Calvinists please help me as I am trying to understand.

[HankD]

But according to your fellow non-cal they are the same therefore it should matter not:

Allan
"Any time God is calling men from darkness to light, from error to truth, or righteousness from unrighteousness you have God drawing men. His drawing and calling are the same thing."





So if we plug in "draw/drew" where "called" is in Romans 8, since I have now learned they are the same thing we get this:

Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also drew: and whom he drew, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Those he drew were predestined and were justified and glorified. Therefore when you say this:

"Then that criteria begs the question "Is Jesus a universalist" because He is the one who said in John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

The second question about the condition, yes when He made the statement it was conditioned upon His crucifixion.

It has been accomplished and therefore this passage (John 12:32) of Scripture is being fulfilled as we speak."


you are saying God draws all men and Romans says all (not some or many)that are drawn/called are justified and sanctified. Universalism.:thumbs:


John Gill

Pro 1:24 - Because I have called, and ye refused,.... This is to be understood not of the internal call of Wisdom, or Christ, which is by the special grace of his Spirit; is according to an eternal purpose, the fruit of everlasting love, peculiar to God's elect, and by a divine power; and is also a call to special blessings of grace, and to eternal glory; and which is always effectual, unchangeable, and irreversible, and can never be refused, rejected, and resisted, so as to become void and of no effect: but of the external call by the word, to the natural duties of religion, and to an attendance on the means of grace; which may be where no election goes before, no sanctification attends, nor salvation follows, Mat_20:16; and this may be refused and rejected, as it often is; as when men, notwithstanding that call, do not attend on the ministry of the word, or, if they do, it is in a negligent careless way; or, they show an aversion to it, despise, contradict, and blaspheme it, as the Jews did, who were the persons first called to hear it; see Mat_22:2;

Actually you don't know that I am a "non-CAL". I have often said I don't want to be called a "calvinist" because I don't want my faith to be stigmatized with the name of a mortal man.

1 Corinthians 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?​

You say it does not matter but I believe it does matter because it is a legitimate passage in rebuttal to the doctrines of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement. You made the oblique accusation of universalism against someone because he said that the Father "draws all men".

In any event you should answer the question directly. Was Jesus therefore a universalist because He said "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me".

At least tell us what you think He meant by this statement rather than issuing an apparent smokescreen of data from John Gill.

Those who are skilled at the art of debate know full well that an ad hominem or a smokescreen of superfluous information is usually issued when the answer to a question is not know or the question proves the opponent wrong.

Please answer the question:
Was Jesus therefore a universalist because He said "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me".

There is a standard calvinistic answer to this question grasshopper.


HankD

 

[zrs6v4]

Hi Zrs6v4;
This is how Salvation was for me;
Choice of whether to be saved or not isn't one that where we just choose to be saved and then go out and get saved. We are first drawn or called. We then hear about Christ, learning about Him first. Being drawn isn't a choice but listening may be. Many are called but few are chosen. We do not choose Christ we are chosen for Christ.
Salvations depends on you being convinced of the truth of Jesus Christ there by creating faith inside of us. Then comes conviction this happens by learning we are sinners and we feel the conviction of it. Conviction tears at us so much that it literally drives us to our knees in submission to the righteousness of God.
There is nothing right about us with out God and when we see that is true is when conviction takes over.
Salvation is never forced though explanations may seem that way. All through the process of Salvation our only choice is to rebel against it. Rebellion is the choice we can make to stop the process although with out rebellion there is no resistance. With out resistance we accept Christ as our Savior. Salvation is all of God. Man's only part in his own Salvation is our submission to the righteousness of God. Submission is giving up the rebellion our fight against Him.
MB

I think we are on the same page here, unless I missunderstood you in any way. The more I read scripture, the more I see this, although I have been wrong a lot, haha, but still growing and learning. I have a pretty good testimony as well, I actually thought I was saved already by saying a prayer when I was 11, but I was saved 14 months ago when I was 22...

