We live in a world of upside-down pottery. No, that's not my idea; that's the idea from God. He gave the concept to Isaiah to express:
"You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, 'He did not make me'; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, 'He has no understanding'?" (Isa 29:16)."You turn things upside down!" That's the accusation. And what is upside down here? When the created deigns to dictate to the Creator. When the Creator is made out by the creature to be the same ... or even less. When the clay is what's important and the potter is required to submit to it.
This "potter" thing is a recurring theme in Scripture. Isaiah writes the famous "O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand" (Isa 64:8). (It was a popular little praise song in my day.) God uses the potter illustration in His instructions to Jeremiah:
The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: "Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear My words." So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. Then the word of the LORD came to me: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel" (Jer 18:1-6)."Can I not do with you as the potter has done?" That's God's simple question, and the answer is not elusive or ambiguous. God (the potter) is willing, able, and authorized to do as He pleases with his creation (clay).
We're mostly alright with that concept. "Sure, sure, God is able to do as He pleases with His creation. Why not?" We're not entirely happy about it, but we'll even give the point that He is authorized to punish, to judge, to destroy. "Okay," we'll acquiesce with some discomfort, "we'll give Him that, too." The idea that God makes people He knows will go to Hell really is uncomfortable for us, but it is also, if we are consistent with Scripture, unavoidable. So we'll grudgingly surrender that as well. But here's where we will not go: Does God make people intended for Hell?
Before we go down this path, let's be very clear. So doing does not require that God forces anyone to Hell, especially anyone who would have otherwise not gone there. All that is required for this question to be answered in the affirmative is that God knowingly and consciously makes individuals who, for His purposes, will indeed be damned. That they do so by their own choices doesn't change the fact that He made them and made them for that purpose.
Okay, with that caveat, is there any biblical reason to conclude that God indeed might actually make people who are destined for Hell? Well, the easiest text is in Proverbs. "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Prov 16:4). Now, unless my reading skills are horribly off, this text appears to plainly state that God makes the wicked for a purpose. In fact, it appears unavoidable. But let's go to another passage that comes from that same "upside-down pottery" theme. In Romans 9, Paul is explaining God's choice of who to save (Rom 9:8-13). The explanation is, as he is quite aware, somewhat offensive to the human ear. (Can we all at least admit that's true?) So he faces the standard objections. The first is "That's not fair!" (Rom 9:14-18). His answer is that God does whatever He wants. The second is "If God does what He wants, how can we be held responsible?" Or ... here ... let's see what Paul actually says:
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory (Rom 9:19-23)?The text is rich. Paul's first answer is "How dare you talk back to God?" It speaks of God's patience (we like that) and "the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy" and all that really, really good stuff. And it is in that same illustrative structure of potter and pottery.
Like Isaiah and Jeremiah before him, Paul uses the illustration of potter and clay to make a parallel between Creator and creature. First rule: the creature has no say. Stop! I know ... that is objectionable. But it is indeed the first rule. It flies in the face of our independent spirits, rubs up against our over-inflated sense of self-worth. But it is the first rule. The second rule is like unto the first: The Creator gets to do whatever He wants with His creation. And, according to the text, He wants to make some vessels "for dishonorable use". What use? Some vessels, according to the text, are made because it is God's will to "show His wrath and make His power known". Therefore, the Potter makes some vessels as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Not my words; Paul's. He makes other vessels for "honorable use". These would be "vessels of mercy" that He can use to "make known the riches of His glory."
The Bible isn't unclear. God actually makes people who are destined for Hell. He does so for a purpose -- His good purpose. He makes them just like He makes everything else. Our objection is "That's not fair!" Our objection is the clay demanding that the potter treat His pottery in a way that the pottery would find acceptable. Our problem is that we are upside-down pots demanding a hearing of the Potter. "Listen, God, you'd better correct these errors or we're going to have to take action! Maybe we'll deny it. Maybe we'll forbid it. Maybe we'll just kick you out entirely." It's not a good stand for a lump of clay in the hands of a potter to take.
31 comments:
I haven't had time to comment here in quite a while, and in the meantime I've been mulling over your position regarding God's sovereignty and man's free will. I must say that I'm very hesitant to agree with the conclusions that you insist on drawing, Stan, not only because of an instinctive reaction against it, but -- more importantly -- because I do not believe that the Bible inexorably leads to those conclusions.
Does God have the right to do what He wants? Absolutely.
But does that mean that God acts arbitrarily or capriciously? Absolutely not.
God is sovereign, and I would correct anyone who suggests otherwise.
(For the record, I don't choose man's freedom over God's sovereignty: I'm not convinced that one must one over the other. The dichotomy between the two may be a false dichotomy, as much as pitting Christ's deity against His humanity.)
But God is not only sovereign. GOD IS GOOD. He is loving, gracious, and merciful.
"The Creator gets to do whatever He wants with His creation."
Certainly, and it isn't the case that we understand all His plans, but we can trust that His plans are consistent with His character, and the Bible is just as clear about God's loving character as it is about His ultimate authority.
If you believe that I have suggested in any way that God acts "arbitrarily or capriciously", then it was a failure on my part to communicate. I do not believe for an instant that He does. I believe that He does what He does for His own (and very good) reasons. Nothing is random. (I offered some of His reasons in the post.)
You say that you do not believe that the Bible inexorably leads to those conclusions (I assume the conclusions in this post). I read "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" to mean that the LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. I don't see how I can conclude that He did not. The notion of the potter and the clay is a repeated theme and includes the notion of "some for honorable use and some for dishonorable". (I just read it again this morning in 2 Tim 2.)
You say the Bible doesn't inexorably lead to this conclusion. Given the Scripture in view, what conclusion does it lead to?
Stan, my problem is not with the conclusion in this post that God has made everything and that He has a purpose for everything He made: my problem is more with your general approach of affirming God's sovereignty over our salvation to the detriment or even the exclusion of man's freedom, when A) I don't think that the Bible requires there to be a dichotomy between the two and B) I believe that presenting such a dichotomy forces a choice between denying God's sovereignty and His universal love.
II Timothy 2 talks about common and uncommon items -- or dishonorable and honorable -- but in the very next verse (v. 21), Paul writes, "if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work."
As clay we have no right to be presumptuous about what the Potter is doing, but we're not wholly inert or passive in the process of salvation.
