Calvinists' Dilemma

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Then you don't believe in man's total inability? Man can repent of some things prior to regeneration?

Have I misunderstood you? Men can reason. Even unregenerate men. They just cannot reason rightly on spiritual matters. The depravity of man and his inability is spiritual. Men do good things all the time, civil good. Yet those acts are but sins for they are done without the motives to glorify God.

I have repented of many bad habits and acts long before I was born anew. So there is repentance that is non-salvific that happens all the time among men who use their God-given reason.

Man's depravity and inability is spiritual. Man's reason and will functioning properly in relation to temporal things is used in Scripture to prove man's inexcusableness when it comes to the evil use of his reason and will in things pertaining to God. Man is made to do good. His powers of reason and volition are made to function this way. It is the deceitful heart which presents the lie as truth and evil as good. We need go no farther than the explanation which the Bible provides.

The rationality of the choice requires a motive. Voluntariness is the essence of the choice. A voluntary action is one which finds its principle from within the agent and which proceeds with knowledge of the end. Rational spontaneity includes voluntariness so that the choice of the will is a genuine act of self-determination, which we call the liberty of spontaneity, as opposed to the liberty of indifference of the Arminians, etc. Evil fathers give good gifts to their children. Why? This is their flesh and blood for which they feel a binding affection. It may also be that their own honor is tied up with it; and there may be many other ulterior motives factoring into it. But the giving of a fish or bread as opposed to a scorpion or a stone is a conscious act of their own choosing and flows voluntarily from their own individual person. They do not do it to the glory of God, and it does not flow from a heart purified by faith, and is therefore a sinful act; but so far as the formal act is concerned it is something good which they voluntarily choose to do.

AMR

 

[flintstoned]

I don't know what dilemma you are referring to. Of course the elect have to repent! The elect also have to believe, be regenerated, etc. The elect are unsaved sinners just like the rest of the world, until they are brought to eventual belief and salvation by God, through Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:13 KJV

And? I don't disagree with this verse. What does it have to do with what I posted?

 

[patrick jane]

And? I don't disagree with this verse. What does it have to do with what I posted?

You're preaching works salvation

 

[Epoisses]

What does it take to be an overcomer ?

You need to overcome.

 

[Samie]

. . .

From your continued ignoring of my posts, I have to assume you just want to argue and not actually digest what those of us responding to you actually have said. Spurgeon had your sort in mind.

AMR

I have painstakingly answered your posts. It's you who seemed to have simply read the last paragraph of my post that's why you don't know I have answered them. Or, you are hesitant to address those posts, why? Here are those:

When you said:

The doctrine of the free or well-meant offer of the gospel depends in part on a theological distinction between God’s decretive will and God’s preceptive will. God’s decretive will is what God has resolved to carry out Himself. God’s preceptive will refers to God’s commandments and ethical expectations for humans.

I responded with:

God's decretive will is to save the spiritually dead by making them spiritually alive. This He did when on the cross He fashioned humanity into the body of His Son such that when Christ the Head died, the Body died; and when the Head resurrected, His Body was likewise resurrected TOGETHER with Him, born again into a living hope.

When you said:

It is not illogical or schizophrenic for Apostle Paul to desire all sinners to be saved, on the one hand, and yet to affirm God only decrees some sinners to be saved, on the other hand.

I responded with:

Disagree. Not simply Paul, but God Himself desires ALL men to be saved: 1 Timothy 2:3-4 NIV 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Because God desires ALL to be saved, Paul said Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL: 1 Timothy 2:5-6 NIV 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time. Paul AFFIRMED all sinners died with Him being His Body, and were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He rose from the grave. Hence ALL had been made spiritually alive, being part of the Body of Christ. Why did Jesus come to earth: To save sinners. 1 Tim 1:15 Who sinned: ALL sinned, every one in Adam's race, hence ALL are sinners. Rom 3:23 For whom did Jesus die: He died for ALL, for every man. 2 Cor 5:15; Heb 2:9 What did Paul conclude since Jesus died for ALL: ALL died. 2 Cor 5:14, 15. How could ALL die when only Jesus died: God fashioned ALL into the Body of His Son on the cross. Eph 2:11-19 When were they made alive: made alive TOGETHER with Christ. Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13 Who caused people to be born again and how: 1 Peter 1:3 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

When you said:

Paul did not know, nor do we, who God did and did not elect unto salvation.

