Steal From A Dead Man?

[gmm4j]

CalledOutOne,

Here compare your two statements:

1. all people will reject the Gospel unless the Spirit quickens (regenerates) them”

2.They will always reject the Word, unless the Spirit uses it on them. Once that happens regeneration comes,

If the Word is the instrument, or the means, to get to regeneration, then you can’t say, “It teaches that all people will reject the Gospel unless the Spirit quickens (regenerates) them” and “That's what will always happen. He is resisting the Spirit like I showed you from Acts.”

These statements are saying that… The Spirit must quicken (regenerate) them first, so the people will not resist the Spirit and reject the instrument of regeneration, the Gospel. You have stated that… Unregenerate man will always reject the Agent and the Instrument unless he is first irresistibly regenerated so He (the Agent) and the Instrument will be accepted.

So, if you are now saying that the Spirit through the Word can and does affect unregenerate sinners, I am truly glad to hear that unregenerate men don’t always reject the Gospel. If you are saying that unregenerate men can hear and respond (accept) to the Gospel call / Word, and once that happens (through that) regeneration / birth comes, then we are getting closer to what Scripture teaches.

We still have to work on the order, but we’ll get there. J

 

[gmm4j]

Hi CalledOutOne,

It’s my fault. We’ve wandered away from Stealing From A Dead Man. I’m going to try to get us back on track. I’ve posted a bunch of our comments surrounding 1 Peter 1:22-23 and being regenerated through the Word over in Faith Precedes Regeneration #4, which specifically deals with that subject. If you look at it and it is confusing or I've misrepresented in anyway, I'm sorry. Please make corrections as needed. Again, I'm just trying to get back on track in this thread.

As far as I can tell, the last comments dealing specifically with Satan’s involvement with dead men were back on page one, where you said:

When the word "receive" is used we simply mean that he doesn't accept it as truth. Would you say that an Atheist who hears the Gospel (the planting of the seed) and rejects it in saying that God isn't real was like the man in Luke here? That's what will always happen. He is resisting the Spirit like I showed you from Acts.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. When a non-elect unregenerate person hears the word, it goes into his heart, but he does not and cannot receive / accept it as truth (in other words, he does not believe it), and thereby he is resisting the Word / Spirit and he will do this every time. Did I get it? So, if this is the case, again I have to ask, “Why is satan involved?” He isn’t needed. And, why does the text read that satan does this “so that they may not believe”? It does not say that satan takes away the word from their hearts because they do not believe, but so they do not believe.

Then you say,

Satan is able to steal away the truth based on their own sinful condition. Satan doesn't cause them to do anything that their sinful hearts don't already want to do. Satan tempts unbelief, the heart acts. That is what is meant.

Again, based on their own sinful condition, satan doesn’t need to steal the truth away. They by nature reject it. They by nature resist it. They by nature are unable to believe it to be saved. According to Total Inability, the present-day involvement of Satan is not needed for this to happen so they won’t believe. You say, “Satan tempts unbelief, the heart acts.” Do you think satan has to tempt unbelief in order for the heart to reject the Word? Or, does the unregenerate heart naturally reject the Word?

What say you?


Blessings!

 

[gmm4j]

Luke 8:11-12 says,
This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

Calvinism tells us that the non-elect unregenerate person rejects the word of God due to his fallen sin nature, but we are clearly told here that the devil comes and takes the Word from their hearts, so they will not believe and be saved. This seems to show that they have the ability to receive the Word, but the devil is actively involved in keeping the Word from taking root. Why would satan have to have a present-day involvement “takes away the word from their hearts, so…” if unregenerate man was totally unable to receive the Word into his heart in the first place?

 

[gmm4j]

Luke 8:11-12 says,
This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

Calvinism tells us that the non-elect unregenerate person rejects the word of God due to his fallen sin nature, but we are clearly told here that the devil comes and takes the Word from their hearts, so they will not believe and be saved. This shows that they have the ability to receive the Word, but the devil is actively involved in keeping the Word from taking root. Why would satan have to have a present-day involvement “takes away the word from their hearts, so…” if unregenerate man always rejected the Word and were totally unable to receive the Word into his heart in the first place?

