The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Gods Character??

Joe,

You are contradicting yourself AND the historic understanding of this topic, of which you seem to have little regard as if those who wrote, e.g., the Canons of Dordt had less knowledge of the Bible than you do. Yes, the Holy Spirit regenerates, transforms, resurrects the dead soul. All these terms indicate taking something that exists and changing it. When a dead body is resurrected it is not to be understood that a totally new, distinct body is given. The same body is given life. When Lazarus walked out of the tomb after having been dead for 4 days, it was the very same Lazarus who was once dead but was now alive. When the Lord Christ was resurrected from the grave, it was the one and same Jesus Who had been laid there. He had the same body but a "new" transformed body; not a totally different body. We could also speak of the "New" Heaven and "New" Earth, which is not a totally different heaven and earth but one that is first purged by fire and then renewed. Likewise, the "new" covenant is not a distinctly different covenant but one that is renewed, i.e., the one covenant administered differently. (Our Baptist brethren would of course adamantly disagree! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />) When the Scripture speaks of a "new" heart, i.e., the nature or soul of an individual, it isn't teaching that God creates another, completely distinct and different soul within man, but rather the soul/nature of man is transformed, given a new, totally different disposition. But the soul itself is "born again", given life, raised from the dead.

Secondly on this matter of "compel". Again I say, it means to exert a force to be sure. But NOT contrary to one's will, but rather in accord to the will. The unregenerate CANNOT be compelled to believe on Christ nor to even have any interest in Him. Regeneration must precede one being compelled to come to Christ, i.e., to be irresistibly influenced. But again, this compulsion is according to the new nature given in regeneration.

Yes, I am sure you could throw out a plethora of biblical texts, but I assure you that not one would show that man's will is violated. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> The old nature is NOT "forced" to do that which it is incapable of doing. It can only act within the bounds of what it is.

Thus, for a "tree" (man) to do that which is good, e.g., believing upon Christ, he must be made into a good "tree". You cannot force a dead tree to produce good fruit... it is simply impossible. God can make water flow from a rock. He can make a donkey speak, etc. But does not and CANNOT make a rational human being do that which is contrary to his nature. Again, this is the view held by historic Protestant Christianity, aka: Calvinism. Arminianism insists that an unregenerate man CAN make decisions which are contrary to his nature. And, I'm no Arminian. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

I do have much regard Pilgrim. I do not see where I have contradicted myself. Saying i have doesnt mean i have. But I do see where you are coming from. I have never said that unregenerate man can be forced to come to Christ without given the ability to come..ie regeneration. IF I have led you to believe that God removes the old soul or body and we are given a totally different one, I apologise for leading you to that wrong conclusion. As far as this transformation or renewel, it is not returning it to some original state. I hope yo are not espousing that the Heart is transformed, or regeneration means we are returned to some 'original adam' prior to the fall. Neither will the new heaven and earth be eden once again.



I told you I refuse to use the word violated. It smacks of something man can say against God's will. "DOnt violate me!!! Anyway, I know regeneration ust be first. I know the unregenerate cannot be compelled to come to Christ left in their dead state. I never said anything differently.

Yes. The old nature is forced to be changed. Mans will has no play in the secret operation of the Spirit in ones effectual call. This is what Calvin said in the quotes I provided. So I dont now where I am against 'historic' understanding.

Jer. 31:18-19, "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; Thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh"



Thus, for a "tree" (man) to do that which is good, e.g., believing upon Christ, he must be made into a good "tree". You cannot force a dead tree to produce good fruit... it is simply impossible. God can make water flow from a rock. He can make a donkey speak, etc. But does not and CANNOT make a rational human being do that which is contrary to his nature. Again, this is the view held by historic Protestant Christianity, aka: Calvinism. Arminianism insists that an unregenerate man CAN make decisions which are contrary to his nature. And, I'm no Arminian. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace, [/quote]

I agree with all of this Pilgrim

Joe,

1) No, I am not saying that regeneration brings one back to some alleged "original state", although the regenerate man does share a similar condition as Adam, e.g., having the ability to choose good and to be able to sin. Of course, there are differences, e.g., a regenerated man cannot sin unto death since Christ has provided all the right "choices" vicariously and substitutionally. Of you haven't done so before, I would recommend Thomas Boston's, Human Nature in its Fourfold State, which does a stellar job of showing the condition of man from the Fall through to the eschaton.

