A question for the Calvinists

[Winman]

Winman I don't think its a mistake either. From what I understand about Calvinism no man will seek God without first being regenerated. Hearing the gospel is irrelevant to this factor. A totally depraved ungenerated sinner that is "elected" for salvation could be sitting at home drinking beer, watching whatever on TV and suddenly "bam" the Holy spirit regenerates him and he starts to wonder about God and begins to be convicted of his sins and starts thinking God is real...etc This is the impression I get from those whom are Calvinist on this board.

Perhaps someone could bring some clarification to whether or not the gospel has a function as far as regeneration preceding salvation is concerned. And this is the logical conclusion if God regenerates a man to believe as the Calvinists claim.

Darren

Yes Darren, that is exactly the impression I get from Calvinists too. And pinoybaptist says this is indeed what happens. According to him the gospel is not necessary. And this would be the logical conclusion if this were true.

And I have seen some wavering on this among the Calvinists, but some say this initial regeneration is being born again (becoming a son of God), while others seem to argue it simply makes the regenerated able to believe the gospel and then after believeing they become the son of God.

But as I have shown many times with Eph 1:13, the Bible says you must first hear the gospel (so it is necessary - Rom 1:16), then you believe (faith comes by hearing the word of God - Rom 10:17), and then receive the Holy Spirit.

And pinoybaptist, the scriptures say the word went out to all the world.

Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

 

[Hardsheller]

Yes Darren, that is exactly the impression I get from Calvinists too. And pinoybaptist says this is indeed what happens. According to him the gospel is not necessary. And this would be the logical conclusion if this were true.

And I have seen some wavering on this among the Calvinists, but some say this initial regeneration is being born again (becoming a son of God), while others seem to argue it simply makes the regenerated able to believe the gospel and then after believeing they become the son of God.

But as I have shown many times with Eph 1:13, the Bible says you must first hear the gospel (so it is necessary - Rom 1:16), then you believe (faith comes by hearing the word of God - Rom 10:17), and then receive the Holy Spirit.

And pinoybaptist, the scriptures say the word went out to all the world.

Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Is the Gospel a Person or is the Gospel simply a Message about a Person?

Does Jesus Come to the Sinner as the Gospel or in the Gospel or after the Gospel?

Is Jesus the Word or not? If I "hear" Jesus, the Word, have I not heard the Gospel?

 

[Winman]

Archangel said

YES!!!! The Gospel has a function as far as regeneration! That's what we've been saying all along--it is not that God regenerates the beer-drinking, football-watching man with the football game he is watching or the beer he is drinking. God regenerates with the Gospel, for it is the Gospel that tells the unregenerate man of his condition and his need for a Savior.

Well hey, you are coming around now. Now you admit God regenerates with the gospel. And now you are correct. The Bible says faith comes by hearing the word of God, so yes, when a man hears the gospel faith is created in the heart and a man believes and then receives the Spirit.

Now you just need to realize that a man hears and believes when he is in a state of spiritual death. It is after believeing that we receive the Spirit (Eph 1:13)

1 Pet 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

 

[Winman]

Is the Gospel a Person or is the Gospel simply a Message about a Person?

Does Jesus Come to the Sinner as the Gospel or in the Gospel or after the Gospel?

Is Jesus the Word or not? If I "hear" Jesus, the Word, have I not heard the Gospel?

Those are tough questions. I believe the gospel was preached throughout the scriptures beginning with the promise to Adam and Eve that her seed would bruise the head of the serpent's seed.

Jesus is the gospel, Jesus is the Word of God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So, I can't understand this, it is past man's comprehension, but the scriptures say Jesus is the Word of God.

And it is clear the gospel was preached in the Old Testament, the scriptures say so.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

So, I personally believe that the whole Bible is the gospel. The whole Bible really is about one person, Jesus Christ.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Jesus comes to us as the gospel and in the gospel. But Jesus does not enter us until we give him permission.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

You can hear the gospel and not be saved. You must open the door of your heart and receive Jesus to be saved. He has promised that he will come in if you open the door. He does not force himself upon you as some here teach.

