Irresistible Grace, John 6:37

[Van]

Greetings Van,
Thanks for your civil (and all others of like kind) rebuttal.

"mystery" - OK I didn't use that word but it's functional if we understand that it's a term used of something that we currently can't or don't understand concerning the focus of the debate.

True, some of the details and apparent sequentiality of that focus which are constructable in our minds seems to make sense (and does to a degree) but a full comprehension I believe we do not or cannot know.

Personally, I am one who believes that time is a created entity in which we are caught up apart from God's state of being which is eternal of which the only real thing we have any measure of comprehension is that it has no beginning or end.

So when we view salvation from a point of view that is both chronologically sequential having to do with this present biological life having a beginning and end that then is the source of confusion not only about the outworkings of that salvation but as to the very character of God Himself the author of said salvation (after the counsel of His own will).

Our limited understanding appears to me to be like a key which fits in the door but cannot open it.

Personally I believe that even we His children will have to wait until we are enabled to communicate with our father on a level of total comprehensive only after we are resurrected and glorified according to His promise.

Until then I don't believe we can know the whole story while in the flesh.

NKJV Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.​

Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.​

True and beyond debate is that much of the "mystery" of salvation has been revealed in these last days.

But one day I believe we shall see in toto.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.​

Until then we have that old commandment in which we should abide, the one which He made new while here in His flesh. 1 John 2:7-10.

HankD​

One of the major errors in our seeking understanding of God's revelation is to take the position we cannot understand it because God created time. We know God created physical time, but we do not know much of the spiritual realm of God before He created physical time. Is one of His attributes spiritual time. To claim He exists without sequence is an argument from silence. If we actually stick with His revelation, He relates to us sequentially. Certain things took place before the foundation of the world, i.e. He chose us in Him, and the Lamb of God was known before the foundation of the world. Then other things occur from the foundation of the world, i.e. during the period of creation to the end of days. For example names are recorded in the Lamb's book of life, not before the foundation of the world, but from or after the foundation of the world. To deny this because God created physical time is simply scripture nullification

And note this, the ones that push such a view, push an understanding that does not actually mesh with revelation.
Why embrace a tool to nullify scripture and make it of no effect.

 

[Yeshua1]

Correct. And in order for that prophecy to be fulfilled God had to blind these people from the clear truth right in front of them. He hardened them, just like he hardened Pharaoh, which is exactly what Paul is talking about in Romans 9-11...a passage Calvinists misuse all the time as support for the premise that all men are born hardened.

What is indicated is what the Jews might have done if they hadn't become hardened:

'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"​

It says, 'the rest were hardened,' in Romans 11, and it speaks of the national hardening of Israel in several texts, so why would you assume only the leadership was hardened?

And why would you beg the question by presuming we don't like what Jesus had to say when in reality we don't like your application of what he said because you tend to ignore the context and thus misunderstand the obvious intent?

Why do you keep insisting on this 'judicial hardening?" it would make more sense biblically speaking to see it as being God doing "Judicial Awaking", in order to bring out of a hard herated people a faithful remnant unto Himself!

he did the same in Elijahs time with the 7,000 faithful jews to yahweh, did he exercise 'Judicial hardening' at that time too?

 

[Skandelon]

Why do you keep insisting on this 'judicial hardening?"

Because that is what the Bible teaches. It clearly reveals that God actively "sends a spirit of stupor" and hardens their hearts. That is something scholars on both sides of this debate have affirmed for a very long time and it makes me wonder why you wouldn't.

it would make more sense biblically speaking to see it as being God doing "Judicial Awaking", in order to bring out of a hard herated people a faithful remnant unto Himself!

Right, but one has to 'become hardened' first. They aren't born hardened, the scripture says, "they became hardened" and it warns us not to allow our hearts to grow hardened as well, a senseless warning if we were born that way.

 

[Skandelon]

If begging the question means stating the obvious truth then I stand guilty!

Close. Its when you assume your view is the truth when that is the very point up for debate. It is the lowest form of debate and meaningless circular reasoning. I'd rather not partake.