Everyone I thank you for your concern, but please dont send me private messages about my salvation in a sense trying to tell me Im not saved. I understand what you see, but I want to make it clear even though I may come across not so clear and slightly change some opinions as I think and read the scripture.

I believe Arminians and Calvanists both can be saved! No question, even atheists
I also think there are born again believers on both sides
We no matter what preach the Gospel, so please dont categorize me into the Hyper-Calvinists, thanks and God bless

 

[zrs6v4]

with an addition to the three basics I listed, The bible is our final authority, so whatever it says, with all of our hearts we are to abide in it as truth the best we know how and more than that. So if it says we should repent and believe then preach it, and if it says God predestined it, then preach it. Obviously we arent perfect but God's Word is, and takes care of the sinner on its own. All we have to do is learn it, love it, and preach it. We arent to shape it around to make it fit our perspective although we again are all guilty, but rather twist ourselves to fit in it.

The whole discussion was intended to learn Calvinism better, and test it in God's Word. I came in with the understanding that I may learn something here, I may be right, and may be wrong. I think Im pretty close to what the bible teaches about some of the basics of what Calvin taught, but I dont think we are to heed to His teachings just because they seem more accurate, and the same with Arminian. You can call me a Calvinists if what I see the bible saying equals what Calvin said but Im still Christ's and so are you. So if anyone came in here to talk scripture, I know from my short experience you dont learn anything in your heart when you are under the illusion your way of understanding is concrete. I do favor Calvinism, but I always try to be openminded to the context of scripture even though I cant always do what I want, hah.

 

[Allan]

Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law, ineeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Ah, but we must keep things in context. Chapter 8 is not about instances but living a lifestyle and Paul is contrasting to types of lives - saved and unsaved.
We see this is speaking about living a lifestyle more so in verse 8 when it states that those who walk (live) for/after the flesh can not please God.

Now, there is no question that man if left to himself will not ever seek after God for man would never know anything about God much less that he needs saviour.

The question comes what happens when God does intervene or more specifically why is God intervening in the lives of those who will reject Him? Why would He reveal Himself, make known to them sin, righteousness and judgment to come and that they need a saviour (John 16:8; Rom 1:18-32)?

I think the remaining question for us to answer is can we turn to im without Him?

I agree and I disagree. I agree with the first part of your question up to the "without Him". If you know anything about Him, sin, righteousness, the judgment to come it is because of Him. So we aren't speaking Pelagianism (coming to God without the need of His grace or assistance) nor Semi-Pel (still coming to God without the need for His grace or assistance BUT if you do then God will reward you with grace to be saved). But we are needing to ask the question "can we turn to him?" .. and more specifically, can we turn to Him because of the truths He has revealed to us as well as reject them knowing full well the truth?

Proverbs 1:33- but whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster. who listens in the flesh?

Keep the context. Who was God calling to?

Pro 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

And at the end it states that of those - whoever/anyone who will listen (synonamous here with believe) will dwell in safety/saved.

Romans 9 talks about Gods sovereign choice and the good ol predestined verse (11).

This is extremely debatable as both sides agree it is dealing with election but both sides do not agree it is dealing specifically with salvation. One side states that if one takes Rom 9 verse by verse, one will see it is speaking of the election to 'a purpose' and not salvation. Though salvation may be included into that 'purpose' the intent of Rom 9 is dealing specifically with election to a purpose.
Anyway.. as I said it is a very debatable passage

Is it our choice to cry out for help or do we stop sinking on our own and start swimming upward?

Again, here you add something that is never part of the argument. We do not stop anything nor do determine to do so. Scripture says that we are to believe God and nothing more. Will we believe what God has revealed to us is true or will we reject it. Remember that scripture says faith is not a work nor should it ever be set toward such a catagory.

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Notice this person has done nothing except to believe that what God said was truth.

It seems everytime someone comes to this point of understanding then God always picks them back up, because they have truly become broken and sick (humble).

Agreed.

But how can we make this happen to be saved?

We don't, we can either believe all that God said was true or reject it.

how can i become humble enough to gain Gods approval?

