Does this Verse Disprove the Calvinist Doctrine of Iressistable Grace?

[rnmomof7]

If you just stop and think about it, Strong who gave that definition, had absolutely no way whatsoever of proving that is what the word "world" means in those passages. There is absolutely NOTHING in the original Greek text to indicate the word world means "believers only" in those verses. Strong arbitrarily defined it how he wanted. You won't find any proof anywhere for this defintion for these verses.

But you of course know the truth .

How about we check the definition of some other Greek scholars. Or will you only accept their comments if they appeal to your belief system?


Calvinists don't have any proof for that definition either. They just want it that way because it suits them. When we start defining words however we like in this manner the Bible becomes pretty well a pointless book to read. We could make it say anything. What we need to find out is what the author intended, not what we want it to say to fit our creed.

Conform your beliefs to Scripture. Do not try to conform Scripture to your beliefs.

Did the whole world go after Christ?

you can not have it both ways

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Did the whole world go after Christ?

Yes.


What do you say?

JMW

 

[LynneClomina]

Yes.


What do you say?

JMW

eh? you think the whole world went after Christ? do you mean to say everyone is saved? or what are you saying?

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

eh? you think the whole world went after Christ? do you mean to say everyone is saved? or what are you saying?

Its hyperbole. Christ uses it all the time. Same defintion as always used hyperbolically.

JMW

 

[augustine32]

Wow, Augustine; your posts are as long as mine...

Just responding to what had been written…

We may just have to disagree; I don't find in Scripture the idea that "He decides who will see". Even in verses like 2Thess2:11 ("God will send a deluding influence that they believe false") --- this is only AFTER they DID NOT receive the truth (2:2:10).

You failed to include how I showed to whom the Father reveals truth. Matthew 11:25-28 says that Jesus praised God that He had chosen to hide these things (the truth Jesus was proclaiming earlier in the chapter) from the wise and intelligent and reveal them to infants because this way was pleasing to Him. This theme is continued in I Cor. 1 where Paul says that they preached “Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” The Jew is not going to believe for one reason and the Gentile for another, but to the called, whoever they are it is the power of God. If all are called then it is the power of God to all. But since it is only to those who are being saved that it is the power of God (vs. 18) then the called must be a limited number and don’t try to tell me that being called is conditional to believing. Then (back to Matthew) Jesus continues by saying that it is the Son’s will that decides to whom the Father will be revealed. Not the will of the one reading the Bible or listening to preaching, but the Son.

In Matthew 16:17 Jesus says that His Messianic mission and divinity were revealed to Peter by the Father. Now the Father did not reveal this to all as many denied the fact of Him being the Messiah and God. I John 5:20 says that Jesus has come to give us understanding so that we may know Him. Notice that He gives US understanding. Not all, US. “Us” meaning those saved since John then says “and we are in Him who is true.” So the US that is given understanding is the WE that are in Christ. He does not give understanding to all otherwise all would understand and be saved.

It's a question of belief. Do you think there is ONE person who is bound for Hell, who actually BELIEVES in the place?

I said “How is it that we get from hating the light and running from it to loving it and coming to it?” How can we believe in something that we hate? What is it that overcomes that hate?

If you base your theology on Rom3:10-18, you might think "it is impossible for a depraved man to EVER seek God" --- but you would miss the fact that this passage quotes Psalm14 & 53, and is a "lamentation" (exactly as Genesis6:5 is "lamentation". In the same way that Noah coexisted with Gen6:5, those who are convicted TO seek God do not violate the spirit of Rom3.) Besides, I think Jeremiah 29:11-14 ("seek Me and FIND Me") and Matt7:7-8 apply to us...

Rom. 3:10-18 is written to prove that all are under sin. No man without exception is righteous…do you believe that? It says “not even one.” You should agree that all are born with a sin nature. Thus none are righteous, the point being in and of themselves. If “none means absolutely none in the first line then why confuse the second and third statements. I believe Paul is taking the lamentation of David and turning it into a point of doctrine. He is saying that it is only if none are righteous and none understand and none seek God that we can be justified by faith. And may I point out that Paul states this in light of John 12:32. Also let me point out that this is a portrait of a man on his own, but that once Christ has worked in him then he may indeed seek Christ (Matt. 7:7-8 were written to disciples and not to all men and Jeremiah 29:11-14 was written to God’s people Israel and I don’t think it can be inferred that all men have the ability to seek God). Noah could certainly seek after God and live a righteous life once God had worked in him, but not before.

