Wrong Take On Romans 12:3c

[Jarthur001]

Hello Allan,

I'm in for my early cup of coffee and to give you a donut or two.

I state:

As you can see there is little attention give to the word "all" you insinuate, but to the context of the chapter as a whole. This was not about word play but context.

I have never stopped you from using the word "all". It does fit within context. My statement from the outset when you did not like my bolding of the word "many", was that to look at "all" changes nothing.

Ok, I'll be the first to admit it - bad wording. :tear: It is not a picture, per say, but a prophet view toward the attoning work of the Cross. Of course it is about attonement, Come on Jarthur!

I did not say it was bad wording...I asked why Why do you think it is a "picture"? and...Why do you think this is talking about atonement? The word atonement is not in the verse, but what makes you think it is atonement? Again, I'm not saying I disagree.

Do you really beleive that Christ or the Sin Attonement (offering) was for the whole nation of Israel, even thoughs who worshipped idols and rejected God?

Do you see this as a sin?

Do you think that when it speaks of this attonement it was ONLY for the Jewish bloodline? IF so then what do we do with the non-jews who where worshippers of God like Tamar, Rahab, Ruth as examples but there are many others.

No not bloodline. Tis the nation. "the choosen people" What needs to be asked is this. Was there other nations that were choosen and that the atonement was given to?

THere was only one nation UNTO God, if anyone wanted to serve this God they would have to leave their nation and come under this Nation of the ONE Ture God.
We find in the OT many that were Half Jewish or non-Jewish that worshiped God. Are you trying to state there was no atoment for them who were not of Isreal (bloodline)?

Agree. and you are looking to include others, which we will do. But even if you pull in many others, there will still be left ones that the atonement does not cover.

Yes and No. Yes to all but (no) not applied to all as shown above with idoliters ect...Yes, they were His people mostly from Jewish decent (no) but also from other Nations. What does this have to do with anything?

1)Why not all when the Bible says all? Is there to great a sin that the atonement can not cover?
2) FROM other nations yes. But other nations?

There is the promise given to the blood line with faith
and another promise similar for and to those of faith and not of the blood line. The attonement is for ALL but covers BELEIVERS (as symbolized in the OT)

It is just as in the OT. It is for all sins of many. It is for ALL of Gods people....not for another nation. The Blood of Christ has power to save, and ALWAYS worked.




In Christ...James

 

[Allan]

I'm in for my early cup of coffee and to give you a donut or two

No thanks, I'm up late for work and to much sugar freaks me out :tongue3:

I have never stopped you from using the word "all". It does fit within context. My statement from the outset when you did not like my bolding of the word "many", was that to look at "all" changes nothing.

I never stated it didn't, I simply have maintained that it has little to do with the word all and everything to do with the "all, we, us, many, and the prophetic sacrifice that is about the atonement in this chapter. It is about context and each of these words play a small part to the greater whole. And yes, it changes this entire chapter from limited (particular) atonement and supplied, to Atonement made for all, and applied to those whom have believed. BTW - I will not expound on "why do you think this verse refers to atonement" as I would need to go into most messianic prophesies, back over sin atonement concerning prophetic symbolizism, not to mention having to recite all of the other theologians who state this same identifier of Isa 53. - I just don't have that kind of time. So we will just keep the historic contexual and prophetic veiw this chapter has held for centuries.

Do you see this as a sin?

I don't understand your question. I was simply asking "do you beleive The sin atonement was applied even to those who had not, did not beleive or worship God. I do not mean making the atonement that can be applied, I mean atonement was for that one even if they never repented and stayed worshippers of idols, ect... I was not worded quite as it should have been sorry. And then again like I stated from the start, maybe I just don't understand what you are asking.

No not bloodline. Tis the nation. "the choosen people" What needs to be asked is this. Was there other nations that were choosen and that the atonement was given to?

No, that is not the question to be asked because ALL nations were to see God through Israels righteous relationship and favor that would bring other Nations under Gods banner. The question is "IF" it was the Nation of Israel only then why were non-Jews and half Jews apart of this atomenment.

Agree. and you are looking to include others, which we will do. But even if you pull in many others, there will still be left ones that the atonement does not cover.

