is the "Whosover Wills" Promise To the Elect of God, or to ALL?

[Rippon]

All Scripture Cited Taken from 2011 NIV

The problem with JBH'S view is that it denies declared attributes of God. If God is no respecter of persons, and if all men are equally evil and justly condemned, then he must either regenerate all or none to be no respecter of persons.

All people are worthy of eternal condemnation. All people are not equally evil though.

God doesn't follow the dictates of Winman. Certainly the Lord does whatever He wants to do and none can stay His hand.

Let me introduce you to Romans 9:15,18 :"For he says to Moses,'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy,and he hardens whom he wants to harden.' "

The saved ones (elect) have received His mercy,not His justice. You can't tell the Lord what to do or say that something isn't fair in your eyes. Romans 9:2021 tells us :"But who are you,a human being,to talk back to God? Shall what is formed sat to the one who formed it,'Why did you make me like this? 'Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?' "

He must offer all men an equal opportunity to be saved if he is no respecter of persons. If a man must be regenerated to be made willing, he would have to regenerate all men to be true to his own declaration of himself.

The Lord is not an equal opportunity God. That's why multiplied millions down through through the centuries have never even heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God is not democratic. I know that must be a jolt to your system of philosophy.

On the other side, if all men have the ability to respond and believe, and he has made the offer to all, he has been equally gracious to all and was no respecter of persons.

No such promise was ever given. He owes no one anything. The Lord is not obligated to anyone. He does not have to be fair according to the dictates of the worms of the dust. As Luther said to Erasmus : Your god is too human." (Or words to that effect.)

 

[quantumfaith]

All people are worthy of eternal condemnation. All people are not equally evil though.

True....sort of. How is it that we are not all equally evil?

God doesn't follow the dictates of Winman. Certainly the Lord does whatever He wants to do and none can stay His hand.

This is not "fair". A completely unwarranted statement. Winman never even hints that somehow God is supposed to consult him.

Let me introduce you to Romans 9:15,18 :"For he says to Moses,'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy,and he hardens whom he wants to harden.' "

The saved ones (elect) have received His mercy,not His justice. You can't tell the Lord what to do or say that something isn't fair in your eyes. Romans 9:2021 tells us :"But who are you,a human being,to talk back to God? Shall what is formed sat to the one who formed it,'Why did you make me like this? 'Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?' "

Again, this is a strawman, Winman or no one else makes any claim as telling God what to say or do. Rather Winman (myself and many others) simply do not agree with the view you have about God's election, justice, love, mercy etc.

The Lord is not an equal opportunity God. That's why multiplied millions down through through the centuries have never even heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God is not democratic. I know that must be a jolt to your system of philosphy.

Nice jab (system of philosophy), but it is Winmans investment of his time and attention and how he has and does interpret the whole of God's Word and message.



No such promise was ever given. He owes no one anything. The Lord is not obligated to anyone. He does not have to be fair according to the dictates of the worms of the dust. As Luther said to Erasmus : Your god is too human." (Or words to that effect.)

True

 

[Skandelon]

Don't you believe John 6:65 to mean that God must enable men to come to Christ before they may come? May those who haven't been "enabled" to come, come? If so, how?

Could you answer this question for me?

 

[Winman]

You can always tell when you've touched a nerve!

To answer JBH, the non-Cal/Arm view has never supported universalism, I believe Titus 2:11

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

I believe God has shown his grace to all men and men are able to respond. If they choose not to believe, that is their own fault, not God's.

It is the Cal/Ref view that led to universalism, men believed a person must be regenerated to believe, but also believed God is no respecter of persons. This led them to conclude God would regenerate all men so they would believe and be saved.

The issue of those who have not heard the gospel is irrelevant, neither side can answer how God deals with these persons. But I do believe God offers all men the opportunity to be saved. Perhaps men and their faith are judged according to the light shown them, I can't say for certain, no one has ever sufficiently answered this question including Calvinists.

When Peter said God was no respecter of persons, it was in the context of the gospel being sent to the Gentiles, it had nothing to do with judgment. Peter was saying God does not favor one person over another and grace is offered to all.

If men must be regenerated to be willing and believe, and God only regenerates some, then he has violated his own declaration that he is no respecter of persons.

