On Apr 12, 2008, at 8:55 PM, Mich Finn wrote:
Dear xing
If I may make an observation here, you seem to be working under a system of theology framed to exalt the honor and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners. You emphasize irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize, furthermore, that Christ may be offered only to the elect. Of course this begs the question.
Who are the elect and how does one recognize the elect prior to their conversion by The Holy Spirit? Your view is from the school of supralapsarian ‘five-point’ Calvinism, a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general, which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time. You minimize the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word “offer” in relation to the preaching of the gospel, therefore, you undermine the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them.
I've been debating the Doctrines of Grace for the better half of my entire life, (about 23 years, I'm 46 now now) so I'm certainly not interested in doing it yet again. I'm simply posting this observation of your position to show you what others like myself see in reading your responses.
IHG
Mich Finn
=======
On Apr 13, 2008, at 6:43 PM, xing wrote:
Dear Mich,
Thanks for your observation. Your observation is a wee bit off, I think.
I believe evangelism is absolutely important.
But absolutely necessary for what? For God's ordained purpose, or man's imagined purpose?
That's where the great divide is between those who DO understand salvation by free grace alone in its biblical sense, and those who don't.
I believe milk is absolutely important... for the nourishing of the child already born, but not in any way for the conception and birth of the child. You understand the point? If you don't, get your wife to explain. Woman understands and knows this basic issue far better than man do. Man is just dense on some points. That's why each man needs his own helper to help him to understand!
I take the revealed will of God include these (i.e. I don't see any secret about this things)
- He chose a people in Christ before time.
- Christ died to save the same.
- The Spirit of Christ apply the salvation to each one, AS ALWAYS, who works when, and
where, and how He pleases. Sorry, no place or role of any sort for man in this divine work.
- The gospel ministry is appointed to call out the children of God and gather them into the churches of Jesus Christ, not out of sin and death! The triune God himself has done that without man's aid! This way the promise of salvation is sure to all the elect. The gospel ministry is absolutely necessary for this purpose alone - to minister to God's children, born by the will of God alone, without any aid or assistance from man.
- The gospel has no relevance to any other. (This DOES NOT imply, or necessitate the weird idea that the preachers must need to know who are the children of God among the hearers.)
- The gospel is foolishness to the perishing. But to those that ARE SAVED [already justified, regenerated, adopted, given the gift of the Spirit of adoption], the gospel speaks of the power of God in saving THEM.
I am self-consciously a sublapsarian: i.e. the decree of the fall preceded the decree of election. [You are given to imagination too easily.]
I disagree with two of the five points "commonly understood" by the new school Calvinists. So I am not a calvinist.
As to the offer, I perceive the gospel preachers who offer Christ to those dead in sins as sincere BUT foolish preachers who try to offer a loaf of whole meal bread to a dead man. To offer Christ to the dead is foolishness. To offer Christ to the children of God is redundant. They ALREADY have Christ applied o them personally. To proclaim the gospel and call the hearers to believe the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ is wise. Hold forth the good news of salvation and call the hearers to believe it... and ONLY those already united to Christ, who have eternal life, God's children among them, the regenerated ones, among the hearers shall believe."
I am not interested in debating with any one.
I do want folks to be consistent with their doctrines.
Again, thanks for your observation, Mich.
May our Lord bless you and yours.
sing
=======
On Apr 13, 2008, at 8:25 PM, Mich Finn wrote:
Hello sing,
I hope you don't mind, but I took it upon myself to clean up the text.
sing wrote:
I believe evangelism is absolutely important. But absolutely necessary for what? For God's ordained purpose, or man's imagined purpose? That's where the great divide is between those who DO understand salvation by free grace alone in its biblical sense, and those who DON'T.
Mich comments:
This is your self imposed trap. You cannot escape the problem of sanctification with the same logic you attempt to use for the lost and the Gospel. Men should not to try and sanctify themselves, since this is the Spirit’s operation, nor should they be told to do so. If the Spirit
is the one who sanctifies, then men are not responsible for sanctification. Though they know they should continue to mortify the deeds, they have no power to do so since it is God’s work alone. Phil 2:13, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” This is the exact same idea that you are postulating about duty-faith. Men live in the realm of men, not in the realm of God’s decretive counsel. You live under the sense of the Bible that expostulates a preceptive duty for all men everywhere. Even those who are converted are supposed to make their calling and election sure, but this is God’s work. Christians are to mortify the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit, but sanctification is the Spirit’s work. Both lines of thought are true. How they interact with one another is a question for debate all its own. But that should not stop Christians from trying to mortify sin, or lost men to come to repentance.
