To you it has been given to know...

[ReverendRV]

Common grace is given to all humanity. A conscience, a law unto themselves.. a provision to respond to God commands, in faith.. a gift. We believe the 'ability to choose' is the grace, given to humanity. Still 'not of ourselves', but not 'meticulously contrived'. It's a real choice.. and had God not been gracious to give us a conscience, we'd be animals.

I'll take that as a Yes; a concession. If you believe we need a modicum of Grace before we Believe (even if All receive it unsolicited), you believe in Total Inability...

 

[XrzrX]

I'll take that as a Yes; a concession. If you believe we need a modicum of Grace before we Believe (even if All receive it unsolicited), you believe in Total Inability...

Except by definition we aren't.. because He made sure we would not be. Kinda a chicken or egg thing I agree, but we know the chicken came first.

 

[ReverendRV]

Except by definition we aren't.. because He made sure we would not be. Kinda a chicken or egg thing I agree, but we know the chicken came first.

If we aren't Totally Unable, then Grace is not step one...

If Grace is solicited by Faith, Grace (Unmerited Favor) is no longer Grace...

Do you believe in Prevenient faith?

 

[XrzrX]

If we aren't Totally Unable, then Grace is not step one...

If Grace is solicited by Faith, Grace (Unmerited Favor) is no longer Grace...

Do you believe in Prevenient faith?

I think you guys make this so far beyond harder than it needs to be. Like chicken and egg.. God created everything with it's seed within it. The chicken came first, endowed with the seed of it's kind.. not the egg first. Man is born, created by design to have a conscience within himself, that he may respond to the calling of God. The Design is a gift. IF.. God created chickens with no seed, then we can say chickens are designed for destruction, 'total inability' for life. If man was designed without a conscience, we would be designed for destruction.. 'total inability'. This is not the case. We are designed with the ability to choose Life, and this is why God commands us to do something we ARE capable of doing.

 

[Arial]

First, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven,.. the 12 Disciples. He had a mission, need to know. "For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance..".

Do not all Christians have the same mission? Was that not the intent of the mission with God covenanting with Israel? Was that not the reason he revealed himself to them first?

How does what you say relate to the parable of the sower that it followed?

Those that "heard and learned from the Father" had been given a little, they were Sheep.. they were to be "given more".. Jesus. the ones that rejected the Father's teaching, therefore rejecting Him.. what little they had been given was taken. Blindness.. cursed. 70AD.

What do you mean by "they were Sheep"? Why capitalize it? Who are the ones who "heard and learned from the Father"? Jesus was not just given to them but to all nations. What does it mean in John 10 when he says they don't believe ("here and learn from the Father") because they are not his sheep and that he has other sheep not of that fold who will hear his voice and follow him?

Yes, 70a.d. was a judgement for Israel's rejection of him. But it was also a complete dismantling of any possibility that God would be the God of nat/geo Israel, exclusively. A New Covenant.

"Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them."
Reformed take this as 'He's making sure they don't see, to doubly judge them'..

Not all Reformed take it the same way. But in the doctrines themselves, it does not teach that he is making sure they don't see. If it did it would be contradicting its own Doctrines of Grace. And no one has said a thing about it is so he can doubly judge them. Straw man.

It looks more to be "Unless they see and hear.. and I WOULD heal them".

Putting "would" in all caps for emphasis does not change the meaning. How is that different from what you think Reformed thinks it is saying?

Speaking of emphasis, when I quoted that passage I put two key phrases in bold to draw your attention to them. Evidently it didn't have that effect since they are treated as though they were not there, even though they are vital to understanding the passage. "To you it has been given" and "to them it has not been given". Who are the "you"? Specifically it is to the diisciplesm who were chosen by Jesus. But they are not the only ones who know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[ReverendRV]

I think you guys make this so far beyond harder than it needs to be. Like chicken and egg.. God created everything with it's seed within it. The chicken came first, endowed with the seed of it's kind.. not the egg first. Man is born, created by design to have a conscience within himself, that he may respond to the calling of God. The Design is a gift. IF.. God created chickens with no seed, then we can say chickens are designed for destruction, 'total inability' for life. If man was designed without a conscience, we would be designed for destruction.. 'total inability'. This is not the case. We are designed with the ability to choose Life, and this is why God commands us to do something we ARE capable of doing.

