In John 6, there is an interesting statement. 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, hostile to God, 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 thin air. It is in answer to a dilemma. Why are there people who don't believe? The answer Jesus gives is two-fold. First, no one can -- humans lack the ability. We are without the power to carry it out. Second, the only way anyone believes is if it is granted by the Father.
Now, the statement taken in a vacuum might be understood to contain an unwritten phrase: "And, of course, He grants that to everyone." But to conclude that, you have to disconnect the statement from its context. He said, "For this reason I have said to you ..." before He said "... no one can come to Me ..." The reason that He said "no one can come to Me ..." was to explain the question, "Why do some not believe?" Thus, the answer to "Why do some not believe?" can only be "because the Father has not granted it."
That's what He says. So that's what I conclude to be true.
19 comments:
Stan:
"First we have 'The flesh profits nothing.' Now, if humans -- unregenerate, hostile to God, operating in the flesh -- are perfectly able to come to Christ on their own, then 'nothing' is actually 'something', isn't it?"
Does faith have anything to do with one's flesh?
If it does, and our fleshly faith is unprofitable, then regeneration doesn't help us have productive faith, because we don't get new flesh when we're regenerated.
If it doesn't -- and I think it's clear that it doesn't -- if faith is a matter of the spirit, then the conclusion you draw is based on a form of equivocation.
Indeed, the flesh profits nothing, and so we can't respond to God's call out of our own flesh. But faith is a matter of the spirit, and you're conflating the two by lumping them together under the broader heading of what you can do "on your own."
The real tragedy of this confusion is that a response of faith in God entails an emphatic repudiation of what you can accomplish in your flesh.
What we do with our flesh is perform works, is try to obey God's law and earn entrance into the kingdom.
But faith isn't a work -- and I believe you may have suggested otherwise, a while back -- and it doesn't involve the flesh. Faith isn't trying to earn God's kingdom through obedience to God's law: it's receiving the gift of God's kingdom through trust in God's promises.
You ask, why do some not come to Christ?
"The answer Jesus gives is two-fold. First, no one can -- humans lack the ability. We are without the power to carry it out. Second, the only way anyone believes is if it is granted by the Father."
The first answer you give assumes too much: it's not that no one can, it's that no one can IN THEIR FLESH.
And that dovetails into the second answer, there are some who believe that salvation isn't granted by the Father but earned by the individual in his flesh.
Earlier in the same chapter, we see this futile attempt on the part of some to earn salvation through their works.
"Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.'
"Then they said to him, 'What must we do, to be doing the works of God?'
Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.'" - John 6:26-29
It's not, God chooses some but not others: it's that some have faith in Christ while others persist in faith in their own flesh and in their own works.
I guess I conclude that faith prior to regeneration is a product of the flesh because prior to regeneration that's all there is. Unless, of course, you conclude that there is also the Spirit within the person. I conclude that "No one can" because that's the phrase Jesus uses.
No, of course we don't get new flesh when we're regenerated. We get new life. We are no longer "dead in sin". We are indwelt by the Spirit. I'm not calling faith a work, but prior to regeneration flesh is all we have. Whatever occurs prior to that point is a product of the flesh.
If, as you agree, no one can come to Christ in their flesh, in what sense can they come to Christ prior to being made alive?
According to Scripture (explicit, not implicit), faith is a gift of God. So is repentance. But it sounds as if you're saying that the Father grants faith to everyone, at which point Jesus's answer is lost because it doesn't answer the question.
Instead of placing it in our hands, I see Scripture saying, "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). I conclude from that that God doesn't show mercy on all -- only on whom He desires -- and that He hardens some.
Stan,
With Bubba's presence, I am greatly pleased to see two people, whose knowledge and understanding I respect, debating this point which totally fascinates me. I hope you both have the time to "flesh" it out.
I hope to "flesh it out". Bubba keeps saying things that make me post new things (expanding on the discussion), so that might help that aim. This post, in fact, is a response to the discussion here.
For we are saved by grace through faith, which is a gift of God. The Greek implication is that of both grace and faith being the gift attributed to God. Before God gives us the faith to believe, we can't use that faith. Faith is not produced within us, by us, but grown in us by God. Thus, salvation by faith is still something given by God, not earned by us.