Not only does your position create problems with Christian sanctification, but by your denial of duty-faith, you also make men captives of Antinomianism. If the men of the world, all men for all time, are not under the objective power of the Law, then they have become a lost Antinomian. Your position gives the Antinomian the privilege to disregard the law since they cannot please God. How could the law judge them if they are not bound to obey it? Your system of theological thought says, “They cannot obey it, and are not responsible to it.” This is a fallacy. They are still bound to obey it, and are judged for not obeying it, otherwise God’s judgment for their disobedience would be without justification. (cf. Romans 2:5)
sing wrote:
I disagree with two of the five points "commonly understood" by the new school Calvinists. So I am not a calvinists.
Mich comments:
I think most people here, or at least those who have interacted with you, would agree that you are not a Calvinist. You are in fact a Hyper Calvinist.
Your theology could never be a universal attestation to the truth since it is exclusivistic to a fault. Calvinism is exclusive, and the Gospel is exclusive, but never to a fault or error. You cannot preach the Gospel to every creature as directed by Christ in Matthew 28.
What does this mean? It is not just a speaking or dictating of facts to a crowd, it is summoning the crowd in preaching. It could be argued that the Hyper-Calvinist does not really know what Gospel Preaching really entails. This is also a dilemma. But if Hyper-Calvinism is simply dictating facts, and then does so in a wrong order speaking about reprobation to the unconverted without giving the Gospel, then this could not be called true preaching, or a right representation of the Gospel itself.
IHG,
Mich Finn
=======
On Apr 14, 2008, at 1:25 AM, xing wrote:
Hello Mich,
Mich wrote:
This is your self imposed trap ...
sing reply:
I think your logic is confused and clouded because you fail to rightly divide the word of truth.
You see problem because you fail to distinguish 'definitive sanctification' and 'farther sanctification.'
Definitive sanctification from the state of sin and death is solely the work of the Triune God. It is not a matter of 'man should not try and sanctify themselves.' It is the case of sinners dead in their sins and trespasses, in enmity against God, children of wrath, in the state of total depravity who are utterly incapable of doing such thing. Definitive sanctification is monergistic.
Spiritual responsibility can only be expected of spiritual beings. I think it irrational to expect spiritual duties of natural men dead in sin. Moral responsibilities is rightly and justly expected of all moral creatures made in the image of God. So what are you about - moral responsibilities of spiritual responsibilities?
It is only those that have been definitively sanctified, sovereignly and freely by the Triune God, that have the capability to be farther sanctified. Only such have the ability to respond to the call to sanctify themselves with the means God has appointed. To command to sanctify themselves are addressed ONLY to God's children, never to dead sinners. Farther sanctification is synergistic... through means God has provided. Phi 2:13 is addressed to SAINTS of the church in Philippi, not to dead sinners to do something for farther sanctification.
A dead man can't possibly be called to be responsible to use all the means provided to stay healthy. But a man who has been brought back to life must be told of his responsibility to use all the means provided for him to live healthy and useful life.
Mich wrote:
Not only does your position create problems with Christian sanctification, but by your denial of duty-faith, you also make men captives of Antinomianism. ...
sing reply:
Problems? I believe they are just your imagined problems because you fail to rightly divide the word of truth. Is any man, a moral creature of God, ever free from the moral laws of the moral government of God over all His creatures?
Someone rightly said, morality is not spirituality! Don't mistake or confound the two.
Distinction is the essence of sound theology.
Moral responsibility is true of every moral creature of God, whether elect or not.
Spiritual responsibility is true with respect to God's children.
Think about this: would God requires a sinner - dead in sins and trespasses, whom Christ did not die for, the Spirit did not regenerate - to believe that God loves him and Jesus Christ did die to save him? Would God require any moral creature to believe a LIE? Who is mad? Let God be true and every man a LIAR, a prophet of madness that bears false witness against God. That's the way I see it.
I do believe that it is a child of God (justified, regenerated and adopted, indwelt by the Spirit) that has the responsibility and duty to believe the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, things which are ALREADY true of him by the gracious work of God, and to live worthy of that salvation.
just wanting to be consistent, not debating (always a waste of time),
sing in the far east.
=======
On Apr 14, 2008, at 3:48 AM, Mich Finn wrote:
Hello sing,
It seems to me that your position can be boiled down to one simple objection/denial, and that is that you do not believe the Gospel message should be proclaimed to all without distinction.
Mich had written:
Not only does your position create problems with Christian sanctification, but by your denial of duty-faith, you also make men captives of Antinomianism... They are still bound to obey it, and are judged for not obeying it, otherwise God’s judgment for their disobedience would be without justification. (cf. Romans 2:5)
sing replied:
Problems? I believe they are just your imagined problems because you fail to rightly divide the word of truth. Is any man, a moral creature of God, ever free from the moral laws of the moral government of God over all His creatures?
