To Calvinists, What is 'Irresistible Grace'?

[David Lamb]

Baptists are FREE WILL, dude.

skypair

A correction is necessary here surely. Some baptists believe in free will (I understand there is even a denomination the the US called something like "The Free Will Baptists"). But by no means all baptists have believed or do believe in free will. The baptists who devised the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith certainly didn't, except in the case of Adam and Eve before the Fall. Chapter IX says:

I. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.[1]

1. Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God,[2] but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.[3]

2. Eccl. 7:29
3. Gen. 3:6

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;[4] so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin,[5] is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[6]

4. Rom. 5:6; 8:7

5. Eph. 2:1, 5
6. Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin,[7] and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[8] yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.[9]

7. Col. 1:13; John 8:36
8. Phil. 2:13
9. Rom. 7:15, 18-19, 21, 23

V. This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.[10]

10. Eph. 4:13​

There seem to be plenty of baptists on this very board who don't believe that man's will is free, otherwise many of the messages on this thread and others would not have appeared. I wonder what your authority is for saying that baptists are free will? (I'm not asking what your authority is for believing that man has free will - I know you will say the bible, and although your understanding of the bible is different to mine, I respect that, but how can you support your statement that baptists are free will, when it is clear that many of them are not?)

 

[skypair]

There seem to be plenty of baptists on this very board who don't believe that man's will is free, otherwise many of the messages on this thread and others would not have appeared. I wonder what your authority is for saying that baptists are free will?

I guess my 30+ years in the Baptist Church, David. It's possible that I have turned away from some Baptist churches that taught Calvinism where I didn't feel that the spirit was right? Don't know. I've been in GARBC and didn't see it either. I have detected hints of it in Charles Stanley's preaching but he's not even near "over the top" like some here.

...but how can you support your statement that baptists are free will, when it is clear that many of them are not?)

Simple, David -- all I've seen have an INVITATION to receive Christ and be saved. Whether the pastor stood on the communion table and told the ushers to guard the door, there is still someone who needs to receive Christ (seen that :BangHead: ) or whether it was your "run of the mill" 4 verses of "Just as I Am," it was the person's choice to be saved or not. That one thing right there blows away all of Calvinism's theology to me.

And really -- a confession from 318 years ago is no more applicable today than Calvinism itself. It may be history but it certainly didn't make the Baptist Church the living, vibrant entity that she is today. If you just look back at those days, you know that the churches who followed Calvinism to the letter were "dead" just like our Lord said of her namesake, Sardis.

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

I guess my 30+ years in the Baptist Church, David. It's possible that I have turned away from some Baptist churches that taught Calvinism where I didn't feel that the spirit was right? Don't know. I've been in GARBC and didn't see it either. I have detected hints of it in Charles Stanley's preaching but he's not even near "over the top" like some here. skypair

I don't know what GARBC is, but I don't imagine it makes too much difference to the main drift of your message. What you seem to be saying (please correct me if I have misunderstood) is that all the baptists you have met have believed in free will.

Simple, David -- all I've seen have an INVITATION to receive Christ and be saved. Whether the pastor stood on the communion table and told the ushers to guard the door, there is still someone who needs to receive Christ (seen that :BangHead: ) or whether it was your "run of the mill" 4 verses of "Just as I Am," it was the person's choice to be saved or not. That one thing right there blows away all of Calvinism's theology to me.

And really -- a confession from 318 years ago is no more applicable today than Calvinism itself. It may be history but it certainly didn't make the Baptist Church the living, vibrant entity that she is today. If you just look back at those days, you know that the churches who followed Calvinism to the letter were "dead" just like our Lord said of her namesake, Sardis.

skypair

I assure you that at my church we also encourage sinners to turn to Christ. And it is not just a "confession from 318 years ago"; I could equally have quoted a contemporary confession of faith.

Could I ask you what your basis is for saying that the baptist churches of 1689 who followed calvinistic doctrines were dead? That certainly wasn't the case in England, where the "General Baptists" were the ones that declined into Unitarianism, and eventually died out for a while.

