Calvinists and Children

=="All that the Father gives Me will come to Me..."

Those the Father has given Jesus "will" come to Jesus. These who come to Him, because the Father has given them to Jesus, will not be lost (vs39). They will be given eternal life by Jesus (Jn 17:2) and will never perish (Jn 10:28-29). However there is no coming to Christ apart from being given to Him by the Father (vs44,65).

==The reverse is clearly there. If those the Father has given Jesus will come to Him then what will happen to those who are not given? They will not come to truly come to Him, they are left in their sin. It is known as the doctrine of preterition.

 

==They are sinners who have rejected Christ.

 

Amen :thumbs:

This is what I mean. The converse of the text is immutable truth to the calvinist, too, and has to be in order for the theology to work. Those who are not given to Christ by the Father did not come based on the Father's drawing. John 12:32 is crystal clear the God draws ALL (not "all kinds of") men.

Is the converse of this statement true..."eveyone who attends my church likes chicken"?

 

There was nothing to reject, as they were never enabled. A "dead" man cannot reject, now can they? Rejection is a CHOICE, by definition an action made between two or more things. A choice of one is a non choice.

If calvinism were true...and the converse of Scripture is always true, unconditional election and uncoditional reprobation are one in the same.

 

==The text states that God "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). Now last time I checked that means before Genesis 1:1 and that is before anyone was born. You can cut that pie any way you wish to avoid the obvious but it does not change what it says.

==The last part there is a strawman argument since every system, including yours, claims it is correct. In that since Calvinism is no different.

As for the first part, that is way too philosophical for me. I am theology and history, not philosophy. I have to go with what the text says. In the greek text the term "pro" means "before" just as it is translated in the english text. Since I believe in verbal, plenary inspiration I have to believe that the Holy Spirit put that word there because that is exactly what He meant. We are elected (same term) in Him before the foundation of the world.

 

==Actually they have made a choice, to reject Christ. The Bible is clear that they are held accountable for that rejection (Jn 3:18). Yet the Bible is also very clear that God has elected those who would be saved. Is that fair? Yes, since all are sinners and all deserve hell anyway.

 

So creation and all of time happened at a point in time before time and not outside of time?

It would have been a strawman if I had claimed I had it all figured out, which as a finite lowly sinner...I do not, therefore, no strawman. The finite trying to understand the infinite is impossible.

...but yet you do not, as you read into immutable truth the converse which is not immutable truth.

I showed the phrase has a deeper meaning than simply "before".

πρό
pro
pro
A primary preposition; "fore", that is, in front of, prior (figuratively superior) to. In compounds it retains the same significations: - above, ago, before, or ever. In compounds it retains the same significations.

 

==In light of the text of John 6:37, 44, and 65 that statement makes ZERO sense. If all the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus, and if no one can come to Jesus unless drawn, then what does that mean concerning those who are not drawn? They will not come to Jesus (Jn 10:26-27).

==So, you are now saying that Jesus contradicted Himself? After all in John 6:37 He says that "all that the Father gives Me WILL come to Me". So you are saying that there are some who are drawn that do not come? When your understanding creates such a contradiction something in your understanding is very dangerously wrong. The call of the Gospel does go out to all men, and all men are invited to the cross, but only the elect will come. You pushed aside the "all kinds of men" understanding of the verse, yet that is the understanding that best fits the context (vss20-34) and the rest of Scripture. After all it should be clear that not all men are drawn to Christ (Jn 6:44,65).

 

...then the ability to have chosen the opposite choice (to accept) was there.

 

==What? What does the text say? "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world". Stick with the text.

==That statement is very dangerous. Every commentary, dictionary, and translation, etc, I have consulted on this term translates it the same way. The term "pro" here means "before".

 

==You clearly ignored all of what I said.

 

I'm sorry, but it is your view that is just not there. Please show where it states anywhere that there are those NOT drawn. That has to be read into Scripture.

Please reread my posts as I have never said that. I have stated just what Scripture states...those that come to Christ cannot do so unless drawn and given.

 

I am. Do every Hebrew and Greek word mean the exact same thing all of the time?

...that came straight from Strong's, so I did not make it up as you are implying.

 

On the contrary, you have ignored the problems your view has presented.

 

==Your logic here, and in all of your replies here, is dangerous because it borders on universalism. In fact I will say that if I take your logic to its logical conclusions I end up at universalism. The Scripture is clear that all those the Father gives to Jesus, will come to Jesus. Nobody else is coming to Jesus. Now it is also clear that nobody can come to Jesus unless drawn to Jesus by the Father. Those that are drawn to Jesus by the Father will be raised up by Jesus on the last day (thus not all are drawn).

 

Yes. Some do NOT respond to the calling of the Holy Spirit.

 

If you say so

...then you will be taking a false logic and false view of what I am saying.

I agree with all of this.

The bolded is what is eisegeted into Scripture, as it does NOT say that ANYWHERE in Scripture! This is adding to the Bible, and has never been shown in the hundreds of years this debate has ensued. This is our point of disagreement, as I do not read that into the text. This is what I am taling about where the converse of a true statement is not automatically truth, also. I asked you if the converse of the statement that "all of those who go to my church like chicken" is true. Is that "philosophy"? If you state that it is, then there are only 180 people in the entire world who like chicken. This is obviously not true, as is the converse of John 6:37, 44.

 

==We are not talking about "all of the time" we are talking about Ephesians 1:4. I cannot find one source that translates "pro" here any other way than "before".

==Strongs is good but, in general, I don't like it for people who have not taken Greek courses (don't know if you have or not). I am simply saying that here, in Ephesians 1:4, "pro" means before. In fact if you look up the term "pro" in a greek dictionary, not Strongs, you will find that it is defined as "before". I have looked it up in several dictionaries and it means before, in front of, prior to. Every translation I am aware of, and I have verified this tonight, also translates this term as "before" in Eph 1:4 (NASB, NKJV, ESV, NIV, HCSB, RSV, Amplified, NLT). So if you are coming to a different understanding then you have to ask why.

 

==What? If those drawn to the Father are raised up by Jesus on the last day, and they are (Jn 6:44), then not all are drawn. How can it be any other way? Please explain.

==It is not adding to the Bible or reading into the text. It is simply taking what the text says and applying that to a situation (ie..the situation of those who do not believe).

==Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever. John 6:44 is clear that "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day" (Jn 6:44). No one can come unless drawn, and those who are drawn are raised.

 

If we let Scripture interpret Scripture, did Christ then die "before" the foundation of the world (being crucified), or does that phrase have a deeper meaning, i.e., "before" does not bear the time element.