-----------------------------------
Arythmael
Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:48 pm


-----------------------------------
Hi lqdtrinity,

Explain this to me if you would.
Paul says that, "the carnal (natural fleshly) mind is enmity against God; it is not subject to the laws of God, neither is it able" (Rom. 8:7).

Its not able, thats a funny way to put it, isn't it? If its not able then how praytell are those living with carnal minds "able" to choose God IF HE has not chosen them?

I admit, this is a weak arguement, but its intended to get the gears working.

I'm all for getting the "gears working", as you say. These are the kinds of questions I myself am in constant dialogue with Christians about in order to figure out what the truth is. Oh, I believe very strongly that Jesus came from God to save the world from sins, etc. But all of these questions about how and why God is doing what He is doing are far from resolved definitively and documented within the Christian Church. That is, the kinds of arguments you present here I've never seen dealt with logically and in a codified way, and then given the stamp of approval by any Christian church (perhaps Orthodoxy or Catholicism have this, but I've never been pointed to it).

As for your argument, I don't think it's weak. In fact, as you look at Protestant Christian doctrine, moving along the continuum of emphasis upon "man's free will" -- further away from Arminianism and closer to Calvinism -- you will begin to see more and more agreement that it is exactly as you have said: without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit (a kind of activation of their chosen status) even the chosen would not choose God on their own. When discussing this recently with my own pastor we got down to splitting hairs, because while we agreed men were not able to choose God without His intervention, my pastor claimed that God had to alter the man's "inner man" in order to make him receptive; I claimed that man was already receptive, but did not know really who God was until He revealed Himself to that same, unaltered man.

I've said recently in other posts that God did not give this "receptivity" to all men from birth, but this is a concept that I admit I need to give more thought to. I think (and like you, I'm open to being convinced otherwise) that people show all kinds of signs that God perfectly fulfills what all people seem to be looking for, albeit in the corrupted and transient things of this world. Thus, all it would take was an undistracted presentation of Himself in order to gain that response of acceptance that we call conversion. However, Jesus makes it clear that those who are His hear His voice. Reading the verse in context I think makes clear the idea that those who are NOT His are unable to "get it" ... they don't hear His voice, they don't fully understand the power, meaning, and significance of sacrificial death. And in His parable, Jesus even describes Abraham as finally telling the rich man on the other side of the uncrossable chasm (hell?) that even if a man were to come back from the dead (referring to Jesus Himself) those others would not believe. This also indicates an inborn lack of receptivity.

So in summary, I think I can agree that one way or the other God has to intervene if any man is going to be saved from his sins and become "like God", and thus able to commune "with God". I'm just not sure whether the man is changed directly, as if surgically operated on, or if the man is changed as a result of the intervention, like falling peacefully to sleep after being well-fed. Where do you see a problem with this concept?


Arythmael