The "T" in TULIP - refuted in one verse.

civic

Active member
Agreed.

The scripture being discussed is as follows:

Matthew 11:

21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.


Two classes of people were being discussed: (1) The peoples of the Jewish cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, who had seen his miracles, and had not believed nor repented (and therefore not saved); and (2) the peoples of the ancient cities of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, who never saw his miracles, but if they had, they would have believed and repented (and therefore saved), according to the words of Jesus. Now if those peoples of the ancient cities of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have believed and repented (and saved), if they had see his miracles; then it follows that their sins would have been atoned for, otherwise they couldn't have been saved if they had seen the miracles of Jesus.

What are your objections to that argument, if any, and why?
Where do you get saved at in the text ?

Repentance under the law didn't save anyone. Jesus is talking to Jews under the law.

The Pharisees saw Jesus miracles and still denied Him. Miracles just authenticated the messenger was from God. Jesus said if you don't believe Me then believe the miracles for they are His witness in John 5.

Jesus is using hyperbolic language "exaggeration" to make a point with those in Capernaum and Bethsaida.

You are free to believe they would of been saved but the text does not say that, so you are free to believe otherwise.

We clearly see below that those under the law who were previously baptized with repentance were not saved until Paul shares the gospel in Acts 19 below.

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:

zerinus

Member
Where do you get saved at in the text ?

Repentance under the law didn't save anyone. Jesus is talking to Jews under the law.
Repentance is repentance. There is no such thing as repentance under the law or over the law. And the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about repentance. It is a gospel of repentance, which leads to forgiveness of sins and salvation, which I have already discussed in post #43 of this thread.
 

civic

Active member
Repentance is repentance. There is no such thing as repentance under the law or over the law. And the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about repentance. It is a gospel of repentance, which leads to forgiveness and salvation, which I have already discussed in post #43 of this thread.
sorry read Acts 19 which I quoted.
 

zerinus

Member
We clearly see below that those under the law who were previously baptized with repentance were not saved until Paul shares the gospel in Acts 19 below.

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.
That scripture has nothing to do with being saved or unsaved. It is about whether the baptism of John was sufficient to qualify one to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost or not. But baptism itself is always unto repentance for the remission of sins, including those performed in the name of Jesus after John:

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

hope this helps !!!
It doesn't!
 
Last edited:

squirrelyguy

New member
Hey Squirrelguy,

Along with your verses you affirm that Because those verses show that the unregenerate have the ability to repent if they are given a sufficient outward witness. This means, in your view, God, in full knowledge that they would repent if He acts, withheld sufficient outward witness to Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, and presumably like and similar mighty works and inward witnesses; otherwise, they would have repented. This is not a problem with Calvinism, but how do you square it with your non-Reformed theology?
It doesn’t give me any pause to think that God might only send one missionary to a village when they would have repented if only He had sent two. So this isn’t a problem for me. The verse in question ought to create a problem for Reformed theology because it shows that the non-elect have the ability to repent.
 

squirrelyguy

New member
sorry read Acts 19 which I quoted.
I’m unsure what point you were making by quoting that passage; but if you are insinuating that the disciples at Ephesus must not have been saved yet since they didn’t have the Holy Spirit, this doesn’t follow. See Acts 8:14-17.

“Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”
 

civic

Active member
I’m unsure what point you were making by quoting that passage; but if you are insinuating that the disciples at Ephesus must not have been saved yet since they didn’t have the Holy Spirit, this doesn’t follow. See Acts 8:14-17.

“Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”
You just confirmed my point lol.
 

TomFL

Active member
I’m unsure what point you were making by quoting that passage; but if you are insinuating that the disciples at Ephesus must not have been saved yet since they didn’t have the Holy Spirit, this doesn’t follow. See Acts 8:14-17.

“Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”
Rom. 8:9 —KJV
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
 

squirrelyguy

New member
Rom. 8:9 —KJV
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
The Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit are two separate members of the Godhead. Every believer has Christ’s spirit dwelling in them, but the Holy Spirit is optional.
 

TomFL

Active member
The Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit are two separate members of the Godhead. Every believer has Christ’s spirit dwelling in them, but the Holy Spirit is optional.
No

Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ are used interchangeably

Rom. 8:9 —KJV
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
 

squirrelyguy

New member
No

Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ are used interchangeably

Rom. 8:9 —KJV
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
I thought it would be worth starting a new thread on this subject.

 

brightfame52

Active member
"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." (Matt. 11:21)

Added bonus: even Sodom would have repented had they seen the same miracles!

"And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matt 11:23)

It seems to me that if the Calvinist understanding of total depravity is true, then neither of these scenarios would have actually happened since (in the Calvinistic scheme of things) the non-elect have no ability to respond favorably to any outward call of the gospel; they don't have the inner regeneration of the Holy Spirit causing them to respond favorably.
Salvation repentance is what the natural man cannot do and will not do !
 

Five Solas

New member
It doesn’t give me any pause to think that God might only send one missionary to a village when they would have repented if only He had sent two. So this isn’t a problem for me. The verse in question ought to create a problem for Reformed theology because it shows that the non-elect have the ability to
The verse in question says mighty works, not one missionary, and it's clear that what was given to one set of towns was not given to another. But the verse also says they would have repented with these mighty works, which apparently God in His sovereignty did not send. This is definitely a problem verse for your non-Reformed theology, but perfectly compatible with Reformed theology as RT will claim the mighty works include the mighty work of regeneration which leads to repentance, just as taught through the entirety of Scripture.
 

zerinus

Member
The verse in question says mighty works, not one missionary, and it's clear that what was given to one set of towns was not given to another. But the verse also says they would have repented with these mighty works, which apparently God in His sovereignty did not send. This is definitely a problem verse for your non-Reformed theology, but perfectly compatible with Reformed theology as RT will claim the mighty works include the mighty work of regeneration which leads to repentance, just as taught through the entirety of Scripture.
If so, why then were not the peoples of the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum not repent, among whom the "mighty works" were done? Why were they not "regenerated," if that is what "mighty works" mean, according to you? "Mighty works" simply means miracles. It has no other meaning, in the given context.
 

Five Solas

New member
If so, why then were not the peoples of the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum not repent, among whom the "mighty works" were done? Why were they not "regenerated," if that is what "mighty works" mean, according to you? "Mighty works" simply means miracles. It has no other meaning, in the given context.
So we agree mighty works does not mean one missionary. Excellent.
 
Top