Minor quibble on my part. Does Peter mean that we had hope at one time of Christ's great mercy, lost it, then regained it? "Born again" implies that I was born once in the same manner already. I believe your Bible translates "born again" incorrectly.
Not all deeds are sinful. Our Lord Jesus stated ”If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children…” (Matt 7:11). Evil (unregenerate) people can, and will, do “good” things for others. It’s just that unregenerate man will NEVER please God.
Well, we agree. But others on this very thread have not presented that as the Reformed opinion. I apparently was misled in that Calvinists thought something else on this matter, presuming you are providing me with correct Calvinist theology...
You assume that man has a spark of “goodness” in him. Query on evil and see how many times it refers to man.
Even an evil man is "good" in the sense that he is superior to a rock or a horse. As long as man is a rational being able to make free will decisions, he fits into the graduated and perfect creation that God has made. Such a creation will always be superior, even to a good horse or any other being that is has no God-given soul. I am surprised you didn't come across this in your St. Augustine readings.
And here is the rub in this whole mess. The only way you can disagree with Augustine’s universal salvific will is by disagreeing with God as being the instrument of moving the will.
You presume that God's moving of my will is total! St. Augustine, as you noted a few posts ago, says that man's will is INCLINED. NOT COMPLETELY OVERRIDEN! Again, would St. Augustine agree that a will without choice is free?
Sure there were a bunch of Church fathers who took the counter view. But there were just as many who sided with Augustine.
Which Church Fathers said that God does not desire that all men be saved?
They canonized Augustine’s views, for the most part, in the Council of Orange
On the universal salvific will of God? I think not. Perhaps you mean they discuss Adam's sin and that man cannot come to God without God. But does Orange address this? Look again.
The Catholic Church is schizophrenic because they say the hold to Augustine’s writings and then promptly say they disagree with it as you have done. What they really hold is the Orthodox position. They just don’t understand that.
Wonderful. I am sure our Orthodox friends will love to hear that! That's funny how you seem to know more about Catholic beliefs than Catholics. But I don't read our documents with a Reformed mindset, filtering out the vast majority of Catholic teaching that goes against some of St. Augustine's more bleak teachings on man.
You do Augustine a disservice to put words in his month that he clearly rejects in his teachings.
Does St. Augustine retract the idea that man has free will? That God judges man based on man's obedience of the Commandments? This is the problem with using Augustine against Augustine...Seems like our earlier counterparts have already done this. You would be well served to consider that some of his writings were directed at Pelagius - and as a result, may sound perfectly fine to your Reformed ears. But note this is all part of the polemics. He focuses on different things when he speaks to the Manichaeans, the opposites of the Pelagians. Perhaps we should go to "Retractions" and read more and see how much he changed his mind.
Wrong. Perfect man, Adam, was given only ONE commandment and he couldn’t even keep that.
Say what? Are you saying that God does NOT desire man to obey His commandments? You are missing the point. IF God desires His will to be obeyed, it would follow that man would obey His commands. They are not. Thus, you are again on a dilemna of God's will not being perfectly fulfilled - and asking whether God is really perfect or not. Unless, you realize that God ALSO desires that man have a free will. Thus, LOGICALLY, it is impossible for God to give man free will AND that man would ALWAYS obey EVERY commandment of God. One of God's wills will not be satisfied entirely. The same is true regarding the universal salvific will of God. The same is true regarding the question "Can God create a rock He cannot pick up"? LOGICALLY speaking, both cannot be done.
The law only serves to destroy because it shows us how we fall short of God’s glory.
That is a terrible understanding of Paul. God didn't create the Law so that man would KNOW how much he couldn't fulfill it! God doesn't place demands on His creatures that they cannot meet. With God's aid, even the OT figures could and did obey the Commandments. They were considered righteous in God's eyes.
God in His scriptures plainly records that He does not give all people the opportunity to be saved. He appeared to Abraham-not his brothers.
Scripture does not say "God did not appear to Abram's brothers". Scripture gives us salvation history. There is no point in recording things that happened outside of this history. Thus, Scripture makes no mention of them. While God appeared to Abram and Paul in a particular way, it doesn't follow that God does not appear to others in a different, more subtle way. Perhaps God appeared to all of these people AFTER they appeared to Paul/Abram. The Scripture doesn't mention this - nor does it say it didn't happen. To deny that God desires the salvation of all men is to deny that Christ died for the sin of the world or that His work did not have as far reaching of consequences as the first Adam. If Adam effected ALL men, then Christ provides the medicine for ALL men. To disagree is to say that Christ did not heal as universally as Adam damaged mankind. Scripture clearly notes that Christ redeemed the sins of the world, note just some people.
Regards
Quick, everyone act churchy. The RM is using us as an example of posters who are acting civily to each other.
""Born again" implies that I was born once in the same manner already. I believe your Bible translates "born again" incorrectly."
Indeed it does. The verb is a form of beget. It's not that we are "born again" but rather that God begets us again. I don't see that as a fine distinction at all, by the way. The rest of the verse, the part the Protestants tend to leave out in their proof texting, is "...to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...." Thus we see another of the verses which the Fathers used to point to Christ as the Second Adam who destroyed the power of death over us.
"Sure there were a bunch of Church fathers who took the counter view. But there were just as many who sided with Augustine."
Harley, I'd like to see even one Father who agreed with your interpretation of +Augustine.
Minor quibble on my part. ... "Born again" implies that I was born once in the same manner already. I believe your Bible translates "born again" incorrectly.
I respectfully disagree. Jesus is clear in His distinction between the two methods and meanings of being "born". :
John 3:5-8, 12 : 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." ... 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? (emphasis added)
Jesus is clear that He is making a comparison, but He is not talking about a repeat of the same act. Being born of the flesh and being born of the Spirit are different things altogether. Do you deny this?