The basis of God's predestination

[trueliberty]

The issue of the basis of God's predestination being his foreknowledge of who would believe the Gospel has nothing to do with a person working their way to heaven.

Salvation is only made possible by God, "born of God" (John 1:13) "being born again..by the word of God (1 Peter 1:23)
Spiritual things can only be spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). One can neither receive them or know them without the Holy Spirit.

Oh-oh does that means only God can save a person? (Ephesians 2:8) Of course. Does that mean that I need a supernatural spiritual revelation from God to take off the blinders that Satan has given me (II Corinthians 4:4)? You betcha. I think we all, miraculously, can believe these things.

But the misunderstanding comes in the ignorance of other scriptures (despite the plea that you look at all the pertinent verses) that show God via the Holy Spirit draws and convicts all--that He gives revelation to all.

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

John 6:44 "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 (the ones who believe on the Son according to verse 40)

John 1:9 "That was the true Light, which lighteth EVERY MAN THAT COMETH INTO THE WORLD"

So the opportunity for spiritual discernment is given to all. The natural man cannot receive the Gospel, but because of the Holy Spirit's convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16: 7-11), everyone is given the opportunity. Has no Calvinist on this thread ever seen a person under conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit and rejected the Gospel and finally die in that state? Hebrews 6:4-6 plainly shows the Holy Spirit dealing with someone and finally that one rejects the Gospel for the final time. The Holy Spirit doesn't just work on behalf of the elect! When the word of God is preached, the Holy Spirit deals with the believer and the unbeliever also.

John 12:47-48 "And if any man hear my words (draw all men) and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day"

I choose to validate the righteous judgment of God. The issue isn't whether man is controlling salvation, the issue is whether God has a basis for righteous judgment. The Calvinist's view of predestination gives God no basis to judge. Me and others affirm the absolute, omnipotent SOVEREIGN God. I don't deny God's sovereignty when I say based on the Scriptures that he CHOOSES to use man's response in giving the free gift.

In other words, we don't deny His sovereignty, but you (James 2, Chris Temple etc) deny God's righteous judgment.

Just because I made a decision to accept the free gift of salvation doesn't mean I worked for it (same with my Christmas gifts)

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trueliberty:
Salvation is only made possible by God, "born of God" (John 1:13) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You omitted the rest of this verse ... why?

who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

When we see the whole verse, we realize why you omitted it. Because it disproves your thesis. Man is born by God's will, not by his own will.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John 12:32 "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men unto me"

John 6:44 "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 (the ones who believe on the Son according to verse 40)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you ignore John 6:37??

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.'

Why do you ignore John 6:65??

And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

In your equation you have the following problem. No one can come unless the Father draws him (6:44, 65). The Father draws all men (12:32). All that the Father gives will come (6:63). Therefore, all must be saved. But of course we know that all are not saved. So there is a breakdown in your argument. Where is it? The only place it seems it can be is that you have taken one context (John 6) and tried to mix it with another context (John 12) that appear to be talking about different things since they form an obvious contradiction. God cannot draw all men without all coming (12:32; 6:37; 6:65).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I choose to validate the righteous judgment of God. The issue isn't whether man is controlling salvation, the issue is whether God has a basis for righteous judgment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God's righteous judgment is based on his character. YOu have decided (without basis in revelation) what "righteous judgment" must consist of. Paul answers a similar argument in Rom 3:5: If my sin brings glory to God, isn't it unjust for God to judge me for it? May it never be. In other words, the calvinist is comnpletely in line with Scripture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Me and others affirm the absolute, omnipotent SOVEREIGN God. I don't deny God's sovereignty when I say based on the Scriptures that he CHOOSES to use man's response in giving the free gift.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So how can God be sovereign if he is not in control of all thing? Eph 1:11 says that God works all things after the counsel of his own will. Does that not include salvation?

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I see now one of the biggest misunderstandings of the Calvinists regarding Free will is the assumption that those who belive in it and reject Calvinism do so because they have some wish to think they earned their way into Heaven, or "controlled their destiny" in order to praise themselves. I know of none who think that way, and I certainly don't. It is just a straw man conceived for this argument. The reason we oppose Calvinism is the corollary that God creates people He gives no opportunity to receive salvation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I make no such assumption – though it is the only path that may lead to that attitude. The reason people reject the doctrines of divine grace is that it is a natural offense against the assumed autonomy of man: the serpent originally said “has God said” thereby questioning the right of God to say and do as he pleases, and man has rejected God’s authority ever since.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Calvinists cite Romans 9, but that passage is talking about temporal judgement of Israel, not the eternal destruction of individuals, and it speaks in terms of neutral "clay vessels" not morally depraved ("bad") people receiving what they deserved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, nothing could be further from the truth. Romans 9 is clearly teaching personal election, and the divine right of God to choose whom he will to show his mercy upon. Romans 9:15-24 is very clear about this:
For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. [17] For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." [18] So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
[19] You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" [20] But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" [21] Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? [22] What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— [24] even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

The Genevan Scholars said of Rom 9:

"He enters into the handling of predestination, by means of presenting an objection: How may it be that Israel is cast off, and that in addition we must also make the covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed, frustrated and void? He answers therefore that God’s word is true, although Israel is cast off: for the election of the people of Israel is so general and common, that nonetheless the same God chooses by his secret council those as it pleases him. So then this is the proposition and state of this treatise: the grace of salvation is offered generally in such a way, that in spite of how it is offered, the efficacy of it pertains only to the elect."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Of course-- that God "chose" you while skipping over others. Who wouldn't thank God for that. But what if you were one of those God passed over. You might say such people don't even care (but this is not true, as many have died struggling with this question), but once in Hell then what would you think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So is the surmised mind of the suffering evil in hell now the concern of our interpretation of Scripture? No one seeks after God, there is none righteous, no not one. And the Scriptures are quite clear that even those destined for hell have no desire to repent or bless God. those in hell get exactly what they have always wanted – separation from God.

Rev 9:20 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot either see or hear or walk;
21 nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their immorality or their thefts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Where do the scriptures say this? There are plenty of scriptures that tell people to choose, but then this is meaningless as God actually did it for them. Why would it be phrased as the people making a choice then?
Christ Temple says:
quote:
Every man is called (commanded) to make a decision as to who they will believe. Every man is responsible for his choices.
Every man is commanded to believe. Every man is unable and unwilling to respond, until God works grace in that man's heart enabling him to believe.


But why would He command them to choose then, knowing they can't? Because they are just "vessels of wrath" that He needs a reason to charge with sin, as some supralapsarians will even admit? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Romans 9:19-21 (ESV)
You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" [20] But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" [21] Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?

Every man is responsible to repent and love God. The totally depraved sinner cannot. Do you deny that the drug-crazed criminal is responsible to sober up and obey the law, and if he doesn’t he will pay the penalty of that law? Yet he cannot sober up without intervention. SO it is with the depraved sinner.

This is biblical, even though Arminians cannot resolve this with human reason.

 

[JAMES2]

Eric B:
Thank you for the detailed response. It shows you read my post. However, I stand by EVERY SINGLE statement I made. I guess we agree to disagree on this.
To me, the issue is so clear I don't understand why there is a debate about it.

I guess it is the "natural" position to hang on and give man SOMETHING TO DO toward their own salvation. Someone said we are all born arminianian, and I am beginning to agree with that.I know that was my position for a long time. But now that I understand the "Calvinsim" position (which of course, is the biblical position) I don't see how I could have missed it. It seems to simple, clear and right.
James2

 

[Eric B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I make no such assumption – though it is the only path that may lead to that attitude. The reason people reject the doctrines of divine grace is that it is a natural offense against the assumed autonomy of man: the serpent originally said “has God said” thereby questioning the right of God to say and do as he pleases, and man has rejected God’s authority ever since. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You say you don't make this assumption, but then reiterate this general statement. (Then James2 adds "I guess it is the "natural" position to hang on and give man SOMETHING TO DO toward their own salvation.") I (and apparently the other objectors here)am not offended by the idea of us being saved by "irresistable grace". It is purely the idea that many of the people we are commissioned to witness to have no chance of salvation. Nothing more.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, nothing could be further from the truth. Romans 9 is clearly teaching personal election, and the divine right of God to choose whom he will to show his mercy upon. Romans 9:15-24 is very clear about this:
For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. [17] For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
[And then to my objection of why God commands people to choose when he prevents them from being able to, you quote the passage again, the way it is always handily blurted out to silence the questioning of the irrationality of this doctrine.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then as I already mentioned, man, rather than starting out wicked and deserving wrath, is really a neutral "vessel" who is being destroyed for no cause of his own. It's just God's prerogative, not the "will" (whether "captive to sin" or not) of the vessel. That's what the passage says. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!! One or the other! And all of this in spite of pasages where God says he does not delight [get "His good pleasure" out of] the death of the wicked and even weeps for them. All this talk about God "doing what He pleases" means nothing when we contradict what the Bible tells us "what He pleases" really is.
Also, is this passage teaching that God "raises" each unsaved person to send him to Hell "in order to make known the riches of his glory" to the saved and "proclaim His name throughout the earth"? NO, we don't even know who will finally end up in Hell here on earth, so that wouldn't "show" anybody anything, so this passage must be a specific earthly example of God's purpose. Even the Genevan scholars you cited connect this with Israel being "cast off"--this is who was "raised", and then punished (to teach us "the riches of His glory"-- that salvation is not of the keeping of the Law, in which Israel failed) while the Gentiles [in the church] were then "raised" for glory. Pharaoh was an individual example-- a sort of prototype of this.
So you have to find another reason why God commands to choose what people can't. People need to just admit that this passage was wrongly used to silence those objections Calvinists have no answer for. If anything, who is man to say that God must give man [other men, that is] no chance to repent if He is sovereign?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So is the surmised mind of the suffering evil in hell now the concern of our interpretation of Scripture? No one seeks after God, there is none righteous, no not one. And the Scriptures are quite clear that even those destined for hell have no desire to repent or bless God. those in hell get exactly what they have always wanted – separation from God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still, this teaching would make more sense if we concluded that the non-elect are not souls (or are perhaps demons in the flesh or something.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Every man is responsible to repent and love God. The totally depraved sinner cannot. Do you deny that the drug-crazed criminal is responsible to sober up and obey the law, and if he doesn’t he will pay the penalty of that law? Yet he cannot sober up without intervention. SO it is with the depraved sinner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is quite different. He can still see his need for help and cry out for intervention. It's not like the lawmakers programmed him to be drug crazed and never want help, and then penalize him for it. If you look even at your own illustrations you can see the obvious fallacy of the teaching. That is why the [misused] Romans 9 cop-out always comes up. Because there is no other way out of it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is biblical, even though Arminians cannot resolve this with human reason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is too much "human reasoning" being used to determine what is biblical.

 

[JAMES2]

Eric:
I wasn't talking about you personally. Just making a general comment and quote, even tho I do agree with the quote.

Eph. says we are "dead" in our transgressions. 1 cor 2:14 says the things of God CANNOT be discerned except spiritually. Acts 13:48 says that those that weref ORDAINED to eternal life -- did what -- they believed!! I'm not going to rehash all the arguments and scriptures again, but I would say that it is the arminianins that use human reasoning. I'm just using what the scriptures say. I could quote another 100 like the above. Salvation is from God alone or man contributes SOMETHING. There is no other way, and believe me, man CANNOT, DOES NOT WANT TO, IS DEAD,and UNABLE to contribute ANYTHING. That is the objective truth of scripture. Any other position is the one using human "reasoning" to deny what the scripture plainly teaches.

How on earth can a fallen, lost, depraved, God-hating, DEAD sinner make a move to God? They can't, anymore than a DEAD person can jump out of the casket and start dancing.
James2

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
There is too much "human reasoning" being used to determine what is biblical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting that you believing what you do make this statement. It is your side that is concerned with the logical ability of God to condemn people without offering them a "chance" in spite of the fact that you have no biblical revelation to support your position. It is us who are perfectly willing to let that go. It is you that are concerned about the free will of man measuring up to what you think it must (i.e., if he cannot choose between two options, then he is not truly free; i.e., if God elects someone apart from their own will, then they are not truly free). It is us who are perfectly willing to accept what God has said and to rest on it.

I think the human reasoning is coming predominantly from your side of the argument.

 

[Eric B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not going to rehash all the arguments and scriptures again, but I would say that it is the arminianins that use human reasoning. I'm just using what the scriptures say. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is interesting that you believing what you do make this statement. It is your side that is concerned with the logical ability of God to condemn people without offering them a "chance" in spite of the fact that you have no biblical revelation to support your position. It is us who are perfectly willing to let that go. It is you that are concerned about the free will of man measuring up to what you think it must (i.e., if he cannot choose between two options, then he is not truly free; i.e., if God elects someone apart from their own will, then they are not truly free). It is us who are perfectly willing to accept what God has said and to rest on it.

I think the human reasoning is coming predominantly from your side of the argument. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? It is your side that says:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Salvation is from God alone or man contributes SOMETHING. There is no other way, and believe me, man CANNOT, DOES NOT WANT TO, IS DEAD,and UNABLE to contribute ANYTHING. That is the objective truth of scripture. Any other position is the one using human "reasoning" to deny what the scripture plainly teaches. How on earth can a fallen, lost, depraved, God-hating, DEAD sinner make a move to God? They can't, anymore than a DEAD person can jump out of the casket and start dancing.
James2 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One of you recently accused me of a "non-sequitur", but this is the real non-sequitur. If it was God who ordained that man would choose, and gave them "the light that lighteth every man" to overcome their supposed inability to choose, then who are we to say "Oh, that is not really sovereign" "That is still leaving us in control." You are not resting on what God has said, but are trying to add some supposed implications of it which the Bible does not go into (as it would conflict the need for a Great Commission). You "let that go" not realizing the problems it carries, and bend a scripture to try to silence people who question it.
And the biblical revelation to support my position is that God says He does not delight in the death of the wicked, in total contrast to Him destroying helpless people "just for His 'good pleasure'".

 

[JAMES2]

Eric:
God DIDN'T ordain that man should choose or not choose their salvation. God does the choosing. It's hopeless!!! Let's just agree to disagree.
James2

 

[S. Baptist]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
Eric:
God DIDN'T ordain that man should choose or not choose their salvation. God does the choosing. It's hopeless!!! Let's just agree to disagree.
James2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,

Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain
the enmity thereby:

Ro 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us.

The Bible teaches that the "Enmity" between God and man, wasn't in God, but "IN MAN".

God loved the "Whole world", but the world hated him.

If "Enmity" exist between God and Man, it's man's fault, not God's.

God has "NO" Enmity toward any sinners, and has never had.

Jesus didn't try to put the "love of humans" in God's heart, he tried to put the "love of God" in
Human hearts.

Without enmity toward mankind, God doesn't "predestinate" to Hell.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
The Bible teaches that the "Enmity" between God and man, wasn't in God, but "IN MAN". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As has been previously demonstrated, the enmity goes both way. God says he hates the sinner and the wicked person. That is what enmity is: hate and the resulting separation. Here, Scripture is clear, "The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. You destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit. (Ps 5:5,6).

One of your mistakes is putting God in your mold. Becuase you cannot love and hate the same object at the same time you assume God can't. However, God can. Because of his infinite perfections, God can hate with all of his hate and love with all of his love the same object at the same time.

You serve a weak God if you think he is waiting around for people to come to him so he can help them. God does choose people as his clear from Scripture (1 Thess 1:4 is one that we haven't mentioned yet). You just won't accept Scripture because you think that God has to conform to your way of thinking.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


One of your mistakes is putting God in your mold. Becuase you cannot love and hate the same object at the same time you assume God can't. However, God can. Because of his infinite perfections, God can hate with all of his hate and love with all of his love the same object at the same time.

You serve a weak God if you think he is waiting around for people to come to him so he can help them. God does choose people as his clear from Scripture (1 Thess 1:4 is one that we haven't mentioned yet). You just won't accept Scripture because you think that God has to conform to your way of thinking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said, Pastor Larry.

