• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is there really a conflict between Freedom and Sovereignty, if rightly defined?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brother, what I am posting, is the "gospel truth", and I have no reason to make this up. For a year, maybe even 1.5 years, periodically, I have asked God to show me if I have this thing right........I mean my theological belief system. I would study, with no change. I have been hearing people preach and making the statement, "I chose Jesus". And that may be true, but I still kinda cringed inside of me as I agreed with that statement. Something didn't seem to click with that statement. "I chose Jesus" is true, but it leaves too many things out. Why did "you choose Jesus"? What caused you "to choose Jesus". They left out the most important part of their sermon, "I chose Jesus because Jesus first chose me". Finally, this last monday, or maybe it was tuesday, I finally got down to the "brass tacks" and asked God to allow me to read His Word w/o any slant from either side of the theological debate. I wanted to read it with a "clean slate", so-to-speak. I had always read it through the FW perspective, even though I thought I wasn't, I was, and wanted to read it w/o any bias one way or the other. Things seemed to start clicking, and they seemed to be falling into place. The phrase "He will save His people from their sins", seemed to have a different appeal to it. Now, I am not saying I will ever end up there, but I am leaning that way. I can see TUIP, but the "L" is still iffy. But I want to study this out for a while before I make a commitment. I don't want to be too hasty and say I am there, and end up not. I owe it to Him to really delve deeper into His Word and learn about Him. I don't want to misrepresent Him, the One who did more for me than I ever have done for Him. I owe Him everything I have, because He gave me the best gift ever, His Son being revealed in me. We are commanded to "study to show ourselves approved unto God", to "hear the conclusion of the WHOLE matter, to "contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints", iow, we are commanded to study. We need to have His yoke about us, so that we can learn of Him. As a Brother preached at my home church, he believed that yoke is His Word. He did say to take My yoke upon you and learn of Me, and we do learn of Him via His Word.

Again, if I ever do switch to DoG, let it be known that is will be done via MUCH prayer and MUCH studying. Whoever told you that change is easy is either a simpleton, has no clue what they're talking about, or just flat out lying.

I don't want any to think I am throwing ORB preachers under the bus, because I am one, too. Some of the best sermons I have ever heard have come from them. But I have a cousin who preaches in another association that I used to be a member of, and all he said when he preached was "this little boy did this", and "this little boy did that", etc. That's not preaching, because if someone's preaching, it's Christ centered, and not "this little boy did this" centered". I said such a long time ago, too.
 

Luke2427

Active Member
You obviously haven't taken that class that I suggested on Basic Logic and Critical Thinking Skills, have you? :rolleyes:

I have an inkling that I have taken several more classes on it than you, Benji.

There is an Arminian on here who is well educated on the subject of logic, more than I am, who commends my employment of logic.

You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer on the subject in my opinion.
 

Luke2427

Active Member
That works both ways, are you saying that God CAN NOT choose to save men by demanding that they choose to repent and turn to Him of their own free will?


It doesn't work both ways because what you purport here is not even COMPARABLE to saying that God is INCAPABLE of overcoming man's will.

To say that is absolutely hilarious!

In order to answer your question more specifically, you'll have to offer up your definition of "free will."

When you do that, I will answer you more fully, but different people mean different things when they use the term "free will." I have to know what YOU mean by it before I can answer you properly.
 

Luke2427

Active Member
On this one I agree with winman.

If a person can grieve the Spirit of God (as the scripture declares) then he can resist Him as well.

Paul had two which resisited the offer of grace - Felix and Agrippa.

HankD​

not only CAN he- that is all he EVER does before he is regenerated.

See, the issue is not that grace is always irresistible. That is not what Calvinism says. That is a caricature of Calvinism that horribly uninformed people like Winman make.

The idea behind irresistible grace is that when God gets ready to overcome the heart by his own grace- AT THAT POINT- man is powerless to resist him.

God pours his grace upon every person on earth continually. Every sinner CONSTANTLY resists God's grace. Every sinner will continue to do so until the moment that God takes out his heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh. When God does this, the grace they have continually resisted all their lives can no longer be resisted.

