Do seekers find? Or do only "founders", seek?

[nowhereville]

I think the new age movement is pretty compelling evidence that people seek even when they are lost, as humans we tend to seek in the wrong places first. They are longing for something more spiritually but may be wounded or afraid of seeking God based on previous experiences.

This, in my case was true because of something someone spoke to me as a child. I've always known that God was real and good, but somehow (go figure) I thought God just didn't love me.

New Agers are actually very open to spiritual things - and frequently one can share the gospel with them easily if done in truth and love.

Just some food for thought.

 

[holdon]

Why not?

Where did I say that? Must be taken out of context.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Where did I say that? Must be taken out of context.

Post #19.

 

[holdon]

Post #19.

This is what I said there:

"But He cannot save everyone, because not everyone believes. And that is because some won't. Jn 3:36."

If God could sovereignly save everybody, He would, because He said that's what He wants. See 1 Tim 2:4.

 

[Ben johnson]

Predestination casts God as a respecter of persons --- and that's an absolute contradiction.

I don't think it does. God saves His people without respect to their persons. He saves them because it is His will to save them, not because of who they are.

We're arguing English. Greek uses "prosopoleptes", "an accepter of persons, or one who discriminates."

In Col3:24: "He who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong he has done, for God is no respecter of persons". "Prosopolepsia". "Respecter-of-persons", "PARTIALITY".

1. God has no blame for the consequence of the perishing; it's THEIR choice.
2. God has no blame for the salvation of anyone, it's THEIR choice.

You cannot separate one from the other, Peter. Romans 2:6-11 is even more clear. "God will render to every man according to their deeds --- to those who by doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, ETERNAL LIFE; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, WRATH and INDIGNATION (Hell). There will be tribulation and distress for every soul ...who does evil; but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good ...for God is NO RESPECTER of persons." Nothing in the passage even hints of God's choice or manipulation. Salvation for those who choose righteousness, condemnation for those who choose evil. God is NOT PARTIAL. And that's the message in Acts10; an impartial God is pleased to receive those who SEEK Him. Not vice-versa...

You are still confused about God's revealed will and His secret will. Those who hindered were in direct opposition to God's revealed will - hence they were condemned. However at the same time they were fulfilling His secret will. Anyone who they succeeded in hindering was, by definition, not predestined to be saved!

"By definition"? Where in the text is the definition? Do you see how your position, presupposes the "by definition"? Jesus said, "you PREVENT those who WERE entering in!" Is there any way to deny "they WERE ENTERING"?

Ok, so the reason that some people come and some don't is 'sentience'. Could you now define 'sentience'? The fact is that we are all 'sentient', so we cannot say that the reason why some believe is 'sentience'. Those who don't believe are 'sentient' too!

You see how all this philosophy/psychology is simply dodging around the question. I am sentient, yes. Mr X is sentient. We both hear the same sermon, the same preacher, the same church, the same day. I believe. Mr X does not believe. Why the difference? You cannot expect to get away with just saying "Oh, its sentience".

Conscious. Self-aware. Jesus berates Pharisees for REFUSING to believe (Jn5:40), chastizes entire towns --- saying "if THEY had seen what YOU have seen, they would have BELIEVED". (Matt11:21-24) Stephen blasted them for RESISTING the Holy Spirit (Acts7:51). None of these verses fit "predestined belief"...

Ah! Then why, if you read it, did it not enter into your heart? And why was it that one day it DID enter? What changed? What was different?

It began intellectually. I could not deny the accuracy and credibility of Scripture. I could not deny the real record of Jesus' words; and He made specific and real claims...

These things made sense to you? Then that proves that God was already at work in your heart - because "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him". If these things made sense to you, in a real, spiritual way, then you cannot have been just a 'natural man'.

In Col1:18-21, it says "God's wisdom is foolishness to man, man's wisdom is foolishness to God; ...God is well pleased THROUGH the foolishness (to men!) of the message preached to save those who believe. How can we deny the clear words, of "believing THROUGH the foolishness"? Predestination asserts that "the message would have to cease appearing 'foolish', and begin seeming 'power', BEFORE one could believe". So this passage stands solidly against "predestination"...

Yes, agreed. But at the same time there are millions who don't see this!

Not "don't", "won't". Jn5:40

Exactly! You have just proven that understanding, knowledge, and human reason cannot make a man a Christian!

Consider these:

1. Faith (saving) comes by HEARING God's word. Rm10
2. Without preachers, HOW can they believe? Rm10
3. You've known the sacred Scriptures, which are ABLE to give you WISDOM that leads to saving faith in Jesus. 2Tim3:15

Do you see how the Scriptures are ABLE to give Human wisdom, that leads to saving-faith? Can you deny that "if predestined, lack of preachers WOULD not keep people from salvation"? Will you accept that "faith comes from hearing", and not "divine predestination"?