As is often the case, I suspect that there is a misunderstanding here. The position I take is not one of either detriment or exclusion of human freedom. So I would agree that the Bible doesn't take such a position because neither do I. Here, this is what how the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it: "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." Note that 1) God is not the author of sin and 2) human will is not violated. The argument is that of "second causes" -- God using means to accomplish His will.
The Reformed position (which, of course, I believe is the biblical position) is not that "the clay" is "wholly inert or passive". The position is that the process is started by God ("monergism") and then worked out with the creature ("synergism"). In terms of faith, for instance, the Bible says faith (and repentance) are granted to people. Having had it granted, the person becomes a participant, choosing Christ, submitting to Christ, etc.
In other words, I agree with you. Man has free will (although not libertarian free will) and does indeed take part in his own salvation by choosing and following Christ. That is, in fact, the Reformed position.
Stan, maybe I do grossly misunderstand your position, but it seems to me that you believe that God grants faith to some people but not others: those to whom God grants faith, they freely choose God and receive salvation and eternal life, but those who God doesn't grant faith, they freely choose obstinate rebellion and are judged and condemned.
The problem with that position is that it seriously undermines the doctrine of God's universal love: He loves the damned enough to create them and provide them material blessings on earth (sunshine and rain) but not enough to give them saving faith.
If you believe that the ultimate difference between the saved and the condemned comes down to God's decision, that DOES seem to undermine man's free will. More importantly, it undermines God's universal love.
"For God so loved the world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."
If this passage stated only that God so loved THE CHURCH that He sent His Son, then the Bible might coincide more plausibly with your position as I understand it.
Actually, John 3:16 is largely misunderstood. Instead of "God so loved the world", we have made it read "God loved the world so much." It isn't, in fact, a statement of quantity ("so much"). It is a statement of quality. That is, the correct reading is "God loved the world in this way." We use the word "so" this way when we say something like "It's important to do this task just so." (I mentioned this in a group once and a Spanish-speaking guy said, "Hey, wait! That's exactly how it puts it in the Spanish version.") The statement is, then, an explanation of the way in which God loves the world, and that way is that He gives eternal life to those who believe. In other words, God loves believers.
(To be continued ...)
I'm having difficulty with the definition of "Free Will". To me it means "the ability to choose what you want within the bounds of your ability." (I add "within the bounds of your ability" to indicate that a human can't, for instance, choose to be a bird by force of will simply because he may want it.) To me it is patently obvious that "Free Will" is not the freedom to choose what you don't want because that would be, by my definition, coercion, not "free will".
So, with that definition in hand, I read that there is none who seeks for God, that there is none who does good, that humans are hostile to God, by nature children of wrath, blinded by the god of this world, unable (Paul's word, not mine) to understand the things of God, and on and on. Thus, the natural "want to" of Man is "not God". From all I can see about the nature of Man as explained in Scripture, without radical intervention -- a change in nature -- no human would ever, by means of his own free will, choose Christ.
That is, given the biblical description of Natural Man and truth of the freedom of the will, I cannot explain at all how anyone ever chooses Christ. I can only see it if God first changes their nature, not after the fact.
Part 3:
In John 6, there is an interesting passage. I can give you the passage, but the context is so important that you need that first. Jesus has been in dialog with a crowd. He has told them He is the "bread of life", that eternal life comes from eating of His flesh. This, of course, is upsetting. In fact, it upsets some of His followers.
Now comes the passage:
"'It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, 'For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.' As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore" (John 6:63-66).
First we have "The flesh profits nothing." Now, if humans -- unregenerate, operating in the flesh -- are perfectly able to come to Christ on their own, then "nothing" is actually "something", isn't it? But it's the rest that's really revealing. Jesus says, "... no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father." Why does He say that ("For this reason I have said to you ...")? He is answering a question. "Why do some not believe?" It isn't a statement in a vacuum. It is in answer to a dilemma. Why are there people who don't believe? The answer Jesus gives is that no one can -- humans lack the ability -- and that the only way anyone believes is if it is granted by the Father. That's what He says. So that's why I conclude it to be true.
Stan, sorry for the delay in getting back to you: real life has kept and will continue to keep my replies pretty sporadic.
Whether John 3:16 is a description of the degree of God's love or the quality of His love -- "how much" He loves the world versus "how" He loves the world -- I don't think your take is obvious from the actual text.
"The statement is, then, an explanation of the way in which God loves the world, and that way is that He gives eternal life to those who believe. In other words, God loves believers."
No, God loves the world. The text says so plainly, and a conclusion like this makes me wonder if you practically deny God's universal love.
The text says that God loves the world, and your conclusion is only that God loves believers. That's a pretty startling conclusion: when the Bible says that we don't understand God, you conclude that we don't understand anything about God. To take verses like that to THAT extreme while denying even the plain sense of this verse makes me wonder what's going on.
The Bible's quite clear that not everyone is saved, but the implication of John 3 is that the opportunity to believe is given to the entire world -- that God has done everything short of overriding the individual human's decision to believe or not, sparing not His only begotten Son.
The very next verse contradicts the interpretation you're drawing: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."
God sent His Son so that THE WORLD might be saved. It's certainly true that the entire world is not saved, but God has done all that was required.
None seek after God: I believe the plain meaning of Romans 3:11, but it does not logically follow that none are likewise incapable of responding to God when He seeks after them.
The end of the chapter teaches that justification is received by faith (3:25), but I don't believe the Bible anywhere teaches that regeneration is a precondition rather than a consequence of faith.
You write that you believe that before salvation we were all "blinded by the god of this world, unable (Paul's word, not mine) to understand the things of God," but clearly the unsaved aren't ABSOLUTELY ignorant of the things of God, because Paul himself argues that the unrighteous are quite aware of God's law that they reject -- and more:
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." - Rom 1:19-20
If our ignorance about God is NOT absolute, even for the unregenerate condemned, then it's at least possible that we are all capable of responding to God's call prior to regeneration.
And, yes, in John 6 Christ teaches us that the Spirit gives life, and that the flesh doesn't, but it doesn't follow that regeneration is required as a prior condition to receiving life: that the Spirit gives life is itself regeneration, and the Bible doesn't teach that this gift of life is imposed on the (literally) unwilling so that they might have faith. It is by faith that we receive what the Spirit gives: faith is the precondition of regeneration, not vice versa.
[continued]
[continued]
Clearly not all men are saved: some are condemned to eternal damnation, as we are repeatedly warned by Christ Himself.