That is what Calvinism means by irresistible grace.
 
not only CAN he- that is all he EVER does before he is regenerated.

See, the issue is not that grace is always irresistible. That is not what Calvinism says. That is a caricature of Calvinism that horribly uninformed people like Winman make.

The idea behind irresistible grace is that when God gets ready to overcome the heart by his own grace- AT THAT POINT- man is powerless to resist him.

God pours his grace upon every person on earth continually. Every sinner CONSTANTLY resists God's grace. Every sinner will continue to do so until the moment that God takes out his heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh. When God does this, the grace they have continually resisted all their lives can no longer be resisted.

That is what Calvinism means by irresistible grace.


And I have to admit that I agree with this 100%!! :godisgood::jesus::godisgood::jesus:
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ach

Stephen had a whole bunch that resisted and Acts 7:51 specifically says so. A verse that anytime you mention it, Calvinists never address it head on. They treat it like it isn't even the Bible and accuse you of being an Arminian if you read it literally.

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Acts 7:51.


Calvinists have no problem with this verse whatsoever.The verse teaches that those who were murdering Stephen....always resisted as there reprobate fathers did...Always....that is why they are given tickets to hell, read psalm 78.....

God knowing the future, knew ahead of time that there would be a belief system called Calvinism, and I believe put verses in the Bible as plain as the nose on ones face that smacks their doctrine head on with verses like this.
No...despite this profane thought toward God...what is more likely is those who wrote the confession of faith knew there would be men claiming to be teachers who would not know the truth of the teaching,and misunderstand Calvinism....so they wisely wrote this to show what the actual teaching is;

Effectual calling,and irresistible grace teach that for the elect....saving grace is not ULTIMATELY resisted.....they might resist for quite some time but when the Spirit gets a hold of them it is game over:thumbs:

read and learn ACH..because once again you show that you do not understand what you attempt to be critical of.

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )
 

DrJamesAch

New Member
not only CAN he- that is all he EVER does before he is regenerated.

See, the issue is not that grace is always irresistible. That is not what Calvinism says. That is a caricature of Calvinism that horribly uninformed people like Winman make.

The idea behind irresistible grace is that when God gets ready to overcome the heart by his own grace- AT THAT POINT- man is powerless to resist him.

God pours his grace upon every person on earth continually. Every sinner CONSTANTLY resists God's grace. Every sinner will continue to do so until the moment that God takes out his heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh. When God does this, the grace they have continually resisted all their lives can no longer be resisted.

That is what Calvinism means by irresistible grace.

So would you call that "general resisting" and "EFFECTUAL resisting".:) Another novelty imposed upon the Scriptures. That is a complete contradiction to Calvinist theology itself and the Bible in 2 aspects:

1. If God has pre-elected and preordained a persons salvation, then how can you logically separate God "constantly calling sinners" which prior to this elect persons salvation would include him but yet he continues to resist until the "AT THAT TIME" comes into play. Why would God continually send a call to an elect when He knows ahead of time that He will not save him UNTIL a certain day which you casually refer to as 'AT THAT TIME'? In other words, God sent a series of "general calls" to an elect person but never sent an "effectual call" until a certain in which you have absolutely no Scriptural support to make a distinction between the two.

2. If God only sends a general call to those whom are predetermined for hell, the sinners rejection of that call can not properly be called resistance. It is only resistance when there is a real and actual possibility of accepting the grace of God and then rejecting it. In 2 Corinthians 6:2, Paul quotes Isaiah in what Paul offers as a general reference to ALL to accept the Lord NOW as opposed to "receiving the grace of God in vain" (v 1). If grace could not be rejected "AT THAT TIME", Paul could not have said that it was even possible to receive the grace of God in vain, and he would have been presumptuous in stating that "NOW is the accepted time, NOW is the day of salvation".

For God to send any kind of call AT ALL, and one call given significance over the other is an argument for a weaker part of God being sent to sinners that doesn't have the ability to overcome their will as opposed to another call that is termed an effectual call that packs more power. It is as if God is sending out 2 different spirits to call men to Him with one being weaker than the other, but how can any man resist even a GENERAL call if even the "weakness of God is stronger than man!" 1 Corinthians 1:25.
 

