• 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!

Actuality vs Potentiality?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jonathanD

New Member
Most Calvinists disagree with progressive sanctification...

You and I sure seem to know very different Calvinists. For instance, the majority that I know believe in progressive sanctification. And, believe it or not, 100% believe that the sinner must repent.

Your caricatures are certainly entertaining. And, let's be honest, easier to deal with than what Calvinists actually believe.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If Cornelius had no sin,....

Get your facts straight, I've never said Cornelius had no sin, I said the text records no sin on his part, only good works. Go examine your buddy Winman's nutty theology for such harebrained ideas of not ever sinning.

Once again, much of the gist of Acts 9, 10, 11 is about joining 'the two folds':

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10:14

12 that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;
16 and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Eph 2

Cornelius was a sheep of the 'other fold'. To say that he never belonged to God is the height of arrogance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Inspector Javert

Active Member
JG, you're missing my point.......again. God created them, knowing they were going to die lost.He didn't have to, and yet He did.You can not escape it. That's one of the connudrums in both systems.

The short answer is that in the Calvinist system God takes pleasure in the Death of the wicked and in the other system, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
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?
The difference is simple clear manifold and world's-away between the two. Men only die justly for their sins, but in one system, God has provided mercy for all who desire it.
It's not simply THAT they go to hell, it's that given the Calvinist system...their VERY SIN NATURE was part of the decree!!!
Given the Calvinist system, Convicted, it IS GOD'S WILL that men sin. It is God's will that they be BORN already guilty of something they didn't commit, with a nature which they cannot control...and they are then punished for doing something God pre-decreed they would do (and desired they do) with the opportunity to do nothing about it.

In the other system: The OPTION is available to flee the wrath to come. That option does not in any real way exist in the Calvinist system.

In the non-Cal system God's foreknowledge is just that........."knowledge" (it's only that). It is Omniscience:
In the Calvinist system God's foreknowledge isn't "Omniscience" it's "Sovereignty" and "Decree".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The short answer is that in the Calvinist system God takes pleasure in the Death of the wicked and in the other system, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
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?
The difference is simple clear manifold and world's-away between the two. Men only die justly for their sins, but in one system, God has provided mercy for all who desire it.
It's not simply THAT they go to hell, it's that given the Calvinist system...their VERY SIN NATURE was part of the decree!!!
Given the Calvinist system, Convicted, it IS GOD'S WILL that men sin. It is God's will that they be BORN already guilty of something they didn't commit, with a nature which they cannot control...and they are then punished for doing something God pre-decreed they would do (and desired they do) with the opportunity to do nothing about it.

In the other system: The OPTION is available to flee the wrath to come. That option does not in any real way exist in the Calvinist system.

In the non-Cal system God's foreknowledge is just that........."knowledge" (it's only that). It is Omniscience:
In the Calvinist system God's foreknowledge isn't "Omniscience" it's "Sovereignty" and "Decree".

Here's what I am driving at. In the non-cal system people are still going to hell. Say that 85% of every being goes there when God calls the world to a close. God knew full well they were going there, even after all the gospel pleas of reconciliation, even after Jesus Christ died upon the cross, even after all the witnesses He sent their way, after every attemt to save them failed, He knew all this, and yet, He created them anyways.

When I was firmly in the non-cal camp, I had a struggle within me about this very thing. Why did He create someone, knowing full well they would reject Him and die eternally lost? That was a connundrum for me. If I was still firmly in the non-cal camp, I would have a hard time understanding why He made people, knowing that they would reject Him and they die lost.


BTW, I am not in the Calvinist camp yet. I may get there, I may not. But let it be known that either way God leads me, it was He that led me. Sure, I may ask my DoG Brethern some questions about their beliefs to get a better understanding; but I will pit them against scriptures and I will see if they will stand up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
, I would have a hard time understanding why He made people, knowing that they would reject Him and they die lost.

Factor into this question you have that God divinely designed creatures in His likeness and image who a mind of their own and would desire to be as God. When He finished creating all that was in this world He said it was all very good. So, then, it was good that creatures were designed this way even though most would die in their pride not to accept God as their Lord – why did He do it? I don’t know – maybe for the good, those who were willing to become children of God to exist with Him for eternity. Did He know most these creatures would willingly die their in their sin, because of pride, because of not being willing to die to their self wills to be as God, of course. But here is but One God, despite the wonderful design He blessed us with in creating us creatures in His likeness and image.