Mich comments:
The denial of the gospel call, the first and most extreme type of hyper-Calvinism that you are preaching, denies that the gospel calls all sinners to repentance and faith. The gospel call. The invitation to come to Christ for salvation, Rev. 22:17 Matt. 11:28-29; Isa. 45:22; 55:1-7) is denied to all but the elect. Historic Reformed theology, which you reject, notes that there are two different senses in which Scripture uses the word "call." The apostle Paul usually employs the word to speak of the effectual call, whereby an elect sinner is sovereignly drawn by God unto salvation. Obviously this "call" applies only to the elect alone (Rom. 8:28-30). No Calvinist denies this truth, sing. But Scripture also describes a general call. In Matthew 22:14, Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen." Here, those who are "called" are clearly more in number than the elect. So our Lord is quite obviously using the word "call" in a different sense from how Paul used it in Romans 8:30.
The general call, sometimes known as the external call, is the call to faith and repentance inherent in the gospel message itself. When the gospel is preached, the general call goes out indiscriminately to all who come under the preaching of the gospel. This call is issued by the preacher as an ambassador of Christ.
The effectual call, sometimes known as the internal call, is the regenerating work of God in the hearts of His elect, whereby He draws them to Christ and opens their hearts unto faith. This call is for the elect alone and is issued by God alone.
You deny that the general, external call, exists and insist that the gospel should be preached in a way that proclaims the facts about Christ's work and God's electing grace without calling anyone to do anything. This is the worst form of hyper-Calvinism which you seem to be working under. I'd suggest this is an extremely serious error, more dangerous than the worst variety of Arminianism. At least the Arminian preaches enough of the gospel for the elect to hear it and be saved. You, a hyper-Calvinist, deny that the Gospel message should even be preached to all without distinction.
Again, your denial of faith as a duty is driving your theology. You suggest that since unbelievers are incapable of faith apart from enabling grace, believing in Christ must never be presented to them as a duty. By holding this position you are forced go to great lengths to deny that faith is ever presented in Scripture
as the duty of the unregenerate. Obviously, much Scripture twisting is necessary to justify such an opinion. See, for example, Acts 17:30. Instead, advocates such as yourself, who hold this position suggest that each sinner must seek a warrant for his faith before presuming to exercise faith in Christ. The sinner does this by looking for evidence that he is elect. This is an utterly absurd notion, since faith is the only real evidence of election.
The denial that faith is the sinner's duty illustrates how your position and Arminianism arise from the same false notion. The one fallacy that lies at the heart of both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism is the erroneous assumption that human inability nullifies responsibility.
Anyway, I think this subject has been beaten to death. Feel free to have the last word.
IHG,
Mich Finn
=======
On Apr 14, 2008, at 9:03 AM, xing wrote:
Hello Mich,
Mich wrote:
It seems to me that your position can be boiled down to one simple objection/denial, and that is that you do not believe the Gospel message should be proclaimed to all without distinction.
sing comments:
I think it is tragic that after all I have written that is the conclusion you come to. [Let me put it plainly to you so that you don't may to speculate and misrepresent].
The gospel is to be preached to all without distinction because God's children are found among the hearers.
To say that the gospel is only relevant to the children of God does not means the gospel is to be preached to the children of God alone... for the simple reason that the preacher CANNOT distinguish God's children and those who are perishing among his hearers.
Imagine a 100 persons lying on the ground... some dead and others are starved and asleep. You were sent with food to feed the people. You would address the good news to all who are there on the ground. And though you proclaim the good news with all your might to the whole group of people lying on the floor, your good news of food is relevant to those who are alive. The good news is worse than foolishness to the dead.
I didn't read the rest [of the post.]
Your have not grasp a simple point... so, probably the rest are out of point.
sing
====
On Apr 14, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Mich Finn wrote:
Hello sing,
Mich had written:
It seems to me that your position can be boiled down to one simple objection/denial, and that is that you do not believe the Gospel message should be proclaimed to all without distinction.
sing responded:
I think it is tragic that after all I have written that is the conclusion you come to.
Mich comments:
Really? Lets see why I have concluded this about your position.
