|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 20, 2010 10:08:21 GMT -5
1. Calvinists will quote Jn. 15:16 “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” in regards to individual predestination and salvation. But Jesus was talking in reference to apostleship, not salvation. Jesus already said, “If any man will come after me…” (Matt. 16:24; Lk. 9:23). To “will” means to “to will, have in mind, intend”, “to be resolved or determined, to purpose” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword) Those whom Jesus chose to be Apostles were among those who already chose to come after him. “And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples, and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles…” (Lk. 6:13) Jesus chose, out of those who were already his disciples, who would be his apostles. They choose to be his disciples but Jesus chose them to be his apostles. Albert Barnes right understood this and said, “It refers here, doubtless, to his choosing or electing them to be apostles…” Albert Barnes (Commentary on Jn. 15:16) It was common for Christ to talk to his apostles in this manner. He said, “I know whom I have chosen” (Jn. 13:18), “Have I not chosen you twelve…” (Jn. 6:70), and “I have chosen you…” (Jn. 15:19). Jesus did not talk to all of his disciples this way, but only to his twelve apostles.
2. A Calvinist will quote John 1:13 which says, “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” Doesn’t that mean that salvation is not our free will choice? The answer is no. Proper biblical hermeneutics would exclude this interpretation because the immediate context contradicts it. The very verse before it talks about a man’s choice in becoming born again, “But as many as received him, to them he gave right to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name…” (Jn. 1:12). That word “receive” means to "to take, to choose, select” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword). Therefore those who choose Him are granted the right to become sons of God. Being born again, regenerated, or becoming a son of God only occurs after our choice to receive Christ. John 1:13 is referencing our first birth. Our parents decided by their will to come together and have intercourse which resulted in our creation. This was “of blood” and “of the will of flesh” and “of the will of man”. But we were not born again, or brought into a relationship with God, through our parent’s decision to have intercourse. It is not through their will that we are born again. If our parents were Christians, their relationship with God is not hereditary or transmitted to us. That was their choice and if we are going to have a relationship with God, we must choose to. A relationship with God cannot be inherited. We must have a second birth. What is physical is hereditary, but what is spiritual is not. That is why Jesus said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (Jn. 3:6). Our parents brought about our first birth by their will, giving us flesh, but God brings about our second birth, bringing us into a relationship with Him. John 1:13 is not saying that our will is not involved in our salvation, which would contradict so many other passages, but is simply saying that the decision of our parents did not give us a relationship with God or produce in us that which occurs at the second birth. We must remember the sound rules of biblical hermeneutics when interpreting the Bible. One verse does not cancel out many other verses. And that a single verse should be interpreted in light of those many others, especially if the single verse isn’t clear but the other verses are.
3. Calvinists apply Romans 3:10 to the converted, when it only applies to the unconverted. "There is none righteous, no, not one" is talking about those who don't know Jesus Christ. The context says that they don't know the way of peace and they don't have the fear of God (3:17-18). Christians know the way of peace and Christians have the fear of God. “And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Pet. 4:18) Those who are saved are called “righteous” in opposition to being “ungodly” or a “sinner”.
The list of misused Scriptures goes on and on. Romans 4, 5, 7, 9, are all misused and misunderstood as are many others.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 19, 2010 18:03:53 GMT -5
Some object to the idea that repentance is man’s choice which they are capable of making because “Esau, who for one morsal of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears” (Heb. 12:16-17). Does that mean that Esau wanted to repent of selling his birthright but he couldn’t? The answer is no. If Esau had tears over selling his birthright, it is clear that he already repented of selling it. But this passage means that Esau sought his father with tears to repent of the pronounced blessing which Jacob stole, but his father did not repent. He sought repentance from his father with tears. But despite the pleading and tears of Esau, Jacob his father did not change his mind about rejecting him from inheriting the blessing which Jacob had stolen. It is not Esau who is doing the repenting. It is Esau who sought repentance from his father. It was not over the selling of the birthright that Esau repented, but over the loss of the blessing which Esau sought his father to repent of.
