Let's suppose Calvinism is true...then why don't all Christians believe it?

[Johnv]

Not so. Has God ever "elected" someone who rejected salvation?

I never said He did. The elect are those who are saved. The saved are those who accepted salvation. But since accepting salvation is temporal and election is not temporal, it cannot be said that accepting salvation makes on elect, nor can it be said that election prevents someone from accepting salvation. Again, the concept of election and of man's responsibility are not mutually exclusive.

 

[webdog]

It doesn't make sense to state election and man's responsibility are mutually exclusive in light of the fact God doesn't "elect" those apart from faith. God's choosing of men is always based on faith in Christ, it can never be exclusive of this. To state one is temporal (faith) and one is not (election) is contradictory Both are temporal to man, and eternal to God...but never opposite in either's view.

 

[Skandelon]

And there it is! A clear example of Skandelon refusing to understand the fact that the concept of election does not conflict with a person having free will to accept or reject salvation.

Depends on which Calvinist you are talking to and the mood he is in...for example:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif]Arthur Pink states, [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif]“If then God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass then He must have decreed that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved to suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire. Admitting the general premise, is not the specific conclusion inevitable?” (p. 84). [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif]Again, Pink says, [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif]“Now if God had willed their salvation, would He not have vouchsafed them the means of salvation? Would He not have given them all things necessary to that end? But it is an undeniable matter of fact that He did not” (p. 83). [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Rippon]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif]Arthur Pink states, [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif]“If then God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass then He must have decreed that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved to suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire. Admitting the general premise, is not the specific conclusion inevitable?” (p. 84). [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif]Again, Pink says, [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, Serif]“Now if God had willed their salvation, would He not have vouchsafed them the means of salvation? Would He not have given them all things necessary to that end? But it is an undeniable matter of fact that He did not” (p. 83). [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

I agree with Arthur.

 

[Martin]

John 6:37 does not prove "effectual calling."

==I disagree. Jesus clearly states that those the Father gives Him "will" come to Him: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (Jn 6:37). In verse 44 he restates it a different way, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day". Notice that those the Father draws to Jesus, Jesus will raise up on the last day. In verse 45 Jesus tells us that "everyone who has heard and learned of the Father, comes to Me". Did you catch that? Everyone who has heard and learned of the Father comes to Jesus. There is no doubt in any of those statements. Jesus uses clear language to make it clear that those the Father gives Him will come to Him, those the Father draws to Him will come to Him, and everyone who hears and learns of the Father comes to Him. That is effectual calling if I have ever read it. And, as we will see below, the context only enforces this natural understanding of the text.

You must read this passage within its context. Who is the audience? What is going on? What is unique about this historical situation of this time?

a. Jesus is speaking to the Jews who are being hardened in their rebellion.

==I agree, and that is why He makes the point that "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (vs37). That is in direct contrast to the unbelieving Jews who Jesus said had seen but still not believed (vs36). All those the Father gives to Jesus come to Him, those the Father does not give or draw to Jesus cannot come to Him (vs 44).

b. Jesus is only revealing himself fully to the remnant of Israel while on earth, the rest are being hardened.

==I'm not totally sure what you are driving at here. Nor am I sure how that changes the natural and clear meaning of John 6:37-45 (etc).

c. Jesus is speaking in parables so they don't believe, sending them a spirit of stupor so they remain in darkness.

==John 6:37 is not a parable, neither is John 6:38-45. So, once again, I'm not sure how your comment directly deals with the issue presented in John 6:37.

He is not drawing all men to himself at this time in history. Once is he lifted up he draws all men to himself through his appointed means...the church and the preaching of the gospel.

==That sounds good on the surface, but it does not pan out very well. To go with your understanding, we have to understand John 6:37-45 (etc) and the truths contained there in a temporal manner. However there is nothing in the text to support that claim. Appealing to John 12:32 will not support your argument either since there Jesus is talking about a general drawing (ie...the Gospel will go out to all the earth). There is the outward call of the Gospel and all men are called via that outward call. John 6:37-45, however, refers to the inward call and God's sovereignty in salvation. God gives certain people to the Father and they come to Jesus.

