How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Dottie]

So your point is simply that some were not ashamed of being exposed because they kept the commandments so when the light came they embraced the light while others, who didn't keep the commandments, were ashamed of being exposed by the light?

I didn't make the point. Jesus did! So do you propose that you or I, or anyone else can be more athoritive, or expound more fully upon what the Lord has said?

 

[Reformationist]

I didn't make the point. Jesus did!

Dottie, for the sake of efficient and beneficial discussion let's just all assume that what we posit the Lord says is what we believe that the Lord said or meant. You keep saying that the points you are making are the points that the Lord made and anyone who challanges your perception of them is, in fact, challanging the Lord. Unless you believe that you speak for the Lord and are incapable of error these types of claims are not only useless but pompous in the extreme and have no place in discussions between Christians.

Additionally, they are not really necessary to get to the heart of what we believe nor why we believe it. Obviously, unless we are intentionally trying to mislead our brethren, which is not what I assume you are trying to do even when I disagree with you, then it is sufficient, at least to me, to know that you are professing what you believe the Lord has relayed to us in His Word.

Now, on to the real issue at hand here. I agree that those who follow the Laws of God see the light as a good thing and are pleased to embrace it. I also agree that those who rebel see the light as a bad thing because they know it will expose their disobedient deeds. What I'm trying to figure out is something preliminary to these admissions. Why do some choose to obey and others choose to disobey?

So do you propose that you or I, or anyone else can be more athoritive, or expound more fully upon what the Lord has said?

There is no one more authoritative than the Lord nor am I proposing any such thing. I am asking you to expound more fully upon what you believe the Lord has said.

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Van]

Reformationist, I answered the question and you simply stonewalled it. I explained the reasons given in scripture as to why folks respond or do not respond to the gospel, the factors that influence receptivity. To which you said in effect, "that is no answer."

Some folks love darkness. Why - they are depraved. Some depraved folks seek God. Why? They have heard and learned of God from scripture. Some folks seek God but are unwilling to give up the things of this world, like the rich young ruler.

There is no question that in our depraved state, being in Adam, we are inclined to sin, predisposed to sin and unable not to sin. But this does not mean we might not try to not sin, that we might try to seek a right relationship with God through the works of the Law or through faith in God and His Christ. As I said, the idea that we cannot is found nowhere in the bible.

 

[Reformationist]

Reformationist, I answered the question and you simply stonewalled it.

I did? How?

I explained the reasons given in scripture as to why folks respond or do not respond to the gospel, the factors that influence receptivity. To which you said in effect, "that is no answer."

Well, it wasn't.

Some folks love darkness. Why - they are depraved. Some depraved folks seek God. Why? They have heard and learned of God from scripture. Some folks seek God but are unwilling to give up the things of this world, like the rich young ruler.

So those who are depraved that don't seek God aren't as smart as those who seek God? Or is it that they aren't lucky enough to have learned of God from Scripture? I'm not stonewalling. I'm merely trying to understand what you believe is the causal agent in why some depraved people love the darkeness and other depraved people seek the light. Maybe I'm just not as smart as you but I've yet to see a definitive answer to that question. You're just telling me that those who don't seek God refrain from doing so because they love the darkness while those who do seek God do so because they love the light. I'm merely asking what causes them to polarize the way they do. Any ideas?

There is no question that in our depraved state, being in Adam, we are inclined to sin, predisposed to sin and unable not to sin. But this does not mean we might not try to not sin, that we might try to seek a right relationship with God through the works of the Law or through faith in God and His Christ.

Umm...isn't "trying to not sin" a righteous endeavor? How can a depraved person who is "unable not to sin" do something that is not sinful? Trying to do as God commands isn't sinful, is it? Those seem to be clearly contradictory notions to me.

As I said, the idea that we cannot is found nowhere in the bible.

John 6:44
No one CAN come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Are you honestly contending that we are naturally unable to actually come to Christ but we are not naturally unable to try to come to Christ?

