Double Predestination acceptable...

[Clare73]

Why do you quote Hebrews 6:1?

Simply as confirmation of the state of immaturity in believers.

Seems I confused you with that. . .my apologies. . . for it has no application to the main point at hand, the sovereignty of God in predestination.

 

[Clare73]

I see nothing that supports Calvinism in there.

I'm not trying to support what you call "Calvinism."
I am presenting NT testimony by which to evaluate what you call "Calvinism."

Not when I read those verses in the context they fit into.
Jesus was talking to unrepentant Jews at this time. The reason they were not enabled to come to Jesus is because they had refused to see Jesus in the Torah.

And this is stated in Scripture, where?
God's enablement would have made them see Jesus in the Torah.

"Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Does God's will always happen in this world?
No because if it did Jesus would not have prayed
"your will be done on Earth as it is in heaven."

Unless it means his kingdom comes as God's will is done in our hearts, since
his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), but of the spiritual world,
hidden and invisible (Luke 17:20-21) in the hearts of those where he reigns and rules.

We can refuse to follow God's will for us.
Ask yourself why Jesus was rebuking them for not believing, if your interpretation is correct? That wouldn't make a lot of sense.

Mine is no "interpretation," mine is the text taken at its simple and clearly stated word.

That question is for you to answer, in light of such a simple and clearly stated word.

 

[renniks]

And this is stated in Scripture, where?
God's enablement would have made them see Jesus in the Torah.

Right in John 6.

45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

Why didn't they come to Jesus then? Because they had not learned from the Father. They were law keepers, not heart believers.

And no, enabled to see doesn't equal made to see. We are enabled to do lots of things that we don't necessarily do.

 

[renniks]

Mine is no "interpretation," mine is the text taken at its simple and clearly stated word.

Hardly. It's a interpretation that the text doesn't warrant when read as a whole.
If you pick only a sentence here and there, with no context, you can make the Bible say all kinds of stuff it doesn't actually say.

 

[Clare73]

Right in John 6.

45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

God's drawing is by teaching (John 6:43).

Why didn't they come to Jesus then? Because they had not learned from the Father. They were law keepers, not heart believers.

And how does any of that alter anything in the meaning of
"No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."? (John 6:65)

And no, enabled to see doesn't equal made to see.
We are enabled to do lots of things that we don't necessarily do.

Not in the born again, who are the only ones "enabled."
"All that the Father gives me will come to me." (John 6:37)

Hardly. It's a interpretation that the text doesn't warrant when read as a whole.
If you pick only a sentence here and there, with no context,
you can make the Bible say all kinds of stuff it doesn't actually say.

And even more so in denying what the Bible does say.

None of which alters the meaning of the texts, John 6:65, John 6:37, regarding the sovereignty of God.

 

[Clare73]

If Jesus died on the cross to free us from sin. Why are we considered born sinners?
What Jesus did would mean nothing then. I am changing my mind about that also.

He died on the cross to free from sin those who believe in him and his atoning work.

"Whoever does not believe in the Son stands condemned already." (John 3:18)

You have to be born before you can believe in him and be saved.
And you are born in sin.

"The result of one trespass (by Adam) was condemnation for all men." (Romans 5:18)

 

[Clare73]

Why are so many against the Calvinist beliefs?

Calvin emphasized the sovereignty of God, as presented in the NT.

Many think that salvation is by the choice of man rather than by the choice of God alone, as presented in the NT.

 

[TedT]

You have to be born before you can believe in him and be saved.

Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the HOLY angels.
You don't HAVE to be BORN to have faith if you are not a sinner because you can chose to be holy by your free will, and never enslaved to sin.

 

[renniks]

And how does any of that alter anything in the meaning of
"No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."? (John 6:65)

That doesn't say that everyone who is enabled comes. God gives those who accept his teaching and believe in Jesus to Him. It's right there in the text. It's not an unconditional statement.

No one gets a gift unless they accept it. I can enable 100 people to have $100 each if they show up for the money but if they don't show up, they don't get anything.

 

[renniks]

Calvin emphasized the sovereignty of God, as presented in the NT.

Many think that salvation is by the choice of man rather than by the choice of God alone, as presented in the NT.

Sovereign doesn't necessarily equal all controlling.