 

[cygnusx1]

1. God has no blame for the consequence of the perishing; it's THEIR choice.
2. God has no blame for the salvation of anyone, it's THEIR choice.

so now blame is attatched to being saved ............ no wonder we don't agree!

also while we are at it , where does wealth come from ?
The scriptures say God .......... so if God is no respecter of persons and shows no favour to anyone (which is a lie) , then how is it that all are not born equal!

 

[pcwilkins]

2. God has no blame for the salvation of anyone, it's THEIR choice.

Sorry, couldn't agree less! If God is not responsible for the salvation of a person, who should we praise for it?

What are we saved by?

Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"

We are not saved by our faith, but through it! We are saved by grace, which is the gift of God!

Romans 5:10 "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

Acts 15:11 "But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." [/I

Remember this? "The impulsive or moving cause of salvation is the free grace of God. The meritorious cause is the blood and righteousness of Christ. The efficient cause is the Holy Spirit. The instrumental cause is faith in Christ."

You are mixing up the instrumental cause and the meritorious cause!

You cannot separate one from the other, Peter. Romans 2:6-11 is even more clear. "God will render to every man according to their deeds --- to those who by doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, ETERNAL LIFE; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, WRATH and INDIGNATION (Hell).

Yes, I completely accept that those that seek will find and that those that don't will be punished. What I am trying to get you to do is to consider what makes the difference?

There will be tribulation and distress for every soul ...who does evil; but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good ...for God is NO RESPECTER of persons."

Nothing in the passage even hints of God's choice or manipulation.

No, again I agree! But how can a man 'do good' except by being indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Are you now saying that unregenerate man can not only believe but also 'do good'?

Salvation for those who choose righteousness, condemnation for those who choose evil.

*bangs head on wall* Yes! But who makes the difference? Why did you 'choose righteousness', Ben? Because God made you feel your need of it, that's why!

God is NOT PARTIAL. And that's the message in Acts10; an impartial God is pleased to receive those who SEEK Him. Not vice-versa...

Yes! But again and again...what makes a man seek a God who by nature he hates?

"By definition"? Where in the text is the definition? Do you see how your position, presupposes the "by definition"?

No, I was merely saying that those who aren't saved obviously were not predestined to be saved!

Do you not accept that everything that happens is in accordance with God's secret will?

Jesus said, "you PREVENT those who WERE entering in!" Is there any way to deny "they WERE ENTERING"?

What is clear is that they did not enter! They were not saved!

Conscious. Self-aware.

See, here we are again! We are all conscious. We are all self-aware. So why do we not all believe?

Judas Isacariot was just as self-aware and conscious as Simon Peter! So what or who was responsible for the difference? Was Peter more intelligent? Was his consciousness 'better'?

Jesus berates Pharisees for REFUSING to believe (Jn5:40), chastizes entire towns --- saying "if THEY had seen what YOU have seen, they would have BELIEVED".

Yes! So if God so dearly wanted them to believe, why didn't He show them?

How does this support free-will? Jesus clearly shows that if they had seen, they would have believed! Not, they would have been more likely to have chosen to believe!

If I want a person to do X, and I know that if I show them Y they will do X, why would I not show them Y?

Likewise, God knew that if He had showed Tyre and Sidon what He showed Chorazin and Bethsaida, Tyre and Sidon would have repented! So if God wanted Tyre and Sidon to repent, why didn't He show them what He showed Chorazin and Bethsaida?

(Matt11:21-24) Stephen blasted them for RESISTING the Holy Spirit (Acts7:51). None of these verses fit "predestined belief"...

Is it not natural for a carnal man to resist the Holy Spirit? So what makes a man act against his own nature and stop resisting?

It began intellectually. I could not deny the accuracy and credibility of Scripture. I could not deny the real record of Jesus' words; and He made specific and real claims...

Why could you not deny it? What stopped you? Your intellect? Some of the most intellectual people in the world do deny it!

In Col1:18-21, it says "God's wisdom is foolishness to man, man's wisdom is foolishness to God; ...God is well pleased THROUGH the foolishness (to men!) of the message preached to save those who believe. How can we deny the clear words, of "believing THROUGH the foolishness"?

I don't deny that we believe through the foolishness of preaching! But God sends the preachers!

Predestination asserts that "the message would have to cease appearing 'foolish', and begin seeming 'power', BEFORE one could believe".

So this passage stands solidly against "predestination"...

Predestination asserts nothing of the sort!

Not "don't", "won't". Jn5:40

Yes, and because they won't, they don't! The question is, why won't they? What stops them? Their natural, God-hating self! And how can they act against that self except by God's grace?

Consider these:

1. Faith (saving) comes by HEARING God's word. Rm10

Yes! And how can we hear without preachers, and how can they preach without being sent! Sent by who, Ben?

2. Without preachers, HOW can they believe? Rm10

They can't! Which is exactly why God sends preachers! But does God send preachers to all men? No!

How can you say that God wants all men to be saved when, by not sending them preachers, He takes away the very possibility of them believing?

