Jesus could do no deed of power there

public hermit said:

God gave them belief, again in spite of their initial unbelief, and based on that God-given belief they were healed

Click to expand...

then humans don't have "free wills"?

In-Christ-Alone said:

the two teachings that I refer to, are God "ordaining everything that comes to pass", and Jesus died only for the "elect". These are unbiblical nonsense. I am not Lutheran, or Calvinist, or Reformed.

Click to expand...

Ok. Well, on those essential points, I think I'd agree with you, but I'd say it in a little different way: I'd instead refer to Calvin's ideas as interpretive elaborations which emerged from the hermeneutical process which he thought his method of interpretation should follow.

So, I'm at pains to point the finger at Calvin and say, "THOU FOUL HERETIC! WHO DOST THINK YE BE?" ... Or some similar accusation.

public hermit said:

I am curious how those who hold to a strong notion of divine sovereignty, i.e. God pre-determines all aspects of an individual, would explain the following situation:

"He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.’ And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief. (Mark 6:1-6).

I would say a prima facie reading of the text indicates that Jesus could not heal many because of their lack of faith. These are people who knew Jesus well and simply could not believe he was anything except the hometown boy they always knew.

More to the point, the implication is that Jesus could not heal without some faith on the part of the one being healed. Why could he do only a few "deeds of power" there? Well, because of their unbelief. Is there another reading of this text that eliminates this implication? If not, how does one square this passage with a strong notion of divine sovereignty?

Click to expand...

Unbelief in miracles is more powerful than the miracles themselves. (apparently) I have often heard stories from missionaries to third world countries where miracles are common due to the belief in them. Yet what do we see here? There is a prevailing unbelief that prevents miracles.

2PhiloVoid said:

So, I'm at pains to point the finger at Calvin and say, "THOU FOUL HERETIC! WHO DOST THINK YE BE?" ... Or some similar accusation.

Click to expand...

Just please don’t point that finger or say those word while holidaying in Calvin’s Geneva!

2PhiloVoid said:

Ok. Well, on those essential points, I think I'd agree with you, but I'd say it in a little different way: I'd instead refer to Calvin's ideas as interpretive elaborations which emerged from the hermeneutical process which he thought his method of interpretation should follow.

So, I'm at pains to point the finger at Calvin and say, "THOU FOUL HERETIC! WHO DOST THINK YE BE?" ... Or some similar accusation.

Click to expand...

teaching something that may be heretical, does not make the person a heretic. you can be saved with the former, but not with the latter.

public hermit said:

Calvin, and many Calvinists, reject libertarian free will (i.e. the idea that one could have done otherwise). Keep in mind, I'm trying to learn how a Calvinist might interpret this particular passage.

Click to expand...

Y'now, PH, you mentioned that in Mark 6, a few folks were still healed. Could it perhaps be that what Mark is implying in verses 5 and 6 is that a few people within the overall mix of the crowd in Jesus' hometown still DID believe in Him and, contrary to most of the others there, yet went to Him and were healed?

Maybe you already answered this somewhere above in this thread, but I'm going to ask you here since you've read the Institutes. Did Calvin make any comments about verses 5 and 6 and what did he say about any implications they may have for God's Sovereign will in Christ?

Cormack said:

Just please don’t point that finger or say those word while holidaying in Calvin’s Geneva!

Click to expand...

I suppose not. Thanks for the heads up! I've heard a story or two ...

2PhiloVoid said:

Y'now, PH, you mentioned that in Mark 6, a few folks were still healed. Could it perhaps be that what Mark is implying in verses 5 and 6 is that a few people within the overall mix of the crowd in Jesus' hometown still DID believe in Him and, contrary to most of the others there, yet went to Him and were healed?

Maybe you already answered this somewhere above in this thread, but I'm going to ask you here since you've read the Institutes. Did Calvin make any comments about verses 5 and 6 and what did he say about any implications they may have for God's Sovereign will in Christ?

Click to expand...