The passage in question (John 6:65) says that God "grants" faith. Phil 1:29 says, "To you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake." Faith is granted, a gift from God, not something we produce ... just like the Greek implication of Eph 2:8 suggests.
(Bubba, these are comments in response to the comments over on the other thread. I'm putting them here so we can maintain this in one place.)
Bubba: "It's possible that our spiritual death is something that was true but not consummated."
Okay, so I accurately reflected your view on "dead in sin" as something future. At present, it means pretty much nothing to the one who is "dead in sin". It only becomes a problem if the condition continues until physical death. To me, of course, my position fits perfectly. (For instance, when God warned Adam, "In the day that you eat it you shall surely die", what did He mean? Since they didn't physically die, apparently it's spiritual.) If "dead in sin" is essentially future tense, I don't really know why Paul brought it up. It really has no meaning until someone physically dies. On the other hand, if it is here and now, a "spiritual inactivity", then it agrees with and explains 1 Cor 2:14.
Of course, to me that "made us alive together with Christ" thing doesn't at all point to salvation as a predecessor. I see it as clearly preceding "saved". (To be completely fair, that comes from the prior assumption that "dead in sin" means now, a present condition of Natural Man that has real-time consequences such as "spiritually dead". To be completely fair, the passage doesn't give a sequence, so neither can you point to it as "See? It shows that regeneration is accomplished after faith!")
Assuming "dead in sin" means "spiritual inactivity" doesn't require "utterly ignorant of God's characteristics and will". That is supplied internally by God according to Romans 1, and they are apprehended intellectually. It's just that "knowing" and "understanding" are not synonyms. Grasping them is one thing and incorporating them is something else. And, again, I see 1 Cor 2:14 as a clear statement along these lines.
It's interesting (and all I've seemed to get from anyone who objects to this view I'm offering) that the best I can get seems to be what "dead in sin" does not mean. "Yes," you will say, "I believe that we are 'dead in sin', but ..." and there will be a variety of explanations of what it does not mean without much help at all about what it does mean. It does not mean physically dead (well, of course not), nor does it mean spiritually incapacitated in any way. Most say "spiritually dead" and then deny any sort of real "dead" in the explanation. The phrase is always stripped of any real signficance because, while it sounds bad to say "spiritually dead", the only apparent consequence is not here and now, but in the afterlife. So the good news is that it does not mean what I think it means (a genuine condition of being spiritually dead that affects our spiritual perceptions). The bad news is that it doesn't really seem to mean anything at all, at least for the living. That's not helping me at all.
Stan, where does the Bible teach, about flesh, that "prior to regeneration that's all there is"?
It's certainly not all that we ARE. Paul routinely talks about the pull between the flesh and the Holy Spirit: if we were nothing but flesh, there would be nothing BETWEEN those two "forces" of attraction.
Romans 8:16 suggests that we each have a spirit separate from the Holy Spirit, and I believe that faith is a response of one's spirit. And so, "the flesh profits nothing" doesn't say anything about whether faith precedes regeneration, only that works of the flesh don't earn salvation.
David, I would love to see you clarify your claim that the Greek treats grace and faith as a single gift from God.
But, Stan, to say that God grants faith and suffering doesn't necessarily mean that either are given to us BEYOND the sense that they are permitted, decreed, or ordained.
The best argument I know of, counter to the belief that faith requires regeneration, is this:
Regeneration requires union with Christ (see Eph 2:5), and we are united with Christ through faith.
I believe there are two passages that make very, VERY difficult to believe that regeneration precedes faith.
"He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, but to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." - Jn 1:11-12
It doesn't say that, to those who became children of God, Christ gave them the right to believe. It says that to those who believed, He gave them the right to become children of God.
That adoption -- which is apparently, even in this verse, identical to regeneration -- is the privilege or entitlement of belief.
"Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?" - Galatians 3:2
Receiving the Spirit is presented as the result of hearing with faith, NOT the cause.