3. You've known the sacred Scriptures, which are ABLE to give you WISDOM that leads to saving faith in Jesus. 2Tim3:15

Yes! Timothy knew the sacred scriptures! But again, do all men have the scriptures? What about the amazon rainforest tribes in the year 500 AD? Did they have the scriptures? Did they have preachers? No! Then how can we say that it was God's will for them to believe?

Do you see how the Scriptures are ABLE to give Human wisdom, that leads to saving-faith?

Nope! Saving faith is the very opposite of human wisdom, because human wisdom is, like everything else human, enmity to God!

Can you deny that "if predestined, lack of preachers WOULD not keep people from salvation"?

Ben, you're not thinking straight! This is exactly why God sends preachers! To save His people!

It is you that needs to address why, if God wants all men to believe, why does He not send all men preachers?

Will you accept that "faith comes from hearing", and not "divine predestination"?

Yes, faith does come by hearing! I've never denied that! But have the courage to take another step and look beneath the surface!

What does hearing come by? The word of God! Not the decision of man!

Peter

 

[cygnusx1]

The problem for the none Calvinist as I see it is that he wants to hang on to free-will as the root cause of his salvation ......... but when asked about why he chose God when others hate God , he replies , "free-will"

as if the will is entirely free from the heart mind and character of the person using it ...... not!

say like , * here I have a free-will , oh no , I just did something strange , it must be my free-will , it is so free that I cannot tell what I am going to do next ........

while others recognise the will is ruled by the heart of man , so if a man's delight is in God he will seek to please God , but if his delight is in sin , he will seek to please himself , but then we are back to square one , why did one person have "a heart for God" , and another person find the Gospel message nonesense and dispicable ........ the answer can only be found in two places , either a person is granted a new heart by grace ...... (the new birth) and therefore seeks things that are above , or he inherited by natural birth a better more spiritualy inclined nature from his parents than other men .... hardly!

to merely answer "free-will" answers nothing , it is just a desperate cover up.

 

[pcwilkins]

Yes, what Arminium forgot is that the human 'free-will' is in reality in bondage to Satan and hence not free at all!

When the Son makes a person free, then they are free indeed - in all aspects! Sin no longer has dominion over them.

That implies that by nature sin does have dominion over us - what Arminium basically said was that our 'wills' are somehow exempt from being under that dominion!

Peter

 

[Ben johnson]

Part 2 --- board shut down just as I was posting this...

I believe that by this stage you had been born again. God had begun a good work in your heart. He was leading you and teaching you to see nothing in yourself and everything in Christ.

It's not only "teaching" that is important; Jn6:45 says "all taught; those who ...LEARNED come to Jesus". 2Tim3:15 are others who "study and learn". But Jn5:39-40 are those who study and WILL not learn.

Also, "born again", connotes "regeneration"; and regeneration is AFTER belief. Titus3:5-6, Acts10:43-48, Acts11:17, Eph1:13.

Yes! Yes! But millions go through the same experience and do not "recognize their own sinfulness", and do not confess it, and do not cry to the Lord! Why not? Because they're more hardened than you were? Because they're worse people? Because they're not so intelligent as we are? No! The answer lies in God's everlasting purposes.

Ya' gotta support that with Scripture. I haven't seen any...

Carnal, natural man is so full of pride that he will not recognize his own sinfulness. It is the Holy Spirit's work to convince of sin. Yes, natural man will admit that he does wrong - but he will not admit that he is sinful, i.e. full of sin. He will believe that he is inherently good, and that he could cease from sin if he wanted to.

We just discussed 1Cor1:18-21; man believes THROUGH the foolishness of Jesus' Gospel. It is belief that changes it from "foolish", to "power"...

Who are you quoting there?

Various Calvinists; here, and in print.

And yet you have just said that before you were saved, you "believed in Him", and yet did not "receive the good thing that He did".

I believed in Him, I received Him (and His graceful sacrifice for my sins). Jn1:12

What is the difference between the 'believing' that does not receive Him, and the 'believing' that does receive Him?

A good question, Peter. Salvation is "indwelt fellowship with God" --- thus, it is not MERE belief that is saved. James says, "You BELIEVE in one God, great; but even the demons believe and shudder." 2:19 It is not "true belief" that they had in Jn5:39-47; Jesus was saying, "if you (REALLY) believed Moses (as you SAY you do), then you would believe ME. But HOW can you believe MY words, when you don't believe MOSES' words? See how their own choice is causal in Jesus' rebuke?

Conversely, there is no difference in the beginning belief of those in Luke 8:15 ("good soil"), and Luke 8:13 ("bad soil"); the difference is entirely that "the latter HELD FAST and bore fruit with PERSEVERANCE"...

And yet thousands of others probably do this and come to a completely different conclusion. Why? Because they're not so intelligent?

All we can discuss, is Scripture. And it says "some love sin, and resist the Light"...

Yes! "If God WAS your Father, THEN you would love Me." Not, if you would love me then God would be your Father!

"If you LOVED God, then you would love Me." Perfect harmony.

