Dr. Eric Hankins is the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church, Oxford, Mississippi. He is the author of the much-discussed Traditionalist Statement and was central to the Calvinism Task Force appointed by Dr. Page, which reported at the Houston Annual Meeting. Part 1 can be found here.
In my first post responding to Nathan Finn’s essay on the Traditional Statement (TS) in the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, I addressed the things with which I agree. This post will focus on what I consider to be perhaps the most significant area of difference for further discussion. Again, Nathan was careful to be friendly, and I want to do the same, even as I focus on some tensions. Our difference centers on this single sentence: “While I agree that all people are ‘capable of responding’ to the good news, I also believe that sin has so blinded humanity that nobody will choose to believe the gospel without the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit” (65). This is such a critical quote for me because it so perfectly and compactly illustrates the fault line between Calvinists and Traditionalists, one that I think is missed by most Southern Baptists (SBs).
The only way Finn’s sentence works theologically is if the deterministic underpinnings of his Calvinism are presupposed. But, here’s the twist: if these underpinnings are presupposed, then the ordinary understanding of the claim that all people are able to respond to the gospel is nullified. That’s why Finn puts “capable of responding” in scare quotes. He is signaling that the phrase means something different to him than it means ordinarily.
Once, my young son Jake was left behind by his bike-riding friends. A neighbor asked him, “When are you going to learn how to ride a bike?” Jake responded, “I know how to ride a bike; I can’t ride a bike.” Of course, my neighbor did not mean that Jake needed to take a course on the general theory of biking. Because he assumed that Jake was capable of specifically acting on that theory himself, he was inquiring as to why Jake hadn’t started. But Jake was not answering the question my neighbor was asking. He was giving a “Calvinistic” response to my neighbor’s question, to wit: “I affirm and understand the existence of the phenomena of bike-riding that could, in principle, apply to any random boy. But I belong to a unique set of boys who, for reasons beyond my control, simply can’t ride bikes.” My neighbor, however, simply does not acknowledge the existence of that unique set of boys. He rightly assumed that any specific boy with Jake’s traits* could ride a bike and that Jake was simply unwilling. Jake’s attempt at a positive answer to my friend’s question was actually a negative answer.
Finn is giving the same rather unusual response to the question: Could anyone who hears the gospel respond in repentance and faith? He wants to say Yes to the question, but his answer, for me, is No because I reject his presuppositions. He cannot have it both ways. The only way to agree with me about the ordinary meaning of the phrase “anyone can respond” is to abandon his presuppositions. If he won’t abandon his presuppositions, then needs to say that he doesn’t agree with the phrase.** Or he needs to be clear that he holds contradictory (not mysterious) assumptions.
Please understand that I am not saying that Finn is being deceptive or coy. I am saying that he is hearing and answering the question like a Calvinist: “I agree that the phenomena of responding to the gospel could, in principle, apply to any random person. But I also believe that there is a unique set of persons that, for reasons hidden in the mind of God, simply cannot respond because they won’t be effectually called.”
The problem is that most SBs aren’t asking questions like Calvinists, and they would be troubled by this take on soteriology. That’s where so much of the confusion comes in. For most SBs, the import of the question is, “Is any person who hears the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit capable of responding in faith to Christ, no other conditions needed?” I believe their answer is Yes.
But Finn is not answering that version of the question. Again, he is answering a Calvinistic version of the question: “In principle, could any person be deterministically regenerated, effectually called (the presupposition he specifically inserts), and irresistibly drawn to respond to the gospel?” It is to this question that he says Yes. But Finn’s answer to the version of the question that most SBs are asking is actually No. No, he does not believe that any and every single person on the planet who hears the gospel could be saved, no other conditions needed, just the drawing of the Spirit in the preaching of the powerful gospel. Finn believes that only the people God deterministically pre-selects from the mass of the damned in eternity past have any hope of being saved. Only they will be foreordained to be in the hearing of the gospel. Only they will be regenerated. Only they will be given the gift of faith. Only they will be given grace to respond, grace they cannot resist. The rest have no hope, and they don’t deserve to have hope. Those in the group of the damned who hear the gospel over and over will never respond, not because they won’t but because they can’t. They will spend eternity in hell because they never had any actual hope of being anywhere else.
Now, I understand why Calvinists say No to the question most SBs are asking. If they are right about determinism, if they are right about the nature of the Fall, the imputation of guilt, Federal Headship, compatibilistic freedom, eternal decrees, Covenants of Work, Grace, and Redemption, etc., then, indeed, the answer is No. No, not everyone is capable of responding to the gospel. No, God does not intend to save everyone.
What I am hoping as the discussion moves forward is that Calvinists like Finn would take pains to make clear that they don’t believe that anyone could be saved in the sense that most rank-and-file Southern Baptists mean.*** Again, I am not accusing him of obfuscation here. He is clear in the sentence I quote above. He is clear in the essay that Traditionalists and Calvinists have different presuppositional starting points. But he assumes that most readers would understand the Calvinistic infrastructure upon which the sentence rests, that they would understand what the question means to him and how his answer fits it. I’m confident that most SBs really don’t. When I was a “Three Point Calvinist,” I assumed that we were all using words like “depraved,” “capable,” “free,” “respond,” “faith,” “all,” “world,” etc. in the same way. But with a bit of study, I realized that we were “using the same vocabulary but a different dictionary” and that Calvinism wasn’t at all what I believed. Making sure that everyone else understands these parameters as well is crucial as the discussion continues.
Notes:
*Jake possesses the common and necessary physiology for biking. Two weeks later, his sister taught him to ride (Jake fired me from the job).
**Several Calvinist responders to my previous post made clear that they actually don’t believe that God desires the salvation of all because their theology prevents them from doing so.
***Indeed, I am not hoping that Calvinist perspectives be driven from the SBC. Another matter with which I took issue in the essay, frankly, was the fact that Finn was concerned about the widely circulated rumor that some of the signatories of the Traditionalist Statement wanted the SBC to formally adopt the statement as some sort of litmus test for our agencies and boards. Whether this was merely a blogosphere conspiracy or whether there was at least tentative talk of a litmus test is still very much in dispute, depending upon whom you ask (64).
I’m a bit surprised that he would raise the issue of a “widely circulated rumor” in a scholarly essay. If a claim is based at best on “tentative talk” and at worst on “a blogosphere conspiracy,” and if the verification of that claim “depend[s] on who you ask,” then I think it’s best not to repeat such a claim under any circumstances, certainly not in an academic journal. Moreover, Finn could have asked me since I am the originator of the document, and I would have gladly taken his call and gone on the record. There was never a strategy to have the SBC formally adopt the statement as a litmus test. Never. Two Conventions and almost two years have passed and no attempt has been made at any level (not even at the local church level as far as I know) to adopt the statement formally. Hopefully, we can move on from this concern and spend our energies on the content of the debate. I am certainly committed to doing so.
Dr. Hankins,
Up front, so you’ll know where i am coming from, i am a 5 point C, but I don’t adhere to every C position, for example, I believe in an age of accountability with no condemnation until one personally sins.
So i do not speak for all C’s.
When it is said that anyone could respond positively to the Gospel, it is assumed that they could respond positively IF they believed its veracity.
Certainly if they thought the Gospel a bunch of hooey, they could not positively respond to it [get saved].
In fact, I would say that EVERYONE [humans] who believes the veracity of the Gospel respond positively [they get saved]. Or put another way, everyone who truly thinks that Jesus is the crucified risen Lord and coming Judge, responds positively to His Gospel and are saved.
Likewise, NO ONE who does not think that Jesus is the crucified risen Lord, coming back to judge the world CAN positively respond to the Gospel. In fact, those who are not sure one way or the other of His Lordship, can not respond positively to the Gospel.
Seeing how i see things like that, I do not think coming to Jesus hinges on the will of man, but on his understanding of the truth.
I see it in this way: the gospel is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
And when God has shone in their hearts to give them the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ, they willingly turn to Him and are saved.
peace brother,
mike
Mike,
Let me make sure that I am understanding WHAT you are saying in response to Eric’s question, CAN ANYONE REPENT AND BE SAVED?
You are in essence saying they CAN believe if they UNDERSTAND the truth but God clouds the minds of the non-elect so they will NOT UNDERSTAND this truth…
So once again, not everyone who hears CAN respond unless God gives them the opportunity to do so?
Correct?
Could anyone who hears the gospel respond in repentance and faith? – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235406
Not if they think it is foolishness:
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [1 Cor. 1:16]
Eric, Well written again. A couple of clarifying questions again. You say, “Finn is giving the same rather unusual response to the question: Could anyone who hears the gospel respond in repentance and faith?” Later you say, “For most SBs, the import of the question is, “Is any person who hears the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit capable of responding in faith to Christ, no other conditions needed?” Is it a significant part of the questions that the Holy Spirit is left out of Finn’s question but inserted in “most SB’s” question? Would having Finn’s question read, “Could anyone who hears the gospel **in the power of the Holy Spirit**respond in repentance and faith?’ And again, “Again, he is answering a Calvinistic version of the question: “In principle, could any person be deterministically regenerated, effectually called (the presupposition he specifically inserts), and irresistibly drawn to respond to the gospel?” It is to this question that he says Yes. But Finn’s answer to the version of the question that most SBs are asking is actually No. No, he does not believe that any and every single person on the planet who hears the gospel could be saved, no other conditions needed, just the drawing of the Spirit in the preaching of the powerful gospel.” This…“In principle, could any person be deterministically regenerated, effectually called (the presupposition he specifically inserts), and irresistibly drawn to respond to the gospel?” I think most Calvinists would agree that the answer is yes to this. Why? You put “regenerated” in the question and the I of TULIP. So of course the answer would be YES. But you also use only the word “any.” Later on you say “any and every” here, “No, he does not believe that any and every single person on the planet who hears the gospel could be saved, no other conditions needed, just the drawing of the Spirit in the preaching of the powerful gospel.” So my clarifying question is this: do you believe that “every single person on the planet who hears the gospel could be saved?” That is, since the beginning of mankind, do you believe that “”every single person on the planet who hears the gospel could be saved?” One other thing as a point where I see a problem for Trads. You say about Calvinism, “The rest have no hope, and they don’t deserve to… Read more »
I didn’t finish a sentence. Should be,
“Would having Finn’s question read, “Could anyone who hears the gospel **in the power of the Holy Spirit**respond in repentance and faith?’ make a difference to your case?
“For most SBs, the import of the question is, “Is any person who hears the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit capable of responding in faith to Christ, no other conditions needed?” –
Not only are they capable, they most certainly will.
Amen Mike. That’s the point I’m getting at in one of my questions? The Holy Spirit is key. Of course they will.
Thanks.
Thus the real question is not about the will of the man hearing the Gospel, BUT do all who hear the Gospel, hear it in the power of the Holy Spirit?
For IF they do so hear it that way, why do they continue to think it foolishness? And if they do hear it that way, and continue to think it foolishness, how could they positively respond to it and be saved?
Dr. Hankins,
Thanks for your interaction here. I would like to add a question to those that have been asked (and you may be answering these in another post so forgive me if I’m jumping ahead)
Your criticism of Dr. Finn’s position is that those who are not led by the Spirit to respond cannot be saved. You believe (I think) that those who are persuaded when they hear the Gospel come to repentance. My question is, what if they are later persuaded otherwise?
I assume as a Traditionalist that you would hold to “once saved, always saved” “perseverance of the saints” (or whatever the cool kids are calling it today) but I wonder how you reconcile this position with your understanding of “persuasion?” How do you nuance in your theology the term?
I ask because the understanding that “Calvinism” (and I hate that term because it magnifies a man and not Jesus) provides of the role of Holy Spirit in not just calling but continuing salvation was one of the strongest arguments in moving me from a position similar to yours to the one I hold now.
I would love to hear your answer on the subject.
Thanks again for your gracious interaction in these posts.
Ryan,
Are you asking if “they are later persuaded otherwise” meaning the Holy Spirit persuades them at a later date to reject the gospel message?
I think that ought to adequately answer your question.
From:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2013/07/what-non-christians-want-christians-to-hear/
“There are about a million things I’d like to say to Christians, but here’s the first few that come to mind: Please respect my right to be the person I’ve chosen to become. Worship, pray and praise your God all you want–but please leave me, and my laws, and my city, and my school alone. Stop trying to make me, or my children, worship your god. Why do we all have to be Christians? Respect my beliefs; I guarantee they’re every bit as strong as yours. Mostly, please respect my free will. Let me choose if I want to marry someone of my own sex. Let me choose if I want to have an abortion or not. Let me choose to go to hell if that’s where you believe I’m going. I can honestly say that I’d rather go to hell than live the hypocritical life I see so many Christians living.”– D.B., Seattle
This person does not believe that the only god is the Christian god. They say that their beliefs are just as strong [and by implication: -just as good] as Christians.
How do they know that unless they have heard the Gospel?