But the Context is Jesus berating them for NOT believing. Why would He do that if He knew that believing was impossible? No, Jesus says, "You CLAIM to be following God; but if you really WERE following God, you would believe in ME. And if you really followed even MOSES, then you would believe in Me." That's the context, Augustine --- not: "You CAN'T follow Me because God hasn't CHOSEN you" --- but, "If you REALLY followed God as you SAY you do, then you would believe ME."

John 5:39-40 shows that they look for eternal life, yet will not come to the only one who will give them life. Why not? They are like all men in that they have no understanding. They see and yet do not see. Jesus is simply telling them why despite all these witnesses they do not believe in Him. This is because they do not understand the teaching of Moses which point to Christ.

It speaks to the reason they "are UNWILLING to come to Jesus", it's because they love HUMAN glory. Think about that --- Jesus obviously knew which idea was true (between "regeneration causes belief", or "belief causes regeneration") --- he berates them for seeking selfish applause rather than wanting to serve GOD (as they SAID they did). Does this whole conversation fit within a view of, "you CAN'T believe if God hasn't SELECTED you"? But doesn't it fit perfectly with: "You could DECIDE to follow God instead of just CLAIMING you do!"?

No…it fits with the belief that they will always follow what they love. If they love human glory how will they come to love the glory that God gives? It is all about the desires. The will is free to do only what you desire. If they love the applause of men then that is what they will choose to go after.

Well, first I take John12:32 at face value; it says "I will draw all men to Myself". This uses the same "helkuo-drag" as Jn6:44. So, if all are "dragged to the doorway", they can believe (walk in), or turn back to the sin they love. Belief comes from conviction, and doesn't always encompass 100% proof. If everyone in the world could VISIT Hell for even an HOUR, I guarantee the world would be FULL of Christians. I don't know why, but God says "blessed is he who believes, but has NOT seen". Jn20:29 Maybe the nature of love forbids compulsion in any form. But really, it is LUST that causes sin; love of the flesh, rather than acknowledging the Creator (such acknowledgment by definition kills the flesh and stands against lust).

Look at what you are saying… “they can believe or turn back to the sin they love.” Why will they believe if they love sin? If love of the flesh causes sin then how can one acknowledge the Creator? What I am saying is that this love of the flesh and love of sin must be overcome before we can believe. If you still love sin then how is it you can choose to do what will kill your sin?

Look at 1Cor2:12: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may KNOW the things freely given to us by God" --- here is another "undeniable sequence" --- they KNOW spiritual things, by first RECEIVING the SPIRIT. Extend the sequence, and they RECEIVED the Spirit by BELIEF. (Eph1:13, Acts11:17) So, to take this as "they can never know spiritual things like BELIEVING IN JESUS", is not the context. It is BELIEF IN JESUS, that MAKES us "spiritually aware", that MAKES us alive.

1Cor1:18 does not deny this; if we BELIEVE, then it is that belief that "makes the word of the Cross power to us who ARE BEING saved".

Nope. It is to those who are the called (does not say call is based on belief) it becomes the power of God.

If it is the Holy Spirit that GIVES us "spiritual awareness", show me where the Spirit indwells anyone BEFORE they believe". I have just shown you here verses that speak of "the Spirit enters THROUGH belief."

You say that conviction is what causes one to believe while another doesn’t. Who causes that conviction? John16:8 says that when the Spirit comes it is He who will convict those that do not believe in Christ. Now if conviction comes before faith and it is the Spirit brings conviction then the Spirit comes before faith not faith before Spirit. And what about John 3? It says the Spirit goes where He wishes using the analogy of the wind. According to you His going is dependant on our wishes as to whether or not we decide to have faith in Christ.

There is no denying that my beliefs are much closer to Arminianism than to Calvinism. But it's not "Arminianism" that I defend, nor is it "Calvinism" that I confront; the Scripture, I believe, stands by itself, without labels.

