Which comes first?

[Doubting Thomas]

Here's another one:

Jesus said, "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life" (John 5:40).

According to Jesus, the order is (1) come to Him; (2) have life. This is entirely consistent with the rest of Scripture, because as 1 John 5:11-12 states: "that God has given us eternal Life, and this Life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

Now, had Jesus been a Calvinist, His words in John 5:40 would have run thus: "But you are not willing to come to Me, because My Father in His secrete eternal decree has not chosen to give you life that is necessary to be able to even come to Me." :smilewinkgrin:

Also check out Colossians 2:12 in which Paul affirms that we are raised with Christ (ie given new life) THROUGH faith not prior to faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

So its a problem with the Word?

Lol!!! The word????? Did I say that? It seems to me I said it the problem is with the READER who does not sufficiently labor in the Word! Didn't I say something about hard "work"???? Yes, you are a skilled debater alright, trying to make me say and mean what my words could not possibly be construed to mean.

See, my system actually leaves room for all these various views because my view teaches RESPONSIBILITY, where in your view the mistakes are made by God's will, not man's.

You are always forced to pervert our view in order to justify your view. We believe in RESPONSIBILITY for both obedience to God and for foreiting the ability to be obedient to God. All mankind existed and consisted in one human nature acting in unison in ONE MAN who RESPONSE-ABLY forfeited the ability to please God and fell into a condition incapable of pleasing God (Rom. 5:12; 8:7-8).

We believe all evil that manifests itself in God's creation is by the permissive will of God that is inclusive of making the sinner accountable for their own sins, whether it is Satan and demons OR mankind in Adam.

 

[Skandelon]

Lol!!! The word????? Did I say that? It seems to me I said it the problem is with the READER who does not sufficiently labor in the Word!

And why doesn't that reader 'sufficiently labor in the Word?' Did God not give that reader the necessary measure of grace to do so? If not, why not?

See how denying personal RESPONSE - ABILITY just isn't a workable reality? You leave no possible alternative than for it to be God's unchangeable decreed plan for some believers to adopt erroneous doctrine, while granting others the grace needed to adopt correct doctrine. Even still, there are so many different areas of doctrine so one may be correct in one area but erring in another. What are we to conclude? That God graced them with the necessary ability to accept truth in one area but not another?

Didn't I say something about hard "work"???? Yes, you are a skilled debater alright, trying to make me say and mean what my words could not possibly be construed to mean.

I'm simply drawing out the conclusions of your statements and asking you to account for them. It reveals the substance behind your words and the system holding them up. Most Calvinists aren't willing to put their system to such vetting, so I commend you for hanging in there.

You are always forced to pervert our view in order to justify your view.

80% of the time I'm asking you questions to clarify or further reveal the reality of your worldview. A question is only a 'perversion' of your system if its revealing a truth you would rather keep hidden from the light, otherwise a simple answer explaining your system brings clarity.

We believe in RESPONSIBILITY for both obedience to God and for forfeiting the ability to be obedient to God.

That is a really good definition of contra-causal free will. Thank you for affirming that for us.

Now, do I have permission to question you about this statement as it relates to your previous comments, or established Calvinistic views on this subject, or will I meet the same accusation of 'misrepresentation' and 'perversion?'

 

[Skandelon]

Here's another one:

Jesus said, "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life" (John 5:40).

According to Jesus, the order is (1) come to Him; (2) have life. This is entirely consistent with the rest of Scripture, because as 1 John 5:11-12 states: "that God has given us eternal Life, and this Life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

Allow me. Calvinists would say that there are two different kinds of life, and so this verse SHOULD be read to mean, "But you are not spiritually alive and thus unwilling to come to Me that you may have eternal life."

Am I correct Calvinists?

 

[The Biblicist]

And why doesn't that reader 'sufficiently labor in the Word?' Did God not give that reader the necessary measure of grace to do so? If not, why not?

You know I do not deny responsibility as you are now on another thread dealing with what you acknowledge is my view of responsibility.

You are taking my words and then rewording them in a question form either to directly contradict what I said or support your vew. Just plain debate tactics.

 

[Skandelon]

You know I do not deny responsibility

I think the Calvinistic system does in fact deny responsibility while claiming to maintain that they believe it. Men who aren't response enabled, are not responsible, period. The word that Calvinists MEAN when they say 'responsible' is 'culpable' or 'punishable.' Calvinists believe that man is punishable for another's response, whether it be Adam's response in the garden, or God's response to punish man by making them all totally disabled to respond even to His own revelation.