2) Your contradiction, albeit denied, and your insistence on not liking the word "violated" is in the fact that you at least appear to be consistent in saying that God can "force" man do act contrary to his will, which in truth would be a violation of his will. And I have been insisting that God does not and even cannot force a man to do that which is contrary to his will. The will, being the servant of one's intellect and affections cannot act on its own. And thus all choices a man makes are what he thinks is best and/or desires most. This is the very essence of one's being, aka: the "heart" or "soul". As you did now mention rightly, regeneration is the only way a man can desire God and choose to embrace Christ with a living faith. Once regeneration takes place, the "heart" most naturally seeks Christ and to do good. There is no "forcing of a man's will to do that which is contrary to it". As the unregenerate most naturally hate God and loves sin, so the regenerate man loves God and seeks after righteousness. There is no "forcing" involved nor needed.

So again, God does NOT "force" a man's will but rather He recreates the will, which is a poor way of saying that God resurrects the dead "heart" or "soul" in a spiritual sense. And that is what is at issue here. It is not some corporeal thing that is "made alive" but rather a "spiritual" thing; a new disposition or nature is given thus effectively changing how the will acts. Therefore it is a matter of moral ability.

I hope that helps to clear things up. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Joe,

Some clarity for those reading this thread may be gained by referring to a point of terminology which can cause confusion.

For good or ill, the English term will is able to be used both as

1) the faculty of the heart by which moral choices are made in accord with the nature of the person

and

2) the desire of a person for a particular outcome

In many cases, the two usages can both be true in a particular situation: a person desires something (#2) and his will chooses to fulfill that desire in accordance with the inclination of his heart (#1)

Where we can get into trouble is in describing the situation in which: a person desires something (#2) but is prevented from fulfilling that "will" (#2 still).

The danger is that while we may be correct in saying that his "will" was acted upon--changed, thwarted, manipulated--we are speaking only of the removal of the opportunity to fulfill a desire (#2) and not at all about his "will" as faculty of moral choice (#1).

As one example, take Haman in Esther 6. His "will" (=desire) was to exalt himself over Mordecai, and he exercised his "will" (=moral faculty) in attempting to use the king to bring about that outcome. When the king ordered Mordecai exalted at Haman's expense instead, Haman's "will" (=desire) was indeed thwarted, crushed, overthrown and brought to naught.

BUT .....

even while pronouncing blessing on Mordecai--clearly contrary to his "will" (=desire)--Haman's "will" (=moral faculty) had not been violated AT ALL, because he continued to exercise that faculty to act in full accord with his nature among the new opportunities presented, namely by obeying the king, thus preserving his life and offering further opportunity for revenge against Mordecai. So we could say that while acting contrary to his will (#2) Haman's will (#1) was nevertheless freely dictating his every action.

The many passages--Abimelech has been mentioned--which refer to God overriding a person's will are all instances of providential, sovereign ordering and bounding of the circumstances within which the person's willed desires (#2) could be acted upon, and involve no change of the person's actual faculty of will (#1) itself, which invariably reflects the very nature of the person.

Paul,

Good point and the distinction is often confused. A man's will is always free to choose that which is most important according to his nature AND according to the circumstances one is in. A couple of examples that I really like are:

1. You can make a child sit in a chair who doesn't want to, but he's still standing on the "inside". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />
2. John Gerstner used a very poignant example to illustrate that although circumstances may limit the choices of one's will, the will is still free to choose: "I can be sitting at my desk writing and a man points a gun to my head and says, 'Stop writing or I'll kill you!'. I have thus two choices, to keep writing or go on living. The choice is mine (the will is still free to choose). My choice will be determined by what I think/feel is more important; to go on writing or to stay alive. Thus the person with the gun cannot force (compel, violate) my will. He can limit the choices I have but it is still my choice to make.

