Regeneration Before Faith

[Dr. Walter]

Where we are missing each other on this subject is that you understand "hearing" and "perceiving" and "seeing" as physical capabilities sufficient for dealing with spiritual things and anyone has the ability to respond to God's Word.

If natural born humans possessed "hearing...seeing...perceiving" suffienct to respond to spiritual things then why does God say the following words to those who abundantly heard, saw and claimed to perceive a mass of Biblical revelation from God:

Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. - Deut. 29:4

Why does the Lord condition these abilities upon reception of a "heart" that he must give them if they can possess such abilities without being given another heart by God?

If as you say, all humans already possess the ability to perceive, eyes to see and ears to hear spiritual things then why does God necessarily deny they can respond as described unless he gives them another heart? They obviously had physical ears and eyes and had a mind to perceive some things?

Why would he say the following about the same people if they possessed such a heart already?


O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! - Deut. 5:29

God says this ability to perceive, see, hear, fear me and keep my commandments is inseparable from God giving a new heart. God says that until he gives this heart man is incapable of doing these things as these things only come with God giving such a heart.

In Ezekiel 36:26-27 God clearly states that giving such a new heart effectually produces obedience to His will. He uses the words "cause you" in verse 27.

Now, it seems to me that you are forced to define "draw" in John 6:44-45 to be inclusive of God giving such a new heart or else there can be no spiritual ability to perceive, see or hear the gospel or else you must repudiate the Lord's words in Deut. 5:29 and 29:4.

I am not going any further than these Old Testament texts because they fully represent the foundational problem in our discussion and they are confirmed by New Testament texts (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Heb. 10:15-18; 2 Cor. 3:3-6; 4:4-6).

 

[Winman]

Why does the Lord condition these abilities upon reception of a "heart" that he must give them if they can possess such abilities without being given another heart by God?

If you pull this single verse out of context, I can understand how Deut 29:4 could be seen to show that God must give a person a heart to understand, but that is not what this verse is truly saying. Moses has just spoken to the Jews at length about all the evidence God had shown them. Even Matthew Henry who was a Calvinist understands this, here is what he said on this verse.

1. Moses laments their stupidity: Yet the Lord has not given you a heart to perceive, v. 4. This does not lay the blame of their senselessness, and sottishness, and unbelief, upon God, as if they had stood ready to receive his grace and had begged for it, but he had denied them; no, but it fastens the guilt upon themselves. "The Lord, who is the Father of spirits, a God in covenant with you, and who had always been so rich in mercy to you, no doubt would have crowned all his other gifts with this, he would have given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see if you had not by your own frowardness and perverseness frustrated his kind intentions, and received his grace in vain.’’ Note, (1.) The hearing ear, the seeing eye, and the understanding heart, are the gift of God. All that have them have them from him. (2.) God gives not only food and raiment, but wealth and large possessions, to many to whom he does not give grace. Many enjoy the gifts who have not hearts to perceive the giver, nor the true intention and use of the gifts. (3.) God’s readiness to do us good in other things is a plain evidence that if we have not grace, that best of gifts, it is our own fault and not his; he would have gathered us and we would not.

Moses in fact verifies that these Jews had seen God's great works with their eyes.

Deut 29:2 And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land;
3 The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles:
4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

It is kind of like some of the discussions we have here. You can show a person dozens of verses that clearly contradict their doctrine. They can easily read and understand these verses, but they do not want to accept them. They are willfully blind. And that is what Moses is speaking about in this passage. These Jews had witnessed miraculous events that no person could deny, and yet for all the signs and wonders they had seen with their own eyes, they rebelled in unbelief.

Calvinism is built on proof texts like this, verses taken out of context to prove a presupposition. This verse is not speaking of inability or Total Depravity at all. God has given much evidence to these unbelieving Jews, but they refuse to see.

And this is what Paul shows in Acts.

Acts 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Paul is not saying the Jews do not have the ability to hear, understand, or see. He is speaking of willful ignorance, a willful rejection of the truth. He says they close their eyes. It is not God's fault, God has been very gracious to them in every way, but they refuse his grace.

Then Paul says the gospel will go to the Gentiles, and they will not be rebellious or obstinate, but they will listen to and heed the gospel.

 

[jbh28]

I find in amusing how Winman likes to pick and choose what to respond to and ignore the things he has no answer to...only to then repeat it again later as if I never refuted it.

The problem is, God himself said he "drew" the Jews in Hosea chapter 11, and then says they pulled away and backslid from him. So, your personal definition does not match up with the scriptures themselves. Something drawn does not always come to 100% completion, and the scriptures themselves show that.

It's not my definition, it's the dictionary's definition. And, did it say he drew them to himself and they left? Then he did draw them, but they left. Drawing doesn't mean you stay. If I'm drawn to an event, it doesn't mean I stay there forever. Are you saying one can come to Christ and leave?

And again, it's the dictionary's definition.
Let me put it again for you. "To cause to come by attracting"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/draw

And no Calvinist has answered the word "resist" when Stephen said the Jews always "resist" the Holy Ghost. What is the definition of resist?

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

Strong's Concordance defines resist here as;

1) to fall upon, run against

2) to be adverse, oppose, strive against

Unless the Holy Spirit was attempting to draw these men, they cannot be said to be resisting. If God was simply passing by these men, not effectually attempting to draw them, they cannot be resisting.

