I'm still thinking through the divine enablement (not that I've got everything else already figured out ). Of course there's something that prevents our salvation by our own works, but does that mean that none can ever repent without God doing it for them?
For a double-pred Calvinist, yes. In a nutshell, they do not believe that God has a Prescriptive and Decretive Will. Basically, they think it isn't possible specifically because then to some degree, in their mind, God wouldn't be in control, and such would then have a less than omnipotent God, by their reckoning. Conversely, the Arminian claims too, that the rest of us Calvinists are being inconsistent, and only God's Decretive will can logically exist (the rest of this is a bit long, so you can skip it if you wish until your next line and my response or just jump down to 'short-answer.' Your choice).
Long-answer: Imho (and it is humble 'cause I'm still trying to work through and present this well), God made everything and doesn't make mistakes. He said creation was good, including man. Man could not sin under a good creation, and in fact, God is the one who put a tree in the Garden and forbid it. it might be assumed at that point that this is when God gave man a 'free' will, but I don't think that can be the case. Man is 'good' so there is no desire to do something against a good nature. I think it takes a serpent in the Garden. I'd think, saying 'no' to a good and perfect creation cannot end in man eating from the forbidden tree. It is like me writing a computer program. It can only do what I give it to do. That is, I think that those who promote a free-will a God's purpose, actually have God writing in sin, without realizing it. I'm not sure if I get away from that, but it is why I at least believe Freewill is not from God, as we know it and is only the result of disobedience 'from' God. IOW, as far as I understand it, it is the very act of deciding against God, that makes a will to choose possible in the first place, and it took the serpent messing to introduce it, or I don't think it'd be possible.
So, for me, God allowed and even planned for the eventuality, thus He is not just reactionary, but like the double-pred suggests, all-knowing so completely in control of all outcomes, being both the One who made it, and has already set in motion the plan for the remedy. However, the 'inception' of sin and freewill can be part of God's plan in the sense that He could have drawn many different ways to end sin malady. His will then, as He decided how He was going to remedy it, is considered prescriptive. It isn't reactionary because the plan is already set prior to the occurrence. One might at that point still call God the Author of sin, hence the rest of the accusation against all of Calvinists, and not the double-preds. However, this accusation is easily led back to all Christians. Here is the really nuts and bolts (I think): The single-pred Calvinist like me, gets the blame because I embrace it BUT the only thing the Arminian, and even the Open Theist (who is basically a proponent of Free Will as gifted/designed by God), are doing, is not recognizing they have exactly the same problem/accusation with only deniability protecting them. If God planned for Jesus, before the creation of the world, as scripture says, then even in the Open View with God as Omni-competent, God is responsible for planning for the occurrence of sin, 'before the creation of the world.'
Short-answer: Knowing something ahead of time and planning for it does not make one author of the event. We know that a separate player is given in the story and that being is indeed the author and instigator of sin. Rather, God sees the intrusion, knows the consequences, and plans around the event to thwart it. That's what Prescriptive means. in this case. God "Decreed" creation was good and then, after sin, "Prescribed" the remedy of His Son, to get it back to that state of good.
Maybe, but it seems a little backward to command people to do something and then withhold the capability to do so. So, what if the "divine enablement" is the death of Jesus Christ, rather than some internal meddling God does with our thought process. Then we are enabled to become the children of God, but children of God are defined by their recognition of God as their Father--that He gets to tell them what to do--which equals "repentance". So a recognition of God as the lawgiver that needs to be obeyed can happen without that enablement, but without the death of Christ, the penalty for sin still remains to be paid by each and every one of us.
This is why I'm not hung up on Arminianism, or even people who are adamantly opposed to Calvinism. God meets us where we are. When we are Saved, we are immediately being reworked as the new creations we are made to be, but this is unfinished until 1 John 3:2
(as far as I understand). Christ's work is completed. I think we are here to be lights, and to learn something, to love one another, and learn to do so better, and to learn something, as well as to go through God's process of Salvation and experiencing it. Perhaps too, so that when we are like Him, seeing Him face to face, having lived in sin, there is NO WAY we are going back. I'm not sure and still looking to scriptures for more indepth answers here, but this is where I am presently in my thinking. I am completely open to input and correction as well as scriptures to point me further. -Lon
Calvinism teaches that Calvinism's Elect can NEVER perish, while the non-elect is SURE to perish.