But what makes the difference?
I contend that God has done everything so that THE WORLD might be saved (Jn 3:17), including giving all of us the ability to respond in repentance of our sin and in faith in Christ and His saving work on the cross. It would be a cruel joke for God to give us all written invitations to His banquet, if a good many were blind or illiterate and couldn't read what was on the card.
It is through that faith that we receive new life, including the ability to desire God's will truly and not just desire salvation from the sin we know we've committed.
The difference is that, while the offer and the ability to respond are given to all, only some actually do respond in faith. Others refuse to give up their sin or rely on God for salvation from sin.
Your position is that the difference is with God: He didn't call everyone, or He didn't give everyone the ability to respond, but everyone who He gives that ability DOES respond.
Never mind that that DOES dispense with free will AT LEAST in regards to salvation: your position undermines the doctrine of God's universal love.
The people who are condemned, you don't believe God loves enough -- or loves in a particular manner -- to have given them the ability to respond to His call to be saved, even though His doing so is well within A) His ability and B) His character, and even though He has already sent us His Son to die for us.
"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" - Rom 8:32
To say that God would send His Son to die for our sins but stop short of giving everyone the ability to respond to the blessings that Christ's death provides, is to undercut God's universal love.
Is there something I wrote that suggests that God does not give to everyone the opportunity to believe? Then I failed to communicate.
I think that it is certainly possible that John 3:16 implies that "whosoever believes" means "anyone can" ... but that implication is contradicted by explicit Scriptures that say otherwise. We must always interpret the implicit by the explicit and not vice versa.
Since God sent His Son into the world to save the world, and you agree that not everyone is saved, do you conclude that God failed? Or do you conclude that He tried, but didn't accomplish it? Was He aiming for it but missed? Was His will thwarted by Human Free Will? Indeed, if it is God's Will that everyone be saved and not everyone is saved, in what sense is He actually sovereign?
When the Bible speaks of Man's inability to believe, it isn't a physical or mental inability. It is, as Stand to Reason points out, a moral inability. Paul says that Natural Man is dead in sin. The standard perception of that is something akin to The Princess Bride -- "mostly dead". "Sure, sure, it means spiritually dead, but that doesn't mean that there is something they cannot do. They're not actually dead in any real sense. It just means they'll go to Hell." And that all sounds nice, but it doesn't coincide with so many other passages to the contrary.
This, in fact, is the problem. So, if you would, perhaps you could help me out. I've asked this of so many people and I have yet to get anyone to answer. Given "spiritually dead", given "unable to understand the things of God", given "hostile to God", given "the flesh profits nothing", given that Jesus explains that the reason people do not believe is because no man can believe unless God grants it, given all this, could you please explain to me how an unregenerate, dead-in-sin, unable-to-understand, hostile-to-God, in-the-flesh-not-the-Spirit person is perfectly capable of doing all that is necessary (producing faith and making the right choice)? You said, "It is through that faith that we receive new life, including the ability to desire God's will." If the unregenerate person can desire God's will enough to produce faith, don't we have a self-producing creation?
I do not hold that God doesn't offer it to everyone. I do not hold that He doesn't call everyone. I do not even hold that there is any lack in ability for people to choose Him. The lack isn't in intelligence or comprehension. The lack is in desire. Hostile people do not want non-hostility. People who choose to be blinded by the god of this world don't want to choose God. That is, the lack of ability is entirely internal.
But I would really appreciate you (or anyone else) explaining to me my question. How does Natural Man, described as he is by Scripture, do what you say he can? Because it seems impossible to me.
Stan, I preface this by saying that, as little as we know about each other, I really like and respect you. From all that I've read on your blog, we are almost in complete unanimity on most subjects. I focus on this area of disagreement, in part because I'm too busy to chime in where we agree, and in part because I think this subject is serious.
But, unlike a mutual acquaintance, you hold beliefs that aren't obvious affronts to orthodoxy, nor are you dishonest in what you believe. Ours is a serious disagreement, but one that can be genuinely between two thoughtful, informed, and sincere Christians.
I must say that, as turkey is cooking in my in-laws' oven, I'm genuinely thankful for an honest and mature discussion like this one.
About this discussion, I don't think your position is literally heretical, but I am reminded of those heretical arguments that ultimately deny the Incarnation: arguments that emphasize passages that teach Christ's deity while downplaying or reinterpreting the clear meaning of passages that teach His humanity.
John 3 is clear that God loves the world, but you think the passage really teaches that, "in other words," He loves believers. That's not something I would expect from one who emphasizes what the Bible teaches explicitly over what is taught implicitly.
Where does the Bible explicitly teach that unregenerate man is incapable of belief?
Paul taught that we were dead in sin, but you infer that "dead" means "unresponsive." Well, "dead" also means "inactive," but look at the passage in context.
"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience." - Eph 2:1-2
We were dead, but on the other hand, we walked in trespasses and sins. It's entirely possible that you're inferring what isn't implied, so I ask again, where does the Bible EXPLICITLY teach that the unregenerate are unresponsive?
In other threads, you put a great deal of emphasis on the raising of Lazarus as an acted-out parable of salvation -- which isn't how it's explicitly presented in the Bible -- but that miracle must be balanced against the parable of the prodigal son, who DID turn from his wicked rebellion and came back to the father who was waiting for him.
You even seem to treat faith as a work, when the Bible CONSISTENTLY treats faith and works as two entirely different things.
There's a lot in your approach to this issue that suggests you're not always letting the Bible's clear teachings inform the less clear teachings.
[continued]
Stan, I preface this by saying that, as little as we know about each other, I really like and respect you. From all that I've read on your blog, we are almost in complete unanimity on most subjects. I focus on this area of disagreement, in part because I'm too busy to chime in where we agree, and in part because I think this subject is serious.
But, unlike a mutual acquaintance, you hold beliefs that aren't obvious affronts to orthodoxy, nor are you dishonest in what you believe. Ours is a serious disagreement, but one that can be genuinely between two thoughtful, informed, and sincere Christians.
I must say that, as turkey is cooking in my in-laws' oven, I'm genuinely thankful for an honest and mature discussion like this one.
About this discussion, I don't think your position is literally heretical, but I am reminded of those heretical arguments that ultimately deny the Incarnation: arguments that emphasize passages that teach Christ's deity while downplaying or reinterpreting the clear meaning of passages that teach His humanity.
