Can the Non-Elect Come Under Conviction?

[Scott J]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />yep.. He's not willing that any should perish, but, some do ehhh?

Which goes to show the God's grace is not "irresistable", and that He does not force His will on man. If He did, you would have universalism. </font>[/QUOTE]No. He simply, miraculously changes that old dead carnal nature into a quickened spiritual nature. The "free will" choice to believe is then consistent with the nature of the individual.

Or else, God changes one's nature only by permission. That permission is the result of a process of decision. That decision characterizes a moral choice between good and evil. The end result of which is that God saves the morally good and condemns the morally evil... resulting in a system of belief that is totally contrary to the definition of grace.

 

[Brother Bob]

Scott J

That is a misinterpretation of that particular verse dependent upon stripping it of its context. Within the very same verse, the scripture designates who is being spoken to/of.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Who is the Lord longsuffering to? "us". Peter is a believer writing to believers... The "us" is believers... not unbelievers.

Peter was telling how merciful the Lord is and how far he will go that all should come to repentance. Seem to me Scott J that you are stretching it to only be the believer. They was not believers when the Lord did the longsuffering

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />yep.. He's not willing that any should perish, but, some do ehhh?

Which goes to show the God's grace is not "irresistable", and that He does not force His will on man. If He did, you would have universalism. </font>[/QUOTE]No. He simply, miraculously changes that old dead carnal nature into a quickened spiritual nature. The "free will" choice to believe is then consistent with the nature of the individual.

Or else, God changes one's nature only by permission. That permission is the result of a process of decision. That decision characterizes a moral choice between good and evil. The end result of which is that God saves the morally good and condemns the morally evil... resulting in a system of belief that is totally contrary to the definition of grace. </font>[/QUOTE]Then all of the numerous passages of Scripture that I posted on another thread that has God telling man to seek Him make no sense, since in a "dead" state they cannot. Spiritual death is the same as physical death. When you die physically, your soul separates from the body. When you die spiritually, your soul is separated from God. There is no place in Scripture that shows a man in a spiritually dead state cannot seek God.

 

[genesis12]

Whosoever will.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by genesis12:
Whosoever will.

I agree. See my posts in the General Discussions board on the Calvinist quiz thread.

 

[Andy T.]

There is no place in Scripture that shows a man in a spiritually dead state cannot seek God.

There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.

- Romans 3:11

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by webdog:
Then all of the numerous passages of Scripture that I posted on another thread that has God telling man to seek Him make no sense, since in a "dead" state they cannot.

Not at all. Sin is disobedience to God's commands. His commanding that they do it in no way makes Him guilty of their not doing it... since they refuse willingly.

They do so because of their complete spiritual separation from God and will do nothing else until God changes them.

Spiritual death is the same as physical death. When you die physically, your soul separates from the body. When you die spiritually, your soul is separated from God.

Yes. When you die... you "will" not choose to live. It is not in the nature of something dead to make a "free will" choice to come back to life... even if someone stands over them offering to revive them forever.

Once revived, they very naturally choose to live.

There is no place in Scripture that shows a man in a spiritually dead state cannot seek God.

Of course there are and you've been around this debate long enough to know that. You may not agree with the interpretations but you shouldn't deny that there are proof texts that are reasonably interpretted that way.

Further, the analogy of "death" like the analogy of "birth" makes absolutely no sense if the person in question's will is the initiator of change.

All effects have a cause. God under any Christian system of thought is the "first cause" of all physical creation. He in fact is the ONLY ONE capable of truly "new creation"- ie. something from nothing, life from death, etc.

You propose that a spiritually dead person's "choice" is the "first cause" of their salvation. That notion deifies man and humanizes God.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There is no place in Scripture that shows a man in a spiritually dead state cannot seek God.

There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.

