...

Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:46:20 +0100

[u]Past Comments Below[/u]
Comments
Dead is dead...
Written by Tim on 2005-05-02 09:59:32
Russ,
I believe you are imagining too large a gap between regeneration and faith. I believe they are two sides of the same coin. People have faith, even faith in God, but this is not saving faith. Faith becomes saving faith through the effectual calling and regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Apart from regeneration they remain blinded by sin and cannot see their need for a Savior. If they cannot see their need then they will not and cannot exercise saving faith.

Written by PastorRuss on 2005-05-02 10:25:57
Tim - I understand that position...However, if conviction shows them their need for a Savior, then we must ask can the faith that you admit they have be directed in a saving way towards God? If not, Scripturally, why? Understand that I am not saying that they are pursuing God...instead, God pursues them and makes them aware of their position before Him. If that occurs, why could they not then place their faith in Him?

Written by Tim on 2005-05-02 10:43:31
Russ - If God pursues them and makes them aware of their position and their need of a Savior then I understand that to be an effectual call which is a part of regeneration which is on the same coin as faith. Apart from this conviction, they have no saving faith. They may believe that God exists. They may believe that God can and does work miracles but they cannot and will not believe that they are in need of a Savior and Jesus is the only Savior available. For a good example of this type of pagan, listen to the Michael Savage radio show.

Written by PastorRuss on 2005-05-02 10:54:24
Tim - If I\'m understanding what you\'re saying, then I think we can be in agreement (though, my guess is that we will find ourselves at odds when we get to Irresistible Grace and whether faith is a gift or not ;) - let\'s wait till then to tackle that). Are you saying that faith and regeneration are the same thing (essentially synonomous) or are you saying they are different things working simultaneously? Either way, what Scripture would you use to support your position? (Hope that doesn\'t come across the wrong way - I don\'t doubt you have Scripture behind it....just curious as to what you would choose :grin ).

Written by Name: on 2005-05-02 11:22:35Acts 26:12-15 is a good example. Saul was busy about the priests business. He professed to have faith but by observation we know it wasn\'t saving faith. There was a great light, a voice, conviction (I believe these were the means of regeneration). Then Paul says, \"Who are you, Lord?\" Jesus reveals Himself and Paul is converted. Paul had a faith of sorts but Jesus wasn\'t the object of his faith until He (Jesus) revealed Himself to Saul. This is regeneration. It is being \"born again\". There is no definition here of how Paul applied faith in the Lord but the time frame is significant. A light, a voice, pricks (conviction), illumination (I am Jesus), Order of service (Arise and go). Somewhere between the illumination and the Order of service was salvation. Paul\'s faith was applied to the Lord and we see it in his works. He says, \"I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision...\" Regeneration and saving faith appear to be working simultaneously. However, Pastor Russ, I don\'t believe in \"Prevenient Grace\" and everyone\'s ability to believe. I\'m sure we\'ll discuss that further. 8)
tulips

Written by Dutchess: on 2005-05-02 12:50:42
Pastor Russ, you are a treasure. Since a tulip has 6 petals, the acronym should therefore really be T U L I P S.
I am looking forward to your explanation of all the petals from a non-calvinistic point of view!
I wonder if it really matters how many milliseconds or years pass between the beginning of faith and actual glorious salvation that results from it (especially in light of eternity)?

Written by Name: Pastor Russ on 2005-05-02 13:32:36
Tim - Lunch provides such energy :grin and with that energy I realized a part of your post that I had missed before. You stated that the calling was effectual by which I think you mean that all those whom God convicts must/will come to a saving faith. If I\'m understanding you correctly, how would you understand that in light of John 16 where the conviction of the Spirit seems to be on all the unregenerate? I also do not hold to prevenient grace, so, I\'m trying to slip that in :)

Written by PastorRuss on 2005-05-02 13:38:59
Dutchess - Sadly, I\'m not that quick or smart...I just added the additional point since I think it is so critical to an understanding of why Calvinists typically are so reproached by the idea of making any change to TULIP....but I get ahead of myself :grin
Being saved, of course, is the whole point, and so once we are saved, you are technically right that it doesn\'t matter. But, on the other hand, I think it does matter in two ways: 1) How we interpret Scripture is vitally important - I am always challenged to make sure I approach Scripture to change what I think....I am much too tempted to approach Scripture to have it agree with my theology, and 2) what we believe is what we will do...thus, what we believe about these things will impact how we act. So, although I understand your point, I also think there are some very important items that do hang in the balance in how we approach these things.
Thanks for the encouragement!! 8)

Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-02 14:42:59
Pastor Russ: I appreciate your interpretation of death (Eph 2:1) as separation from God. It makes sense in the light of Scripture. Otherwise, if dead men can\'t believe, then neither can they sin or do anything, nor can they be held responsible.
I think the Lord Jesus dealt with this misinterpretation in Jn 5:24: \"I tell you the truth, whoever hears My word and believes Him Who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (Note: \"whoever\")

Written by PastorRuss on 2005-05-02 15:17:22
Klompman - to be fair, I don\'t think that you are completely representing a Calvinist view. Simply because a person cannot believe does not necessitate that they are not culpible for sin - though the less you say a person can do and the more that God must be directly causing what does happen, the closer you move the culpibility away from man and towards God. We will discuss this when we talk about Sovereignty of God.
Also, a Calvinist would respond that the only people who hear the word that John 5:24 speaks of are people who have been regenerated (a dead person cannot hear anything - thus the \'whoever\' assumes the elect). However, as I noted before, this does not take into account the very clear teaching of John 16 where the conviction of the Holy Spirit is in the life of all unregenerate. I think that Calvinists make too much of physical death and have not done enough searching of Scripture for a description of spiritual death. Though there are similarities, I don\'t believe they are exactly parallel.
I\'m glad it was helpful to you!! 8)

John 16
Written by Tim on 2005-05-02 15:33:31
All whom God effectually calls will come but not all He convicts. Conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment are not the same as calling. There are none righteous, there are none who seek God. We are all condemned already because we are unbelievers and the Spirit convicts everyone of these truths so that we are all without excuse.

Written by PastorRuss on 2005-05-02 15:47:03
Tim - I\'ve appreciated your input, but I have some questions....

Can you give me Scripture that would point to either 1) that calling is different than convicting, or 2) that if God calls, a person must come (i.e. that there is only an effectual calling and not a general calling).

As noted in my post, I completely agree that there are none righteous, that no one will seek God, and that we all stand condemned already because of our sin. I\'m not suggesting that man seeks God.

Sadly, I am heading home now, but I\'ll try to get on this evening at home to respond... :sigh I was beginning to have so much fun ;)
sin, righteousness and judgment

Written by biblerey on 2005-05-02 16:36:41
Just a quick note for point of discussion when considering these things. I have read everything and have loved the tone of the discussion brothers and sisters.

Quote:

Conviction of sin is the sin of unbelief, conviction of righteousness is that Christ went to the Father and conviction of judgment is that the ruler of this world is judged already.

Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-02 16:36:54
Russ,
If you don\'t mind, let\'s discuss effectual vs. general calling when we get to the \"I\" in TULIP. My brain won\'t scatter too thin!
I believe the entire TULIP system hangs on Total Depravity. If you don\'t have Total Depravity then the rest is mute. If men aren\'t totally depraved then you don\'t need unconditional election. Election will be conditional. It will be based on man\'s ability to choose.
Russ - you said, \"Mankind in sinfulness is incapable of desiring or pursuing God.\" You then said that God pursues men \"through the conviction of the Holy Spirit who makes every person aware of their position before God in their sin. At this point, a person may or may not exercise faith in God.\"
If men are incapable of desiring or pursuing God and now through the convicting of the Holy Spirit they are somehow capable, it is either because of an effectual calling or prevenient grace. If, according to your explanation, it is an effectual calling, then all men are saved because God\'s calling is effectual unto salvation. If it is not effectual the the grace of conviction can be resisted. It is not Irresistable Grace. It is Prevenient Grace. The convicting removes man\'s inability to pursue God and makes it possible for him to do so. Christ\'s atonement is now universal and can be applied to all. The TULIP crumbles and the rest of our conversation is just beating the air. If man is left with the smallest of abilities, even a mustard seed of faith, salvation is based on Free-will and not Free Grace.
We are all wrapped from head to toe in sea-weed. We are entombed in the belly of a large fish and the fish has swam to the bottom of the sea. What act of our will or exercise of some supposed faith will free us from our condition? Nothing, it is hopeless. We must say with Jonah, \"Salvation is of the Lord.\"

Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-02 18:07:43
Correct me if I\'m wrong, but I thought the purpose of this discussion was to determine what the Scriptures say on the subject. So I\'m a bit puzzled when you are responding to me with what the Calvinists would say or what their position is. May I suggest that you leave that to Tim? He\'s really good at it and I\'m quite familiar with the Calvinist position or interpretation of the Bible. I prefer to believe the Lord Jesus Himself and He needs no help from Tim.

