Irresistable Grace... How trow?

[The Archangel]

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.

It is obvious there is a barrier between you and the Greek language.

Calvinists do not "redefine" the word see here. You are suggesting the word "see" in John 3:3 must mean to see (as in you see the chair sitting across the room). However that is not what this word means.

The word used by John here is ὁράω, an extraordinarily irregular verb. The form of it used in the text is the 2nd Aorist form εἶδον. This group, but especially εἶδον, means "to see with perception." If John wanted to simply say see (as in seeing the chair across the room) he would likely have used βλέπω.

What is more, we have John using "the kingdom of God". D. A. Carson comments:

To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, ‘to see the kingdom of God’ was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life.
​

Source: D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 188.
​

Even further, your suggestion about verse 5 fails to take into account that "born" is in the Passive (as is v. 3, by the way). Remember: The passive means that the subject is acted upon; the subject is not acting for or upon himself. So, to "enter the kingdom of heaven" is not done by yourself. Of course, from other parts of the New Testament we know that one must repent and believe. Actually, from the rest of the John 3 passage we see that one must believe. But, it would appear, the first move is made by God acting upon the subject.

The Archangel

 

[convicted1]

ah, but you missed a word in the OP...

Like I stated in that earlier post, "none". God called me for YEARS, and I would not come. I wanted to live MY LIFE, MY WAY. That didn't mean He gave up on me(praise to His sweet name He didn't), but that I was unwilling to heed the call. God's Grace can be resisted, and not one verse states otherwise, nor implies this, either.

 

[DHK]

It is obvious there is a barrier between you and the Greek language.

Calvinists do not "redefine" the word see here. You are suggesting the word "see" in John 3:3 must mean to see (as in you see the chair sitting across the room). However that is not what this word means.

The word used by John here is ὁράω, an extraordinarily irregular verb. The form of it used in the text is the 2nd Aorist form εἶδον. This group, but especially εἶδον, means "to see with perception." If John wanted to simply say see (as in seeing the chair across the room) he would likely have used βλέπω.

What is more, we have John using "the kingdom of God". D. A. Carson comments:

To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, ‘to see the kingdom of God’ was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life.
​

Source: D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 188.
​

Even further, your suggestion about verse 5 fails to take into account that "born" is in the Passive (as is v. 3, by the way). Remember: The passive means that the subject is acted upon; the subject is not acting for or upon himself. So, to "enter the kingdom of heaven" is not done by yourself. Of course, from other parts of the New Testament we know that one must repent and believe. Actually, from the rest of the John 3 passage we see that one must believe. But, it would appear, the first move is made by God acting upon the subject.

The Archangel

Sometimes one makes the mistake of taking something too simple and making it too allegorical. Nicodemus made that mistake himself. "How can one enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born"?
Look at it historically.
At one point Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is in you, which is more accurately rendered "among you." More than anything the disciples (and many other Jews wanted Jesus to set up his kingdom then and there. They were not expecting a "suffering Messiah." They wanted a Kingdom, and they wanted Jesus to bring it in. In reality, Jesus offered it to them. But they rejected it (John 1:11).

All along Nicodemus had been hearing God's Word, seeing God's revelation in the miracles that Christ did, testifying of his deity. This was the convicting power of God that brought him to Christ in the first place. God had already been working in his heart. The new birth was a spiritual birth based on what he had heard already. He had to receive him and believe him (John 1:12). The choice was his to make. Apparently he made that choice a bit later on.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)
--It is impossible to be born again without the Word of God.

 

[psalms109:31]

A new heart is one not separated from the Holy Spirit. This heart will care again it will be soften it will not be like our old nature we continue to live in every day. It will love again as God wants for us. This heart is given to believers those who trust in Jesus over their carnal mind their own understanding. It is God who changes us we trust in Him and His finished work not what we can do and He will change us given us a new heart. You don't want to believe this but Paul could of done what the young rich ruler did went home blind but it doesn't mean God would not persue him. It is believers who receive a new heart not like before that they would have fear that God would take it from them.

 

[JesusFan]

Sometimes one makes the mistake of taking something too simple and making it too allegorical. Nicodemus made that mistake himself. "How can one enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born"?
Look at it historically.
At one point Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is in you, which is more accurately rendered "among you." More than anything the disciples (and many other Jews wanted Jesus to set up his kingdom then and there. They were not expecting a "suffering Messiah." They wanted a Kingdom, and they wanted Jesus to bring it in. In reality, Jesus offered it to them. But they rejected it (John 1:11).