We can't, we can either believe all that God said was true or reject it.

How do I become the rebelling child who really understand the need of God on my own?

To this you can't on your own, which is why God reveals truth to us (thus we DO understand because God did it) that we might believe or reject it.

I can't unless God chooses to have mercy on my foolishness.

I agree. You do know that faith in and of itself is meaningless or has no value. The only way faith can have any value is to attach itself to something that is of value. IOW - the only value my faith has is in that which I placed my faith into -Christ Jesus. Faith is the vehicle of salvation but God is the one who saves.

Romans 10:8 the word is always there and God is right in front of everyones face. but they cant see b/c they are blind

True enough if God does not reveal it to them. But scritpures state imfatically that God does in fact reveal it to them so they do both see and understand, but that does not mean they will believe. Just because man sees and understands does not necessitate he will accept it as truth. It does not change the truth for the truth can not be change but he will do as Romans 1 states and 'exchange' the truth for a lie.

v10 did pharaoh in exodus change his heart or did God? dont answer that, haha

The first time it was pharoah, and after that God hardened him but pharoahs heart was not changed regarding his intial intent as we see when he let them go. He still went after them.

v17 faith comes from the word of God
v21 Isaiah- who are the disobedient? Israel in captivity or us? arent we all, why didnt we listen?

The context is dealing with Israel, though it can be used to 'illistrate' us as well.

Deut 30, again can we obey in the flesh?

According to Deut 30 yes. But let us again state what this 'do' is. - Believe.
Watch:

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Notice it states to 'choose' life and if you do 'choose' life then look at what happens AFTERWARDS:

Deu 30:20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

Remember it said to choose life so that you will love the Lord thy God.
Choose life that you may obey His voice.
Choose life that you may cleave or become one with Him because He is life.
Choose life that you may receive the inheritence promised to your fathers (speaking to Israel)

All of this followed after choosing life.

I think "free will" is rightly saying that we all are getting worse and worse as we live without heeding to God.

I don't use the term free-will except when my Cal brothers insist on the term to catagorize me. I speak of our will as being limited which is also known as responsibility of the will. We can only do those things that God allows to be set before us. Free-will (Pelagainism and Semi-Pel) speaks of absolute freedom and bound to or under nothing. This is just to help you understand my position - nothing more.

 

[Allan]

Everyone I thank you for your concern, but please dont send me private messages about my salvation in a sense trying to tell me Im not saved. I understand what you see, but I want to make it clear even though I may come across not so clear and slightly change some opinions as I think and read the scripture.

I'm sorry if the above actually happened. Not only was the person wrong in doing but you deserve an appolgy. I do appreciate your open and honest postings. Continue in your search with a glad heart and upright spirit. What I have presented in a nutshell fashion in my previous postings is only what I have found, and only gave them to you per your request. But I hold you in as high esteem as I do those others who agree with me. Not because of who you are but because who is in You :thumbs: Study dear brother and be found faithful to that which God has revealed to you.

 

[zrs6v4]

I'm sorry if the above actually happened. Not only was the person wrong in doing but you deserve an appolgy. I do appreciate your open and honest postings. Continue in your search with a glad heart and upright spirit. What I have presented in a nutshell fashion in my previous postings is only what I have found, and only gave them to you per your request. But I hold you in as high esteem as I do those others who agree with me. Not because of who you are but because who is in You :thumbs: Study dear brother and be found faithful to that which God has revealed to you.

Thanks a lot for the help and like I said anyone is welcome to speak their part as long as we respect one anothers views. I do see your view a little clearer and I do in fact agree with all of those passages by the way as you already know and I think teaching them as you seem to be is right. The only difference seems to be that my view, due to other verses, seems to state that before all of these verses you noted that God is behind the scenes in the person enabling them.. In other words in the cases of where the bible gives choice, Id teach choice, but when it talks about predestination Id teach that pre-choice you were chosen....

