Can the Non-Elect Come Under Conviction?

[Brother Bob]

Ok Scott; I give you that one. Except it was Jesus Himself said; none good except my Father which is in Heaven and there are three but the three are one. That statement alone should let you know that you will never know it all.

What if I said I thought the Ford would save me is why I chose it?

I chose good over evil.

If I have knowledge then I can choose.

Absolutly not did God cause those things to happen to me. Father died at 42, his sister died at 36 runs in the family.

Who hath known the mind of God, who hath been His councelor? God is merciful.

No, I will not turn for to do so I have to accept the whole lot and that includes babies going to hell which I will never believe.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me4Him:
Where C/A disagree is "WHY" some are not elect, God's will, (calvin) or man's will. (Arminian)

At least M4H is honest enough to recognize that non-calvinists attribute the "why" to "man's will"... aka, "man's goodness".

IOW's, the salvation bought by Christ on Calvary is incomplete without man's goodness/willful good choice. </font>[/QUOTE]Jos 24:15 choose you this day whom ye will serve;

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Ga 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Ga 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.


Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Jas 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God.

Calvin' doctrine actually accuses the Spirit of "mugging" people into surrendering their soul to him.

But Jesus only knocks on the door of the heart, he doesn't "kick it down", we have to open it, if WE WANT him to come in.

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

Do you know the "Scriptural definition of "GOOD"??

"SINLESS", If man was "good", he wouldn't need Jesus to be saved.

Why do you "ignore" all of these verses??

 

[epistemaniac]

Me4him

There's nothing in those verses as to who can become a Christian (Saved/Lost) but only what a "CHRISTIAN" will become when they are saved.

wrong again, you are nothing, if not at least consistent

there is no question that election includes some corporate elements... however, the corporate aspects do not negate that election is also individual as well... read the following thoughtful letter from Greek expert Daniel Wallace, who has taught Greek at the graduate school level since 1979, and you will, if you really want to be a consistently biblical Christian, be forced to agree....

see http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=384

Monergism.com lists the following resources on the subject as well:
Election: Individual or Corporate in Romans 9
The best scholarly exegesis I have seen on Romans nine is in book called "Justification of God" by John Piper. This books hammers home this issue with Scripture....and no one has successfully refuted his thesis. Piper deals biblically with the text as it is by examining the passage in its original language (Greek). by John Piper. Why do we believe in election? Because the Bible plainly teaches it.
Here are a few good resources online:

God's Purpose According To Election": Paul's Argument In Romans 9
By Steven M. Baugh
An Examination of John Cotton's Treatment of Romans Nine by William Twisse
Is Individual Election to Salvation Taught in Romans Nine? By Matt Perman
Election, Non-Election, and Romans 9 by Matthew Perman
Corporate and Individual Election by Grover Gunn
Jews, Gentiles, & the Goal of Redemptive History (An exegetical and theological analysis of Romans 9-11; By Fred G. Zaspel
Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election? by Matt SlickCorporate Election by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.A Debate on Individual Election By Todd A. Kofchur and David ShiveThe Most Neglected Chapter in the Bible (Romans 9) by W.E. Best ELECTON: Individual & Corporate by First Reformed Presbyterian Chruch (PCA)Election Defined by Sola ScripturaWHO IS ISRAEL? Romans 9:1-13 by John Stevenson
"LETTING" GOD BE GOD: INDIVIDUAL ELECTION IN ROMANS 8 AND 9 by Jared C. Wilson
At the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 Piper was preaching through Romans. Some of his sermons material on Rom 9 may touch on the issue you are wrestling with. The two links below are for 2002 and 2003 respectively:
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/02/index.html
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/03/index.html
(http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/election.html -- scroll about 3/4 the way down the page to find the area that deals specifically with corporate versus individual election....)


Overall, however, your post (and your god) reminds me of these wise words:

"How different is the God of the Bible from the God of modern Christendom! The conception of Deity which prevails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blasphemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century (and now, obviously, the 21st century-Ken) is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular mind is the creation of maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe-inspiring reverence. To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellowmen are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity; is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is "trying His best" to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the Supreme Being." (AW Pink, The Sovereignty of God)

`tis sad indeed....

blessings,
Ken

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
Ok Scott; I give you that one. Except it was Jesus Himself said; none good except my Father which is in Heaven and there are three but the three are one. That statement alone should let you know that you will never know it all.