 

[Hardsheller]

Those are tough questions. I believe the gospel was preached throughout the scriptures beginning with the promise to Adam and Eve that her seed would bruise the head of the serpent's seed.

Jesus is the gospel, Jesus is the Word of God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So, I can't understand this, it is past man's comprehension, but the scriptures say Jesus is the Word of God.

And it is clear the gospel was preached in the Old Testament, the scriptures say so.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

So, I personally believe that the whole Bible is the gospel. The whole Bible really is about one person, Jesus Christ.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Jesus comes to us as the gospel and in the gospel. But Jesus does not enter us until we give him permission.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

You can hear the gospel and not be saved. You must open the door of your heart and receive Jesus to be saved. He has promised that he will come in if you open the door. He does not force himself upon you as some here teach.

Winman, you were doing great until you came to that "BUT" in the 3rd paragraph from the bottom.

"But Jesus does not enter us until we give him permission." Acts 16:14 says the Lord opened Lydia's heart.

Rev 3.20 - The context of this verse is key to understanding it. It's to the church.

"You can hear the gospel and not be saved" - I'm sure a person can hear words about Jesus but they are not "good news" to that person until he is saved.

c. Acts 16.14 again for who opens the heart.

"He does not force himself upon you as some here teach." - No Calvinist I know believes that Jesus forces himself upon a sinner.

Keep studying - you're almost there.

 

[Winman]

I would respectfully disagree with you. Because the scriptures say the Lord opened Lydia's heart does not mean he imposed upon her. On the contrary, what did Jesus tell his disciples went he sent them out to preach?

Matt 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Mark 6;11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.
Never did Jesus impose or force anyone to hear or believe. And as I showed in Rev 3:20, Jesus knocks at the door, he does not push it open. He is a gentleman. He does desire to come in, but a person must open the door of their own free will and receive him. If they do open the door and invite him in, Jesus has promised he will come in. If they refuse to open the door he will leave.

And I think you misinterpret Acts 16:14

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

This verse first mentions that Lydia "worshipped God". She was already a believer. It then says she heard or listened to Paul's teaching and her heart was opened. This means Paul's teaching caused her to understand the scriptures. This is very similar to what the apostles said when Jesus spoke to them after his resurrection.

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

The apostles were believers before this.

John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

This was also the case of the Ethiopian eunuch. He believed in God, but he did not understand the scriptures.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Perhaps it is you that needs to study, you can't pull a single word or phrase out of context to prove a pre-conceived idea.

 

[Hardsheller]

I would respectfully disagree with you. Because the scriptures say the Lord opened Lydia's heart does not mean he imposed upon her. On the contrary, what did Jesus tell his disciples went he sent them out to preach?

Matt 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Mark 6;11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.
Never did Jesus impose or force anyone to hear or believe. And as I showed in Rev 3:20, Jesus knocks at the door, he does not push it open. He is a gentleman. He does desire to come in, but a person must open the door of their own free will and receive him. If they do open the door and invite him in, Jesus has promised he will come in. If they refuse to open the door he will leave.

And I think you misinterpret Acts 16:14

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

This verse first mentions that Lydia "worshipped God". She was already a believer. It then says she heard or listened to Paul's teaching and her heart was opened. This means they caused her to understand the scriptures. This is very similar to what the apostles said when Jesus spoke to them after his resurrection.

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

The apostles were believers before this.

John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

This was also the case of the Ethiopian eunuch. He believed in God, but he did not understand the scriptures.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

I don't disagree with any of those scriptures. And I certainly don't believe God imposed upon Lydia. Calvinist do not believe God Forces Himself upon anyone.

We preach the Gospel to all men just like you preach the Gospel to all men. We just believe that God does the Saving of whom he chooses, when he chooses and how he chooses. And every person he saves agrees with him on the matter and none that he saves refuses Him.

 

[Winman]

I also believe that God does 100% of the saving. Let me explain. If it is God's will that a man choose to believe or refuse, then God's sovereignty is not violated. That is his plan, that is his method.

You Calvinist's cannot accept that man plays a part in his salvation, even when the scriptures clearly show that he does.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Now here you go. These persons asked Jesus a very direct and simple question. What do we have to do to do the works of God?

Well, if Calvinists are correct then Jesus should have told them that they do not have to do anything whatsoever, because God would do it all for them. But this is not what Jesus told them to do. He told them they have to believe.

And we see the exact same thing in Acts.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Again, we see here the Philipian jailer asked a very direct and simple question. What must I do to be saved?

Well, once again, if the Calvinists are correct, why didn't Paul tell him that he did not have to do anything whatsoever? If Calvinism is true Paul should have told the jailer to do nothing, and if he was fortunate enough to be one of the elect, God would give him faith and he would believe.

This is the problem with Calvinism. God calls men to be saved when God already knows they are not the elect and will never repent and believe. Jesus tells people to believe when it is not possible for them to believe unless God grants it to them. You must do nothing to be saved, but you are told to do something to be saved.

That is totally non-sensical. But if indeed it is God's will that man chooses of his own free will to believe or not, then it makes perfect sense.

 

[Hardsheller]

I also believe that God does 100% of the saving. Let me explain. If it is God's will that a man choose to believe or refuse, then God's sovereignty is not violated. That is his plan, that is his method.

You Calvinist's cannot accept that man plays a part in his salvation, even when the scriptures clearly show that he does.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Now here you go. These persons asked Jesus a very direct and simple question. What do we have to do to do the works of God?

Well, if Calvinists are correct then Jesus should have told them that they do not have to do anything whatsoever, because God would do it all for them. But this is not what Jesus told them to do. He told them they have to believe.

And we see the exact same thing in Acts.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Again, we see here the Philipian jailer asked a very direct and simple question. What must I do to be saved?

Well, once again, if the Calvinists are correct, why didn't Paul tell him that he did not have to do anything whatsoever? If Calvinism is true Paul should have told the jailer to do nothing, and if he was fortunate enough to be one of the elect, God would give him faith and he would believe.

This is the problem with Calvinism. God calls men to be saved when God already knows they are not the elect and will never repent and believe. Jesus tells people to believe when it is not possible for them to believe unless God grants it to them. You must do nothing to be saved, but you are told to do something to be saved.

That is totally non-sensical. But if indeed it is God's will that man chooses of his own free will to believe or not, then it makes perfect sense.

Not any more non-sensible than what non-Calvinists believe.

They believe the elect are those whom God has foreknown will accept Him.
If God foreknows who is going to accept Him and who is going to Reject Him do those who reject Him really have a choice? They're already doomed by the foreknowledge of God even before they exercise their "free will". So how can it ultimately be said that they actually had a choice? And how can it be said that they actually possessed a "Free Will?"

Now as far as Calvinists believing that man does not have to do anything to be saved that is a ridiculous charge. Of course Calvinists believe that a man believes and is saved. Where we disagree with you and other nonCalvinists is over what causes the man's belief!

 

[Winman]

Now we are getting somewhere.

They believe the elect are those whom God has foreknown will accept Him.
If God foreknows who is going to accept Him and who is going to Reject Him do those who reject Him really have a choice? They're already doomed by the foreknowledge of God even before they exercise their "free will". So how can it ultimately be said that they actually had a choice? And how can it be said that they actually possessed a "Free Will?"

Now as far as Calvinists believing that man does not have to do anything to be saved that is a ridiculous charge. Of course Calvinists believe that a man believes and is saved. Where we disagree with you and other nonCalvinists is over what causes the man's belief!

You are correct, God does know who will believe and who will not. And those that believe have already been chosen or elected.

Election is not so difficult to understand, it is similar to our elections. Did we know who would win the last election beforehand? YES. That may sound crazy, but we did know who would win. We knew that whoever won the majoritiy of the Electoral College would win. And we knew that because law established beforehand that the winner of the Electoral College would become the President Elect.

That is election. Only God knows specifically beforehand who will believe.

Now, I am going to get into a strange area here. I do not believe that it is written in stone beforehand who will believe.

What I am saying is this. Joe Snow may get saved today or next week, whenever... If he does, God already knows it. But perhaps Joe Snow will never believe and be saved. If so, God already knows that.

God knowing beforehand does not determine the outcome. God simply knows the outcome. Think about that for awhile.

I posted this verse before from Esther. I believe it shows God can adapt to any situation to bring about his will. I cannot explain this, it is too wonderful and great for man to comprehend. But I believe the scriptures show this.

Esther 4:13 Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews.
14 For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

This is the story of evil Haman who hated Mordecai and all the Jews and tricked king Ahasuerus to pass a law that the people of his kingdom could kill all the Jews on a certain day. And this is when Mordecai sent Esther his niece in to the king on the Jews behalf.

But look what Mordecai says to her. He says that if Esther does not go in to the king, then there will be enlargement and deliverance from another place. And notice even Mordecai even says, Who knows?

So, you see, no matter what men do, God still brings about his will. If Esther went in the Jews would be delivered, if she refused to go in they would be delievered.

If the Calvinist idea of sovereignty is true, then the concept of chance does not exist. But the scriptures say chance does exist.

Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Now, this is astounding. Solomon under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says that chance exists. It really does. The order of events in history are not set in stone. They can go any path whatsoever.

Yet, no matter what, God knows the outcome, even if it has not been decided. And God can bring about his will.

Now, that is incomprehensible to the human mind, but I believe this is what the scriptures show in my opinion.

So, what I am saying is that God can see all possible outcomes. No man is doomed to be lost, all can be saved. And whether he chooses to be saved or refuses, God knows.

And if a man refuses to be saved, is that God's fault. NO. The man made his own decision, he had his own choice.

 

[Hardsheller]

(My remarks are in parentheses...)

Now we are getting somewhere.

(Yes, we are having a civil conversation and debate which is rare on this board.)

Quote:
They believe the elect are those whom God has foreknown will accept Him.
If God foreknows who is going to accept Him and who is going to Reject Him do those who reject Him really have a choice? They're already doomed by the foreknowledge of God even before they exercise their "free will". So how can it ultimately be said that they actually had a choice? And how can it be said that they actually possessed a "Free Will?"

(Now as far as Calvinists believing that man does not have to do anything to be saved that is a ridiculous charge. Of course Calvinists believe that a man believes and is saved. Where we disagree with you and other nonCalvinists is over what causes the man's belief!)

You are correct, God does know who will believe and who will not. And those that believe have already been chosen or elected.

(We obviously disagree here. Election is not based on foreknowledge of man’s actions. Election is based on God’s eternal choice not man’s choice. )

If the Calvinist idea of sovereignty is true, then the concept of chance does not exist. But the scriptures say chance does exist.

Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Now, this is astounding. Solomon under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says that chance exists. It really does. The order of events in history are not set in stone. They can go any path whatsoever.

(How does the existence of chance disprove the Calvinist’s view of God’s Sovereignty? I as a Calvinist certainly believe that chance exists.

I’m a skeet shooter. I do not consistently hit 25 straight targets. All kind of variables affect my shooting. When things are going good I hit the target. When things are going bad I miss. Every time I mount the gun to shoot there is always a chance I will miss or hit the target. It is never predetermined that I will shoot a straight 25!

Here’s a quote from W.T. Conner’s book the Gospel of Redemption that speaks to the issue of Election.

“Election does not mean that God instituted a general plan of salvation and decreed that whosever would should be saved and, therefore, the man who wills to be saved is elected in that he brings himself within the scope of God’s plan. It is true that God has decreed that whosoever will shall be saved; but election is something more specific and personal than that. It means that God has decreed to bring some, upon whom his heart has been eternally set, who are the objects of his eternal love, to faith in Jesus as Savior. The general meaning of the doctrine of election might be summed up in two statements. The incarnation and cross of Christ mean that God became immanent in a sinful race to found a kingdom of redemption. Election means that, of his own free grace, God becomes redemptively immanent in the life of an individual sinner, and that he does so on purpose.”)

So, what I am saying is that God can see all possible outcomes. No man is doomed to be lost, all can be saved. And whether he chooses to be saved or refuses, God knows.

(All men are doomed to be lost and none can be saved apart from the redemptive work of God in their hearts. In fact not all can be saved. That has always been the case.)

And if a man refuses to be saved, is that God's fault. NO. The man made his own decision, he had his own choice.