All along Nicodemus had been hearing God's Word, seeing God's revelation in the miracles that Christ did, testifying of his deity. This was the convicting power of God that brought him to Christ in the first place. God had already been working in his heart. The new birth was a spiritual birth based on what he had heard already. He had to receive him and believe him (John 1:12). The choice was his to make. Apparently he made that choice a bit later on.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)
--It is impossible to be born again without the Word of God.

Also impossible to be born again without the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit to "open up" our hearts/minds to receive with gladness the gospel preached to us!

faith comes by hearing, by the Word of God, but even that is the gift of God unto us in the salvation package!

 

[JesusFan]

as a continued side note, It's all in the definitions, isn't it? I'm not sure to take what you mean... when you say "people", do you mean all humans or just the lost kind? What kind of God's 'Grace' that is resisted, surely not the irresistible? When you say 'resisted', do you mean in the way an inanimate object would resist a reasonable instruction? Is that really resisting? When you say 'His Sovereign time', you seem to be making a distinction so do you mean to say that there is ever a time when He doesn't fulfill every definition of the word Sovereign? (same goes for using the word 'determined')

Cals hold that the Grac eof God is able to be resisted by both elect/non elect, its just that there will come a moment in time that Grace will become effectual applied by God and that time turns to being "irresstible" in that it will accomplish the salvation for the sinner chosen by God in Christ!

I might say I understand and agree with what you said above but that would be through the view of one who believes in at least some level of libertarian free will. Is that how you mean to say it, otherwise it doesn't seem to be congruent with calvinism.

Just was stating that cals do not define "irresistable Grace" as non cals tend to see it, as that we believ can be resisted to a point, but that indeed the Grace will become effectually applied by god to make the sinner a saint, at that time becomes "irresistable"...

 

[The Archangel]

Sometimes one makes the mistake of taking something too simple and making it too allegorical. Nicodemus made that mistake himself. "How can one enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born"?
Look at it historically.
At one point Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is in you, which is more accurately rendered "among you." More than anything the disciples (and many other Jews wanted Jesus to set up his kingdom then and there. They were not expecting a "suffering Messiah." They wanted a Kingdom, and they wanted Jesus to bring it in. In reality, Jesus offered it to them. But they rejected it (John 1:11).

Yes, sometimes there are wrong expectations and certainly the Jews of Jesus' day were full of wrong expectations. The idea of a suffering messiah was completely foreign to them--although it shouldn't have been.

All along Nicodemus had been hearing God's Word, seeing God's revelation in the miracles that Christ did, testifying of his deity. This was the convicting power of God that brought him to Christ in the first place. God had already been working in his heart. The new birth was a spiritual birth based on what he had heard already. He had to receive him and believe him (John 1:12). The choice was his to make. Apparently he made that choice a bit later on.

We do not deny that God uses means such as His word, miracles, creation, etc. But, to say "God had already been working in his heart" is to make an assumption of the text. Many people came to investigate this Jesus fellow and flatly rejected Him (the rich young ruler comes to mind).

Also, Nicodemus' interaction with Jesus in John 3 suggests that there was almost no acumen on his part to understand who Jesus was or what it was to be saved.

Nicodemus, due to his address of Jesus at the beginning of their meeting. In v. 2, Nicodemus says: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” This is a complete and total misunderstand of who Jesus is. He is not (only) a Rabbi or a great teacher from God. NO! He IS God--something Nicodemus and many others were missing. To compliment a mere mortal in the way that Nicodemus did is a great compliment. To say the same thing to God Himself is an insult of gargantuan proportions.

Nicodemus did, apparently, make his choice later. But, nothing in this changes the grammatical fact of the "born" verbs and participles being in the passive, showing that one has to be acted upon (rather than acting upon himself or herself).

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)
--It is impossible to be born again without the Word of God.

Again, the "born" participle in the above verse is passive. Does God use His word to break hearts of stone? Sure. But hearing the Gospel preached, hearing the word of God is not the same as being regenerated.

Being regenerated is akin to a farmer plowing the field making it ready to receive the seed. In a "regenerated" field, the ground can and does take a seed easily (the seed being the Gospel). In any case, the preparation of the field is not something the seed does.

The Archangel

 

[agedman]

Being regenerated is akin to a farmer plowing the field making it ready to receive the seed. In a "regenerated" field, the ground can and does take a seed easily (the seed being the Gospel). In any case, the preparation of the field is not something the seed does.

The Archangel

This is reminding me of the first thread (I think) I started about "who is responsible for the dirt?"