John 3 is clear that God loves the world, but you think the passage really teaches that, "in other words," He loves believers. That's not something I would expect from one who emphasizes what the Bible teaches explicitly over what is taught implicitly.
Where does the Bible explicitly teach that unregenerate man is incapable of belief?
Paul taught that we were dead in sin, but you infer that "dead" means "unresponsive." Well, "dead" also means "inactive," but look at the passage in context.
"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience." - Eph 2:1-2
We were dead, but on the other hand, we walked in trespasses and sins. It's entirely possible that you're inferring what isn't implied, so I ask again, where does the Bible EXPLICITLY teach that the unregenerate are unresponsive?
In other threads, you put a great deal of emphasis on the raising of Lazarus as an acted-out parable of salvation -- which isn't how it's explicitly presented in the Bible -- but that miracle must be balanced against the parable of the prodigal son, who DID turn from his wicked rebellion and came back to the father who was waiting for him.
You even seem to treat faith as a work, when the Bible CONSISTENTLY treats faith and works as two entirely different things.
There's a lot in your approach to this issue that suggests you're not always letting the Bible's clear teachings inform the less clear teachings.
[continued]
[continued]
Stan, you ask:
"Given 'spiritually dead', given 'unable to understand the things of God', given 'hostile to God', given 'the flesh profits nothing', given that Jesus explains that the reason people do not believe is because no man can believe unless God grants it, given all this, could you please explain to me how an unregenerate, dead-in-sin, unable-to-understand, hostile-to-God, in-the-flesh-not-the-Spirit person is perfectly capable of doing all that is necessary (producing faith and making the right choice)?"
1) As above, it's not clear that spiritually dead means unresponsive, since it clearly doesn't mean inactive.
2) As I wrote earlier, it IS clear that we're not wholly ignorant of the things of God. Paul begins Romans with the claim that God's law and God's nature is evident to everyone.
3) I agree that we were hostile to God, but since Christ's death can appease God's wrath, I don't see why it cannot also prompt us to surrender prior to regeneration.
4) I agree that the flesh profits nothing in accomplishing salvation, but I don't believe that faith is a work of the flesh: faith isn't a work at all.
5) And I agree that God must grant belief before one can believe, but that doesn't imply that He must regenerate the sinner, too.
Ultimately you ask, "If the unregenerate person can desire God's will enough to produce faith, don't we have a self-producing creation?"
Where does the Bible teach that we must first desire God's will in order to have faith?
It seems to me that all that is required is desiring being rescued from God's wrath, the acceptance that God wholly accomplished that salvation Himself, through Christ on the cross, and repentance -- the willingness to set aside the old life for His new life. It seems to me that the actual desire for His will comes with that new life AS A CONSEQUENCE of faith, not as a precondition.
The way you present God's call frankly makes a farce of His universal love: He offers salvation to all, but only to some does He give the ability to respond?
It's possible that the tension between God's total sovereignty and His universal love cannot be resolved from our limited point of view -- anymore than we can resolve the doctrine of the Incarnation, or understand the Trinity.
Maybe your position undermines God's universal love while the opposite position undermines His sovereignty: maybe we should accept what the Bible clearly teaches about both, and leave the details as a (theological) mystery that the Bible doesn't explicitly explain.
First, like you, I appreciate serious, friendly dialog between friends who may disagree on an issue but can do so with respect. I have been taking our discussion as such.
On the apparently devastating blow that "my theology" (I put in the quotes because it's not mine) gives to God's "universal love", I'm a little bit confused. I believe He offers His Son to all. Is that not "universal love"? That some refuse doesn't affect that, does it? Of course not, because that is precisely your position. That is, we agree there. The place where we differ is not there. Now, you seem to see a "universal love" that is equal toward all in intensity. I would desperately hope that this is not the case. Scripture illustrates Christ's relationship with the Church as a relationship of husband and wife. I would pray that the Husband does not love every woman as He loves His bride. So to me I see the rain fall and the sunshine and the lifespan given to all humans (as opposed to immediate judgment) as an act of universal love on God's part. I see the offer of His Son to all humans as an act of universal love on God's part. I do not see the argument that Natural Man will refuse that offer as an indictment against God's love. And I do not expect God to love all equally.
On the list of problems I see, it seems as if you see them as serious non-issues. "Dead in sin" doesn't mean "inactive". Paul's claim that Natural Man does not respond to the things of God because he cannot doesn't, in your view, mean that he does not because he cannot. He does not but certainly can and ... does. Hostilities of the flesh toward God are no issue because ... God is not hostile toward Man. (That one really baffles me. If there is no wrath of God left, then on what possible basis does anyone need fear God? Why is salvation not universal?) If Paul (writing after the Crucifixion and Resurrection) meant that the hostility of the flesh toward God was not really an issue, then why did he bring it up? The "in-the-fleshness" of Natural Man isn't an issue at all, not on the basis of works, but because "dead in sin", "hostile to God", "cannot understand", and all don't mean that there is anything insurmountable about the flesh. Indeed, if it pleases God that we come to Him in faith and choose His Son, even if it is not on the basis of works, how can it be possibly said that "those who are in the flesh cannot please God"? Being "in the flesh" isn't really an issue at all. Dead in sin, hostile to God, unable to understand, none of these are real issues at all, are they? I mean, any of us, if we put our minds to it, can overcome it on our own. It seems as if you've eliminated all the issues I've raised, and all those issues were raised by the writers of Scripture, so why are these non-issues raised at all? (I'm really wondering, since "dead in sin" doesn't mean inactive at all, what does it mean? Every answer I've ever been given end up essentially with "It doesn't really mean much of anything at all.")
Others have explained to me that the Bible is full of hyperbole, and I'm even willing to admit that there is that. But when they do that, it turns out that the hyperbole ends up, instead of emphasizing something, meaning nothing at all. It seems as if all these problems I've pulled from Scripture end up the same way. They don't really mean anything at all. And the reason that is so is because of God's universal love. I don't see it.
Oh, by the way, Jesus's explanation in John 6 was in regards to why people do not believe. He started with "no man can", meaning that human beings do not have the natural ability inherent in them to believe. That, among others, is where I get it.
Stan:
If a man gave his three children locked boxes, each one containing wonderful gifts, but he only gave one child the key to her particular box, I don't think we would say that he simply loved the other children less. If some high school cheerleader sent party invitations to her entire class, but the unpopular kids' invitations omitted the time-and-place details, no one would say that she really considered them friends, just not best friends.
