, if you work it right their understanding will agree with yours so you can be merciful to them. Be merciful to them when they ask for it, be kind to them when they give you entrance. They're self-lords God, their unbelief is central to their will and person, over time they might be persuaded and if they do change their own minds dont judge them.

Those of you who are sold on free-will must absolutely be praying amiss, you are utterly inconsistent with your prayers and your theology. You should reject the first prayer in favor of your theologically sound second form of prayer that is consistent with your view of God and mans inviolable right to chose.

No one prays that way...someone will say. True, because the Spirit of God directing prayers to God for the salvation of man WILL NOT use the theology presented over and over again on this subject as the basis for God's help to save a man.

Luke 6:47 (KJV) Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

John 6:35 (KJV) And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 6:37 (KJV) All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Quote: """God open the eyes of men who are your enemies, reveal yourself to them, give them understanding of your word and be merciful to them in the midst of their unbelief."""

For me: God opens the eyes of men who are His enemies. He reveals Himself to them, He gives them understanding of the truth, He is merciful to us in the midst of our unbelief with understanding giving us "the life I now live, I now live by the Faith of the Son of God."

I know because I was one of His enemies. Now He has given me to my Savior; Jesus Christ and has made me a son of God in Christ Jesus a fellow heir of God the Fathers Royal House and New Family by my new birth of Christ in me the Hope of Glory.

In Christ: Phillip

Hi Marvin, I'm curious about something. In your previous to last post you seemed to imply Christians do not have a say so in how much they are sanctified in their walk with Christ. If you do in fact believe that (or even if you don't), do you believe Christians do not have a say so on which side they agree with in this debate at hand here? On your view, does God decide which Christians will and will not hold to reformed theology in terms of the free will debate?

Hi Oracio: Sanctification is synergistic, now that the believer is spiritually alive, the indwelling Spirit of God motivates and inspires toward Christlikeness. Our conformity to the image of Christ is able to find fulfillment in the Christian dying to self. It is this paradoxical pathway of God that born again Christians must learn by experience, trial, error, prayers and study of scripture.

As I said in another post concerning devotion, our devotion to God is now a part of us and a part of the Holy Spirit's inworking in us.
The manifestation of true devotion to God is recognized by a holy and sanctified heart and mind...which reveals itself in words and actions directed to give God glory and please him in obedience.

Clever question about this topic...I would say emphatically God knows all of our inward thoughts and he knows how it will end up with all of us. As to knowing the mind of God whether some should believe this way or that? I dont know.
We both know God wills for his people to know and love the truth and live out that truth, this topic is just a little piece of it.

To attempt to describe the inner workings of the Spirit in the mind and heart...who has spiritual eyes to discern and the wisdom to articulate the hidden things of God? I surely do not.

To the point, all truly born again believers have a part to play in the fulfillment of their calling. Their will, mind and body are all one...a person, that in multitudes of situations and circumstances are required to seek God's wisdom, strength, hope or faith, love or obedience. The new creation, the true believer is alive unto God, reconciled unto God and able to hear and respond to their Savior.

I abhor a passive, lifeless pursuit of God, those who think sanctification is "all God's doing" are only half right, but equally half wrong. One of the great purposes of Christ-indwelling us by his Spirit is for us to live out human lives as Jesus lived out is life. Jesus obedience was not done for him, his prayers and faith were not actions done for him. His involvement as a man indwelt fully by the Spirit of God could NEVER have succeeded in reconciling the world to himself ( which is a mighty demonstration of love)He would have been no better than a pharisee who outwardly made the motions but left out the heart of it all.
So too a believer who has been duped into thinking their sanctification is anything other than a complete imitation of Jesus Christ life.

The nitty gritty details of how God reveals truth, turns our hearts, softens our will or comforts our emotions I again leave to better theologians.

Hi Oracio: I think you were maybe referring to this quote I made "Marv's God doesnt give us the option of 'choosing what we will do and where we will go and how we will do it"

I mean by that statement, that since the presumed value of a mans's will is so precious it can be assumed our own plans and intentions in how we live out our lives should not be presumed upon by a God who 'forces us' to comply. We make our own destiny so says every motivational guru today. We make our own fortune, our own happiness, our own path so says many a preacher, God is just a means to our ends. If his ends and our end coincide then all the better for God.

This kind of modern theology/thinking is abhorrent to me.

Where would I draw such a conclusion? From the postings currently being offered in defense of free-will.

Thanks Marvin. It was actually this statement I had in mind though, but I appreciate the further clarification:

"How am I sanctified? Why it's by reason of giving God permission to sanctify me."

Btw, I appreciate the fact that you brethren (Marvin, Robert and Ray) are willing to come on here and fellowship and bear with those of us who disagree with you on this issue, as it seems we may outnumber you brethren (at least when it comes to those who post regularly here).

I mention that because I have come across many reformed brethren who would have nothing to do with us "free-willers." Many see us as not being enlightened or biblically educated enough, as they are, and some see this as an essential issue over which to divide. Over the years I've had my share of rejection from certain reformed Christians (including a lead pastor at a Southern Baptist church where I was a member for some time) on account of my disagreement on this issue.

You say that some of us who believe in free will see your view as heretical, which is true in some cases (I sure don’t, and I’m sure others here don’t either); but many reformed Christians also see our view as heretical and seek to belittle us.