Im gonna switch styles a little, lets do one verse at a time if you are willing still if not no big deal... I cant deal with 10 verses at once I go to fast and say stupid things

 

[zrs6v4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zrs6v4
Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law, ineeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You said- Ah, but we must keep things in context. Chapter 8 is not about instances but living a lifestyle and Paul is contrasting to types of lives - saved and unsaved.
We see this is speaking about living a lifestyle more so in verse 8 when it states that those who walk (live) for/after the flesh can not please God.

I agree Paul is talking about life in the Spirit, but it still refers to flesh as a truth of not being able to submit, obey, please God.

either way it is talking about the flesh/unsaved being unable to do these things.

You then stress believing/trusting in God after He reveals Himself by the spirit. So you would say we must believe or by faith choose God, then at that point God would come in and save us. but in a sense would that be a work of the law to trust God, when unable, to gain a gift? (again I agree God does enable but Im going a step further than what you said)

Spurgeon had a good one that is exactly what Im trying to say and I had the same experience, so I did believe what you are explaining to me at one time, but here is where I am and am lost in it (simply taking steps further like I said)-

One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preachers sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But How did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment-- I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the scriptures? I did read them but what led me to do so? Then in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."

This understanding we have doesnt avoid scripture, but while seeing them knowing that they are not allowed unless it is chosen by God, which draws serious prayer like not before and more reliance and greater worship. It isnt a bad view, but yes it can be taken to far and yes can easily be mistaken..

 

[Allan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zrs6v4
Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law, ineeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You said- Ah, but we must keep things in context. Chapter 8 is not about instances but living a lifestyle and Paul is contrasting to types of lives - saved and unsaved.
We see this is speaking about living a lifestyle more so in verse 8 when it states that those who walk (live) for/after the flesh can not please God.

I agree Paul is talking about life in the Spirit, but it still refers to flesh as a truth of not being able to submit, obey, please God.

either way it is talking about the flesh/unsaved being unable to do these things.

I believe you are missing Pauls point. He is contrasting two types of lives. This is a contrast of two types who are already IN a particular position and the discription is speaking of those who are 'fixated' upon either the flesh or the Spirit. IOW - they are set or have chosen their way.

Yes, we can read things into this but if we simply keep it in context and take it for what it says - that being Paul is contrasting only two groups of people here and how it relates to their relation to and with God.

This however makes no mention of the Lord dealing with anyone or anything else in between but only gives us the contrast between these two groups of people.

You then stress believing/trusting in God after He reveals Himself by the spirit. So you would say we must believe or by faith choose God, then at that point God would come in and save us. but in a sense would that be a work of the law to trust God, when unable, to gain a gift? (again I agree God does enable but Im going a step further than what you said)

No, belief is not a work as says the scripture and can not be equated as such. (Rom 4:4-6). We do not through faith earn or work for righteousness.
Secondly I believe that scripture imfatically states that we do not receive anything until after we believe as I showed briefly in my previous post regarding Duet 30 but there are 'many' more which say the same like these:

It is 'by faith' we are justified (Rom 3:28)
It is 'by faith' we are sanctified (Acts 26:18,)
It is 'by faith' we are made righteous (Rom 3:22, Rom 4:5)
It is 'by faith' the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)
It is 'by faith' we receive (obtain) the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14)

Spurgeon had a good one that is exactly what Im trying to say and I had the same experience, so I did believe what you are explaining to me at one time, but here is where I am and am lost in it (simply taking steps further like I said)-

One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preachers sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But How did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment-- I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the scriptures? I did read them but what led me to do so? Then in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."

No non-cals disagrees with this. However what Spurgeon didn't acknowledge in the above is that God did not save and indeed would not save until 'they' believed. The choice stood before them and nothing would be done until they believed.

There is no question that we all ascribe our 'change' wholely to God for it is He who saught us, saved us, and changed us. AND YET He would not unless we believed. Spurgeon also said this from his sermon "A Defence of Calvinism":

The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

 

[Rippon]

All Scripture From TNIV

The question comes what happens when God does intervene or more specifically why is God intervening in the lives of those who will reject Him? Why would He reveal Himself, make known to them sin, righteousness and judgment to come and that they need a saviour (John 16:8; Rom 1:18-32)?