I responded with:

God knows. He wants all to be saved. So, He must have elected all unto salvation, otherwise had He elected only some, then there is partiality with Him as far as man's salvation is concerned. But there is no partiality with God. The above given verses speak for themselves that Paul knows God elected ALL, and saved (past tense) us ALL, not just some. BUT of this ALL, only the overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.

When you said:

We are commanded to preach the gospel promiscuously and rest in the fact that none who call upon the name of the Lord will be turned away. Attempting to bring the decretive will of God into the command to go into the world is an unsanctioned desire to peek behind the curtain to see what God is up to, contrary to Deut. 29:29. We must give priority to the revealed will (the preceptive will) of God over the secret will (the decretive will) in the outworking of salvation in any individual’s experience. The Scriptures reveal to men, as creatures, to have creaturely confidence, the maximal possible confidence they can have, that Christ is offered for their salvation in the Gospel. They need not peer into hidden things and wonder about whether they have been hypothetically or really decreed to believe the Gospel. It is sufficient for them to hear and believe or reject the historical proclamation of the Gospel.

I responded with:

What you refer to as God's "secret will (the decretive will) in the outworking of salvation in any individual’s experience", had already been revealed. Hence, it is no longer secret that ALL - Jews and Gentiles alike - were made part of the Body of Christ on the cross. Eph 2:11-19; 3:3-6.

When you said:

Of course the offer of the Gospel is a loving request of God. The gospel holds out the love of God to sinners. But it does this indefinitely, to sinners as sinners, not to this or that man in particular. It is the person who believes the gospel and closes with Christ who knows himself as the particular object of love and redemption.

The gospel offer is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Holy Scripture teaches it in express terms. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a sinner addressed with the offer, "Christ died for you if you will believe on Him." Your hypothetical universalism is an invention of the human brain. It is pure sentimentality. It begins with an anthropocentric view of God's love and works its way like leaven through the Scripture's soteriological system until it has taken away the assurance of faith. Your hypothetical universalism swallows up the bread of life in pure conjecture. Having no real basis in the saving work of Christ, your view has to create artificial categories and speak of hypotheticals as if they were real.

I responded with:

Gulp... I could drown in your theological jargons, but no, Scripture's on my side, I guess. "Christ died for you if you will believe on Him." This does not apply to my position, so why bring it up? I have always maintained that Jesus died for ALL, as Scriptures EXPLICITLY say (2 Cor 5:14, 15). No IF's, no BUT's. And that's what you call my 'hypothetical universalism', an invention of the human brain. Who's brain? Paul's? I simply quoted him. And Paul says he has the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). So there, it's Christ's 'universalism' likewise. And since you castigate the idea, it is quite clear who you are up against.

When you said:

Particular redemption is true because it sets forth an actual, real redemption of men as sinners, and the gospel offers this particular redemption to sinners as such. No person has to go up to heaven to discover God's secret decree to give faith and repentance to some. No person has to descend into the depths of their own experience to conclude they have been called. The gospel itself gives a full and free warrant to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation.

I responded with:

If instead of 'particular', you change it to 'general redemption', that would be more Scripturally wholesome. When you mentioned that Paul, when actually it is God Himself who, desires ALL sinners to be saved, as gleaned from 1 Tim 2:4, he also said that it is for this ALL that Jesus gave Himself as ransom, v6. I wonder why it appears you are now hinting the ALL in v4 is not the ALL in v6.

