Predestination

[George Antonios]

Those that are not drawn, will not be raised up.

Agreed, but "those that are not drawn" are not effectively (there's a word a Calvinist brother can relate to) drawn because they refuse the drawing.

Hos 11:4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them. Hos 11:5 He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return.

 

[atpollard]

I am commanded by the scriptures to compare scriptures with scriptures for interpretation, which is what I did.
The idea of going back to Greek and Hebrew (which is often, though not always, a cop-out) though rational, is a humanistic approach to the word of God, not a spiritual one.

1. Then the innate meaning of "draw" and the point you ignored in my post still stands ... both in simple linguistics and in scripture.
2. What about all of the other draws, drags, hauls in scripture that involve the event actually happening. What makes this one alleged 'failure to draw', "drawing" the one that defines "John 6:44"?

 

[atpollard]

[Hosea 11:1-7 NASB]
1 When Israel [was] a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. 2 The more they called them, The more they went from them; They kept sacrificing to the Baals And burning incense to idols. 3 Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them in My arms; But they did not know that I healed them. 4 I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love, And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws; And I bent down [and] fed them.
5 They will not return to the land of Egypt; But Assyria--he will be their king Because they refused to return [to Me.] 6 The sword will whirl against their cities, And will demolish their gate bars And consume [them] because of their counsels. 7 So My people are bent on turning from Me. Though they call them to [the One] on high, None at all exalts [Him.]

• (A paragraph about God reminiscing on the past, on what He has done)
• v.1 God "called" Israel out of Egypt ... Did Israel actually COME out of Egypt? YES.
• v.2 Israel came but was still disobedient.
• v.3 God "taught" and "healed" and "led" and "fed" Ephraim ... Is there anything that indicates that Ephraim was "not taught", was "not healed", was "not led" or was "not fed"? NO.
• v.4 God "led" and "became" and "fed" ... is there any indication that God did NOT do what God said he did? NO.

• (Start of a new paragraph. Change of verb tense. God speaking about what will and will not happen in the future.)
• v.5 God will not allow Israel to return to Egypt ... Did Israel return to Egypt? NO.
• v.5 God will have Assyria rule over Israel ... Did Assyria rule over Israel? YES.
• v.5 "because they refused to return to me." ... Israel must have followed the call of God out of Egypt in order to walk away from God and refuse to return. Can you return to someplace that you have never been? NO. Did God say that He compelled them back to himself, but they refused? NO. God only said they refused to return, so it must have been an "invitation" (which one has the right to accept or decline) rather than a DRAW/DRAG/HAUL/ἑλκύω (which indicates an action one cannot decline).
• v6 God speaks of death and destruction that will be sent against Israel because of their choices ... Did Assyria comply with God's wishes? YES.
• v.7 God illuminates His relationship and issues with Israel. God claimed them as His People ... Are they His people? YES. Israel is bent on (determined to) turn against God ... Can you turn against someone you were never for? NO. So Israel must have come when called and led in v.1-4. Israel is called to exalt God but refuses to do so ... Can God's People be disobedient? YES. Does God punish His people for disobedience? YES. Are they still His People? Apparently, YES.

So what in all of this "scripture" compared to "scripture" really suggests that God's "dragging" people to Christ is really an ineffectual invitation? Where in Hosea does God fail to get His People (which is what John 6:44 is all about).

 

[Yeshua1]

I reject the notion of total natural inability.
I believe that man's natural ability to come to Christ is still intact, and that his inability is only moral. This quote explains it pretty well:

"The impotence of the sinner does not excuse him in sinning, since it is not involuntary and merely physical, arising from a defect of natural power, but voluntary and moral, arising from a depraved nature.”

Sin nature at war against God, and does not want to submit to Him as Lord though!

 

[Yeshua1]

So you natural depraved man is completely able to believe the Gospel? There is nothing in his nature preventing him?

That seems a full denial of original sin.

Would the sinner in that thinking even need any application of divine Grace to get saved?

 

[Yeshua1]

I've never thought of that. Not sure how to do that. What term would you use for yours?