When you talk about all being hardened consider what Jesus Christ says in the following:

John 12:37-42
37. But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
38. That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
39. Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
42. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

The implication of the underlined part of verse 42 is that in addition to some rulers many others believe on Jesus Christ. This is shown by the many who were witnesses to the Resurrection and that 500 is not necessarily all that believe. God will bring His elect to Salvation.

Why did you stop quoting on that verse? Keep going...

It says, "Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved praise from men more than praise from God."

Does that sound like one of your so-called elect? Do elect people often refuse to confess their faith because they love the praise of man?

Same thing is talked about in John 2:

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men.

I don't think these verses support your premise.

I am saying, and it appears you are denying, that what Jesus Christ taught in John 6 regarding Salvation is applicable for all time!

Then you must not be understanding my view, because I have made no such denial. No one, and I mean no one can come to Christ unless invited/drawn/enabled. Romans 10:14 tells us this plainly. But HOW does God draw the lost to himself? By what MEANS are we invited/drawn and enabled?

Say it with me: G - O - S - P - E - L

And since they are being blinded from the truth of the gospel they can't come. Once the gospel is made clear to them and the blinders are lifted "they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" Acts 28

 

[HankD]

One of the major errors in our seeking understanding of God's revelation is to take the position we cannot understand it because God created time. We know God created physical time, but we do not know much of the spiritual realm of God before He created physical time. Is one of His attributes spiritual time. To claim He exists without sequence is an argument from silence. If we actually stick with His revelation, He relates to us sequentially. Certain things took place before the foundation of the world, i.e. He chose us in Him, and the Lamb of God was known before the foundation of the world. Then other things occur from the foundation of the world, i.e. during the period of creation to the end of days. For example names are recorded in the Lamb's book of life, not before the foundation of the world, but from or after the foundation of the world. To deny this because God created physical time is simply scripture nullification

And note this, the ones that push such a view, push an understanding that does not actually mesh with revelation.
Why embrace a tool to nullify scripture and make it of no effect.

OK we have a difference of opinion.

HankD

 

[Luke2427]

Why don't you like the term Irresistible Grace?

Your remark reminds me of a lady who once said to me that she didn't think abortion was wrong, though she would never get one herself. I asked her why she would never get one herself if there is nothing wrong with it, she couldn't answer.

Perhaps you do not like the term Irresistible Grace because in your heart you know it to be false?

We don't like it because it confuses people like you who don't know beans from apple butter about theology- much less Calvinism.

Thoughtful people do not get confused by it. They understand that the idea is not that no one ever resists the grace of God. They understand that those who employ the term realize that EVERYONE resists the grace of God for some amount of time.

Thoughtful people know what we mean by the term in that God's grace in bringing the elect to himself at the point he so wishes to do so- at that point it is irresistible.

But people like you waste so much of our time having to explain that to you repeatedly that we prefer to identify this clearly taught Scriptural doctrine by other terminology.

Now, when we speak to people with some theological understanding (usually those with some training, but sometimes there are those very intelligent Christian theologians who have no formal training)- with THEM we CAN use the classical terminology.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Luke2427]

Because that is what the Bible teaches. It clearly reveals that God actively "sends a spirit of stupor" and hardens their hearts. That is something scholars on both sides of this debate have affirmed for a very long time and it makes me wonder why you wouldn't.

Skandelon is exactly right.

Both sides have historically affirmed judicial hardening.

Right, but one has to 'become hardened' first. They aren't born hardened, the scripture says, "they became hardened" and it warns us not to allow our hearts to grow hardened as well, a senseless warning if we were born that way.

Right.

This is why Calvin taught something that many of my Calvinistic brethren have forgotten. That God can and does awaken people to a certain point by the Spirit effectuated Gospel and not bring them on to redemption. They are, in essence, still-born spiritually. They have not been fully born again, thus they have not been saved at all. But there was a conception spiritually and a period of spiritual incubation.

But God, for these people, allows them to die spiritually like an unborn child might die in the womb.

This explanation fits with the MANY apostasy passages in Scripture where people are called "twice dead" and it is said of them "they become entangled AGAIN" and "RETURN to [the old life]" etc, etc, etc...

