By comparing scripture with scripture its clear to me that John 6:37 has the Father giving believers to the Son not unbelievers. Therefore all those being drawn will believe does not apply to John 6:37.
Darren
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Truth or Calvinism - That should do it.
- Thread starter Benefactor
- Start date
- Status
By comparing scripture with scripture its clear to me that John 6:37 has the Father giving believers to the Son not unbelievers. Therefore all those being drawn will believe does not apply to John 6:37.
Darren
]
The very story of the serpent being lifted up was example of Christ's being lifted up and what it entails and is the very reason Jesus equated the two to a teacher of Israel who knew the story very well.
The picture is about being given life when they were under the sentence of death for any and all who believe. Jesus does clarify the distiction in that His being lifted up will save more than just mortal life that is doomed but the very soul that is doomed/under condemnation of sin, through faith.
I know the distinction is literally mortal life and eternal life in the two events seperately, however Jesus is the one correlating the two events as being in the same manner, and as such is much more than just an act of being lifted up. I guess I just don't understand how you cannot see Jesus own correlation of the two beyond just the act when the text says so. Jesus doesn't just state that He will be lifted up like the serpent and that is as far as the example goes, the text does not support such a view.
Both events speak about life and that Jesus will give more than just mortal longevity. Both events show that the object being lifted up was not for their condemnation because of sin but to save them from their sin (one reflecting the temporal the other the spiritual but both referencing their salvation by faith).[/QUOTE]
First, just showed that the story itself does state they will not perish, because it states those who look upon it 'will live', thus the opposite is just as true - those who don't will perish.
Second, I think you are forgetting to whom Jesus was speaking in our discussion of the conversation. We notice that this portion of John 3 is on the very heels of Jesus chiding of him not understanding what Jesus was saying because he was supposed to be a teacher of Israel who knew these truths. And so to bring up this story as the example or illistration of what was going to happen, was bring to his rememberance the whole account and both why and what had transpired.
I just wanted to make a comment on this small portion here:
Yes, but do you agree that scripture does not tell us God hardened it intially but only tells us that God did so after Pharaoh had haredened it first.
Here pharaoh resists/hardened first:
This true, but God does not state He is the intial reason Pharaoh hardened his heart only that God promises to harden it. And we see God do this after scripture tells us that Pharoah hardens his heart first. God hardened Pharoah's heart because Pharaoh was about to give in before God was finished and God knew that pharaoh would yeild if He did not step in. He did this, scripture states, to multiply His signs and wonders in the land of Egypt (Ex 7:3) I don't know about you but after the first couple of plagues I would have told them to leave to but God had more to show the world and His people about who He is.
Yes, but do you agree that scripture does not tell us God hardened it intially but only tells us that God did so after Pharaoh had haredened it first.
Here pharaoh resists/hardened first:
Then we see in scripture exactly when it was the God hardened his heart:
It was his own sin which kept God's people under bondage and not let them go, and God knew this would happen and thus God used him and his choice to stand in that sin for His glory.
Last edited by a moderator:
Most Calvinists will define just like I did. I have already shown that.
But that's not what it says.
So Pharaoh never had a chance? If God knows everything perfectly, and God knew from the beginning what Pharaoh would do, then Pharaoh never had a chance to do it differently. That is a deathknell for you.
Why do I need a concordance? I am well familiar with the story.
But read the text. The similarity is in being lifted up. That's the only similarity the text makes. All else is brought in from outside the text.
The text doesn't say that. The text draws the similarity at being lifted up. Again, just look at it.
the only thing mentioned of the serpent is being lifted up. The response of the people is never mentioned. Just read the text if you dont' believe me.
Again, notice who here is leaning on the text itself, and who is dependent on stuff not in the text. I am the only one insisting on the text of Scripture.
I seriously just laughed out loud. Notice how much you are reading into what is not in the text.
But even at that, if God said before Pharaoh did anything that he would harden his heart, then Pharaoh never had a chance.
Furthermore, if Pharaoh was about to give in (as you state), and God hardened his heart, then how is God not prolonging and increasing Pharaoh's sin?
I don't think you gave that much thought before you said it. But it shows the lengths to which one will go to defend a point.