You made me laugh. If God is "EFFECTUALLY" drawing them, then they are not resisting. Secondly, you said "attempting to draw them." If you admitted here than unless the person comes, he hasn't been drawn. He's "attempting to draw them" to himself, but unless they come, they have not been drawn.

Also, who has said people don't resist the Holy Spirit? People resist God all the time. Some do it for years before they are saved and sadly some always to it.

If I hook a fish and try to draw it in, but it fights against me, it is resisting. But if I never hook the fish, or enclose it in my net, it cannot be said to be resisting me.

Nice straw man, but you have changed the point of the passage now and saying something I have never said. Oh, and you didn't draw the fish to you if the fish gets away.

Calvinism teaches that God is not effectually calling or drawing the un-elect.

Well, do you think He is EFFECTUALLY drawing them?

Then how can they be said to be resisting? It is illogical. If God is not putting an influence on them, the unelect are not fighting or resisting God, they are just going about their business. If I walk past and ignore a policeman, is that resisting him? Of course not. But if he attempts to arrest me and I fight and try to get away, then I am resisting arrest. There has to be an influence or force upon you for you to resist.

Who said people don't resist God? You are now changing the point I have been making.

Jesus said he was trying to gather the Jews as a mother hen tries to gather her chicks. This is showing action and purpose on God's part, he is not being inactive or passive in the matter. But they would not come, they resisted.

Matt 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!

Gathered and gathereth here is defined as;

1) to gather together besides, to bring together to others already assembled

2) to gather together against

3) to gather together in one place

Who was God trying to gather? the CHILDREN Who was the "ye would not"? It was the "oh Jerusalem, oh Jerusalem, not the Children. You misapply this verse to make God weak.

You notice it says "to bring"? That is the same as drawing. God is actively trying to bring the Jews in, he is drawing them, calling them, putting influence upon them, but they resist and pull back.

There is a difference between "drawing" and "draw." "drawing" is the process that hasn't finished yet. "Draw" has finished. I'm "drawing" a fish means the fish isn't here"

And the scriptures even say unbelievers "draw back". Now, how could it say that unless they were being drawn?

Again, drawing and already drawn are two different things.

Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

So, here you have the word "draw" being shown to mean resisting, to be pulling away.

You are playing word games, the scriptures show dozens of times that God is actively drawing men to himself, but some men resist and pull away.

Again, you misrepresent, which is dishonest. Where in John 6 does the word "drawing" appear? It doesn't say, no man can come unless God is drawing him, it says that no man can come unless the Father draws him. I play no word games. You continue to change the definition of the term draw...or you change the word to drawing and argue against that. That is called a straw man argument. God has called everyman to repentance. The gospel is preached. People resist the gospel. People resist the Holy Spirit..

Please try again...

 

[Dr. Walter]

All you have shown is that they are held responsible by God for their own rebellous nature which is manifested in resisting the truth. However, that does not do away with the fact the text still demands that they were without a heart to perceive spiritual things and such a heart must be given by God. The cause and effect statements you have simply explained away and thus simply denied what the texts clearly and explicitly demand. Absolute evidence that your intepretation is wrong is the fact that the new covenant salvation described in Ezekiel 36:26-27 is the giving of such a heart by God that is explicitly said to be the "cause" of their obedience just as Deuternonomy 5:29 and 29:4 explicitly state and demand. Moreover this same covenant salvation is described in the New Testament in this same cause and effect relationship (2 Cor 3:3-6; 4:6; Heb. 8:10-11; 10:15-18).

If you pull this single verse out of context, I can understand how Deut 29:4 could be seen to show that God must give a person a heart to understand, but that is not what this verse is truly saying. Moses has just spoken to the Jews at length about all the evidence God had shown them. Even Matthew Henry who was a Calvinist understands this, here is what he said on this verse.



Moses in fact verifies that these Jews had seen God's great works with their eyes.

Deut 29:2 And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land;
3 The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles:
4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

It is kind of like some of the discussions we have here. You can show a person dozens of verses that clearly contradict their doctrine. They can easily read and understand these verses, but they do not want to accept them. They are willfully blind. And that is what Moses is speaking about in this passage. These Jews had witnessed miraculous events that no person could deny, and yet for all the signs and wonders they had seen with their own eyes, they rebelled in unbelief.

Calvinism is built on proof texts like this, verses taken out of context to prove a presupposition. This verse is not speaking of inability or Total Depravity at all. God has given much evidence to these unbelieving Jews, but they refuse to see.

And this is what Paul shows in Acts.

Acts 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Paul is not saying the Jews do not have the ability to hear, understand, or see. He is speaking of willful ignorance, a willful rejection of the truth. He says they close their eyes. It is not God's fault, God has been very gracious to them in every way, but they refuse his grace.

Then Paul says the gospel will go to the Gentiles, and they will not be rebellious or obstinate, but they will listen to and heed the gospel.

 

[Winman]

It's not my definition, it's the dictionary's definition. And, did it say he drew them to himself and they left? Then he did draw them, but they left. Drawing doesn't mean you stay. If I'm drawn to an event, it doesn't mean I stay there forever. Are you saying one can come to Christ and leave?

Once again, you argue falsely. The dictionary does not define drawn as always meaning a person will be drawn to completion. You can argue that till you are blue in the face, and you will still be in error.

Look, I could give thousands of examples, but you will refuse to listen. Ever tried to call a dog, the dog will come close, but as soon as you reach down to pet it it runs away? It was drawn, it came close, it approached, but not 100%.