There are two different events mentioned in Genesis and in Hebrews. The one was the birthright, the other was the blessing. After Esau sold his birthright to Jacob his brother, Jacob also stole the blessing from his father Isaac. The birthright and the blessing were two different things. The birthright, or “the right of the first born” was a “double portion” of the father’s goods (Deut. 21:17), but the blessing was a pronouncement of blessing from the father (Gen. 27:1-41). Notice the distinction between the birthright and the blessing, “Esau, who for one morsal of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears” (Heb. 12:16-17). Albert Barnes said, “The ‘blessing’ here referred to was not that of the birth-right, which he knew he could not regain, but that pronounced by the father Isaac on him whom he regarded as his first-born son” Albert Barnes (Commentary on Hebrews 12:17, e-sword) It was the loss of the blessing, not the birthright, which gave Esau “tears”. This is what Genesis records, “And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, bless me, even me also, O my father” (Gen. 27:34). “Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?” (Gen. 27:36) “And Esau said unto his father, hast thou but one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.” (Gen. 27:38) Esau sought repentance from his father with tears, but the answer he received was, “thy brother came with subtlety and hath taken away thy blessing” (Gen. 27:35). In this way, “he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears” (Heb. 12:17). He “sought” his father to repent “with tears”. The repentance mentioned is not in reference to the selling of the birthright, which Esau lost by choice, but in reference to receiving the blessing from his father, which Jacob stole trickery. The “tears” of Esau mentioned in Hebrews is in reference to “the blessing” not “the birthright”. Genesis does not record Esau weeping over the loss of his birthright which he willingly sold, but it does record Esau weeping over the loss of his blessing which was taken against his will. Whether Esau ever repented of selling his birthright, the scriptures do not say, either in Genesis or anywhere else. But we do know that Isaac did not repent of giving the blessing to Jacob, even though Esau sought him with tears to repent. It is not that Esau could not repent of selling his birthright, but that Esau could not persuade his father to repent about the stolen blessing given to Jacob. Adam Clarke said about the repentance mentioned in Hebrews 12:17 that “the word does not refer here to Esau at all, but to his father, whom Esau could not, with all his tears and entreaties, persuade to reverse what he had done.” Adam Clarke (Commentary on Hebrews 12:17, e-sword) Albert Barnes said, “Way to change his mind,’ That is, no place for repentance ‘in the mind of Isaac,’ or no way to change his mind. It does not mean that Esau earnestly sought to repent and could not, but that when once the blessing had passed the lips of his father, he found it impossible to change it.” Albert Barnes (Commentary on Hebrews 12:17, e-sword).
The whole point of this passage in Hebrews is that we must be careful and take heed, to “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness spring up and trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsal of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears” (Heb. 14:14-17) The usage of the story of Esau, when looked at in context, is to illustrate how we must not forfeit our own blessing to indulge our flesh because there will come a day when we may seek that blessing from God and cannot persuade Him to give it, just as Esau sold his birthright to indulge his flesh and than afterwards could not persuade his father to give him the blessing. It is not a perfect analogy, since Esau choosing to indulge his flesh was not associated with the loss of his father’s blessing, since the birthright was sold by choice and the blessing was stolen by deception, still the point the writer of Hebrews is making is that we can lose our blessing by indulging our flesh, and a day will come when God’s mind will not be changed. This passage does not teach that man’s repentance is not within man’s control and to use it to teach that man’s repentance is without the realm of his control is to misuse and misunderstand this passage entirely. It would also contradict all the many other passages in the Bible, which teach that repentance is in fact within man’s power.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 19, 2010 18:12:10 GMT -5
MEN NEED DRAWING TO COME “No man can come to me, except the Father which sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44
This passage must not be isolated or left alone because the following verse explains what it means. It is a sound principle of hermeneutics to allow the Bible to interpret itself. The context of a passage helps us to understand the passage itself. The following verse says, “It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” John 6:45
How then are men drawn by the Father? Are men drawn by a constitutional change or through an irresistible force? No. Men are drawn by moral means. Coming to Christ is a choice of the will, therefore the means used to bring about this choice are means which respect and regard the will of man. Coming to Christ is a choice of the will; therefore God brings men to Christ by influencing their will. God teaches men and this is what influences men to come to Jesus. The drawing of God is through spiritual revelation. This is no doubt how the Apostle Paul was converted (Acts 9:4), by a revelation of Jesus Christ. The Father draws men to His Son, by granting them a revelation of His Son and what He has done for us on the cross. “And if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:32).
