Featured "given" is inclusive of "draw" in John 6

Jesus said if he be raised up he will draw all men unto him. To be raised up speaks of being crucified, dying for our sins. I believe this is what draws all men to Jesus, even if they finally resist. Now, I believe you have to hear to be drawn, but it might be possible those that don't hear are drawn as well, but I am not sure how.

As I have said, I do not understand exactly how God deals with people who never hear of Christ. It is certain some do die without hearing of Christ, a baby dying in the womb could not hear of Jesus. Of course, a baby has not sinned as Romans 9:11 clearly shows. But it is certain men have lived in isolated areas and not heard the gospel.

The scriptures do show that God deals with people according to knowledge.

Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

The servant that "knew not" his lord's will is punished with less stripes. This seems at odds with Calvinism, if God did not desire to save these persons, and gets glory from punishing them, why would he punish them less?

I believe the scriptures when they say there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved, but perhaps God judges those that do not hear his name a little differently, like OT saints. Rahab the harlot did not hear of Jesus that I know of, but she recognized the God of the Jews was the true God and believed in him. This was enough for her to be saved. So perhaps God judges these men by whatever revelation they receive.

But I tell you what, I still believe God loves all men and desires that all men be saved. I will never believe Calvinism for this reason alone.

 

No, but that does not prove inability.

A good analogy would be baseball. Is is possible for a batter to get a hit every single time he comes to bat? YES, it is absolutely possible for him to get a hit. That said, no baseball player has ever batted 1.000 unless he only had a very few at bats.

No one HAS to lie, no one HAS to steal. We all choose to sin, but we could have always chosen otherwise.

I love the way you claim infallibility. You are a riot.

Of course God is perfect, and he is the standard. That is why when the scriptures say there is none good, it is not saying man is 100% evil, it is saying that man has "come short" of the glory of God. Man can do good, but no man has ever done 100% good except Jesus.

The very term "come short" shows man is ABLE to do good. It is likened to an arrow shot at a target. The arrow travels some distance toward the target, but it comes short of hitting the mark. But it did travel some distance, showing man can do some good.

Total inability is absolutely false, it is shown from Cain forward, God implied Cain could do "well" and said he would be accepted if he did so. This statement is nonsensical in Calvinism. In Calvinism Cain was not elect, God had no intention of regenerating him, he could not do well, and God had already decided in eternity past that he would never be accepted. So God's statement to Cain is nonsensical if Calvinism is true.

 

They came to Him and trusted Him of their own free will? Here's the account:

That doesn't look one iota like free will to me. They fled like scared rabbits when they heard God's voice and hid. When God sought them out, Adam then spoke, and not before. It's like the dad who's looking for his child after he did something really bad. When he finally calls him sternly enough, he'll come out, and not before. When dad spoke sternly to me, I did whatever it was, but it wasn't due to my free will, let it be known. That was what happened here in the Garden.

Right before He drove them out of the Garden, He clothed them with the coat of skins, a sacrifice for their sins. They could have eaten of the Tree of Life after this, but God shoved them out of there.

But they didn't come to God after they sinned, of their own free will. God hunted them down.

 

***cracking knuckles sound***

This is probably gonna hurt, and give me writer's...errrr....typer's cramps...LOL

Oh goodie goodie...LOL

Wonderful!!

Well, the greek word used for "draw" was also used as to "drag".

Yet, not all of Israel is Israel. It was the remnant that was counted for the seed, the seed which would receive that promise. Without that very small remnant, this world would be like Sodom and Gomorah.

The word used for "draw" wasn't one where you could resist that drawing. When God gets a hook in you, you're coming.

Good.

We have no clue who the sheep and goats are. We are to preach the gospel to every creature and they that believe and are baptized are saved, they which believe not, shall be damned. We proclaim the gospel to everyone so that the sheep will hear it. God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. The goats, when they hear, want nothing to do with, cementing there fate in the lake of fire. They will stand before Him w/o any excuses. Jesus told the Pharisees, Saducees, other Israelites that if He had not spoken to them, they would have an excuse(me paraphrasing here), but since they heard and did not believe, they had no cloak for their sin. The gospel either brings conviction or condemnation.

The call goes via the gospel. God quickens His sheep so that they can hear it, so they will come to Him, they will rejoice when they hear it, iow.

