"some of you" believe not

[The Biblicist]

It says the same thing about Israel in Jeremiah 31:3, God DREW Israel and they rebelled.

You need to read the rest of the context in Jeremiah 31 which shows this drawing was effectual to the savlation of "ALL" Israel (Jer. 31:34). Their resistance was overcome as that is what irresistable grace is, it overcomes resistance and if there were no resistance then there would nothing to overcome.

However Jeremiahs 31:3 forward to verse 34 is an EFFECTUAL CALLING AND GATHERING from all nations and "ALL" are saved "from the least to the greatest." I suggest you more carefully select your proof texts and more carefully read the context your proof texts are found as this context repudiates your very argument:

3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.
5 Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things.
6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God.
7 For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel.
8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
10 ¶ Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
11 For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.
12 Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the LORD, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all........
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Finally, their RESISTANCE was under the OLD COVENANT TERMS but there is NO RESISTANCE under the NEW COVENANT terms and we are under the very same NEW COVENANT as verse 34 is quoted twice in Hebrews, once in chapter 8 and once in chapter 10 as the New Covenant of Grace.

So your whole argument falls under the OLD COVENANT terms not the NEW COVENANT TERMS and Jeremiah 31:32 proves their resistance was under the OLD COVENANT terms and Jeremiah 3:1-33-34 proves IRRESISTABLE AND EFFECTUALLY calling under the NEW COVENANT.

They say "Judas was the son of perdition" even though the Scripture's PLAINLY SAY that God gave Judas to Christ and He did not come.

John 6 says Judas "IS" a devil six chapters previous to John 17. John 6 places him among the FALSE PROFESSORS who did not believe in Christ (Jn. 6:64). The Father gave Judas to Christ and Christ chose Judas still being a "devil" to be "the son of perdition."

Your theory requires PITTING scripture against scripture while my interpretation HARMONIZES both scriptures.

Your theory calls Christ a liar as Christ says he "IS" a devil and is placed among "some" professed disciples whom christ "KNEW FROM THE BEGINNING" never believed and were never drawn by the Father (Jn. 6:64-65).

I presented this evidence in much more detail in response to your first post on it on another thread and you never responded to the evidence. Neither do you respond to the evidence against your position here but simply repeat it.

Deal with the evidence against your position.

 

[Winman]

I've never studied effectual/general call. The Bible says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ (the gospel).

What? You defend a doctrine you know little about? Here is an article on the subject from a Reformed site.


http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-296

Correct.



Yes, God's is working in those who believe. What does that statement have to do with Calvinism?

No, Calvinism teaches the effectual call makes you believe. The scriptures teach the word of God works in them that believe, the exact opposite.

Here is an example. Suppose someone told you the grocery store is giving away a hundred dollars worth of free food, all you have to do is go down and get it.

Well, if you believe you will go down. Your faith will effectually work to cause you to go down.

If you do not believe you will not go down.

It is faith that causes the word to effectually work in you.

Never heard that. God's word does whatever He intends it to do.

What is the context of this verse?

 

[The Biblicist]

I beg to differ Amy. The Lord does not speak idle words. There is a reason we are told the net broke

You can't be serious? You are likening the power of God to the strength of a net made by humans???????

You can't be serious? You actually believe the context of the fishing exposition is applied in that same context to the doctrine of drawing by the Father? Verse please??

You just jerk a text out of context here and there and weave them together and build a doctrine. The power of God is not like a human net that breaks because of too much stress against God's power so that man breaks God. Pleeeeease!

 

[The Biblicist]

Amy, I could plainly quote Stephen where he said the Jews he was preaching to did always resist the Holy Ghost.

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.

This text repudiates your teaching! This text does not say 'SOMETIMES" or "OFTEN" ye resist the Holy Ghost as did your Fathers but "ALWAYS" - as that is the condition of the "carnal mind" in Romans 8:7.

If the Holy Spirit was not drawing these men, then they could not have been said to be resisting the Holy Spirit.

The state of "enmity with God" and being "not subject to the will of God" (resistance) is the active condition of the carnal mind. It is that way by nature and needs nothing but exposure to the light to show its hatred of the light.

A fish that is swimming free is not resisting being pulled in, but a fish that is on a hook or in a net.

A fish being pulled in by a net is having that resistance overcome as the power of God is stronger than any human net and that is why it is called irresistable grace. Not because there is not resistance but because the resistance is rendered ineffectual by a greater power.

There are MANY scriptures that refute Irresistible Grace, for example the story of king Agrippa;

Acts 26:27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

You can't say the Holy Spirit was not drawing Agrippa, as he confessed he was almost persuaded to be a Christian.

