User Tag List

Page 30 of 32 FirstFirst ... 20272829303132 LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 469

Thread: A Question for Open Theists

  1. #436
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,731
    Thanks
    1,280
    Thanked 8,729 Times in 5,725 Posts

    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147838
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Hi Jerry,
    I tend to agree with your conclusion, but I don't see how those verses prove that. Can you explain why? maybe the context is necessary...?
    In order to understand my remarks which prove that the Calvinists are in error about their teaching that being "born of God" (regeneration) precedes "faith" it is necessary to understand their ideas concerning the "logical order of salvation":

    "The 'ordo salutis' is the order of salvation. This focuses on the acts of God and the response of the individual in salvation. God calls us, produces regeneration in us, so that we respond with repentance, faith, and obedience. Behind the divine call is God’s electing decree. The 'ordo salutis' is not concerned with a temporal sequence of events, but with a logical order" (The Order of Salvation, Ligonier Ministries, The Teaching Fellowship of R.C. Sproul).

    According to this the logical order is first, God calling us. Then secondly, He produces regeneration (born again) in us. Then finally that enables us to respond in faith.

    So being born again precedes faith according to the Calvinists' logical order. But both Peter and James makes it plain that is is faith which results in being born of God:

    "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).

    "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created"
    (Jas.1:18).

    The Calvinists have it backward. The Scriptures reveal that a person is "born again" (regenerated) as a result of his faith.

    The Calvinists teach that a person is "born again" (regenerated) prior to faith.

  2. #437
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,100
    Thanks
    527
    Thanked 923 Times in 633 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    246939
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    In order to understand my remarks which prove that the Calvinists are in error about their teaching that being "born of God" (regeneration) precedes "faith" it is necessary to understand their ideas concerning the "logical order of salvation":

    "The 'ordo salutis' is the order of salvation. This focuses on the acts of God and the response of the individual in salvation. God calls us, produces regeneration in us, so that we respond with repentance, faith, and obedience. Behind the divine call is God’s electing decree. The 'ordo salutis' is not concerned with a temporal sequence of events, but with a logical order" (The Order of Salvation, Ligonier Ministries, The Teaching Fellowship of R.C. Sproul).

    According to this the logical order is first, God calling us. Then secondly, He produces regeneration (born again) in us. Then finally that enables us to respond in faith.

    So being born again precedes faith according to the Calvinists' logical order. But both Peter and James makes it plain that is is faith which results in being born of God:

    "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).

    "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created"
    (Jas.1:18).

    The Calvinists have it backward. The Scriptures reveal that a person is "born again" (regenerated) as a result of his faith.

    The Calvinists teach that a person is "born again" (regenerated) prior to faith.
    I understand that, but your verses don't seem to support your conclusion. Rather, they tend to support AMR's. On the face, they talk about "the word" causing an effect, which sounds like "and God said...and it was so." Or about God's choice, which suggests God was performing an act (of choosing) which led to salvation. How does that speak against Calvinism?

    But perhaps you could explain why you think they support yours.

    Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

  3. #438
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,731
    Thanks
    1,280
    Thanked 8,729 Times in 5,725 Posts

    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147838
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I understand that, but your verses don't seem to support your conclusion. Rather, they tend to support AMR's. On the face, they talk about "the word" causing an effect, which sounds like "and God said...and it was so." Or about God's choice, which suggests God was performing an act (of choosing) which led to salvation. How does that speak against Calvinism?

    But perhaps you could explain why you think they support yours.
    i will be glad to do that. Here the Lord Jesus illustrates that the word of God works in concert with the Spirit and that union results in life:

    "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life"
    (Jn.6:63).

    We can understand that the gospel also works in concert with the Holy Spirit:

    "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance" (1 Thess.1:5).

    Even though Paul makes it plain that the gospel comes in much power and in the Holy Spirit the Calvinists say that it is powerless to save anyone unless a person is first "born again."

    In the following words of the Apostle John we see that "life" comes as a result of believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:

    "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

    So when a person believes he is "born again" (regenerated) by the word of God:

    "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).

    "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created" (Jas.1:18).

    This demonstrates that a person is "born again" as a result of believing the gospel. The Calvinists teach that being "born again" happens prior to believing.

