Question for Arminians

[Carico]

It's not slander...it's the truth. The things you are claiming I believe are not what I believe...that's a strawman.

Then tell us what you believe and there will be no problem. Do you believe that you tell God what to do or that God has power over you?Who is more powerful? You or God?

 

[webdog]

Then tell us what you believe and there will be no problem. Do you believe that you tell God what to do or that God has power over you?Who is more powerful? You or God?

Read my posts...there are plenty of them. You should get a pretty good idea what I believe by what I actually say, not what you want to hear.

Your questions are not only ridiculous, but are a waste of time and accuse me of questioning God's sovereignty.

 

[Carico]

Read my posts...there are plenty of them. You should get a pretty good idea what I believe by what I actually say, not what you want to hear.

Your questions are not only ridiculous, but are a waste of time and accuse me of questioning God's sovereignty.

I did and not only do they contradict scripture as I pointed out in another thread, your posts contradict each other. :laugh:

So sorry, but the bible tells us not to get into stupid and foolish arguments. And it's definitely a stupid and foolish argument to converse with someone who contradicts himself and the bible. So I don't think that further conversation would be productive with you. You need to read more scripture so you don't keep contradicting it and yourself.

 

[webdog]

I did and not only do they contradict scripture as I pointed out in another thread, your posts contradict each other.

You read the majority of 15,000 posts in a matter of minutes? Impressive!!

So sorry, but the bible tells us not to get into stupid and foolish arguments.

Agreed...I should have just let you stew in your pride.

. And it's definitely a stupid and foolish argument to converse with someone who contradicts himself and the bible.

Proof...or you are the one who is involved in slander.

So I don't think that further conversation would be productive with you.

I agree...if the Bible doesn't agree with your theology, there is no way I will as well.

You need to read more scripture so you don't keep contradicting it and yourself.

Again, supply where I have contradicted myself...or retract it.

I'm glad you have arrived and I'm the only one who needs to read more Scripture. I won't tell you to do the same, just start reading it in context applying proper hermeunetics.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Cat fight...

 

[Allan]

Cat fight...

I wouldn't say a 'cat fight' but undeniable ignorance that stems from Caripo's lack of understanding.

 

[Allan]

Please explain the following verses that speak directly to man's ability as it relates to believing in Jesus:

Easy and quite simple. No man in nor of himself can or will seek after God therefore none will come to God nor seek after God unless God draw him.

What is important to understand from this passage is that the passage does not state all men drawn will come, only that those who come do so because of God's drawing.

Just prior to this we see Jesus telling the people that He is the Bread of life being given 'to them' by God and yet these people were the same one he states just a few verses after that they do not believe.

I am highlighting these particular verses and underlining where they are speaking directly on ability. I could make this post longer and add all the context for the verses, but I want to be brief. These verses are not (so I contend) being taken out of context and made to speak about salvific issues when they are speaking otherwise in context.

You are quite correct in that man of nor by himself can or will come to Jesus, ergo.. believe. But what happens when you bring God in the equation where by God reveals truth, moves upon man, and by doing so enables all men, with whom He is dealing, to receive or reject the truths which God has revealed?

The context is coming to Jesus and believing in Jesus in a saving way. Therefore, the Son of God is telling these men:

1. You cannot come to me unless the Father draws you.
2. You cannot come to me unless it is granted to you by the Father.

Exactly, mnn of and by himself apart from any influence, grace, or move of God upon him. (btw - for those who don't know - 'granted' simply means to be allowed)

In both cases this speaks directly to man's ability. Notice I am speaking of man's ability, not responsability. Whether man has the ability to come to Jesus and believe on him or not, does not relieve man of his responsibility to obey God and the Gospel.

This is where you are undeniably confused. Please read the definitions of ability and resposibility. It is impossible according to the defintions of either (historically or currently) to be held responsible and not be able, just as it is impossible to have ability and not be responsible for what is done.

Now with man it 'is' possible to hold someone responsible who was not able, but with regard to 'justice' and 'righteousness' it is not. Judicailly one can not be held responsible for what one did not have the power to do or not do. And since some of God's immutable attributes are Just(ice), Righteousness, Holiness, it would be impossible for God do hold a man accountable/responsible for what man was unable to do.

I also want to clear one objection/response I have heard. When mentioning John 6:44 others have said, "But Jesus also said that if He be lifted up, He will draw all men to Himself." The implication being that all men are drawn at some point in their life.