On 04/13/08 I recieved this from you in response to one of my e-mails to you write:
**START:** "I believe evangelism is absolutely important. But absolutely necessary for what? For God's ordained purpose, or man's imagined purpose? That's where the great divide is between those who DO understand salvation by free grace alone in its biblical sense, and those who don't." **END**
From the same e-mail you write:
**START** "As to the offer, I perceive the gospel preachers who offer Christ to those dead in sins as sincere BUT foolish preachers who try to offer a loaf of whole meal bread to a dead man. To offer Christ to the dead is foolishness. To offer Christ to the children of God is redundant. **END**
In this most recent e-mail you write the following:
**START** "The gospel is to be preached to all without distinction because God's children are found among the hearers. To say that the gospel is only relevant to the children of God does not means the gospel is to be preached to the children of God alone... for the simple reason that the preacher CANNOT distinguish God's children and those who are perishing among his hearers." **END**
Mich:
So I ask, which is your true position on the presentation of the Gospel? Clearly there is a contradictioin here between what you say you believe and what you actually believe.
Mich:
Furthermore, you continue to ignore "duty faith".
sing writes from that same e-mail:
**START** "Think about this: would God requires a sinner - dead in sins and trespasses, whom Christ did not die for, the Spirit did not regenerate - to believe that God loves him and Jesus Christ did die to save him? Would God require any moral creature to believe a LIE? Who is mad? Let God be true and every man a LIAR, a prophet of madness that bears false witness against God. That's the way I see it." **END**
Mich:
Sing, your denial of faith as a duty is driving your theology. You suggest that since unbelievers are incapable of faith apart from enabling grace, believing in Christ must never be presented to them as a duty. By holding this position you are forced to go to great lengths to deny that faith is ever presented in Scripture
as the duty of the unregenerate. Obviously, much Scripture twisting is necessary to justify such an opinion. See, for example, Acts 17:30. Instead, advocates such as yourself, who hold this position suggest that each sinner must seek a warrant for his faith before presuming to exercise faith in Christ. The sinner does this by looking for evidence that he is elect. This is an utterly absurd notion, since faith is the only real evidence of election.
The denial that faith is the sinner's duty illustrates how your position and Arminianism arise from the same false notion. The one fallacy that lies at the heart of both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism is the erroneous assumption that human inability nullifies responsibility.
IHG,
Mich Finn
=======
On Apr 15, 2008, at 10:03 AM, xing wrote:
Hello Mich,
Mich wrote:
So I ask, which is your true position on the presentation of the Gospel? Clearly there is a contradictions here between what you say you believe and what you actually believe.
sing replies:
This is my position: take it or leave it, just don't misrepresent it.
- The gospel is to be addressed to all hearers. Yes, in the nature of the case, ALL THE HEARERS, including the non-elect, are equally and indiscriminately addressed by the gospel call to repentant and faith.
- The gospel is relevance only to those whom God has given spiritual life.
Mich wrote:
Sing, your denial of faith as a duty is driving your theology. You suggest that since unbelievers are incapable of faith apart from enabling grace, believing in Christ must never be presented to them as a duty. By holding this position you are forced to go to great lengths to deny that faith is ever presented in Scripture as the duty of the unregenerate.
sing replies:
Perhaps you may like to show that faith in Jesus Christ is ever presented in Scripture as the duty of the non-elect? I would like to be shown the truth.
Mich wrote:
Obviously, much Scripture twisting is necessary to justify such an opinion. See, for example, Acts 17:30. Instead, advocates such as yourself, who hold this position suggest that each sinner must seek a warrant for his faith before presuming to exercise faith in Christ. The sinner does this by looking for evidence that he is elect. This is an utterly absurd notion, since faith is the only real evidence of election.
sing replies:
let's consider a few things about your obvious example.
First, let me state plainly that the ONLY warrant to believe in Jesus Christ is that he is a sinner and has been commanded to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. And if he does so, it is because he is an elect and the work of grace has already been applied to him personally.
You have heard from the horse's mouth, and so you can save all your speculations about this and that. It is a shame to impute to me what I don't believe. It is better that you consider what I do actually say, instead of imputing to me what others may believe. That will save you from many wasted moves. A good chess player don't waste moves. God does not waste moves either. We foolish men do often.
Here is Acts 17:30-31 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
1. Just whose ignorance do you think God winked at?
- Did God winked at the ignorance of His children in every nation concerning Christ the Savior before His appearance to accomplish the work of redemption and before the proclamation of that redemption to them? - Or did He wink at the ignorance of all men everywhere without distinction, His children as well as those in enmity and rebellion against Him?
- And did all those He winked at ended in eternal hell, or brought to eternal glory, nonetheless?
- I am only asking.
2. Who are the 'all men every where' that God now commands to repent and believe in Jesus Christ?
- Those in whom God has applied the work of salvation in Jesus Christ, therefore called to believe what is already TRUE in them through the preaching of the gospel?