So, to say "Ben you need to perfectly understand the views you dispute", is to misunderstand me; I do not dispute beliefs, I affirm what I see in the Scripture. If that disputes certain beliefs that others hold, then so be it; I believe Scripture prevails.
An honorable and righteous desire, Augustine. On this, you and I, and Arminianists and Calvinists and all in between, have perfect agreement.

Please understand that the only reason I call myself a Calvinist is that it lets you know in a heartbeat what I believe the Bible teaches. I too affirm what I see in Scripture and what I see quickly aligns itself with the view that God is in control and does all things according to the council of His will. I only believe what the Bible teaches and thus I do not agree with Calvin, Luther, or even Spurgeon on all points of doctrine. Labels are useful in this day and age in order to differentiate between the myriad of opinions on what the Bible teaches. But they are not intended or used to place the teaching of Augustine, Calvin or others over and above the Bible. I agree with Calvin because I believe that is what the Bible teaches, not the other way around.

Sorry for the delay in response. My seventh graders keep me busy with preparation before class and headaches after.

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

You failed to include how I showed to whom the Father reveals truth. Matthew 11:25-28 says that Jesus praised God that He had chosen to hide these things (the truth Jesus was proclaiming earlier in the chapter) from the wise and intelligent and reveal them to infants because this way was pleasing to Him. This theme is continued in I Cor. 1 where Paul says that they preached “Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” The Jew is not going to believe for one reason and the Gentile for another, but to the called, whoever they are it is the power of God. If all are called then it is the power of God to all. But since it is only to those who are being saved that it is the power of God (vs. 18) then the called must be a limited number and don’t try to tell me that being called is conditional to believing. Then (back to Matthew) Jesus continues by saying that it is the Son’s will that decides to whom the Father will be revealed. Not the will of the one reading the Bible or listening to preaching, but the Son.

These passages are not discussing what it philosophically true, that is, theologically true. It is not about getting insight on true concepts but knowing and understanding the spiritual realities of heaven with the eyes of the spirit. This is quite explicitly laid out by Paul in 1 Cor 1 to 4. It has nothing to do with believing whether or not the concepts of the gospel MESSAGE is true or not. It has to do with the unseen spiritual realities, not in human words of wisdom, but revealed by the Spirit to our spirit. Only those with the Spirit can see, or hear, they realities.

In Matthew 16:17 Jesus says that His Messianic mission and divinity were revealed to Peter by the Father. Now the Father did not reveal this to all as many denied the fact of Him being the Messiah and God.

You make it sound as if God waved his magic wand one day and did something to Peter to reveal that Jesus was the Christ. That is not what Jesus is talking about. God is the father of the spirits of all men. This spirit in us which returns to God upon death, is to be contrasted with the humanity of "flesh and blood." In other words, Jesus is saying that Peter did not come up with this notion dy deductive logic but by hearkening to the spirit within him. Also Peter did not receive the Holy Spirit until Jesus rose from the dead.

I John 5:20 says that Jesus has come to give us understanding so that we may know Him. Notice that He gives US understanding. Not all, US. “Us” meaning those saved since John then says “and we are in Him who is true.” So the US that is given understanding is the WE that are in Christ. He does not give understanding to all otherwise all would understand and be saved.

It seems again you think this knowledge is to know certain concepts are truth. No, this is a reference to knowing God through his Word Christ in a personal and relational way. Of course, only Christians have that reality.

I said “How is it that we get from hating the light and running from it to loving it and coming to it?” How can we believe in something that we hate? What is it that overcomes that hate?

Love. The Spirit of God is love and when the gospel is preached in the power of the Spirit it cuts the hearts of non believers. That is why Jesus said they should not do anything until the Spirit was poured out from on high.

Rom. 3:10-18 is written to prove that all are under sin. No man without exception is righteous…do you believe that? It says “not even one.”

That is actually NOT a reference to all human beings. You would find that in Romans 5:12-19. Here it is a reference to all Jews. See 3:9. Paul is prvoing all the Jews are sinners and that is who this quotation is about.

You should agree that all are born with a sin nature.

In addition to a human nature? No. That is a complete fallacy. Our human nature is flesh and flesh is under the power of sin and death. And that is all there is to it.

