Unconditional Election means Unconditional Reprobation

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Human belief can only occur through what Arminians consider "forcing." Those who have been "enlightened" (according to the Arminian standard) MUST believe. We definitely do not agree on this issue, because our terms are different.

YOu need to change your terms then. Don't force your terms on us. We do not use them and do not accept them. Don't keep calling it "forcing" when it is not. You accuse us of something that you have decided we believe, even though we have denied it, and shown it to be inaccurate. We have told you what we believe. Accept it and move on.

Yet in Leveticus 18 and Matthew 5, there is a way out. Romans seems to fulfill this. Ultimately, there was a way they could gain forgiveness. However, in the grand scheme of things, this is something that people would be unable to do in your theology.

But the "way out" is not the same as keeping the commandments. You have insisted that any command must be able to be kept. Now you change the rules to a "way out" is an acceptable alternative. How can you change the rules in the middle of the game? In any case, the "way out" is available to all who will accept it.

Nowhere do you find that they would be UNABLE, merely that Christ knew which one would betray Him. NOWHERE does it speak of inability.

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."

"Can come" is a term of ability. It is plain in the text. How did you miss it? Unless the ability to come is granted from the Father, no one can come. That is why Jesus could say to the people, There are some of you who do not believe. In your view, that statement makes little sense. If it was up to the individual, or if God drew everyone equally, then Christ would have no way of knowing that there were some who would not believe.

Which third group do you speak of? There isn't a group of those who cannot come. Here are the two groups: Those who come and those who choose not to come. Verses 63-64 merely state that Christ knew who wasn't going to come. Nowhere does it say in those verses that they could not come. You may be speaking of verse 65, which states that only those who are enabled by the Father can come, but there is nothing in the verse that states that the Father only enables a certain number of people - merely that the Father makes the first step.

The two groups are delineated in v. 65 and v. 37: No one can come unless given (65) and all given will come (37). You have a third group of those who are given/enabled/drawn but never show up. Scripture does not admit that possibility.

No - it says "him." We've got to define the pronoun. Read the next verse. The one who is drawn is the one who learns from him. "They will ALL be taught by God," it says, but only the one who learns from Him will come to life.

You are ignoring the context for your presuppositions. You must twist the plain meaning of the versee to come to your conclusion. The verse says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." It seems obvious that the one raised up is the one who was drawn. V. 45 merely supports that by indicating that the drawing comes through knowing God, by appealing to the restored Israelites of the end times who will be supernaturally drawn to the Father. However, v. 44 indicates that everyone who is drawn will be raised up.

And I hope I've shown how your protests do not really discount Lau's first interpretation.

No ... you missed several important aspects to the discussion, as did Lau.

 

[Eric B]

Total depravity, for the umpteenth time, does mean that man is as bad as he could be and it does not mean that every human is equally bad. It means that every area of man's being has been affected by sin.

The last part no one is denying, and if man was totally unable to repent, then he would be "as bas as he could be" in that 'area of his being', and this is not necesarily implied by "affected by sin", unless this affect does make people as bad as they always can be. I think this is why you and Ray keep circling around this issue.

It seems obvious that the one raised up is the one who was drawn.

Possibly, but once again, not necessarily. The emphasis is on the one who comes being raised, and why they came (having to have been drawn). If some are drawn but do not come and are not raised, then the statement, "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." could still be true. (i.e nobody who came had not been drawn or was not raised; nodody who did not come was raised; and of course nodody who was not drawn came or was raised. But this does not tell us who was not drawn, when and why.)

 

[eric_b]

Originally posted by Eric B:

Total depravity, for the umpteenth time,

Oh no! Someone has exactly the same name as I do! Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!

Eric

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
YOu need to change your terms then. Don't force your terms on us. We do not use them and do not accept them. Don't keep calling it "forcing" when it is not. You accuse us of something that you have decided we believe, even though we have denied it, and shown it to be inaccurate. We have told you what we believe. Accept it and move on.

The definition of Irresistible Grace is "Irresistible Grace - The grace that God extends to human beings to effect their election cannot be refused, since it has been decreed by God." If you would say that by necessity that those who are enlightened MUST believe, then this is forcing - "To compel through pressure or necessity:" I am sorry you do not like the term.