 

[TomVols]

It's always confused me how people can get around the fact that salvation is entirely of God, especially when you consider how many passages of scripture begin with some form of "But God..." when speaking of God's redemptive acts. (Cf Jn 3:16, Gal 4:4, Eph 2:4; Rom 5:8, et.al.) Hallelujah!

 

[trueliberty]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

"In your equation you have the following problem. No one can come unless the Father draws him (John 6:44,65). The Father draws all men (12:32). All that the Father gives will come (6:63). actually 6:37) Therefore, all must be saved. But of course we know that all are not saved. So there is a breakdown in your argument, where is it?"

The problem is your gigantic leap from the 3 scriptural conclusions to your supposition. Since you know the supposition or supposed conclusion is wrong, you appeal to the context supposedly being different (didn't give any proof of that however)
Let's look at what the Scriptures do say and what they DON'T say.

1. No one can come unless the Father draws him--------Conversely, if the Father didn't supernaturally draw, then nobody could come and nobody could be saved. As you say, we also know THAT'S not true also. The Biblical statement shows the total depravity of man (hey we agree---yippee!!

) It also shows the basis for man's ABILITY to come and says nothing about man's INEVITABILITY in coming. It would be also true that those the Father draws would be the only ones who could come and be saved (I'm sure that's your take on it). If the Father only drew the elect, then only the elect could be saved. Of course the next Scripture shows the drawing goes beyond the elect.

2.The Father draws all men. The Scripture is unacceptable to you so you conclude that all must not mean all, or the context shows it's a different subject (more on that in a moment). Never mind that if ALL are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30) then all must mean all here. Or that if ALL are condemned under Adam's sin (Romans 5:18) then all must mean all here--etc etc.

3. All that the Father gives will come. We've discussed this before. Election and predestination are a fact of Scripture, so the Father must have the elect ones. Those who the Father knows will trust Christ in fact do come to him and he will not cast them out. I believe that's agreeable to you. Romans 8:28-30 etc---discussed already.

But here is what the Scriptures don't say. They don't say that ALL WHO ARE DRAWN will come. It only says all who the Father gives will come. The statements are not the same. The number of those drawn is all, the number of those that the Father gives is only whatever the number of the elect is. Now, you do have to be drawn to come, but that's different than saying ALL who are drawn WILL come. Of course this shows that some resist the gift of grace by God and that's unacceptable to you also since if "IRRESISTABLE GRACE" isn't true then the whole Calvinist approach falls like the house of cards it is.

I feel you or Chris T. are comparing or equating 2 scriptures that plainly do not say the same thing:

John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth ME shall come to me..."

John 6:65..."no man can come unto me, except it were GIVEN HIM of my Father"

I didn't ignore verse 65. It shows the supernatural ability given to all to be able to come to the Father, which is why then that the Father can draw all (compare to verse 44)
"of my Father" shows what you've been preaching to the choir about for the past few weeks, man can't of himself come to God. Certainly! That's why he gave that ability. The ability is of God
verse 65 shows something granted to you and me.
verse 37 shows something given to Christ

Don't have time to give the John 12 context but look at verses 32-40. verse 38--people who reject God's message, verse 39 God hardens their heart (compare Romans 10:21) The report to be believed is the Isaiah 53 report, especially verse 6 etc. How can you say John 6 and John 12 are not talking about the same subject??

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem is your gigantic leap from the 3 scriptural conclusions to your supposition. Since you know the supposition or supposed conclusion is wrong, you appeal to the context supposedly being different (didn't give any proof of that however)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gigantic leap? I used Scripture to draw a conclusion about what those Scriptures teach. I did not jump to a supposition (you jump from a supposition). I reached a conclusion. As for the proof that the context is different, the number 6 and the number 12 relate to chapters, dividing them by 6 chapters, thus placing them in a different context

