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

[Winman]

Yes, because...

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (Romans 8:7)

and...

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (I Corinthians 2:14)


Only a rabid anti-Calvinist would cite NATURAL MAN as proof for his doctrine.

That is actually hilarious.... except that it is unspeakably tragic.

You are the one trying to use the natural man to prove Calvinism. You start with the presupposition that the natural man cannot understand anything spiritual, which is absolutely refuted in Romans 1, and then you argue that Calvinism must be spiritual because the natural man rejects it.

The truth is, the natural man rejects Calvinism because it offends his sense of justice. The scriptures teach that men have the law written on their heart and naturally understand what is right and wrong.

You have to be indoctrinated to accept Calvinism, because no man naturally believes God would send billions of people to hell for his glory.

No man naturally believes God is so unjust as to send men to hell for what God cursed men to be, sinners, without a remedy.

Not only does Calvinism offend man's innate sense of justice, it offends common sense. If God hates sin, why would he curse men to be sinners? Why would God cause all men to be born with a nature that can only sin if God truly hates sin?

This is so nonsensical as to be absurd to rational people. We put criminals in prison to prevent them from committing more crime and hurting more people, but you believe God cursed all men so that they would be born sinners and could do nothing else but sin. Thus God is causing MORE sin to enter the world in your view.

That is insane.

 

[Inspector Javert]

It is not consistent with Arminianism.

I must disagree.....The portion I quoted is IMO perfectly consistent with Arminianism and the notion of "Prevenient Grace".....Of course, I realize that wasn't his intent per se but, taking his verbiage at face-value alone.....what he stated is easily agreed with from an Arminian perspective. No doubt, he was implying a Calvinistic P.O.V....but, in a vacuum..........those statements, are quite consistent with Arminianism.

You are wrong about Spurgeon.

I admit my knowledge of him addressing that particular topic is quite limited, so, you may be able to furnish better evidence than I.....I have his "Treasury of David" and other wonderful things he wrote.....only, (my personal experience)....he tends to simply "brush-off" paradoxes or seeming contradictions with a Calvinist viewpoint rather than address them. Since that has been my experience....I no longer read his comments on the topic with much fervor.

He was not perfect by any means but he was consistently Calvinistic and driven in part by that theology to shake the world for Christ.

Again......my admittedly limited exposure to some of his writings and sermons on the topic seem to imply that he wasn't particularly consistent. By "consistent" I mean only that he wasn't always consistent with what he claimed as his Theology....not that he didn't consistently insist on it. I DO KNOW that I am not the only one who levels that particular accusation. But, I am by no means expert, perhaps I should have used a little more "IMO" than I did.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I disagree, I believe he knew they existed and preached the appropriate message from the given passage.

Here's an example of how to this very day we say things which technically are untruths:

"The sun rises in the east" when the sun doesn't rise at all but we have the appearance of the sun "rising" because the earth spins on its axis.

I heard of a missionary who said this to an island native (The sun doesn't rise it only appears to do so).

Native - "Only a fool doesn't believe his own eyes".

Missionary - "well, it is because the earth is round and not flat as you imagine".

Native - "well sir, you are twice a fool then".

Some things are just not easily explained "under the sun".

How much more heavenly things?

HankD

Hi Hank:
In a way....that's PRECISELY what I dislike about Spurgeon:
Frankly, Spurgeon is on record (IMO) as being asked questions that I think I could give a better "Calvinist" answer to than he does. To me.....Spurgeon seems to "cop-out" too much.
Granted, that discussion is quite pietist <----and I mean that in a good way, but it also sounds like sheer cop-out to me.
Thus, I take Spurgeon's comments about the topic with several grains of salt. I am what I would admit to as being an "Arminian"...thus, I think there are very REAL questions which do indeed DEMAND "REAL" answers. So also "Calvinism". Spurgeon once claimed that "Calvinism is the gospel". Thus, I think he should be prepared to answer some of the very "real" questions in that system....just as I am willing to engage all "real" or "hard" questions from an Arminian perspective.
Both systems generate some "hard" questions. I believe they demand answering. I think Spurgeon simply cops-out of them too much.