The locked treasure chest without the key, and the useless invitation aren't signs of a love that is less in degree: they're signs of a mocking, cruel farce pretending to be love.
I'm not saying that God loves all people equally, but if He loved someone enough to send His Son to die for him, it boggles the mind that He doesn't love him enough to give him the ability to respond in faith.
How in the world does one present that gospel to a lost and dying world? "God loves you enough to send His Son to die for you, but if you don't come to Him in repentance and faith, that's because God doesn't love you enough to give you the ability to come to Him"? I think that's twisted, basically saying that God is extravagent enough to write everyone checks for a million dollars, but too cheap to put a stamp on every envelope, because giving us the ability to respond in faith is NOTHING compared to the cross.
Earlier you asked, "Indeed, if it is God's Will that everyone be saved and not everyone is saved, in what sense is He actually sovereign?"
Well, it's clearly God's will that people worship Him alone, not take His name in vain, and abstain from idolatry, murder, dishonesty, and envy. God gave us the Decalogue as commandments, not merely suggestions: does the fact that everyone breaks those commands likewise undermine His sovereignty?
We can even go further back to BEFORE the fall: God told Adam not to eat of that one tree, and even before Adam even had a sin nature, Adam was capable of disobedience.
Why must we conclude that God's sovereignty is undermined if His call isn't irresistable, if His commands aren't irresistable EVEN before the Fall?
About Ephesians 2 and its teaching that we were dead in sin, verse 8 teaches that we are saved by grace through faith. If faith is a consequence of salvation -- the result of a prior regeneration -- why does Paul consistently treat faith as a precondition of salvation?
(For what it's worth, I believe "dead in sin" in verse 1 is probably synonymous to being a "child of wrath" in verse 3: we're already condemned and under judgment. We who were condemned were still aware of God's nature and law -- according to Romans 1 -- and we were also capable of the occasional good act, according to Christ's own a fortiori arguments of God's goodness. I simply do not see the logical necessity for concluding that being spiritual dead thus means unresponsive to God's call.)
I Corinthians 2 teaches that the earthly man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God, but clearly that's not ABSOLUTELY true, since Paul writes in Romans 1 about how God's nature and law are evident to all, and so again I don't see why it's logically necessary to conclude that the basics for salvation are beyond our grasp and belief before regeneration.
No, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." (Rom 10:17)
I've never seen where the Bible teaches that faith comes from regeneration.
[continued]
[continued]
And I absolutely agree that, as John 6 teaches, no one CAN come to the Father unless the Father draw him, but note that the passage talks about how the Father must first draw the individual to Him -- DRAWS him to Himself, there's nothing about regenerating him or bringing him back to life.
One can certainly affirm the necessity of God's initiative in salvation without being required to conclude that we must be regenerated before being able to respond in faith.
Stan, last thing for the night, you write:
"Oh, by the way, Jesus's explanation in John 6 was in regards to why people do not believe. He started with 'no man can', meaning that human beings do not have the natural ability inherent in them to believe. That, among others, is where I get it."
John 6:44:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."
What Jesus teaches is that God's initiative is needed: His call, His drawing us to Himself.
I just don't see where you go from that to concluding that what is required is our regeneration.
It might not be that we "do not have the natural ability inherent in [us] to believe."
It might be that the dilemma is this: there's nothing to believe in without God's initiative.
We appropriate salvation by our response in faith to His call and offer. If there is no call, then no response is possible REGARDLESS of our innate ability to respond.
If the verse said, No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me CHANGES him or REVIVES him, it would fit a lot more easily into the conclusions that you're drawing.
Ditto, if John 3:16 asserted that God loved THE CHURCH in sending His Son: He astounds me, the idea that He would send His Son for the world's sake but leave all but a handful incapable of responding to the salvation Christ's death purchased.
And, ditto, if Paul wrote about how we were saved by grace through regeneration, of which faith and works are a result.
Instead, AT BEST, the passages make it possible but not necessary to draw your conclusions. At worst, your conclusions don't fit.
Okay, where to start? Well, at the beginning, I guess. There are some perception problems, what I will attribute to a failure on my part to communicate.
"If a man gave his three children locked boxes ..."
This seems at all times to be the problem in what I hold that the Bible teaches. "Locked boxes." The perception that something is preventing people from getting at the good stuff God offers, and certainly that's not fair! It's not the case. It's not the idea. It's not the position. Using the "gift of boxes" concept, they are not locked. They are available to be freely opened.
Here, imagine this. You give those three unlocked boxes to your three kids. They all have opposable thumbs and the requisite strength to lift the lid. There is nothing about the gift that is outside their ability to access them ... and the gift is good, really good. But, as it turns out, little Tommy is mad at you. No, not mad, furious. He hates you. For whatever reason, he cannot stand you. "Gift box? Who cares??!! Get that stupid thing away from me. I won't open it." And little Tommy misses out on the gift not because it was locked, but because his hostility negated the possibility of him accessing it.
We are familiar with this idea in normal life. I would say that I "cannot eat peppers" not because I lack the mouth, teeth, or any other functionality required to consume them, but because I so dislike their taste that I can't stomach them. There, see? I did it right there. "Can't stomach them." What is preventing me from eating them? Nothing. But because of my own dislike of them, if I were to end up eating them, it would be against my own will. They aren't "locked". There is nothing in the world that prevents me. There is only my own tastes.
This is the notion, then. No locked boxes, missing time/place details, nothing at all preventing anyone at all at any time from receiving God's gift of His Son. That which prevents them is THEM. It is their own will. It is their own nature.
One big problem I have is that of anthropocentrism. The examples used almost always bespeak of this idea of how important we are. We are "kids" to God. The cheerleader sends the invitations to "classmates". The notion that "we're all God's children" is prevalent in our thinking. But we are God's creation. If you changed "kids" to "mosquitoes" or the invitations from the cheerleader went to the lab rats perhaps we'd be moving the mindset. But we won't think of it that way. Consciously or unconsciously, we want to believe that we're more important than that.
And I probably explained John 3:16 poorly. "God loved the world this way: He gives eternal life to whomever believes." Does that equate with "God loves the Church"? I don't think so. I see it as "God loves the world in this way ... because God has no obligation whatsoever to save humans from sin or give them eternal life. He does it on the basis of His own love." Not "God so loved the Church."