This is an incorrect statement from a point of view. The atonement did cover them but was only applied to the beleivers. (Jew and non-Jew alike)

1)Why not all when the Bible says all? Is there to great a sin that the atonement can not cover?
2) FROM other nations yes. But other nations?

1) Of course, James! It can not cover those who reject it. The unpardonable sin is the sin of Rejecting Jesus, the atoning sacrifice that will not be applied to those who do not want it.
2) ???

It is just as in the OT. It is for all sins of many. It is for ALL of Gods people....not for another nation. The Blood of Christ has power to save, and ALWAYS worked.

It was for ANY who trusts in its/His redeptive work. OF course it HAS the power to save, and has ALWAYS worked - for any who would believe!

 

[Rippon]

I am sorry , there is too much double-speak here . Either the Satisfaction ( atonement) of Christ covered all people or not . There is no conditional aspect . He doesn't cover , yet not cover the same people . The redemption which He secured was accomplished and applied ( pardon the John Murray reference ) . The Lord's sacrifice was no contingency , there was no maybe about it . He did not die potentially for anyone . He died only for , in the place of , in the stead of , as the substitute for His church only . I love all the various names for the elect . Among the names : the bride , the household of faith , the sheep , the saints , the chosen ones etc .

 

[Allan]

I love all those names to. They brings great Joy to the heart of every beleiver. And His foreknowledge allows His to know just who they will be. Each and every one who has trusted Christ with their eternal destiny and relationship.

You hear what you veiw allows you to hear. You see and hear everything with a theological "bent" and will not hear anything otherwise. That is ok, and I praise God you have that liberty. But the fact remains, Atonement was made for all but it is only applied to those who beleive. Just as it was to Israel (as a race- Atonement made for the nation but some in the Nation did not WANT to serve God, were they atoned for? - Of course not!) so it is with Mankind (as a race - same principle applies.)

 

[Rippon]

Did He die for anyone but the sheep ? Did Christ die for the goats ? The Lord did not die for those who He says He never knew . The accursed ones will be sent to the lake of fire . The Lord only purchased us , not everyone . He loved the Church as His heavenly bride . It was only for her that He has an eternal love. Christ gave Himself up for her and no one else . Remember the names of the elect only are inscribed in the Lamb's Book Of Life . The blood of Christ was not shed in vain . It is a fiction to believe that He in some sense "died for" but not really those for whom He never would redeem . He has blocked the salvation of countless millions throughout the ages . He has hid soul-saving truths from an innnumerable company -- why ? --- Because it was His good pleasure .

 

[Allan]

And yet, Jesus and the bride say come... Jesus died for the church (correct) they are the ones to whom the atonement is APPLIED but Many will reject it and therefore will not be redeemed ergo purchased by His atoning blood. There is not some random arbitrary Elect group, God devised, But the Word of God shows us we can come to him, (qualifier - Not OF ourselves but when He calls us - and He calls to All) heck even Jesus shows us with His example of Tyre and Sodom (like in another thread I asked you to expound on) THEY WOULD HAVE REPENTED. It is an interesting personal pronoun. The arguement I made there is still the same. THEY...Would...Have...Repented...

Either Jesus was a liar, or sometimes a view controls our out look on scripture more than scripture our outlook.

 

[Rippon]

Hi Allan . Nothing the Lord does is random . I know no Calvinist who believes that . God is not capricious . Everything He does is right . He is not merciful to all though . The elect are indeed a certain set number . Only some names are written in the Lamb's Book Of Life -- not all . Is that a hard thing to come to grips with ?

The Lord does not call to all . Are you thinking of Romans 2 with what you believe is His call to all ?

No one can come to Christ unless it has been granted by the Father . The ones the Father gives , and to them alone are His possession .

Well certainly our theological view colors our outlook on the Bible . I do not know anyone who would counter that . Do you think your view of Scripture is independent of your theological outlook ?

