Irresistable Grace... How trow?

[Winman]

But still, they (the non-elect) rejected and the elect didn't. Irresistible grace teaches that all the elect will come. Though they may reject for a while, will end up coming. The non-elect will never come. They will always reject. So this fits perfectly with irresistible grace.

I know, I know, if they choose not to resist then the grace was "irresistable", if they choose to resist it was "resistable" or "general" or whatever you wish to call it.

This is nothing but circle reasoning, which seems to appeal to you especially.

Two women are on a diet. They see a big chocolate cake. Both want to eat the cake, but both want to stay on their diet.

One gives in and eats two slices, she says, "I couldn't help myself, that cake was irrresistable!"

The other fights off the urge and stays on her diet.

Now, did that cake have supernatural powers and zapped the first woman with irresistable desire?

Or was the difference in the willpower of each woman?

I am not saying God does not create desire in us, he does, but all men are offered the same grace, the difference is in the will of the person.

You simply like arguments that allow you to keep Calvinism regardless. If a person thinks hard enough, you can rationalize anything.

 

[agedman]

The Word spoken of in John 3 is never corrupt. It's God's word. Nicodemus got the true Word straight from the real Word Him Self. You know Jesus is the Word, Even His name means Salvation.

I will always admire my parents because they knew the gospel. They made me memorize scripture simply because they knew if they could get the word inside of me they knew it would take hold. It wasn't just preached at me.
MB

I am very happy that your parents imprinted your mind with the Word of God.

I have no doubt that Nicodemus had the same type of parents who imprinted mind as well, yet he had not the New Testament - only the law.

If you read carefully what I posted, I used the word corrupt in the sense that children born from the union of the parents (water birth) are corrupt. That is as the Scriptures teach.

I further showed that Christ was attempting to get old Nico. to see (visualize) that a NEW creature had to be born not of water but of spirit.

You obviously must have miss read my post.

 

[agedman]

I know, I know, if they choose not to resist then the grace was "irresistable", if they choose to resist it was "resistable" or "general" or whatever you wish to call it.

This is nothing but circle reasoning, which seems to appeal to you especially.

Two women are on a diet. They see a big chocolate cake. Both want to eat the cake, but both want to stay on their diet.

One gives in and eats two slices, she says, "I couldn't help myself, that cake was irrresistable!"

The other fights off the urge and stays on her diet.

Now, did that cake have supernatural powers and zapped the first woman with irresistable desire?

Or was the difference in the willpower of each woman?

I am not saying God does not create desire in us, he does, but all men are offered the same grace, the difference is in the will of the person.

You simply like arguments that allow you to keep Calvinism regardless. If a person thinks hard enough, you can rationalize anything.

You did good with the illustration until you got to, "I am not saying God does not create desire in us, he does, but all men are offered the same grace, the difference is in the will of the person."


NO man wills to be saved. The Scriptures teach that man is not saved by their own will - "not be the will of man..." That also applies to the "desire of man" again - "No man seeks God"

The fault with your illustration is in the fact that God does give a "supernatural" or better a "new will" to believe. It is His alone to Give and for His divine purpose.

Mere man is not capable of understanding why or the purpose for the movement of God in the hearts of humankind that some are saved and others not.

Christ said the very point by reminding folks that the wind blows about but, nobody knows were it came from or where it is going. We only can see the results of what God is in charge to bring to pass.

 

[Winman]

You did good with the illustration until you got to, "I am not saying God does not create desire in us, he does, but all men are offered the same grace, the difference is in the will of the person."


NO man wills to be saved. The Scriptures teach that man is not saved by their own will - "not be the will of man..." That also applies to the "desire of man" again - "No man seeks God"

The fault with your illustration is in the fact that God does give a "supernatural" or better a "new will" to believe. It is His alone to Give and for His divine purpose.

Mere man is not capable of understanding why or the purpose for the movement of God in the hearts of humankind that some are saved and others not.

Christ said the very point by reminding folks that the wind blows about but, nobody knows were it came from or where it is going. We only can see the results of what God is in charge to bring to pass.

God can affect the will and appeal to it, just like the chocolate cake.

Now when these two women saw that delicious looking cake, you can imagine what might go through their minds, they begin to weigh whether they want to eat it, or stay on their diet. The first lady might tell herself she will cut back tomorrow and make up for today's excess. The same with a sinner, he might reason he is young and has plenty of time, he will get saved, just not today. Another person might say, I need to get saved NOW. That's how it was for me, I did not want to go another minute in danger of hell. And I was just a boy.