Or how about a fellow trying to get a girl? He talks nice to her, maybe buys her presents. The girl begins to get interested and agrees to go on a date. But then she remembers why she thinks the guy is a creep and calls the date off. This sort of thing happens everyday.

You made me laugh. If God is "EFFECTUALLY" drawing them, then they are not resisting. Secondly, you said "attempting to draw them." If you admitted here than unless the person comes, he hasn't been drawn. He's "attempting to draw them" to himself, but unless they come, they have not been drawn.

That my friend, is circular reasoning. Saying the effectual call was effectual is saying nothing. Someday, you will realize that you have been taught very clever, but deceitful ways of thinking by others, and then you will be angry at yourself for falling for a fallacious argument like this, and be angry at those who so easily fooled you with a fallacious argument like this.

Nice straw man, but you have changed the point of the passage now and saying something I have never said. Oh, and you didn't draw the fish to you if the fish gets away.

And Jesus never said all he draws will come to him. He does say all that come were drawn, but that is an altogether different thing that you seem unable to discern.

Well, do you think He is EFFECTUALLY drawing them?

I believe God is indeed drawing and calling them, but it is not effectual because of their unbelief. God's power is dependent on our faith. Now, I know that insults all Calvinists, but I will demonstrate it from scripture.

Mark 9:17 And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;
18 And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.
19 He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
20 And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21 And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

Here is the story of a man with a son with a dumb spirit. The disciples could not cast this spirit out. So the man comes to Jesus and asks, "but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us."

Notice Jesus turns this around on the man and says, "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth."

The problem wasn't with Jesus. Jesus had plenty of power and ability to cast this evil spirit out of the boy. No, the problem was with the man, and whether he truly believed Jesus was the Son of God who could perform this miracle. Now, you have to have a little compassion on this man, the disciples had just failed to cast this spirit out, so his discouragement is somewhat understandable. But he did believe as best he could and Jesus cast this spirit out.

And elsewhere in the scriptures it shows we must demonstrate faith before Jesus can do his work.

Matt 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Notice in Mark 6:5 it says Jesus could not do mighty works because of their unbelief.

Faith is like lighting the fuse of a firecracker. There is much potential power there in store, but you must light the fuse to release it. Faith is like turning the ignition key of your car, there is much potential power there, but again, you must turn the key for this potential power to be effectual.

The scriptures say the word of God is quick and powerful, but it is only effectual to those that believe.

1 Thes 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Jesus and the disciples preached the same gospel to all men. The gospel "is the power" unto salvation, but only to those who believe.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

So, there are not two separate calls. God does not speak meaningless, insincere, and powerless words as Calvinism teaches. God's word is ALWAYS quick and powerful, but it is only effectual to those who believe it.

 

[jbh28]

Once again, you argue falsely. The dictionary does not define drawn as always meaning a person will be drawn to completion. You can argue that till you are blue in the face, and you will still be in error.

Every one does. You show me one that doesn't. If I draw someone to me, they come to me. If I draw a fish to me, the fish came to me. The definiton here is "to cause to come by attracting." If you disagree, show me a different one from the dictionary that is the correct one.

Look, I could give thousands of examples, but you will refuse to listen.

I have refuted every one.

Ever tried to call a dog, the dog will come close, but as soon as you reach down to pet it it runs away? It was drawn, it came close, it approached, but not 100%.

It was draw.yes. was it draw TO YOU. no.

Or how about a fellow trying to get a girl? He talks nice to her, maybe buys her presents. The girl begins to get interested and agrees to go on a date. But then she remembers why she thinks the guy is a creep and calls the date off. This sort of thing happens everyday.

She agreed but didn't go. She wasn't drawn to him.

That my friend, is circular reasoning. Saying the effectual call was effectual is saying nothing. Someday, you will realize that you have been taught very clever, but deceitful ways of thinking by others, and then you will be angry at yourself for falling for a fallacious argument like this, and be angry at those who so easily fooled you with a fallacious argument like this.

Either it is effectual or its not effectual. If God effectually does something, then He accomplishes it. You can't fail at something you effectually did. Drawing is what one side does, coming is what the other side does. If the person is drawn, then that person came. Again, show me one definition that disagrees with this. Ball is in your court.

And Jesus never said all he draws will come to him. He does say all that come were drawn, but that is an altogether different thing that you seem unable to discern.

If God draws somebody to himself, they came. In John 6, it says "unless the Fathers draws him." Draws him to what? The super marker? the baseball game? Or to Christ. If God draws the person to Christ, that means that the person came to Christ.

I believe God is indeed drawing and calling them, but it is not effectual because of their unbelief.

Fair enough, I haven't argued against that yet.

God's power is dependent on our faith.

So God isn't all powerful, he is dependent on us?

Now, I know that insults all Calvinists, but I will demonstrate it from scripture.


The problem wasn't with Jesus. Jesus had plenty of power and ability to cast this evil spirit out of the boy. No, the problem was with the man, and whether he truly believed Jesus was the Son of God who could perform this miracle. Now, you have to have a little compassion on this man, the disciples had just failed to cast this spirit out, so his discouragement is somewhat understandable. But he did believe as best he could and Jesus cast this spirit out.

