Food for Thought

[Guest]

Mark,

First off, I have to admit that i haven't followed this raging debate extremly closly, but this statement about Lazarus not having the ability to come forth on his own (he was dead) got me thinking.

How would you compare this event to the event of Peter walking on the water?

Thanks for your reply.

Here is the problem immediately.
Two entirely different contexts with no bearing one upon the other.

The Lazarus incident in context is all about Jesus being the resurrection and the life and how He prays to the Father to raise sinners to life. That being the context rather than some kind of physical miracle needs to be addressed by those who deny regeneration precedes faith and those who deny that command does not imply ability.

If one wants to look at the whole incident in context regarding Lazarus and refuse to discuss the context and overall lesson Jesus is teaching, then there is nothing I can say further about that.

Did Peter have the ability to walk on water? No
Was He commanded to come forth? Yes!
Did he come forth? Yes
By what power did he come forth? Monergism, ie God alone.
Was he passive or not? Not entirely, he had to walk.

As far I as I can tell, God never rescended the command He gave to Peter, yet Peter started sinking.

God's reaction? Why did you doubt?

Would it be a strictkly Calvinist position that Jesus somehow pulled the rug out from under Peter's faith in order to make some sort of point?

Please understand, I'm not trying to insinuate anything... I'm just asking.

With all due respect I simply cannot understand the Christian mind that will not interact with the context FIRST.
I do not understand the mind that when confronted with one context, immediately goes to another context, without first dealing with the original context, i.e. Lazarus, command and resurrection.

Now, if the main idea or the big idea in Peter’s walk upon the water is that we must keep our eyes fixed upon Jesus Christ by faith as a “description” of what it is to be a Christian, then we would both be using that story rightly I believe, for that is what Jesus is communicating there.

That seems to be the main point together with the teaching that without Him we can do nothing but fail (SINK).

I think we do not disagree here, but reading into that event something about how God raises the spiritually dead to spiritual life or that in salvation, command does not imply ability is just plain eisogesis, non contextual and a patent attempt to defend a libertarian presuposition abot the will of man.

Why do that all the time?
Honestly, can you not lay aside your traditions about the will of man and take a fresh look at scripture without this libertarian free will lens?

Please also keep in mind, (with reference regarding your comment about Peter having to walk),
No Calvinist believes that Man does not believe.
No Calvinist believes that Man must not come.
No Calvinist believes that Man does not by an act of his will savingly believe.
No Calvinist believes that man is merely zapped and is changed from a dead sinner to a saved sinner like some kind of robot with no emotion, will or actions of man involved!
No Calvinist believes that man is dragged kicking and screaming into salvation.
No Calvinist believes that man does not have a will that makes choices. Man is a volitional being.

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

I must say you have a really big imagination; you see proof of Calvinism everywhere:

Now the context here is not merely some kind of amazing miracle in raising this man from the dead, but all about Christ being the one who raises the spiritually dead to life. He is the resurrection and the life and Lazarus is an example as to how God saves sinners.

I think Jesus informs us of the reason for the miracle:

John 11:41-43 (New King James Version)

41. Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42. And I know that You always hear Me,
but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me.” 43. Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!”

Notice, Jesus expected they might, by the use of their senses, observe and believe. Which fits right in with what the inspired Apostle says about Jesus' miracles:

John 20:30-31 (New King James Version)

30. And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;
31. but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Did not Jesus plainly indictate that the people, upon seeing the miracle, might be capable of believing He was who He claimed to be?

Again we see a miracle performed by Jesus expressly for the purpose of engendering faith in those who saw it:

Luke 5:24 (New King James Version)

24. But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the man who was paralyzed, “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”

The gospel has inherent power to save those who are willing to receive it; faith is based on testimony.

When Jesus and/or the Apostles inform us plainly the purpose of miracles, we have no need to imagine some other reason.