In His grace,

What about Acts 16:6,7

6Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to.


This is not bending against their desire? It looks plain to me.

Joe,

Once again.... what this text is dealing with is God the Holy Spirit preventing Paul &co. from preaching the Gospel through secondary causes, i.e., the creating of circumstances so that their plans had to be changed. This is what both Paul_S and I tried to convey in our most recent responses to you. The Spirit didn't put Himself between their intellect & emotions and their wills so that they were forced to do something which was "contrary to their nature". There is nothing in this text which even hints that these men were forced to do something which they otherwise could not/would not have done.

In His grace,

Where in the text can your 'understanding' be found pilgrim?

Lets look at it again.

6Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to.

It appears you are arguing from 2 points. 1 from silence and 2 from the stubborn disposition you have that God does compel men against their desires.

There is nothing in the text to say anything other than the Holy Spirit ALONE prevented them from doind 2 things they wanted/desired to do. Preach in Asia and go to Bithynia. Now if it said, The Holy Spirit caused a storm to arise, or sickness to befall Paul I would agree with you. Again, at times we MUST take scripture for what it says in situations.

here is the cliff note version.

1)They wanted to go to Asia and preach, or else they would not have needed the HS or "2ndary casues" stop them

2) they WANTED/DESIRED, emotionally, intellectually, willingly, to go to Bithynia, and yet again the HS thrawrted their plans.

What amazes me is you can say "Joe there is nothing in the text that hints these men were forced/compelled to do something of which they did not want to do, and also say "Well it says Holy Spirit, but we must logically jump and make that mean their must have been secondary causes or circumstances even if it is not in the text.

again it is plain... KJV

Act 16:6 ¶ Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

1) to hinder, prevent forbid

2) to withhold a thing from anyone

3) to deny or refuse one a thing

Act 16:7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.

1) to allow, permit, let

2) to allow one to do as he wishes, not to restrain, to let alone

3) to give up, let go, leave

IF you look at the second definition, we can logically conclude that to siffer them NOT, must mean they could not do as they wished, which equals desired.


Anyway, I do not see the big deal here. If God is Sovereign and can do as HE pleases, why can He not violate mans will at times? What difference would it make?

Deut 2:30-34
But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us(Israelites) pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.
And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

Eph 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Rom 8:20-21
For the creature(creation) was made subject to vanity(God's curse), not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Notice it says NOT WILLINGLY. What else could that mean except against their will?

# "And the Lord said to him, 'Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?'" (Exodus 4:11).

Do these people desire to be dumb deaf or blind? The answer has to be no.

"The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes" (Prov. 21:1).

to bend, turn, incline


It was Abimelech's desire to be with Abraham's wife, yet God prevented it. God can and does control people's hearts and actions so that they will accomplish His purpose.

"For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses," (Joshua 11:20).

"But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today," (Deut. 2:30).

The Lord hardned his heart, He didnt just let Sihon continue in what he wanted to do naturally.

I am sorry Pilgrim. I see no other way to look at the myriad of scriptures. I am going to believe exactly what they say. And also aree at times, God is said to leave man in their own desires of evil. But I cannot discard the many that say He MAKES them do things they are not inclined to do.

But the text does NOT say, "The Spirit forced their bodies to change direction," which is the impression your interpretation gives it. The Spirit prevented them, but it does not say HOW they were prevented. And indeed, the Spirit never prevents people from doing things by forcing them to do something other than what they are currently willing themselves to do. So while their desire to go was thwarted, it is not as though the Spirit dragged them away in chains. They were not forced, against their own volitional ability, to do something which was completely opposed to their own natures. They did not look on as their bodies began to do what they never had any intention of doing. Rather, the Spirit, by whatever means (whether directly or indirectly) limited their options and they had to choose to do something else, using their own volition.


