Today I ran across an utterly devastating argument against Calvinism. I’m not sure which part of it is more devastating: the text itself, or the cute little stick figures which are used to illustrate the text.
Given my intellectual and emotional investment in Calvinism, it’s painful for me to recant it after all these years–but I believe in following the evidence wherever it leads.
It’s enough to make James White, James Anderson, and Turretin Fan (to name a few) burn their membership cards in The Club of the Truly Reformed.
Here’s a sample:
I just noticed a new post on a blog operated by a reformed apologists that deals with the subject of choices. It discusses different decisions described in the bible and God's freedom and man's freedom involved therein. This article -who wonders- in no way presents any innovative thoughts, but joins in the choir of those who continue serving up century-old calvinistic treadmill arguments warmed up over and over again. A post of whose kind there are presently thousands out on the internet. Many of those bloggers don't even provide any own thoughts at all, but post entire writings by Spurgeon or from whoever they admire most. Since falsehood doesn't simply become truth by time passing by, I was induced to comment on that subject as well, before I'll continue with the posts on the scriptures. The objective of this post is to show how foolish the calvinistic answer to the issue of choice and sovereignty is.
The relationship between God and man and their respective wills as delivered by the gospel, reveals a different picture and demonstrates the utter silliness and narrow-mindedness of Calvinism, as we will see in this post…So let us expose the error of Calvinism's God-versus-man conflict.
God lives in man. This is His temple. If you want to find God, you must seek Him where He lives. In the new temple which is man. What does it mean for God to be in man? Is "something of God" in man or the fullness of God?
So is man free? Absolutely. How free? He has God's freedom! He is free in the fullest sense. Note, God is revealed in man. Man is endowed with the possibilites and potentials stored in God and he is sent to work out these potentials. Man has free access to all programs that are hidden in the Father. No limitations to man's freedom here. Every work performed will prove to originate in the Father. Imagine man chooses to work out potential A. Then, he will find that A was contained in the Father. If he had chosen B, or C instead, then B or C, which are likewise contained as potentials in the Father, would have been realized. The idea however, that all of man's choices were predestined is absolutely foolish. On the other hand, here is absolutely no room for any "libertarian" freedom, an idea which Calvinists so often polemically accuse others to promote. As said above, man is in God and outside of God there is nothing to find, therefore there are no random actions or something without a cause in God that man could perform. Every action of man has its origin in the Father, in God. However, man is absolutely free to transform these potentials into actions, to work them out and bring the potentials hidden in God into reality.
http://combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/01/gods-absolute-sovereignty-and-mans.html
I must confess that until Herr Kröger drew it to my attention, it never dawned on me that I was in possession of these latent, godlike powers. Why, it’s even better than having a genie in a bottle. For a genie can only grant you three wishes, whereas I now realize that I have nothing short of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence at my fingertips! It’s enough to make me positively giddy!
The only problem is where to begin. What’s the first thing I should do with my hitherto unsuspected, but newly-discovered omnipotence? So many choices at my disposal!
I admit that back when I was a teenager, I was a bit infatuated with Greta Garbo. I think I’ll resurrect her so that we can have a candlelight meal together. Maybe at an open-air café in Venice or Lake Como. I’ll tell you how it goes.
"The only problem is where to begin. What’s the first thing I should do with my hitherto unsuspected, but newly-discovered omnipotence?"
ReplyDeleteStomp Tokyo, of course!
OK, I got out my membership card. Anyone have a lighter?
ReplyDeleteDoesn’t this sound a bit like pan(en)theism? “man is in God and outside of God there is nothing to find.”
ReplyDelete“there are no random actions or something without a cause in God that man could perform. Every [and all means all] action of man has its origin in the Father, in God."
Doesn’t that mean that man’s sin is an exercise of the "freedom of God" and has “its origin in the Father, in God”?
Sounds like this makes God "the author of evil." Quite particularly, too. Every action has its origin in the Father.
I gotta admit...
ReplyDeleteThose stick figures were pretty cool.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteThe blog is basically dedicated to dealing with the most frequently used scriptural pillars in defense of the doctrines of grace. That post was actually an interlude due to the "who-is-free-god-or-man" fallacy, which I had just run across once again.
Mike:
Sounds like this makes God "the author of evil." Quite particularly, too. Every action has its origin in the Father.