The gospel is to go throughout the whole world, yet it only affects the sheep positively. The goats want nothing to do with it.

Listen, we offer the gospel, proclaim the gospel, to all who are within the range of our voice. We are not privy to who the sheep are. I preach to everyone like they're ready to fall out with sin. I preach the gospel in a way that I treat everyone as if their ready to run and grab the Scapegoat as He passes by. I make no distinctions, whatsoever. I have no clue who are sheep and who are goats. God knows, I don't.

Again, to say that Jesus died for every man is false. There are many people who from birth------>death, never heard of Him, never knew His name. Yet, you say that He died for them, and they went to torment? Not one person He tasted death for will ever suffer in the lake of fire. Jesus draws those the Father gave Him, and the ones the Father gave Him, He shall lose none, save the son of perdition, that the scriptures might be fulfilled.

This is irrelevant.[/quote]

As I already stated, it calls the sheep out from the goats. The goats will stay where they are at, because they love it there.

God works through the gospel. He regenerates them and then uses the gospel to bring them into the sheepfold, that has One Shepherd, the One Shepherd that will lay His life down for His sheep. The Shepherd that prays for His sheep and not the goats.

Look at the words I bolded. If you'll notice, you'll see the forcefulness in them. To "compell", "raise-up", "elect", "pre-destinate" etc.

Those who never hear the gospel are without excuse. Per Psalm 19 and Romans 1, natural revelation shows that their is a Creator, therefore, they will stand before Him w/o any excuses whatsoever.

 

OK

Why wouldn't they run? What did God say was going to happen to them the day they ate the forbidden fruit? God told them they were going to die didn't he? That would certainly scare me.

Nevertheless, both Adam and Eve came of their own free will when God continued to call them. God did not have to go into the bushes, find them, and drag them out. No, he called and they came of their own free will.

You simply do not want to see free will here, but that is certainly what it shows. God did not force them or irresistibly cause them to come.

No, one of the penalties of eating the forbidden fruit was that they would return to the dust from which they came, and so God prevented them from eating from the tree of life.

But nowhere does it say God cursed them so they would be unable to respond and believe God's word. Calvinism does not have a single word of scripture to support Total Inability. And God did not say their children would be born unable to respond to God. This is a man made invention not found in scripture anywhere. You cannot show it, because it doesn't exist.

God didn't HUNT them down Willis, he CALLED to them. And they finally did indeed come of their own free will, he did not have to take hold of them and drag them out of the woods.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

These are good observations.
Point is, that there is no single instance when we are ever FORCED to sin because of our nature. In every single opportunity in which I chose to sin, I manifestly could have done other wise.

Truth is, man's imperfection proves too much for the Calvinist:

Because if Total Inability is true as they describe it, then it would follow that ALL men are ALWAYS as evil as they COULD BE.

But, they will deny this. Because it is obviously false.
But, if they are compelled by their nature to always sin because, as Biblicists insists on they:
IS
ARE
BE
In accordance with their teaching of Total Inability.
Then, it would follow that men can in no instance and no possible scenario ever make the right choice.

No sinner would ever return a lost wallet.
No person would ever take time to donate their blood or donate to charity.
No sinner would ever return to pay for an item the cashier failed to ring up at Wal-Mart etc...

But, obviously, they do.

 

No one is saying anyone is compelled to sin. Neither side of the debate states this as an absolute. But look at our nature. Look at the lion. The lion kills his prey because he likes meat, and won't eat grass. You could give him 10,000 bales of hay and a 1 lb steak to chose from, and he'll chose the steak every time. His nature isn't bent towards eating grass. We choose to sin because our nature is bent towards sin. Our heart is deceitful, dark, hardened, etc. That is why we sin. Our nature is in accord with our nature. That's why regeneration is an absolute must before the gospel appeal becomes appealling to His sheep. He takes that stony heart out and gives a heart of flesh. The stony heart can not receive the engrafting word, even to the saving of the soul, because it has no place for it. However, after God gives them the new heart, after quickening them, that new heart can, and will receive that engrafted word, because it has a place for it. It can take it on, and then others come along and water it, yet, God makes it grow...gives the increase.

God changes the nature, and thusly, changes the will, too...

 

Exactly, we are slaves or servants to sin in the respect that the moment we sin we are "sold under sin". We belong to sin just like a slave in the ancient markets. This does not mean we are compelled to always sin, a slave can disobey his master, a slave can run away from his master. But legally he still belonged to the master and could be hunted down by him and returned to him. And the wage of sin is death. Whether you did good or bad, your wage was death.

