Four questions for Calvinists.

[TCassidy]

I know. You have no idea what you are doing. Bless your heart.

So, after giving you three days to think about it and study it you still can't formulate a cogent response.

So, is John 6:44 wrong? “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Will Christ raise up everyone who is drawn to Christ by the Father or not?

 

[utilyan]

So, after giving you three days to think about it and study it you still can't formulate a cogent response.

So, is John 6:44 wrong? “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Will Christ raise up everyone who is drawn to Christ by the Father or not?

Is divine response to sufficient grace the efficient grace. Or is it the mortal response to sufficient grace?

 

[utilyan]

Some folks idea of sufficient grace is such a joke they should change the name from sufficient grace to parachute love. God gives everyone a parachute.......so they can softly float down to hell. Being that only "efficient" grace saves.

 

[The Biblicist]

Is divine response to sufficient grace the efficient grace. Or is it the mortal response to sufficient grace?

Try drawing something to you without it coming to you at the same time. That is how the word translated draw is consistently used in Scripture. All the Father does not draw are in the resistant mode (Rom. 8:7) as they do "always" resist (Act 7:51) and always will as they LOVE darkness (not God) and "will not come" to the Light (Jn. 3:19-20). Drawing efficiently is God's grace and by the very meaning of "grace" is undeserving and so all who are not drawn do not deserve to be drawn, and do not want to be drawn, but deserve exactly what they desire - to be left alone by God and in love with sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

How is it that the children, born of the Spirit, indwelt by the Spirit of God, with a new creature NO WILL POWER to overpower indwelling sin (Rom. 7:18) or live the Christian life without God working "in him both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philip. 2:13) but a spiritually dead God antagnotistic person living "in the flesh" without new birth, without the indwelling Spirit, without a new inward man can simply choose to overcome the power of indwelling sin?

 

[utilyan]

Try drawing something to you without it coming to you at the same time. That is how the word translated draw is consistently used in Scripture. All the Father does not draw are in the resistant mode (Rom. 8:7) as they do "always" resist (Act 7:51) and always will as they LOVE darkness (not God) and "will not come" to the Light (Jn. 3:19-20). Drawing efficiently is God's grace and by the very meaning of "grace" is undeserving and so all who are not drawn do not deserve to be drawn, and do not want to be drawn, but deserve exactly what they desire - to be left alone by God and in love with sin.

So your answer is?

 

[The Biblicist]

So your answer is?

Jesus gives you the answer in the same context - all the father gives and draws to the son come to the son and none "of all" that come will be lost (Jn. 6:37-40, 44-45; 64-65)

In direct contrast your soteriology teaches that "of all" the Father gives to the son some can be lost. Shall we believe Christ - Jn. 6:39 or You. BTW note that it is Christ's responsibility to make sure none are lost not the responsibility of those coming to him for salvation.

 

[utilyan]

Jesus gives you the answer in the same context - all the father gives and draws to the son come to the son and none "of all" that come will be lost (Jn. 6:37-40, 44-45; 64-65)

In direct contrast your soteriology teaches that "of all" the Father gives to the son some can be lost. Shall we believe Christ - Jn. 6:39 or You. BTW note that it is Christ's responsibility to make sure none are lost not the responsibility of those coming to him for salvation.

I can find interpretation going either way. I still don't know which way you think.

So your answer is?


I'm on the boat that we are offered, we accept or refuse, just as when we sin it is our TOTAL fault rather then totally UNEQUIPPED.

 

[The Biblicist]

I can find interpretation going either way. I still don't know which way you think.

So your answer is?


I'm on the boat that we are offered, we accept or refuse, just as when we sin it is our TOTAL fault rather then totally UNEQUIPPED.

Yes you do. You just don't accept it.

You have been explained this before but simply refuse to accept the answer. We lost our ability in the fall when we sinned in Adam. By one man's act all sinned, all died and all demonstrate that by coming into this world with a God hating and God resisting spirit (Rom. 8:7) and such will "always" resist all common grace (Acts 7:51). Hence, all mankind would justly go right to hell before they would ever come to God for salvation. It is God's elective grace that saves any and that grace is manifested in "ALL" that He gives to the Son, which "ALL" are drawn by the Father and "OF ALL" given and drawn none are lost. That is grace.

Those who are not given, not drawn make that manifest in their resistance and hatred of God. They are accountable to repent. They are accountable to sin not. However, they love sin more than light. They hate the light and will not come to the light.

 

[utilyan]

Yes you do. You just don't accept it.

You have been explained this before but simply refuse to accept the answer. We lost our ability in the fall when we sinned in Adam. By one man's act all sinned, all died and all demonstrate that by coming into this world with a God hating and God resisting spirit (Rom. 8:7) and such will "always" resist all common grace (Acts 7:51). Hence, all mankind would justly go right to hell before they would ever come to God for salvation. It is God's elective grace that saves any and that grace is manifested in "ALL" that He gives to the Son, which "ALL" are drawn by the Father and "OF ALL" given and drawn none are lost. That is grace.

