Jon_
Senior Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 2,998
- 91
- 43
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
cygnusx1 said:
cygnusx1 said:
Please tell me you are familiar with the difference between the outward call and the inward call of the Gospel? Calvin wrote on this existively, so I should hope you would be familiar with it, since you rely on his words more frequently than Scripture for the premises of your arguments.
My argument is not illogical at all because I am talking about two different senses of the Gospel message. (I sincerely hope you are familiar with the law of noncontradiction.) One that is temporal and one that is spiritual. Apparently, your epistemology is faulty as well. You should know that nothing can be learned from sensation (by hearing or seeing). Calvin wrote on this with regards to the testimonium Spiritus Sancti (testimony of the Spirit) as well. There is objective revelation (the Bible) and subjective revelation (the illumination of the Holy Spirit). All men can receive the objective revelation of the Bible, but only those who receive subjective revelation (illumination by the Holy Spirit) actually hear and understand the words of the Scripture as they are meant to be heard.
cygnusx1 said:
cygnusx1 said:
And that you continue to misunderstand my position is quite clearly true!
cygnusx1 said:
cygnusx1 said:
Again, you are clearly misunderstanding the point I am making. I am talking about God's perspective, not man's perspective.
For God to, on the one hand, determine that the reprobate should never receive the Gospel (he denies them illumination by the Holy Spirit), and then on the other to "hope" that they do hear it and receive it is to paint an horrible portrait of our God. If God did not actively choose any, then none would be saved by this arrangement.
This argument implicates God in deceitfulness. With one hand he is extending the offer of his Son saying, "Believe on him and you will be saved!" And then in the other hand he is withholding his grace that would allow them to receive this message. Does God tease the reprobate with what they can't have? How is this an honest view of our sovereign Lord? Is God frustrated by the fact that the reprobate resist the grace that he has denied them? What does that even mean!?
cygnusx1 said:
cygnusx1 said:
Does the goodness of God lead to the repentance of the reprobate? No. This is just another good example of misinterpretation on your part.
cygnusx1 said:
Geeeeeeeeeeeeez. It stinkin' says "WHOSOEVER WILL!!" The reprobate WILL NOT!! How much more plain must it be?
If I am placed in the dilemma of choosing between the teaching of Scripture and logic and that of Calvin, I choose the former.cygnusx1 said:
If Calvin truly believe and taught as you say he did, then he can be demonstrably shown to contradict himself.
He teaches that the objective revelation of the Word is for all men, but that the subjective revelation of the Word, which is required for true hearing and understanding, is only by the grace of God. Nonetheless, he asserts that the Gospel is preached to all that it might be heard and acted upon; however, natural man does not receive the words of the Gospel because they are spiritually discerned. Because God does not illuminate (subjectively reveal) the words of the Gospel in the hearts of the reprobate, they never receive the Gospel message in the manner that the elect do. As the message received by the elect is genuine, it follows that the message received by the reprobate is not (law of noncontradiction).
Did Calvin really contradict himself?
Yes, I did. I told you that God declared the law unto man and required that they uphold it. Every man since Adam has failed to live up to that, which is also God's will. Thus, God sent his Son Jesus Christ to die a sinner's death for us. God requires that we be perfect in the sense that he wants us to fail. He wants us to try to be perfect on our own and fail at it, thus making it plain to us how much more we need him and need Christ's imputed righteousness. It was God's intention that man should fail at the covenant of works, so that the covenant of grace should be so much more wonderful. But because God does not change his mind, he still holds the covenant of works in force (though, for Christians, it has been upheld through the work of Christ).cygnusx1 said:
Can you even demonstrate that? This is just yet another assertion.cygnusx1 said:
Each argument of which has been refuted, after which you have simply returned to your assertionism.cygnusx1 said:
There is no predicament here because I have clearly demonstrated that there are two different "senses" in which the Gospel goes out: outward call, and inward call.cygnusx1 said:
I don't quite understand the point here.cygnusx1 said:
cygnusx1 said:
cygnusx1 said:
I never said that God cannot command what he does not desire, which avoids the problem you are presenting altogether. You are building a strawman.
God can command what he does not desire. (He can command the reprobate to repent and desire that they do not.) He cannot desire what he does not desire. (He cannot desire the reprobate to repent and not to repent.)
The first one is not contradictory because it speaks of two separate senses (commandment and desire). The second one is contradictory because it speaks of the same sense (desire). The first is consistent with the law of noncontradiction. The second is not.
Soli Deo Gloria
Jon
Upvote
0