Written by Name: on 2005-05-02 22:50:21
Sorry for two responses in one, but my home computer has limited time :)�

Tim � I�m sorry to make this difficult, but I don�t like the term prevenient grace because it is not a Biblical term and I don�t agree with it. So, there are not only two options. Here are the passages that I think are critical to understanding this:
- mankind is dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1)
- there is an expectation of unregenerate people to have faith in God (Mark 6:6)
- faith comes from hearing the word of Christ (Romans 10:17)
- faith is a human phenonmenon never ascribed to God (Matt. 8:10, 8:13, 9:2, 9:22, 9:28-29, 15:28, Mark 2:5, 5:29, 5:34, 10:52, Luke 5:20, 7:9, 7:50, 8:48, 8:50, 17:19, 18:42 � in all these cases it is the individual�s faith that is commended � not a faith that is given by God)
- God consistently calls people to seek Him (do a word search on seek � I found over 50)
Our theology must be able to embrace all these. So, if we are to state that unregenerate man cannot exercise faith in God, here are my questions (please supply Scripture citations to back up what you are saying):
- How would you define death from Scripture? Please keep in mind that whatever definition you come up with must encompass not only physical death, but also encompass the deaths of Genesis 2:17 and Revelation 20:14. Please explain this one since I think it is critical to understanding Total Depravity.
- Why does Jesus expect unregenerate people to have faith in Him (Mark 6:6) if that faith can only come from God?
- Apart from Ephesians 2:8-9 (which we will deal with under IG), why is faith never ascribed to God but always to mankind (as shown above)?
- Why does God call mankind to do something (seek Him) that they cannot do unless He causes them to do so? (am I wrong in saying that this would be like God asking me to fly knowing full well that I simply can�t unless He gives the ability to?)
- If you already believe that people can have faith (though not saving faith) and that God can convict them, then what else stands in the way of them exercising that faith in Jesus?
- Why must God�s calling be effectual? How does it diminish God for people to not respond to His call?

Sorry for so many questions, but it�s the only way I learn and these are the areas that I need to understand if I am to understand your position. I could draw it out over 5 comments but figured it�d be easier to deal with in one :)

As an aside, I think your dichotomy between conviction and calling is fragile. There are strong parallels between John 16 and 1 Corinthians 15�I believe that the conviction of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit�s work of convicting a person of the Gospel. All mankind will here the Gospel and be convicted of its truthfulness � not all will respond in faith.

Klompman � I�m sorry if my response came across the wrong way. I was responding to your statement that �Otherwise, if dead men can\'t believe, then neither can they sin or do anything, nor can they be held responsible� and basically saying that I would agree with the typical Calvinist response that a lack of ability to believe does not necessitate a lack of culpability for sin. If it came across the wrong way, I�m sorry. If I�m missing something there, by all means let me know. I also agree with your use of John 5:24 but have found that Calvinists can rightly state that whoever, within a Calvinist perspective, can in fact mean only the elect (thus, if their position is right, their interpretation is right). I hope to show that there are verses that simply don�t fit within a Calvinist framework and thus must either change the system or be eisegeted into it. So, again, sorry if it didn�t come across the way I intended�this is why personal dialogue is so much more fruitful than written text :)
Seeking God
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-02 23:32:00Responsibility does not imply ability.
We have the responsibility to seek God and to have faith in God because He is Holy and He demands it of us. Just because God commands a thing does not imply that we have the ability to obey. (The 10 commandments for example). We SHOULD have the ability to obey. God created man with the ability to obey but we lost that ability in the fall. Our inability does not lesson our responsibility, however, nor does it make God unjust to continue with His expectations and demands. God commands us to love Him with all of our heart and soul and strength knowing full well that we are unable to do that. If anyone believes they are able to do that then I would encourage them to sell all that they have, give it
to the poor, then take up their cross and follow the Lord.