 

[Allan]

Do I see scripture through colored glasses (maybe) but have always gone back to see what scripture says. That is not to say this is NOT what you or any Calvinist does. But this much I know, It takes years to understand the Calvinistic veiws of scripture, and one you can not get from just a plain reading of text, context, and sentence structure. And I grant it is a veiw that can be maintained according to how you pre-see scripture played out. Yet after months of studing John Calvin, Gill, Piper, and even Spurgeon, I can say with a doubt (in my estimation) It is only as you see it. I agree with Spurgeon that it is two halves that will never be hammered out this side heaven for scripture speaks of both.

Am I thinking of Rom 2?? I am thinking of a mulitude of verses and chapters, along with sybolism. Don't forget, I do not see the plain words of scripture to be something other than they are, like agian Spurgeon chided his previous Calvinstic brothers for doing concerning the All's of scripture. ( I also add the word world to the list)

Actually no one can come to Christ unless the Father draw them, is an accurate statement concerning the Jews. but later on Jesus states : "and I, if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto Myself." Did Jesus suddenly contradict God the Father or supercede Him in some way? No, we see a different group of people being reached (His bride - world, including beleiving Jews) apart from Gods People (His Wife - Jewish Nation) whom Christ came to seek and save that which was lost. THEN He must go find sheep that are of ANOTHER fold to make them both ONE fold.

 

[Allan]

Oh, and I agree there is a set number of saved. Like I said though, I believe He foreknew who they will be (just like you) but under a different appeal.

BTW: I know God is not random and I know of NO Calvinist who would dare make such a claim - However, If He is not arbitrary then there is/was some reason He chose you and therefore you have something to do (you are unique for some reason) for Him to choose you.

 

[Jarthur001]

Oh, and I agree there is a set number of saved. Like I said though, I believe He foreknew who they will be (just like you) but under a different appeal.

BTW: I know God is not random and I know of NO Calvinist who would dare make such a claim - However, If He is not arbitrary then there is/was some reason He chose you and therefore you have something to do (you are unique for some reason) for Him to choose you.

I got so far behind on this, I'll just skip to the last post.

To address the foreknow...

1 Does God foreknow all things?

2 Has God made all things?

To address arbitrary ........

We have been over this before. You keep saying arbitrary and I keep saying it is for His pleasure and plan. Please show me a verse, any verse that speaks of election where the claims are arbitrary. I know of none. This is a bogus claim by free-willers....unless you can prove me wrong.

However, I can show you all verse that speak of election, saying it is for God pleasure, and/or plan.

Now to you, this may mean arbitrary. Let me state again why it is not.

Arbitrary has the idea of .. just a random choice. There is REASON to election, but the reason does not rest in us. The REASON is for God plan and pleasure.

Understand?



In Christ .......James

 

[npetreley]

And yet, Jesus and the bride say come...

Are you quoting Revelation 22? It's the Spirit and the bride.

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

As I've said repeatedly, Calvinism doesn't suggest that there is no invitation. Calvinism explains why some "will", why some "athirst", and others do not.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello Allan,

Do I see scripture through colored glasses (maybe) but have always gone back to see what scripture says. That is not to say this is NOT what you or any Calvinist does.

Your colored glasses...yes you have them. Allow me to show you in this post....

But this much I know, It takes years to understand the Calvinistic veiws of scripture, and one you can not get from just a plain reading of text, context, and sentence structure.

This is a flat out lie. How can you make such a claim? Election to me was clear, just as soon as I stated to study the Bible on my own. I can give you a list of many that claim the same. I'll give you this....I did not know what Calvinist was. After learning of it...I did not hold to the "L" for about 10 years or more. But...I never did study deep. The other points came on my own. Have you read Confessions? You can hardly say that Augustine was trained into Calvinism. How about Luther? Calvin himself? How about Paul? Romans 9..??

Yet after months of studing John Calvin, Gill, Piper, and even Spurgeon, I can say with a doubt (in my estimation) It is only as you see it.

Maybe you have it backwards. Read men...Study the Bible.
Great men..and do not get me wrong...but...Remove those glasses and just study the Bible and get insight from men. Now that's a idea.

I have read little of Calvin. Not one full work.

Gill I use from time to time, but I use Barns more and He is no Calvinist.

Piper I have 3 books by him and I have read one. I stated to listen to his studies on Romans, but it lasted 7 years, and I like deep study but that was a bit to much for me. I ended up dropping out after the 1st chapter and just hitting the key passages.