But, first, one thing you should know for sure is that He did create us for the good – for that is all that is in Him. Second, consider the alternative – no convicted1. Who are you to complain about it? ;)
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
Here's what I am driving at. In the non-cal system people are still going to hell. Say that 85% of every being goes there when God calls the world to a close. God knew full well they were going there, even after all the gospel pleas of reconciliation, even after Jesus Christ died upon the cross, even after all the witnesses He sent their way, after every attemt to save them failed, He knew all this, and yet, He created them anyways.

When I was firmly in the non-cal camp, I had a struggle within me about this very thing. Why did He create someone, knowing full well they would reject Him and die eternally lost? That was a connundrum for me. If I was still firmly in the non-cal camp, I would have a hard time understanding why He made people, knowing that they would reject Him and they die lost.


BTW, I am not in the Calvinist camp yet. I may get there, I may not. But let it be known that either way God leads me, it was He that led me. Sure, I may ask my DoG Brethern some questions about their beliefs to get a better understanding; but I will pit them against scriptures and I will see if they will stand up.

That's a difficult connundrum for all of us, I think. It is a sick person IMO who doesn't have a hard time dealing with the concept of Hell period. I think we all grapple with it from time to time. There are some answers, and I have some of my own views of "why he created them anyways" etc....but I don't know that any of them settles the matter flawlessly finally without some difficulty.

But, you seemed to be equivocating between the connundrum faced by non-Cals and Cals. Really, it's only a "connundrum" for a non-Cal, in that God doesn't WANT anyone to perish. In the Calvinist system, I think the conclusion is inescapable that the perishing of most is precisely what God wanted from them and perhaps little more.

This is the lynch-pin:
even after all the gospel pleas of reconciliation, even after Jesus Christ died upon the cross, even after all the witnesses He sent their way, after every attemt to save them failed
They'll jump on your phraseology of "every attempt" of course, but, in the Cal. system, God has made absolutely no "attempt" at reconciliation with sinners whatsoever. In fact, he in no meaningful sense wants it.

Whatever the difficulties are in the question of the damned: They are completely different for the Calvinist and the Arminian.
 

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
They'll jump on your phraseology of "every attempt" of course, but, in the Cal. system, God has made absolutely no "attempt" at reconciliation with sinners whatsoever. In fact, he in no meaningful sense wants it.

This is patently false. We, as Calvinists, do make every attempt. Remember that William Carey--the "father" of the modern missionary movement--was himself a Calvinist. He worked hard to be sent to the people of India. He labored hard amongst the people of India for seven years before he saw one convert, not to mention he buried several of his family along the way.

And, in the Calvinist view, God does indeed make reconciliation with man--through Christ, just as the reconciliation is made through Christ in the Arminian system.

We, as Calvinists, argue that God actually makes reconciliation for the elect. Arminians argue differently. But, in both systems, those who believe are reconciled to God.

So, please, stop misrepresenting our views either out of ignorance or a mean spirit (and I seriously doubt with you that it's a mean spirit).

The Archangel
 

Winman

Active Member
Here's what I am driving at. In the non-cal system people are still going to hell. Say that 85% of every being goes there when God calls the world to a close. God knew full well they were going there, even after all the gospel pleas of reconciliation, even after Jesus Christ died upon the cross, even after all the witnesses He sent their way, after every attemt to save them failed, He knew all this, and yet, He created them anyways.

This is going to sound confusing, but God doesn't know you are going to reject him until you actually reject him, though in his foreknowledge he knows what you will choose. What God knows in his foreknowledge is not determined (when it comes to what choice you will make). If you choose Jesus, this is what he knows, if you reject Jesus, this is what he knows.

Hell was not made for men, hell was made for the devil and his angels. Men only go there when they willingly and knowingly reject Christ.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

When I was firmly in the non-cal camp, I had a struggle within me about this very thing. Why did He create someone, knowing full well they would reject Him and die eternally lost? That was a connundrum for me. If I was still firmly in the non-cal camp, I would have a hard time understanding why He made people, knowing that they would reject Him and they die lost.

BTW, I am not in the Calvinist camp yet. I may get there, I may not. But let it be known that either way God leads me, it was He that led me. Sure, I may ask my DoG Brethern some questions about their beliefs to get a better understanding; but I will pit them against scriptures and I will see if they will stand up.

As was pointed out, would you rather not exist at all? Would you rather be a robot without choice?

People do not like not being forced and compelled. If you were in heaven and you were compelled to be good, it would not be heaven.

It's like punching out of work everyday at 3 PM, everything is suddenly better simply because you are free to choose how you will use your time.

There is one huge difference between the two camps. In the non-Cal camp, God loves every single person so much he gave his very Son to die for them that they might be saved. God has done everything he possibly can to save every individual. If men go to hell in the non-Cal scheme, it is because they personally choose to.

In the Cal camp, most folks are going to hell period. They have no choice whatsoever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Inspector Javert

Active Member
This is patently false. We, as Calvinists, do make every attempt. Remember that William Carey--the "father" of the modern missionary movement--was himself a Calvinist. He worked hard to be sent to the people of India. He labored hard amongst the people of India for seven years before he saw one convert, not to mention he buried several of his family along the way.

And, in the Calvinist view, God does indeed make reconciliation with man--through Christ, just as the reconciliation is made through Christ in the Arminian system.

We, as Calvinists, argue that God actually makes reconciliation for the elect. Arminians argue differently. But, in both systems, those who believe are reconciled to God.

So, please, stop misrepresenting our views either out of ignorance or a mean spirit (and I seriously doubt with you that it's a mean spirit).

The Archangel

You misread what I said. "CALVINISTS" do indeed make every attempt, and I do not argue that in the least. Carey being an example. Wrong direct object :tongue3: I said that vis-a-vis Calvinism...GOD doesn't make any meaningful attempt to reconcile those who are foreordained to condemnation. God doesn't "attempt" to reconcile anyone to himself in the Calvinist schema......he just DOES it, and that, irresistibly.

You misunderstood what I was saying to Convicted. I do not believe I misrepresent Calvinism at all.

editted to add:
So, please, stop misrepresenting our views either out of ignorance or a mean spirit (and I seriously doubt with you that it's a mean spirit).
I always think very highly of people who assume the best about others. That is a mark of a Spirit-filled person IMO btw :saint:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is patently false. We, as Calvinists, do make every attempt. Remember that William Carey--the "father" of the modern missionary movement--was himself a Calvinist. He worked hard to be sent to the people of India. He labored hard amongst the people of India for seven years before he saw one convert, not to mention he buried several of his family along the way.

And, in the Calvinist view, God does indeed make reconciliation with man--through Christ, just as the reconciliation is made through Christ in the Arminian system.

We, as Calvinists, argue that God actually makes reconciliation for the elect. Arminians argue differently. But, in both systems, those who believe are reconciled to God.

So, please, stop misrepresenting our views either out of ignorance or a mean spirit (and I seriously doubt with you that it's a mean spirit).

The Archangel

These misrepresenting cal posts come from an inability to see that Calvinism as the teaching of scripture deals with the Divine and human side.
They have to try and distort it, or they would believe it .

What is sad is the non cal accuses the biblical God of sinful thoughts and conduct, which is vile indeed.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Winman

This is going to sound confusing, but God doesn't know you are going to reject him until you actually reject him, though in his foreknowledge he knows what you will choose. What God knows in his foreknowledge is not determined (when it comes to what choice you will make). If you choose Jesus, this is what he knows, if you reject Jesus, this is what he knows.

Another novelty...and yes it is quite confused.

Hell was not made for men, hell was made for the devil and his angels. Men only go there when they willingly and knowingly reject Christ.

All men outside of Christ go there.....period.


As was pointed out, would you rather not exist at all? Would you rather be a robot without choice?

People do not like not being forced and compelled. If you were in heaven and you were compelled to be good, it would not be heaven.

Have a cup of coffee before you post...this is very strange.I am tired here at breakfast, but this is way off....

There is one huge difference between the two camps
.

yes there is...:thumbsup:
In the non-Cal camp, God loves every single person so much he gave his very Son to die for them that they might be saved.

but he actually saves no one...

God has done everything he possibly can to save every individual.
here it is again...god has tried but he cannot quite get it done, unless man does something to save himself....this poor god you speak of...he really would like to but he cannot....he has done all he can....can someone please help him out?