Winman

Active Member
not only CAN he- that is all he EVER does before he is regenerated.

See, the issue is not that grace is always irresistible. That is not what Calvinism says. That is a caricature of Calvinism that horribly uninformed people like Winman make.

The idea behind irresistible grace is that when God gets ready to overcome the heart by his own grace- AT THAT POINT- man is powerless to resist him.

God pours his grace upon every person on earth continually. Every sinner CONSTANTLY resists God's grace. Every sinner will continue to do so until the moment that God takes out his heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh. When God does this, the grace they have continually resisted all their lives can no longer be resisted.

That is what Calvinism means by irresistible grace.

Well Luke, was Jesus confused? Jesus clearly said that he desired the children of Jerusalem to come to him in Matthew 23:37, so obviously he was READY and AT THAT POINT to overcome their resistance with his irresistible effectual grace, and yet he was clearly grieved that they would not come.

You guys can try to distract and claim we do not understand your doctrine all you want, that is nothing but pure smoke. This scripture makes absolutely no sense at all if Irresistible Grace is a true doctrine. If your doctrine is true, there is no reason for Jesus or God to ever be grieved that someone would not come to them, as they could easily call that person with irresistible effectual grace and that person would IMMEDIATELY come to Jesus.

And what's more, you absolutely know this yourself.

You guys simply refuse to come clean.
 

Winman

Active Member
And I have to admit that I agree with this 100%!! :godisgood::jesus::godisgood::jesus:

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Willis, how can you be falling for this? If Irresistible Grace is true, then there was no reason for Jesus to be grieved that the children of Jerusalem would not come to him in Matthew 23:37, as he could have called them with irresistible effectual grace and they would have IMMEDIATELY come to him, in fact, they would have been powerless to resist.

Ask yourself Willis, was Jesus telling the truth when he said, "How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

There is no mistaking whatsoever, Mat 23:37 makes it clear Jesus wanted these persons of Jerusalem to come to him. If so, and if Irresistible Grace is a true and biblical doctrine, why didn't Jesus simply call them with irresistible effectual grace?

The only logical conclusions available is that Jesus did not sincerely desire to save these people and was lying, or that Irresistible Grace is false doctrine. Take your pick, these are the only two options you have. And if Irresistible Grace is false, all of TULIP is false.

Don't get sucked into this false doctrine Willis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Willis, how can you be falling for this? If Irresistible Grace is true, then there was no reason for Jesus to be grieved that the children of Jerusalem would not come to him in Matthew 23:37, as he could have called them with irresistible effectual grace and they would have IMMEDIATELY come to him, in fact, they would have been powerless to resist.

Ask yourself Willis, was Jesus telling the truth when he said, "How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

There is no mistaking whatsoever, Mat 23:37 makes it clear Jesus wanted these persons of Jerusalem to come to him. If so, and if Irresistible Grace is a true and biblical doctrine, why didn't Jesus simply call them with irresistible effectual grace?

The only logical conclusions available is that Jesus did not sincerely desire to save these people and was lying, or that Irresistible Grace is false doctrine. Take your pick, these are the only two options you have. And if Irresistible Grace is false, all of TULIP is false.

Don't get sucked into this false doctrine Willis.

Everything that Irresistible Grace/Effectual Calling teaches, is the very thing I went through, Brother Winman. I rebelled against God for years, and then one morning, I heard a gospel message that caused me to realize that w/o Him, I'd die lost. I no longer wanted to rebel, because my will, my "want to" had been changed by Him.

BTW, am I brainwashed, too? You know I fought vehemently against DoG for over six years. No one gave me any literature to read, no sermons that I listened to, just me seeking God and His counsel. Like I stated, I may never get there, but I am seeking His counsel above anyone else's.
 

DrJamesAch

New Member
It doesn't work both ways because what you purport here is not even COMPARABLE to saying that God is INCAPABLE of overcoming man's will.

To say that is absolutely hilarious!

In order to answer your question more specifically, you'll have to offer up your definition of "free will."