No. If you are not in Christ, then you're not in the Father either.
"man is in God and outside of God there is nothing to find."
Exactly.
OUTSIDE are the dogs, those who practise magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practises falsehood. (Rev. 22,15)
(Check out the latest posts as well!)
-a helmet
On the other hand, here is absolutely no room for any "libertarian" freedom, an idea which Calvinists so often polemically accuse others to promote.
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously suggesting the Arminians don't "promote" LFW? Have you ever actually read Arminian writings. They frankly admit to doing this.
No. If you are not in Christ, then you're not in the Father either.
Problem: Your post speaks of man as man, not man in Christ. So you're oscillating between man in Christ and man as man qua man. Try to follow your own argument.
Indeed if man has all the unrealized potentials in Him that God has realized in him, then, your logic man is omnipotent too.
You know, your theology reads a lot like Word of Faithism.
OUTSIDE are the dogs, those who practise magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practises falsehood. (Rev. 22,15)
Outside of what? God? Is that was Rev. 22 says?
Thanks for inviting us to look at the other posts as well. I smell blood in the water.
Genembridges,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply.
The post is referring to man "in Christ" only and describes his relationship with God.
Note, for "man as man" that is, man outside of Christ there are absolutely no answers for him. "Man as man" can only rack his head about the relationship between God and himself and bring up the same questions over and over again ("Who is free, God or man?" etc). Note, for those outside of Christ there will never be an answer, thus the article has man "in Christ" in mind only.
Note, outside is darkness. In the darkness you can't see. If you can't see then you can't know anything. Your thoughts go astray! You go astray!
Unless you believe that "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me" -note unless you believe this- you'll stay in darkness and run in circles forever, racking your head where there is nothing to understand because you dismiss the teaching of Jesus on God's new temple.
So, if you want to know the relationship between God's freedom and man's freedom, you must come to the temple of God. Outside the temple of God there's nothing to know, for
"OUTSIDE are the dogs, those who practise magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practises falsehood."´
Outside of what? God? Is that what Rev. 22 says?
Basically, yes.
-a helmet
A Helmet said:
ReplyDelete---
Note, outside is darkness. In the darkness you can't see. If you can't see then you can't know anything. Your thoughts go astray! You go astray!
Unless you believe that "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me" -note unless you believe this- you'll stay in darkness and run in circles forever, racking your head where there is nothing to understand because you dismiss the teaching of Jesus on God's new temple.
---
But how do you get from one to the other?
If man is in darkness, he cannot know he needs salvation. And if he cannot know he needs salvation, then how does he know to believe in Christ? How does this *WORK* in your position?
Your position seems to be:
1) Man cannot know anything because he is in darkness.
2) Suddenly, he just spontaneously believes for no reason whatsoever.
3) Then he is in Christ and knows stuff.
How do 2 and 3 follow from 1?
Hello Peter Pike,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply.
If man is in darkness, he cannot know he needs salvation.
Exactly like Nicodemus who "came to Jesus at night" (=darkness =no sight =no knowledge) and said "Rabbi we know that you are a teacher from God" (John 3:2)
Yet Nicodemus knew and understood nothing about the truth, he was as blind as the entire people he was leading. In the night nothing can be seen and hence nothing can be known. There you are a blind leader of the blind ones (note the name Nicodemus means "vanquisher over the people").
And if he cannot know he needs salvation, then how does he know to believe in Christ?
Because a man who claimed to be the light of the world appeared in the world. And now we can either believe what he said or we don't. You can believe that someone is telling the truth or you don't. You can believe what the one said who claimed to come from God, or you make up your own ideas.
How does this *WORK* in your position?
'How can this be?' Nicodemus asked (John 3:9)
Notice, this ignorance is a proof that we can only walk by faith, the crutch of the not-knowing.
If you believe that you cannot believe on your own, then you believe that.
If you cannot know then you obviously are left to faith. You can only believe. Everybody believes something. Even Israel's leaders couldn't "see". It is crucial that you believe in the right object. People believe in false gods. Or they believe in the true God. We can believe in the rest of the chapter 3 of John's gospel or we don't and believe something else, or we even reject our very ability to believe.
Your position seems to be:
1) Man cannot know anything because he is in darkness.
Like Nicodemus for example.
2) Suddenly, he just spontaneously believes for no reason whatsoever.