 

[ronathanedwards]

Why would satan have to have a present-day involvement “takes away the word from their hearts, so…” if unregenerate man always rejected the Word and were totally unable to receive the Word into his heart in the first place?

You are arguing a positive from a negative statement. It does not say they have the ability to be saved, it just says they don't have the opportunity because of God's sovereign plan.

Secondly, it is only speaking of how Satan works in the world, that being, he even takes away the Word from the reprobate. It doesn't speak of the ability of the reprobate at all.

Thirdly, it begs the question, if God is loving, why is Satan apart of His plan to take away the Word FOR THE PURPOSE of keeping one from hearing and believing? Because those people are not elect. Otherwise, you can not answer that question.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

You are arguing a positive from a negative statement. It does not say they have the ability to be saved, it just says they don't have the opportunity because of God's sovereign plan.

Because of God's sovereign plan? I believe, from the passages themselves, it is because of the condition of the soil, that is, man's heart.

Secondly, it is only speaking of how Satan works in the world, that being, he even takes away the Word from the reprobate. It doesn't speak of the ability of the reprobate at all.

It also doesn't speak of man's inability.

Thirdly, it begs the question, if God is loving, why is Satan apart of His plan to take away the Word FOR THE PURPOSE of keeping one from hearing and believing? Because those people are not elect. Otherwise, you can not answer that question.

I do not believe it is part of His plan. If anything, I believe His plan is for His word to take root in man's heart and bring forth good fruit. Yet, it is the condition of man's heart (or, man himself), which determines the production of good fruit.

 

[ronathanedwards]

If it is God's plan for His Word to "take root and bring forth fruit" ... it WILL. God's PLAN'S can NOT be thwarted. He does all that He pleases.

Secondly, the point is, the GROUND (like a man) IS man's heart. You however presume that stoney ground can change to rich, fertile ground. The ground is as it was created. The hearts that God ordains to be fruitful are ONLY the ones that WILL be rich and fertile ground as He created them.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

If it is God's plan for His Word to "take root and bring forth fruit" ... it WILL. God's PLAN'S can NOT be thwarted. He does all that He pleases.

Secondly, the point is, the GROUND (like a man) IS man's heart. You however presume that stoney ground can change to rich, fertile ground. The ground is as it was created. The hearts that God ordains to be fruitful are ONLY the ones that WILL be rich and fertile ground as He created them.

Jeremiah 18:11
“Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”

I ask, if the inhabitants of Jerusalem returned from their evil ways, and made their ways and doings good, would God carry out the plan He was devising against them?

If not, then His plan was thwarted by men returning from their evil ways and making their ways and doing good.

 

[ronathanedwards]

First of all, that has nothing to do with the parable, you haven't shown the ground can change its designed nature. And here we go, I give you an explicit verse that says God plans can not be thwarted, and you are trying to prove that God was wrong? And on top of that you use not didactic text but narrative? And on top of that, you are trying to prove something that didn't happen but was hypothetical? Oh, the depths one will go to on account of pride.

The Jeremiah verse does not speak at all concerning the ability of man in his natural state, it is simply an imperative, which doesn't speak of "what can be done", but rather "what ought to be done".

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

First of all, that has nothing to do with the parable, you haven't shown the ground can change its designed nature. And here we go, I give you an explicit verse that says God plans can not be thwarted, and you are trying to prove that God was wrong? And on top of that you use not didactic text but narrative? And on top of that, you are trying to prove something that didn't happen but was hypothetical? Oh, the depths one will go to on account of pride.

Please do not speak against the poster. I have asked you not to do this before.

You didn't answer the question I put forth - "I ask, if the inhabitants of Jerusalem returned from their evil ways, and made their ways and doings good, would God carry out the plan He was devising against them?"

The Jeremiah verse does not speak at all concerning the ability of man in his natural state, it is simply an imperative, which doesn't speak of "what can be done", but rather "what ought to be done".

It also does not speak at all of their inability. There are notions you are trying to force into the text. What good or what truth is God speaking, if 'what ought to be done', cannot be done? His words then become just ink on paper with no life in them.

 

[ronathanedwards]

You didn't answer the question I put forth - "I ask, if the inhabitants of Jerusalem returned from their evil ways, and made their ways and doings good, would God carry out the plan He was devising against them?"