 

[psalms109:31]

Expository preaching is very important, we need to know what God is saying not what we want Him to say in certain passages. I praise God for calling and sending men like Spurgeon.

 

[Winman]

Expository preaching is very important, we need to know what God is saying not what we want Him to say in certain passages. I praise God for calling and sending men like Spurgeon.

Your view of Spurgeon is way too high. He often contradicted himself and even admitted he was inconsistent. Spurgeon tried to walk the fence between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, it can't be done.

To keep to Scripture, even though it should involve a charge of personal inconsistency, is to be faithful to God and men's souls. My text seems to me to present that double aspect which so many people either cannot or will not see. Here is the great atonement by which the Mediator has the whole world put under his dominion; but still here is a special object for this atonement, the ingathering, or rather outgathering of a chosen and peculiar people unto eternal life

Translation- My theology disagrees with and is inconsistent with scripture.

 

[psalms109:31]

Your view of Spurgeon is way too high. He often contradicted himself and even admitted he was inconsistent. Spurgeon tried to walk the fence between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, it can't be done.



Translation- My theology disagrees with and is inconsistent with scripture.

Calvinist theology is right on the money, we need to know what state we were in before God came into our life. Where i don't agree with it is when God places life and death before us we have a real choice.

It is not inconsistent to preach what the passage is saying some are talking about the will of man, some is bringing forth a real choice to the free agency.

Spurgeon didn't believe in free will it was ridiculous to him, he agreed with a free agency.

 

[Winman]

Calvinist theology is right on the money, we need to know what state we were in before God came into our life. Where i don't agree with it is when God places life and death before us we have a real choice.

You just contradicted yourself, you said Calvinist theology is right on the money, and then said you don't agree with it. That is a contradiction. Now you sound like Spurgeon.

It is not inconsistent to preach what the passage is saying some are talking about the will of man, some is bringing forth a real choice to the free agency.

Spurgeon didn't believe in free will it was ridiculous to him, he agreed with a free agency.

That particular sermon was called "General Yet Particular". The title itself is a contradiction, either the invitation to be saved is General and sincerely goes out to all men, or it is Particular and is only intended for some men. You can't have your cake and eat it too, but this is what Calvinism tries to do.

Worst of all, there is not one word of scripture to support that God gives an ineffectual "general call" to some men, and an "effectual call" to others. That is a pure man-made doctrine.

Jesus wept over Jerusalem, because the people did not come to him. According to Calvinism, Jesus was not sincerely interested in these people being saved as he claimed he was, otherwise he would have called them with his irresistible "effectual" call and they would have come to him.

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!

According to Calvinism, Jesus lied when he said he would have gathered the children of Jerusalem as a hen would gather her little chicks, because they did not come. Therefore this call was the ineffectual "general" call and not the sincere "effectual call", otherwise they would have irresistibly come to Jesus.

And Spurgeon supports this lie from hell. Do you agree with Spurgeon here?

You should be careful who you listen to.

 

[psalms109:31]

You just contradicted yourself, you said Calvinist theology is right on the money, and then said you don't agree with it. That is a contradiction. Now you sound like Spurgeon.



That particular sermon was called "General Yet Particular". The title itself is a contradiction, either the invitation to be saved is General and sincerely goes out to all men, or it is Particular and is only intended for some men. You can't have your cake and eat it too, but this is what Calvinism tries to do.

Worst of all, there is not one word of scripture to support that God gives an ineffectual "general call" to some men, and an "effectual call" to others. That is a pure man-made doctrine.

Jesus wept over Jerusalem, because the people did not come to him. According to Calvinism, Jesus was not sincerely interested in these people being saved as he claimed he was, otherwise he would have called them with his irresistible "effectual" call and they would have come to him.

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!

According to Calvinism, Jesus lied when he said he would have gathered the children of Jerusalem as a hen would gather her little chicks, because they did not come. Therefore this call was the ineffectual "general" call and not the sincere "effectual call", otherwise they would have irresistibly come to Jesus.