If men go to hell in the non-Cal scheme, it is because they personally choose to.

as if men would actually choose to go to hell....this is usually where it is said...my god sends no one to hell, they send themselves there.

The biblical God demands 100% holiness and righteousness at the white throne judgement.....Only those who are found to be In Christ have it.

All others are sent to hell by God...justly for their sins.
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
These misrepresenting cal posts come from an inability to see that Calvinism as the teaching of scripture deals with the Divine and human side.
They have to try and distort it, or they would believe it .

What is sad is the non cal accuses the biblical God of sinful thoughts and conduct, which is vile indeed.

You obviously misread My post as well. I did not say what Archangel mistakenly thought I said, yet, even after I attempted to clear up the misunderstanding you pile on. That, to me, simply seems intentionally deceitful. I am quite sure, that Archangel is that sort with whom I can clear up the misunderstanding. You (I doubt) would have any INTENTION of having the misunderstanding cleared up.

You ignored my clarification. That is either dim or dishonest.
, which is vile indeed.
Just looking for a random excuse to use a word like "vile" about those who disagree with you huh.
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
Icon....two continuously false allegations you make against the beliefs of those who disagree with you are these:
but he actually saves no one...
False...he has saved millions.
here it is again...god has tried but he cannot quite get it done, unless man does something to save himself....this poor god you speak of...he really would like to but he cannot....he has done all he can....can someone please help him out?
God CAN do anything he wants....God CAN or COULD relate to man in the way in which Calvinists allege he does....HE CAN save EVERYONE...HE CAN save NO ONE....

Every reasoned Biblical non-cal on this board understands this. What you are alleging are essentially lies and BLATANT mis-representations. If these "Godly wise men" you learn from taught you this....then you need to fire them for someone who has an even elementary understanding of differing Soteriological views, because what you are saying is not believed by ANYONE on Baptist Board.

For the life of me....I still don't know whether you are simply this ignorant, or whether you are intentionally lying.

You speak as though you are UTTER Neo-phyte on these topics.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Inspector Javert

Icon....two continuously false allegations you make against the beliefs of those who disagree with you are these:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
but he actually saves no one..
False...he has saved millions.


AND then you say this...
God CAN do anything he wants....God CAN or COULD relate to man in the way in which Calvinists allege he does....HE CAN save EVERYONE...HE CAN save NO ONE....

Every reasoned Biblical non-cal on this board understands this. What you are alleging are essentially lies and BLATANT mis-representations. If these "Godly wise men" you learn from taught you this....then you need to fire them for someone who has an even elementary understanding of differing Soteriological views, because what you are saying is not believed by ANYONE on Baptist Board.

As you have claimed the right to "clarify"...let me clarify for you here, as you do not understand what I am saying.....

The clear statement Winman and others have made is this.....

God has done......all that he can.......{agreed??? He said this} do I have to post it for you? or do you remember that this is exactly what he posted?

The question for you CO....is.... If GOD has indeed DONE all that He can... and yet a person is not yet saved.....who is going to save him?
You cannot expect God to....if you declare...he has DONE ALL HE CAN:thumbsup: Do you get it now:BangHead:

You cannot pray and ask God to do anymore, if He has done all He could.

So if God is exhausted every means at His disposal{according to this false theology}...who then can save this sinner.

Someone else, or something else must be added to what God has done.

No matter how you slice it....something from outside of god must be added ,with the view put forth by Winman.

The cal prays and asks God to bring conviction upon the sinner and if it be His will to draw them to saving truth, because if the person is yet unsaved we can ask God who saves sinners for His will to be done :thumbsup:

Is this teaching so evil, that you and others must seek at all costs to resist it.As far as i am concerned ..every person I meet is by Divine appointment,and if given any chance for conversation they are going to hear about the the blood of Jesus, and how he has designed to save a multitude of sinners in His Son.



For the life of me....I still don't know whether you are simply this ignorant, or whether you are intentionally lying.

You speak as though you are UTTER Neo-phyte on these topics.


Evidently what we have here is a failure to communicate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2f-MZ2HRHQ
 

Winman

Active Member
Iconoclast said:
The clear statement Winman and others have made is this.....

God has done......all that he can.......{agreed??? He said this} do I have to post it for you? or do you remember that this is exactly what he posted?