In any case, the "way out" is available to all who will accept it.

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

Nowhere do we see the tag "who will accept it."

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."

Okay - that's not the verse you used, but we'll proceed.

"Can come" is a term of ability. It is plain in the text. How did you miss it? Unless the ability to come is granted from the Father, no one can come.

Which is no problem, since all men have the ability to come - I will draw all men to myself. Evetyone can come.

That is why Jesus could say to the people, There are some of you who do not believe. In your view, that statement makes little sense. If it was up to the individual, or if God drew everyone equally, then Christ would have no way of knowing that there were some who would not believe.

Not at all! What does he say? "Yet there are some of you who do not believe." Present tense. You say "would not believe." You see the type of gymnastics you have to do to prove your point? The problem of "can come" is only a problem with the a priori assumption that a person cannot say no.

The two groups are delineated in v. 65 and v. 37: No one can come unless given (65) and all given will come (37). You have a third group of those who are given/enabled/drawn but never show up. Scripture does not admit that possibility.

We have to then decide who is it the Father gives him. Is it those who believe? I would say yes. (v. 40 along with others.)

You are ignoring the context for your presuppositions. You must twist the plain meaning of the versee to come to your conclusion. The verse says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." It seems obvious that the one raised up is the one who was drawn. V. 45 merely supports that by indicating that the drawing comes through knowing God, by appealing to the restored Israelites of the end times who will be supernaturally drawn to the Father. However, v. 44 indicates that everyone who is drawn will be raised up.

We have a contradiction. Does God draw all men? The Bible says yes. Because of this, we must examine this verse within the context of the realization found in John 1 and 12:32. Therefore, Jesus MUST have meant, "No one comes unless the Father draws him. [Since all men are drawn], and I will raise [the one who does come because of the Father's drawing] up at the last day." Sola Scriptura, right?

No ... you missed several important aspects to the discussion, as did Lau.[/QB]

Sorry you feel that way. You missed his big points as well -

* The many passages teaching about the need for human 'belief' (the word appears 98 times apparently and always in verbal form to stress faith as a dynamic act)

* The strong universalistic strain in the salvific invitation of God (1:7-9, 3:16, 12:32, etc.)

* Christ's warnings to abide in Him (15:1-10, 16:1-4, etc.)

* Christ's severe indictments against the Jews for their unbelief and His exhortations for them to believe (5:37-47, 10:34-42, etc.)

John 6:51 - If anyone eats of this bread, he will ive forever.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
The last part no one is denying, and if man was totally unable to repent, then he would be "as bas as he could be" in that 'area of his being', and this is not necesarily implied by "affected by sin", unless this affect does make people as bad as they always can be. I think this is why you and Ray keep circling around this issue.

Not exactly. Totaly Depravity means that man's will has been affected. Therefore, his will is unable to turn to God. He doesn't want to. Ray and I keep circling around because Ray doesn't understand what total depravity means. Man's inability is a moral inability.

The emphasis is on the one who comes being raised, and why they came (having to have been drawn). If some are drawn but do not come and are not raised, then the statement, "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." could still be true.

I think again you have missed the force of the verse. Christ is guaranteeing resurrection based on the drawing of the Father. Taken in the context with the rest of the chapter, I think this is too clear to explain as you have.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The definition of Irresistible Grace is "Irresistible Grace - The grace that God extends to human beings to effect their election cannot be refused, since it has been decreed by God." If you would say that by necessity that those who are enlightened MUST believe, then this is forcing - "To compel through pressure or necessity:" I am sorry you do not like the term.

Not only do I not like the term, I call it a misrepresentation and a bad term. But you have made up your mind that you know what we believe better than we know, so continue on your way. I would say that those enlightened will believe. God is compelling them against their will. That is the difference – You cannot conceive of a God who can work his will apart from force. I can.

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

Nowhere do we see the tag "who will accept it."

So is the salvation given to those who don’t accept it?? Perhaps you are a universalist. If you are not, then we have no disagreement on this verse.

… since all men have the ability to come - I will draw all men to myself. Evetyone can come.

So are you saying that all men without exception are given to Christ and all men without exception will come to him?? Now I am confused. You say that all men have the ability to come; Christ says all men don’t have the ability to come – that only those who are given by the Father have the ability to come. Now how do you reconcile your statement with Christ’s?