No one can explain why one person hears the gospel and receives it, while another rejects it, we all have free will and can decide for whatever reason we desire. But we are responsible for our choice.

 

[MB]

I am very happy that your parents imprinted your mind with the Word of God.

I have no doubt that Nicodemus had the same type of parents who imprinted mind as well, yet he had not the New Testament - only the law.

If you read carefully what I posted, I used the word corrupt in the sense that children born from the union of the parents (water birth) are corrupt. That is as the Scriptures teach.

Actually Men are not corrupt when they are first born. They are not sinners until they sin. Of course they have a propensity for sin but then we all have that saved or not. Men are born in to sin but are not born sinners. There is a difference.

I further showed that Christ was attempting to get old Nico. to see (visualize) that a NEW creature had to be born not of water but of spirit.

You obviously must have miss read my post.

Well I read it again and found no reason to modify my response. I agree that Just a few verses futher and Christ did simplfy being born again. By saying this.
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
You see it's plain and simple; Belief in Christ will save us thus because we believe we are born of God or simply bornagain.
MB

 

[agedman]

God can affect the will and appeal to it, just like the chocolate cake.

Now when these two women saw that delicious looking cake, you can imagine what might go through their minds, they begin to weigh whether they want to eat it, or stay on their diet. The first lady might tell herself she will cut back tomorrow and make up for today's excess. The same with a sinner, he might reason he is young and has plenty of time, he will get saved, just not today. Another person might say, I need to get saved NOW. That's how it was for me, I did not want to go another minute in danger of hell. And I was just a boy.

No one can explain why one person hears the gospel and receives it, while another rejects it, we all have free will and can decide for whatever reason we desire. But we are responsible for our choice.

But it is not a matter of free will or not.

The Scriptures teach that man's carnal fallen will has no desire for God or the things of God accept that they perceive some advantage. For instance the person that saw the gift's distributed and desired to have one. Not because they were a believer (though they were with the believers as one of them, yet was a fraud) but because the gain (be it monetarily of community standing) that the gift would give them they desired the gift and the Apostle knew the condition of the man's heart.

The Scriptures teach that man does not seek God, at all. In fact even the Law imprinted on the natural man's heart is rebelled against. Even a child left to their own will get into all kinds of mischief.

So, from the practical sense and the Scriptural passages, the will of the natural man won't even see the kingdom of God. For it is after the lake of fire that the new kingdom is revealed to the redeemed.

To go back to your illustration, both women may look at the cake and one having low impulse control take a piece or three were the other merely by the psychological scheme of the natural birth and raising may have less impulse control to override the soulishness of gluttony.

Whether the woman is saved or not doesn't place eating or not eating the cake as anything more than impulse control.

Let me rephrase your last statement's end and see how it sounds.

"No one can explain why one person hears the gospel and receives it, while another rejects it. But we are responsible for our choice."

Would that fit, "no one knows were the spirit comes or goes" as Christ indicated?

Would that fit, "he that believes is not condemned and he that has not believed is condemned already because of unbelief."

Yep, that would work. That fits the Scriptures.

 

[agedman]

Actually Men are not corrupt when they are first born. They are not sinners until they sin. Of course they have a propensity for sin but then we all have that saved or not. Men are born in to sin but are not born sinners. There is a difference.

Can you prove this statement by Scripture.

The Bible says, "All have sinned..." It doesn't put a qualifier anywhere that I have found.

It is usually a Baptist distinctive that children reach an "age of accountability" were other denominations hold that the baptism of a child is necessary for security from the flames.

Well I read it again and found no reason to modify my response. I agree that Just a few verses futher and Christ did simplfy being born again. By saying this.
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
You see it's plain and simple; Belief in Christ will save us thus because we believe we are born of God or simply bornagain.
MB

Good thinking.

But, it is capacity to believe that would be in question, not the actual believing. Certainly any who hold to most any form of Scriptural salvation hold that expressing belief is important. To the Cal. such expression cannot be helped - it comes out as the nature of Christ expressing His will in our living.

The capacity to "first believe" is God's to instill. It is He who awakens (implants the new will) into the person, and He who gives the measure of faith as He deems necessary, and He who opens the ears of understanding, and He who tells the Spirit to go impress upon that person the awfulness of their sin, My Holy Righteousness, and of the Judgement to come.

It is that person of such endowment that cannot help but proclaim Christ is Lord and Savior and his belief in He who redeemed him.