- Or 'all men every where' including those whom God did not chose in Christ, for whom Christ did not die to redeem, and who lies in the death of sins and trespasses, therefore commanding them and requiring to believe LIES?
- Prophets of madness believe that God is a schizophrenia. They say that God commands and demands sinners, whom He did not give to Jesus Christ and left to perish in their sins, to believe in Jesus Christ.
- Prophets of madness believe that Jesus is a schizophreniac too. They insist that Jesus sent them out to command those for whom Christ did not die to believe that Christ did die for them.
- Prophets of madness believe that they are sent out to help God make his children through their preaching. Jesus said make disciples. It is common sense that DISCIPLES can only be made out of God's children [elect that has been regenerated by the Spirit of God without man's aid] ALREADY out there.
- I am only asking question to remain consistent, and avoid irrationality, and taking God's name in vain.
3. I do believe that those whose ignorance God winked at is in the SAME CATEGORY with those 'all men every where' whom God now commands to repent - they are God's elect regenerate children.
4. And yes, faith is AN evidence of elect. It is one of the saving graces, i.e. one of the graces of salvation. It is MOST CERTAINLY NOT the ONLY real evidence of election. Read 168.11.2.
Mich wrote:
The denial that faith is the sinner's duty illustrates how your position and Arminianism arise from the same false notion. The one fallacy that lies at the heart of both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism is the erroneous assumption that human inability nullifies responsibility.
sing replies:
So, after you have read, what is the assumption in my understanding? Is it 'human inability nullifies responsibility'? Or is it that the non elect DOES NOT come under the purview of the gospel ministry in the divine purpose of God? Which is which? And is there a difference?
Human inability is only incidental, and harmonious, naturally, with God's divine of redemption of his elect.
Hey, please don't put me in the box of your own imagination! I am not a typical white American. I am a chinese lad in the far east.
Human inability? What's that? Every man is able and active enough in his rebellion against His Creator... he is more than responsible enough to be damned a thousand times for his sins.
Have a good day.
sing in the south china sea
=======
On Apr 15, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Mich Finn wrote:
Hello sing,
Mich wrote:
So I ask, which is your true position on the presentation of the Gospel? Clearly there is a contradiction here between what you say you believe and what you actually believe.
sing replied:
This is my position: take it or leave it, just don't misrepresent it.
Mich replies:
I have gone to great lengths to make sure that I have not misrepresented your position. In fact, I have taken your exact quotes from the e-mails in this discussion and posted them back in to the discussion, so this is a very empty charge on your part.
sing wrote:
The gospel is to be addressed to all hearers. Yes, in the nature of the case, ALL THE HEARERS, including the non-elect, are equally and indiscriminately addressed by the gospel call to repentant and faith.
Mich replies:
Good so far.
sing wrote:
The gospel is relevance only to those whom God has given spiritual life.
Mich replies:
So close but then you added this qualifier that does not exist in the Scriptures. You could only have come to this conclusion through other means other than the Scriptures themselves.
Christ Himself left no doubt that He was referring to all men when He made this statement in Mark 1 during his preaching at Galilee.
"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15)
There was no qualifier there in that statement. Christ was very clear. Jesus didn't say, "I know that some of you are not of the elect so this admonition does not apply to you."
Mich wrote:
Sing, your denial of faith as a duty is driving your theology. You suggest that since unbelievers are incapable of faith apart from enabling grace, believing in Christ must never be presented to them as a duty. By holding this position you are forced to go to great lengths to deny that faith is ever presented in Scripture as the duty of the unregenerate.
sing replied:
Perhaps you may like to show that faith in Jesus Christ is ever presented in Scripture as the duty of the non-elect? I would like to be shown the truth.
Mich responds:
See above. Jesus makes no distinction between elect and non-elect in His proclamation to "repent and believe in the gospel". So there is the evidence you required straight from Jesus' own mouth.
Mich wrote:
Obviously, much Scripture twisting is necessary to justify such an opinion. See, for example, Acts 17:30. Instead, advocates such as yourself, who hold this position suggest that each sinner must seek a warrant for his faith before presuming to exercise faith in Christ. The sinner does this by looking for evidence that he is elect. This is an utterly absurd notion, since faith is the only real evidence of election.
sing replied:
let's consider a few things about your obvious example. First, let me state plainly that the ONLY warrant to believe in Jesus Christ is that he is a sinner and has been commanded to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. And if he does so, it is because he is an elect and the work of grace has already been applied to him personally.
Mich responds:
This is beside the point of this conversation regarding "duty faith".
sing wrote:
You have heard from the horse's mouth, and so you can save all your speculation about this and that. It is a shame to impute to me what I don't believe.