Well, it's been fun, Bubba, but quite clearly there is no progress ... in either direction. Your starting point of the nature of Man is much higher than mine. I have no way to explain the many passages that say that Natural Man is much worse off than you seem to think. You haven't given me any way to reinterpret what appears to be clearly stated, and I haven't given you any reason to change your view that Man just isn't that bad off. I can't think of any more to offer you and you apparently don't have more for me, so I guess I'll give up. You win. Man's not so bad at all. "Dead in sin" isn't so bad. "Hostile to God" isn't so hard to change. Any human at all, saved or not, is able to set his mind on the Spirit instead of the flesh. The flesh accomplishes very little, but not absolutely nothing. That's the best I can do, I guess.
Stan, I'm surprised by your last comment, not only by your tone but also by the fact that you continue to misconstrue my position.
In the previous conversation (11/25, 11:18 am), I wrote, "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."
In the first comment in this thread, I agreed, "Indeed, the flesh profits nothing, and so we can't respond to God's call out of our own flesh." I added that I believe that faith is a matter of the spirit, disputing your extra-biblical conclusion that, prior to regeneration, faith is all we have.
But now you suggest that my position is that "The flesh accomplishes very little, but not absolutely nothing."
Since that conclusion can't possibly be drawn in good faith, I have to agree with you that we're at an impasse.
It's a shame that we've reached this point just as I bring up John 1:11-12 and Galatians 3:2.
Mispoke on one sentence. Here's the correction in all-caps.
I added that I believe that faith is a matter of the spirit, disputing your extra-biblical conclusion that, prior to regeneration, FLESH is all we have.
I'll see you around, Stan, but since I was slammed with things to do since before this conversation got started, I won't say that I'll comment frequently.
I'm sorry, Bubba. My comments (and tone) are the product of frustration. I will make a statement or take a position or offer an explanation and you'll get something else entirely from it.
Here, let me illustrate. "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." I don't recall ever suggesting that faith was a work. I'm guessing you've heard that from others, but never from me. Yet it becomes a main issue, a primary rebuttal.
"I added that I believe that faith is a matter of the spirit, disputing your extra-biblical conclusion that, prior to regeneration, faith is all we have." I can't even imagine where that would come from since I don't conclude that prior to regeneration faith is all we have. I conclude that prior to regeneration the flesh is all we have. You want to call it "extra-biblical"? Then, if you can, tell me what "dead in sin" means if not "spiritual death" and tell me in what sense Adam and Eve died on the day they ate the fruit if not spiritually.
You bring up John 1:12-13 like it's agreeing with you after I brought it up to show that it agrees with me. Isn't that funny? So, if we are born of God apart from human blood, individual choice (will of the flesh), or any other human choice (will of man), what exactly is it?
But, you know, the real problem is in the definitions. We're really not operating off the same definitions. I see "regeneration" as "made spiritually alive" and you see it as something else, something more that appears to have something to do with the receiving of the Spirit. I see "dead in sin" as something that is inoperative in the human being and you see it as something future tense. We understand "Natural Man" in radically different ways, so when I use the term (think "radical depravity") you apply your meaning (sin sick?) and vice versa and we think we're talking about the same thing and can't figure out how the other is missing it.
You asked, by the way, where I get this ridiculous, extra-biblical notion that humans who are not regenerated have only the flesh to work with -- that they're spiritually dead. I get it, as I said, from passages like "dead in sin", but also from here:
"For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:5-8).
If the only way to please God and eliminate hostility toward God is to set your mind on the Spirit, and the only way set your mind on the Spirit is to live according to the Spirit, then either Natural Man has all he needs to be godly in his natural condition (called "Pelagianism") or he is spiritually dead and requires divine intervention to make him spiritually alive, without which we will remain hostile to God.
Stan, it wasn't a comment in our recent conversation that first made me wonder whether you treat faith as a work. I had to do some googling, but I found the comment from earlier this year, where you suggested that faith is something that a person must "accomplish."
I see that we both quoted John 1, but you only excerpted verse 13, focusing on the phrase that supports your conclusion, when I believe the context contradicts your conclusion.
"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 HOW do we become sons of God? What gives us that right? The passage is clear.
"He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." - Jn 1:11-12
The right -- the privilege, the entitlement to become a child of God -- is the result of faith.
Regeneration and adoption are presented as the RESULTS of faith, not the CAUSES.
It is by God's will that we are regenerated, but He regenerates those who receive and believe in Christ.
