SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Is the problem "unwillingness" or "inability" ?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 Next Page )
PosterThread
makrothumia
Member



Joined: 2005/5/19
Posts: 724
Texas

 Re:

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


_________________
Alan and Dina Martin

 2018/12/17 12:12Profile
CofG
Member



Joined: 2017/2/12
Posts: 964
Cambodia

 Re:

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?


_________________
Robert

 2018/12/17 14:22Profile
Gloryandgrace
Member



Joined: 2017/7/14
Posts: 1165
Snoqualmie, WA

 Re:


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'.


_________________
Marvin

 2018/12/17 14:42Profile
Gloryandgrace
Member



Joined: 2017/7/14
Posts: 1165
Snoqualmie, WA

 Re: the first question


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.


_________________
Marvin

 2018/12/17 14:55Profile
makrothumia
Member



Joined: 2005/5/19
Posts: 724
Texas

 Re:

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.


_________________
Alan and Dina Martin

 2018/12/17 20:10Profile
savannah
Member



Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 2265


 Re: something fishy


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!

 2018/12/18 7:16Profile
Gloryandgrace
Member



Joined: 2017/7/14
Posts: 1165
Snoqualmie, WA

 Re:


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


_________________
Marvin

 2018/12/18 9:51Profile
CofG
Member



Joined: 2017/2/12
Posts: 964
Cambodia

 Re:

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.


_________________
Robert

 2018/12/18 10:06Profile
Gloryandgrace
Member



Joined: 2017/7/14
Posts: 1165
Snoqualmie, WA

 Re:


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.


_________________
Marvin

 2018/12/18 11:38Profile
makrothumia
Member



Joined: 2005/5/19
Posts: 724
Texas

 Re:

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








_________________
Alan and Dina Martin

 2018/12/18 18:50Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy