Interesting Series on Andrew Fuller by Tom Nettles

Dr. Tom Nettles

Dr. Tom Nettles

There is an interesting series of articles posted at the Founders blog, on the teaching of Andrew Fuller, written by Dr. Tom Nettles. It includes the following articles:

 

Fuller the Non-Calvinist?

Fullerite: Doctrine of Inability

Fuller and Irresistible Grace: The Necessity of Regeneration as Prior to Repentance and Faith

A Reply to Ken Hamrick: Ability, Will, and Necessity

Fuller and the Atonement (Part 1): “It is Enough that Jesus Died”

Fuller and the Atonement (Part 2): A Way Out or a Way In?

Andrew Fuller and David Allen (Part 1)

Andrew Fuller and David Allen (Part 2)

Fuller and the Atonement (Part 3): Until You Have Paid the Last Penney

Fuller and the Atonement (Part 4): Limited Atonement and Free Offer

Come and join the discussion!

 

About these ads

10 comments

  1. Ken Hamrick

    Here are my last two comments in the “Fullerite: Doctrine of Inability” discussion, which seem to have been lost in moderation:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 7, 2014 at 7:41 am

    Dr. Nettles,

    I did not mean that you had omitted part of the quote of Fuller for the intentional purpose of altering his meaning. For all I know, you left out that part due to thinking it was irrelevant or otherwise unnecessary. Why assume the worst? I’m glad that we might agree on more than I had thought. Earlier in the discussion, even you thought that we had severe disagreements. We do still disagree, I think, on the nature of the impossibility that the sinner is under. If as Fuller said, it is just as impossible to that to which we are averse as to do that which we have no natural ability to do, then we must also remember to apply what he also said, that such aversion leaves us without excuse. Take your taxes, for example. If you tell the IRS that you cannot pay because you are averse to paying and therefore it is impossible for you to pay, they will still put you in jail. Why? They will penalize you for the fact that the impossibility consists only in the want of inclination and not in the want of natural ability—even the unbelieving world universally understands this distinction. Just as Fuller pointed out regarding Joseph’s brothers being unable to speak peaceably to him. Even the world knows that what is meant is that they could not only because they were unwilling to speak peaceably to him—and that is the full extent of the moral impossibility that Fuller ascribes to sinners.

    Do you agree, then, that Fuller does not argue against the idea that “it is absurd and cruel to require of any man what it is beyond his power to perform,” but instead, answers the claim by arguing that what God requires is not beyond the natural ability of sinners? If so, then I have misunderstood you, and I apologize.

    Do you also agree, then, that the statement that the “inability of sinners is not such as to induce the Judge of all the earth (who cannot do other than right) to abate in his demands. It is a fact that he does require them, and that without paying any regard to their inability, to love him, and to fear him, and to do all his commandments always,” is not an argument for God’s right to require what men cannot perform, but is instead an argument (based on the righteous judgment of God) that sinners have no such excuse as to claim that they could not perform what God required? If so, then I have misunderstood you and I apologize.

    and…

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 6, 2014 at 8:00 pm

    Dr. Ascol,

    You said, “I found your critique of what he [Dr. Nettles] wrote off putting in its tone and unconvincing in its assertions.” “Off putting in… tone?” That’s a vague, subjective charge, and easily misapplied. Until now, there has been no vitriol or ad hominem whatsoever. Most likely, as usually happens in this medium, you have misread my tone. If you found my comments to be offensive, then I apologize for my lack of better clarity. I did not intend to contend for the truth in any way less than that of a brother in Christ. But if you found it off-putting that I would even bring such a challenge, then I am not sorry for that.

    “Unconvincing in its assertions?” It is God’s job to convince men of truth, an our job as teachers of His word to bring a well-reasoned, Scriptural argument to the table of discussion. There may be many reasons why one remains unconvinced in the face of such an argument—it may be because a superior argument has been presented, it may be because of the Holy Spirit’s witness within, or it may be for less noble reasons. The proper response to a substantive opposing argument is not to merely declare it to be unconvincing, but to substantively engage the argument and show its inferiority.