On the other hand, Christ told His audience - possibly composed of both Calvinism's Elect and non-elect - that should they not repent, they perish.
As per Christ words, it can be inferred that if Calvinism's Elect REFUSE to repent, they perish. And that's against Calvinism. And if the non-elect repent, they won't perish. And that's against Calvinism as well.
:nono: You are just scripture hopping and using a framework that applies to one thing, as if it could be superimposed upon another text. Scripture hopping is never a good idea. We can sometimes do it to present like-passages, but it is best just to stay within a scriptural context and not jump from one to the other. It also makes for an incredibly long side-trail and distraction so, with absolutely no authority but perhaps a call to reason and time-consumption, I say: "Don't do it."
Isn't the Bible its own interpreter? And the passages I used are all about repentance. God the Father commanded it. Jesus said His words are His Father's. If the Father commanded people everywhere to repent, will not Jesus command the same in His call to repentance embodied in the gospel that He preached?
Re-read your own words: "...God caused people to be born again..." Amen!
Amen. We are well on our way.
Not when you are doing half my work for me and agreeing with me. I'm not sure what winning an argument looks like in your neck of the woods :think: :cheers:
As to being born again, you presumed I am teaching self-regeneration, that people of their own selves be born-again. I simply pointed out you were wrong in your presumption because Scriptures say and it is what I teach that God caused our being born-again through the resurrection of Christ.
Your attempt at resolving the Calvinists' Dilemma rested on two arguments: 1. Jesus' call to repentance is not a command, and 2) I was teaching self-regeneration.
I showed Scriptures that debunked your arguments. The Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved.
Of course He does. Per Romans 1 it is the very duty of all mankind to acknowledge the revelation of God in His first book, the book of general revelation—creation—such that man is without excuse to deny the existence of God. Even our Lord's, you must be born again, is an imperative.
“who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13).
Where is the volitional element to assent to faith given the clear passages of Holy Writ that clearly demonstrate the unsaved cannot possibly possess or claim, for they are spiritually dead and in need of re-birth? We are not “born again” as a result of something we did(as in repenting, then somehow believeing), but solely on the basis of God's sovereign will and power. Birth is the necessary prerequisite of belief, the fruit of that belief will be simultaneously repentance, in the same sense that life must come before activity. "..not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). The regenerated person is made a new creation in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:10; I Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24).
“Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The word again (anothen) literally means “from above.” Unlike our first birth, which is horizontal, divine rebirth is vertical—it comes “from above.” The origin of regeneration is supernatural, not the natural work of our volition. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17).
“Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:4-6). Like Nicodemus some argue from a process perspective, as in the birthing labor and delivery process. But note that Our Lord uses the word, gennao (born), that refers to the concept of generational descent. Jesus focuses not on the birth process or experience that one may assume, but on the fact that the father’s nature is passed to the child. What kind of birth is Christ referring to? A birth in which the Divine nature is imparted to the soul. Our Lord states that our first birth reproduced in us the nature of our parents: “...that which is born of the flesh is flesh.” But, then Jesus concludes that our new birth implants within us the Divine nature: “...and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The thrust of the argument should be clear: regeneration is supernatural. Only the Holy Spirit can effect a change of nature of the heart, not our “volitional will”.
In John 3:7, Jesus says to Nicodemus, “Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'” As noted above, the unsaved possess no inherent ability to save themselves by their own choosing for they are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), unrighteous, do not understand, do not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and slaves of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).