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed CAN be.

Van, why is the carnal mind unable to submit to the authority of the Law of God? Is it possible that it's because he sees it as foolishness (1 Cor 1:18).

1 Cor 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he CANNOT understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Let me ask you something. Does the non-believer ever do anything because of their faith in God?

God bless

 

[Beoga]

Some folks love darkness. Why - they are depraved. Some depraved folks seek God. Why? They have heard and learned of God from scripture. Some folks seek God but are unwilling to give up the things of this world, like the rich young ruler.

so all someone has to do is study and read scripture?

 

[Reformationist]

so all someone has to do is study and read scripture?

Apparently. I wish we had known that all along.

 

[Beoga]

Apparently. I wish we had known that all along.

if that is true, i know my new plan for witnessing (not that i really had a plan before, but i do now )

 

[Van]

Guys, I smell smoke. I answered your question from the Bible. I never indicated intelligence or other personal trait is controlling. Your effort to try and inject it is a ploy so you can say, he believes in merit.

John 6:44 is explained in John 6:45, the way the Father draws folks is through hearing and learning about God from scripture.

I say that in our depraved state we can seek God just as scripture clearly says we can. Seek ye first the kingdom of God...

Not being able not to sin is clearly taught in scripture, we fall short, and we cannot submit to God in a way where we do not sin. But equating the inability to not sin with the inability to seek God through effective or ineffective means is bogus. See Romans 9:30-33.

1 Cor 2:14 - keep reading to the first few verses of chapter 3 and you will see that both babes in Christ and the unregenerate are able to understand spiritual milk which is the gospel. Like so many verses Calvinist site, in context the passages teach the exact opposite of the contention.

In answer to your question, because I answer all your questions, is sure, non-believers meaning non-saved folks that have faith in God, Jews, Muslins, JW's, Mormons, do things based on their faith. The stuff amounts to a piles of filthy rags, but they make piles.

 

[Ben johnson]

Some folks love darkness. Why - they are depraved. Some depraved folks seek God. Why? They have heard and learned of God from scripture. Some folks seek God but are unwilling to give up the things of this world, like the rich young ruler.

so all someone has to do is study and read scripture?

It's not the STUDYING that saves us; it's the LEARNING.

"From childhood you have KNOWN (learned) the sacred Scriptures which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ." 2Tim3:15

This is an example of those who studied, AND LEARNED.



"You search the Scriptures thinking that in them you have eternal life; but they bear witness of Me, and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life." Jn5:39-40

Here is an example of those who studied and WOULD not learn.

Jesus speaks further, plainly saying WHY they "would not learn". Because "they sought man's glory rather than God's", "because they hadn't REALLY believed Moses".

If they had believed Moses they would have believed Jesus.

Not one shred of "predestination", but every bit of "you-don'-wanna"...

 

[Dottie]

Dottie, for the sake of efficient and beneficial discussion let's just all assume that what we posit the Lord says is what we believe that the Lord said or meant. You keep saying that the points you are making are the points that the Lord made and anyone who challanges your perception of them is, in fact, challanging the Lord. Unless you believe that you speak for the Lord and are incapable of error these types of claims are not only useless but pompous in the extreme and have no place in discussions between Christians.

Additionally, they are not really necessary to get to the heart of what we believe nor why we believe it. Obviously, unless we are intentionally trying to mislead our brethren, which is not what I assume you are trying to do even when I disagree with you, then it is sufficient, at least to me, to know that you are professing what you believe the Lord has relayed to us in His Word.

Now, on to the real issue at hand here. I agree that those who follow the Laws of God see the light as a good thing and are pleased to embrace it. I also agree that those who rebel see the light as a bad thing because they know it will expose their disobedient deeds. What I'm trying to figure out is something preliminary to these admissions. Why do some choose to obey and others choose to disobey?


There is no one more authoritative than the Lord nor am I proposing any such thing. I am asking you to expound more fully upon what you believe the Lord has said.