What if I said I thought the Ford would save me is why I chose it?

I chose good over evil.

Then you are saying that you are saved by the merit of your choice and not by grace.

If I have knowledge then I can choose.

Then you are claiming that your choice and ultimately your salvation were due to your intelligence/wisdom... certainly something worthy of glory and merit.

Absolutly not did God cause those things to happen to me. Father died at 42, his sister died at 36 runs in the family.

Didn't say that. I said that God changed you through those events.

Are you saying He evil occurs without Him allowing it? Are you suggesting that He doesn't use evil to accomplish His ultimate will? (ie Joseph being sold into slavery)

Who hath known the mind of God, who hath been His councelor? God is merciful.

Amen.

[qb[No, I will not turn for to do so I have to accept the whole lot and that includes babies going to hell which I will never believe. [/QB]

I don't accept babies going to hell... that isn't a necessary conclusion of the doctrines of grace. In fact, if salvation is ultimately due to the goodness of God that constitutes the best indirectly biblical case there is that babies will go to heaven.

From the position that human choice is decisive in salvation, the best you could possibly argue is that God mercifully annihilates babies since for them to go to heaven would be forcing them to be saved in every sense that election forces an adult to be saved.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
I chose good over evil.

If I have knowledge then I can choose.

So how does this explain why someone chooses evil over good? Do they choose evil because they lack knowledge? If so, is that their fault? Do they have access to the information but they aren't intelligent enough to understand it? Is that their fault?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me4Him:
Where C/A disagree is "WHY" some are not elect, God's will, (calvin) or man's will. (Arminian)

At least M4H is honest enough to recognize that non-calvinists attribute the "why" to "man's will"... aka, "man's goodness".

IOW's, the salvation bought by Christ on Calvary is incomplete without man's goodness/willful good choice. </font>[/QUOTE]Jos 24:15 choose you this day whom ye will serve; </font>[/QUOTE] And? That command makes no assumption about why one would choose well and another would choose wrongly.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Yes. This is what I have consistently said. Leave unregenerate man alone and he will always choose to continue to love darkeness. Says nothing about why anyone would ever choose the Light.

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Proves my point. Men will not come to the light because he loves and glorifies himself... he doesn't think he should answer to a higher authority than himself... so he will not come to the light unless something about him changes... and this verse just helps my case that the goodness to change cannot come from within man.

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

And who has the power to take away this blindness that man doesn't even realize that he has... it isn't the man himself. Satan is far more powerful than an unregenerate man.

Ga 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Ga 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Still no answer to why one chooses to sow one way while another choose the other. It is just a simple statement of fact... and an indictment of the ungodly.

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

And once again, no reference to "why"... just simply a statement of a secondary cause-effect relationship.

Calvin' doctrine actually accuses the Spirit of "mugging" people into surrendering their soul to him.

In the same sense that you would accuse a lifeguard of "mugging" a person who was unconscious and drowning... In the same sense you would accuse a governor of "mugging" a guilty prisoner who he graciously pardoned.... In the same sense that paramedics "mug" heart attack victims whose heartbeat is restored.

But Jesus only knocks on the door of the heart, he doesn't "kick it down", we have to open it, if WE WANT him to come in.

Fallacious comment based on a faulty interpretation of a scripture taken completely out of context.

We only "want" Him to come in after a change in our will occurs. That change was either caused by our inherent goodness meaning that we deserve credit or it was caused by God's goodness making us the unworthy recipients of grace.

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

In context, this scripture was written to churches... not the unsaved.

Do you know the "Scriptural definition of "GOOD"??

Yes... apparently you are unwilling to apply it consistently however.

"SINLESS", If man was "good", he wouldn't need Jesus to be saved.

Absolutely, positively!!! Since he is not good... he will not ever choose to be saved of his own goodness. It is not his nature.

Why do you "ignore" all of these verses??

I haven't. I have rejected your additions to them while accepting that the whole context of scripture teaches all of these truths as well as the fact that God elects men to salvation, is not responsible for the sin and condemnation of the lost, and is alone "good"... and thus a possible cause for a "good" decision.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by epistemaniac:
Me4him </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There's nothing in those verses as to who can become a Christian (Saved/Lost) but only what a "CHRISTIAN" will become when they are saved.

wrong again, you are nothing, if not at least consistent

there is no question that election includes some corporate elements... however, the corporate aspects do not negate that election is also individual as well... read the following thoughtful letter from Greek expert Daniel Wallace, who has taught Greek at the graduate school level since 1979, and you will, if you really want to be a consistently biblical Christian, be forced to agree....

see http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=384


blessings,
Ken </font>[/QUOTE]This "Pastor" said this:


in Acts 13:48 we read that “as many as had been appointed for eternal life believed.”