What kind of proof do you want?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. No one can come unless the Father draws him--------Conversely, if the Father didn't supernaturally draw, then nobody could come and nobody could be saved. As you say, we also know THAT'S not true also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is absolutely true. It is what the text says, “No one can come unless the Father draws him.” How can you say that is not true? It think it is clear in the context that draw, giving, and granting are all virtually synonymous.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It also shows the basis for man's ABILITY to come and says nothing about man's INEVITABILITY in coming.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The inevitability, as you say, is found in 6:37: “All that the Father gives will come.” Since you like that word “all” so much, tell me how anyone that the Father draws or gives to the son doesn’t come. Furthermore, inevitability is found in the last phrase of 6:44. “I will raise him up” is speaking of the one who can’t come unless the Father draws him. So the verse teaches that the Father draws and Christ raises them up at the last day.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 2.The Father draws all men. The Scripture is unacceptable to you so you conclude that all must not mean all, or the context shows it's a different subject (more on that in a moment). Never mind that if ALL are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30) then all must mean all here. Or that if ALL are condemned under Adam's sin (Romans 5:18) then all must mean all here--etc etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is so convoluted it is hard to know where to begin. You have contradictory Scripture. If the Father draws all men without distinction and if all that the Father draws comes, then all are saved. But they are not. So whatever 12:32 means, it cannot mean the same as “all without distinction” unless God can contradict himself. In Acts 17:30 all are commanded to repent. But that does not mean that all without distinction is meant here. Furthermore, no one is denying that “all” means “all.” But it is clear, even in our usage that “all” does not refer to “all without distinction.” Consider the following, I say, “Everyone except my brother was at our family Christmas get together.” That is a true statement. Were you there? Obviously not. Did I lie? Obviously not. The context is key to understanding. You bring up Rom 5:18 where “all” are condemned under Adam’s sin and “all” are justified by Christ. Does that mean that “all” without distinction are justified? Of course not. Your own verses cannot withstand your own argument.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But here is what the Scriptures don't say. They don't say that ALL WHO ARE DRAWN will come. It only says all who the Father gives will come. The statements are not the same. The number of those drawn is all, the number of those that the Father gives is only whatever the number of the elect is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then why, when Christ says that no one comes unless the Father draws him, talk of raising those whom the Father draws up? Here is another problem: The Father gives some to Christ and they come (v. 37). Yet he draws all. Why doesn’t he give all? And on what basis does he “give” them? It can only be on the basis of his drawing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I feel you or Chris T. are comparing or equating 2 scriptures that plainly do not say the same thing:
John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth ME shall come to me..."
John 6:65..."no man can come unto me, except it were GIVEN HIM of my Father" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How are these verses not saying the same thing? No one comes unless it is given him (didomi) and all the Father gives comes (didomi). The words are the same, the teaching is the same. How in the world can you say there are different? The fact that one is viewed toward man and one is viewed toward Christ is looking at two sides of the same coin.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I didn't ignore verse 65. It shows the supernatural ability given to all to be able to come to the Father, which is why then that the Father can draw all (compare to verse 44)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is “all” in verse 65? It does not say that supernatural ability is given to all; it says that no one can come unless the Father gives it to him.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't have time to give the John 12 context but look at verses 32-40<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note especially vv. 39-40. Why didn’t they come? Because God had blinded their eyes. It sounds a little different than “God gave them supernatural ability.”

 

[S. Baptist]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QB][/qb]

As has been previously demonstrated, the enmity goes both way. God says he hates the sinner and the wicked person. That is what enmity is: hate and the resulting separation. [/b]

Do you know the difference in "hating sin" and "hating sinners".

The "FACT" that Jesus died for the sins of the Whole world", shows God has no "Malicious intent" toward any, but that "ALL" would be saved, SO, why aren't they, God's predestination, or Man's "UNBELIEF"????

When you say it's impossible for some to be saved due to predestination, you're saying God hates sinners rather than their sin, we're all sinners, what's the difference, is God a respector of persons??

Enmity goes both ways

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,

You have to do an awful lot of "twisting" and "stretching" of scripture to get around the fact that "God loved the "Whole World", Jesus died for the sins of the "Whole world", God isn't willing any should perish, and that the person's "faith" or "unbelief" determines if they answer the call or not.