(We certainly agree on this last paragraph)

 

[pinoybaptist]

In discussing with both the Arminians, the semi-Pelagians, and Calvinists on this board I have come to the conclusion that the basic, or root, issue, if you will, for both these groups of people is failure to discern and distinghuish between the freedom from requisites of eternal salvation, and the fact that gospel salvation does carry requisites, or pre-requisites.
Both groups will adamantly and sometimes indignantly state that they believe salvation is all of and all by grace, and that grace means nothing added and nothing taken away, and yet proceed to require that man must have faith, must repent, must live holiliy, in order to be saved.
While there are an abundance of Scriptures that state that a man must repent, exercise faith, live separate from the world, abide faithful to Christ, both fail to see that these are action words, and these Scriptures cannot be applied in the context of the eternal redemption of fallen man.
The work of Christ on behalf of His people is entirely His undertaking, an agreement between Him and the Father, predicated on nothing but mercy and His Sovereign will to have mercy on whom He will, and compassion on whom He will.
His blood was shed at the cross of Calvary because it was His desire and the Father's desire to do so, and there are no Scriptures whatsoever that says this blood will be shed IF the elect child of God will do such and such, or exercise such and such.
The eternal redemption of His people was authored in eternity past, pictured, typed, illustrated, foreshadowed, in the Old Testament, and given substance in the New Testament, when Christ put on human form, and died at the very hill where many say Abraham almost slew his own son, Isaac.
Having obtained their redemption thru His blood, the Redeemer returned to glory after sending out His apostles, handpicked by Him and trained by Him, to go out into the world, with good news that salvation is done, they have been redeemed, and now they must live as subjects of God's kingdom ought to live, turning away from their religions and idols and such to God and Christ in whom their lives have been hid, and who took the wrath of God that was meant for them.
Those are the requirements for them to receive the blessings and protection of their Heavenly Father while they sojourn on this earth as pilgrims, but their eternal salvation is ALREADY secure in Christ.
Eternal salvation is OF THE LORD, purely, solely, absolutely, and unconditionally, and these are facts for which all who have experienced grace in their lives should be grateful for.
To add any prerequisite such as obedience to the gospel, adherence to Scripture, baptism, church membership, faith, repentance BEFORE eternal redemption is, forgive me for saying this but I must, blasphemy of the highest order against a God who is under no obligation to save anyone yet in mercy did save and redeem many because it was His desire to do so and not because the recipient of such redemption contributed anything to deserve His love and mercy.
On the other hand, when one says he is "saved" and yet refuses to live in accordance with gospel instruction and precept on the reasoning that his salvation is by grace thru faith is equally blasphemous and those who have such a one in their midst are under obligation by Scripture to rebuke and exhort such a one.

 

[Winman]

(Now as far as Calvinists believing that man does not have to do anything to be saved that is a ridiculous charge. Of course Calvinists believe that a man believes and is saved. Where we disagree with you and other nonCalvinists is over what causes the man's belief!)

Well, I believe faith comes by hearing God's word.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If you are to believe in something, you must first have an object to believe in.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

How are you going to trust in Jesus Christ as you saviour if you have never heard of him and the gospel plan of salvation?

But pinoybaptist does not believe the gospel is necessary and has said so several times. And as I keep repeating, this is actually a very logical conclusion if God simply regenerates a man to believe. Now he believes in two salvations, eternal salvation and gospel salvation. But still, if it is true that God simply looks down from heaven and regenerates who he will for his pleasure, then the gospel would be completely unnecessary.

In this respect, his belief is far more consistent than yours. But I disagree with you both.

Now here is where I disagree, and probably even many non-Cals would disagree with me, but I believe the spiritually dead have the ability to have faith. I see many examples of this in the scriptures. Jesus said to some, "thy faith hath saved thee". Now, whose faith did he say it was? Theirs. And if it saved them, what condition were they in? Lost.

Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

And Jesus several times scolded people for lack of faith. Well, how could he justly do that if they could only have faith if God gave it to them?

Matt 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

This verse does not make any sense if our faith is given us. Couldn't the disciples have justly answered, "Lord, the reason we feared and have so little faith is because you only gave us a little faith"??