The question for you CO....is.... If GOD has indeed DONE all that He can... and yet a person is not yet saved.....who is going to save him?
You cannot expect God to....if you declare...he has DONE ALL HE CAN Do you get it now

Yes, that is what I said, God has done everything possible to save sinners, giving his very Son to save us from our sins. It is exactly what the scriptures show.

Isa 5:1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

Here God is speaking of Israel, but it applies to all sinners, God has done everything possible to save them, he has given his Son to die for their sins, and he has sent prophets and teachers to call them, but the people would not submit to God.

You will of course reject this, because it refutes Calvinism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
Barnes Notes on Isa 5:4

Verse 4
What could I … - As a man who had done what is described in Isaiah 5:2, would have done all that “could” be done for a vineyard, so God says that he has done all that he could, in the circumstances of the Jews, to make them holy and happy. He had chosen them; had given them his law; had sent them prophets and teachers; had defended them; had come forth in judgment and mercy, and he now appeals “to them” to say what “could” have been done more. This important verse implies that God had done all that he could have done; that is, all that he could consistently do, or all that justice and goodness required him to do, to secure the welfare of his people. It cannot, of course, be meant that he had no physical ability to do anything else, but the expression must be interpreted by a reference to the point in hand; and that is, an appeal to others to determine that he had done all that could be done in the circumstances of the case. In this respect, we may, without impropriety, say, that there is a limit to the power of God. It is impossible to conceive that he “could” have given a law more holy; or that he could append to it more solemn sanctions than the threatening of eternal death; or that he could have offered higher hopes than the prospect of eternal life; or that he could have given a more exalted Redeemer. It has been maintained (see the “Princeton Bib. Repert.,” April 1841) that the reference here is to the future, and that the question means, ‹what remains now to be done to my vineyard as an expression of displeasure?‘ or that it is asked with a view to introduce the expression of his purpose to punish his people, stated in Isaiah 5:5. But that the above is the meaning or the passage, or that it refers to what God had actually done, is evident from the following considerations:

(1) He had specified at length Isaiah 5:2 what he had done. He had performed “all” that was usually done to a vineyard; in fencing it, and clearing it of stones, and planting in it the choicest vines, and building a wine-press in it. Without impropriety, it might be said of a man that, whatever wealth he had, or whatever power he had to do “other” things, he “could do nothing more to perfect a vineyard.”
(2) It is the meaning which is most naturally suggested by the original. Literally, the Hebrew is, ‹What to do more?‘ עוד מה־לעשׂות mah -la‛ăs'ôth ‛ôd Coverdale renders this, as it is in our translation, ‹What more could have been done for it?‘ Luther, ‹What should one do more to my vineyard, that I have not done for it?‘ Was sollte man doth mehr thun an meinem Weinberge, das ich nicht gethun babe an illin? Vulgate, Quid est quod debui ultra facere. ‹What is there which I ought to do more?‘ Septuagint, Τί ποιήσω ἔτι Ti poiēsō eti ‹What shall I do yet?‘ implying that he had done all that he could for it. The Chaldee renders it, ‹What good thing - טבא מה mah ṭâbâ' - shall I say that I will do to my people that I have not done for them?‘ implying that he had done for them all the good which could be spoken of. The Syriac, ‹What remains to be done to my vineyard, and I have not done it?‘ In all these versions, the sense given is substantially the same - that God had done all that could be done to make the expectation that his vineyard would produce fruit, proper. There is no reference in one of these versions to what he “would” do afterward, but the uniform reference is to what he “had” done to make the expectation “reasonable,” that his vineyard would produce fruit.
(3) That this is the fair interpretation is apparent further, because, when, in Isaiah 5:5, he says what he “would do,” it is entirely different from what he said he “had done.” He “had” done all that could be done to make it proper to expect fruit; he now “would” do what would be a proper expression of his displeasure that no fruit had been produced. He would take away its hedge; break down its walls, and lay it waste. But in the interpretation of the passage proposed by the “Princeton Repert.,” there is an entire omission of this part of the verse - ‹that I have not done in it.‘ It is not improper, therefore, to use this passage to show that God had done all that could be consistently done for the salvation of man, and the same appeal may now be made to sinners everywhere; and it may be asked, what God “could” have done for their salvation more than has been done? “Could” he have given them a purer law? “Could” he present higher considerations than have been drawn from the hope of an “eternal” heaven, and the fear of an “eternal” hell? Could he have furnished a more full atonement than has been made by the blood of his own Son? The conclusion to which we should come would be in accordance with what is said in the prophet, that God has done “all” for the salvation of sinners that in the circumstances of the case could be done, and that if they are lost, they only will bear the blame.

