Question for Arminians

[ReformedBaptist]

This is from Matthew Henry

Matthew Henry was a Calvinist. :laugh:

 

[swaimj]

Matthew Henry was a Calvinist.

Yes, he WAS, but he knows better now! :laugh:

 

[Winman]

I am going to assume that your new to having discussions of this nature. I am also assuming that while you believe yourself correct, and me wrong, you don't truly care for my soul or other "calvinists" as you call us.

That is a terrible thing to say. I want every person everywhere to be saved. I simply disagree with your doctrine and believe it unscriptural. That doesn't mean I think I understand it all, I have been around awhile, and one thing I know is that I don't know much.

If someone when discussing our topic says, "I am a calvinist" it does not mean that they believe and follow John Calvin. This is at best an misunderstanding of the person, but worse, an unjust accusation.

Give me a break. I know that not everyone who calls himself a Calvinist believes the exact same thing. But generally speaking you believe the teachings of Calvin. You have mentioned Irresistable Grace for instance, and that is a doctrine of Calvin's. He may not have been the first person to believe this doctrine, but he made it famous and it is commonly attributed to him.

I showed you from scripture where Jesus told the parable of the wedding feast. Many were called and bid, some flat-out refused to come, and others made excuses not to come. And at the end of the parable Jesus said "for many are called, but few are chosen"

Now that right there proves the doctrine of Irresistable Grace error.

You are correct that I do not care for the doctrines of Calvinism. I find the teaching that a just and loving God would choose some men to show mercy, and others to show wrath without a just reason repugnant. The scriptures say that God does not have any pleasure in the death of the wicked. The scriptures say God is not willing any should perish.

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Here God says he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and tells the hearers to turn themselves. But Calvinism teaches that these men cannot possibly turn unless God gives them the ability to do so.

God tells men to choose, but they cannot. He tells men to repent when he knows they cannot, he tells men to come to him when he knows they cannot.

And you think that makes sense?

No, the scriptures say that it is God's will that all men be saved.

1 Tim 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Winman,

Give me a break. I know that not everyone who calls himself a Calvinist believes the exact same thing. But generally speaking you believe the teachings of Calvin. You have mentioned Irresistable Grace for instance, and that is a doctrine of Calvin's. He may not have been the first person to believe this doctrine, but he made it famous and it is commonly attributed to him.

If the discussion is a burden to, why continue it? If you need a break, take one. :smilewinkgrin:

While you may wish to slander me, or whatever you call it, by saying I believe the teachings of Calvin you are incorrect. As I said to you before, like you, I am a bible-believer and what is commonly called calvinism today I believe are the Bible's teaching on those subjects.

So no, generally speaking I believe the Bible. Irresistable Grace, just for your information, was never taught by John Calvin (the concept, yes, the title, no), . John Calvin never taught Calvinism. lol But that is another story.

And no, he was not the only person to believe the Scriptures teach a grace that is irresistable and uncoquerable. The first one to teach this is God. :smilewinkgrin:

I showed you from scripture where Jesus told the parable of the wedding feast. Many were called and bid, some flat-out refused to come, and others made excuses not to come. And at the end of the parable Jesus said "for many are called, but few are chosen"

Now that right there proves the doctrine of Irresistable Grace error.

I might be interested in a discussion on the subject of irresisable grace, but my thread is about the ability of man. So this, again, is off topic.

 

[Rippon]

You are correct that I do not care for the doctrines of Calvinism. I find the teaching that a just and loving God would choose some men to show mercy, and others to show wrath without a just reason repugnant.

You deny the Word of God. The Lord has the perfect right to do whatever He so desires with His creatures. No one has inalienable rights with God.

Are you saying God is unjust because He chooses some instead of others? Don't you realize that He will have mercy on whoever He desires and He can harden whom He wants to harden? It doesn't depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy. If you still object -- who in the world do you think you are -- a mere human being -- a piece of His clay, to talk back to God?!

See Romans 9 for more of the same.

 

[Rippon]

Do you not call yourself a Calvinist? Then why does it offend you when I say you choose to believe Calvin?