Mich replies:
As I said above, I have made every effort to copy and paste your words back in to the conversation. I haven't speculated on what you believe at all.
sing wrote:
It is better that you consider what I do actually say, instead of imputing to me what others may believe. That will save you from many wasted moves. A good chess player don't waste moves. God does not waste moves either. We foolish men do often.
Sing pasted the verse I used as a proof text in my defense:
Here is Acts 17:30-31 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
sing continues:
1. Just whose ignorance do you think God winked at?
Mich comments:
This sermon by Paul was presented to the "men at Athens." More commonly know as the Sermon on Mars Hill. Those whose ignorance God "winked at", or better translated "overlooked", were "all men." The second half of this verse shows that Paul was making the connection of the "all men" whose ignorance God overlooked with "all men" from then on who are responsible to repent and believe, as evidenced by his words. "God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent,"
Again, the qualifier you are reaching for simply does not exist. Paul never mentions the elect or non-elect in this passage. The admonition is clear, and clear to all men, repent.
sing wrote
Who are the 'all men every where' that God now commands to repent and believe in Jesus Christ?
Mich comments:
Asked and answered above. All men everywhere.
sing wrote:
Those in whom God has applied the work of salvation in Jesus Christ, therefore called to believe what is already TRUE in them through the preaching of the gospel?
Mich comments:
Again, all men everywhere.
All men everywhere.
sing wrote:
I do believe that those whose ignorance God winked at is in the SAME CATEGORY with those 'all men every where' whom God now commands to repent - they are God's elect regenerate children.
Mich comments:
Then you deny the argument Paul is making and are guilty of forcing your interpretation on the text rather than allowing it to interpret itself. Your position is a gross example of eisogesis.
Mich wrote:
The denial that faith is the sinner's duty illustrates how your position and Arminianism arise from the same false notion. The one fallacy that lies at the heart of both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism is the erroneous assumption that human inability nullifies responsibility.
sing wrote:
So, after you have read, what is the assumption in my understanding?
Please understand that I say what I'm about to say with all Christian Love for a brother in Christ, but I honestly believe that you are guilty of the grossest eisogetical malfeasance I have read in a very long time. I further believe that you need to repent and ask God for His forgiveness.
sing wrote:
Hey, please don't put me in the box of your own imagination!
Mich:
I wouldn't do that to you.
sing wrote:
I am not a typical white American. I am a Chinese lad in the far east. [That means to say, don't assume that I am one of those that you have debated with for the last 23 years! I notice that wrong attitude all along the way. You are assuming all the way... and you are hardly dealing with what I actually said.]
Mich:
I have no idea how this is relevant to this conversation. It wouldn't matter to me where you were from, I'm simply attempting to show you that your theological presuppositions are clouding your ability to allow the Scriptures to interpret the Scriptures.
IHG,
Mich Finn
=======
On Apr 15, 2008, at 11:42 PM, xing wrote:
Hello Mich,
sing wrote:
The gospel is relevant only to those whom God has given spiritual life.
Mich replied:
So close but then you added this qualifier that does not exist in the Scriptures. You could only have come to this conclusion through other means other than the Scriptures themselves.
Christ Himself left no doubt that He was referring to all men when He made this statement in Mark 1 during his preaching at Galilee.
"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15)
There was no qualifier there in that statement. Christ was very clear. Jesus didn't say, "I know that some of you are not of the elect so this admonition does not apply to you."
sing comments:
It is very true indeed that Christ said, "repent and believe in the gospel."
The rest of the Scriptures informs me that the call has relevance to the lost sheep of Jesus Christ ONLY.
Jesus most certainly did declare that He came to seek His sheep that was lost, and NONE others. He knows the exact will of His Father He came to do. Many preachers are confused, Christ was not at all. Christ came to seek His lost sheep. His call to repent and believe with no qualifier and addressed to all without distinction can have relevance ONLY to the lost sheep that belongs to Him. He wasn't seeking anyone else. If you think otherwise, that's quite common. He prayed for His own only, and not others.
I would say He left no doubt whatsoever whom He came to seek, and call.
Why, I just came to the same conclusion through plain Scriptures alone.
Remember the illustration used in the previous post. You can hail as loud as you could to the large crowd, some dead and others alive, with great feeling and passion and persuasive eloquence, pleading, "Come and enjoy the bread freely" - no qualifier at all. What's the point for any qualifier - is it not too obvious that bread is relevance for the living only.