Also, God can take a man whose natural condition is blindness and harden that blindness more. Not that they see less than before- no. Blind is blind. But that the disease worsens in this case from one which the Gospel heals to one which the Gospel does not heal.

These are people who the Bible speaks of as being "without hope" and "beyond repentance," etc...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We don't like it because it confuses people like you who don't know beans from apple butter about theology- much less Calvinism.

Thoughtful people do not get confused by it. They understand that the idea is not that no one ever resists the grace of God. They understand that those who employ the term realize that EVERYONE resists the grace of God for some amount of time.

Thoughtful people know what we mean by the term is that God's grace in bringing the elect to himself at the point he so wishes to do so- at that point it is irresistible.

But people like you waste so much of our time having to explain that to you repeatedly that we prefer to identify this clearly taught Scrptural doctrine by other terminology.

Now, when we speak to people with some theological understanding (usually those with some training, but sometimes there are those very intelligent Christian theologians who have no formal training)- with THEM we CAN use the classical terminology.

Does that answer your question?

Oh well said!:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Scripture reads, many are called but few are chosen. Scripture does not say many are called but few are drawn because they are chosen. That is the Calvinist rewrite of scripture. Scripture is full of examples of people being drawn to Christ yet not being chosen. Look at all those "disciples" of Christ who left in John 6:64. They professed belief, but Jesus knew their hearts and knew they did not believe from their hearts. They had been drawn, but did not fully commit.

We love Him because He first loved us, and this is love, that He died for us. Because He be high and lifted up, i.e. crucified, He draws all men who behold Him, yet not all those men are chosen, for it does not depend on the man that wills, but upon God who has mercy on wretched sinners.

Van,

And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased

This is the work of the flesh,not the drawing of God.

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

This passage does not refer to the Apostates being drawn by the Father.
Jesus just taught on election and they could not stand it, so they went off into apostasy.

Where do you see that they were drawn anywhere in the text.When the father draws it is always effectual.:thumbs:

 

[Van]

It is amazing to me how Calvinists rewrite scripture. Now we have the assertion that those who became Christ's disciples were not drawn by the gospel of Christ. I kid you not, that is the claim.

Next, believing that the miracles of Jesus demonstrates He is the Messiah is not the drawing of God. So Calvinists think Jesus performed those miracles by the power of Beelzebub? Everything He did was in accord with the Father, including His miracles.

Just one of the myriad of fictional assertions of Calvinism is that scripture teaches all who are drawn are chosen. But it is no where in scripture. Rather men are drawn by the Father but not given to Christ is the actual teaching. The actions of God showing lovingkindness to men, whether healing the sick, or dying on a cross draw us to God. We love Him because He first loved us.

 

[Iconoclast]

It is amazing to me how Calvinists rewrite scripture. Now we have the assertion that those who became Christ's disciples were not drawn by the gospel of Christ. I kid you not, that is the claim.

Next, believing that the miracles of Jesus demonstrates He is the Messiah is not the drawing of God. So Calvinists think Jesus performed those miracles by the power of Beelzebub? Everything He did was in accord with the Father, including His miracles.

Just one of the myriad of fictional assertions of Calvinism is that scripture teaches all who are drawn are chosen. But it is no where in scripture. Rather men are drawn by the Father but not given to Christ is the actual teaching. The actions of God showing lovingkindness to men, whether healing the sick, or dying on a cross draw us to God. We love Him because He first loved us.

We just believe what the scriptures teach...like here. No need to re write anything.....sheep believe the word:thumbs:

36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him
You could believe truth also .

Where do you come up with this evil idea?

So Calvinists think Jesus performed those miracles by the power of Beelzebub?

Repent of this .

 

[Van]

More of the same shuck and jive from the Calvinists.

Do Calvinists believe what scripture teaches, i.e. Christ died for all mankind? Nope.

Did God blind them, or were they blind already and incapable of being blinded. Every scripture Calvinism cites to support the false doctrine screams Calvinism is false.

Why did they need to be blinded so they would not believe and be healed? Folks, the very passage cited demonstrates Calvinism is false doctrine.