Again, where have I argued against this? I'm glad you agree that it isn't a power problem with Jesus(something you said earlier seemed to say God's power was limited. God chooses to not help those that don't believe. He isn't dependent on that other than by His choice. Faith is required for Salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that.

And elsewhere in the scriptures it shows we must demonstrate faith before Jesus can do his work.

BZZZ....correction, before Jesus will do his work. he can do it, but chooses not to without faith.

Matt 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Notice in Mark 6:5 it says Jesus could not do mighty works because of their unbelief.

Faith is like lighting the fuse of a firecracker. There is much potential power there in store, but you must light the fuse to release it. Faith is like turning the ignition key of your car, there is much potential power there, but again, you must turn the key for this potential power to be effectual.

The scriptures say the word of God is quick and powerful, but it is only effectual to those that believe.

1 Thes 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Jesus and the disciples preached the same gospel to all men. The gospel "is the power" unto salvation, but only to those who believe.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

I'm not sure if you totally have misinterpreted almost everything I have said. Maybe if you would read what I write instead of assuming I'm a Calvinist and arguing against your version of Calvinism, you would understand.

So, there are not two separate calls. God does not speak meaningless, insincere, and powerless words as Calvinism teaches. God's word is ALWAYS quick and powerful, but it is only effectual to those who believe it.

So everybody is saved or does God not call everybody the same. God has called everyman to repentance. Is that call powerful even though many times it is ineffective. I would agree that men don't believe because they don't want to. The question is why did people like you and me believe. Was it because of God or us that we have to thank that we believed and therefore thank for our salvation? Who made us alive when we were dead and had no desire to be saved? Where did this ability to have faith in Christ come from and why doesn't everybody have it?

 

[convicted1]

faith comes first

I may be in the minority with this, but faith comes first. The bible states that we must believe God is, and that He is a rewarder of them that do diligently seek Him. How do we seek Him? With our whole heart, soul, mind and strength. In the four gospels, I never read where anyone got healed and saved without faith first. The woman with the 12 years issue of blood reasoned within herself that if "I might just touch His garment, I know I will be made whole(Mark ch. 5). Heb 11:1-2 states that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. And by it(faith), the elders obtained a good report. God has dealt to everyman the measure of faith...enough to get the ball rolling when He begins working on them. Jesus said "except ye believe that I am He, ye shall die in your sins, and where I am, ye can not come.?

He also stated, "Let not your hearts be troubled. Ye believe in God, believe also in Me. For in my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you. I go away and prepare a place for you. And if I go away, I will come again and receive ye unto myself, that were I am, there ye may be also." So, if they didn't believe that Jesus was who He said He was, they would not go with Him when He returns to take the Bride home. The thief on Jesus' right side sure believed who He was and Jesus told him "this day, shalt ye be with me in paradise." The thief on the left mocked Him and he died lost. Why? Because he didn't put his faith in Christ. I hope this helps.

Willis

 

[Winman]

Every one does. You show me one that doesn't. If I draw someone to me, they come to me. If I draw a fish to me, the fish came to me. The definiton here is "to cause to come by attracting." If you disagree, show me a different one from the dictionary that is the correct one.

I don't know why I continue to argue with you, you know you are in error. Just because someone or something is drawn toward someone does not mean it was brought to completion. I could call a dog, I could stoop down and offer it a treat, and the dog may be very tempted to come up and get it, it might approach very close to me and then run away. I use this as an example because almost everyone has done something like this and can relate.

We even have an example in scripture, Agrippa. He "almost" was persuaded to become a Christian.

Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

What does "persuadest" mean in this verse?

1) persuade
a) to persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe
b) to make friends of, to win one's favour, gain one's good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one
c) to tranquillise
d) to persuade unto i.e. move or induce one to persuasion to do something
2) be persuaded
a) to be persuaded, to suffer one's self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith: in a thing
1) to believe
2) to be persuaded of a thing concerning a person
b) to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with
3) to trust, have confidence, be confident

You see that the word persuadest is defined by the word induce several times. And the definition of induce is;

1.to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind: to induce a person to buy a raffle ticket.
2.to bring about, produce, or cause: That medicine will induce sleep.

Both the word persuade and induce are similar to the word drawn. It means to exert an influence upon a person or thing in order to attract them, to bring them near, or convince them.

Agrippa was very tempted or enticed because of Paul's arguments to become a Christian but did not. This shows a person can be drawn or enticed, but not fully come to accept this doctrine.

Now, you will make some absurd argument, but here is an example from scripture of a person being drawn or enticed to become a Christian, but did not come to completion.

And if you look up the word persuade in a concordance, you will see the scriptures many times say a person is persuaded to accept Christ. They are not forced, they are not regenerated against their will, faith is not imposed upon them. They are convinced by the truth and evidence of scripture to accept the truth of the gospel.

2 Cor 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks

Acts 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:

Calvinism teaches that unregenerate man will always be in absolute unwillingness and opposition to God, and that God must regenerate the man to make him willing to accept Christ, but this is not what the scriptures show. The scriptures show that a man is "persuaded". The word persuade necessarily proves that unregenrate men have a free will. Persuade does not mean coerced, compelled, or imposed upon. No, a man is persuaded or convinced to believe the word of God of his own free will.

And persuaded carries the meaning of being drawn to or attracted to. If a man is persuaded to become a Christian, he is enticed or drawn to accept it.
But the story of Agrippa shows that not all men who are drawn always come to Christ. Man has free will and can freely accept or reject Christ.

