Can the Non-Elect Come Under Conviction?

I wonder how Scott and nept; that you or I could be chosen when we were aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, without God having no hope in the world. Thank God, He turned to a people who was not His people. Man I tell you, if the middle wall of partition had not of been broken down you and I would be lost for sure. elect or unelect for we had no hope in the world and were without God.

 

I agree. But the purpose of God according to election will stand. What he purposes to do... he will do. The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance.

The fact of the matter is that men will not stop spreading the gospel because of the indwelling of the Spirit of God.

You aren't going to deny that the Spirit's leading is why you preach the gospel are you?

Didn't you read the response? It is precisely because we don't know that the message must be preached to all we can reach.

Neither npet nor I disagree with this.

Amen. That is why I disagree with hypercalvinists even more than I disagree with you guys.

I think you guys are missing how God gets all the glory in saving men... I think the hc's are missing the whole thing.

 

no, personal goodness has nothing to do with salvation. Choice is what we have to make. I cannot say I was saved because of my personal goodness. The Bible tells us that our righteousness is as filthy rags before the Lord.

That being said, we must ask what saved us? Nothing but the blood of the Lamb!! But we had to choose Christ for that blood to be applied. He did die for the sins of the whole world, not just a select few.

Back in the book of Exodus, we read how the blood was applied to the door posts of the Israelites. They certainly could have rejected the thought of killing a lamb and putting blood on the outside of the house! What a disgusting and perverse thought, some might think.

But they chose to do as commanded. And because they chose to do as commanded, the death spirit passed over them.

Just as the Israelites made a choice then, we had to make a choice too. Either listen to His voice and apply that blood of the spotless lamb of God to our hearts and souls, or stand condemned.

We do have a choice.

 

This is a stretch... a very long stretch. Jesus comment concerning the earthly ministry of the messiah does not provide a proof for what you are arguing.

 

IOW, you do not believe Paul was commanded to preach salvation to the gentiles?

If that is the case, then it is only Israel who is the elect and no one of us Gentiles have any place in God's kingdom. Which, by the way, does not line up with scripture.

 

no, personal goodness has nothing to do with salvation. Choice is what we have to make. I cannot say I was saved because of my personal goodness. The Bible tells us that our righteousness is as filthy rags before the Lord. </font>[/QUOTE] But that is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that Christ's sacrifice and God's grace are capable of absolutely nothing until empowered by a human choice that according to you cannot ultimately be caused by God. It must be solely a function of your own will you say. If so then this divides the world into two classes: Those with good wills and those with bad... and those with good wills are every bit as much to be given credit as those with bad are to be condemned.

Those are mutually exclusive statements. If it takes nothing but the blood of the Lamb to save you then it does not require your good "free will" choice... If it requires your "choice" then the blood is insufficient.

And the question still stands, why do we choose as we do concerning salvation?

 

Yes. That was his God given ministry... just like the earthly ministry of the Messiah was primarily to the Jews.

 

Not sure exactly what you think I would disagree with here. Even the OT says that Christ would bring salvation to the gentiles- thus the great commission wasn't to the geographical Israel alone but to the uttermost parts of the earth.

 

Why do we choose? Because God has given us that priveledge to choose whom we will serve.

He is not a puppetmaster who says I don't want Ron to enter heaven so no matter what Ron believes, no matter how sorry Ron is for his sin, no matter if Ron cries for forgiveness or not even if he truly means it, I won't allow Ron in to my kingdom. God is not like that. God is love. And Jesus said 'He that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out.'

Nor is God some child playing a game with humanity, choosing one over the other as a favorite toy. God is not a respector of persons. He offered salvation to the chief of sinners, He offers it to all mankind. And not to take it away from just because He chooses.

To say God has predestined some to heaven and some to hell would be making God a respector of persons, which He is not.

 

Not until He arose from the dead Scott.

 

Acts 28:27-28 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

 

Not necessarily. It would depend on why He chose some and not others. A "respecter of persons" is "one who regards or judges with partiality". If we were to say, for example, that God looked through the corridor of time to see who would believe the gospel and He chose to save those and those alone, or that He chose to save Jews only, then He would indeed be a "respecter of persons" because He is partial to those who believe or to those who are Jewish.

On the other hand, if God chooses to save some but not because of any condition in them then He is not being partial and is not a "respecter of persons".

 

That is NOT AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. Restating the fact that we have a choice is not an answer to why one chooses as they do... it is an evasion.

You are right... and neither is "Ron". Just like Ron will freely choose to violate God's law though he could obey it... Ron will not believe, repent, or sincerely and humbly cry for forgiveness. It is not Ron's nature.

You have stripped this of its context. In the very same passage it tells us "why" men come to Christ so that they may be accepted and secure.

Did I ever say God was a child? His reasons for choosing are also given in scripture... it is for His own good pleasure.

According to your argument He is... He favors those who make good decisions independent of Him over those who make bad decisions.

And for you to continue to say this makes your argument dishonest and brings your personal honesty into question. I have specifically said and supported that God does not predestine men to hell. Casting out false accusations does not win debate... it undermines the integrity of your arguments.

 

I think that was the implication of what I said.

 

It stands to reason that if man cannot make a choice to accept Christ until that man is chosen by God then God is in fact predestining some to hell since many are called but few are chosen.

You may not have said God predestined some to hell, but the argument is there nonetheless.

 

So, He made Ron different so that Ron and others like Ron were made in a sinful nature but the elect were not?

 

No. Ron was born with a sin nature like his representative and father Adam (Romans 5). Not only this but Ron affirmed Adam's representation and his own depravity by willfully choosing sin.

Ron is responsible for his sin. God did not "make" him that way.

However, if elect, Ron's nature would be changed thus freeing him from the bondage of sin and the fate that he deserves.

 

Nope. I don't think that is reasonable at all and have even given illustrations to show why it is not reasonable.

Here's another: Two wicked, hateful men get drunk together in a John boat and pass out. As they squirm the boat flips. Both are so drunk they don't even wake up. A passer by dives in and saves one but the other perishes.

Which man deserved to have a good man lay his own life and safety down for them? Neither.

Which man was guilty? Both.

Which man deserved to be saved being completely responsible for their own plight? Neither.

Did the life saver assume the guilt of the one man because he saved the other? NO!!!!!

No. It isn't. If two people are guilty and neither deserve mercy... God's extending grace to one does not make Him the least bit unfair to the other. The other is STILL guilty by his own choice.

In fact both are still worthy of hell, the one has simply had Christ's righteousness imputed to him though he never has nor will deserve it.... this precludes the merit he would rightly deserve if the critical difference between him and the other was his making the "right choice" of his own free will.

 

BTW, neither of you guys have answered my question... Am I to suppose you cannot?

All I have asked is who should get the ultimate credit for beginning the process that led to your salvation... Is it God's goodness through grace or your goodness through merit?

If there is another legitimate answer to the question then feel free to supply it. However having asked non-calvinists to answer this question numerous times... I have never seen another. Only one person was bold enough to face the direct and unavoidable conclusion and admit that salvation according to the non-calvinist position was indeed partially by merit.

 

However, if elect, Ron's nature would be changed thus freeing him from the bondage of sin and the fate that he deserves.

Well, we say Ron was presented with an chance to go to Heaven and chose to take it.

We have answered your question over and over and over and over and over etc. We all have mental blocks from time to time I know I do.

It makes a God that is partial.