Problem with Election

[MDC]

Where in my post do I mention works? You must be a Calvinist. They allow themselves to insult others calling others all manner of false nasty names since burning at the stake was outlawed and “bend” the truth as they please. You guys think you’re predestined for Heaven no matter what so you let your anger have its way. Loving your neighbor or God is an optional extra for you guys or maybe a “should” on better days.

He was displaying love by telling you the truth you needed to hear

 

[MDC]

Why is it a failing if someone does not agree with you?
Why do you believe we're closed minded if we only agree with Jesus?

Where does Jesus say that works are not necessary?
Have I missed it?

Yes you have missed it. And the more truth shown to you the harder your heart gets

 

[InterestedApologist]

God saying it makes it true.

God is infinite and not finite. None of God's attributes (including His sovereignty) is are divisible from the others. No Reformed theologian believes otherwise.

Agreed, all of God’s attributes are indivisible. That said, issues arise in theologies that place greater emphasis on one over the others. I see this in Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists place special importance on sovereignty, and Armenians place special importance on justice.

And your point is?

Neither of these two points speak to the will of men.

Actually, God’s decision to save some and condemn others and the inability to say yes or no to it does directly conflict with free will.

If God chooses to make a new creation who will respond favorably to the gospel - it does not force that new creation to do so or force the old creation to not do so.

No Calvinist believes or teaches otherwise.

So you are part of a branch of Calvinism that does not hold to TULIP? You do not believe in the U or I? Are all men born with a chance at salvation?

No - no one's will is being controlled - only reinforced.

God hardens a heart which rejects Him and gives a new heart which will accept Him to some to the praise of His amazing grace.

But God pre-determines whether that heart will reject Him before they are born, correct?

Now you know the answer as to how these things can be so. I glad I had the opportunity to contribute to your understanding.

Unfortunately, no. I understand your perspective better, but as currently explained, I need more insight from you on precisely HOW two seemingly conflicting concepts harmonize within Calvinism. How, specifically, does free will exist simultaneously with a complete inability to have a choice in anything you do? Simply saying that they harmonize is not an explanation. Surely there is an accepted explanation for such a simple and straightforward question within Calvinism?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yes you have missed it. And the more truth shown to you the harder your heart gets

You have to have a pretty hard-heart to believe God purposefully and without any reason, sends people to hell.

Could you imagine: He made heaven and He made hell.
Then He thought He'd send some to heaven and some to hell.
I don't know that God.

And could you please post some scripture proving that JESUS said that it's not necessary to do good works/deeds?

 

[redleghunter]

No he wasn’t. I was saying what Calvinists day at times. It is not what anyone described in the Bible thought. That is my point.

Who wrote Ephesians? Paul right?

Ephesians 1: NASB
1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: 2Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly placesin Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace8which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

 

[redleghunter]

Shall I explain?

Only after exploring church history for a few years.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Only after exploring church history for a few years.

I have read enough of church history and enough of what men wrote regarding God to make me realize that those who lived long ago and never knew God as a man knows a friend had no idea of what they were talking about although if they were a theologian, ignorance never stopped them. You see, one might know church history as reported by men and one might know theology as thought up by men, but years of walking and talking with God will give one more insight that all the writings of all men who never did either put together. Jesus as a boy amazed the theologians of his day....all of them. You see, he talked with God HImself.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You have to have a pretty hard-heart to believe God purposefully and without any reason, sends people to hell.

Could you imagine: He made heaven and He made hell.
Then He thought He'd send some to heaven and some to hell.
I don't know that God.

And could you please post some scripture proving that JESUS said that it's not necessary to do good works/deeds?

My experience from talking to calvinists showed up two different kinds. One accepted the cruelty of God and themselves became as hard hearted as the god they believe predestined men for hell with no hope of escape or commit intellectual suicide embracing and espousing positions that cannot possible be both true. The prime example is they believe God predestines people for hell and is neverthelss kind. One has to shut down the mind to believe both. But the hard ones are really dangerous. Under Calvin these kind burned men and women at the stake or exiled them. As hard as the god they believe(d) in.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

He was displaying love by telling you the truth you needed to hear

I suppose Calvin was displaying love by burning men and women at the stake who disagree with him. I mean if that is the standard of what love is, then anything goes. Any cruelty one wants to do can be called "love."