 

[Winman]

Either it is effectual or its not effectual. If God effectually does something, then He accomplishes it. You can't fail at something you effectually did. Drawing is what one side does, coming is what the other side does. If the person is drawn, then that person came. Again, show me one definition that disagrees with this. Ball is in your court.

That is pure circular reasoning. You better not ever join a debate club, they will laugh you out of the place with reasoning like this. Saying something was effectual because it was effective is meaningless. It is like saying all black dogs are black. Well, of course they are, but that is not an argument. You have been so conditioned to accept circular reasoning that you cannot even recognize it.

There is no where in scripture where it is shown that God has an effectual and general call. And whether you accept it or not, it is a tremendous insult to God to teach this. God does not ever speak ineffectual, powerless words. God created the universe by speaking it into existence. God does not speak insincere or misleading words. But if Calvinism is true, Gods speaks not only powerless and ineffectual words, he is insincere and misleading, he is dishonest.

How do you convince yourself that God can call men whom he has no intention of saving? You believe God determines before the foundation of the word to pass by certain men and allow them to perish, and yet you believe God goes out and calls these doomed men to come to him, all the while knowing it is impossible for them to come.

Your concept of God is so alien to what non-Cals believe. We do not believe God speaks insincere and misleading words. God is always 100% honest.

And don't say this isn't a problem for Calvinism, many Calvinists have expressed that they have a problem with God calling men when he has no intention of saving them.

Dr. Dick declares that the Calvinist, who is determined to see "no difficulty here, has not, as he probably imagines, more understanding than other men, but less." "The many declarations in which God exhorts man to keep his commandments, appear to him ironical, as if a father were to say to his child, 'Come,' while he knows that he can not come!"

Dr. Dick (who was a Calvinist himself) rightly says that any Calvinist who lightly brushes over this matter does not have more understanding than other men, but less. How any sensible person cannot see a tremendous problem here is fantastic to say the least.

Any honest person would have a problem here. If God has no intention of saving the unelect, then why bother calling them? What good can there be in this? It is actually mocking men who cannot possibly respond to God's call. This makes God to appear exceedingly cruel, laughing and mocking men who are to perish. But God says he has no pleasure when the wicked perish.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

There is no such thing as an ineffectual "general call". When God calls men to repentance, he sincerely means it 100% of the time. God is not willing that any man should perish, but that all should repent.

 

[Winman]

A Calvinist Birthday Party

(ding dong)

Bob- Happy Birthday Cal!

Cal- Thanks Bob, but why are you here?

Bob- What do you mean? You sent me an invitation to come to your birthday party, I have it right here. So here I am.

Cal- Well, I'm sorry Bob, I really did not want you to come to my party.

Bob- Is this a joke? You're kidding right? You are such a joker!

Cal- No, really, I did not want you to come to my party.

Bob- Then why did you send me this invitation?

Cal- I sent everyone I knew an invitation.

Bob- You're still kidding, right? Because if you're not, this is not funny. Some friends invited me on a ski trip and I wanted to go, but I told them I already had an invitation to your party and couldn't make it.

Cal- Well, I'm sorry, I had no intention of you coming, sorry you took that invitation the wrong way.

Bob- How was I supposed to take it? If you didn't want me to come, you shouldn't have sent me this invitation.

Cal- Well, I wanted it to appear that I was really inviting everyone, so I sent all my friends an invitation. But I really didn't want all of my friends to come.

Bob- Have you lost your mind Cal? Do you know I went out and bought you an expensive present?

Cal- Well, thanks, but you are not invited to my party.

Bob- Well, don't ever bother inviting me to your birthday or any other event ever again. There is something seriously wrong with you. I'm leaving.

Cal- Well, don't be angry.

Bob- Man, you have really lost it dude. You send me an invitation to your party. I cancel other plans and buy a present, and now you tell me you never wanted me here, and now you are surprised I am angry? You have obviously lost your mind.

 

[jbh28]

A Calvinist Birthday Party

(ding dong)

Bob- Happy Birthday Cal!

Cal- Thanks Bob, but why are you here?

Bob- What do you mean? You sent me an invitation to come to your birthday party, I have it right here. So here I am.

Cal- Well, I'm sorry Bob, I really did not want you to come to my party.

Bob- Is this a joke? You're kidding right? You are such a joker!

Cal- No, really, I did not want you to come to my party.

Bob- Then why did you send me this invitation?

Cal- I sent everyone I knew an invitation.

Bob- You're still kidding, right? Because if you're not, this is not funny. Some friends invited me on a ski trip and I wanted to go, but I told them I already had an invitation to your party and couldn't make it.

Cal- Well, I'm sorry, I had no intention of you coming, sorry you took that invitation the wrong way.

Bob- How was I supposed to take it? If you didn't want me to come, you shouldn't have sent me this invitation.

Cal- Well, I wanted it to appear that I was really inviting everyone, so I sent all my friends an invitation. But I really didn't want all of my friends to come.

Bob- Have you lost your mind Cal? Do you know I went out and bought you an expensive present?

Cal- Well, thanks, but you are not invited to my party.

Bob- Well, don't ever bother inviting me to your birthday or any other event ever again. There is something seriously wrong with you. I'm leaving.

Cal- Well, don't be angry.

Bob- Man, you have really lost it dude, you send me an invitation to your party. I cancel other plans and buy a present, and now you tell me you never wanted me here, and now you are surprised I am angry? You have obviously lost your mind.

Just curious if you have ever met somebody that actually believed that God would turn away somebody that came to him?

 

[The Archangel]

A Calvinist Birthday Party

(ding dong)

Bob- Happy Birthday Cal!

Cal- Thanks Bob, but why are you here?

Bob- What do you mean? You sent me an invitation to come to your birthday party, I have it right here. So here I am.

Cal- Well, I'm sorry Bob, I really did not want you to come to my party.

Bob- Is this a joke? You're kidding right? You are such a joker!

Cal- No, really, I did not want you to come to my party.

Bob- Then why did you send me this invitation?

Cal- I sent everyone I knew an invitation.

Bob- You're still kidding, right? Because if you're not, this is not funny. Some friends invited me on a ski trip and I wanted to go, but I told them I already had an invitation to your party and couldn't make it.

Cal- Well, I'm sorry, I had no intention of you coming, sorry you took that invitation the wrong way.

Bob- How was I supposed to take it? If you didn't want me to come, you shouldn't have sent me this invitation.

Cal- Well, I wanted it to appear that I was really inviting everyone, so I sent all my friends an invitation. But I really didn't want all of my friends to come.

Bob- Have you lost your mind Cal? Do you know I went out and bought you an expensive present?

Cal- Well, thanks, but you are not invited to my party.

Bob- Well, don't ever bother inviting me to your birthday or any other event ever again. There is something seriously wrong with you. I'm leaving.

Cal- Well, don't be angry.

Bob- Man, you have really lost it dude, you send me an invitation to your party. I cancel other plans and buy a present, and now you tell me you never wanted me here, and now you are surprised I am angry? You have obviously lost your mind.

This is an example of a basic misunderstanding of the Calvinist position.

FLAW #1: Bob and Cal are friendly acquaintances. This gives mankind way too much credit. The sin of man (whether it is Adam's sin or our own personal sin is irrelevant at this point) has not "damaged" the relationship between God and man, it had irrevocably destroyed it--leaving only God to do something radical to restore the relationship (See Christ). Why else would the Bible say while we were enemies with God, Christ died for us?

FLAW #2: Bob actually wants to come to Cal's party. You persist in giving man a "neutral" stance when it comes to the things of God. The natural man is not "neutral," he is firmly and hopeless opposed to the things of God. He does not give God the time of day because he has become a god unto himself. The major tenant of Calvinism that you are missing is this: God, through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes those who are unwilling willing.

There are many more flaws in your example, but these two demonstrate your hopeless misunderstanding of your position and your vapid arguments. It is Ironic that you recently said:

That is pure circular reasoning. You better not ever join a debate club, they will laugh you out of the place with reasoning like this. Saying something was effectual because it was effective is meaningless. It is like saying all black dogs are black. Well, of course they are, but that is not an argument. You have been so conditioned to accept circular reasoning that you cannot even recognize it.

As if you argued well! That is hilarious. Thank you for the comic relief. Of course all of your arguments are based on flawed, non-contextual proof-texting (as some other KJV only people I know are wont to do). You argue that things are true and universal (as far as your interpretations go) only because you believe them. So, in "Winman World" you may be right, but that of course rarely has little impact or bearing on the real world.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[jbh28]

That is pure circular reasoning. You better not ever join a debate club, they will laugh you out of the place with reasoning like this. Saying something was effectual because it was effective is meaningless. It is like saying all black dogs are black. Well, of course they are, but that is not an argument. You have been so conditioned to accept circular reasoning that you cannot even recognize it.

Did I say something was effectual because it was effectual? No I died. You said God effectively did something but failed. I said that the word effectual means that it was accomplished. And lying in a debate will get you no where.

There is no where in scripture where it is shown that God has an effectual and general call. And whether you accept it or not, it is a tremendous insult to God to teach this. God does not ever speak ineffectual, powerless words. God created the universe by speaking it into existence. God does not speak insincere or misleading words. But if Calvinism is true, Gods speaks not only powerless and ineffectual words, he is insincere and misleading, he is dishonest.

Does God call everyone? Is everyone saved? If God only has an effectual call and calls everyone, then all would be saved. If God calls everyone and only a few are saved, then the call isn't always effectual.

How do you convince yourself that God can call men whom he has no intention of saving? You believe God determines before the foundation of the word to pass by certain men and allow them to perish, and yet you believe God goes out and calls these doomed men to come to him, all the while knowing it is impossible for them to come.

These men are going to hell for their sins and they have no problem with that. God is not violating their will by sending them to hell. Do you believe God has called everyone to repentance?

Your concept of God is so alien to what non-Cals believe. We do not believe God speaks insincere and misleading words. God is always 100% honest.

So do I. God will reject no one that comes to Him.

And don't say this isn't a problem for Calvinism, many Calvinists have expressed that they have a problem with God calling men when he has no intention of saving them.

What does that have to do with me?

Dr. Dick (who was a Calvinist himself) rightly says that any Calvinist who lightly brushes over this matter does not have more understanding than other men, but less. How any sensible person cannot see a tremendous problem here is fantastic to say the least.

Any honest person would have a problem here. If God has no intention of saving the unelect, then why bother calling them? What good can there be in this? It is actually mocking men who cannot possibly respond to God's call. This makes God to appear exceedingly cruel, laughing and mocking men who are to perish. But God says he has no pleasure when the wicked perish.