If you cannot know anything, then you are left to conjectures, guess work and beliefs. Christians walk BY FAITH, because we are spiritually dead (=in the darkness =know nothing). You can even believe that you cannot believe, as you obviously do. Well, then you believe just that. Without knowledge, there is only faith. The bottom is always faith, even if it's the faith in the impossibility of faith.
Now regarding "spontaneously" and "suddenly". You can believe what Jesus says, namely that you shall believe in him or you make up your own ideas and deny that this is even possible (which is also a certain belief!). But as spiritually dead persons we shouldn't deny our ability to believe in Jesus Christ, if the bible tells us that we can and shall believe in Jesus Christ, the light of the world.
Why?
Because spiritually dead persons, who know nothing have no grounds on which to deny their ability to believe in Jesus Christ. Spiritually dead persons have no say! They know nothing regarding the things of God. That's the essence of spiritual death -- no discernment concerning the things of God. Now, a dead man cannot tell the living man (who is in the light = has knowledge), how he must be brought to life! That's ridiculous. Yet this is what the doctrine of Total Depravity actually does: The doctrine has the dead sinners tell the living one how/in what order/by what means they must be raised to life. But the dead sinner, who is dead in discernment and understanding, cannot tell these things, but the living one who can see, he knows better. So if a spiritually dead man argues that he cannot believe on his own, then he has absolutely no firm ground of reason and knowledge on which to make such a vain claim. If the bible says you have the ability to believe, then is it reasonable to negate this? Again, we can believe that we can believe or we don't.
(continue)3) Then he is in Christ and knows stuff.
ReplyDeleteWe walk by faith! FAITH, throughout our earthly journey.
There's no mystery in "How 2 and 3 follow from 1".
BTW, there is noting in the bible that denies sinful, natural man's ability to repent and believe the gospel on his own.
-a helmet
Oh. I got your method. But I fear you haven't considered the fact that Jesus comes like a thief in the night. What will that do to this kind of exegesis?
ReplyDeleteI think you're missing the critical fact that Jesus is a door. We must find his doorknob. Otherwise, we cannot turn it, and if we cannot turn it then we'll be stuck knock, knock, knockin on heaven's door.
How do I know that? Because I believe I can fly, and I'll fly away oh glory I'll fly away (fly away).
Thank God I memorized 2 Platitudes 4:17. "Give ear to the one who speaks mystic nonsense, lest he be shunned by everyone." And verse 7 of chapter 9 is also important: "A darkened monitor conveys no information. Be sure you press the power button." Yea verily.
Peter Pike,
ReplyDeleteWhat will that do to this kind of exegesis?
Apropos exegesis, the blog on the doctrines of grace is mainly devoted to the scriptures and their reformed usage. And I think it is best to approach the objections via the bible. There's nothing in the bible which supports the dogma of man's inability to believe on his own. So I think one should utilize the scriptures in such considerations.
you're missing the critical fact that Jesus is a door. We must find his doorknob
The solution to finding the door is righteousness. I'll give you two examples.
"But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God." (John 3:21, emphasis added)
Going through the door is coming to the light. The righteous ones will do it. How do you become righteous? By faith!
"Nobody can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44)
Going through the door is coming to Christ. Who will do it? The ones drawn by divine motives ("works done in God"), that is, the rigtheous ones! How do you become righteous? By faith!
Anyway, if you deny your ability to exercise faith, go for it! I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the one who claims to be the Light of the World.
-a helmet
The post is referring to man "in Christ" only and describes his relationship with God.
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't. You oscillate between man as man (unregenerate) and man in Christ (regenerate).
That's just one of the many problems you have.
Indeed, here, in your own communication with Pike you write:
BTW, there is noting in the bible that denies sinful, natural man's ability to repent and believe the gospel on his own.
So, this is about man as man (unregenerate), not man in Christ (regenerate).
Learn to follow your own writing, AH.
Basically, yes.
Astounding exegesis. Care to demonstrate that from Rev. 22?
What you're doing yourself seems to this logic:
Man was created in God's image.
God has a particular sort of freedom.
Ergo, man has the same sort of freedom.
How does this fit together exegetically?
BTW, there is noting in the bible that denies sinful, natural man's ability to repent and believe the gospel on his own.