When you do that, I will answer you more fully, but different people mean different things when they use the term "free will." I have to know what YOU mean by it before I can answer you properly.

The problem with that is you have changed the dynamic of the argument into something that none of us have claimed. I have never said that God COULD NOT over come mans will if He wanted to, I have said that He does NOT based upon what is revealed in Scripture. That is wholly different from the caricature that you have created of Non Calvinist beliefs.

Furthermore, the question as asked was centered on what God is CAPABLE of doing, not what He ACTUALLY does, and as I predicted, you are much more dogmatic about what God is and is not CAPABLE of doing and therefore it is actually your view that limits God's sovereignty because you have implicitly denied a capability to God that is not reasonably necessary for you to reject. Asking if God CAN implement a system whereby He chooses to permit and demand that men come to Him of their own free will and choose Him is not the same as asking if God can sin. One is a realistic possibility, the latter is not.

This also shouldn't have to revolve around the definition of free will because that just gives you another option in which to side-step the obvious contradiction and the presuppositional bias that you've demonstrated here. Plus, it is quite obvious from the inception of this thread I have argued for libertarian contra-casual free will as opposed to compatibalist free will. Nevertheless, man is free to choose or not to choose without his choices or desires being predetermined, it is not the type of contradictory free will as stated in the Westminster Confession:

"by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace." WC, sec 10, art 1.
 

Winman

Active Member
Everything that Irresistible Grace/Effectual Calling teaches, is the very thing I went through, Brother Winman. I rebelled against God for years, and then one morning, I heard a gospel message that caused me to realize that w/o Him, I'd die lost. I no longer wanted to rebel, because my will, my "want to" had been changed by Him.

BTW, am I brainwashed, too? You know I fought vehemently against DoG for over six years. No one gave me any literature to read, no sermons that I listened to, just me seeking God and His counsel. Like I stated, I may never get there, but I am seeking His counsel above anyone else's.

Willis, you are not thinking. One year ago you could have easily answered your own question. The reason you resisted numerous times before you got saved is because God's grace is resistible! It is as simple as that.

Now, thank God, God did not give you up as he does some persons in Romans 1 and continued to patiently call you. And thank God, one day you chose to submit to God and believe.

There are other explanations for your conversion besides Irresistible Grace.

You are not thinking, why would Jesus be grieved that the children of Jerusalem would not come to him if Irresistible Grace is true? Jesus could have immediately called these persons with irresistible grace and they would have become completely willing to be saved that very instant.

In Irresistible Grace the man does not matter. You could hate God with all your heart, you could be a complete atheist, and immediately you would be willing to listen and hear the gospel, and immediately you would be completely willing to come to Jesus in faith. So there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Jesus to ever be grieved that someone would not come to him.

Come on Willis, put on your thinking cap here.
 
Willis, you are not thinking. One year ago you could have easily answered your own question. The reason you resisted numerous times before you got saved is because God's grace is resistible! It is as simple as that.

Now, thank God, God did not give you up as he does some persons in Romans 1 and continued to patiently call you. And thank God, one day you chose to submit to God and believe.

There are other explanations for your conversion besides Irresistible Grace.

You are not thinking, why would Jesus be grieved that the children of Jerusalem would not come to him if Irresistible Grace is true? Jesus could have immediately called these persons with irresistible grace and they would have become completely willing to be saved that very instant.

In Irresistible Grace the man does not matter. You could hate God with all your heart, you could be a complete atheist, and immediately you would be willing to listen and hear the gospel, and immediately you would be completely willing to come to Jesus in faith. So there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Jesus to ever be grieved that someone would not come to him.

Come on Willis, put on your thinking cap here.


Brother, you have me confused with someone who has all the answers. I don't and that's why I go to the One who does. As I have stated numerous times, I am prayerfully and studingly going about this, not jumping into it all at once. Remember, I stated that I started this journey on, I am thinking tuesday, and I will not be hasty with my decision. I may not change, or God may change me. In either case, I'll follow whithersoever He leads me.