About being "dead in sin," in Ephesians 2, God brought us to life and exalted us (2:5-6) -- but how? By grace THROUGH FAITH, in verse 8.
Being dead is the "before" and being alive is the "after," but salvation by grace through faith is the "how" of the transition between the two.
We weren't raised so that we could be saved by grace through faith: we were saved by grace through faith so that we would be raised.
And so, faith is the cause and regeneration is the effect.
I don't have to go into detail about what "dead in sin" means. All I must do to dispute your position is to show that it CANNOT mean what you think it does.
And Romans 8 is hardly proof that the lost only have the flesh when it talks about setting one's mind on the flesh. That introduces another component: the mind is the subject, the flesh is its object.
One more thing, momentarily.
Okay, this is what I was talking about. We are not speaking the same language. Now it's faith. We both agree it's not a "work". What is it? I see it as something that is "accomplished", "acquired", something you have to exercise. Work? No. But it is something. If faith is produced, however you think of that, by Natural Man in the flesh without having been regenerated, then the flesh isn't a zero profit.
But you see it as something quite different. Since it is not accomplished, acquired, given by God, or produced, what? Where does it come from? Whatever it is, if it comes from the Natural Man in the flesh ... well, that's where you and I have different definitions, isn't it?
We're at that same point in the discussion on John 1. Do we choose to receive Him? If so, then we are born by the will of man. But you see it, somehow, differently.
I suppose you're going to go on holding that Ephesians 2 clearly links "made alive" with "faith", placing "faith" as prior to "made alive". Nothing in the text makes that statement, but you're going to stick with it and prove it "CANNOT" mean what I think it does. I'm a bit disappointed. That's clearly eisegesis. And I still don't know what "dead in sin" means if it doesn't mean "dead" in any real sense.
But here's my real question. You keep making allegations that I'm making this stuff up, that it's "out there" somehow, that it's bizarre and unreal and without foundation. I haven't offered any arguments but Scripture, but you do know that it's the same position held by Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, and on and on, don't you? It is the position of the every major creed that addresses the question, such as the Westminster Confession, the Midland Confession, the Ausburg Confession, and on and on. I mean, do you really think I'm just pulling this stuff out of the air, making it up? And, if so, for what possible reason? I mean, if you're right we're a lot better off than if I'm right. If I'm right Man is spiritually dead, hostile to God, unable to understand the things of God, inclined only to evil, completely without hope and completely without merit. If you're right, well, we're not so bad off as all that. We have what it takes -- the faith, the ability to overcome that hostility, the ability to understand, the ability to choose at least one good thing that pleases God. That's a whole lot better than my view. So ... why would I choose mine over yours on a whim?
I ran into a problem awhile back. Perhaps you can help me. Someone gave me a scenario. "You're standing in heaven after it's all said and done, rejoicing with the angels and all that, when one of them says, 'Hey, Stan, we have a question. We weren't there, never sinned, or any of that, so we don't know. You can tell us. Remember that day when that group from the local church came to your door and you invited them in and they shared the gospel with you and you accepted it? Well, then they went next door to your neighbor who heard the same gospel and rejected it. So here's what we want to know. What was the difference? Why did you accept it and he reject it?" There are, of course, a variety of possible answers. "I was wiser, more spiritual, smarter ...". All of them are something I can boast about. I cannot come up with an answer, based on your system of the nature of Man, that doesn't give me something to boast about. I contributed something, and, based on all that description of Man that, while you may disagree on the particulars, you can't eliminate, I apparently contributed a lot. What would your answer be?
What I hoped to post "momentarily," had to be delayed.
The one thing I wanted to write was going to be a lengthy response to this concluding paragraph:
"If the only way to please God and eliminate hostility toward God is to set your mind on the Spirit, and the only way set your mind on the Spirit is to live according to the Spirit, then either Natural Man has all he needs to be godly in his natural condition (called "Pelagianism") or he is spiritually dead and requires divine intervention to make him spiritually alive, without which we will remain hostile to God. "
We both agree that divine intervention is needed for regeneration.
For us to be saved, God must do the following things, which I list in what I believe is chronological order, where what is grouped together are those things that I believe are chronologically simultaneous and logically inseparable:
1) God must choose us.
2) God must call us.