John 17 also argues against your case. Here Jesus again points out that He gives eternal life only to those the Father has given Him (Jn 17:2). This applies not only to the apostles but also to everyone who would believe through their words (vs20).

The Father did not stop being sovereign in salvation at the end of Jesus' earthly ministry.

Since God is not the one who effectually causes you to come to correct doctrine, what is it about you that made you right and other wrong (assuming you are right of course)?

==The Bible does not teach effectual calling to perfect doctrine. As followers of Christ we are to be in His Word so that we will be approved workmen who do not need to be ashamed (2Tim 2:15). Though the Bible does not teach effectual calling to perfect/correct doctrine, it does teach effectual calling to salvation. Those God has given to Christ will, in time, come to Him.

 

[Skandelon]

==I disagree. Jesus clearly states that those the Father gives Him "will" come to Him: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (Jn 6:37). In verse 44 he restates it a different way, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day". Notice that those the Father draws to Jesus, Jesus will raise up on the last day. In verse 45 Jesus tells us that "everyone who has heard and learned of the Father, comes to Me". Did you catch that? Everyone who has heard and learned of the Father comes to Jesus. There is no doubt in any of those statements. Jesus uses clear language to make it clear that those the Father gives Him will come to Him, those the Father draws to Him will come to Him, and everyone who hears and learns of the Father comes to Him. That is effectual calling if I have ever read it. And, as we will see below, the context only enforces this natural understanding of the text.

Bro, when I was a Calvinist I argued the EXACT same thing. I understand what you are saying. I really do.

I also know how terribly difficult it is to see any other perspective than what you just explained, but trust me, there is another perspective and it really does make more sense and fits with the whole revelation of the scripture. You have to objectively look at these verses from a new perspective...you don't have to agree with me, but at least understand my view as well as I understand yours so that you can objectively and prayerfully consider which way is correct. Okay?

==I'm not totally sure what you are driving at here. Nor am I sure how that changes the natural and clear meaning of John 6:37-45 (etc).

Jesus is only revealing himself fully to the remnant of Israel (His Disciples) while on earth, the rest are being hardened. The nature of Jesus' audience and the historical context in John 6 is significant in understanding the authors intent. That is hermeneutics 101. Jesus is speaking to a large group of people, who for the most part are all being temporarily and purposefully blinded.

Let me try it this way... If right now I were to ask you, "Why couldn't Jesus' audience believe him?" You, as a good Calvinists, would answer by saying something like, "They are not chosen, therefore they are still totally depraved and cannot understand and repent."

But, what I'm telling you is that they cannot believe for a VERY DIFFERENT reason. In fact John tells us exactly why they can't:

Jn12:39: But the people couldn't believe, for as Isaiah also said, 40 "The Lord has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts – so their eyes cannot see, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them."

See, its not as Calvinists presume. They can't believe because they are being hardened by God in their rebellion. But wait! A Calvinists will say, that only proves my point! God is blinding some people from seeing and believing and that is what Calvinism teaches, but hear me out on this. The Judicial hardening of Israel is unique from Calvinism's claims because this Judicial hardening of Israel is not from birth (like Total Depravity), its not a permanent condition unto certain condemnation (like being the non-elect) and its not a universal condition of all mankind...it is Israel, for the scripture says, For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" (Acts 28:28)

Notice two thing here Martin. 1. The word "Otherwise": What was their ability had they not become hardened? They might see, hear, understand and turn, right? How is that possible if Calvinism is true?

2. The contrast between the Jews, who are hardened and the Gentiles, who are not. They WILL LISTEN. The Jews would not and now they cannot, but that doesn't mean all humanity has that same inborn nature of total inability.

==John 6:37 is not a parable, neither is John 6:38-45. So, once again, I'm not sure how your comment directly deals with the issue presented in John 6:37.

I wasn't talking about Jn 6 being a parable I was referring to the historical context of that day where God was purposefully blinding the Jews and Jesus was preaching to them in parables so they couldn't understand (Mk 4 etc). Once again, what is the purpose in Jesus hiding the message from the Jews? They had to be provoked so they would kill him. And as Paul explains in Romans 9-11, God had to graft the Gentiles into the vine. But as Romans 11:14 states, they are not hardened unto certain death, they might be saved.

==That sounds good on the surface, but it does not pan out very well. To go with your understanding, we have to understand John 6:37-45 (etc) and the truths contained there in a temporal manner.

Its not about being temporal, its about being contextual...what is happening at that moment in time that can help us better understand the intent of the author.

However there is nothing in the text to support that claim. Appealing to John 12:32 will not support your argument either since there Jesus is talking about a general drawing (ie...the Gospel will go out to all the earth). There is the outward call of the Gospel and all men are called via that outward call. John 6:37-45, however, refers to the inward call and God's sovereignty in salvation. God gives certain people to the Father and they come to Jesus.

Again, I understand your view. But consider that both John 6 and John 12 could be interpreted "generally." In John 6, after the verses you plucked out Jesus does go on to say, "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 him up at the last day."

Follow me on this. You are willing to interpret John 12 more generally, so why not consider that method here? Jesus is speaking to a bunch of people who cannot believe in him because God is temporarily hardening them. He just feed a bunch of them, they wanted to make him king so he went away on a boat. They follow him and they wanted to see more signs so that they could believe, but instead he talks about himself being the "Bread of life" and that they must eat his flesh. Obviously he is provoking them with a hard teaching. He is blinding them again with "parables" and difficult sayings. See my point.

Now, in that context he is telling them, you can't come to me, only the remnant (those reserved from the Hardening out of Israel) can...my disciples can come to me and I will raise them up in the last day, but it is my father's will that all who see the SON and believe on him will be saved and they too will be raised up. But, you Israel, cannot come to me.

Now, you can take that speech and turn it into a Soteriology applicable to all mankind if you want, but you'd be too late because Augustine and Calvin beat you to it. My point being that this is a speech for a temporarily blinded audience with a few in it who were reserved from that hardening process. You can't hardly justify creating a doctrine of salvation based upon that.

John 17 also argues against your case. Here Jesus again points out that He gives eternal life only to those the Father has given Him (Jn 17:2). This applies not only to the apostles but also to everyone who would believe through their words (vs20).

Same historical context. For clarity, remember there are 3 groups of people being discussed:
1. Remnant of Israel: The Jews not blinded by God and appointed to be apostles to take the message to the world
2. Israel: Rebellious people who God was patient with for a long time, now being blinded in that rebellion so they can't see the clear truth right in front of their noses.
3. Those who will believe in Jesus through the message brought to the world by the Remnant.

Eternal life is given to the remnant and all those who believe through their message.

 

[Amy.G]

2. The contrast between the Jews, who are hardened and the Gentiles, who are not. They WILL LISTEN. The Jews would not and now they cannot, but that doesn't mean all humanity has that same inborn nature of total inability.

Oh happy day!!! Someone has finally explained Matthew 23:37!

Mt*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!

Eternal life is given to the remnant and all those who believe through their message.

Could this remnant be the "sheep" that "hear My voice"? I believe so.

This is why we can't just jumble Israel and Gentiles into one big group of people.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh happy day!!! Someone has finally explained Matthew 23:37!

Mt*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!


Could this remnant be the "sheep" that "hear My voice"? I believe so.

This is why we can't just jumble Israel and Gentiles into one big group of people.

You got it! :thumbs:

This is the mistake I made as a Calvinists for years. Not knowing the historical context will kill proper hermeneutics. We MUST understand that at this time in history there are at least 3 very distinct groups of people and when we try to pull our theological constructs from texts that are addressing the condition of one of those groups and apply them to the whole of mankind we are bound to make serious errors in our interpretation of scripture. That is what I believe Calvinists have done.

 

[Winman]

Skandelon

I like everything you wrote here and agree with it. The only point I would like to make is that those who God blinds are people who are rebellious and given over to sin. These are those God "gives up" in Romans 1.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

God is just. He does not blind men simply to bring about his purposes, although he does do that. No, these are men who have been shown the truth. The unbeleving Jews had just as much revelation and truth revealed to them as the believing Jews.