As Jesus states, without the new birth, no one will be saved. He uses a strong term, dei (must), indicating a logical necessity, that regeneration is essential, imperative, absolutely necessary for salvation. Some will argue that Nicodemus should take personal responsibility for his own new birth. But nowhere do we find Christ instructing Nicodemus to take personal responsibility and make a decision using his volitional will. “You must be born again” is a declarative statement of fact, not an imperative command to be obeyed. Jesus, instead of suggesting Nicodemus take ownership of his situation and do something about it, is teaching exactly the opposite. Jesus is teaching that new birth is a necessity, but no man can cause it to happen, even if a man could figure out how to return to the womb. Only God can perform this work.
One may complain that Our Lord's telling someone about the necessity to be born again, then also telling them that they have no ability to produce such a work is self-defeating and contradictory. On the contrary, His objective was to expose the fallacies of trusting in one’s own efforts and works for salvation. If only being religious and devoted to keeping the law could save a person, Nicodemus was safe, but jesus clearly states that no one is safe, regardless of their works, religious fervor, etc. Because of universal sin, a new birth is a necessity and the debilitating effects of universal sin means no one has the ability to rescue himself. John 3:7 teaches a sinner’s only hope for eternal bliss is through the sovereign grace of God.
The “new birth” is no more or less than the monergistic, sovereign, and direct work of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration (re-birth, quickening) is immediate. Faith is the gracious first fruit gift of God in regeneration (Ephesians 2:8). Following regeneration the sinner synergistically responds to the life-giving voice of the Jesus Christ (John 5:25) just as Lazarus immediately responded to the command of Jesus in John 11. In regeneration, and regeneration alone, God is the active cause; the sinner is the passive recipient. This is the grace that is irresistible. God’s gift of faith enables the newborn soul of a person to function spiritually, an ability the person did not have prior to his quickening (John 3:3; John 3:5; I Corinthians 2:14). The gift also gives the person the ability to believe, that is "ears to hear" (Revelations 2:7; Revelations 2:11; Proverbs 20:12; Matthew 11:15).
Regeneration in summary:
Spoiler
From the preceding we see that regeneration is a birth (John. 3:3-8; John 1:13; I Peter 1:23-25; I John 3:9; I John 5:1), a creation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24), the Divine creative act of speaking into existence that which previously did not exist, a resurrection (Ephesians 2:1; I John 3:14; John 5:24), the Divine act of giving life to one who is dead in their trespasses and in their sins. All the images, birth, creation, resurrection, speak to the immediacy of God’s work of grace in the soul. Did the baby play an active role in his own birth, or what the baby a passive party in the work of external factors bringing about his birth? Did man help God create the universe or was that creation the sole work of God? Can man raise the dead to life or the corpse of Lazarus play an active role in his own resurrection? No, for God and only God is the active party, the only Creator, and life-giver at the moment of regeneration.
Jesus says in John 5:25, "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the deadwillhear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear willlive.” He teaches here that God’s effectual calling is always successful when He calls the dead in sin to spiritual life, that the dead will hear His voice (not the preacher, or the parent, or the personal witness), that there will be life, and that it is an irresistible certainty.
Regeneration comprises the implanting of the principle of the new spiritual life in man, radical change of the controlling disposition of the soul, which, under the influence of the Spirit, gives birth to a life that moves in a Godward direction. This change affects the whole man: the intellect, I Corinthians 2:14-15; II Corinthians 4:6; Ephesians 1:18; Colossians 3:10; the will, Psalms 110:3; Philippians 2:13; II Thessalonians 3:5; Hebrews 13:21; and the feelings or emotions, Psalms 42:1-2; Matthew 5:4; I Peter 1:8.
Regeneration, exclusively a Divine act (monergistic), is an instantaneouschange of a man's nature, affecting at once the whole man, intellectually, emotionally, and morally. That regeneration is an instantaneous change has two implications: (1) that regeneration is not a work that is gradually prepared in the soul, as the Roman Catholics and all Semi-Pelagians teach; there is no intermediate stage between life and death; one either lives or is dead; and (2) that regeneration is not a gradual and synergistic process like sanctification.
Three possible explanations for regeneration:
Spoiler
There are only three possible explanations for the efficient cause of regeneration: the human will, the truth, the Holy Spirit.