The text doesn't say that God hardened it initially, or that he didn't harden it initially. It says, before one single plague, that God was goign to harden it. Pharaoh never had a chance to repent and do it differently. He could not have let them go if he had wanted to. You yourself said it. He was going to let them go and then God stepped in.
The worse thing is that you think that is actually an answer.
Seriously, that is among the weakest attempts I have ever heard in this debate.
Funny, I think that way about Calvinism sometimes. God knows both the hearts and thoughts and intentions of every man. Likes, dislikes, loves, hates - God knows it all. Pharoah responded to God's actions through Moses by hardening his heart, God knew it would happen because God knows Pharoah better than Pharoah knew himself. God didn't zap Pharoah and Pharoah's heart was hardened, not at any time, Pharoah was not a wind up toy soldier, he had heart, intention, will, choice, responsibility much like any person has.
Darren
What is the very next word in the very next verse - 'that'. The being lifted up has a purpose and that purpose is reflected in the same purpose as the lifting up of the serpent in the OT - that they may live/have eternal life.
No reading into it at all, I am paraphrasing what is given. I take that back, the part about pharaoh potentially giving in is an assumption but one made from any logical mind.
Yes, he had a chance but chose otherwise and God knew he would but with what God had in store He knew Pharaoh would relent without God stepping in. Once his choice was made he had no chance.
Who said he was increasing his sin. He chose and God gave him over to his choice. His change of heart would not be repentance to let them go but one of fear and even then, as we see in scripture, it does not deter him from pursuing them to wipe them out.
Actually I will make this very statement about your refute. What I gave is fact with respect to when God hardened pharaohs heart because it declares 'when' He does it and it is after pharaoh chooses to ignore Moses and cause his people to suffer even more. To postulate otherwise is to disagree with what scripture states explicitely about when it occured.
You miss the whole point by trying to make God cause him to sin or to be the cause of his sin. Yes, the the text states God is 'going' to harden his heart, NOT that God 'has' or 'has already' hardened his heart. Then scripture tells us exactly when God did this which was 'after' Pharaoh denied them leave.
Secondly pharaoh 'had a chance' and or a choice and it was his to choose either way. Yet God knew what he would willingly do. Yes, he could have let them go initially but did not, 'after that' he had no choice but to wait till God was done with what God intended to do. God gave him over to his sin, and in that state of his own choosing God worked His power even through his sin.
So far it is the only one bibilcally based.
Seriously when does scripture, not your theology, tell us when God actaully hardened his heart?
Thought so.
Last edited by a moderator:
No reading into it at all, I am paraphrasing what is given. I take that back, the part about pharaoh potentially giving in is an assumption but one made from any logical mind.
Yes, he had a chance but chose otherwise and God knew he would but with what God had in store He knew Pharaoh would relent without God stepping in. Once his choice was made he had no chance.
Who said he was increasing his sin. He chose and God gave him over to his choice. His change of heart would not be repentance to let them go but one of fear and even then, as we see in scripture, it does not deter him from pursuing them to wipe them out.
Actually I will make this very statement about your refute. What I gave is fact with respect to when God hardened pharaohs heart because it declares 'when' He does it and it is after pharaoh chooses to ignore Moses and cause his people to suffer even more. To postulate otherwise is to disagree with what scripture states explicitely about when it occured.
You miss the whole point by trying to make God cause him to sin. Yes, the the text states God is 'going' to harden his heart, NOT that God 'has' or 'has already' hardened his heart. Then scripture tells us exactly when God did this.
Evidentially Pharoah was an arrogent and prideful King that did not like anyone telling him what to do. This was in Pharoah's heart and God in His timing choose to free the Israelites during the reign of this King who was full of him self. Pharoah responded to God ONLY because of God's show of force, not at any time did Pharoah humble himself to show respect to God. When Pharoah sensed no fear from God in between the plagues he responded with pride, anger and arrogent as a result of his hardened heart. After all he was the great Pharoah, who is this God of Israel to tell him what to do....
Darren
Robert Snow
New Member
It's the same with Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
The difference is where you put the "I don't know!" at.
The Calvinists says, "I don't know why God elected some and not others."
The non-Calvinists says, "I don't know why one person believed and another one did not."
