No one could be converted sooner than he is - Whitby's Argument Eight

X. ARGUMENT EIGHT

Were such an irresistible power necessary to the conversion of a sinner, no man could be converted sooner than he is, because before this irresistible action came upon him he could not be converted, and when it came upon him he could not chose but be converted. Therefore no man could reasonably be blamed that he lived so long in his impenitent or unconverted state. And then God must unreasonably make these enquiries, 'how long refuse ye to keep my commandments'? How long will this people provoke me'? How long will it be before they believe me? How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity, and the scorners delight in scorning, and the fools hate knowledge? O Jerusalem, wash thyself from wickedness that thou mayest be saved! How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee? And again, O Jerusalem, wilt thou not be made clean, when shall it once be'?" (Exodus 16:28, Numbers 14:11, Proverbs 1:22, Jeremiah 4:14, 13:27)

Seeing none of these changes could be wrought within them, till He was pleased to afford the irresistible impulse: And then it would not be praise-worthy in them, or any other person, that they were then converted, it being not in their power then to be otherwise, since an unfrustrable operation is that which no man can frustrate.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Isn't there a "pre" supposed beginning here in his mind when he makes reference here?

Those words "center" around a presupposed "purpose", i.e. Zionism, King David, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their cause and purpose in the world the devil rules?

Indeed Our Creator is purposeful with all that, however, when I read these words above, they conflict with what I find Biblically "normal" about the alien and outsider of this presuppositional "group" upon whom the premise springs forth the thought "no one could be converted sooner than he is".

I find it true that God is the Creator of all mankind, of every nation, tribe, kindred, tongue and people group. God is sovereign and I would find it hard to believe you would disagree?

The early Church mission was to convert all mankind to a "righteous relationship with God through none other than Jesus Christ". Peter was sent to convert the Zionist Jews, the circumcised. Paul was "run" out of town in the doing of that and "turned" to the unevangelized uncircumcised "gentiles", hence the record Keeper, the Holy Ghost, enshrined and assigned that nomenclature to Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul has written by the hands of another, Tertius, chapter 15 of Romans! It seems this Whitby argument is found wanting. I know I wax poetic here!
October 1, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear Michael,

I agree with you that God is sovereign.

God be with you,
Dan
October 1, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

John Owen - Death of Death in the Death of Christ

For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here . I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-) God be with you, Dan
Read more

The Equivocation of Regeneration

In the order of salvation, which comes first, faith or regeneration? Before we can answer that, don't we first need to understand what regeneration is? In this post I plan on contrasting Hodge's view with Arminius'. Hopefully, in the process we can clarify the issue of monergism vs. synergism. Hodge’s Order of Salvation Common Grace – a “moral suasion” that brings good works, but is insufficient to enable justifying faith Regeneration – God’s supernatural and immediate change of a person’s nature Vocation – same Gospel as the one in common grace, but it’s effectual on the changed man. Conversion – faith and repentance “first conscious exercise of the renewed soul” Justification Two Definitions of Regeneration Hodges provides two alternative definitions of regeneration. Sometimes regeneration means just the imparting of life, other times it means the whole process including the things coming before and after the imparting of life. 1 Hodge says these two difference sense
Read more