John 10:15 and the Atonement

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Skandelon:
The passage Larry uses in Romans 8 says that men living in sin cannot please God, but that says nothing about their ability to respond in faith once confronted by the powerful gospel.

Actually, it says exactly that, especially in conjunction with the rest of Scripture. When Scripture says that the unsaved man "cannot please God" and "is not even able to do so," we believe that is true. We don't redefine it to fit our theology. We make our theology fit that.

Larry, in fact, I would dare say by your application of this text that you must conclude that even "the elect" cannot please God by responding in faith either, ... It doesn't matter how they come to believe, whether by choice or by irresistable means, they cannot, by ANY means, please God according to your application of this verse.

Incorrect becaseu the Bible clearly teaches us how people please God and how the elect come to their faith. God regenerates them and gives them faith. Therefore, you do not have unregenerate "in the flesh" men pleasing God through saving faith. God has given them the new heart and spiritual life to respond.

The means by which one come to believe and thus please God is not even discussed in this particular passage and therefore it is pure presumption to assume that the means by which we can please God are irresistable instead of by volition once confronted by the gospel. You have nothing but pure presumption.

Not every passage discusses every issue. But there is no passage that contradicts another, and yet that is what you are constantly doing. The fact that the "means" is not explicitly discussed does not mean that that "means" is any different than it is in any other passage. Your method is faulty by virtue of isolating this passage from others.

So, what is the problem? Why do you insist that because I believe men today have a free choice that I cannot be consistant in believing God knows men's choices? We believe the exact same thing about Adam's choice and man's knowledge of that choice and we come to the same conclusion that it was free, yet somehow I'm inconsistant? I don't get your point.

You believe that man has free will but you do not define that free will Scripturally. You believe that man's free will enables him to do things pleasing to God. Scripture says it does not. You are inconsistent in believing that man has free will but God's knowledge is full and complete from eternity past. If God knew you would believe, you had no choice but to believe. You could not have changed your mind when confronted with the gospel. You could not have said "No" because God already knew you were going to say "Yes." God's knowledge renders things certain. You do not have the freedom to change your mind.

 

[Bro. James]

Free-will, man has one--however,

his will is controlled by his depraved nature.

Therefore man not able to choose the good without the intervention of God--through the gift of faith. Eph. 2:8-10.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[nwells]

Skandelon:

You said:

"by your [Pastor Larry's] application of this text that you must conclude that even "the elect" cannot please God by responding in faith either"

The Bible says:
Romans 8:7-8 (NASB95)
"because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

So one that is of flesh has no ability to please God (for the mind set on the flesh is one who walks according to the flesh, Rom 8:5).

So while someone's mind is set on the flesh (meaning that they are walking according to the flesh) they have no ability to subject themselves to the law of God and they cannot please God. Is that a fair re-statement?

The opposite of walking according to the flesh is walking (the word "walking" is from verse 4) according to the Spirit.

And Scripture says:
Romans 8:9 (NASB95)
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

So the one that pleases God is the one who has the Spirit of God dwelling in him.

So by having the Spirit of God dwelling in us - then we can please God.

So we can conclude this: if anyone has an interpretation of this Scripture that no one can please God than that interpretation is false. Which I believe you would say - since you were trying to take out Pastor Larry's argument.

Then you said:

"But, you protest saying, No, God causes them to believe, so that they can believe and thus please God. (I believe the same thing except I don't believe the cause is irresistible as do you)."

So you believe that God causes us to believe but that when God causes someone to believe they can say, "No, I don't want to be saved."

So basically you believe that God makes those who are dead to be alive. But you say that after that person is alive (or somewhere in-between their being dead and being alive) they can say, "No, I don't want to be alive."

Or that, after someone is born - or somewhere in the birth canal - they can say, "No, I don't want to be born."

Both examples (being made alive and being re-born) are given in scripture as pictures of our being saved.

Scripture says:

Ephesians 2:1-2b, 4-5 (NASB95)
"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world...But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)"

To me Scripture is clear enough to say that we were dead, walking according to the flesh and God because of His great mercy, made us alive with Christ by His Spirit dwelling in us.