Mark 6 - Calvin's Commentary on the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

58. And he did not perform many miracles in that place. Mark states it more emphatically, that he could not perform any miracle. But they are perfectly agreed as to the substance of what is said, that it was the impiety of Christ's countrymen that closed the door against the performance of a greater number of miracles among them. He had already given them some taste of his power; but they willingly stupify themselves, so as to have no relish for it. Accordingly, Augustine justly compares faith to the open mouth of a vessel, while he speaks of faith as resembling a stopper, by which the vessel is closed, so as not to receive the liquor [349] which God pours into it. And undoubtedly this is the case; for when the Lord perceives that his power is not accepted by us, he at length withdraws it; and yet we complain that we are deprived of his aid, which our unbelief rejects and drives far from us.

When Mark declares that Christ could not perform any miracles, he represents the aggravated guilt of those by whom his goodness was prevented; for certainly unbelievers, as far as lies in their power, bind up the hands of God by their obstinacy; not that God is overcome, as if he were an inferior, but because they do not permit him to display his power. We must observe, however, what Mark adds, that some sick people, notwithstanding, were cured; for hence we infer, that the goodness of Christ strove with their malice, and triumphed over every obstacle. [350] We have experience of the same thing daily with respect to God; for, though he justly and reluctantly restrains his power, because the entrance to us is shut against him, yet we see that he opens up a path for himself where none exists, and ceases not to bestow favors upon us. What an amazing contest, that while we are endeavoring by every possible method to hinder the grace of God from coming to us, it rises victorious, and displays its efficacy in spite of all our exertions!

Mark 6 Calvin's Commentaries

Matthew 13:58, "And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief"

public hermit said:

Yet, some were healed, nonethless. According to Calvin, some were healed in spite of their unbelief. I take it either Jesus simply healed some in spite of their unbelief, or God gave them belief, again in spite of their initial unbelief, and based on that God-given belief they were healed. Is that an acceptable reading to you?

Click to expand...

I don't know that belief was required for Christ to heal.

I think it's more like "shake the dust off your feet."

Clare73 said:

I don't know that belief was required

Click to expand...

both Matthew and Mark say that it was due to their unbelief, that Jesus did not do any "mighty works"

public hermit said:

Calvin, and many Calvinists, reject libertarian free will (i.e. the idea that one could have done otherwise). Keep in mind,
I'm trying to learn how a Calvinist might interpret this particular passage.

Click to expand...

Pretty much the way anyone else would interpret it.

I don't see that any of those conditions are required in the context of all Scripture.

In-Christ-Alone said:

both Matthew and Mark say that it was due to their unbelief, that Jesus did not do any "mighty works"

Click to expand...

Which is not necessarily a statement of causality, it can also be choice.

public hermit said:

I am curious how those who hold to a strong notion of divine sovereignty, i.e. God pre-determines all aspects of an individual, would explain the following situation:

"He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.’ And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief. (Mark 6:1-6).

I would say a prima facie reading of the text indicates that Jesus could not heal many because of their lack of faith. These are people who knew Jesus well and simply could not believe he was anything except the hometown boy they always knew.

More to the point, the implication is that Jesus could not heal without some faith on the part of the one being healed. Why could he do only a few "deeds of power" there? Well, because of their unbelief. Is there another reading of this text that eliminates this implication? If not, how does one square this passage with a strong notion of divine sovereignty?

Click to expand...

Why would Jesus heal judgmental people who may have thought the priests in Jerusalem were God’s chosen, not some village carpenter.

Luke 4:16 (WEB) He came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. He entered, as was his custom, into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 The book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. He opened the book, and found the place where it was written,

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to heal the broken hearted,
to proclaim release to the captives,
recovering of sight to the blind,
to deliver those who are crushed,
19 and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”Isaiah 61:1-2

20 He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began to tell them, “Today, this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

They were very mad at Jesus, as if he had blasphemed. Luke went on to describe their failed effort to kill him.