"Draw" in Jn 6:44--What does it mean in your opinion???

[agedman]

They believe if an elect baby is aborted, the baby is somehow given faith and enters the kingdom of the elect. Thus if any elect did not hear the gospel, they too would be saved. So what then is left? Why preach the gospel - because that is what God commands, even though it does not alter the predestined outcome of every life.

Just so the readers might know:

Calvin, himself did believe in the horribile decretum, however it is a most lonely stand. For those who don't know, that is that even babies were sent to hell.

Spurgeon and others of Calvinistic thinking folks have reputed and spurned such declarations of Calvin.

Being Baptist, Spurgeon of course endorsed the time of one becoming aware of their sin (sometimes referred to as the age of accountability).

Now on to what Van posted:

Van, you present a true problem with the extreme Calvinists and that is why some of them actually teach there is no need for any outreach programs and evangelistic work. Of course on the far other side of the argument is the teaching of no literal hell and a teddy bear God. So, there is fault on both extremes.

Calvinists do not know who is and isn't part of the elect (other than their own personal salvation) and because they believe the giving of the Gospel is mixed with faith to salvation, evangelism is extremely important.

The typical Calvinist is not as concerned with how many are saved but with how many will hear the Gospel.

 

[Amy.G]

Granted, none of us can fully understand how it all works, but we can understand the parts of it that have been clearly revealed and those are the parts I'm attempting to discuss with you.

I wish we could just accept the fact that none of us can fully understand how election and freewill work together! We might actually get along!

And yes we can understand the parts that are clearly revealed. Both the sovereign election of God is clearly revealed and the free will and responsibility of man is clearly revealed. The problem is that neither side of the argument will admit it! (Except me of course :smilewinkgrin

 

[DaChaser1]

Just so the readers might know:

Calvin, himself did believe in the horribile decretum, however it is a most lonely stand. For those who don't know, that is that even babies were sent to hell.

Spurgeon and others of Calvinistic thinking folks have reputed and spurned such declarations of Calvin.

Being Baptist, Spurgeon of course endorsed the time of one becoming aware of their sin (sometimes referred to as the age of accountability).

Now on to what Van posted:

Van, you present a true problem with the extreme Calvinists and that is why some of them actually teach there is no need for any outreach programs and evangelistic work. Of course on the far other side of the argument is the teaching of no literal hell and a teddy bear God. So, there is fault on both extremes.

Calvinists do not know who is and isn't part of the elect (other than their own personal salvation) and because they believe the giving of the Gospel is mixed with faith to salvation, evangelism is extremely important.

The typical Calvinist is not as concerned with how many are saved but with how many will hear the Gospel.

Actually, bible is very silent in regards to infants, and those under 'age of accountibility"

Would say that based mainly upon isolated verses AND in the very nature of God...

that he provided SOME means to have the atoning work of Christ to be able to be effectual appluied towards infants, young children, mentally challeged etc to be able to have them saved and elected unto life in christ!

Those who hold that God MUST require saving faith in order to ahve God save us is stuck between either God regenerates somehow a baby by giving him faith, or else NO infants/small children are actually saved!

 

[DaChaser1]

Yes......... (noticing a pattern?)

yes, refusal to clearly state which side of this divide walking on!

 

[webdog]

yes, refusal to clearly state which side of this divide walking on!

When are you going to answer my question? Not letting you off the hook this time.

 

[Iconoclast]

Well then if this is what they believe it would seem that God's calling is a waste of time.

FAL,

Do not listen to a non cal.....when they try and tell you what a cal believes.
They hardly if ever give a correct representation of the truth.
If they understood it....they would believe it.

 

[webdog]

FAL,

Do not listen to a non cal.....when they try and tell you what a cal believes.
They hardly if ever give a correct representation of the truth.
If they understood it....they would believe it.

Whatever...you are talking about a former cal. Discrediting his knowledge is akin to discrediting yours. We also understand it...and dismiss it, like you do with ours. Can we make the same claim?

 

[Skandelon]

yes, refusal to clearly state which side of this divide walking on!

When you present the actual point of our divide, then I will. So, far it has just been one false dichotomy after the other.

 

[Skandelon]

I wish we could just accept the fact that none of us can fully understand how election and freewill work together! We might actually get along!

And yes we can understand the parts that are clearly revealed. Both the sovereign election of God is clearly revealed and the free will and responsibility of man is clearly revealed. The problem is that neither side of the argument will admit it! (Except me of course :smilewinkgrin

Oh, I gladly affirm both of those truths, but its when Calvinists read into the biblical teaching of God's sovereign election an individualization aspect, by which God preselects a few to the neglect of all others that I cry foul (and which you seem to do as well at times. )

 

[Skandelon]

Whatever...you are talking about a former cal. Discrediting his knowledge is akin to discrediting yours. We also understand it...and dismiss it, like you do with ours. Can we make the same claim?

You beat me to it. I guess they have never understood "Arminianism" either by this logic.

I refer them to the quotes in my signature.

Plus, you will notice that he fails to point out any specific thing I said that was misrepresentative of his views. I doubt he will...

 

[Iconoclast]

Whatever...you are talking about a former cal. Discrediting his knowledge is akin to discrediting yours. We also understand it...and dismiss it, like you do with ours. Can we make the same claim?

WD....
He is not a former cal...neither are you. You may think or claim so...but
what you both post says otherwise. I am not saying that to be a wiseguy...it is just neither one of you ever post a "supposed cal position , that I or any other calvinist would say...oh yes..that is the truth.

I do think you were exposed to it, enough to recognise some aspects of it.
I am not saying that you were not. You have missed the essential elements of it.