Thanks,
God bless

I deliberately anwered you with simply what the Lord had to say on the matter so as to avoid attaching any perceptive view of my own, and you have leveled this charge at me that I "keep saying that the points (I am) making are the points that the Lord made and anyone who challanges (my) perception of them is, in fact, challanging the Lord." You have falsely accused me, and I respectfully ask that you withdraw that accusation, for it is a lie.

Now as to your question of "why some choose to obey, and others choose to disobey": You have asked entirely the wrong question here, for on the one hand you are saying that none have this choice available to them, inasmuch as they act according to the dictates of a sinful nature, which said nature would cause them to do involuntarily only that which is against or contrary to God's law. On the other hand, you are saying that they choose to obey or disobey. So then, by trying to have it both ways you have rendered the question moot, or purely academic, inasmuch as it has no practical value or meaning in relationship to the subject at hand. Perhaps you would like to rephrase your question.

 

[Dottie]

"why some choose to obey, and others choose to obey"

Excuse me, that should have been "why some Choose to obey, and others choose NOT to obey".

 

[Reformationist]

Guys, I smell smoke.

You might want to go get that checked out. I hear that have medicine for that now.

I answered your question from the Bible. I never indicated intelligence or other personal trait is controlling. Your effort to try and inject it is a ploy so you can say, he believes in merit.

I never said you did say that. I thought the question mark at the end of my statement made it clear that I was asking what the causal agent was.

John 6:44 is explained in John 6:45, the way the Father draws folks is through hearing and learning about God from scripture.

Van, Van, Van....

Do you even take the time to read what Scripture actually says? I'll post it for your perusal:

John 6:44,45
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

Now, I draw your attention to the two bolded/underlined portions of this passage. In the first we are told with a universal negative that no one is capable of believing in Christ or exercising faith in Him unless the Father draws him. So, apart from the compelling influence of God man is incapable of coming to Christ in faith. Then we are told, in the verse that you say "explains John 6:44," that everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ. That "everyone" is a statement of universal inclusion. The difference is that the scope of that universal statement is qualified, "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father." Not only is the internal work of the Lord God necessary for us to even be able to come in faith, once He does so we will come in faith. So, I will say that I agree that verse 45 gives us a fuller understanding of verse 44 but it most certainly does not mean what you contend.

I say that in our depraved state we can seek God just as scripture clearly says we can. Seek ye first the kingdom of God...

Two words for you: "imperative" and "indicative." When you seek to understand whether a command in the Gospel is imperative or indicative you have a greater potential for accurately understanding Scripture. For instance, Matthew 6:33, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." So, this verse says, "Do A (seek the Kingdom of God) then you get B (these physical needs)." It says nothing of our being able to seek the Kingdom of God in our unregenerate state. So, despite your uncalled for approach to that passage, Scripture doesn't say we can seek God. Scripture says we are commanded to seek God. There's a difference.

Not being able not to sin is clearly taught in scripture, we fall short, and we cannot submit to God in a way where we do not sin.

I agree completely Van.

But equating the inability to not sin with the inability to seek God through effective or ineffective means is bogus.

Oh, well, if it's "bogus" then I'd better chunk that idea, huh?

As I said, when you say "we fall short and cannot submit to God in a way where we do not sin" I agree that you speak correctly. When you go on to say that though we cannot do anything but sin we are still able to seek God we must part paths. I'm curious though, if we can only sin, what "effective means" are there, and, what in the world does "seeking God through ineffective means" mean?

See Romans 9:30-33.

LOL! Oh Van. Romans is my most favorite book in the Gospel and the ninth chapter of Romans is my most favorite chapter of Romans. If you wished to make your point you couldn't have picked a worse section from Scripture.

I'm very familiar with Romans 9:30-33. What is it about those verses that you think makes your point?

