Does God love everyone?

No one is forced to have faith. No one is dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God. No one confesses Christ as Lord who does not want to confess Christ as Lord.
I know no Calvinist who is proud of his election and his salvation. He is humbled by the knowledge that God sought him out, opened his spiritual eyes, gave him a new heart, convicted him of sin and drew him to repentance and faith--when God was under no obligation to do so. All believers are the objects of God's grace, and and have nothing to be proud of.


You say, "No one is forced to have faith, etc., while at the same time saying "yet they had no choice in the matter." You have just made a great argument against "irresistible grace."

 

And yet again the point is completely missed.

 

No the point is not missed.

"Man has a free will, and God does not violate it...........and sinners that would not yield are made to yield to God."

Double talk is double talk.

 

You seem to doubting the fact of God's omniscience.The Lord did not ask those questions because He didn't know the answers.

Does He love those He has hated from eternity past?

You don't believe the Lord can be angry with those He loves?

No He doesn't.

Those He loves in John 3:16 He also hates?! You are speaking in a heterodox fashion.

AMEN.And AMEN again.

 

Please explain how what I wrote can possibly be interpreted as you interpreted it. Let me say it plainly: all people have a will. God does not save people against their will. When one repents of sin and trusts Christ for salvation, he does it freely and without coercion. One confesses Christ as Lord because he desires to do so.

The reason he does so is that the Holy Spirit has regenerated him--that is, opened his spiritual eyes, illuminated his spiritual understanding, and given him the gifts of repentance and faith and enabled him to freely exercise those gifts.

Without God's sovereign and unilateral quickening of a lost person, he will consistently desire to sin and exercise his will to do so, acting completely in harmony with his sinful nature.

How one can conclude that this will produce arrogance in a saved sinner is beyond my understanding.

 

So is it possible for the regenerated person whose spiritual eyes have been opened to say no thanks to God's offer of salvation?

 

Tom, you stated that as a Calvinist that you have been chosen and that it was by grace. Great!You didn't deserve it. But, in the whole scheme of thing you really had no choice. It took God's "irresistible" grace. Seems to me that irresistible means that you don't have a choice.

 

It is not a distortion to logically conclude free will (influence and response) and Determinism (cause and effect) are mutually exclusive.

The Determinist stands on the rock of TULIP; they hold that “I” (irresistible grace) and “U” (unconditional election) are part of this foundation, both of which clearly contravene man’s volition on the subject of creaturely faith being free. Unmistakably, “irresistible” and “unconditional” are determinate actions which describe overruling the action of free will (“man’s want”).

According to the Determinist doctrine for God to be sovereign He must have predestined (determined) everything.

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

If the action of “man’s want” is fore-determined for him, something that cannot be resisted and under no conditions can he choose otherwise, then “man’s want” (free will/volition) in the matter is logically nonexistent.

No distortion has been made unless you can disprove the truth factors, of: irresistible does not = resistible, or God fore-determining a creature’s response does not = the creature freely responding.

If you say so, but I’m not interested in your rhetoric or circular arguments. All I care to hear is how you figure Determinism and free will aren’t logically mutually exclusive. I’ve made my case above.

Never too late to join the club.

 

Hi, Amy,

You're putting regeneration before salvation here. Many disagree with this, so this is just another disputed issue. It's a question many would not answer because they disagree with the premise (regeneration before salvation).

 

I think you've misunderstood me. I don't believe in regeneration before salvation. I was asking Tom a question based on his statement about free will. If our will is free, then we have ability to reject God's offer of salvation, but Cals believe in irresistable grace, so that's where my question was coming from.
:wavey:

 

I recognize the trap, Amy. If I say no, you'll say "aha, so if it's not possible they'll refuse the offer of salvation, then they really don't have a choice after all.

It's not a question of can they refuse, but will they refuse. To that, the answer is no, and here"s why.

Romans 8:29 tells us the certainty of this sequence initiated by God: Predestination, calling, justification. Whom God chooses he calls, and whom he calls he justifies. Always.