The Lord intervenes in the lives of many whom He doed not want to be saved.There is intervention -- but not saving intervention.The Lord has his purposes for blinding some.But glory still goes to God regardless.

"For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.to the one we are an aroma that brings death;to the other,an aroma that brings life.And who is equal to such a task?"(2 Cor.2:15,16)

So the Gospel is obnoxious to some --bringing death --and to others that smell is very pleasant --which brings eternal life.So the Gospel is never preached in vain -- it will be a pleasing aroma to Christ regardless.

This is extremely debatable as both sides agree it is dealing with election but both sides do not agree it is dealing specifically with salvation. One side states that if one takes Rom 9 verse by verse, one will see it is speaking of the election to 'a purpose' and not salvation. Though salvation may be included into that 'purpose' the intent of Rom 9 is dealing specifically with election to a purpose.
Anyway.. as I said it is a very debatable passage

It is not debatable unless one wants to argue with God :"But who are you,a mere human being,to talk back to God?"(Ro.9:20)

True enough if God does not reveal it to them. But scritpures {sic} state imfatically {sic}that God does in fact reveal it to them so they do both see and understand, but that does not mean they will believe. Just because man sees and understands does not necessitate he will accept it as truth. It does not change the truth for the truth can not be change but he will do as Romans 1 states and 'exchange' the truth for a lie.

There you go again.In the early chapters of Romans those who never hear of Christ and His Gospel are condemned for what was revealed to them.But what has been revealed can't impart salvation to their souls.

The first time it was pharoah, and after that God hardened him ...

No,you're wrong.The first mention in Scripture of Pharoah's heart is in Exodus 4:21 ..."But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."


Allan,your posts are much too long.You need to learn to be brief.Try to tackle just a couple items clearly --not a bunch of things in a scattershot kind of way.

 

[Allan]

The Lord intervenes in the lives of many whom He doed not want to be saved.

And here we see you disagree with scripture/God. (1 Tim 2:4) As well as much if not most of Reformed thought. You are one of the few who beleive that God has absolutely no love for or toward those not elect. And you are in the minority still that the gospel is not a true and sincere invitation to the all men to be saved. So on this issue you disagree with both me and those of your own theological view (and of course the host of others of my view).

There is intervention -- but not saving intervention.The Lord has his purposes for blinding some.But glory still goes to God regardless.

There is no other kind of intervention. And yes, the Lord does have a purpose in blinding some but this issue has been discussed many times over. Lastly - who said God doesn't get the glory?

"For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.to the one we are an aroma that brings death;to the other,an aroma that brings life.And who is equal to such a task?"(2 Cor.2:15,16)

So the Gospel is obnoxious to some --bringing death --and to others that smell is very pleasant --which brings eternal life.So the Gospel is never preached in vain -- it will be a pleasing aroma to Christ regardless.

Again who has said the gospel is preached in vain?

It is not debatable unless one wants to argue with God :"But who are you,a mere human being,to talk back to God?"(Ro.9:20)

No, I do not argue with God but my friend you nor any man is God. I debate with your rendering of Rom 9 being about individual salvation when in context it is about 'purpose'.

There you go again.In the early chapters of Romans those who never hear of Christ and His Gospel are condemned for what was revealed to them.But what has been revealed can't impart salvation to their souls.

Again, who said it does? Yet if they believe those things revealed will not God send someone to proclaim just what that truth is about? Like the Etheopian and evangelist? Or any number of other passages in the NT where the Gospel was given though it was not where the men intended to preach it.

No,you're wrong.The first mention in Scripture of Pharoah's heart is in Exodus 4:21 ..."But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

Again, who said anything about the 'first' mention of the phrase "Pharoahs heart". I said the first time his heart was hardened scripture says he did it. and then afterwards we see scripture say God did it.