 

[redleghunter]

I have read enough of church history and enough of what men wrote regarding God to make me realize that those who lived long ago and never knew God as a man knows a friend had no idea of what they were talking about although if they were a theologian, ignorance never stopped them. You see, one might know church history as reported by men and one might know theology as thought up by men, but years of walking and talking with God will give one more insight that all the writings of all men who never did either put together. Jesus as a boy amazed the theologians of his day....all of them. You see, he talked with God HImself.

So God tells you directly Reformed doctrine is evil?

And this direct revelation you receive instructs you to come here and poison the well.

 

[GodsGrace101]

My experience from talking to calvinists showed up two different kinds. One accepted the cruelty of God and themselves became as hard hearted as the god they believe predestined men for hell with no hope of escape or commit intellectual suicide embracing and espousing positions that cannot possible be both true. The prime example is they believe God predestines people for hell and is neverthelss kind. One has to shut down the mind to believe both. But the hard ones are really dangerous. Under Calvin these kind burned men and women at the stake or exiled them. As hard as the god they believe(d) in.

I agree.
How could God be loving and then destine persons to eternal torment?

Yes. One has to shut down the mind, as you've said.

We have a poster here that loves his dogs more than God loves his humans.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have thought about why this theology (Calvinism) appeals to people and I assume it is because it offers them full assurance of Heaven no matter how they behave. They hold God completely responsible for their salvation to include insuring their repentance and all that goes with it. This appeals to the less savory part of the human being but it promises the best for doing nothing and assures one that they cannot fail. I have seem that this blooms into the additional freedom of being as cruel or basically evil as one wants to other people. Heresies and wrong theologies appeal to something sinful in man. The real gospel only offers forgiveness for sin, which is a good thing. It does require repentance and walking with God such that a ma n learns to love God and love others which is not cheap nor easy at times. But this is the real gospel. The fakes one are always a lot easier.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

So God tells you directly Reformed doctrine is evil?

And this direct revelation you receive instructs you to come here and poison the well.

Did I say that God told me Calvinims is evil? We are soon going to end all discussion because you keep saying untruths about what I said. I offer scripture and reason that is so solid, all your team can do is throw mud or insist positions that are irrational and mutually exclusive. It is wearying to be falsely accused or told that cruelty is really gracious. What is more, I have seen that the position of Calvinism (which has recently repackaged itself under "reformed" which is deceptive telling a reasonable man something important) renders a man unable to consider anything else. There is a kind of blindness to scripture and reason that sets in.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I have thought about why this theology (Calvinism) appeals to people and I assume it is because it offers them full assurance of Heaven no matter how they behave. They hold God completely responsible for their salvation to include insuring their repentance and all that goes with it. This appeals to the less savory part of the human being but it promises the best for doing nothing and assures one that they cannot fail. I have seem that this blooms into the additional freedom of being as cruel or basically evil as one wants to other people. Heresies and wrong theologies appeal to something sinful in man. The real gospel only offers forgiveness for sin, which is a good thing. It does require repentance and walking with God such that a ma n learns to love God and love others which is not cheap nor easy at times. But this is the real gospel. The fakes one are always a lot easier.

2 Timothy 4:3
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,


Acts 20:28-30
28“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Mathew 15:9 Jesus said:
'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It's an involuntary reflex of the lawless grace crowd. Any hint of having to do anything in regards to salvation (like righteous behavior) generates a knee-jerk response to make sure you know the superiority of their gnosis.

Probably threatening that they are not predestined for heaven from the beginning of time.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This is a side line but frankly, I think that posters to take up a great deal of space with huge pictures are being rather selfish. It is a "look at me, isn't my post spiritual cause I got a pic of Jesus" advertisement. That has nothing to do with the OP but thought I would mention it. The humble sort do not put up pics showing how spiritual they are. Small pics are edifying. Ones that occupy 10x the space of their words are showing off.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I suppose Calvin was displaying love by burning men and women at the stake who disagree with him. I mean if that is the standard of what love is, then anything goes. Any cruelty one wants to do can be called "love."

Calvin and Servetus
by William Wileman

"A calm and impartial view of this sad subject has been reserved for this place, and for a chapter1 of its own. The immense advantage of having been able to consult and to weigh the evidence of the principal writers – certainly not fewer than forty – about the case of Servetus, besides several biographies of the man himself, will greatly aid the writer.