In other words, God always saves those whom he calls. In fact, in a number of cases, the scriptures refer to believers as "the called." In 8:28, for example.

BTW, whether you see election my way or your way, the sequence is still the same.

 

See my answer to AmyG in post 191.

 

Marcia, Amy directed the question to me because she knows that's where I put regeneration. It's not that she puts it there, she tried to set a trap for me. See Post #191 to see how cleverly and deftly I escaped--and humbly, of course.

 

Benjamin, regarding your post #188, I'm not inclined to try to answer you point-by-point regarding determinism and free will.

Here is what I believe the Bible teaches:

God has foreordained all that will come to pass, and the means by which he will accomplish his will--including the choices of human beings.

This is illustrated in Peter's Pentecost Day sermon, Acts 2:23: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."

Here, in the same verse is God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. There was never any possibility that Jesus would not die on the cross as the result of actions of wicked men. God determined that it would be so. He determined the means, as well.

I'm not smart enough to understand how God can be sovereign and man still responsible. Paul anticipated that question "who can resist his will" in Romans 9 with his answer: "Who do you think you are?"

 

Stephen also assused men of resisting the Holy Spirit. Is the unpardonable sin not blaspheming; a form of resisting the Holy Spirit?

 

You're citing Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."

Stephen is addressing the "stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears." These are lost, unregenerate people. Their spiritual ancestors did the same thing: persecuted the prophets, killed them, and even murdered the One whom the prophets foretold. It is no accident that Stephen said they always resisted the HS.

Every sinner resists the truth of God. The outward preaching of the Gospel is always resisted by the lost. One of the works of the Holy Spirit is to press on men and women their sin and their sinfulness. Men will always resist it, absent the Spirit's work in changing their hearts. This is spoken of in Ezekiel 36:26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."

Those who heard Stephen's accusation in Acts 7 were enraged. That's why they killed him.

I'm going to avoid discussing the unpardonable sin. I think the point of your question is about resisting the Holy Spirit vs. the Calvinist's "irresistible grace."

 

Part of the problem in discussing Irresistible Grace is that each side defines it differently.

Non-Calvinists (at least some in this threat) define it as God's forcing people to believe, in violation of their free will. Or, God's saving people who don't want to be saved.

I like John Piper's definition:

Here's another Piper quote from the same article (part of a series of articles on the five points of Calvinism, carried on his website, desiringgod.org)

I'm sure we all have prayed for God to save someone. Many of you have prayed fervently and continually for the salvation of a loved one, a friend, etc. Implicit in your prayer is the recognition that God has the power to save. Otherwise, the prayer is pointless.

I've heard non-Cals pray, "Lord, open his eyes, convict him of his sin. Oh God, please save him." So both views believe God acts first in connection with salvation.

Calvinists may also pray, "Lord, change his heart; make him willing." Non-Cals dare not pray that way, for that would be asking God to violate his free will, and we can't have that.

I've heard some non-Cals pray "Lord, touch his heart." What do they mean by that? What do they want that touch to accomplish? A change of heart? A unilateral act of lthe Holy Spirit to effect a change of heart? A forced change of heart? On someone who otherwise doesn't want to be saved?

Why pray for God to save someone if He can't, unless given permission?

A lot of you have a heavy burden for the lost in general, and some individuals in particular. Some of you are preachers, some are missionaries, some are just lay folks who have faithfully given a witness to the gospel. And you have cried out to God for their salvation.

Why would you not pray, "Oh Lord God, do whatever it takes to bring him to salvation. Open his eyes, change his heart, show him his sin, make him hate it, make him repent, give him faith--anything, Lord, just please save him."?

I can hardly imagine anyone praying, "God, please save my son--but not if he doesn't want it. Lord, save him, but don't violate his free will."

We who have lost loved one should be for irresistible grace, not against it.

 

Can something irresistable be resisted?

 

So God is bound by time and order? Ironic you left off "foreknew"

 

Piper despite his eloquence of speech is still saying that God chooses and man has no choice. Still trying to have it both ways and yet not admitting it. I give up. Hope you have fun in your neat little box.