You are right. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. God wants all men to repent. I do find difficulty in all of this. I don't understand it all. That doesn't however mean it isn't true. My biggest question is how could God, who is powerful enough to save every single person on earth, not save everyone.

You really need to learn my position.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

There is no such thing as an ineffectual "general call". When God calls men to repentance, he sincerely means it 100% of the time. God is not willing that any man should perish, but that all should repent.

Is God's call always effective? I agree that God wants men to repent of their sins, but we know that isn't going to happen. God has the power to save every single person on earth, but that isn't going to happen.

 

[Winman]

I knew you would bring up those very objections. The point I was trying to make is that according to Calvinism, God "seems" to be inviting all men to be saved, but really is not.

So, I will modify it, but it will still show how absurd your position is.

Cal's wife Sue- Honey, I was just about to mail out the invitations to your birthday party and I noticed you have one here for Bob.

Cal- That's right.

Sue- You hate Bob, and he hates you, he will never come to your party.

Cal- You're right, I hate Bob and don't really want him to come, and I know he hates me and will never come.

Sue- So why are you going to this trouble? You know, these invitations were expensive. And what will Bob think when he gets this invitation?

Cal- Well, I want him to think that I really care about him, and so am inviting him to my party.

Sue- But you don't like Bob, you hate him. Why do you want him to believe you care about him?

Cal- That will make me appear to be a better person than him. It will make it appear that I am loving and really care about him.

Sue- Oh, I see. So this is a deception designed to make yourself appear good?

Cal- Oh no, I really am a very good and loving person.

Sue- Well, you don't love Bob.

Cal- That's right, I hate him.

Sue- Well, doesn't this really show you are dishonest and insincere?

Cal- That's not how it will appear, it will appear I care for him.

Sue- Oh, I see. Well, I'm not going to be any part of this. If you hate Bob and don't want him to come, then I'm not sending out this misleading and deceptive invitation.

Cal- Then give it to me, I'm sending it out.

And with that Cal goes out and mails the invitation to Bob.

How's this? Is this more fitting with your doctrine?

 

[Winman]

As if you argued well! That is hilarious. Thank you for the comic relief. Of course all of your arguments are based on flawed, non-contextual proof-texting (as some other KJV only people I know are wont to do). You argue that things are true and universal (as far as your interpretations go) only because you believe them. So, in "Winman World" you may be right, but that of course rarely has little impact or bearing on the real world.

Well, seeing you are a Calvinist, it is very likely you do not recognize circular reasoning either. To say something that was effective was effectual is circular reasoning, just as saying whosoever is willing is willing is circular reasoning.

Someday, it will sink in, but I'm not guessing anytime soon.

 

[jbh28]

I knew you would bring up those very objections. The point I was trying to make is that according to Calvinism, God "seems" to be inviting all men to be saved, but really is not.

So, I will modify it, but it will still show how absurd your position is.

Cal's wife Sue- Honey, I was just about to mail out the invitations to your birthday party and I noticed you have one here for Bob.

Cal- That's right.

Sue- You hate Bob, and he hates you, he will never come to your party.

Cal- You're right, I hate Bob and don't really want him to come, and I know he hates me and will never come.

Sue- So why are you going to this trouble? You know, these invitations were expensive. And what will Bob think when he gets this invitation?

Cal- Well, I want him to think that I really care about him, and so am inviting him to my party.

Sue- But you don't like Bob, you hate him. Why do you want him to believe you care about him?

Cal- That will make me appear to be a better person than him. It will make it appear that I am loving and really care about him.

Sue- Oh, I see. So this is a deception designed to make yourself appear good?

Cal- Oh no, I really am a very good and loving person.

Sue- Well, you don't love Bob.

Cal- That's right, I hate him.

Sue- Well, doesn't this really show you are dishonest and insincere?

Cal- That's not how it will appear, it will appear I care for him.

Sue- Oh, I see. Well, I'm not going to be any part of this. If you hate Bob and don't want him to come, then I'm not sending out this misleading and deceptive invitation.

Cal- Then give it to me, I'm sending it out.

And with that Cal goes out and mails the invitation to Bob.

How's this? Is this more fitting with your doctrine?

not me. However, you want to get back to the Bible instead of emotional type arguments? I would assume you believe God has called everybody to Salvation. I assume you believe God will not save everyone. Is this because God is powerless to save all?

 

[The Archangel]

I knew you would bring up those very objections. The point I was trying to make is that according to Calvinism, God "seems" to be inviting all men to be saved, but really is not.

So, I will modify it, but it will still show how absurd your position is.

Cal's wife Sue- Honey, I was just about to mail out the invitations to your birthday party and I noticed you have one here for Bob.

Cal- That's right.

Sue- You hate Bob, and he hates you, he will never come to your party.

Cal- You're right, I hate Bob and don't really want him to come, and I know he hates me and will never come.

Sue- So why are you going to this trouble? You know, these invitations were expensive. And what will Bob think when he gets this invitation?

Cal- Well, I want him to think that I really care about him, and so am inviting him to my party.

Sue- But you don't like Bob, you hate him. Why do you want him to believe you care about him?

Cal- That will make me appear to be a better person than him. It will make it appear that I am loving and really care about him.

Sue- Oh, I see. So this is a deception designed to make yourself appear good?

Cal- Oh no, I really am a very good and loving person.