Allan,your posts are much too long.You need to learn to be brief.Try to tackle just a couple items clearly --not a bunch of things in a scattershot kind of way.

They haven't made brievity a criteria yet. The rest is your issue not mine.

 

[Rippon]

And here we see you disagree with scripture/God. (1 Tim 2:4) As well as much if not most of Reformed thought. You are one of the few who beleive that God has absolutely no love for or toward those not elect. And you are in the minority still that the gospel is not a true and sincere invitation to the all men to be saved. So on this issue you disagree with both me and those of your own theological view (and of course the host of others of my view).

Does God want to save those He has decreed shall be condemned?!

Even Phil Johnson acknowledges that those Calvinists who hold that God does not love the non-elect are not hyper-Calvinists.(By the way,the Monergism.org chart is still a better one --which does in-fact disagree fundamentally with Johnson's.)

"The gospel is not a true and sincere invitation to the all men to be saved."?That is really awkwardly worded.The tender is presented for the hearing of all within earshot.But obviously God does not decree that the ones He has already ordained for condemnation shall be saved.The Lord is not at cross-purposes with Himself.

You are confusing.First you say my view is in the minority among Calvinists.Then you say that I disagree with those of my own theological view.If they were of my "own theological view" then there would be a uniformity of views.

No, I do not argue with God but my friend you nor any man is God. I debate with your rendering of Rom 9 being about individual salvation when in context it is about 'purpose'.

Who says that any man is God?! You come up with some rather unique notions.

You can disagree that Romans 9 is discussing individual salvation until the cows come home.But the force of the chapter weighs against your manmade view.See verses 13,16,22 and 23 in particular to see that it indeed is speaking of individuals and their salvation and damnation.

Again, who said anything about the 'first' mention of the phrase "Pharoahs heart". I said the first time his heart was hardened scripture says he did it. and then afterwards we see scripture say God did it.

No.Exodus 4:21 is the very first mention of Pharaoh's heart.It says that the Lord hardened it.You are coming up with your own extra-biblical ideas here.

They haven't made brievity a criteria yet.

Being brief is a good attribute.It factors in well with a good discussion on the BB.Learn to focus on key points;otherwise some bunny trails may develop.

 

[Jerome]

""If," some will say, "God has chosen a certain number to be saved then it cannot be true that Christ is offered to all, and that God wishes all men to be saved." There are many answers to that objection. At present I shall only give this one: that both are true. It is true that God has chosen a certain number to eternal life, for you will find it so recorded in almost every page of the Bible. It is also true that Christ died that any sinner might look to him, and that God wishes every sinner to come to Jesus and live. This also you will find written in every page of the Bible. Believe both, even if you cannot reconcile them. Wait for a day of fuller light. The day is coming when you will see that both are quite true. Believe, meanwhile, the words of him that cannot lie." ---Robert Murray M'Cheyne, Dec. 24, 1837

 

[HankD]

""If," some will say, "God has chosen a certain number to be saved then it cannot be true that Christ is offered to all, and that God wishes all men to be saved." There are many answers to that objection. At present I shall only give this one: that both are true. It is true that God has chosen a certain number to eternal life, for you will find it so recorded in almost every page of the Bible. It is also true that Christ died that any sinner might look to him, and that God wishes every sinner to come to Jesus and live. This also you will find written in every page of the Bible. Believe both, even if you cannot reconcile them. Wait for a day of fuller light. The day is coming when you will see that both are quite true. Believe, meanwhile, the words of him that cannot lie." ---Robert Murray M'Cheyne, Dec. 24, 1837

Indeed

Ecclesiastes 3:11... no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

​

 

[Grasshopper]

Actually you don't know that I am a "non-CAL". I have often said I don't want to be called a "calvinist" because I don't want my faith to be stigmatized with the name of a mortal man.

When one injects himself into a debate that is already going on between two people and that injector takes one side over the other, is it not safe to assume he his joining with one side against the other?

​

You say it does not matter but I believe it does matter because it is a legitimate passage in rebuttal to the doctrines of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement.

