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

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more