I don't think you have really substantiated your claim that "Baptists are Free Will". You have simply shown that most of the baptists you have met have believed in Free Will.

 

[skypair]

What you seem to be saying (please correct me if I have misunderstood) is that all the baptists you have met have believed in free will.

Yeah, they go on visitation or even just leave church on Sunday with the hope of leading people to a decision for Christ -- NOT in the hope of finding the "elect."

And there are many other things bound up in Calvinism which I don't find in the Baptist Church as I know it today -- Covenant Theology vs dispensationalism, amil eschatology, Calvinism's futility of prayer, true Calvinism's evangelistic lack of zeal, etc.

I assure you that at my church we also encourage sinners to turn to Christ.

Then you are not practising Calvinism, IMO. An invitation to personal relationship with Christ just cannot exist under strict Calvinism -- it would be a sham and a farce to even think we have any choice in the matter!

And it is not just a "confession from 318 years ago"; I could equally have quoted a contemporary confession of faith.

Here's my issue with what I can only surmise is the nature of that confession based upon your testimony -- there was a lot of pressure in those days to not be seen as Arminian. If one didn't stick close to Calvin in one's confession, the first thing that would happen is you would be "smeared" with the Arminian "scarlet letter." I believe men like Spurgeon reluctantly associated with Calvinism so that the cause of Christ might be advanced even though the cause of Christ was free will in its claims.

Could I ask you what your basis is for saying that the baptist churches of 1689 who followed calvinistic doctrines were dead?

That wasn't a reference to Baptists -- Anabaptists in particular who believed in rebaptism.

Jesus "beef" with Reform and Calvinism is "name that liveth but art dead." Luther did focus on the name of Christ rather than works. However, the "gospel" that came out was still believe in the church. That is specifically why rebaptism was decried by Reform/Calvinists! How dare one think they come to Christ on their own or outside of the church and actually be baptized for.because of salvation! It wasn't the Reforms/Calvins (Sardis) that got it right! It was Philadelphia -- the Reformers "stepchildren!" The Anabaptists which would be more my heritage, I should think.

I don't think you have really substantiated your claim that "Baptists are Free Will". You have simply shown that most of the baptists you have met have believed in Free Will.

And it bothers me not one whit on the practical level if they say they believe in Calvinism but practice the kind of Baptist faith that I see. In fact, most of their assertions are with surface issues anyway. They believe a less than Calvinist form of total depravity -- one that allows anyone to hear the gospel and respond, for instance. To a Calvinist, such a notion is silly if not blasphemous.

Why do you think there are no invitations to receive Christ in a Reform church, David?

skypair

 

[Dale-c]

don't know what GARBC is

Interestingly enough, I believe it is the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches.
I may be wrong though.

 

[Hardsheller]

Fair enough -- make your case. Divide soul and spirit with the Word and see what you get.

I know most see soul and spirit the reverse of how I describe them so maybe this is your opportunity to teach me. I can't see that. But there is a difference -- and it is significant.

skypair

If there is so much difference then where do you find it in scripture? The Hebrew view of man was that man is one being. He is not made up of independent mutually exclusive parts - rather he is Soul, Spirit and Flesh - One Being.

In the NT the emphasis is on Man as a whole - not his Spirit, his Soul or his Flesh - Jesus Ministered to and Saved the whole man not just his Spirit - and not just his Soul - and Not just his Flesh.

In the NT where a problem arose over the doctrine of man occurred when some erroneous teachers started teaching that the body and everything material was inherently evil so that it did not matter what a person did in the flesh as long as his soul/spirit was saved. This new Knowledge was soundly denied by the apostle Paul 1 Tim 6:20

 

[Hardsheller]

Hallelujiah That is one GOOD thing that can be said for him!! :saint:

skypair

Yes, I have understood that Good things are not that common at Bellevue these days. :tear:

 

[Hardsheller]

Thank you for acknowledging Calvin's errors. Care to go on? I doubt that Calvin could have got his Masters at a good SBC seminary today. A man who can't distinguish soul and spirit -- who can't logically describe "sin nature" -- who thinks the church is a secular government -- who baptizes infants for "original sin" -- who claims that salvation is "fate" with which we have NOTHING to do... Oi Vey! It is I who could go on and on!

