Does Paul's conversion prove Calvinism's teaching on Irresistible Grace?

[convicted1]

Regenerated and Conversion are one in the same. Can you define for us what you see a distinction as being between the two?

Regeneration is where the disposition of the soul is changed. A new heart given, a change in will, mind, desires, &c. The fallen man is completely fallen, with no desire for Christ...."we will not have this Man rule over us". God quickens this person, gives him a desire to seek Him, to love Him, to yearn to be with Him. This leads up to being converted.

We are completely passive in the regeneration process. We have no say in this as He quickens whomsoever He wills. By doing this, He makes us willing to come unto Him viable irresistable grace/effectual calling. Regeneration------>conversion.

 

[RLBosley]

I consider all responses and I search the scriptures to see if these things be so. Jesus gave the reason Thomas believed. Will you accept the answer? Or will you defend TULIP at all cost?

OK. And yes Jesus gave the reason Thomas believed. I have no problem with it at all, nor does it conflict with the DoG at all. If it did, and the DoG were that easy to refute, Calvinism would have died long ago.

But the real puzzling question is why is TULIP so appealing for you? It certainly must ignore all the invitational passages given by God. When Johnny Mac was asked about all those passages he simply said "I don't know". Is that really a fair and balanced approach to the precious word of God? Throwing one scriptural truth out for the sake of another? Both freewill and election is taught throughout the Scriptures. Saying a person has a choice but will always choose against God is not saying a person has a choice, think about that really, it is absurd.

I doubt MacArthur simply said "I don't know." I'm not a JMac fan to be honest but I have to imagine he was more thorough than that.

TULIP isn't appealing in and of itself. It offends every natural inclination I have. That's why it offends you. It strips you of every bit of self righteousness you have and forces you to recognize you are not in control and entirely at the mercy of God. The reason I agree with it, and have come to love it, is because it is what is taught in scripture.

To be honest and "rightly divide the word of truth" is to make these two great truths work together, not oppose each other. The only way the two can work in harmony is to rightly define God's foreknowledge. Get this wrong and all the rest will be wrong that come after. Same goes for 'Total Depravity", get this to an extreme and out goes all the Scriptures requiring a freewill choice towards God.

OK. If you make both election and free will work together, how do you define election and foreknowledge? God looking ahead and seeing who would choose him, then electing that person? That isn't election. That is demolishing what the Bible teaches about God's absolute freedom to choose and act as he sees fit. How do you define freewill? Libertarian free will? If so, that throws out everything scripture says about man's natural condition and our enslavement to sin.

At the core of the "I" is the teaching that the ONLY reason anyone BELEIVES is because the Holy Spirit has FIRST regenerated the heart to MAKE them believe. No need for resurrected and or blinding visits from Jesus Christ.

But God uses external means along with the internal calling. Same thing with preaching the gospel. Our preaching doesn't convert anyone. But God uses the preaching to accomplish the conversion of sinners.

I agree the visit from Jesus Christ was irresistible, but this is not the issue at hand with the doctrine taught by Calvinist. As I said above, the doctrine teaches that the Holy Spirit must regenerate first. Paul indeed had an exceptional experience and obeyed the call. Remember, before this exceptional "irresistible" visit Paul hated Jesus Christ and the Gospel message.

So Paul had no other choice, it was irresistible and resulted in the total transformation of Paul... yet this is not irresistible grace? :laugh:

This is a perfect example of how the position of TULIP is so rigid as to place God in a box, but to keep God in the box one must totally ignore multitudes of Scripture.

The Spirit is always at work, this is not the point of disagreement. Again ,back to the issue TULIP teaches which is that one MUST be regenerated or they cannot believe. Thomas' confession is indeed a problem for the doctrine of TULIP. The problem sits there glaring at the reader, yet will the reader have eyes to see and ears to hear it? Jesus gave the clear answer to Thomas himself, and to all who will read the answer and hear the answer....."because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed".

I ignored nothing. There is nothing here that would contradict a proper understanding of irresistible grace. You are inventing a problem where it doesn't exist. Thomas' belief followed his seeing Jesus. This contradicts "I" how?

You appeal to Jesus' own words to dismiss Jesus' own words. Why will these not be persuaded, though one rose from the dead? Is it not because they already refused to hear Moses and the prophets? But there is more than that here in this passage, there is a condition given by Jesus in this passage you present, "IF" they hear not, they make a choice. Luke 16:31 does not save the "I" of TULIP, in fact it declares "choice", something TULIP disdains.

Thus, Jesus' reason for Thomas believing remains very clear and that reason wipes out the "I" of TULIP in that it wipes out the teaching that one must first be regenerated in order to believe on Jesus.

If you think I'm trying to "dismiss" Jesus' words then you've really lost it.

If the basis for the unbelief of the family in Luke 16 is solely based on their rejection of Moses and the prophets, how do you explain the Pharisees? They heard about the real Lazarus being raised from the dead, they believed the prophets and Moses, yet they plotted to kill Jesus not believe him. In fact, those who told them saw Lazarus raise from the dead with their own eyes, clearly they didn't believe either. Nor did the pharisees believe after Jesus himself rose from the grave. Seeing a miracle alone is not enough to believe. That's pretty much the whole point of John 6 for that matter.

 

[RLBosley]

Regeneration is where the disposition of the soul is changed. A new heart given, a change in will, mind, desires, &c. The fallen man is completely fallen, with no desire for Christ...."we will not have this Man rule over us". God quickens this person, gives him a desire to seek Him, to love Him, to yearn to be with Him. This leads up to being converted.

We are completely passive in the regeneration process. We have no say in this as He quickens whomsoever He wills. By doing this, He makes us willing to come unto Him viable irresistable grace/effectual calling. Regeneration------>conversion.

Yep. But do you see a gap, in time, between the two? I haven't seen any evidence of that. As I understand it, Regeneration logically precedes conversion, but in time they are simultaneous.

 

[Van]

I actually already answered that. Paul was, like Israel as a whole, zealous without knowledge. He had "a" zeal for God, but not a true love for him.

Scripture says Saul was zealous for God, but Calvinism answers, no he did not have a "true" love for God.
This is adding to scripture what is not said or suggested. The old scripture does not mean what it says, when it conflicts with Calvinism. To be zealous for God is to be committed to God and to love God.

And yes actually you did say that and i did not set up a strawman.

Here your "that" and my "that" refer to two different things. See post #73 to see what my "that" was refering to: "So imprisoning and murdering Christians was a result of Paul's love for God?" And I did not say that nor anything like that. No quote will be forthcoming. But it would be correct to say Saul's actions were the result of Saul's "misguided" zeal and love for God.

As indicated above I did say that Saul (Paul pre-conversion) did love God as indicated by being zealous for God.

You conflate love and zeal here, and claim that Paul loved God even while rejecting Jesus and persecuting the church.

Spot on!

His [misguided] zeal was the cause of his persecuting the church was it not? Therefore, if you are going to be consistent, you must say that Paul's [misguided]love for God caused him to persecute Christians.

That is correct as edited.

And you also demonstrate that you are confused on what irresistible grace means. When God overcomes the sinners resistance to the gospel, that person loves God and receives the gospel. It's impossible to be, as you claim, influenced by irresistible grace and hate Jesus simultaneously.

No, I know exactly what Irresistible Grace means! What I claim is scripture demonstrates the Calvinist doctrine is a fiction. Saul was zealous for God. You answer is no he wasn't. Twaddle.

And if, as scripture says, he was zealous for God, he was not hating God. So you cannot say he was not under the influence of "irresistible" grace, because according to Calvinism, everyone hates God in their natural fallen state. Yet you must say he was not under the influence because he still rejected Christ. The only conclusion rationally possible is "Irresistible Grace" is a fiction.

 

[Rippon]

Here is my reasoning. God can know our hearts, and therefore can know what we will do, given a circumstance. Recall Jesus saying if the folks in another town had seen His miracles, they would have repented."
Jesus knew Paul's heart, and I believe arranged circumstances that He knew would result in Paul's repentance. This in no way uses or relies upon the fiction of irresistible grace. Others, who were also believers in God, and were looking for the promised Messiah, accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

Van, are you a Molinist? It sure sounds like it.

 

[Rippon]

only those who come are given to Jesus.

The ones who who come are the very same ones who are the given and the drawn and the ones raised up at the last day.

Get it? The raised up,the given,the drawn, the ones who come are all the same people --i.e. the elect.

Everyone who comes will be raised up. Those that refuse to come will not.

Your first sentence is correct, the second is unbiblical. The Father gives those who shall indeed come to Jesus --a complete certainty.

 

[RLBosley]

*sigh*

I hope everyone sees how you not only ignored what I said, but misrepresented it.

Scripture says Saul was zealous for God, but Calvinism answers, no he did not have a "true" love for God.
This is adding to scripture what is not said or suggested. The old scripture does not mean what it says, when it conflicts with Calvinism. To be zealous for God is to be committed to God and to love God.

Here your "that" and my "that" refer to two different things. See post #73 to see what my "that" was refering to: "So imprisoning and murdering Christians was a result of Paul's love for God?" And I did not say that nor anything like that. No quote will be forthcoming. But it would be correct to say Saul's actions were the result of Saul's "misguided" zeal and love for God.

As indicated above I did say that Saul (Paul pre-conversion) did love God as indicated by being zealous for God.

Spot on!

That is correct as edited.

No, I know exactly what Irresistible Grace means! What I claim is scripture demonstrates the Calvinist doctrine is a fiction. Saul was zealous for God. You answer is no he wasn't. Twaddle.

And if, as scripture says, he was zealous for God, he was not hating God. So you cannot say he was not under the influence of "irresistible" grace, because according to Calvinism, everyone hates God in their natural fallen state. Yet you must say he was not under the influence because he still rejected Christ. The only conclusion rationally possible is "Irresistible Grace" is a fiction.

 

[Rippon]

I think I understand Calvinism quite well.

You also want to sell some ocean-view property in Nevada. :laugh:

 

[Winman]

The ones who who come are the very same ones who are the given and the drawn and the ones raised up at the last day.

Get it? The raised up,the given,the drawn, the ones who come are all the same people --i.e. the elect.


Your first sentence is correct, the second is unbiblical. The Father gives those who shall indeed come to Jesus --a complete certainty.

No, not every one drawn comes. You and Biblicist cannot seem to grasp this.

It's like this, everyone who jumped out of the plane with a parachute flew in the plane, but not everybody who flew in the plane jumped out with a parachute.

Read that over and over and over until you figure it out. Then you will be able to understand that not everyone who is drawn comes.

 

[Rippon]

No, not every one drawn comes. You and Biblicist cannot seem to grasp this.

You don't even have any straws to grasp there winman.:laugh:

Every single individual drawn by the Father, given to Jesus, comes to Jesus. Every single one. Every single person thus drawn, given, coming to Jesus will be raised up at the last day -- none of all that the Father gives to Jesus will be lost --none. To deny these biblical facts is to deny the Word of God.

 

[Winman]

OK. And yes Jesus gave the reason Thomas believed. I have no problem with it at all, nor does it conflict with the DoG at all. If it did, and the DoG were that easy to refute, Calvinism would have died long ago.

Calvinism IS that easy to refute. There are literally HUNDREDS of scriptures that refute it, I show them all the time. But people cling to their view despite this evidence.

I doubt MacArthur simply said "I don't know." I'm not a JMac fan to be honest but I have to imagine he was more thorough than that.

It is a common practice for Calvinists to defer to "mystery" when they are faced with tough questions.

TULIP isn't appealing in and of itself. It offends every natural inclination I have. That's why it offends you. It strips you of every bit of self righteousness you have and forces you to recognize you are not in control and entirely at the mercy of God. The reason I agree with it, and have come to love it, is because it is what is taught in scripture.

Boy, you couldn't be more off if you tried. Calvinism is offensive because it attacks the character of God, not man.

OK. If you make both election and free will work together, how do you define election and foreknowledge? God looking ahead and seeing who would choose him, then electing that person? That isn't election. That is demolishing what the Bible teaches about God's absolute freedom to choose and act as he sees fit. How do you define freewill? Libertarian free will? If so, that throws out everything scripture says about man's natural condition and our enslavement to sin.

If God wants to choose whom he foresees will believe, and damn those who he foresees will not believe, why can't he? If God wants to give men a choice, why can't he?

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Pretty simple, he that believes will be saved, he that believes not will be damned. That is what God has determined. Why can't you accept that?

But God uses external means along with the internal calling. Same thing with preaching the gospel. Our preaching doesn't convert anyone. But God uses the preaching to accomplish the conversion of sinners.

Abraham said that if a man does not hear the word of God, he will not be convinced by a miracle.

Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

So Paul had no other choice, it was irresistible and resulted in the total transformation of Paul... yet this is not irresistible grace? :laugh:

Paul could have disobeyed, he disobeyed the Spirit when he went to Jerusalem.

Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem.

I ignored nothing. There is nothing here that would contradict a proper understanding of irresistible grace. You are inventing a problem where it doesn't exist. Thomas' belief followed his seeing Jesus. This contradicts "I" how?

Luk 16:31 destroys Irresistible Grace, it shows that if a man does not want to believe, even a miracle from God will not convince him.