The human will is incapable of cooperating or doing anything to assist. Man is incapable—so plainly taught in the Scriptures, John 5:42; Romans 3:9-18; Romans 7:18; Romans 7:23; Romans 8:7; II Timothy 3:4, and of the Scripture truth that it is God who inclines the will, Romans 9:16; Philippians 2:13.
The truth was the view of Lyman Beecher and Charles G. Finney. It assumes that the work of the Holy Spirit differs from that of the evangelistic preacher only in degree. Both work by persuasion only. But this theory is very unsatisfactory. The truth can be a motive to holiness only if it is loved, yet the natural man does not love the truth, but hates it (Romans 1:18; Romans 1:25). Consequently the truth, presented externally, cannot be the efficient cause of regeneration.
The only adequate view is that the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause of regeneration. The Holy Spirit works directly on the heart of man and changes its spiritual condition. There is no cooperation of the sinner, spiritually dead in his sins, in this work whatsoever. It is the work of the Holy Spirit directly and exclusively (Ezekial 11:19; John 1:13; Acts 16:14; Romans 9:16; Philippians 2:13). Thus regeneration must be conceived monergistically. God alone works, and the sinner has no part in it whatsoever. This, of course, does not mean, that man does not cooperate in later stages of the work of redemption. It is quite evident from Scripture that he does. Accordingly, we must distinguish between regeneration and conversion.
Conversion contrasted from regeneration:
Spoiler
Conversion, as spoken of by those that came before us, is not an unusual, once-for-all, extraordinary, inexplicable experience through which one passes from the "dark night of the soul" to rapturous union with God. Instead conversion is a daily characteristic of a believing, regenerated child of God. Conversion ought to take place and does take place every day of a person’s life. As long as the believing child of God lives here in this world, that person is a believer who does battle with sin, not only in the world about him, but in his own flesh. This person is not yet perfect. He is not yet brought into the everlasting joy that shall be the inheritance of the people of God in glory. Here he is in the church militant. Here he must do battle. Here he carries with him the body of his death. Conversion has a beginning, continues through life, and is completed when the elect soul goes to glory. The continual nature of this action is what we generally associate with sanctification, but, as the great church divines insisted, sanctification is of the same nature as conversion.
Conversion is "a daily killing of the old man." We are told in Scripture to make our calling and election sure by giving diligence to add to our faith (2 Peter 1:5-7). Insofar as we do so we are being renewed or converted daily. This is one of the major pastoral problems associated with the punctiliar conversion paradigm, in that there is a tendency to create a mindset which elevates experience over instruction. Rather than practice being made to conform to principle, it is usually the case that the conversion experience becomes the rule for distinguishing truth and falsehood. The teaching of decisional regeneration is the reason for much of a Christian's misunderstanding of what conversion truly is. It is a seeking of experience over transformation. It's an unwillingness of some to actually seek maturity and, instead, want to recapture an emotional feeling. In fact, these persons do not feel like they're growing unless the emotional feelings are present. It is not, then, a clinging to Christ and the Gospel to work within us to will and do His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), but a constant seeking after fresh experience. Such persons do not cling to sound doctrine after a while but instead collect teachers to tickle their ears and give them shows.
Thus, though God alone is the author of conversion, it is important to stress, against any suggestions of a false passivity, that there is also cooperation of man in conversion which follows regeneration. In the Old Testament shubh (to turn about), the word most often used to denote conversion, is used 74 times of conversion as a deed of man, and only 15 times, of conversion as a gracious act of God. The New Testament represents conversion as a deed of man 26 times, and speaks of it only 2 or 3 times as an act of God. [/u]It should be kept in mind, however, that this activity of man always results from a previous work of God in man[/U] (Lamentations 5:21; Philippians 2:13). That man is active in conversion is quite evident from such passages as Isaiah 55:7; Jeremiah 18:11; Ezekiel 18:23; Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11; Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30, and others.
