Irresistable Grace... How trow?

I am dealing with men trying to use a verse meant for us to go out and reach out. I am not Paul or Saul my conversion is not the same as his. I will not compare mine with His, but God used His messenger with the words of life who was Spirit filled and set before me life and death not life only. When I trusted in Him, not my own understanding, not what I wanted to believe, not my own wisdom. I trusted not in my work , but His finished work. I have no problem with His chosen messenger to reach out, but the message they have to give is for eveyone and whom ever believes in Jesus will be saved

 

The problem here is that John 3 clearly says that being born again is something that happens to you first. Nicodemus is told he must (first) be born again and then he will be able to see the Kingdom of Heaven. And, the Greek passive (born) means that this is done to him, it is not done by him.

Furthermore, we don't argue that regeneration/being born again is salvation. We argue that regeneration and salvation are two different things and that regeneration always leads to salvation. Many of us argue it is a process.

The Archangel

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive. The Spirit is truth, the Spirit is the one who does the revealing. You can't separate revealed truth from the Spirit.

In John 6, Jesus said, "The words that I speak to you are spirit and life." Words have power not because we speak them, but because they are words of Christ.

Actually, you are making my point. The remnant (apostles) did believe what had been revealed, but not all aspects of the gospel had been revealed until the HS came.

Well, since I'm expounding upon an accepted, well known, orthodox view of this passage maybe it would behove you to study it objectively until it does "make sense" to you. I may disagree with Calvinism's perspective on this passage but it still makes sense to me because I've studied it and objectively considered its merits.

I never claimed otherwise, so maybe you are not understanding my perspective.

 

Side note to this question...

cals believe that Grace can and is resisted by people all the time, its just that when God has determined and "moves In" on the sinner, at His Sovereign time, the Gospel is given unto one whose ears/heart/mind has been openned up to receive jesus, and that time, Gods Choosing, grace indeed "irresistable!"

 

It seems to me that you take the first part of John 3 and ignore the answer Nicodemus was looking for just a few sentences further in the conversation. You simply stop your consideration of the whole conversation.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Joh 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
This is how we are saved, This is being born of God. Believing in Jesus Christ. This is for the whosoever's and Nicodemus
Nicodemus got the answer he wanted alright. He may not have understood it but I do. You have to admit it was explained to the man in terms He could understand.
MB

 

I think we have to realise that Christ often said things in such a way that people could not understand. Yet when Nicodemus showed the Lord he really needed to know the answer Christ explain it to them. We do need to be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven but also we must believe inorder to be born again

 

Yet another verse that is constantly misrepresented by Cal's is John 3:3 which says unless a person has been born again they cannot "see" the kingdom of heaven. So the Cal's redefine see to mean the ability to understand and respond affirmatively to the gospel. Not what it says. If you look down at verse 5, you see that a person must be born of the Spirit to "enter" the kingdom of heaven. So the meaning of "see" appears, based on the actual context, to mean enter and see what is in the kingdom. The passage says absolutely nothing about our supposed total Spiritual inability prior to being born again. Nada, zip, nothing.

There is no actual support anywhere in any verse for Irresistible Grace as defined by Calvinism.

 

Your statement would have you putting "faith" as something self generated.

It is not.

The scriptures teach that God provides the measure of faith. Because it is His faith implanted in us, our responsibility is (as Paul and Peter stated) to add, enlarge or be careful of what is built upon that faith.

The faith was not ours, neither was the grace of God that quicken the heart.

The ability to express faith in Christ was not ours but the outpouring of the new will and life in which He implanted in us.

The total work of salvation from the "get go" to the final result is the work of God's eternal purpose.

Man generated faith is of absolutely no value.

Christ said, "If we have faith the size of ...." He was not putting faith in terms of generating some condition and response, rather He was stating the fact that the faith of God, from God, implanted in our hearts by God, is more powerful than any force be it natural or supernatural.

 

Reply to Agedman,

We at least agree that our response to the gospel does not equate with automatic salvation. We do not put ourselves in Christ, God does. 1 Cor. 1:30.

There is no verse that says a person is "quickened, made alive, born anew, etc before they hear and believe the gospel. John 1:12-13 says the opposite, that only after hearing and believing are we given the right to become children of God.

And again we seem to agree that we are called, then chosen individually based on God crediting our faith as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5/24.

 

Irresistable Grace is nothing more than circular reasoning. If the man chooses not to resist, Calvinists call it irresistable grace. If the man resists, then they call it resistable grace. The type of grace is determined by the man's choice!

It is beyond me how intelligent people can be fooled by arguments like this, but obviously they can.

 

51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
we just believe the bible texts on it.

 

No, you believe carefully selected proof-texts.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Cain could have done well, and if so he would have been accepted. How can that be true if Calvinism is true? We know from NT scripture that Cain was lost. If so, in the Calvinist view he was unelect. So why would God speak to Cain as if he could do well if he could not? Is God confused? Did God forget that he had already determined to pass over Cain and that he would never be able to do well and give an acceptable sacrifice?