If verse 44 was talking about a constitutional change, it could not be brought about by teaching as verse 45 says. Teaching has no tendency or ability to change the constitution of man. But if the drawing is brought about by teaching, as verse 45 says, than the drawing in verse 44 must be an influence upon the will of man. Truth influences the will and therefore teaching the truth has the ability to change the will of man. Coming to Jesus is a choice of the will, which is brought about by the drawing of the Father’s teaching. This passage does not deny the choice of man’s will in salvation. It doesn’t say “no man can come” but “no man can come, except…” The choice to come to Jesus Christ is brought about by the enlightening influence of the Father. God does not draw us to Himself through some irresistible force, but through the influence of truth.
I was pleased to find out that Albert Barnes also interpreted this passage the same way that I do. He said, “In the conversion of the sinner God enlightens the mind John 6:45, he inclines the will Psalms 110:3, and he influences the soul by motives, by just views of his law, by his love, his commands, and his threatenings; by a desire of happiness, and a consciousness of danger; by the Holy Spirit applying truth to the mind, and urging him to yield himself to the Saviour. So that, while God inclines him, and will have all the glory, man yields without compulsion; the obstacles are removed, and he becomes a willing servant of God.”1 He goes on to say, “Shall be all taught of God - This explains the preceding verse. It is by the teaching of his Word and Spirit that men are drawn to God. This shows that it is not compulsory, and that there is no obstacle in the way but a strong voluntary ignorance and unwillingness.” 2
Regarding man’s natural ability, man is only able to obey the truth that he knows. If a man does not know about Jesus, he is not able to believe in Jesus or to follow Jesus. Natural ability is not the ability to obey truth that you do not know; natural ability is the ability to obey the truth that you do know. Natural ability is not the ability to do the impossible (obey what is not known) but it is the ability to do the possible (obey what is known). Natural ability is the ability to obey, or disobey, the light or revelation that has been revealed or given. This is clearly stated by the Apostle Paul, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14). This shows, not only the necessity of open air preaching, but also the necessity for the work of the Spirit who takes the truth preached and presses it powerful upon the minds of men to influence their will to believe and call upon the Lord.
The point is that those who have not heard cannot believe, which explains why those who have not been taught by the Father cannot come to the Son. This perfectly explains why no man can come to the Son, unless He is drawn by the Father. Unless the Father first teaches sinners about His Son, they are not capable of believing in, coming to, or following the Son. And unless the Father first convicts men of their sin, they will not see their need of coming to the Savior. Teaching must always come before obedience. Knowledge, or truth, is a precondition or requisite for obedience. The will of man can only obey, or disobey, the knowledge that the mind has. Does man have the natural ability to believe in Jesus, whether they know about Jesus or not? The answer is of course not. Natural ability cannot do the impossible. But does man have the natural ability to believe in Jesus, come to Jesus, and follow Jesus, once the truth about Jesus is revealed to them? The answer is yes.
I would also quickly add that the mind operates under the law of necessity, but the will operates under the law of liberty. That is, the mind must affirm truth when it is presented, but the will can obey or disobey the truth that is affirmed by the mind. We see this with the crowd that Stephen preached to. “And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake” (Acts 6:10). Their minds, by necessity, affirmed the truth of what he preached. Their minds could not resist it. But it goes on to say, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit, as your Fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). Their will operated under liberty. Their will disobeyed and resisted the truth that their minds affirmed. The revelation that God grants is irresistible. Men cannot help but to know the truth, when God reveals it. But sinners reject and suppress the truth that they have (Romans 1:18). Yet, according to John 6:45, those who not only hear the truth, but actually learn from it, come to Jesus Christ. Those who do not learn from what they hear from the Father will not come to the Son. But those who hear from the Father, and choose to learn from it, will come to the Son. Men resist or yield to the drawing of God by choosing to learn from, or not learn from, the teaching that He gives them. Men need to be “drawn” by God and choose to “come” (Jn. 6:44), they must both “hear” and choose to “learn” (Jn. 6:45), so that both God and man have their active role.