It is very common to hear the remark, ‘What about Servetus?’ or, ‘Who burned Servetus?’ There are three kinds of persons who thus flippantly ask a question of this nature. First, the Roman Catholics, who may judge it to be an unanswerable taunt to a Protestant. Second, those who are not in accord with the great doctrines of grace, as taught by Paul and Calvin, and embraced and loved by thousands still. Then there is a third kind of persons who can only be described as ill-informed. It is always desirable, and often useful, to really know something of what one professes to know.

I shall narrow the inquiry at the outset by saying that all Roman Catholics are ‘out of court.’ They burn heretics on principle, avowedly. This is openly taught by them; it is in the margin of their Bible; and it is even their boast that they do so. And, moreover, they condemned Servetus to be burned.

Those who misunderstand or misrepresent the doctrines of grace call for pity more than blame when they charge the death of Servetus upon those views of divine truth known as Calvinistic. Perhaps a little instruction would be of great value to such. It is very desirable to have clear ideas of what it is we are trying to understand. In most disputes this would make a clear pathway for thought and argument. Most controversies are more about terms than principles.

The third sort of persons are plainly incompetent to take up this case, for the simple reason that they know nothing whatever about it. Pressed for their reasons, they have to confess that they never at any time read a line about the matter.

The duty of the historian is not to plead, but to narrate facts. I shall do this as impartially as possible. One writer need not be imitated (W. H. Drummond, D.D.), who is not ashamed to disfigure his title-page: Life of Michael Servetus, who was entrapped, imprisoned, and burned by John Calvin. Less scurrilous, but equally prejudiced, is Dr. R. Willis. It is a weak case that needs the aid of ink mixed with abusive gall.

The simplest method of arranging my material will be to ask and to answer three questions. First, why was Servetus burned? Second, who burned him? Third, what part in the matter was taken by John Calvin?

Michael Servetus was born at Villanueva, in 1509. After a liberal education, he studied medicine, and anticipated Harvey in the discovery of the circulation of the blood. It appears that he had a lively genius, but was unstable, erratic, and weak. In 1530 he published a book On the Errors of the Trinity. His views need not be given here; one specimen will suffice to give an idea of them. He said that the doctrine of the Trinity was ‘a three-headed Cerberus, a dream of Augustine, and an invention of the devil.’ The book, however, on which his trial was based was his Restitutio Christianismi. Only two copies of this are known to exist, and both are out of England. I have seen a copy of the reprint of 1790. Servetus sent the manuscript of this to Calvin for his perusal, and a lengthy correspondence took place between them, extending from 1546 to 1548. Of this Calvin says: ‘When he was at Lyons he sent me three questions to answer. He thought to entrap me. That my answer did not satisfy him I am not surprised.’ To Servetus himself he wrote: ‘I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity.’

And now occurs what foundation there is on which is built the accusation against Calvin. It occurs in his well-known letter to Farel, dated February 13th, 1546.

Servetus wrote to me a short time ago, and sent a huge volume of his dreamings and pompous triflings with his letter. I was to find among them wonderful things, and such as I had never before seen; and if I wished, he would himself come. But I am by no means inclined to be responsible for him; and if he come, I will never allow him, supposing my influence worth anything, to depart alive.

There lived at Geneva at this time a Frenchman of Lyons named William Trie; and he had a relative at Lyons named Arneys, a Roman Catholic. After the publication of this book by Servetus, Trie wrote to his friend Arneys a letter in which he said that it was base for Protestants to be burned who really believed in Christ while such a man as Servetus should be permitted to live to publish his vile errors. Arneys placed this letter before the Inquisition at Lyons, and Cardinal Tournon arrested Servetus at once. Without giving the mass of details, it will be sufficient to say that Servetus escaped from prison one night by a pretext. His trial, however, proceeded in his absence; and on June 17th, 1552, the sentence of death, namely, ‘to be burned alive, at a slow fire, till his body he reduced to a cinder,’ was passed upon him by the Inquisition. On the same day, his effigy was burned, with five bales of his books.

After wandering for a time, he suddenly turned up in Geneva in July, and was arrested by the Council, which was at this time opposed to Calvin. What Calvin desired from Servetus was his recantation: ‘Would that we could have obtained a retractation from Servetus, as we did from Gentilis’. The thirty-eight articles of accusation were drawn up by Calvin. Two examinations took place. At the second of these, Servetus persisted in one of his errors, namely, that all things, ‘even this footstool,’ are the substance of God. After further examinations, these articles, with the replies of the accused man, were sent to the churches of Zurich, Berne, Basle, and Schaffhausen, with a request for their opinion. Farel’s reply is worthy of record: ‘It will be a wonder if that man, suffering death, should at the time turn to the Lord, dying only one death, whereas he has deserved to die a thousand times.’ In another letter, written from Neuchatel, September 8th, 1553, Farel says: ‘Your desire to mitigate the rigour of punishment is the service of a friend to one who is your mortal enemy. But I beseech you so to act as that no one shall hereafter seek with impunity to publish novel doctrines, and to embroil us all as Servetus has done.’