And it connects perfectly with Jesus in Jn17:6, "Those Thou gavest Me out of the world; Thine they WERE (they LOVED God!), and Thou gavest them to Me...."

Now we are getting somewhere! So presumably you were willing to come because you were not self-focussed and because you really knew God? How then did you get into this situation? How did you stop being self-focussed? How did you get to know God?

Love is a DECISION. Scripturally, loving God is a COMMANDMENT. See how God commands ALL MEN to repent in Acts17:30.

Yes! I know, Ben, I know! Scripture also speaks of men loving God, loving their neighbours as themselves, being holy - does that mean the unregenerate man has the ability to do any of them? No!

Scripture says "Be ye holy". Can unregenerate man do it, without God? No!

You are --- right. And yet --- it is man's free choice TO love people, with God's power.

Yes! So I could say about the unsaved - if they had seen what you have seen, Ben, and I'm talking to you personally - if they had seen what you have seen, they would have believed! Why didn't they see it? Because God did not reveal it to them as He has revealed it to you!

But you're totally missing the fact that Capernaum, and Bethsaida, and Chorazin --- SAW the miracles and REFUSED to believe!

That's why Jesus was REBUKING them. And Jesus' words of rebuke, absolutely do NOT fit "predestination".

You see how we are getting down to foundation truths now? We've established that people do not come to God because they are self-centered and they do not really know Him. Now I want you to consider why it is that some - including you - come not to be self-centred and come to know God.

Why do some believe in evolution, in SPITE of the absurdity of "probability", "archeology", etcetera?

Simple: "love of sin". The same reason many WILL not believe in Jesus. Jn5:39-47...

---------------

I think we've established that God is NOT partial ("no respecter"), and that Calvinism founds ON God "being partial". We've shown how mankind has free will TO believe in God, or to REFUSE Him. We've proven Jesus as rebuking those who were PREVENTING some from believing (incidentally, that's the same theme as Paul warned against, in passages like 1Cor8:11 & Rom14:15; these are ALSO verses speaking of the true possibility of "ruining someone's salvation").

I look forward to hearing your opinions in our discussion.

 

[Ben johnson]

so now blame is attatched to being saved ............ no wonder we don't agree!

It's the same word, Cygnus. If God does not CAUSE them to do wrong, but rewards their sinful choice with their DUE CONSEQUENCE (because God is NOT PARTIAL)...

...then God also does not CAUSE them to be saved, but "we will receive the REWARD of the inheritance" (Col3:24). God is not partial in EITHER condemnation, OR salvation.

Throughout Scripture you need words to CHANGE meaning, so that they FIT "predestination". You recognize "condemnation came to all men", but need it to change from "justification came to all men" to "justification came to the FEW".

And (with respect, my brother), you accuse people of my understanding of "twisting Scripture"...

God is not partial; he who chooses unrighteousness, perish; he who chooses God, lives. That's what Scripture says. Can you deny the verses?

 

[Ben johnson]

also while we are at it , where does wealth come from ?
The scriptures say God .......... so if God is no respecter of persons and shows no favour to anyone (which is a lie) , then how is it that all are not born equal![/'quote]"Law of reciprosity".

"GIVE, and it shall be given unto you." It supports what I've been sayin'...

 

[pcwilkins]

God is not partial; he who chooses unrighteousness, perish; he who chooses God, lives. That's what Scripture says. Can you deny the verses?

No, we don't deny them! All along I've agreed that those that seek, will find. What I'm trying to get you to do is to look inside them!

So far you have come up with various reasons why some choose to seek:

a) they love light, not darkness
b) they don't love sin
c) they are sentient, conscious, self-aware, etc

NONE of these resolve the problem. The first two definately cannot be true of unregenerate man, who loves darkness and sin. The third is just meaningless psychological jargon.

It is not satisfactory to say that some seek and some don't because of sentience or consciousness because mankind generally is sentient and conscious.

The question still remains unanswered, Ben. Why did you turn to God when thousands don't? What was the turning point? What turned you from being a lover of sin to a lover of God?

Peter

 

[pcwilkins]

also while we are at it , where does wealth come from ?
The scriptures say God .......... so if God is no respecter of persons and shows no favour to anyone (which is a lie) , then how is it that all are not born equal!

"Law of reciprosity".

"GIVE, and it shall be given unto you." It supports what I've been sayin'...

Cyg was asking why aren't men born equal with regards to wealth, I think. Men can't give before they are born!

Peter

 

[cygnusx1]

Cyg was asking why aren't men born equal with regards to wealth, I think. Men can't give before they are born!

Peter

precisely Peter!

and remind us about the God given law of Firstborn inheritance!

According to God's Law , the firstborn son gets everything! ........... now that Law can only be superceeded by Divine Grace ........ see Isaac and Jacob , who were not inline for any inheritance , but by Divine FAVOUR inherited Every Blessing , even when they deserved punishment!

 

[Ben johnson]

Sorry, couldn't agree less! If God is not responsible for the salvation of a person, who should we praise for it?