SPEAKING BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD
“Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” 1 Corinthians 12:3
The question with this passage is, what does “speaking by the Spirit of God” mean? Does it mean that the Holy Spirit gives us a constitutional enabling? Or does it mean that men can speak under the influence of the Holy Spirit? I would say the latter. When a man is under or submitted to the influence of the Holy Spirit they will not call Jesus accursed. If a man calls Jesus accursed, that is proof that they are not submitted to the influence of the Spirit of God. But if a man truly confesses Jesus Christ as Lord, this is done under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Without the influence of the Holy Spirit, revealing to man the truth about Jesus Christ, man would never and could never confess Him as Lord. Man could never because without the Spirit revealing Jesus as Lord, how can they confess Him to be Lord? The Spirit must first reveal to man that Jesus is the Lord, before man could be capable of confessing Him as such. And man would never because man, on his own or without the influence of God, would never submit to the truth but would continue on in deception. Man is unwilling to obey God and to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Therefore man needs an influence, outside of himself, to bring him to submission and obedience. That outside influence is the working of the Holy Spirit. When a man is brought to submission to the Lordship of Christ, it is because of the working and influence of the Holy Spirit in his life.
The Spirit, through influence, makes us willing to do what God has already made us capable of doing. The Holy Spirit makes us willing to obey God by presenting powerful truths to our minds. A creation, God made us constitutionally capable of obeying the truth that we know and receive, when He granted us a free will and made us in His image. At creation, God made us capable of obedience. At conversion, the Spirit makes us willing to obey.
TAMING THE TONGUE
“But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” James 3:8-9
James also told us, “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” (James 1:19). Therefore since those who are truly religious bridle their tongue, let’s take for granted that the expressed limitation in taming the tongue must refer to the unregenerate or unsaved. If that is the case, here are my thoughts.
First, it is very worthy noting that this passage describes “men” as being “made after the similitude of God”. The so called “inability” of man is typically credited to the sin of Adam, saying that when Adam sinned the image of God in man was lost. Since the image of God in man was lost, man no longer has a free will. This is the common argument. However it is clear from this verse that the image of God in man has not been lost. Therefore any free will that man had at the beginning, because he was made in God’s image, he still has now. There are other passages, after Genesis 1:26-27, which describe man as being in the image of God, such as Genesis 9:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:7. That is because it is God who is still our maker, who still forms each individual in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 95:6; 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:9-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3). We are born precisely the way God wants us to be born. God is responsible for the condition that we are born into (Exodus 4:11). Since God forms us in the womb, God still forms us in His image.
Consider how God spoke to Cain, after the fall of Adam, as one who had the power of choice between obedience and disobedience. “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (Gen. 4:6-7). Whatever the results upon all of mankind are because of Adam’s sin, the loss of the image of God and the loss of free will certainly are not part of it.
Second, no man (no sinner) can tame the tongue unless he first changes his heart. “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matthew 12:34). The reason that they cannot speak good things, according to Jesus, is because they have evil hearts. Again, “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doeth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit… A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh” (Luke 6:43, 45). That is why Jesus commands us to change our hearts or “make the tree good” (Matt. 12:33). The roots must change before the fruit can change. It is impossible to change the fruit if you do not first change the root. A sinner cannot tame his tongue. He must first change his heart. As long as He remains a sinner, that is, as long as he remains sinful in his heart, he cannot tame his tongue. This is because the will or heart (tree) is the cause; the action (fruit) is the effect. The action is not self-existent. The action must have a cause. The cause is their heart (will). You cannot change the effect without first changing the cause. As long as the cause is the same, the effect will be the same. It is absolutely impossible to change the effect without first changing the cause. A sinner cannot speak differently, or act differently, until his heart is different. As long as their intention is selfish their life will necessarily be sinful.