Spurgeon I have 5 books by Him, but have not read them fully.

I have read Romans 100s of times. I have read Ephs 100s of times. John...nearly a 1000 times. Hebrews....countless.

The point is....not that I have read the Bible more then you. The point is...it all comes back to the Bible, why not read it the most? The whole Bible is Calvinistic.

Am I thinking of Rom 2?? I am thinking of a mulitude of verses and chapters, along with sybolism. Don't forget, I do not see the plain words of scripture to be something other than they are..........

like this plain text...John 8 .....Christ speaking...

43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

If all of the unsaved are of "your father the devil"....
then does this mean..all the unsaved "cannot hear my word"? (understand)
If they cannot understand to be saved....how can they be saved?

Does understanding come 1st?

If so...

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

The order in romans 10 is....1) Hear...2) believe...3) call out to God.

If understanding does not come 1st...how do they have faith?
Can understanding come with no faith? Can A person be unsaved and of his father the devil and take on understanding and yet not have faith? If they have the understanding and not the faith are they still of there father the devil?

If so was Our Lords reason given as to why they did not understand wrong?

"because ye are not of God.."

Can a person be "not of God" and yet have understanding of God....in order to have faith ..in order to cry out to God...to become of God?

Pure Bible. Context is clear. No Calvin slain..for I have only asked what you think.

With your views...and with this passage in mind...give me the order of events on how one believes.


In Christ...James

 

[Allan]

npetreley;

Your right, it is the Spirit and the bride. I got cought up in thought a wrote it incorrectly. Thank you for clarifying that

As I've said repeatedly, Calvinism doesn't suggest that there is no invitation. Calvinism explains why some "will", why some "athirst", and others do not.

I never stated Calvinism ever suggerest there was NO invitation, that aside Calvinism shows this from a point of view. Just as the non-calvinists can show why some will come and some stay athirst. It is a point of View, because we both hold to the same beginning God being the initiator, and we BOTH hold to the same ending of NOT ALL will be saved but many, some, take your pick. We even have the same contexual fillers but a differing veiw on how they are applied.

I will state and maintain there were/are many Great Christians that were Calvinists, and I will also maintain that there were/are just as many Great Christians were Non- Calvinists.

 

[Rippon]

Can you name any notable non-Calvinists before Finney in the preceding centuries ?( Aside from the brothers Wesley .)

 

[Allan]

Hello again Jarthur :wavey:

Your colored glasses...yes you have them. Allow me to show you in this post....

You crack me up. I have been speaking to you on this thread for...ummm...a while now, and would have hoped you would have noticed what I wrote about see through colored glasses (maybe) as a joke. Throught out THIS entire thread I have repeatedly stated YOUR view and MY view. So colored glasses yes, I have them. I will be more specific from now on.

This is a flat out lie. How can you make such a claim? Election to me was clear, just as soon as I stated to study the Bible on my own.

First let me clear something up. It is not a flat out lie if you take the whole of what I said. Look at it again without trying to find some form of bashing.

But this much I know, It takes years to understand the Calvinistic veiws of scripture, and one you can not get from just a plain reading of text, context, and sentence structure

- qualifer - as a new beleiver without prior instruction.
What I stated first, concerned new christians of the faith who understood the VIEWS of Calvinism as you must be well studied to grasp them (views) , or taught along those line so as a new christian you ALREADY have some understanding of them. Election is clearly in scripture as it makes plain claim of the WORD, however in order (for new beleivers) to understand the Calvinistic view of election you must be more studied than a new beleiver to grasp this concept. This is a veiw that combines many scriptures from throughout the bible and have a preconcieved notion of how God oporates. I can be wrong, and I have no problem saying so but I put you on the spot to prove a new beleiver understands these Calvinstic views just by their own studies of the scriptures without have some pre-influence. Especailly if they come from churches who do not beleive this view.

Paul has never held to the Calvinistic view of scripture and to say so places your ideology over theology since it has NEVER been a proven view as consistant with scripture to be placed along other truths that we as beleivers hold to.

Romans 9..??

How about the rest of the bible that puts one chapter into proper context and perspective.