Now, here's a question for you, that has puzzled me from day one of christian journey: why did God place the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, accessible to both Adam and Eve?
 
Whether you know it or not, we all have some type of "unconditonal election" in our theologies. Think about Abraham when God chose him, and that through his seed(Jesus Christ through Judah), the nations would be blessed. He chose them(Israelites) above any and all peoples. What about the Philistines? How about the Edomites? Egyptians? Babylon? Assyria? Were these nations, as a whole, passed over, when God chose the Israelites as His chosen people?
 

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
not only CAN he- that is all he EVER does before he is regenerated.

See, the issue is not that grace is always irresistible. That is not what Calvinism says. That is a caricature of Calvinism that horribly uninformed people like Winman make.

The idea behind irresistible grace is that when God gets ready to overcome the heart by his own grace- AT THAT POINT- man is powerless to resist him.

God pours his grace upon every person on earth continually. Every sinner CONSTANTLY resists God's grace. Every sinner will continue to do so until the moment that God takes out his heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh. When God does this, the grace they have continually resisted all their lives can no longer be resisted.

That is what Calvinism means by irresistible grace.

Originally Posted by Benjamin,

Okay then, let me see if I’ve got the Calvinist position on irresistible grace right.

It is that irresistible grace is really actually always resistible and remains resistible but only until God gets ready to forcibly overcome the person’s will…then that’s when it becomes irresistible.

IOWs irresistible grace doesn’t actually become irresistible until God makes it irresistible,- which He actually preplanned who He was going to make grace irresistible on before creation, but He doesn’t actually make it become irresistible again when the time is right so that makes it count as resistible until He does this.

So God is just like…just pretending…this is kind of like a game with Him…to let people think they’ve been designed to have intellect, reason and a will of their own and He goes about practicing to influence them with a little meaningless, but seeming true interaction, before the real truth comes out that the person never really did had a choice in the matter and then, when He feels the time is right, He abruptly programs their heart against their will (that is, if their lucky enough to be one of the specially pre-selected few) to force them to love the truth and thereby giving them the will to believe and thereby faith.

In short, it would probably be fair to say that Calvinism claims that irresistible grace goes through a kind of “illusion period” of being resistible and this makes it actually truly resistible until God activates it to its true original purpose of being truly irresistible.

Man, I’m glad we have at least a few logical Calvinist around that can explain this logically to us non-Cals or I’d never be able to come to the right conclusions about their position on resistible-irresistible grace!
The logic of Calvinist reasoning is becoming clearer all the time.

Yep I got it.

Resistible = T

Not Resistible = T

Therefore,

Resistible and Irresistible are BOTH TRUE. :jesus::godisgood::jesus::godisgood:

I think I can sleep peacefully now!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
Brother, you have me confused with someone who has all the answers. I don't and that's why I go to the One who does. As I have stated numerous times, I am prayerfully and studingly going about this, not jumping into it all at once. Remember, I stated that I started this journey on, I am thinking tuesday, and I will not be hasty with my decision. I may not change, or God may change me. In either case, I'll follow whithersoever He leads me.

Now, here's a question for you, that has puzzled me from day one of christian journey: why did God place the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, accessible to both Adam and Eve?

Because love demands choice Willis. God wants people who love him because they choose to love him, not because they have no choice.

If God did not want Adam and Eve to choose to love him, he could have simply placed them in a garden with no tree of knowledge of good or evil, or he could have had an angel guard over it. They could not possibly have sinned.

But that is not what God did, did he? NO, God gave them complete access to this tree, though he sternly warned them they would die in the day they ate of it.

This gave them choice. They could choose to love God and listen to him, or they could choose to love the devil and listen to him. Unfortunately, they made the wrong choice.

But thank God, God showed his great love to us in that while we were sinners he still loved us and sent his Son Jesus to die for us. But again, we must choose Jesus of our own free will.

And that is another thing about Irresistible Grace, it takes away choice. If God calls you with this irresistible effectual call, you no longer have choice, you will immediately be caused to become completely willing to be saved.

You are not thinking Willis, why would Jesus be grieved that the children of Jerusalem would not come to him if Irresistible Grace is true?