I believe you are avoiding this question because it reveals a notable weakness in your system. I say notable, because many scholars throughout history have admitted the mystery and quandary of this issue within the Calvinistic system.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think the Calvinistic system does in fact deny responsibility while claiming to maintain that they believe it. Men who aren't response enabled, are not responsible, period. The word that Calvinists MEAN when they say 'responsible' is 'culpable' or 'punishable.' Calvinists believe that man is punishable for another's response, whether it be Adam's response in the garden, or God's response to punish man by making them all totally disabled to respond even to His own revelation.

I believe you are avoiding this question because it reveals a notable weakness in your system. I say notable, because many scholars throughout history have admitted the mystery and quandary of this issue within the Calvinistic system.

I am answering this objection in the threads entitled "The Arminian Dilemma" and "Romans 5:12 and the only possible veiw"

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Those who carefully consider what I have said, will understand every aspect is completely Biblical.

Perhaps those who disagree with you HAVE carefully considered what you have written yet have been predestined by God (according to his secret eternal decree) to NOT understand any aspect of what you say to be any way Biblical. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[The Biblicist]

Perhaps those who disagree with you HAVE carefully considered what you have written yet have been predestined by God (according to his secret eternal decree) to NOT understand any aspect of what you say to be any way Biblical. :smilewinkgrin:

That may very well be true! However, I am not trying to convince the unconvincable but exposing their errors to those who are seeking truth.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

That may very well be true! However, I am not trying to convince the unconvincable but exposing their errors to those who are seeking truth.

But it really doesn't matter. Those whom god predestines to be Calvinists will be Calvinists--they don't need convincing by you (to think so would be so man-centered!). Likewise, those predestined not to be Calvinists cannot be convinced by you anyway (as you grudgingly acknowledge above). And perhaps god has predestined you to THINK you have the truth, but all the while he's hardening you in your erroneous doctrinal system. All to god's glory of course.

 

[Skandelon]

That may very well be true! However, I am not trying to convince the unconvincable but exposing their errors to those who are seeking truth.

Who are the convincible Children of God? The special class of Children who He had decided to give an extra measure of grace to so that they would adopt the truth of this soteriological view?

Do you think if you write longer, more convincing posts you might win some over...as if your persuasive abilities have something to do with it? Or could you just put up a link to the monergism.com site and allow God to call his Special class citizens to himself in his own timing. That sure would save you a lot of time and effort, wouldn't it?

 

[The Biblicist]

Who are the convincible Children of God? The special class of Children who He had decided to give an extra measure of grace to so that they would adopt the truth of this soteriological view?

Do you think if you write longer, more convincing posts you might win some over...as if your persuasive abilities have something to do with it? Or could you just put up a link to the monergism.com site and allow God to call his Special class citizens to himself in his own timing. That sure would save you a lot of time and effort, wouldn't it?

Oh no, I am not falling into this trap so I can be removed from the forum.

The truth is that children of God are given different measures of grace and you can be saved but yet experience hardening to certain truths because they still retain the fallen nature who resists the light.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh no, I am not falling into this trap so I can be removed from the forum.

I'm not even moderating this thread...and I'm not trying to 'trap' you. I'm asking you an honest question.

The truth is that children of God are given different measures of grace and you can be saved but yet experience hardening to certain truths.

Why do you suppose God has chosen not to grant some of his children with the same measure of grace to accept Calvinism? And why do you work so hard to persuade us and others if its up to God's irresistibly grace anyway? It's not like its evangelism and you have to do because God told you to.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not even moderating this thread...and I'm not trying to 'trap' you. I'm asking you an honest question.


Why do you suppose God has chosen not to grant some of his children with the same measure of grace to accept Calvinism? And why do you work so hard to persuade us and others if its up to God's irresistibly grace anyway? It's not like its evangelism and you have to do because God told you to.

Why did he choose the specific twleve out from among "his disciples" of whom later would be chosen another to replace on of these (Acts 1:21-22)?

Why did he choose three (Peter James and John) to give special insights and training above the other nine? Why did he chose one (John) who called himself the one "beloved" by Christ to reveal truths he did not to others? Why did He choose Israel as a nation and not another nation?

The answer is quite simple - His own good pleasure!

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not even moderating this thread...and I'm not trying to 'trap' you.

You know very well that the Scquire has threatened to remove anyone for claiming you must be lost if you don't take one position or the other. Your question was worded to require that response.

 

[Skandelon]

You know very well that the Scquire has threatened to remove anyone for claiming you must be lost if you don't take one position or the other. Your question was worded to require that response.

My question was why God would grace some of his children with this knowledge and not others...it had nothing to do with if some are really lost or saved.