So, when Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws Him, and I will raise him up on the last day" this is a statement confirming unregenerate man's ability, not denying it?
Please exegete that passage for us.
Likewise, when Paul in Romans writes that man in his natural state cannot please God this is a statement confirming man's ability? Isn't believing in Christ pleasing to God?
Going through the door is coming to Christ. Who will do it? The ones drawn by divine motives ("works done in God"), that is, the rigtheous ones! How do you become righteous? By faith!
The text is an explanation of the unbelief of those persons. One does not believe in order to become regenerate. You've confused cause and effect. You've thereby reversed the text. You're also conflating justification and regeneration in the process. Why does one person believe and not another, according to the text?
What you're doing by way of "exegesis" is jumping around the text rather than following the text as it is written. Indeed, you're running to John 3 to exegete John 6. Read any text on basic exegetical method. That's improper. We here and let John 6 speak for itself on it's own terms without bringing in other texts to blunt its force. Try again.
I assume you know more English than I know German, AH. I hope that is the cause of the problem. But seriously you need to get a bit clearer.
ReplyDelete1. I hold that man is totally depraved and cannot make a move toward God of his own volition in that state. This seems *SIMILAR* (but not even close to identical) to your concept of being in the darkness and unable to "know" God.
2. Which is why it is important for *GOD* to be the one who is active. He takes the initiative, He is proactive. He regenerates the spiritually dead, at which point they respond in faith.
This is why someone who is in the darkness can have faith (belief). They have it because God acts.
Under what you've proposed, God hasn't *acted* in that sinner's life. Indeed, He apparently cannot do so. Yet somehow, despite that, the man can still somehow believe in God!
If he can believe in God, then the sinner is not in the utter darkness you say he is in. You cannot be right on both of these points because they are in contradiction to each other.
Misquoting half verses in response won't help you. You have to actually deal with the issue.
Indeed, Pete. Let's see if AH can follow his own argument.
ReplyDeleteGoing through the door is coming to Christ. Who will do it? The ones drawn by divine motives ("works done in God"), that is, the rigtheous ones! How do you become righteous? By faith!
One righteous by faith. That person comes to Christ.
Okay, so man is righteous even if he is not found in God...yet AH has previously stated that a person not in Christ is not in God because such persons are in darkness.
So, according to AH's own argument, persons in darkness can also be righteous persons...yet righteousness is an attribute of God, not of man qua man.
These two concepts don't fit together, AH, according to your own argument.
But let's look at John 6 again.
John 6:44 is an explanation not of the unrighteousness of his audience but specifically of their unbelief. The metaphor he uses is "coming." They do not come, eg. they do not believe, because they are unable to believe. They must be drawn. Even Arminians acknowledge this. The dispute between us and them is over the effectualness or the resistability of the drawing.
Indeed, there is no parallel language here that equates coming with "works done in God" from John 3. One doesn't run to John 3:21 to determine the meaning of John6:44. There is nothing here about "righteous motives" in man. Rather John 6:44 is specifically speaking of an act of God. The next verse parallels this with "being taught of God," not "works (by man) in God."
AH, let John 6 speak on it's own. Don't strangle it by running elsewhere to explain it away.
Hello Genembridges,
ReplyDeleteI reviewed the post "God's absolute sovereignty and man's freedom". There is nothing about "unregenerate", "regenerate", or man's condition outside of Christ in the text. It speaks of the relationship of God and man according to the new temple motif of John 10. The issue of natural man isn't touched by this article. That's not the topic. Of course one can discuss these things --as we're obviously doing now-- but the article itself isn't concerned with this "man as man". (See for yourself). The God-in-man-man-in-God relationship applies to man in Christ only.
Indeed, here, in your own communication with Pike you write:
BTW, there is noting in the bible that denies sinful, natural man's ability to repent and believe the gospel on his own.
So, this is about man as man (unregenerate), not man in Christ (regenerate).
Okay, this was in response to Pike's comment, right? And I'm going to respond to your new questions now as well. But my article itself doesn't deal with this issue.
Man was created in God's image.
God has a particular sort of freedom.
Ergo, man has the same sort of freedom.
How does this fit together exegetically?
Doesn't the scriptures say: "You are gods"? (John 10:34) What does this mean? What does the personal union of the son of man and the son of God entail? Is there any freedom besides God's freedom? I wonder what sort of freedom that would be (John 8:32). What sort of freedom has Jesus in mind when he promises "The son will make you free"?