Albert Barnes gets it, you don't.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, that is what I said, God has done everything possible to save sinners, giving his very Son to save us from our sins. It is exactly what the scriptures show.

Isa 5:1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

Here God is speaking of Israel, but it applies to all sinners, God has done everything possible to save them, he has given his Son to die for their sins, and he has sent prophets and teachers to call them, but the people would not submit to God.

This passage is fulfilled in mt21....apostate Israel being reprobated in time...
the nation being now the elect remnant...plus gentiles grafted in.
You and Barnes miss it. ISa 5 was given to the Covenant nation as a whole although only part of it was elect.
The cross is offered worldwide now....but only part of it...is ELECT.

The fact remains...you posted ,...God has done all that He can. So if someone is not yet saved...God cannot do any more for them.
 

Winman

Active Member
Yes, that is what I said, God has done everything possible to save sinners, giving his very Son to save us from our sins. It is exactly what the scriptures show.

Isa 5:1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

Here God is speaking of Israel, but it applies to all sinners, God has done everything possible to save them, he has given his Son to die for their sins, and he has sent prophets and teachers to call them, but the people would not submit to God.

Iconoclast said:
This passage is fulfilled in mt21....apostate Israel being reprobated in time...
the nation being now the elect remnant...plus gentiles grafted in.
You and Barnes miss it. ISa 5 was given to the Covenant nation as a whole although only part of it was elect.
The cross is offered worldwide now....but only part of it...is ELECT.

The fact remains...you posted ,...God has done all that He can. So if someone is not yet saved...God cannot do any more for them.

Barnes missed it? Where is the Bible Commentary you wrote?

Here is what the Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown says of this same verse;

Verse 4
God has done all that could be done for the salvation of sinners, consistently with His justice and goodness. The God of nature is, as it were, amazed at the unnatural fruit of so well-cared a vineyard.

Kretzmann;

v. 4. What could have been done more to My vineyard that I have not done in it? The Lord had shown His people mercy, goodness, and truth in so many ways that He had, as it were, exhausted His love in their behalf. He had not reached the limit of His grace in dealing with them, but matters had certainly reached a stage where they could expect no more at His hand. Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? Surely if the Lord now abandoned this vineyard, the people themselves must admit that they had fully deserved such treatment, that they had but themselves to blame for their destruction, as the Lord now states.

Meyer;

In a picture of great beauty, Isaiah describes a vineyard situated on one of the sunny heights visible from Jerusalem. Every care which an experienced vine-dresser could devise had been expended on it, but in vain. The vine-dresser himself is introduced, demanding if more could have been done. When God selects a nation, a church, or an individual for high and holy work in the world and expends care and pains on the preparation of the instrument, and His plans miscarry through no failure on His part but through the obstinancy or obtuseness of the human soul, the measure of what might have been is the gauge of its doom. The worst weeds grow on the richest soil. This picture is the counterpart of Paul’s dread of being a castaway, 1 Corinthians 9:27.

I could show more, but you would just ignore and explain away more.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Barnes missed it? Where is the Bible Commentary you wrote?

Here is what the Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown says of this same verse;



Kretzmann;
Winman, These are good links and to a certain extent they are helpful if talking about isa 5 alone.... God himself asks the question to His professed people...what more could I have done..... it is asked as a rebuke, not an invitation...They had said they would keep the covenant and be a holy nation, they should have been bearing fruit, THEY FAILED....

Why I say these men missed it, is because when Jesus uses this in Mt 21 he is bringing things forward to the New Covenant time, where he seeks and saves that which is lost, in that there is the promise of Divine enablement.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them



God found fault with them...they said they would but did not....

So in the new Covenant the Divine side is stressed....

I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.


So ....do you see what I am saying now????


I do appreciate you offering reasonably solid links....at least you do try to use scripture more than most.....now if you use it with understanding ,instead of malice you might profit a bit more:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top