It was the Calvinist that claimed when Jesus performed miracles, and people were drawn to Him, that was not the drawing of the Father. Now they run away from their absurd assertions and pretend they know not what they asserted. Just read it folks, in context, not the snippets of the slice and dice Calvinist.

Van,

And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased
This is the work of the flesh,not the drawing of God.

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
This passage does not refer to the Apostates being drawn by the Father.

 

[OldRegular]

It is amazing to me how Calvinists rewrite scripture. Now we have the assertion that those who became Christ's disciples were not drawn by the gospel of Christ. I kid you not, that is the claim.

Next, believing that the miracles of Jesus demonstrates He is the Messiah is not the drawing of God. So Calvinists think Jesus performed those miracles by the power of Beelzebub? Everything He did was in accord with the Father, including His miracles.

Just one of the myriad of fictional assertions of Calvinism is that scripture teaches all who are drawn are chosen. But it is no where in scripture. Rather men are drawn by the Father but not given to Christ is the actual teaching. The actions of God showing lovingkindness to men, whether healing the sick, or dying on a cross draw us to God. We love Him because He first loved us.

What is the source of the above statements?

 

[OldRegular]

Close. Its when you assume your view is the truth when that is the very point up for debate. It is the lowest form of debate and meaningless circular reasoning. I'd rather not partake.

Thanks! I don't assume my view is correct, I simply believe that Scripture is correct.

Why did you stop quoting on that verse? Keep going...

I just assumed you would do it. And I was correct.

It says, "Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved praise from men more than praise from God."

Does that sound like one of your so-called elect? Do elect people often refuse to confess their faith because they love the praise of man?

Perhaps they were strict Arminians and fell from grace!

Same thing is talked about in John 2:

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men.

I don't think these verses support your premise.

You are debating yourself here. You quote Scripture and then deny it!

Then you must not be understanding my view, because I have made no such denial. No one, and I mean no one can come to Christ unless invited/drawn/enabled. Romans 10:14 tells us this plainly. But HOW does God draw the lost to himself? By what MEANS are we invited/drawn and enabled?

Say it with me: G - O - S - P - E - L

You are getting childish here Skandelon and I am not a child!

And since they are being blinded from the truth of the gospel they can't come. Once the gospel is made clear to them and the blinders are lifted "they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" Acts 28

All things are possible with God!

Matthew 19:23-26
23. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26. But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

 

[Skandelon]

Thanks! I don't assume my view is correct, I simply believe that Scripture is correct.

As do we all. It's when you assume your view is the scriptural one, that you commit this very basic circular fallacy. We all believe our view is biblical, otherwise we wouldn't believe it. Now argue for your view instead of begging the question...

I just assumed you would do it. And I was correct.
Perhaps they were strict Arminians and fell from grace!

:laugh: Nice cover. I must say, you fall from your errors with grace. :applause:

You are debating yourself here. You quote Scripture and then deny it!

You apparently still aren't getting my position. I'm the one arguing that God is hardening Israel (a view supported by Calvinistic and non-Calvinstic scholars alike). You are the one attempting to argue that God only hardened the leaders.

You are getting childish here Skandelon and I am not a child!

It's called sarcasm, and it is something you seemed to be well versed in, so I thought you could receive it without taking it so seriously. If not, I can go with out.

All things are possible with God!

I'm not sure how you think that addresses my argument. I'm done here. Goodnight. :sleeping_2:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Van...you posted...

Originally Posted by Van
It is amazing to me how Calvinists rewrite scripture. Now we have the assertion that those who became Christ's disciples were not drawn by the gospel of Christ. I kid you not, that is the claim.

Next, believing that the miracles of Jesus demonstrates He is the Messiah is not the drawing of God. So Calvinists think Jesus performed those miracles by the power of Beelzebub? Everything He did was in accord with the Father, including His miracles.

Just one of the myriad of fictional assertions of Calvinism is that scripture teaches all who are drawn are chosen. But it is no where in scripture. Rather men are drawn by the Father but not given to Christ is the actual teaching. The actions of God showing lovingkindness to men, whether healing the sick, or dying on a cross draw us to God. We love Him because He first loved us.

they are trying desperatly to prop up, as legitimate, a very ((VERY)) flawed system,
[offensive statements edited]

 

[Alive in Christ]

Here is some comentary that is very good regarding regarding the extreme errors of Calvinism...

