Quote: Originally Posted by: PatrickM Is God being rhetorical, then, when He ?commands all men to repent,? Acts 17:30, if they, in fact, cannot?
Of course not. It's a common, though unfortunate, theological leap that many make in assuming that the commands of a righteous God indicate ability on the part of the commanded.
This sounds like double-speak to me. With temptation, God says He will provide a way to escape that we may be able to bear it (1 Cor. 10:13), so why is it a leap to assume if God commands us to do something, we actually have the ability to do it? If I told my 1 month old son to walk, wouldnt it be rather illogical for me to do so, since he does not have the ability? I think it is rather obvious that if God commands something, it is because He desires, nay, expects His command to be obeyed.
For example, God commands us to not sin. Have you ever met anyone, no matter how devout, that did not sin? Granted, the fact that no one is sinless does not necessarily indicate that we are incapable of sinlessness. However, when considering the Lord's command to refrain from sinfulness we must also, and equally, acknowledge His announcement that none are without sin and if we say we are the Truth is not in us (1 John 1:8). What should we assume, that God is commanding of us the impossible? No. On the contrary, we should draw from this knowledge the understanding that God is righteous and thus His commands are righteous.
This is absolutely true. However, just because we choose to sin, it does not mean we do not have the ability to refrain from sin. Of course we do sin, no disagreement there, as you quoted in 1 John. But does this mean we cannot avoid sinning, simply because we do sin?
Would we feel better if God said, "Try as hard as you can to refrain from sinfulness but if you fail don't feel so bad about it because everyone does it?" I personally believe that such a statement would seem incongruous when coupled with my understanding of God's holiness. No Patrick, the command for all men to repent does not indicate ability or the need for the statement to be taken rhetorically. It is a holy command given by a holy God.
This is, again, not my point at all. Of course we should not sin, but this is just my point. Because we should avoid sin, we must have the ability to do so. Because we dont avoid sin justifies my point that we have a choice to do or not to. Just as God commands ALL men to repent, and they have the choice to obey or not.
Quote: Regeneration, I believe, is the real question. According to 1 Pet 1:23, 25, we are regenerated (born again) by the incorruptible Word of God, which is preached to us.
Agreed. However, the "we" must be qualified just as the audience is qualified in 1 Peter:
1 Peter 1:1,2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ
Not all are born again by the Word of God nor is the audience in 1 Peter mankind as a whole.
I agree the audience was not mankind as a whole. That type of thinking would amount to Universalism. That all are born again or not was not my point. But in the light of vs 23, having been born again, not by corruptible seed, but incorruptible through the Word of God, how can you say we are not born again by the Word of God? That we who are born again are so by the incorruptible Word of God, and this is the word which was preached to you, vs is the point. We are regenerated, obviously, by the Word of God, as the sentence structure clearly points out.
Would you say this is by design or by happenstance Patrick? Shall we attribute God's ability to gather His flock unto Himself to the coincidence that man autonomously hears and believes the Gospel or should we rightly acknowledge that God is able to bring to pass whatsoever He has willed in eternity.
The provision for salvation is, indeed, not happenstance, but by design. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev 13:8. It is the application of this provision which is based on the choice of the lost.
It is not a question of God's ability to gather everyone if He chose to do so. Before He even created anything, He chose to offer salvation as a free gift, and predetermined that whoever would believe in His Son's salvific act would therefore be saved. He knew, before the world was created, who would or would not receive this gift, and freely predicated His actions accordingly. This is to the praise of His glory, that He would not force anything upon us, but allow us to freely love Him.
Do you believe He caused Adam to sin in the garden? Was it not Adam's free will to do so? Indeed He foreknew such, and His actions before even creating the world reflect such, but was Adam's sin a causal event by God?
My contention is that we attribute glory to God alone, for providing the way of salvation to all who would believe. Our believing does not provide for salvation, it is according to His provision, and His provision alone that makes anyones salvation possible.
If someone were to give me a million dollars, and I accepted this gift, it would be hypocritical of me to turn around and proclaim, Look what I just did! I made a million dollars! However, I must gratefully accept this gift initiated by someone else, or the gift is of none effect to me. There is no exercise of power, or conduct in such an instance, merely passive reception.
Quote: And Romans 10:13,14 spells out the order. ?For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?? Peter answers by saying it is this word which they heard, believed and therefore called on the name of the Lord to be saved.
So, according to the verse you post, to be saved one must first hear the preaching of the Word, believe the Truth of that preaching, and then call upon the name of the Lord, right? If that's an accurate representation of your point please clarify some things for me.
Well, is this not, in plain language, what these verses state?
First, who controls who hears the Word?
I dont see that control of who hears is mentioned, or even matters, in these verses. However, there has been instances where it was out of Jesus control to perform miracles because of the peoples unbelief. Matt 13:58, Now He (Jesus) did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief. It appears as if Jesus actions were predicated upon mans faith in this verse.
Second, why do some who hear the message believe it when others, who hear the exact same message, reject it?
As Scripture points out, some of the whys of God are not revealed to us. What is obvious is that some accept the message, and some do not.
And lastly, is it your contention that our "calling on the name of the Lord" is sufficient in obligating God to save us?
Well, it is rather plain in the language of vs 13 isnt it? For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. I dont understand the confusion of these words. Further, it is Gods choice to obligate Himself, according to His own words above. Do you think there is more to be done?