  4. #439
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,831
    Thanks
    4,542
    Thanked 4,023 Times in 2,297 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147700

    Regeneration is via Ordinary Means of the Gospel

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Even though Paul makes it plain that the gospel comes in much power and in the Holy Spirit the Calvinists say that it is powerless to save anyone unless a person is first "born again."
    Pardon the interruption, but no Calvinist says the Holy Spirit is powerless to save anyone.

    It is the Holy Spirit that quickens the spiritually dead to life. This quickening is ordinarily accompanies the hearing of the Good News. This instantaneous regenerative event (born-again, born-anew, etc.,) enables the person to believe, who will not not believe.

    Carry on now.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    Angel4Truth (December 28th, 2016),Lon (April 26th, 2017),theophilus (December 28th, 2016)

  6. #440
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,731
    Thanks
    1,280
    Thanked 8,729 Times in 5,725 Posts

    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Pardon the interruption, but no Calvinist says the Holy Spirit is powerless to save anyone.

    It is the Holy Spirit that quickens the spiritually dead to life. This quickening is ordinarily accompanies the hearing of the Good News.
    Are you saying that it is only the "hearing" of the Good News which results in a person being "born again"?

    Are you saying that the following words of the Lord Jesus reveal that it is only the hearing of His words which result in receiving "life"?:

    "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).

    Are you saying that the following words of the Lord Jesus are saying that those who only hear (but not believe) receive life?:

    "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (Jn.5:24).

    The words of the Lord which immediately precede those words show us exactly how those who hear His words receive life:

    ""Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

    It is by believing that a person receives life. John Calvin certainly understood that "life" is received by faith:

    "But the Apostle, that he might keep us together in Christ, again repeats that life is found in him; as though he had said, that no other way of obtaining life has been appointed for us by God the Father. And the Apostle, indeed, briefly includes here three things: that we are all given up to death until God in his gratuitous favor restores us to life; for he plainly declares that life is a gift from God: and hence also it follows that we are destitute of it, and that it cannot be acquired by merits; secondly, he teaches us that this life is conferred on us by the gospel, because there the goodness and the paternal love of God is made known to us; lastly, he says that we cannot otherwise become partakers of this life than by believing in Christ"
    (John Calvin, Commentary on 1 John 5:11).

  7. #441
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,100
    Thanks
    527
    Thanked 923 Times in 633 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    246939
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    i will be glad to do that. Here the Lord Jesus illustrates that the word of God works in concert with the Spirit and that union results in life:

    "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life"
    (Jn.6:63).

    We can understand that the gospel also works in concert with the Holy Spirit:

    "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance" (1 Thess.1:5).

    Even though Paul makes it plain that the gospel comes in much power and in the Holy Spirit the Calvinists say that it is powerless to save anyone unless a person is first "born again."

    In the following words of the Apostle John we see that "life" comes as a result of believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:

    "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

    So when a person believes he is "born again" (regenerated) by the word of God:

    "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).

    "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created" (Jas.1:18).

    This demonstrates that a person is "born again" as a result of believing the gospel. The Calvinists teach that being "born again" happens prior to believing.
    I think the addition of the John passage is essential to your argument. But it's interesting to me that John spends much time explaining how Jesus is "the Word" (John 1:1), and the other writers don't so much. However, both Peter and James talk of "the word" in your passages in a way that is very reminiscent of John's use of "Word", while your citation of John 6:63 reverts to "words", which is not a representation of Christ. Is it possible that "the Word" is meant by Peter and James, and that the good news requires that Word, not just the "word"?

    If that's the case, then I'm not sure how strong those two verses are for your argument--they are saying that for someone to believe requires that object of faith (Jesus) to actually exist, but it doesn't seem to bear on the ordo salutis.

    Just my opinion...

  8. #442
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,731
    Thanks
    1,280
    Thanked 8,729 Times in 5,725 Posts

    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147838
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I think the addition of the John passage is essential to your argument. But it's interesting to me that John spends much time explaining how Jesus is "the Word" (John 1:1), and the other writers don't so much. However, both Peter and James talk of "the word" in your passages in a way that is very reminiscent of John's use of "Word", while your citation of John 6:63 reverts to "words", which is not a representation of Christ. Is it possible that "the Word" is meant by Peter and James, and that the good news requires that Word, not just the "word"?
    I do not think that it is possible. When we look at what Peter says in "context" we can see that the "word" in verse 23 is referring to the gospel, as explained in verse 25:

    "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you"
    (1 Pet.1:23,25).