A sinner may, for a time, seem to control his tongue. But the overflow of his evil heart will eventually come out. Words and actions are nothing more but the outflow of the heart. The heart is the problem. Therefore it is the inside that must change first. Jesus said, “cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also” (Matthew 23:26). That is why the Bible says, “Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die…” (Ezekiel 18:31). “Wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved” (Jeremiah 4:14). “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded” (James 4:8). The words are the outflow of the heart. Men have the ability to change their hearts. That is why every man will have to give an account even for every idle word that they speak (Matt.12:36).
THE CARNAL MIND CANNOT OBEY
“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Romans 8:7
This passage would be completely without meaning or understanding if we do not define what the carnal mind is. Many have taken the liberty to define the carnal mind on their own but good hermeneutics says that we must allow the Bible to interpret itself, context gives us great insight. This verse is very commonly taken by itself when it was never meant to be. The two previous verses say: “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” Romans 8:5-6
The word “mind” in verse 5 and 6 is “phroneo” and means “intensively to interest oneself in (with concern or obedience): - set the affection on.”1 The word “mind” is verse 7 is “phronema” and it means “to purpose”. 2 Therefore the carnal mind is when a person is choosing to interest themselves in carnality, to set their affections on their flesh, when they purpose to live for the gratification of themselves. It is when a sinner chooses to “mind the things of the flesh”, that is, when they choose to serve themselves and their own pleasures rather then serving God. The carnal mind is nothing more than a selfish state of mind.
The carnal mind is not a passive state but an active state. It is not a state that we are passively born into. It is a state that men choose to be in. The word “enmity” is “echthra” and means hostility or opposition.”3 Hostility or opposition is an active state. The carnal mind is a mind that is in active hostility or opposition to God. It is when an individual is purposely and intentionally minding the things of the flesh. That is, they are living to please themselves in stead of living to please God. Such a state of mind is intentional, voluntary, deliberate, or volitional.
Albert Barnes commented, “it means that the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them supreme attention, is hostility against God”4. Charles Finney said, “The proper translation of this text is, the minding of the flesh is enmity against God. It is a voluntary state of mind. It is that state of supreme selfishness, in which all men are, previous to their conversion to God. It is a state of mind; in which, probably, they are not born, but into which they appear to fall, very early after their birth. The gratification of their appetites, is made by them, the supreme object of desire and pursuit, and becomes the law of their lives; or that law in their members, that wars against the law of their minds, which the apostle speaks. They conform their lives, and all of their actions to this rule of action, which they have established for themselves, which is nothing more nor less, than voluntary selfishness or a controlling and abiding preference of self-gratification, above the commandments, authority, and glory of God. It should be well understood, and always remembered, that the carnal mind, as used by the apostle, is not the mind itself but is a voluntary action of the mind. In other words, it is not any part of the mind, or body, but a choice or preference of the mind. It is a minding of the flesh. It is preferring self-gratification, before obedience to God.” 5
According to Thayer’s definitions, “carnal mind” or “echthra” means the “cause of opposition”6. In other words, the carnal mind is the cause of a sinner’s opposition to God. It is with the mind that choices are made. The will is a faculty of the mind. Because a sinner is choosing to serve his flesh, to “mind the things of the flesh”, he is in opposition to God, who commands him to deny himself (Matthew 16:24) and serve God (Exodus 20:3; 1 Corinthians 10:31). The cause of his enmity with God is his carnal mind, his choice to serve himself, his choice to be selfish. A sinner is in opposition to God and is in a state of hostility towards God’s law, because he is choosing to be selfish, he is minding the things of his flesh.
While a person is in this selfish state of mind, they cannot please God and they cannot obey the law. That is because God is not pleased with selfishness (Psalms 5:4) and the law requires benevolent motives, not selfish motives (Luke 10:27; Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:14). Therefore those who are carnally minded cannot please God and they cannot obey the law. As long as they are in this selfish state of mind, they cannot be pleasing to God, nor can they be in submission to the law.