Okay, where to start? Well, at the beginning, I guess. There are some perception problems, what I will attribute to a failure on my part to communicate.
"If a man gave his three children locked boxes ..."
This seems at all times to be the problem in what I hold that the Bible teaches. "Locked boxes." The perception that something is preventing people from getting at the good stuff God offers, and certainly that's not fair! It's not the case. It's not the idea. It's not the position. Using the "gift of boxes" concept, they are not locked. They are available to be freely opened.
Here, imagine this. You give those three unlocked boxes to your three kids. They all have opposable thumbs and the requisite strength to lift the lid. There is nothing about the gift that is outside their ability to access them ... and the gift is good, really good. But, as it turns out, little Tommy is mad at you. No, not mad, furious. He hates you. For whatever reason, he cannot stand you. "Gift box? Who cares??!! Get that stupid thing away from me. I won't open it." And little Tommy misses out on the gift not because it was locked, but because his hostility negated the possibility of him accessing it.
We are familiar with this idea in normal life. I would say that I "cannot eat peppers" not because I lack the mouth, teeth, or any other functionality required to consume them, but because I so dislike their taste that I can't stomach them. There, see? I did it right there. "Can't stomach them." What is preventing me from eating them? Nothing. But because of my own dislike of them, if I were to end up eating them, it would be against my own will. They aren't "locked". There is nothing in the world that prevents me. There is only my own tastes.
This is the notion, then. No locked boxes, missing time/place details, nothing at all preventing anyone at all at any time from receiving God's gift of His Son. That which prevents them is THEM. It is their own will. It is their own nature.
One big problem I have is that of anthropocentrism. The examples used almost always bespeak of this idea of how important we are. We are "kids" to God. The cheerleader sends the invitations to "classmates". The notion that "we're all God's children" is prevalent in our thinking. But we are God's creation. If you changed "kids" to "mosquitoes" or the invitations from the cheerleader went to the lab rats perhaps we'd be moving the mindset. But we won't think of it that way. Consciously or unconsciously, we want to believe that we're more important than that.
And I probably explained John 3:16 poorly. "God loved the world this way: He gives eternal life to whomever believes." Does that equate with "God loves the Church"? I don't think so. I see it as "God loves the world in this way ... because God has no obligation whatsoever to save humans from sin or give them eternal life. He does it on the basis of His own love." Not "God so loved the Church."
On the whole issue of sovereignty, you are presenting a problem that you need answered as well. It looks like your argument is that, well, no, God's not sovereign at all. He wills obedience but doesn't get it. He wills the salvation of all but doesn't get it. He's pretty much the victim of His own creation. Sorry about that, God. But, hey, you made 'em. It's your own fault.
We typically hold, on the other hand, that God has more than one type of will (you know, like people do as well). There is His will that says "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not". That is the will that says what we ought to do. That often gets violated. There is His permissive will. This is the stuff He would "like". He would like it if everyone repented ... but that's not going to happen. And then there is His absolute will. This will is the one referred to in Eph 1:11, the one that says that He "works all things after the counsel of His will". This will of His always happens. It cannot fail. Nothing you or I can do will change it. It is this will that is linked to His Sovereignty. This will allows the violation of His decreed rules for His purposes. This will allows the lack of salvation for all for His purposes. This will always accomplishes what He intends to accomplish and allows those things He would have liked but don't happen because that's what He intends. In no case (given this view of God's Sovereignty) is God ever "victimized" by His creation. His creation will always do what His Absolute Will declares will be done.
There is a fundamental difference in how I approach this question. Most people see something like "God so loved the world", assign to that phrase a meaning that feels right (I don't mean anything at all detrimental), and then interpret through that the rest. I have found a whole pile of Scripture that seems to describe human beings in a particular way. The plain language of these texts paint Man in a very negative light. Now, I can read these Scriptures in light of "God so loved the world" and try to figure out how to explain that these don't mean what they appear to clearly state, or I can take these at face value and then try to figure out the rest. I've chosen the latter because these are so plain -- explicit -- but "God so loved the world" is only an implication of some "universal love" that overflows everything.
I can try to explain how "dead in sin" means "something bad in the future" and "hostile to God" can easily be changed if God calls me and "unable to understand" is only hyperbole and "no one seeks for God" is obvious exaggeration and on and on, but after awhile it gets to be too much for me. I'm explaining away this and that into oblivion. If these don't really mean what their plain language says they mean, what do they mean? If these problems of Natural Man aren't so much of a problem, why bring them up and why in a way that seems so very, very big? If, on the other hand, "God loved the world in this way ... He gives eternal life to all who believe" makes sense, why not go with the plain sense of the pile and change my understanding of the singular verse?
This really is my problem. These problems are insurmountable to me. "Dead in sin" is only mostly dead. It doesn't mean inactivity of any kind at all. No problem. "The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God"? No problem. As long as you set your mind (prior to any change God might do in you) on the Spirit, then you're okay. "The flesh profits nothing"? Yeah, yeah, well, almost nothing. As long as you can muster your own faith and make the choice for Christ, it's only mostly nothing. And I'm quite sure that when Paul said that Natural Man cannot understand the things of God he was only talking about ... I don't know ... some things. "None who seeks for God" is not a problem as long as God seeks for you. (If that's the case, why bring it up?) You see, the list just gets bigger and bigger and harder and harder for me to say, "Yeah, well, it looks bad, but it's not that bad. As bad as that all seems, you have it within yourself to muster faith and choose Christ and don't let anyone tell you otherwise." To me, that's huge.
Oh, by the way, you didn't get far enough into John 6. Verse 44 was not the verse I had in mind. The end of the chapter talks about believing and why some do not. See John 6:63-66.
Bubba, you keep asking for a passage that says you need to be made alive before you can believe, and I'm not sure why everyone is forgetting Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus. John 3:3,"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." ("born again" in Greek can also mean "born from above" and is an interchangeable meaning.) In verse 12, Jesus goes on to say,"If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" and the "you"'s in this passage are plural, speaking of mankind, not just Nicodemus.
And in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world..." is not an accurate translation of the Greek, so the confusion isn't in the words of Christ, but in the translation of those words. A clearer translation would be "For this is how God loved the world..." In other words, God shows His love to the world by offering His Son, not because He loves the world so very much.