This demonstrates either your ignorance or deliberate misreprentation of Calvinism.

Calvin was known to have burned many people at the stake who disagreed with him,

Now that is a bold-faced lie. The Servetus affair was with him being burned at the stake was something Calvin was against. And Calvin wasn't even a citizen of Geneva at that point.

"Many people"?! Don't lie to advance whatever cause you wish to further.

hardly the behaviour of a man with the Spirit of God dwelling in him.

Okay, this proves you haven't read any of Calvin's works. And be careful about condemning a godly man who the Lord used as His instrument for His Church.

 

[Tom Butler]

Some recognized the story of Lazarus to be a parallel to the gospel. This is from Matthew Henry:

[2.] To be typical of other works of wonder, and particularly other resurrections, which the power of Christ was to effect. This loud call was a figure, First, Of the gospel call, by which dead souls were to be brought out of the grave of sin, which resurrection Christ had formerly spoken of (ch. 5:25), and of his word as the means of it (ch. 6:63), and now he gives a specimen of it. By his word, he saith to souls, Live, yea, he saith to them, Live, Eze. 16:6. Arise from the dead, Eph. 5:14. The spirit of life from God entered into those that had been dead and dry bones, when Ezekiel prophesied over them, Eze. 37:10. Those who infer from the commands of the word to turn and live that man has a power of his own to convert and regenerate himself might as well infer from this call to Lazarus that he had a power to raise himself to life. Secondly, Of the sound of the archangel’s trumpet at the last day, with which they that sleep in the dust shall be awakened and summoned before the great tribunal, when Christ shall descend with a shout, a call, or command, like this here, Come forth, Ps. 50:4. He shall call both to the heavens for their souls, and to the earth for their bodies, that he may judge his people.

Now, I agree 100% with Matthew Henry here that man does not have the power of his own to convert and regenerate himself. The power to regenerate is in the word of God.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Now, I am going to say something strange. It may or may not be scriptural, I am still studying to find the answer of this myself.

But in any transmission of power (at least in the physical world) you must needs have a transmitter and receiver. A radio station can broadcast a signal, and there is power in the signal. But to make use of this signal you must have a receiver. Without an antenna, you cannot make use of the power sent out by the transmitter.

Lazarus could not raise himself, this power belonged to Christ. But Lazarus must have the ability to hear Christ's words and receive this power.

And this is my reasoning. If the message and power of Jesus's words enables the hearer to hear, then all would be saved.

This is something that caught me off guard. You're making my argument for me!

When did Lazarus receive the ability to hear Jesus' call? Why, after he was made alive again. And until he was made alive, he could not hear or obey Jesus' words.

I heard it said once that the reason Jesus called Lazarus out by name is, that had he simply said "Come forth," all the graves would have opened up and the dead would have come out.

Everybody around the grave heard Jesus call out, but the call was meant for Lazarus alone. Hmmmm, I like that.

Ephesians 2:1 "And you hath he quickened (made alive) who were dead in trespasses and sin."

v. 5 repeats the theme: "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us.
v. 6 "...and hath raised us up together (with Christ)...."

I'm liking the Lazarus parallel better all the time.

 

[webdog]

When did Lazarus receive the ability to hear Jesus' call? Why, after he was made alive again. And until he was made alive, he could not hear or obey Jesus' words.

You have just made the words of Christ powerless and second to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Tom Butler]

You have just made the words of Christ powerless and second to the Holy Spirit.

Web, I certainly don't mean to. I see the Godhead working in regeneration, but not at odds with each other or independently of each other.

And, we have to remember that we're dealing in the physical realm with Lazarus. Lazarus is made physically alive. Was it the words of Jesus which made him alive? Was it simply the exercise of his mighty power, accompanied by words that others would hear?

Whatever is the case, the fact is that Lazarus was unable to come out of that tomb until he was enabled.

I recognize that you and others may not see this as a valid analogy or parallel to spiritual regeneration.

I don't think your claim that Jesus' words are powerless and second to the Holy Spirit holds up.

 

[Allan]

In order to qualify as a parallel, does the writer have to say "now pay attention dummies, this is a parallel?" Seems to me that we have a number of parallels, types, etc., which we recognize as such without being specifically told to.