And finally the forum folk saw posted "the Holy Spirit."

I was thinking it was your response.

But if it wasn't, you are certainly correct on this thread. All other dirt was appointed to other purposes, and only the "good earth" (prepared dirt) was regenerated and the seed (word of God) raised unto a glorious harvest.

 

[Van]

Reply to Smokestream,

It is obvious there is a barrier between you and the Greek language.

Calvinists do not "redefine" the word see here. You are suggesting the word "see" in John 3:3 must mean to see (as in you see the chair sitting across the room). However that is not what this word means.

The word used by John here is ὁράω, an extraordinarily irregular verb. The form of it used in the text is the 2nd Aorist form εἶδον. This group, but especially εἶδον, means "to see with perception." If John wanted to simply say see (as in seeing the chair across the room) he would likely have used βλέπω.

What is more, we have John using "the kingdom of God". D. A. Carson comments:

To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, ‘to see the kingdom of God’ was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life.
​

Source: D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 188.
​

Even further, your suggestion about verse 5 fails to take into account that "born" is in the Passive (as is v. 3, by the way). Remember: The passive means that the subject is acted upon; the subject is not acting for or upon himself. So, to "enter the kingdom of heaven" is not done by yourself. Of course, from other parts of the New Testament we know that one must repent and believe. Actually, from the rest of the John 3 passage we see that one must believe. But, it would appear, the first move is made by God acting upon the subject.

The Archangel

1) An attack on my qualifications - meritless diversion

2)The Greek word means to see. All this parcing is just an effort to hide the obvious, the word means to see.

3) We agree, the kingdom of God refers to... wait for it... the kingdom of God.

4) Of course the correct view which I posted takes into account that God acts on us to cause us to be born again. So yet another diversion.

5) No, God chooses us for salvation based on our faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Then after we have heard and believed, John 1:12-13, He gives the right to become children of God by causing us to be born again.

This is not rocket science folks.

There is absolutely no support anywhere in scripture for Calvinism's irresistible grace.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHk

He had to receive him and believe him (John 1:12). The choice was his to make.

Lets add one more verse;
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Looks like God has already chosen:thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

Van,


Remember the commercial for timex watch....takes a licking but keeps on ticking....your recent post made me remember this commercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clI3Oc1vnaM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRveJCEAQMk
[QUOTEThere is absolutely no support anywhere in scripture for Calvinism's irresistible grace][/QUOTE]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

wrong again...millions see it in scripture,and will see it.

Archangel has corrected your error over and over...as well as several others.

 

[The Archangel]

1) An attack on my qualifications - meritless diversion

No, I am not "attacking" your qualifications. In order for me to attack your qualifications you would have to have some in the first place.

By your own admission, you know no Greek. Yet you think yourself completely capable to instruct us all in the intricacies of Koine Greek. What's next? Teaching medicine without having studied it in the first place? Or, if you are indeed a medical doctor, would you attempt to teach physics to astronauts without having studied it?

2)The Greek word means to see. All this parcing is just an effort to hide the obvious, the word means to see.

The word you're looking for is "Parsing." And parsing is an effort to uncover meaning, not hide it.

There is more than one word in Greek for "see." There is some semantic overlap, but the word used in John 3:3 generally carries the connotation "see with understanding," as in "I see your point." The word you want to be there, that isn't, is "see" as in "I see the car is right where I left it."

3) We agree, the kingdom of God refers to... wait for it... the kingdom of God.

You must be joking. The phrase "the kingdom of God" is an idiom in the Hebrew that comes over into usage in the New Testament. It is a deep idiom that could easily command its own thread.

4) Of course the correct view which I posted takes into account that God acts on us to cause us to be born again. So yet another diversion.

John 3:3 (and the rest of the passage) says that God causes us to be born again.

5) No, God chooses us for salvation based on our faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Then after we have heard and believed, John 1:12-13, He gives the right to become children of God by causing us to be born again.

This is not rocket science folks.

There is absolutely no support anywhere in scripture for Calvinism's irresistible grace.

Again, your very flawed understanding of several passages, most notably 2 Thessalonians 2:13, has sent your pseudo-theology off into some very rocky waters.

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

DHk


Lets add one more verse;
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Looks like God has already chosen:thumbsup:

You assume too much. Verse 12 precedes vs. 13. That is receiving and believing comes before this explanation of how it happens. The new birth happens how:

1. not of blood--you can't be born a Christian as many thing. This does away with Covenant Theology. People think that they can be born into a Christian family and be a Christian. It is not of blood.