No one is compelled to sin at any time. If you find a wallet full of money, you would probably be tempted to keep the money, but you could always contact the owner and return it. If you were compelled to sin, you MUST keep the money.

If we were compelled to sin as Calvinism teaches, we would ALWAYS be the very worst we could possibly be. They will deny this, but it is logically consistent and must be true. If you must sin, you must always sin the worst sin you can sin. Of course this is obviously not true, which refutes the Calvinist view.

Calvinists simply move the goal posts when reality refutes them.

 

Baloney, Calvinism indeed teaches a person is compelled to sin. In your view, man MUST reject the gospel. He cannot be interested in it, he cannot listen to it, he cannot consider it or understand it, he cannot believe it. He is absolutely COMPELLED by his nature to reject it.

But Hebrews 6 shows men can listen to the gospel and be enlightened by it, they can taste of the word of God and the world to come, they can be brought to the point of repentance, and yet turn away in unbelief.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

These verses can only be interpreted two ways, and both refute Calvinism. Either this passage shows a man can be saved and lose salvation, which refutes Perseverance of the Saints, or it shows man can indeed understand the gospel and be brought to the point of repentance, which refutes Total Inability.

Once again, the Calvinist must confront scripture that makes absolutely no logical sense if Calvinism is true.

The scriptures do not show men are unable to respond and turn to God as you parrot Willis. There are MANY scriptures that show a man first turns to God and receives the Spirit afterward.

Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Which is shown first Willis? turning to God, or receiving the Spirit?

You see, the Calvinist must make the ridiculous argument that a man can be regenerated without the Spirit, but Romans 8:9 refutes this. Romans 8:9 says that any man without the indwelling Spirit is "in the flesh". Yet, we are told men in the flesh can repent and believe, and if they do, they receive the Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Which comes first here Willis? Repenting and believing (because only believers were allowed to be baptized), or receiving the Holy Ghost?

Again and again the Calvinist must confront scripture which absolutely contradicts and refutes Calvinism.

 

Brothers, thank you for the debate. We've went 300 miles and yet haven't moved one inch. I am bowing out now. Adios my friends and may He richly and abundantly bless you and your families.

:wavey: :love2: :flower: :wavey:

 

You are bowing out because you have been presented arguments that are difficult for you to answer.

 

Willis, your analogy, again, proves too much for you.
If the Lion's nature is the same as our nature, then when offered the steak, (in this instance, sin) than, as I said:

We would ALWAYS SIN, EVERY TIME.
But, we do not.

Your analogy demonstrates the point I am making that Total Inability proves too much for Calvinism.

 

God bless you too Willis! Have a GREAT DAY :love2: :thumbsup::flower:

 

Winman, try again....:1_grouphug:

 

The point is that God does not force men to sin against their wills. He simply does not STOP them from sinning in accordance with their wills.

As to your statement about Total Inability-

You once again don't know what you are talking about. This is your Achilles Heel in these debates. You have NEVER understood Calvinism. I don't know if you are simply invincibly ignorant or impossibly blind, but you don't understand what you constantly attack.

You are like the folks in Texas a hundred years ago who erroneously thought that giant gar fish were eating children. They dropped electrical lines in bodies of water and tried to wipe out the fish.

Later on when educated people looked into the problem they discovered that the backwards rednecks killing the fish were wrong. Gar fish cannot eat children- they are not physically ABLE.

You are attacking something that you think is a certain way and you are wrong- and yes, I do think it is because you share the dilemma of those Texas rednecks.

If you even REMOTELY understood Calvinism you would know that Calvinists believe that in their system sinners do nothing BUT resist the grace of God until the time when God stops their resistance. You would know that they are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of repenting until the moment when God enables them to repent and believe the Gospel. Total Inability means totally unable until ENABLED. That seems so OBVIOUS to most of us. I do not know why you can't get it.

You think you have this clever argument against Calvinism something like the rednecks thought they had a clever way to dispose of the man-killing gar fish in Texas.

But really, like them, your problem is that you are astoundingly ignorant. You may be somewhat tall intellectually in the land of mental midgets (IFB) but when you come on this site you are very, very short indeed- at least when it comes to these matters.