    You continued:

    I think you have misread Fuller by equating “power” exclusively with Fuller’s “natural ability.” Because Fuller acknowledges and argues for natural ability while locating man’s spiritual impotence in his moral inclination (or moral ability) you seem to think that he agrees with the assertion that “it is absurd and cruel to require any man what is beyond his power to perform” in the way that the Arminians and hyper-Calvinists used it.

    Just as in the exegesis of Scripture, it is the text and context alone that determines meaning. I was very specific in showing from the text exactly how I read Fuller. Would it be wrong to ask the same of you, to show from the text how I have misread Fuller? I did not equate power exclusively with natural ability, but only as comprehensively inclusive of both moral and natural ability. In other words, if men have no moral power, but they do still have natural power, then they are not completely without power. That ought to be a self-evident statement. As for the assertion, “It is absurd and cruel to require any man what is beyond his power to perform,” I do not agree with it in the same way that Arminians and hyper-Calvinists use it, since they do not use it with the understanding that men have the natural ability, but not the moral ability, to perform what is required.

    You stated (bold mine):

    I think it would be accurate to say that, according to Fuller’s distinctions, fallen man has the natural ability to repent and believe but not the moral ability to do so. It would be absurd to blame a physically blind man for never reading the Bible with his physical eyes but it would not be absurd to blame a spiritually blind man for never reading the Bible (assuming both had physical access to the Bible, etc.). The fact that countless numbers of sinful people have repented of sin and trusted Christ savingly demonstrates that sinful people do have the natural ability to do so. The reason that the Scripture says that such people “cannot” come to Christ is because of their fallen natures. Their inability is located in their moral natures as sinners not in their physical natures as humans.

    The dichotomy between moral ability and natural ability is not of the dichotomy between the moral nature and the physical nature, as the natural ability of sinners to “obey the gospel of Christ” is not merely of the body. It is not one’s body that is capable of “cordially receiving all that God has revealed.” The reason that it would not be absurd to blame a spiritually blind man for not embracing the truth of the gospel proclaimed in Scripture is because he chooses to be blind, and is naturally able to choose to open his eyes to the truth, but simply refuses due to his moral aversion to that truth.

    You stated:

    The fact that a sinner’s inability is moral rather than natural, however, in no way diminishes it’s reality nor does it leave the sinner any less impotent than if he were naturally without ability. Fuller writes,

    “There is an essential difference between an ability which is independent of the inclination [natural], and one that is owing to nothing else [moral]. It is just as impossible, no doubt, for any person to do that which he has no mind to do, as to perform that which surpasses his natural powers; and hence it is that the same terms are used in the one case as in the other.”

    By saying “it is just as impossible” Fuller is refuting the very point you have tried to make, that even without God’s grace men have the power to perform what God requires. God does indeed require of man what is beyond his power to perform but the reason man is unable to perform what is required is owing to his moral inability not to any natural or physical inabilities.

    The first sentence you quoted here, “There is an essential difference between an ability which is independent of the inclination [natural], and one that is owing to nothing else [moral],” was used by Fuller to support his preceding argument that the sinner’s inability consists in nothing but want of inclination, and would provide an excuse if it consisted in anything else. Fuller’s next sentence, “It is just as impossible, no doubt, for any person to do that which he has no mind to do, as to perform that which surpasses his natural powers; and hence it is that the same terms are used in the one case as in the other,” is only meant to explain why the same terms (such as “impossible”) for lack of inclination as for lack of natural power. The impossibility is not one of necessity, but one of utter certainty—and I think that may be where we really disagree. If the impossibility were one of necessity, then the natural ability is irrelevant—and that is the impression that I get from you and Dr. Nettles. While Fuller sees the impossibility as a fact, it is only because of the moral inability and not because of the natural inability—men are still left without excuse. But in that just culpability grounded on natural ability, Fuller implies a temporal possibility, but one that will never be realized due to the absolute certainty of continued aversion toward God that can only be overcome by grace.