How do you establish whether Calvinism or Provisionism is the Chicken? So far, there's only presumption on both our parts...

You said Grace goes before Faith, right? Then Calvinism is the Chicken. When Grace is A Priori, Faith has to at least be second; right?

 

[XrzrX]

Do not all Christians have the same mission? Was that not the intent of the mission with God covenanting with Israel? Was that not the reason he revealed himself to them first?

How does what you say relate to the parable of the sower that it followed?

What do you mean by "they were Sheep"? Why capitalize it? Who are the ones who "heard and learned from the Father"? Jesus was not just given to them but to all nations. What does it mean in John 10 when he says they don't believe ("here and learn from the Father") because they are not his sheep and that he has other sheep not of that fold who will hear his voice and follow him?

Yes, 70a.d. was a judgement for Israel's rejection of him. But it was also a complete dismantling of any possibility that God would be the God of nat/geo Israel, exclusively. A New Covenant.

Not all Reformed take it the same way. But in the doctrines themselves, it does not teach that he is making sure they don't see. If it did it would be contradicting its own Doctrines of Grace. And no one has said a thing about it is so he can doubly judge them. Straw man.

Putting "would" in all caps for emphasis does not change the meaning. How is that different from what you think Reformed thinks it is saying?

Speaking of emphasis, when I quoted that passage I put two key phrases in bold to draw your attention to them. Evidently it didn't have that effect since they are treated as though they were not there, even though they are vital to understanding the passage. "To you it has been given" and "to them it has not been given". Who are the "you"? Specifically it is to the diisciplesm who were chosen by Jesus. But they are not the only ones who know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.

Exegesis vs eisegesis.. literally, it is 'given' to the 12 to know 'the secrets of the kingdom'.. the hugest of which was that the 'sons' were about to be thrown out of it. If He had 'given' it to the rebels, they would not have crucified Him. We agree, it was a judgment.. but could only have been so IF like Pharoah, they were already entrenched in their own rebellion.. CHOSEN rebellion, culpable rebellion. And to be culpable, they would by definition have to at some point had a Choice to not rebel. It's basic common sense.

 

[Arial]

"Made"= created.. blind. God still creates men, and by your doctrine they are Created Blind.

Because they are created IN Adam. Adam is our father.

As I said before, you are correct, the "little they were given" was the Law and Prophets.. and by rejection, THAT is taken away.

I did not say that was the little they were given. I said the Law and Prophets was the light they had been given. They rejected it every time they broke the law from Sinai on. Every time they worshiped other gods, or broke the Sabbaths, or did not keep the seventh year rest, or broke any other law. That light was not taken away. It is still there today.

But, what you are not addressing, is the question.. first, why use parables for the blind? You are not answering that, and you claim it's for 'greater judgement'.

I did address it in post #66 and post #102. And I did not say it was for greater judgement. I said it was a mercy to prevent a greater accountibility.

I'm aware of only one mention of 'greater judgement' and it's of teachers. Where are you getting 'greater judgement' from in scripture?

It has also been posited that it is a mercy to prevent greater judgment. It limited the light they were accountable for.

That should read greater accountability and will be edited to say that. It is what I had intended to say. Brain ahead of fingers syndrome.

 

[Arial]

*And I agree, the 2 natures are either in Adam or in Christ... absolutely correct. So, you claim Believers are both in Adam and Christ?

They are born again in Christ. That changes their position, not their nature. Do believers still die? As Voddie says, the death rate is one per person.

 

[Arial]

Exegesis vs eisegesis.. literally, it is 'given' to the 12 to know 'the secrets of the kingdom'.. the hugest of which was that the 'sons' were about to be thrown out of it.

Is it eisegesis to consider the whole counsel of God in interpreting scripture? Is anything I said unsupported by that full counsel? Are there those who do understand the parables, and are given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven? Does the scriptures say that no one else in the crowds who heard parables understood them? Can believers today understand what they are saying about the kingdom of heaven?