And in your last post, you simply lifted this:

The keyword is "responsible". If one is responsible, then he must be capable of carrying out the given responsibility.

But my whole response is this:

The keyword is "responsible". If one is responsible, then he must be capable of carrying out the given responsibility. Your newly born daughter is not responsible for doing the laundry, is she? Hence, you never asked her to do the laundry. So if God COMMANDS all people everywhere to repent, they must be capable of repenting, and if they don't, then, Christ said they perish. But you teach that Calvinism's Elect cannot perish, hence, who are you against? Me? Not just against me because I simply believe in what Jesus said and in what other parts of Scriptures say that the elect is not exempt from perishing. see Matt 8:11-12; Rom 11:22.

So, you are not considering what I have posted and simply ignored them, and then turn around and tell me I am the one ignoring your posts. Why?

Do you want readers of this thread to conclude that your keeping silence on my responses to what you have said means you cannot refute through Scriptures what I have posted?

 

[Samie]

No. Responsible means someone can hold you to account, nothing more. Responsibility presumes there is someone that can hold another to account...God. And in my post I explained giving at least two reasons why man can be considered able to do as God commands. I also pointed you here for more details in a previous post.

Morally, all are responsible to God for all that they do, think, or say. The accountability to God is not requiring one possesses any ability to obey, too. Accountability is the key to responsibility. No one is responsible if there is no higher authority that can hold them into account. Stop trying to also assign responsibility to God for these hard sayings by diluting the Scriptures to mean something else.

Abilities, per se, are real or perceived mitigating issues that may or may not be taken into account by the one holding another responsible as to guilt or innocence. In other words, one's abilities do not escape the fact that one can be held accountable.

Disagree.

For the Father: Undo heavy burdens. Isa 58:6
For the Son: My yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:30
For Solomon: Do good within your ability. Prov 3:27
For apostle Paul: God does not allow temptation beyond man's ability to bear. 1 Cor 10:13

For the scibes and Pharisees: Bind heavy burdens hard to bear. Matt 23:4
For AMR: "The accountability to God is not requiring one possesses any ability to obey"

So even if one is NOT able, AMR will hold him accountable. It appears AMR's position on responsibility leans heavily on the side of the scribes and Pharisees.

 

[Derf]

Have I misunderstood you? Men can reason. Even unregenerate men. They just cannot reason rightly on spiritual matters. The depravity of man and his inability is spiritual. Men do good things all the time, civil good. Yet those acts are but sins for they are done without the motives to glorify God.

I have repented of many bad habits and acts long before I was born anew. So there is repentance that is non-salvific that happens all the time among men who use their God-given reason.

Man's depravity and inability is spiritual. Man's reason and will functioning properly in relation to temporal things is used in Scripture to prove man's inexcusableness when it comes to the evil use of his reason and will in things pertaining to God. Man is made to do good. His powers of reason and volition are made to function this way. It is the deceitful heart which presents the lie as truth and evil as good. We need go no farther than the explanation which the Bible provides.

Ok, so you said before that there is a repentance that is not unto salvation. And you've said here that men CAN repent at least to some degree, prior to regeneration. And you've clarified that the things men can't do are the spiritual things. I'm going to assume that you by "spiritual" you mean "things of God", as there are likely some things which are "spiritual" that aren't of God, since there are spirits that are fallen--correct me if I'm wrong here.

So I think what you are saying is that the right kind of repentance, the kind that is necessary for salvation, is a "spiritual" repentance, right?

What, then, does a "spiritual" repentance look like? How is it different from the other kind of repentance? And which kind was God demanding of Cain in Gen 4:6-7?