It does not matter if one believes "draws" and "called" have the same meaning.

You made the oblique accusation of universalism against someone because he said that the Father "draws all men".

And I did so by pointing to Romans 8:29-30. Perhaps you can enlighten me who the called are in that passage. Were they also drawn?

In any event you should answer the question directly. Was Jesus therefore a universalist because He said "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me".

No.

At least tell us what you think He meant by this statement rather than issuing an apparent smokescreen of data from John Gill.

The smokescreen was in answer to Allan's question. Since when are we no longer allowed to quote others?

Those who are skilled at the art of debate know full well that an ad hominem or a smokescreen of superfluous information is usually issued when the answer to a question is not know or the question proves the opponent wrong.

Perhaps Calvinists will stop using the term Univeralists when the nonCal's stop using the phrase "you don't care about missions".

Please answer the question:
Was Jesus therefore a universalist because He said "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me".

There is a standard calvinistic answer to this question grasshopper.

Does "all" always mean "all"? I would quote some others with a better grasp and explanation but I don't want to anger you further.

 

[ray Marshall]

When one injects himself into a debate that is already going on between two people and that injector takes one side over the other, is it not safe to assume he his joining with one side against the other?

​

It does not matter if one believes "draws" and "called" have the same meanin



And I did so by pointing to Romans 8:29-30. Perhaps you can enlighten me who the called are in that passage. Were they also drawn?



No.



The smokescreen was in answer to Allan's question. Since when are we no longer allowed to quote others?


Perhaps Calvinists will stop using the term Univeralists when the nonCal's stop using the phrase "you don't care about missions".





Does "all" always mean "all"? I would quote some others with a better grasp and explanation but I don't want to anger you further.

Question: Saul sought repentance carefully with tears, and yet was not.
Question: I, if I be lifted up will draw all men unto me. I don't see all men being drawn to him.
Question: ALL that the FATHER giveth me, SHALL COME to me, etc
Question: And you hath he quickened who were dead in sin.
Question: As the FATHER quickeneth the dead, The SON quickeneth, whom he will.

 

[webdog]

Question: Saul sought repentance carefully with tears, and yet was not.
Question: I, if I be lifted up will draw all men unto me. I don't see all men being drawn to him.
Question: ALL that the FATHER giveth me, SHALL COME to me, etc
Question: And you hath he quickened who were dead in sin.
Question: As the FATHER quickeneth the dead, The SON quickeneth, whom he will.

Huh? Are these questions, or are you answering somone elses questions. I don't get it...

 

[zrs6v4]

I believe you are missing Pauls point. He is contrasting two types of lives. This is a contrast of two types who are already IN a particular position and the discription is speaking of those who are 'fixated' upon either the flesh or the Spirit. IOW - they are set or have chosen their way.

Yes, we can read things into this but if we simply keep it in context and take it for what it says - that being Paul is contrasting only two groups of people here and how it relates to their relation to and with God.

This however makes no mention of the Lord dealing with anyone or anything else in between but only gives us the contrast between these two groups of people.":

Im gonna let this one die for now, Ill have to do more reading into it or Id be speaking blindly... I see both of our points to say the least

No, belief is not a work as says the scripture and can not be equated as such. (Rom 4:4-6). We do not through faith earn or work for righteousness.
Secondly I believe that scripture imfatically states that we do not receive anything until after we believe as I showed briefly in my previous post regarding Duet 30 but there are 'many' more which say the same like these:.":

I agree a true belief and true trust are trust in Christ alone. This one is not a good place to start to gain grounds. The scripture clearly tells us to trust Christ and thats exactly what we are to plead with people to do. We obviously can take it further again and say can you trust Christ. When I came to Christ I felt like an unbeliever who couldnt even trust right..... In indeed it was the truth....

No non-cals disagrees with this. However what Spurgeon didn't acknowledge in the above is that God did not save and indeed would not save until 'they' believed. The choice stood before them and nothing would be done until they believed.