Those who are not given, not drawn make that manifest in their resistance and hatred of God. They are accountable to repent. They are accountable to sin not. However, they love sin more than light. They hate the light and will not come to the light.

I don't see why your ashamed to call yourself a Calvinist.

" Hence, all mankind would justly go right to hell before they would ever come to God for salvation."

Your judgment is flawed being that eternal separation from God is hell. That is everyone separated from God now is already dead and in hell. You can't fall from the bottom that's why its the bottom.

Just because your personal idea of heaven is paradise, Disneyland and getting what you want, it doesn't make it so.

Sin itself and eternal separation from God is hell.


"By one man's act all sinned, all died"

Again dead things don't die.


The Good Samaritan is the Good Samaritan. You would have to proclaim the DAMNED Samaritan, which Jesus proclaimed as the example of Agape that everyone is capable of.


Another easy example:

Luke 7
44Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45“You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. 46“You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. 47“For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48Then He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.” 49Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this man who even forgives sins?” 50And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Forgiveness didn't come first. And again Jesus points out why she is forgiven, FOR SHE LOVED MUCH. When Jesus Christ declares your sins have been forgiven, it is DONE.


You demand a backwards scenario. Your saved, go in peace, Jesus forgives, And then she can love Jesus.

I don't have to go backwards with the bible.

And I can show you PASSAGE after PASSAGE which you would only accept BACKWARDS.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't see why your ashamed to call yourself a Calvinist.

" Hence, all mankind would justly go right to hell before they would ever come to God for salvation."

Your judgment is flawed being that eternal separation from God is hell. That is everyone separated from God now is already dead and in hell. You can't fall from the bottom that's why its the bottom.

Just because your personal idea of heaven is paradise, Disneyland and getting what you want, it doesn't make it so.

Sin itself and eternal separation from God is hell.


"By one man's act all sinned, all died"

Again dead things don't die.


The Good Samaritan is the Good Samaritan. You would have to proclaim the DAMNED Samaritan, which Jesus proclaimed as the example of Agape that everyone is capable of.


Another easy example:

Luke 7
44Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45“You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. 46“You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. 47“For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48Then He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.” 49Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this man who even forgives sins?” 50And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Forgiveness didn't come first. And again Jesus points out why she is forgiven, FOR SHE LOVED MUCH. When Jesus Christ declares your sins have been forgiven, it is DONE.


You demand a backwards scenario. Your saved, go in peace, Jesus forgives, And then she can love Jesus.

I don't have to go backwards with the bible.

And I can show you PASSAGE after PASSAGE which you would only accept BACKWARDS.

You don't even accept the Bible as God's Word, as you make uninspired sources your final authority for your faith and practice, so it is a joke to even discuss scriptures with you.

 

[Yeshua1]

Conditional election.

The point of theirs tat states tha God bases His election on His foreknowledge only, not His determitive Will for salvation?

 

[Yeshua1]

Really? That is in complete opposition to the standard understanding of election and God's Sovereignty by reformed folks.

Actually, that wouldbethe standad reformed view, in that the Lord by act of His Divine Will chose those wom Jesu would save via the Cross!

 

[JonC]

The point of theirs tat states tha God bases His election on His foreknowledge only, not His determitive Will for salvation?

No, but their misunderstanding of foreknowledge itself.

 

[TCassidy]

No, but their misunderstanding of foreknowledge itself.

What most Arminians fail to understand about their insistence that God's elected people because He say, in the future, that they would believe and be saved, actually denies that God is Omniscient. When He looked forward and saw they would believe He learned something. Learning something means you didn't already know it. And if God did not already know all things, He was not Omniscient prior to that, so God changed even though the bible says, in Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not. And in James 1:17 the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

 

[TCassidy]

foreknowledge

To know, determinately, before hand. (Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.)

To ordain something to come to pass. (1 Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained (same Greek word) before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.)

 

[Yeshua1]

What most Arminians fail to understand about their insistence that God's elected people because He say, in the future, that they would believe and be saved, actually denies that God is Omniscient. When He looked forward and saw they would believe He learned something. Learning something means you didn't already know it. And if God did not already know all things, He was not Omniscient prior to that, so God changed even though the bible says, in Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not. And in James 1:17 the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

That is why Open Theism came out from teir teaching, fo when carried out to its logical end, their value on real free will makes God limit Himself to not really knowingwho will chooe to get saved!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, but their misunderstanding of foreknowledge itself.

Which is faulty, as they start with presumption tha there exists real free will now...

 

[JonC]

That is why Open Theism came out from teir teaching, fo when carried out to its logical end, their value on real free will makes God limit Himself to not really knowingwho will chooe to get saved!

The mode of divine knowledge is the same. Perhaps Open Theism is to Arminianism what Arminianism is to Calvinism.

 

[Yeshua1]

The mode of divine knowledge is the same. Perhaps Open Theism is to Arminianism what Arminianism is to Calvinism.

Except tht would see God as eally hving limited Himselfto knoingfuture ents, as he woulbe blind to tem until the happened in real time...

And Arminiasm still has ta pesky problem of Jesus did fo all, will ofGod to save all,, yet all not saved..