- Romans 3:11 </font>[/QUOTE]"none" is not "spiritually dead", on the contrary this all inclusive word would include believers. This is where you have to study deeper into who the "none" are, and compare to the numerous passages telling man to seek God.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Assuming the Calvinists are correct about election, how can one be one hundered percent without a doubt positive for sure they are one of the elect.
Suppose you are one who realizes who God and Jesus are. Suppose you realize you are a sinner and you truly repent.Suppose you call upon the Lord for salvation with all of the sincereity in your being.Suppose you live a life patterned after Jesus as well as you can from the momment you cry out for salvation.Then you die and find out you were not one of the elect.How do we work that out?How do you know 100%for sure you are one of the elect?

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There is no place in Scripture that shows a man in a spiritually dead state cannot seek God.

There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.

- Romans 3:11 </font>[/QUOTE]"none" is not "spiritually dead", on the contrary this all inclusive word would include believers. This is where you have to study deeper into who the "none" are, and compare to the numerous passages telling man to seek God. </font>[/QUOTE]I read these verses in Romans 3 to be descriptive of our condition before regeneration/justfication. Like Scott said above, it is a wholly reasonable intepretation, one that I am not alone in holding.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Assuming the Calvinists are correct about election, how can one be one hundered percent without a doubt positive for sure they are one of the elect.
Suppose you are one who realizes who God and Jesus are. Suppose you realize you are a sinner and you truly repent.Suppose you call upon the Lord for salvation with all of the sincereity in your being.Suppose you live a life patterned after Jesus as well as you can from the momment you cry out for salvation.Then you die and find out you were not one of the elect.How do we work that out?How do you know 100%for sure you are one of the elect?

Hyper-calvinists don't believe you can know. In a seemingly conflicted way, they believe you can have security but not assurance.

OTOH, genuine calvinists would not believe that you would do all those "supposes" unless you were elect. We believe a person can have both assurance and security.

Many if not most Arminians believe that you can have assurance but no security.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Assuming the Calvinists are correct about election, how can one be one hundered percent without a doubt positive for sure they are one of the elect.
Suppose you are one who realizes who God and Jesus are. Suppose you realize you are a sinner and you truly repent.Suppose you call upon the Lord for salvation with all of the sincereity in your being.Suppose you live a life patterned after Jesus as well as you can from the momment you cry out for salvation.Then you die and find out you were not one of the elect.How do we work that out?How do you know 100%for sure you are one of the elect?

This is easy. If you are one of the elect, it will evidence itself in regeneration-faith-repentance-justification-santcification. Anyone who truly believes on the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. That's it. Nothing else. If that is true of you, then you can know that you are one of the elect.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

And then many believe you can have assurance and security.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I think what makes many Arminian and not Calvinists is the word"irrestable".

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
Scott J

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That is a misinterpretation of that particular verse dependent upon stripping it of its context. Within the very same verse, the scripture designates who is being spoken to/of.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Who is the Lord longsuffering to? "us". Peter is a believer writing to believers... The "us" is believers... not unbelievers.

Peter was telling how merciful the Lord is</font>[/QUOTE] Actually, that isn't the context of the verse... and context is absolutely vital.

The context isn't God's mercy but rather His wrath and the coming destruction.

and how far he will go that all should come to repentance.

"All" of who though? The context provides that answer.

It would be similar if I said: "Bro Bob is not slack as some men count slackness but is a faithful leader of his family; he is not willing that any stay at home but that all should go to church".

While yanking the last statement out of the context makes a reasonable statement... that you want everyone to go to church... if you leave it in its context then the meaning is that you ensure your family is faithful to church.

Seem to me Scott J that you are stretching it to only be the believer.

No. I am just recognizing that Peter was a believer and his letter was written to believers.

They was not believers when the Lord did the longsuffering

Not exactly sure what you mean here but....

My complete interpretation would include that the "us" is indeed the elect (the believers of all ages) and that God's longsuffering in withholding His wrath is so that "all that He gave Christ" (remember John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. ) will come to repentance.