There is no question that we all ascribe our 'change' wholely to God for it is He who saught us, saved us, and changed us. AND YET He would not unless we believed. Spurgeon also said this from his sermon "A Defence of Calvinism":

It seems to me what he was trying to get across is that grace came first then faith, even though faith was given first it was still by grace. He is saying that his trusting and believing was still part of the gift which makes God 100% the one who saved you and not even your trust was from you (belief was part of God's grace given in other words). I also understand that you give God all the credit as you explain, to Him be the glory, amen. On Spurgeons second "quote" I totally see his point and Im not sure what made him come to this. Maybe there was a lot of quarrelling that was nonsense over this debate, haha. His point he makes, is exactly the reason why I respect both sides of the argument and am not so quick to start calling names..

example Revelation 22:17 which is what he gives to illustrate; which of course you would say see God offers it to all. What I also see is that verse He stresses those who hear, is thirsty, desires to take the living water (spiritual gifts, beattitudes). I cant argue with it seeming to be to all men and women. I just cant because that is our approach due to not being God, anyone CAN be saved in our eyes.

Now on the flip side we have these unavoidable verses(which is why you probably respect, you dont have to comment on these back, just pick one if you want)

Acts 13:48/Acts 16:14/2 Timothy 2:19+25-26/Ezekiel 36:27/Phil 2:12-13/John:6:37-39/John 6:44-45/John 6:63-67+70/John 7:37-38/John 8:47/John 10:26-27**/
I stopped at chapter 10 in John, some verses or more clear than others I think.

 

[Grasshopper]

Allan
Secondly I believe that scripture imfatically states that we do not receive anything until after we believe as I showed briefly in my previous post regarding Duet 30 but there are 'many' more which say the same like these:.":

It seems what John is saying is that in order to believe you must be first born of God.


1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

I don't believe he is saying: when you believe you are born of God, but instead: when you are born of God you believe. Belief is a gift given when one is born of God.

It wasn't until God opened Lydia's heart that she was able to believe:

Act 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.

So does God open the heart of all men?

 

[Me4Him]

Act 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.

So does God open the heart of all men?

If you look at what occurred between Jesus/Israel, and attempt to "predestinate" what occurred, on either side, accept/reject Jesus,

you put Jesus in a bad situation.

Let's say for instance that it was "predestine" for Israel to reject Jesus,

Jesus made an "invalid" offer of "I would, you wouldn't" that was against the predestined will of God.

Now let's say it was predestine for Israel to accept Jesus,

Obviously, Jesus didn't and failed.

Either way you attempt to predestine what occurred, you run into a problem.

On the other hand, if what occurred was a choice made by Israel, then neither acceptance/rejection of Jesus was "predestine".

Did God "Foreknow" what would occur, Certainly, and incorporated that foreknowledge into his plan to accomplish his purposes.

By "foreknowledge", God knows the choice each will make, who will chose to be saved, and he can call to preach, and who will not chose to be saved, and he can use for the devils role,

God's will is that none perish, but then God's will is not the one making the choice, but "man's will", just as Israel had a choice.

 

[Grasshopper]

If you look at what occurred between Jesus/Israel, and attempt to "predestinate" what occurred, on either side, accept/reject Jesus,

you put Jesus in a bad situation.

Let's say for instance that it was "predestine" for Israel to reject Jesus,

Jesus made an "invalid" offer of "I would, you wouldn't" that was against the predestined will of God.

Now let's say it was predestine for Israel to accept Jesus,

Obviously, Jesus didn't and failed.

Either way you attempt to predestine what occurred, you run into a problem.

On the other hand, if what occurred was a choice made by Israel, then neither acceptance/rejection of Jesus was "predestine".

Did God "Foreknow" what would occur, Certainly, and incorporated that foreknowledge into his plan to accomplish his purposes.

By "foreknowledge", God knows the choice each will make, who will chose to be saved, and he can call to preach, and who will not chose to be saved, and he can use for the devils role,

God's will is that none perish, but then God's will is not the one making the choice, but "man's will", just as Israel had a choice.

Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: