Unconditional Election And the Invincible Purpose of God

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by shilo:
How could you possibly believe that "whosoever will" may come when you believe in the Effectual call?? aren't you contradicting yourself?

Because the effectual call is what turns man's will towards God. We believe that whosoever will may come. You consider every person who rejects Christ. Why do they reject Christ? Because they will not come to him.

[quiote]But then again the Calvinist say they believe in a General call..but then again that's a front...it leads people into thinking that they could come when it's really the effectual one that counts and if they don't get that effectual call they can't come... [/quote]They are prevented from coming only by their own depravity and hardened will against God. They can come at any time they so desire to.

So when you get down to it it really isn't "whosoever" because God didn't give the effectual call to the Non-elect.. so in all honesty looks to me like your trying to look like you agree with the Bible and Yelsew when really you don't.

In all honesty, you are not understanding the issues. We do not believe that man is pulled against his will. Nor do we believe that man is kept out against his will. We believe that whosoever will may come. We emphasize the "will;" you emphasize the "whosoever."

 

[Bible-belted]

"True! But the jews also had laws given to them so when they broke the commandments they could atone for their sins..But they had to do it or else they would go to hell..they had a choice. God didn't MAKE them bring the offerings to the priest"

All that proves is that the requirements and the blessings were real. If they din't bring the offerings they were still sinning and would reap the results. You are furthering my argument that the fact that there is no way to fulfill a requirement does not make it less real.

"Okay lets say it's authentic. However you stated that man CANNOT respond to the call.. So why would God Knowing that man couldn't respond to the call give a call man couldn't respond to?? To say.. "See I gave you a call..but you couldn't come..sorry. you're damned..""

Because God loves the world. God isn't less loving in making the offer just because people don't come.

"It is logic not sour grapes..If you CANT do something you can't do it no matter what..so the general call IS a mock call..because God would KNOW people couldn't respond..so it would be as if God were mocking them.."

The genuineness of the call is not predicated on the ablity of people to respond to it. The call is genuine because God is sincere in making it. That makes it a serious call. You are charging God with insincerity, a blasphemy surely.

"Example..The Men of Nineveh..God decreed they would be overthrown (Jon 3:4) THEY repented on their own (3:8-10) God spared them. You can't tell me that man has inability..that right there proves he has ability."

Not at all. Inability pertains to reposnding to God in faith for salvation. That isn't what johna was offering. I belive you are also misunderstandiung what imnability means. It does not mean that man has NO WILL. It means it isn't equally free to make any choice.

"God would accept anyone who came to him true..however..THEY CAN'T COME God would know this..no matter how sincere you say the call is..it is certainly not..it isn't one that would result in a sinner coming to God anyway. You have to have the EFFECTUAL CALL..that is the Key..only those who get that call can be saved."

So you say God is insincere. That's your blasphemy, not mine.

Using your logic God is insincere with the Cross. He says it is a death for the sins of the world, but it isn't really since many go to hell. How insincere.

"Quoting Calvaniusts that say the general call does not end up saving anyone is nto the same thing as saying those calvanists believe the general call is insicere or a sham. Those quotes say nothing of the sort.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Do you believe that we are created in the image of God?

This is what I believe: The Bible says, "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

This reflects God's intent. Adam corrupted that intent when he sinned, and the fall perpetuated that corruption to the rest of the human race. As another example, God also intended man and woman to become one flesh, did He not? Yet we defy and corrupt that intent constantly.

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Do you think that God created two classes of humans, those who can hear and those who cannot?

God created one class. That "class" was changed by the fall so that none can hear or see without the enabling power of God.

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Did God create humans who have no ears and thus cannot hear? Reference please?

God did not create humans that way, God created Adam, Adam sinned, and as a result humans became that way. Humans inherited the incapacity to see and hear from the fall. So we all start out without eyes to see or ears to hear, and we cannot have them unless God gives them to us as a gift.

Reference? Here's one:

Deuteronomy 29:4 Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day.

The above verse makes no sense unless we start out without a heart to perceive, eyes to see, and ears to hear.

Here's another:

John 12:39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." 41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.

