Just all the more evidence towards what I said. Remember, the argument was that a non elect person was blessed because of their faith. Hebrews 11 is called the Hall of Faith, not Hall of Elect.
The "non-elect" in either system, the FW camp and/or Sovereign Grace camp, are ones who will not get saved. Now, granted, both camps arrive at their conclusions differently of how the "elect" are saved, but both sides do advocate the "elect" and "non-elect", and the "non-elect", not one of them will be saved.
If the OT were not strict Jewish lineage, then you can't call them elect. You can't read Calvinist theology into something the Bible does't say. The "grafting" did not occur until Israel completely rejected Christ. When Paul was referring the Israel elect, he said "My kinsmen, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH". Romans 9:3. So yes, all the Israeli elect was based on their lineage. But even though they were elect, they still rejected Christ which itself does not bode well with Calvinist theology.
The "elect" are those who God has chosen. I, being in the FW camp, arrive at this conclusion differently than my Sovereign Grace Brethern. Again, you can not argue that a Moab named Ruth was amongst the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11. So was Rahab the harlot. The "elect" in the OT were both Jews and Gentiles, and the bible supports it.
Unfortunately, one of the most misused "proof texts" in the Calvinist system. But I can see how one could make this assumption if you isolate the verse by itself and read it as such.
First, the term "draw" does not mean He draws ONLY elect. John 12:32 says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me". Plus, you need to see the other uses of "draw" in the scripture to help put this fact in contrast:
I agree that the drawing far exceeds the "elect:, but only those who heed to the call/draw will be saved, and therefore, they constitute the "elect".
"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." Hebrews 10:38
Thus "draw" does not mean that God draws a person merely because they are elect, and then imposes repentance and faith on them because a person can DRAW BACK.
Well, repentance and faith are God's gift to man, but unfortunately, most don't exercise their God-given gift(this is where my Sovereign Grace Brethern disagree with me, btw).
That being established, the drawing is based on conditions in John 6 when you read the text surrounding John 6:44:
" I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not." v35-36. "All the that the Father giveth to me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I shall in no wise cast out" vs 37
Now notice that JUDAS was one of the ones that the Father gave to Jesus. John 17:12, and Judas was lost. Thus it is not simply "all the Father giveth" but "he that cometh".
Can't say I disagree with this.
"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me" v. 45.
"If ANY MAN eat of this bread, he shall live for ever" v. 51
But:
"Ye WILL NOT come that ye might have life" John 5:40.
God will draw all, but only those who are obedient to the call will be saved. They are the "elect". Those who willingly reject the call, constitute the "non-elect".
Yes but she clearly sought Christ. In Calvinism, only the "elect" are drawn. This woman was not elect, and therefore there is no reason to read into the text that she MUST HAVE been drawn simply because Calvinist presupposition demands it. Calvinism ASSUMES that she "must have" been given faith, and that is clearly the opposite in this text, because Jesus said "as THOU WILT".
Again, she saw His miracles, and that He was able to heal her daughter. What made her different than the others around her who chided with Jesus? God had revealed this to her, and she saw Jesus for who He really was.
This is why Calvinists and Non Calvinists fight over this issue because you assume that by free will choice in coming to Christ, that such implies justifying yourself. Only God justifieth. Faith is NOT a work (Romans 11:6 is clear on this). No man is saved apart from Christ, but faith is what God required in order to bring the Holy Spirit's enlightenment and conviction. A person could knock on the arc, but the door still would have had to been opened for the person to be saved, yet those people blew their chance because they were warned. We we seek and knock, it is still GOD THAT SAVES. Coming to Christ of your own volition has absolutely nothing to do with you "saving yourself". It is still the shed blood of Christ and His resurrection that paid for sin.
No one has a desire to come of their own volition. None have a desire to seek God w/o first being drawn. We love ourselves too much to put God first. It is when God acts upon the heart, the mind, the eyes, that our desires are changed by Him.
What the Calvinist has done is assumed that the coming itself is part of salvation which demeans the gospel because it is not the process by which a man comes to Christ, but CHRIST HIMSELF that is salvation. The process is a means, but the process itself is not salvation and Calvinism has elevated the process above that which the Bible does not support. The coming to Christ is man's free will, the saving of that man is ALL CHRIST.
Again, no one will come to Christ unless first drawn by the Father.
NOWHERE in the Bible is faith said to be a gift. That is Calvinist presupposition. You can't take a concordance and find one single reference in the Bible where faith is a gift. Only a misinterpretation of ONE passage leads to this error in Eph 2:8 where the gift is SALVATION, not faith. Gifts are used to produce fruit, works. If faith is a gift, then you are calling faith a work, and if you claim to be saved THROUGH FAITH which is clear in Ephesias 2:8, then you are saying also that you are saved THROUGH WORKS if faith is a work.
God has dealt the measure of faith to man(Romans 12:3). God is the Author and Finisher of our faith(Hebrews 12:2). There is a spirit in man that God gives understanding to(Job 32:8).
You were right on target there until after John 5:25. In Acts 10, Cornelius WANTED to come to God, and God said that his alms came up as a remembrance before God, and he had Peter sent to him. The Holy Spirit did not come upon Cornelius until AFTER he believed.
Many Calvinists rely on John 1:13 as a proof text and skip John 1:12, "as many as received him gave he the power to become the sons of God". Notice the RECEIVING came before the POWER.
I am not convinced Cornelius wasn't saved. I don't believe that God would send an angel to speak to someone who was lost. At the time of Acts, there was a transition period, where they were coming out of Judaism into christianity. In Acts 19, you can ever read where some had be baptized unto John's baptism, but hadn't even heard if they was a Holy Ghost. Then Apostle Paul laid his hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost. Simon could have been one of those who had been baptized with John's baptism, and God sent word by an angel to send for Peter. I am not sure this was the case, but it is just a thought. But God wouldn't send an angel to a lost man, imo.
Having free will and then saying that free will was given to you is an oxymoron and what's called a Hobson's Choice. That's not free will at all. That's duress. God created man with an innate ability to choose good or evil. There is a huge difference in God permitting man to choose because that's how He created them, and then forcing their choices. A man can not be both bound to his will and then free to choose at the same time. The Bible never says you are bound simply because you are unregenerate, that is a misreading of Eph 2:2, it says you are bound by what you OBEY
"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16
Until Christ call's, none of us has a choice. We have no innate ability/desire to come to God in our fallen state. We loved darkness, and enjoyed wallowing in it. It is only after God confronted us with our position, and just how lost, ruined, vile, self-loving, haughty, prideful, we really are, and that w/o Him, we're gonna die forever lost, that we can turn to Him.
You can either obey by obeying the natural sin nature that you are in, and obey unto death, or you can obey the gospel, and live. Romans 6:17, 2 Thess 1:8-9, Hebrews 11:8, Romans 10:16, 1 Peter 1:22, Galations 3:1.
I agree with this right here. But to say an "non-elect" can, and will, be saved, is foreign to both camps. It's akin to saying one of the "elect" will die lost. This too, would be foerign to both camps.
If you have to explain your joke, you're still a rookie.