Returning to my opening statement, we should see that one's duty to seek after God does not imply one is capable of performing said duty due to besetting sinful natures. Nor does God's commands imply that acknowledging He exists, per Romans 1 for example, that man can then save himself. The general revelation of God is not salvific revelation, as is Scripture. General revelation is warrant enough for God to condemn the unbeliever, who knows He exists, yet suppresses this truth in unrighteousness, failing to seek after the God declared all around Him in creation, the God who promises nonethatseekHim will be lost to Him.
Thanks for the explanation. FYI, I am not against being born again as God's work FOR man. In fact, I teach all of us in Adam's race were born-again because God caused us to be born-again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In the OP, repentance is the issue, not being born-again.
Unless you are now moving towards rejection of the lost man's total inability in your ongoing walk towards open theism, what one ought to do as their duty is no implied warrant one can do, hence the need for regeneration such than one will actually possess the ability to do what they ought to do.
Maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say. I affirmed man's total inability--to be saved apart from the works of Christ. But man is not totally unable to do other things. He can walk, and talk, and work, and invent, and discover, and take dominion of God's creation, according to what God told him to do. And he can do those same things in an evil way.
He is "conceived in sin" (meaning, I think, that he is coming from a sinful father back to Adam, else Jesus also would be conceived in sin) and has a tendency to sin (a "nature"). But he can also repent. What good does repentance do? Without the blood of Jesus, I think, nothing toward salvation, but possibly something in this life.
If my "ongoing walk toward open theism", as you say, is the problem, then it seems like you have a problem with considering scripture and trying to discern what it means. Not that I'm saying open theism is the only way to interpret scripture, but because I think that Calvinism has to ignore some scripture.
Isn't the Bible its own interpreter? And the passages I used are all about repentance. God the Father commanded it. Jesus said His words are His Father's. If the Father commanded people everywhere to repent, will not Jesus command the same in His call to repentance embodied in the gospel that He preached?
Yes. I'm a big proponent of that idea, especially when going through a passage that is narrative, but it is a careful and not haphazard discipline AND less of the time, by and far. Again, however, I'm not sure overlaying one idea upon the other works here. You can't just say that 'turn from believing this' in one verse means that repentance is a command to become regenerate in the other, especially when you agree only God can do that. Once you said that, 'my' dilemma as you call it, became your dilemma as well. All who are Christians are called elect. If you were Mid Acts, you'd not even bring up the gospels because they believe their call to repent was only to Jews, so, specifically, it is only a certain number of Arminians that would even come up with this dilemma. MAD doesn't believe it exists, and neither do we Calvinists. It comes from your own concept about what it means, and that group just happens to be Arminian.
As to being born again, you presumed I am teaching self-regeneration, that people of their own selves be born-again. I simply pointed out you were wrong in your presumption because Scriptures say and it is what I teach that God caused our being born-again through the resurrection of Christ.
Explain that. You know that Christians are called 'the elect.' Do you believe the 'elect' can stop being Christian? Can a new creation become an old creation again? You've stated a bit of this in your first opening post, but I'm trying to understand how entailed you think ths dilemma is because you mention that we believe you can't become unelected.
Your attempt at resolving the Calvinists' Dilemma rested on two arguments: 1. Jesus' call to repentance is not a command, and 2) I was teaching self-regeneration.
Even 'if' God commands all to repent and come to Christ and be born again under His hand, only the elect do, in everybody's Bible. So, whether Calvinist or other, we all believe in what the scripture calls 'the elect.' It is Biblical. The only thing you are arguing is 'how' we are the elect. We've established together that He calls all men to repent and specifically that means to realize that there is only one God from Acts 17:30. Even in Mark 1:14,15 and Luke 13:3,5, the first is John the Baptist's call to repentance to the Jews, to turn from their sins under Judaism. Then, in Luke 13, it is also a call to Jews to repent of sins. Jesus gave examples of men who had died because of rebellion and told them that they weren't the worst of sinners and used it as a warning to tell them to stop sinning. So even these are not about a born-again experience. Christ hadn't died yet. The promise of the Holy Spirit hadn't been revealed. We do repent from sin, but we are talking about which comes first and what verses you'd use to discuss that.