    The words "this is the word" in verse 25 must point back to the "word of God" in verse 23. And the words "this is the word" are referring to the "gospel."

    Therefore, since these verses clearly outline the same principle of which James speaks of here then we can understand that in both cases the meaning is "word" and not "Word":

    "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created" (Jas.1:18).

    In regard to why John would write of the "Word" at John 1:1 we must remember that in his gospel the Apostle John was giving us a portrait of the Lord Jesus as "God."

    If that's the case, then I'm not sure how strong those two verses are for your argument--they are saying that for someone to believe requires that object of faith (Jesus) to actually exist, but it doesn't seem to bear on the ordo salutis.
    It's not the case because when we examine the "context" of what is said at 1 Peter 1:23 we can clearly understand that the meaning is "word" and not "Word."

  9. #443
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,831
    Thanks
    4,542
    Thanked 4,023 Times in 2,297 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147700

    Exclamation Jerry's Scripture Hopscotch and Appeal to Calvin (!) Fails to Make His Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Are you saying that it is only the "hearing" of the Good News which results in a person being "born again"?
    I am and will say once more that the hearing of the Good News is the ordinary means by which one is born-again (regenerated) by the power and efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the how of being born again—the means—is by the hearing of the Good News of those chosen by God. It is from this ordinary means that one is given the moral ability to believe (Eze. 36:26).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Are you saying that the following words of the Lord Jesus reveal that it is only the hearing of His words which result in receiving "life"?:"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).
    Unless one has ears to hear (Matthew 11:15; Mark 4:9) they cannot hear what Our Lord is speaking, Jerry. After all, how can those dead in their sins hear anything righteous (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14)?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Are you saying that the following words of the Lord Jesus are saying that those who only hear (but not believe) receive life?:"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (Jn.5:24).
    Make that John 5:25, please. The spiritually dead, which is meant here, not the raising of the dead, as in Lazarus(John 11:44) or the widow's son (Luke 7:15), are quickened unto spiritual life, they hear, that is they have faith (shall live).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    The words of the Lord which immediately precede those words show us exactly how those who hear His words receive life:""Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).
    Let the text speak for itself, Jerry. The clause which is added, believeth on him who sent him, serves to confirm the authority of the Gospel: when Christ testifies that the Gospel came from God, and was not invented by men, as Our Lord elsewhere says that what He speaks is not from Himself, but was delivered to Him by the Father, (John 7:16; 14:10).

    Thus the grace of Our Lord is a true resurrection from the dead (see the entire verse of John 5:25). This grace is conferred on God's chosen children by the Good News. It is not conferred such that some energy is possessed by the external voice of the one declaring the Good News, which in many cases strikes the ears to no purpose (they have no ears to hear), but because Our Lord speaks to His chosen's hearts within by His Spirit, that His chosen may receive by faith the life which is offered to us. For Our Lord does not speak indiscriminately of all the dead, but means the elect only, whose ears God pierces and opens, that they may receive the voice of His Son, which restores them to life.

    This twofold grace Our Lord expressly holds out to us by His words, when He says in John 5:25, The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear shall live. For it is not less contrary to nature that the dead should hear, than that they should be brought back to the life which they had lost, and therefore both (hearing and living) proceed from the secret power of God.

    With the hour cometh, and now is, Our Lord speaks of it as a thing which had never before happened. Indeed, the publication of the Gospel was a new and sudden resurrection of the world. Some may then ask, but did not the word of God always give life to men? This is easily answered. The doctrine of the Law and the Prophets was addressed to the people of God, and consequently was intended to preserve in life those who were the children of God than to bring them back from death. But it was otherwise with the Gospel, by which nations formerly estranged from the kingdom of God, separated from God, and deprived of all hope of salvation, were invited to become partakers of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    It is by believing that a person receives life. John Calvin certainly understood that "life" is received by faith:
    "But the Apostle, that he might keep us together in Christ, again repeats that life is found in him; as though he had said, that no other way of obtaining life has been appointed for us by God the Father. And the Apostle, indeed, briefly includes here three things: that we are all given up to death until God in his gratuitous favor restores us to life; for he plainly declares that life is a gift from God: and hence also it follows that we are destitute of it, and that it cannot be acquired by merits; secondly, he teaches us that this life is conferred on us by the gospel, because there the goodness and the paternal love of God is made known to us; lastly, he says that we cannot otherwise become partakers of this life than by believing in Christ" (John Calvin, Commentary on 1 John 5:11).
    Jerry, in your desperation, I hope you are not actually trying to pit Calvin against the Calvinist.

