Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hammster said:Maybe we are talking past each other.
When Paul says "in you", does that imply the Philippians (and by extension all believers), or something else?
(.)
I would agree...he means in the Philippians and by extension in all believers.
And I'm very easy to talk past!
Hammster said:Does include those who will never believe?
Yes. They can talk past me easily too!
So in what way does He start something in them that He also completes?
Definition of sarchasm :. 1. (n.) The abyss between the creator of witticisms and the intended recipient who does not find the humor in it. -- sarchasm Definition - The Unword Dictionary
So if all men are born sinners and seperated from God how are they not in total depravity?Of course I believe that men are sinners and separated from God.
What I don't believe is that this is equal with the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity.
So if all men are born sinners and seperated from God how are they not in total depravity?
I believe that we are to preach the good news of the gospel and those who the Father draws will come and those He does not will not. For scripture does say that no one can come to Jesus lest the Father draw him..
I believe that we are to preach the good news of the gospel and those who the Father draws will come and those He does not will not. For scripture does say that no one can come to Jesus lest the Father draw him..
Do you have any good news for the reprobates?
John 6:45
It is written in the prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him will come to me.
Being drawn by the Father is synonymous with hearing and learning from from the Father, so those the Father draws is anyone who hears and learns. Nobody is excluded.
Propagating such a view as you have is easy if it's someone else that is being excluded.
All my attempts at humor have failed. Maybe I should hang up my cape and go home
So to seriously answer your question, no, it does not inlcude those "who will never believe." I would say that it does not include any but those who have already believed. That is the audience to whom he is writing--to those who share his faith and his burdens. By extension, I believe, whenever someone comes into that same community (i.e. the Church), then he or she too becomes one in whom God has begun a good work, and in whom Paul would be confident that God will bring it to completion in the day of Christ (and again I'm paraphrasing).
In time and space as we experience it, wherein salvation is a past and present reality, but in which we still are awaiting the future completion and consummation of all things...there are those who have not yet believed. God has not yet begun a work in them (at least not in the sense in which I believe Paul was speaking), although we simply cannot say whether or not God is at work in their lives. All are called to the Gospel, and people come to faith from some incredibly unlikely circumstances, and only in hindsight (like with Joseph and his brothers) can we or they see the working of God in it.
As to those who will "never" believe. We can't know who they are. Neither can they. So I would not speculate or attempt to draw a distinction between them and anyone else who has not yet believed.
I sense you're leading me somewhere with this line of questioning...
And I agree with all parts of your statement. What I don't agree with is the underlying philosophical assumption that God's working in the drawn person, necessarily precludes the active cooperation of the drawn person.
If God's sovereignty is understood as a zero-sum game, where any action of the part of the saved person detracts from the action of God (i.e. God only does 99% of the saving, etc.), then the only way for God to be fully responsible for the person's regeneration is for the person to be entirely passive in it. But if it is understood in light of the Incarnation, which is the epitome of divine-human cooperation, then the person need not be passive in order for God to be working his will in and through that person. In fact, it becomes precisely the opposite.
I often hear Calvinists say "God does 100%, man does 0%." I do not accept this.
I often hear non-Calvinists say "God does 99%, man still has to do that 1%..." and then I hear analogies to the doctor sticking the spoon of medicine in the patient's mouth, but the patient still has to swallow it... And here I break with this strand of evangelical thought also.
God 100%. Man 100%. Incarnation.
Man is evil. God has enabled man to be evil. All credit goes to God and man is not responsible. Is that it?I've never said that man doesn't do anything. Man just doesn't do anything that God doesn't enable him to do. That way, all credit goes to God.
Man is evil. God has enabled man to be evil. All credit goes to God and man is not responsible. Is that it?
Do you have any good news for the reprobates?
John 6:45
It is written in the prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him will come to me.
Being drawn by the Father is synonymous with hearing and learning from from the Father, so those the Father draws is anyone who hears and learns. Nobody is excluded.
Propagating such a view as you have is easy if it's someone else that is being excluded.
Not leading, just examining.
So your view is that God doesn't begin the good work until someone believes. Is that about right?
I've never said that man doesn't do anything. Man just doesn't do anything that God doesn't enable him to do. That way, all credit goes to God.
How about dealing with the issue presented that indicates your post was incorrect instead of sidestepping it.How about sticking to the context of the conversation before asking questions. Maybe start with the OP.
How about dealing with the issue presented that indicates your post was incorrect instead of sidestepping it.
You are avoiding the issue--again.I'm not going to rehash the total argument just because you don't want to read the thread, or interact with the OP.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?