Do Calvinists Speak about Predestination in Evangelistic Preaching?

Which, being interpreted is, I can't answer without contradicting myself. As you well know, I have pointed out some unanswerable issues in your position. There are some unanswerable issues in my position as well. That's life. I don't pretend to know it all which is easy enough for me since I don't know it all. I do have the advantage of having studied it a fair amount and having particpated here since its inception. It has exposed me to a lot of stuff.

But it is interesting that you impugn my honesty. You know better than that. You know as well as I do that I give honest answers, even to the point of saying I don't know, or I agree with you.

Who do you think knows what I believe better ... you or me? Do you seriously think that you know what I believe better than I do?

I am glad to let your speak for your beliefs and tell us what you believe. I don't try to put words in your mouth and tell you what you believe. You should offer us the same courtesy.

 

...being interpreted is: you told me to ditch the questions you asked to answer the one question. I did. I don't feel like participating in your circular arguments, not that you have pointed out "unanswerable issues" in your mind.

 

This is the third person here that I have seen insist on telling a calvinist what they believe only to then get indignant and accuse us of being dishonest when we correct them.

If I were brand new to this issue and knew nothing of the Bible, I would immediately be suspicious of the anti-calvinist view because of this common occurrence/tactic.

 

Where? I didn't see any answer to the question.

I didn't make any circular arguments.

So you have an answer for why God sends people to hell for sins that were already paid for?

 

You won't believe the answer, so why keep asking it? He sends people to hell for not believing in His Son, for not putting their faith in Him. This is what scripture says, not me. The price of admission has been paid, but we are not forced to take the ticket. Whether I take the ticket or not, it still has been paid.

 

The problem is certainly not my belief.

Let's work through this together, shall we??

Is unbelief a sin? Yes or No?

If yes, then did Christ pay for it? Yes or No? If yes (He paid for it), then people go to hell for a sin that Christ paid for. If no, then Christ didn't pay for all sin for all time. Either way you have limited the atonement either in power (it couldn't cleanse the sin of unbelief) or its sufficiency (it wasn't even for the sin of unbelief).

If no, then why do people go to hell for something that is not sin?

You see, you are trapped. If you say that people go to hell for unbelief, then it seems you must say one of three things.

1) Unbelief is not a sin and God sends people to hell for something that is not a sin. (However, God commands belief, and disbelief is disobedience and therefore sin.)
2) Unbelief is a sin and Christ paid for it, so God sends people to hell for sin that Christ paid for.
3) Unbelief is a sin and Christ didn't pay for it, so Christ didn't pay for all sin.

Is there a mysterious third option that I haven't seen?

This is the problem that arises from failure to think about all the implications of your position. You hold a very popular position, but it contradicts what Scripture says.

In addition, Scripture plainly declares that people go to hell for sins other than unbelief (Rev 21:8). So you are trapped yet again, it seems to me.

 

I am saying I don't read all of your posts. I read the ones that I respond to. I read some that I don't respond to. I don't read some of them at all. So you may well have said that in a post that I didn't read. I may have misread a post in which you said it to me. I may have simply missed it. None of that is out of the question. We all miss things from time to time.

But once someone clarifies what they believe, you should not keep repeating your false assertions. And that is what often goes on here.

 

I don't understand how you can champion jn 6:44 when it is a very simpe verse and in complisance with what I believe as a non-follower of calvin.

No man can come to me, excpet the father who sent me has drawn him. .... NO problem here I believe God draws all and unless He does the drawing no one could come.

And I will raise him up at the last day. Now if I stop here and say hey God draws all men and will raise them at the last days. I know this not to be true. This is part of the gospel. It would be like saying for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son...and stop.Okay the world is saved end of message and context. NO, it goes on to say that "whosoever believeth" Likewise if you continue down to John 6:47 we see it is not the drawing that saves, it is the one who "believeth on Me" that is saved.

I am surprises that followers of calvin champion this verse and yet have never been able to honestly defend John 3:16. I have even met some calvinist who will admitt 3:16 is a problem. Others go on a amazing trip of twister to make it fit.

Indeed God desires that none should perish....II Pet 3:9,Mat. 9:36, Ps 86:15, Ezk 18:23,31,32, Mat 23:37. To suggest that man cannot respond to God's gospel apart from a special calling not given to all does indeed make God responsable for the lost. And THAT does not fit the Biblical character or nature of God.