That it is irresistible -
again Scripture says:
Philippians 2:12-13 (NASB95)
"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

We are to work our salvation with fear and trembling because God is the one working in us - both to cause us to desire His will and for us to do what work He has planned for us.

If God is the one who gives us the will and the work - then how could God give a will (or desire) and then that person not will (desire) to do what God wants them to do?

And one more:
John 1:12-13 (NASB95)
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."


To be saved (to be called the children of God) We must receive Him - We must believe in His name - and those who believe were born by the will of God.

If a man can reject God who is willing him to be re-born, than that man is no longer being born by the will of God, but is now being born (or not born) by his own will.

If a man can say no to God - what else can say no to Him? How can we trust the promises of a God who has people (his creation) saying no? For maybe something else will say no to God and prevent God from fulfilling the things He has promised in His Word!

God must be able to control EVERYTHING or else He is not God. That one thing He cannot control, that one thing that is outside His reach is more powerful than He is - and that thing might be the thing that prevents Jesus from ever coming back - NO I say, NO! God controls everything - He is the first causation - nothing happens

I am opening myself for the question - "What about evil? God did not want evil did He?"

If God didn't ordain that evil exist - I will even say, if God did not will that evil would exist - IT WOULD NOT EXIST.

But evil does exist - it exists, "to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory"Romans 9:23).

Evil exists so that we can know God - and know how wonderful and beautiful He is! If all our days were good days - we would not fully know what a good day is. But if we have bad days and good days then we can know more fully what a good day is for we have known a bad one. And we would also love the good day more - because we do not like bad days.

If evil did not exist God would never have been able to show His wrath against sin or the fullness of His Justice, or Love for us nor would we be able to see any of His character as fully as we are now able.

Evil exists so that we can know God and desire Him more and glorify Him more - Evil exists for the glory of God.

God would not re-do the world. It is as He would have it. It was in His plan. Things did not go wrong.

I say these things not because I understand them, but because I believe Scripture clearly shows them to be true.

God ordained that evil exist (otherwise it would not exist) but He is in no way the author of evil.

God ordains that people go to hell (or none would go) but men are still responsible for their actions (in no way is God guilty for what men do).

God is more free than men. To trust Him means to trust that He is able to do what He has said. God will do what He said because He is God - He alone has the power to do all He has said. He plans and it occurs

Isaiah 46:8-11 (NASB95)
“Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors.
“Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;
Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it."


Because He lives,
Nathan

 

[Bro. James]

Option of choice--

How do we apply this "option" to the people who were destroyed by The Flood of Noah? Did they all get an opportunity to repent?

Noah found grace--not that he deserved it--God kept a remnant--to replenish the earth--for His good pleasure.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
When Scripture says that the unsaved man "cannot please God" and "is not even able to do so," we believe that is true. We don't redefine it to fit our theology. We make our theology fit that.

Oh brother Here we go again with the double standards. We also believe this is true. Men cannot please God ON THEIR OWN. We both believe men NEED ASSISTANCE to attain righteousness and to please our Father. You just believe that assistance is only for the elect and its irresistable, something this passage doesn't even get into. Therefore, you take this passage further than it goes by making it fit into what you want it to say or at least by making it say a whole lot more than what it actually does say.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Larry, in fact, I would dare say by your application of this text that you must conclude that even "the elect" cannot please God by responding in faith either, ... It doesn't matter how they come to believe, whether by choice or by irresistable means, they cannot, by ANY means, please God according to your application of this verse.

Incorrect becaseu the Bible clearly teaches us how people please God and how the elect come to their faith. God regenerates them and gives them faith. Therefore, you do not have unregenerate "in the flesh" men pleasing God through saving faith. God has given them the new heart and spiritual life to respond.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the bible does clearly teach us how people come to faith; by hearing the word. I have passages that indicate that regeneration comes through faith and that faith comes through the word, but we have been down that path before. It really doesn't matter because my point about Rom. 8 is that it only tells us about man's inability to please God on his own and obviously the passage is refering to the inability to fulfill the demands of the law. We know that its only through faith that man can please God (Heb 11:6) and this verse says nothing about man's ability to leave the flesh and act in faith once confronted by the Holy Spirit's inspired and powerful words.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The means by which one come to believe and thus please God is not even discussed in this particular passage and therefore it is pure presumption to assume that the means by which we can please God are irresistable instead of by volition once confronted by the gospel. You have nothing but pure presumption.

Not every passage discusses every issue. But there is no passage that contradicts another, and yet that is what you are constantly doing. The fact that the "means" is not explicitly discussed does not mean that that "means" is any different than it is in any other passage. Your method is faulty by virtue of isolating this passage from others.</font>[/QUOTE]Gotcha! You admit that this passage is not discussing the means by which a sinful, fleshly man might come to please God. I never claimed that every passage discusses every issue, nor have I presented any passages that contradict this one in Romans 8. And I'm not the one who "isolates" this passage. You are the one who pulls it out to support your view of Total Depravity which teaches that men are unable to willingly respond in faith to the gospel. This verse doesn't prove that, it doesn't even come close because as you have now admitted it doesn't even discuss the means by which one does come to please God.

Can you find the passage that teaches that men are unable to respond in faith to the gospel message?

You are inconsistent in believing that man has free will but God's knowledge is full and complete from eternity past. If God knew you would believe, you had no choice but to believe. You could not have changed your mind when confronted with the gospel. You could not have said "No" because God already knew you were going to say "Yes." God's knowledge renders things certain. You do not have the freedom to change your mind.

&lt;sigh&gt; Larry, you just said that you believe that God knew Adam's choice and that Adam made a free choice, but now you argue that because God knew my choice that it couldn't be free. You are the inconsistant one, not me. You think Adam's choice though known by God was free, but my choice because it was known by God couldn't have been free. That is called being inconsistant Larry.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by nwells:

The opposite of walking according to the flesh is walking (the word "walking" is from verse 4) according to the Spirit.

Yes, and the issue is that this verse doesn't discuss the means by which a man switches from walking in the flesh to walking in the Spirit therefore it cannot be used to support your position anymore than it can be used to support mine.

I'm still looking for a Calvinist that can find me one passage that actually does say its not possible for men to respond in faith to God's powerful gospel message.

And Scripture says:
Romans 8:9 (NASB95)
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

So the one that pleases God is the one who has the Spirit of God dwelling in him.

Yes, and I believe the promised Spirit comes to dwell through faith, while you believe that faith comes to a man through the Spirit's indwelling.

Which is it? Gal. 3:14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

I would love to deal with some of the other things you wrote but these posts are too long already. Let's deal with one issue or maybe two issues at a time.

Right now I'm dealing with Larry's inconsistancy in believing God's foreknowledge negates man's freedom, while maintaining Adam had freedom. And the question I presented about looking for a passage that teaches men lack the ability to willingly respond to the gospel message by which they will be judged.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Skandelon:
Oh brother Here we go again with the double standards. We also believe this is true. Men cannot please God ON THEIR OWN. We both believe men NEED ASSISTANCE to attain righteousness and to please our Father. You just believe that assistance is only for the elect and its irresistable, something this passage doesn't even get into. Therefore, you take this passage further than it goes by making it fit into what you want it to say or at least by making it say a whole lot more than what it actually does say.

There is not a double standard at all on my part. The passage says that natural man (unregenerated) cannot please God. Period. You think that he can.

Yes, the bible does clearly teach us how people come to faith; by hearing the word. I have passages that indicate that regeneration comes through faith and that faith comes through the word, but we have been down that path before. It really doesn't matter because my point about Rom. 8 is that it only tells us about man's inability to please God on his own and obviously the passage is refering to the inability to fulfill the demands of the law. We know that its only through faith that man can please God (Heb 11:6) and this verse says nothing about man's ability to leave the flesh and act in faith once confronted by the Holy Spirit's inspired and powerful words.

Man does come to faith through the word, but natural man (unregenerate) cannot understand the word (1 Cor 2:14). He is unable to do without the regeneration of the Spirit by which the mind dead in sin is made alive to understanding. You say this passage doesn't address man's inability to leave the flesh. Yet the passage plainly says what man cannot do. I would presume you accept that having faith pleases God. Yet the passage says that man cannot please God until he is regenerated, and he therefore cannot have faith.

Gotcha! You admit that this passage is not discussing the means by which a sinful, fleshly man might come to please God. I never claimed that every passage discusses every issue, nor have I presented any passages that contradict this one in Romans 8. And I'm not the one who "isolates" this passage. You are the one who pulls it out to support your view of Total Depravity which teaches that men are unable to willingly respond in faith to the gospel. This verse doesn't prove that, it doesn't even come close because as you have now admitted it doesn't even discuss the means by which one does come to please God.

What did you "get me" on? You are agreeing with what I have said about it as far as this statement goes.

Can you find the passage that teaches that men are unable to respond in faith to the gospel message?

Ys, we have shown this passage (Rom 8) as well as others. You are simply running them through your predetermined grid about what they must say. Since saving faith pleases God, and since the man in the flesh (unregenerate man) cannot please God, he therefore cannot have saving faith.

Larry, you just said that you believe that God knew Adam's choice and that Adam made a free choice, but now you argue that because God knew my choice that it couldn't be free. You are the inconsistant one, not me. You think Adam's choice though known by God was free, but my choice because it was known by God couldn't have been free. That is called being inconsistant Larry.

No, listen ... You are inconsistent in saying that man has to be able to choose A or B to have real freedom. You have misdefined freedom. YOu believe that man has to be able to choose against his nature in order to be free. I have rejected that definition of freedom because of hte inconsistency in it. I didn't argue that because God knew your choice it couldn't be free. I said it could. I pointed out that by your definition, it couldn't be free because you had no alternative. YOu had to choose what God knew you would choose. I think you are missing the point in your rush. Sit down and think about it for a minute: If God's knowledge is perfect and exhaustive, and if he knows that you will do a certain thing, then your choice is certain. You do not have the "freedom" to do anything else.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Man does come to faith through the word, but natural man (unregenerate) cannot understand the word (1 Cor 2:14). He is unable to do without the regeneration of the Spirit by which the mind dead in sin is made alive to understanding.

Well then how does the person understand the message before he believes? Don’t you think Judas understood well? He was not regenerated.

I think your statement files in the face of John 16:7-11, "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Skandelon:
There is not a double standard at all on my part. The passage says that natural man (unregenerated) cannot please God. Period. You think that he can.

Once again Larry you have to read your interpretation INTO the text by assuming that one is regenerated (born again by the Spirit's indwelling) BEFORE his faith in the word, yet the scripture is clear that God's means of bringing rebirth is through faith in his word. Do I need to quote you the verses yet again?

Man does come to faith through the word, but natural man (unregenerate) cannot understand the word (1 Cor 2:14). He is unable to do without the regeneration of the Spirit by which the mind dead in sin is made alive to understanding. You say this passage doesn't address man's inability to leave the flesh. Yet the passage plainly says what man cannot do. I would presume you accept that having faith pleases God. Yet the passage says that man cannot please God until he is regenerated, and he therefore cannot have faith.

It doesn't say that. It says that man cannot please God while living (or being) in the flesh. Isn't that statement still even true of you as a believer today? You have the Spirit indwelling you, but you still find yourself abiding in the flesh at times (at least I know I do). While I'm living in the flesh and making choices with my carnal desires I cannot please God, but does that imply that you and I as believers cannot please God at all? Of course not, it ONLY implies that we can't do so as long as we are living or being fleshly. It says nothing about our hearts responding to the Spirit's call in the powerful truth of the gospel message.

Can you find the passage that teaches that men are unable to respond in faith to the gospel message?

Ys, we have shown this passage (Rom 8) as well as others. You are simply running them through your predetermined grid about what they must say. Since saving faith pleases God, and since the man in the flesh (unregenerate man) cannot please God, he therefore cannot have saving faith.</font>

Once again this presumes that one is regenerated before having faith. Can you show me the text where it teaches that regeneration proceeds faith or do you base your belief of that dogma on this verse too?

No, listen ... You are inconsistent in saying that man has to be able to choose A or B to have real freedom. You have misdefined freedom. YOu believe that man has to be able to choose against his nature in order to be free. I have rejected that definition of freedom because of hte inconsistency in it.

I don't remember offering any defination of freedom. Do you mind giving your defination for us to consider?

Sproul says that Adam was: "Able to sin and able not to sin." What do you say?

I didn't argue that because God knew your choice it couldn't be free. I said it could.

So you believe that even if God fully knows my choices that they could be free.

So do I. What's the problem? Why do you think I have to believe something you don't simply because I maintain that man maintains the element of volition that Adam had in the garden despite the negative influence of the fall?

I think you are missing the point in your rush. Sit down and think about it for a minute: If God's knowledge is perfect and exhaustive, and if he knows that you will do a certain thing, then your choice is certain. You do not have the "freedom" to do anything else.

First, I'm not in a rush. I think it is clear to any objective reader that you are the one being inconsistant here.

Second, you seem to contradict yourself AGAIN by now saying, "If God's knowledge is perfect and exhaustive, and if he knows that you will do a certain thing, then your choice is certain. You do not have the "freedom" to do anything else." While earlier you said, "I didn't argue that because God knew your choice it couldn't be free. I said it could."

So you argue, "You do not have the freedom to do anything else." And you argue that it could be free. Which is it Larry?

 

[Felix]

Once again this presumes that one is regenerated before having faith. Can you show me the text where it teaches that regeneration proceeds faith or do you base your belief of that dogma on this verse too?

Mark the following and judge for yourself whether these prove that regeneration precedes faith or not:

“For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.” Phil 1:29

Obviously Paul here is talking to believers only. If the ability ‘to believe in Him’ is given to every individual without exception, why would Paul single out faith in this case as a special gift that has been granted for Christ’s sake to believers? Paul says that ‘faith’, more precisely saving faith (belief in Him) has been granted to believers only! We might want to add that this ‘granting’ is nothing else than the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Has it been granted then to unbelievers as well? Parallel to this verse is 2 Peter 1:1, which says:

“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ… “

Here Peter is talking about believers who ‘have obtained like precious faith’. If faith is a given ability in everyone, why did believers have to obtain it? Think about it, really, if faith is something that everyone has, than this fraction of the sentence does not even make sense: “ that have obtained like precious faith with us.”
But perhaps the best verse I can think of that will show us that regeneration, the work of the Holy Spirit must come first is Gal 5:22:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.”

We have here listed the fruits of the Spirit in His regenerating work. Faith is being listed as the ‘fruit’ of the Spirit. It cannot mean that the Spirit gives all these fruits to everyone without exception; that would result in love, joy, peace, etc also being in unbelievers, which is unthinkable.

Thank you, God bless

 

[Wes Outwest]

Pastor Larry said,

IN the biblical view, freedom/liberty is the ability to act in accordance with one's nature. Since man is born with a sin nature as a old man, he can make free choices to sin. He cannot make free choice to repent and turn to God.

Larry, Who is "the restrainer" that prevents evil from being dominant in the world? Can you think for a moment that man's sin nature may not be all consuming as you depict, but that mankind does indeed have the choice to do what is righteous even though his nature is that of "a sinner"? If not, how did Noah do it? Moses?, Joshua?, Aaron?, Eli?, and what about Abraham?, etc. If they could do it why not you and I? Oh, but they were "elected" ...right? But,where in scripture do you find that they were elect from before their birth to have FAITHFUL in God? Jesus, Jacob, and John the Baptist may be exceptions who was elected, but why not all of those 0ld patriarchs? Why don't we have a "written record of their 'election' prior to their birth?