I see no way of denying the meaning --- do you? God neither CAUSES (chooses) anyone to perish (He is impartial), NOR does He CAUSE (choose) anyone to salvation (He is impartial).

"I see that God is NOT PARTIAL --- but he who fears God and does right is WELCOME." Acts10:34-35

"God is just, and justifier of he who believes." Rm3:26

In saying "God is not responsible for salvation", there are two meanings --- Scripture plainly states "God does not cause or choose anyone's salvation"; AND Scripture plainly states "salvation is all of Him and none of us"...

Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"

We are not saved by our faith, but through it! We are saved by grace, which is the gift of God!

Well said, Peter; most Calvinists assert "FAITH is not of ourselves, SAVING-FAITH is the gift of God." Completely opposed to verses like Heb11:6.

A.T.Robertson's comment on Eph2:8, "Grace is GOD'S part, faith is OURS."

Romans 5:10 "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

Yet --- that very reconciliation STANDS on our CONTINUING in Christ. "He has reconciled us to Him ...if indeed we CONTINUE in the faith firmly established and steadfast and not be moved away from Jesus-the-Hope!" Col1:21-23 (1Tim1:1)

You see? Every verse that you've learned FOR Calvinism, has at least one other verse that FORBIDS Calvinistic understanding.

Remember this? "The impulsive or moving cause of salvation is the free grace of God. The meritorious cause is the blood and righteousness of Christ. The efficient cause is the Holy Spirit. The instrumental cause is faith in Christ."

Perfect agreement; but your misunderstanding is seeing the direction of that saving-faith, as "God towards man". It's not. It's man-towards-God.

Yes, I completely accept that those that seek will find and that those that don't will be punished. What I am trying to get you to do is to consider what makes the difference?

Have you ever heard of "Fatalism"? What did you eat for breakfast? Did YOU choose? Or was your choice merely the consequence of a long series of events that gave you NO choice?

No, again I agree! But how can a man 'do good' except by being indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Are you now saying that unregenerate man can not only believe but also 'do good'?

Again, believing/receiving Christ is NOT a "good thing we do", but it is RECEIVING the "good thing He did"!

*bangs head on wall* Yes! But who makes the difference? Why did you 'choose righteousness', Ben? Because God made you feel your need of it, that's why!

Conspicuous election, and "irresistible grace", cast man as "fatalistic". There is no free will, there is no accountability. Those unelected can NEVER believe, those elect can never RESIST.

...and it ignores those in Lk8:13 who BELIEVED....

No, I was merely saying that those who aren't saved obviously were not predestined to be saved!

Do you not accept that everything that happens is in accordance with God's secret will?

I accept that God's perfect will is revealed in Scripture. Specifically, "ALL who see Jesus AND BELIEVE may have eternal life." Jn6:40

There is no reason to impose a SECRET understanding of "they only see whom God ELECTS". It's just not there in Scripture.

(It is at this point that the Calvinist will point to Mark4:11-12; and as we've already discussed, Matt13:15 is the parallel verse, which REFUTES the Calvinst's understanding by saying: "They close their OWN eyes".

Perhaps 2Cor4:3-4 is tried; people's eyes have been veiled so they CANNOT accept Jesus' Gospel; and as I said, 2Cor3:16 RUINS the Calvinists' view by saying: "turn to God and THEN the veil is removed..."

No matter how many verses are tried in support of Calvinism, there are other verses that FORBID the Calvinistic understanding...

What is clear is that they did not enter! They were not saved!

I'm sorry, Peter, that's not what Jesus said. "They WERE entering and you HINDERED them!"

If the "elect" are predestined, then no one COULD "prevent them". Jesus said it, I believe it....

See, here we are again! We are all conscious. We are all self-aware. So why do we not all believe?

Jn5:40. Acts7:51. Heb12:25. We can accept (love) Him, or we can love sin. Free will. Choice.

Calvinism is fatalism. Man CANNOT choose anything; he is mere "flotsam and jetsam pulled irresistibly BY sin, or irresistibly BY God --- but he has no choice and no accountability..."

Judas Isacariot was just as self-aware and conscious as Simon Peter! So what or who was responsible for the difference? Was Peter more intelligent? Was his consciousness 'better'?

Judas began SAVED --- but that's a different discussion...

Yes! So if God so dearly wanted them to believe, why didn't He show them?

Jesus could only be born in PART of one century.

Is it not natural for a carnal man to resist the Holy Spirit? So what makes a man act against his own nature and stop resisting?

Why does it make sense to you for men to be REBUKED for not believing, if they could NEVER believe?

Why would Jesus, and Stephen, and Peter, and Paul, beat a dead horse?

Why could you not deny it? What stopped you? Your intellect? Some of the most intellectual people in the world do deny it!

Go into the "open forums" and you will find MANY people who have rejected former salvation. Listen to their testimony; rather than just saying "Well if they REJECTED Christ then they weren't REALLY saved in the FIRST place."

I don't deny that we believe through the foolishness of preaching! But God sends the preachers!