I mean, how can the Lord expect anyone to have faith if he does not give it to them? Does that make sense?

So, this makes no sense at all to me. And when the disciples asked Jesus to increase their faith, what did Jesus say?

Luke 17:5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

If our faith comes from God, then the disciples request here is absolutely reasonable, wouldn't you agree? But Jesus turns it around and places the responsibility for faith upon them. He said, "If ye had faith"

And the book of James shows that faith is our responsibility.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

These verses are very clear. They tell us to pray in faith believeing that God fulfills his promises, and says that if a man doubts God he can in no way expect God to grant his prayer.

So, in my opinion the scriptures make it clear that even the unsaved man can believe, and that they are responsible for believeing.

Mark 9:19 He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
20 And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21 And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
26 And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
27 But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.

So, here again we see Jesus scolding his disciples for their lack of faith. And when the father of the demon possessed child asked Jesus if he could help his son, what did Jesus say?

"If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth"

In other words, the question is not whether I can help your son, the question is whether you believe my words that I am the Son of God.

So Jesus clearly made the man responsible to believe. This would be absurd if we can only have faith if God gives it to us. If God does not give a man faith, then how can a just God condemn a man for lack of faith?

 

[Tom Butler]

I don't want to get in the way of a good discussion. Well, actually, I guess I do. I'm looking for a little exegesis of a passage quoted by Winman:

I also believe that God does 100% of the saving. Let me explain. If it is God's will that a man choose to believe or refuse, then God's sovereignty is not violated. That is his plan, that is his method.

You Calvinist's cannot accept that man plays a part in his salvation, even when the scriptures clearly show that he does.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Now here you go. These persons asked Jesus a very direct and simple question. What do we have to do to do the works of God?

Well, if Calvinists are correct then Jesus should have told them that they do not have to do anything whatsoever, because God would do it all for them. But this is not what Jesus told them to do. He told them they have to believe.

John writes that the work of God is "that ye believe." What does that mean? Could it mean that believing, or faith, is a work of God? That's what it sounds like to me. It sounds a lot like Jesus is saying if one has faith, God did it.

This is certainly consistent with Phillipians 1:29 "For it is given unto you in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake." Sounds like faith is a gift, to me.

 

[Allan]

John writes that the work of God is "that ye believe." What does that mean? Could it mean that believing, or faith, is a work of God? That's what it sounds like to me. It sounds a lot like Jesus is saying if one has faith, God did it.

Not that I want to get into the way of a good question about a good discussion that you don't want in the way of :laugh: - but I do

Now I am not Winman nor do I state my view is his, but let me give you what I see, if I may brother?

I would suggest looking at not only that verse by itself but what is being said prior and 'why'. Exegetically, 'I' don't believe what Jesus says can be contrued as Him stating - faith comes from God. You must take the whole of what was said and what Jesus was referencing in respect to their question and his explanation following.

Jesus told them prior that they must not labor for spiritual things in the same way you do for food that is soon gone; temporal and therefore needing more to sustain you. But you 'should' labor for the eternal food that Jesus states to them ' I will give you' in vs 27 , and in vs 32 He states His Father is giving it to them through Jesus as well. After He encourages to seek after those eternal things we find they were wanting to know 'what they must do' in order 'to perform/do' a manifested work/action from/of God (ie. like Jesus feeding the 5,000).

Jesus was using a play on their words to get across His meaning.
The phrase Jesus employs is speaking directly to their question and not that He is correcting them. The phrase 'this is the work of God' goes back to their question of the work they would need to perform in order to be in a right relationship to be God's spokesman and for doing His work. IOW - What must we do to be like you and other great men of God. That phrase 'work of God' is another way of saying 'God accepted work' because it is answering their question concerning the 'work' God requires of them, nothing more and nothing less.

You will note the passages following the Jews question and Jesus answer that they ask another question. What work will you do so that we might believe you. The construct here proves that Jesus statement is not that God must give you faith, because of how they answer him in the very next passage. They understood him perfectly and thus asked Him to do something else, to prove to them so they might believe, and even gave Him something of a test. They state Moses gave us manna from heaven, what will you give us (that they might believe). And Jesus explains that He is already being given and that it is His father who is giving Him (for all of them), just as the Father gave them manna in the desert.
Both give life to whom it is offered, and Jesus states that God is offering this Bread (Jesus) to give life unto the World.