This does not work in light of the text itself because to go down that road is to beginning to teach universalism...i.e. everyone will be saved. This is a proper conclusion in light of the latter half of verse 44 that says "...and I will raise him up at the last day."

No you are presenting a false argument.
You make the assumption that to go "down that road is beginning to teach universalism". This makes your point only an opinion specifically based upon your theological construct and the passage(s) in question.

Also, the 'proper conclusion' of the latter of half of verse 44 of 'will be raised up at the last day' is speaking not of 'all who are drawn' but specifically relating to those who have come.

The fact the calling of God can be rejected or resisted can be found in Prov 1

Pro 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
Pro 1:25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
...
Pro 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
...
Pro 1:33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

Interestingly enough Rom 10:24 is referencing the same passage as Prov 1:24.

Jesus uses this phrase several times in John and it is meaning salvation. So, if we say that yes, people must be drawn to come to Jesus, but God draws everyman, then we must be consistent with the text and conclude that everyone then will be saved.

No, again you drawn the wrong conclusion based upon a false premise.
Bring drawn does not equate to salvation. It is apart of what brings us to salvation but it can not be equated with it since it can be rejected/resisted.

Therefore consistancy for being raised up is found not in the drawing but in the coming. Scripture never states nor implies that all those drawn/called are saved but in fact shows much to the contrary (Prov 1 being one such illistration). However it can be state without equivocation that all those who come will be raised up because all those who come are saved. The drawn are not save only those who come.

We know that this is not the case, so this response is not valid.

Not true, and thus you seem to have some more work to do


One thing that is of note to with respect to 'being drawn' in the Reformed view, is that in order to be drawn they must first be changed. And in this change the person first comes to love God, and this in order that he might obey God, cling to God, and get life from God. This change which is now desiring God already, combined with the Holy Spirit calling them to God, will bring one to repentance and consequently salvation by God.

However I wonder how that fits with the passage in Duet 30:19-20 which states that it is in fact the opposite. Choose first THEN you will love God, obey His voice, cling to Him, and get life from Him.

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deu 30:20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days:...

The Hebrew shows us that verse 20 is contengent upon verse 19, which in fact states to 'choose' life that you may/can/will ...love, obey, cling, recieve.

 

[Allan]

I have always held that the story of Lazerus' resurrection is a good picture of physical regeneration analagous to spiritual regeneration.

When Jesus called out "Lazerus, come forth," did Lazerus hear him? Sure.
I think it is interesting that Jesus did not call out "Lazerus, wake up!" So, we may ask, was Lazerus already alive when Jesus spoke? Or, was it Jesus' call that gave him life?

Either way, Lazerus had no ability to wake up on his own; he had no ability to hear on his own. But given the ability to move, he willingly came out at Jesus call.

Some do not see this analogy as valid. That's okay. I think it's pretty neat myself.

It would be an interesting parallel however the illistration is no different than the dispensationalists view of the churches representing different church ages. There is a interesting parallel of the churches to the major church time periods but there is nothing in scripture which references it as such nor alludes to it being such an illistration.

There is also nothing in scripture which ever reference the story of Lazerus with being dead in sins and/or unabel and the regeneration in the Calvinistic/Reformed sense. No author speaks to it as an illistration, and Paul being one who loved such never once referenced not alluded it in any of his discrussions on the subject.

 

[Allan]

Hey Tom, my last sentence should read like this:

. No author speaks to it as an illistration, and Paul being one who loved such never once referenced [back to it] nor alluded to it in any of his discussions on the subject.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Allan,

I will respond to you briefly.

This is where you are undeniably confused.

With all due respect, it would be nice to actually discuss something with someone who possessed the ability not to attack the other person. While I do believe differently of you, it makes it look like you have to "put down" the one you disagree with in order to gain the appearance of an advantage. At our age I think it is just not needed.

Now with man it 'is' possible to hold someone responsible who was not able, but with regard to 'justice' and 'righteousness' it is not. Judicailly one can not be held responsible for what one did not have the power to do or not do. And since some of God's immutable attributes are Just(ice), Righteousness, Holiness, it would be impossible for God do hold a man accountable/responsible for what man was unable to do.

While I agree with you that it is a reasonable thinking, I disagree with it because of the Scripture itself. It postures both, side by side, completely comfortable with the tension.

Bring drawn does not equate to salvation.

I have to disagree with this because of what Scripture says.

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40

And again, v.44 which we discussed:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

I think we are both agreed that eating and drinking here is not communion nor a text in support of transubstantiaion. If not...what then?