My unbelief begins where Calvinism begins: at the “T.” Simply put, Total Depravity is not a Biblical principle. Romans 5:12 states that death spread to “all men because all sinned.” Additionally, in Ezekiel 12:23 God declares through the prophet that “all souls are mine,” and “the soul that sins shall die.” The idea that we are born into or inherit sin doesn’t mesh with Bible teaching. Total Depravity also claims that man is so corrupt that he is incapable of doing any good. If that is the case, it would then be impossible for man to choose to repent. (Something we are commanded to do by the Lord). God’s instruction is clear – repentance is essential for salvation. (Acts 2:38; 2 Peter 3:9). But if man is incapable of good, how is repentance possible? (It’s not!)

I cannot believe in Calvinism because it undermines so many principles outlined specifically in the Bible. In fact, the doctrine of Unconditional Election attacks the very nature of God. If God allows only the elect to be saved, and God predetermined those elect, then naturally, God also chose to condemn every soul who was not elected; effectively creating some men for the purpose of condemnation. That is not the God we read about in 2 Tim. 2:3-4. “God...who desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Consider this: If God has chosen those who will be saved and Jesus died only for a select few, why does the Bible reflect such a strong need for evangelism? In Matthew 28:19, Jesus told his apostles to go into the world in preach the gospel to “all creation.” If only an elect few are to receive salvation, and those few have already been determined by God, then why evangelize? Why teach the truth? Why attempt to follow God’s path at all? Accepting the error of Unconditional Election, in effect, nullifies the ministry of Jesus and the teaching of the Bible’s inspired authors.

Building upon that, the Bible is unmistakably clear about who can receive salvation. The idea of “Limited Atonement,” that the death of Jesus was only meant for a certain group of people, cannot be supported by scripture. I would first draw attention to Romans 1:16 – the gospel is the “power of God to salvation for everyone who believes...” Or what about 1 Timothy 2:6 – Jesus gave himself as a ransom “for all.” Scripture is clear – Christ died for everyone!

The error of Calvinism is definite. We can know with certainty that this doctrine is supported by neither God nor His inspired word. Because we know that, we must be able and ready to engage, inform, and persuade the followers of Calvinism. I cannot believe in Calvinism, but I certainly do believe that God desires all to know the truth!

 

[convicted1]

We don't like it because it confuses people like you who don't know beans from apple butter about theology- much less Calvinism.

Thoughtful people do not get confused by it. They understand that the idea is not that no one ever resists the grace of God. They understand that those who employ the term realize that EVERYONE resists the grace of God for some amount of time.

Thoughtful people know what we mean by the term in that God's grace in bringing the elect to himself at the point he so wishes to do so- at that point it is irresistible.

But people like you waste so much of our time having to explain that to you repeatedly that we prefer to identify this clearly taught Scriptural doctrine by other terminology.

Now, when we speak to people with some theological understanding (usually those with some training, but sometimes there are those very intelligent Christian theologians who have no formal training)- with THEM we CAN use the classical terminology.

Does that answer your question?

Ah yes!! More corporate "double speak". Look, Calvinism is continually seeking to reinvent the wheel. When the term "Irresistible Grace" was shot down, the term "effectual calling" came to the forefront. Then when "Limited Atonement" was blown to pieces, then they ushered in the term "Particular Redemption". They speak outta both sides of their mouth, if'n you ask me.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is some comentary that is very good regarding regarding the extreme errors of Calvinism...

:sleeping_2::sleeping_2::sleeping_2::sleeping_2:

 

[reformed_baptist]

Ah yes!! More corporate "double speak". Look, Calvinism is continually seeking to reinvent the wheel. When the term "Irresistible Grace" was shot down, the term "effectual calling" came to the forefront. Then when "Limited Atonement" was blown to pieces, then they ushered in the term "Particular Redemption". They speak outta both sides of their mouth, if'n you ask me.

I think you might find that the term 'perticular redemption' predates the term 'limited atonement' (around 1905!) Spurgeon was using 'perticular redemption' as theological term some 50 years earlier