Maybe you have it backwards. Read men...Study the Bible.

We don't want to go there. I study the Word of God and review men. I have a moto from scripture I live by. Let God be true but every man a liar. Now I hold this a little more extreme than most so I can keep perspective and I do not specifically teach it this way. But I beleive we should listen to men but hold them as liars (theoretically) until we can prove what they say by our studying of scripture since God is the only truth and His Word is truth. Then those men can be deemed on that topic (sermon) as rightly dividing the Word of truth. The more I learn (eventually) the more I can discern and see clearly. - Just a little note on me

Great men..and do not get me wrong...but...Remove those glasses and just study the Bible and get insight from men. Now that's a idea

There is no need to be condescending.

The point is....not that I have read the Bible more then you. The point is...it all comes back to the Bible, why not read it the most?

Uh, hello...how often do I state such and such says this, that or the other, verses how often in our conversations have I stated scripture. I ONLY use the insight of men as a clarifier and use many to see their VEIWs concerning certain passages. I have a library full of books but none read more than my bible.

The whole Bible is Calvinistic.

This is a falicious statement whos only backing is ideology. This kind statement is what I talk about when I say a view is the dictator of scripture and not vise versa. Calvinism is a system of theology, what most do not grasp is that if one point of Calvinism is false the entire system is false because it is set up to build upon each preceding view. Either you hold to all of Calvinism or you can theologically hold to none of it. Thus the difference between doctrine and system, truth and views.

like this plain text...John 8 .....Christ speaking...

Exactly like it. Some read it in context others read context into it.
We see from the verse preceding what you quoted that define this ENTIRE conversation.
First let us see who Jesus was talking to when He stated YOU CAN NOT HEAR, and YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL:

Jhn 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
Jhn 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;

So He was speaking to those who had beleived on Him.
Now will they stay in a state that is blind:

Jhn 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

We can plainly see that after Christ is crusified, understanding will be given.
They were blinded not of everything but of knowing that He is the Christ and what it truly entails. Even the 12 did not understand until afterwards.

Keep it in context. Jesus was speaking about both Himself and the Father, They believed Him to be the Christ (of their view) but did not understand about Him truly because they had already rejected the Father and therefore the Son as He truly was. Which is prophesy being fulfilled and we see Jesus state THEY WILL SEE after his crusifiction.

Can understanding come with no faith? Can A person be unsaved and of his father the devil and take on understanding and yet not have faith? If they have the understanding and not the faith are they still of there father the devil?

1) NO - Clarifier - come without faith that God can save
2) YES - Your premise is wrong. We are not regenerate before understand and we are not GIVEN faith by God in order to have faith to believe. Jesus is the light that lighteth every man that comes into the world. If our understanding is darkened as scripture states then Jesus is the light of understanding we need to be able to see and it is given to EVERY MAN THAT COMES INTO THE WORLD. Only then can we see and have opportunity to beleive and if we believe then salvation is applied.
3) Satan did not concieve them, they are like the one they serve. Much like Jesus is not a literal Son of God, niether is God our literal Father. So the answer is YES, if the reject the atonement that they understand is there for thier sakes, they are just as their father who also rebelled.

To your question of How one believes (order of events)
Just like Jesus states:

Jhn 5:24 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

1) Hear
2) Believes
3) Has everlasting Life

No preconcieved notions to add to scripture, the dead comes to life after they believe. Unless Jesus is confused.

Allan :1_grouphug:

 

[Allan]

Rippon just for clarification define notable so I may better answer you.

Spurgeon was notable, but my pastor is just a dedicated to Christ as he was.
Or is there some qualifer that needs to be established (espeacilly since Finney is notable) and why aside from the brothers Wesley, can they not be added to the list?

 

[Rippon]

Allan , I asked you to name some notable non-Calvinists in the preceding centuries . By notable I mean well-known , important , remarkable . I said aside from the Wesley brothers because we are acquainted with them .