It speaks of this blinding of Israel in Romans 11.

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.

The elect received the promise, this is those who believed. Those who believed not were blinded. So, this blinding is just. But they are not so blinded that they cannot repent and believe.

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Yes, this blinding of Israel was for the purpose of taking the gospel to the Gentiles to provoke unbelieving Israel to jealousy. But they were not blinded solely to bring about God's purpose. They were justly blinded because they had rejected God's word and revelation to them many times.

There is a point at which God will no longer strive with man. There is a point at which man crosses the line. Pharaoh and king Ahab are great examples. Jesus said:

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

The unbelieving Jews have no excuse. Jesus, the Son of God appeared to them in the flesh. They saw his many miracles, and heard his teachings and words with their own eyes and ears. But still they refused to believe. So they were blinded.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon

I like everything you wrote here and agree with it. The only point I would like to make is that those who God blinds are people who are rebellious and given over to sin.

Correct. Just as Paul explains just before he explains the hardening in Romans 11:

Romans10:21 But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

These are people he is blinding in order to keep them in their rebellion temporarily while Christ was accomplishing his purpose.

 

[Winman]

Correct. Just as Paul explains just before he explains the hardening in Romans 11:

Romans10:21 But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

These are people he is blinding in order to keep them in their rebellion temporarily while Christ was accomplishing his purpose.

Agreed. :thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

Oh happy day!!! Someone has finally explained Matthew 23:37!

Mt*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!





Could this remnant be the "sheep" that "hear My voice"? I believe so.

This is why we can't just jumble Israel and Gentiles into one big group of people.

...and this from another ex-calvinist (even if was for a short while ) Seems to be a growing club

 

[zrs6v4]

...and this from another ex-calvinist (even if was for a short while ) Seems to be a growing club

Must be getting close to the end of times... hehe, jk

 

[Martin]

I also know how terribly difficult it is to see any other perspective than what you just explained, but trust me, there is another perspective and it really does make more sense and fits with the whole revelation of the scripture. You have to objectively look at these verses from a new perspective...you don't have to agree with me, but at least understand my view as well as I understand yours so that you can objectively and prayerfully consider which way is correct. Okay?

==I am aware that there are other "understandings" of John 6:36-45 (etc). However, having carefully studied the text, I don't believe any of those "understandings" fit the natural reading of the text. I understand the various non-Calvinistic views of this text (even those who say that salvation can be lost). However I just don't find them convincing at all.

Jesus is only revealing himself fully to the remnant of Israel (His Disciples) while on earth, the rest are being hardened. The nature of Jesus' audience and the historical context in John 6 is significant in understanding the authors intent. That is hermeneutics 101. Jesus is speaking to a large group of people, who for the most part are all being temporarily and purposefully blinded.

==That, it would seem, would be the point of verses 36-37 (10:26-27). God has given some to Christ, and they will come to Him, while the rest are left in their sin and rejection. That is the Calvinistic understanding of the text and it is my understanding of the text.

Let me try it this way... If right now I were to ask you, "Why couldn't Jesus' audience believe him?" You, as a good Calvinists, would answer by saying something like, "They are not chosen, therefore they are still totally depraved and cannot understand and repent."

But, what I'm telling you is that they cannot believe for a VERY DIFFERENT reason. In fact John tells us exactly why they can't:

Jn12:39: But the people couldn't believe, for as Isaiah also said, 40 "The Lord has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts – so their eyes cannot see, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them."

See, its not as Calvinists presume. They can't believe because they are being hardened by God in their rebellion. But wait! A Calvinists will say, that only proves my point! God is blinding some people from seeing and believing and that is what Calvinism teaches, but hear me out on this. The Judicial hardening of Israel is unique from Calvinism's claims because this Judicial hardening of Israel is not from birth (like Total Depravity), its not a permanent condition unto certain condemnation (like being the non-elect) and its not a universal condition of all mankind.

