How can the grace of God be resisted by some yet received by others?

[Hammster]

If that's all God is to you, that is, sends men to hell without recourse, then NO, you shouldn't be satisfied with this God.

You make Him out to be much like Hitler, who decided who lived and who died.

You don't think God rightly decides who lives and dies? Who does, then?

 

[Hammster]

That's only if you preach it as I wrote it. I made no false statement. Calvinistic understanding of the key doctrines of their faith causes John 3;16 to be rewritten. I gave one version of how it could be written to honestly conform with Calvinistic Reformed theology.

What you should have said, then, is that Calvinists can't preach it using synergistic understandings. That would be more accurate.

 

[EmSw]

You don't think God rightly decides who lives and dies? Who does, then?

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you,that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

So Hammster, do you choose life or death? They have been set before you by God.

Or would rather keep playing the predestination lottery?

 

[Hammster]

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you,that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

So Hammster, do you choose life or death? They have been set before you by God.

Even if you're elected, I've shown He can change His predestination for everyone. His final predestination for you may be eternal damnation, but has temporarily chosen you to life.

Let me know when you sort this out.

 

[EmSw]

Let me know when you sort this out.

Okay, it's sorted out. DO YOU CHOOSE LIFE OR DEATH?

It's totally up to you.

 

[OzSpen]

I didn't say that I explained it. And the vast majority of my posts are staff related. I hope that helps.

Many of your posts in this thread have NOT been staff related but you have given 1, 2 and 3 liners. It doesn't help as it is not true to what you have been doing. Take a look at #s 498, 474, 475, 476, 477, 474, 484, 485, 487, etc. These demonstrate what I'm talking about. they are not addressed to staff.

You'll need to try another line of argumentation that deals with the facts.

 

[Hank77]

Where do you see that God was pleased? Where do you see that Cyrus' intentions were to glorify God?

Where do you see that God was not pleased when Cyrus obeyed what God told him to do?
Cyrus' actions glorified God whether that was Cyrus' intentions or not. The point is that God communicated with Cyrus, who was a pagan, Cyrus heard Him and obeyed Him, without being regenerated.
Can the God communicate with people who are not regenerated? Yes. Can they know it and obey? Yes.

2Co 5:20 in behalf of Christ, then, we are ambassadors, as if God were calling through us, we beseech, in behalf of Christ, `Be ye reconciled to God;'


“What unparalleled condescension and divinely tender mercies are displayed in this verse! Did the judge ever beseech a condemned criminal to accept of pardon? Does the creditor ever beseech a ruined debtor to receive an acquittance in full? Yet our almighty Lord, and our eternal Judge, not only vouchsafes to offer these blessings, but invites us, entreats us, and with the most tender importunity solicits us not to reject them.” The Rev. J. Wesley’s notes in loc.

This sentiment is farther expressed in the following beautiful poetic version of this place, by the Rev. Charles Wesley: -
“God, the offended God most high,
Ambassadors to rebels sends;
His messengers his place supply,
And Jesus begs us to be friends.
Us, in the stead of Christ, they pray,
Us, in the stead of Christ, entreat,
To cast our arms, our sins, away,
And find forgiveness at his feet.
Our God, in Christ, thine embassy
And proffer’d mercy we embrace;
And, gladly reconciled to thee,
Thy condescending mercy praise.
Poor debtors, by our Lord’s request
A full acquittance we receive;
And criminals, with pardon blest,
We, at our Judge’s instance, live.”

Quoted from: Adam Clarke's Commentary

 

[OzSpen]

I don't know what you are talking about in regard to editing. The only thing I recall editing today was when my phone made a word "We're" instead of "Were."

As for your universalism, it is soundly rejected by the Bible at every turn.

Peter starts his letters calling his readers chosen as does Paul. John oozes with God's sovereign choice over whom He calls. John 3 is a fantastic passage regarding God's sovereign choice.

For every verse you pluck out of context, I can add five in their context that present God's sovereign choice.