The rationality of the choice requires a motive. Voluntariness is the essence of the choice. A voluntary action is one which finds its principle from within the agent and which proceeds with knowledge of the end. Rational spontaneity includes voluntariness so that the choice of the will is a genuine act of self-determination, which we call the liberty of spontaneity, as opposed to the liberty of indifference of the Arminians, etc. Evil fathers give good gifts to their children. Why? This is their flesh and blood for which they feel a binding affection. It may also be that their own honor is tied up with it; and there may be many other ulterior motives factoring into it. But the giving of a fish or bread as opposed to a scorpion or a stone is a conscious act of their own choosing and flows voluntarily from their own individual person. They do not do it to the glory of God, and it does not flow from a heart purified by faith, and is therefore a sinful act; but so far as the formal act is concerned it is something good which they voluntarily choose to do.

AMR

So if God says to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and an unregenerate does that, by giving his children bread instead of a scorpion, you're saying that it is sin?

Is that not calling good evil?

Between the two thoughts, then--the first that only "spiritual" repentance (which remains to be defined) is of any use, and the second that loving thy neighbor as thyself is sin without the spiritual component of faith--we have nothing to tell the unregenerate in terms of how to behave. Telling him to repent is useless, because he can't repent without becoming regenerate, which he can't do. And if we say, for instance, "Do not murder" to an unregenerate, we are actually telling him to sin, because obeying the law without faith is really sin.

You've also put God in a particularly hairy situation. If God tells the unregenerate to do anything at all, He is prompting him to sin. If He says "Go, commit murder!", God authors sin, or at the very least, acts in opposition to His character. If He says "Do not commit murder", God authors sin, or at the very least, tempts people to sin. God, therefore has nothing He can say to the unregenerate.

Now there's a dilemma we can all wrap our teeth around!!

 

[Samie]

. . .

Now there's a dilemma we can all wrap our teeth around!!

I am anxious of how AMR and company address the dilemmas surrounding Calvinism so far presented in this thread. They are too competent to just shrug them off.

 

[Crucible]

I am anxious of how AMR and company address the dilemmas surrounding Calvinism so far presented in this thread. They are too competent to just shrug them off.

:rotfl:

You've done nothing more than randomly throw whatever you think is against Calvinism- all which is frankly weak and due to your inability to understand or accep predestination theology.

The only thing 'competent' is you're incompetence, in which you compensate for by getting people to chime in with your biases.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ok, so you said before that there is a repentance that is not unto salvation.

I am still bewildered by what seems to be a surprise to you that folks can repent of various things. If you have some agenda in all of this I prefer you make it plain.

I'm going to assume that you by "spiritual" you mean "things of God", as there are likely some things which are "spiritual" that aren't of God, since there are spirits that are fallen--correct me if I'm wrong here.

I do not know why anything related to the reality of God, including the reality that evil and good angels exist is somehow excluded. Why does this matter for the topic at hand?

What, then, does a "spiritual" repentance look like? How is it different from the other kind of repentance?

It is a repentance toward God for one's sins against God. As I have discussed, there is a repentance which is not toward God. Paul did not merely preach repentance but repentance toward God (Acts 20:21). And there is a repentance which is fatally faulty, because it is not toward God. This is not the repentance which the Spirit of God works in a soul. Rather repentance toward God is repentance of sin as sin and of rebellion against Law as rebellion against God. True spiritual repentance is repentance of sin as sin—not of this sin, nor of that sin, but of the whole mass. We repent of the sin of our nature as well as of the sin of our practice. We bemoan sin within us and without us. We repent of sin itself as being an insult to God. Repentance and faith are born of the same Spirit of God. Which comes first? Temporally? Logically? I can only look to Scripture which teaches us God must act firstly and grants faith, of which repentance can only be a fruit, a first fruit, of said faith. Arguing over their ordering is much like asking when the cart starts, which spoke of the wheel moves first? Repentance and faith come together.

So if God says to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and an unregenerate does that, by giving his children bread instead of a scorpion, you're saying that it is sin?

Is that not calling good evil?