3) God must give us new and eternal life in Christ Jesus, imputing us Christ's righteousness just as Christ died for our sins. In this new life, God must give us Christ's life, the indwelling of His Spirit, and adoption into His family.
4) God must sanctify us: we "work out" our salvation, because it is God who works in us to will and to work for His good pleasure.
5) God must raise us -- and He will, raising the dead in Christ by the resurrection of the dead, and raising the living in Christ through the rapture -- and glorify us.
We both agree on all this, I presume, and it seems clear that we ALSO agree that one must respond to God's grace with the response of faith.
OUR ONLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IS THIS:
I put the response of faith before #3, and you don't.
To run with that difference and act as if I proclaim some sort of works-based salvation, or as if I proclaim that flesh has anything to do with salvation...
"You win. Man's not so bad at all. 'Dead in sin' isn't so bad. 'Hostile to God' isn't so hard to change. Any human at all, saved or not, is able to set his mind on the Spirit instead of the flesh. The flesh accomplishes very little, but not absolutely nothing."
...is an absurd bit of strawmanning.
About faith, you ask what I think it is and where it comes from.
"Since it is not accomplished, acquired, given by God, or produced, what? Where does it come from? Whatever it is, if it comes from the Natural Man in the flesh ... well, that's where you and I have different definitions, isn't it?"
The response of saving faith is simply trusting God and His promise to save.
"For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.'"
That trust doesn't arise from the flesh, and in fact it repudiates any idea that the flesh can save: it comes from one's spirit. The Bible doesn't teach that the flesh is all we have.
"We're at that same point in the discussion on John 1. Do we choose to receive Him? If so, then we are born by the will of man. But you see it, somehow, differently."
I do: we are born again by God's will, but who is "we"? John 1 is clear that those who believe are given the right to be born again by God's will. The new birth is by God's will, but it is for those who have already believed.
About Ephesians 2, Paul presents the problem of our being dead in sin, and God's obvious solution is to bring us to new life in Christ.
Paul also emphasizes that we are saved by grace through faith, and if that statement wasn't a complete digression, then either that salvation through faith is the CAUSE of our new life, or it is its EFFECT.
It's no eisegesis to note that the passage doesn't point to salvation through faith as an effect of the new life.
"And I still don't know what 'dead in sin' means if it doesn't mean 'dead' in any real sense."
Find someone who believes that it doesn't mean dead "in any real sense," and present your dilemma.
Here, we both agree that man cannot earn salvation, that he is doomed to damnation without God's help. I agree that man cannot desire what is truly good without regeneration. ALL OF THAT is enough to provide a "real" sense of what "dead" might mean in that passage.
You insist that it must also mean that one cannot respond in faith to God's saving grace, and I disagree, but that disagreement alone isn't enough to dismiss my understanding of the passage as not meaning "dead" in any "real" sense.
What MUST the phrase mean? It's an interesting question, but it's largely beside the point. If I were being investigated for a crime, I don't have to prove who's really guilty to prove my innocence: all I need is an alibi. Likewise, I don't need to show what interpretation of the phrase is most likely; all I need to do is to show why your interpretation is flawed.
Note that, again, you're using "regeneration" in a different sense than I am:
"God must give us new and eternal life in Christ Jesus, imputing us Christ's righteousness just as Christ died for our sins. In this new life, God must give us Christ's life, the indwelling of His Spirit, and adoption into His family."
When I use the term I refer only to the remedy for being dead in sin, the "being made alive", the "born again". The eternal life, the indwelling of the Spirit, the adoption all occur at the point of faith. I'm not dogmatic about that and I could be wrong, but that's how I see it. Just a note.
You seem to think -- and I honestly don't know why -- that I've suggested yours is some sort of "works-based salvation". Seriously, I don't know why. The primary difference in our viewpoints is that you see Natural Man in much better condition than I do. That's about it. If I actually thought you were suggesting some sort of works-based salvation, then I wouldn't consider yours "the Gospel", but "not another gospel". I don't see your perspective (a very common one -- one I even held myself some time ago) as works-based. I do think that it is unavoidable that your view places a lot of weight on the abilities of Natural Man -- the flesh. It may look like "work" when I pile up all the things the Natural Man overcomes before being "made alive", but, just like faith isn't a "work", I wasn't suggesting that your view was either. I was merely suggesting that ... well, it would be a monumental accomplishment.