I think the answer is found in the text itself when Jesus explains it to His disciples who were offended.

62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

We know Jesus is speaking of His words. This is the food. And how do we eat? By coming to and believing in Jesus. And no man can come to Jesus except it is given to him/her by the Father.

Those whom the Father gives to Jesus/grants to come to Jesus, is it possible that they will not? Not according to Jesus.

37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

This text is a clear teaching on what theologically is called Irresistable Grace. The Father is giving the Son people. This is election. Jesus states absolutely that they SHALL come. This is not a maybe, might, et. It is a SHALL. They will come.

And the one that comes...responsibility. Here again, as I stated before, is this tension between the absolute sovereignty of God over the salvation of souls and man's responsibility and choice in coming.

This is not about you or me making a choice for Jesus. This is about God the Father giving the Son a people and God the Son doing the will of the Father.

38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

We cannot say with integrity to the Scripture that those who come to Jesus may choose not believe in Jesus and be saved. All the parts of this passage do not allow such a thought. They are:

1. Those who come, believe, and are drawn are the ones given to Jesus by the Father. The elect.

2. It is the Father's will that all who were given to Jesus would not be lost, but raised up at the last day.

3. Jesus always does the Father's will.

It is undeniable to me with all good conscience to say anything other than what appears to me to be plain in the teaching of Jesus:

1. The Father elects a people.
2. The Son Redeems that people.
3. Those people are assuredly saved.

Let me drive this point more.

64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


1. There are some that believe not.
2. Jesus knew who they were.
3. They did not believe/come to Jesus becasue it was not given to them by the Father.

Another text of Scripture in John that adds further light to this is John 10:26

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

The Arminian/non-cal view (as I understand it) would have it say "You are not my sheep because you do not believe."

That is not what Jesus told those Jews. He told them the opposite..."you do not believe, because you are not my sheep."

It could be said with fideltiy to the Scripture that people do not believe and come to Jesus because they are not God's elect.

RB

 

[Winman]

Allan, I appreciate your comments, and believe I am in agreement with you. You addressed the fact that a just God could not hold a man accountable for sin if that man did not have the ability to repent. I agree completely with this and feel this is one of the most serious errors some Calvinists make.

Now, where I may disagree with you is that I believe unsaved man has the ability to understand the gospel. Calvinists like to quote 1 Cor 2:14

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Now, this verse does say that unsaved man cannot know and understand the things of the Spirit of God. But... and I think this is very important, the first thing this verse mentions is that the natural man "receiveth not". Now, to me, this is speaking of man's choice and ability. For those who refuse to receive God's word, yes they will never understand the scriptures. But to those who do of their own free will and choice receive God's word, to them more will be given.

Luke 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

As I said to RB, here Jesus tells us to take heed how we hear. Now this reminds me of when I went to college. One of my professors was a very serious man, a former Marine Corp drill instructor. He pushed us hard and moved us very quickly through our lessons. Quite frankly, the whole class was terrified of the man. At the beginning of the year he said to us, "If you pay attention in this class you will do well, if you do not, you will fail". I have remembered that ever since.

What I'm saying is man has the ability to hear and believe. We watch the President make a speech on TV. Some men believe what he says, some shout out "You lie!". Don't want to get sidetracked with that, but it just shows that man can hear the same words, some will believe, some will not. And why does one man believe the President's speech and the other not? Is it not because we have already judged the man in our heart? So, it is not so much ability, it is the attitude toward the speaker as to whether we believe them or not.

Why did some men not listen to Jesus? Well, in many instances Jesus gave the reason.

John 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees here. They considered themselves sinless, holy, a teacher and guide to the people. It was a very prestigious position, they were honored and saluted in the street, they were given the best seats at feasts. And often, many of these men became very proud and full of themselves. They would walk through the streets with men blowing horns when they gave alms to the poor so all men would see how good they were, they would pray openly in public so men could see their piousness.

Now Jesus comes along and tells them they are sinners and need to repent. Well, this offended them greatly and injured their great pride. They did not want to hear this, and many simply refused to believe it.

John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

And so, hearing and believeing Jesus is an issue of the heart. If the Pharisees had sincerely considered themselves they would know that they too were sinners and in need of a saviour. Then they would have welcomed the words of Christ. But these Pharisees loved the honor and respect they received from one another and the people. They did not like Jesus who told them they were sinners and hypocrites.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Allan, I appreciate your comments, and believe I am in agreement with you. You addressed the fact that a just God could not hold a man accountable for sin if that man did not have the ability to repent. I agree completely with this and feel this is one of the most serious errors some Calvinists make.