1 Cor 2:14 - keep reading to the first few verses of chapter 3 and you will see that both babes in Christ and the unregenerate are able to understand spiritual milk which is the gospel. Like so many verses Calvinist site, in context the passages teach the exact opposite of the contention.

LOL! Van, you're killing me. The very first verse of the passage you cite utterly annihilates your entire position:

1 Cor 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THEM because they are spiritually discerned.

Is this your big hang up:

1 Cor 3:1
But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.

Is that what's got you all confused? Notice that neat little word "as?" Paul is telling them that he must teach them as if they are unskilled in the teachings of the Gospel and still acting as if they were still carnal in nature, though they should not be.

In answer to your question, because I answer all your questions, is sure, non-believers meaning non-saved folks that have faith in God, Jews, Muslins, JW's, Mormons, do things based on their faith.

LOL! You should go on the road. This is great stuff. I couldn't even write this. "Non-believers that have faith in God do things based on their faith?" Do I even need to explain how ridiculous that is?

 

[Reformationist]

It's not the STUDYING that saves us; it's the LEARNING.

"From childhood you have KNOWN (learned) the sacred Scriptures which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ." 2Tim3:15

This is an example of those who studied, AND LEARNED.



"You search the Scriptures thinking that in them you have eternal life; but they bear witness of Me, and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life." Jn5:39-40

Here is an example of those who studied and WOULD not learn.

Jesus speaks further, plainly saying WHY they "would not learn". Because "they sought man's glory rather than God's", "because they hadn't REALLY believed Moses".

If they had believed Moses they would have believed Jesus.

Not one shred of "predestination", but every bit of "you-don'-wanna"...

Ben, you keep citing these types of things as if predestination is some doctrine of compulsion. God's predestination doesn't void the contingency of secondary means. Okay, so these people didn't want to. Why didn't they want to? So these people sought man's glory rather than God's? Why would they do that? These people didn't believe Moses? Why is that? Obviously we have to contrast these people with those who did want to and those who sought God's glory and those who did believe Moses. Why did they do all the right things when the others did all the wrong things? Were they smarter? More humble? More holy? More submissive? More easily led? Dumber? What's the causative agent that brings them into line with God's law when others so clearly reject it?

The point you miss, and have been missing in the reformed doctrines of grace isn't that God forces man to become a believer against his will. It's that God so works in the heart of man in such a way as to make a previously unwilling will willing. Did you follow that?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I deliberately anwered you with simply what the Lord had to say on the matter so as to avoid attaching any perceptive view of my own, and you have leveled this charge at me that I "keep saying that the points (I am) making are the points that the Lord made and anyone who challanges (my) perception of them is, in fact, challanging the Lord." You have falsely accused me, and I respectfully ask that you withdraw that accusation, for it is a lie.

No. What you did was deliberately answer me with your opinion on what the Lord had to say on the matter, thereby attaching your perspective on it. Look at what you said, "I didn't make the point. Jesus did!" As I said, this was unnecessary. First off, I asked you if that was the point you were making, not whether it was biblically sound. Secondly, just because you believe that's what the Lord had to say about it doesn't make it so.

Now as to your question of "why some choose to obey, and others choose to disobey": You have asked entirely the wrong question here, for on the one hand you are saying that none have this choice available to them, inasmuch as they act according to the dictates of a sinful nature, which said nature would cause them to do involuntarily only that which is against or contrary to God's law. On the other hand, you are saying that they choose to obey or disobey.

I didn't mean to talk over your head Dottie. My apologies. IF MAN HAS THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE TO EITHER OBEY OR DISOBY, Why DO YOU BELIEVE some choose to obey and others choose to disobey? Is that clearer? Also, you make a glaringly inaccurate statement. You say that I contend that man does not "have this choice available to them, inasmuch as they act according to the dictates of a sinful nature, which said nature would cause them to do involuntarily only that which is against or contrary to God's law." That is not even close to what I believe. I believe that man's nature is such that he sins and sins willingly. I have never claimed that unregenerate man sins involuntarily. You confuse necessity with compulsion. Unregenerate man sins of necessity because it is his nature to sin, and only sin. It is the same concept with God. God is good of necessity. I do not mean either that God has no will or that it is not free or that He is good because of some external compulsion to be good. I mean that God is good because He acts according to His nature which is only good. Likewise, unregenerate man sins because it is his nature to sin and he acts accordingly with great willingness.