If He had 'given' it to the rebels, they would not have crucified Him. We agree, it was a judgment.. but could only have been so IF like Pharoah, they were already entrenched in their own rebellion..

So exactly what is the problem you have with it?

CHOSEN rebellion, culpable rebellion. And to be culpable, they would by definition have to at some point had a Choice to not rebel. It's basic common sense.

Of course they chose rebellion, but when you are speaking of Israel, they were told what rebellion was. They were told who God is. That is not at all the same thing as understanding spiritual things and embracing them. Wasn't it Paul who said the Law was spiritual? It was the spiritual things of the law they did not understand, or they likely would not have rebelled. They though having the law and going through the motions would save them. Truth is the Law never saved anyone and never could, and was not intended to provide eternal life. Fallen man just cannot even obey the very first commandment perfectly and all of the time. He just can't.

 

[Eleanor]

Doesn't say 'imputed sin',

See Ro 5:17.
No, it does not say "imputed,". . .as it does not say "sovereign,". . .as it does not say "Trinity."
But though "imputed, sovereign and Trinity" are not stated, they are presented nevertheless.

It says "all sinned" and therefore, died, between Adam and Moses, even when there was no law and, therefore, no transgression to cause their deaths (Ro 5:13-14).
They died of the sin of Adam imputed to them when they themselves did not commit transgression, as did Adam.
And that imputation of Adam's sin to those of Adam is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

"By the trespass of one man, death reigned through Adam." (Ro 5:17), whose sin was imputed to them (Ro 5:14, 17, 18-19),
as Christ's righteousness is imputed to those of Christ.

it says 'sin entered the world'.. and so death. We inherit death. It doesn't say that God holds Adam's sin against man, it says we all sin. Unless you can point to where it does say specifically.

That would be in Ro 5:12-14, where
the wages of sin is death (Ro 6:23),
where there is no law, there is no transgression/sin (Ro 4:15) and, therefore no death,
there was no law between Adam and Moses and, therefore, no transgression/sin, yet they all died anyway (Ro 5:13-4).

Of what sin did they die when they were not guilty of transgression?
They died of the sin of Adam imputed to them (Ro 5:17, 12-16, 18-19),
which imputation of Adam's sin is paralleled to the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19), the imputation of Aam's sin being the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness. . . "just as". . ."so also" (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[Arial]

Common grace is given to all humanity. A conscience, a law unto themselves.. a provision to respond to God commands, in faith.. a gift. We believe the 'ability to choose' is the grace, given to humanity. Still 'not of ourselves', but not 'meticulously contrived'. It's a real choice.. and had God not been gracious to give us a conscience, we'd be animals.

People don't obey God because they don't want to. They may want to sometimes but it is guaranteed they will not want to all of the time. Fallen man cannot even obey the very first commandment.

 

[XrzrX]

How do you establish whether Calvinism or Provisionism is the Chicken? So far, there's only presumption on both our parts...

You said Grace goes before Faith, right? Then Calvinism is the Chicken. When Grace is A Priori, Faith has to at least be second; right?

I said simple, not reductive. Man is the chicken.. the conscience is the seed, and that is a gift. It's funny, the 'tactic'.. you guys vacillate between reductives for things that are nuanced, and 5K page philosophical thesis' for things that are pretty black and white. I mean, it's red flag stuff.. and I wish you'd see it.

 

[XrzrX]

They are born again in Christ. That changes their position, not their nature. Do believers still die? As Voddie says, the death rate is one per person.

You yourself said the "nature" is not life and death.. it's in Adam or Christ, but you prove it by this statement. Adam is death, Christ is Life. The flesh dies.. yet we are Already seated with Christ, eternal. Our nature is Life. A position and a reality.

 

[XrzrX]

See Ro 5:17.
No, it does not say "imputed,". . .as it does not say "sovereign,". . .as it does not say "Trinity."
But though "imputed, sovereign and Trinity" are not stated, they are presented nevertheless.