Sue- Well, you don't love Bob.

Cal- That's right, I hate him.

Sue- Well, doesn't this really show you are dishonest and insincere?

Cal- That's not how it will appear, it will appear I care for him.

Sue- Oh, I see. Well, I'm not going to be any part of this. If you hate Bob and don't want him to come, then I'm not sending out this misleading and deceptive invitation.

Cal- Then give it to me, I'm sending it out.

And with that Cal goes out and mails the invitation to Bob.

How's this? Is this more fitting with your doctrine?

No, it is not more fitting.

FLAW #1: You have a barrier (you call it "hate") between Bob and Cal. While there is an insurmountable barrier between God and man, it is not a mutual hatred. Rather, it is clear that God demonstrates His love to even the non-elect by common grace--restraining evil in the world and even restraining the evil that the non-elect (and the elect, I might add) are capable of doing in and of themselves.

Further, you have the instigator of hatred here as God. In Scripture, it is clear that man hates God and that man is the instigator of the hatred.

Again there are many flaws, but the one above ought to cover it for now.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[jbh28]

Well, seeing you are a Calvinist, it is very likely you do not recognize circular reasoning either. To say something that was effective was effectual is circular reasoning, just as saying whosoever is willing is willing is circular reasoning.

Someday, it will sink in, but I'm not guessing anytime soon.

Did I say that?

also, who is saying whosoever is willing are the ones willing. That is not circular, but just an obvious statement. The question there is why are they willing. The effective was where you said something was effective but didn't work. You were using the wrong word(which doesn't' surprise me).

Of course you still refuse to answer me. Does God call everyone? Is God's call always effective?

 

[The Archangel]

Well, seeing you are a Calvinist, it is very likely you do not recognize circular reasoning either. To say something that was effective was effectual is circular reasoning, just as saying whosoever is willing is willing is circular reasoning.

Someday, it will sink in, but I'm not guessing anytime soon.

Of course...now we see your true colors. We have an ad hominem just because I am a Calvinist. You accuse me of "circular reasoning" when I have not argued for that simply because of my theological position.

So if you hate Calvinists so much, why do you even bother to quote Matthew Henry (as you are prone to do)?

I have a question for you...but I think I'll start a new thread so as not to hijack this one.

The Archangel

 

[Dr. Walter]

No, this does not represent my position at all. First, all men are "commanded" to repent not invited to repent. The command does not depend upon love or hate but upon responsibility.

Second the invitation is qualified. It is not an invitation to those who are unwilling but willing. It is not an invitation to those who are not weary of sin but who are weary and heavely laden with sin (Mt. 11:35).

Third, God does not elect anyone to hell as that is their own free choice and it is their preferred choice over seeking God as there is none, no, not one left to their own free choice who will seek God (Psa. 14:2-3; 53:2-3; Rom. 3:10-11; 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; etc., etc.). Their hatred of God is deep and inherent in their fallen nature (Jn. 6:45; Rom. 8:7).

Fourth, Justice would condemn the whole human race to hell based upon their own resistance to the light God has provided and they continually and habitually resist (Rom. 1:18-3:9).

Fifth, election is of grace (Rom. 11:5-6) - that means those saved DON'T DESERVE to be saved but DESERVE to be condemned just like the rest.

Sixth, election is unto salvation through sanctication (setting apart) of the Spirit and belief of the trutth (2 Thes. 2:13).

Seventh, the preachers of the gospel preach the gospel indiscrimately to all men because they have no idea who the elect are except by their response to the gospel (Acts 13:48; 1 Thes. 1:4-5).

Last, the elect are "the called according to God's purpose" in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4,11; Rom. 8:28-32) and every single person "called according to God's purpose" is foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and will be glorified all by grace. This is the force of the Aorist tense with the repeated words "for whom...them also" in Romans 8:29-30.

You can love it or hate it but all who deny it are twisting the scriptures to their own harm (2 Pet. 3:15-16).

I knew you would bring up those very objections. The point I was trying to make is that according to Calvinism, God "seems" to be inviting all men to be saved, but really is not.

So, I will modify it, but it will still show how absurd your position is.

Cal's wife Sue- Honey, I was just about to mail out the invitations to your birthday party and I noticed you have one here for Bob.

Cal- That's right.

Sue- You hate Bob, and he hates you, he will never come to your party.

Cal- You're right, I hate Bob and don't really want him to come, and I know he hates me and will never come.

Sue- So why are you going to this trouble? You know, these invitations were expensive. And what will Bob think when he gets this invitation?

Cal- Well, I want him to think that I really care about him, and so am inviting him to my party.

Sue- But you don't like Bob, you hate him. Why do you want him to believe you care about him?

Cal- That will make me appear to be a better person than him. It will make it appear that I am loving and really care about him.

Sue- Oh, I see. So this is a deception designed to make yourself appear good?

Cal- Oh no, I really am a very good and loving person.

Sue- Well, you don't love Bob.

Cal- That's right, I hate him.

Sue- Well, doesn't this really show you are dishonest and insincere?

Cal- That's not how it will appear, it will appear I care for him.

Sue- Oh, I see. Well, I'm not going to be any part of this. If you hate Bob and don't want him to come, then I'm not sending out this misleading and deceptive invitation.

Cal- Then give it to me, I'm sending it out.

And with that Cal goes out and mails the invitation to Bob.

How's this? Is this more fitting with your doctrine?