Others reject the Gospel because they believe that there are many paths to God, and/or…
-that there is no proof that it is true,
-that Jesus was just a good man,
-that Jesus and His story is just a myth like King Arthur,
-that the cross is not necessary for salvation,
-that they are moral enough,
-that a loving God would not condemn men for marrying men,
-etc.
When one hears the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit they know they are not moral enough, that they are sinners, that Jesus is indeed the crucified and risen Lord, and that He is the only path to the Father. But they also know God’s great love for them as sinners in that Jesus did die for them. Thus they are broken before God, humbled in spirit, and they desire Him, and willfully submit to Him.
Mike,
Excellent statement: When one hears the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit they know they are not moral enough, that they are sinners, that Jesus is indeed the crucified and risen Lord, and that He is the only path to the Father. But they also know God’s great love for them as sinners in that Jesus did die for them. Thus they are broken before God, humbled in spirit, and they desire Him, and willfully submit to Him. –
Here is the crux of teh question being discussed as I see it;
When one hears the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit does he have a choice in his response: to accept or reject this special revelation from God?
Most SB’s, I argue would answer “YES” men are responsible for their choice at this point and must choose to repent or reject this revelation.
As I read between the lines on your comments here and earlier… you are saying NO… the person who hears in the power of the Holy Spirit WILL REPENT and that is his ONLY response. (See comment #6)
Am I missing something?
I add to this by saying, what you are saying to people is how cults get members, by persuasion. It’s how gods were worshiped in the Bible. By being persuaded. People are not always born in a Christian home and going to church all their lives. Quite the opposite. Most people, even in America have never read a Bible. They only know what they are told, mostly wrong.
For example: I don’t know how many times I’ve corrected the lost I encounter that “God helps those who help themselves” is not found anywhere in the Bible.
Without the Holy Spirit awakening people to who Christ is and their need of a Savior, they cannot respond according to scripture.
Debbie,
Exactly.
A Jew and a Muslim, and even a Jehovah Witness, agree that God is the creator and that there is one God. They reject the divinity of Jesus and per force, reject the veracity of the Gospel. It is not about their free will, but about their blinded minds and hardened hearts.
Which devout religious person in knowing for sure in their heart that Jesus is the Lord God would go back to calling Mohammed a greater prophet than Jesus? or would bow before Allah?
Not one.
Which American who thinks that trying to live a good moral life would continue to think they will be in heaven by their own deeds after finding out the Gospel is true and Jesus judges their every sin with condemnation, but that He also offers salvation to those who submit to Him?
Not one.
Exactly pastormike. It’s why Mormons call themselves Christians and think they are just like us.
Debbie
I go to Parsons Baptist Church.
My name is mike.
Hence parsonsmike.
I am not a pastor or an elder.
peace sister,
mike
I am sorry Mike. I see have seen and known your full username before, I was typing faster than thinking.
Debbie
An accurate observation. You used the word “think”. One of the real problems with Mormonism is it seems they really do not know at times what they think. When one studies the history of Mormonism one discovers that the doctrines change and adapt themselves to what is perceived to make them more palatable to the world. A particular doctrine in our country will be altered in another country pending the culture.
I realize this post is not speaking to the point of the thread but your comment sparked this thought.
D.L.,
Right,
But what they don’t think and most consciously reject is the unity of the Trinity and Jesus as true God from True God. And they don’t believe the veracity of the Gospel.
And thus many times when presented with the Gospel choice, they can do none other than reject it. For how can they accept as true what they think is false?
But some times, by the mercy and grace of God, they submit to Jesus and are saved.
And once you and i were in the same type of boat as they, but by His mercy and grace, we were saved as well.
DL: That is an interesting fact I did not know. I think it adds to the discussion.
Parsonsmike
You are correct regarding the Trinity. I simply cannot comprehend how they can use the name “Christian” even in the slightest sense without an adequate doctrine of the Triune God. That simple baffles me. However it is consistent with their “thinking” in that in our culture they feel that such a moniker would be advantageous, so change the doctrine accordingly.
You are correct about their rejection of the Gospel.
Maybe i had better leave this Mormonism discussion lest Dave thinks I am trying to hijack the thread. 🙂
Consider this passage from 1st Corinthians 2:
And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
IF THEY HAD UNDERSTOOD… THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY.
Likewise, people today, relying on the wisdom of the world, reject the Gospel and the Lord.
But we read earlier:
For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”
So in context we read:
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
And so we thank God that we are in Christ Jesus by His doing, chosen by Him, and our boast is in the Lord alone.
I add to this by saying, what you are saying to people is how cults get members, by persuasion
There is nothing in what Eric has written that is even remotely similar to cults. Such a suggestion is patently absurd.
I would add that when speaking to Muslims, Jehovah Witness, etc. about Christ and the good news of the Gospel, the above only understand God in the context of their religion. Again, until the Holy Spirit makes them alive(Eph. 2:8&9 among other passages) they cannot choose Christ.
First, I don’t know why Dr Finn wrote: “While I agree that all people are ‘capable of responding’ to the good news, I also believe that sin has so blinded humanity that nobody will choose to believe the gospel…” I wish he would weigh in on ‘capable of responding.’ Now I have heard the gospel presented as the ‘irresistble deal.’ “All you have to do is turn from your sin, ask for repentance and God gives you a brand new life.” And while that contains elements of the gospel it is a bit simplistic and I can see people saying, “Well, duh, I AM a sinner, and I do believe there is a God, so hey, Might as well, right?” Now it is possible that this person might respond in true faith and repentance. THis person might truly be saved. It is also possible that this person was buying life insurance so to speak. It looks like a positive response to the gospel but it may not be. I agree with Dr Hankins here that I don’t see how he can have it both ways. Second, Dr Hankins writes, “That’s why Finn puts “capable of responding” in scare quotes.” Scare quotes? Really? I don’t think this is over the top but it does seem a tad perjorative. Third, Dr Hankins writes, ‘For most SBs, the import of the question is, “Is any person who hears the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit capable of responding in faith to Christ, no other conditions needed?”’ OK, maybe there is a bit of hyperbole on Dr Hankins part, but not only is this false, most SBs are not asking this particular question, but I’ve never heard one person ask it. My answer as a reformed SB is of course, ANYONE could respond in faith to the gospel and be saved having heard the gospel in the power of the spirit! The presence of the Holy Spirit on the part of the preacher is irrelevant. The presence of the Spirit applying the gospel to the heart and mind of the sinner, thereby regenerating the person and giving them faith and repentance so that they might reject their sin and cling to their only hope in Christ is the only way a person does get saved! Part 2 of Third, IF however the question is “Could anyone who hears the gospel respond in… Read more »
Clark,
You wrote… The presence of the Spirit applying the gospel to the heart and mind of the sinner, thereby regenerating the person and giving them faith and repentance so that they might reject their sin and cling to their only hope in Christ is the only way a person does get saved! –
I am confident that you understand the content and context of Dr. Hankins comment better than you are stating here.
The point is NOT the working of the Holy Spirit in a person’s heart; the thrust of the discussion is the efficacy of that working. You state here the calvinist position that it is regeneration that brings one to repentance not the proclamation of the gospel.
In your own words, not all who HEAR the gospel can repent. It is disingenuous to suggest in one breath that they can and then in another that they can only do so IF they are regenerated which is the sole work of God.
The problem I have is the continued circular rhetoric that says one thing but means something else and that is what I see you and Finn and others doing and then on top of that you are critical of Dr. Hankins and others for suggesting that you are doing what you are clearly doing!
Simply amazed!
Clark,
When I read through the comment stream (I stopped at about 70), I feel like a man standing in the middle of a crowded room yelling, and no one hears.
Then I read your comment.
Thanks for taking the time to engage the argument I am actually making. Let me offer some responses to your queries.
1. Thanks for acknowledging that Finn “can’t have it both ways.” That’s my point.
2. I’m using the phrase “scare quotes” in a technical sense: Wikipedia (so it must be right)- “Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to imply that it may not signify its apparent meaning or that it is not necessarily the way the quoting person would express its concept.”
3. I really do think most SBs affirm libertarian rather than compatibilist freedom. They believe that, in a room of a hundred morally responsible people, a hundred of them could come to faith when the gospel is preached through a libertarian response to Holy Spirit’s leading for which they and they alone are responsible. Most SBs believe that none of the hundred are reprobated and therefore incapable of responding. Most SBs believe that the actual drawing of the HS can be resisted.
4. Thank you, thank you. Yes, this is about determinism and libertarianism. Those are the terms, those are the categories. Everyone (me included) has to own the implications of his system (I can’t have it both ways, either). Both these systems can be inferred from Scripture, but are not demanded by it. The case has to be made in the totality of systematic theology. Hallelujah! Someone understands me! Of course we can still work together but I think its more likely that we will work together if we understand one another and are clear about all the differences.
5. Better to ask forgiveness than permission! That’s in the Bible, right?
Dr. Hankins, you said in speaking of Finn’s theology: …the rest have no hope, and they don’t deserve to have hope. Those in the group of the damned who hear the gospel over and over will never respond, not because they won’t but because they can’t. They will spend eternity in hell because they never had any actual hope of being anywhere else. – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235420 This is about election. And because you disagree with C’s doctrine of election, you phrase it as you do. But seeing how your purpose is to draw sharp lines of doctrinal distinction [while maintaining the bond of love in unity, which i appreciate], then I might surmise [open of course to your correction] that you believe every person has hope. i notice you left open any place for hope for those who never hear the Gospel, but since that is not where you are drawing the line, let me focus on those that do hear the Gospel and reject it. You dislike Calvinism because it says that these Gospel-rejecters never really had any actual hope of escaping hell. You mean that from an outside perspective, they never had hope. They, from their own perspective, could have had hope of eternal bliss. Maybe they followed the steps their own religion dictated to them, or maybe they sought to live good moral lives, or maybe they had hope of eternal bliss because they sacrificed their own lives in a suicide bombing? Or maybe you were saying they had no hope from God’s perspective? From eternity past, God knew that these exact people would reject the Gospel and be damned. or maybe you are saying they have no hope from your perspective. But you agree that if they reject the Gospel, there is no other hope. No, what you are saying is that you reject the idea that they had no chance to be saved because they were not the elect. And you do so because your understanding of God is that since He desires everyone to be saved, then everyone should have that chance. But they did hear the Gospel. They rejected it with reasons of their own. My point is that you or I would have rejected the Gospel as well, BUT God opened our eyes to its truth and filled our hearts with His love, so that we both knew the truth… Read more »
Mike,
“My point is that you or I would have rejected the Gospel as well, BUT God opened our eyes to its truth and filled our hearts with His love, so that we both knew the truth and also loved Him in response and were saved.”
Is there a Scripture(s) that you use that show or state “God opened our eyes to its truth and filled our hearts with His love”? Thanks
Don, a few come to mind:
Is. 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
and the ears of the deaf unstopped;
A longer passage from Is 42:
Behold fmy servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen, gin whom my soul delights;
hI have put my Spirit upon him;
ihe will bring forth justice to the nations.
2 He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice,
or make it heard in the street;
3 ja bruised reed he will not break,
and a faintly burning wick he will not quench;
khe will faithfully bring forth justice.
4 He will not grow faint or be discouraged1
till he has established justice in the earth;
and lthe coastlands wait for his law.
5 Thus says God, the Lord,
who created the heavens mand stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
nwho gives breath to the people on it
and spirit to those who walk in it:
6 “I am the Lord; oI have called you2 in righteousness;
I will take you by the hand and keep you;
I will give you pas a covenant for the people,
qa light for the nations,
7 rto open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
sfrom the prison those who sit in darkness.
8 I am the Lord; that is my name;
tmy glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
9 Behold, the former things have come to pass,
uand new things I now declare;
before they spring forth
I tell you of them.”
Romans 5:
and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love ihas been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Les,
Your ref. in Isa. 35 are events which deal with Israel and have not yet happened. Mike made the comment about our hearts not future Israel. Do you have any texts to support your view for today?
Also your ref. to Rom. 5:5 is speaking of Christians who already have the Holy Spirit. Mike ref. was about God filling our hearts with love before are saved. Do you have any texts to support that view?
Don,
I think you are misinterpreting the Is. passages. On Is. 35:5-7 the ESVSB says,
“The prophet points to the promised future, inaugurated in the first coming of Jesus Christ (Luke 4:16–21; 7:18–23) and fully consummated at his second coming (Rev. 21:4; 22:1–5). Isaiah contrasts God’s people, suffering now but destined for heightened powers of enjoyment in a new world, with the Edom of this age, with its present streams of privilege reverting to burning aridity, making Edom a haunt of jackals (cf. Isa. 34:9, 13). the eyes of the blind shall be opened. The salvation that God will provide includes both spiritual well-being and physical healing and wholeness, as was first demonstrated repeatedly in Jesus’ own ministry and as will be fully realized in the resurrection bodies of God’s people when Christ returns (see notes on 1 Cor. 15:20–55).”