So then, by trying to have it both ways you have rendered the question moot, or purely academic, inasmuch as it has no practical value or meaning in relationship to the subject at hand. Perhaps you would like to rephrase your question.

As you can see I wasn't trying to have it both ways. I was merely trying to understand your way. To do so, I would have to start my questioning with the assumption that your premise that man can choose either for or against God is true. Did that help?

 

[Beoga]

It's not the STUDYING that saves us; it's the LEARNING.

"From childhood you have KNOWN (learned) the sacred Scriptures which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ." 2Tim3:15

This is an example of those who studied, AND LEARNED.



"You search the Scriptures thinking that in them you have eternal life; but they bear witness of Me, and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life." Jn5:39-40

Here is an example of those who studied and WOULD not learn.

Jesus speaks further, plainly saying WHY they "would not learn". Because "they sought man's glory rather than God's", "because they hadn't REALLY believed Moses".

If they had believed Moses they would have believed Jesus.

Not one shred of "predestination", but every bit of "you-don'-wanna"...

what does learn mean?

 

[Ben johnson]

You might want to go get that checked out. I hear they have medicine for that now.

Ha ha! I find that "smoke" is always a bad sign; be it electrical thangs (TV, stereo), appliances, even mah' car...

Now, I draw your attention to the two bolded/underlined portions of this passage. In the first we are told with a universal negative that no one is capable of believing in Christ or exercising faith in Him unless the Father draws him. So, apart from the compelling influence of God man is incapable of coming to Christ in faith. Then we are told, in the verse that you say "explains John 6:44," that everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ. That "everyone" is a statement of universal inclusion. The difference is that the scope of that universal statement is qualified, "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father." Not only is the internal work of the Lord God necessary for us to even be able to come in faith, once He does so we will come in faith. So, I will say that I agree that verse 45 gives us a fuller understanding of verse 44 but it most certainly does not mean what you contend.

But what you MISS (ok, what _I_ think you miss), is that "everyone is truly called to salvation". Can you deny Acts17:30?

Two points Calvinists seem to miss about John6 --- first, verse 44 is in ANSWER to verse 42 --- in 42 they questioned His authority, in 44 Jesus says "coming to Me is sanctioned by God".

Second point --- all of the "lifted up" verses (37, 39, 40, 44, 54) are PARALLEL. This is important --- to make Calvinism work, there must be understanding of, "God gives them to Jesus, and THEN they believe." But --- parallel --- they do not believe AFTER they are given, the "giving", IS their "believing".

Or, in Jesus' words (Jn17:6) "Thine they WERE, and Thou gavest them to Me." See how that works? This is embodiment of John14:1: "You believe in God, believe also in Me." As Jesus says in John8:42, He is sent from God; he who truly believes in God, consequently believes in Jesus.

Even Lydia fits this --- Acts16:14 --- it doesn't say "God opened her heart so that she COULD believe in Jesus", it says "she was a WORSHIPPER of God, AND He opened her heart". She BELONGED to God through belief; and through that belief He gave her to Jesus.

1 Cor 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THEM because they are spiritually discerned.

And yet, one becomes spiritual, acquires spiritual understanding (1Cor2:15), through the RECEIVED Spirit (1Cor2:12) --- and the Spirit is received though BELIEF. Eph1:13 (Acts11:17)

Even 1Cor1:18 (which says "to the perishing the Gospel is foolishness") is refuted in regard to Calvinism, by verse 21; God is pleased, THROUGH the foolishness to save those who believe. If Calvinism was right, then He wouldn't save them THROUGH foolishness, the foolishness would be changed, FIRST.