    You also stated:

    I have neither time nor interest to engage in a lengthy discussion of this in the comment stream of Dr. Nettles’ post. I find his evaluation of Fuller spot on and very helpful and, like you, look forward to the rest of this series.

    While I can sympathize with not having time, I find it perplexing that a theologian of your stature would lack the interest to engage in such a substantive discussion.

    Blessings to you as well…

  2. parsonsmike

    Ken,

    It seems to me that there is a different plane between a moral decision and a spiritual one.
    Take for example your example of the guy who doesn’t pay his taxes. He knows it is wrong. He knows it is immoral. He simply, for what ever reason, does not wish to pay them. The example is one of this secular world, a man making a decision based on his own understandings. He could, when threatened by the IRS with jail time and big fines, pay his taxes under protest. Though his heart was not in it, he could obey.

    One aspect of the Law is just that: obedience despite what our heart desires. Obedience in this way though, fails to make one righteous according to the whole of God’s law where that Law is summed up in these words: Love God with all, and others as yourself. The Law, that which defines what is moral from God’s view point [which view point alone counts] exposes man’s sinfulness because it shows them where they fall short of God’s Righteousness and His glory.

    But in coming to Christ, one can not simply decide to obey under protest. First, a person has to believe the Gospel story is true. Second, he has to believe as true his own great need. Third, he needs to grasp who Jesus is and how he should respond to the Gospel call. Fourth, he has to experience God’s love. All 4 of these things require faith.

    If you leave your house one day and your neighbor tells you that there is an accident at one of the intersections leaving your housing development, Most would probably believe it as so. And in order not to get caught up in the hassle, most would find an alternative route, unless they like to gaze at accidents. In other words, most would trust their neighbor.

    But if your neighbor tells you aliens have landed at that intersection, you probably wouldn’t believe him. His words are harder to believe. Likewise, if you tell a Muslim that Jesus is the One True God who will judge him for his sins but offers forgiveness, he might find your words lacking in credibility. For those he trusts, his family and friends, and he himself, believe Allah alone is the one true God. So though he might respect you as a person, he probably thinks you have been deceived.

    What will it take for him to surrender to Jesus? He has to have more than your words. He needs God to move in some way in his life. He doesn’t see his rejection of your religion as a moral failure. He doesn’t see his rejection of Jesus as an affront to Allah. You see, he doesn’t believe. He is under no moral compulsion to change. Yet there he stands, squarely rejecting the Lord and King and seeking to serve a false idol.

    It is this INABILITY to recognize spiritual truth that MAKES him UNABLE to grasp his actual place before God.
    We read in Ephesians 4:
    17 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; 19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

    Make no bones about it, the unbelievers in this world DO NOT want to surrender to God, for most are satisfied with what ever system they have gravitated to or learned, and so we read that the cause of their futile mind, darkened understanding, and ignorance is due to their hard hearts. But it is no longer an overt conscious rebellion on their part for their rebellion is just the way of life for them.
    They need their stopped ears unclogged, their blind eyes opened, and their hearts softened before they can grasp the Gospel message as true and real so that they see their great need and His great provision.

    Now if one claims that the Holy Spirit reveals the Gospel truth to them, it would be nice for such a one to actually show us in the Word where unbelievers are sure of that glorious truth. The testimony of Christians helps in no way, for we all agree that God has revealed these truths to those He is saving. Maybe God reveals Himself to a person one year and saves him 20 years later.

    Rather the Bible does claim that unbelievers are ignorant, futilely thinking, have darkened understand, and are spiritually blind.

    But these words i am writing so far speak to the understanding or rather, the lack of understanding of the unbeliever.

    The 4th thing an unbeliever needs to be saved is an experience with God’s love.