==You are only making the point I am trying to make. People, Jew or Gentile, can't believe in Jesus unless/until the Father gives them/draws them to Jesus (Jn 6:44). The people mentioned in passages like John 12:39 or Matthew 13:10-17 are those who have not been given to the Son by the Father. If they had, they would have responded to Jesus' message (Jn 10:26-27).

Btw, this is true about individual Jews and Gentiles. In John 6:44 Jesus clearly says, "No one can come to Me", that means anyone. Nobody, be they Jew or Gentile, can come to Christ apart from the Father's drawing. I think Paul supports this argument in Romans 3:9-11, 8:29-30. No person "naturally" comes to faith in Christ. Naturally people do not seek after the true God. It is only when God involves Himself in their life that they will come to Him. Btw, most non-Calvinists I know will agree with that point.

..it is Israel, for the scripture says, For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them."Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" (Acts 28:28)

Notice two things here Martin. 1. The word "Otherwise": What was their ability had they not become hardened? They might see, hear, understand and turn, right? How is that possible if Calvinism is true?

==The people Paul is talking about are clearly not of the elect. Like the people mentioned in John 12 and Matthew 13, God has hardened their hearts and blinded their eyes (Rom 9:15-18).

2. The contrast between the Jews, who are hardened and the Gentiles, who are not. They WILL LISTEN. The Jews would not and now they cannot, but that doesn't mean all humanity has that same inborn nature of total inability.

==Paul's statement in Acts 28:28 does not mean that all Gentiles will listen. Clearly Paul believed that both Jews and Gentiles alike do not naturally seek after God (Rom 3:9-11). Also, just read Paul's letters and look at Church History and you will clearly see that all Gentiles do not listen. For a period of time God has turned away from the Jews (as a nation). This does not mean that all Jews are or will be lost, there is an elect from the nation of Israel even today (Rom 11:1-6). There are also elect among the gentiles (Rom 11:25, 8:29-30, 2Thess 2:13, 1Cor 1:30, etc). God's election of individuals, Jew or Gentile, to salvation is to prove that salvation is of grace and not of works (ex: Rom 9:11-18, 11:5-6). Salvation and faith are gifts from God, no man who is saved has any reason to boast before God. All boasting has been done away with. Salvation is totally of the Lord (Eph 2:8-9, Phil 1:29, 2Tim 2:25, etc). When you stand before the Lord in heaven one day you will have nothing to brag about. You will stand their totally by His grace and by His doing. Though you may not understand it or accept it now, you are only saved at this time because the Father gave you to Christ and drew you to Him.

Its not about being temporal, its about being contextual...what is happening at that moment in time that can help us better understand the intent of the author.

==Comparing the language of Paul and Jesus, on this issue, I see no Biblical reason to limit the election spoken of in John 6.

Again, I understand your view. But consider that both John 6 and John 12 could be interpreted "generally." In John 6, after the verses you plucked out Jesus does go on to say, "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 him up at the last day."

==Thats right. And who is it who will believe and be raised up on the last day? Those the Father has given to Christ, drawn to Christ (Jn 6:37,44-45). The entire section, John 6:35-51, only strengthens the case for unconditional election.

You are willing to interpret John 12 more generally, so why not consider that method here?

==I don't see how I am understanding John 12 "more generally". I am simply looking at what Jesus said. He said that when He is lifted up He will draw all men to Himself. Clearly that is not the same drawing as talked about in John 6. Why? Because those in John 6 "will" come to the Son, "will" not be cast out, will not be lost, "will" be raised up by the Son (etc). If you try to understand the drawing in John 6 & 12 as the same drawing you will back yourself right into universalism. So, the call in John 12 must be a universal ("all men") call and not the effectual call of John 6.

Now, in that context he is telling them, you can't come to me, only the remnant (those reserved from the Hardening out of Israel) can...my disciples can come to me and I will raise them up in the last day, but it is my father's will that all who see the SON and believe on him will be saved and they too will be raised up. But, you Israel, cannot come to me.