Ben, you keep citing these types of things as if predestination is some doctrine of compulsion. God's predestination doesn't void the contingency of secondary means. Okay, so these people didn't want to. Why didn't they want to? So these people sought man's glory rather than God's? Why would they do that? These people didn't believe Moses? Why is that? Obviously we have to contrast these people with those who did want to and those who sought God's glory and those who did believe Moses. Why did they do all the right things when the others did all the wrong things? Were they smarter? More humble? More holy? More submissive? More easily led? Dumber? What's the causative agent that brings them into line with God's law when others so clearly reject it?

That some submit to God, and some do not, is clear. Even the Israelites are condemned for THEIR unbelief. Rom9:32, Heb3:18-19. Disobedience and unbelief.

Look at how we can obey or not --- in Heb12. It conveys "discipline", as something either we RECEIVE (as we did our earthly fathers), or NOT. How can we read 12:9 & 25, and not understand "discipline can be refused"?

The point you miss, and have been missing in the reformed doctrines of grace isn't that God forces man to become a believer against his will. It's that God so works in the heart of man in such a way as to make a previously unwilling will willing. Did you follow that

If man's "willingness" is something "God (unilaterally) works in their hearts, to MAKE one "previously unwilling, WILLING" --- then how is that "free will"? It is not. That is not "my misunderstanding Reformed Theology", it's simply my assessment that "what you call 'free will' is not free at all".

Why does the Gospel convict one, and not another? Each decides to receive it or not, Don. Those in Acts2:37, WERE convicted. "Pierced to the heart", or "smitten in conscience". Those in 1Tim3:15 were convicted by the written word. But convicted nonetheless.

Those in John5:39-40, chose NOT to receive it. Jesus says it plainly: "Those who love darkness (and evil things), do not come to the light; those who practice truth come to the light that their deeds be seen as wrought in God." Jn3:19-21 We are unable to convince you that Humans are sentient. It's not a case of "Pelagic-heresy" (that man has inherent goodness) --- but rather, "God calls everyone to salvation". And so called, depravity is overcome in enough measure to believe.

To "believe through the foolishness", Don. 1Cor1:21

 

[Van]

Reformationist, my understanding of John 6:44-45 differs from yours.

No one can come to me unless.. refers to the excluded group
the Father who sent me draws him... refers to the included group
Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me... refers to the included group. Therefore, according to my understanding of the passage, the Father draws folks by the impact of His scriptures.

As far as making the word of God to no effect, the idea that Jesus says seek ye first the kingdom of God but knows we are unable to seek God, is pure twaddle. Anybody that buys the lie that Jesus tells us to do stuff knowing we cannot do it, will believe anything. Scripture alone is my guide and I believe Jesus when he says to seek ye first the kingdom of God. I believe Jesus when he says few can find and you do not find unless you look, for the narrow path that leads to life.

 

[Beoga]

As far as making the word of God to no effect, the idea that Jesus says seek ye first the kingdom of God but knows we are unable to seek God, is pure twaddle. Anybody that buys the lie that Jesus tells us to do stuff knowing we cannot do it, will believe anything. Scripture alone is my guide and I believe Jesus when he says to seek ye first the kingdom of God. I believe Jesus when he says few can find and you do not find unless you look, for the narrow path that leads to life.

Jesus said be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect. Do you believe someone can be perfect? If not, is this a command by Jesus that no one can meet?

 

[Reformationist]

Ha ha! I find that "smoke" is always a bad sign; be it electrical thangs (TV, stereo), appliances, even mah' car...

But what you MISS (ok, what _I_ think you miss), is that "everyone is truly called to salvation". Can you deny Acts17:30?

Acts 17:30 is not a universal call to salvation. It is a universal call to repentance. I didn't miss this. All people are the creation of God and owe Him unfailing fealty and worship. God is completely holy and, as such, demands perfect obedience from all His creation. I'm not sure what you think that proves but, yes, the call to repentance is universal.