The good is that which is done for obedience and glory to God. All actions of the unregenerate, even their civil good acts, are the filthy expressions of their moral depravity. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God, in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15; Romans 6:12-17; Romans 7:5-24). Let's be clear what the bondage of the will is for man in his naturally fallen condition. He has no freedom to will spiritual good. So far as man's psychological constitution is concerned, he still has the power to will the good as he conceives it. Fallen man cannot will spiritual good—man's chief end—to glorify God and enjoy Him forever (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 10:31; Psalm 73:24-28; John 17:21-23).

Between the two thoughts, then--the first that only "spiritual" repentance (which remains to be defined) is of any use, and the second that loving thy neighbor as thyself is sin without the spiritual component of faith--we have nothing to tell the unregenerate in terms of how to behave. Telling him to repent is useless, because he can't repent without becoming regenerate, which he can't do. And if we say, for instance, "Do not murder" to an unregenerate, we are actually telling him to sin, because obeying the law without faith is really sin.

Why murder? Even the every day drawing of one's breath without consideration that this very breath is something worthy of praise to God is enough warrant to condemn him. Most fail to grasp the magnitude of their state without God. They fail because they hate God with every breath they draw. Rather the natural man (the unregenerate) would admit it truthfully than hide behind a benign, indifferent passivity that expresses itself aggressively in their failure to honor God in their daily walk.

Why are you trying to import the secret will of God into the clearly revealed will of God? All who call upon the Lord will not be lost to Him. How is this useless to anyone? Let's not try to ascend to the throne of God and ask Him to make room for us as we sit beside Him to observe how He rules. All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved is the promiscuously exhorted call of the gospel. How exactly do you know who can or who cannot repent and believe? Did you read this? Rather the man exhorted to call upon the name of the Lord does so and is saved. Then he may contemplate the means by which he was brought out of his state of spiritual death, being overwhelmed by the mercy and wonder of God's ways.

You've also put God in a particularly hairy situation. If God tells the unregenerate to do anything at all, He is prompting him to sin. If He says "Go, commit murder!", God authors sin, or at the very least, acts in opposition to His character. If He says "Do not commit murder", God authors sin, or at the very least, tempts people to sin. God, therefore has nothing He can say to the unregenerate.

You are twisted up in your own confused logic based upon an unstated and underlying premise that you know exactly who is the elect of God and who is not. Until you can establish that premise, your "logic" fails.

God cannot tell anyone to commit murder. Murder is an unlawful act. God cannot sin (see the definition of sin above). God is within His right to command the killing of someone, and it would be a sin to not obey such a command from God. Rather God cannot act in opposition to His own holy being. Furthermore, the preceptive will if God—that which He commands—serves to heap coals of guilt upon the disobedient unregenerate, further confirming their state of wrath under God. I prefer not to take up the task of acquitting God of being in a "hairy situation" as do the Arminians and open theists, who presume to judge how God should do things. God is the Judge, we are the judged. Let's keep that always in mind.

This is a free Kindle ebook (as of today) that you may want to read:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01B6EV5PM

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

:rotfl:

You've done nothing more than randomly throw whatever you think is against Calvinism- all which is frankly weak and due to your inability to understand or accep predestination theology.

The only thing 'competent' is you're incompetence, in which you compensate for by getting people to chime in with your biases.

It is Samie's way or the highway. No matter how thoroughly a response is given, it is waved off and followed by yet more distractions such that one is left wondering, "What is it we were originally discussing?" Sigh.

I have exhausted my patience with the back and forth and if you should ever see me responding directly to an unrepentant Samie in the future feel obliged to rebuke me.

AMR

 

[MarshSwihart]

What Jesus said?

What Jesus said?

Have you considered what Christ prayed in John 17:9? It seems Jesus is making a distinction between the elect and the world?

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Have you considered what Christ prayed in John 17:9? It seems Jesus is making a distinction between the elect and the world?