As for the word \"Death\". Perhaps it is over used and creates an impossible image in someones mind. Let\'s stay with the idea of seperation from God and substitute that for the word death. How far are we separated? As far as the east is from the west. Start out walking towards the east. Continue walking east. When you get to the end of east and east turns into west, that\'s how far the seperation is.

The result of the fall is total depravity or corruption. By this is meant that every part of man is rendered corrupt. The Canons say that man \"became involved in blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, perverseness of judgment; became wicked, rebellious, obdurate in heart and will and impure in his affection.\" There was no part of his nature that was not affected by sin. The word \"total\" must not be taken in the absolute sense as though man is completely depraved. Man is not as bad as he can be....God does restrain the working of sin in the life of man on earth. And sinful man still has a sense of right and wrong. His corruption is total in the sense that there is no part of his being that is pure and holy; (Canons of Dort, 3 & 4)
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-03 09:34:27Tim � I must disagree. Responsibility definitely implies ability. How can God hold anyone accountable for something that, as I sense you are stating, is not even within their nature anymore. If it is not within their nature to have faith, we cannot expect responsibility.

Your use of the OT law is an important example. God told the Israelites that they were able to keep the law (Deut. 30:11) � not in the sense that they would never sin, but because He had graciously provided through the law a foreshadowing of how those sins would be dealt with (the sacrificial system). The same holds for us today. The commands of God are not too difficult or beyond our reach � not because we can live them perfectly but because God in His grace provides a salvation through Jesus.

I appreciate your willingness to keep separation as the primary description of death, but your allusion to Psalm 103 simply works against you. This Psalm does not speak of how far God is from us, it speaks of how far He has removed our sins from us � a very different picture than the one you paint. I realize that there are many verses in Scripture that speak of how far greater and removed God is from us�.but we must never forget the verses that speak of how close He is as well. But even all that aside, are you saying that the gulf of death that separates us from God is unbridgeable even by God? Through Jesus, is that not exactly what Christ makes possible (Job 9:32-35)?

�There was no part of his nature that was not affected by sin. The word \"total\" must not be taken in the absolute sense as though man is completely depraved. Man is not as bad as he can be....God does restrain the working of sin in the life of man on earth. And sinful man still has a sense of right and wrong. His corruption is total in the sense that there is no part of his being that is pure and holy;� � by your own admission, mankind still has a sense of right and wrong and his ability to believe (have faith) is not eradicated. Thus, if God bridges the gap between mankind and God brought about by our sinfulness (which is possible because of Jesus) and makes us aware of where we stand before Him (the conviction of the Holy Spirit), then cannot man�s sense of right/wrong and ability to believe be directed towards God? Man, in this case has neither sought nor understood God on his own (Romans 3) but God has sought (Genesis 3:8-9, 4:6, 4:9) and taught mankind (John 6:45) thus retaining all the glory for God?

Finally, I need to ask that you use Scripture to back up what you say. Presume that I don�t know the verses that you are referring to just so that we can both be certain that the verses that we are using are really saying what we say they are. I know what the Canons of Dordt say�I want to know what Scripture says (and if I�m wrong, to change what I believe).
Canons
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-03 09:36:02Tim: Could you please stay away from the Canons? They are man-contrived and not Scripture so they have no authority. Let\'s stick to the Word of God.
Canons vs Scripture
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-03 10:13:49While I ponder my next post I would like to say that what we are doing here is developing a Canon (of sorts). I avoided typing the extensive Scriptural references that are found in the Canons for the sake of brevity. If we can\'t trust the conclusions of men who have wrestled over these issues in the past, our wrestling won\'t accomplish much more. But, as requested, I\'ll avoid referring to those who have gone before and we\'ll develope our own Canon which will be ignored by the next generation.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-03 10:42:39\"we\'ll develope our own Canon which will be ignored by the next generation.\"