2. not of flesh--not reformation.

3. not of the will of the of the mind--You can't will your self to be a Christian, but you do have to make a decision. It must be by faith, not simply your own carnal faith, but that coupled with the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

4. But of God. We are born of God. How? by receiving Him and believing on his name (vs. 12)

 

[Van]

There is absolutely no support in contextually considered scripture for Calvinism.

John 3:3 was offered up as supporting Calvinism and I showed that it actually only says we must be born anew, by God's power acting upon us, inorder to enter and see the kingdom of God. This truth in no way supports the fiction of "irresistible grace!"

And finally the word translated see in John 3:3 does NOT meaning to see with understanding, i.e. to know. It means to see, as in perceive with your eyes, as in close up and personal. So folks would want to see Jesus, or see the person so they can talk to them.

Calvinists constantly must redefine the meaning of words to pour their invention into the text.

 

[MB]

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.

I did not say it was something done by our selves. Salvation the whole of it is all by The Lord. It is God's work that we are convinced of the gospel. It is God's work that causes us to be convicted of our sins. And our surrender is the result of God's work.

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

Well this is a problem because wether or not you believe regeneration is Salvation does not change the fact that it is Salvation. Being made new is being reformed clay. Regeneration is being forgiven of our sins. It is being made whole. It is being alive to God.
I realise you don't argue this therefore you must agree Regeneration is Salvation.
MB

 

[Winman]

The parable of the sower refutes Irresistable Grace, all four soils received the exact same seed (word of God). The difference was in the hearers. The way side was hard and trodden down representing someone with a hardened heart. The stoney ground received the word but had no root, the thorny ground received the word but fell away when persecution arose, the good soil received the word and kept it, bringing forth fruit.

Then Jesus told his disciples to take heed how they hear, to those who have, more will be given, to those who have not will be taken away even that which was given them. I believe this is speaking of faith, those that truly believe God's word will be given more.

But it clear that Jesus laid the responsibility on the hearer, they are expected to believe before they receive more.

 

[MB]

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

It is not.

That's only because of what you think about what I wrote and not the truth of it.

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.

Faith isn't something you can have with out something to focus that faith on. Mine is focused on Jesus. Before Jesus in my life there was no faith in Christ not even a measure.

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

I agree faith is a gift given us through hearing the gospel. Once we have faith we have grace from God. Then we can surrender.

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.

Actually surrender is based on hope that the Lord will save us. Faith is not implanted. we acquire faith through hearing the gospel.

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

It is the work of God, not the work of His purpose.

Man generated faith is of absolutely no value.

In order to have faith in anything we must first be convinced of it. Faith in God takes God to convince us.

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.

No where in scripture does it ever say faith is implanted.
MB

 

[Tom Butler]

I'd like to throw this scripture passage into the mix:
Ezekiel 36:26-27

26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Is the new heart and new spirit like the new nature given to believers?
Is the Spirit God put within them regeneration? Or is it salvation? The premise here is that regeneration and salvation are two separate events.
When God causes one to walk in his statutes, is that irresistible grace, or akin to it?

A related question: Does God drag people kicking and screaming into heaven, fighting it all the way? Or does this giving them a new heart mean He gives them new desires, new affectations? Is this giving someone a different "want to?"

 

[Robert Snow]

DHk


Lets add one more verse;
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Looks like God has already chosen:thumbsup:

Yes, praise God. He has chosen those who will freely believe the Gospel and trust Christ. None of this Calvinistic hogwash is needed, just the truth of the scripture.

 

[Winman]

I'd like to throw this scripture passage into the mix:
Ezekiel 36:26-27

Is the new heart and new spirit like the new nature given to believers?
Is the Spirit God put within them regeneration? Or is it salvation? The premise here is that regeneration and salvation are two separate events.
When God causes one to walk in his statutes, is that irresistible grace, or akin to it?

A related question: Does God drag people kicking and screaming into heaven, fighting it all the way? Or does this giving them a new heart mean He gives them new desires, new affectations? Is this giving someone a different "want to?"

How can you have a new heart before faith? If you do not believe in God you see him as your enemy, you think he wants to destroy you. How can you love God if you believe this? You can't.

But when you hear the gospel that God loves us even when we were sinners, and that he gave his Son to die for us, if you believe this your heart will instantly be changed.

You must first believe God loves you before you can love him. You cannot love God if you believe he hates you and wants to destroy you. Faith must precede having the new heart.

Think about it.