Again, all of this comes from two very different perspectives on the condition of Natural Man. We won't be able to come to grips with "regeneration precedes faith" or not and until we have some common perspective on Man's actual condition.
The fact is, Stan, some of my favorite writers take your position, and so I am willing to consider the possibility that they're right, but the arguments I've seen tend to be far weaker than their usual analysis.
Anyway, an appeal to any authority other than Scripture is not the sort of thing that the Reformers themselves would have found persuasive.
And speculation about your motives is a complete waste of time, and your appeal to motive is the sort of nonsense I've come to expect from others who I do not esteem nearly as highly.
You continue to misunderstand my position:
"If you're right, well, we're not so bad off as all that. We have what it takes -- the faith, the ability to overcome that hostility, the ability to understand, the ability to choose at least one good thing that pleases God."
My position is **NOT** that we "have what it takes."
It's that, before regeneration, we can still accept that GOD has what it takes to save us. That's what faith is.
You bring up a hypothetical scenario about two people hearing the gospel and responding in different ways.
I'm not clear on that scenario: just what is the gospel? That God loves both of them enough to send His Son to die for their sins, but He only loves one of them enough to give him the ability to respond to His call to be saved?
Is that the good news?
Bubba: "The Bible doesn't teach that the flesh is all we have."
And we're back to that same thing, a sharp difference in our view of Natural Man. You told me "I don't have to go into detail about what 'dead in sin' means" and you stuck to that position, but as far as I can tell it doesn't mean anything. (Not that you think that; that's all I can make of it.)
You are holding "faith" out as something in some sort of vacuum. It has no substance, no source, no reality. (Not that you say that; I mean just so far in the conversation.) So, let's take a look. Given your helpful list, we have Christ dying for us, God choosing us, and God calling us. He's really done a lot -- a whole lot. Just ... not enough. As Billy Graham used to put it, 99.99%. But it is all ineffective for a large number of people. It doesn't work. It's not enough. What is lacking? What makes it effective for the few? Obviously it's faith. Now, you have this singular ingredient (without any real definition or substance) existing in all human beings and produced apart from God. It's ... a human thing. God encourages it, calls for it, even commands it, but it is, in the end, the final ingredient that Man supplies. He produces it ... well, not from the flesh, I guess, but from his spirit which I understand to be dead. This human being who is "dead" (whatever that means) and "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" produces this ingredient of faith. Though "blinded by the god of this world", he's able to see where so many others cannot, understand what Paul says he cannot, and supply this one, single item lacking in the final activation of our salvation. That is what I mean when I say, "We have what it takes."
Bubba: "All I need to do is to show why your interpretation is flawed."
Based on today's post, I would hope that you can see that I haven't yet seen your evidence that my understanding of that passage is flawed. I've seen misunderstandings of what I'm saying. ("Of course we're not dead; we're walking aren't we?") I've seen vague suggestions. (I think you admitted that Eph 2:8-9 does not specify that faith precedes "made alive". I think you admitted that it can be either a cause or an effect.) So I haven't seen the logic that makes "dead in sin" not mean "spiritual inactivity".
Bubba: "An appeal to any authority other than Scripture is not the sort of thing that the Reformers themselves would have found persuasive."
Not an appeal to authority. I wasn't offering them as "proof" or "evidence" of my position. I was addressing what appears to be an attitude that I'm pulling this stuff out of thin air.
And now we're back to this "universal love" thing. I need clarification. If I love one child enough to give them a nice card and another child enough to give them a new car, is it your understanding that I do not love the first? If God offers His Son to all equally, whether or not their nature will act in it, is that not love? Is it your understanding that for God's love to be valid it must be equitable? Just looking for clarification here because you keep going there.
(Oh, and the question about what you think my motives might be was pure curiosity. I'm thinking, "What in the world would make someone go here on their own? I can see why people explain away homosexuality or justify premarital sex or even why they make the Human Free Will so important, but without some sort of compelling reason, I can't imagine what would make someone go where I go. I was curious. You didn't help. No big deal.)
(Oh, and nice dodge on the angel scenario.)
Post a Comment