==In John 6:44, Jesus does not limit the inability to the Jews or nation of Israel. He directly states that "no one can come to Me", this includes everyone. No person can, or will, come to Christ on their on. Only those the Father has drawn will come to Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

Thanks for reminding me about this discussion. Some how I didn't see this last reply:

I wrote: Jesus is only revealing himself fully to the remnant of Israel (His Disciples) while on earth, the rest are being hardened. The nature of Jesus' audience and the historical context in John 6 is significant in understanding the authors intent. That is hermeneutics 101. Jesus is speaking to a large group of people, who for the most part are all being temporarily and purposefully blinded.

And you replied:

==That, it would seem, would be the point of verses 36-37 (10:26-27). God has given some to Christ, and they will come to Him, while the rest are left in their sin and rejection. That is the Calvinistic understanding of the text and it is my understanding of the text.

Actually within the Calvinistic system, there is NOTHING "temporary" about the blinding of those who are "not able to come to him." The reason you think they can't come to Jesus is because they were NOT elect and thus are born Totally Depraved. That is NOT a temporary condition. That is a natural inherent condition that will eternally damn them to hell.

The process of judicial hardening, however, is not from birth, is not common to all mankind and is not unto certain condemnation. I can supply all the support from scripture to back up these claims if you want to discuss it further.

==You are only making the point I am trying to make. People, Jew or Gentile, can't believe in Jesus unless/until the Father gives them/draws them to Jesus (Jn 6:44).

The fact that you think I'm making your point proves to me you are not aware of the non-Calvinistic position on this passage. Hopefully my explanation above clarifies that for you.

The people mentioned in passages like John 12:39 or Matthew 13:10-17 are those who have not been given to the Son by the Father. If they had, they would have responded to Jesus' message (Jn 10:26-27).

No, the people mentioned in these passages are the Jews, but the Gentiles will listen.(though the message of the gospel hadn't been sent to them at the time John 6 happened.) Read what Paul says in Acts 28:

24 Some were persuaded by what he said, but others did not believe. 25 Disagreeing among themselves, they began to leave after Paul made one statement: "The Holy Spirit correctly spoke through the prophet Isaiah to your forefathers 26 when He said, Go to this people and say: 'You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive. 27 For this people's heart has grown callous, their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their heart, and be converted-and I would heal them.' 28 Therefore, let it be known to you that this saving work of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen!"


Notice, what they might have done had they not become hardened? That tells us the natural ability of man when not being hardened. Notice also the contrast of the Jews with that of the Gentiles, who "will listen." That shows us the hardened condition is not common to all man from birth.


B

tw, this is true about individual Jews and Gentiles. In John 6:44 Jesus clearly says, "No one can come to Me", that means anyone. Nobody, be they Jew or Gentile, can come to Christ apart from the Father's drawing.

I agree. The fact you don't think I would agree with that again reveals that we need to discuss this further.


.

It is only when God involves Himself in their life that they will come to Him. Btw, most non-Calvinists I know will agree with that point.

Yes, we do. How has God "involved" Himself in our lives? He sent Jesus, He sent the Holy Spirit, He sent the apostles, He inspired the scriptures, He sent the gospel and he commissioned His Church. Is this insufficient apart from some extra prior work of regeneration to save a soul? If so, where does the text ever say so?

==The people Paul is talking about are clearly not of the elect. Like the people mentioned in John 12 and Matthew 13, God has hardened their hearts and blinded their eyes (Rom 9:15-18).

Why, if they were born already totally deaf, blind and unable would God need to hid the gospel in parables, send spirits of stupor and blind the eyes of the Jews so they would not be able to see, hear, understand and believe? I thought they were born totally unwilling already? Why would God blind a man born totally blind?

==Paul's statement in Acts 28:28 does not mean that all Gentiles will listen. Clearly Paul believed that both Jews and Gentiles alike do not naturally seek after God (Rom 3:9-11).

I never said they would seek after God on their own. God is seeking us through all the means I listed earlier. Proof that a man can't pick up a phone and call a friend is not proof that the friend can't answer the phone if the friend were to call him.