On Is. 42:6-7 which I hope you agree is about Jesus and His coming:
“The servant is a covenant for the people (cf. 49:8), i.e., he represents the people in God’s covenant. He will become a light for the nations (cf. 49:6), bringing the knowledge of God to them; this probably lies behind Jesus’ saying in John 8:12. to open the eyes … to bring out. This is the purpose of God’s grace for his people, using liberation from Babylonian exile as an image for spiritual liberation.”
Of course Romans 5 is believers. That’s how we become believers…God pours His love in our hearts.
Mike didn’t say that God pours His love in hearts BEFORE we’re saved. He said,
“My point is that you or I would have rejected the Gospel as well, BUT God opened our eyes to its truth and filled our hearts with His love, so that we both knew the truth and also loved Him in response and were saved.
And so is everyone saved, who like us, had their eyes opened and their hearts filled.”
God bless,
Les
Les,
Yes Christ made the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the lame to leap and the dumb to sing Isa. 35:5-6. I was under the impression Mike was somehow making reference to spiritual blindness not physical blindness. Is there somewhere in the Gospels or Epistles where we are told God does away with our spiritual blindness so that we might be able to see?
Don, it’s in several places in the NT. The imagery is all over.
Besides, is the OT not enough for you? Isaiah 42? Isaiah wasn’t talking only about physical blindness brother.
Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’
But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.
(Matthew 13:14-16 ESV)
John 9:39 – And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
Do you deny that Jesus gives spiritual sight to the spiritual blind?
Sorry thought that gonna be a link. The text I’m referencing is Luke 4:17-21
Don,
In summary, I don’t know anyone on either side of this who denies that God opens the eyes of blinded unbelievers.
Or, are there those of you out there?
And I’d love for someone to answer this:
“So when Trads say that “no other conditions [are] needed, just the drawing of the Spirit in the preaching of the powerful gospel,” what does that “drawing actually do? Convict of sin? Is there anything operational going on in the sinner in the Trad view?
Or, and even if yes something operational IS going on, then it all ultimately rests on the sinner’s will. He is the final arbtrar of his eternal destiny.How is that NOT the case in the Trad view?”
– See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235450
Les,
I’m not interested in what either side believes. I’m interested in what God says. If God opens spiritually blinded eyes that they may receive spiritual sight, there must be some definitive texts which clearly show that doctrine. I’m not saying there aren’t any. I just haven’t found one.
Don,
I understand. Is this idea of spiritual blindness and God giving spiritual sight new for you?
Les
Les,
No the idea is not new to me. Mike was the one who mentioned it. He seemed to state as if it was a Bible doctrine, so I was just curious as to where it was found. Neither of yours texts in Matt 13 or John 9 state that God or Christ opens blind eyes.
Don,
Okay. You don’t think we’ve made our case. Fair enough. I repeat:
Question: you acknowledge that the lost are blinded. How do you think they come to be able to see? By God or by their own abilities? or a third way I haven’t thought of?”
Don,
Mike and I have tried to answer your curiosity questions. Don’t bail out now please. How do you believe the spiritually blind come to be able to spiritually see?
Thanks brother.
Les,
I haven’t bailed out. If you remember you bailed on me when we discussing the order of faith and regeneration.
As to your question, the only definitive text that I am aware of is Acts 26:17-18. Now don’t bail on me.
I’m here brother Don. So Saul’s conversion. But you didn’t answer my question:
Question: you acknowledge that the lost are blinded. How do you think they come to be able to see? By God or by their own abilities? or a third way I haven’t thought of?”
Thanks brother.
Les,
I’m going to let you answer the question. According to Acts 26:17-18 who is to open the eyes of the Gentiles? Remember according to the text and not your theology.
Don,
I’m afraid I knew you wouldn’t answer. I’ve already stated my case clearly and unequivocally.
Now, your turn. You interpret it and answer please. You brought that text into the discussion,
‘How do you think they come to be able to see? By God or by their own abilities? or a third way I haven’t thought of?”
Thanks brother.
Les,
You know the answer but won’t give it. Why?
Acts 26:17-18 clearly states Paul was to open their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light.
Don,
I’ll be glad to answer the question.
We once were blind, but now we see.
Blind to God and now we see.
That would be a good thing wouldn’t it!
So we read from James 1:
Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
So if God uses you or me or Les or anyone else to open the eyes of the blind, it is still of God, by God, and because of God.
But not all see.
Certainly we know that since we are told that those perishing are blind to the Gospel.
Has everyone you witnessed or preached the Gospel to been saved?
No?
Me neither.
So then we know that the power is not in the preacher [whether its Paul or Les or you or me] but in the Spirit as he individually opens the eyes of the blind.
blessings in the name of the merciful One,
mike
Don,
So the third way I wondered about. Hmmm. So you don’t believe God opens spiritually blinded eyes or that the people themselves open their own eyes. You think Paul is the one.
But Don, Paul has been dead a long time now. And how could he get around to all the myriads of blind people? And now that Paul is dead so long, who opened my eyes back in 1983? And yours in whatever year you were born again?
Thanks brother.
Les,
No, I don’t think Paul is the only one. I think every Christian can. Which is why no one can get saved without the aid of some else. While it is certainly true that only God saves. It is also true some man or woman had a part in getting the Gospel message to everyone who gets saved.
Don,
Thanks for the interaction. We disagree brother. I think the overwhelming scriptural evidence is that God gives spiritual sight to the spiritually blind. I’d love to see if any of your non Calvinist friends here deny that God gives spiritual sight to the spiritually blind as you seem to deny.
Anyway, thanks again.
Les
Les,
That’s interesting. You don’t give a single text that clearly presents your case. Yet you insist you’re right.
I give you a text that is so clear and concise that no one could miss it, and you won’t even dare comment on the text. One has to wonder why.
Don,
My texts are quite clear. Yours is not as I pointed out that Paul is dead. Your extrapolation that men and women now give sight to spiritually blind sinners is untenable.
So no need to wonder brother.
Don,
Spiritual blindness must have a spiritual cure. Mike and I have shown that to you. One human cannot perform the miraculous healing of spiritual blindness on another human. Only God supernaturally can do that.
Gotta go tonight brother.
Les
Don,
Where does it say God takes away their blindness that they may spiritually see?
For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
[2nd Cor. 4:6]
May your eyes always be opened by Him to see His glory,
mike
Dear Don,
You said:
That’s interesting. You don’t give a single text that clearly presents your case. Yet you insist you’re right.
I give you a text that is so clear and concise that no one could miss it, and you won’t even dare comment on the text. One has to wonder why.
– See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235491
I also insist that there is a Trinity even though there is no single texts that clearly says that there is 3 in 1.
And as to Paul opening eyes:
16 But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; 17 rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’
It has been explained to you that God was using Paul, even as He uses others to open the eyes of the blind. In fact, in the Old Testament, God used an ass.
Enuf said,
mike
Les,
You’re right. Your texts are clear, they just don’t say what you need them to say. I still noticed you won’t comment on Acts 26. I will say I appreciate your honesty on not commenting on Acts 26. You no doubt know what it means, but just can’t fit it into your belief system. Most would try to explain it away. Again, thank for not answering.
Mike,
You are correct the word trinity is not in the Bible. I believe in the trinity because I can show someone where all 3 members of the Godhead are called God. And we are also told there is only one God.
But I’m still waiting for a text that says God opens spiritually blind eyes. Then I will believe it. I give a text and you won’t accept what it says. Yet, I’m supposed to believe what you say without any textual support. Why?
Don,
I do accept it Don.
You must have missed it:
See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235501
Repeated below:
Don,
I’ll be glad to answer the question.
We once were blind, but now we see.
Blind to God and now we see.
That would be a good thing wouldn’t it!
So we read from James 1:
Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
So if God uses you or me or Les or anyone else to open the eyes of the blind, it is still of God, by God, and because of God.
But not all see.
Certainly we know that since we are told that those perishing are blind to the Gospel.
Has everyone you witnessed or preached the Gospel to been saved?
No?
Me neither.
So then we know that the power is not in the preacher [whether its Paul or Les or you or me] but in the Spirit as he individually opens the eyes of the blind.
blessings in the name of the merciful One,
mike
– See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235501
Don,
I do accept it Don.
You must have missed it:
See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235501
Repeated below:
Don,
I’ll be glad to answer the question.
We once were blind, but now we see.
Blind to God and now we see.
That would be a good thing wouldn’t it!
So we read from James 1:
Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
So if God uses you or me or Les or anyone else to open the eyes of the blind, it is still of God, by God, and because of God.
But not all see.
Certainly we know that since we are told that those perishing are blind to the Gospel.
Has everyone you witnessed or preached the Gospel to been saved?
No?
Me neither.
So then we know that the power is not in the preacher [whether its Paul or Les or you or me] but in the Spirit as he individually opens the eyes of the blind.
blessings in the name of the merciful One,
mike
–
Don.
Oh, one last thing.
The modalists believe that Jesus is God, the Spirit is God and the Father is God. And they can prove it the same way as you think you are ‘proving’ that there is a trinity, by showing individual verses where the Three are individually shown to be God.
But of course they do not believe in 3 in 1, or the trinitarian God.
Another group uses those same Scriptures to say Christians believe in 3 different Gods.
The doctrine of the trinity is an inferred one, based on evidence, but not plainly stated.
Some doctrines are like that, but that does not mean they are not real and true. The doctrine that most evangelicals hold to, that God opens the eyes of the spiritually blind, is included in that mix. There is much evidence that supports it.
peace brother,
mike
Don,
You said, You’re right. Your texts are clear, they just don’t say what you need them to say. I still noticed you won’t comment on Acts 26. I will say I appreciate your honesty on not commenting on Acts 26. You no doubt know what it means, but just can’t fit it into your belief system. Most would try to explain it away. Again, thank for not answering.”
I have simply been trying to get you to state your position. I think you’ve done that. You seem to think that God opens no one’s spiritually blind eyes. You think we as messengers are the ones who open sinners’ eyes. Frankly I’ve never known anyone who holds your line of thinking.
On Acts 26, Mike has said and I’ll say that what Paul is saying is that he will be an instrument of God in bringing the message of salvation to blind people and God will open their eyes. Paul nor anyone else has the power to open people’s eyes. I think you’re an island on your view brother. Psalm 146 says,
“The LORD sets the prisoners free;
the LORD opens the eyes of the blind.
The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down;
the LORD loves the righteous.”
Don’t know how it can be any clearer.
Blessings brother.
Les,
No. The text says Paul would open their eyes. Where in the verse does it say “God would open their eyes”? You’re adding to the text. Use exegesis not eisegesis.
Yes Christ did many miracles. He healed blind Bartimeus. He healed the bowed woman of Luke 13. Once again these have nothing to do with opening spiritually blinded eyes.
Don,
Ok brother. I’m just going to have to leave you hanging out there that you believe that man opens spiritually blind eyes, not God. That’s your position. Paul did it and per you so do we. You are NOT agreeing with Mike and me that the passage in Acts is speaking of God using Paul as an instrument in evangelism as God opens the eyes. You are saying that Paul actually is the one opening the spiritually blind eyes. And by further implication, so do we. Not God.
Ok. Your position is pretty clear. I’d just love to see how many of your brothers on here agree with your position. Anyone??
Blessings to you brother.
Les
Mike,
Since you keep bringing up 2 Cor. 4, I wonder if you as 5 pt. Calvinist might help me understand something.
If man is dead and is totally depraved, so much so that it is said he has “total inability” and is incapable of responding to the Gospel. Why does the god of this world blind people who supposedly can’t see to begin with? Also according to the text is it the god of this world which prevents people from getting saved? Or is it the inability of the person?
Les,
I’m bound to the text. I can’t add words into the text so as to fit my theology. I’m saddened you don’t feel it necessary to do the same. If in the future you wish to exegete the ACTUAL words of the text, I’ll be here.
Don,
In Isaiah 61?
Who proclaims liberty and sets the captives free? Who binds up the broken hearted?
I know Jesus said it was…
blb://passage=42.4.18
Tarheel,
Yes, it was Jesus.
So, you admit that in Luke 4, Jesus claims to be the fulfillment of Isaiah 61….and yet you still commented that it’s man and not God who opens hearts, eyes, and prison bars?
Tarheel,
Yes, Christ performed many miracles. Including men who were physically blind. However, we talking about spiritually blind people. Since Les and Mike won’t exegete the text of Acts 26, maybe you will.
Am I reading you correctly that you’re contending that the Messianic Isaiah passage that Jesus claims to be fulfillment of are speaking of physical healings rather than spiritual ones?
How about the “by his stripes we are healed”, etc Isaiah passages…
Those merely physical too?
Just wanna be precise…are you saying that these passages apply only to Christ’s physical wonders and are not refering to the spiritual healing he provides?
Don, this is the 2nd or 3rd time you’ve talked about me not willing to exegete a passage you brought up. I’m probably missing it, so could you point to where in these comments you exegetes the passage?
Thanks brother.
Definition: Biblical exegesis is a systematic process by which a person arrives at a reasonable and coherent sense of the meaning and message of a biblical passage. Ideally, an understanding of the original texts (Greek and Hebrew) is required. In the process of exegesis, a passage must be viewed in its historical and grammatical context with its time/purpose of writing taken into account.