It says "all sinned" and therefore, died, between Adam and Moses, even when there was no law and, therefore, no transgression to cause their deaths (Ro 5:13-14).
They died of the sin of Adam imputed to them when they themselves did not commit transgression, as did Adam.
And that imputation of Adam's sin to those of Adam is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

"By the trespass of one man, death reigned through Adam." (Ro 5:17), whose sin was imputed to them (Ro 5:14, 17, 18-19),
as Christ's righteousness is imputed to those of Christ.


That would be in Ro 5:12-14, where
the wages of sin is death (Ro 6:23),
where there is no law, there is no transgression/sin (Ro 4:15) and, therefore no death,
there was no law between Adam and Moses and, therefore, no transgression/sin, yet they all died anyway (Ro 5:13-4).

Of what sin did they die when they were not guilty of transgression?
They died of the sin of Adam imputed to them (Ro 5:17, 12-16, 18-19),
which imputation of Adam's sin is paralleled to the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19), the imputation of Aam's sin being the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness. . . "just as". . ."so also" (Ro 5:18-19).

I still don't see it. Men die for their own sins.. the death they die is the death of Adam (the death he brought into the world).. but I don't see 'dying for Adam's sin' anywhere.

 

[Eleanor]

You yourself said the "nature" is not life and death.. it's in Adam or Christ, but you prove it by this statement. Adam is death, Christ is Life. The flesh dies.. yet we are Already seated with Christ, eternal. Our nature is Life. A position and a reality.

No, our nature is human.
Our spirit is born again (Jn 3:3-5) into eternal life.

 

[XrzrX]

Is it eisegesis to consider the whole counsel of God in interpreting scripture? Is anything I said unsupported by that full counsel? Are there those who do understand the parables, and are given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven? Does the scriptures say that no one else in the crowds who heard parables understood them? Can believers today understand what they are saying about the kingdom of heaven?

So exactly what is the problem you have with it?

Of course they chose rebellion, but when you are speaking of Israel, they were told what rebellion was. They were told who God is. That is not at all the same thing as understanding spiritual things and embracing them. Wasn't it Paul who said the Law was spiritual? It was the spiritual things of the law they did not understand, or they likely would not have rebelled. They though having the law and going through the motions would save them. Truth is the Law never saved anyone and never could, and was not intended to provide eternal life. Fallen man just cannot even obey the very first commandment perfectly and all of the time. He just can't.

"of course they chose rebellion.." See, this is why it's so difficult to debate with you guys. What kind of "choice" are you talking about?

 

[XrzrX]

No, our nature is human.
Our spirit is born again (Jn 3:3-5) into eternal life.

It says "New Creation".. so, a 'flawed creation'?
*And this statement
"They are born again in Christ. That changes their position, not their nature. Do believers still die?
Is clearly drawing a correlation between "nature" and dying.

 

[Eleanor]

I still don't see it. Men die for their own sins.. the death they die is the death of Adam (the death he brought into the world)...
but I don't see 'dying for Adam's sin' anywhere.

Okay, do you understand Ro 5:18-19. . ."just as. . .so also"?

Adam 'brought" death into the world through God's imputation of his sin to all mankind (Ro 5:17, 18-19), which imputation makes all mankind guilty of Adam's sin, and that imputed guilt of Adam's sin causes the death of all mankind (death is the wages of sin, Ro 6:23).
See post #151.

And that imputation of Adam's sin bringing death to all those of Adam was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness bringing eternal life to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[XrzrX]

Okay, do you understand Ro 5:18-19. . ."just as. . .so also"?

Adam 'brought" death into the world through God's imputation of his sin to all mankind (Ro 5:17, 18-19), which imputation makes all mankind guilty of Adam's sin, and that guilt causes their deaths (death is the wages of sin, Ro 6:23).
See post #151.

And that imputation of Adam's sin to all those of Adam was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

No, I see "Adam 'brought" death into the world"... I do Not see.. through God's imputation of his sin to all mankind. I see that as an Addition.
"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to (not "of".. "To".. to what?) all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of LIFE to all men."
I would argue it's "condemnation TO death"... a death sentence.
It may seem splitting hairs, but.. it has a pretty weighty theological/doctrinal implication depending on specificity here.