    You appear to read commentaries like you do Scripture: superficially, in that when you find something you think is in agreement with your presuppositions, you declare victory. Take the time to digest the full counsel of what you read and avoid the mistakes you are making.

    Why not actually read the exposition?

    1 John 5:11
    And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son

    That God hath given us eternal life Having now set forth the benefit, he invites us to believe. It is, indeed, a reverence due to God, immediately to receive, as beyond controversy, whatever he declares to us. But since he freely offers life to us, our ingratitude will be intolerable, except with prompt faith we receive a doctrine so sweet and so lovely. And, doubtless, the words of the Apostle are intended to shew, that we ought, not only reverently to obey the gospel, lest we should affront God; but, that we ought to love it, because it brings to us eternal life. We hence also learn what is especially to be sought in the gospel, even the free gift of salvation; for that God there exhorts us to repentance and fear, ought not to be separated from the grace of Christ.

    But the Apostle, that he might keep us together in Christ, again repeats that life is found in him; as though he had said, that no other way of obtaining life has been appointed for us by God the Father. And the Apostle, indeed, briefly includes here three things: that we are all given up to death until God in his gratuitous favor restores us to life; for he plainly declares that life is a gift from God: and hence also it follows that we are destitute of it, and that it cannot be acquired by merits; secondly, he teaches us that this life is conferred on us by the gospel, because there the goodness and the paternal love of God is made known to us; lastly, he says that we cannot otherwise become partakers of this life than by believing in Christ.

    Your quotation serves my points above nicely. The dead must be quickened to life (regenerated). God does this for we are destitute and there is nothing we can do to merit life (such as the merits you claim for yourself versus your neighbor). Once so quickened we will believe. By believing we can now live.

    And in his commentary of John 3:16, Calvin, in part, makes it quite clear that believing is not within the hands of each and every man:
    Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.

    Thus endeth the lesson. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

    AMR
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; December 28th, 2016 at 02:55 PM. Reason: grammar
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    Lon (April 26th, 2017),theophilus (December 28th, 2016)

  11. #444
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,731
    Thanks
    1,280
    Thanked 8,729 Times in 5,725 Posts

    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Unless one has ears to hear (Matthew 11:15; Mark 4:9) they cannot hear what Our Lord is speaking, Jerry.
    Are you citing those verses in order to prove that a person must be "born again" in order to just hear the word of God? I can only assume that you are, especially considering what you said here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Unless one has ears to hear (Matthew 11:15; Mark 4:9) they cannot hear what Our Lord is speaking, Jerry. After all, how can those dead in their sins hear anything righteous (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14)?
    So according to your theology those who are dead in their sins cannot even hear the gospel.

    But then you assert that it is by hearing the gospel that men are "born again":

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    In other words, the how of being born again—the means—is by the hearing of the Good News of those chosen by God.
    So according to you a person cannot even hear the gospel unless they are first born again. And then you stand reason on its head by saying that people are "born again" by hearing the gospel.

    In your "logical order of salvation" you have being "born again" preceding "hearing the gospel." And then you turn around and have "hearing the gospel" preceding being "born again."

    Your beliefs in the teaching of Calvinism have totally confused you! You are so confused that you actually said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Faith is evidence you are saved, it is not the cause of your salvation, for God alone is the cause.
    Paul and those with him certainly saw a "cause and effect" relationship between "faith" and "salvation," as witnessed how they answered this question:

    "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"
    (Acts 16:30-31).

    Do you not see that "believing" results in "salvation," that it is "faith" which brings about "salvation"? Here Paul again speaks of a "cause and effect" relationship between "believing" and "salvation":

    "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).

    Do you really not see a "cause and effect" relationship between "faith" and "salvation"?
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; January 2nd, 2017 at 10:54 AM.

