Looking for hapless victims ripe for incarceration perhaps?Makes me always wonder if they are looking for converts along with defending the faulty "system."
Looking for hapless victims ripe for incarceration perhaps?Makes me always wonder if they are looking for converts along with defending the faulty "system."
Perhaps your understanding of God is less than you suspect?What seems absurd to me God is giving a Gospel which cannot be acted upon positively, unless they have unique, divine, special intervention.
Great response. The answer has to be "no" according to reformed theology/Calvinism/TULIP. The Gospel comes AFTER God gives the elect faith in Christ.@Cameron143 Said:" All the activity of men apart from any activity of God. But faith doesn't come apart from the activity of God."
QUOTE="studier, post: 5538560, member: 330481"]Does God's Gospel evoke/bring about (or another word or phrase you'd use instead) Faith?
Some simply believe what the Bible says. We have people who use their credentials as props so that when they decimateI suppose the version of Christianity one follows sets the meaning of if grace. Without going into agonizing detail of the various versions, may I just suggest that Christ’s sacrifice be sufficient to cover everyone who ever lived, good and evil. By grace I mean free willing, resurrection from the grave into a glorified (as we would see it now) body as He, Jesus, arose with. It is with that body that we undergo sanctions for our sinfulness in hell or free gift or reward of paradise. Beyond that, comes the disagreement among Christians. I can’t speculate as to what each version of Christianity teaches. The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Egyptian Coptic, and Creedal Christians teach nuanced versions. Is it safe to say that everyone agrees so far? Or have I left something out?
Two individuals hear the same gospel. If the word of God provokes the one to salvation, yet the other remains unchanged, what is the cause for the difference? One who focuses on the men says they are the difference. One who focuses on God says He is the difference.
What seems absurd to me God is giving a Gospel which cannot be acted upon positively, unless they have unique, divine, special intervention.
Absurdity is the logical conclusion to your argument. That's the point if you limit hearing to audibly hearing.
So, given all the context and the actual wording:
If you want to assert hearing is supernatural, we should look elsewhere. I understand how and why you're saying it's here. But sticking tightly to the Text, it's not clearly here and can be argued against. This Text does not say the Gospel results in/yields/produces hearing.
- The thing heard is God's Gospel
- That little word ἐξ (ek - from) is telling us God's [specific] Gospel results in (yields/produces/) [the specific] faith in Jesus Christ - not hearing
Scripture plainly states that it is God working in us to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose.If the word of God is doing the provoking, how is that not the activity of God?
Two individuals hear the same gospel. If the word of God provokes the one to salvation, yet the other remains unchanged, what is the cause for the difference? One who focuses on the men says they are the difference. One who focuses on God says He is the difference.
This is false. He clearly understands because he rejects it. It, according to the Bible, is foolishness to him.The word of God is nonsense to the natural man. The natural man can't hear/see the Gospel until they are saved.....According to reformed theology.
In the OT they were told to circumcise their ears. What do you think that meant?I simply said we'd need to look elsewhere to discuss assertion that hearing is supernatural.
I think it is rejected because he does not understand it. The text says he is unable to comprehend.This is false. He clearly understands because he rejects it. It, according to the Bible, is foolishness to him.
No we don't. Taking the argument of the verse being simply audible hearing to its logical conclusion shows that it cannot mean audible hearing.Noting another tactic
My conclusion about hearing in what I said. Did I limit hearing to audible hearing or say that we'd need to look for it elsewhere?:
It looks to me knowing the intent of my interior man and reading the external presentation from it that I simply said we'd need to look elsewhere to discuss assertion that hearing is supernatural. I simply do not see it in the language of this verse and explained why.
It's wild and untamed around here.
Yeah, it is like saying when I hear people speak Chinese I know what they are saying simply because I hear it.No we don't. Taking the argument of the verse being simply audible hearing to its logical conclusion shows that it cannot mean audible hearing.
He clearly understands because he rejects it.
If the word of God provokes the one to salvation, yet the other remains unchanged, what is the cause for the difference? One who focuses on God says He is the difference.
This is false. He clearly understands because he rejects it. It, according to the Bible, is foolishness to him.
Great point. Even someone who didn't understand Chinese should be able to saved by hearing the gospel in Chinese.Yeah, it is like saying when I hear people speak Chinese I know what they are saying simply because I hear it.
Hearing must encompass comprehension. I hear Chinese being spoken and it is incomprehensible to me.
I am left incapable of believing what they are saying.
The natural man hears the gospel preached and it is incomprehensible to him.
That's another reason why when free willers say the natural man can choose to believe it is silly.
People do not choose to believe things which make no sense to them. They choose to believe that which they can make sense of.
No we don't. Taking the argument of the verse being simply audible hearing to its logical conclusion shows that it cannot mean audible hearing.
Hearing would depend on whether or not their ears had been circumcised. Who does that?Great point. Even someone who didn't understand Chinese should be able to saved by hearing the gospel in Chinese.
Nothing inconsistent between the 2 statements.Read that carefully.
Now you are just being silly.So, reformed theology is false, or what @Kroogz is saying is false, or?