If all men have the ability to believe and God has offered salvation to all, he is true to his own declaration of himself. It is man's fault if he rejects this grace.

 

[Skandelon]

Let me ask you this. Are all saved? Of course you would answer no. Do people attempt to get saved other than faith in Christ? Sure, but God rejects these people.

But earlier you said, "God doesn't reject anyone. He allows them to stay exactly where they want, in their sin." and later you said, "God rejects no one. Please don't say this again. You have been corrected."

So, now are you affirming that God does indeed reject some???

The context of the discussion is if when God calls people to come to him, he will reject no one that comes to him in faith.

But as Webdog pointed out, what is the point is speaking about an impossibility? It's like saying, "When I call the rocks to come to me, I won't reject a single one of them." It is impossible for them to come to me because they are ROCKS! Same is true of the non-elect in your system. They are created as "spiritual rocks" (dead), thus to speak of God not rejecting people that before the foundation of the world he did not elect and then refused to enable to come when invited is an impossible absurdity. The reason they can't come is because they were rejected.

I'm not saying that you believe there a people trying to come who can't, so stop making that argument. I'm saying that in your system the reason people can't come is due to God rejection of them.

No. You are looking at it as people are neutral which isn't the Calvinist position, nor mine. Election is not about keeping people out of heaven. It's because of their sin, not because God didn't elect them that they don't want to come.

If that were the case then everyone who sinned would likewise be damned. The distinction is not whether or not they sin, the distinction is whether or not they are elected/rejected.

Without any election, no one would want to come.

Right. So, the reason some want to be saved is because they are elected and the reason the rest don't want to be saved is because they are left in their sin, not elected. (the very essence of what "rejection" means). And since this election took place prior to their doing anything good or bad (sin), then the election would be the ultimate cause of mankind's response to God. There is no getting around that fact for your system.

 

[Winman]

But earlier you said, "God doesn't reject anyone. He allows them to stay exactly where they want, in their sin." and later you said, "God rejects no one. Please don't say this again. You have been corrected."

So, now are you affirming that God does indeed reject some???


But as Webdog pointed out, what is the point is speaking about an impossibility? It's like saying, "When I call the rocks to come to me, I won't reject a single one of them." It is impossible for them to come to me because they are ROCKS! Same is true of the non-elect in your system. They are created as "spiritual rocks" (dead), thus to speak of God not rejecting people that before the foundation of the world he did not elect and then refused to enable to come when invited is an impossible absurdity. The reason they can't come is because they were rejected.

I'm not saying that you believe there a people trying to come who can't, so stop making that argument. I'm saying that in your system the reason people can't come is due to God rejection of them.


If that were the case then everyone who sinned would likewise be damned. The distinction is not whether or not they sin, the distinction is whether or not they are elected/rejected.

Right. So, the reason some want to be saved is because they are elected and the reason the rest don't want to be saved is because they are left in their sin, not elected. (the very essence of what "rejection" means). And since this election took place prior to their doing anything good or bad (sin), then the election would be the ultimate cause of mankind's response to God. There is no getting around that fact for your system.

Spot on Skan, but they have all sorts of clever (although illogical) arguments to rationalize this away.

He knows.

 

[webdog]

Lets also not forget in their system before the foundation of the world God did not elect, atone for, or regenerate most to receive His offer which is only good for those He elected, atoned for and regenerated... yet knowing this He throws out there a false offer to this un-elect group where none of the means are supplied (to make it a true offer by definition)?! It defies any kind of reason.

 

[Winman]

Lets also not forget in their system before the foundation of the world God did not elect, atone or regenerate most to receive His offer that is only good for those He elected, atoned for and regenerated, yet knowing this He is still going to throw out there a false offer to this group where none of this was supplied to make it a true offer by definition?! It defies any kind of reason.

Yes, it's like a store that advertises a product for a great sale price, but when you get there they say they've sold out and try to sell you another product that is far more expensive. What do they call this, baiting? Everyone holds to make an insincere offer reprehensible.

 

[jbh28]

Could you answer this question for me?

Well, are you going to answer it? Looked funny, like you are asking yourself.

"Don't you believe John 6:65 to mean that God must enable men to come to Christ before they may come? May those who haven't been "enabled" to come, come? If so, how?"


word should be "can", not "may". Big difference. to say "may" would mean that God won't allow a person to come. to say "can" means there is something keeping them from coming...ie their sin. In other words, it's not God keeping one from coming, but man's sin.