When I see people arguing for choice, I see a human who is fighting with God for who will have control over their life. I spent over 25 years being a free will Christian. Then I read the Bible and saw how wrong I had been and how much it was about my desire to have control.
I relinquish control. God has saved me purely by His grace alone. I did nothing. I didn't choose Him. He chose me from before the foundations of the world. I am in deep gratitude and awe that He chose to make clean such a sinner as myself.

You have a bad habit of not dealing with the content of what I wrote.

Your being 25 years as a free will Christian does not deal with the exegesis of the texts we are pursuing.

Personal experience is a poor substitute for exegesis.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You found my post. You can find his. It came after.

It is not in my 'Alerts'. Can you learn to be courteous towards me and respond with specifics about Skala's post when I ask? Why are you being so resistant?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I need you to explain that further. What is the 'Truth in truth' to which you refer?

Distorting the biblical text is the stock in trade for some of these Calvinists.

Speaking the Truth (God's Word is Truth) of John 3:16 in truth because they don't believe it.

 

[OzSpen]

LOL, what is a 4 point Calvinist?

Oz, I spent a good chunk of my life in Arminian works Christianity. I cannot go back to the law now that grace abounds.

If Calvin were the only person to understand God's work of choosing, you would have an argument, but the Bible is full of God's sovereign choice. (Did you read 1 Peter 1:1?) The Apostles all share God's choice. The early church father's preach God's choice. Augustine showed that Pelagian was a heretic. The long, long, long line of Christian leaders recognizing God's choice is quite impressive. But, if you wish to live under the law and be saved by the law, I won't stop you. Go along and live in chains.

Take a read of Amyraldianism/Four Point Calvinism. I do know what I'm talking about.

You asked: 'Did you read 1 Peter 1:1?' I most certainly did, but I read it in context of 1 Peter 1:1-2 (ESV), '1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood'.

They are 'elect' whose election is 'according to the foreknowledge of God the Father'. Now that's a long way from Calvinistic election.

Are you accusing me of being an heretical Pelagian? Classical/Reformed Arminianism is neither Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian. So, am I a heretic on this forum, in your view?

Oz

 

[ToBeLoved]

LOL, what is a 4 point Calvinist?

Oz, I spent a good chunk of my life in Arminian works Christianity. I cannot go back to the law now that grace abounds.

If Calvin were the only person to understand God's work of choosing, you would have an argument, but the Bible is full of God's sovereign choice. (Did you read 1 Peter 1:1?) The Apostles all share God's choice. The early church father's preach God's choice. Augustine showed that Pelagian was a heretic. The long, long, long line of Christian leaders recognizing God's choice is quite impressive. But, if you wish to live under the law and be saved by the law, I won't stop you. Go along and live in chains.

Interesting. So now you are equating not being a Calvinist with believing in works-based theology. Newsflash, the two are not associated. Maybe in your theology.

 

[EmSw]

LOL, what is a 4 point Calvinist?

Oz, I spent a good chunk of my life in Arminian works Christianity. I cannot go back to the law now that grace abounds.

So, are you a lawless person? Lawlessness is not good.

 

[OzSpen]

Speaking the Truth (God's Word is Truth) of John 3:16 in truth because they don't believe it.

However, because Calvinists have a bad habit of redefining terms that are simple, like in John 3:16, that is why I attempted to show how Calvinistic theology plays out for evangelistic preaching in post #488.

It does become tiresome in pointing out time after time what they do with the text, in context.

Oz

 

[ToBeLoved]

However, because Calvinists have a bad habit of redefining terms that are simple, like in John 3:16, that is why I attempted to show how Calvinistic theology plays out for evangelistic preaching in post #488.

It does become tiresome in pointing out time after time what they do with the text, in context.

Oz

Maybe they don't even realize what they are saying. Like they don't seem to see the contridictions in their theology and have a different view of themselves. How they cannot see what is so obvious to us is concerning.