You keep saying that we have the will to follow God on our own, but Paul says in Romans 9:15-16,"For He says to Moses,"I will have mercy on whom i have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion," So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." Part of that mercy would be salvation (the context is God's choices in redemptive history). Verse 18 concludes the argument with "So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." Which is exactly the whole point of Stan's post. God makes us for His purpose, for many of us, that purpose is destruction, and for some of us it is salvation, but ultimately, His purpose is for the expression of His glory. How can we say it's not fair that God chooses some for salvation and leaves others to destruction (notice that was the order of choice in the original post passage, that we are all vessels for destruction, out of which God changes our purpose), when He says He made that choice and it is all to show His glory?
His sovereignty and His universal love are not made exclusive by any of this. We need to remember that His universal love for mankind is not surpassed by His ultimate (and just) love for Himself. Sure, He loves us all, but not enough to be worried about whether or not He's impinging on our free will when it comes to His sovereign decrees.
1 John 5:1 says something very similar: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." Note that "has been born of God" precedes "who believes" in grammar. That is, "has been" precedes "is now", so that those who now believe were already born of God.
Stan, I appreciate your patience as my replies will continue to be provided sporadically: I'm just way too busy to comment as quickly as I would like.
David, I've already addressed the claim that I misunderstand John 3:16 [11/24, 4:56 AM], and I believe it's a distinction that doesn't make a difference, at least on this subject.
Whether it's a demonstration of "how much" God loves the world or merely "how" God loves the world, it's an odd thing to say that God sent His Son so that salvation would be accessible by faith, but that God does not actually make faith possible for most of the world. How that demonstrates God's love for the world perplexes me.
Stan clarifies, "God loved the world this way: He gives eternal life to whomever believes."
I wholeheartedly agree with that, but if belief is still out of reach for most of the world, if God could do something about that but doesn't, then I don't see how that's a demonstration of His love for the world.
On the subject of what I think are digressions, Stan, I think you miss the point of my analogy.
"This is the notion, then. No locked boxes, missing time/place details, nothing at all preventing anyone at all at any time from receiving God's gift of His Son. That which prevents them is THEM. It is their own will. It is their own nature."
I understand your position, and I agree that my analogy externalizes what is internal, but that doesn't matter.
The point with my analogy is, if the gift-giver CAN do something about that unwillingness but DOESN'T, then the gift strikes me as a mockery of real love.
A father gives his three children three gifts, and they don't open the gifts, not because there's anything wrong with the gifts, but because they're something wrong with THEMSELVES.
It doesn't matter what it is, what matters is, if the father can correct that defect with ALL of them but chooses to correct it only with SOME -- say, his eldest child -- then the gift is hardly a sign of his love for the other two children, since he refuses to do that which would allow them to receive the gift.
About one more digression, but one that's probably more serious, you write:
"One big problem I have is that of anthropocentrism. The examples used almost always bespeak of this idea of how important we are. We are 'kids' to God. The cheerleader sends the invitations to 'classmates'. The notion that 'we're all God's children' is prevalent in our thinking. But we are God's creation. If you changed 'kids' to 'mosquitoes' or the invitations from the cheerleader went to the lab rats perhaps we'd be moving the mindset. But we won't think of it that way. Consciously or unconsciously, we want to believe that we're more important than that."
I really don't know what to say about this except to point the obvious.
Christ Himself taught us to pray to our Father, and the Greek records a term ("abba") that is culturally similar to the very intimate term of affection, "Daddy."
He frequently invoked a fortiori arguments to teach that God loves us much more than the birds of the air, He invoked His own comparisons of God's love for us to a parent-child relationship (e.g., the parable of the prodigal son), and the New Testament teaches that the redeemed are joint heirs with Christ, who have been raised and seated with the Son of God.
Now, I agree that we're not important in ourselves -- our worth comes from His work as Creator and Redeemer, all to His glory -- but I balk at the suggestion that it's somehow inappropriate to consider ourselves God's children. I balk especially when you invoke I John 5:1, since, if we are born of God, that does make us more sons than mere creatures.
More, shortly.
About the topic at hand, David writes, "You keep saying that we have the will to follow God on our own," but I haven't written that, nor do I believe it.
We don't have the will to follow God "on our own." My belief is that we can RESPOND to God without regeneration.
The Bible doesn't clearly teach that regeneration is a necessary precondition for the response in faith, and I find the position that it IS necessary to be very problematic.
About whether regeneration is necessary, David sites John 3:3.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Indeed, and John 3:36 tells us, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life."
What isn't clear is that being born again must occur prior to that initial response in faith.
(Indeed, if the gift of new life is equivalent to eternal life, then this verse could be read to mean the opposite, that belief is the cause and new/eternal life is the result.)
Stan, I John 5:1 seems like it teaches exactly your position, but it doesn't in context: the entire letter is about how those who are saved can be assured of their salvation, not how the lost can be saved.
If I now have an abiding faith in Christ, that assures me that I have been born again, and that certainly leaves open the possibility that the initial response of faith was the result of regeneration, BUT that conclusion isn't necessary.
I see a newer post has been published, and so while I'll certainly try to check for replies here, as time permits, another point worth making is probably best made there.
You agree that 1 John 5:1 seems to say that regeneration precedes faith, but you disagree with that. It would require, then, that it is certainly possible that one would believe prior to being born again ... violating that verse. It would seem that you are arguing that it is indeed possible to see the kingdom of God prior to being born again.
But, here, let's examine this "universal love" question for a moment. By your argument, God can only be considered loving universally if He gifts all with faith, if He shows mercy to all, if He gives all the same gifts as well as abilities. We know that "God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25) which requires that He may not. We know that He says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Rom 9:15), meaning that He does not have compassion on all. We know that it is His will "to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:22). So without even going to any of my arguments, how does this fit in your prescription for "universal love"? In what sense can God choose whom He will show mercy and whom He will harden if He is required to love everyone equally?
Paul said, "It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs" (Rom 9:16) -- not dependent on my choices or my efforts. We know that we become sons of God "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). But if it is indeed a product of my choice, then how is that true? (Note, by the way, that the reason I deny the universal fatherhood of God premise is this concept. The "sons of God" are a special group, not every man, woman, and child. We are certainly all His creation, but that's not the same as being universally His children.)
Bubba, Stan would never say that believers aren't God's children. That is quite clear in Scripture. His hangup comes when anyone tries to claim that all Mankind is God's children. If everyone is God's child, in what way could we be made heirs, or adopted into the family? Anything God has to say about His children is in reference to believers, not non-believers.