You are free to claim whatever you want. We are free to read what you offer and reject it out of hand.

If someone says they were a christian...but cannot say they believe in the trinity...neither of us would say they are a real christian,

 

[freeatlast]

FAL,

Do not listen to a non cal.....when they try and tell you what a cal believes.
They hardly if ever give a correct representation of the truth.
If they understood it....they would believe it.

Yes I agree that trying to state what another believes is almost impossible unless they are quoted verbatim. I am surprised many times to find out what I believe based on what others say I believe only one post after I state what I do believe. The problem is that those who do this also do the same with the bible. Instead of accepting what it says they interpret it to mean something other then it says.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Oh, I gladly affirm both of those truths, but its when Calvinists read into the biblical teaching of God's sovereign election an individualization aspect, by which God preselects a few to the neglect of all others that I cry foul (and which you seem to do as well at times. )

When you speak of a 'few' you are presumably speaking of the great crowd that no man can number in Rev 7:9. Do you believe that this crowd is somehow larger under Arminianism? If so, why? If it is indeed the same 'few' under both systems, then do you believe that God does not love anyone enough to save them unconditionally and stands idly by as man and women stumble towards hell?

Just wondering.

Steve

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes I agree that trying to state what another believes is almost impossible unless they are quoted verbatim.

FAL,
I am not trying to discredit skan,webdog, or anyone else...just pointing out that the way they frame cal views...does not reflect the mainstream view.

What are mainstream views.....confessional views, catechisms,
John Murray...redemption ,accomplished and applied,
Jl Dagg
JP Boyce
Sinclair Ferguson
And not cherry picking some abberant view....like these contemporary "leaders" Piper,mahaney, driscoll,grudem,,etc...they depart from the mainstream...so better to stick to those who are tried and tested,

 

[webdog]

WD....
He is not a former cal...neither are you. You may think or claim so...but
what you both post says otherwise. I am not saying that to be a wiseguy...it is just neither one of you ever post a "supposed cal position , that I or any other calvinist would say...oh yes..that is the truth.

I do think you were exposed to it, enough to recognise some aspects of it.
I am not saying that you were not. You have missed the essential elements of it.

You are free to claim whatever you want. We are free to read what you offer and reject it out of hand.

If someone says they were a christian...but cannot say they believe in the trinity...neither of us would say they are a real christian,

Complete hogwash...

 

[Iconoclast]

You beat me to it.

I guess they have never understood "Arminianism" either by this logic.

That would be correct. I see it as pure error...with a grain of truth here and there...but ultimately to be rejected by scripture for being inconsistent.

I refer them to the quotes in my signature.

Plus, you will notice that he fails to point out any specific thing I said that was misrepresentative of his views. I doubt he will

...

When the day comes that you really want an answer I will help.
You have been answered many times...reject the answer...then repeat your errors over and over. That is okay...everyone is free to "express themselves"

here on the BB.....

I guess they have never understood "Arminianism" either by this logic.

well this does not really matter as everyone denied being an arminian a few weeks ago....there are no arminians here right:laugh::laugh: oh yeah..I am sure of that

ps. how do you know when you have been answered??? just look through your posts...you get an answer ..then you explain it away......oh no...that is debate fallacy number 19...I took debate class...you are:
begging the question
obscuring the question,
confusing the question,
questioning the question

making a strawman, tin man, girly man
red herring etc....anything but a SCRIPTURAL RESPONSE.

 

[Skandelon]

When you speak of a 'few' you are presumably speaking of the great crowd that no man can number in Rev 7:9.

Nope. I'm speaking relative to the much greater number of those on the board road who presumably remain unchosen by God according to your dogma. (ref. 'few are those who find it...")

Do you believe that this crowd is somehow larger under Arminianism? If so, why?

Nope, but I don't believe it's God doing the limiting...

Those who perish do so not because God didn't love and chose to call them to repentance, but because they themselves chose not to accept the clearly revealed truth. They reject God despite his love and gracious provisions, whereas in your system they reject God because God didn't 'grant them faith' or didn't chose to save them. This gives them the perfect excuse for their unbelief and is unbiblical.

If it is indeed the same 'few' under both systems, then do you believe that God does not love anyone enough to save them unconditionally and stands idly by as man and women stumble towards hell?

Are you asking why God's love doesn't overpower man's will in salvation?

For the same reason He doesn't effectually save everyone in your system. For the praise of his Glory. We will understand it better in heaven.

We do have some aspects in common.

 

[Skandelon]

WD....
He is not a former cal...neither are you.

If you only knew....

I'll tell you what. Let's start an "opposite thread" and I'll defend Calvinism while you defend our view and see who better understands the other? That should be interesting. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Iconoclast]

Complete hogwash...

or
the truth...which you usually say is a ..red herring...

You cannot explain the 5 pts in your own words without looking at a real calvinist site...and copying it. Show any post where you think you have given an accurate calvinistic position...we will see where the ...hogwash is:thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

ps. how do you know when you have been answered??? just look through your posts...you get an answer ..then you explain it away......oh no...that is debate fallacy number 19...I took debate class...you are:
begging the question
obscuring the question,
confusing the question,
questioning the question

making a strawman, tin man, girly man
red herring etc....anything but a SCRIPTURAL RESPONSE.

Don't blame me if you can't recognize a common debate fallacy. "Question Begging" is the most common fallacy and it can't be rationally rebutted any other way than to call it what it is. If I don't call it out then it would turn into an endless cycle. That is why Question Begging is sometimes referred to a 'circular argument." It has no end and cannot be answered in a reasonable manner because it assumes the very point up for debate. I challenge you to read up on it and maybe you will begin to recognize it for yourself.