Look, hs. Start from scratch. Pretend you never heard the name John Calvin. Burn that "wood, hay, and stubble" before it scorches you!

BTW, that wasn't you in that "back pew" at Bellevue last week was it? :laugh:

skypair

For the umpteenth time - I don't know any Calvinist in the SBC who follows John Calvin. We follow Jesus Christ. "Calvinism" is a term that is used to describe our theological beliefs which are consistent with the theological beliefs of the Founders of the SBC.

 

[David Lamb]

Yeah, they go on visitation or even just leave church on Sunday with the hope of leading people to a decision for Christ -- NOT in the hope of finding the "elect."

So do Calvinists.

And there are many other things bound up in Calvinism which I don't find in the Baptist Church as I know it today -- Covenant Theology vs dispensationalism, amil eschatology, Calvinism's futility of prayer, true Calvinism's evangelistic lack of zeal, etc.

But there is no such thing as "the Baptist Church." There are local baptist churches all over the world, but no one single organisation called "The Baptist Church". Among the many local baptist churches, there are difference in belief on dispensationalism, eschatology, and many other things. Calvinists don't believe in the futility of prayer, neither do they lack evangelical zeal. I'm not trying to claim that every single Calvinist has evangelical zeal, but if they do lack it, it is not because they are Calvinists.

Then you are not practising Calvinism, IMO. An invitation to personal relationship with Christ just cannot exist under strict Calvinism -- it would be a sham and a farce to even think we have any choice in the matter!

All I can say is that you have a very strange view of Calvinism.

Here's my issue with what I can only surmise is the nature of that confession based upon your testimony -- there was a lot of pressure in those days to not be seen as Arminian. If one didn't stick close to Calvin in one's confession, the first thing that would happen is you would be "smeared" with the Arminian "scarlet letter." I believe men like Spurgeon reluctantly associated with Calvinism so that the cause of Christ might be advanced even though the cause of Christ was free will in its claims.

That sounds nonsense to me, but perhaps you have some reliable source to back up you assertions that there was a lot of pressure in the days of the 1689 Confession not to be seen as Arminian, and that Spurgeon only "reluctantly" associated with Calvinism.

That wasn't a reference to Baptists -- Anabaptists in particular who believed in rebaptism.

Did they? I thought they were called "Anabaptists" by their opponents, because they (the Anabaptists) did not believe that the christening of newborn babes constituted baptism. When a person was baptised as a believer, if they had been "christened" as a baby, it would be seen as rebaptism by paedobaptists.

Jesus "beef" with Reform and Calvinism is "name that liveth but art dead." Luther did focus on the name of Christ rather than works. However, the "gospel" that came out was still believe in the church. That is specifically why rebaptism was decried by Reform/Calvinists! How dare one think they come to Christ on their own or outside of the church and actually be baptized for.because of salvation! It wasn't the Reforms/Calvins (Sardis) that got it right! It was Philadelphia -- the Reformers "stepchildren!" The Anabaptists which would be more my heritage, I should think.

And it bothers me not one whit on the practical level if they say they believe in Calvinism but practice the kind of Baptist faith that I see. In fact, most of their assertions are with surface issues anyway. They believe a less than Calvinist form of total depravity -- one that allows anyone to hear the gospel and respond, for instance. To a Calvinist, such a notion is silly if not blasphemous.

Why do you think there are no invitations to receive Christ in a Reform church, David?

skypair

I cannot (from contraints of time) answer every single point you have made in your final paragraphs, but just make the general observation that you are making a lot of false assumptions about what Calvinists believe, many of those assumtions being more akin to hypercalvinism

 

[David Lamb]

For the umpteenth time - I don't know any Calvinist in the SBC who follows John Calvin. We follow Jesus Christ. "Calvinism" is a term that is used to describe our theological beliefs which are consistent with the theological beliefs of the Founders of the SBC.

