Jim,
When I asked for sensible biblical answers, I actually was not referring to the predictable Calvinist ploy of posting the playbook proof texts, followed by rhetorical questions. We have all seen what texts Calvinists can cite. What we are waiting to see is what Calvinists can sensibly say about the scriptures we have presented. No Calvinist seems able to address them. I was hoping you might be an exception.
So that I may never be accused of what I just accused Calvinists of doing (i.e., ignoring the texts presented by their theological detractors), I will, according to my usual policy, gladly answer your questions about the texts you posted. However, I would still like to know if you, or any other Calvinist, have ever even noticed the rest of the scriptures—you know, the ones which are not found in the Calvinist debate manual.
John 6:44,64,65
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father
Is this drawing to Christ simply a matter of external evidences? But it is not granted to all (vs. 64,65). External evidences could not be so specific, to be granted to one and not another.
The passages do not specify whether this "drawing" and "granting" is individualistic or universal. I think it is universal. I can't prove that from the verses themselves (though I sought to demonstrate the principle in verses cited above, in previous posts). However, neither can you demonstrate from the verses themselves that it is individualistic. So, without other biblical data being considered, these verses will not resolve the controversy.
Acts 16:14
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to heed to what was said by Paul.
Would Lydia have heeded the gospel with out God first opening her heart?
I think that the implication is that she listened and heeded Paul's message because God opened or inclined her heart to do so, and that she might not have listened to him otherwise. But that is part and parcel with the way God directs his own, which she apparently was. She was (like Cornelius before his conversion) already "a worshiper of God," according to the text. Certainly Luke's statement does not allow that he thought her to be a
false worshiper, but rather a true worshiper. Now my question is: How did she become a worshiper of God in her natural state, or under her "own inward steam," prior to her hearing the gospel from Paul?
If you say she was already regenerated before she heard Paul, then it removes all the force of the point that God had to open her heart to heed Paul, since you are seeing this as the inward work of regeneration that is necessary before a natural person can believe. Yet, on this theory, that regeneration had occurred previous to her becoming a worshiper of God, and thus previous to God opening her heart to heed Paul.
If you say she was not already regenerated, then you have given away the farm, because you will be suggesting that she was a person who worshiped God, even though she was unregenerated, and thus while in her "natural" state—the possibility of which you have been arguing against throughout this thread.
This verse appears to destroy your thesis. Thanks for bringing it up.
Rom.8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Rom 9:23,24
in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Heb. 9:15
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
Is the call spoke of here universal and external or inward and specific?
Universal or specific?
These verses are referring specifically to the effects of the call in the lives of those who have responded favorably to it. There are many terms the New Testament uses in referring to Christians—many of which speak of some specific aspect of their salvation.
Paul mentions us as being those "called," though we know that Christians are not the only persons whom God has called, since "many are called, but few are chosen"(Matt.20:16), and "those who are with Him are called, chosen and faithful"(Rev.17:14).
Christians, like others, have been called by the gospel. But unlike others, in addition to being called, we are chosen and faithful. Now, in the interest of brevity, a writer may speak of us by appeal to any of these terms individually. For example, we may be referred to as "the called" or as "the chosen" or as "the faithful"—and indeed all of these designations occur in the New Testament. But when any of these terms is used individually of Christians, the others are implied along with them. Thus, when Christians are referred to as "the called," "the chosen," or "the faithful," we can be quite certain that the writer is using one term to stand for all, and any such reference could be read to mean "the called, chosen and faithful."
Such titles, when applied to Christians, are obviously specifically delimited in their meaning to Christians. But it is a mistake to judge, from passages that speak of the calling of Christians, that none but Christians have been called, or that God's call, in every case, results in faithfulness. The Bible clearly removes that possibility:
"Therefore I will number you for the sword, And you shall all bow down to the slaughter; because, when I called, you did not answer; when I spoke, you did not hear, but did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight...So will I choose their delusions, And bring their fears on them; because, when I called, no one answered, when I spoke they did not hear; but they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight." (Isaiah 65:12; 66:4)
External or inward?
Actually Paul does not tell us, does he? Without importing information from additional passages, we would not know whether He is speaking of a Calvinistic "effectual call" or if he is talking about the general call of the gospel being preached, to which not everyone responds favorably.
I acknowledge that, in Romans 8:30, the statement, "whom he called, he justified," sounds superficially like it is saying "every person that God calls ends up justified"—and it especially sounds this way to a person wishing to establish an argument for unconditional election or irresistible grace (though, in any case, these particular passages about "the called" do not directly address your present concern of total depravity). I would suggest, though, that all of the "whom he..." clauses in this passage are hermeneutically controlled by the first one in the chain, namely, "whom he did predestinate..." In other words, the sense of the chain of clauses would have a meaning such as this:
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and
whom he [
predestinated and] called, them he also justified: and
whom he [
predestinated and called and] justified, them he also glorified.
I can't prove to a skeptic that this is the meaning of the sentence, but none can prove that this misses Paul's meaning either. In this case, instead of providing a proof of Calvinism, Paul would merely be giving a catalog of the ways in which God has worked in our lives, leading up to our present glorification (seated in the heavenlies) in Christ. Arminians have no trouble believing that God has done all of these things for them and in them.