Thus none are righteous, the point being in and of themselves. If “none means absolutely none in the first line then why confuse the second and third statements. I believe Paul is taking the lamentation of David and turning it into a point of doctrine. He is saying that it is only if none are righteous and none understand and none seek God that we can be justified by faith. And may I point out that Paul states this in light of John 12:32. Also let me point out that this is a portrait of a man on his own, but that once Christ has worked in him then he may indeed seek Christ (Matt. 7:7-8 were written to disciples and not to all men and Jeremiah 29:11-14 was written to God’s people Israel and I don’t think it can be inferred that all men have the ability to seek God). Noah could certainly seek after God and live a righteous life once God had worked in him, but not before.

No one was born again before Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus was the firstBORN out of the dead. This is why the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than John who was the greatest born of a woman.

John 5:39-40 shows that they look for eternal life, yet will not come to the only one who will give them life. Why not?

Because they, like you, believe that eternal life comes from believing theological concepts and is bound up in that.

No…it fits with the belief that they will always follow what they love. If they love human glory how will they come to love the glory that God gives? It is all about the desires. The will is free to do only what you desire. If they love the applause of men then that is what they will choose to go after.

Secular humans change what they love all the time in this manner. It is a matter of surrender.

Look at what you are saying… “they can believe or turn back to the sin they love.” Why will they believe if they love sin? If love of the flesh causes sin then how can one acknowledge the Creator? What I am saying is that this love of the flesh and love of sin must be overcome before we can believe. If you still love sin then how is it you can choose to do what will kill your sin?

There are many who believe the gospel message who love to sin. Of course, this is why someone needed to invent a unique kind of faith called "saving faith" as opposed to the mysteroius other kind of non-saving faith. Odd, since faith does not save; God saves.

The flesh does not need to be overpowered and this is where you go wrong. WE humans are mortal and so we have the capacity to choose to die. So God calls us to die with Christ and then he raises us up anew in his Spirit.

**edited **
Violation of rule 2Rule No. 2 - No "Trolling"

2) You will not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. This will include any new user with less than 50 posts starting a "discretional" topic - i.e. a topic not suitable for children. This will also include posts that put down Christianity in general or any posts considered as blasphemy by staff (this is a CHRISTIAN FORUMS site), or posts that put down another Christian group or denomination. This includes links to websites in profiles and signatures. This will include members entering inaccurate personal details in their profile in order to gain access to restricted forums. You will not post new threads for the sole purpose of soliciting requests for prophecies.

You say that conviction is what causes one to believe while another doesn’t. Who causes that conviction? John16:8 says that when the Spirit comes it is He who will convict those that do not believe in Christ. Now if conviction comes before faith and it is the Spirit brings conviction then the Spirit comes before faith not faith before Spirit. And what about John 3? It says the Spirit goes where He wishes using the analogy of the wind. According to you His going is dependant on our wishes as to whether or not we decide to have faith in Christ.

You see to be equating the reception of the Spirit with being born again. Is this so?

Also, when a preacher of the gospel is filled with the Spirit of God, this is how the Spirit convicts non-believers. It is not a wand waving act by God. God works through his servants. See Acts 2:4,37.

JMW

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Wouldn't it then be written "many are called but few choose?"

Why call those that God wouldn't have pre-chosen?

IOW, yes, this verse disproves Irresistable Grace, as does most of the rest of the Bible.

 

[rnmomof7]

Why call those that God wouldn't have pre-chosen?

God ordained the method and the means .


It is the hearing of the gospel that brings faith , that brings repentance and belief.

There are two reasons for the general distribution of the gospel .

No one knows who it is that God has chosen , so the gospel must be preached to everyone .

Spurgeon put it this way "if the elect of God had yellow stripes down their backs we would be running around lifting shirts to give them the gospel."

All men are called because there will be no one in hell that did not refuse the gospel.
Every man will stand before God without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

IOW, yes, this verse disproves Irresistable Grace, as does most of the rest of the Bible.

Quite to the contrary , the bible is clear that the elect are chosen .