Again, well done, Peter; many Calvinists assert, "Why would men believe in what they think FOOLISH?!"

Yet Paul plainly says "HOW shall they believe without a preacher?" This is the SAME idea as expressed in Matt23:13. Preachers can (by the power of the message) turn hearts towards Jesus; deceivers (by clever and deceitful words) can turn hearts AWAY from Jesus. Can you deny it?

Predestination asserts nothing of the sort!

I'm glad to hear you and I agree. But many have been the discussions here, claiming exactly that...

How can you say that God wants all men to be saved when, by not sending them preachers, He takes away the very possibility of them believing?

What about the American Indians, Incas and Aztecs, Eskimos, etcetera --- before missionaries came?

Did God conveniently "not predestine them"?

Yes! Timothy knew the sacred scriptures! But again, do all men have the scriptures? What about the amazon rainforest tribes in the year 500 AD? Did they have the scriptures? Did they have preachers? No! Then how can we say that it was God's will for them to believe?

You must be a mind reader. To continue in "predestination", you'll hafta assert that "God conveniently predestined NO one before technology allowed missionaries to preach." Is that a credible assertion?

Nope! Saving faith is the very opposite of human wisdom, because human wisdom is, like everything else human, enmity to God!

I simply quoted Paul; with respect, was Paul wrong?

It is you that needs to address why, if God wants all men to believe, why does He not send all men preachers?

Why wasn't Jesus born several times throughout history --- so that Tyre and Sidon and Sodom could all have seen Him?

You either have to assert that "God sovereignly DECREED for whole populations to PERISH", or you'll have to accept what Peter said in 2:3:9, "God does not DECREE (boulemai) any to perish...."

If you say that God DOES decree some to perish, please tell me how that is "just"?

That implies that by nature sin does have dominion over us - what Arminium basically said was that our 'wills' are somehow exempt from being under that dominion!

Jesus said "No one comes to Me unless the Father DRAWS ('helkuo' - drags) him". Jn6:44 AND, Jesus says "I will helkuo-drag ALL MEN to Myself". Jn12:32

No, we don't deny them! All along I've agreed that those that seek, will find. What I'm trying to get you to do is to look inside them!

So far you have come up with various reasons why some choose to seek:

a) they love light, not darkness
b) they don't love sin
c) they are sentient, conscious, self-aware, etc

NONE of these resolve the problem. The first two definately cannot be true of unregenerate man, who loves darkness and sin. The third is just meaningless psychological jargon.

Jesus patiently explained it, in passages like Matt22:2-14. Some preferred business, some preferred farming; one preferred his own filth. But nowhere does Jesus even hint that the KING made any choice...

It is not satisfactory to say that some seek and some don't because of sentience or consciousness because mankind generally is sentient and conscious.

You either hold to "fatalism", which asserts "mankind CANNOT seek God UNLESS he is elect (and the elect cannot RESIST seeking Him)" --- or you recognize that "all are called to salvation; all are commanded to repent; justification came to all men; Jesus is the Savior of the WORLD, malista-above-all believers." Scripture references on request...

 

[pcwilkins]

What did you eat for breakfast? Did YOU choose? Or was your choice merely the consequence of a long series of events that gave you NO choice?

I chose to eat Rice Crispies because that is what I wanted! Why did I want them? A number of factors contributed to it - I hadn't had them for some time, I didn't want the alternatives, they looked tasty - in short, I saw an attraction in them!

So a man chooses Christ because that is what he wants, because he sees an attraction in Him! But why? What tends to produce that feeling of 'wanting Christ' in a person? What makes Christ attractive to a person?

The question still stands, Ben. Natural man does not want God - natural man is enmity to God, totally depraved. On that we both agree. The question you still havn't been able to answer is this - what is it that produces a feeling of 'needing Christ' in a person?

No, we don't deny them! All along I've agreed that those that seek, will find. What I'm trying to get you to do is to look inside them!

So far you have come up with various reasons why some choose to seek:

a) they love light, not darkness
b) they don't love sin
c) they are sentient, conscious, self-aware, etc

NONE of these resolve the problem. The first two definately cannot be true of unregenerate man, who loves darkness and sin. The third is just meaningless psychological jargon.

Jesus patiently explained it, in passages like Matt22:2-14. Some preferred business, some preferred farming; one preferred his own filth. But nowhere does Jesus even hint that the KING made any choice...

So you're not willing to look deeper than the simplistic 'Oh, it's free-will', then. It's a real shame, Ben, because there is a depth of glory which you are missing out on by making yourself responsible for (as in the cause of) your own salvation.

Peter

 

[cygnusx1]

I see no way of denying the meaning --- do you? God neither CAUSES (chooses) anyone to perish (He is impartial), NOR does He CAUSE (choose) anyone to salvation (He is impartial).