Note: they proclaim Christ as BOTH Lord and Savior. Where He is not the LORD He is not the savior of that person.

 

[jbh28]

I know, I know, if they choose not to resist then the grace was "irresistable", if they choose to resist it was "resistable" or "general" or whatever you wish to call it.

This is nothing but circle reasoning, which seems to appeal to you especially.

First, I don't use circular reasoning and there was no reason for the personal insult. What you call circular isn't usually circular, just an overstatement. A circular argument is one that the conclusion is used as a premise. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works....

I didn't come up with the term. It's a bad term. However, it's been explained to you that the "irresistible(spelled with an "i") means that the elect will not always resist. Bad term? Yes, but speak against the doctrine and not the term and leave the personal insults out of the discussion.

 

[Winman]

First, I don't use circular reasoning and there was no reason for the personal insult. What you call circular isn't usually circular, just an overstatement. A circular argument is one that the conclusion is used as a premise. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works....

I didn't come up with the term. It's a bad term. However, it's been explained to you that the "irresistible(spelled with an "i") means that the elect will not always resist. Bad term? Yes, but speak against the doctrine and not the term and leave the personal insults out of the discussion.

Sure it's circular. You start with an assumption;

1) A man can only come to Jesus if he is irresistibly called.

Then you prove it by itself.

2) Therefore all who come were irresistibly called.

You do the same with Total Depravity

1) Natural man is not able to will to come to Christ

2) Therefore natural man will never come to Christ.

You start with assumptions that are not necessarily true, and then prove it based on that assumption.

This is nothing but circular reasoning and proves nothing. It is a false form of argument.

And you present arguments like this constantly.

 

[jbh28]

Sure it's circular. You start with an assumption;

That's not a circular argument. If I was trying to prove the assumption and used the assumption as a basis for my argument, then yes. I however have not done that.

1) A man can only come to Jesus if he is irresistibly called.

Then you prove it by itself.

2) Therefore all who come were irresistibly called.

You do the same with Total Depravity

1) Natural man is not able to will to come to Christ

2) Therefore natural man will never come to Christ.

Well, that's not circular at all. What you disagree with is my #1. That doesn't make it circular. If I was wrong, it would only mean my major premise was false. Unless my major premise is also my conclusion, it's not circular.

You start with assumptions that are not necessarily true, and then prove it based on that assumption.

That's not circular, but a very logical way to look at it. I start with a premise that I believe I can prove from Scripture.

This is nothing but circular reasoning and proves nothing. It is a false form of argument.

And you present arguments like this constantly.

Stop with your unprofitable attempts to pin a logical fallacy on me. Go learn what they are before you name them.

Just to help you some more on a circular argument.

1. The elect will not resist because grace is irresistible.
Why is grace irresistible?
2. Because the elect will not resist.

That's a circular argument. I assumed my conclusion and used that as a basis of my argument. Remember, assuming the conclusion is a circular argument. Making an assumption is not. Of course I haven't done that as I have Scripture to backup. You may disagree, but its a false accusation against me to say I've made an assumption. Please refrain from doing this.

 

[David Lamb]

God can affect the will and appeal to it, just like the chocolate cake.

I would say that the two cases (God and the chocolate cake) are not the same; God's affecting the will is not "just like the chocolate cake".

God is living, almighty, so He can affect the will. A cake isn't even alive, and is certainly not almighty, so it has no power over the human will. I know we sometimes say things like: "I saw the cake in the baker's window, and it was just screaming to me, 'Eat me! Eat me!'" But we don't really believe that to be literally true. We mean, "I saw the cake in the baker's window, and I could not resist buying and eating it."

What about the 2 women in your illustration? Didn't the cake change the will of the one who went on to eat it? No. It is simply that for whatever reason (desire to be thinner, lack of money to buy the cake, whatever), the other lady chose not to eat it.

Indeed, you said as much in your post - that a cake does not have supernatural power.

 

[Winman]

That's not a circular argument. If I was trying to prove the assumption and used the assumption as a basis for my argument, then yes. I however have not done that.

Well, that's not circular at all. What you disagree with is my #1. That doesn't make it circular. If I was wrong, it would only mean my major premise was false. Unless my major premise is also my conclusion, it's not circular.

That's not circular, but a very logical way to look at it. I start with a premise that I believe I can prove from Scripture.
Stop with your unprofitable attempts to pin a logical fallacy on me. Go learn what they are before you name them.