LOL - :grin

I guess that\'s part of each generation learning to own the faith that has been passed on to them...
My conclusion
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-03 10:45:33As I\'ve already stated, the entire TULIP hangs on the \"T\". If there is no Total Depravity then the rest is straw.
God holds us accountable even though we are unable to obey. He does this because He has not changed but we have changed. It was due to our sin that we lost our ability.
Deut.30:11 does not say the commandment can be kept. It says the commandment is not hidden. We cannot plead ignorance of the law. Neither can we bemoan our inability because it was by our own willful sin that we became disabled.
\"Without faith it is impossible to please God.\" If all men have faith, as you say, then I guess all men are pleasing to God. Oh, but it is the application of faith. Now we\'re back on the slippery slope. Faith is no longer the issue but one\'s ability to apply that faith.
\"That which is born of the flesh is flesh.\" (John 3:6) Need we go further? They that are in the flesh CANNOT please God. They cannot please God because the flesh has no faith or ability. From the sole of a man\'s foot to the crown of his head, there is no soundness in his flesh.
Does a man have ability? When a leopard has the ability to change it\'s spots or when an Etheopian has the ability to change the color of his skin, then I\'ll concede that we have the ability to do good and to be pleasing to God.
Until then, I rest my case as being Totally Depraved.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-03 11:36:49Tim � I realize that the KJV renders �lo-niplet� as hidden. However, its usage elsewhere (Deut 17:8, Genesis 18:14, Jeremiah 32:17, 27) shows that it has a sense of something �not easy� rather than something being mysterious. So, although I appreciate the KJV, I must defer to this words usage elsewhere for the definition of Deut. 30:11.

In quoting Hebrews 11:6, we really should quote the whole verse, �And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.� This verse is in reference to Enoch who would not seemed to have done anything and yet it is because of faith that he is taken. The writer of Hebrews is clarifying that the commendation that he received was because of faith, not something he had done. Again, this verse places faith as being a responsibility of man, not a work of God.

I�m not sure that John 3:6 is the best verse to prove your point�All Jesus is saying is that just as we expect physical babies to come from physical birth, we ought to expect spiritual babies from spiritual birth (and, thus, being born again is not so outlandish as Nicodemus thought it was). Paul and Jesus use flesh in several different contexts (John 6:63, Romans 8:8, 1 Corinthians 15:50) and so we must look at how they are using it before applying it to the sin nature.

Understand, I�m not trying to turn TULIP into straw�but it seems from your opening words that TULIP interprets Scripture and if TULIP were to fall apart, we would not be properly interpreting Scripture. Would we not rather say that Scripture interprets TULIP and that if/where TULIP does not align with Scripture we change TULIP? That is what I am attempting�if you can show me otherwise, I�m open to hearing where I am wrong�
Separation
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-03 11:40:13Tim: You are quoting only part of Ps 103:12 and then you misinterpret it. Ps 103:12 says \"As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.\" Obviously, it does not speak of us being removed from God, it speaks of our sins being removed from us.

I suggest you read the whole Psalm and you\'ll get a much better picture of what God is like.
Written by Tim on 2005-05-03 21:10:16Russ said,
Quote:

I think that a clearer Biblical picture of death is separation from God rather than a sense of inability.

My analogy of east and west was not an attempt to quote Psalm 103. I understand what this psalm is referring to. My analogy was simply an attempt to define \"seperation\". My analogy, or definition, is as good as someone elses, isn\'t it? What definition would you give for \"separation\"? How far would you like for man to be separated from God? I say our separation is beyond our ability to reach across, that was the point of the analogy.

As for Deut.30:11. I understand your point as to the translation but whether we use \"hidden\" or \"too hard\" I believe the context of the passage is the same. The writer is describing the righteousness which is by faith and in no way is he implying the natural man\'s ability to adhere to the command.
Barnes says:
Quote:

The seeming ease of the commandment, and yet its real impossibility to the natural man, form part of the qualifications of the Law to be our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.

Further, we need to be careful in our discussion of Total Depravity. As per the TULIP or the Calvinistic system, Total Depravity is referencing those who are without Christ and without the Spirit\'s power in their lives. It has to do with Soteriology and man\'s condition before salvation.
I, for one, will not stand on my own understanding and interpretation of Scripture. I must rely on the wisdom of men who were greater and wiser than I am. We\'ve already excused the Canons. I\'m sure we\'ll ignore the commentators. If I\'m left to simply argue against your point of view without any consideration of other writers then there is nothing left for me to say. For example, the interpretation of Deuteronomy 30:11 that I presented is held by Barnes, Gill, Keil & Delitsch, Darby, Scofield, Calvin and Luther...to name a few. If we were to simply wave their interpretations off as invalid and say, \"Let\'s stick to the Scripture.\" that leads nowhere. I wouldn\'t want people to accept my understanding on face value alone.
I don\'t know where else to go with our discussion. I\'ve enjoyed it though.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-03 13:30:17Tim - \"I say our separation is beyond our ability to reach across, that was the point of the analogy.\" Sorry, I didn\'t understand it this way. I would agree - we cannot reach across, but the point I\'ve been trying to make is that He has reached across to us...