Quite obviously, this is a man who doesn't know the Scriptures very well, else he would not believe the scripture contradict themselves,

It's only "Appointed" unto to man "ONCE" to die, there is no "second death" appointed to anyone after dying, as would be the case, "BY DEFAULT" if some were "Appointed" to "Eternal life".

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (No Second death)

Ac 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Calvinist interpret verses as if they were the only verses in scripture, totally out of context, but then so are all other "misinterpretation?.

I don't know if it's ignorance of the other verses, or just ignoring them, but either way, they're out of context.

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Scripture doesn't contradict it's self, and whenever you find a contradiction, don't look in the scriptures, look at the doctrine teaching the contradiction.


and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

When put into it's proper context with other scripture, here's the correct interpretation.

and as many as believed were ordained to eternal life .

Calvin denies the foundation on which salvation is based, that is of "FAITH",

predestination/Sovereign will totally eliminates any being saved because of their "FAITH" in Jesus.

Which is what that pastor referred to: "ordained to eternal life".

 

[Scott J]

Calvin denies the foundation on which salvation is based, that is of "FAITH",

Probably because salvation is NOT founded on faith... it is founded on grace. "For by grace are ye saved through faith". Faith is not the foundation- it is the means/method. It is not the "why". It is the "how".

 

[Scott J]

predestination/Sovereign will totally eliminates any being saved because of their "FAITH" in Jesus.

Nope. Just puts it in its proper place and priority.

 

[Brother Bob]

Then you are saying that you are saved by the merit of your choice and not by grace.[/quote
nope, my choosing don't save me still takes the Lord's Grace to do that.


[quote
Then you are claiming that your choice and ultimately your salvation were due to your intelligence/wisdom... certainly something worthy of glory and merit.

nope, could of went either way, just didn't want to go down to devil's hell because I loved darkness.

Didn't say that. I said that God changed you through those events.

Are you saying He evil occurs without Him allowing it? Are you suggesting that He doesn't use evil to accomplish His ultimate will? (ie Joseph being sold into slavery)

Nope, you are saying those things were sent on me and I say they came because of Adam's sin.

I don't accept babies going to hell... that isn't a necessary conclusion of the doctrines of grace. In fact, if salvation is ultimately due to the goodness of God that constitutes the best indirectly biblical case there is that babies will go to heaven.

From the position that human choice is decisive in salvation, the best you could possibly argue is that God mercifully annihilates babies since for them to go to heaven would be forcing them to be saved in every sense that election forces an adult to be saved.

Nope, simply saying where there is no law there is no transgression and sin is what sends you to hell

So how does this explain why someone chooses evil over good? Do they choose evil because they lack knowledge? If so, is that their fault? Do they have access to the information but they aren't intelligent enough to understand it? Is that their fault

Nope, simply saying some choose a ford because they think it is the best and some choose a cadillac because they think its the best but both have same knowledge ability.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Calvin denies the foundation on which salvation is based, that is of "FAITH",

Probably because salvation is NOT founded on faith... it is founded on grace. "For by grace are ye saved through faith". Faith is not the foundation- it is the means/method. It is not the "why". It is the "how". </font>[/QUOTE]Neither you or anyone else will ever get God's grace of salvation, unless you first have "Faith in Jesus".

Do you understand that Jesus is the "mediator" between Man and God, And if you don't have "Faith in Jesus, you have no one to mediate your sins with God to get his Grace.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name soever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Without a "Sacrifice" God will never forgive your sins, the wages of sin must be paid BEFORE sins can be remitted, and "Faith in Jesus" is all God will accept as a sacrifice to remit sins.

1. Faith in Jesus=sacrifice
2. sins remitted
3. no sin, God's grace.

God doesn't grant Grace to anyone, unless it comes through "FAITH IN JESUS".

Like it or not, It's a "LIE" that God grants Grace/forgiveness/Salvation to people BEFORE they claim Jesus as the sacrifice for their sins.