And Spurgeon supports this lie from hell. Do you agree with Spurgeon here?

You should be careful who you listen to.

You don't know what i am saying. When i have never heard the Gospel of my salvation having believed. I am in the state that Calvinist preach, but when the Spirit and life comes through the words of Jesus, when through His word God places life and death before me I have a real choice. To repent turn to Jesus and live or continue to follow my own will and die. That before the words of life i was in the state that Calvinist preach.

I did not change anything the word of God did.

Matthew 26:42
He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”

Matthew 7:21
[ True and False Disciples ] “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

John 6:40
For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

 

[Winman]

You don't know what i am saying. When i have never heard the Gospel of my salvation having believed. I am in the state that Calvinist preach, but when the Spirit and life comes through the words of Jesus, when through His word God places life and death before me I have a real choice. To repent turn to Jesus and live or continue to follow my own will and die. That before the words of life i was in the state that Calvinist preach.

I did not change anything the word of God did.

I am not talking about how you got saved. Everyone was dead in trespasses and sins until they heard the gospel and believed it.

I am talking about Spurgeon's sermon called "General Yet Particular". Spurgeon believed God calls people with two different kinds of calls. One is a General invitation that goes out to all men. This call does not carry any power (is that possible?) and men are not compelled to come when they hear it.

The other call is the "effectual" or in Spurgeon's sermon, the "particular" call. This is a powerful call that will irresistibly draw any (the elect only) man to come to Jesus in faith.

Well, Jesus said,

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!

Jesus cried over Jerusalem, wept over it, and said how OFTEN he would have gathered her children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and they WOULD NOT COME.

They "would not" come. Therefore, according to Calvinism, Jesus did not call them with the powerful, effectual, irresistible call, he called them with the ineffectual general call.

Don't you think this would make Jesus a liar? Jesus is telling us how MUCH he desired to save the children of Jerusalem, he wept over them, over and over again he desired to gather them under his wings, and yet he did not call them with this powerful effectual call?? Otherwise they would have come. They would have had to, this effectual call is irresistible.

Folks just don't get it, Calvinism is pure falsehood.

And Spurgeon believed this garbage!

 

[psalms109:31]

I am not talking about how you got saved. Everyone was dead in trespasses and sins until they heard the gospel and believed it.

I am talking about Spurgeon's sermon called "General Yet Particular". Spurgeon believed God calls people with two different kinds of calls. One is a General invitation that goes out to all men. This call does not carry any power (is that possible?) and men are not compelled to come when they hear it.

The other call is the "effectual" or in Spurgeon's sermon, the "particular" call. This is a powerful call that will irresistibly draw any (the elect only) man to come to Jesus in faith.

Well, Jesus said,

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!

Jesus cried over Jerusalem, wept over it, and said how OFTEN he would have gathered her children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and they WOULD NOT COME.

They "would not" come. Therefore, according to Calvinism, Jesus did not call them with the powerful, effectual, irresistible call, he called them with the ineffectual general call.

Don't you think this would make Jesus a liar? Jesus is telling us how MUCH he desired to save the children of Jerusalem, he wept over them, over and over again he desired to gather them under his wings, and yet he did not call them with this powerful effectual call?? Otherwise they would have come. They would have had to, this effectual call is irresistible.

Folks just don't get it, Calvinism is pure falsehood.

And Spurgeon believed this garbage!

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

It is just the way it is if they already think they know it all and will not listen and learn, it will not be effectual.

 

[Winman]

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

It is just the way it is if they already think they know it all and will not listen and learn, it will not be effectual.

But this is not what your man Spurgeon believed. Spurgeon believed in irresistible grace. When a person is called with this irresistible grace they will absolutely and certainly come! They cannot resist!

Now, if Jesus sincerely wanted the children of Jersualem to come to him as he claimed he did, then why didn't Jesus call them with this irresistible grace?

You aren't getting it, according to Spurgeon himself, if Jesus would have called the children of Jerusalem with this "effectual call" they would have irresistibly come to him.

So, obviously Jesus did not really want them to come. This is the only LOGICAL CONCLUSION you can draw from this scripture.