  12. #445
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 32 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457385
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post

    Here we read that the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers. And the purpose as to why he blinds them is "so that they cannot see the light of the gospel." That means that those who are perishing did indeed at one time have the ability to see the light of the gospel.
    After all, it is impossible to blind the minds of anyone to the truth of the gospel unless they have the ability in the first place to see the light of the gospel. The verb form of the word "blind" means to "make blind." It is impossible to "make blind" someone who is already blind.

    The Calvinists must believe that the god of this age blinds those who are already blind! That idea is ridiculous.
    Who, according to the passage, does the god of this world blind?

    The answer is clear, he blinds unbelievers.

    You claim that this implies that at some point in time they had the ability to see the gospel and respond to it, presumably apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (or else you would be a Calvinist).

    I would argue that the god of this world has blinded, from birth, the eyes of the unbelievers. I think that language is consistent with the way the bible uses that word. For example, 1 John 2:11 says:
    Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. (1Jo 2:10-11 ESV)
    The fact that the darkness has blinded the eyes of those who hate their brother does not assume that those brother haters at one time walked in the light. It is entirely possible, and I would argue the right interpretation, to say that the darkness has blinded those who hate their brothers for as long as they have been haters of the brethren, perhaps for their entire life. That’s what darkness does, it blinds us.

    In the same way, the god of this world has blinded unbelievers from the truth of the gospel. That demon has been doing this to unbelievers for as long as they have been unbelievers (which is their entire lives).

    But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you are right and that at some point every unbeliever on the planet did have, at some time, the ability to see the gospel prior to the god of this world blinding them.

    How exactly does that help your case?

    It doesn't say that the god of this world has blinded some unbelievers while the others he left alone to believe, it says that he blinds the minds of unbelievers in general and so we are left with the conclusion that you and I, when we were unbelievers, had been blinded by the god of this world who was preventing us from seeing the gospel. That condition continues until the God of heaven and earth does something to counter the effects of the god of this world.

    So what does a blind person need?

    A blind person needs sight.

    And what did Jesus say about the ability to see the kingdom of God?

    "Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (Joh 3:3 ESV)
    Unless we are born again, regenerated by the Spirit of God, we cannot even see the kingdom.
    Last edited by Dialogos; January 4th, 2017 at 11:37 PM.
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  13. #446
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,731
    Thanks
    1,280
    Thanked 8,729 Times in 5,725 Posts

    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147838
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    In the same way, the god of this world has blinded unbelievers from the truth of the gospel. That demon has been doing this to unbelievers for as long as they have been unbelievers (which is their entire lives).
    That idea is contradicted by the Westminister Confession of Faith, which represents a theological consensus of international Calvinism. There we read that all men come out of the womb having "lost all ability of will to do any spiritual good accompanying salvation," and that must mean that no one has the ability to see the light of the gospel:

    "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"
    [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; IX/3).

    Calvinism teaches that a man emerges from the womb dead and dead men cannot see the gospel. So your assertion that the god of this age blinds the minds of men to the truth of the gospel all their lives contradicts the teaching of Calvinism.

    Let us look at this passage again:

    "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor.4:3-4).

    Here we read that the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who are perishing. And the purpose as to why he blinds them is "so that they cannot see the light of the gospel." That contradicts the teaching of Calvinism that all men emerge from the womb with no ability to see the light of the gospel.

    How could the god of this age blind the minds of men unless those same men have the ability to see the gospel? It is impossible to blind those who are already blind.

    How does the god of this world blind some to the light of the gospel? One way is that he sends his ministers out to teach that even though we are saved by grace we must do works of one kind or another in order to be saved. When some believe that lie they are blinded to the truth of the "gospel of grace," and hence they never see the light of that gospel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you are right and that at some point every unbeliever on the planet did have, at some time, the ability to see the gospel prior to the god of this world blinding them.

    How exactly does that help your case?
    This contradicts the Calvinist teaching that not everyone will have the ability to believe the gospel and come to the knowledge of the truth.
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; December 29th, 2016 at 06:08 PM.