Scriptural Support:
Genesis 20:6, 35:5; Exodus 34:23; Deuteronomy 2:25, 30:6; Judges 14:1-4; 1 Kings 4:29; 1 Chronicles 22:12, 29:18; Ezra 1:1, 5, 6:22, 7:27; Nehemiah 1:11, 2:8, 12; Esther 2:17, 4:14, 6:1-4; Ezekiel 36:25-32; Psalm 33:10, 65:4, 139:16; Proverbs 21:1; Isaiah 44:28; Jeremiah 10:24; Haggai 1:14; Luke 24:16, 31, 45; John 6:37, 45, 10:3, 4, 27; Acts 11:18, 13:48, 16:14, 17:26; 1 Corinthians 3:5, 12:13, 15:10; 2 Corinthians 8:16; Galatians 2:8; Ephesians 2:1-6, 3:7; Philippians 2:13; Hebrews 13:20; James 4:13-15.

This is an article written by my sons Pastor .

It may explain the doctrine of irresistible grace and the effective call better than I can.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/irresistable.html

Do you remember the verse in Isaiah ?

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shallprosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

That is the effective call.

God's call does not fail , it does exactly what He had planned for it to do

 

[kel32]

All men are called because there will be no one in hell that did not refuse the gospel.
Every man will stand before God without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

Are you saying that you believe God has pre-ordained certain people to refuse the gospel?

~peace~

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Are you saying that you believe God has pre-ordained certain people to refuse the gospel?

~peace~

Some Calvinists do believe that. They call it "Double Predestination" which means God chose who would be saved to heaven and who would be condemned to hell and he did that before he created the world.

It is the logical conclusion to their belief that God ordained everything that ever happens to happen.

It is simply nothing more than theocratic fatalism.


JMW

 

[Bulldog]

Let's make a distinction here. Hyper-Calvnists believe that God works reprobate inot the hearts of the non-elect. Just Plain Calvinism teaches that God merely passess over the non-elect.

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Let's make a distinction here. Hyper-Calvnists believe that God works reprobate inot the hearts of the non-elect. Just Plain Calvinism teaches that God merely passess over the non-elect.

.... which is just another way of saying God chose them for hell by choosing not to choose them.

I always wondered why God would have to harden the dead in his sins heart of Totally Depraved Pharaoh

JMW

 

[Ben johnson]

Let's make a distinction here. Hyper-Calvnists believe that God works reprobate inot the hearts of the non-elect. Just Plain Calvinism teaches that God merely passess over the non-elect.

"Hyper-Calvinism" asserts that God is the CAUSE of their reprobation. But it's my contention that if all are hopelessly condemned WITHOUT God's regeneration, and ONLY His unilateral intervention could POSSIBLY save ANYONE, then His choice is the CAUSE of the elects' salvation; but conversely therefore His IGNORING the rest makes Him the ultimate cause of their eternity ALSO.

The only possibility of salvation (per Calvinism) is God's unilateral regeneration. All are reprobate and perish without it. He chooses salvation for the ELECT by regenerating them, and He chooses condemnation for the unelect by NOT regenerating them.

In other words, I don't see anything BUT "hyper-Calvinism"...

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

"Hyper-Calvinism" asserts that God is the CAUSE of their reprobation. But it's my contention that if all are hopelessly condemned WITHOUT God's regeneration, and ONLY His unilateral intervention could POSSIBLY save ANYONE, then His choice is the CAUSE of the elects' salvation; but conversely therefore His IGNORING the rest makes Him the ultimate cause of their eternity ALSO.

Actually it ismore that. To say God only "passed over" the reprobate is a disingenuous way of thinking to please their minds. Choosing one subset for positive end and not choosing the other subset for a positive end is not "not choosing" them at all but is choosing them for a negative end. It is simply dividing mankind into two, one for salvation, one for condemnation. And if indeed, God has foreknowledge of all and ordained all, then also he knows he is condemning these to hell on judgment day. Hence, by creating them, he is effectively choosing to create them for condemnation. For any Calvinist to say he did not choose these for hell is ridiculous. The only logical conclusoni in Calvinism is double predestination. However, the heart of some Calvinists can see there is something wrnog with that. After all, God did create the reprobate for existence and knit them in their mother's wombs just to send them to hell in torment for eternity. Sounds like a kid burning ants with his magnifying glass for his amusement. In the end, Calvinism always does have this sense of childish immaturity in their thinking, especially the controlling God instead of the God of power and love. For example, they want a God who will protect and control them like a mommy would no matter how bad he is. But the Bible teaches that Christians are supposed to be much more mature than that and be responsibile for their own actions and suffer their own consequences. Indeed, that is why God disciplines Christians... so they will grow up and behave like his Son and quit acting like spoiled brats. To choose you for salvation and to not choose me is to choose me for condemnation.