And if Jesus did not really want them to come, then Jesus lied when he cried over them and claimed that over and over he would have gathered them under his wings.

I can't make it any more plain than that. If you cannot see a tremendous problem here, then you are willfully shutting your eyes.

 

[psalms109:31]

But this is not what your man Spurgeon believed. Spurgeon believed in irresistible grace. When a person is called with this irresistible grace they will absolutely and certainly come! They cannot resist!

Now, if Jesus sincerely wanted the children of Jersualem to come to him as he claimed he did, then why didn't Jesus call them with this irresistible grace?

You aren't getting it, according to Spurgeon himself, if Jesus would have called the children of Jerusalem with this "effectual call" they would have irresistibly come to him.

So, obviously Jesus did not really want them to come. This is the only LOGICAL CONCLUSION you can draw from this scripture.

And if Jesus did not really want them to come, then Jesus lied when he cried over them and claimed that over and over he would have gathered them under his wings.

I can't make it any more plain than that. If you cannot see a tremendous problem here, then you are willfully shutting your eyes.

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

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”

Calvinist including myself have a lot more to learn from God when we are content of what was learned in the past and not continue to learn we no longer mature.

I have to find out who are the one's who are irresistibly called those who listen and learn, if they do not do that there is no amount of persuasion that will get them to come.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants; I am the successor of the great and venerated Dr. Gill, whose theology is almost universally received among the stronger Calvinistic churches; but although I venerate his memory, and believe his teachings, yet he is not my Rabbi."

C.H. Spurgeon

 

[Winman]

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

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”

Calvinist including myself have a lot more to learn from God when we are content of what was learned in the past and not continue to learn we no longer mature.

I have to find out who are the one's who are irresistibly called those who listen and learn, if they do not do that there is no amount of persuasion that will get them to come.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants; I am the successor of the great and venerated Dr. Gill, whose theology is almost universally received among the stronger Calvinistic churches; but although I venerate his memory, and believe his teachings, yet he is not my Rabbi."

C.H. Spurgeon

You say you are a Calvinist above. Well surely you know what the "I" in TULIP stands for, it stands for "Irresistible Grace"

Here is a definition of Irresisitible Grace from a Reformed website so I will not be accused of misrepresentation.

Irresistible Grace is a Reformed teaching that states that when God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God.

Source- http://carm.org/dictionary-irresistible-grace

Do you agree that Jesus made it very clear that he sincerely wanted the children of Jersualem to come to him in Mat 23:37?

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!

Do you agree that Jesus is saying he sincerely desires to gather the children of Jerusalem under his wings here?

Did they come?

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!

Did they come? NO.

So OBVIOUSLY Jesus did not call them with Irresistible Grace or they would have irresistibly come. Isn't this correct?

So, did Jesus SINCERELY mean what he said when he said how often he would have gathered the children of Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks?

I am sorry I am having to break it down like this, but you are acting as though you cannot understand this. It is really very very simple.

Calvinism makes Jesus a liar.

 

[DrJamesAch]

But this is not what your man Spurgeon believed. Spurgeon believed in irresistible grace. When a person is called with this irresistible grace they will absolutely and certainly come! They cannot resist!

Now, if Jesus sincerely wanted the children of Jersualem to come to him as he claimed he did, then why didn't Jesus call them with this irresistible grace?

You aren't getting it, according to Spurgeon himself, if Jesus would have called the children of Jerusalem with this "effectual call" they would have irresistibly come to him.

So, obviously Jesus did not really want them to come. This is the only LOGICAL CONCLUSION you can draw from this scripture.

And if Jesus did not really want them to come, then Jesus lied when he cried over them and claimed that over and over he would have gathered them under his wings.

I can't make it any more plain than that. If you cannot see a tremendous problem here, then you are willfully shutting your eyes.