 

[Brother Bob]

You private interpretation just don't fit, for He said, "Peter's commission was to "go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. (so we see His long-suffering is to the whole world) and His all is every creature. You think Peter was commissioned to preach one Gospel to one people and preach another to someone else?

You can't make it up as you go.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
You private interpretation just don't fit,

It isn't private since "us" is in the very verse in question. Further, Peter already mentioned the fate of the ungodly in that same context... so it was NOT written for them.

I am not exactly sure how you can accuse me of a private interpretation when it is "I" who keeps going back to the context to gather the meaning.

for He said, "Peter's commission was to "go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

And that is an entirely different context. Even then, that passage doesn't say who will believe only the method God has chosen and that those who do believe will be saved.

(so we see His long-suffering is to the whole world) and His all is every creature.

No. That would be a private interpretation since you are attempting to pluck a comment from the context in which God inspired it and insert it into a different context for the express purpose of supporting your presupposed belief.

You think Peter was commissioned to preach one Gospel to one people and preach another to someone else?

No. I think that the context shows clearly that he was speaking to believers in 2 Peter 3 and not preaching the gospel to lost people... for no other reason than that is what the context proves.

You can't make it up as you go.

Well said. That is why I said that you can't just pluck that statement from its context and use it in a way that violates the context.

Though I would disagree with the non-calvinist interpretation (again due to context), John 3:16 is a much better proof text for what you are contending. 2 Peter 3 when left in context doesn't help you at all but rather hurts your argument.

 

[Brother Bob]

By Scott J
That is a misinterpretation of that particular verse dependent upon stripping it of its context. Within the very same verse, the scripture designates who is being spoken to/of.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Who is the Lord longsuffering to? "us". Peter is a believer writing to believers... The "us" is believers... not unbelievers. I don't blame you for trying to take that Scripture the way you do if you are a calvinist for it sure does squash your belief.

If it was to the believer then you believe in a fall. His promise is to all and I don't believe in a fall. When the Scripture seem to go against you calvinist you say it was talking to a certain people. I couldn't tell you how many times you have done that, (not you) but calvinist. Once again I say "all" is "all".
Do you believe the saved can lose their salvation, if so then we are too far apart to even be discussing it.

2 Peter, chapter 1

5": And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

"6": And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

"7": And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

"8": For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"9": But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

"10": Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:


John, chapter 3

16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Scott J:
And that is an entirely different context. Even then, that passage doesn't say who will believe only the method God has chosen and that those who do believe will be saved. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> (so we see His long-suffering [/b]is to the whole world) and His all is every creature.

No. That would be a private interpretation since you are attempting to pluck a comment from the context in which God inspired it and insert it into a different context for the express purpose of supporting your presupposed belief.

You think Peter was commissioned to preach one Gospel to one people and preach another to someone else?

No. I think that the context shows clearly that he was speaking to believers in 2 Peter 3 and not preaching the gospel to lost people... for no other reason than that is what the context proves.

</font>[/QUOTE]Let's put the whole bible in context, for example, God's intentions and Jesus's mission to the earth.

John, chapter 3

16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Jesus didn't come to condemn "ANY", not a single person, "WHY" because God wasn't willing for "ANY" to perish.

"WHOSOEVER WILL", that is the personal "will" of the individual, that believes in Jesus shall be saved.

A "COVENANT" is a "FREE WILL" agreement between two parties, and is a benefit to both parties, If you'll believe, I'll save you.

Calvin's doctrine remind me of the Sadducees who had the scriptures so fouled up they didn't believe anything spiritual.

Ac 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Kinda like the poor, guess they'll always be with us, uh??

 

[Tom Butler]

Okay folks, we seem to be straying from the OP. There are umpteen other threads to debate Calvinism. I'd like to read more discussion of the original question: "Can the non-elect come under conviction by the Holy Spirit?"

Because of the pertinent discussions on the subject, I'm re-thinking my own position on the matter. To me, it now appears that even Calvinists hold different positions. So, to the extent that we can, let's return to the OP and resist chasing rabbits (except to chase them over to the other threads).