I did answer the question. The Bible speaks in reality not hypotheticals, let alone basing whole doctrines of salvation on unsupported presuppositions on them. I told you that is an imperative, it says NOTHING of their ability in their natural state to carry out the command.
Secondly, the hypothetical would not support your argument anyways, the explicit governs the implicit. It is explicit that God's hand can not be stayed, His purpose and plan will be carried out. You must interject this into the Jeremiah hypothetical. If they turned, they would not be going against God's plan, but rather by God giving them the command, He then also would have given them the heart to change. Therefore, it is still because of God's actions, not mans. And His plans are still carried out, not thwarted.

Thirdly, the problem is, and what should be the basis of one's theology, is what DID happen? God was devising a plan to destroy them, why? Because He knew that they would not listen to Him, and they didn't! And God's plan for them succeeded (as always) If you read Jeremiah a bit closer, you would have found:

So you shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you. You shall call to them, but they will not answer you.
Je 7:27.

It also does not speak at all of their inability

Yes, you are correct, and I'm not using it incorrectly, that is, trying to use it as a proof text for inability. I'm just refuting the YOUR using it for a proof text for God's plan being able to be thwarted by man...

What good or what truth is God speaking, if 'what ought to be done', cannot be done? His words then become just ink on paper with no life in them.

It only shows God's making His will known to them plainly to justify His condemnation of them. You should ask yourself that. Why would He give ANY commands to them when He already told Jeremiah that "They would not listen to His commands"? These are only proving my points and refuting yours. There is God's "prescriptive will" His revealed commands (what ought to be done, and can't for the reprobate) and also His "decretive will"
(what WILL be done).
God's commands are ONLY for His people, those whom He divinely chooses to give a new heart in order for them to obey (Ezek 36:26) His commands are the means that He gives for His people to grow in sanctification. And yes, they ARE meaningless to those are reprobate, as they hate God's Word, the natural man CAN NOT obey them, they can not understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
They disobey because that is their destiny:
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
1 Pe 2:8.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

I did answer the question. The Bible speaks in reality not hypotheticals, let alone basing whole doctrines of salvation on unsupported presuppositions on them. I told you that is an imperative, it says NOTHING of their ability in their natural state to carry out the command.

You are making it a hypothetical by inserting 'if they had the ability'. You are conjecturing they could obey God's commands, if they had the ability. Their ability is what you have added, which isn't needed. Why must man try to add something to God's truth? Why not receive His truth as is?

Now in Philosophy/Logic 101, your hypothetical questioning would be considered 'conditional'. And I will agree it is a conditional statement, an if/then statement. The condition being, IF they turn from their evil ways, THEN God would not carry out the plan He was devising against them.

For example, IF one practices idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like, THEN they will not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20,21). And this conditional statement is very much reality.

Another conditional statement is Matthew 19:17, "...if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments". This is about as plain as it gets, as far as Jesus Himself telling us how to enter life. In both examples, the conditions to be met are man's responsibility. Whether the consequence becomes reality very much depends upon man and his choice.

This goes for both of us, if we want or will to enter life, we both must keep the commandments.

Secondly, the hypothetical would not support your argument anyways, the explicit governs the implicit. It is explicit that God's hand can not be stayed, His purpose and plan will be carried out. You must interject this into the Jeremiah hypothetical. If they turned, they would not be going against God's plan, but rather by God giving them the command, He then also would have given them the heart to change. Therefore, it is still because of God's actions, not mans. And His plans are still carried out, not thwarted.

I wonder if you think if the children of Israel were regenerated. Or, were they regenerated only during the time of Ezekiel and Jeremiah?

Thirdly, the problem is, and what should be the basis of one's theology, is what DID happen? God was devising a plan to destroy them, why? Because He knew that they would not listen to Him, and they didn't! And God's plan for them succeeded (as always) If you read Jeremiah a bit closer, you would have found:

So you shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you. You shall call to them, but they will not answer you.
Je 7:27.

Again, were the children of Israel regenerated? It sounds to me they weren't. What say you? If I am not mistaken, you think the unregenerated will not listen to God, nor answer Him.