Yes, it's a good job you are a "hard sheller" :BangHead:

I have lost count of the number of times I have said the same thing on this Board, though not in respect of the SBC, but thinking of all baptists who believe the "Five Great Alones".

 

[skypair]

If there is so much difference then where do you find it in scripture? The Hebrew view of man was that man is one being. He is not made up of independent mutually exclusive parts - rather he is Soul, Spirit and Flesh - One Being.

AH! Good point -- and they beleived in only One God, right? But we know better about the "consistency" of God and of ourselves now, don't we?

I'll get back to you on those scriptures. I do need to build my case better if I am to continue with this line of reasoning. One thing to know is that the "heart" is often equated with mind, emotions, or will. And I believe "reigns" equate to soul or conscience, but I haven't really gotten too far into that.

In the NT the emphasis is on Man as a whole - not his Spirit, his Soul or his Flesh - Jesus Ministered to and Saved the whole man not just his Spirit - and not just his Soul - and Not just his Flesh.

Yes, but "saved" Him over a timeline. IOW, you aren't in your final glory yet, are you? No. Your soul was saved immediately and eternally, but your spirit is being "saved"/sanctified progressively but not eternally until you die. Sounds weird doesn't it? But it is the spirit where we are "study to make your salvation sure." It's the "battlefield" of 2Pet 1 where, if we are not growing, we FORGET (mind) that we were forgiven of our sins and we "cannot see afar off." The spirit is the area where we "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" --- it is where we are "being saved by [living] His life," Rom 5:10!

You think this isn't important? Catholics work daily to be "saved by His life" and never once consider that they haven't committed themselves to being saved by His death! That is how important the distinction is! You cannot be eternally saved unless your soul has been given the "righteousness of God!" You cannot be "translated" into Christ's kingdom (or as Christ put it, you cannot "see" or "enter the kingdom") unless your soul is righteous -- your conscience oriented toward God. Nothing will make sense in the spirit unless you look with God's eyes, 1Cor 2:6-15!! You can only do that if you received the gospel, 1Cor 2:1-5!

In the NT where a problem arose over the doctrine of man occurred when some erroneous teachers started teaching that the body and everything material was inherently evil so that it did not matter what a person did in the flesh as long as his soul/spirit was saved. This new Knowledge was soundly denied by the apostle Paul 1 Tim 6:20

"License," right? I forget what heresy taught that, but, no, I'm not. However, that could be the genesis of lumping soul and spirit together.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Did they? I thought they were called "Anabaptists" by their opponents, because they (the Anabaptists) did not believe that the christening of newborn babes constituted baptism. When a person was baptised as a believer, if they had been "christened" as a baby, it would be seen as rebaptism by paedobaptists.

You're "quibbling" now, David. Same concept, different details.

I cannot (from contraints of time) answer every single point you have made in your final paragraphs, but just make the general observation that you are making a lot of false assumptions about what Calvinists believe, many of those assumtions being more akin to hypercalvinism

And did Christ actually speak poorly of them?

Let me also remark since I offer the worst case, that some of Sardis are saved. It appears to me that they are one of 5 churches that will be "wise virgins" -- raptured all or in part. Only Thyatira and Laodicea will all be left behind and only Smyrna and Philadelphia will be all raptured.

The problem for the partially raptured is that their teachings do not bring in all that should be "in" on account of false sotierology. Some come in the right way and, like many Calvinists for example, fall under the sway of the false teaching such that Jesus sees them as Sardis (or whatever) and warns them to repent.

skypair

 

[Hardsheller]

Sky P.....

Since you have so many convoluted opinions about what Calvinists believe I thought I would clue you in on some of this Calvinist's Beliefs.