You can't say he was because NOTHING in the text or context says he was! Moreover, John 6:45 denies that "ANY MAN" so drawn by the Father fails to come to Christ.

Bottom line, EVERY SINGLE PROOF TEXT you have used totally OMITS the word "draw" or "drawn" and you READ IT INTO the text and the definition of "eisgesis" means to "READ INTO THE TEXT" what the text does not say or mean.

 

[Iconoclast]

Your Reformed brothers won't get you into heaven. And you might be careful who you follow and where.

I was effectually drawn by the Father to the Son,by the Spirit...before I knew anything about reformed,non reformed....:wavey::wavey:

Jesus seeks and saves those given to Him by the Father.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, if we cast out the net (preach the gospel) many will be saved, but not ALL.

Calvinists know this, that is why they have to make up the false doctrine of "general" and "effectual" calls. There is not a single word in scripture to support this false doctrine.

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 and Romans 8:28-30; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; John 6:37-39; John 6:44-45 all teach the effectual call and teach it clearly. If you would care to take this subject up and these texts up on another thread, I will be more than happy to accomodate you.

 

[The Biblicist]

64 But 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.
65 And he said, Therefore saidI unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

1. Who is he speaking about when he said "some OF YOU"?

a. Those he knew "from the beginning" that believed not
b. "Many" that were "OF HIS DISCIPLES"

2. What reason does Jesus give for their condition of unbelief?

Therefore saidI unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

3. Where does Judas fit within this context?

But 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.

a. He is placed among the "some of you that believed not"
b. Among those "he knew from the beginning who they were that believed not"

4. Hence, the stated fact that Judas "IS" a devil demands what?

a. He "IS" presently a devil when Jesus spoke these words as it is PRESENT TENSE and a STATE OF BEING verb used.
b. He was among "SOME" of His disciples that never beleived.
c. He was NEVER among those the Father drew to come to Christ in saving faith - v. 65 as verse 65 explains WHY Jesus "knew from the beginning" did not believe in him.
d. He could not be a true believer PRESENTLY and "IS" a devil PRESENTLY.

5. These PLURAL "disciples" which left him are not named among those Jesus lost in John 17 but only Judas why?

a. These including Judas were not chosen by the Father and given to the Son to come to Him in truth faith.
b. NONE were chosen by the Father and given to the Son in the same sense as Judas as "the son of perdition"
c. He was chosen by the Father and given to the Son as a lost man for that very purpose as a "lost" man

CONCLUSION: Christ never denied they PROFESSED to have believed in him, he merely denied that they EVER truly beleived in him or as John later describes such:

"They WENT OUT from us BECAUSE they were NOT OF US; for if they had been of us THEY WOULD NO DOUBT HAVE CONTINUED WITH US, but they went out BECAUSE ALL of them were not of us. - 1 Jn. 2:19 more literal translation.

As usual our opponents dare not address the evidences put forth in the OP. Here they are again, if anyone cares to directly address them.

 

[Winman]

You can't be serious? You are likening the power of God to the strength of a net made by humans???????

You can't be serious? You actually believe the context of the fishing exposition is applied in that same context to the doctrine of drawing by the Father? Verse please??

You just jerk a text out of context here and there and weave them together and build a doctrine. The power of God is not like a human net that breaks because of too much stress against God's power so that man breaks God. Pleeeeease!

As I said to Amy, there is much other scripture besides this, there is Stephen telling the Jews that they do always resist the Holy Ghost.

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.

You can't resist something that is not holding you or pulling on you. A fish that is freely swimming in the lake is not resisting you. The moment you hook him and attempt to draw him in, then he can fight against you and resist you. Words have meaning.

King Agrippa was almost persuaded. This shows the Holy Spirit was having an influence on him, it was drawing or enticing him to believe, yet, as far as we know, he never did become a Christian.

And as I mentioned before, king Agrippa also refutes Total Inability as Paul said he KNEW Agrippa believed the prophets.

Acts 26:27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

So no, I do not form my beliefs from one single verse of scripture, I look at scriptures overall to determine what I believe. There is much scripture that easily refutes Irresistible Grace.

 

[Winman]

As usual our opponents dare not address the evidences put forth in the OP. Here they are again, if anyone cares to directly address them.

Oh brother! You are so full of yourself. I do not know of anyone who repeatedly quotes his own self like you!

Simply insisting you are correct doesn't make it so.