Two points Calvinists seem to miss about John6 --- first, verse 44 is in ANSWER to verse 42 --- in 42 they questioned His authority,

I didn't miss this either. Again, I'm not sure how you think this invalidates the reformed understanding of verse 44

in 44 Jesus says "coming to Me is sanctioned by God".

Uhhh...no Ben. Verse 44 says nothing about coming to Christ being "sanctioned" by God. Verse 44 is explicit. Natural man is incapable of coming to Christ in faith unless the Father draws him. I have no idea where you got this "sanctioned" idea from.

Second point --- all of the "lifted up" verses (37, 39, 40, 44, 54) are PARALLEL.

I'm sorry. I don't understand the manner in which you use "parallel."

This is important --- to make Calvinism work, there must be understanding of, "God gives them to Jesus, and THEN they believe." But --- parallel --- they do not believe AFTER they are given, the "giving", IS their "believing".

Could you dumb this down for me? I'm missing your point.

Or, in Jesus' words (Jn17:6) "Thine they WERE, and Thou gavest them to Me." See how that works? This is embodiment of John14:1: "You believe in God, believe also in Me." As Jesus says in John8:42, He is sent from God; he who truly believes in God, consequently believes in Jesus.

Again, I don't see your point.

Even Lydia fits this --- Acts16:14 --- it doesn't say "God opened her heart so that she COULD believe in Jesus", it says "she was a WORSHIPPER of God, AND He opened her heart". She BELONGED to God through belief; and through that belief He gave her to Jesus.

Ben, you are drawing an inference that Scripture does not even closely imply. First off, the verse doesn't say that He opened her heart unto salvation. You make the erroneous assumption that because the verse states that she worships God and that He opened her heart "to heed the things spoken by Paul" that prior to His opening her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul she was unregenerate. The very fact that she is said to be a worshipper of God, and I can only interpret this to mean a true worshipper of God, shows that God had already given her faith. Look at Abraham. Was he some devout follower of God prior to God coming to him to establish with him a covenant?

And yet, one becomes spiritual, acquires spiritual understanding (1Cor2:15), through the RECEIVED Spirit (1Cor2:12) --- and the Spirit is received though BELIEF. Eph1:13 (Acts11:17)

Ben, you are more than welcome to continue thinking that faith is some meritorious trait of fallen man through which he secures for himself the blessings of everlasting life but the inherently sinful nature of man is such that faith in God is not only foreign to him but dispicable. Unregenerate man doesn't yearn to serve God. He sees God as the enemy and His law as foolishness and it is this very proclivity to rebellion that binds him in his unbelief and stirs him to rebellion against the Most High. Unless God liberates him from the darkness in which he exists man will gladly and willingly continue on in blindness, not only NOT submitting to the Lord but being altogether ignorant of his depravity and need for God's quickening work.

Even 1Cor1:18 (which says "to the perishing the Gospel is foolishness") is refuted in regard to Calvinism, by verse 21; God is pleased, THROUGH the foolishness to save those who believe. If Calvinism was right, then He wouldn't save them THROUGH foolishness, the foolishness would be changed, FIRST.

You disappoint me. As much attention as you try to pay to proper exegesis you miss the entire point of that passage. The point is simply that unregenerate man, who is perishing, sees the Gospel as foolishness. God, because He habitually uses the things which the fallen world sees as foolishness to confound the self-proclaimed wisdom of man, is pleased and glorified to use what the very thing that those who are perishing see as foolishness to save believers. The very point of the passage is that God doesn't change the world's view of the Gospel because it lays low any right they think they're entitled to, because of how highly they esteem themselves, to salvation. Instead, God leaves them to their depraved, self-serving notions and uses the very thing they discount to manifest His divine will in the lives of believers.