Not only Christians. Contingent upon and because of what God has done for all of humanity through Christ, I believe all in Adam's race are the elect. All were written in the book of life but only overcomers will not be blotted out from it.
Again, Scriptures say God caused us to be born again through the resurrection of Jesus. Having been fashioned into His Body on the cross, we died with Him; when He - the Head - resurrected, we - His Body - were made alive TOGETHER with Him, hence spiritually alive and therefore born again.
No. But one MAY live an old creation lifestyle and let evil overcome him instead of him overcoming evil. We are parts of His Body. As the 'ear' cannot by itself detach itself from being part of the Body, so no part of the Body of Christ can cease being part of His Body. Unless Christ Himself REMOVES one from being part of His Body by blotting his name from the book of life. The good news is judgment to blot or not comes AFTER a person dies. There's hope while alive.
You've stated a bit of this in your first opening post, but I'm trying to understand how entailed you think ths dilemma is because you mention that we believe you can't become unelected.
It's Calvinism that teaches one can't become unelected, while the non-elect are sure to perish. On the other hand, Jesus told His audience - probably composed of Calvinism's Elect and non-elect - that unless they repent they will all perish. It can be inferred from Christ's statement that should the elect refuse to repent, they perish, and that's against Calvinism. And if the non-elect repent they won't perish, and that's against Calvinism as well.
Maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say. I affirmed man's total inability--to be saved apart from the works of Christ. But man is not totally unable to do other things. He can walk, and talk, and work, and invent, and discover, and take dominion of God's creation, according to what God told him to do. And he can do those same things in an evil way.
He is "conceived in sin" (meaning, I think, that he is coming from a sinful father back to Adam, else Jesus also would be conceived in sin) and has a tendency to sin (a "nature"). But he can also repent. What good does repentance do? Without the blood of Jesus, I think, nothing toward salvation, but possibly something in this life.
If my "ongoing walk toward open theism", as you say, is the problem, then it seems like you have a problem with considering scripture and trying to discern what it means. Not that I'm saying open theism is the only way to interpret scripture, but because I think that Calvinism has to ignore some scripture.
Your post clearly states in the context of God's calling men to repent that men ought to be able to repent...in that context. Now you move the goal posts to discussing repentance outside of God's calling men to repent, the salvific context of such a call by God. So which is it? How am I to understand that, well, you really meant this or that, when all I have is your plain words? Taking me to task for what you have written is not a burden I should be given, rather your infelicitous use of words lies at the root, no?
No matter, the next time I am moved to respond directly to you I will first ask if what you wrote actually means what you wrote. :AMR:
KJV Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
NAS Luke 13:3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
"Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" is, I think, a statement citing a condition that will bring about a definite result.
condition #1: refusal to repent
result #1: perish
condition #2: repent
result #2: not perish
What composed Jesus' audience?
I think His audience is composed of Calvinism's Elect and the non-elect.
How many among His audience did Jesus say will perish unless they repent?
All, I guess, because He said "Unless you repent, you will ALL likewise perish".
In like manner, how many among His audience will NOT perish should they repent?
All, I think.
And since All will perish unless they repent, that should include Calvinism's Elect.
And that's against Calvinism.
And since All will NOT perish if they repent, that should include the non-elect.
And that's against Calvinism, as well.
That's the Calvinists' Dilemma. Yet unresolved, 12 days and counting.
Could anyone please stand up for the Calvinists and squarely address the issue?
For me, man's repentance (Greek metanoia - change of mind) is to overcome evil with good, while for you, it is to be born again, as gleaned from your linked post.
I think "to repent or not" is man's response to God's command for people everywhere to repent. The prophet Ezekiel recorded a statement from God:
KJV Ezekiel 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
And Paul adds:
KJV Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
Hence, when one is faced with the opportunity of doing evil, he changes his mind and does good instead. For me, that's repentance.
But for you to repent is to be born again. And in your linked post, to be born again is God's work FOR man. Why would God COMMAND people to repent if that is actually commanding them to be born again when it is His work and not man's because God knows man cannot cause himself to be born again?