\" I must rely on the wisdom of men who were greater and wiser than I am...If we were to simply wave their interpretations off as invalid and say, \"Let\'s stick to the Scripture.\" that leads nowhere.\" As I noted in the beginnig of my post, I also rely on others for what I\'m writing. I also have no particular gripes with creeds, canons or catechisms, though I am more inclined to believe those that have a longer history than a shorter one. I encourage you to rely on others, but to be able to rearticulate what they\'ve said in your own words. If we cannot support what we believe (even if we\'ve learned it from other great teachers) with Scripture, then how can we hold to Sola Scriptura? I know that\'s going to come across harshly, and its not intended to....if we were face to face, I\'d be saying it in a voice of loving encouragement - I try to make sure that my theology is firmly backed by Scripture which contextually states the same thing my theology states....when others can show that I have not done that, I will (and have) changed my theology.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-03 13:31:04Oooppss - I hit send too quickly...

Thanks for your input Tim - I have also enjoyed it! 8)
Excellent Discussion folks
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-03 14:08:00IExcellent discussion. For my part, I have chosen mostly to stay apart from the conversation letting the flow progress save for a minor interruption here (and back there). Doubtless there will be more discussion since I have submitted this to the Christian Carnival. That being the case, I would strongly encourage referencing Scripture since this may prove to be a study for some of our readers. There are several people in my own assembly who read this site in the hopes of learning more from the Scriptures so I applaud as many Scriptural references as possible in light of the flow of the conversation.
Seeking
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-03 20:42:33Pastor Russ: I\'m not ready to concede that no one seeks after God. I\'m familiar with Rom 3:11, quoted from Ps 14:2,3. This is said of the godless, I realize that. But what about the other verses dealing with seeking after God, like Deu 24:1, Is 55:6, Mt 6:33 and Heb 11:6. Why would God call people to seek Him if they can\'t? Take Is 55:7 \"... let the wicked forsake his way\" shows to whom Isaiah is speaking. Jesus says in Mt 6:33 \"Seek ye first ...\" Heb 11:6: God rewards those who diligently seek Him.

So, I take Rom 3:11 and Ps 14 to mean: \"people tend not to seek Him, it is not in their nature, they just don\'t, normally.\" The way a parent sometimes talks to a child: \"You never put your toys away!\" Perhaps it is a lament by God, as to man\'s propensity.

Of course, this is all tied up with the T of TULIP which holds that depravity includes inability, which I reject. It flies in the face of all of scripture where we are asked to come, repent, believe etc.

I\'d be interested in your comments. I very much appreciate your discussion of this much-debated topic.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-04 08:24:23Klompman - I think there can be a spectrum of thinking on the ability/inability of man to pursue God. Actually, what few realize is that Paul does not exactly quote Psalm 14 as it appears in the LXX in Romans 3. Where Psalm 14 is talking about the ungodly and says they never seek God, Paul states that we never diligently seek God, changing the meaning slightly and bringing it more in line with what you are stating. You and I would probably be very close on that. However, I realize that there are those who would still balk at this. So, what I attempted to communicate was that man\'s ability/inability is really of no consequence (imagine that - we\'ve been arguing about the wrong thing all these years :eek ). In the end, I would feel that a Biblical approach is that God must come to man (I believe through the conviction of the Holy Spirit) in order to make them fully aware of their position before God and creating the opportunity for them to exercise their faith (which is already existent in their lives but directed elsewhere). Does that help?
Seeking
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-04 09:22:03Yes,thank you. I see that even any seeking that we might do can only take place when we become aware of God, (Heb 11:6) otherwise we would not know what or whom we are seeking. After all, \"faith comes by hearing ... the Word of God.\" And as soon as we hear God\'s Word the Holy Spirit can start convicting us.