Now, where I may disagree with you is that I believe unsaved man has the ability to understand the gospel. Calvinists like to quote 1 Cor 2:14

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Now, this verse does say that unsaved man cannot know and understand the things of the Spirit of God. But... and I think this is very important, the first thing this verse mentions is that the natural man "receiveth not". Now, to me, this is speaking of man's choice and ability. For those who refuse to receive God's word, yes they will never understand the scriptures. But to those who do of their own free will and choice receive God's word, to them more will be given.

Luke 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

As I said to RB, here Jesus tells us to take heed how we hear. Now this reminds me of when I went to college. One of my professors was a very serious man, a former Marine Corp drill instructor. He pushed us hard and moved us very quickly through our lessons. Quite frankly, the whole class was terrified of the man. At the beginning of the year he said to us, "If you pay attention in this class you will do well, if you do not you will fail". I have remembered that ever since.

What I'm saying is man has the ability to hear and believe. We watch the President make a speech on TV. Some men believe what he says, some shout out "You lie!". Don't want to get sidetracked with that, but it just shows that man can hear the same words, some will believe, some will not. And why does one man believe the President's speech and the other not? Is it not because we have already judged the man in our heart? So, it is not so much ability, it is the attitude toward the speaker as to whether we believe them or not.

Why did some men not listen to Jesus? Well, in many instances Jesus gave the reason.

John 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees here. They considered themselves sinless, holy, a teacher and guide to the people. It was a very prestigious position, they were honored and saluted in the street, they were given the best seats at feasts. And often, many of these men became very proud and full of themselves. They would walk through the streets with men blowing horns when they gave alms to the poor so all men would see how good they were, they would pray openly in public so men could see their piousness.

Now Jesus comes along and tells them they are sinners and need to repent. Well, this offended them greatly and injured their great pride. They did not want to hear this, and many simply refused to believe it.

John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

And so, hearing and believeing Jesus is an issue of the heart. If the Pharisees had sincerely considered themselves they would know that they too were sinners and in need of a saviour. Then they would have welcomed the words of Christ. But these Pharisees loved the honor and respect they received from one another and the people. They did not like Jesus who told them they were sinners and hypocrites.

Winman,

I replied to Allan which addresses most of what you covered in here. I did want to point out however, what I see as contradictory statements.

Now, where I may disagree with you is that I believe unsaved man has the ability to understand the gospel. Calvinists like to quote 1 Cor 2:14

1 Cor 2:14 and your statement seem very contradictory to me. You say an unsaved/natural man can understand, and the Scripture says he/she cannot.

As I looked again at 1 Cor 2 it seems to me to be saying that the spiritual man is the one who has the Spirit of God, which the natural man/unsaved man does not have and cannot receive.

All of this is within the context of the Apostle Paul coming and preaching the Gospel and the wisdom of God.

How then is anyone saved? "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus..." 1 Co 1:30a

Who among us, whether we say we are calvinist in our thinking, bible-believers, arminian, no-cal, et. would say:

"I am saved because I chose Jesus." Who among us would not seek to ascribe all the credit and glory and cause of our salvation to God alone by grace alone?

So that, with the Scripture, we echo "That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." 1 Cor 1:31

What then is the purpose of debating or discussing these matters? I think it is because on one level our zeal and love of the truth, but for me it is a matter of love for the sinner.

The sinner needs to hear the Gospel that strips him or her of all self-reliance, self-righteousness, and puts him/her in a state of utter helplessness and dispair that he feels his need of Christ so great and himself so helpless that unless Christ, and Christ alone, saves him, he will surely perish.

In his desparation he calls on the name of the Lord to save his poor soul until he receives power from on high and is born of God.

I think that the non-cal, arminian type of Gospel undermines this putting the control of salvation into the hands man rather than into the hands of God alone.

RB

 

[Paul Brand]

RB,

I think I would agree that noone would come to Jesus unless the Father drew them to him. I think the Father is drawing all creation to himself. Arminians don't believe in irresistable grace, so even though the Father is working in all of us to draw us closer, not all of us are attracted to grace, or at least not yet.

I think the idea of resistable grace needs to be addressed in your logic. For the logic to be airtight, you need to demonstrate that all that the Father draws will not resist.

That being said, I hope that grace isn't resisted and that all men will be saved.

 

[Winman]

"I am saved because I chose Jesus." Who among us would not seek to ascribe all the credit and glory and cause of our salvation to God alone by grace alone?

Well, it may offend you to think that a man chooses Christ, but the scriptures themselves command us to make that choice.

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

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

Jos 24:22 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.

Psa 119:30 I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgments have I laid before me.

Psa 119:173 Let thine hand help me; for I have chosen thy precepts.

Prov 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

Isa 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

Luke 10:42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Now, if you want to believe Calvin that is your choice. But the scriptures clearly teach that a man does have choice whether to love and serve God or not. And God is not offended by this, in fact he tells us to make this choice.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,

I think I would agree that noone would come to Jesus unless the Father drew them to him. I think the Father is drawing all creation to himself. Arminians don't believe in irresistable grace, so even though the Father is working in all of us to draw us closer, not all of us are attracted to grace, or at least not yet.

I think the idea of resistable grace needs to be addressed in your logic. For the logic to be airtight, you need to demonstrate that all that the Father draws will not resist.

That being said, I hope that grace isn't resisted and that all men will be saved.

Paul,

Thanks for your reply and suggestion.

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37

This teaches what we call Irresistable Grace. Are all people given to Son by the Father? Well, no.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. v.44-45


Here are the points from the text itself:

1. All that the Father gives Jesus shall (absolutely will) come.
2. No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them.
3. The one given by the Father to Jesus is drawn by the Father to Jesus, comes to Jesus, believes on Jesus, and is raised up at the last day.

If I didn't address it clear enough in the last posts, hopefully this one does.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, it may offend you to think that a man chooses Christ, but the scriptures themselves command us to make that choice.

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

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

Jos 24:22 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.

Psa 119:30 I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgments have I laid before me.

Psa 119:173 Let thine hand help me; for I have chosen thy precepts.

Prov 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

Isa 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

Luke 10:42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Now, if you want to believe Calvin that is your choice. But the scriptures clearly teach that a man does have choice whether to love and serve God or not. And God is not offended by this, in fact he tells us to make this choice.

Winman,

I have been more the cordial and respectful toward you in our discussion.

Let me show you the kind of response a man makes when he has no ground to stand on:

Well, it may offend you to think that a man chooses Christ, but the scriptures themselves command us to make that choice.

And,

Now, if you want to believe Calvin that is your choice. But the scriptures clearly teach that a man does have choice whether to love and serve God or not. And God is not offended by this, in fact he tells us to make this choice.

I have not expressed any offense or quoted John Calvin. But you have made these silly and stupid remarks about me. I have done nothing but seek to explain myself and my understanding of the Scriptures.

 

[Winman]

Do you not call yourself a Calvinist? Then why does it offend you when I say you choose to believe Calvin? By the way, I have never mentioned this before, but Calvin was known to have burned many people at the stake who disagreed with him, hardly the behaviour of a man with the Spirit of God dwelling in him.

Jesus himself said that he will draw all men unto him.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

But Jesus also showed that not everybody who is called will be chosen.

Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Matt 22:14 is from the parable of the wedding feast. We see many here who were called and bid to come to the wedding feast but refused.

Matt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

It is very clear here. God called and bid many to come to the feast. Some refused and others made excuse. God destroyed these men.

Then God sent his servants into the highways to bid any and every person they could find. No one was excluded from the invitation. And it says they gathered "all" as many as they could find.

One man came, but was unprepared. He did not have the wedding garment on. He was not saved, just as many men come to church but never sincerely receive Christ as their saviour. So this man was cast out.

Irresistable Grace is not scriptural. The scriptures clearly show that God calls and bids men, and that men have the ability to resist this grace and some will refuse to come.

 

[Tom Butler]

It would be an interesting parallel however the illistration is no different than the dispensationalists view of the churches representing different church ages. There is a interesting parallel of the churches to the major church time periods but there is nothing in scripture which references it as such nor alludes to it being such an illistration.

There is also nothing in scripture which ever reference the story of Lazerus with being dead in sins and/or unabel and the regeneration in the Calvinistic/Reformed sense. No author speaks to it as an illistration, and Paul being one who loved such never once referenced not alluded it in any of his discrussions on the subject.

In order to qualify as a parallel, does the writer have to say "now pay attention dummies, this is a parallel?" Seems to me that we have a number of parallels, types, etc., which we recognize as such without being specifically told to.

Sorta like Abraham, Isaac, and the substitute ram which God provided do die instead of Isaac. I don't know if there's a New Testament reference to this event as paralleling Jesus as the substitute sacrificial lamb, but I think everybody recognizes it as such.