Just to help you some more on a circular argument.

1. The elect will not resist because grace is irresistible.
Why is grace irresistible?
2. Because the elect will not resist.

That's a circular argument. I assumed my conclusion and used that as a basis of my argument. Remember, assuming the conclusion is a circular argument. Making an assumption is not. Of course I haven't done that as I have Scripture to backup. You may disagree, but its a false accusation against me to say I've made an assumption. Please refrain from doing this.

But you do start with unproven assumptions. I can't count how many times you've told me that a natural man will never will to choose God. The Philipian jailer immediately refutes this, he very much desired to be saved, and he was 100% sincere.

Even you admit that regeneration does not occur until faith, well, the Philipian jailer did not have faith, Paul told him he needed to believe. So here is an example of a natural man who had a strong desire to be saved before he was regenerated or had faith.

Is this true or not?

 

[jbh28]

But you do start with unproven assumptions. I can't count how many times you've told me that a natural man will never will to choose God. The Philipian jailer immediately refutes this, he very much desired to be saved, and he was 100% sincere.

Even you admit that regeneration does not occur until faith, well, the Philipian jailer did not have faith, Paul told him he needed to believe. So here is an example of a natural man who had a strong desire to be saved before he was regenerated or had faith.

Is this true or not?

they are not "unproven assumptions" and saying such is not a good representation of me. I believe I've proven it from Scripture. The Bible clearly says that the natural man doesn't receive the things of God and that no one seeks after God. Saying I'm making an assumption is extremely false. You may disagree, but don't say I'm making an assumption when I've proven it from the Bible.

I've said that regeneration happens at faith. I don't a person being born again and not also receiving the gift of faith and repentance.

 

[MB]

Can you prove this statement by Scripture.

The Bible says, "All have sinned..." It doesn't put a qualifier anywhere that I have found.

Alone by it self it seems cut and dried. All you need to do now is prove that new born's are sinning while being born. Certainly Rom 3:23 doesn't prove they are born sinners.

I find it interesting that from the quote above you would admit that the word "All" is all inclusive since you certainly seem to want to impress me that it is.
What about the word "ALL" in this passage.
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
I just wanted to bring this to your attention. You see if all is trully all inclusive it is always all inclusive. Therefore there is no particular elect since we are told there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.

It is usually a Baptist distinctive that children reach an "age of accountability" were other denominations hold that the baptism of a child is necessary for security from the flames.



Good thinking.

But, it is capacity to believe that would be in question, not the actual believing. Certainly any who hold to most any form of Scriptural salvation hold that expressing belief is important. To the Cal. such expression cannot be helped - it comes out as the nature of Christ expressing His will in our living.

The capacity to "first believe" is God's to instill. It is He who awakens (implants the new will) into the person, and He who gives the measure of faith as He deems necessary, and He who opens the ears of understanding, and He who tells the Spirit to go impress upon that person the awfulness of their sin, My Holy Righteousness, and of the Judgement to come.

It is that person of such endowment that cannot help but proclaim Christ is Lord and Savior and his belief in He who redeemed him.

Note: they proclaim Christ as BOTH Lord and Savior. Where He is not the LORD He is not the savior of that person.

Certainly the capacity to believe exist in the normal human being. The capacity to understand has never been in question as far as scripture is concerned. Total depravity is unprovable. It isn't found in scripture. I suppose it must have been Augustines idea. Calvinist must get the idea from the blinding of the Jews. This blindness was because of there rejection of Christ and Calvinist must consider them selves Jews in order to apply this curse to them selves.
Total depravity is nothing short of trusting in the knowledge of other men rather than God.
Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
MB

 

[agedman]

Alone by it self it seems cut and dried. All you need to do now is prove that new born's are sinning while being born. Certainly Rom 3:23 doesn't prove they are born sinners.

I find it interesting that from the quote above you would admit that the word "All" is all inclusive since you certainly seem to want to impress me that it is.
What about the word "ALL" in this passage.
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
I just wanted to bring this to your attention. You see if all is trully all inclusive it is always all inclusive. Therefore there is no particular elect since we are told there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.

All (pas) always means: everyone, everybody, none left out...

The death of Christ paid for all sin for all mankind for all time. Again, John states that a person is not condemned because of a lack the death of Christ, but because that person doesn't believe. (condemned already...) Note that it is phrased in the sense that the action has already taken place even while that person is still alive. Humankind that do not believe are already condemned and death is merely a door opening them to the torments of hell.