That some submit to God, and some do not, is clear. Even the Israelites are condemned for THEIR unbelief. Rom9:32, Heb3:18-19. Disobedience and unbelief.

Uhhh...great. Thanks for summarizing what I just said. How about telling me WHY they do not believe when others clearly do?

Look at how we can obey or not --- in Heb12. It conveys "discipline", as something either we RECEIVE (as we did our earthly fathers), or NOT. How can we read 12:9 & 25, and not understand "discipline can be refused"?

Ben, I fail to see what you think any of this has to do with a refutation of Calvinism. Calvinists and other reformed Christians do not state that man doesn't resist the grace and instruction of God. Clearly we do. What's your point in pointing this out? Are you assuming that because man is so naturally disinclined to obey the Law of God that God is unable to accomplish His will if man so chooses to reject Him? One of the primary messages in the Gospel, despite what so many "free will" advocates wish to propose, is that man is impotent, not free. You all seem to make the Pelagian assumption that divine command assumes human liberty. It is catagorically untrue. Have you ever considered that one of the reasons that God commands obedience from those who are so disinclined to obey is to show them the depravity of their will and the weakness of their flesh?

If man's "willingness" is something "God (unilaterally) works in their hearts, to MAKE one "previously unwilling, WILLING" --- then how is that "free will"? It is not. That is not "my misunderstanding Reformed Theology", it's simply my assessment that "what you call 'free will' is not free at all".

Most of you "free will" advocates do not espouse the freedom of man's will. You purport the autonomy of man's will. First off, I do not subscribe to this empty term of "free will" that, in all reality, would be best served by removing it from our Christian vocabularies. Second, the freedom of man's will is in direct proportion to the bondage of his heart. Man will is free only in the sense that he makes choices according to that which he most desires and does so without external coersion. Simply, man chooses what he most wants.

Why does the Gospel convict one, and not another? Each decides to receive it or not, Don.

Once again, you only postpone the inevitable. Why does one decide to receive it and one does not?

Those in Acts2:37, WERE convicted. "Pierced to the heart", or "smitten in conscience". Those in 1Tim3:15 were convicted by the written word. But convicted nonetheless.

Why is the Gospel efficacious in piercing the heart of some but impotent in doing so for all who reject it?

Those in John5:39-40, chose NOT to receive it. Jesus says it plainly: "Those who love darkness (and evil things), do not come to the light; those who practice truth come to the light that their deeds be seen as wrought in God." Jn3:19-21

You don't ever truly answer this question. You just try to sidestep it. I understand that those who avoid the light do so because they love the darkness. Those who come to the light do so because they love God. My question goes beyond that. Why do some hate the light and some love it?

We are unable to convince you that Humans are sentient. It's not a case of "Pelagic-heresy" (that man has inherent goodness) --- but rather, "God calls everyone to salvation". And so called, depravity is overcome in enough measure to believe.

So if the depravity of all people is overcome in enough measure to believe why do some choose to believe while others, who are equally free to believe, choose to reject the light? Clearly the difference in the result is not due to some still being in bondage to their sinful nature nor is it due to the grace itself. That grace, according to you, frees everyone. Now, where does the difference lie?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

No one can come to me unless.. refers to the excluded group
the Father who sent me draws him... refers to the included group

Explain to me your reasoning for changing "no one" to "none of this group" and "him" to "all of this group?" Are we now just making up rules for biblical interpretation as we go along?

Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me... refers to the included group. Therefore, according to my understanding of the passage, the Father draws folks by the impact of His scriptures.

Okay. And the Word is clear that He draws them unerringly. So what's your point? You end up with the exact same result that I do so how is it that you think your "different understanding" contradicts mine?

Anybody that buys the lie that Jesus tells us to do stuff knowing we cannot do it, will believe anything.

Hey, congrats! You can feel proud that such heretics as Pelagius share your views. By the way, what do you make of this:

Matt 5:48
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Or this one:

Deut 6:5
Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Can we do those?

God bless