Mich wrote:
I have gone to great lengths to make sure that I have not misrepresented your position. In fact, I have taken your exact quotes from the e-mails in this discussion and posted them back in to the discussion, so this is a very empty charge on your part.
sing reply:
Quoting exactly is one thing, letting them say what the author intended is another. Reading imagined problems out of them that are not NECESSARILY there is quite another.
I don't know how else to communicate such obvious self-evident truth.
Are you beginning to debate now? Desist, brother
Thanks.
sing
=======
On Apr 16, 2008, at 12:15 AM, Mich Finn wrote:
Dear sing,
No Calvinist denies that the elect and the elect alone will benefit savingly from Christ's ultimate sacrifice at the Cross.
You continue to post proof texts in support of the 5 Points of Calvinism to a list full of Calvinists who agree that only the elect will be saved. It's as if you are debating a list full of Arminians that you think you need to convert to Calvinism. Most of the members of this list are already Calvinists, you don't have to convince us of the Doctrines of Grace. So your argument that salvation will only come to the elect is moot. The issue here is not whether only the elect can hear and obey the gospel savinly, the issue is your insistance that only the elect are bound by the command to repent and be saved.
Your argument is, that if sinners are incapable of faith apart from God's enabling grace, then the gospel would not call them to faith. Therefore the gospel cannot really mean that faith is the sinner's duty. And so you are forced to alter the message in a way that nullifies the sinner's responsibility.
The fact is the sinner's inability to obey God does not nullify his duty to do so. This is of course the crucial point that you continue to ignore. Your argument to this point has been that it is illogical or unjust to teach that God demands what sin renders us incapable of doing. But it is neither illogical or unjust. Sin itself is a moral issue, and since sin is the cause of our inability, it is a moral inability, not a natural one. The defect in man (sin) is his own fault, not God's. Therefore man's own inability is something he is guilty for, and that inability cannot therefore be seen as something that relieves the sinner of his responsibility to repent and believe.
As for me, I'm done. It is clear from the responses I'm seeing on the list that the members are tired of hearing from me on this issue. If you are interested in continuing this conversation off list I am available at the e-mail address located under my signature.
IHG,
Mich Finn
=======
On Apr 16, 2008, at 8:44 AM, xing wrote:
Dear Mich,
Thanks for your last word.
Moral responsibility is demanded of moral creatures.
Sinners has no warrant to remain in sin.
Spiritual responsibility is expected of spiritual creatures.
Distinction is the essence of sound theology.
I do think you have a slight problem of selective hearing.
You said: "the issue is your insistance that only the elect are bound by the command to repent and be saved."
I did say this, but your ears are closed, and are imagining things that I did not say.
"This is my position: take it or leave it, just don't misrepresent it.
- The gospel is to be addressed to all hearers. Yes, in the nature of the case, ALL THE HEARERS, including the non-elect, are equally and indiscriminately addressed by the gospel call to repentant and faith.
- The gospel is relevance only to those whom God has given spiritual life."
Are you representing me correctly? Get out of the box for a moment will help, perhaps.
You said: "So your argument that salvation will only come to the elect is moot."
That was not even my subject. You imagined that that was my argument.
I said the gospel has relevance to the living only.
Since you object, I take it that you believe the gospel has relevance to the dead!
I am not 5-point calvinist. I reject two points (the way it is commonly understood by the RBs): effectual calling is through gospel preaching, and perseverance in a life of faith and holiness.
Thanks.
sing
=======
On Apr 16, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Mich Finn wrote:
Dear xing,
I wrote, to which you never replied:
Your argument is, that if sinners are incapable of faith apart from God's enabling grace, then the gospel would not call them to faith. Therefore the gospel cannot really mean that faith is the sinner's duty. And so you are forced to alter the message in a way that nullifies the sinner's responsibility.
I wrote further:
The fact is the sinner's inability to obey God does not nullify his duty to do so. This is of course the crucial point that you continue to ignore. Your argument to this point has been that it is illogical or unjust to teach that God demands what sin renders us incapable of doing. But it is neither illogical or unjust. Sin itself is a moral issue, and since sin is the cause of our inability, it is a moral inability, not a natural one. The defect in man (sin) is his own fault, not God's. Therefore man's own inability is something he is guilty for, and that inability cannot therefore be seen as something that relieves the sinner of his responsibility to repent and believe.
So what say you, sing? Is it because of mans sin that he is condemned or God's election?
You are stuck on this notion that are discussion is based entirely on Election and Predestination, when in fact it is not. Our discussion has been centered on mans responsibility.
In His Grace,
Mich Finn
=======
On Apr 17, 2008, at 12:54 AM, xing wrote:
Dear Mich
I don't know if my last few posts ever reach the rblist. They are moderated.