Not at all! What does he say? "Yet there are some of you who do not believe." Present tense. You say "would not believe." You see the type of gymnastics you have to do to prove your point? The problem of "can come" is only a problem with the a priori assumption that a person cannot say no.

Now you are grasping at straws to an unbelievable extent. Christ says, “There are some of you who do not believe.” How could he say that? He answers the question in v. 65 – you cannot believe unless it is given you by the Father. That is inability. The problem of “can come” is your problem. Follow again here: You cannot come unless the Father gives it to you (v. 65). All that the Father gives will come (v. 37). Now how do you say that some are given but do not come?????

We have to then decide who is it the Father gives him. Is it those who believe? I would say yes. (v. 40 along with others.)

I agree … but you haven’t solved your problem. The issue is one of ability. To come is synonymous with believe (v. 35). You cannot read the passage without understanding that. The point of the passage is that the work of the Father precedes the coming. To come is to believe and you cannot do it unless the Father gives it to you. That is why Christ could say what he did in vv. 64-65. He knew from the beginning who it was that did not believe and who would betray him. How did he know this? Because he knows that you cannot come unless the Father gives it you to and he also knows that if the Father gives it to you, you will come.

We have a contradiction. Does God draw all men? The Bible says yes. Because of this, we must examine this verse within the context of the realization found in John 1 and 12:32. Therefore, Jesus MUST have meant, "No one comes unless the Father draws him. [Since all men are drawn], and I will raise [the one who does come because of the Father's drawing] up at the last day." Sola Scriptura, right?

You have the contradiction, not me. I have no contradiction. John 12:32 is clearly in the context of nations and kinds of people (The Greeks who wanted to see Jesus). Jesus was saying, Now is not the time but when I am lifted up I will draw all nations of men to myself, even the Greeks. Jesus tells us what he meant and you have contradicted it. Jesus says, The one drawn will come and will be raised up.

* The many passages teaching about the need for human 'belief' (the word appears 98 times apparently and always in verbal form to stress faith as a dynamic act)

With which I agree.

* The strong universalistic strain in the salvific invitation of God (1:7-9, 3:16, 12:32, etc.)

With which I also agree.

* Christ's warnings to abide in Him (15:1-10, 16:1-4, etc.)

With which I agree.

* Christ's severe indictments against the Jews for their unbelief and His exhortations for them to believe (5:37-47, 10:34-42, etc.)

With which I agree.

John 6:51 - If anyone eats of this bread, he will ive forever.

With which I agree.

But all these are irrelevant to the issues we are discussing in John 6. John 6 delineates two groups of people – those given and those not given. Until you reconcile that in your mind, you will not understand why we say what we do. You want to suggest some third group of “given” but not “coming.” That group is not there. It never has been and never will be.

Anyway, this is for the most part useless because you are not listening and reckoning with the actual arguments we are putting forth from the text. I am not sure how else to say what I have said. Once again, it has gotten old.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Not only do I not like the term, I call it a misrepresentation and a bad term. But you have made up your mind that you know what we believe better than we know, so continue on your way. I would say that those enlightened will believe. God is compelling them against their will. That is the difference – You cannot conceive of a God who can work his will apart from force. I can.

You say that "God is compelling them against their will." How is that not forcing?

So is the salvation given to those who don’t accept it?? Perhaps you are a universalist. If you are not, then we have no disagreement on this verse.

So has Christ appeared to ALL men, or merely only those who were elected?

So are you saying that all men without exception are given to Christ and all men without exception will come to him?? Now I am confused. You say that all men have the ability to come; Christ says all men don’t have the ability to come – that only those who are given by the Father have the ability to come. Now how do you reconcile your statement with Christ’s?

No, Christ says that not all men will come. The "given by the Father" and "those who come" are are correlational, not causal. Listen, to say that the idea is exclusively from God ignores a numerous body of evidence to the contrary in the Bible. (See verses 29, 34, 40, and 47 in this chapter alone.) The Father draws all men (John 12:32) It is the person who beholds the Son and believes who is saved. There must be a difference between drawing and giving. The "giving" here is dependent upon the belief of the sinner.