Just what sort of freedom of man do you have in mind?
when Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws Him,[...]Please exegete that passage for us.
ReplyDeleteActually I've dealt quite thoroughly with this on my blog, but I'll provide a summarizing answer here. The topic of the passage is the bread of life and how to receive it. There are no parables in the johanine gospel account, but there is a striking parallel between this passage and another vital teaching found throughout the rest of the NT, namely the wedding supper motif. The parable of the wedding guests in Matthew 22:1-14 is an example thereof and that passage is directly corresponding to this John 6 discourse. Notice the following points:
1) The wedding supper is God's precious gift for the overcomers. In John 6 the supper is equated with the flesh and blood of the son of man. This is the bread of life. The meal is God himself, which points to His self-sufficiency and self-sustainance. All needs are met by God Himself, hence the wedding supper is actually God himself (John 6:51). Whosoever has God, has all needs fulfilled.
2) Who is organizing the wedding for the son? The king (Father) is doing this. The father, the king, is going to hand over the kindgom to the son (John 6:37) and calls the guests to the banquet. All those attending the banquet will be fed with the bread of life and be raised on the last day (John 6:39).
3) "Coming to Christ" in John 6 is equal to "coming to the kingdom of the son of God" or "coming to the banquet". Where do you get the wedding supper? At the banquet. So you must come to the banquet to receive the desired bread from heaven. Thus, "coming to me" in John 6:44 refers to the attendance of the wedding banquet.
4) Are there any prerequisites to attend the banquet? Can anyone "come to Christ"? Consider the wedding guests in Mt 22. The first group invited proved unworthy and was rejected. And consider also the guest caught without proper wedding clothing. The wedding garment is a metaphor of the righteousness in the sight of God. No one can come to the wedding banquet unless he is clothed in righteousness. Thus, only the righteous can enter the kingdom of God, a fact I've supported with two examples in response to Peter Pike, see above. Now, this is a third example.
5) Is Jesus explaining why some in the audience disbelieve? No, in the passage John 6:35ff Jesus isn't providing an explanation why some individuals don't believe at all. Rather he is explaining the consequences of unbelief and why it is necessary to believe if you are ever to receive the precious bread from heaven. There is no elaboration on the reason why some don't believe, but a continuation on the teaching about the bread of life and an elaboration on the importance of faith and the consequences of unbelief.
6) Is "to come" synonymous with "to believe" in John 6? No, and it is remarkable that the crucial verses served up by calvinists in favor of man's inability to believe, don't contain the verb "believe" at all! (vs. 37,44,45 and 65).
7) However, the believers in Christ are exactly the ones who come. The group is identical:
i) Everyone who is righteous will follow the king's invitation to come to the banquet.
ii) Only the righteous ones will be able to attend the banquet.
So those who believe are those who come. Yet "to come" is not exactly synonymous with "to believe". You must have wedding clothing before you enter the hall. And this righteousness of God is received through faith.
(continue)
ReplyDelete8) Why is Jesus not saying (v.65): "That's why I told you that nobody can believe in me unless it is granted him by the Father"?
Because he isn't explaining to the unbelievers why they are unbelievers. Nor is he explaining to the disciples why some among the crowd are unbelievers. But if you don't believe, then you won't receive a wedding garment and won't be admitted to the wedding banquet. In other words, you won't be able to "come to Christ". That's why everyone shall believe. That's the meaning of John 6:65.
To conclude this conclusion, John 6:44 doesn't teach us that sinful, natural man isn't able to believe in Christ on his own. Neither is there anything else in the bible teaching such a bizarre dogma.
Likewise, when Paul in Romans writes that man in his natural state cannot please God this is a statement confirming man's ability? Isn't believing in Christ pleasing to God?
I've dealt with this quite thoroughly as well. Natural man's state is the reason why he has graciously been given the gospel as a new commandment so that he might be justified in God's sight in spite of his natural state. The old law was subsituted by the "law of faith" (Rom. 3:27) because the old law would be thwarted by his sinful nature. There's a radical difference between the old covenant and the new one with respect to their satisfiability.
you're running to John 3 to exegete John 6. Read any text on basic exegetical method.