Faith is not a "works".

Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Believing (faith) comes "before" salvation.

Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

You need to read the parable of the "Sower", it wasn't "God's fault" those seeds didn't grow.

 

[trueliberty]

quote:
"I think it is clear in the context that draw, giving and granting are all virtually synonymous"

I think this is one of the pillars of our disagreement. Where in the context of these passages in John 6 do you see that these are the same? You have superimposed the supposition that they are. Giving has the meaning the context of the verse gives it (example v 37 and v 65). I assume you get the word granting from v 65-also means give. Drawing is not the same. Because of this idea that all 3 things are the same, you misinterpret verse 44.

"Furthermore, inevitability is found in the last phrase of 6:44. "I will raise him up" is speaking of the one who can't come unless the Father draws him. So the verse teaches that the Father draws and Christ raises them up at the last day"

But that's NOT what the verse teaches. The person being raised up is the one who comes. The mention of being drawn in this verse simply shows that is the necessary prerequisite to coming. WHO is being raised? The "who" refers back to the ones coming, not the ones being drawn. See the semicolon after "draw him"? The ones who come are the main subject of verse 44. Now-- I don't discount inevitability here--it's the good old doctrine of eternal security.

6:37 and 6:65 are clearly different. Another reason why is the word "SHALL" in verse 37 and the word "CAN" in verse 65. Verse 37 teaches INEVITABILITY ("shall") concerning those who are given to the Father, and verse 65 teaches the gift of ABILITY ("can") so people can come. It's the ability that creates the possibility of them coming ("CAN come") not "WILL come". So you have a different subject matter, and a different goal and object of the giving. The verses are far from being the same subject.

Now I understand that we can use all in other ways. But the normal use is all without distinction. But even if it's not, you've yet to prove that all DOESN'T mean without distinction in John 12:32 and Acts 17:30 just for starters.

You also have a wrong understanding of Romans 5:18b. The last part shows the atonement is AVAILABLE to all, not ACCEPTED by all (obviously). The word "ALL" here (my favorite word huh? ) doesn't change meaning in the middle of the verse. It means all without distinction in the first part of verse 18 and it means all without distinction in the last part of verse 18. Why? Look at the verse "Therefore AS...EVEN SO..." It links them together. Since the last part of verse 18 can't mean universal ACCEPTANCE, it must mean universal AVAILABILITY. Unless you have another interpretation out of your hip-pocket.

chapter 6--chapter 12 of John. Obviously it's different context, but the subject is the same-----salvation

I also can see that we'll just have to agree to disagree on much of this.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
Originally posted by Pastor Larry: Do you know the difference in "hating sin" and "hating sinners".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I do. Do you read? I even posted the verses so you wouldn't have to look them up. This time I will leave out the extraneous stuff so you won't get confused in the verbiage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Psalm 5:5 You hate all who do iniquity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is those who "do iniquity" whom God hates. It is not said that he hates the sin of those who do iniquity but that he hates them.

Here's another for you:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Psalm 11:5 The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice that the Lord hates the one who loves violence, not the violence itself.

On this issue, the text is against you. You must submit your theology to what Scripture says.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[/qb]When you say it's impossible for some to be saved due to predestination, you're saying God hates sinners rather than their sin, we're all sinners, what's the difference, is God a respector of persons??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/qb]

I already addressed that. God does not respect persons. He does not respect those who might choose him. That would be a respecter of persons – choosing the ones who were smart enough or whatever else to choose him. That is the problem with the view of election that depends on God knowing what will happen. It makes God a respecter of those who he knows will choose him.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You have to do an awful lot of "twisting" and "stretching" of scripture to get around the fact that "God loved the "Whole World", Jesus died for the sins of the "Whole world", God isn't willing any should perish, and that the person's "faith" or "unbelief" determines if they answer the call or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no twisting to be done. God does love the whole world; Christ’s death was sufficient for the sins of the whole world; God is not willing that any should perish and a person’s faith or unbelief does determine whether they answer the call or not. I do not deny any of that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Faith is not a "works".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You need to read the parable of the "Sower", it wasn't "God's fault" those seeds didn't grow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The parable of the sower has nothing to do with this issue either. It does not discuss causality.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Where in the context of these passages in John 6 do you see that these are the same? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don’t know anyone who disagrees with this. How could they possibly be different?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Giving has the meaning the context of the verse gives it (example v 37 and v 65). I assume you get the word granting from v 65-also means give. Drawing is not the same. Because of this idea that all 3 things are the same, you misinterpret verse 44. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay let’s deal with the verses separately. In v. 37 and 65, No one comes unless the Father gives it to him and all that Father gives come. So how do we misunderstand this? It denotes those who are given by the father who then come. Those who are not given cannot come.