Also, just read Paul's letters and look at Church History and you will clearly see that all Gentiles do not listen. For a period of time God has turned away from the Jews (as a nation). This does not mean that all Jews are or will be lost, there is an elect from the nation of Israel even today (Rom 11:1-6).

Keep reading. The elect are the Remnant from Israel who have been reserved from the hardening, but notice what Paul goes on to say in Romans 11 about those of Israel who are being hardened. They might be provoked to envy and saved. How can someone who was hardened by God, UNABLE TO COME TO CHRIST, while Christ was right in front of him, later be provoked to envy and saved? I thought those hardened ones were cut off and certainly condemned to hell? They are the non-elect aren't they?

According to Paul, "the rest" who are hardened (vs 7) might be saved (vs 14) and if they leave their unbelief they can be grafted back into the tree. (vs 21). Because the hardened is only temporary (vs 23). It is NOT a condition from birth and it is NOT common to all mankind.

 

[RAdam]

Let's suppose Calvinism is true. Why do many believers in Christ not affirm the Calvinistic soteriology? Great people of God like John Wesley, CS Lewis, Mother Teresa and many others rejected Calvinistic teaching and I'm asking why that is. If God's regeneration can irresistibly bring an individual to belief in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, then why does it often fall short in bringing them all to a consistent understanding of how God saves?

In other words, why do some believers in Christ affirm Calvinistic doctrine while other do not? In my estimation there can only be three possible answers assuming that the Calvinistic dogma is true:

1. Calvinists are just smarter, wiser, more educated, or something which may give them cause to boast.
2. God elected some of the elect to be Calvinistic while passing by all the rest of us "lessor children of God.
3. God does irresistibly draw all true believers and those who reject Calvinism are not real Christians.

Which answer is correct and why?

Then there's the fourth possibility - that some people, who are no better than any other born again child of God, are blessed to see the truth of scripture while others, who might even be better disciples, are not. I know some people I believe are dead wrong on many theological points, but I'll tell you they are humble, dedicated, faithful disciples of the Lord and I consider them to be better than I am. It really makes me mad to see people categorize those that believe in the doctrines of grace as arrogant. I don't believe I'm any smarter than anyone else, in fact there are many smarter than I am that I believe are in error. It isn't about how intelligent one is, how pious one is, or any of that. It isn't about being part of some subset of the elect, that's nonsense. Some are blessed to see it, others aren't, and I wish that all children of God could see it.

 

[Theopolis]

A well known Calvinist once stated .....

"I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both." —Charles Spurgeon, Pride Catechized and Condemned

 

[Jarthur001]

A well known Calvinist once stated .....

"I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both." —Charles Spurgeon, Pride Catechized and Condemned

Maybe others may want to know what truths Spurgeon was talking about. The full quote is this...

But now, brothers and sisters, this is very emphatically true as to our spiritual gifts, and I invite you to consider this truth—"What hast thou that didst not receive?" >>>>There has long been a great doctrinal discussion between the Calvinists and the Arminians upon many important points. I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both. <<<<<<If I was asked, "Why is a man damned?" I should answer as an Arminian answers, "He destroys himself." I should not dare to lay man's ruin at the door of divine sovereignty. On the other hand, if I were asked, "Why is a man saved?" I could only give the Calvinistic answer, "He is saved through the sovereign grace of God, and not at all of himself." ....I should not dream of ascribing the man's salvation in any measure to himself. I have not found, as a matter of fact, that any Christian people care seriously to quarrel with a ministry which contains these two truths in fair proportions. I find them kicking at the inferences which are supposed to follow from one or the other of them, and sometimes needlessly crying to have them "reconciled;" but the two truths together, as a rule, commend themselves to the conscience, and I feel sure that if I could bring them both forward this morning with equal clearness I should win the assent of most Christian men. At this time, however I have to confine myself to the statement that all the grace we have is the gift of God to us, and I trust none will, therefore, suppose that I deny the other side of the question. I believe assuredly that we have nothing good in us but what we have received. For instance, we were dead in trespasses and sin, and we were quickened into spiritual life: my brethren, did that life spring out of the ribs of death? Did the worm of our corruption beget the living seed of regeneration? It were absurd to think so. God be praised for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sin, which led him to quicken us by his grace. We have been forgiven our great sins—wholly forgiven; through the precious blood of Christ we have been made clean. Did we deserve it? Does any man who professes to be a Christian say for a single moment that he deserved the ransom paid by Christ, and deserved the pardon of his sin? It would be monstrous blasphemy even to imagine such a thing. Oh no; "By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." God forgave us freely; there could not possibly have been any quality in sin which could have called forth forgiving love. He had mercy upon us because he would have mercy upon us; not because we could claim anything at his hand.