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

You must consider who is being spoken to. The answer is, the lost sheep of the House of Israel. It's extremely important that we "Rightly Divide" the written word of God. The whole Bible is for us (Gentiles) however, not all of it pertains to us. Matthew through John speaks to the lost sheep of Israel. Those books do not pertain to the Gentiles. The Apostle Paul was chosen by God to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. (Romans through Philemon)

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Without rightly dividing the word one will find contradiction and confusion. A good example of that is in the book of James, where James says that faith without works is dead. James is speaking to the scattered tribes of Israel, not to the Gentiles. Whereas, Paul preaches faith without works to the Gentiles.

 

[MarshSwihart]

What about Paul's comment to the Ephesians 1? God chose his elect before he created the world?

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known[c] to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

 

[Samie]

:rotfl:

You've done nothing more than randomly throw whatever you think is against Calvinism- all which is frankly weak and due to your inability to understand or accep predestination theology.

The only thing 'competent' is you're incompetence, in which you compensate for by getting people to chime in with your biases.

Weak? And me, incompetent? Let's see where your competence brings you.

If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:

Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Can you wiggle out from this Calvinist dilemma, competent one? It is weak, you say. Then bring out all what Calvinism has and resolve this dilemma brought against it by what Christ Himself declared.

I will wait either for you to address the above issue, or you may prefer to fabricate all sorts of excuses. You could even run away and hide. Your choice, competent one.

 

[Samie]

It is Samie's way or the highway. No matter how thoroughly a response is given, it is waved off and followed by yet more distractions such that one is left wondering, "What is it we were originally discussing?" Sigh.

I have exhausted my patience with the back and forth and if you should ever see me responding directly to an unrepentant Samie in the future feel obliged to rebuke me.

AMR

Exhausted? We are just warming up.

But I have a suggestion. Please help Crucible with post #116. Help in addressing the post, not in making excuses nor in running away and hide.

 

[Lon]

Without rightly dividing the word

Realize "rightly" is defined as 'according to our Systematic Theology. That is, whatever we carry with us needs to coincide with our exegesis consistently. I tend to appreciate MAD, though not agree on all points. It is, a fairly easy systematic theology to grasp, comparatively, because it is consistent in how it works. It is pretty simple to grasp "Only Pauline epistles apply."

one will find contradiction and confusion.

Especially if we carry our own conclusions with us when we examine another's theology. I think it takes a purposeful awareness and familiarizing with another's to be able to examine it as self-standing. I 'try' to climb into another's systematic but again, MAD (& I think Calvinism) is easier to pick up on.

A good example of that is in the book of James, where James says that faith without works is dead. James is speaking to the scattered tribes of Israel, not to the Gentiles. Whereas, Paul preaches faith without works to the Gentiles.

For me, and most Calvinists, it isn't works as in 'keeping your salvation' that we think James is saying. It is hard because 'dead' implies that, but we read it as "of no earthly good" ala Ephesians 2:10. We'd say, practically, that a believer will follow his/her new nature. We also embrace the parable of the unfruitful tree that has God's orchardman tending the tree so it will grow. For us, James is talking about our need to be effective in the world as well as practically being worked on as His new creation, before 1 John 3:2 I realize MAD just overshoots the need to explain James or the epistles of John altogether, and that works too, because I think we come to similar or the same conclusions regarding ourselves. Calvinist gentiles don't keep Jewish thank offerings, Passover, or other Jewish observances or celebrations either. Like you, we believe Christ finished all work and we are complete in Him. In Him -Lon

 

[Derf]

Hi AMR,
Sorry it took so long to respond.

I am still bewildered by what seems to be a surprise to you that folks can repent of various things. If you have some agenda in all of this I prefer you make it plain.


I do not know why anything related to the reality of God, including the reality that evil and good angels exist is somehow excluded. Why does this matter for the topic at hand?


