Featured No Man Can Come Unto Me, Except [John 6:65]

No. its because few chose Christ.

From the scriptures....

 

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!


This verse confused me for a long time, until I learned to rightly divide the word.
This verse is mistakenly used to refer to every person in the world, but Jesus is speaking to the Jews of His day ONLY.

He came to His "own" (the Jews), but they rejected Him as their Messiah even though they had ample opportunity and teaching to recognize Him. During Jesus' ministry on earth, He spoke TO the Jews, but only spoke ABOUT the Gentiles.
The Jews of His day (as He taught repeatedly) had direct revelation from God concerning His Son and the kingdom He offered. God spoke directly to Noah, Abraham, Moses, then He spoke through the prophets. His oracles were recorded in scripture for future generations. Jesus speaks many times and in parables about God sending prophets to Israel and yet they repeatedly rejected God's word and rebelled to follow false gods. Jesus is speaking as God when He recalls how often He wanted to gather them as chicks, but they rebelled against Him (they "would not"). He is speaking about a people He called out for Himself and was in covenant with.
So it is twisting His words to make them mean that He is talking about all mankind or making it a salvation verse.

 

Correct, which ironically is the same mistake Calvinists make about most of the passages they use as proof texts for their views. :thumbsup:

 

We ALL do it Skan, whether Cal, non Cal, or low Cal :laugh:.

When we try to make a verse "fit" our theology and it just won't, then we need to back up and admit maaaaaybe we've been looking at it wrong. This is true for all Christians regardless of our "system" of theology.

 

On that point, we agree.

 

Amy G...

Thats what you say. Others disagree, with scriptural support.

But iregardless, its irelavent regarding the point, that being that it proves that man has free will.

 

Then please offer your scriptural support.

 

If they are not part of the covenant they are not saved so yes it includes salvation. They rejected the covenant/salvation that the Lord elected them to which shows free will and election.

 

This should suffice....

Man Possesses Free Will

There are myriad Bible passages that present the reception of God's blessing or cursing as contingent upon human choice. This is epitomized in Deuteronomy 11:26-28, which says: "Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today; and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known." When Joshua challenged the people to "choose you this day whom you will serve,"5 he was addressing individuals who were free to make a moral decision. This is no place made clearer than in Matthew 23:37, where Jesus cried: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" The Bible teaches conclusively and emphatically that man has free will.

God's Will Can Be Rejected

As the passages cited above teach, not only does man possess free will, but he can actually exercise this free will in a way that defies God's will. In other words, although God is Sovereign Ruler, He does not always get everything He wants. To the Calvinists, such a statement is totally unthinkable and completely contrary to their concept of God's sovereignty. Even so, in Isaiah 65:12, God said, "Therefore I will number you for the sword, and you shall all bow down to the slaughter; because, when I called, you did not answer; when I spoke, you did not hear, but did evil before My eyes, and chose that in which I do not delight." Again, in 2 Peter 3:9, it is plainly stated that God is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." If, as the Calvinists claim, God decrees everything that happens, and if, as the apostle Peter claims, God is not willing that any should perish, then all mankind will ultimately be saved. But even Calvinists reject the idea of Universalism. What, then, is their solution? Simply this: They must come to understand that Calvinism is not just anti-scriptural, which is certainly bad enough, but is anti-God as well. Calvin's god (with a little 'g') is not the God (with a big 'G') who has revealed Himself in the Bible. Calvin's god, apart from anything the creature may or may not do, predestines some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation. However, the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible actually pleads with His creatures to obey His preceptive will so they can be saved. This God, as opposed to Calvin's god, "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."6

Why Does God Permit Men To Reject His Will?

When men begin to say that God can force a man to freely do His will, they are talking meaningless nonsense. Citing a passage that says, "with God all things are possible,"7 does not provide these folks any help. The "all things" that are possible with God are actually qualified by other scriptures and the law of non-contradiction. For example, the Bible says God cannot lie!8 Therefore, it is not possible for God to lie. This means that the "all things" that are possible with God must be those things consistent with His divine nature. Further, God cannot make 2 + 2 = 5. He cannot make it to be raining and not raining in the same place at the same time. He cannot give a hydrogen atom and a helium atom the same atomic structure. Finally, even God could not make man free and not free at the same time in the same way. In order for man to be free, God had to give him the opportunity to rebel.

But there is much more to this story. In Psalm 32:1, David says, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered." In verse 5, he continues: "I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, 'I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,' and You forgave the iniquity of my sin." In verses 8-9, the Lord replies: "I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will guide you with My eye. Do not be like the horse or like the mule, which have no understanding, which must be harnessed with bit and bridle, else they will not come near you."