When you said that the dead come to life after they believe , I have to register my disagreement . Lazarus is a good example of how dead in sin we are when we are given faith -- regenerated . In his case he was physically dead , but the application is the same . Did Paul exercise faith before his regeneration ? Didn't Lydia believe after the Lord had opened her heart ? Weren't those destined for eternal lfe made believers -- not vice-versa ? ( see Acts 13:48 )

2 Thess. 2:13 says ... God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth .

Sanctification by the Spirit is the new birth . The new birth , or regeneration makes it possible for belief in the truth . The new life is implanted -- therefore we are able to believe the truth .

We were dead in sins and the Lord made us alive . We did not cause our regeneration .

This is from the 1689 Baptist Confession :

Chapter 10 , section 1

Those whom God hath predestined unto life , he is pleased in his appointed , and accepted time , effectually to call , by his Word and Spirit , out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature , to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ , enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God , taking away their heart of stone , and giving unto them a heart of flesh , renewing their wills , and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good , and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ ; yet so as they come most freely , being made willing by his grace .

 

[Allan]

Yes, Rippon I understand your view. But I find it funny that when a verse(s) are displayed that show otherwise, it is then stated - well what about... Deal with the verse and then we can discuss other matters.

In line with your disagreements:
Sorry physically dead is not the same as spiritually dead.
Lazarus is a good example of how dead in sin we are when we are given faith
So in your view Lazarus died and went to hell, and Jesus resurrected a person already judged and predestined for Hell. That is an interesting twist.

We (as potential believers) are NOT given faith so we may act on it cause we did not have it before, and there is NO scripture that states thus.

We were dead in sins and the Lord made us alive . We did not cause our regeneration
Another side point that CAN NOT be backed by scripture. Regeneration occurs only twice in scripture one time (in Mat) it refers to our recieving glorified bodies and the other (in Titus) it refers TO SALVATION.
The falicious statement of being made is one read into context and not seen from context. The dead spiritually is an anaology for the physically dead can not speak with God, hear, know, remember so it is not as you state: the application is the same. It is representive that we are dead (without the life of God) in our (or due to our) tresspasses and sins. I agree we are dead I just beleive you are adding more substance than the scripture is stating.

With regard to you verse, however:

2 Thess. 2:13 says ... God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth .

I suppose you are trying to make the statement for Calvinistic election here and I will simply state it is His foreknowledge that established His chosing/election. However, IF you are implying this verse is also stating that regeneration comes first them belief, I will state you take the verse out of its context and out of the context of the chapter. Context of the verse is stating: ...FOR salvation through >>>Oops Edit<<< (another Greek rendering is "in") sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth.
chosen you--The Greek, is not the ordinary word for "elected," implying His eternal selection; but taken for Himself, implying His having adopted them in His eternal purpose. It is found in the Septuagint ( Deu 7:7 10:15 ). Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentaries.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing we are not Chosen, or Elected, I'm just stating you are placing emphasis where it is not warrented.

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved

This is a verse just a few above it and it shows and interesting story as well. Why would God state that they MIGHT be saved, if He never elected them TO BE saved, except that we see God states through the writer that THEY received not the LOVE of the truth. Not that God would not allow them to have, see, or understand it.
And we see what happens when they did not chose to beleive.

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

This has nothing to do with the assumtion they COULD NOT change but that they would not beleive the Truth.
So what is the diffence between your verse which is next and these.
It is that God Chose them to salvation who DID beleive.

Keep it in context because this chapter is about those who believe or have already beleived.

 

[Allan]

And then going back to the whole issue of Jesus stating that if Tyre and Sodom has seen the miricles you have, THEY WOULD HAVE REPENTED. :BangHead:

Having some fun with ya, (though it is still an issue on the table) but more just as a laughing point to me.

Allan

 

[Rippon]

I'm pressed for time at the moment Allan . Here are a couple of verse snippets dealing with regeneration aside from only the two you thought were the sole passages .

John 3:3 -- born again

John 3:7 -- You must be born again

John 3:8 -- born of the Spirit

Titus 3:5 -- the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit

1 Peter 1:3 -- He has given us new birth

1 Peter 1:23 -- For you have been born again


I will deal with the fact that Pauline teaching is indeed Calvinistic later .

I will deal with your misunderstanding that faith is not given by God later .

I will deal with your wild extrapolation about what you think are my views of Lazarus ( the one raised from the dead ) later .