It is a repentance toward God for one's sins against God. As I have discussed, there is a repentance which is not toward God. Paul did not merely preach repentance but repentance toward God (Acts 20:21). And there is a repentance which is fatally faulty, because it is not toward God. This is not the repentance which the Spirit of God works in a soul. Rather repentance toward God is repentance of sin as sin and of rebellion against Law as rebellion against God. True spiritual repentance is repentance of sin as sin—not of this sin, nor of that sin, but of the whole mass. We repent of the sin of our nature as well as of the sin of our practice. We bemoan sin within us and without us. We repent of sin itself as being an insult to God. Repentance and faith are born of the same Spirit of God.

You didn't answer my question about Cain (as far as I could tell). The reason I asked that is because God didn't go into those kind of details with him that you have here. Cain's sin was a direct act toward God that was unacceptable to God. And God didn't tell him he needed to repent of the sins of mankind or of his "nature" or of a whole mass. God's message was fairly simple to Cain--"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it." You would have God say to Cain, "Even if you do what is right, you will not be accepted, because what you do is evil, even if what you do is good."

Which comes first? Temporally? Logically? I can only look to Scripture which teaches us God must act firstly and grants faith, of which repentance can only be a fruit, a first fruit, of said faith. Arguing over their ordering is much like asking when the cart starts, which spoke of the wheel moves first? Repentance and faith come together.

I'm not sure how this applies to our conversation. I agree that it's hard to tell the difference between the two. Repentance implies that you believe God when He tells you you did something wrong, and belief in God (who He is, and what He wants us to do) IS faith. But I wasn't arguing order, I was arguing ability. But what you say makes me wonder if the cross is not what saves, rather there's some special sauce God gives to the elect that makes them able to believe in the cross. Why have the cross at all--God should have just given the special sauce to the ones He wanted to save in the first place.

The good is that which is done for obedience and glory to God. All actions of the unregenerate, even their civil good acts, are the filthy expressions of their moral depravity.

Just so we're clear here--Jesus said it was possible for evil people to give good gifts to their children, but you are saying that they are not good gifts, because they are "filthy expressions of their moral depravity". I would think you would be bothered by calling evil that which Jesus called good.

Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God, in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15; Romans 6:12-17; Romans 7:5-24). Let's be clear what the bondage of the will is for man in his naturally fallen condition. He has no freedom to will spiritual good. So far as man's psychological constitution is concerned, he still has the power to will the good as he conceives it. Fallen man cannot will spiritual good—man's chief end—to glorify God and enjoy Him forever (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 10:31; Psalm 73:24-28; John 17:21-23).

That "If..." to Cain sure looms large, though, don't you think? Especially when followed by "But you must rule over it [sin or maybe the desire to sin]." I think Samie was trying to make this point--that it doesn't make sense for God to call someone to repentance, like He did Cain--directly, purposefully, and expecting the better results--in words, but not in His secret desires. If God calls to Cain to repent, verbally, but Cain is not able to repent because God does not really call Cain to repent (spiritually or whatever the category is), then God is making Himself out to be a liar--which we know he isn't. Maybe, just maybe, God was actually calling Cain to repent, and Cain had the ability to repent, but he didn't exercise that ability. But that ability to repent, nor the repentance itself, wouldn't absolve Cain of his guilt--that is only absolvable by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Why murder? Even the every day drawing of one's breath without consideration that this very breath is something worthy of praise to God is enough warrant to condemn him. Most fail to grasp the magnitude of their state without God. They fail because they hate God with every breath they draw. Rather the natural man (the unregenerate) would admit it truthfully than hide behind a benign, indifferent passivity that expresses itself aggressively in their failure to honor God in their daily walk.

Why did I pick murder? Murder (as a topic) is convenient and extreme. The scenario works for any sin God tells the unregenerate to avoid. If the doing of those things that God commands is sin when performed by the unregenerate, then God's telling the regenerate to do them is opposed to His nature.