Why did God allow David to sin? Why did He not simply stop David from sinning in the first place? The answer seems obvious: God did not want his servants to serve Him because they are forced to do so. He wants those who will serve Him to do so freely, willingly accepting His instructions and counsel. He wants a relationship with His creatures based on mutual affection and love, and not because of some kind of force. The Almighty God, if He so desired, certainly had the power to bridle His creatures, forcefully manipulating their minds and hearts and turning them into robots (or mules), so that they are forced to do His will. But if He did this, He would not be able to achieve His purpose of developing free relationships, like the one He desired with David, with His creatures. He wants all men to repent and enter a free love-relationship with Himself. If He forced them to do this, as Calvinists allege, their allegiance could not be freely given, that is, they would no longer be men but mules. God, who made man in His own image, wants him to be conformed to the image of His Son.9 Unless man is a free moral agent, this simply cannot be done!

What Man's Freedom Cost God

Man's free moral agency is a unique gift from God Almighty. Without it, we could not be what and who we are. No other earthly creature has been given this special freedom. Furthermore, it should almost go without saying that only God could have made a creature with free moral agency. Therefore, man's free will is a constant reminder of God's omnipotence. But for many, and this includes Calvinists, the opposite is true. As the secular philosopher J. L. Mackie says, "There is a fundamental difficulty in the notion of an omnipotent God creating men with free will, for if men's wills are really free this must mean that even God cannot control them, that is, that God is no longer omnipotent."10 In his book, The Inexhaustible God, Royce Gruenler says that man's free will, which necessitates a future that is open and indefinite, is "logically incompatible with the doctrine of a sovereign God."11 In other words, Calvinists believe that if man has free will, then God is actually impotent. The fallacy in all this will be more completely exposed in the section to follow on foreknowledge. At this point, suffice it to say that it is God's foreknowledge which permits Him to maintain complete control of His world in spite of man's free will, because foreknowledge gives God the option of either permitting or preventing man's planned, free will choices, and as we pointed out in our previous discussion on God's permissive will, prevention is really the ultimate in control.

Therefore, man's free will does not render God impotent. Nevertheless, it does, in fact, limit Him. But if God is really limited, then how can He continue to be omnipotent? Are not these two concepts mutually exclusive? Only in the mind of the determinists! As we have already pointed out, the "all things" that are possible with God are qualified by both Scripture and the law of non-contradiction. God can do all things consistent with His nature and that are not, in and of themselves, illogical. Therefore, if God, of His own free will, chooses to create creatures with free moral agency, and in order to do so, He must limit Himself, such self-limitations are not a denigration of His omnipotence, as the determinists think, but are, instead, a powerful demonstration of it, which is exactly the point I made at the beginning of this subsection.

In order to insure man's autonomy, God, of His own free will, was willing to pay a tremendous price. Although He did not have to do so, the Almighty God was willing to limit Himself in relation to His creation. This gives us some idea of just how important man is to God. Furthermore, and this ought to humble us greatly, the final measure of God's concern for man is to be found in the sacrifice of His only begotten Son. Praise God, the Sovereign Ruler, for His willingness to give us our freedom, even though it ultimately cost Him the sacrifice of His only begotten Son. "Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!"12

 

Old regular...

Falsehood. In truth, some will and some wont.

Absolutly false. As false as anything can be.

From the garden of eden all the way up to this very minute, men and women have a had a freewill choice to make regarding good and evil, and at the apointed times in their lives...eternal life or the loss of that blessed state.

Thats just the way it is.

 

man still has a 'free Will", but that will has been tainted and corrupted by becoming a sin nature, so people are restained to what they can actually now will themselves to do!

And coming to jesus is just not in their very nature!

 

Do you deny original Sin?

that man is a sinner, and His very nature is to fight against ways of God?

 

Actual truth no man in his natural state will come to Christ.

John 6:65 ..."no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him..."

I Corinthians 2:14 "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised"

So Old regular is correct to say that a natural man will always reject.

 

Voluntary....free will offerings...were not commanded by law.That is what that means. It is not discussing the nature of mans will.....stop being so desperate.

 

You Calvinists are totally unbelievable! You will deny direct scripture that clearly says any man of Israel could of his own voluntary will give an offering to God, and God himself said this offering would be accepted to make atonement for that man. This was an act of worship, repentance, and faith.

You guys will go to any lengths to hold to your false doctrine, even to deny scripture.

 

Incorrect. Man of his own will without the work of God dealing with him through the Spirit will not come to God. However once he is enlightened (hebrews 4) they now are able to make a free will choice to accept or reject. (free will) and election both working as scripture teaches.

 

wonder if the Apostle peter in 1 peter 2:25 agrees with icon or you?

 

You are misusing scripture. That passage in 1 Cor is saying any man who is lost (natural man) cannot accept or understand the things of God as those things are spiritually appraised. A person without the Spirit cannot know how to live for God is the issue in that passage. He is questioning their salvation by making them look at themselves and how they see or look to towards God's word. He is saying do you see the things of God (*living holy) as foolishness, a waste of time, not necessary, imposable to do and so on.? If so you are a natural man and lost.That is what that passage is about.
A lost person needs to be enlightened (Hebrews 6) and then they can make a free will choice.