Israel AS A WHOLE was repeatedly called the ELECT of God, and yet they did NOT come:

"For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me" Isaiah 45:4

"The beasts of the field shall honor me, the jackals and the ostriches; because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen" Isaiah 43:20

If God's chosen people, His elect, always did what He wanted them to do, then Jesus would have never been able to say "How often WOULD I HAVE GATHERED" followed by "but YE WOULD NOT". Stephen would not have been able to say "ye do always RESIST the Holy Ghost." Acts 7:51.

In order to compensate for this dilemma against the Calvinist system of thought, the Calvinist is perfectly content with accepting definitions of "general call" and "effectual call" the are NOT IN THE BIBLE.

Calvinism makes God out to be a double-talker. On one hand he calls ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent (Acts 17) and then says that you can only repent if I give you repentance to believe, again, a concept that defies all of the plain mentions of repentance in the Bible. Calvinism says faith is given as a gift when there's not one verse in the Bible to support that. There's only ONE proof text that they attempt to justify this on in Ephesians 2:8 which clearly shows that salvation is the gift, not faith. Not one place in the Bible is faith ever called a gift.

Calvinism quotes verses that avoid their contexts (which is why it's called "proof texting") like always citing John 1:13 while avoiding the clear and unambiguous statement of John 1:12 that shows the power to become the sons of God comes AFTER believing. They quote Ephesians 1 and avoid verse 13 which shows that the order of salvation is believing BEFORE being sealed by the Holy Spirit which is conditioned on "AFTER that ye believED".

Calvinism says men can not seek God by misquoting Romans 3 "there is none that seek after God" and avoid the plain fact that the Syro Phoenicean woman, Cornelius, the woman with an issue of blood, the prostitute with the alabaster box, numerous lepers, Zaccheus, the 3 "wise men", et al, all sought out Christ with absolutely no mention that God singled these people out to be drawn.

Calvinism relies on John 6 "all that the father giveth me SHALL COME TO ME" and ignrore the context that says, "IF I be lifted up I will DRAW ALL MEN unto myself" and then ignore the fact that JUDAS WAS ONE THAT WAS 'GIVEN" TO CHRIST and ended up LOST. John 17:12 which shows the Calvinist interpretation of John 6 is dead wrong. Judas was CALLED and CHOSEN but NEVER BELIEVED.

And then going back to the OP, as has been demonstrated there are clear contradictions from the Westminster Confessions and the statements by Calvin and Augustine from which they were derived that are not only inconsistent with Scripture but within themselves. Some here have blatantly-like Arthur Pink-said that God is the author and cause of ALL THINGS and yet when the Bible says God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33), when the Bible says God does not tempt men to evil (James 1:13) when the Bible shows that God neither desired nor caused Judah to sin (Jer 32:35) and when it is shown that God said something to David that did not come to pass (1 Samuel 23:11-14), these difficulties get brushed off in the Calvinist system, and force Calvinists to resort to circular reasoning around the proof texts of the Confessions.

There are some books that Calvinism avoids ALTOGETHER like the book of Revelation. Two thirds of the Bible is replete with prophecy, and yet it is a subject that is largely ignored by the majority of contemporary Calvinism and was almost ignored in its entirety by the Reformers (and Revelation was ignored completely by Calvin and Luther).

There are far more logical and Biblical reasons to reject Calvinism then there are for its support.

 

[psalms109:31]

You say you are a Calvinist above. Well surely you know what the "I" in TULIP stands for, it stands for "Irresistible Grace"

Here is a definition of Irresisitible Grace from a Reformed website so I will not be accused of misrepresentation.



Source- http://carm.org/dictionary-irresistible-grace

Do you agree that Jesus made it very clear that he sincerely wanted the children of Jersualem to come to him in Mat 23:37?

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!

Do you agree that Jesus is saying he sincerely desires to gather the children of Jerusalem under his wings here?

Did they come?

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!

Did they come? NO.

So OBVIOUSLY Jesus did not call them with Irresistible Grace or they would have irresistibly come. Isn't this correct?

So, did Jesus SINCERELY mean what he said when he said how often he would have gathered the children of Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks?

I am sorry I am having to break it down like this, but you are acting as though you cannot understand this. It is really very very simple.

Calvinism makes Jesus a liar.