  14. #447
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,135 Times in 20,063 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147831
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post


    We also, I believe, rightly understand the teachings of Scripture about the full effects of the Fall of Adam, recognizing that unless God does something to the fallen man, none would ever choose the righteousness of God. We give thanks to God for His mercy in choosing some out of the entire fallen lump of humanity in Adam to be redeemed, not because God saw something good in the chosen by peeking down the corridors of time, but simply because of His own good counsel to set His preferences upon (God's love) another. Hence, those not so chosen are left in their state of sin and ongoing sinning, never to be the subject of any of God's saving graces.
    This is where you totally lose me...."God choosing some..."

    Rather, God does indeed do something to fallen man. He engineers our circumstances to give us every chance to seek him. He has created us with the knowledge of Him clearly manifest in us...where we can clearly see. And His law is written in our conscience...not beyond our ability to do it. Romans 2:14, 15KJV

    As we walk through this life, we see God's goodness and forbearance which leads us to turn from unbelief to belief. So that we are brought to our knees and hear the Gospel when we are most in need of hearing it. God actually does a lot to prepare us to hear the Gospel of Salvation. That there is power in that Word works perfectly for those who have not so hardened their hearts that they refuse the plea from their Creator. 2 Cor. 5:20KJV

    Romans 2:4KJV Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

  15. #448
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,725
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 13,385 Times in 10,249 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147886
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    So you're saying Adam didn't make a good choice on days 6 and 7, nor any choice at all not to eat of the wrong tree? I say Adam made perhaps a number of days (but at least 1 or 2) of choices not to eat of the wrong tree.
    He wasn't offered a choice. I don't choose chocolate over vanilla ice cream if I'm not offered any ice cream.

    If you believe it, then my "attack" for not believing is of no account to you. And if you believe it, why do I need to teach you what you already believe? You seem conflicted. Do you believe in the hypostatic union of God? It was my assumption that you do--maybe I assumed falsely. I could certainly go through a list of scriptures--which often need some explanation as to why they are valid for the topic at hand--but if the purpose is to convince you of something you already are convinced of, it's a red herring--why waste my time asking for it?
    I don't believe in the hypostatic union. I believe in the incarnation--God in the flesh. He was not unrighteous, at all, while in that flesh.

    I thought you said killing is different from murder, but now you say God didn't kill the child, even. The child died at God's pronouncement--was God just foretelling the future, or was He causing the event?
    Foretelling. The child died of an illness.

    Another example, if you'll allow me the additional stupidity: Were there any first-born sons in Egypt that didn't deserve to die? God said He would "smite" them, according to King James, and "strike" according to others.
    They were slaveholders, in the same sense as we think of slaves in America today because of our past. Yes, they deserved to die.

    For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I [am] the LORD. [Exo 12:12 KJV]

    The first-born all died. Did God "kill" them or not? If so, then God sometimes kills those that "don't deserve it". If not, who was Moses erroneously quoting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
    Technically the angel killed them. But they deserved it.

    As to who really deserves to die--it depends on who is doing the killing. God told Noah that all who kill a human should die by a human's hand. (Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. [Gen 9:6 KJV]) The punishment fit the crime. God had just wiped out a whole world full of people, some of which no doubt were in infancy. If God needs a reason to kill a human, then all humans must be guilty, but we can't willy-nilly start killing anyone we want to, or we bear the guilt. So in the same story, God both denies man the right to kill his fellow-man without cause, while asserting His own right to kill man (including babies born and unborn).
    Why did Jesus die for all? Romans 6:23

    Is what God's word says irrelevant?
    And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. [1Ch 21:7 KJV]

    His reason for killing was His displeasure at David's missing the mark, if I understand the mark correctly. (But David knew better, because Joab had already expressed his disagreement over the task in terms of its being disobedience to God's command.)
    Again, David never even met the mark. In everything David did he missed the mark. You don't understand the mark correctly at all.

    And how is it represented to us?
    Through Christ and the Law.

    "Stupid" is in the eye of the beholder--usually with a glancing (or not-so-glancing in some cases) allusion to arrogance.
    No, it's not. "Stupid is as stupid does."

    And how do we know what that righteousness of God is? How do we know what the mark is that we aren't supposed to miss?
    In everything we do we miss the mark. We can't ever do anything but miss it. Christ is the personification of the mark, and we can never be righteous as He is without Him.
    Last edited by Lighthouse; April 26th, 2017 at 01:04 AM.