Now you are grasping at straws to an unbelievable extent. Christ says, “There are some of you who do not believe.” How could he say that? He answers the question in v. 65 – you cannot believe unless it is given you by the Father. That is inability. The problem of “can come” is your problem. Follow again here: You cannot come unless the Father gives it to you (v. 65). All that the Father gives will come (v. 37). Now how do you say that some are given but do not come?????

Present tense. He knew that because He was God. He knew that there were people there who did not believe in Him. Nowhere does he say anything about "never will believe." He does say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." We disagree on what it means to be given by the Father. Again, is it causal or a correlation?

I agree … but you haven’t solved your problem. The issue is one of ability. To come is synonymous with believe (v. 35).

No it isn't. Verse 35 merely states that the person who comes and believes will never thirst or hunger again.

You cannot read the passage without understanding that. The point of the passage is that the work of the Father precedes the coming.

Or the point is that the group that comes is the group that the Father has given. We're disagreeing on what precedes what. You state that one necessarily follows the other - I state that the two are correlational.

To come is to believe and you cannot do it unless the Father gives it to you.

And the command to come is given to all men. God draws all men. So doesn't it make sense that God has given all men the capacity (through the Spirit) to come? To come is NOT to believe.

You[/i] have the contradiction, not me. I have no contradiction. John 12:32 is clearly in the context of nations and kinds of people (The Greeks who wanted to see Jesus). Jesus was saying, Now is not the time but when I am lifted up I will draw all nations of men to myself, even the Greeks. Jesus tells us what he meant and you have contradicted it. Jesus says, The one drawn will come and will be raised up.

Sounds like an a priori. Within the context, can you prove this? You have a reference of the Greeks who wish to see Jesus in verse 20. However, to say that all refers to the inclusion of the Greeks does not follow his discourse.

Anyway, this is for the most part useless because you are not listening and reckoning with the actual arguments we are putting forth from the text. I am not sure how else to say what I have said. Once again, it has gotten old.[/QB]

Which both of us could say. You are not listening to me, not trying to think outside the Calvinist box. If you would like to take John 6 and use it to define the rest of the Bible, that is fine. Go ahead. However, I choose to take the rest of the Bible, and use it to understand John 6. That is where the difference between you and me lies.

 

[Eric B]

Not exactly. Totaly Depravity means that man's will has been affected. Therefore, his will is unable to turn to God. He doesn't want to. Ray and I keep circling around because Ray doesn't understand what total depravity means. Man's inability is a moral inability.

Precisely my point was that this assumes that "affected" necesarily means "unable", and that is not so. There are many ways the will can be affected without being alltogether "unable". Especially, given our belief that God is drawing all.

I think again you have missed the force of the verse. Christ is guaranteeing resurrection based on the drawing of the Father. Taken in the context with the rest of the chapter, I think this is too clear to explain as you have.

This depends on who the "him" is-- the one who is drawn or the one who comes. Scott was right when he says "The "given by the Father" and "those who come" are are correlational, not causal." come --> raised is causal, but come is a subset of drawn (for those who come, it was caused by the drawing, but drawing does not necesarily guarantee coming.) You can think of "drawing" as a process that begins with the initial call, and in those who respond, is finished in their coming.

[ October 12, 2002, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Eric B]

Oh no! Someone has exactly the same name as I do! Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!

I guess you were able to use it because you didn't capitalize it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
You say that "God is compelling them against their will." How is that not forcing?

It was a typo. It should read “God is not compelling them against their will.”

So has Christ appeared to ALL men, or merely only those who were elected?

You avoided the question and the bind you put yourself in. I say Christ has appeared to all men.

No, Christ says that not all men will come. The "given by the Father" and "those who come" are are correlational, not causal. Listen, to say that the idea is exclusively from God ignores a numerous body of evidence to the contrary in the Bible. (See verses 29, 34, 40, and 47 in this chapter alone.) The Father draws all men (John 12:32) It is the person who beholds the Son and believes who is saved. There must be a difference between drawing and giving. The "giving" here is dependent upon the belief of the sinner.

Scott, DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I WROTE?????? It doesn’t seem so because you are not addressing it. Let me try again here. Christ says two things with relevance to this: 1) You cannot come because the father hasn’t given it to you; 2) All that the Father gives will come. Now where you come up with the people who are given but not coming? The giving is clearly causal (v. 37). To deny the causation is incredulous. Consider: You cannot come because the Father hasn’t given it to you. That is causal no matter how you look at it.

To cite vv. 28, 34, 40, etc mean nothing because they are not disputed. To say that it is the person who beholds and believes who is saved is likewise irrelevant. We agree on that. But your last statement is telling. Allow me to quote your verbatim once again: There must be a difference between drawing and giving. The "giving" here is dependent upon the belief of the sinner. Now let me quote Christ verbatim: For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 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 the statement, Jesus knew who did not believe, for this reason he said, no one can come unless it is given. How can you say that there is a distinction between coming and believing? You must say that becuase of your supposition about the giving. You cannot submit your theology to the text because of where it woudl take you. That is the bad part of this. The "giving" is not dependent upon the belief. There is no way you can sustain that from the text. The text says that the "not giving" is the reason for the unbelief.

No it isn't. Verse 35 merely states that the person who comes and believes will never thirst or hunger again.

Are you familiar with parallelism?? It is a literary device to communicate the same thing in two different ways. What you have in v. 35 is clearly a parallelism. The two phrases say the same thing. Therefore, on the basis of the text, to come is the same as to believe. (This is the task of exegesis.)

Within the context, can you prove this? You have a reference of the Greeks who wish to see Jesus in verse 20. However, to say that all refers to the inclusion of the Greeks does not follow his discourse.

I need the context to prove it. Apart from the context, your point would stand. Yet when you consider the context, your point cannot stand. This verse, for me, was the last struggle. Once I studied it and thought about it, there was no issue here.

You are not listening to me, not trying to think outside the Calvinist box. If you would like to take John 6 and use it to define the rest of the Bible, that is fine. Go ahead. However, I choose to take the rest of the Bible, and use it to understand John 6. That is where the difference between you and me lies.

I am listening to you. You have said nothing new. I have not taken John 6 and used it to interpret the rest of the Bible. You have not taken the rest of the Bible and used it to interpret John 6. You have divorced John 6 from itself and from the rest of the Bible. John 6 is in complete accord with what Scripture teaches uniformly throughout itself. Only when you isolate certain parts of John 6 from the whole can you sustain your position.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

The cruz of the argument, then, is is drawing and believing correlational or causal. I maintain that John 6:37 is not causal. Kai does not necessaily mean that one follows after the other.

You posted the passage again:

For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 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.

Does the text say that a person could have been granted and not come if they do not believe? That's the crux. From what we read throughout the NT, God wills all to be saved. He has appeared to all men. Belief is a necessity before a person is saved. Because of all of these things (and more), we must conclude that God can grant a person the ability to believe through the quickening of the Holy Spirit, and they, in turn, have a choice to accept it or not accept it. if you look at Christ's entire speech, from 61-64, "For this reason" may have a different antecedent than you think.

To say that the relationship is causal is to bring a contradiction on the rest of the text.

As to John 12, your answer of "I need the context to prove it. Apart from the context, your point would stand. Yet when you consider the context, your point cannot stand. This verse, for me, was the last struggle. Once I studied it and thought about it, there was no issue here" proves nothing. You didn't deal with the text.

 

[Frogman]

I think Calvinists forget that Hell is not an abstract principle, it is conscious, unending torment at the hands of Satan and his demons.

I beleive even Satan and his demons shall be tormented. At the very least: Isa. 45.23 must certainly be torment enough for these beings.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[ForumChaplain]

Mr. Scott Emerson.
When it comes to Calvinism, there is no what we believe. I have found that there are as many representations of Calvinism as there are Calvinist. Also there is no logical way to communicate with them because words that mean one thing to the rest of the world have entirely different meanings for most Calvinist.

We may not know what they believe, but it’s mostly because although we speak the same language, until we learn their interpretation, communication is impossible.

Words like “all” now mean some. All men, mean all the elect. Whosoever, now means whosoever God enables. “If” becomes a word that instead of denoting a choice between two possible paths, it means “if” God will let you. Choice is a mystery, and justice is something that only God knows; yet he calls us to live just and holy lives.