The only NT reference I know of is in Hebrews:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called," concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense. (Hebrews 11:17-19, NKJV)

It does not make the parallel, but I know of no one who will deny it.

Same for the Lazerus story, seems to me.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Do you not call yourself a Calvinist? Then why does it offend you when I say you choose to believe Calvin? By the way, I have never mentioned this before, but Calvin was known to have burned many people at the stake who disagreed with him, hardly the behaviour of a man with the Spirit of God dwelling in him.

I am going to assume that your new to having discussions of this nature. I am also assuming that while you believe yourself correct, and me wrong, you don't truly care for my soul or other "calvinists" as you call us.

I am hoping that you are a reasonable person. I had the opportunity to attend a pastor's conference a few years ago. It was made up of independant fundamental baptists. One gentleman got up and talking about labels. He said he liked them. He liked them because it told him what was on the inside. He used the analogy of soup labels.

I think you can see where he was going with it. We call ourselves, or are called, Baptists. It is a distinguishing label that targets certain points of doctrine, baptism, church governement, et.

I am not offended when I am called a Calvinist or when someone is asking my belief on the doctrines of grace where I stand. If I know the other person is knowledgeable enough to know what "calvinist" means, then I have no problem saying I am a calvinist.

You have called yourself a bible-believer. Did you see me on this board try to accuse you of worshipping the bible? Did I say, "You should believe in Jesus, the Livinig God, and not in a book! The Bible is not God!"

That would be a ridiculous conclusion to make about you because you said you are a bible-believer. The same is true in regards to the label "calvinism"

If someone when discussing our topic says, "I am a calvinist" it does not mean that they believe and follow John Calvin. This is at best an misunderstanding of the person, but worse, an unjust accusation.

And as Christians we ought not to malign our brothers and sisters in such ways.

As far as Calvin's dealings with Servetus that has been discussed on the boards here before.

I am wanting my thread to stay on topic with regard to man's ability.

Thanks.

 

[Winman]

Some recognized the story of Lazarus to be a parallel to the gospel. This is from Matthew Henry:

[2.] To be typical of other works of wonder, and particularly other resurrections, which the power of Christ was to effect. This loud call was a figure, First, Of the gospel call, by which dead souls were to be brought out of the grave of sin, which resurrection Christ had formerly spoken of (ch. 5:25), and of his word as the means of it (ch. 6:63), and now he gives a specimen of it. By his word, he saith to souls, Live, yea, he saith to them, Live, Eze. 16:6. Arise from the dead, Eph. 5:14. The spirit of life from God entered into those that had been dead and dry bones, when Ezekiel prophesied over them, Eze. 37:10. Those who infer from the commands of the word to turn and live that man has a power of his own to convert and regenerate himself might as well infer from this call to Lazarus that he had a power to raise himself to life. Secondly, Of the sound of the archangel’s trumpet at the last day, with which they that sleep in the dust shall be awakened and summoned before the great tribunal, when Christ shall descend with a shout, a call, or command, like this here, Come forth, Ps. 50:4. He shall call both to the heavens for their souls, and to the earth for their bodies, that he may judge his people.

Now, I agree 100% with Matthew Henry here that man does not have the power of his own to convert and regenerate himself. The power to regenerate is in the word of God.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Now, I am going to say something strange. It may or may not be scriptural, I am still studying to find the answer of this myself.

But in any transmission of power (at least in the physical world) you must needs have a transmitter and receiver. A radio station can broadcast a signal, and there is power in the signal. But to make use of this signal you must have a receiver. Without an antenna, you cannot make use of the power sent out by the transmitter.

Lazarus could not raise himself, this power belonged to Christ. But Lazarus must have the ability to hear Christ's words and receive this power.

And this is my reasoning. If the message and power of Jesus's words enables the hearer to hear, then all would be saved.

Go back and read the parable of the sower. The same seed or word of God was spread on the various types of soil. There is nothing to indicate that one soil received a "lively" word of God and another not. The word was the same to all.

The difference was the hearer. The way side was hard and walked upon. The seed could not penetrate the surface, and so the seed laid on top where the birds came and took it away.

The soil with stone received the seed, but fell away when persecution arose.

The soil with thorns received the seed, but the cares and pleasures of this world brought it to nought.

But the good soil received the seed. It was plowed deep and brought forth fruit.

Luke 8:15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

Now, the Calvinists may not like this, but Jesus said the good ground are they that with a honest and good heart having heard the word keep it. That is Jesus's words, not mine.