  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    patrick jane (April 24th, 2017)

  17. #449
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,100
    Thanks
    527
    Thanked 923 Times in 633 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    246939
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    He wasn't offered a choice. I don't choose chocolate over vanilla ice cream if I'm not offered any ice cream.
    But if you're told not to eat any of the single scoop of chocolate ice cream that is sitting in front of your face, when there are three cartons of vanilla also sitting in front of your face, you DO have a choice. At least try to make your analogies fit the conversation, please.

    I don't believe in the hypostatic union. I believe in the incarnation--God in the flesh. He was not unrighteous, at all, while in that flesh.
    It appears we aren't speaking the same language. You've just described the hypostatic union. God is spirit, God is not flesh--Num 23:19a. In the incarnation, God took on flesh--something that was not previously part of His nature.


    Foretelling. The child died of an illness.
    [2Sa 12:15 KJV] 15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.


    They were slaveholders, in the same sense as we think of slaves in America today because of our past. Yes, they deserved to die.
    Believe me, children, including infants, don't have the power to be slave holders. And if the children of slaveholders, and God was punishing the slaveholders, then God was killing the children for the parents' sins. Was God then guilty of murder? No, because God made those children, and God can kill those children if He so wishes.


    Technically the angel killed them. But they deserved it.
    You can say God didn't kill them in response to my quote: "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I [am] the LORD. [Exo 12:12 KJV]"??????????????

    And what about the beasts? Did they deserve it, too?


    Why did Jesus die for all? Romans 6:23
    Thus you are justifying murder. Maybe you didn't have the opportunity to read back through our responses to each other for context, but when we talk about God telling humans to exact certain penalties for murder, and then you apply those penalties to anyone at any time, you make God's word mostly meaningless.


    Again, David never even met the mark. In everything David did he missed the mark. You don't understand the mark correctly at all.
    meaningless (see above) (what is especially meaningles at this point is that David was a man after God's own heart.
    [Act 13:22 KJV] 22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the [son] of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.


    Through Christ and the Law.
    meaningless (see above)


    In everything we do we miss the mark. We can't ever do anything but miss it. Christ is the personification of the mark, and we can never be righteous as He is without Him.
    meaningless (see above)

    In addition, the gospel is meaningless.

  18. #450
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,725
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 13,385 Times in 10,249 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147886
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    But if you're told not to eat any of the single scoop of chocolate ice cream that is sitting in front of your face, when there are three cartons of vanilla also sitting in front of your face, you DO have a choice. At least try to make your analogies fit the conversation, please.
    If you want the analogy to fit then the ice cream shouldn't be sitting in front of my face.

    If I'm told not to eat any ice cream and nobody ever offers me any, even though it's present, then I am not choosing not to eat it.

    It appears we aren't speaking the same language. You've just described the hypostatic union. God is spirit, God is not flesh--Num 23:19a. In the incarnation, God took on flesh--something that was not previously part of His nature.
    He became flesh, but He did not take on human nature/sin nature.

    [2Sa 12:15 KJV] 15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
    Yup. He made it sick. And it died as a result of that sickness.

    Believe me, children, including infants, don't have the power to be slave holders. And if the children of slaveholders, and God was punishing the slaveholders, then God was killing the children for the parents' sins. Was God then guilty of murder? No, because God made those children, and God can kill those children if He so wishes.
    Why are you assuming the first born were small children? I'm a first born and I'm an adult.

    You can say God didn't kill them in response to my quote: "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I [am] the LORD. [Exo 12:12 KJV]"??????????????
    You need to learn a little about Royal figures of speech. An emissary represents the King, so the King would refer to themselves because the emissary was to be regarded as the King himself. God was doing that here.

    And what about the beasts? Did they deserve it, too?
    Who cares? They're animals.

    Thus you are justifying murder. Maybe you didn't have the opportunity to read back through our responses to each other for context, but when we talk about God telling humans to exact certain penalties for murder, and then you apply those penalties to anyone at any time, you make God's word mostly meaningless.
    Did you just accuse God of murder?

    Also, I justified no such thing.

    And how is that relevant to my question?

    meaningless (see above) (what is especially meaningles at this point is that David was a man after God's own heart.
    [Act 13:22 KJV] 22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the [son] of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
    Irrelevant.

    meaningless (see above)

    meaningless (see above)

    In addition, the gospel is meaningless.
    What's meaningless is conversations with you.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us