But let\'s carry on to the U, there will be lots to discuss there.
Is the sky blue?
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-04 09:44:34You can choose to call it something else or ignore the label altogether, Russ, but that\'s prevenient grace in a nutshell. It was Wesley\'s solution to the problem of ability. The problem with it is that it ignores or explains away all the passages that say man is blind, bound, deaf, dumb, dead, corrupt, incapable, unwilling, wicked, evil, abominable, unrighteous, not good, bankrupt, bent, broken, deceitful, unjust, a liar and of their father the devil. Men are by nature children of wrath and until their nature is changed they will remain under the wrath of God and the condemnation of His Holy Law. The only thing that will bring about a change in his nature is the new birth which is a gift of God.

I do understand that you would say the new birth is a gift and comes about when a man exercises his faith and he will exercise his faith because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

The Calvinist position is that a man is by nature enmity with God. Not AT enmity but enmity itself. (Romans 8:7) He is not subject to God\'s laws, neither indeed CAN BE. The word \"Can\" has to do with ability. What are God\'s laws that he cannot be subject to? Repent, Believe, Trust, Seek, Come, Turn, et.al.

God commands these things of us and uses these laws as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The fact that we cannot obey them shows us how bankrupt and hopeless we are. It was merciful of God to make these demands of us, even though He knew we couldn\'t obey them. Because, by these laws comes the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20) Not just a definition of what sin is but a realization that we are unable to keep His laws for if we fail in one, we\'ve broken them all. We must beat upon our chests and ask for mercy.
Mercy
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-04 10:29:09This is almost sounding semantical to me right about now, so if I can ask a small question. If the purpose of the Law is to show someone how bankrupt they are and they beat upon their chests and ask for mercy does this mean they have been regenerated?
Yes...
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-04 11:30:31Someone who is enmity with God and the enemy of God would never ask for mercy. They wouldn\'t feel their need for mercy because they are dead in trespasses and sins. The Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to quicken the unbeliever and draw them to Christ. If they see the need for mercy then they have been regenerated. They have then \"obtained, like precious faith.\" (2 Peter 1:1) There\'s no need to \"obtain\" something you already possess.

Now, is everyone brought to where they are able to cry \"Mercy\"?

No.

Bring on the \"U\" Russ! :grin
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-04 12:08:51Yeah, it looks like we\'re going into the \"U\" realm now doesn\'t it.

Still stuck in my question then, can an unregenerate learn their bankruptcy in light of the Law without becoming regenerate?
No
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-04 12:14:55We need the \"U\" :)
Quick Note
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-04 14:55:36The only reason I link to this brother is because he addresses this post directly: otherwise, I\'ve read a bunch of TD posts throughout the blogosphere and don\'t want to bother linking to them again.

here
Obtaining Faith
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-05 11:42:46Tim: I don\'t think you should be using 2Pe1:1 to support your belief that faith is a gift. Peter is not talking about faith in the sense of \"the ability to believe\" but rather that salvation (or, the same kind of faith) is available to gentiles as well as Jews, a concept he had been struggling with earlier. (Acts 10:9-15)

I don\'t know Greek but it seems to me that he uses it in the same sense as Jude in Jude 3: \"Contend ... for the faith\" where faith means \"the whole body of revealed salvation truth contained in the scriptures\" (MacArthur), as in a creed or confession, if you like.

As to faith being a gift, you might be interested to know that not even Calvin interpreted Eph 2:8 to mean that faith is the gift. And he is in good company with a number of other scholars. (List supplied on request)
To Obtain and Eph.2:8
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-05 13:53:31Klompman,
Here is Thayer\'s definition of \"obtain\"
Quote:

lagchanō
1) to obtain by lot
1a) to receive by divine allotment, obtain

Also, Kittel\'s Theological Dictionary
Quote:

�To attain,� usually by lot (cf. Hesych. : lagcavnein: klhrou`n ). With striking frequency it is thus combined with the word group klh`ro\", klhrou`n etc. Even where there is no casting of lots, the attainment is not by one�s own effort or as a result of one�s own exertions, but is like ripe fruit falling into one�s lap.

As to Ephesians 2:8. I had four years of Greek in Bible College and Three years of Greek in Seminary. I have translated all but the book of Hebrews from the original. This was done in the courses I took. I do not claim to be a scholar or the final authority but I have asked several professors and men who are smarter than myself about Ephesians 2:8.