"I see that God is NOT PARTIAL --- but he who fears God and does right is WELCOME." Acts10:34-35

"God is just, and justifier of he who believes." Rm3:26

In saying "God is not responsible for salvation", there are two meanings --- Scripture plainly states "God does not cause or choose anyone's salvation"; AND Scripture plainly states "salvation is all of Him and none of us"...
Well said, Peter; most Calvinists assert "FAITH is not of ourselves, SAVING-FAITH is the gift of God." Completely opposed to verses like Heb11:6.

A.T.Robertson's comment on Eph2:8, "Grace is GOD'S part, faith is OURS."
Yet --- that very reconciliation STANDS on our CONTINUING in Christ. "He has reconciled us to Him ...if indeed we CONTINUE in the faith firmly established and steadfast and not be moved away from Jesus-the-Hope!" Col1:21-23 (1Tim1:1)

You see? Every verse that you've learned FOR Calvinism, has at least one other verse that FORBIDS Calvinistic understanding.
Perfect agreement; but your misunderstanding is seeing the direction of that saving-faith, as "God towards man". It's not. It's man-towards-God.
Have you ever heard of "Fatalism"? What did you eat for breakfast? Did YOU choose? Or was your choice merely the consequence of a long series of events that gave you NO choice?
Again, believing/receiving Christ is NOT a "good thing we do", but it is RECEIVING the "good thing He did"!
Conspicuous election, and "irresistible grace", cast man as "fatalistic". There is no free will, there is no accountability. Those unelected can NEVER believe, those elect can never RESIST.

...and it ignores those in Lk8:13 who BELIEVED....
I accept that God's perfect will is revealed in Scripture. Specifically, "ALL who see Jesus AND BELIEVE may have eternal life." Jn6:40

There is no reason to impose a SECRET understanding of "they only see whom God ELECTS". It's just not there in Scripture.

(It is at this point that the Calvinist will point to Mark4:11-12; and as we've already discussed, Matt13:15 is the parallel verse, which REFUTES the Calvinst's understanding by saying: "They close their OWN eyes".

Perhaps 2Cor4:3-4 is tried; people's eyes have been veiled so they CANNOT accept Jesus' Gospel; and as I said, 2Cor3:16 RUINS the Calvinists' view by saying: "turn to God and THEN the veil is removed..."

No matter how many verses are tried in support of Calvinism, there are other verses that FORBID the Calvinistic understanding...
I'm sorry, Peter, that's not what Jesus said. "They WERE entering and you HINDERED them!"

If the "elect" are predestined, then no one COULD "prevent them". Jesus said it, I believe it....
Jn5:40. Acts7:51. Heb12:25. We can accept (love) Him, or we can love sin. Free will. Choice.

Calvinism is fatalism. Man CANNOT choose anything; he is mere "flotsam and jetsam pulled irresistibly BY sin, or irresistibly BY God --- but he has no choice and no accountability..."
Judas began SAVED --- but that's a different discussion...
Jesus could only be born in PART of one century.
Why does it make sense to you for men to be REBUKED for not believing, if they could NEVER believe?

Why would Jesus, and Stephen, and Peter, and Paul, beat a dead horse?
Go into the "open forums" and you will find MANY people who have rejected former salvation. Listen to their testimony; rather than just saying "Well if they REJECTED Christ then they weren't REALLY saved in the FIRST place."
Again, well done, Peter; many Calvinists assert, "Why would men believe in what they think FOOLISH?!"

Yet Paul plainly says "HOW shall they believe without a preacher?" This is the SAME idea as expressed in Matt23:13. Preachers can (by the power of the message) turn hearts towards Jesus; deceivers (by clever and deceitful words) can turn hearts AWAY from Jesus. Can you deny it?
I'm glad to hear you and I agree. But many have been the discussions here, claiming exactly that...
What about the American Indians, Incas and Aztecs, Eskimos, etcetera --- before missionaries came?

Did God conveniently "not predestine them"?
You must be a mind reader. To continue in "predestination", you'll hafta assert that "God conveniently predestined NO one before technology allowed missionaries to preach." Is that a credible assertion?
I simply quoted Paul; with respect, was Paul wrong?
Why wasn't Jesus born several times throughout history --- so that Tyre and Sidon and Sodom could all have seen Him?

You either have to assert that "God sovereignly DECREED for whole populations to PERISH", or you'll have to accept what Peter said in 2:3:9, "God does not DECREE (boulemai) any to perish...."

If you say that God DOES decree some to perish, please tell me how that is "just"?
Jesus said "No one comes to Me unless the Father DRAWS ('helkuo' - drags) him". Jn6:44 AND, Jesus says "I will helkuo-drag ALL MEN to Myself". Jn12:32
Jesus patiently explained it, in passages like Matt22:2-14. Some preferred business, some preferred farming; one preferred his own filth. But nowhere does Jesus even hint that the KING made any choice...
You either hold to "fatalism", which asserts "mankind CANNOT seek God UNLESS he is elect (and the elect cannot RESIST seeking Him)" --- or you recognize that "all are called to salvation; all are commanded to repent; justification came to all men; Jesus is the Savior of the WORLD, malista-above-all believers." Scripture references on request...

I lost count with the fallacies in this post ........... there are just so many!

