Featured Total Inability in the Gospel of John

In john ch 3 Jesus was dealing with the idea that Jews were saved based on the fact that they were Jews rather than born again. In other words they thought that they were saved because of the "flesh" birth as Jew or children of Abraham. This was clear not only in John 3 but Matt 3:9, John 8:33. Let's not turn that into some Calvinist thing. Talk about making it hard to take someone seriously.

 

John 12:32 "I will draw ALL mankind to Me"
So while it is true that lost sinner without any work of God at all -- is not drawn... cannot repent or come to faith.

It is NOT true that God failed to draw all.
John 16 "The Holy Spirit convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment"

The problem with Calvinism is that it insists that God is not doing what He says He is doing

 

The problem is that you insist on a simplistic and literalistic interpretation which prevents you from comprehending what is actually being said.

Mark 1:5 "And there went out to him ALL the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem and were ALL baptized in the river Jordan"

Were all people, without exception, baptized?

John 8:2 "And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and ALL the people came unto him; and he sat down and taught them."

Acts 22:15 "For thou (Paul) shalt be a witness unto ALL men of what thou hast seen or heard."

Has Paul spoken to every person, without exception?

Luke 23:18-19 And they all cried out at once, saying, "Away with this [Man], and release to us Barabbas" (19) who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder.

 

Each "ALL" must be determined in its context.

Therein lies the problem.

John 3:16 ??

HankD

 

NONE seek after the true God, none seeking after the ways of the Lord, nor His Messiah!

 

That's what we do when we speak to each other, isn't it? If I tell you that I was waiting in line at the DMV, "all day, you don't think I was there from 12:00 AM to 11:59:59 PM, do you?

Regarding John 3:16, Calvinists love that text, as we do all others. We also use scripture to interpret scripture. For instance, look at John 3:16 and John 6:44 together, and what you find is that no one is "willing" to do what John 3:16 invites. He must be first made willing by God.

 

Here in Washington State - Maybe.

And OBTW
The devotee of Calvin - yes, he says the sinner must be made "willing", the devotee of Arminus would say "after he is made willing he must accept".


HankD

 

Washington State? That explains a few things. . .

BTW, Calvinists believe that men must respond, too.

 

Yes but the Arminius follower believes the response can be yes or no.

HankD

 

So do Calvinists. Many people reject the outward call of the gospel.

 

OK there is no difference. EOS.

 

There is a vast difference. You just don't understand the DoG, like most who are critical of them.

 

Ya I'm a dummy.

HankD

 

Yes

no

The Bible does not say that. The Bible DOES say that "he went away sorrowful......."
In another account, the governor Felix, "reasoned of temperance, righteousness, and judgment to come" and the Bible says that he "trembled". The work of the Holy Spirit is to "convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgement". Therefore this account indicates that the Holy Spirit was at work here, But was not "effectual" because Felix chose to put it off.

 

But the Bible doesn't just leave it at "sorrowful" either. The issue with the rich young ruler is that he prized his possessions more than anything else (hence the "for" in most of the gospel accounts). He went away sorrowful precisely because he could not part with his possessions--they were his "god."

If the Spirit had His way with this man, he would prize Christ more than anything else. We see that in the balance of the New Testament, especially in Paul in Philippians.

Reformed is correct that the rich young ruler was seeking eternal life, and that he was seeking eternal life by the works of the Law. He did not delight in God nor the things of God. As is made clear by his sorrowful departure, he delighted in himself and dutifully (rather than delightfully) followed the Law so that God would give him eternal life. In the end, he wanted his stuff more than Christ--a clear sign of being un-regenerate.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Yes, it was about his possessions, I know that. But he was still in a dilemma even as he left the scene. The Bible tells us "he went away sorrowful" for a reason. And when the disciples asked "who then can be saved", Jesus told them "with God all things are possible" indicating there was still hope for "rich men", including this guy. My point was; the rich young ruler rejected and walked away from the very presence, direct words, and invitation, of Almighty God, to be saved. I mean, how many of you have had God Himself SPEAK directly to you, telling you how to have eternal life? Wait a minute!! God Himself loved this guy(according to the scripture)!! Why would Jesus(God) love somebody but "choose" not to "enable" him? And my point there, is God does love people but He doesn't "enable" people to believe: He 'draws" them by his word and His Holy Spirit but it is THEY who either believe on Him or reject.

 

Nothing here is drawn from the passage at hand, except your allusions to the passage. And, since you're going outside of the passage and arguing from your presuppositions, I must ask what you do when you encounter this different passage: And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48 ESV)

The reason I bring this up is this: If you're correct in your explanation of the rich young ruler, this passage from Acts shouldn't be in the Bible at all.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

The sinful nature will always reject coming to God thru the Cross of Christ, as there is no way to boast in that method! Human pride thing...