The point is, you do not have the evidence that you think you have! I certainly would not base my salvation on what you are telling us. Our salvation is based on FAITH alone! There is nothing else that gets our names written in the book of life! If our names are not found in the book of life, we get cast into the lake of fire.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Pastor Larry;

Thinking biblically means bringing your thoughts under the authority of Scripture. We have shown numerous places where your side does not do that. We do not agree on significant parts of it because of that reason.

Then what you're really saying is that all Arminians are lost because they do not think Biblically and Calvinism has already proved that those who oppose Calvinism are lost.So Calvinism is the one true doctrine.

IMHO I can't accept this as anything more than sheer nonsense. It is Calvinist who doesn't think Biblically. This below is the biggest reason why.

Of course, I would like to hear an explanation for a conversation, that MUST happen at the end of time (if Calvinism is true) :

The Excuse of the reprobate;

God: "Sorry, you're outta here."
Reprobate: "How can I be condemned by sin?"
God; "Hey, you chose to sin; the wages of sin are death."
Reprobate; "But I couldn't choose anything else, could I?"
God; "No, of course not; I didn't elect you."
Reprobate; "But how could I believe, if only YOUR ELECTION could allow that, and YOU didn't CHOOSE me?"
God; "Everybody was condemned, before I elected some."
Reprobate; "But that's my POINT --- if only Your choice COULD save ANYONE, then how am I condemned for YOUR OTHER CHOICE?"
God; "I didn't choose you to go to Hell."
Reprobate; "Yes You did; by choosing the FEW for salvation, and ignoring me, you choose me for Hell. How is that just?"
God; "I have mercy on whom I will have mercy."
Reprobate; "It's justice to condemn so many people, who had NTHER CHOICE?"
God; "It's justice if I SAY it's justice."
Reprobate; "No, it's justice if the CONDEMNED, get what they desever because of choosing the wrong path."
God; "You chose to sin."
Reprobate; "But I could choose nothing else --- only Your ELECTION could have arrested my 'choosing-to-sin'."
God; "So?"
Reprobate; "But why am I condemned for what I COULD NOT AVOID?"
God; "I was revealed to you; Paul said so in Romans1:19 and 20. You are without excuse."
Reprobate; "But You weren't REALLY revealed to me, if I needed to be equipped to BELIEVE, and YOU DENIED that EQUIPPING. That's the best excuse in the world!"
God; "You have no excuse; you are condemned by your sins."
Reprobate; "But if I had NO CHOICE, what could POSSIBLY be a better excuse???"
God; "I didn't cause you to sin and perish."
Reprobate; "Yes You did! If ONLY Your forceful intervention COULD have rescued me, and You chose NOT to, then You chose me to perish!"

...What is the end of this discussion? How can God be just? How can the reprobate, not have the best excuse ever?
This IMHO is the biggest flaw of Calvinism and it is a genuine inconsistency.

There is no stalemate here. The Bible teaches that God elects individuals to salvation from before the foundation of the world. The only way around that truth is to change the meanings of words or to simply ignore the verses.

I agree that we are chosen before the foundation of the world, but we all are chosen. Calvinism teaches that election insures Salvation and that it is individual directly contradicting scripture. Romans 11:11 Salvation was originally of the Jews only, but now it is also come to the Gentiles as a whole. 2nd Peter 1 tells us what we must do to make that election sure. Certainly seems to me if there is anything we can do to make our election sure and we ignore it. This can mean that our election will not be sure.
There are far more inconsistencies in Calvinism than Arminianism. And this is looking at it from my perspective, because I disagree with both views.

The Bible teaches that God elects individuals to salvation from before the foundation of the world.

I disagree; There is not one passage that supports individual election.

The only way around that truth is to change the meanings of words or to simply ignore the verses.

I disagree again No one has to find there way around something that simply doesn't exist in the Bible.

We have demonstrated that numerous times from many passages of Scripture.

I disagree again if you had then there would be no debate.

We have answered every single argument that your side has put forth. ]

Answerd maybe but refute I don't think so. What you have done is prove nothing, but that your doctrine of Calvinism is of men and not Biblical at all.