It is impossible for a person, who has a carnal mind, to be pleasing to God or to be in submission to God, while they are in such a state of mind. They need to repent. Repent is “metanoeo” and it means to change your mind. To repent of your sin means that you change your mind about sinning, you make up your mind to obey the law of God. True repentance is when a person goes from being in a selfish state of mind (carnally minded) of choosing to serve him self (to live for self-gratification), to a loving state of mind of choosing to serve God supremely and love his neighbor equally. As long as a man is carnally minded, he cannot please God and he cannot obey the law. But if he changes his mind (repent), so that he is no longer choosing to live for himself but chooses to live for God, then he can be pleasing to God and he can obey the law. When the cause of his hostility towards God and His law is removed (the carnal mind), then He can be pleasing to God and in submission to His law. But if the cause of his hostility is not removed, he can do neither. As long as the will (a faculty of the mind) is in opposition to God, the will cannot be in submission to God. As long as the will of man is selfish, that man cannot be pleasing to God, because God cannot be pleased with selfishness.
This passage refers to a sinner’s mind, not to the sinner’s make up. It refers to his character, not his constitution; to the state of his will, not the state of his nature. This verse does not deal with the question of whether or not the carnally minded can change their mind, or whether they have the natural ability to repent. This verse simply says that while a person is in such a state of mind of carnality and selfishness, they cannot please God and they cannot truly obey the law. It would be equivalent to saying, “Those who have disobedient hearts cannot please God and they cannot obey the law.” That is, while their heart is disobedient, they cannot do such things. But if they change their heart, then they can. Such a statement does not say that they cannot change their heart, but it says that while their heart is in such a state, they cannot do such things. Likewise the statement about the carnally minded does not say that they cannot change their mind, it simply says that while their mind is in such a state, they cannot do such things.
I was pleased after writing the above to find that Albert Barnes and Charles Finney said that precise same thing. It is always a great relief to find out that you are not alone in your interpretation and understanding of the word of God. Charles Finney said, “The apostle does not affirm, that a sinner cannot love God, but that a carnal mind cannot love God; for, to affirm that a carnal mind can love God, is the same as to affirm that enmity itself can be love.”7 Albert Barnes said in his commentary, “But the affirmation does not mean that the heart of the sinner might not be subject to God; or that his soul is so physically depraved that he cannot obey, or that he might not obey the law. On that, the apostle here expresses no opinion. That is not the subject of the discussion. It is simply that the supreme regard to the flesh, to the minding of that, is utterly irreconcilable with the Law of God. They are different things, and can never be made to harmonize; just as adultery cannot be chastity; falsehood cannot be truth; dishonesty cannot be honesty; hatred cannot be love. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced to prove the doctrine of man’s inability to love God, for it does not refer to that, but it proves merely that a supreme regard to the things of the flesh is utterly inconsistent with the Law of God; can never be reconciled with it; and involves the sinner in hostility with his Creator.”8
Every call to repentance in the Bible which is directed towards man implies that man has the ability to change his mind. If the call to repentance does not imply that man can repent, then what in the entire Bible could ever imply that men could repent? Nothing could imply the ability to repent more than the command to repent. Why command men to do something if it is impossible? If men were incapable of repentance, God would have no reason to command them to repent. If God is good, why command repentance and punish impenitence, if repentance is impossible for some and impenitence is unavoidable for some? If God commands men to do something, He gives them the ability to do it. God calls all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30-31), which means that all men everywhere have the ability to change their mind. None need to change their mind but the carnally minded. Those who are spiritually minded do not need to change their mind, therefore God does not call the spiritually minded to repentance. It is only the carnally minded that God calls to repentance. Every call to repentance is directed to, and only to, the carnally minded. Therefore the carnally minded have the ability to change their mind.