 

[jbh28]

But earlier you said, "God doesn't reject anyone. He allows them to stay exactly where they want, in their sin." and later you said, "God rejects no one. Please don't say this again. You have been corrected."

So, now are you affirming that God does indeed reject some???

In the context of our discussion.

But as Webdog pointed out, what is the point is speaking about an impossibility? It's like saying, "When I call the rocks to come to me, I won't reject a single one of them." It is impossible for them to come to me because they are ROCKS! Same is true of the non-elect in your system. They are created as "spiritual rocks" (dead), thus to speak of God not rejecting people that before the foundation of the world he did not elect and then refused to enable to come when invited is an impossible absurdity. The reason they can't come is because they were rejected.

No, the reason they cannot come is because they would rather stay in their sin than come. the fault for not coming is man's, not God.

I'm not saying that you believe there a people trying to come who can't, so stop making that argument. I'm saying that in your system the reason people can't come is due to God rejection of them.

Nope, still not what my system teaches. You have your order wrong.

If that were the case then everyone who sinned would likewise be damned.

that's what we deserve

The distinction is not whether or not they sin, the distinction is whether or not they are elected/rejected.

nope Everyone sins. Everyone is on their way to hell. God offers salvation to all that come to him. God knows that no one will come to him and elects to save.

Right. So, the reason some want to be saved is because they are elected and the reason the rest don't want to be saved is because they are left in their sin, not elected. (the very essence of what "rejection" means).

The context of the discussion is the "whosoever believes." And I stated that none get rejected.

And since this election took place prior to their doing anything good or bad (sin), then the election would be the ultimate cause of mankind's response to God. There is no getting around that fact for your system.

In regards to salvation, yes. All God. For those that go to hell, all man. What you are doing is making election for salvation being equal to no electing and that's not true. (though a few higher Calvinists would go there.)

 

[jbh28]

Lets also not forget in their system before the foundation of the world God did not elect, atone for, or regenerate most to receive His offer which is only good for those He elected, atoned for and regenerated... yet knowing this He throws out there a false offer to this un-elect group where none of the means are supplied (to make it a true offer by definition)?! It defies any kind of reason.

why must you continue to misrepresent. No one has said anything close to this. The atonement according to Calvinist is "abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." the offer is good for all that believe. The problem is not God keeping man from coming, but man having no desire to come.

Yes, it's like a store that advertises a product for a great sale price, but when you get there they say they've sold out and try to sell you another product that is far more expensive. What do they call this, baiting? Everyone holds to make an insincere offer reprehensible.

And winman made it even worse. Are you guys really having trouble understanding my position? In winman's story, you have an offer, but when one comes....there's the problem. ALL that come will be saved. There will be NNE that comes to God and he says, "sorry, all sold out." That's not the position that I nor any Calvinist here has said. in other words, straw man.


so, as I have said, a genuine offer to all. All those that don't come don't because they don't want to. God doesn't keep them from coming.


remember, the reason for election was because God know through his foreknowledge that no one would come to him. Most arguments for election assume that man will come to him on their own.

 

[psalms109:31]

Well, are you going to answer it? Looked funny, like you are asking yourself.

"Don't you believe John 6:65 to mean that God must enable men to come to Christ before they may come? May those who haven't been "enabled" to come, come? If so, how?"


word should be "can", not "may". Big difference. to say "may" would mean that God won't allow a person to come. to say "can" means there is something keeping them from coming...ie their sin. In other words, it's not God keeping one from coming, but man's sin.

Psalm 34:11
Come, my children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD.

John 6:
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[Isaiah 54:13] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

John 14:24
Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

Here is a clue how we are drawn by the Father. Those who are following a crowd does not mean they are drawn by the Father. We know from scripture only those who listen and learn will come. These are the one's He was speaking about. The sheep know His voice. Israel is His sheep they should of heard His voice, but those who did not was cut out for unbelief and not able to enter.

So ultimately He came into His own, but His own received Him not. So what will Jesus do? If they disown Him He will disown them.

 

[Skandelon]

The problem is not God keeping man from coming, but man having no desire to come.

It is my understanding that compatiblists (Calvinists like you) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is the my contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are "decreed by God."