If you think I'm trying to "dismiss" Jesus' words then you've really lost it.

If the basis for the unbelief of the family in Luke 16 is solely based on their rejection of Moses and the prophets, how do you explain the Pharisees? They heard about the real Lazarus being raised from the dead, they believed the prophets and Moses, yet they plotted to kill Jesus not believe him. In fact, those who told them saw Lazarus raise from the dead with their own eyes, clearly they didn't believe either. Nor did the pharisees believe after Jesus himself rose from the grave. Seeing a miracle alone is not enough to believe. That's pretty much the whole point of John 6 for that matter.

They loved their sin more than God.

And they did NOT believe Moses, or they would have believed Jesus.

Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

See, there is volumes of scripture that refutes Calvinism, it is easy to find and show you. But you do not want to believe it.

 

[RLBosley]

Calvinism IS that easy to refute. There are literally HUNDREDS of scriptures that refute it, I show them all the time. But people cling to their view despite this evidence.

It is a common practice for Calvinists to defer to "mystery" when they are faced with tough questions.

And it's common practice for Arminians to defer to, "But WHOSOEVER" when they are faced with scripture.... I mean tough questions.

Boy, you couldn't be more off if you tried. Calvinism is offensive because it attacks the character of God, not man.

Ah yes, because affirming that God is the all knowing, infinitely powerful, Creator and King who is worthy of all worship and works all things together after the council of his own will for his own glory and is not dependent upon the creatures actions, is an attack on God's character. How did I ever miss that?? :tonofbricks:

If God wants to choose whom he foresees will believe, and damn those who he foresees will not believe, why can't he? If God wants to give men a choice, why can't he?

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Pretty simple, he that believes will be saved, he that believes not will be damned. That is what God has determined. Why can't you accept that?

I have explained this to you at least 5 times now.

Repeat after me, real slow.... THAT....IS.... NOT....THE....ISSUE.

Abraham said that if a man does not hear the word of God, he will not be convinced by a miracle.

Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Exactly! So if the miracle itself won't convince anyone, then what does it take!? The direct intervention of God. God opens the heart in order for one to receive the gospel.

Act 16:14 NASB - A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

No one will come to Christ unless they are drawn by the Father. This drawing is accomplished by the Spirit regenerating them. They all, infallibly come to Christ. No one else.

Jhn 6:44 NASB - "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
Jhn 6:45 NASB - "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

Paul could have disobeyed, the disobey the Spirit when he went to Jerusalem.

Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem.

Acts 21 is not talking about Paul's salvation. Not all grace or acts of the Spirit are irresistible. This too has been explained already.

Luk 16:31 destroys Irresistible Grace, it shows that if a man does not want to believe, even a miracle from God will not convince him.

Right! Nothing will convince a rebellious sinner to surrender to God. So what must happen? They first are made willing by the Spirit.

They loved their sin more than God.

And they did NOT believe Moses, or they would have believed Jesus.

Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Yes they loved their sin more than God. That's the point! Everyone does, by nature.

They did not believe the writings in the Law were about Jesus, right.
However, they certainly believed Moses in that they obeyed the Law externally.

There was no one who obeyed the Law more perfectly than the pharisees. Paul said that as a pharisee, he was blameless according to the Law, yet was he saved? Of course not! He fought against the gospel, while thinking he served God.

See, there is volumes of scripture that refutes Calvinism, it is easy to find and show you. But you do not want to believe it.

I do not defend Calvinism just because it is a system I want to believe or because I have some tradition to defend. I wrestled with this issue for over a year before finally becoming convinced of Calvinism. But it finally came to accept the obvious truth that God is in Heaven and does all that he pleases. Your weak attempts to show otherwise are not convincing.

 

[Winman]

And it's common practice for Arminians to defer to, "But WHOSOEVER" when they are faced with scripture.... I mean tough questions.

That's not a mystery! Look in your Bible, it really, really says, whosoever!

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
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.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Ah yes, because affirming that God is the all knowing, infinitely powerful, Creator and King who is worthy of all worship and works all things together after the council of his own will for his own glory and is not dependent upon the creatures actions, is an attack on God's character. How did I ever miss that?? :tonofbricks:

If God chooses to be dependent on his creature's decision, why can't he?

It would be like me asking my kids what they want for supper, pizza or KFC, and telling them I will go out and get whichever they choose. Why can't I allow them to make a decision if I want? Does that usurp my authority as their father? Absurd. I didn't have to ask them what they wanted for supper, I could have told them to make a sandwich.

I have explained this to you at least 5 times now.

Repeat after me, real slow.... THAT....IS.... NOT....THE....ISSUE.

But it IS the issue no matter how you try to avoid it. God can do what he wants, and according to Mark 16:16, God has determined to save those who believe, and damn those who don't. That is HIS choice.

Exactly! So if the miracle itself won't convince anyone, then what does it take!? The direct intervention of God. God opens the heart in order for one to receive the gospel.

What? A miracle is from God. Pharaoh saw 10 fantastic plagues and didn't repent. His own people begged him to repent and he wouldn't.

Exo 10:7 And Pharaoh's servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?

Act 16:14 NASB - A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

OK, this was not a stubborn, obstinate person like Pharaoh to begin with, she was already submissive and worshiped God, but simply did not know the gospel.

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

This woman ALREADY worshiped God like Cornelius when she met Paul. She WILLINGLY heard them speak. So, God taught her the gospel and she believed.

There is not one word to suggest God had to supernaturally regenerate her to worship God or to listen to Paul's preaching. She was quite willing to do that on her own.

No one will come to Christ unless they are drawn by the Father. This drawing is accomplished by the Spirit regenerating them. They all, infallibly come to Christ. No one else.

Jhn 6:44 NASB - "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
Jhn 6:45 NASB - "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

No, it does not say they "will not" come, that is ERROR. It says they CAN NOT come. Why? Because no man can believe what he does not know. This is exactly what Paul implies in Romans 10:14

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Does Paul ask how any man can believe unless he is regenerated? NO

Does Paul ask how any man can believe unless he has heard of Jesus? YES

Does Paul ask how any man can hear unless he is regenerated NO

Does Paul ask how any man can hear unless a preacher be sent? YES

Now, which of these two statements most closely describes what Paul implies in Romans 10:14?

#1 A man must be regenerated to believe on Jesus, and he must be regenerated to hear the gospel.

#2 A man must hear of Jesus to believe on him, and a preacher must be sent so that he can hear about Jesus.

Answer that question honestly if you will.

Acts 21 is not talking about Paul's salvation. Not all grace is irresistible. This too has been explained already.

Wow. So, he HAD to obey the gospel to be saved, but after that he can do whatever he wants. Wow.

I love the way Calvinists reason.

Right! Nothing will convince a rebellious sinner to surrender to God. So what must happen? They first are made willing by the Spirit.

You are not getting it, only God can perform miracles, and Abraham said that if a person will not believe God's word (which is a miracle itself), then he will not believe even if God performs a miracle.

Yes they loved their sin more than God. That's the point! Everyone does, by nature.

Lydia didn't, Cornelius didn't, the Philipian jailer didn't.

They did not believe the writings in the Law were about Jesus, right.
However, they certainly believed Moses in that they obeyed the Law externally.

They did not believe the many promises that God would send a Saviour. The Jews quite clearly understood this. Even the Samaritans understood this;

Jhn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Jhn 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

Jhn 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Jhn 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

Jhn 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

The people understood the scriptures far better than we give them credit for, and these were just regular folks, not the religious theologians and priests.

There was no one who obeyed the Law more perfectly than the pharisees. Paul said that as a pharisee, he was blameless according to the Law, yet was he saved? Of course not! He fought against the gospel, while thinking he served God.

No, because he sought to justify himself by works, instead of faith.

People knew they were sinners. The High Priest would place his hands on the head of lamb every year and confess the sins of the people;

Lev 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

Now, the regular folks probably understood this sacrifice better than the Pharisees and priests. They knew they were sinners and needed to confess, and needed an atonement. Obviously the Pharisees did not believe they were sinners and thought they could merit salvation through works.

 

[steaver]

If God chooses to be dependent on his creature's decision, why can't he?

It would be like me asking my kids what they want for supper, pizza or KFC, and telling them I will go out and get whichever they choose. Why can't I allow them to make a decision if I want? Does that usurp my authority as their father? Absurd. I didn't have to ask them what they wanted for supper, I could have told them to make a sandwich.

The Calvinist would answer..."but the kids are not hungry don't you know?!.....They don't want to eat". So the father must make them eat what he chooses for them to eat.

 

[Van]

*sigh*

I hope everyone sees how you not only ignored what I said, but misrepresented it.

Devoid of anything specific, the old "I'm the victim" and Van's ignorant and dishonest post of every Calvinist.

Paul was zealous for God yet rejected Jesus. A condition that would be impossible if Irresistible Grace were valid. Thus Irresistible Grace is a fiction.