[I have no trace of having received what was quoted above. Somehow Digest, Vol 62, Issue 14-15 was not delivered to my mail box. Thanks for bringing to my attention the matter you have raised. I will respond to it now.]
I am not sure if you have understood what I have said all along judging from what you insist I am saying. It appears to me that you are imputing to me what is not true... not maliciously of course, but innocent confusion. I am not sure whether you would admit this.
Where did I ever even hint that I deny "the fact is that the sinner's inability to obey God does not nullify his duty to do so?" That's your own imagination.
You accuse me by saying, "This is of course the crucial point that you continue to ignore."
Let me refresh your memory of some of the things I have said quite plainly to you on this point BUT you choose NOT to pay attention, and then accuse me of denying, as well as ignoring. After this you have no more ground to accuse me of ignoring. Blame yourself that your are selectively BLIND and DEAF to what have been said.
Let me quotes some words from the earlier posts:
Quote:
"Spiritual responsibility can only be expected of spiritual beings. I think it irrational to expect spiritual duties of natural men dead in sin. Moral responsibilities is rightly and justly expected of all moral creatures made in the image of God. So what are you about - moral responsibilities of spiritual responsibilities?
"Problems? I believe they are just your imagined problems because you fail to rightly divide the word of truth. Is any man, a moral creature of God, ever free from the moral laws of the moral government of God over all His creatures?
"Someone rightly said, morality is not spirituality! Don't mistake or confound the two.
Distinction is the essence of sound theology.
Moral responsibility is true of every moral creature of God, whether elect or not.
Spiritual responsibility is true with respect to God's children.
"Think about this: would God requires a sinner - dead in sins and trespasses, whom Christ did not die for, the Spirit did not regenerate - to believe that God loves him and Jesus Christ did die to save him? Would God require any moral creature to believe a LIE? Who is mad? Let God be true and every man a LIAR, a prophet of madness that bears false witness against God. That's the way I see it."
"Thanks for your last word.
Moral responsibility is demanded of moral creatures.
Sinners has no warrant to remain in sin.
Spiritual responsibility is expected of spiritual creatures.
Distinction is the essence of sound theology."
There are others... but the above 5 will suffice.
So what do you say now having read the above quote AGAIN? Have I deny what you conveniently accused me of? Read again please, the third time please. You certainly do have the problem of selective reading. Did I not state clearly that it is the moral duty of all moral creatures to repent of his sins? You mean to say that you read all those words BUT did not register the point stated?
But I think I know where your BIG problems lies. Your confusion, but of course you won't admit it.
I affirm the moral responsibility of man. His SPIRITUAL inability does not absolve him of his moral responsibility. His moral responsibility is NOT conditioned upon his moral ability or inability. His moral responsibility is based upon the covenant obligation of a moral creature, made in the image of God, to his Creator.
I also affirm repeatedly that "The gospel is relevant only to those whom God has given spiritual life."
But you most certainly NOT ONLY dispute and reject this without any proof, BUT ALSO confuse it as a nullification of sinner's moral responsibility to repent and obey God. Whatever has happen to intelligent discussion??? It is like Wally's basic confusion of believer's faith with Christ's righteousness in the matter of justification!
You asked kindly: "So what say you, sing? Is it because of mans sin that he is condemned or God's election?"
I have written, and repeat it here to answer your misguided and unnecessary rhetorical question: "Every man is active enough in his rebellion against His Creator... he is more than responsible enough to be damned a thousand times for his sins."
Sinner's moral inability DOES NOT absolve his moral responsibility to obey and repent God - not one iota. He may be absolved of his responsibility if he was turned into a amoral beast. If your question is not answered, please let me know. I will answer more plainly. But I don't know whether that would help... because even plainest points don't seem to register with you.
GET OUT of the box and you may hear and register better, and we may have a more profitable discussion.
I repeat, just in case it did not register with us.
"Someone rightly said, morality is not spirituality! Don't mistake or confound the two.
Distinction is the essence of sound theology.
Moral responsibility is true of every moral creature of God, whether elect or not.
Spiritual responsibility is true with respect to God's children."
Please be exact which part you want to dispute or deny.
I venture a guess: you want to affirm the SPIRITUAL duty of all NATURAL man to believe in Jesus Christ.
I affirm this: it is the moral responsibility of all natural man to repent and obey God.
I further affirm: it is the spiritual responsibility of God's children to believe the truth of their salvation.
I also affirm that God does not expect any moral man to believe that which is a LIE!
Thanks for reading. May our Lord grant you some understanding of the things said.
a chinese lad in the south seas,
sing
----
No further response...