For me, to be born again is God's work of making people spiritually alive, empowering them to overcome evil with good having fashioned them into the Body of His Son on the cross. Made alive first, that is, born again first, before one can repent, before one can overcome evil with good.
God's act of making us alive was done when He made us alive TOGETHER with Christ when He resurrected Jesus from the grave. And attached to Christ Who is our Strength for overcoming, we have His Power that energizes us to be able to repent, that is, to overcome evil with good.
And because all had been empowered, all are commanded to repent, to overcome evil with good. Those who refuse to repent, Jesus said, will perish. Those who repent, those who overcome evil with good, will NOT perish. Their names, Jesus assures us, will NOT be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5).
KJV Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
NAS Luke 13:3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
"Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" is, I think, a statement citing a condition that will bring about a definite result.
condition #1: refusal to repent
result #1: perish
condition #2: repent
result #2: not perish
What composed Jesus' audience?
I think His audience is composed of Calvinism's Elect and the non-elect.
How many among His audience did Jesus say will perish unless they repent?
All, I guess, because He said "Unless you repent, you will ALL likewise perish".
In like manner, how many among His audience will NOT perish should they repent?
All, I think.
And since All will perish unless they repent, that should include Calvinism's Elect.
And that's against Calvinism.
And since All will NOT perish if they repent, that should include the non-elect.
And that's against Calvinism, as well.
That's the Calvinists' Dilemma. Yet unresolved, 12 days and counting.
Could anyone please stand up for the Calvinists and squarely address the issue?
I think you missed the import of the word "likewise" in that passage. It seems to indicate perishing by sudden calamity, possibly at the hand of non-Jews. Indeed that was what happened to them 40 years later.
Your post clearly states in the context of God's calling men to repent that men ought to be able to repent...in that context. Now you move the goal posts to discussing repentance outside of God's calling men to repent, the salvific context of such a call by God. So which is it? How am I to understand that, well, you really meant this or that, when all I have is your plain words? Taking me to task for what you have written is not a burden I should be given, rather your infelicitous use of words lies at the root, no?
No matter, the next time I am moved to respond directly to you I will first ask if what you wrote actually means what you wrote. :AMR:
Woah there, Cowboy! What are you saying repentance means in the context you are referring to? I think Samie hit the nail on the head when he said you equated "repentance" with being "born again". If that's what you think, then I can see why my post riled you so. But why should we define "repentance" so rigidly?
It's Calvinism that teaches one can't become unelected, while the non-elect are sure to perish. On the other hand, Jesus told His audience - probably composed of Calvinism's Elect and non-elect - that unless they repent they will all perish. It can be inferred from Christ's statement that should the elect refuse to repent, they perish, and that's against Calvinism. And if the non-elect repent they won't perish, and that's against Calvinism as well.
Ah, I see why you are having a dilemma with Calvinists here. If Jesus says to an elect, he must repent, it is already a given that he/she'd do so. Look, I give you a mitt, put it on your hand, and hand you a ball in your throwing hand. I teach you how to throw a ball and say 'throw the ball.' I then look at a whole group of kids, turning from you and say: unless you throw the ball, you cannot be on this team. You already know, as one that is made able to throw that ball, that you can do it. You've been enabled.
Woah there, Cowboy! What are you saying repentance means in the context you are referring to? I think Samie hit the nail on the head when he sails you equated "repentance" with being "born again". If that's what you think, then I can see why my post riled you so. But why should we define "repentance" so rigidly?
Ah, I see why you are having a dilemma with Calvinists here. If Jesus says to an elect, he must repent, it is already a given that he/she'd do so. Look, I give you a mitt, put it on your hand, and hand you a ball in your throwing hand. I teach you how to throw a ball and say 'throw the ball.' I then look at a whole group of kids, turning from you and say: unless you throw the ball, you cannot be on this team. You already know, as one that is made able to throw that ball, that you can do it. You've been enabled.
Yes, I've been enabled to throw the ball. That's precisely the reason why I won't be in the team if I REFUSE to throw the ball. And that's against Calvinism. Jesus told ALL His hearers that UNLESS they repent, they will ALL likewise perish. ALL were enabled; all are accountable. Both Calvinism's Elect and non-elect.