Brian Bosse
Member
Hello Winman,
All of this, though, is different than what my original comments were directed toward. I was just pointing out that a simple recitation of John 12:32 is not sufficient to establish the domain and scope of the word translated “all men.” The Greek word can be used to delineate types of men, and can even be used hyperbolically to indicate a large number of people just to mention a few of its uses outside of absolute universality. In other words, the semantic range of this word is large enough that we must carefully consider the context within which it is being used.
If you are interested in a discussion around this, I would be happy to explain why I think “all men” here refers to types of men – Jews and Gentiles – rather than every last human being. Maybe, this is worth its own thread or maybe we just keep it right here? Let me know if you have any desire to do this.
Sincerely,
Brian
Yeah, it did seem to be a little hard. But no worries, mate.
Yes, that is a good observation.
Winman, could it be that sin comes out of a hard heart, rather than the other way around? I am thinking of those passages where one finds things like, “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, etc…”
Earlier, you acknowledged that the Bible does speak of God hardening Pharoah’s heart. Wouldn’t this constitute as some kind of evidence that there are instances where a man’s heart was affected by something outside of himself? Also, what do you think of those passages that say things like, “The king’s heart is likechannels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes”? Could someone argue that verses like these provide at least a modicum of evidence that there can be controlling influences outside of man?
All of this, though, is different than what my original comments were directed toward. I was just pointing out that a simple recitation of John 12:32 is not sufficient to establish the domain and scope of the word translated “all men.” The Greek word can be used to delineate types of men, and can even be used hyperbolically to indicate a large number of people just to mention a few of its uses outside of absolute universality. In other words, the semantic range of this word is large enough that we must carefully consider the context within which it is being used.
If you are interested in a discussion around this, I would be happy to explain why I think “all men” here refers to types of men – Jews and Gentiles – rather than every last human being. Maybe, this is worth its own thread or maybe we just keep it right here? Let me know if you have any desire to do this.
Sincerely,
Brian
Benefactor
New Member
Pastor Larry
Larry we know that your understanding of dead is sins and trespasses means that man of himself is totally depraved and cannot and will not respond to the call of God unless the person is first saved/ regenerated. Do you deny that?
Second, we know that after regeneration / new birth /conversion then and only then does a person reach the order of salvation as R10:10 teach. Do you deny that this is your teaching? You do agree that this statement is true concerning Calvinism don't you?
So, in your view a persons moves from loving darkness to loving light when a person is first born a gain or regenerated, is that not a correct statement concerning your view of Calvinism?
Larry we know that your understanding of dead is sins and trespasses means that man of himself is totally depraved and cannot and will not respond to the call of God unless the person is first saved/ regenerated. Do you deny that?
Second, we know that after regeneration / new birth /conversion then and only then does a person reach the order of salvation as R10:10 teach. Do you deny that this is your teaching? You do agree that this statement is true concerning Calvinism don't you?
So, in your view a persons moves from loving darkness to loving light when a person is first born a gain or regenerated, is that not a correct statement concerning your view of Calvinism?
Brian Bosse
Member
Hello Benefactor,
Please forgive me for jumping in and answering a question directed towards Larry. My guess is that he and I probably agree on some of these things. I think the distinction that best captures my position is as follows:
Regeneration Preceeds Faith
I find verses that speak of not being able to see the kingdom of God unless one is born-again (John 3), and speak of the god of this world blinding the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ (2 Cor. 4) to support this position.
Sincerely,
Brian
Please forgive me for jumping in and answering a question directed towards Larry. My guess is that he and I probably agree on some of these things. I think the distinction that best captures my position is as follows:
Regeneration Preceeds Faith
I find verses that speak of not being able to see the kingdom of God unless one is born-again (John 3), and speak of the god of this world blinding the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ (2 Cor. 4) to support this position.
Sincerely,
Brian
I am not Larry, but yes, I do believe that. However, man in the natural state can do things to please other men. An unbeliever can be honest, kind and helpful. But his morality will not save him. Until he is regenerated he will not truly see his need for a Savior.
Yes, that is true. Of course this is a logical order. It all basically happens at the same time but it is a matter of cause and effect.
Yes, thank you for accurately presenting the calvinist position. It seems it often gets misrepresented.
Regeneration is the difference in one person believing and another staying in unbelief.
This is the answer the synergist can't answer.
Or rather God offers man receives.
The Calvinist view I think drops man's part off completely as if non elect man really has no right or reason to exist, its just determinism and fatalism with no way of reprieve for them. I don't find that taught anywhere in scripture.