You are correct in that the scripture does not have to say 'this is a parallel', and I did not say it had to. I referenced that fact that parallels are noted in scripture due the the re-occuring statement that link the event to the subject.

If we did not ground such 'perceived' paralles from continuous reciting of scripture on the subejct, then you, I, or anyone else can make a parallel to anything including point blank heresies. Just because something seems to be a neat picture of what you (you in a general sense) might hold to theologically does not equate to it being an actaul parallel in context. (ie. Dipsy view of the Churches being parallels of the church ages)

Sorta like Abraham, Isaac, and the substitute ram which God provided do die instead of Isaac. I don't know if there's a New Testament reference to this event as paralleling Jesus as the substitute sacrificial lamb, but I think everybody recognizes it as such

The only NT reference I know of is in Hebrews.

Actaully there is MUCH more than this which 'establishes' Issac a parallel to Jesus (in a general sense and not in a literal physical sense).
Jesus is stated as being the seed of Abraham, but who was the literal seed of Abraham to whom the promises were to be placed upon/unto - Issac. Galatians 3 speaks quite often of Abraham's seed through whom His/God's promises were to come and that seed was, according to God in the OT, Isaac who was a picture of Jesus and seen as such in these very passages. We know this because Paul tells us that the seed spoken of was literally Isaac but spiritually Jesus, (though it can be argued it included not only spiritual but physical which was through His ancestry).

Gal 4 speaks of the two women (Sarah and Hagar) who had two children and that only one was the chosen child through whom God's promises would come - Isaac, and not from the bound Ishmael. However this Paul states is an allegory, which is the parallel of Christ.

Now in seeing the above look at what is said in your quote:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called,"

concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense. (Hebrews 11:17-19, NKJV)

The parallels are used other times as well but these show a consistancy that Isaac is indeed seen as the parallel to Christ Jesus. Thus you can see it also in other aspects of his life as well
1. Miracle birth
2. born of the free
3. through whom all the blessing promised to Abraham (those of faith) would come.
4. The Father choosing his bride
5. The sacrifice from with the resurrection is foreshadowed
6. Through Isaac the people of God came forth.

However, these are not actaully stated as specific parallels by other passages and the reason is because it is already established that Isaac himself is the general parallel.

Same for the Lazerus story, seems to me.

As I have shown brother, Isaac is an established parallel. However as I stated earlier as well, just to say something is a parallel is nothing more than wishful thinking on 'whomevers' part (be it the dispy or whomever), it must be established in scripture as such in order to be declared such. :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

I will respond to you briefly.

Wow, your brevity is as good as mine :laugh:

However, I will divide it up a bit for conversation sake.
See, you did teach me something a while back

With all due respect, it would be nice to actually discuss something with someone who possessed the ability not to attack the other person.

First, my statement was not a personal attack but was a statement based upon observation. The definitions of 'ability' and 'responsibility' establish that one can not exist apart from the other. To presume such either shows a person must change the very meanings established for a perceived notion/idea, OR that they are confused about what those words actually mean. I purposefully set you in the later category because I do believe you are honest in your belief but incorrect in your understanding of the meanings and operations of each within the process of the other.

While I agree with you that it is a reasonable thinking, I disagree with it because of the Scripture itself. It postures both, side by side, completely comfortable with the tension.

Sorry but that makes no sense.
First, it is entirely biblical.
However what is strange is that you concede that it is unjust to hold a person responsible for what they are unable to do/not do, and that this is reasonable. Thus if it is reasonable then it is therefore a logically constructed based upon an understanding of the aspects of Just and Right. And here is where the strange part kicks in - you therefore concede that sinful man (even in a depraved state) knows the basis of what is just and right, but you state scripture speaks contrary to what is just and right.

If sinful man knows even these basics, how much more so does and is God who is perfect in all things - including justice and righteousness.

This is the same type of argument that Jesus used when comparing mans love with God's love. If sinful man knows how to love, how much more so does God?