Their biggest problem is that they claim to be regenerated so that they will believe the truth, yet if you get five of these regenerated gentlemen together they cannot agree on anything. So anytime the accusation is waged against you that you are misrepresenting them, ask for three of them to stand together on any topic that you bring up for a period of fifteen minutes and you will not find them.

Don’t know how much longer I’ll be here because I have a problem with people that talk down their noses at other people. They love to accuse others of twisting scripture, without taking a second look at what they are doing to it……

Irresistible grace is forced grace, let them call it what they want, it is still the same.....

May God Have Mercy On Us All…..

 

[Ray Berrian]

Chappie,

They believe in Unconditional Election, but there is no possibility of that being forced grace. It has to be forced grace, because man is not allowed to have any part in deciding his or her salvation. That leaves only one of Being---God, to minister His salvation.

In too many cases man does not want His grace after hearing the Gospel; these people do not let God force, as it were, that grace on to them. This we call Resistible Grace. You don't have to be a Christian pastor a a layperson very long to notice that most people reject Him.

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Chappie,
They believe in Unconditional Election, but there is no possibility of that being forced grace. It has to be forced grace, because man is not allowed to have any part in deciding his or her salvation. That leaves only one of Being---God, to minister His salvation.

In too many cases man does not want His grace after hearing the Gospel; these people do not let God force, as it were, that grace on to them. This we call Resistible Grace. You don't have to be a Christian pastor a a layperson very long to notice that most people reject Him.

Blessings:
I appreciate your response.
It is not what they believe about grace that makes it forced grace, it’s their position on total depravity that does so. That being that no man will accept God absent irresistible grace, call it effectual grace if you please, but the conditions under which it is applied makes it irresistible grace because God supposedly changes the person so that he will no longer/can no longer resist.

I am not hung up on man having a part in his salvation, yet it is scriptural that he does. Yet even the part that he plays cannot save him. Only Christ can actually save a person. And it is that small inconsequential part that stands man accountable before a just God.

All of God’s grace by design is resistible. When it becomes irresistible is when it becomes forced grace. Effectual grace is a better word, yet what is God’s purpose in offering one grace that will work, and one that will not.

And then offering the good stuff to only those that he loves. If that is not a classic illustration of respecter of persons; would you please tell me what is…

Why do most people reject him? They were conceived in sin and shappened in iniquity. Rejection under this scenario is the only response possible. We are dead in our sins and trespasses, God said that.

Only God can make it possible for us to respond otherwise. He did that in John 3:16 and Romans 10:9&10, and in a hundred other places in the bible. He did not make it possible for some, but for all. He did not do it for us; he made it possible for us.

And it is definitely, not that all men do not want his grace that men reject him, after hearing the Gospel, most men know that they cannot live the life that it calls them to live. All men want it, yet all too many are overwhelmed by the sinful pleasures of this world.

They trade one for the other, all too often the pleasures of this world wins. Ask any sinner that you want if they would like to go to heaven, the answer is overwhelming yes. Yet few feel capable or are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do so.

Salvation should be taught beginning with the words, “not of works”, they neither can get you in, nor can they keep you out; if you will only trust Christ….

[ October 12, 2002, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Chappie:
When it comes to Calvinism, there is no what we believe. I have found that there are as many representations of Calvinism as there are Calvinist. Also there is no logical way to communicate with them because words that mean one thing to the rest of the world have entirely different meanings for most Calvinist.

Actually Calvinism is for the most part monolithic. There is not a great divergence among us on the major issues. You should know that by reading here.

Words like “all” now mean some. All men, mean all the elect. Whosoever, now means whosoever God enables. “If” becomes a word that instead of denoting a choice between two possible paths, it means “if” God will let you. Choice is a mystery, and justice is something that only God knows; yet he calls us to live just and holy lives.

This is flat out wrong. You know that. Let me point out several things. You believe that "all" means some on some occasions (cf. Rom 5, John 3:16, etc.). You know that words are defined within the context ... or at least you should know that. A large part of the problem of your understanding is that you are not studying and listening when people tell you things.