Why are you trying to import the secret will of God into the clearly revealed will of God? All who call upon the Lord will not be lost to Him. How is this useless to anyone? Let's not try to ascend to the throne of God and ask Him to make room for us as we sit beside Him to observe how He rules. All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved is the promiscuously exhorted call of the gospel. How exactly do you know who can or who cannot repent and believe? Did you read this? Rather the man exhorted to call upon the name of the Lord does so and is saved. Then he may contemplate the means by which he was brought out of his state of spiritual death, being overwhelmed by the mercy and wonder of God's ways.

That's all very nice, but doesn't address the issue.

You are twisted up in your own confused logic based upon an unstated and underlying premise that you know exactly who is the elect of God and who is not. Until you can establish that premise, your "logic" fails.

I have never claimed that I can tell who is elect and who is not. But God certainly should know who His elect is and who is not. And if He calls someone to repent (like Cain), who doesn't repent (like Cain), you negate the effectiveness of His call by saying it wasn't the right kind of call--it was a fake call to repentance (not a "general" call, since it was specific to Cain).

God cannot tell anyone to commit murder. Murder is an unlawful act. God cannot sin (see the definition of sin above). God is within His right to command the killing of someone, and it would be a sin to not obey such a command from God. Rather God cannot act in opposition to His own holy being. Furthermore, the preceptive will if God—that which He commands—serves to heap coals of guilt upon the disobedient unregenerate,...

while they obey the secret will of God! God apparently being unable to decide what His real will is--for them to commit murder or for them not to commit murder. So He tells the unregenerate "Do not kill!" by his "preceptive" will but makes sure that they do kill by His "secret" will. So either God's preceptive will is evil (since that's not what God really wants for the unregenerate), or His secret will is evil (since the bible tells us it is evil). Oh, what a dilemma!

further confirming their state of wrath under God. I prefer not to take up the task of acquitting God of being in a "hairy situation" as do the Arminians and open theists, who presume to judge how God should do things. God is the Judge, we are the judged. Let's keep that always in mind.

AMR

And you can only tell what God really wants by seeing what people do (His "secret" will), not by reading His word. And if His word doesn't really tell us what God wants, then His word is either useless or a lie.

 

[Lon]

Hi AMR,

You didn't answer my question about Cain (as far as I could tell). The reason I asked that is because God didn't go into those kind of details with him that you have here. Cain's sin was a direct act toward God that was unacceptable to God. And God didn't tell him he needed to repent of the sins of mankind or of his "nature" or of a whole mass. God's message was fairly simple to Cain--"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it." You would have God say to Cain, "Even if you do what is right, you will not be accepted, because what you do is evil, even if what you do is good."

Jumping in for a moment to simply add a bit of perspective, not trying to run interference, though it is after a fashion

It is also a wee long, so only if it helps...

This is a harder passage because not many details spell it out plainly. I worked over this passage pretty well a few times. What I came away from was this: 1)Abel gave an animal whereas Cain gave vegetables and fruit of the land. I guess that either he had withheld the choicer produce for a thank offering, or it was unsuitable for a sin offering. Cain, not raising livestock, would have had to buy/trade with his brother. Because God rejected his offering, I think all that is said to Cain is specifically about offering rightly, a sin offering.

So, for me, to answer your question, I believe God wasn't giving Cain a prescription about not ever sinning again, but specifically how to take care of sin the right way and as a picture of Christ. In a nutshell, I see the difference between Cain and Abel a lot like we see today. Some people think Jesus is an example to follow, especially cults and works-oriented denominations. They are offering their best fruits to God. Abel, conversely, is a picture of those who trust in the work of Jesus Christ alone. The story of Mary and Martha is similar: One was 'working to please' which can easily lend to pride and an elevated picture of what we can offer God. Cain's offering was, I think, a pride thing like this as well. It is giving to God, not what He demands because of our sin, but rather what we think wrongly, will please Him, and usually with a bit of arrogance and self-importance. "No one comes to the Father but by Me." We have to trust, and this is what we do to do it right. Otherwise sin, with pride at the forefront, is crouching at our door.