 

[Clare73]

Sovereign doesn't necessarily equal all controlling.

So how do you handle the doctrine in post #58 with the immature Christian?

 

[Clare73]

Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the HOLY angels.
You don't HAVE to be BORN to have faith if you are not a sinner because you can chose to be holy by your free will, and never enslaved to sin.

So are we agreed in post #78 that

"God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and
he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Romans 9:18)
and man is still responsible for his hardened of heart (Romans 9:19)
with no standing in justice to question it (Romans 9:20-21).

And how does Calvin differ from the above?

 

[Clare73]

That doesn't say that everyone who is enabled comes.

Enablement is by the Holy Spirit.
God's Holy Spirit enables them and they do come.
That's what enabling means.

God gives those who accept his teaching

And that means no one, if left on their own, for

"The man without the Spirit (not born again, without enablement) does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, and he cannot understand them, for they are foolishness to him."
(1 Corinthians 2:14)

"The sinful mind (of unregenerate man--no Holy Spirit, not born again) is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature (i.e., those not born again) cannot please God." (Romans 7:7-8)

and believe in Jesus to Him. It's right there in the text. It's not an unconditional statement.

No one gets a gift unless they accept it. I can enable 100 people to have $100 each if they show up for the money but if they don't show up, they don't get anything.

You didn't enable anyone to do anything there, you simply offered a reward which depended on their ability to show up and accept.
In God's economy, that means no one shows up, because they can't. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

 

[returntosender]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. People are condemned for not believing.
Tulip is pretty straightforward. What part of it don't you understand?

I don't understand tulip but I do know they believe one chosen and one condemned so why is this belief any different from predestination. I like the Calvinist here and I still don't understand why they are different in their preselected beliefs from christians.
I am glad to stay away from this thread if you all will stop replying to my posts.

 

[renniks]

I don't understand tulip but I do know they believe one chosen and one condemned so why is this belief any different from predestination. I like the Calvinist here and I still don't understand why they are different in their preselected beliefs from christians.
I am glad to stay away from this thread if you all will stop replying to my posts.

No it's fine. The question is what predestination means. There's a small segment of Christianity that believe it means some people are selected individually for salvation. Most of Christiandom sees it another way. We are destined for good works for example, but not individually chosen for salvation.
No one is born condemned.

 

[renniks]

So how do you handle the doctrine in post #58 with the immature Christian?

I would explain that it just means God is the ultimate ruler of the universe.
He can allow as much or little freedom as he likes for his creation.

 

[renniks]

And that means no one, if left on their own, for

"The man without the Spirit (not born again, without enablement) does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, and he cannot understand them, for they are foolishness to him."
(1 Corinthians 2:14)

"The sinful mind (of unregenerate man--no Holy Spirit, not born again) is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature (i.e., those not born again) cannot please God." (Romans 7:7-8)

No one said we don't need the Spirit to convict us. That's far different from saying we are required to respond. You are jumping off a cliff that these verses don't require you to. No one is left on their own. Jesus draws all people.
"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
John 12:32

 

[Clare73]

No one said we don't need the Spirit to convict us. That's far different from saying we are required to respond. You are jumping off a cliff that these verses don't require you to.

It's not about required or forced, it's about ability and inability.
Man's will is governed by his disposition. He chooses what he prefers.

The unregenerate man does not have the ability to respond "because he does not understand, it is foolishness to him" and he wants no part of it (1 Corinthians 2:14).
The Holy Spirit's enabling is in the disposition; i.e., what we prefer,
changing it to prefer the things of God, which we then freely choose.

No one is left on their own. Jesus draws all people.
"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
John 12:32

Is that "all" as in every person, or
"all" as in Gentiles as well as Jews?

In speaking to Israel who were God's people exclusively, it more often than not means Gentiles as well as Jews.

 

[renniks]

The Holy Spirit's enabling is in the disposition; i.e., what we prefer,
changing it to prefer the things of God, which we then freely choose.

Says scripture nowhere.
It can't be a free choice if we don't have the option to reject the Spirit's leading.
And this is where Calvinism gets it wrong.
Wesley was much closer to understanding how the Spirit works.

 

[renniks]

Is that "all" as in every person, or
"all" as in Gentiles as well as Jews?

All, as in every person.