Yes, you are correct, and I'm not using it incorrectly, that is, trying to use it as a proof text for inability. I'm just refuting the YOUR using it for a proof text for God's plan being able to be thwarted by man...

From the following passages, was it God's plan for the children of Israel to choose life or choose death? Was it God's plan for them to perish?

Deuteronomy 30 -
18 I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess.
19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;
20 that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.

It only shows God's making His will known to them plainly to justify His condemnation of them. You should ask yourself that. Why would He give ANY commands to them when He already told Jeremiah that "They would not listen to His commands"? These are only proving my points and refuting yours. There is God's "prescriptive will" His revealed commands (what ought to be done, and can't for the reprobate) and also His "decretive will"
(what WILL be done).

God's will doesn't condemn, but rather man practicing sin. I think you will find plenty of the children of Israel who listened and obeyed His commands.

I don't subscribe in breaking God's will into separate pieces. You must do this in order to keep your doctrine intact. Besides, you won't find 'prescriptive' and 'decretive' wills mentioned anywhere in the word. Man made these up to keep himself on his throne.

God's commands are ONLY for His people, those whom He divinely chooses to give a new heart in order for them to obey (Ezek 36:26) His commands are the means that He gives for His people to grow in sanctification. And yes, they ARE meaningless to those are reprobate, as they hate God's Word, the natural man CAN NOT obey them, they can not understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Funny, I just showed you the natural man can obey God's commands, and here you emphatically state they can't.

If His commands are for those with a new heart, then why can't those with a new heart obey them? In fact, I will go as far as saying, they deny them and explain them away (Ez. 18:31).

They disobey because that is their destiny:
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
1 Pe 2:8.

So, is it destiny, that those with a new heart do not obey His commands? Why did the children of Israel disobey? Were they not regenerated? Was Moses regenerated? David? Isaiah? Ezekiel? Solomon? Did God put unregenerate kings on Israel's throne to rule his people? Did God give the ark of the covenant to unregenerate people? Did God give His law to unregenerate people?

Once we settle whether the children of Israel was regenerated or not, we can then proceed with our discussion on regeneration.

 

[ronathanedwards]

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Ro 8:7–8.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Co 2:14.

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
‎There is not one. Job 14:4

Why must man try to add something to God's truth? Why not receive His truth as is?

Read the above verses and apply your statement...


You are the one assuming ability, not I. All you are doing is giving commands from a narrative and inserting the ability to carry them out. As Luther said to Erasmus: "Even schoolboys in the streets know the difference between imperatives and indicatives. Imperatives are what ought to be done, indicatives are what can and has been done. You haven't learned that basic grammatical lesson yet.

Whether the consequence becomes reality very much depends upon man and his choice.

You are confusing the reality materially and the spiritual realty. You must go to a didactic text that explains the conditions of the people/person to properly understand the narrative (and for that, even the intention of the command). If I give a command to "start your engines" to a bunch of drivers, you are arguing they have the ability to turn the ignition and start it. I'm arguing there is no gas in the tank! You are assuming there is gas in the tank, spark plugs..etc for the car to start. You have to go to didactic texts that explain the spiritual "how" that precedes the physical "what". You have not done so yet, and can not, because there isn't ONE verse in the whole Bible that says man in his natural state has the ability to obey God. All you do is give narrative and insert your presupposition.

I wonder if you think if the children of Israel were regenerated. Or, were they regenerated only during the time of Ezekiel and Jeremiah?

Take some time and read some covenant theology books. The spirits role and actions were different before the new covenant. Also the term "children of Israel" I understand differently than you do also.

Again, were the children of Israel regenerated? It sounds to me they weren't. What say you? If I am not mistaken, you think the unregenerated will not listen to God, nor answer Him

Trying to deflect the reason for that post are we? What was the reason for it? Oh yeah, God gave a command AFTER He told Jeremiah that they would not listen to it. Why did he do that? You didn't answer it, I'm waiting for you to address the point.

From the following passages, was it God's plan for the children of Israel to choose life or choose death? Was it God's plan for them to perish?