Looks like the Calvinists' Dilemma is here to stay.
I'm just saying that Samie verbalized the thought that came to my mind from your post--I have plenty to disagree with in Samie's posts. You have re-iterated the same thing here. I think we're all in agreement that you think that repentance is equal to being born again. No need to send me off to read other posts, if that's what you believe--just say it. (And yes, before you ask, I did read your other post to try to understand what you were saying.)
What I'm saying is that while repentance is inextricably intertwined with salvation, there is also a repentance that doesn't include salvation. Would you disagree with that?
Calvinism is pretty quick to quantify words, and rightly so in many cases. "All men" doesn't always mean "all men", for instance. Maybe it can/should be done here, too. "Repentance" doesn't always mean "repentance unto salvation".
Long-answer: Imho (and it is humble 'cause I'm still trying to work through and present this well), God made everything and doesn't make mistakes. He said creation was good, including man. Man could not sin under a good creation, and in fact, God is the one who put a tree in the Garden and forbid it. it might be assumed at that point that this is when God gave man a 'free' will, but I don't think that can be the case. Man is 'good' so there is no desire to do something against a good nature. I think it takes a serpent in the Garden. I'd think, saying 'no' to a good and perfect creation cannot end in man eating from the forbidden tree. It is like me writing a computer program. It can only do what I give it to do. That is, I think that those who promote a free-will a God's purpose, actually have God writing in sin, without realizing it. I'm not sure if I get away from that, but it is why I at least believe Freewill is not from God, as we know it and is only the result of disobedience 'from' God. IOW, as far as I understand it, it is the very act of deciding against God, that makes a will to choose possible in the first place, and it took the serpent messing to introduce it, or I don't think it'd be possible.
I decided to address the long answer, since we've talked about this subject before.
2 points:
1. If it takes a serpent to introduce sin to man, where did the serpent get the adversarial nature. At some point someone has to introduce the idea of sin without it being God's fault.
2. The computer analogy breaks down when you talk of a perfect programmer, with perfect equipment, with perfect knowledge, that applies perfectly to all that he does. Thus, if a good creation can become bad, it can't do so at the intent of the programmer, but only at the intent of one of his creations--you can pick Satan, or you can pick Adam, but the resulting conclusion is the same--someone had to have a free will that allows them to follow a different code than God's, or God had to code the sin directly .
Personally, I think you've missed the boat on thinking that freewill is the bad thing (I think you've heard that from me before). I tried to describe it to a non-virtual friend of mine this way:
Imagine that I built a bunch of robots and coded them to stand around me all day, saying "Derf is the greatest!" or "Derf knows everything!" or "Holy, holy, holy!" or whatever statement of praise you want to think of. Remember that these robots are not really thinking of these things by themselves, but they are just programmed to say these things, and, if I were a perfect programmer, they would never fail to do so. What would you think of me? (My friend said, "That would be creepy.")
But instead, if I were able to make an entity that could think and act on its own, and it, seeing the wondrous works that Derf did and was doing for it, decided to say those things (well, maybe not the Holy, holy, holy), it would not be creepy, but somewhat expected.
The only way that those statements of praise really mean something to me is if my little entity can NOT say those things--that it has the power to say whatever it wants to, and it still chooses to say those things--of its own accord. Then they mean something.
You can try this (the first scenario) for yourself. Pick up any programming instruction manual and find the "Hello, World!" program. Replace the words "Hello, World!" with "Lon is the greatest!" and make sure you include an infinite loop. Start the program and sit back to bask in the glow of praise from your monitor. Aaaaaaaaaah! How good that feels to be praised by your creation! Now do that on every computer you have and maybe borrow some of your friends. Then ask them to ask their friends to put your program on their computers and smart phones and tablets, etc, etc. Soon you will have billions of computers shouting your praises.
). Of course there's something that prevents our salvation by our own works, but does that mean that none can ever repent without God doing it for them?