There you have not only a scriptural reference that shows God blinds some, but that the result of their blindness is that they cannot turn and be healed, and that this blindness is specifically about faith in Jesus, not about some unrelated issue. You may not like what that implies, but when one worships God and accepts His sovereignty, one comes to realize it is downright silly (if not blasphemous) to think we can question God's motives for doing such things!

For what biblical reason would God create those who cannot hear because they have nor "ear to hear"?

According to the inscrutable will of God, He has elected some, and He gives those He has elected ears to hear and eyes to see. Just because scripture does not tell use why God elects some and not others does not make it possible to deny that scripture clearly says He does elect some and not others, or that it is God who blinds and it is God who gives eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

[Ray Berrian]

The Bible speaks of election, the call of the Gospel and the 'image of God' in human beings. To say there is no connect is like saying there is no connection between the transmission, the transmission fluid and the gear shift of your car. Or like reading a 'Cook Book' and saying there is no connection between the flour, the yeast, and sugar.

I like corn muffins very much. One time I tried to surprise my wife by making them. I put all the ingredients into the bowl, but put double the salt into the mix by mistake. It made a difference and there was a connection.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The Bible speaks of election, the call of the Gospel and the 'image of God' in human beings. To say there is no connect is like saying there is no connection between the transmission, the transmission fluid and the gear shift of your car. Or like reading a 'Cook Book' and saying there is no connection between the flour, the yeast, and sugar.

Again, you misunderstand. I didn't say there was no connection. I said your connection is the wrong one. You keep saying that the biblical doctrine of election is incompatible with the image of God in man. You keep saying that the effectual call is incompatible with the image of God in man. It is your who have misidentified the connection.

 

[Eric B]

There you have not only a scriptural reference that shows God blinds some, but that the result of their blindness is that they cannot turn and be healed, and that this blindness is specifically about faith in Jesus, not about some unrelated issue. You may not like what that implies, but when one worships God and accepts His sovereignty, one comes to realize it is downright silly (if not blasphemous) to think we can question God's motives for doing such things!

According to the inscrutable will of God, He has elected some, and He gives those He has elected ears to hear and eyes to see. Just because scripture does not tell use why God elects some and not others does not make it possible to deny that scripture clearly says He does elect some and not others, or that it is God who blinds and it is God who gives eyes to see and ears to hear.

Once again, this use of the passage ignores a certain context. God was beginning to call people, starting with the apostles; and those others were not called yet, but were still under the Law (which pointed to Christ, and in that respect, they were failing as well, not keeping it in the spirit, but only in the letter). Also remember that blinding and hardening come when the people have rejected God's truth beyond a certain limit God sets for those people.
You are the first in a while to admit to God "blinding" (actively). Others have been denying that tooth and nail, insisting God is completely passive, and we are only "misunderstanding". They emphasize man already being dead in sin, but then this would make it totally unnecesary to have to "blind" them (suggesting they would come if God didn't do something that kept them from coming). So no, we're not just questioning it because we don't like it; there is a serious problem with the theory.

But if you are going to admit that God is permanently blinding people (for eternity), the main question, above, once again, is how could there be a real "general" call in such a scenario? Yes, it would be sincere if "He would save anyone who came", but if He is stopping people from coming as that quote suggests, or He creates people and decrees that some are elect and others aren't, then He isn't really "calling" the latter at all, because it is He (not their sin) who has decreed, even if in an omissive fashion, that they are not to receive what they need to be able to come. The same with Jesus arguing with those 'uncalled' Jews He blinded as if He really expected anything different from them.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Also remember that blinding and hardening come when the people have rejected God's truth beyond a certain limit God sets for those people.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but it's not something that is explicitly stated in the Bible. The Bible does say that God gives (or gave) people over to sin after a certain "breaking" point, but that's not the same as hardening. Regardless, Romans says, "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens", which implies that God does it for whatever reason He chooses, not necessarily because we do or fail to do anything.

Originally posted by Eric B:
You are the first in a while to admit to God "blinding" (actively).

It would be hard to deny it when it's right there in black and white and red.

Originally posted by Eric B:
But if you are going to admit that God is permanently blinding people (for eternity), the main question, above, once again, is how could there be a real "general" call in such a scenario? Yes, it would be sincere if "He would save anyone who came", but if He is stopping people from coming as that quote suggests, or He creates people and decrees that some are elect and others aren't, then He isn't really "calling" the latter at all, because it is He (not their sin) who has decreed, even if in an omissive fashion, that they are not to receive what they need to be able to come. The same with Jesus arguing with those 'uncalled' Jews He blinded as if He really expected anything different from them.

IMO, your concept of permanent blindness for eternity doesn't make much sense, so it's hard to answer your objection. But that's probably irrelevant because I'm not certain there is a real general call. If anything, I seriously doubt it. Unless one believes in universal salvation (I don't), the following sure doesn't sound like a general call to me: "Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

If you have a problem with the idea that God would not issue a general call, that's something you want to take up with God, not me. I have no problem with it. He's God. He can do whatever He wants.

 

[Eric B]

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but it's not something that is explicitly stated in the Bible. The Bible does say that God gives (or gave) people over to sin after a certain "breaking" point, but that's not the same as hardening.

Yes it is. When one is "given over to a sin" or "seared with a hot iron", they are certainly "hardened", just like we are told not to "harden our hearts" (by refusing to listen to His voice).

Regardless, Romans says, "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens", which implies that God does it for whatever reason He chooses, not necessarily because we do or fail to do anything.

That is true, but still, it is not talking about preventing a person from being able to believe unto salvation. (hence "permanent blindness -- eternity")

It would be hard to deny it when it's right there in black and white and red.

A lot of Calvinists have been, insisting that it's only the sinner's total depravity that blinds them.

But that's probably irrelevant because I'm not certain there is a real general call. If anything, I seriously doubt it. Unless one believes in universal salvation (I don't), the following sure doesn't sound like a general call to me: "Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

If you have a problem with the idea that God would not issue a general call, that's something you want to take up with God, not me. I have no problem with it. He's God. He can do whatever He wants.

It's the Calvinists who are pushing for something called a "general call".

[ January 14, 2003, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Yelsew]

When advertisers create commercials, they are calling everyone's attention to the object of the advertisement. A GENERAL call. Only those who are attracted by the general call will deliberately go out and buy the product as the result of the call.

God has issued his Call in the form of the Word of God in an effort to attract the attention of all the world. Only those attracted will take the time to discover the truth of the Word and do that which is necessary to receive what God calls them to.

Just as advertisements may contain subliminal messages that nudge ones persuasion toward the product, the Word of God has a messenger called the Holy Spirit that "nudges" one to accept the truth and act accordingly.

There is but one call, and it is universal for all mankind. There is however an "effectual reception" of the call.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Well Yelsew, you are finally getting a bit closer. But let me ask you this: What makes the call attractive to some and not to others??

What makes a sunset beautiful to a blind man?? The answer is "nothing." Until his eyes are opened, he will never see the sunset as attractive.

In the same manner, the eyes of the unsaved are blinded by their sin. Many passages bring this truth out. Until their eyes are opened, they will not be attracted by something, no matter how beautiful it is.

So the question for you is this: Why are some people attracted and others not?

 

[Yelsew]

Because Man has a free will and the ability to exercise it!

Now take the blinders off!

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Because Man has a free will and the ability to exercise it!

Now take the blinders off!

That isn't an answer. It's a dodge. You are simply inserting an extra step.

The question now becomes: Why do some exercise their will in that way, and others not?

And I recommend you not accuse others fo blindness, given your position. If you seek to guide us it is you who are in trith the blind guide.

 

[Yelsew]

That isn't an answer. It's a dodge. You are simply inserting an extra step.

The question now becomes: Why do some exercise their will in that way, and others not?

And I recommend you not accuse others fo blindness, given your position. If you seek to guide us it is you who are in trith the blind guide.

The answer stands, no matter what you call it! People respond to the same stimulus in a variety of ways, why shouldn't their choices reflect that?