Let the shuck and jive begin.

 

[The Biblicist]

If there is an example of irresistible grace, the story of Paul's conversion certainly represents it, but let's unpack it and see if it teaches what Calvinism suggests:

1. God has a purpose in electing Israel. To bring the Messiah and his message of redemption to the world.​

The text is specific and personal while your response is general and broad. However, that is the only way you can explain it away, so nothing new!

For example, there were all kinds of Jews accompanying him but the Father did not reveal this to them. This was INDIVDIUAL and PERSONAL illustrated salvation, rather than a GENERAL and IMPERSONAL revelation to "Israel" and while you deal with the GENERAL purpose, Paul explicitly describes his salvation in PERSONAL terms (Gal. 1:15-17) and in connection with an INTERNAL revelation of Christ in his heart. No such revelation to those Jews with him.

2. God uniquely intervenes in the world by using persuasive means (sign, miracles) to ensure this purpose stands.

Again, you BROADEN the scope from an individual and personal experience in direct contradiction to the context where OTHER JEWS did not experience this revelation. You GENERALIZE what is specific, individual and effectual.

3. Paul is one of those divinely appointed messengers from Israel that God persuades to follow Him in order to ensure his elective purpose of Israel stands.

No, Paul describes himself as part of the elect "before the foundation of the world" irrespective of ethnic, or gender or social status (Eph. 1:4) and claims that his salvation is a "pattern" not for God's plan for "Israel" or for "Jews" in general but for all the saved after him in regard to "life everlasting."

1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

4. Proof that God uses externally persuasive means like miracles, to ensure the commissioning of his messengers IS NOT proof that God uses internally irresistible means to guarantee the willing response of their hearers.

First, you are confusing salvation with commission. God does not commission lost people, but saves them first. This intervention had to do with his salvation FIRST and his commission SECOND. The commission came AFTER turning from hatred of Christ to submission "my Lord" and AFTER rebelling against his will to "what wilt thou have me to do." Your argument is simply an attempt to pervert and distort the Word of God.

Second, Christ spoke of an internal issue ("kick against the pricks") that preceded the visible manifestation of Christ. However, this visible manifestation was selective as the others did not see Christ. Third, Paul describes this initial revelation as an INTERNAL revelation of Christ to him (Gal. 1:15-16).

Put another way, pointing to the storm and big fish in the story of Jonah only goes to prove God's willingness to use persuasive circumstances to convince a stubborn will of his prophet, it does NOT prove God uses inward secret irresistible means to make some people believe that prophet's message.

Jonah was commissioned and prophet BEFORE any of these manifest signs!

Your position is unbiblical, incorrect and contrary to the plain Biblical evidence.

 

[Winman]

The Calvinist would answer..."but the kids are not hungry don't you know?!.....They don't want to eat". So the father must make them eat what he chooses for them to eat.

Mat 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Yes, according to Calvinism, Jesus was speaking of people that do not exist here.

 

[RLBosley]

That's not a mystery! Look in your Bible, it really, really says, whosoever!

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
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.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Yes it really says whosoever.

Guess what? It also really says mystery!

The fact is you misunderstand whosoever to mean that all are able, when it actually means, get this, this is cool....who-so-ever! Fascinating isn't it?

John 3:16 doesn't say "everyone can believe" but "whoever does believe" - that is a world of difference.

I absolutely agree, as does every Calvinist from all time, that whosoever believes will be saved. That isn't the issue. Like so many Arminians, you totally miss the issue. Again.

If God chooses to be dependent on his creature's decision, why can't he?

It would be like me asking my kids what they want for supper, pizza or KFC, and telling them I will go out and get whichever they choose. Why can't I allow them to make a decision if I want? Does that usurp my authority as their father? Absurd. I didn't have to ask them what they wanted for supper, I could have told them to make a sandwich.

Once again, NOT THE ISSUE.

The issue is what has God done? Not what could God have done in some other universe. What does God say he has done in this world according to scripture?

Jhn 6:37-39 NASB - 37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

Jhn 6:63-65 NASB - 63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Rom 8:29-33 NASB - 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;

Eph 1:3-6 NASB - 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

1Pe 1:3-4 NASB - 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,

From beginning to end the testimony of scripture is clear. Those who believe are saved. Yes who ever believes will be saved. But those who believe are those who, from before creation were chosen for salvation. This salvation is accomplished by the Father drawing the elect and giving them to the Son. They all infallibly come to the Son, none are lost. (That is key. If all who are drawn infallibly come, as Jesus said, then your only options are a particular atonement or universalism.)