    Knowledge and understanding alone does not change a person, though such things are needed to believe in Jesus. What changes a person is the love God demonstrates to the individual so that when the Gospel truths are presented, the person not only KNOWS the truth of Jesus but FEELS the truth of Jesus: that the cross was an act of God’s love for THAT individual. For ME, a low down God hating selfish living hell deserving sinner.

    Jesus is rejected because of unbelief.
    Jesus is accepted because of love- God’s love for the sinner.

    One CAN NOT make themselves desire God. Therefore one simply CANT choose to accept Jesus. For a pledge of fidelity to Christ without the desire is an absurdity. God doesn’t save hypocrites, though we all can act that way at times. God saves those who are at the place where the glory of the cross humbles a person prostrate in heart before God in repentance, and where the love of God raises that same one up in hope and joy.

    And no human who ever finds him or herself in that place fails to desire God. For that desire is twofold. One, it is of the heart and two, it then is of the will. We then find these two things present in one just saved: a heart for God that was a heart against God. And a choice for God from one who chose against Him.
    These words make this plain:

    “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

    Now what is this word? It is the word of faith that is preached. And what word is preached? It is the Gospel which is the good news of God, His word to you. And His word to you and to me is the Word of God, the Son. When God speaks it is His Word. His Word is infallible, holy, almighty, with out fail, as well as His exact expression, as we read in Hebrews 1:

    God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.

    If this word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, you will confess Jesus as Lord because you believe it from your heart. And that word will be to you and is to you, the power of God for salvation.

    But if this word is not in you, in your heart, nor in your mouth, it is because you only hear it with the ears of the head and not with the ears of the heart. If so, Then that word is foolishness to you. You are unable to grasp it as spiritual truth and you remain in your sin.

    So if that word is foolishness to you [you are still of the perishing] then you CAN NOT from the heart believe it or confess it. You are blind to it. You are ignorant of its truth. You care not about it. You reject it. You are and remain an unbeliever.

    Jesus is rejected because of unbelief.
    Jesus is accepted because of love- God’s love for the sinner.

  3. parsonsmike

    I said,

    It is this INABILITY to recognize spiritual truth that MAKES him UNABLE to grasp his actual place before God.

    Man needs more than that to be saved, but that is all he needs to stay damned.

  4. parsonsmike

    In response to Fuller and the Atonement [Part 2], posted at Founders. I posted there first the following [with a little modification]:

    Though I agree with almost all that written here, I need object to the idea that the nature of Christ’ death is the grounds for all to call on Him. Rather I believe it is the person of Christ, who He is, that is the grounds for us to call men unto Him and what makes it their duty to respond to that call and submit to His lordship.

    The nature of His death in being sufficient for all is the grounds we have to declare that any who turn to Jesus in faith and trust will be saved. Whether they turn to Him or not does not alter the truth that they should submit to their rightful Lord.

    [a]People should turn to Him in submission because He is their Lord.
    [b]Those that turn, all those that turn, will be saved by His sacrificial death.

    The ground for [a] is His person.
    The ground for [b] is the nature of His all sufficient sacrifice.

    That only those called internally by the Spirit will turn in submission is not part of the Gospel proclamation.

    Romans 1
    Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake.

    In speaking of His person and His place [He was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord], Paul makes these the grounds to call all Gentiles to obedience. Likewise in Acts 2 we see this very same thing:

    “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
    When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
    Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

    The grounds for the call is the person of Christ: the Lord and Messiah. For those that respond positively: the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    There is no need for the preacher to worry about the warrant sinners have [What if a non-elect responds] to respond since He is Lord of all, all should respond. Nor should we worry if our call brings in one not elect, for only the elect will respond from the heart. Rather if we water down the Gospel we might have many who respond not from the heart, and thus fill our congregations with unbelievers.