It is not only 'reasonable', which is in fact 'logical', but it is so based on the nature and character of God Himself. IOW - It is an immutable truth understood the world over, not from man, but established in and from God.

Our understanding of justice itself is derived from the very aspect of God's being just as righteousness is. Even in the Law one can not be charged as guilty (held responsible) for something they could not do. And that Law mirrored God's justice and righteousness.

Therefore, God can not (because of His nature) and will not (because of His character) judge/condemn a person responsible for something they are not able to do. That is pointedly biblically in every respect
.

 

[Allan]

I stated:
Being drawn does not equate to salvation.

To which you replied:

I have to disagree with this because of what Scripture says.

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40

Nothing in the above shows that being drawn equates to one who is saved. It purely suppositional. What the above illistrates specifically is that those who 'come' are saved. Note the specificness of what is actaully said. Everyone who sees AND believes will have everlasting life.
I agree that without question that our salvation is impossible without God's drawing/calling, however as I have already noted in my previous post with scripture God's calling can be rejected.

And again, v.44 which we discussed:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Actually, no we did not discuss it. You gave your view, I stated mine and you ignored what I said and is why I am having to restate it again. That is not a discussion

Notice please the emphasis is not on who is called, but is in reality 'why' they can come and 'what' happens when they come.
Not being condesending here but I would encourage you to take a little time and go into the Greek and look that construction, specifically with regard to 'can' and how it is used here. The point here is not 'will come' but 'can come'. They are different words in both Greek and English but their usage is the still same. One represents a possibility (can) the other an emphatic declaration or fact (will). Thus the emphasis is not about those drawn to be raised up, but that those who come will be raised up.

John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

I think we are both agreed that eating and drinking here is not communion nor a text in support of transubstantiaion. If not...what then?

I think the answer is found in the text itself when Jesus explains it to His disciples who were offended.



We know Jesus is speaking of His words. This is the food. And how do we eat? By coming to and believing in Jesus. And no man can come to Jesus except it is given to him/her by the Father.

This still in no way, shape, form, or fashion proves your conention brother.
No man 'can' (have the ability, enabled) come unless God draw him. This in no way can be used to support Irresistable grace because it does not state those drawn will come proving a definitive declartion but in fact the text states no man is enabled to come unless the Father draw him.

It is no different than stating no man come eat my wifes dinner unless I allow him. The fact I allow them to come does not necessitate they will come and partake/eat. (well truthfully once you had my wifes cooking you will but that is another story). However it does declare that one will come unless I first allow them. What this proves is not Irresistable Grace but in reality His Grace and even arguable Prevenient grace.

Those whom the Father gives to Jesus/grants to come to Jesus, is it possible that they will not? Not according to Jesus.

37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Uh.. not even close. Those whom the Father gave to Jesus will come NOT those whom the Father draws will come. This statement merely reflects the fact that God knows all that will/are to come. However once again if you keep with the scripture you can only conclude those who come He will raise up, NOT those who are drawn I will raise up. There is nothing in any portion of the above verses that states all who are drawn will be saved, it only states those drawn can come, and those who see and believe He will raise up at the last day.

This text is a clear teaching on what theologically is called Irresistable Grace. The Father is giving the Son people. This is election. Jesus states absolutely that they SHALL come. This is not a maybe, might, et. It is a SHALL. They will come

No one disputes all of the elect will come to Jesus but you are over extending the scriptures to presume that being drawn equates 'will come' because scripture is specific in that it never states it this way.
The whole point of Jesus teaching was that God draws but you must receive/believe/eat and that only these are those God gave Him. The emphasis here is not and can not be construed here to be the drawing of God equating to salvation but the believing is. However Jesus makes His point clear that man can't just come on his own nor under his own power, the Father must draw him that he 'can' come.

And the one that comes...responsibility. Here again, as I stated before, is this tension between the absolute sovereignty of God over the salvation of souls and man's responsibility and choice in coming.

Seriously, there is no tension in scripture over this. Resposibility is depenant upon ability, where there is no ability there is no responsibility. Just as it is in the converse with God as well - one can not be able and not held resposible. If one is true then the other must be true. However if one is true and the other is seen to not be true, then you have a lie in one of them. One can not be true and the other a not since each gives the other it's meaning.

