P.L. wrote
Cain chose to disobey, but could not repent because “He was of the Wicked One' (1 John 3:12). His choice was a result of His own sinful nature, totally depraved.
Sorry, but the sinful nature of man is not a machine that controls the rest of mans spirit, soul, and body. The Calvist view of fallen man is incorrect. Look at what God said to Cain. "And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." This is clear, how much clearer can it get. Cain, being of the wicked one could have ruled over the sin at the door and it's desire for him. Was God deceiving Cain telling him he should do something, implying that Cain was able and without excuse if he didn't, if God foreordained that Cain would forever remain of the wicked one as you say? Proverbs talks of something similar.
Pro. 16:32 He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, And he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city. Here, we see that man is capable of ruling his spirit, knowing that God gives grace to the humble and provides the ability to do so.
Puritan Lad wrote
John the Baptist preached the gospel of repentance to the Pharisees (Matthew 3:7-8 ). Jesus also told them the truth, but they would not believe (John 10:25-26). Why did they not believe? Because they were not His Sheep. Jesus did not say that they were not His sheep because they did not believe. Instead, He plainly told them that they did not believe BECAUSE they were not His sheep
.
Come on now, you got to do better than quote John 10:26 to support the faulty monergism doctrine. As for this verse, the biblical interpretation goes about like this. Jesus' "sheep" were those given to Him by His Father (John 10:29). These people were previously the Father's sheep—that is, they were the believing remnant in Israel—and the Father gave them to be under Christ's pastoral leadership (John 17:6).
When Jesus arrived in Israel, most Jews were not of the believing remnant, and were, therefore, not among the sheep that the Father gave to Jesus. Those who were not of the believing remnant before Jesus came (not surprisingly) did not believe in Jesus, either. This is what Jesus is acknowledging when He said, "You do not believe [i.e., in Jesus] because you are not of my sheep [i.e., you are not among those who believe in my Father, and are thus not of the group He has given me.]"
Jesus did not declare it impossible for them to believe, He only observed that their not believing was not surprising, because they were already rejecting the truth of God before Jesus even arrived.]Also, we must remember the context of this verse. Context Context Context!
John 10:22 It was now winter, and Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah. 23 He was at the Temple, walking through the section known as Solomon's Colonnade. 24 The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked, "How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus replied, "I have already told you, and you don't believe me. The proof is what I do in the name of my Father. 26 But you don't believe me because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep recognize my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, 29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. 30 The Father and I are one."
Look at verse 25. He told them already and they didn't believe what he said.
Lastly, when examining this verse, it must be noted that their unbelief did not derive from some eternal, irrevocable decree of God. This is evident (if one takes of their reformed glasses) from the fact that to the same men Jesus appealed in verse 37 and 38, “believe the (My) works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."
To take this further, it's really sad, that many make the error of trying to derive an order in the process of salvation from a verse that is metaphorical and merely meant to be descriptive. I mean, if a shepherd says about certain sheep that are grazing among his own flock, “These ones are not white, because they are not of my sheep,” does that prove that the wool of his sheep was black before he obtained them, and then became white after they became his sheep? Is the shepherd declaring that the sole reason that his sheep have white wool is because they are his sheep? No, the only real conclusion one can draw from such a statement is that the shepherd only has sheep with white wool in his flock. Likewise, Jesus was simply describing His true sheep among the bigger “flock.” His sheep believe. Those who are not of His flock don't believe. He was not establishing an order in the process of salvation.
I wonder why people don't quote the two verses that follow John 10:26 in order to be certain his interpretation fits the context. There we continue reading, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27-28 ).
Here Jesus continues to describe His relationship with His sheep. He mentions things that they do and things that He does for them. Not only do they believe in Him, but they also hear his voice (because they are near and attentive), and they follow Him (because they have obediently submitted to Him). True Christians believe in, listen to, and obey Jesus. Jesus, like any good shepherd, knows which sheep are His. He gives them eternal life, promises that they won't perish, and also guarantees that they won't be stolen. Clearly we see this is a two-sided relationship, both sides having responsibility.
How would we fare if we used this same means of interpreting John 10:26 to interpret Jesus' words regarding a just-converted prostitute, recorded in Luke 7:47?:
“For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for [because] she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
Was Jesus teaching that the reason this prositute's many sins were forgiven was because she first, prior to being forgiven, "loved much"? Or was Jesus simply describing people who have been forgiven much, identifying them as being people who love God much? The answer is obvious. Thus we should be extremely careful in deriving an order of the process of salvation from John 10:26, grasping for a cause and effect relationship in a
statement that was only meant to describe true believers. With this being said, the interpretation that reformed teachers give has nothing to due with the context, Jesus' intent to His hearers. The only way to come up with such a view is to isolate this text from the context and quote it by itself.
Puritan Lad wrote
Jesus purposely hid the kingdom of God from them. (Matthew 13:11). This is why Jesus spoke in parables. The Pharisees were “disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed” (1 Peter 2:8 ).
Nope, Jesus did not hide the kingdom of God from them, he hid the mysteries of/about the kingdom of God from them. This wasn't dealing with the gospel message.
John 13:11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. I'll say this again, this was not the gospel message that was hid from them. In context, it is talking about the word of the kingdom, the four conditions of the heart and fruitfulness. But then we have the verse that says Christ is speaking in parables so that they will not understand and be converted, with their sins forgiven. That makes no sense in the Calvinist model. Why use parables with the totally depraved? It would be unnecessary.
I do believe that this question is unanswerable in terms of Calvinist presuppositions. Upon those suppositions, the natural man is incapable of repenting or believing. He can only do these things if God first works a special unilateral work of regeneration in to the heart, bringing him from death to life, which then allows the man to be freed from his blindness, to repent of sin and to put his faith in Christ. These presuppositions are not found in scripture, but they are a necessary part of Calvinist anthropology.
Obviously, if these Calvinist assumptions were correct, and if God did not wish for a man to repent or believe, there would never be any occasion for God to further harden a man's heart or conceal His message in mysteries, since the man's default condition, lacking special grace, would preclude any possibility of his repentance or faith anyway. God need do exactly nothing, and He would thereby guarantee that man would never repent or believe.
The fact that God is specificly said to actively "harden" certain peoples' hearts, to "blind their eyes" and to conceal His mysteries "lest they should be converted," bears eloquent testimony that the Calvinist view is wrong, and that God sees the sinner as one who, even in a state of being "dead" (like the prodigal son—Luke 15:24), has the potential of repenting and believing, unless God takes special steps to render this impossible in certain cases (e.g., Pharaoh, the Jews of Jesus' day).
This seems so obvious to me that it is hard to imagine why there are Bible students who are still Calvinists. "Seeing, they see, and do not perceive..."
1 Pet. 2:8 ...and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
If you look at greek wording and word play, you would be able to see what Peter was trying to say. They were appointed to stumble, as a consequence of them being disobedient to the word. Jesus talks of two types of houses being built in the gospels. The wise one put in to practice what Jesus said, and his has was built on the rock. The foolish one did not do so, and built his house on the sand. The storms came, and the foolish house fell, which was the consequence of being disobedient and not putting into practice Jesus' Words. Same message being portrayed here. No problem for the non-calvinist.
....continue on