Tarheel,
How does one RECOVER the sight to the spiritually blind? Do you contend people could at one time see spiritually and then were made blind and then need to RECOVER to their former state.
Isa. 53 is speaking of spiritual healing which would be salvation. But I’m not seeing anything there about spiritual blindness.
Les,
I don’t actually need you to exegete Acts 26:17-18. Though if you would like to, please feel free if you think it gives credence to your position.
What I’d really like to know is, does the text say Paul was to open the eyes the Gentiles. Or does it say Christ would open their eyes. I’m only interested in what the text actually states and not what you think it should say.
Jesus clearly said “recovering of sight to the blind” in Luke 4…claiming to be the fulfillment of th passage…
“And Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:16-21 ESV)
Spiritual Blindness is cured by God himself.
Again…are you contending this only refers to physical healing?
Tarheel,
To RECOVER something, means to restore or get back. Please tell me to what state you were restored.
Jesus in the Acts passage is telling Paul that he’s sending him to the Gentiles to preach the gospel…I’m not following how you ascertain that God places the ability to regenerate hearers of the Gospel to respond to it.
Scripture must interpret scripture.
Romans 10 makes it clear that faith in Christ by way of hearing and receiving th gospel is the way to salvation.
Jesus spoke of no man coming unless he be drawn. Paul likewise taught that no man desires God until he is regenerated.
Your analysis of the single passage in Acts is not in keeping with numerous other passages and clear teachings of scripture. (several have been highlighted my Mike, Les, and myself)
It appears you’re so determined to defeat a point of TULIP that you are grasping at a straw that simply isn’t there.
Don,
“To RECOVER something, means to restore or get back. Please tell me to what state you were restored.”
OK….let’s go there.
If its merely physical blindness healing that’s being spoken of here ….then how do you explain those whose blindness was healed who were blind since birth….
To what condition were they restored?
Tarheel,
I agree a person born blind does not recover his sight. But I noticed you didn’t comment on a spiritually blind person RECOVERS his sight.
In Matt. 11:4-5, Jesus makes mention of what He did. Which of them is spiritual and what are physical “which ye do hear and see”?
Don,
Yes.
2nd Cor. 4:3-5 and Romans 5:5-11 among others.
The latter:
…and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
The idea is also pointed to by the negative ways the Scripture speaks of unbelievers.
Before we were saved, we were His enemies, but when we are saved, we are no longer, yes?
Eph. 4:17-20
So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus…
You and i were once excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that was in us, as well as because of the hardness of our hearts. And we were ignorant because we were darkened in our understanding, and so we walked in the futility of our depraved minds. [see Romans 1: 18-28]
I’d love to hear your personal testimony…
Mike,
I don’t deny the lost are blinded. My question is where does it say God takes away their blindness that they may spiritually see? It’s not in the texts you listed 2 Cor. 4, Rom. 5, Eph. 4 or Rom 1.
Don,
You think not?
maybe you just read the wrong passage…
2nd Cor 4 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. –
We read:
>>And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.<>For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. <<
These, who are not of the perishing, has had God shine in their hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
Voila'!!! They are no longer blind.
And once we were blind, and praise God, He opened our eyes and now we see the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
may His peace fill your heart,
mike
Mike,
Yes the god of this world has blinded those who are perishing. And yes the light of the Gospel shined in our hearts. But where does it say God overcame, did away with or took away our blindness in order for the light to shine in.
Don,
Where does it say God takes away their blindness that they may spiritually see?
For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
[2nd Cor. 4:6]
May your eyes always be opened by Him to see His glory,
mike
Mike,
Once again the text does not say God did away with the blindness. You have to somehow infer that into the text to fit your theology (irresistible grace). The light shines in only after the blindness is departed. And it doesn’t say God took away the blindness in 2 Cor. 4 or any other text you’ve supplied. But it does in Acts 26, but you will not accept that.
Don,
I think plenty of passages have been given. Question: you acknowledge that the lost are blinded. How do you think they come to be able to see? By God or by their own abilities? or a third way I haven’t thought of?
Les
I literally can’t believe what I’m reading here.
Man, not God, frees the captives, gives sight to the blind, and brings sinners home?
Talk about “hyper” belief system. ….and it ain’t Calvinism!
Don, First to love: 1st John 4 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. next to blindness: 2nd Cor 4 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 1st Cor 3 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. John 9… Read more »
Sorry thought that gonna be a link
Luke 4:17-21
When I was in college, I did a research paper on the boundaries of “science” and “magic” in roughly the 14th through the 16th centuries, the era immediately before the Enlightenment and the Protestant Reformation. It was also an era foundational to both. Since this was in Europe, it naturally involved the interplay of medieval Catholicism with both. There was a group or subset or perhaps even a religious school of interpretation called “scholasticism.” You guys would do them proud! I’d like to suggest you look them up, they and their methods and presuppositions, and compare your own with them. It might be an eye-opening experience–especially when you consider their limitations and failures.
John
Dr. Hankins
Again a great post. As usual it was Biblical, clearly and forthrightly stated. It was a learning experience for me, even tho I first encounter the Calvinism debate nearly 40 years ago.
The “same words, different dictionary” issue is indeed problematic in this area. It has the possibility of allowing participants on both sides of the aisle to be less than forthcoming. This only adds to the confusion. Unfortunately this issue is not limited to this debate in our SBC.
I would add this:
Many, many people hear the gospel presented. Some, over and over and over. Like I did.For years. I intellectually understood it. I believed there was/is a God. I believed Jesus was a real person and God’s son. But I was not born again till many years later. Why?
So when Trads say that “no other conditions [are] needed, just the drawing of the Spirit in the preaching of the powerful gospel,” what does that “drawing actually do? Convict of sin? Is there anything operational going on in the sinner in the Trad view?
Or, and even if yes something operational IS going on, then it all ultimately rests on the sinner’s will. He is the final arbtrar of his eternal destiny.How is that NOT the case in the Trad view?
Blessings all,
Les
You ask…
Or, and even if yes something operational IS going on, then it all ultimately rests on the sinner’s will. He is the final arbiter of his eternal destiny.How is that NOT the case in the Trad view?
Are you suggesting that this statement is different from the calvinist position… that an individual does not still have to choose to repent; that this is a choice everyone MUST make to be saved?
I believe it is true for BOTH positions
Bob,
You: “Are you suggesting that this statement is different from the calvinist position… that an individual does not still have to choose to repent; that this is a choice everyone MUST make to be saved?”
No, an individual must still choose in the C view. But in the C view, he neither CAN choose (he is blinded and his scales have not fallen off and cannot even see the kingdom of God) nor WANTS to choose (he hates God and is an enemy of God and his will is enslaved).
So in the C view God must operate on him in some manner. He must open his eyes. He must free his enslaved nature. Man needs a heart transplant. Regeneration. And when that happens, the sinner has eyes where the scales have fallen off and his will has been set free. Now that he can spiritually see he is enraptured with the beauty of Christ and he freely chooses Jesus. HE chooses because after the new heart he CAN and WANTS to.
So I repeat my question:
“So when Trads say that “no other conditions [are] needed, just the drawing of the Spirit in the preaching of the powerful gospel,” what does that “drawing actually do? Convict of sin? Is there anything operational going on in the sinner in the Trad view?”
Can you clearly answer that?
Blessings brother.
Les,
you asked:
Or, and even if yes something operational IS going on, then it all ultimately rests on the sinner’s will. He is the final arbtrar of his eternal destiny.How is that NOT the case in the Trad view? – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235420
That is the case in the Trad’s view.
In the C view, God is the arbiter, and He chooses.
In the T view, man is the arbiter, and the person chooses.
So that in the C view, man’s will is NOT the fulcrum [so to speak].
In the T view, man’s will is the fulcrum, and thus everyone who hears the Gospel has the hope of salvation, if they would choose Jesus they would be saved.
Of course it is true that everyone who calls on Jesus will be saved, no C denies that.
C theology says that no one would be willing unless they were first regenerated.
T theology says no to that, that regeneration happens after man willingly accepts Jesus.
My question is why does anyone accept Jesus or why do they reject Him?
If they think the Gospel foolishness, then of course they cannot accept Him from their heart, and thus reject Him.
Likewise, if any believe the Gospel, from the heart, as true, they do submit to Him.
And that we surrender to the Gospel because of God’s revelation to our hearts of both God’s great love for us and also of our great sin and need. It is from that place we call on Jesus to save us and are saved.
Les and PM
PM writes…
In the C view, God is the arbiter, and He chooses.
In the T view, man is the arbiter, and the person chooses.
C theology says that no one would be willing unless they were first regenerated.
T theology says no to that, that regeneration happens after man willingly accepts Jesus.
The problem with these two statements is that BOTH say “man “chooses to repent.”
The question then is WHY do some choose to repent and believe and why do some chose to reject the truth revealed to them in the gospel delivered by the power of the Holy Spirit?
I do not believe the Bible answers that question. The Bible says those who are lost fall into one of two categories;
1. They do not hear the gospel. No one can be saved apart from the hearing of the gospel.
2. They do not believe the gospel.
We can talk about WHY they do not believe but we are treading on our own and not where the Scriptures stand. As I see it, trying to answer the question… why do some believe and others do not does not lend validity to either position since the Scriptures do not answer that question directly.
Bob, Well…no. Belief to be saved must be from the heart. This would include the understanding that the words of the cross, the Gospel, are truth and are of God. It would also mean that the person does not think the Gospel foolishness. So does the Scriptures tell us why some do not believe and why others do? Yes. 1 Cor. 1: For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. No one can believe from the heart if they think the Gospel foolishness. Who thinks that? Those who are perishing. If one is perishing, they think the Gospel is foolishness. But what do those being saved think? They think the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Do those perishing think that? Nope. Eph. 4 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus… Are those being saved still walking in the futility of their minds? No. Are they still ignorant of the Gospel truth? No. Those perishing, are they still walking in futility? Yes. Are they still ignorant of the Gospel as truth? Yes. Do they still think the Gospel foolishness? Yes. 2 Cor. 4 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in… Read more »
Mike,
So in other words man would have the ability to believe the Gospel if it were not for the blinding by Satan?
Don,
Tell me what the Scripture says.
Mike,
“in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”
So it would appear it is not man’s “total inability” which prevents him from believing the Gospel, but the god of this world. Just wondering why people would need to be blinded if they couldn’t possibly respond to the Gospel without irresistible grace.
It would seem sort of impossible and most certainly unnecessary to “blind the eyes of a dead person!” whose eyes are ALREADY blinded.
Good point.
Don,
I do not know what you mean by irresistible grace.
But the way I see it is that when God opens the blinded eyes, they see spiritually the glory of God in the face of Jesus and desire Him above all else, and are saved.
So in that sense, God is irresistible, That God opens the eyes of sinners, like you and me, and save us from our deserved fate is mercy. That when we encounter God, steeped in our sin and rebellion, and see/feel not condemnation but love overflowing, we desire Him.
That the Scriptures witness that all who see the Gospel as the power of God to salvation are saved makes me think of the word, irresistible.
No Christian that I know of has ever testified to the idea that when God saved him/her, that Jesus was a take it or leave it kind of deal.
How about you? Give us your testimony!
in Him,
mike
Mike,
You’re a 5 pt. Calvinist and you don’t know what irresistible grace is? Are you serious?
Don,
Did i get it wrong?
or did i say, i do know know what you mean by it?