 

[Ben johnson]

I lost count with the fallacies in this post ........... there are just so many!

Fallacies? As in saying, "Scripture doesn't really mean what it says, there is a deeper (secret) meaning"? (And Calvinsts accuse others of "twisting Scripture"? No disrespect intended, Cygnus; but if the verses don't mean what they say on their FACE, if a platform is needed "a priori" to UNDERSTAND what they REALLY mean, why is that credible --- while the simple and direct understanding is not?_

So you're not willing to look deeper than the simplistic 'Oh, it's free-will', then. It's a real shame, Ben, because there is a depth of glory which you are missing out on by making yourself responsible for (as in the cause of) your own salvation.

"Responsible" does mean "cause of". Not cause of BEGOTTENNESS, but the cause of RECEIVING it. John1:12-13 is clear; the begottenness is all of God and none of us (verse 13); but "as many as RECEIVED Christ, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God, even to THOSE who BELIEVE in His NAME..." (12)

You know, Matthew 23:13 and Luke 11:52 are sufficient to overturn Calvinism.

"...Not only do YOU not enter in, you do not ALLOW those who ARE ENTERING, to GO IN."

"You did not enter in yourselves; and those who WERE entering you HINDER..."

Why would Jesus spend His time rebuking them, if they were "unpredestined-unelect"? Why waste His time? Why does He say "WERE ENTERING", if the others were not elect and therefore He never MEANT for them to enter?

Why does "Predestination" still make sense to you?

"Not only did YOU not enter in (because God did not ELECT you so you could NEVER enter) --- but you PREVENT others who WERE entering (but really they WEREN'T entering 'cause THEY weren't elect either!) --- from entering. (And I'm just saying this to those who CAN NEVER believe, waste of words 'cause you're not elect and therefore cannot understand My words, you BOTH (refused-enter, and prevented-enter) are just God's DECLINED and forever without hope. I'm just speaking 'out loud' because my words cannot have any effect on those God has not chosen..."

With respect, why does that make sense? How does that make sense?

 

[pcwilkins]

So you are not willing to think about what makes a man a seeker, beyond giving the stock answer - "Oh, it's free-will"?

That is where we disagree, Ben - and that is where you have yet to produce a satisfactory answer.

Your main point seems to be "If election was true, why would Jesus have said this or that?" What that really means is "I do not understand why, if election is true, Jesus would have said this or that" - and that is simply confessing your lack of understanding rather than forming any serious arguments.

And you are confused because you still have not recognised the difference between God's revealed will and God's secret will. And because you do not understand this difference, you seem to find it easier to imply that we 'Calvinists' (who apparently 'accuse others of twisting scripture' - talk about sweeping generalisations!) simply refuse to recognise the 'obvious meaning' of scripture than to think too deeply about these things.

People object the same objections about the law. "If man cannot love God by nature, then why would the first and greatest commandment be to love God? Obviously we must be able to love God, after all - or else God wouldn't have commanded us to do it!" In the same way that you imply Jesus was wasting words, they imply that God was wasting words by giving a law which He knew we couldn't fulfil.

The objection still stands. Unregenerate man hates God. Therefore he will not want to seek God. Therefore he will not seek God. He is completely - will and mind and body - under Satan's control. And until God breaks that bondage, unregenerate man will do Satan's will.

Free-will is an illusion. The reason why I had rice crispies for breakfast and my wife had muesli is because I like rice crispies, she likes muesli. Why do I prefer rice crispies to muesli? Well it's a mixture of physical factors, mental factors, environmental factors, and so on.

You see how I can give an account of why I had rice crispies? Of what produced that decision to have rice crispies? You see how my will was not free, but was determined by other factors?

Do you not think that it is important to understand why people make certain decisions? I'm in the field of education, and I know that kids do not misbehave for no reason. They do not just randomly decide to be rude. Their decision to be rude is based on a million factors - their home-life, their friends, what they ate for lunch, the weather, etc etc. To take your ideas and simply say "These kids are misbehaving because of their free-will - therefore we just need to punish them enough, and they will change their mind and start behaving" would be, to say the least, extremely counterproductive. Understanding the root cause of peoples behaviour is key to understanding why people behave as they do.

All I'm trying to get you to do is to see past the simplistic "Oh, some choose to believe, some don't" viewpoint. Think back to when you believed - what were the factors that led to that decision, and who was responsible for those factors?

Your will was not free - it was determined by other factors. The moving, original cause being that you were one of Christ's sheep.

As for your frankly pathetic attempt to set up a strawman of what you think is Calvinistic thinking so that you can trample all over it, try this instead.

"Not only did YOU not enter in (because of your inate hatred to God) --- but you PREVENT (by deceiving others for your own gain) others who WERE entering (in that they came to you in order for you to fulfil your responsibility and lead them to God) --- from entering. (And I'm saying this to make it clear that you have no excuse for deliberately transgressing God's revealed will in this way)".

See how easy it is to insert brackets into scripture?

Peter