-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who would be examples In bible Of Those Shown Able To "resist" Grace/Calling Of God?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Every time someone hears the gospel preached and does not believe is an example. The stoning of Stephen comes to mind first. They heard the gospel and rejected it. Stephen even said to them, "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!" (Acts 7:51)
We also see this with Paul in passages like:
Acts 28:22 But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect." 23 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. 24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe.
2 Thess 2:10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Rom. 10:21: But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."
And Jesus said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." (Matt. 23:37)
The list could go on and on...
hardened their hearts, wanting to remain in darkness, were used by God to fulfill His plans, used because of their very heart of darkness, resisting GOd due TO their very nature still enemy to God, just looking for a person who was actually granted Gospel to believe and refused it?
Your argument is based on assumption. Just because some reject Christ does not prove they could not have done differently and accepted Christ. This is a false form of argument.
In fact, Paul himself resisted the Lord for quite a time. What did Jesus say to Paul? I AM JESUS WHOM THOU PERSECUTEST: IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. A prick was a sharp object used to direct cattle by prodding it. God was exercising great influence upon Paul, but Paul was stubbornly resisting.
Cain could have done well, God himself said so unless you believe God a liar. And God said he would be accepted if he did well and offered a proper sacrifice. The fact that he refused does not prove he couldn't have done well, God said he could.
The young rich ruler was eager to know how to have eternal life, he ran to Jesus, and called him Good Master, hardly a rebellious attitude. It was only when Jesus told him to sell his goods and give to the poor that he resisted and went away very sorrowful. Why would he go away sorrowful if he hated God?
Jonah resisted God, but later repented and obeyed God. So, just because a person resists God does not mean he could not do otherwise. In fact, MANY Christians have testified that they were convicted by the word of God or preaching, knowing they were sinners, but resisted God, sometimes for years before they finally accepted Christ.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cain
He was called by God to answer for his brother's death and Cain answered with sarcasm rather than repentance.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I'm sorry, but this is not a complete sentence and thus difficult to understand. Can you rephrase?
I don't know what an arminian believes, but I do know that I am not a Calvinist. I don't call myself an arminian because I don't have a clue about them.
But...
An example of Cain has already been given. After God rejected Cain's offering, God came to Cain and asked him what was wrong. God TOLD Cain to be very careful and God TOLD Cain how to avoid the entrapment of the devil. He TOLD Cain how to be accepted by Him. He TOLD Cain how powerful sin was and that Cain should heed His words. Obviously, God did not desire that Cain kill his brother nor sin nor reject His personal call to be accepted.
Mattthew 19 "Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
But...
An example of Cain has already been given. After God rejected Cain's offering, God came to Cain and asked him what was wrong. God TOLD Cain to be very careful and God TOLD Cain how to avoid the entrapment of the devil. He TOLD Cain how to be accepted by Him. He TOLD Cain how powerful sin was and that Cain should heed His words. Obviously, God did not desire that Cain kill his brother nor sin nor reject His personal call to be accepted.
Genesis 4 "Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
The rich young ruler rejected Jesus words on how to have eternal life. Jesus TOLD him that keeping the relational laws with others wasn't enough. Commandments 5-10 are meaningless with first obeying 1-4. Jesus TOLD him to sell his possession and to follow Him. The rich young ruler could not do it.
Mattthew 19 "Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Those were the two examples that immediately came to my mind when I read the OP.
There was also Felix and Aggripa. :type:
basically trying to say that most of those people listed were rejecting God because of their harderned hearts, were walking in darkness, not willing or able to come to the light and get saved...
Arms say we can come to the light and be saved by placing our faith in christ
Cals say that before we even want to come to the light, have to get the 'will" so to speak to get there!
Actually, Arminians believe in enablement as well.
The difference is that Calvinists (generally) believe in regeneration prior to faith, as they understand that a person must be born again in order to believe.
Arminians tend to believe in "prevenient grace" (i.e. a grace that "goes before") that enables individuals to respond to the gospel.
Therefore, for Arminians, the light comes to you (you are enabled to respond), and you, by grace, are able to choose to trust in God or not at that point.
For Calvinists, you are regenerated and enabled to believe at that point. There is no "option," as grace is irresistible. All who are regenerated are then inevitably believe through God's drawing grace.
Last edited by a moderator:
A verse that came to mind is Luke 10:13
"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes." (NIV)
In this case it seems that the distinguishing factor is one's response to miracles. Tyre and Sidon would have repented while Korazin and Bethsaida did not. This emphasizes human response to miracles.
"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes." (NIV)
In this case it seems that the distinguishing factor is one's response to miracles. Tyre and Sidon would have repented while Korazin and Bethsaida did not. This emphasizes human response to miracles.
I would say that even in Calvinistic theology, God can be resisted. People resist God every day. I believe it was stated that people resist every time the gospel is presented and they reject. I know people that are saved today that resisted for years.
Calvinism makes a convienent and bullet proof argument, if the were saved, they were "called by God" (code for irresistible grace) but if they did not respond such that God saved them, God never really "called them out."