Sihon wasn't forced to do anything against his will. God hardened Sihon in Sihon's OWN DESIRES.


First this is in referrence to creation generally. While animals have wills, do you think rocks, trees, clouds, wind, and rain have volitional ability? No! What this means is that creation was put into bondage, but not because it WANTED to be in bondage. This is the distinction Paul was getting at before, where you have a "will" that is your desires and a "will" that is your volitional ability. It's an ambiguous word in English. But, as Pilgrim has written, if someone puts a gun to your head, you still have a choice, although you may desire to have better options.


But what man has the volitional capability to change that circumstance? They aren't being forced to be dumb, deaf, or blind in contradiction to their own volition. That's not a choice that's available to them!


He CHANGES THEIR INCLINATIONS, Joe! Indeed, that's exactly what regeneration is! But for the reprobate, he hardens them in their own natural inclinations.

I agree it does not say they were dragged away in chains. I am not being that dramatic. But as I showed what the word means in this scripture, it doesnt mean they were persuaded to do what they actually wanted to do.

NASB:

Act 16:6 They passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia;

Act 16:7 and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them;

What do these words mean? Do they actually mean that the Spirit made them do what they already desired to do? So actually they did not want to preach in asia or go into Bithynia?


Sihon wasn't forced to do anything against his will. God hardened Sihon in Sihon's OWN DESIRES.[/quote]

Why would God have to harden someone more? It makes no sense. If the reprobate soul will have no desire to do the Will of God, why would God have to 'infuse' some other hardening? It says the Lord hardened his spirit and made his heart obsinate. If it already was like that, why would the Lord have to make it harder and more obsinate? I do not understand this.



Again, How and why would one(reprobate) have to be 'more' hardened in what they already are? Is this like God nailing the coffin shut when it is already closed?

Take those in Matthew 7 who desired to worship and do things for the Lord. Their will/inclination whatever we call it was doing what the Lord has wanted, and yet the Lord cast them away and said He never knew them. Here is an example of a reprobate person, who did desire to serve the Lord, yet Christ cast them away.

Joe,

So, from what you wrote above, can I assume that you do not embrace the historic Protestant (Calvinist) doctrine of "Total Depravity"? I'm afraid that is what I must conclude since the biblical doctrine categorically states that the unregenerate do not, cannot seek God, cannot come to Christ, have not faith, cannot please God, are at enmity with God, the thoughts and intentions of their heart is evil continually, etc., etc.... Therefore, those spoken of in Matt 7 were NOT "doing what the Lord has wanted". They practiced self-determined, self-willed idolatry being self-deceived into believing that they were under God's favor and doing His will. Secondly, from God's side, the Lord Christ clearly says He didn't know (love) them. And this is clearly taught in myriad places also, that Christ "loved His own" and none other for they were loved of God from eternity, i.e., predestinated and elected to be saved in Christ.

Now, you are certainly under no obligation to subscribe to any historic document and its teachings, e.g., the WCF, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt, Savoy Declaration, Baptist London Confession, et al which all agree on but a few non-essentials. But unless you can show conclusively that ALL of these men who penned those documents from all the different denominations were wrong, you aren't going to succeed in convincing many, certainly not me, that your view is correct. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