I do. The phrase "to come to me" is crucial in John 6, right? Now, we'd do well consider where the phrase "to come to" with respect to salvation occurs elsewhere in John's gospel. There are 2 occurrences:
1) It appears in the form of "comes to the light" in 3:21 which I've quoted above. This meaning of coming refers to judgment. It clearly denotes the idea of coming to the kingdom of God as a righteous person. Here "to come" is something the righteous do, not sinners! That's important.
(The calvinistic notion that God the Father somehow touches sinners and moves them to Christ so that He should in turn cleanse them, is ridiculous.)
2) It appes in John 5:40 in the form: "yet you refuse to come to me to have life." This carries the same meaning as in John 6, in order to have life you need the bread of life from heaven. You must come to Christ. And this is only possible for believers.
So when we exegete John 6 we do well consider the johanine usage of particular words elsewhere, too.
You said:
there is no parallel language here that equates coming with "works done in God" from John 3.
Well, the word "coming" isn't equal to the phrase "works done in God". The latter is the precondition for coming! You must have works done in God in order to come. See the difference?
One righteous by faith. That person comes to Christ.
Yes.
Okay, so man is righteous even if he is not found in God
Whether a man is righteous is decided at judgment. If the king commands you to attend the wedding of his son and you refuse to come then you are not righteous, because it is a commandment to attend (see also Luke 14:24).
All who are righteous, will follow the king's invitation.
Only those who are righteous will follow the king's invitation. That means, you might think you are righteous until you are called to come to Christ. This is the place where judgment takes place. Now, if you are not found in God when judgment occurs, then you are not righteous!
Greetings
-a helmet
This guy is amazing
ReplyDeleteHello Peter Pike,
ReplyDelete1. I hold that man is totally depraved and cannot make a move toward God of his own volition in that state.
I'm yet waiting for a scriptural proof of this assertion or an argument from common sense.
This seems *SIMILAR* (but not even close to identical) to your concept of being in the darkness and unable to "know" God.
Well, here is the clue: What exactly IS spiritual death? I mean, if it is not exactly the same as physical death, then just WHAT is the difference?
2. Which is why it is important for *GOD* to be the one who is active.
John chapter 1. I agree. The light came into the world, which was solely on God's initiative.
He regenerates the spiritually dead, at which point they respond in faith.
What exactly IS spiritual death? What does it entail? Can spiritually dead individuals believe in false gods?
Under what you've proposed, God hasn't *acted* in that sinner's life. Indeed, He apparently cannot do so. Yet somehow, despite that, the man can still somehow believe in God!
Probably you cannot tell what spiritual death actually entails. You obviously cannot tell just what a person "dead in sins" can/cannot do, do you?
Here is news: An aspect of spiritual death is the total lack of discernment regarding the truth of God. Spiritual dead sinners have no understanding. You wonder why the man can still somehow believe in God.
Here are some questions:
Can a dead man know how a living man must raise him to life?
Can a dead man tell a living man how/in what order/by what means he should give him life?
Obviously, a dead man has no say regarding the matter!
A spritually dead man has no firm ground to stand on and on which he can make any claims about the resurrection of himself! So if there is someone who has life, and raises you, can you reasonably argue against his "method"? No. So if he tells you to believe and that the "method" is by faith, do you have any firm ground on which to argue against that method? If the living one tells you BELIEVE, is it reasonable for the corpse to reply: "But I cannot and must first be enabled by an inscrutable mechanism"? I would say, no.
If the can believe in God, then the sinner is not in the utter darkness you say he is in.
Well, the light shines in the darkness. Faith is always in an object, the object is the light of the world, which has come into the darkness. Why should he not be able to believe in the light? There's nothing to substantiate such a claim. Dead men have no say!
Neither is there any evidence in the scriptures that sinners cannot believe on their own, nor is that idea in accordance with common sense. (Then where is it from?)
You cannot be right on both of these points because they are in contradiction to each other.
No, there is no contradiction but something that you should simply BELIEVE: That spiritually dead sinners cannot make any reasonable judgment regarding their condition. They cannot tell whether they are able to believe in Christ or not! Note, sinners do believe all kinds of things don't they?
If the one who said "I am the Light of the World" tells the spiritually dead man that he can and shall believe in Him,.... is there any basis for the dead man on which he can refute what the living one says? What basis does the dead man have to object?
Greetings
-a helmet