Don and Bob, Fellow workers in His kingdom along with all the saints, Are you debating with me or against some other C person that you would rather engage with? For example, Bob says those perishing are blind to the Gospel. There we have agreed. But then Bob says: It would seem sort of impossible and most certainly unnecessary to “blind the eyes of a dead person!” whose eyes are ALREADY blinded. – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235602 But since i believe in an age of accountability, I interpret this Scripture from Romans 7: But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. I interpret it to mean that man is not condemned until the commandment comes, the sin nature in them ‘comes alive’ [so to speak], and then they die/are-condemned. It is there, in that sinful choice, that a person becomes blind to the truth of God. Another way to look at it is from Romans 1: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. By their sin they suppressed the truth, as witnessed to them by their God-given conscience, and now they are without excuse. Their thinking became futile and their heart was darkened.… Read more »
PM No one can believe from the heart if they think the Gospel foolishness. Who thinks that? Those who are perishing. This passage does not establish TD/TI as the REASON for their belief; it says that those who are perishing think the gospel is foolishness; not they think it is foolishness and therefore are perishing, which is what you are arguing. Eph 4 passage simply underscores the choices men make that determines their destiny; says NOTHING about their depravity and in fact says the result of their choices “makes the hearts of the lost more calloused; note; that is the result of their choices not the state of their ability TO REPENT and BELIEVE. Again… And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, The gospel is veiled to THOSE WHO ARE PERISHING… why? Because they choose to reject the promises and provisions of God presented by the gospel; the veiling is NOT the cause of the perishing at least in this passage; it is the result of those who are perishing. The god of THIS WORLD has blinded their eyes; not their totally depraved spiritually dead condition they were born with because of this imputed guilt of Adam; they are deceived and lied to by the devil; imagine that. Why do those perishing do not believe the Gospel? They are blind to it. They do not see it as light from God. Agreed. How is this blindness overcome? God shines that light into their hearts so they have that knowledge. Agreed. The question rests with the last statement: when this Light shines in to a person’s heart, do they THEN have the choice to choose or can they ONLY CHOOSE to repent? This is the crux of the problem in the two theological positions. ALL this other conversation is circular rhetoric trying to cloud the issue being debated. i maintain God speaks His truth through the revelation of His Word and the reconciliatory work of the Holy Spirit and man chooses to accept and repent or to reject and walk away like the rich young ruler who came to Jesus wanting eternal life and went away sorrowful. I do not believe he went away sorrowful because God had no intention of him being saved; I believe he did so because he loved what he had more than what he would gain in trusting… Read more »
Bob, May you ever be blessed by the Lord. you said: This passage does not establish TD/TI as the REASON for their belief; it says that those who are perishing think the gospel is foolishness; not they think it is foolishness and therefore are perishing, which is what you are arguing – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235595 [and other quotes that follow] Nope, that is not what I am arguing. Rather… People perish because they are sinners. Those who are perishing think the Gospel foolishness. I do not know what you mean by TD/TI. you… Eph 4 passage simply underscores the choices men make that determines their destiny; says NOTHING about their depravity and in fact says the result of their choices “makes the hearts of the lost more calloused; note; that is the result of their choices not the state of their ability TO REPENT and BELIEVE. Men choose to sin and that determines their destiny, except as Paul noted earlier, in chapter 2, where he says: And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God… You see the destiny of a person due to their choices is wrath. But God… But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. you continued dear brother… Again… And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, The gospel is veiled to THOSE WHO ARE PERISHING… why?… Read more »
Mike,
And then you shared the story of the rich young ruler.
So we read that those perishing are blind to the Gospel and cannot see the light.
But you want to say that they are blind because they reject the light. That they get the light [knowledge and understanding] and believe it is true, but walk away sad because they love the world more than themselves… is that right?
In the case of the rich young ruler one of two things HAS to be true. He was given the ability to Trust Christ and he did not do so OR he was not given the ability to trust Christ and went away sorrowful, In both scenarios, he went away sorrowful without Christ.
Was it God’s choice that he walk away without Christ or was it his choice, one that he ACTUALLY had… calvinism would say he walked away sorrowful because that was the only choice that was available to him and he could NOT have chosen to do otherwise.
I disagree with that position.
I understand you may or may not agree with some particular tenet of calvinism; that is why I try to keep my comments relative to calvinism not calvinists. If my comment is problematic from what calvinism actually posits, then that is one thing but to be critical of my statement because it is not what you believe is another! Too many nuances to get into that for sure on all sides.
Brother Bob, you said: In the case of the rich young ruler one of two things HAS to be true. He was given the ability to Trust Christ and he did not do so OR he was not given the ability to trust Christ and went away sorrowful, In both scenarios, he went away sorrowful without Christ. I think you are assuming that those two scenarios are the only two possibilities. First, he calls Jesus a good teacher and Jesus tells him that there is no one good but God. But the rich man does not get it, does he, for he thinks he has measured up: “I have done all these things.” But he hasn’t, has he. Matthew 19: There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” You see he has not loved his neighbor as himself, but he thinks he has. He loves his money more than he loves his neighbors. So this is a story of how holy and righteous people think they are when they are really sinners and self lovers. The rich ruler doesn’t get it. His eyes are still blind to the truth. Thus it is NOT about his ability to follow Jesus but his depravity and how individuals bound by sin need their eyes opened to the truth of their situation. He said he wanted eternal life. But what he really wants is to be his own master. To hold onto his own possessions. You continued: Was it God’s choice that he walk away without Christ or was it his choice, one that he ACTUALLY had… calvinism would say he walked away sorrowful because that was the only choice that was available to him and he could NOT have chosen to do otherwise. I know that you think that God is patient and not willing that any perish, but I think you are not reading that passage properly. Furthermore, I imagine you think God is doing everything he can to save people without violating their free wills, and is simply failing to woo them to Himself. In addition you want… Read more »
I would suggest listening to the john Piper plenary session of T4G14. I’m not sure it’s online for listening yet…I have yet to look. It will be though.
He answers and explains the issues being discussed here quite we’ll, I think.
Found online on twitter:
albertmohler @albertmohler
Exciting news — video and audio for all #T4G 2014 sessions already up and free for all — at t4g.org #T4Gonline
http://t4g.org/media/2014/03/persuading-pleading-and-predestination-human-means-in-the-miracle-of-conversion/
Thanks Eric. I think Led Zeppelin was right: sometimes words have two meanings; and it has caused no small difficulty in the debate over election. Fortunately, the word “irresistible” is not subject to much controversy. Not yet, anyway.
Maybe these questions will help cut through the fog and help distinguish the two sides.
Can any lost sinner believe the gospel without irresistible grace?
True or False: Calvinism teaches that irresistible election precedes irresistible regeneration which precedes irresistible repentance and faith.
Doug,
Love that word irresistible. Reminds me of a great hymn that starts this way:
O Love that wilt not let me go,
I rest my weary soul in thee;
I give thee back the life I owe,
That in thine ocean depths its flow
May richer, fuller be.
Amen! I’m so thankful He will not let me go. He who begins a good work in us will complete it.
Les
I like the old hymn that says
Whosoever surely meaneth me
Surely meaneth me
Oh surely meaneth me
🙂
DL, I like the phrase “Whosoever surely meant me” as well brother.
Les
Praise God my brother that both of us will be able to sing
Some glad morning when this life is over
I’LL FLY AWAY
To my home on God’s celestial shore
I’LL FLY AWAY
Amen brother. Amen.
On your way up… better look out because I am going to be on my way up as well!
Less/ Bob
On the way up do you think we will care how many of the 5 points we had right 🙂
Les/Bob
The REAL question then will be are we going up Pre–Mid—or Post 🙂
Sorry guys couldn’t resist
DL, that’s not a debate I’d even be in. I’m a post mil partial preterist. 🙂
On the way up do you think we will care how many of the 5 points we had right – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235573
On the way, do you think we will care post, pre, mid, partial, pan?
Les
Don’t worry my brother, I’ll explain it to you on the way up! 🙂 🙂
Les, understand please i am just joking. If I don’t lighten up once in a while I would go bonkers.
Parsonsmike
No I don’t think we will. Note my post to Les. I am just joking around.
DL,
“Les, understand please i am just joking. If I don’t lighten up once in a while I would go bonkers.”
I know brother. That’s how I took it. We can often get way too serious here on the matters. Love the jesting to lighten things up brother.
Les
Concerning the last footnote, let me explain to Brother Eric where the ‘blogosphere conspiracy’ started concerning the Trad Statement being used as a litmust test for inclusion in the SBC. In a letter from the former Executive Vice President of Louisiana College, Dr. Timothy Johnson (who is a ‘Traditionialist’, by the way) and substantiated by a multitude of witnesses, some recorded on audio (all of this has been publicly reported in Louisiana newspapers), Eric’s father (who was pivotal in the Trad Statement’s development, along with Eric) attempted to force this upon Louisiana College’s board of trustees, and his father successfully removed a number of Calvinists from LC using Eric’s statement for the purpose it was intended.
Don I’m moving down here. Too hard to keep up in that narrow thread.
Ok so you don’t need to exegete the passage. You just take it literally. Just what the text says. Do you do that with all passages? For instance…
“Jesus said, “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.”
Literal? Jesus is a what, wooden door? Metal door? Screen door?
Brother I realize you’ve painted yourself into an interpretative corner. It’s not too late to just admit it and back out.
Les,
Yes, I take all passages literally, unless the context indicates otherwise.
So yes I believe:
1. Christ literally sent Paul to the Gentiles.
2. Paul literally was sent to open their eyes.
3. They literally were to receive forgiveness of sins.
4. They literally were to receive an inheritance.
5. They literally were sanctified by faith.
Do you believe any of the above? Or are they just figurative?
Don: There are times the Bible speaks literally and times the Bible speaks figuratively. If you are a dispensationalist, a doctrine I personally do not hold to, all of Revelation is figurative. So not even Fundamentalists hold to a 100% literal speaking Bible.
Debbie,
Yes, I know the Bible sometimes speaks figuratively. My concern is not a figurative text. It’s when one doesn’t like what the text states and therefore declares it to be figurative to maintain their theology. Needless to say it makes it difficult to discuss when the other claims it’s just figurative.
Don, I’ll be happy to answer these points.
1. Christ literally sent Paul to the Gentiles. Yes
2. Paul literally was sent to open their eyes. No not literally
3. They literally were to receive forgiveness of sins. Really and truly, yes.
4. They literally were to receive an inheritance. Yes truly. Something you can store in a bank or a treasure chest literally? No.
5. They literally were sanctified by faith. Truly.
– See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235527
Now back to the door passage. Is Jesus literally a door? Why or why not? Or let’s add the Roman Catholics in here. Do we literally eat Christ’s flesh in communion? They say yes. What say you.
And, you’ve not yet exegetically using established hermeneutical rules established that the Acts passage teaches that Paul died and we are to literally restore from our humanness spiritual blindness. You’ve assumed it because of your non Calvinist presuppositions. As Tarheel I believe said, you’re trying to find something that’s not there.
Further, you’ve not even attempted to corroborate with others who agree with you. Neither with commentaries or any others here on this site. Can you do that?
Blessings brother,
Les
Les,
So would you say as a general rule, Christ speaks literally about 80% of time?
Don, 80%?
I don’t have a percentage. Do you? And are you going to exegete your passage or just continue to assume you’re right? And who else holds your view? Lease don’t respond to that last question with all I need is the bible.
Yea, Les. It certsinly appears Don is the lone ranger here, and it’s a good thing that no one else is arguing that God has relegated the act of regeneration to men.
Tarheel,
No. The act of regeneration is done solely by God after one believes the Gospel.
“No. The act of regeneration is done solely by God after one believes the Gospel.”
So you don’t think Paul can one blinded eyes?
AFTER one believes?
Prove it.
*open*
From the post:Finn is giving the same rather unusual response to the question: Could anyone who hears the gospel respond in repentance and faith? He wants to say Yes to the question, but his answer, for me, is No because I reject his presuppositions. He cannot have it both ways. The only way to agree with me about the ordinary meaning of the phrase “anyone can respond” is to abandon his presuppositions. If he won’t abandon his presuppositions, then (he) needs to say that he doesn’t agree with the phrase.** Or he needs to be clear that he holds contradictory (not mysterious) assumptions. I think this is another example of the need for SBC Calvinists and Traditionalists to make sure we are defining terms the same way in order to understand each other in the discussion. I, like many (though not all) Calvinists (I’m no fan of the label either and I’m sure many Calvinists outside the SBC would contest whether I am one) define a nonbeliever’s ability (Could anyone…) the same way Jonathan Edwards does in Freedom of the Will. That is, a distinction is made between natural ability and moral ability. Thus, there is a genuine “yes and no” Calvinistic answer to the “Could anyone…Could anyone” question. Many nonbelievers have the natural capacity to intellectually understand the gospel message and the analytical ability to count the cost of discipleship. They are presented with a genuine “otherwise choice” and will be justifiably held accountable for that choice. They will choose the way they want to choose. They even have the external ability to provide all the physically observable actions the evangelist may request such as walking the aisle, raising a hand, bowing in prayer. But unless God intervenes in the nonbeliever’s heart (Acts 16: 14, John 6: 44) they do not have the moral ability to respond to the gospel message with saving faith (Rom 8: 7-8, Gal 5: 17). There is an element of mystery in this and I believe that Calvinists, Arminians and Traditionalists all grapple with it. Moral Inability is not as simple as saying the natural human does not want to respond to the gospel–it includes the condition that unless God intervenes in the heart they cannot make themselves want o respond, although some might effect a temporary superficial response as described in Matt 13: 20-22. So the answer to the “Could anyone question” is… Read more »
Mike Davis,
Moral decisions speak to right and wrong, sin or no sin, obeying the Law or disobeying the Law. Having faith in Jesus is not of the Law, and the Law is not of faith [Gal. 3 However, the Law is not of faith]. We do not get saved by obedience.
Certainly along with faith comes obedience, so we can obey the Gospel. But we obey because we believe.
The reason “they cannot make themselves want to respond” is because they do not believe the Gospel is true. It is not like flipping a coin and saying, ‘heads, ok, I’ll believe.”
Take Paul for example, he didn’t believe the Gospel and thought it was against God. In his mind the Gospel was just plain wrong. In that state, it would have been immoral to bow down before a man named Jesus, and in thinking that, he was zealous to wipe out that ‘sect’.