Here is are some logical syllogisms:
• Repentance is a change of mind • Only the carnally minded need to change their mind • Therefore only the carnally minded are called to repentance
• The command to repent implies the ability to repent (change your mind) • The carnally minded are commanded to change their mind (repent) • Therefore the carnally minded have the ability to change their mind (repent)
Men are commanded in the Bible to change their hearts, which implies that they have the ability to change their hearts. God, being a loving Ruler, does not command the impossible at the threat of severe punishment. The command of the ruler, without the ability of the subject, is tyranny. The command, if it comes from a good, just and reasonable ruler, presupposes the subject has the power of choice. God commands men in the Bible to change their hearts, which implies that they have the ability to do so. “Wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved” (Jeremiah 4:14). “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded” (James 4:8). “Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die…” (Ezekiel 18:31). If men are incapable of obeying these commands, why give these commands at all? If these commands cannot be obeyed, they are useless, and God must never have even intended on them being obeyed at all. If God never intended on these commands being obeyed, then God does not really want them to be obeyed. And if God does not really want them to be obeyed, He is insincere in commanding them. If God wants these commands to be obeyed, and if He is sincere in His command, then these commands must be possible for men to obey.
The Bible also says, “Set your affections as things above, not on the things on the earth” (Colossians 3:2). “Set your affections” is the same Greek word used for “mind” in Romans 8:5-7. Men have the choice of minding the flesh or of minding the spirit, of setting our affections on things above or things beneath. It is within our natural ability to choose who we will serve (Joshua 24:15), whether we will serve ourselves or serve God. We have the natural ability to choose what we will set our affections on, either on the flesh or on the Spirit.
Charles Finney said, “Some one may ask, Can the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, change itself? I have already said that this text in the original reads, “the minding of the flesh is enmity against God.’ This minding of the flesh, then, is the choice or preference to gratify the flesh. Now it is indeed absurd to say, that a choice can change itself; but it is not absurd to say, that the agent who exercises this choice, can change it. The sinner that minds the flesh, can change his mind, and mind God.” 9
DEAD IN SINS
“…we were dead in sins…” Ephesians 2:5 It is common for those who argue for the doctrine of inability to appeal to this verse and others like it that describe man, before regeneration, as being “dead in sin”. They will ask questions such as, “Can dead men choose anything?” and then say, “No, dead men cannot choose anything. Therefore sinners, who are dead in their sins, cannot choose to be converted and live righteous.” Following this logic we would have to conclude that sinners do not choose to sin either because “dead men cannot choose anything”. This whole line of reasoning blurs the distinctions between physical death and spiritual death. It is a logical fallacy to take the limitations of the physically dead and to impose them upon the spiritually dead.
The Bible says that Christians are “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2; 6:11) but does that mean that a Christian is incapable of sinning? No. Likewise, just because a sinner is dead in sins does not mean that he is incapable of repenting. We must be careful not to take points out of analogies which were not originally meant to be given. Regarding being dead to sin Adam Clarke said, “The phraseology of this verse is common among Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins. To die to a thing or person, is to have nothing to do with it or him; to be totally separated from them: and to live to a thing or person is to be wholly given up to them; to have the most intimate connection with them.”1 To be dead to sin is to be separated from sin and in a relationship with God. To be dead in sin is to be separated from God and in a relationship with sin. A person who is dead to sin is still capable of returning to sin (1 Jn. 2:1), and a person who is dead in sin is still capable of returning to God (2 Chron. 30:9; Isa. 55:7; Jer. 3:22; Hos. 6:11; Mal 3:7; Lk. 15:18, 20, 24).
When the Bible talks about a sinner being “dead” it is not talking about his ability at all, it is talking about his relationship. In Biblical interpretation we must look and see how a word is used elsewhere in the Bible. To see how a word is used gives us insight as to what the word means. “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.” (Luke 15:24). What did the father mean that his prodigal son was “dead” but is now “alive”? Did he mean that his son did not have the ability to return home, but now he has the ability to return home? No. He meant that his relationship with his son was dead, but now that he has returned, his son is alive to him relationally.
A Calvinist will ask, “Can a dead man resurrect himself? No. Then how can a sinner repent?” But this is to compare physical death with spiritual death. To say that we were “dead in trespasses and sins” is to say that we were spiritually dead. Physical death is constitutional and therefore affects your abilities. Spiritual death is not constitutional, it is relational. It has to do, not with our abilities, but with our relationships.
