Jesus could do no deed of power there

Clare73 said:

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

Click to expand...

it was their own unbelief and not some outside force

public hermit said:

I think that's a plausible reading. He healed the ones who trusted he could, or better, believed his message.



I think it's post #27. He seems to argue God healed some in spite of their unbelief, i.e. "made a way where there was no way." Then he likens it to God's saving grace where God saves some in spite of their resistance. So, he didn't heal those who freely believed, but healed those he chose to heal. It's basically miniature of what happens writ large, for Calvin.

Click to expand...

Ok. I see. I kind of thought Calvin would say that, and I'm inclined to disagree with his interpretation (which isn't to say that I'm standing on the deck of the U.S.S. Arminius and having a frolicking good time).

... since verse 5 doesn't actually say one way or the other if they were healed against their will and preventive unbelief. (I can just see it now, we unearth some missing verses and they say: "Take heart, I'm here to heal you, my Friend!," Jesus firmly and compassionately said as he advanced toward the man paralyzed and prone upon the tattered, rotting stretcher. Then, with eyes glazed over and sheer and utter despondency, the paralyzed man yelled out, "NO, NO, oh God, No!!! But alas...........it was too late. Jesus touched him and had healed him. The crowd gasped in unbelief.)

Yeah. I guess it's hard to believe, in several ways really. So, a penny for Calvin's thoughts here, at least.

2PhiloVoid said:

So, a penny for Calvin's thoughts here, at least

Click to expand...

#73

In-Christ-Alone said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm clicking on this link, but I only see later verses in Mark 6 being discussed. Is there anything for versus 1 through 6 in there?

2PhiloVoid said:

I'm clicking on this link, but I only see later verses in Mark 6 being discussed. Is there anything for versus 1 through 6 in there?

Click to expand...

see #73 for the full text

In-Christ-Alone said:

and yet this same John Calvin says this on John 3:16

"hat whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us.

Click to expand...

And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found inthe world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."
Looks like he was a very confused person!

Click to expand...

I understand him to be saying that the call is to all men, because the elect are scattered among all men, and the only way the elect will ever hear the call is if it is given to all men.

Yet the terms are clear. . ."whosoever".

In-Christ-Alone said:

the Reformed/Calvinistic teaching that God has "ordained all things that come to pass", is as good as saying that God is the author of sin! Which is blasphemy.

Click to expand...

That's probably a discussion for another thread other than this one. Personally, I'm going to hesitate calling Reformed or Calvinistic teaching a form of "blasphemy." In similar fashion to your accusation, I'm sure that some folks would think that Pascal or Kierkegaard were blasphemous too. But here I stand in saying that I'm rather fond of some of their ideas and it'd be a hit in the shins to find out that either one of them is actually guilty of blasphemy.

Clare73 said:

What about:

"No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (Jn 6:65)

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." (Jn 6:37)

"I shall lose none of all that he has given me," (Jn 6:39)

"I give them eternal life and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand (including themselves). (Jn 10:28)

"My Father who has given them to me, is greater than all (sovereign); no one can snatch them out of his hand" (including themselves). (Jn 10:29)

"He chose us in him before the creation of the world. . .adopted as sons. . .redeemed through his blood. . .made known to us the mystery (secret) of his will according to his good pleasure. . .to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, i.e., Christ. . .according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (Eph 1:4-11).

"Those whom he foreknew (chose before creation, Eph 4:1) he also predestined. . .those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified (salvation); those he justified he also glorified."--all past tense (Ro 8:29-30)

The principle - Romans 9:18

The objection - Romans 9:19

The answer - Romans 9:20-21

The purpose - Romans 9:22-24

Click to expand...

Just to give some context, this relates to my post where I said that Calvin's notion of Irresistable Grace makes no sense to me.

I'm sorry but I don't find this convincing at all. This is merely taking a few texts out of context in support of the wild claim that we have no free will and God is someone who has predetermined whether we go to hell or not. This view of God is immoral, unbiblical and heretical.

public hermit said:

I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense. But that is not how some understand God's sovereignty or how they would interpret this passage. See the post above your (#27) for Calvin's reading. According to Calvin, the ones who were healed didn't freely choose to have faith, God made a way where none existed.

Click to expand...

If all are born spiritually dead, without eternal life, that is the only way anyone ever believes,
because you must be born again to even be aware of the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3, 5).

public hermit said:

The problem is located in Mark's text where it says he could not heal more. The implication being he would have if he could have. And the text implies what prevented him from healing more was their unbelief.