The Bible teaches what unfortunately has become known as Calvinism.

I disagree, IMHO you don't have any scripture that backs up a single point of the tulip. The only thing I can say that is positive about Calvinist is that they do believe in Christ.

May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Skandelon]

Mike,

While I appreciate the intent of your conversation between God and man, I see it a bit differently:

God: Depart from me you worker of iniquity I never knew you
Man: I was a decent person, why am I condemned?
God: You were a sinner from birth and I provided the world a way of attaining righteousness through my Son but you rejected His words and now they have come back to judge you.
Man: Christ's words are judging me? But I couldn't respond to Christ's words, I wasn't "elect" and only the elect can willingly respond in faith. (The Calvinist explain it to me on the bus ride over :wink
God: Indeed, only those I chose and regenerated could respond to my message in faith.
Man: So a man had to be reborn before he could even understand or respond in faith to your message, but yet you are judging me by the words that I have rejected? I could do no other, so how can I be judged by the words I can't even understand or believe?
God: That's was my plan from the beginning. You're condemned.
Man: Wait, let me understand, I was born unable to do anything in regard to Christ's words yet its because of my rejection of his words that I'm being condemned?
God: Yep. Too bad. But, hey if it makes you feel better it wasn't because of anything good or bad you did, it was just for my own glory.
Man: No, that doesn't make me feel any better! You're telling me I have to perish for eternity for being born in your world so that you can impress people? How do you think that brings you glory? It makes even Calvinistic believers feel as if they were drug kicking and screaming to such conclusions about you and has lead them to have to formulate all types of explainations about your nature in this regard.
God: Here's you, "I don't want to perish, blah, blah, blah," Here is me, bu bye!
Man: People told me you were a God of mercy and love and they told me that you loved me and would save me if I believed in you. Was that not true?
God: In theroy, but really that was a message meant for my chosen ones, not you.
Man: So why bother inviting me and all the rest? Why not just regenerate your elect internally and take them home to worship you as you "glory" in the perishing of their family members and friends?
God: Because I wanted my elect ones to be apart of informing the other elect ones that they are elect.
Man: Oh, then why did Paul and others strive so hard to persuade the people they encountered, couldn't have he just said, "Jesus was the Christ and if you believe that your chosen." And then move on?
God: He must not have gotten the memo.

 

[Skandelon]

Truth is this. If the Calvinistic God is the true God then Paul was more meriful than Him. Paul was willing to be cut off from Christ for the sake of the lost, yet God didn't care for them whatsoever. What a horrible view of God; less merciful than men.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Skandelon;

Truth is this. If the Calvinistic God is the true God then Paul was more meriful than Him. Paul was willing to be cut off from Christ for the sake of the lost, yet God didn't care for them whatsoever. What a horrible view of God; less merciful than men.

I Agree. What Calvinism fails to see is that God, is a God of Love. If He is a God of Love He cares a great deal more for man than He does His own pleasure. This is what Calvinist fail to understand about God being Love.
1Co 13:4 Love is always patient, Love is always kind, Love is never envious Or vaunted up with pride. Nor is she conceited,
1Co 13:5 And never is she rude, Never does she think of self Or ever get annoyed. She never is resentful,
1Co 13:6 Is never glad with sin, But always glad to side with truth, Whene'er the truth should win.
1Co 13:7 She bears up under everything, Believes the best in all, There is no limit to her hope, And never will she fall.

As far as man having a choice of which path to follow the Calvinist ignores the fact that God pleaded with Israel to turn from there sin. If they didn't have a choice why did He plead with them to turn from there sin.
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
So much for God's irresistible drawing to Salvation. It wasn't even irresistible to the elect
Just doesn't sound like man's destiny is set unalterable by God to me;
Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

So much for all that pleasure he gets from predestinating men to Hell.

May God Bless you;
Mike

 

[nwells]

Reprobate: "How can I be condemned by sin?"
God: "Hey, you chose to sin; the wages of sin are death."
Reprobate: "But I couldn't choose anything else, could I?"
God: "No, of course not; I didn't elect you."