But when God opened his eyes spiritually, he surrendered to Jesus as Lord. It wasn’t a moral decision to believe, God opened his eyes and he believed. Then he made a moral decision: to obey.
peace to you Mike,
mike
Greetings parsonsmike,
I did stipulate not all Calvinists agree on this but I would say Edwards clearly describes moral ability as a volitional concept and we all agree saving faith is an act of the will among other things. But my intent was to show how someone of a Calvinistic persuasion could give a “yes and no” answer to the “Could anyone” question.
Note what John MacArthur has to say about obedience in The Gospel According to Jesus: “Obedience is so closely related to saving faith that Hebrews 5: 9 uses it as a synonym: ‘Having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation.’ ” (p. 191 in the Zondervan 1994 edition)
Blessings.
Mike,
Your response is a very well worded response.
Let me ask you a question concerning the following statement:
But unless God intervenes in the nonbeliever’s heart (Acts 16: 14, John 6: 44) they do not have the moral ability to respond to the gospel message with saving faith (Rom 8: 7-8, Gal 5: 17).
We would possibly BOTH agree with this statement: as long as we could agree that this intervention is the direct work of the Holy Spirit working in direct harmony with the presentation of the gospel. No one will come to Christ or repentance apart from the working of the gospel in a person’s heart by the Holy Spirit.
The real question is, is this intervening work effectual or not? Can it be resisted or rejected by an individual as well as accepted in repentance? I say yes while calvinism says no. This is the crux of the debate and the issue that a man who cannot choose to do otherwise does not choose at all. </b.
To you next comment:
There is an element of mystery in this and I believe that Calvinists, Arminians and Traditionalists all grapple with it.
This presupposes two wills of God… one that is revealed in Scripture that God is longsuffering and not willing that ANY should perish AND the unrevealed or secretive will of God (that is not revealed in Scripture) that God does not REALLY want all to be saved and so He only saves a few.
If it is NOT revealed in Scripture then why would one hang their theology on such a theory?
For the record, I do not grapple with this issue at all. God saves them that repent and believe. Those who do not believe are condemned already because THEY DO NOT BELIEVE: not because God does not give the ability TO BELIEVE with NO OTHER CHOICE IN THE MATTER.
Hi Bob,
Yes, I would agree that in addition to the Lord drawing the heart there must be a presentation of the gospel. Acts chapter 10 is an example.
I think you have also correctly identified the fact that perhaps the key distinction in the way many Calvinists and many non-Calvinists (Arminians and Traditionalists) view the Spirit’s drawing concerns whether or not that drawing can be resisted. Although there was a Lifeway survey awhile back that showed many non-Calvinists in the SBC also believe in irresistible grace.
I want to stipulate again that my take on some of these things won’t square entirely with the view of many Calvinists. Years ago before I joined my current SBC church I had a conversation with a Presbyterian pastor who remains a good friend to this day. He helpfully advised that I was welcome to attend his PCA church but couldn’t join it because there were some things, which I considered secondary in nature, that I couldn’t sign off on.
But I believe there is a general conviction by the Spirit on all humanity (John 16: 8) that can be resisted, but that when God specifically draws an individual they cannot resist (Matt 16:17, John 6: 44, Gal 1: 15-16). It seems to me that even if you were to grant libertarian freedom of the will, if the omniscient, almighty God purposed to supernaturally convince someone to believe, He would have to succeed. But I understand that you disagree on that point.
I will admit to being kind of squishy on the whole “revealed will/unrevealed will” or “two wills” thing. I certainly believe that God has only revealed that part of His will He was pleased to reveal and that there are many things He has not yet told us. But I also know that He does not contradict Himself. And I’m fine admitting there are some things I don’t understand and other things I’m still working on.
Blessings.
Mike,
Great response to Bob. Question though. I’ve been in the PCA for over 20 years as a teaching elder (pastor) and ruling elder (lay elder if you will). To my knowledge of our BCO, you do not have to “sign off” on any particular doctrines to be a member of a PCA church. I have interviewed countless prospective members and administered the vows of membership. A credible profession of faith is all that is required.
I’m sorry you had that experience with your friend. Happy you’re still friends, but you might want to revisit that with him.
Blessings brother.
Mike,
Thank you for your gracious response.
Can you tell me how Matt 16:17 indicates an individual cannot resist God’s drawing?
John 6:44? Says no one can COME unless he is drawn but nothing about it being efficacious.
Gal 1 does not really address the issue but does comes the closest.
Bob
Bob,
I will agree that Matt 16: 17 and Gal 1:15-16 do not explicitly state God’s drawing is irresistible. In these verses I infer that it is irresistible because I do not believe God’s purpose can be thwarted when He works in that way. But I know many disagree.
I do believe John 6:44 makes a strong case for irresistible drawing, especially in the context of John 6: 29, 37, 39-40. The verb helkuso literally means to drag, and it is used to describe hauling a net full of fish in John 21: 6 and 11, and is translated “drag” in Acts 16: 19 and 21: 30. If God is doing the dragging I don’t see how the object of that dragging could succeed in resisting. Also, in the final clause of John 6: 44 “And I will raise him up on the last day”, I think the subjunctive rather than the indicative would have been used if the drawing could be resisted.
But I also understand that Traditionalists have a different take on these verses. I mainly wanted to explain how some Calvinists like myself offer a “yes and no” answer to the “Could anyone” question.
I am enjoying the conversation and appreciate the dialogue but am off to run an errand so it may be awhile before I can check the thread again. Blessings.
Yes, the gospel must be presented. Paul states this quite clearly when he says “How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?” Romans 10:14. Christ commanded us to go into the world and preach the gospel.
Bob,
One reason why I do not think we will reach an agreement is that you see faith as a choice, and I see it as a reaction to God’s revelation in the opening of the blinded eyes.
But we agree that God saves those that repent and believe the Gospel and that all who call upon Jesus will be saved.
peace brother,
mike
Mike
You are correct. However let me go a little farther in my position; I like you believe that repentance and faith are responses to God’s revelation of Himself to the lost person and the reconciliatory work of the Holy Spirit in drawing that lost person to repentance.
It is the efficacy of the choice that separates us. Calvinism contends that God makes that choice, which by the way the Bible does not do; it is a conclusion drawn by tying various scriptures together. I believe the individual has the responsibility to respond to revelation and reconciliation and that choice that is ours to make determines God’s response to us.
Let me ask you a question. In sanctification, does God predetermine what He will and will not do for His children with no respect to their obedience or does He provide and protect those who are obedient and how we live our lives determines the quality of our Christian maturity and experience?
Bob,
I see you want to move the discussion away from salvation to sanctification, and I imagine you think that will help your argument. But not so fast my friend.
I’ll get there, but first let me bring up a point you seem to be avoiding.
If the difference between heaven and hell is not God, like I believe, but in the sinner by his choice, why can’t you boast over those who choose wrong? If God does the same for you as he does for the one who perishes, are you not wiser or whatever than he? God saved you BUT only because you made the right decision. OR you had the right reaction. But even then, the right reaction is due to your own will: YOU.
So what makes you better?
Next post, sanctification.
I can make the same lame argument on you being somehow chosen by God over those He chose not to save. Neither gives ANYONE any reason to boast.
So… will look forward to your answer to my question.
Bob,
I think we would both agree that being unconditional chosen (the C position) would give us no basis to boast.
Mike is saying, though, that in the NC position your free will is the final determination of you becoming a child of God. So you and somebody standing right next to each other, and in your thinking God woos both of you by the Holy Spirit in the same way, you make the choice to regent and believe and the other guy doesn’t, you as a human individual do something he doesn’t do. You can boast. You made the better choice. You were smarter? Wiser? You were something the guy next to you wasn’t.
Les,
I understand the charge; my point is that this is no more applicable to me than it is to you. You say I can boast because I am smarter; I say you can boast because God chose you over someone else.
The point I made was that NEITHER offers an opportunity to boast but this argument is continually offered as if it were valid. It is not.
That is the point I am making.
I believe the Scriptural basis on boasting has to do with earning one’s salvation or somehow deserving it on OUR OWN apart from Christ’s sacrifice.
Bob I do see your point. And to be clear, I don’t think any of us on here boast about being a Christian either by smarts or by being chosen.
I would add to what Les and Mike have said Bob, if one would boast in such a way, would that person truly be saved? Most on either side of this discussion are still in awe that God would choose us. It is a grateful ‘why me’ that is the response.
If one would boast about their choice, that would fall under the category of the two men praying in Luke 18:13.
Just a small caveat here… I am not the one who brought up the objection of boasting. It is a common association offered by proponents of irresistible grace to denigrate the position in opposition to it.
I would never use that argument and do not believe anyone should… it is a pitiful accusation that offers an empty argument.
Bob,
I just remembered you talking here about the so called “secret” will of God as if there isn’t such a thing. I’ve seen others say there is no such thing as well.
Besides the fact that we don’t know everything and God does know everything and he has said that his ways are higher than our ways, a passage came to my mind about this secret will of God. Acts 1:6 says,
“So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.”
Notice: the apostles asked their question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Jesus’ answer is very instructive:
1. He says that it is not for you to know the times or seasons…
2. The times or seasons the Father has FIXED by his own authority.
We clearly see here that Jesus acknowledges there some fixed things, his will to do certain things in his own time by his own authority AND some of these things God has fixed (his will to do them) are not for us to know.
Is the secret and revealed will of God taught in the scripture? Absolutely!
And we don’t build a theology on his secret will. We build or teach our theology which includes an acknowledgement that God does have a will to do some things which are secrets not revealed to us.
Blessings brother.
“Grace is not a reward for faith, but the cause of it.” John Blanchard
Debbie
Bonhoeffer seemed to think it was both. This doesn’t move the discussion along any, but it is an interesting concept.
Dave Miller,
Can you tell us “if” Dr. Finn will be posting any–essay responses to the responses by Dr. Hankins? Thanks!
Dr. Finn is free to respond, of course, but that is up to him. I am not aware of any planned response by him.
Bob,
Sanctification.
Salvation is about becoming a part of Gods family. Sanctification is about growing up in that family. The first is about unmerited favor, the latter about, among other things, rewards for obedience. God is raising His children up to be like Jesus. As children, we already have a relationship with God. So He moves in us and through us to accomplish His will, even as He its working all things out for our God, even our sinful acts.
More soon.
Mike,
You did NOT answer my question. I asked if God’s provisions and protection are dependent on our obedience? If I am obedient it allows God to do what He has planned for me as opposed to my disobedience robbing Him of that opportunity? Or are His provisions and protection predetermined and have NOTHING to do with my obedience?
I asked if God’s provisions and protection are dependent on our obedience? – No. It is because we are his children that we recieve his provision and protection.
Tell me Bob, is it your children’s obedience that would cause you to provide and protect them?
Where did Paul/Saul of Tarsus choose God? Christ knocked him on his kiester. Where did Lydia in Acts choose God. It clearly say God opened her heart. The story of the raising of Lazarus is a beautiful picture of how Christ works in salvation.
The Old Testament is a picture of Christ in the future from Genesis on….God chose David, Abraham, etc.
It is so pastoral when someone calls another’s answer to their question “lame.” Really gives me hope for the future of the SBC as we strive to work “together.”
Mark
It never ceases to amaze me at the choice of words and the emotional rhetoric we employ when “debating” with fellow Christians. Passion is commendable. Anger is deplorable.
So many scripture references come to mind.
Bob, Yes you are right, i have not yet answered your question. That is why I put “more soon”. I was on the phone and there is a limit of sorts on how big my posts can be before it goes haywire. you asked: I asked if God’s provisions and protection are dependent on our obedience? There are two different questions in there because you combined provisions and protection. Actually i am not sure what you mean by either term, but i will answer by what I think they mean. God always works everything out for our good, even if in a worldly sense it seems like he has abandoned us. And he does this for His children even when they are walking in disobedience. Which of course is a good thing since which one of us is always obedient to God? None of us. God may let us suffer for our unrighteous ways or He may not. He also may let us suffer for the sake of the Gospel. Either way, we will suffer persecution as we seek to live for Jesus. But as to protection, I guess it depends on what one needs protection from. Certainly He provides a way of escape for any temptation. Certainly he keeps us from too much suffering, however much that is, from both man and demon. I fail to see why you feel the need to ask these questions and what it has to do with opening blinded eyes or choices sinners may or may not have in coming to Christ. you continued: If I am obedient it allows God to do what He has planned for me as opposed to my disobedience robbing Him of that opportunity? Bob, if we fail to walk in obedience, then we fail to get the blessings that obedience would have brought us. But God already knows and has always known just what actions we took and are going to take. That doesn’t make our choice any less real, but it is not as if God has been robbed either. God is not like man, simply living the best he can, day by day, month by month. God wants to bless us but He already knows just what blessings we will get by our obedience and which ones we will lose by our disobedience. And he works out both our obediences and our disobediences together for… Read more »
Bob,
you said:
I can make the same lame argument on you being somehow chosen by God over those He chose not to save. Neither gives ANYONE any reason to boast.
So… will look forward to your answer to my question
– See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235659
Well, it is not the same argument, lame or not. For my position is that my salvation is all of God. And why He chose me is beyond my comprehension, seeing as I know myself and i wouldn’t have picked me.