Darren
The problem is there is no scripture to insert regeneration before salvation.
Nothing in this passage claims regeneration before salvation.
Titus
3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Darren
Benefactor
New Member
It has always fascinated me that in the absence of any direct and solid indirect scripture there are none that teach pre faith regeneration, or that a person is saved first at which time or thereafter the person is given a special gift of faith so that he will "continually" trust in Christ the rest of his life.
The Bible teaches that we must believed to be saved but in the Calvinist system one must be saved at which point or sometime after God gives the gift of faith so that they can believe. The logical outcome is a person, in the Calvinist system, first must be born a gain to receive the gift of faith where by they are then able to believe so that they can be saved or saved the second time. I can't find this anywhere in Scripture. We know that regeneration means new birth and it has been associated and claimed to be that new birth and stated that what is mentioned in J3 "born from above" is regeneration.
-------------------------------------
Also, let me add my thoughts on the following which should generate some rather interesting conversation. I don't thing the passages I present when considered in Contest give weight to the Calvinist view. Well that is my view lets see what everyone has to say.
John 6:35. Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
36. "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39. "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40. "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
John 6:44. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45. It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46. Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.
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."
70. Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and {yet} one of you is a devil?" 71. Now He meant Judas {the son} of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.
j7:16. So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17. "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or {whether} I speak from Myself.
j10: 26. "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28. and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29. "My Father, who has given {them} to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch {them} out of the Father's hand. 30. "I and the Father are one."
j11: 40. Jesus *said to her, "Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?" 41. So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, "Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42. "I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me.
j24:9 Jesus *said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and {yet} you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how {can} you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10. "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11. "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.j16: 27. for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father. 28. "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father."
1. All who come to Jesus will be saved that is the bottom line
2. However we are told that no one will come to Jesus unless the Father grants it / draws them j6:44, 65
3. Jesus in j7:70 assumes the role of the Father and says He is the one that choose - in this case the 12 disciples
4. God draws; no one can come unless it is having been given him of Him (grants, enables); God’s will is that a person hear and learn from the Father and that they behold the Son and believe. We can reasonably conclude that the Father is the caller, the granter and this is on the basis of the person willing to hear and learn from the Father. Jesus said that if anyone is willing to do His will he will know if Jesus’ teaching is true.
1. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me
2. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him
3. no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
4. He who has seen Me has seen the Father
5. I know that this will meet with dispute from the Calvinist but that is to be expected. However, the statement “no one can come Jesus unless the Father draws him to Jesus and the other statement which is similar states “no one can come to Jesus unless it has been granted by God does not qualify itself. What does qualify it in the context is what follows; “God’s will is that a person hear and learn from the Father and that they behold the Son and believe.
6. Logically then those that God draws to Christ and grants them passage to Christ must first hear and learn from the Father about Christ and look and believe. Jesus further said, “if anyone is willing to do His will he will know if Jesus teaching is true. Again what is God’s will? It is that we hear and learn, look and believe and these that do this are those that the Father gives to Jesus. Again Calvinism bites the dust in light of the teaching of the word.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are correct that fatalism is nowhere taught in scripture.
You are also correct that man has no part in his salvation. God does it all, all to God's glory.
Where you are wrong is in thinking that calvinism = fatalism.
I DO see how you would think that. It is an easy conclusion to come to when you don't really understand the doctrines fully. I struggled with that myself.
Calvinism does NOT negate the responsibility of man at all.
It does not deny choice or man's will.
It merely states what the bible says that man's will and man's choice will always be according to his nature.
It is my nature not to like mustard. Therefore I will never order mustard on a burger at Hardees because it would go against my nature. Now no external force is making order my burger without the mustard, my own will does that.
Man in sin is like that toward God.
By nature the things of God are foolishness to him.
God does not force a man against his will but rather gives the man a new heart which desires God.
Then the man freely longs for God.
There is no arm twisting involved.
First of all, they (we all for that matter) do not deserve a way of reprieve as you put it.
But theirs is the same way as ours: only through the perfect sacrifice of Christ.
Anyone who truly calls and the name of the Lord SHALL be saved.
God will not say "sorry you aren't elect, I won't save you" That simply will not happen.
All that come to Christ will be saved.
But again, the natural man does not WANT Christ.
- Status