This is not about you or me making a choice for Jesus. This is about God the Father giving the Son a people and God the Son doing the will of the Father.

Actaully it is about both.

We cannot say with integrity to the Scripture that those who come to Jesus may choose not believe in Jesus and be saved.

Actually it is because of the intregrity of the scriptures that we 'can' say those not all those who are drawn will come. Refer back to my previous post for some scirptures, and I also will be glad to give you more.

1. The Father elects a people.
2. The Son Redeems that people.
3. Those people are assuredly saved.

3. Those people are assuredly saved 'if' they believe.

The Arminian/non-cal view (as I understand it) would have it say "You are not my sheep because you do not believe."

Now you are leaving your own OP to argue something else. Let us keep it here for now.

It could be said with fideltiy to the Scripture that people do not believe and come to Jesus because they are not God's elect.

On this point both Arminians and Non-Cals rejoice with you in the fact.

 

[Allan]

I needed to correct some aspects of my answer in post # 52 in my third contention (approx 'my' 4th paragraph).
Here it is corrected:

It is no different me stating no man [can] come eat my wife's dinner unless I allow him. The fact I allow them to come does not necessitate they will come and partake/eat. (well truthfully once you had my wifes cooking you will but that is another story). However it does declare that one will [not] come unless I first allow them. What this proves is not Irresistable Grace but in reality proves His Grace and even more so toward Prevenient grace.

I realize post 53 is somewhat out of sorts, so if you are having trouble understanding it just let me know what part and I will clarify. I was at work and actaully was fairly busy so I was trying to put down my thoughts quickly before I logged out.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Allan,

I am not going to reply to everything. I indeed can be brief. lol

The definitions of 'ability' and 'responsibility' establish that one can not exist apart from the other. To presume such either shows a person must change the very meanings established for a perceived notion/idea, OR that they are confused about what those words actually mean. I purposefully set you in the later category because I do believe you are honest in your belief but incorrect in your understanding of the meanings and operations of each within the process of the other.

The way you put it here about your disagreement with me is much more agreeable than the way you put it before. Thanks for that.

You are making an axiom out of ability and responsability that the Scripture does not make. If the Scripture teaches contary to Webster, then I am going with Scripture...wouldn't you? Otherwise, I think we are "leaning on our own understanding"

However what is strange is that you concede that it is unjust to hold a person responsible for what they are unable to do/not do, and that this is reasonable.

Actually, I think you may have misunderstood me. I was merely giving a nod that I understand and see how your thinking is reasonable. I am not conceding justice in the matter. God's word and His ways are just. Even our most reasoned reasoning is unjust and corrupt in His sight.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Nothing in the above shows that being drawn equates to one who is saved. It purely suppositional. What the above illistrates specifically is that those who 'come' are saved. Note the specificness of what is actaully said. Everyone who sees AND believes will have everlasting life.
I agree that without question that our salvation is impossible without God's drawing/calling, however as I have already noted in my previous post with scripture God's calling can be rejected.

I am taking a few verses to make a point, but keeping all of them in mind. My understanding from John 6 as a whole is that those given to Jesus by the Father, election, shall come, effectual calling/irresitable grace, and will not be lost, but raised up at the last day.

No one is denying seeing and believing. The same one whom the Father elects and draws, are the same ones who come to Jesus, seeing and believing.

Show in Scripture where the Father elects, Jesus redeems, the Holy Spirit draws, and such a person is not saved because they reject it. It doesn't exist. It is essentially look at Jesus who said "I have come to do the Father's will" and states what it is, to redeem all those given to Him by the Father, and then to say...yeah, but they can reject it.

That is inconcieveable to me. No one can resist God.

Actually, no we did not discuss it. You gave your view, I stated mine and you ignored what I said and is why I am having to restate it again.

I told you I wasn't going to reply to everything you write. If I said we, without looking back, it may be that I discussed in my replies.

Uh.. not even close. Those whom the Father gave to Jesus will come NOT those whom the Father draws will come. This statement merely reflects the fact that God knows all that will/are to come. However once again if you keep with the scripture you can only conclude those who come He will raise up, NOT those who are drawn I will raise up.