But your argument is not giving 100% of the glory to God for your salvation.
I don’t mean to imply that you would ever dream of boasting. i have never met a Christian who actually meant to boast about their choice of God.
But rather, it is a very simple thing to grasp: In my belief, God saves rebels. In your belief, God does not save rebels until they first choose God, and some do not. But neither you nor anyone who holds that boast can explain why one person chooses God and another rejects Him.
But tell me, Bob, why did you choose God?
The Holy Spirit spoke to my heart as a 10 year old boy in a revival service and I got out of that church determined not to go back but knew for the first time in my life that I was lost and it was the most horrible experience of my life to that point and to now. I cried myself to sleep as a 10 year old and that was repeated for 4 nights until on Thursday night it was as if God reached down and took me into His arms and that is where I went to sleep and I have never gone to sleep since wondering whose I am.
It was not really a decision I made because I was smarter than anyone else; it was a decision I made because of the truth of the gospel planted there by the Holy Spirit and I responded in repentance, trusting that God would do what He said He would do and He did.
Now the point I was making earlier is that the argument that I or someone chooses Christ gives them reason to boast is a lame argument. Salvation is of the Lord and keep this in mind…
YOU CHOSE TO REPENT. So you did the same thing I did to be saved or you are not saved. How we came to that point is different so to argue that my choosing to be saved gives me reason to boast applies equally to you… God did not save you until you repented which was the same for me.
My position is that salvation is just as much of God as yours.
Now to your final assertion: But neither you nor anyone who holds that boast can explain why one person chooses God and another rejects Him.
My argument is that God does not make the choice for us; Jesus chose to go to the cross; if Jesus chose to go to the cross then I do not believe it is problematic for me to choose the cross to receive the benefits of the cross. That is where I stand. I do not believe God makes the determining choice as to who is saved and who is not.
Good night and my prayer is that we all experience the mighty power of God in our places of service and worship tomorrow!
May God bless and keep you all.
Bob,
Wonderful story,
Thank you for sharing.
But of course you repented because you believed.
And you believed because the Holy Spirit was right there showing the truth of the Gospel.
And of course you have no reason to boast.
AS you said, salvation is all of God.
But, how do you know that everyone who finds themselves in that same position as you, does not also do what you did, repent because you believed?
For that is the witness of the Scriptures. That people turn to Him because they trust in Him and repent. And they trust in Him because the Holy Spirit is right there with them nurturing the Gospel seed to fruition.
God wanted you.
God drew you.
And God saved you.
And those perishing think the Gospel foolishness, being blind by Satan, so they do not see the glory of God in the face of Jesus. But a ten year old boy did see Him amnd trusted Him and was saved.
Amen and amen.
mike
Mike,
I agree with EVERYTHING you said. My point is that calvinism does not allow the process you outlined here.
The following statement is not part of the calvinist system. “That people turn to Him because they trust in Him and repent. And they trust in Him because the Holy Spirit is right there with them nurturing the Gospel seed to fruition. ”
In calvinism, people do not turn to Him because they trust in Him, they turn to Him because He regenerates them. Now they do repent but they have no choice in the matter because they cannot choose not to repent.
In calvinism, the Holy Spirit does not nurture the gospel seed to fruition; regeneration is not progressive in calvinism; it is instantaneous and the gospel is only effectual for the one who has been regenerated. Sanctification is progressive but not regeneration or conversion in the calvinist system.
We do agree on a LOT of things; we simply disagree on how those things come about.
I’ve never really heard that regeneration is progressive in non-Calvinism.
Bob,
I already told you that I am not a regular C.
I am not arguing for anything but the truth (yes, how I see it).
Regeneration is a process that ends in an event.
The seed planted comes to flower. A process that ends in an event.
The embryo gestates, there is the labor, then the birth.
But it is God who makes life out of death.
It is God who brings life when the seed dies.
It is God who makes the sinner whole.
Not that any disagrees with that, either side of the aisle.
But when God opens the eyes they see. Those perishing don’t see. They need God to open their eyes. He opens the eyes to save, they see (believe) and are saved.
Peace,
Mike
So when God opens ones eyes, he sees and believes and IS SAVED. So salvation comes to the one God opens his eyes and apart from that there is no salvation.
God is the One who determines who sees and is saved?
Can the one whose eyes are opened to see still say no and go their own way as opposed to God’s way?
Bob, “God is the One who determines who sees and is saved?” Yes. He is the only one who can open the blind eyes. We read that those perishing are blind to the Gospel. From that we know that: [a] if one is blind to the Gospel, they are of the perishing. [b] if one is perishing they are blind to the Gospel. Thus if God opens their eyes they are not of the perishing. “Can the one whose eyes are opened to see still say no and go their own way as opposed to God’s way?” Can one see God and live? For in spiritual sight, what one’s eyes are open to is the glory of God, as well as to the truth of Jesus. Now the problem you have is your philosophy of free will. I showed you the Scriptures that made it plainly clear that God can not only foreknow human choice but predetermine it WITHOUT violating the free will of the person. So lets consider how that can be when He saves. Before He saves, they are blind to both the truth of the Gospel and to His glory. Likewise they have rejected His authority over them and willfully disobeyed His commands. therefore their minds are futile in the way they think. spiritually that is, and their foolish hearts are darkened. Now let me pause and consider your solution: God opens their eyes and mind to see the truth of the Gospel, to what, to give them a chance to be saved! A chance so to speak. God already knows if they will take it, right? So why does He give them sight if they will refuse to act on the truth? Isn’t that EXACTLY why they are perishing in the first place? We read from Romans 1: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their… Read more »
Bob,
I paused and then got interrupted and forgot i was actually going another place.
Before I ‘paused, i said:
So lets consider how that can be when He saves. Before He saves, they are blind to both the truth of the Gospel and to His glory. Likewise they have rejected His authority over them and willfully disobeyed His commands. therefore their minds are futile in the way they think. spiritually that is, and their foolish hearts are darkened. – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-2-who-can-respond-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-235779
When He saves He overcomes their rebellion which is founded on pride, and reveals Himself in His glory. And in His glory specifically in the cross of Jesus, who being the sinless Lord, humbled Himself, took their sin, suffered their fate, and now provides their remedy. His revealing of Himself to them humbles them, their is no room for pride when coming before God in His self-revealing. He floods them with His great love. So He both breaks them down and builds them up. He stands before them as who and what, the fulfillment of their most deepest yearnings.
And they, like you and me, desire Him, even more than life. So they surrender, willfully and freely to His love.
blessings,
mike
Mike,
We may come close to agreeing when you say He overcomes their rebellion… if we can agree that the power of the gospel and the reconciliatory work of the Holy Spirit are at work doing just that.
I am sure our problem is going to come into play when it comes to the lost person’s response; my position is the individual may repent and he may reject that work…
If one maintains the individual will NECESSARILY repent and cannot respond in any other way, then my position is this is not a choice the person willingly makes; if he has no other option BUT to choose then the choice is made for him as opposed to him making the choice.
If you step off a cliff and are falling you may want to do something else but there are no other options and you WILL STOP because that is the only result. This is what I see is wrong with calvinism’s willingly repenting after regeneration; regeneration is stepping off the cliff and repentance is not an option; it is the result of regeneration.
Bob,
You said, “if he has no other option BUT to choose then the choice is made for him as opposed to him making the choice.”
I have a related question, and this may get at the heart of our differences over God’s sovereignty and man’s will (after a couple of set up points):
1. All that happened leading up to Jesus’ death and resurrection was planned by God. True? Acts 4:27-28
2. Jesus knew it was Judas. True? Mark 14:18,21; John 6:70
3. Satan entered Judas. True? Luke 22:3
Did God manipulate and force Judas to do what God knew beforehand Judas would do? Or did Judas act according to his nature as a thief and opportunist? Could Judas thwarted God’s plan?
Thanks brother.
One other thing. Do we all agree that God is in ultimate control of Satan? I think we all agree to that. John Frame writes somewhere:
“[I]n controlling Satan…God is not making Satan do anything against his will…Similarly Judas.”
The nature of the will is the key. Enslaved? or set free?
Les
I always wonder why non-Calvinists are so concerned if the person can say no. Isn’t the desire from us for the person to say yes? To begin a new life in Christ? This question concerns me from non-Calvinists. I rejoice if a person can’t say no. I want them in heaven. I want them to become a new creation in Christ Jesus. I want the old things to pass and all things to become new to them. I want God to go against their will to say no to Him. So this question always troubles me greatly and is a question I never understand coming from the mouth of a Christian.
Anyone who believes as Bob does:
why did you choose God?
One thing the Word tells us about how God chooses:
1st Corinthians 1:
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
Blessings
I think Eric is right. When a Calvinist says that God desires the salvation of everyone (if they say that, some don’t) then they mean it, but they don’t mean it in the sense that non-Calvinists probably mean it. When a Calvinist says that anyone can respond, they don’t mean it the same way that a non-Calvinist means it.
Without the clarification that Eric has provided, if someone had asked me the question “can anyone respond” I would have said yes, but I would have answered that way because I would have assumed they were working on the false assumption that Calvinists believe that God saves people against their will or refuses to save people who want to be saved. That accusation has not been leveled here, but we’ve seen it plenty of times.
Non-Calvinists rightly wonder how Calvinists can believe that God desires to save people that He has no intention of granting saving faith. Likewise Calvinists wonder how non-Calvinists can believe God truly desires to save people He has known since eternity past will not ever turn to Him. God does not hope they will be saved. He knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will not be. Non-Calvinists wonder how Calvinists can say that God loves everyone but will only enable saving faith in some, and it is a fair point. Calvinists wonder how non-Calvinists can say that God loves everyone but allows innumerable multitudes to be born into circumstances where they will never hear the Gospel and be lost, or will hear the Gospel and reject it and be lost. Non-Calvinists do not like the idea of a deterministic God and Calvinists do not like the idea of a God who tries and fails (as seen from each other’s perspectives).
Foreknowledge is a problem for both of us. Open theism solves a lot of our problems. Too bad it is heresy and has no biblical warrant.
So we acknowledge our differences and move on. What else is there? We all believe the Gospel is to be preached to everyone and whoever responds in faith will be saved. That is enough. It has to be.
Bill Mac I think you have done it again you’ve hit the nail on the head.
We all read their presuppositions and two others views and that creates problems for both groups.
You’ve articulated a balanced explanation of how both Calvinists and non Calvinists tend to perceive one another’s views…. now maybe we can move toward some unity.
I’ve said many times that we agree on more than we disagree…problem us that some can’t or won’t see past that so that we can truly put this stuff behind us.
Sometimes I wonder if some people actually want unity or if keeping the issue and debate alive has become the goal.
“We all read their presuppositions and two others views and that creates problems for both groups.”
Should read “We all tend to read our presuppositions into others views and that creates problems all around.”
Dr. Hankins,
You accurately present the differences in stark contrast.
Both sides should be ready and willing to clearly state their beliefs on whether anyone who hears the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit is capable of responding to faith to Christ.
I believe they can.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I believe that those who hear the gospel and are regenerated by the Spirit unto salvation repent, believe and are saved.
I also believe;
whosoever/anyone calls upon the the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Whosoever/anyone believes in Him Shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
God will not cast out or lose a single (any)one of those who come to him in repentent faith for salvation.
So, as you can see my soteriology (a Calvinist soteriology) is a “whosoever/anyone” soteriology.
I also believe that since God has chosen the proclamation of the gospel as the means by which He reveals himself to sinners calling them to repentance that we are to be faithful to His instruction by proclaiming the truths of salvation to the nations and imploring the unregenerate sinner to respond in faith to Christ.
After all scripture does not delineate a way that anyone can be saved absent hearing and receiving the gospel. We must tell, they must hear and respond (Romans 10).
The gospel is all we have and it’s all we need for proclaiming salvation to the nations.
Tarheel
There is a significant difference in David’s statement that “anyone who hears the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit is capable of responding to faith to Christ” and your statement, “those who hear the gospel and are regenerated by the Spirit unto salvation repent, believe and are saved.”
So, when you say,
“whosoever/anyone calls upon the the name of the Lord shall be saved.” and “Whosoever/anyone believes in Him Shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” and finally, “God will not cast out or lose a single (any)one of those who come to him in repentent faith for salvation.”
MUST be qualified as “anyone regenerated” who calls on the Lord…
not ANYONE who calls.
So, as you can see, your Calvinist soteriology is a “whosoever/anyone” who is first regenerated soteriology.
Ok, Bob..since you over parsed my comments let me just say it like this – .
You argue that “anyone who calls on the Lord shall be saved”.
I agree completely and unequivocally as does every Calvinist I know or are personally aware of.
Amen brother. All Calvinusts agree.
Amen Tarheel. I completely agree, as a fully Reformed person.
May I add, I really don’t get why all the consternation by our NC brethren over our theology. I see them write things like, “You can’t believe that! And if you do, you can’t genuinely call anyone and everyone to repent and believe in the name of The Lord.”