an Arminian answers, "He destroys himself"..

Calvinist agree with this statement.

the Calvinistic answer, "He is saved through the sovereign grace of God, and not at all of himself." ....I should not dream of ascribing the man's salvation in any measure to himself.

Do all believe this statement?

LINK TO BOOK

 

[Skandelon]

Originally Posted by Skandelon
Let's suppose Calvinism is true. Why do many believers in Christ not affirm the Calvinistic soteriology? Great people of God like John Wesley, CS Lewis, Mother Teresa and many others rejected Calvinistic teaching and I'm asking why that is. If God's regeneration can irresistibly bring an individual to belief in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, then why does it often fall short in bringing them all to a consistent understanding of how God saves?

In other words, why do some believers in Christ affirm Calvinistic doctrine while other do not? In my estimation there can only be three possible answers assuming that the Calvinistic dogma is true:

1. Calvinists are just smarter, wiser, more educated, or something which may give them cause to boast.
2. God elected some of the elect to be Calvinistic while passing by all the rest of us "lessor children of God.
3. God does irresistibly draw all true believers and those who reject Calvinism are not real Christians.

Which answer is correct and why?

Then there's the fourth possibility - that some people, who are no better than any other born again child of God, are blessed to see the truth of scripture while others, who might even be better disciples, are not. I know some people I believe are dead wrong on many theological points, but I'll tell you they are humble, dedicated, faithful disciples of the Lord and I consider them to be better than I am. It really makes me mad to see people categorize those that believe in the doctrines of grace as arrogant. I don't believe I'm any smarter than anyone else, in fact there are many smarter than I am that I believe are in error. It isn't about how intelligent one is, how pious one is, or any of that. It isn't about being part of some subset of the elect, that's nonsense. Some are blessed to see it, others aren't, and I wish that all children of God could see it.

So, you believe number 2, but you would remove the word "lessor?"

Why do you suppose God would "bless" some of his children with this knowledge while not blessing others?

 

[Skandelon]

Maybe others may want to know what truths Spurgeon was talking about. The full quote is this...
an Arminian answers, "He destroys himself"..

Calvinist agree with this statement.

the Calvinistic answer, "He is saved through the sovereign grace of God, and not at all of himself." ....I should not dream of ascribing the man's salvation in any measure to himself.

When is the last time you heard a man who was drowning who was saved by a lifeguard's rope ascribe his being saved to himself?

When is the last time you heard someone who a drug addict who hit rock bottom and who had friends intervene and put him in rehab ascribe his being saved from drugs to himself?

When is the last time you heard a hardened criminal who is rehabilitated and pardoned from death row ascribe his being saved to himself?

To fall on ones face in the filth of your utter shame and guilt while crying out for mercy is not anything any person is going to boast about. This false scenario that Calvinists like to paint of themselves being these humble people who never claim they had anything to do with being saved, while us prideful, arrogant Arminians give ourselves the credit for our salvation. It's just ridiculous.

Think about it for a second. If Calvinism IS true the Arminian believers were saved the SAME way you were, by first being regenerated, right? So where is the PRIDE and ARROGANCE coming from? Most Calvinists weren't Calvinistic when they were saved and thus must have been THINKING they were making a "free choice." Were they arrogant and prideful and "ascribing salvation to themselves too?"

If Calvinism is true then we are all being saved the same way, through the effectual regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. The burden in on you to explain why that sovereign work wouldn't produce the same amount of "humility" to accept that the work of salvation is "all of God" in all believers equally.