The elect unto salvation are those who listen and learn, not those who do not listen and learn. Those who do listen and learn will be irresistible drawn. God did not randomly pick people He has a purpose to use them to bring more.

The elect are not those who are wise in their own eyes, He has hidden the truth from them. Those who do not listen and learn it is just a general call, they will not come.

Proverbs 3:
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.[Or will direct your paths]
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the Lord and shun evil.

Exodus 19
At Mount Sinai

19 On the first day of the third month after the Israelites left Egypt—on that very day—they came to the Desert of Sinai. 2 After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.

3 Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

Leviticus 19:
33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Numbers 9:
9 Then the Lord said to Moses, 10 “Tell the Israelites: ‘When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they are still to celebrate the Lord’s Passover, 11 but they are to do it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 12 They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations. 13 But if anyone who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, they must be cut off from their people for not presenting the Lord’s offering at the appointed time. They will bear the consequences of their sin.14 “‘A foreigner residing among you is also to celebrate the Lord’s Passover in accordance with its rules and regulations. You must have the same regulations for both the foreigner and the native-born.’”

Ephesians 1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

 

[Winman]

The elect unto salvation are those who listen and learn, not those who do not listen and learn. Those who do listen and learn will be irresistible drawn. God did not randomly pick people He has a purpose to use them to bring more.

This may be your personal belief, but it does not represent the doctrine of Irresistible Grace as held by Spurgeon and most Calvinist/Reformed. The doctrine of Irresistible Grace teaches that this call is a powerful call that will make the unwilling willing to listen and learn.

According to the doctrine of Irresistible Grace, Jesus could have called all the children of Jersusalem with this powerful effectual call and none of them would have been able to resist, 100% of them would have come to Jesus freely and willingly.

But they did not come, so obviously Jesus did not call them with this irresistible "effectual call" but with the powerless, general call.

The problem is, Jesus made it abundantly clear that he sincerely wanted them to come to him as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wings. Jesus said "How often would I have gathered thy children" which shows he repeatedly tried to draw them unto himself.

You can continue to act like you do not understand this. How ironic, Calvinists are always accusing non-Cals of not understanding Calvinism, now you, a Calvinist are acting like you do not understand your own doctrine. :laugh:

The elect are not those who are wise in their own eyes, He has hidden the truth from them. Those who do not listen and learn it is just a general call, they will not come.

That is not how it works in Calvinism. In Calvinism, the elect are whosoever God says are the elect. It has nothing to do with how wise (or unwise) they are. Are you forgetting that election is UNCONDITIONAL in Calvinism?

In Calvinism, if God calls you with the effectual call, you will irresistibly come to Jesus no matter what. You cannot resist.

 

[psalms109:31]

This may be your personal belief, but it does not represent the doctrine of Irresistible Grace as held by Spurgeon and most Calvinist/Reformed. The doctrine of Irresistible Grace teaches that this call is a powerful call that will make the unwilling willing to listen and learn.

According to the doctrine of Irresistible Grace, Jesus could have called all the children of Jersusalem with this powerful effectual call and none of them would have been able to resist, 100% of them would have come to Jesus freely and willingly.

But they did not come, so obviously Jesus did not call them with this irresistible "effectual call" but with the powerless, general call.

The problem is, Jesus made it abundantly clear that he sincerely wanted them to come to him as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wings. Jesus said "How often would I have gathered thy children" which shows he repeatedly tried to draw them unto himself.

You can continue to act like you do not understand this. How ironic, Calvinists are always accusing non-Cals of not understanding Calvinism, now you, a Calvinist are acting like you do not understand your own doctrine. :laugh:




That is not how it works in Calvinism. In Calvinism, the elect are whosoever God says are the elect. It has nothing to do with how wise (or unwise) they are. Are you forgetting that election is UNCONDITIONAL in Calvinism?

In Calvinism, if God calls you with the effectual call, you will irresistibly come to Jesus no matter what. You cannot resist.

I believe that is not at all what Calvinism the Gospel teaches. If it doesn't teach the Gospel it isn't Calvinism. If you do not hear but it isn't just to hear you can be ever hearing and never understanding it is to listen and learn. If you don't listen and learn you have nothing to make you willing.