In v. 44, No one comes unless the Father draws, but the ones that that he draws will be raised up at the last day. How do ascribe drawing to all men without ascribing resurrection to all men (cf. v. 39). In other words, there is no way around it without distorting the meaning, even if you think they mean something different.

You say, “But that's NOT what the verse teaches. The person being raised up is the one who comes. ... WHO is being raised? The "who" refers back to the ones coming, not the ones being drawn. See the semicolon after "draw him"?"

I don’t think you can make the exegetical case that the ones coming are not those who are drawn. The verse is referring to one person, or one type of people. I think your position is drawn from your theology, not from your exegesis.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>6:37 and 6:65 are clearly different. Another reason why is the word "SHALL" in verse 37 and the word "CAN" in verse 65. Verse 37 teaches INEVITABILITY ("shall") concerning those who are given to the Father, and verse 65 teaches the gift of ABILITY ("can") so people can come. It's the ability that creates the possibility of them coming ("CAN come") not "WILL come". So you have a different subject matter, and a different goal and object of the giving. The verses are far from being the same subject. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are not clearly different. I think they are clearly the same. In v. 65, Christ is telling why some people will not believe. The answer is because it has not been given them from the Father. It is right there in v. 64.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now I understand that we can use all in other ways. But the normal use is all without distinction. But even if it's not, you've yet to prove that all DOESN'T mean without distinction in John 12:32 and Acts 17:30 just for starters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you get to define the normal use of all? I don’t agree with that at all. Any word is defined by the context in which it is used.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[qb]You also have a wrong understanding of Romans 5:18b. The last part shows the atonement is AVAILABLE to all, not ACCEPTED by all (obviously). The word "ALL" here (my favorite word huh? ) doesn't change meaning in the middle of the verse. It means all without distinction in the first part of verse 18 and it means all without distinction in the last part of verse 18. Why? Look at the verse "Therefore AS...EVEN SO..." It links them together. Since the last part of verse 18 can't mean universal ACCEPTANCE, it must mean universal AVAILABILITY. Unless you have another interpretation out of your hip-pocket. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/qb[

I don’t think my understanding is wrong. I can show it in the context. The context is the imputation of sin. The “all” refers to all that are in Adam and all that are in Christ. The point is that all that are in Adam are affected by his sin the same way that all that are in Christ are affected by his righteousness. Unless Adam’s sinfulness is only available to all, then Christ’s righteousness is not qualified by available. Read Moo (NICNT) or Schriener (BECNT). Both deal with this passage effectively to show what the argument through the passage is.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When you say it's impossible for some to be saved due to predestination, you're saying God hates sinners rather than their sin, we're all sinners, what's the difference, is God a respector of persons??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your objection works against your point you are trying to make. It is precisely because God is no respecter of persons that he elects undeserving sinners to salvation. If God were a respecter of persons, he would have to respect the fact that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and leave all in their damnable sin.

God loves himself more than he loves his creatures. Because God is infinitely more worhty than anything else that exists, he must value his own infinite worth more than all else. God is not an idolator; he holds no other gods up before himself. God's purpose is to glorify himself, not to save sinners. Sinners are saved as a consequence of God's intense jealousy and love for his own name and glory, who in exhibiting hsi glory saves some who deserve damnation.

Not understanding this is the reason why Evangelicalism is in the abysmal shape it is in today. The whole purpose of Christianity is considered to be "getting people saved", when God's purpose in religion is to glorify his name among the nations.