If you desire to leave, then so be it. I have appreciated your participation here most of the time. There have been times, such as now, when you think you know everything and are unwilling to recognize that you don't. That will always be a draw back to learning. I do not know everything and I am quite sure that there are many things you could teach me about. What I and other calvinists believe is not one of them. To be quite frank, I know more than you do about Calvinism and about what I believe. You would do well to listen and learn, just as I would to listen to what you believe. I have tried to do that. There is nothing wrong with not knowing everything. It is okay.

I do insist on dealing with the text in its context and in the theological context of Scripture because it is God's revelation. If asking people to deal with the text, and the modeling how the text should be dealt with, is "looking down my nose," then so be it. It isn't; if you knew me you would know that. We have a great trust in the handling of God's word and it bothers me to see people refuse to acknowledge the plain teaching of it because they have conceptions about what God can or should do. I simply take his word for what it says and assume that he can work out the things I can't understand.

Irresistible grace is forced grace, let them call it what they want, it is still the same.....

This is a prime example of what I spoke of earlier. You have insisted that we believe something we don't believe. You are unwilling to read the plain words on the page that say, "I don't believe that." So long as you assume that you know more about what we believe than we do, you will not be very successful in this forum.

I encourage you again, to step back, put your emotions aside, and deal with the words on the page. Accept them for what they are and interact with them. One thing I appreicate about Scott, regardless of our disagreement, is that at least he will address what I actually say. I would encourage you to do the same.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Chappie:
I am not hung up on man having a part in his salvation,

Salvation should be taught beginning with the words, “not of works"

That's the trap that Arminians fall into. On one hand they say, "not of works" but...they just can't keep their hands off of contributing something, no matter how itty bitty(as if anything about salvation could be itty bitty), to their salvation. That type of salvation is no salvation at all, no one has ever been or ever will be saved by any process where they, in their unregenerated nature, must do something, no matter how itty bitty, that by nature they simply cannot do. How do I know? The Bible tells me so.

Also, there can be no inconsequential action in salvation, especially in the Arminian system because they claim that their action, regardless of how itty bitty they may try to claim it is, must have a consequence in their unScriptural scheme.

Salvation has always been, and will always be, by the sovereign grace of the Sovereign God of the universe. How do I know this? The Bible tells me so.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
They believe in Unconditional Election, but there is no possibility of that being forced grace. It has to be forced grace, because man is not allowed to have any part in deciding his or her salvation. That leaves only one of Being---God, to minister His salvation.

In too many cases man does not want His grace after hearing the Gospel; these people do not let God force, as it were, that grace on to them. This we call Resistible Grace. You don't have to be a Christian pastor a a layperson very long to notice that most people reject Him.

Nor do you have to be a pastor or laymen to realize that you do not use the terms as we use them. You have attributed your own meaning to them, which you are welcome to do, but in so doing you have jeopardized the ability to communicate. Your conception of "irresistable grace" is one that I too reject. I am glad that I do not believe what you describe. However, your conception of it is one that most calvinists reject. Therefore you are arguing against a position that no one here holds, to my knowledge.

I will tell you what I just told Chappie. You may know a lot of stuff, but you must realize that there are some thing on which you are not the expert. Be willing to accept our words when we tell you that you have not characterized what we believe. I am very concerned about the way that Scripture is handled. I realize this is only a internet forum, but somehow I think this type of handling of Scripture is far more common than I would like to think. It is frightening. Remember, when you handle God's word, you are telling others what God has said. What a terrible thing it would be to face God and have him say to you, "That's not what I said." Remember that there is a stricter judgment for teachers because they judge others. Therefore, we must be extremely careful in handling the text.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Chappie,

I was glad to you say in the presence of Calvinsits that ' . . . yet even the part that man plays cannot save him.' Also, ' . . . the small inconsequential part that stands men accountable before a just God.'

I agree with you that even our timorous faith cannot save us. It is always amazing to me that Calvinists think because we say our faith comes from us that we somehow do not believe totally in His wonderful grace.

I also have noticed that Calvinists who believe in eternal security are quick to judge if a Christian backslides and mark them off as probably not ever having been really saved. What I am saying is some of these people don't really believe in the abundance of His saving grace.

Your thoughts are well thought out and jotted down. Best of all I am assured when I read you that you will say very close to the Word of God, the Bible. That means a lot these days, especially when we all are listen for spiritual truth that is in concord with Divine writ.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Inappropriate remarks removed.

[ October 12, 2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]