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

 

[Winman]

why must you continue to misrepresent. No one has said anything close to this. The atonement according to Calvinist is "abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." the offer is good for all that believe. The problem is not God keeping man from coming, but man having no desire to come.



And winman made it even worse. Are you guys really having trouble understanding my position? In winman's story, you have an offer, but when one comes....there's the problem. ALL that come will be saved. There will be NNE that comes to God and he says, "sorry, all sold out." That's not the position that I nor any Calvinist here has said. in other words, straw man.


so, as I have said, a genuine offer to all. All those that don't come don't because they don't want to. God doesn't keep them from coming.


remember, the reason for election was because God know through his foreknowledge that no one would come to him. Most arguments for election assume that man will come to him on their own.

I am completely aware of your clever use of the word "may".

Imagine ten men locked in ten jail cells, the jail cells representing a man's willingness to come to God. They cannot come because they are held and captured by their own will. God takes a key and unlocks two of the cells, and then says, "You may all come to me."

Would this statement be true? God knows eight men are still held and enslaved by their wills, so can he honestly say they all may come?

Doesn't "may" mean allowed or permitted? How are those still locked in their cells allowed or permitted to come?

Your view has God mocking men for their inability to come, which inability he decreed.

And again, you would have God showing favoritism to the two men whose cell he unlocked.

 

[jbh28]

It is my understanding that compatiblists (Calvinists like you) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is the my contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are "decreed by God."

As I have stated, while all things are ordained of God, that doesn't mean that God makes me sin. It's more of a passive decree. God has allowed the event(one that he could have stopped) to happen. And yes, man is free to do what he desires.

 

[jbh28]

I am completely aware of your clever use of the word "may".

Well, that's what I have said all along. All may come. God has said "whosoever will may come." That means all may come. Christ will reject no one that comes to him.

Imagine ten men locked in ten jail cells, the jail cells representing a man's willingness to come to God. They cannot come because they are held and captured by their own will. God takes a key and unlocks two of the cells, and then says, "You may all come to me."

Would this statement be true? God knows eight men are still held and enslaved by their wills, so can he honestly say they all may come?

Again, you don't show my position accurately. It's not God keeping man from coming, but man. Also in your story, if it would be a little more accurate, the ones that the cell doors are not unlocked, have not desire, nor make any attempt to come to Christ.

Doesn't "may" mean allowed or permitted? How are those still locked in their cells allowed or permitted to come?

Because God will accept all that come to him. If I make an offer to you, and I prevent you from coming, that is a major difference from me making an offer and you preventing yourself from coming.

Your view has God mocking men for their inability to come, which inability he decreed.

And again, you would have God showing favoritism to the two men whose cell he unlocked.

Well, "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy..." the men in the locked cages don't want to get out of the cages. God calls them, but they don't come nor try to come.

Do you believe that Calvinist believe that there will be some that believe, or want to believe, but can't because God won't let them? I sure hope not, but cause that isn't my position. Your story seems to indicate that is what is happening. Your story has God keeping men from coming to him, which isn't the case.

Unfortunately, most arguments argue against a view such as this, which is why the term "straw man" usually gets used.

 

[preacher4truth]

Lets also not forget in their system before the foundation of the world God did not elect, atone for, or regenerate most to receive His offer which is only good for those He elected, atoned for and regenerated... yet knowing this He throws out there a false offer to this un-elect group where none of the means are supplied (to make it a true offer by definition)?! It defies any kind of reason.

Well, here's at the least, where most of your error comes from. To you, God must fit into your finite mind and reason.

That's called making your own God.

Now I understand why you have so much trouble with theology.

 

[Jim1999]

All human analogies fail when it comes to the absolute sovereignty of God, and humanities fall.....they are dead!!!!!!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[quantumfaith]

It is my understanding that compatiblists (Calvinists like you) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is the my contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are "decreed by God."

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

Great post, even though it will take a few perusals in order to get my hands around it.

 

[quantumfaith]

All human analogies fail when it comes to the absolute sovereignty of God, and humanities fall.....they are dead!!!!!!

Cheers,

Jim

Very True Jim and Preacher for truth. Human understanding on all sides of the theological coin by the very fact that they are human will fall short of absolute truth. Mine, yours and everyone else.