The Father grants them the ability to come to the Son and they joyfully repent and come to Jesus. All who are foreknown, are predestined, they are justified, and they are glorified. It's the same group throughout - Romans 8 couldn't be clearer.

God the Father causes us to be born again. Get that? He CAUSES us to be spiritually reborn, and the result is that we obtain an eternal, incorruptible inheritance and we are protected by the power of God, and will acheive that final salvation.

That is what God has said he HAS done. It is really SO clear. Just read it and believe it. Don't try and weasel your way out.

But it IS the issue no matter how you try to avoid it. God can do what he wants, and according to Mark 16:16, God has determined to save those who believe, and damn those who don't. That is HIS choice.

Yes but who believes? The elect. Those drawn to the Son by the Father.

What? A miracle is from God. Pharaoh saw 10 fantastic plagues and didn't repent. His own people begged him to repent and he wouldn't.

Exo 10:7 And Pharaoh's servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?

And why do you think he wouldn't repent?

OK, this was not a stubborn, obstinate person like Pharaoh to begin with, she was already submissive and worshiped God, but simply did not know the gospel.

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

This woman ALREADY worshiped God like Cornelius when she met Paul. She WILLINGLY heard them speak. So, God taught her the gospel and she believed.

There is not one word to suggest God had to supernaturally regenerate her to worship God or to listen to Paul's preaching. She was quite willing to do that on her own.

What does "the Lord opened her heart to respond" mean?

No, it does not say they "will not" come, that is ERROR. It says they CAN NOT come. Why? Because no man can believe what he does not know. This is exactly what Paul implies in Romans 10:14

So Jesus was wrong. They actually can come, they just need knowledge. I see.

Jesus said they CAN NOT COME. He tells us why too. Not because they lacked knowledge of the Messiah, - he's literally staring them in the face! - but because they are not drawn by the Father: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." Coming to the Son is absolutely dependent on the drawing of the Father. Only those drawn will come and they all will come. It's right there!

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Does Paul ask how any man can believe unless he is regenerated? NO

Does Paul ask how any man can believe unless he has heard of Jesus? YES

Does Paul ask how any man can hear unless he is regenerated NO

Does Paul ask how any man can hear unless a preacher be sent? YES

Now, which of these two statements most closely describes what Paul implies in Romans 10:14?

#1 A man must be regenerated to believe on Jesus, and he must be regenerated to hear the gospel.

#2 A man must hear of Jesus to believe on him, and a preacher must be sent so that he can hear about Jesus.

Answer that question honestly if you will.

Both are correct. #1 is most clearly found in John 6, #2 is found in Rom 10. They are not mutually exclusive.

Wow. So, he HAD to obey the gospel to be saved, but after that he can do whatever he wants. Wow.

I love the way Calvinists reason.

Please tell me where I said, "after [being saved] he can do whatever he wants."

You don't reason. You keep repeating your already refuted errors and then build strawmen when you're failing... like now.

You are not getting it, only God can perform miracles, and Abraham said that if a person will not believe God's word (which is a miracle itself), then he will not believe even if God performs a miracle.

Why do I bother???

Lydia didn't, Cornelius didn't, the Philipian jailer didn't.

Really? And you find this in scripture where?

- snip-

All off topic. That derailed quickly.
(plus the response was getting too long)

 

[RLBosley]

Devoid of anything specific, the old "I'm the victim" and Van's ignorant and dishonest post of every Calvinist.

Paul was zealous for God yet rejected Jesus. A condition that would be impossible if Irresistible Grace were valid. Thus Irresistible Grace is a fiction.

Let the shuck and jive begin.

I wouldn't have said that, if you hadn't blatantly ignored or misrepresented everything I said. Don't get mad at me when you lie and I call you out on it.

 

[Winman]

Yes it really says whosoever.

Guess what? It also really says mystery!

The fact is you misunderstand whosoever to mean that all are able, when it actually means, get this, this is cool....who-so-ever! Fascinating isn't it?

John 3:16 doesn't say "everyone can believe" but "whoever does believe" - that is a world of difference.

I absolutely agree, as does every Calvinist from all time, that whosoever believes will be saved. That isn't the issue. Like so many Arminians, you totally miss the issue. Again.

I have never said "whosoever" means everyone is able. I would say "whosoever" refutes Limited Atonement. If Limited Atonement is true, if Jesus did not die for you, it would not matter if you believed, you would die and go to hell.