6 Things This Calvinist Believes

1. God is sovereign and just.
2. God doesn't force any person to do something that person isn't willing to do.
3. A Man makes choices freely within the parameters of his own will
4. People are in Hell not because of God but because of their own unbelief.
5. Evangelism is Necessary, because it is commanded and has been designated by God to be the means by which He Saves, furthermore it is natural on the part of a truly redeemed saint.
6. Nobody ever became a Christian without the Holy Spirit working first in that person’s life.

:jesus: is the one SBC Calvinists follow not John Calvin.

 

[skypair]

Sky P.....

Since you have so many convoluted opinions about what Calvinists believe I thought I would clue you in on some of this Calvinist's Beliefs.

6 Things This Calvinist Believes

1. God is sovereign and just.
2. God doesn't force any person to do something that person isn't willing to do.
3. A Man makes choices freely within the parameters of his own will
4. People are in Hell not because of God but because of their own unbelief.
5. Evangelism is Necessary, because it is commanded and has been designated by God to be the means by which He Saves, furthermore it is natural on the part of a truly redeemed saint.
6. Nobody ever became a Christian without the Holy Spirit working first in that person’s life.

As far as they go, I can agree to those. They're not very deep though, are they? But if you want to discuss on that level and leave Calvinism out, good.

So what do you find regarding soul and spirit? Can you make any distinctions yet?

Rom 10 provides a good one: "For with the heart man believeth unto salvation..." Here we see that the heart/spirit is mental capable of believing and that belief leads to salvation (and regeneration I would add).

"Soul that sinneth, IT shall surely die." Not the person -- not the spirit -- the SOUL shall surely die.

"Love the Lord with all thine heart and all thine soul," Mk 12:30, Mt 22:37, etc. Interesingly, Mk 12:33 restates it "with all thine understanding and all thy soul" showing us again that our mind is our heart (or spirit) and separable from our soul.

"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Again, we don't usually reveal our consciences/souls but that which is nearest at hand, our mind, emotions, and will."

Our consciences can be defiled but they tend to still be under conviction of sin though dead. I guess the "word is sharper than any two-edged sword able to divide ... that soul and spirit asunder..." would speak of this conviction wherein the will still does not desire to turn from sin but the soul is convicted/prricked in the opposite direction, right?

These are just some thoughts to move the discussion forward.

skypair

 

[Hardsheller]

Sky P.....

Could it be those "5 Point Sharks" are just in your mind?

I know they are made of Straw.

Have a great Lord's Day!

 

[skypair]

Sky P.....

Could it be those "5 Point Sharks" are just in your mind?

I know they are made of Straw.

Have a great Lord's Day!

Not in the Reform Church they're not. And I don't think Jesus was amused regarding Sardis teachings, do you? As I recall, He didn't have one good thing to say about them. Oops, I hope you weren't talking about the "5 Pointer SISTERS." :laugh:

Have a blessed day yourself.

skypair

 

[DHK]

Do you disagree that the whole Sermon of Stephen is an indictment against Israel?

No it isn't. Stephen's answer is an indictmnent against those who crucified the Lord--unconverted Jews. At this point the Jews are a nation, and their religion is now a false religion just like Islam or Hinduism. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life," not the Jewish religious sysytem. It is a false religious system. The only way to heaven is through Christ, not through the Jews. If what you say is true, then you would convert and become a Jew and move to Israel.
There are but two groups of people in this present world: the saved and the lost. The ones that Stephen spoke to were lost. Because of their Jewish background he appeals to that patriotism giving them their nation's history and in the process showing them how they resisted the Holy Spirit all throughout their history. Now, after the cross, when Jesus had now done away with their religion, Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross (Col.2:14); he demonstrates that they resist the Holy Spirit, they are unsaved, they are in need of Christ. Their ancestry of being a Jew means absolutely nothing.