And why did God tell Cain he would rule over sin? This makes no sense in Calvinism if Cain was unelect.

Much of scripture makes absolutely no sense if Calvinism is true, but most Calvinists ignore these scriptures.

 

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live:

Was Moses ignorant of doctrine? Did Moses forget that men cannot choose life? Why did he command the people to choose life when he knew it was impossible to do so?

No, the scriptures make no sense if Calvinism is true.

 

First, the context and then answers to some of the questions.

"And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain (a farmer with a good crop from working hard) (proudly) brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the first-lings of his flock and of the fat thereof.

And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell (he pouted, stomped his feet, crossed his arms, and filled his heart with hate).

And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou do well (go get the right stuff to offer, Cain), shalt thou not be accepted (I would not disrespect you)? and if thou do not well (keep that rebellious spirit - stiff necked), sin lies at the door (you will come to no good).

(But Cain, if you bring the right offering and the right attitude, I will certainly accept you) And unto thee shall be his (Abel's) desire, and thou shalt rule over him (because you are the oldest)."


Words in () are my own and not to be taken as adding to the Scriptures but as clarification of the setting and conversation.

Your questions:

So why would God speak to Cain as if he could do well if he could not? Because God did give Cain a choice, but Cain, who only heard with the natural ears and not from being given quickened new nature hearing, rejected God's suggestion that he bring the appropriate offering.

Is God confused? Nope - consistent

Did God forget that he had already determined to pass over Cain and that he would never be able to do well and give an acceptable sacrifice? No, but just like pharaoh, Cains heart hardened and when God spoke he hardened even more. It is God that chooses who's life will be endowed by the quickening of the Holy Spirit, not man.

And why did God tell Cain he would rule over sin? As I showed above, the conversation is about Abel and Cain being the oldest.

This little story aligns just fine in the Calvinistic thinking when taken in context.

 

This passage is not talking of eternal life, but a life of peace and prosperity in the new land.

Moses was not ignorant of doctrine, nor did Moses forget that men cannot choose eternal life.

Moses new it was possible for the people to continue with the very presence of God leading them in political, social, economic, and emotional security. He had been with them to oversee their behavior. Like a parent sending their kid off on their own, he had great hope, but was obviously troubled by the weaknesses that he saw in them. So he warned them of the consequences of living right or doing wrong.

Unfortunately, the people choose to live like the world around them and were swallowed up in all manor of evil.

 

I understand the context quite well. What you are suggesting--believing in Jesus is being born of God--does not wash with the text. Remember all the occurrences of the verb and participle "born" is in the Passive, meaning that something is done to you by an outside force (God, in this case). Being born again, in this passage, is not something you can do to or for yourself. So, believing, according to the text is not what gets you born again.

The Archangel

 

If man resists, it is because the new nature has not yet been implanted.

If man does not resist, it is because the natural (will) of man has been subjugated by the will of God implanted in them referred as a new nature.

In the saved, the natural man and the new nature are set at odds and conviction of sin drives the believer to seek God for confession and cleansing.

In the not saved, the natural man has no conflicting spirit and only a feel sorry for myself for being caught in sin emotionalism.

 

I do not think you understand the passage. Cain could have corrected his wrong offering for a correct one...
[QUOTE 5and unto Cain and unto his present He hath not looked; and it is very displeasing to Cain, and his countenance is fallen.

6And Jehovah saith unto Cain, `Why hast thou displeasure? and why hath thy countenance fallen?

7Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'
][/QUOTE]

but ...he acted consistent with his sin nature and murdered his brother instead in his God hating rebellion.....the sinner is told to believe upon Jesus...but true to his sin nature he never will, unless and until God gives him a new heart.

[QUOTEMuch of scripture makes absolutely no sense if Calvinism is true, but most Calvinists ignore these scriptures][/QUOTE]

It is the only way these scriptures do make sense. God has Moses write this account to show early on the difference between the godly line and the ungodly line...the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent.

You are reading into this what is not there at all.Calvinists enjoy all the scriptures:thumbs: there is not an arminian text in the whole bible....not one,anywhere!

 

Here is the work of the Holy Spirit as Christ stated:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.

These are certainly done by the use of Scriptures.

But the anyone can read the Scriptures and not come to a knowledge of the need of salvation. Certainly, they might acknowledge they have sinned, they might visualize the holiness of God, and they might even admit that there possibly is an after life of which hell and heaven are available. These are all that Christ said the Holy Spirit would do. In effect they resist the call and claim of God and make excuse.

The difference between that person and one who comes to Christ having been saved is the implanting of a new nature. The will of the natural man might oppose and struggle against this new nature (this is a person under the conviction) but cannot resist because God has done a work that cannot be made void. They make no excuse.