Here are your suppositions. Taking the text alone...there is nothing in the text that tells us that those given to Jesus by the Father are not drawn, and that those drawn are not saved. In fact, it says the opposite and equates them all. Perhaps you can enlighten us to what you think it means when Jesus said those given in elect by the Father to the Son, and the Father drawing them, and the Son not losing one of them, but raising them up at the last day...means....lol

Now, read the text again. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

1. No man can (Total Inability) come to Jesus.
2. Except the Father DRAW HIM.
3. That person, coming to Jesus, is the same that was drawn of the Father, WILL be raised up at the last day.

You are saying the opposite of Jesus.

Resposibility is depenant upon ability

That is your pre-supposition.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Therefore, God can not (because of His nature) and will not (because of His character) judge/condemn a person responsible for something they are not able to do. That is pointedly biblically in every respect

There is nothing "biblical" about this statement. What it is, is a reasoned statement based on one's own understanding of the nature and character of God. The Arminian/Non-cal viewpoint, in my opinion, does not rest on Scripture alone, but on man's own reasoning of these issues.

 

[Allan]

You are making an axiom out of ability and responsability that the Scripture does not make. If the Scripture teaches contary to Webster, then I am going with Scripture...wouldn't you? Otherwise, I think we are "leaning on our own understanding"

But that is the point, it doesn't teach anything to the contrary but in fact establishes the point.

What it doesn't conform to is your theology not scripture.
The scripture establish responsibility and ability and that neither is without the other. To say that one is responsible but not able is to not only completely redefine the terms but to speak expressly against the scriptures.
Deut 30:19-20, Prov 1:23-33, Rom 1:18-32, etc, etc, etc...

Pauls pleading to 'not harden your hearts when you hear God'. and many, many, many more, like Jesus statement that if you were blind you would have no sins, but since you see your sins remain.

God's word and His ways are just. Even our most reasoned reasoning is unjust and corrupt in His sight.

You are correct, and thus what is known are right even to the depraved is greater righteousness and justice from and by the one who has no sin. IOW- God's righteousnesss is not opposite of what is understood and just and right but greater and more perfect especially since both justice and righteousness stem from God Himself.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

But that is the point, it doesn't teach anything to the contrary but in fact establishes the point.

I don't see that in the text Allen. I dont' see God making the axiom you have. I see God juxtaposition His Sovereignty over the salvation of souls with the reposnibility of manking to repent and obey the Gospel despite their inability.

Doesn't the Scripture teach us that God gave the Law of Moses and none were able to keep it? Does it not show us in the greater light of the New Testament that it was added because of transgressions?

So, if God knowing that His Law could not or would not be obeyed (He knew both) how is it that He held men responsible to it?

 

[Winman]

ReformedBaptist, I disagree with you. The scriptures clearly teach that God is just.

Gen 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Job 34:10 Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.
11 For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.
12 Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.

Now, we are all sinners, we are all wicked. All men are equal in this respect. Only by believeing in Christ can Christ's righteousness be imputed to any man. If God elects certain men to believe, and leaves others in unbelief, then God is showing partiality. This violates God's own words that he is no respecter of persons.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Deut 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Deut 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

Job 34:19 How much less to him that accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor? for they all are the work of his hands.

Job 34 speaks of the judgement of God and several times says he is no respecter of person, he does not favor or regard any man more than another. And throughout the scriptures demands that men judge justly and not respect or favor one man over another.

And God tells why he shows wrath to some men in Job 34.

Job 34:27 Because they turned back from him, and would not consider any of his ways:

God clearly makes a man responsible for his own destruction. They turn away from him and will not consider any of his ways.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Winman,

ReformedBaptist, I disagree with you. The scriptures clearly teach that God is just.

Duh. Nice strawman. lol Of course God is just.

God clearly makes a man responsible for his own destruction. They turn away from him and will not consider any of his ways.

As if I denied man's responsibility. So, another strawman. I never made an argument that man wasn't responsible.

Try again...:laugh: