Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Romans 5:6 ¶ For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Romans 5:6 ¶ While we were still helpless [powerless to provide for our salvation], at the right time Christ died [as a substitute] for the ungodly. |
Subject: Holy Spirit's power of Conviction |
Bible Note: I am sorry. I need to be clearer, I suppose. Are the disciples included in the "world"? No. Therefore the world does not include EVERYONE. I will suppose that you meant everyone but the disciples. In any case, I never claimed that John 17 was an ironclad defense of the doctrine of election, since as you said, that is not the prayer's primary purpose. Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 are the clearest examples of God's sovereign choice in my mind, and those passages I know you agree are divinely inspired as well. While John 17 could be taken both ways, I fail to find anyone yet who is able to explain away Paul's explanation of how God's mercy operates and the analogy of the potter (God) and the pots (us). If you can, I would love to hear a "free will" explanation of it. I just can't see one myself. Jesus's statements about the inability of man to come to him unless the Father gives them to him (John 6:35-65) also seems pretty compelling to me. When I alluded to Philippians 1:27,28, I was referring to just what you said, that even though the Holy Spirit speaks out in judgment (that is what conviction means, by the way -- one does not need to feel guilty of a crime to be convicted of it), there are some who reject it. Perhaps I could have used a different passage, but having the truth revealed clearly about sin through the power of the Holy Spirit does not mean that He works some inner change of any kind on ALL who hear the message. Just because one's need for salvation is made clear does not mean that God has extended it to everyone. As far as my own personal journey toward Calvinism, I grew up in Dispensationalist land (and, incidentally, still attend a church very much influenced by Dallas Theological Seminary). I wouldn't say that I ever wholeheartedly rejected unconditional election; rather, I would say that I never seriously examined it. Our wills are indeed free in a great many ways without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (just not morally capable of pleasing God), that without the words of Scripture it does seem that our choosing to follow Christ was to a large degree our decision. However, I also noticed that those troublesome passages mentioned above were pretty much skirted around by pastors who hold to the idea that salvation is co-operative. Either they explained it away by saying (wrongly) that God pre-ordained a means of salvation, rather than individuals; or they explained it as as being a situation where God "chose" us because he knew from eternity past that we would choose him someday. The latter is probably close to the view I held, but it always was troubling to me to think that it was God who was sovereign and God who called us and that we do not deserve it in the slightest, but yet the Spirit called everyone and only some were "smart" enough to choose it (or whatever term you would like to insert in the quotes). In addition, in typical Christian fashion I most likely ignored Romans 9 and similar passages to a large extent because it didn't fit into the framework that I had grown up in. Initially, I was not introduced to Reformed theology per se, but the works of such scholars and commentators such as Mark Noll, David F. Wells, George Marsden, and Bruce Shelley. While all of them were commenting on the culture, the university, the church and the way the world has molded it into its image, and the history of the body of Christ, I was quite impressed by their scholarship which, in interacting and commenting on the culture of today, is quite rare in other more "pretribulational" settings. The interesting thing to me was that to a large degree it was informed by their Reformed theological perspective. That is when it dawned on me that I had never given it a very serious look, but rather had dismissed it without careful examination. You are correct that I didn't hold firmly to Calvinism until it was explained to me and shown the passages in Scripture which support it (along with very sound refutations of arguments against it). But that is my whole point: once I took a step back from pre-supposing that the Holy Spirit merely "aided" or "enabled" man in accepting Christ, I found that there is no overt passage in Scripture to suggest such a thing at all (just the opposite, in fact). Therefore, I moved toward Calvinism (thanks in part to careful, fair explanation by R.C. Sproul, who is far more gracious toward the opposition than he is given credit for). Mainly what caused my shift in thinking is the God-centeredness of Calvinism, taking the highest view of His sovereignty and taking a much more biblically accurate view of our sinfulness and rebellion in light of His holiness. But enough about me. You say that you hold to some form of the doctrine of election. Please elaborate! The Holy Spirit works through people who are wrong on clear doctrine all the time. Wesley was wrong on election and still bore fruit same as Calvin. --Joe! |