Why Willis? There is no reason for Jesus to EVER be grieved if IG is true, he could cause any person to come to him IMMEDIATELY.

Think Willis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because love demands choice Willis. God wants people who love him because they choose to love him, not because they have no choice.

If God did not want Adam and Eve to choose to love him, he could have simply placed them in a garden with no tree of knowledge of good or evil, or he could have had an angel guard over it. They could not possibly have sinned.

But that is not what God did, did he? NO, God gave them complete access to this tree, though he sternly warned them they would die in the day they ate of it.

This gave them choice. They could choose to love God and listen to him, or they could choose to love the devil and listen to him. Unfortunately, they made the wrong choice.

But thank God, God showed his great love to us in that while we were sinners he still loved us and sent his Son Jesus to die for us. But again, we must choose Jesus of our own free will.

And that is another thing about Irresistible Grace, it takes away choice. If God calls you with this irresistible effectual call, you no longer have choice, you will immediately be cause to become completely willing to be saved.

But you still are not thinking, why would Jesus be grieved that the children of Jerusalem would not come to him if Irresistible Grace is true?

Why Willis? There is no reason for Jesus to EVER be grieved if IG is true, he could cause any person to come to him IMMEDIATELY.

Think Willis.

I'm gonna have to put ya on the firing line Brother Winman and ask you to support your claim why God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden. I believed that and I couldn't support it scriptually, just my opinion. You very well may be right, but what verses are you backing it with?
 
Because love demands choice Willis. God wants people who love him because they choose to love him, not because they have no choice.

If God did not want Adam and Eve to choose to love him, he could have simply placed them in a garden with no tree of knowledge of good or evil, or he could have had an angel guard over it. They could not possibly have sinned.

But that is not what God did, did he? NO, God gave them complete access to this tree, though he sternly warned them they would die in the day they ate of it.

This gave them choice. They could choose to love God and listen to him, or they could choose to love the devil and listen to him. Unfortunately, they made the wrong choice.

But thank God, God showed his great love to us in that while we were sinners he still loved us and sent his Son Jesus to die for us. But again, we must choose Jesus of our own free will.

And that is another thing about Irresistible Grace, it takes away choice. If God calls you with this irresistible effectual call, you no longer have choice, you will immediately be caused to become completely willing to be saved.

You are not thinking Willis, why would Jesus be grieved that the children of Jerusalem would not come to him if Irresistible Grace is true?

Why Willis? There is no reason for Jesus to EVER be grieved if IG is true, he could cause any person to come to him IMMEDIATELY.

Think Willis.

Another question. What is meant by "many called but few are chosen"?

Again, I don't know all the answers, but I see where I have been wrong on a few things, and after studying it out, with God's help of course, I may end up back where I started at. But I owe it to Him to understand Him, and how He operates.
 

DrJamesAch

New Member

Calvinists have no problem with this verse whatsoever.The verse teaches that those who were murdering Stephen....always resisted as there reprobate fathers did...Always....that is why they are given tickets to hell, read psalm 78.....

Psalm 78:22
"Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation"



No...despite this profane thought toward God...what is more likely is those who wrote the confession of faith knew there would be men claiming to be teachers who would not know the truth of the teaching,and misunderstand Calvinism....so they wisely wrote this to show what the actual teaching is;

And yet none of these teachings were prevalent in the church until Augustine. Furthermore, why would they be interested in making sure that Calvinism wasn't misrepresented and at the same time, claim not to be an actual follower of John Calvin himself? A convenient built-in defense system that allows Calvinists to claim Calvin when the need arises to defend TULIP, and claim "I know him not" when his personal taste for sprinkling babies and murdering heretics is raised.

Effectual calling,and irresistible grace teach that for the elect....saving grace is not ULTIMATELY resisted.....they might resist for quite some time but when the Spirit gets a hold of them it is game over:thumbs:

read and learn ACH..because once again you show that you do not understand what you attempt to be critical of.

There is NO SUCH THING as a GENERAL CALL and EFFECTUAL CALL in the Bible. That is pure theological speculation and eisegesis. Just because a CREED cites a bunch of proof texts. The word "effectual" itself is used 6 times in the NT (1 Cor 16:9, 2 Cor 1:6, Eph 3:7, Eph 4:16, Philemon 6, James 5:16)

1 Cor 16:9 effectual is a reference to an opportunity being made to Paul to preach the gospel. Nothing to do with a CALL to salvation.

2 Cor 1:6 involves SUFFERING. Again, Nothing to do with a CALL to salvation

Eph 3:7 The effectual working of Gods power in giving Paul the gift of his ministry. Again, nothing about a CALL to salvation.

Eph 4:16, The effectual working of God's power in unifying the body of believers. Again, nothing about a CALL to salvation.

Philemon 6: That the subject Paul is speaking to (Philemon's "boss") can demonstrated the effectualness of his faith by acknowledging the good things in him from Jesus Christ. Again, nothing to do with any CALL to salvation

James 5:16, Reference to the effectual PRAYERS of a righteous man. Again NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY EFFECTUAL CALL TO SALVATION.

Not one time in the Bible, NOT ONCE, is there EVER a distinction between GENERAL CALL and EFFECTUAL CALL. Calvinism has made God out to have one weak Spirit over a stronger Spirit, one that CAN over come mans will, and one that CAN'T.

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

Not only does this section contain BLATANT contradictions ("DETERMINING THEM..so as they come MOST FREELY", but quotes Song of Solomon 1:4 which actually REFUTES Calvinism.

"Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee."

The subject here is ASKING TO BE DRAWN. That hardly fits with Calvinist theology which says that men can not seek God let alone ASK to seek God.

If you're going to quote a CREED because you're too lazy to read the scriptures and expound on them, you should at least know what verses these Creeds are using and whether or not they actually support the man-made private doctrines listed.

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
John 3:3, 5, 6-8 have NOTHING to do with infants being regenerated by an effectual calling. A calling needs to be responded to, that's WHY IT'S CALLED a "CALL" in the first place and a baby CAN NOT RESPOND to ANY call and yet the Confession makes the 'effectual' call of God contingent up granting repentance. Babies are not "regenerated" when they die in infancy. Their sin was never IMPUTED to them because "sin is not imputed when there is no law" Romans 5:13.

Calvinists claim that they do not believe that their system causes regeneration to precede faith, and yet here is a perfect example that shows that they DO believe that.

This is also an absurd notion for if God could save an infant who is "incapable of being outwardly called", then why not save EVERYONE in their infancy? AH, that's why Calvin baptized babies! Yet the WC states in Chapter 3 that some are determined to eternal damnation, yet in this section, there is no distincition between infants who are ELECT TO HEAVEN and infants ELECT TO HELL. Another blatant inconsistency in the Confession

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )

Here is a blatant contradiction in the Confession. As just stated by you and Luke, God is "constantly calling" and sinners are "CONSTANTLY rejecting" the Holy Ghost which admits that EVEN AN ELECT PERSON DOES SO PRIOR TO SALVATION. However, notice that this section relies on Hebrews 6:4 which shows that those once enlightened CAN NOT BE RENEWED AGAIN UNTO REPENTANCE. You can not make a distinction between elect and non elect PRIOR TO SALVATION of whom BOTH RESIST the Holy Ghost, and then claim that Hebrews 6:4 only applies to one group. (How the Calvinist attempts to explain "RENEWED" is another discussion).

NONE of the verses offered support any of the statements proposed in the Confession that validate any "EFFECTUAL" call. It is a man-made invention contained in a man-made creed replete with self-defeating logic and blatant intrinsic contradictions.
 

Winman

Active Member
I'm gonna have to put ya on the firing line Brother Winman and ask you to support your claim why God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden. I believed that and I couldn't support it scriptually, just my opinion. You very well may be right, but what verses are you backing it with?

Willis, I have to leave for work in a few minutes, but I promise I will get back to you this afternoon (Lord willing).

But I'll leave you with this verse;

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Willis, does God give us the choice whether we will serve and love him, or does he irresistibly CAUSE us to love him?

That is the whole ball of wax right there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top