On the other hand, Matthew 23:13 teaches men can be entering heaven, and thus had responded appropriately to the gospel, but were turned aside by false teachers. Thus the doctrine of "irresistible grace" is easily demonstrated false, but as we have seen many times, facts do not matter to those emotionally invested in defending their beliefs.
The bottom line is that if God allows people to respond autonomously, and does not predestine and ordain the decision, then people can fail to choose life. But, if as Calvinism teaches, our decisions have been predestined by God, then no one can resist unless predestined to resist, i.e imbued with total spiritual inability, and the others are compelled to come to faith willingly.
On the other hand, Matthew 23:13 teaches men can be entering heaven, and thus had responded appropriately to the gospel, but were turned aside by false teachers. Thus the doctrine of "irresistible grace" is easily demonstrated false, but as we have seen many times, facts do not matter to those emotionally invested in defending their beliefs.
The bottom line is that if God allows people to respond autonomously, and does not predestine and ordain the decision, then people can fail to choose life. But, if as Calvinism teaches, our decisions have been predestined by God, then no one can resist unless predestined to resist, i.e imbued with total spiritual inability, and the others are compelled to come to faith willingly.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
But, in Calvinistic theology they don't resist the effectual means which is what is believed to be what brings understanding, change of mind and acceptance of the gospel, thus leaving us wondering what purpose other means (such as signs, persuasion, envy etc) serve.
True. So, the question is still did they resist God or just his non-effectual means? If the latter, then why even employee those means and further, why say they are "of God" when in comparison to the "effectual call" they have no real power or purpose.
Quite a few actually but I show some examples.
Specifically we have in Proverbs 1 showing God calling the people and many rejecting that calling.
The apostle Paul even parallels back to this (Prov 1:24) from Romans 10:8-(21):
Note that Paul takes us back to Proverbs 1 here regarding God calling, but people refusing/rejecting His call.
Other passages where God is doing the revealing such as Rom 1:18-32 reflect again this same point. Not that man came to this understanding but that God Himself reveals (even in nature/ or in chapter 2 the conscience) certain spiritual truths by which He is calling me to repentance, but it is rejected.
Or another whereby we KNOW without question those who would be partakers with and of the Anti-Christ (those who without question are damned) are also said to have rejected the gospel that could save THEM. How can it save those for whom Christ had never died. This is seen in 2 Thes 2:10-12
And of course the parable of the Wedding Feast.. and others as well.
it is consistent with scripture that God calls all men in various ways to various extents of the truth. The only truth that will save a man however is the gospel, and if they have been given only the natural realm for 'light', if they believe what God has revealed, He will, without doubt, send forth His messengers to bring the fullness of the light to them that they might be saved. Yet the simple fact remains.. God calls and man choose to 'believe or reject' what God has shown him.
Last edited by a moderator:
is it then that God makes His election/effectual call out to the sinner to become a saint, but that the person may reject for awhile, but will eventually get saved?
or is it that there is a "general" aspect to it, as Gospel has power to save, but ONLY when the Holy Spirit actually energizes the sinner to be able to receive message place faith in Christ and become saved?
So can hear the message for years, but when God gives the Specific call at that specific moment one gets saved?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I reject this view because the bible teaches that God's word is powerful and effective and does not return void. It always accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent. Is the gospel the "word of God" or not? If so, then we must acknowledge that it ALWAYS accomplishes its intended purpose.
The question is, "What is the gospel's intended purpose?" I think Paul answers that question for us:
"The gospel is the power of God unto Salvation..."
and
"God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself...making an appeal, 'be reconciled to God.'"
So, the purpose of the gospel is not to save effectually, otherwise everyone who heard it would get saved. The purpose is to make an appeal and if it doesn't succeed sometimes at making that appeal because sometimes the words aren't "energized" and other times they are then you have contradicted the truth that God's word NEVER returns void. Make sense?
IF it is the Will of God that "all" are to repent and be saved, IF Gospel has that effectual power in it...
Either God is NOT willing that ALL believe and receive Jesus OR
As jesus Died for all God loves all equally, so ANY lost God either loves differently or elsee not all powerful OR
Gospel/Bible DOES have power in it to save BUT only those who have been granted "ears to hear" by God can really understand believe and receive Jesus...
Skan, on the one hand you say the Gospel's purpose is to save (per Rom. 1:16), but on the other hand you say the Gospel's purpose is to just make an appeal. Which is it? You also quote the II Cor. 5 passage, but that passage doesn't say Christ is making an appeal to reconcile the world to himself - it just says Christ is reconciling. Granted, Paul goes on to say that we are the ambassadors of that reconciliation - i.e., we are the means God is using to bring about His reconciling work.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
The gospel's purpose is not to save effectually, its to save through the means of making an appeal to man to be reconciled. So, the purpose is to save through the means God has established: faith and repentance.
So? What's your point? He is making the appeal through us...how does that change my point?