The Anticedent (what goes before) to the preposition (the word \"that\") is the entire clause.

And THAT not of yourselves, it is a gift of God.

What does the word \"that\" refer to. What is it that is not of ourselves? The word \"that\" refers to the entire clause so that it could be understood as follows:

For by grace are you saved through faith, and THAT GRACE is not of yourself, it is a gift of God.

For by grace are you saved through faith, and THAT SALVATION is not of yourself, it is a gift of God.

For by grace are you saved through faith, and THAT FAITH is not of yourself, it is a gift of God.

We cannot single out Grace or Salvation and make the word \"that\" point there while ignoring the word \"faith\". The word \"that\" points back to the entire clause for \"Grace\", \"Saved\" and \"Faith\" are inseperable.

This is my understanding. Hope it helps.
That
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-05 16:29:40Thanks Tim. I am not a Greek scholar thus must rely on others:

F.F. Bruce (a Calvinist) says regarding Eph 2:8: \"The fact that the demonstrative pronoun \'that\' is neuter in Greek (touto), whereas \'faith\' is a feminine noun (pistis), combines with other considerations to suggest that it is the whole concept of salvation by grace through faith that is described as the gift of God. \"

Calvin: \"But they commonly misinterpret this text , and restrict the gift to the word \'faith\' alone. But Paul ... does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God ...\"

As for myself, from reading the scriptures I conclude that all people have the capacity to believe. It is not our inability to believe but our unwillingness that is the problem. I cannot accept the idea that God asks us to do what we cannot do and then holds us responsible for not doing it.
PS - 2Pe 1:1
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-05 16:52:50Tim: My problem with your interpretation of 2Pe 1:1 is not with the word \'obtain\' or \'attain\' but with the word \'faith\'. I don\'t think that Peter meant faith as \'believing\' but the body of truth that is sometimes referred to as \'faith\'.

Perhaps you could confirm whether the Greek word for \'faith\' in 2Pe1:1is the same as that in Eph. 2:8.
Accountability
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-05 17:28:02It\'s kind of like a drunk that gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone. He tells the judge he wasn\'t able to control the car because he was drunk. His condition made him lose his ability to abide by the rules of safe driving. He tells the judge he shouldn\'t be held accountable to the law and it is unjust to expect him to abide by a rule that he cannot follow. The judge finds him guilty because his inability to obey the law doesn\'t lesson his responsibility or his accountability. He was in his disabled condition because of his own sin.

The same holds true for us in regards to God\'s laws and judgment.
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-05 18:41:40Same word for faith as in Ephesians brother Klompman.

I don\'t think we should have a problem with faith being part of the gift of God\'s salvation. The fact God has mercy is a gift because He didnt\' have to have mercy. The fact that God says this salvation is offered through faith is a gift because if God wanted to He could\'ve said \"by being perfect.\" then we would\'ve been up the creek.

As I\'ve said in the past...faith isn\'t a tight little bundle that is given and a person can open it up and say \"here is my saving faith.\" I didn\'t trust my wife by waking up one day and saying \"I trust her\" nor did she give me a ring and I said with now opened eyes \"I trust you, honey!\" Rather I saw her actions, I witnessed her testimony, I heard about her and one day I saw and said \"You know what, I trust her.\" I didn\'t summon up the trust but she engendered it in me...by her trustworthiness.
Written by Name:PastorRuss on 2005-05-06 08:25:06Tim - We will be dealing directly with Ephesians 2:8-9 when we get to Irresistible Grace...so we\'ll need to wait till then to delve deeper into the Greek...But I think Rey has done a great job of looking at it Here
Written by Name: Christine on 2005-06-18 00:45:09\"It\'s kind of like a drunk that gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone. He tells the judge he wasn\'t able to control the car because he was drunk. His condition made him lose his ability to abide by the rules of safe driving.\"

My problem with this analogy is that the drunk could choose to drink or not drink. Human willpower to resist some sin does exist, otherwise every unregenerate husband would be a wife beater and an adulterer, and we know that is not the case. No human willpower will resist all sin. No man can choose to have a sin nature or not. That is where I think the analogy breaks down. - Rey

Russ on Total Depravity

...