And just one last comment about Paul &co. being "prevented" from preaching, etc. Why it is you can't seem to grasp what was going on there or how God works in His providence I'm not going to even guess. But to most of us the meaning is clear enough. That group had determined to go into those areas to preach the Gospel. But God had other plans for them and thus prevented them from being able to carry out "their plans". (Prov. 16:9) What is true is that all those involved freely chose to carry out their plan. And, equally so, when they were not able to do so, they freely chose to go elsewhere as the Lord directed them, either by circumstances created; secondary causes, or by "intuition"; promptings, etc. But in either case, their ABILITY to choose what was most important and/or desirous was not "forced" upon them so that they were "compelled" to do what their wills did not want to do. You might decide today to go to a particular store to buy a needed item by a chosen and well-known route. But as you are on your way you come upon a road block setup by a construction crew. Thus you would be "forced" to change the route to the store. You would not be "forced" to apply the brakes nor turn your car around. You simply had to change plans. Okay, you finally arrive at the store and the item you were wanting to buy was out of stock. Thus you would not be able to fulfill your desire there. So, in one sense you would be "forced" to either choose to not pursue getting the item any further or to go to another store. But you would NOT be "complelled" to take an alternatie item off the shelf which you did not want to buy. You would be "free" to change your mind, however, and choose another product when you realized the one you wanted was not available. Get it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

I should have been more clearand said in their own mind they thought they were being faithful to the Lord. But besides that, the scripture is clear that they had some desire to serve Him. Total depravity can not be concluded that all unregenerate are athesits who are burning churches and desecrating the name of the Lord. They sit in the pews every Lord's day. You know that TD is from God's point of view Pilgrim. If it wasnt, then all unregenerates would be vicious against the Lord and we know that is not true.

These men were not wrong at all. Unless they concluded that there is not one unregenerate or reprobate in the visible assembly. And I doubt they would have insisted that.

Lets look at Gill:

Matthew 7:21

Ver. 21. Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord,.... Not every one that calls Christ his Lord and Master, professes subjection to him, or that calls upon his name, or is called by his name; or makes use of it in his public ministrations. There are many who desire to be called, and accounted Christians, and who make mention of the name of Christ in their sermons, only to take away their reproach, to cover themselves, and gain credit with, and get into the affections and goodwill of the people; but have no hearty love to Christ, nor true faith in him: nor is it their concern to preach his Gospel, advance his glory, and promote his kingdom and interest; their chief view is to please men, aggrandize themselves, and set up the power of human nature in opposition to the grace of God, and the righteousness of Christ. Now not everyone of these, no, not any of them,

Judas, for one, was capable of pleading all these things; he had the gift of preaching, and a call from Christ to it, and yet a castaway; he had the power of casting out devils, and yet could not prevent the devil from entering into him; he could perform miracles, do wonders in Christ's name, and yet, at last, was the betrayer of him. These pleas and arguments will be of no use to him, nor of any avail to any at the great day. It may be observed, that these men lay the whole stress of their salvation upon what they have done in Christ's name; and not on Christ himself, in whom there is salvation, and in no other: they say not a syllable of what Christ has done and suffered, but only of what they have done. Indeed, the things they instance in, are the greatest done among men; the gifts they had were the most excellent, excepting the grace of God; the works they did were of an extraordinary nature; whence it follows, that there can be no salvation, nor is it to be expected from men's works: for if preaching the word, which is attended with so much study, care, and labour, will not be a prevailing argument to admit men into the kingdom of heaven; how can it be thought that ever reading, or hearing, or any other external performance of religion, should bring persons thither?


This is exactly what I am saying. In THEIR OWN MINDS they thought they were doing God's will. They had this desire. The doctrine of total depravity is not aginst this thought.

We tend to equate total depravity with some evil, horendous people who are marcging against God and flagrantly abusing His name, this is true for many, but some reprobate souls do attend to the supper and baptism, therefore show some desire to serve God.

Where did I say that they were persuaded to do what they actually wanted to do all along? You are STILL confusing volition with desire. Their desire was to go to Asia and then to Bithynia, and this desire was thwarted by whatever means the Spirit chose. But the Spirit did not somehow thwart their volition and cause them to do something they had no will to do at all.


Sihon up to that point was perhaps willing to change his mind if persuaded, but God hardened him in the course he was already intending to take such that he would not be persuaded. He did not force Sihon to do something that Sihon never wanted to do.