 

[DrJamesAch]

You need to read the rest of the context in Jeremiah 31 which shows this drawing was effectual to the savlation of "ALL" Israel (Jer. 31:34). Their resistance was overcome as that is what irresistable grace is, it overcomes resistance and if there were no resistance then there would nothing to overcome.

However Jeremiahs 31:3 forward to verse 34 is an EFFECTUAL CALLING AND GATHERING from all nations and "ALL" are saved "from the least to the greatest." I suggest you more carefully select your proof texts and more carefully read the context your proof texts are found as this context repudiates your very argument:

3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.
5 Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things.
6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God.
7 For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel.
8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
10 ¶ Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
11 For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.
12 Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the LORD, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all........
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.




John 6 says Judas "IS" a devil six chapters previous to John 17. John 6 places him among the FALSE PROFESSORS who did not believe in Christ (Jn. 6:64). The Father gave Judas to Christ and Christ chose Judas still being a "devil" to be "the son of perdition."

Your theory requires PITTING scripture against scripture while my interpretation HARMONIZES both scriptures.

Your theory calls Christ a liar as Christ says he "IS" a devil and is placed among "some" professed disciples whom christ "KNEW FROM THE BEGINNING" never believed and were never drawn by the Father (Jn. 6:64-65).

I presented this evidence in much more detail in response to your first post on it on another thread and you never responded to the evidence. Neither do you respond to the evidence against your position here but simply repeat it.

Deal with the evidence against your position.

OH HOGWASH. There's no such thing as "effectual calling" The BIBLE says "DRAW" the same way in Jeremiah as it does in John 6. Plain and simple. You continue to add presupposition garbage to God's word. It has nothing to do with "gathering all nations". Verse 34 is STILL ABOUT ISRAEL. But anyway, using YOUR logic on John 6:39-40, Jeremiah 31:3 comes before Jeremiah 31:34, so the definition of DRAW comes before verse 34. Verse 33 CLEARLY says "this covenant will I make with the HOUSE OF ISRAEL" You just read a whole bunch on nonsense right into the text. Jeremiah 31 says nothing about "Gathering all nations". It says gathering ISRAEL from all nations.

Israel's resistance was NOT overcome. They were DRAWN and REJECTED GOD. Jeremiah 31:3 says 'I HAVE drawn thee" not "I WILL draw thee" to fit your presuppositional at-some-time-in-the-future application. Can you tell the difference between the "I WILLS" and "I HAVEs"?? God DREW THEM, and THEY WOULD NOT. The "I WILLS" are what God is going to do at the millennial kingdom, the I HAVES are WHY HE HAS TO DO IT AGAIN because Israel WOULD NOT (Matt 23:37).

You refuse to accept the plain reading of Scripture that clearly shows that God had DRAWN Israel, and Israel RESISTED and REJECTED God. That's why Jeremiah 31:4 has to say "AGAIN I will build thee".

Your view on Judas does not fit Scripture, IT FITS YOUR ARGUMENT. Your argument, however, is not based on Scripture. The account with Judas only seems to contradict John 6 when you READ EFFECTUAL CALLING INTO THE TEXT. You want to dance around the text and use human reasoning to explain it way, but WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY? It makes no difference that he was a devil, Jesus said that...OK wait for it, pay close attention to this..

HAVE I NOT CHOSEN YOU TWELVE -John 6:70

He didn't say He CHOSE ELEVEN, and yet all Calvinists use John 12 and 17 to tie presuppositions together but do not apply the terms "CHOSEN" and "GIVEN" consistently. CONSISTENTLY applied, these verse show that the Father GAVE Judas to Christ, Christ had CHOSEN Judas, and Judas was LOST. Why? Because He did not come, and that blows the Calvinist interpretation of John 6:37 and John 6:44 to the moon and back. There is not contradiction with John 6:37-44, ch 12, and 17:12. The conflict is in the erroneous Calvinist definition of CHOSEN, DRAW and GIVEN that must be eisegeted with man-made theological presuppositional terms to explain the condundrum that the plain reading of the Bible does to their system.

 

[Winman]

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 and Romans 8:28-30; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; John 6:37-39; John 6:44-45 all teach the effectual call and teach it clearly. If you would care to take this subject up and these texts up on another thread, I will be more than happy to accomodate you.

None of those scriptures teach that some men are called with a powerless "general" call, and that others are called with a powerful "effectual" call.

Show me where ANY of these verses say any such thing. You can't do it.

 

[Iconoclast]

You couldn't interpret a bowl of alphabet soup with Vanna White giving you free vowels let alone proper exegesis. If you're going to use the same lines all the time, try to be original once in a while. I can see cut and pasting creeds, but cutting and pasting your stale put-downs from your dinkdading templates is ....:sleep::sleeping_2:

No one takes you serious at all.I do cut and paste but I say so openly.

I do not plagiarize Jonathan Edwards and claim I wrote it.Everyone is onto you so I need not waste too much time with your bogus ideas...false greek,and everything else they have caught you offering up.

 

[Winman]

I was effectually drawn by the Father to the Son,by the Spirit...before I knew anything about reformed,non reformed....:wavey::wavey:

Jesus seeks and saves those given to Him by the Father.

You just keep telling yourself that over and over again, and maybe someday you will be convinced. :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

As I said to Amy, there is much other scripture besides this, there is Stephen telling the Jews that they do always resist the Holy Ghost.

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.

As I said before, this text does not say "SOMETIMES" but "ALWAYS." This text teaches absolute total depravity and refusal of the carnal mind to "submit to the law of God."

Secondly, a mind that is at "enmity" with God and "is not subject to the law of God" ALWAYS resists God because that is its nature not because God is drawing it but because it HATES the light and "WILL NOT COME TO THE LIGHT because its deeds are evil. Resistance is its nature and it needs no drawing but only exposure to light to resist it.

King Agrippa was almost persuaded. This shows the Holy Spirit was having an influence on him

Did Paul say it was "The Holy Spirit" that "almost" persuaded him? No! Does Paul say elsewhere that "we" as preachers "persuade" men? Yes!

2Co 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.

As you admit yourself:

it was drawing or enticing him to believe, yet, as far as we know, he never did become a Christian. - Winman

There is no evidence from this text that refutes irresistable grace or totatl depravity! Nothing except what you READ INTO the text.

 

[The Biblicist]

None of those scriptures teach that some men are called with a powerless "general" call, and that others are called with a powerful "effectual" call.

Show me where ANY of these verses say any such thing. You can't do it.

I will be glad to open a thread up to this subject. Coming soon to your nearest Baptist Forum.

 

[The Biblicist]

Oh brother! You are so full of yourself. I do not know of anyone who repeatedly quotes his own self like you!

Simply insisting you are correct doesn't make it so.

I just stated the facts! If you can find one poster that addressed directly each of the evidences of the OP then please do point it out!!! As normal all opponents can't deal with the OP but try to derail it by changing the subject and so here we go again.

The OP provides evidences to prove that Judas was not given by the Father as "given" is defined in John 6 or "drawn" by the Father as defined in John 6. He was chosen by Christ and given to Christ by the Father to be "the son of perdition" and as one who were part of "some" that "FROM THE BEGINNING" NEVER BELEIVED but who never believed but at the time of John 6 "IS A DEVIL" and continued to be a "devil" right to his death.

 

[DrJamesAch]

No one takes you serious at all.I do cut and paste but I say so openly.

I do not plagiarize Jonathan Edwards and claim I wrote it.Everyone is onto you so I need not waste too much time with your bogus ideas...false greek,and everything else they have caught you offering up.

Burl Ives called and wants his beard back. If I was going to plagiarize anyone, it certainly wouldn't be a Calvinist slave owner. You can't even get the right author that I quoted, and of course I never said it was mine, I just let you believe that because you and your buddies were so caught up trying to prove me wrong that I knew you would contradict anything I said, and it worked like oil on a piston. I'm pretty sure you still have nightmares about getting outwitted like that that you refuted your own colleagues. Thanks for bringing that up though, I almost forget. That was one of the funniest things I've seen was a Calvinist arguing against his own theologians.

You have spent way too many nights in a cramped up truck bed. Get some exercise and stretch out once in a while. Eat a Snickers. You're not you when you're famished.

 

[Winman]

As I said before, this text does not say "SOMETIMES" but "ALWAYS." This text teaches absolute total depravity and refusal of the carnal mind to "submit to the law of God."

LOL, you still don't get it. If I said my neighbors NEVER go to church, no, not one, would you understand that to mean they were UNABLE to go to church?
NO, and no logical and thoughtful person would ever assume that, yet that is exactly what you are doing, reading INABILITY into scripture where it is not mentioned.

Just because these persons have always resisted the Holy Spirit does not mean they are unable to repent and believe. You simply assume Total Inability, this scripture (and no scripture) does not say, prove, or even imply inability.

Secondly, a mind that is at "enmity" with God and "is not subject to the law of God" ALWAYS resists God because that is its nature not because God is drawing it but because it HATES the light and "WILL NOT COME TO THE LIGHT because its deeds are evil.