Biblical!

 

[Calminian]

Ah ok, got you. I'm not Calvinist because I reject all 5 points of the Tulip (the 5th because it's framed as "perseverance" of the saints rather than "preservation",...

In that case, the label I would give is antinomianism (past profession salvation). It's the idea that a Spirit indwelled Christian can continually sin with reckless abandon. This is a very troubling movement in the modern Church. The doctrine of perseverance is laid out in 1John—the one who continually sins does not know God.

 

[atpollard]

In that case, the label I would give is antinomianism (past profession salvation). It's the idea that a Spirit indwelled Christian can continually sin with reckless abandon. This is a very troubling movement in the modern Church. The doctrine of perseverance is laid out in 1John—the one who continually sins does not know God.

I doubt that is @George Antonios distinction between "Perseverance" and "Preservation" (of the Saints). The typical objection is that "Perseverance" connotes an ongoing effort or work on the part of the PERSON, while "Preservation" connotes the fact that it is GOD that preserves us. R.C.Sproul is a 5 point Calvinist that also prefers "Preservation of the saints" for the P in TULIP.

 

[Calminian]

I doubt that is @George Antonios distinction between "Perseverance" and "Preservation" (of the Saints). The typical objection is that "Perseverance" connotes an ongoing effort or work on the part of the PERSON, while "Preservation" connotes the fact that it is GOD that preserves us. R.C.Sproul is a 5 point Calvinist that also prefers "Preservation of the saints" for the P in TULIP.

So, traditional calvinists disagree with Sproul on this? They believe in a man-centered perseverance, and not a divinely enabled perseverance?

I have to say, I disagree. I've never heard any calvinists articulate this position.

What I suspect is that Sproul does not reject Perseverance, but rather has added a descriptive term to it, Preservation. Kind of like Total Depravity is also known as Total Inability. Those who believe in Total Inability don't reject Total Depravity. There is also Irresistible Grace, which is sometimes called Efficacious Grace. Again, those using EG, don't deny IG.

 

[George Antonios]

[Hosea 11:1-7 NASB]
1 When Israel [was] a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. 2 The more they called them, The more they went from them; They kept sacrificing to the Baals And burning incense to idols. 3 Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them in My arms; But they did not know that I healed them. 4 I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love, And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws; And I bent down [and] fed them.
5 They will not return to the land of Egypt; But Assyria--he will be their king Because they refused to return [to Me.] 6 The sword will whirl against their cities, And will demolish their gate bars And consume [them] because of their counsels. 7 So My people are bent on turning from Me. Though they call them to [the One] on high, None at all exalts [Him.]

• (A paragraph about God reminiscing on the past, on what He has done)
• v.1 God "called" Israel out of Egypt ... Did Israel actually COME out of Egypt? YES.
• v.2 Israel came but was still disobedient.
• v.3 God "taught" and "healed" and "led" and "fed" Ephraim ... Is there anything that indicates that Ephraim was "not taught", was "not healed", was "not led" or was "not fed"? NO.
• v.4 God "led" and "became" and "fed" ... is there any indication that God did NOT do what God said he did? NO.

• (Start of a new paragraph. Change of verb tense. God speaking about what will and will not happen in the future.)
• v.5 God will not allow Israel to return to Egypt ... Did Israel return to Egypt? NO.
• v.5 God will have Assyria rule over Israel ... Did Assyria rule over Israel? YES.
• v.5 "because they refused to return to me." ... Israel must have followed the call of God out of Egypt in order to walk away from God and refuse to return. Can you return to someplace that you have never been? NO. Did God say that He compelled them back to himself, but they refused? NO. God only said they refused to return, so it must have been an "invitation" (which one has the right to accept or decline) rather than a DRAW/DRAG/HAUL/ἑλκύω (which indicates an action one cannot decline).
• v6 God speaks of death and destruction that will be sent against Israel because of their choices ... Did Assyria comply with God's wishes? YES.
• v.7 God illuminates His relationship and issues with Israel. God claimed them as His People ... Are they His people? YES. Israel is bent on (determined to) turn against God ... Can you turn against someone you were never for? NO. So Israel must have come when called and led in v.1-4. Israel is called to exalt God but refuses to do so ... Can God's People be disobedient? YES. Does God punish His people for disobedience? YES. Are they still His People? Apparently, YES.