Agian I repeat, God made salvation avaible to all men, not just a select few. He died for all,Heb2:9,Jn 3:16. He wants all to come to know the truth, I Tim 2:4. This invitation is open to all, 24 hours a day Matt 11:28-30, Rev 22:17. He has already issued the call and it has gone out to the whole world! If you read the Jn 6:45 you see how men are drawn. It is nothing mystical.

Just because James White declares no one has an answer for Jn 6:44 then all calvinist ecco their champion. When in fact He has been answered and refuted many times. James White is the Peter Ruckman of calvinism.

 

Are you saying this to yourself? YOu could well be Larry.

 

As a fellow non-follower of Calvin, let's look at your explanation (again).

Fair enough. A little problem ... but it will be demonstrated amply.

Here is the problem. You can't deal with the words of 6:44. You have to insert something that is not there. For you, the verse means "No one can come unless the Father draws him, and some of those he will raise up at the last day." You notice that the "some of those" is not there. In 6:44 you have a group of people, a single group ... those "drawn" and "raised up." There is no distinction between the two.

When you appeal to 6:47, as you well should, it clarifies what "drawing" results in. When you go on down to 6:63-65 (which you haven't done), you see that God does not draw "all men" because there are some there to whom the Father hasn't given it to come, and the result is that they don't believe. Ask the quesetion, How did Jesus know who wouldn't believe (v. 64)? Because he knew to whom to Father had given it to come/believe (v. 65). You see, the text refutes your own position. The only way you can sustain your position is to ignore what the text says, or add to it, such as you did in v. 44.

I don't know any followers of Calvin, but I have never found any Calvinists who can't "honestly defend" John 3:16. I certainly can. And all the Calvinists I know can.

I agree. So why do some perish? Is God's will able to be thwarted? (cf. Psa 115:3, Isa 46:10).

You have a faulty idea of responsibility. If you go jump in the Detroit River and drown, it is not my fault for not coming to help you. Man is drowned in his own sinfulness. That isn't God's fault.

I agree. Most Calvinists do. Calvinists go on to be entirely biblical when they say salvation is for all who believe. The call goes out to all, and all who believe will be saved. That is Calvinism.k

This is absolutely true. Be careful though. You keep this kind of stuff up, someone will mistake you for a Calvinist.

I don't know what James White says about 6:44, or Calvinism. I haven't heard very many echo him, except in his masterful refutation of Dave Hunt. I have never seen John 6:44 refuted by anyone on your side, but perhaps I just haven't read those works yet.

Are you saying this to yourself? YOu could well be Larry.</font>[/QUOTE]I am Larry ... And yes, I would say the same thing to myself. When people clarify what they believe, if I have made a mistake about it, I stop saying it. However, I am very careful not to mispresent people and so it hasn't been a big problem for me.

 

Larry you struggle too hard. What does verse 40 also say? For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."


There is my pt again...and believes in him shall have everlasting life. Do we say repent and be baptistized for the remission of your sins. So that baptism saves us? No we look at the whole context and see that It is not the baptism that saves from condemnation it is the believeing. Likewise as we Look at the CONTEXT we see that it is the believing that saves and we know the saved, as promised in scripture, will be rasised in the last days.

AS for verses 63-65 I believe those people had already harden thier heart to the word of God. Look in Acts 7 where they, the religous sect, sanhedren resisted the HS. How can you resist something that is not trying to persuade you?!

Do I think God's will is thwarted, I think God's desired will is not always fulfilled. I am not sure why calvinist always bring this up for they believe in 2 or 3 wills also. His decreed will is what will happen. Does this make me think that God is not soveriegn, no more then the fact that He has chosen to make a way for man and allowed man to choose. He makes the rules and that is the rules.

Lastly what false assertions have I been repeating to you or about you?

 

My struggles are with why you don't deal with what the verse says.