What? News flash: Calvinists preachers and missionaries have been doing that, well, since the first century. And people have been converted. Wonder of wonders! We proclaim Christ and call any and everyone to be saved and people get saved.
Amen?
Les
I am not a Calvinist. However I do agree that any NC that says what you have just indicated, has either an agenda or a serious theological misconception.
I do have some serious reservations about the tone and word choice some of my C brethren use, but obviously that swings both ways.
In particular I don’t like being told I don’t have a gospel or I am not smart enough to be a C. Those kind of statements are aimed at “winning” a debate not arriving at an understanding. But again both ways my brother.
DL,
Thank you brother. Several times I’ve made an open invitation for any pastors on here, C and NC, to join me on one of my trips to Haiti where I can arrange them to preach on Sunday morning there. I’m confident that barring someone being some sort of outrageous gimmick preacher, he will preach God’s word and call sinners to repent and believe just the same as I would. The offer still stands.
And he would be blessed beyond imagination by the Haitian people, especially the children we help care for.
Blessings brother.
Les
Sounds exciting. I would love to go. I have made such trips in the past. Our church currently works each year in Peru. However, health at this point precludes such activity. I do miss it so. Let me know the next time you go and give me the privilege of offering up prayers in your behalf. May God grant you the joy of seeing many come to faith in Christ.
Amen Les!
In fact “the father of modern baptist missions” William Carey.
Was a particular baptist. (Calvinist)
Tarheel,
Perhaps I should have added –
and be willing to put their real name to their statement of what they believe :-).
David R. Brumbelow
David,
To me the major difference between us and Calvinists is that they hold to regeneration preceding faith. They believe that all who are regenerated will come to saving faith. Whereas we hold that the Spirit convicts people of their lost condition in conjunction with the preaching of the Gospel and when He does this the person has a divine prerogative to either accept or reject. I personally know of no scripture that definitively places regeneration prior to faith, this appears to be a necessity of a paradigm driven polemic. I understand why Calvinists believe in regeneration preceding faith, I just don’t think that the Bible backs it up. By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, we are all guilty from time to time of a paradigm driven polemic.
John,
The order of regeneration/faith is surely a major dividing line.
Don’t you think that at the end of the day, I believe regeneration/faith and you believe faith/regeneration, we both proclaim Christ and it really makes no difference as we present the gospel? Our differences are in how God works and not in now we proclaim, right?
Thanks brother.
Les,
I do agree that insofar as the Gospel is concerned you are absolutely right. I don’t believe, as some on both sides have contended, that we somehow preach a different Gospel. Thank you brother.
Well I think both sides are wrong. Regeneration does not follow faith, nor does it precede it. God does not regenerate a person in response to their faith, and God does not regenerate a person so they will respond in faith. Regeneration is a process that ends in new birth. And it doesn’t end until there is faith present. And there is faith present when the sinner responds with the mouth. One cannot have faith and not confess. We read from Romans 10: But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Can one be justified without faith? Can one be saved or regenerated without being justified? NO and NO. But they can happen simultaneously. Regeneration completed, salvation accomplished, and justification granted the moment one believes and confesses. Logically belief comes before confession, but what is to be, still is to be while it is being formed by God, and is after it is completed. Thus the outgoing confession is the deal sealer, the coup de grae, the icing on the cake, the finish line, the flower from the bud, and the cry of the newborn: LIFE. It is there, at that place in time, that one id finally regenerated, one is of the aith, one has been justified, one is indwelt, one is saved. For when we believe in our heart we are justified. Have we yet confessed? For it is only in confessing He is Lord that we are saved. Belief in the heart is saving belief the moment we confess. For those who believe will not be disappointed because those who believe call on His name and reap His riches, including salvation. So the Gospel seed is planted, the Spirit nurtures it in us,… Read more »
Mike, it may actually be simultaneous. Many Calvinists say that. The preceding faith is often seen as a logical priority. Personally I cannot see regeneration happening after. I’ve still not seen a good explanation/answer to my question above by a NC,
“So when Trads say that “no other conditions [are] needed, just the drawing of the Spirit in the preaching of the powerful gospel,” what does that “drawing actually do? Convict of sin? Is there anything operational going on in the sinner in the Trad view?”
Les
Mike, et al,
I meant to include this helpful link talking about regeneration and the Puritans.
http://www.monergism.com/puritans-regeneration#footnote-315-70
Les,
Thank you for it.
There is a lot of info in it, much to agree with and much to think about.
My email is bygrace4012@yahoo.com for you [or anyone] if you would like to converse on these subjects or others.
God Bless,
mike
A quote from Calvinist (but not 5 point) W. A. Criswell:
“And it’s for you for the having and for the taking. All God asks is that we come and receive it. He can’t give it to us with our hands closed. And He can’t come into our hearts when they’re barred against Him. All that He asks is just the invitation. “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if anyone open the door, I will come in” [Revelation 3:20]. And He will, and brings with Him all of the rich gifts that only heaven could afford, and they’re for you. They’re for you. They’re for you.”
-W. A. Criswell
John, I agree that regeneration before faith is a major difference.
David R. Brumbelow
David B/John
I agree also. Les, in his “end of the day” post does however have a valid point. I believe that faith comes before regeneration, however if I am wrong about that does that mean I cannot lead a person to trust Christ as Savior?
I think it does not prevent me.
What say ye?
David B: The passage “behold I stand at the door and knock” was not written to unbelievers for salvation but to the church. Read the chapter for the right interpretation.
Beat me to t Debbie. 😉
I realize that the contents of Rev. 3:20 were written to the church at Laodicea, but there very well could have been a number of unbelievers in that church as there are in all churches. Further, the fact that this verse is speaking to individuals (…if anyone hears…) leads me to believe that this verse could be applied to unbelievers.
Also, all David was doing was quoting Dr. W.A. Criswell, he never made an interpretive statement whatsoever,
John: In the reading of this chapter it is clear it was written to the church, believers, not unbelievers. I can’t see how people miss this for the life of me.
Rev. 3:20 was written for the unbelievers at Laodicea, not the saints. Christ has already come into the believers. He doesn’t leave them just because they become lukewarm. Likewise, one isn’t saved until he overcomes 3:21.
Don: I do not for the life of me see how you can come to this conclusion. It cannot be reading the entire Revelation 3. That cannot be the proper interpretation.
Debbie,
Easy, believers have Christ. Non-believers do not. Does Christ leave a person when they become lukewarm?
Debbie,
W. A. Criswell would disagree with you, as you can see in his quote.
I find it interesting that Criswell believed this verse applies to the lost.
Yes, the words of Revelation 3 were written to a church.
And it is very appropriate to speak in and to a church about salvation.
Revelation 3:20 applies to Christians, and it also applies to those who do not know Christ as Saviour.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/10/revelation-320-can-we-use-it-in.html
David R. Brumbelow
David: Most have been taught this as a salvation verse without bothering to read the whole text. It is written to believers in the church. That is so clear I can never see how that can be missed.
I was taught it was a salvation verse, growing up Independent Baptist. I never bothered to read the whole chapter for myself until I was an adult in my 30’s. It was just accepted as a salvation verse. It is one verse that is taken out of context the most . If you read the entire chapter it is clear(and I never went to Bible college) what the meaning of the passage is. So I guess Criswell and I would definitely disagree. It’s not the only thing we would disagree on either.
Debbie,
I know there are good folks on both sides of this issue.
But I, W. A. Criswell, and a host of other believers think Revelation 3:20 is valid for speaking to someone about salvation.
I have often shared the plan of salvation in a message to my church.
There are almost always unbelievers in a church.
There was an unbeliever among Jesus’ 12 disciples.
The gospel should be preached everywhere.
Romans and Ephesians were addressed to the saints.
Yet I will continue to share the Roman Road (Romans 3:23;6:23:5:8; 10:9-10, 13) and Ephesians 2:8-9 with unsaved folks.
David R. Brumbelow
Les,
That “hideous way to use that verse” is exactly what probably the majority of Southern Baptists believe.
It is what W. A. Criswell believed; look again at his quote above.
The gospel is presented in the power of the Holy Spirit, and the hearer must respond.
He has the free will or choice to respond.
He is a free moral agent and has the capacity to say yes or no.
That’s why the lost person has to do something:
call on the name of the Lord, repent, believe, receive, accept, turn, look to Jesus.
This gets us back to some of the main point in this post by Dr. Eric Hankins.
By the way, where do some get this view?
One source is a Greek scholar:
“Picture of the Lord’s advent as in Matthew 24:33 ; James 5:9 , but true also of the individual response to Christ’s call ( Luke 12:36 ) as shown in Holman Hunt’s great picture.”
-A. T. Robertson on Revelation 3:20. Word Pictures, Broadman; 1932,1933. Robertson was a Southern Baptist and a renowned Greek scholar.
One last general thought on Revelation 3:20.
Whatever your view, those who use it to present the gospel, are not doing so out of ignorance. They just disagree with those who say you should not use it to present the gospel.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I didn’t mean to offend anyone by using the word hideous. The definition I had in mind is “disgusting.” It’s just how the use I described makes me react.
That said, I should also note that those who use this verse in evangelism I’m confident do so with the best of motives. They want to see unbelievers come to saving faith. So to that extent and for that I’m grateful.
The really disgusting part is as I described (and have heard in real life) “He can’t open it.”
Anyway, blessings brother and if you use the verse, I pray God calls many to faith.
“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
If he were talking to the lost in this passage it would be as clear as other passages speaking to the lost. This is speaking to believers. The passage says that those whom God loves he disciplines and rebukes. God loves unbelievers, but not with this kind of love. There is a special love such as is spoken of in this verse that God only has for believers. The last sentence that I put in bold says who this verse is speaking to.
Les: I never like a passage interpreted wrong. When a passage is interpreted wrong, it changes the whole Bible. It changes the message God is seeking to give us.
A non-believer is never described as neither hot nor cold but lukewarm.
This passage also speaks of fellowship and closeness, which God never uses in the NT to speak to unbelievers.
Ok I admit it. I’m a Calvinist. All five points, plus some. On this verse Rev. 3:20 I also agree that it’s really addressed to the Christian church (of course as we know has some mixture of unbelievers in that visible church). And I do not use it in evangelism. But I don’t get all exercised over those who do.
What bothers me about its use in evangelism (by some, not all) is how it’s often phrased…verse is quoted and followed up with something like,
“Listen friend, God is knocking on the door of your heart right now. And he wants to come in to your heart. But you have to open that door to your heart. God made that door with a door knob only on the inside. He can’t open it. Only you can. God is a gentleman and so he won’t kick it down either. So friend, please. It’s all up to you. God’s done all he can do. You MUST turn the door knob from inside and let God in.”
Now that’s IMHO a hideous way to use that verse.
Les
Les,
I’m not sure what you mean. Is it for the saints in the church or the unbelievers. It seems at least to me, your saying both. Which I doubt is the case.
Don, I think it’s addressed to the Christian church. But as I said, there are always unbelievers mixed in, in the visible church.
Les,
I agree it’s addressed to the church. My question, does Christ stand at the door and knock to saints or unbelievers?
Don,
In this passage he is knocking on the door of believers’ hearts. I like how a Baptist pastor described it in a sermon:
“The poor backsliding Laodicean church had much to bow in repentance about, but they did have this one thing and it is tremendous to have it if you will respond. Jesus Christ was standing at the door and knocking (3:20). They had the offer of fellowship renewed with the Saviour if they only opened the door. “I will come in,” he said to them. “Open the door,” he urged them. Isn’t it a simple thing to open a door? Open it to him! Please open it. We have Christ in the invitations of the gospel. If we have nothing at all certainly you all have this today. A Saviour who is willing to become your Lord, and enter your life to give mercy and grace to help you. Let him into your life. Don’t keep that door locked with so gracious a Saviour able and willing to change you. Let him in! Resist no longer!”
Les,
“Let Him in! Resist no longer!”
For the unbeliever grace is irresistible. Once saved, grace becomes resistible. Interesting concept.
Don it is interesting indeed. Things like grieving the Holy Spirit and such.
God bless,
Les
Les,
What is interesting in this “open the door and let Him come in” concept. It is not an option for conversion but it is for sanctification. Is it that God is not sovereign over sanctification and that He is at the whim of the individual’s free will as to whether or not God is going to win the battle in sanctification?
God wants to be sovereign over our spiritual maturity but He is limited to what He does for us based on our wills?
Does this argument sound vaguely familiar?
Bob, interesting but missing the point. Of course God is sovereign. Did you see my comments earlier (and questions) about Judas? 9:59am today. Love to see your replies there.
Yes God is sovereign over sanctification. Sanctification is not monergistic the way regeneration is though.
“So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.”
Yes and yes. Both and.
“For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”
Les
Don, I’m not sure I fully answered your question, “does Christ stand at the door and knock to saints or unbelievers?”
Well here in Revelation 3 we see Christ standing and knocking on hearts of believers. Saints.
I’m not thinking of a passage where the same is said about unbelievers but if you’ll direct me to one that would be great.
Thanks brother.