These passages show that man has a responsibility to God even before he is converted. If this is not the case, then the law written on their hearts, the Gentiles being a law to themselves, and other like passages have no meaning whatsoever. To the Hyper-Calvinist, men are only wicked, dead corpses which cannot think about, nor give heed to the revelation of God, which is an unexegetical position to hold in light of special revelation. The Hyper-Calvinist Objects: Hyper-Calvinism says this is logically inconsistent. How can fallen men be called to exercise faith without regeneration? This would seem as though God desires they repent while at the same time He does not give them the ability to repent. The Hyper-Calvinist thinks this is a contradiction, but it is not. What does the Hyper-Calvinist do when the Biblical passages are quoted? They enter into a “so-called” logical debate at the expense of being fair to the Bible’s statements about duty-faith. In essence, they simply deny it. What does the Bible state? What do the offers listed above show us about the call of God to the unsaved, whoever they may be. We are not squabbling over covenant and non-covenant people, but saved and lost people.
I agree with you Dr., that there is no such thing as a 'hyper-Calvinist'only Calvinists.
Calvinism is really about unconditional election vs conditional election.
Yet, what Calvinist on these threads has not defended Regeneration preceding faith at the expense of clear scripture?
Yet, Calvinism expects to reconcile this real contradiction by just stating that it is only apparent, when in fact , it is very real.
If a man cannot repent when the offer is made, (and he can't since he is not elected) then the offer is a farce.
If a man repents and possesses the Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, he is among the elect, as best as another human being can assess.
It's a matter of perspective. You say a man decides to repent, believes in Christ and thus possesses faith.
The Calvinist says God gives a man faith, man repents, and is thus saved.
We have differences, but it's important we describe those differences accurately. No one is "prevented" from repenting. All men are exhorted to repent. And if a man does repent, he is recognized as a recipient of God's grace and thus, is among the elect.
But it's God's call because it's God's gift of grace that causes us to believe. Nothing in man can save himself. All that is good is of God, especially salvation.
***If a man cannot repent when the offer is made, (and he can't since he is not elected) then the offer is a farce.***
Additionally, my fine Calvinist sister, fortheDeclaration's statement here is more than a little reminiscent of the hissie fit that Pelagius threw at Augustine's prayer. It is pretty amusing that Arminians today resort to using those same kind of objections when dealing with Scripture. But, to unravel this statement a bit and reveal why it actually destroys the need for the Atonement, let's look at a few verses.
First off, repentence is not an offer in the gospel; it is expressly commanded:
1. In those days, John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" - Matthew 3:1
2. Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."
Notice, my sister, that this gospel is NOT presented as an offer of repentence, but people are "commanded everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Well, beyond the fact that this means that the Arminians don't even have the right mindset when preaching the gospel, it really does invalidate the Atonement.
You see, if we take as the gospel truth that a man must be able to obey God's commands in order for God to not be playing a kind of sick joke on man (Pelagius' objection to Augustine's prayer & the Arminian's objection to Scripture revelation about man's natural Adamic state) then all men must be born fully able to be perfect on their own:
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. - Matthew 5:48 JKV (fortheDeclaration's perfect translation)
So, we can clearly see that a command to be perfect just like God is also given. Therefore, according to Arminian's own reasoning, man must be born with the ability to already be perfect. God wouldn't establish a standard of perfection with man, no matter how young he is, through the Law which man cannot obey otherwise, using this Arminian & Pelagian premise, it would all be a farce.
Ergo, man just needs to get it together and we can forget about all of this sinners needing to be saved business. Just exactly like Pelagius taught and the Pelagians believe, Arminianism's inescapable conclusion is that man simply needs to follow Jesus' & the Father's perfect examples to be perfect. Man does not need to be saved from his nature because he has a perfectly capable nature to be perfect. Man does not need Jesus' sacrifice. And man does not need the regeneration of the Holy Spirit because man already naturally possesses a nature capable of perfection.
So, you see, Arminianism is a perfect trifecta.
1. The Father's election is void because God elects everyone while Satan votes against everyone and man gets to cast the deciding ballot. I've heard more than one Arminian exactly state this, BTW.
2. The Son's sacrifice is meaningless because man simply needs to follow Jesus' example to be perfect. Many Arminians today, in fact, preach and exclusively believe in Grotius' "governmental theory" of Atonement and entirely reject our Reformed Scriptural Penal Substitution.
3. The Holy Spirit need not regenerate anyone in new birth because man must already be able to follow the commands of the Law to be perfect.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.