I think Romans 14 is applicable here as that chapter deals with disagreements among Christians regarding "non-essential" or "non-salvific" beliefs. I'll paraphrase verses 5-6a and change some of the wording to apply it to this discussion:

One person believes sinners can choose to either receive or reject salvation; another believes sinners do not have that kind of capability due to the fall. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who believes that God has given sinners that capability, believes that way to the Lord; and he who does not believe sinners have that capability, to the Lord he does not believe that way.

Hi Robert, thank you for continuing to participate in the discussion.

First, I want to take the opportunity to say I do NOT oppose the reformed position. That is not my purpose or interest. I have come to realize that there are many sincere brothers, that call themselves reformed, who desire to see God receive the glory in every aspect of salvation.

From the opportunity I have had to consider the reformed position, I see it as systematic theology based upon select passages of scripture. I do not intend to demean or negate a single passage of scripture by categorizing it as select, rather I only mean that the passages that specifically delineate predestination, election, and foreknowledge, are limited by comparison to the volume of scripture in general. I hope this is not a point of contention.

I believe if I were to attempt, I could recall most of these select passages by memory. I don't believe typing all of them out would even require a great deal of space, especially if we disallowed certain passages where election is only implied but not explicitly stated. I have read some posts where brothers have typed out the bulk of these scriptures right here on the forum. It is worth stating that the fact that these passages are limited in volume does not mean they are not decisive in nature or importance.

It is not easy to analyze oneself, but your questions and those of others have provoked that attempt and I hope to benefit from the process. I have recognized that I do not place the same weight on select passages that brothers who call themselves reformed do. For example, Isaiah's prayer and confession regarding apostate Israel - "all our righteousness is as filthy rags". I do not believe God viewed the righteousness of Job, or Noah, or Enoch, or Abraham as filthy menstrual rags. That statement should be understood as addressing the condition of the people Isaiah was interceding for. I believe that when the record of scripture states a man or woman was righteous and God fearing, that this is how God viewed them.

Here is where our logic appears to diverge. You have adequately expressed why you believe select passages of scripture necessitates a prevenient action on God's part in any circumstance where a man or woman has been described as righteous. Thus, your view necessitates that the large volume of scripture be submitted to the scrutiny of the select passages that reformed theology is founded upon.

Like a child, I take it at face value that God desires all men to be saved and genuinely offers that salvation to them through the preaching of the Gospel. What happens to men and women who have never heard the gospel is a matter too high for me. I don't try to grasp it because I do not believe it wise to attempt to do so. That is why there is no conflict for me.

Like a child, I believe Jesus died for all men, and that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish. I do not feel compelled to subject that statement to the scrutiny of "election". Like a child, I read our Lord's parable of the Wedding Feast and consider so tragic that the men who had been invited chose not to come. I have no desire to attempt to subject our Lord's words to Reformed theology.

When I read that Jesus wept over Jerusalem because He so longed to gather the people to Himself, I simply take His compassion as a beautiful expression of God's heart. Nothing compels me to introduce the idea of election into my appreciation of the passage.

I honestly do not wrestle with or even consider it a problem that God loves the world and yet so few are saved. If that makes me naïve, so be it - I am comfortable in my simplistic understanding.

In my own limited understanding, I have no need to attempt to apply a logic to God at all. I am able to enjoy the simplistic perspective that if God asked men to do something, He desired them to do it. I never want to lose that simplicity. My heavenly Father is blameless in regards to His judgments. My Father can do no wrong in my eyes. I do not claim to understand all of My Father's wisdom and decisions; they are too much for me.

Do children look for "internal logical consistency"? Maybe the prodigies do, but not this child. My Father will take care of His responsibility to communicate His message. He has some fascinating ways to do it. The heavens declare His glory, the skies proclaim the work of His hands every day. At night my Father's knowledge is displayed and every day is another speech. My Father's message reaches every place on the entire earth. My Father even has a lady named wisdom who He told me calls out to every man trying to get them to allow her to teach them about My Father's ways.

I can't explain how my Father does it, but He has told me that every day He attempts to make Himself known in every place on the earth and to all people. He told me that He looks down from heaven to see if there is anyone who understands Him. I will never be able to explain everything about My Father, but I can tell you that my Father is good and if He says that He wants everyone to be saved, that is what He means.

mak

Beautifully stated Mak. Couldn’t agree more.

Thanks Mak. What makes me so curious about these. differences is that
I view the reformed view as almost entirely thematic or Biblical theology and virtually devoid of systematic theology. The overarching theme of the Bible is that God rescues a people for Himself not based on what they do but on what He does. Remarkable to me that I see it simply as that and you see the reformed view as complicated.

Dear Robert,

Please know that I did not intend to imply that the Reformed view is complicated.

Even Peter acknowledged that some things Paul wrote were "hard to understand." I tend to think that Romans 9 and other similar passages may have been what he had in mind.

mak

Hi Mak:

I read your last posts, I don't buy it.

You are hardly the 'well it says what is says so that's all there is to it' kinda guy. No one reads greek and Hebrew, or digs into ancient languages because he is satisfied with the simplistic approach to things.

As a good student of scripture you're posts here demonstrate far more than simpleton thinking.

You have child-like faith and confidence in Jesus...may we all have that, but you do not have childlike understanding.

This is more befitting
1 Corinthians 14:20 (KJV)

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.