Explicitly it is a COMMAND in a narrative. It does not say ANYTHING about what God's "plan" (especially for the ethnic Jews) was in the passage. Don't you see your exegetical error? You don't have any didactic texts that support what you claim, and therefore you insert your presupposition into the text and make a claim that it supports your errant view. Why don't you listen to your own advice. Take the meaning of the text and don't add your philosophy into it. All it states is "God gave a statement death or life, ten a command choose life"... It speaks of NOTHING of what you are trying to assert.

I don't subscribe in breaking God's will into separate pieces. You must do this in order to keep your doctrine intact. Besides, you won't find 'prescriptive' and 'decretive' wills mentioned anywhere in the word. Man made these up to keep himself on his throne

This is theological infancy at it's worst. I guess you don't believe in the Trinity, the incarnation, and omniscience either then, since they are not mentioned in the Bible!
These are theological terms that are well defined and understood in order to convey a Biblical systematic thought conveniently. By your explanation "self determinate free-will" isn't mentioned in the Bible either, so your view is wrong!

Man made these up to keep himself on his throne.

NO, man takes the Greek philosophical view of free-will to keep himself on his throne.
"I'm the boss of my life, not God!, I'm on the throne! "

I think you will find plenty of the children of Israel who listened and obeyed His commands.

This was the answer to my question concerning the Jeremiah text of why would God give a command when He said earlier that they would NOT listen? God said THEY WOULD NOT LISTEN!! And you have the audacity to say "oh yeah... they listened.." .. I'll trust God's Word over your bias ... THEY DIDN'T LISTEN.

Also, were did it say that God EVER gave the nation of Israel a new heart? Speaking of Deut. 30, go back to 29:4 which under-girds chapter 30.

But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. Dt 29:4.

Then, in chapter 30 (which you left out)
And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. Dt 30:6.

Sounds like it is up to the LORD to give them a new heart IN ORDER to understand. The commands given in chapter 30 were on deaf ears, except to those whom the Lord by His grace chose to give a new heart to IN ORDER to understand, see, and hear.

Funny, I just showed you the natural man can obey God's commands, and here you emphatically state they can't.

No you didn't. There isn't ONE verse that explicitly states "the natural man can obey God's commands" ... there isn't ONE. I've had Arminian Doctorates try to answer this question, and they all have told me the same thing, "There isn't one EXPLICIT, didactic verse in all of scripture that says 'The natural/fleshly man' has the ability to obey God and love Him". and yet you found one? lol Please, show it to me!

If His commands are for those with a new heart, then why can't those with a new heart obey them?

Bad question. Those with a new heart CAN obey them, that's the purpose for giving one a new heart.

So, is it destiny, that those with a new heart do not obey His commands?

Mixing didactic teachings with misunderstood narrative are we?
It is destiny that the reprobate stumble and disobey the word, as they were destined to do. It is not the destiny for those with a new heart to disobey, but obey.

Why did the children of Israel disobey?

The ethnic Jews disobeyed because of their nature. They did what came natural to them, that is, not loving God, but loving himself.

Why did the children of Israel disobey? Were they not regenerated? Was Moses regenerated? David? Isaiah? Ezekiel?

The Spirit's role in the O.T. was different than the New Covenant. The Spirit was upon Moses, David,Isaiah ....

Once we settle whether the children of Israel was regenerated or not, we can then proceed with our discussion on regeneration

We could save ourselves some time and actually deal with the explicit, didactic verses that actually teach regeneration, maybe that will help you to keep from inference and eisegesis.

How about 1 John 5:1 ?

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

The ethnic Jews disobeyed because of their nature. They did what came natural to them, that is, not loving God, but loving himself.

The Spirit's role in the O.T. was different than the New Covenant. The Spirit was upon Moses, David,Isaiah ....

We could save ourselves some time and actually deal with the explicit, didactic verses that actually teach regeneration, maybe that will help you to keep from inference and eisegesis.

How about 1 John 5:1 ?

Why sidestep the question of whether the children of Israel were regenerated or not? According to Calvinism, only the regenerated can hear, obey, believe, and understand God and His word. Thus, accordingly, the children of Israel were regenerated.

I won't infer anything, but rather, let you define regeneration in the OT. I want to see if it lines up with NT regeneration. Exegete away!