I agree, but this does not mean a person cannot think another way. Jesus said his disciples were indeed willing to obey him.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This was BEFORE the disciples received the Holy Spirit, so Jesus is speaking of their natural spirit here, and Jesus said they were WILLING. You can't simply ignore scripture you don't like.

Did Paul say it was "The Holy Spirit" that "almost" persuaded him? No! Does Paul say elsewhere that "we" as preachers "persuade" men? Yes!

2Co 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.

As you admit yourself:

it was drawing or enticing him to believe, yet, as far as we know, he never did become a Christian. - Winman

There is no evidence from this text that refutes irresistable grace or totatl depravity! Nothing except what you READ INTO the text.

You are grasping straws now. Paul always preached with the Holy Spirit.

I do not have to refute irresistible grace, it is not mentioned in scripture one single time. You need to prove that it exists.

 

[DrJamesAch]

As I said before, this text does not say "SOMETIMES" but "ALWAYS." This text teaches absolute total depravity and refusal of the carnal mind to "submit to the law of God."

Secondly, a mind that is at "enmity" with God and "is not subject to the law of God" ALWAYS resists God because that is its nature not because God is drawing it but because it HATES the light and "WILL NOT COME TO THE LIGHT because its deeds are evil. Resistance is its nature and it needs no drawing but only exposure to light to resist it.





Did Paul say it was "The Holy Spirit" that "almost" persuaded him? No! Does Paul say elsewhere that "we" as preachers "persuade" men? Yes!

2Co 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.

As you admit yourself:

it was drawing or enticing him to believe, yet, as far as we know, he never did become a Christian. - Winman

There is no evidence from this text that refutes irresistable grace or totatl depravity! Nothing except what you READ INTO the text.

If the Holy Ghost is irresistible, then it makes no difference how you butcher Romans 8:7 because regardless of whether a sinner is "ALWAYS" resisting, irresistible grace says HE CAN'T. Acts 7:51 doesn't say that "Because they were unable, they were always resisting because they were bound to their nature" No it doesn't say that. According to irresistible grace, God CHANGES THAT MIND SET so even if you interpretation of Romans 8:7 were correct (and it's isn't by a long shot as I've already proven), it would MAKE NO DIFFERENCE HERE because they resisted the HOLY GHOST. You can't RESIST unless you are CALLED.

Your entire brush off of Acts 7:51 totally contradicts your own view of total inability for ALL OF US were dead in trespass and sins. We were ALL like that unsaved person who sinned. Just because you claim that the audience in Acts 7 was "always resisting" because of Romans 8:7 means nothing. ALL OF US were once a Romans 8:7 if that's how you wish to view it, yet the evidence in Acts 7 shows that the grace that was offered by the Holy Spirit (which IS the Holy Spirit's role-John 16:8-9) was RESISTED. It can't be called RESISTANCE if they are never CALLED. Your argument only shows that they resist naturally, but that doesn't explain how they are RESISTING THE HOLY GHOST. Acts 7:51 is a death blow to Calvinism no matter how you try and spin it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach

You can't even get the right author that I quoted, and of course I never said it was mine, I just let you believe that because you and your buddies were so caught up trying to prove me wrong that I knew you would contradict anything I said, and it worked like oil on a piston.

It did not work at all.I clearly said no one would pick on you if you posted those things.You did not out wit anyone by your lying. You are lying right now...go look at what I posted.....why lie ACH??

I'm pretty sure you still have nightmares about getting outwitted like that that you refuted your own colleagues.

You are delusional.I could not believe you would lie then or now but it seems to not be a problem for you:thumbs:

Thanks for bringing that up though, I almost forget. That was one of the funniest things I've seen was a Calvinist arguing against his own theologians.

It did not happen.....so the joke is your post.

You have spent way too many nights in a cramped up truck bed. Get some exercise and stretch out once in a while. Eat a Snickers. You're not you when you're famished.

Thanks for your concern Ach:wavey: If you repent and get serious about scripture I would look forward to helping you.:thumbs:

Here is what I said ACh-

Why Lie????

Here is what I said-

ACH,

Now no one is going to pick at this as it is more in line with what is believed by cals'. Where you get "picked on" is your posts that give no indications of any of these truths you presented here...

In other words....what you have stated cal's believe in other posts....could be answered by your own post here as source material.....

My post was clear and you should not twist it...
So...there is no attack...only you attacking Christians....I would not have answered you except your habitual lying needs to be exposed.