When the Bible says that a sinner is dead, that does not mean that he doesn’t have the ability to turn to God. When the Bible talks about a sinner being born again, regenerated, or made alive, it is not saying that he has now received the ability to turn to God. Relationally, when a man sins, his relationship with God is dead. A man’s personal sins separate him from God (Isa. 59:2; Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; Rom. 7:9, Col. 1:21; 2:13.). When a man chooses to sin, he becomes spiritually separated from God or dead in his relationship with God (Eze. 18:4, 20; Isa. 59:2, Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; 5:14; 7:9; 7:11; 8:6; 2 Cor. 5:14; Col. 1:21; 2:13; Rev. 3:1). A sinner’s relationship with God is completely dead because of his sin. Spiritual death is relational separation from God. But when a man forsakes his sins and is forgiven through Jesus Christ, his relationship with God becomes alive. He starts to experience true life with God (Jn. 10:10; Jn. 17:3).
It is a very dangerous practice for any theologian to try to pull his theology out of, or squeeze his theology into, a single word. Since the Bible does not teach that sinners cannot repent and be converted, those who hold to such views have to resort to trying to prove their theology by imposing their own definitions upon words in Scripture instead of practicing proper exegetics. But if you simply give your own definition to Biblical words, instead of properly understanding their actual or original definition, you can make the Bible teach whatever doctrine you want. That is what I have seen many do when it comes to the word “dead”. To say that a sinner is dead in sin is to say that he is without a relationship with God, not that he is without the ability to return to God.
The story of Lazarus is sometimes appealed to by those who hold to the doctrine of inability. They equate God telling sinners, who are dead in their sins, to repent, with Jesus telling Lazarus to come forth. We should not equate the physical dead with the spiritual dead, but besides, when Jesus called Lazarus to “come forth”, Lazarus actually did it. This means God must have already given him the ability to do what He commanded. The fact that Lazarus actually came forth is proof that Lazarus had the ability to come forth. If he couldn’t have done it, he wouldn’t have done it. Nowhere in the Scriptures do we ever see God commanding anyone to do that which they cannot do. God only commands men to do what He has already given them the ability to do. What God commands, He supplies the ability to be done. God commands all those who are dead in their sins to repent of their sins (Acts 17:30), which means that He must have already given all of them the ability to do this. All men are obligated to obey God; therefore all are able to do so.
ETHIOPIAN SKIN & LEOPARD SPOTS
Another passage that is commonly used against the doctrine of man’s natural ability to obey God is Jeremiah 13:23 which says, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.”
It should be remarked that this passage is talking about Israel during a certain period of time in their history. This passage is not talking about all sinners of all time. To apply this passage to all sinners of all time is to ignore the proper rules of hermeneutic interpretation, particularly context.
It should also be remarked that this passage is not talking about the way Israel was born. This passage is talking about the way Israel had become through their self-chosen habitual manner of living. The unchanging state of these people was a moral condition by choice, not a constitutional condition by birth.
Israel, at this point in their history, had resisted God for a long time. These men disobeyed God continually, after God had been reaching out to them time and time again. “But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people” (Romans 10:21). But despite all of the efforts of God, they were still wicked and evil. In fact, they were worst than when they started, because they had to continually harden their hearts as God was reaching out to them. They were well accustomed in doing evil.
They were so accustomed to do evil that their reformation would be comparable to a leopard changing his spots or an Ethiopian changing his skin. Through their habitual choice of disobedience, they made themselves reprobates. They resisted the influence of God to the point of no return. It was as likely to see an Ethiopian changing his skin, or a leopard changing his spots, as it would be to see these hardened reprobates changing their moral ways.
This passage was given to show Israel that they were without excuse, not with excuse. If they were born evil, had no choice in the matter, or truly could not obey God, they would have an excuse for being evil. In context God was revealing to them the justice of their punishment. “What will thou say when he shall punish thee?... And if thou say in thine heart, wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity… Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil” (Jer. 13:21-22). They rightly deserved punishment because of their habitual and continual disobedience, because of their voluntary and well established custom in doing evil.
To use this passage to say that all sinners, of all times, are incapable of changing their ways, of repenting, or of obeying God, is to severely stretch and twist this passage, to change it’s actual meaning. This verse certainly does not support the idea that all men are incapable of changing their moral character, or that all the disobedient are incapable of obeying God.
|
|