[qutoe] What does verse 40 also say? For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

There is my pt again...and believes in him shall have everlasting life. Do we say repent and be baptistized for the remission of your sins. So that baptism saves us? No we look at the whole context and see that It is not the baptism that saves from condemnation it is the believeing. Likewise as we Look at the CONTEXT we see that it is the believing that saves and we know the saved, as promised in scripture, will be rasised in the last days.[/quote]What do you think Calvinism believes? You have stated it succinctly. YOu sound like a Calvinist, with the exception of v. 44 ... You believe what these verses say, but you dodge v. 44 because it contradicts what you want to believe.

Those who believe will be saved.
Those who are drawn will be raised up.

In both sentence, all in the first group (believe, drawn) are in teh second group (saved, raised up). There is no one who believes who is not saved, and there is no one who is drawn who is not raised up.

Why won't you acknowledge that v. 44 has no exceptions? The context is clear.

But that is not what the verse says, is it? Once again, you are refusing to deal with the verse. Jesus said they didn't believe because the Father "hadn't given it to them." You say the Father enabled all to believe. Jesus says he didn't. Who should we believe?

Off topic, but I agree. These men resist the Holy Spirit. That isn't at odds with Calvinism.

Very calvinistic of you.

I don't know. I don't recall that I was speaking directly about you personally, but about "you" the arminian side. In the past you have said some false things, but I don't know that you repeated them after being corrected. You have called us dishonest several times ... but hey, who's counting?

In the end, you will still have to deal with Scripture, and the distinctions it makes, or doesn't make.

 

Hi Stephan;

I'd say that is a false accusation some do. I know J.Vernon Mc gee did and has more than once. I've heard others on Christian Television who do as well. Hey if Christian Television isn't evangelical I don't know what is. Does it sell that would be my question.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Very calvinistic of you.

</font>[/QUOTE]Larry, why did you have to drag this into insults and name calling. It is clear that if you are going to sink this low as too aliagn me with calvinist then I think we are finished.


Actually I think we are done though. Unless you want me to answer something else that I have not already done. NOt the ones you disagree with but the ones I may not have given an aswer.

In Christ
Tim

 

But that is not what the verse says, is it? Once again, you are refusing to deal with the verse. Jesus said they didn't believe because the Father "hadn't given it to them." You say the Father enabled all to believe. Jesus says he didn't. Who should we believe?

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.


Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not and who should betray him.


Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


Where is the "hadn't given it to them" coming from?

I think you should believe the scriptures of course Larry and here they say it was known from the beginning that they wouild not believe. Seems that has always been a part of the arguement.
For non calvinist say God knew from the beginning who was His and who was not. Here it is in scripture. Have not non calvinsit ssaid from the beginning that God knows those who will accept His gift. There is no conflict here except with teachings of calvin.

 

Right in vv. 64-65. You just quoted them. Jesus knew who wouldn't believe, "Therefore" he said, ... The "therefore" connects the two together. Why didn't they believe? Becasue no one can unless it is given him by the Father. (Before you try to make a dichotomy between coming and believing, read the whole chapter. They are clearly the same thing, as indicated by the parallels in vv. 35-37.)

How does that conflict with the Calvinism? It doesn't. But it backs you into a corner. If God knew from teh beginning who would and would not believe, then they have no free will to change their mind. They are forever trapped in their position. And that isn't much different from Calvinism, except that it is purposeless and God is no longer in control.

You should also stew on teh problem your side has with the atonement that I outlined earlier. Webdog bailed out without giving an answer. I suspect he doesn't have one. I have never seen anybody give an answer to it, but perhaps there is one.

In any case, I will be gone for a week, and I hope this topic is long gone when I come back.

 

Backs me into a corner? It proves once again that calvinist have it wrong. You argue that God does look down the tunnel of time to see who would recieve Him or not yet here it says He knew. And the silly arguement that God knew means they could not change their mind is absurd. God knew what they would chose of their own free will. He KNOWS! It just shows that God is always right, does not discount free will at all!

And to your other question I did answer earlier. Whatever def. you give or how you define a term it has to algian with the Bible. And quite clearly it shows that the payment was made for all who accept it. Just like When Isreal had to paint thier post of their household for the death angel to pass over them. It was not the work of the APPLING of the blood but the belief in what God said. The atonement is there but people have to believe it and accept it. If they reject it then they are still lost. That is the Bible def. for atonement.

As far as this thread being gone you have only to say I do not wish to discuss it anymore. It is your own free will to do so.