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin

And "GRACE" before "FAITH" is remission of sins BEFORE shedding of blood.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Calvin denies the foundation on which salvation is based, that is of "FAITH",

Probably because salvation is NOT founded on faith... it is founded on grace. "For by grace are ye saved through faith". Faith is not the foundation- it is the means/method. It is not the "why". It is the "how". </font>[/QUOTE]Faith is the foundation, also. "Grace through faith" is a whole, not seperated, and you don't have one without the other in regards to salvation. You can't have God's grace without faith, and you can't have faith in God's Son without God having the grace to send His Son in the first place.

 

[mima]

They can but they won't this is of course the reason they are not among the elect!!!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Calvin denies the foundation on which salvation is based, that is of "FAITH",

Probably because salvation is NOT founded on faith... it is founded on grace. "For by grace are ye saved through faith". Faith is not the foundation- it is the means/method. It is not the "why". It is the "how". </font>[/QUOTE]Faith is the foundation, also. "Grace through faith" is a whole, not seperated, and you don't have one without the other in regards to salvation.</font>[/QUOTE] One is the basis or foundation. The other is the means.

You can't have God's grace without faith,

Wrong. That turns this particular verse on its head. You cannot have faith without grace.

and you can't have faith in God's Son without God having the grace to send His Son in the first place.

Grace is not limited to creating a possibility. In fact, that isn't grace. Grace is unmerited favor... this is active, not passive.

It is contradictory to say you have extended unmerited favor to a person but only if they do something "good" or make a "good" decision to attain it.

 

[webdog]

One is the basis or foundation. The other is the means.

The entire phrase "grace through faith" is the gift of God in Eph. 2.

Wrong. That turns this particular verse on its head. You cannot have faith without grace.

Not when it comes to God's requirements pertaining to salvation.

Grace is not limited to creating a possibility. In fact, that isn't grace. Grace is unmerited favor... this is active, not passive.

You are not defining grace. God's grace was in sending His Son...no possibilities involved, He did. This is God's grace.

 

[Andy T.]

I find this interesting. Webdog, do you think that in order for someeone to come to faith that God needs to provide any grace to the person? It sounds like you believe that God's grace was finished at the cross, and he doesn't provide anymore grace to us as individuals. And now it is completely up to us. I'm not trying to bait you into a debate on effectual grace or anything like that; it's an honest question.

 

[Brother Bob]

Titus, chapter 2

11": For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

"12": Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

"13": Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

"14": Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />One is the basis or foundation. The other is the means.

The entire phrase "grace through faith" is the gift of God in Eph. 2. </font>[/QUOTE]No the entire phrase is "For by grace are ye saved through faith". Grace is the foundation. Faith is the means. Salvation is the resulting process/event. "That" as in the whole phrase is the gift of God... with no reason to separate "faith" out as something added by the good will of a man.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Wrong. That turns this particular verse on its head. You cannot have faith without grace.

Not when it comes to God's requirements pertaining to salvation. </font>[/QUOTE] IOW's your presupposed interpretational limits must take precedence over what the verse says, right? Your response above amounts to you arguing with what the verse says because it doesn't fit your theology.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Grace is not limited to creating a possibility. In fact, that isn't grace. Grace is unmerited favor... this is active, not passive.

You are not defining grace. God's grace was in sending His Son...no possibilities involved, He did. This is God's grace. </font>[/QUOTE]You are attempting to limit grace to God sending the Son. Grace is individually extended. If "unmerited favor" were universal then all would be saved. If you are saying it was universally offered... then you still return to the requirement that human merit be added to "unmerited favor" in order for it to accomplish anything.

In this case, you are arguing with the meanings of words.

You indeed do argue that Christ's death saved no one. It only created the possibility that men could make a good decision and thus attain salvation for themselves. That contradicts the definition of the word "grace".

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
Titus, chapter 2

11": For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

"12": Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

"13": Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

"14": Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

I agree that sending Jesus was an act of grace, but does God's grace stop there? Does God the Holy Spirit not provide any grace to individuals since the cross? This isn't a C/A issue, most non-C's I know will say that God's grace was operative in them believing on Christ.

 

[Brother Bob]

I think the Scripture of Titus 2 is stating just that, God's Grace is a continuing thing as long as time last. That Grace is teaching God's creation what they are by nature and what they must be by Grace.