 

[Inspector Javert]

John 6:45
"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants; I am the successor of the great and venerated Dr. Gill, whose theology is almost universally received among the stronger Calvinistic churches; but although I venerate his memory, and believe his teachings, yet he is not my Rabbi."
C.H. Spurgeon

This statement..........doesn't give you ANY pause at all????
That statement is at minimum counter-intuitive.......at maximum....it's contradictory. Let's dissect it:

"I believe his teachings, but he is not my Rabbi".....
let's translate into English:
"I believe his teachings, but he is not my teacher"

You see!!!.... we can substitute the word "Rabbi" for "teacher" and it means something completely different!!!

Here's my version of Spurgeon's statement:
"I support a woman's right to choose, but I'm against abortion."

This is why there are elected democrats in U.S. office:
Substitute the word "amnesty" for "comprehensive immigration reform"......and everyone falls for it. Rhetorical trash.
Spurgeon is engaged in "Newspeak"...just as predicted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
The venerable Thomas Sowell can see straight through this type of verbal sleight-of-hand as well:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell050813.php3#.UdBvu77D-1s

As it has been said: "Rhetoric not Reason, Poetry not logic".

This is why.....I've always cared quite little for Spurgeon's views on Soteriology. He said nothing meaningful..........he just insulted our intelligence.

The Eternal complaint against Calvinists from non-Cals is so apparent here:
The Arminian insists that "Words have meaning"...........and, again........Calvinists merely "re-define words". This is so transparent here.

 

[Winman]

I believe that is not at all what Calvinism the Gospel teaches. If it doesn't teach the Gospel it isn't Calvinism. If you do not hear but it isn't just to hear you can be ever hearing and never understanding it is to listen and learn. If you don't listen and learn you have nothing to make you willing.

That is not what Calvinism teaches. Read this again:

Irresistible Grace is a Reformed teaching that states that when God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God.

Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy." Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual. John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God. Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe, and John 1:12-13 where being born again is said to be not by man’s will, but by God’s.

It doesn't matter how stubborn and obstinate you are, it doesn't matter how much you resist and refuse to listen to God, if God calls you with this irresistible effectual call you will immediately become willing to listen and learn, you will come to Jesus for salvation.

It has nothing to do with the man himself, you could hate God with all your heart and be a total atheist, if God calls you with this effectual call you will immediately be willing to listen and learn, you will immediately believe, and nothing in the entire universe can prevent it.

This is what Spurgeon believed. This is Calvinism.

So again, if Jesus SINCERELY wanted all the children of Jerusalem to come to him as he clearly said, why didn't he simply call them with this effectual, irresistible call?

Let's quit playing games here. Do you really think anyone is fooled?

 

[psalms109:31]

This statement..........doesn't give you ANY pause at all????
That statement is at minimum counter-intuitive.......at maximum....it's contradictory. Let's dissect it:

"I believe his teachings, but he is not my Rabbi".....
let's translate into English:
"I believe his teachings, but he is not my teacher"

You see!!!.... we can substitute the word "Rabbi" for "teacher" and it means something completely different!!!

Here's my version of Spurgeon's statement:
"I support a woman's right to choose, but I'm against abortion."

This is why there are elected democrats in U.S. office:
Substitute the word "amnesty" for "comprehensive immigration reform"......and everyone falls for it. Rhetorical trash.
Spurgeon is engaged in "Newspeak"...just as predicted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
The venerable Thomas Sowell can see straight through this type of verbal sleight-of-hand as well:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell050813.php3#.UdBvu77D-1s

As it has been said: "Rhetoric not Reason, Poetry not logic".

This is why.....I've always cared quite little for Spurgeon's views on Soteriology. He said nothing meaningful..........he just insulted our intelligence.

The Eternal complaint against Calvinists from non-Cals is so apparent here:
The Arminian insists that "Words have meaning"...........and, again........Calvinists merely "re-define words". This is so transparent here.

Matthew 23:8
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.