So what in all of this "scripture" compared to "scripture" really suggests that God's "dragging" people to Christ is really an ineffectual invitation? Where in Hosea does God fail to get His People (which is what John 6:44 is all about).

I don't understand what all of this has to do with the fact that God drew Ephraim yet they refused his drawing.
God draws all people. Those who yield, get effectually drawn. Those who refuse, don't.

 

[George Antonios]

Biblical!

How old are you? I don't despise the innocence of such an answer, I'm just wondering.

 

[George Antonios]

In that case, the label I would give is antinomianism (past profession salvation). It's the idea that a Spirit indwelled Christian can continually sin with reckless abandon. This is a very troubling movement in the modern Church. The doctrine of perseverance is laid out in 1John—the one who continually sins does not know God.

It would be antinomianism if I were out exhorting Christians to sin. But I'm not. By the grace of God I preach holiness and the fear of God.
And of course, you yourself continually sin, as I do as well.

 

[Calminian]

....Those who yield, get effectually drawn....

So drawn again?

 

[George Antonios]

So drawn again?

get effectually drawn

 

[Calminian]

It would be antinomianism if I were out exhorting Christians to sin. But I'm not. By the grace of God I preach holiness and the fear of God.

Antinomianism is the doctrine that a Spirit indwelled Christian can continually sin with reckless abandon. The fact that you tell them not to does takeaway from the fact that you believe a Christians can do this.

The entire book of 1John militates against this. The one who continually sins, does not know God. John acknowledges that all sin, and the one who claims he doesn't in a liar. But he also obliterates the idea of antinomianism. Paul gives some instruction on this also.

Rom. 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom. 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.​

You are right that we are secure. You are wrong that salvation does not cause perseverance. It change us, and when that change is not evident, it's cause for concern, and may indeed be indication of a tare rather than a wheat. Do you believe this?

And I'd be curious if you define preservation like Sproul does.

 

[Calminian]

God draws all people. Those who yield, get effectually drawn.

What verses do you cite for this drawn twice theory? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. There's an initial drawing, and then an effectual one for those who yield?

 

[George Antonios]

Antinomianism is the doctrine that a Spirit indwelled Christian can continually sin with reckless abandon. The fact that you tell them not to does takeaway from the fact that you believe a Christians can do this.

The entire book of 1John militates against this. The one who continually sins, does not know God. John acknowledges that all sin, and the one who claims he doesn't in a liar. But he also obliterates the idea of antinomianism. Paul gives some instruction on this also.

Rom. 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom. 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.​

You are right that we are secure. You are wrong that salvation does not cause perseverance. It change us, and when that change is not evident, it's cause for concern, and may indeed be indication of a tare rather than a wheat. Do you believe this?

And I'd be curious if you define preservation like Sproul does.

Well I disagree with that definition of antinomianism.
I also disagree with the application of Romans 8:5-9 as presented.
But let's leave these for another thread.
Just keep in mind, as stated, that you and I and all believers do continually sin.
No one, not one believer, has ever not continually sinned.

 

[George Antonios]

What verses do you cite for this drawn twice theory? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. There's an initial drawing, and then an effectual one for those who yield?

It's all one drawing. Those who yield get drawn. Those who don't, don't.

 

[MartyF]

No one, not one believer, has ever not continually sinned.

Do you mean continually sins or continues to sin?

 

[Calminian]

Well I disagree with that definition of antinomianism.
I also disagree with the application of Romans 8:5-9 as presented.
But let's leave these for another thread.
Just keep in mind, as stated, that you and I and all believers do continually sin.
No one, not one believer, has ever not continually sinned.

Again, cite verses to prove this. John said all have sinned. John said we sin generally, in the present. I agree. John also said the one who continually habitually sins does not know God, and never has. He's neither seen him or known him.

Are you directly contradicting this?