As a side, what is also important to note is that Jesus states, of these very same people who asked the question, in verse 35 that they do not believe in Him. So according Jesus own words, He is giving/offering to them (those who don't and won't believe) the bread of life and He is sent by God who desires them to have it but they are not believing and therefore receiving what is being offered/given.

Now a question forms that seems to need an answer, 2 actually:
1. Why give them this Bread if they will not receive it?
2. How can this Bread be given to them if it was not supposed to be meant for them?

This is certainly consistent with Phillipians 1:29 "For it is given unto you in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake." Sounds like faith is a gift, to me.

Again, I do not think the above is the meaning nor the intent of the statement. The word 'given' here means to 'allow' or to be 'granted', not imparted.

The emphasis here is not about faith being imparted or doled out to only certain individuals. It is however stating that we (those saved) are not only allowed to believe (which is God's grace) but to also share in Christ's suffering by suffering for Him (this also is His grace). Therefore the emphasis is here is God's grace extending beyond salvation but bringing us into a unity with Christ Jesus that is more than just words but in our charactor and life.

 

[kyredneck]

There is so much wrong with that, I don't know where to begin.....

As I wrote a couple posts back, 'there's not always a concise statement to be found to prove something, it has to be reasoned.' The fact is many, if not most, of our doctrines and beliefs must be reasoned and deduced from scripture for lack of a single defining concise statement that articulates a tenet.

John 1:13, 'who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God', IS one of those concise statements that contains an “elaborate threefold denial of the human source” of the sonship of v 12.

Winman, you should be applying John 1:13 as a modifier to the copious, multi-colored proof passages that you use in what seems to me to be an obsessive campaign to malign and discredit anyone or anything that has to do with God's Sovereign Grace.

 

[Allan]

As I wrote a couple posts back, 'there's not always a concise statement to be found to prove something, it has to be reasoned.' The fact is many, if not most, of our doctrines and beliefs must be reasoned and deduced from scripture for lack of a single defining concise statement that articulates a tenet.

John 1:13, 'who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God', IS one of those concise statements that contains an “elaborate threefold denial of the human source” of the sonship of v 12.

Winman, you should be applying John 1:13 as a modifier to the copious, multi-colored proof passages that you use in what seems to me to be an obsessive campaign to malign and discredit anyone or anything that has to do with God's Sovereign Grace.

Since 'born' refers specifically to salvation all non-cals and even Arminians a like will tell you there is no question that God is the one who saves man.
Bloodline can not save a man, nor because man himself says he is going to be saved, nor can man's determined persistance save him. God is the only one that saves man, as man does not barter his works nor does he trade his faith for salvation but instead believes what God says, and that He (God) will do just that. IOW - they plea for His mercy in accordance with His word, trusting not their works nor faith to save them but in His finished work and His word for their eternal salvation.

 

[kyredneck]

A couple more concise denials of the human source of one's salvation:

....that no flesh should glory before God. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus..... 1 Cor 1:29,30

....that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;.....that no man should glory. Eph 2:8,9

 

[Allan]

A couple more concise denials of the human source of one's salvation:

No denial at all. God saves man period. But eternal salvation comes through faith, period.

....that no flesh should glory before God. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus..... 1 Cor 1:29,30

No one can. No man can come to faith in God without God's direct intervention.

....that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;.....that no man should glory. Eph 2:8,9

Sorry, but the emphasis of that sentence's construct is salvation, not faith. The surrounding passage prove this contension since that is the very context being spoken of by Paul.

 

[Hardsheller]

What's interesting to me about Winman's usage of John 6:28 is that it is lifted out of the entire chapter of John 6 which is perhaps to most Calvinists one of the most dynamic explanation of the Sovereignty of God in Salvation in the entire Bible!!

Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

THREE TIMES JESUS SAYS THIS which tells me that it was point he was trying to drive home.