 

[Hank77]

One of the more serious charges against Calvinism is that it cannot preach John 3:16 (ESV) with honesty: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

A Calvinistic evangelist cannot preach to every audience of unbelievers that:

• 'God so loved the world' of all people because he didn't because he only loved the elect and died for the elect.
• 'whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'. WHOEVER cannot believe in him as only the elect can believe in him as they are unconditionally elected and irresistible drawn and Jesus died only for them.
  
• An honest Calvinistic evangelist would have to preach John 3:16 as: 'For God loved only certain people and I don't know who you are. He gave his only Son to die as a sacrifice for sin only for the elect and I don't know who you are. I'm wasting my time telling you that all of you have the possibility of believing because only those who are elected by God's unconditional decree can experience eternal life. The rest of you are damned eternally and can never, ever receive God's salvation. That is the horrible news I offer you'.

Oz

How many have rejected the Gospel, the Good News, because they were taught that God may have created them and their loved ones with the full intention of condemning them to suffering for eternity?

 

[ToBeLoved]

How many have rejected the Gospel, the Good News, because they were taught that God may have created them and their loved ones with the full intention of condemning them to suffering for eternity?

Now that is a terrible thought. I cannot say how much I dislike this doctrine and what it says to people.

 

[OzSpen]

Maybe they don't even realize what they are saying. Like they don't seem to see the contridictions in their theology and have a different view of themselves. How they cannot see what is so obvious to us is concerning.

In dealing with Calvinists in about 50 years as a Christian and more intensely in the last 40 years, I have found that they know what they are doing but they are doctrinaire in their stance.

Doctrinaire means that they are 'seeking to impose a doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations' (Oxford dictionaries 2016. S v doctrinaire). I find that they impose a Calvinistic doctrine on Scriptures and do not engage in careful exegesis of some Calvinistic texts. Yet, at other times I find they can be careful with exegesis. In my person library I have many Calvinistic commentators who give excellent insights on non-Calvinistic topic, but I have to read them as an Acts 17:11 Berean.

I know this from current practical experience. My wife and I attend an evangelical Presbyterian church and the pastor has admitted from the pulpit that his Reformed theology is sometimes doctrinaire. He used that word. He preached on Joshua 24:15 a couple of weeks ago and claimed that it was a choice between two evil options.

After the service, I challenged him on his poor exegesis in context, showing him that this was not the case when we read, Joshua 24:6-15, and discover that those were not the choices available.

Those choices were:

1. They cried out to the Lord (v. 7).
2. I would not listen to Baalam (v. 10).
3. Fear the Lord and serve him; put away the gods (v. 14);
4. Serve the Lord (v. 14);
5. If it is evil to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve - the gods your fathers served - BUT Joshua said he and his house would serve the Lord.

The Israelites had choices when it came to serving God/gods, i.e. they could choose between serving the other gods or fearing/serving the Lord.

That's not what my pastor preached from the pulpit. He gave only one choice - between the gods their fathers served beyond the River AND the gods of the Amorites. They were not the only choices that Joshua gave.

What I observed with the pastor was that his doctrinaire Calvinism was imposed on the text.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

How many have rejected the Gospel, the Good News, because they were taught that God may have created them and their loved ones with the full intention of condemning them to suffering for eternity?

Why don't you tell me? I don't preach that Gospel.

Do you know of any Calvinistic evangelists who preach like the example I created in #488 in demonstrating what a Calvinistic Gospel of John 3:16 could look like?

Oz

 

[Hammster]

Many of your posts in this thread have NOT been staff related but you have given 1, 2 and 3 liners. It doesn't help as it is not true to what you have been doing. Take a look at #s 498, 474, 475, 476, 477, 474, 484, 485, 487, etc. These demonstrate what I'm talking about. they are not addressed to staff.

You'll need to try another line of argumentation that deals with the facts.

Since you're good at looking up posts, finding Skala's should be easy.