  5. parsonsmike

    In a reply to me about how, he, Tom Nettles differs from Fuller in: Fuller and the Atonement (Part 3): Until You Have Paid the Last Penney [see link above]. Tom said this:

    “Thank you for your reply. In brief, I believe there are two aspects to the atoning work of Christ. One is exactly what you have argued so cogently. Every sin deserves an eternity of wrath as a violation of God’s law and an affront to the infinitely excellent and holy God. The second aspect is intensity of Wrath. If it will be more tolerable for one violator than another violator this means that even in hell there will be observable intensity for the heinousness of the sins committed. therefore from these two aspects I do believe that Jesus suffered proportionately to the heinousness of sins committed. He is the only savior who could absorb by his very person both the eternal consequences of sin in his death and at the same time endure proportionate wrath for the various aggravations and various intensities in the whole of them for all the sins that all the elect in all the world for all time have committed or will commit. Those two aspects are necessary for efficacious atonement. If there are no proportions in intensity then there is no way to manifest that some will be beaten with few stripes and others with many stripes and for some it will be more tolerable than for others.”

    This idea puts forth the idea that the death of Jesus HAD to be ONLY for the elect, and COULD only be for the elect because it NEEDED to satisfy two parts of the Law, those being firstly an eternal death for every sin, whereas death is separation from God and His goodness, Secondly the law also requires varying punishments of degree [number of stripes] for different transgressions. So that one who has sinned more grievously and hatefully will suffer more intensely in the serving out of his or her eternal sentence..

    Whilst in the former, it could be applicable to Anyman, the latter, Tom claims and at first blush I would agree, could only be applicable to the elect.

    But I post this here to hopefully generate some useful discussions on this idea.

    Anyone want to chime in?

    mike

  6. parsonsmike

    Re: Fuller in: Fuller and the Atonement (Part 3): Until You Have Paid the Last Penney [see link above]

    The Scripture passage for paying the last penny is Matthew 5:

    21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. 23 Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. 25 Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.

    and Luke 12:

    57 “And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right? 58 For while you are going with your opponent to appear before the magistrate, on your way there make an effort to settle with him, so that he may not drag you before the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. 59 I say to you, you will not get out of there until you have paid the very last cent.”

    Of course in both passages in referring to eternal condemnation we know that they will never pay the last penny for one’s stay in hell is eternal. There is an amount owed you are unable to pay except by ever paying.

    Based only on these two passages, I would say that brother Tom Nettles might have a case, but in understanding what it means to pay every last penny can be wholly absorbed in Fuller’s understanding of Jesus paying the price for Any-man For the passages point to a certain monetary price [a number of pennies]. it is an amount no person could pay and be free of its debt [though the story puts forth the idea that one could be released if and when the debt was paid]. I think the point of the teaching is that sinners need to get with God and find out how much they owe. In finding out how much they owe, will they be able to settle? Nope for the debt is too great. Thus they need to turn to Jesus and receive mercy and forgiveness in Him or face an eternity of punishment.

    Sometimes when we owe a debt, the ones to whom we owe will agree to a lower amount to absolve us of the debt. But the Justice of God will not nor can not settle for less than the WHOLE amount which is an eternal offering. Jesus paid the eternal or whole payment on behalf of all those the Lord will save.

    Thus the idea of the ‘last cent’ in and of itself, does not support brother Nettles view.
    But there is the idea yet of ‘number of stripes’ and of the various intensities.
    -mike

  7. parsonsmike

    Re: Fuller and the Atonement (Part 3): Until You Have Paid the Last Penney [see link above]

    Continuing my investigation into Brother Nettles idea that the cross of Christ could only be for the elect due to the need to satisfy he Law for the intensity of punishment.
    First i looked, in the last post, at the idea of every cent. I found that idea not against Tom’s theme but not really for it either. At least the idea could be subsumed under Fullers theory.

    In this post I look at the idea of stripes.

    Deuteronomy 25 says this:
    “If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his guilt. He may beat him forty times but no more, so that he does not beat him with many more stripes than these and your brother is not degraded in your eyes.