To address ability I have shown Lev 1:1-4 several times in this thread now, this passage teaches that "any man of you" could offer an offering to the Lord "of his own voluntary will" and that it would be "accepted to make atonement for him"

Now, it doesn't get any clearer than that, any man among the Jews could give a sin offering of his own free will, and it would be accepted. Total Inability is crushed. If men have free will, then they have ability.

Once again, NOT THE ISSUE.

The issue is what has God done? Not what could God have done in some other universe. What does God say he has done in this world according to scripture?

Yes, and I have shown you at least three times that God has determined to save those who believe, and damn those who believe not. (Mar 16:16)

Jhn 6:37-39 NASB - 37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

This does not say or prove all men cannot believe.

Jhn 6:63-65 NASB - 63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

This DOES address who can come, but that was explained by Jesus in vs. 45;

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Only those men who have listened (heard) the gospel and been taught can come to Jesus. It doesn't say they had to be regenerated.

Rom 8:29-33 NASB - 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;

This is not saying men were predestined to believe, it says those whom God foreknew were predestined to become conformed to the image of his son.

I would argue that God foreknew those that would believe the gospel in time, and predestined them.

See, you are reading all sorts of things into these verses that are not being said. You have been indoctrinated by Calvinist doctrine.

Eph 1:3-6 NASB - 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Again, he chose us "in him". No one is "in him" until they believe in time (Rom 16:7). So how could God choose us "in him" before the foundation of the world? FOREKOWLEDGE. We are elect according to foreknowledge and belief of the truth (1 Pet 1:2, 2 The 2:13)

You see, I have no difficulty answering you from scripture. But none of this supports Calvinism.

1Pe 1:3-4 NASB - 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,

Being born again IS supernatural. Only God can do that. But only those who have received Jesus and believed on his name, to these persons only has God given the power to "become" the sons of God. (Jhn 1:12-13).

From beginning to end the testemony of scripture is clear. Those who believe are saved. Yes who ever believes will be saved. But those who believe are those who, from before creation were chosen for salvation. This salvation is accomplished by the Father drawing the elect and giving them to the Son. They all infallibly come to the Son, none are lost. (That is key. If all who are drawn infallibly come, as Jesus said, then your only options are a particular atonement or universalism.)

Nonsense, NONE of this scripture supports your view. In each case you are reading Calvinism INTO scripture when it is not being shown. You have been CONDITIONED to see things that are not there, just as a Mormon has been conditioned to believe the "two sticks" mean the Bible and the Book of Mormon. That is called BRAINWASHING.

The Father grants them the ability to come to the Son and they joyfully repent and come to Jesus. All who are foreknown, are predestined, they are justified, and they are glorified. It's the same group throughout - Romans 8 couldn't be clearer.

There is a type of inability. It is not an inability to believe, it is an inability to believe what you do not know. No man is born knowing of the true God and the gospel of Jesus Christ, therefore no man can be born with the ability to believe on Jesus. But it does not take regeneration to enable a man to believe, it takes KNOWLEDGE. The word of God gives that man the knowledge that enables him to believe.

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Did Paul say Timothy had to be regenerated to believe? NOPE, he said the scriptures were ABLE to make Timothy WISE unto salvation, through faith in Jesus. In other words, the Bible taught Timothy he could be saved if he would believe on Jesus.

God the Father causes us to be born again. Get that? He CAUSES us to be spiritually reborn, and the result is that we obtain an eternal, incorruptible inheritance and we are protected by the power of God, and will acheive that final salvation.

That is what God has said he HAS done. It is really SO clear. Just read it and believe it. Don't try and weasel your way out.

We agree here. Regeneration is supernatural and only God can perform that. But God only regenerates those that receive Jesus and believe on his name.

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Who are the "them" in this verse that God gives the "power" to "become" the sons of God? It is those who receive Jesus and believe on his name.

Plain as day.

Yes but who believes? The elect. Those drawn to the Son by the Father.

No, not everyone drawn comes, read Matthew 22, many people who were called and bid to come to the wedding refused to come. The king who represents the Father was angry and destroyed these rebellious persons.

And why do you think he wouldn't repent?

Well, first of all, the Pharaohs believed they were descended from the gods themselves. He was the king of the greatest nation on Earth, why should he listen to the God of a poor shepherd living in the wilderness?

Exo 5:2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

Pharaoh had never heard of the true God. He believed he was a god, and the king of the greatest nation on Earth, why should he listen to a poor shepherd?

Post too long, continued