2 Groups. God can do 4 things

1. Choose A for positive end, choose for B positive end
2. Choose A for negative end, choose B for neg end
3. Choose A for positive end, choose B for neg end
4. Choose A for negative end, choose B for postive end

As you can see choosing one group for a positive does not only result in not choosing the other group for a positive, it also results in choosing the other group for a negative. Simple common sense.

If 2 people are drowning and I can only save one of them I am choosing that one to live. I am also choosing the other one to die. This is even more true with God. Where I was forced to make a choice God is not. He has the power to save both.

The only possibility of salvation (per Calvinism) is God's unilateral regeneration. All are reprobate and perish without it. He chooses salvation for the ELECT by regenerating them, and He chooses condemnation for the unelect by NOT regenerating them.

In other words, I don't see anything BUT "hyper-Calvinism"...

Exactly. But you know how Calvinist mental gymnastics work. They can talk themselves into pretty well anything they what to believe and pretend it is logical and Scriptural.

JMW

 

[rnmomof7]

"Hyper-Calvinism" asserts that God is the CAUSE of their reprobation. But it's my contention that if all are hopelessly condemned WITHOUT God's regeneration, and ONLY His unilateral intervention could POSSIBLY save ANYONE, then His choice is the CAUSE of the elects' salvation; but conversely therefore His IGNORING the rest makes Him the ultimate cause of their eternity ALSO.

The only possibility of salvation (per Calvinism) is God's unilateral regeneration. All are reprobate and perish without it. He chooses salvation for the ELECT by regenerating them, and He chooses condemnation for the unelect by NOT regenerating them.

In other words, I don't see anything BUT "hyper-Calvinism"...

Ben do your believe that God has foreknowledge?

 

[msortwell]

. . . And if indeed, God has foreknowledge of all and ordained all, then also he knows he is condemning these to hell on judgment day. Hence, by creating them, he is effectively choosing to create them for condemnation. For any Calvinist to say he did not choose these for hell is ridiculous. The only logical conclusoni in Calvinism is double predestination.

JMW . . . Did a Calvinist run over your dog when you were a child or something?

But back on the subject . . . Do you believe that God has perfect (complete) foreknowledge?

If not, what is your understanding of the foreknowledge of God?

msortwell

 

[Ben johnson]

Exactly. But you know how Calvinist mental gymnastics work. They can talk themselves into pretty well anything they what to believe and pretend it is logical and Scriptural.

This is disrespectful, JMW. The Calvinists I've met are sincere folk. It's just that they read verses like Eph1:4-5 ("God has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus ...according to the kind intention of His will") --- and this seems "cut-n-dried" to them, forming the basis through which the rest is interpreted. Failing to recognize of course that the warnings are real, and the verses recounting certain people "falling-from-salvation" (Gal3:1-3 & 5:1-7 for instance) are equally real.

It IS "logical and Scriptural" to them; your tone does not promote love or challenging instruction to them.

Ben do you believe that God has foreknowledge?

Let's look at Rom8:26:
"Foreknew is “Pro-Ginosko”, meaning “beforehand-complete-knowledge”. Which is to say that God knows the future, NOT that He chose-us-in-the-past. Now, it only says that “those who He knew-beforehand, He also purposed (“Pro-Orizo”, beforehand-determined-or-ordained) to be CHRISTLIKE".

Calvinism asserts "belief flows FROM regeneration". We've shown that "regeneration flows FROM belief" --- and the understanding fits that "it is BELIEVERS who are chosen in Christ, Jesus-who-was-predestined-before-time and we're chosen-in-Him-and-His-predestined-salvation WHEN we believe."

Those whom God FOREKNEW, He predestined to be CHRISTLIKE. Who are the "foreknown"? Those who BELIEVE.

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

JMW . . . Did a Calvinist run over your dog when you were a child or something?

But back on the subject . . . Do you believe that God has perfect (complete) foreknowledge?

If not, what is your understanding of the foreknowledge of God?

msortwell

Depends which passage of Scripture you are talking about.

Foreknowledge requires an identified chronological point of reference.

JMW