I mean, if belief were a prerequisite of being healed or being saved, then it appears that grace is contingent on belief. One is not given grace to believe, one is given grace for having believed. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think Mark and Luke refer to the same visit to Nazareth.

public hermit said:

The problem is located in Mark's text where it says he could not heal more. The implication being he would have if he could have. And the text implies what prevented him from healing more was their unbelief.

I mean, if belief were a prerequisite of being healed or being saved, then it appears that grace is contingent on belief. One is not given grace to believe, one is given grace for having believed. What do you think?

Click to expand...

If a person does what God wants, that person might receive blessings from God. You have free will, unless you are a slave to sin. Not everyone gets saved.

Luke 4:23 He said to them, “Doubtless you will tell me this parable, ‘Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in your hometown.’” 24 He said, “Most certainly I tell you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. 25 But truly I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up three years and six months, when a great famine came over all the land. 26 Elijah was sent to none of them, except to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 There were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed, except Naaman, the Syrian.”

Jesus said, “Many are called, few are chosen.”

I recall a proverb. You may pray for a blessing, but when God sends rain you should pick up a hoe.

public hermit said:

Right. Then Mark must be speaking loosely when he says Jesus could not heal because of their unbelief. The reality is, God didn't give them the grace to believe.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but then we'd logically have to say (kind of?) that Jesus had nothing really to be angry about when He encountered resistance and unbelief face-to-face; for those unwitting folks, as unwitting as they were, had received no grace by which to believe.

Clare73 said:

Yet the terms are clear. . ."whosoever".

Click to expand...

well, the Greek here is "πας" which is in the singluar number, literally, "every", or "all, the whole". It is only those out of "the world" (τον κοσμον, entire human race), who actually believe, who will be saved...

d taylor said:

Well this part of Mark 6 happens after Matthew 12. Why is that important because that was after the nation of Israel committed the unpardonable sin.
Of accusing Jesus, of accomplishing His miracles by the power of the prince of the demons.

Click to expand...

Notice before Matthew 12 Jesus went around everywhere freely healing etc.. To show Israel that their Messiah was here but
after the rejection of His offer of The Messianic age and rule.

Click to expand...

Jesus didn't offer the Messianic age and rule!

Jesus rejected their offer of Messianic rule (Jn 6:15, 18:36 ).

Jesus reason for coming now changed and no longer did He freely heal and teach. His ministry now was basically now to train/teach/prepare his disciples for their up and coming ministry.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding?

After Mt 12, we find large crowds gathered around him (Mt 13:1) whom he taught in parables
(Mt 13:3), teaching at the synagogue in his hometown (Mt 13:54), feeding 5,000 (Mt 14:19), teaching the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Mt 15:1), healing many (Mt 15:30) feeding 4,000
(Mt 15:35), teaching the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:1), healing boy with demon (Mt 17:15), large crowds and healing (Mt 19:2), large crowd and healing (Mt 20:29, 34), and then to Jerusalem for his sacrifice.

Why do you present so much misinformation?

public hermit said:

I'm with you. It is a bit of a conundrum. Calvinists assert that one receives grace to believe. Arminians assert that prevenient grace is what allows one to come to believe. They sound like the same thing. Both seem to agree that grace is needed to come to believe, I think the difference is that prevenient grace is resistible.

So, perhaps the folks in Mark 6 resisted prevenient grace?

Click to expand...

It could be, but I'll leave the rest of the contemplation on this issue to your theological expertise since, at this juncture, this is where I typically jump into the awaiting ocean of non-systematic existence.

I don't have the answers either way, but I look forward to seeing what other folks in this thread have to say on this topic.

public hermit said:

Right. From the text you posted...

"The providence of God embraces all events, past, present, and future, and applies to the evil as much as to the good, to sinful acts as much as to the holy acts of men and angels..."

Click to expand...

t's not mere permission, but
by eternal decree. How one reconciles that with divine love and justice is beyond me, but that is the basic sense of sovereignty I'm referencing.

Click to expand...

Paul addresses that:

The principle - Romans 9:18

The objection - Romans 9:19

The answer - Romans 9:20-21

The purpose - Romans 9:22-24

Where the problem really lies in this reconciliation is made clear in Isaiah 55:8-9.