A couple quick corrections, and I have to go.
"You agree that 1 John 5:1 seems to say that regeneration precedes faith, but you disagree with that."
The verse teaches that regeneration precedes the continual faith of those who are already saved, but not necessarily the initial response of faith which first appropriates salvation. I reiterate that the letter is NOT about how the lost can be saved, but how we Christians can be assured of the fact that we have already been saved.
"It would seem that you are arguing that it is indeed possible to see the kingdom of God prior to being born again."
Absolutely not. New birth is necessary to see the kingdom of God, just as faith is necessary to receive eternal life.
It just doesn't follow that new birth precedes the initial response of faith. Indeed, if "new life" and "eternal life" are the same thing -- the new life doesn't ever end, does it? -- then John 3:36 would suggest that the initial response of faith precedes regeneration.
It cannot be the case that regeneration is an eventual result of faith that might be missed, as if a man could die after responding in faith but before God gave him new life.
No, regeneration must be an immediate event and may even be a simultaneous event, but I think the response of faith may be LOGICALLY prior to it.
The Bible doesn't clearly teach one thing or the other, in terms of whether regeneration precedes the initial response of faith, but your position is problematic.
"By your argument, God can only be considered loving universally if He gifts all with faith, if He shows mercy to all, if He gives all the same gifts as well as abilities."
No, again, Stan. It's not that God gives faith to all, but that God gives all a genuine opportunity to respond in faith -- a GENUINE opportunity, meaning that such a response is actually possible. God has the initiative: He must call, He must choose to be merciful, and maybe in His omniscience He calls only those He knows would respond.
But the Bible doesn't teach, at least not clearly, that regeneration is a necessary precondition for that response in faith.
More, when I can.
There are, it seems, some fundamental and sometimes unspoken differences in our viewpoints that are shaping this conversation. A previously mentioned example would be that I see "dead in sin" as spiritual death, a genuine spiritual inactivity, and you see it as something ... future. (I'm only guessing, actually, because I haven't got a clue as to what you see it as since it doesn't seem to have any actual effect. I only know that you do not see this "dead" as some sort of inactivity ... which is the common understanding of "dead".) An unspoken example would be the nature of "the kingdom of God". I understand that to be here and now, all around us, already in effect. It is the rulership of God, the truth of His Word, His ongoing power and grace and so on. It is all the ways in which God touches Man. I know others see it as future tense, heaven, that place we will see eventually but not yet. I don't. So when I read "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God", I understand it to mean "Without being born again a person is not able to see (acknowledge, understand, grasp) the things of God" (which corresponds with Paul's statement in 1 Cor 2:14).
(By the way, I read John 3:36 to say "Whoever believes (now) has (was previously in possession of) eternal life" in the same way as I read 1 John 5:1, so I don't see how it suggests that faith precedes regeneration.)
Another difference in perceptions that are shaping this conversation. You said, "God gives all a genuine opportunity to respond in faith." Since I read the Bible to state (what appears to be quite clearly) that faith is a gift from God, not something that we produce in any way, then I would conclude that you conclude "God can only be considered loving universally if He gifts all with faith, if He shows mercy to all, if He gives all the same gifts as well as abilities." You, it would seem, hold the counter view that faith is our own, not a matter of a gift from God, but just something ... how shall I put it ... that we produce. (I'm trying to be careful with the wording but don't know how else to put it. I'm not suggesting that faith is a work. I'm just referencing its origin: Me or God.) Since I am convinced that faith is a gift and that explains why (quite easily) not everyone responds in faith, I conclude that those who think that for God to give all "a genuine opportunity to respond in faith", He must also give all ... faith. That's why I said what I said and you said what you said -- a different starting place on the origin of faith.
I think that the Bible does teach that regeneration is a necessary precondition for that response in faith. But, let me be completely honest. You said, "I think the response of faith may be LOGICALLY prior to [regeneration]." It is precisely the logical order to which I am referring. Based on those multiple references that I repeat ad nauseum about the biblical description of the nature of Natural Man, I have to conclude that regeneration must logically precede faith. I don't see it as much a temporal preceeding; I would assume that, in terms of time, it is immediate, instantaneous -- regeneration/faith simultaneously. It's just that, for me, given the list of the conditions of Natural Man, I cannot fathom how it could be any other logical order. Nor have I yet had anyone explain to me how it can be. So, I see the passages listed such as John 3:3, 36, and 1 John 5:1 as explicitly teaching that regeneration precedes faith and I see the myriad of references to the condition of Man as logically demanding that regeneration must precede faith. Until I can find some way around the condition of Man, I can't seem to go where you are happy.
Stan, the "dead" in Ephesians 2:1 cannot possibly mean "inactive" because the VERY NEXT VERSE describes how the readers "walked" according to, essentially, the world, the devil and the flesh.
It cannot mean that we are utterly ignorant of God's characteristics and will, because Romans 1 teaches us that these are evident to everyone.
The question remains, can "dead" mean unresponsive to God's call?
I don't think that even this passage points in that direction. Between verses 5 and 8, it seems that our being made alive with Christ is the result of salvation, not the cause, and we are saved by grace through faith: the response of faith evidently precedes our being revived.
What does it mean then? It's possible that our spiritual death is something that was true but not consummated, just our present salvation is true but not consummated: the "second death" of Revelation is clearly an eschatological event, so the sinner's current state of being "dead" in sin may simply mean being bound to that destiny with no hope of escape ON ONE'S OWN.
But I don't need to provide a detailed answer for what it means if it's simply clear enough that your position doesn't really fit.
As an aside, you write:
"By the way, I read John 3:36 to say 'Whoever believes (now) has (was previously in possession of) eternal life' in the same way as I read 1 John 5:1, so I don't see how it suggests that faith precedes regeneration."
There's no textual reason to accept that approach for either. I John is all about the assurance of existing salvation, not about how one is saved to begin with, and the focus of the passage in John 3 is the importance of belief in the Son, as is clear from the previous verse.
"The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."
The Son is the focus, and the issue is belief (and, implicitly, bedience) versus the disobedience that implicitly results from disbelief. Eternal life and the continuation of wrath are presented as the consequences of belief and disbelief, not the causes.
You allude to verses that supposedly support your position that regeneration precedes the response in faith. Since you begin citing those other verses in the other thread -- and since I frankly hate continuing two discussions with the same person, about the same subject -- I'll pick up on those verses there.
Post a Comment