Quote: The desire not to serve is true. However, choosing is still within the ability of unregenerate man, else all the whosoevers (John 3:16; 1:12, 13; Ro. 1:16; etc.) are words without meaning?
This is the mindframe that I find most unsettling amongst my fellow Christians; The idea that if the Gospel isn't about us, and our being redeemed, then it is worthless. On the contrary, the "whosoevers" are meaningful because they represent the manifestation of God's grace in bringing glory to His Son. You see Patrick, the Gospel is a reflection of His glory, not His hope for glory.
To use your earlier statement, this is a theological leap by inferring that we who believe in free-will to choose somehow cheapen Gods great plan of salvation. It is building a straw man argument. I bow in humble adoration to God for His marvelous plan; that without it, I would be eternally lost. It is nothing about me, it is about Jesus suffering and dieing for my sins.
I do not see the connection between asking who the whosoevers are and making Gods wondrous salvation worthless? My question, again, is if it is not within the ability of fallen man to merely choose to accept Gods salvation, then why is the term whoever used?
Why not say for John 3:16, for instance, . . . that those given the ability to believe in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.? Does not this more accurately describe your view? Why did the Holy Spirit use whoever so much?
The "whosoevers" represent His ability to bring about His plan. They do not represent the idea of man's freedom.
But this is the exact definition of whoever. Whoever does not delineate, nor exclude anybody. Either we use simple definitions using plain language, or we fall prey to anyones interpretation of such things as what the definition of is is.
The "whosoevers" do His will because He is capable in gathering His flock, who have been spread all over the place. What we should feel about our role in this is humilty and greatfulness for being allowed to participate in God's gathering of His children.
I believe I have addressed my humble greatfulness to God in providing the way of salvation many times.
What we should never feel is that it was by our power, be it preaching or the example of our conduct, that "whosoever" believes actually does.
Absolutely! The Word is plain that salvation has nothing to do with our power, or conduct! But having faith is never defined in Scripture as a work. As a matter of fact, the difference between faith and works is the main subject of James chapter 2.
Quote: Is this against our will? Are we then forced to be saved, since we, by nature, do not want anything to do with God?
Ahhh...the operative question for free will advocates when considering any belief, did it happen with my cooperation or was it something that was "against my will?" I will make it as simple as I possibly can. Our will, in it's unregenerate state, never wills to obey God. Why is this? Do we never harbor a desire to obey because God makes us want to disobey? Of course not. A desire to disobey is our natural inclination. This is something to which even you affirm with your contemporary, "True that." With that understanding of our inherent and absolute obstinacy we are then able to understand that something must change for us to embrace, and obey, the Gospel.
All your reaffirming of mans natural state to disobey God seems to reinforce the notion that if we dont voluntarily choose to believe (no work or power, simply faith), then this work of God is, by your definition of our nature, against our nature, hence against our will, hence is forced upon us. This is the only logical conclusion if you take our free choice out of the picture.
His work of regeneration, wherein He removes our heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh, is rooted in His love. So, in answer to your question, "Is this against our will" I would have to say no. God gives us a heart that desires to do His will.
But if He removes my heart of stone without my asking, it is against my will. God gives me something that, by nature, I wasnt desiring. He changes me without me asking. Sounds like coercesion to me. Dont get me wrong, I believe God does all these things, but He does not do them without us asking. You have not because you ask not. Jas 4:2b. And, again, it is not a matter of what God can or cannot do, but of what God chooses to do or not do.
Again, is God being rhetorical, then, when He ?desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth??
Prooftexting will never solve interpretive difficulties. God is neither being rhetorical in His desires nor ambivilent in obtaining His heart's desire. All whom God desire to be saved shall be saved. The sheep of the Lord know His voice and they follow Him. Those who are not His sheep will continue to walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air and will continue to be children of wrath.
It is not prooftexting, to use plain definitions to define plain language. Nor is it any interpretive difficulty if you simply take the words as they mean. The word all means every, to exclusion of none. This is plain language. Using simple language, this must mean God desires all men, to the exclusion of none, to be saved. And if He, as you interpret, really only desires some to be saved, why not say such? God desires only those who He chooses to be saved. This would be rather redundant, however, wouldnt it? As omnipotent, He never does something He does not desire to.
Quote: ?Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?? (Gen 18:25), in both word and deed?
And what's "right" with regard to the creation of His hands? Is it your's to say? Please tell me Patrick, what would be the "right" thing for God to do?
What is right is to mean what God says, and to say what He means. If he says whoever, He means whoever. He does not use hidden or confusing language. Thats what right means.
As to your subtle, condescending implication that I would dare to tell God what is right or wrong, I was referencing the verse in Gen.18:25 to show you that God does, indeed, do what is just and right. Therefore, He does not arbitrarily choose some people to salvation, and therefore choose others to go to hell.
And I take it you have a problem with the idea that God "leaves some on the table to be thrown away," despite the fact that the Bible relays that dishonor and destruction are the very purpose for which some are created?
I have humble respect that God can, and does as He chooses. Again, you imply something that I am not saying. It appears the question really is what does God choose to do? Does He say whoever believes in Him, by simply calling on the name of the Lord, shall be saved, and mean just this, or does He say one thing, and really, by implication and interpretation, mean something totally different.