    Here there is a precedent for punishment for wrong doing short of death. Now this punishment is temporal and worldly, but all OT waysso such, are there to point us to the spiritual.
    So I went to Psalm 89:

    If his sons forsake My law
    And do not walk in My judgments,
    If they violate My statutes
    And do not keep My commandments,
    Then I will punish their transgression with the rod
    And their iniquity with stripes.
    “But I will not break off My lovingkindness from him,
    Nor deal falsely in My faithfulness.
    “My covenant I will not violate,
    Nor will I alter the utterance of My lips.
    “Once I have sworn by My holiness;
    I will not lie to David.
    “His descendants shall endure forever
    And his throne as the sun before Me.
    “It shall be established forever like the moon,
    And the witness in the sky is faithful.” Selah.

    Read this whole Psalm. Wow and WOW. In it speaks of the faithfulness of God and how He will raise up a Son to above the kings of the earth, but though the children of the Son sin, He will not utterly cast them down, but by stripes and by the rod, he will punish them. it then goes on to say but the Son will be cast down, his days shortened. We get stripes, he gets death.

    Stripes here in this Psalm are a way of discipline not condemnation.
    Let us look at Proverbs 20:

    Stripes that wound scour away evil,
    And strokes reach the innermost parts.

    What is the purpose of stripes according to this Proverb?
    To scour away evil. Not to destroy, but to cleanse.

    Proverbs 22 echoes this theme;
    Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
    The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

    Isaiah 53:
    Surely He has borne our griefs
    And carried our sorrows;
    Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
    Smitten by God, and afflicted.
    But He was wounded for our transgressions,
    He was bruised for our iniquities;
    The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
    And by His stripes we are healed.
    All we like sheep have gone astray;
    We have turned, every one, to his own way;
    And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

    By His stripes we are healed.
    Stripes are for healing, cleansing, discipline, punishment.
    No where did I find that stripes were for condemnation/death.
    Yet Jesus was scourged for our healing.

    Now a general atonement type person might argue that all mankind has gone astray so this passage is for everyone. But not everyone is healed. The internal consistency of the chapter mitigates against the idea of this passage referring to a general atonement. that is another post, bring it up if you want to discuss it.

    The unsaved in Hell are never healed. The idea that Jesus needed to suffer stripes can only be for the elect. But the idea that stripes are in eternal Hell to explain the different intensities of punishment seems way off. That doesn’t mean there won’t be various intensities, it just means that brother Nettles has a solid piece of evidence for his theory of the two parts of punishment that makes the cross ONLY for the elect.

    The next reply is on the idea of Woe to Capernaum idea.

  8. parsonsmike

    NOT woe to Capernaum.

    Back to the idea of the stripes.
    The purpose of the stripes is corrective. Many place of employment declare that their discipline procedures are corrective in nature. Such correction though becomes punitive in nature if one does not ‘repent’ and obey.
    The idea that the death of Jesus, who by His stripes brings us healing, and thus his suffering and death can only be for the elect and should be recognized as such, as opposed to Fuller’s idea of Everyman possible or Anyman, must also consider that we as children of God also recieve stripes from our Father.
    Hebrews 12:

    For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
    You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons,
    “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
    Nor faint when you are reproved by Him;
    For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines,
    And He scourges every son whom He receives.”
    It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

    So if we too must endure stripes or discipline from our Father, than what does it mean that we are healed by His stripes. [Isaiah 53]?

  9. parsonsmike

    For why must we endure stripes, if He took all of our stripes on the cross?
    And yet we do.
    And yet we are healed by His stripes.

    Now to Isaiah 53 being a passage that can be read in general way, which of the we and us in the passage, who are not saved, are healed by His stripes?

  10. Pingback: Fuller & Inability: A Centrist Response to Tom Nettles, Part 1 | SBC Open Forum

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s