I am a Calvinist, but I have a few perplexing (to me) questions :
First, Matt. 11:20-24: Why does Jesus seem to indicate that had Sodom, Tyre and Sidon seen the miracles that were being done in Chorazin, Bethsaida, etc., they would have repented? It's almost as though He was saying that the miracles themselves would have convinced the former cities, making it appear as though somehow Chorazin et al. were more stubborn and evil than Sodom, et al. This makes it appear as though the signs themselves would have been enough to turn the hearts of the Sodomites, et al. But how does this jive with total depravity, which would teach that it doesn't matter how many miracles or signs anyone sees, they will not believe unless they are given a new nature first?
Second, passages like Mark 4:10-12 - If it's true that total depravity teaches that man will not believe a clear gospel presentation unless he is first regenerated, why does Christ seem to indicate that the reason He is speaking in parables is so that those hearing them will not perceive and understand? He seems also to indicate that if he was speaking "otherwise" (i.e., clearly), they might "return and be forgiven". But if they wouldn't believe without regeneration anyway, why resort to speaking in parables? Since even speaking clearly and frankly would not make a difference in bringing someone to belief. Does my question make sense?
Third, can someone explain how an elected person can lose their salvation when Christ indicates in John 17 that he chose the twelve, but Judas betrayed Christ and died in his sins? My guess is that there are two types of "choosing" here. Christ chose the twelve to be his disciples, knowing full well that Judas would betray Him. This is not the same as the Father's electing them to salvation. Apparently in that sense, the Father elected the 11, but not Judas (the 12th). So am I correct in saying that Judas was not given to the Son by the Father?
Earnestly seeking Truth,
Alan
[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Alan]
First, Matt. 11:20-24: Why does Jesus seem to indicate that had Sodom, Tyre and Sidon seen the miracles that were being done in Chorazin, Bethsaida, etc., they would have repented? It's almost as though He was saying that the miracles themselves would have convinced the former cities, making it appear as though somehow Chorazin et al. were more stubborn and evil than Sodom, et al. This makes it appear as though the signs themselves would have been enough to turn the hearts of the Sodomites, et al. But how does this jive with total depravity, which would teach that it doesn't matter how many miracles or signs anyone sees, they will not believe unless they are given a new nature first?
Second, passages like Mark 4:10-12 - If it's true that total depravity teaches that man will not believe a clear gospel presentation unless he is first regenerated, why does Christ seem to indicate that the reason He is speaking in parables is so that those hearing them will not perceive and understand? He seems also to indicate that if he was speaking "otherwise" (i.e., clearly), they might "return and be forgiven". But if they wouldn't believe without regeneration anyway, why resort to speaking in parables? Since even speaking clearly and frankly would not make a difference in bringing someone to belief. Does my question make sense?
Third, can someone explain how an elected person can lose their salvation when Christ indicates in John 17 that he chose the twelve, but Judas betrayed Christ and died in his sins? My guess is that there are two types of "choosing" here. Christ chose the twelve to be his disciples, knowing full well that Judas would betray Him. This is not the same as the Father's electing them to salvation. Apparently in that sense, the Father elected the 11, but not Judas (the 12th). So am I correct in saying that Judas was not given to the Son by the Father?
Earnestly seeking Truth,
Alan
[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Alan]