Here is a teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 that shows why ALL always means ALL.


“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

There are some who would apply this to ONLY the saved – That is a misapplication in my opinion. EVERYONE lives because Christ has both the keys of death AND hell.

“But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.”

This would be the sequence of believers raised from the dead. Christ, then the "first fruits (rapture) and then those saved during the tribulation at the second coming before the millennium.

“Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.”

This passage speaks of the millennial reign of Christ which is ended by the heavens and earth being destroyed in a fervent heat and the great white throne judgment of God. NOTE: the unbelievers are also raised to face the second death. The point being that because Christ died and is raised then ALL will be raised – not just the believers.

“The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

Here then is the final act of submission by the Lord Jesus Christ. He places Himself as subject to the Father “That God may be all in all.”

Certainly the capacity to believe exist in the normal human being. The capacity to understand has never been in question as far as scripture is concerned.

The scriptures definitely teach that a person has NO capacity to understand or believe unless God works to awaken them to that need.

Total depravity is unprovable. It isn't found in scripture. I suppose it must have been Augustines idea. Calvinist must get the idea from the blinding of the Jews. This blindness was because of there rejection of Christ and Calvinist must consider them selves Jews in order to apply this curse to them selves.
Total depravity is nothing short of trusting in the knowledge of other men rather than God.
Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
MB

If I were to extrapolate your opinion that a person is not totally depraved, then it follows that some part (no matter how miniscule) of them would deserve heaven.

That cannot be for two reasons.

First: No one has not broken the law, and everyone is guilty having broken ALL the law.

Second: If what you say is really that is true, God's judgment upon them who don't believe (the second death) would be unfair and He would certainly be dethroned - which is what the enemy desires. For either a person is totally lost with all the attributes (a total depravity) or a person can gain heaven by their own goodness.

 

[Winman]

they are not "unproven assumptions" and saying such is not a good representation of me. I believe I've proven it from Scripture. The Bible clearly says that the natural man doesn't receive the things of God and that no one seeks after God. Saying I'm making an assumption is extremely false. You may disagree, but don't say I'm making an assumption when I've proven it from the Bible.

I've said that regeneration happens at faith. I don't a person being born again and not also receiving the gift of faith and repentance.

You didn't answer the question. Isn't it true the Philipian jailer had a strong and sincere desire to be saved before he even knew or heard the gospel? And if regeneration and faith occur simultaneously, then he could not have been regenerated until he heard the gospel and believed it?

Please answer the question directly.

 

[JesusFan]

That is strange indeed because verse 15 states;
"Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." Seems you deny what the text says altogether.

You know I don't worry over such things. God's leading and teaching is far better than worrying about Greek Grammar.
MB

Strange remark here, as the HS gave us the Bible in Koine Greek, and in order to fully understand/apply the truth of the scriptures, teachers/pastors need to explore the Greek texts, including the Grammer/Syntax/construction etc!

 

[agedman]

You didn't answer the question. Isn't it true the Philipian jailer had a strong and sincere desire to be saved before he even knew or heard the gospel? And if regeneration and faith occur simultaneously, then he could not have been regenerated until he heard the gospel and believed it?

Please answer the question directly.

I want to present a part of an answer.

Regeneration and faith are both gifts of God. There is no conflict with them being instilled in a person that has not yet been given the vocabulary lessons of names, events and places (the scriptures).

It is the EXPRESSION of the how and who of the belief that I think you are not separating out of the implanting of new nature and faith. This can all be a simultaneous event in the believer, or it can take years.

For instance. Peter wanted to go one direction, but the Macedonian needed help. The Macedonian already was awaken and presented with faith, but had no knowledge as to expressing how and who had accomplished that work in him.

The jailor that you presented is the same.

The one crying out "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief" is another example. The man needed to have his faith "enlarged" as both Peter and Paul later instructed on how.

 

[Winman]

It is the EXPRESSION of the how and who of the belief that I think you are not separating out of the implanting of new nature and faith. This can all be a simultaneous event in the believer, or it can take years.

So, are you saying a person can be spiritually alive, being born again and having a new nature for years before they believe on Jesus?

Yes or no?

 

[MB]

Strange remark here, as the HS gave us the Bible in Koine Greek, and in order to fully understand/apply the truth of the scriptures, teachers/pastors need to explore the Greek texts, including the Grammer/Syntax/construction etc!

Can you prove the Greeks had grammar 2000 years ago if so please presents us with the text.
MB