Interesting, that this same question is asked in scripture.

Why does God find fault with people? For everyone does exactly what He wants them to do! I sinned because I couldn't choose anything else!

Romans 9:19 (NKJV)
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”

In this sense it doesn't matter who this verse is talking about (those of you who say it is Israel or whatever) because that is not the point.

The point is the question is asked - therefore I would say - anyone's who does not have this question in their theology does not have a theology that is Biblical.

If we believe men choose first - there is no need to ask this question.

BUT if we believe that it is God who runs and God who chooses THEN the question begs to be asked - and it is asked and it is answered.

Although the answer is one most are unhappy with.

Why does the question exist in Paul's theology? Because - Paul was saying that God chose to harden Pharaoh - and could Pharaoh do anything else? Well, no - and that is why he brings up the question - because anyone who is thinking would ask the same question.

Just thoughts - think away,
Nathan

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Nwells;

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”

I see this verse as Irony simply because men do resist His will all the time.

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

Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Jam 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

Jam 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Resisting is also called rebellion.

May God bless you;
Mike

 

[nwells]

If it was irony - why did he ask the question and then answer it?

Paul's question is asked in the same way in 9:14.

The question was legitimate based on what Paul was saying - and so he brought it up, knowing they would ask it as a good teacher would - he anticipates their objection (first, that if God did that then there would be injustice in God and second if God did what Paul was saying that God should not find fault in anyone because they didn't do anything, for they had no choice and could not resist His will).

Men resist God's will, in that He desires them to live a life that is holy as His life is holy - BUT
Judas did not live a holy life, but did what it was given him to do - Pharaoh did not follow God's will, in that he should have followed God's commandment, but that in another way, God ordained that Pharaoh would disobey so that God's name would be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.

They did what they wanted to - they resisted God, and yet they did exactly what was in God's plan - for God used their evil for good - in that no man does anything without God ordaining that it would be done.

Nothing happens outside the will of God - for all things are for His glory.


One more question - if Paul’s question is irony - why does he not quote one of the verses you did? It would have been very easy for Paul to say - HEY - we CAN resist God - see, look at these verses!

But instead Paul answers with - God has skill and knowledge that we do not - who are we to question - for God is doing these things in a way we cannot understand, but this: because of what He has chosen, those who are His will know the great riches of his glory - meaning that we know Him more completely and more deeply than if God did it another way.

The way God did things was in a way so that He could receive the most glory - and since we were created to glorify Him - it is best for us when God receives the most glory.

There is a reason Paul did not say in answering his question, “That is stupid to think that no man can resist God’s will - because we all know that men can!”

But rather Paul upheld the statement in the question - that being that NO MAN CAN RESIST GOD’S WILL.

Because He lives,
Nathan

 

[Ray Berrian]

Double jeopardy?

Christ died for the sins of the world. [John 1:7c; 1:29; 3:17; I Timothy 2:6; I John 2:2]

If some sinners reject the Son does that detract from His glory and eternality? I say this respectfully, but if some refuse His plan, does this take 'life out of the Godhead.' What is this 'double jeopardy theory?' Who dreamed up this philosophy?

While He died for all humans [Hebrews 2:9] not all will be saved. This is a fact we all believe. And why did He die for all human/siners, if only His chosen can come into the Kingdom? Calvinists please stay with this text and do not diminish its import.

The Lord God really loves everyone, enough so,that He died for all sins. [I John 2:2]

 

[nwells]

Ray:

You said:
"If some sinners reject the Son does that detract from His glory and eternality?"

No - otherwise no one would reject the Son.

Isaiah 48:11 (NAS95)
"For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another."


People who reject the Son exist for the glory of God. Those who recieve the Son exist for the glory of God. Those who reject - exist for the purpose of God showing the riches of His glory to those who recieve - who therefore glorify God for what He has done and for who God is in His beauty.


Romans 9:22-23 (NKJV)
"What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory"

Because He lives,
Nathan