 

[Hardsheller]

No it isn't. Stephen's answer is an indictmnent against those who crucified the Lord--unconverted Jews. At this point the Jews are a nation, and their religion is now a false religion just like Islam or Hinduism. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life," not the Jewish religious sysytem. It is a false religious system. The only way to heaven is through Christ, not through the Jews. If what you say is true, then you would convert and become a Jew and move to Israel.
There are but two groups of people in this present world: the saved and the lost. The ones that Stephen spoke to were lost. Because of their Jewish background he appeals to that patriotism giving them their nation's history and in the process showing them how they resisted the Holy Spirit all throughout their history. Now, after the cross, when Jesus had now done away with their religion, Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross (Col.2:14); he demonstrates that they resist the Holy Spirit, they are unsaved, they are in need of Christ. Their ancestry of being a Jew means absolutely nothing.

At this point in History when Stephen preached his Martyr's sermon I don't think we can say that the Disciples had totally written off the Jews. They were Jewish Christians who still believed that Jesus had come solely as a Jewish Messiah. It would be many months down the road before the Church would distance itself from its Jewish heritage. Remember - Peter had to have a rooftop experience to facilitate the break in his life and he still didn't totally get over it until much later if ever.

I think you're reading back into Acts something that cannot be conclusively substantiated by the text.

 

[DHK]

At this point in History when Stephen preached his Martyr's sermon I don't think we can say that the Disciples had totally written off the Jews. They were Jewish Christians who still believed that Jesus had come solely as a Jewish Messiah. It would be many months down the road before the Church would distance itself from its Jewish heritage. Remember - Peter had to have a rooftop experience to facilitate the break in his life and he still didn't totally get over it until much later if ever.

I think you're reading back into Acts something that cannot be conclusively substantiated by the text.

What do we base our beliefs on: history or doctrine?
Do my beliefs come solely from history or do they come from the teachings of Scripture. History is highly speculative and interpretative. The teaching of the Word of God is solid and conclusive.

Here is what the Scriptures teach us.
The law and the prophets were up until John. John was the last of the OT prophets.
Christ fulfilled the law. Through Him all the cerremonnial law was done away. There are no more sacrifices for sins.
Christ is the only way to Heaven; the only means of salvation. There is no other way but through him.
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. At that time 3,000 were saved. This happened in Jerusalem.

Acts 6:7-8 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

It was shortly after Pentecost. Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, worked signs and miracles among them, and preached to them in the power of the Holy Spirit. All Jerusalem knew what was happening.

Were all that were connected to the events surrounding Stephen's "true Jews"?

Acts 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
--These "Jews" were no doubt proselytes, and were very liberal Jews, if considered Jews at all by the others.
Acts 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.

"synagogue of the Libertines--Jewish freedmen; manumitted Roman captives, or the children of such, expelled from Rome (as appears from JOSEPHUS and TACITUS), and now residing at Jerusalem." (Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown)

Acts 6:15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.
--"The council" This is the Sanhedrin--the same Sanhedrin that condemned Christ stoned Stephen. These were unsaved people. Unsaved people are not God's chosen. These are the ones that cried out: "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" Are they saved?

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.
--Notice he calls them uncircumcised in heart and ears. They are unsaved; not true Jews; not God's people. God's people are circumcised in heart as well.

Acts 8:1-2 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.

Saul was one of those that was on the Sanhedrin, consenting unto his death. Look again at the difference between the lost and the saved. Those convicted of the Spirit, but resisting Him. They were unsaved. But the devout, those who were saved and had not resisted the Spirit, carried Stephen, buried him, and lamented over him. Two groups of people: one saved; the other unsaved. The fact that the unsaved are Jews is irrelevant. An unsaved Jew is just as unsaved as an unsaved Hindu. They both need Christ.

 

[Hardsheller]

DHK,

Here is your original question to me.

A simple question:
Did Israel resist the Holy Spirit?

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.

Here was my answer.

Only after they were the Chosen People of God.

I am not debating whether or not the Jews were saved or not. I believe the Jews were lost without Jesus. You asked did Israel resist the Holy Spirit?

My answer is both historically and biblically correct.