I accused no one of being blind. "Blinders" are a device used by people in the equestrian industry to keep their horses from be distracted by events or actions, or other horses that are on either side of them, a means of focusing attention. It is my opinion that you have on "blinders".

 

[Bible-belted]

"The answer stands, no matter what you call it! People respond to the same stimulus in a variety of ways, why shouldn't their choices reflect that?"

First let me say that it doesn't answer the question to simply say that people choose becuase they exercise their free will. That's a tautology. The question is WHY do some exercise their free will (as you would have it) to believe, while others don't? You sort of answer that here. To that I say:

God is not a respecter of persons. Remember? You have God electing those who respond to the "gospel stimulus" in faith. That makes God's election based on something in some people that does not exist in others, a capacity to respond a certain way. That makes God a respecter of persons.

"I accused no one of being blind. "Blinders" are a device used by people in the equestrian industry to keep their horses from be distracted by events or actions, or other horses that are on either side of them, a means of focusing attention. It is my opinion that you have on "blinders"."

Don't play semantic games. What do blinders do but render a person blind? Whether the blindness be total or tunnel, it is still blindness. You are saying we are blind.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
The answer stands, no matter what you call it! People respond to the same stimulus in a variety of was, why shouldn't their choices reflect that?

They should, but that's not the question. YOu stated the obvious. It was not an answer, it was a restatement fo the questions. We asked you for the reason why that is so. Why do some people respond one way and some people respond another?

 

[Yelsew]

God is not a respecter of persons. Remember? You have God electing those who respond to the "gospel stimulus" in faith. That makes God's election based on something in some people that does not exist in others, a capacity to respond a certain way. That makes God a respecter of persons.

Then you fail to understand "election". What can I say? What is it you are wanting to hear? Are you a seeker or a teacher in abstract?

 

[Yelsew]

They should, but that's not the question. YOu stated the obvious. It was not an answer, it was a restatement fo the questions. We asked you for the reason why that is so. Why do some people respond one way and some people respond another?

I know you know the answer, but because you Hold that golden scepter, you are not going to reveal the real "truth".

You are attempting to teach that which Holy Spirit reveals to me to be unacceptable. So teach on! Maybe you can deceive others.

 

[Bible-belted]

Yelsew,

Thank you for at last revelaing that you have no answer.

You cannot answer why it is some exercise (as you would have it) free wil in faith and others do not.

I am a bit disappointed that you couldn't just say it, but your opbvious avoidance is sufficient.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
I know you know the answer, but because you Hold that golden scepter, you are not going to reveal the real "truth".

You are attempting to teach that which Holy Spirit reveals to me to be unacceptable. So teach on! Maybe you can deceive others.

Yelsew,

This is a discussion forum. It means we discuss things. I know the answer and i can defend it biblically. I am curious as to what your answer is. Why is that so difficult to answer? Most of the time when people don't have an answer for something, they get real cryptic and start talking like you have. My suspicion is that you don't have any idea ... you have probably never really thought about it. You bought what someone was teachign without stopping to consider what Scripture says.

You are also probably used to having someone let you off the hook when you stall for a little while. I have no intention of letting you off the hook. I want to know what your biblical answer is to the question. If you know the "real truth," then put it out here and defend it.

Now, as for deceiving, if what Scripture says can be called deceit, then I am guilty. Of course, you know better as do I. Let's cut the accusations of deceit and use this discussion forum to discuss.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Latreia:
God is not a respecter of persons. Remember? You have God electing those who respond to the "gospel stimulus" in faith. That makes God's election based on something in some people that does not exist in others, a capacity to respond a certain way. That makes God a respecter of persons.

This is off topic, but I'm really happy to see someone else say that. I've gotten such puzzled reactions when I've stated this same thing that I was beginning to think perhaps I was crazy for thinking it.

I also enjoyed PB's link to an article on justification by faith, since it supports this very conclusion. It states that there is nowhere in the Bible that faith merits justification. Therefore one cannot support (Biblically) the idea that God saves those who choose to believe of their own free will. That would describe a system of merit, albeit not one of merit by obedience to the law but merit by response of faith.

[ January 16, 2003, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: npetreley ]