All these circumstances prove that his trial was lengthy, deliberate, and careful; and quite in harmony with the requirements of the age. All the Reformers who were consulted approved of the sentence that was pronounced. At the last stage of the trial, the discussion lasted for three days. The ‘lesser Council’ were unanimous; and the majority of the Great Council were in favour of capital punishment, and so decided on the last day. Sentence of death by fire was given on October 26th, to be carried into effect on the following day.

And now one man alone stands forth to plead for a mitigation of the sentence, namely, that another form of death be substituted for the stake. That one man was John Calvin. He interceded most earnestly with the judges for this, but in vain. Both Farel, who came to Geneva for the purpose, and Calvin, prayed with the unhappy man, and expressed themselves tenderly towards him. Both of them pleaded with the Council for the substitution of a milder mode of death; but the syndics were inflexible. The historian Paul Henry writes of this matter:

Calvin here appears in his real character; and a nearer consideration of the proceeding, examined from the point of view furnished by the age in which he lived, will completely exonerate him from all blame. His conduct was not determined by personal feeling; it was the consequence of a struggle which this great man had carried on for years against tendencies to a corruption of doctrine which threatened the church with ruin. Every age must be judged according to its prevailing laws; and Calvin cannot be fairly accused of any greater offence than that with which we may be charged for punishing certain crimes with death.

The main facts therefore may now be summarized thus:

1. That Servetus was guilty of blasphemy, of a kind and degree which is still punishable here in England by imprisonment.

2. That his sentence was in accordance with the spirit of the age.

3. That he had been sentenced to the same punishment by the Inquisition at Vienne.

4. That the sentence was pronounced by the Councils of Geneva, Calvin having no power either to condemn or to save him.

5. That Calvin and others visited the unhappy man in his last hours, treated him with much kindness, and did all they could to have the sentence mitigated.

Three hundred and fifty years after the death of Servetus, a ‘monument of expiation’ was erected on the spot where he suffered death at Champel, near Geneva. It bears the date of October 27th, 1903; but the unveiling ceremony was postponed until November 1st. On one side of this monument are recorded the birth and death of Servetus. On the front is this inscription:

Dutiful and grateful followers of Calvin our great Reformer, yet condemning an error which was that of his age, and strongly attached to liberty of conscience, according to the true principles of the Reformation and of the Gospel, we have erected this expiatory monument. October 27th, 1903.

Should the Roman Catholic Church desire to follow this example, and erect ‘monuments of expiation,’ let her first build one in Paris, and unveil it on August 24th (the date of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of the Huguenots – Ed.) And doubtless sites would gladly be given for the same purpose in Oxford, Coventry, Maidstone, Lewes, and other places in England. And should Romanists desire the alteration or abrogation of any oath, instead of tampering with the Coronation Oath of Great Britain, let them first annul the oath taken by every bishop at his consecration that he will pursue heretics to the death. All persecution on account of religion and conscience is a violation of the spirit of the gospel, and repugnant to the principles of true liberty.

Notes

1. This is from Chapter 15 of William Wileman’s (1848-1944) John Calvin: His Life, His Teaching and His Influence (London: Robert Banks & Son, ca. 1909).

Taken from Peace and Truth 2003:3; this was originally posted in Banner ‘Articles’ in October 2003.

www.sgu.org.uk

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I suppose Calvin was displaying love by burning men and women at the stake who disagree with him. I mean if that is the standard of what love is, then anything goes. Any cruelty one wants to do can be called "love."

A short quote from Wikipedia on Servetus:

"As Servetus was not a citizen of Geneva, and legally could at worst be banished, the government, in an attempt to find some plausible excuse to disregard this legal reality, had consulted other Swiss Reformed cantons (Zürich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen). They universally favored his condemnation and suppression of his doctrine, but without saying how that should be accomplished.[33] Martin Luther had condemned his writing in strong terms.[34] Servetus and Philip Melanchthon had strongly hostile views of each other. The party called the "Libertines", who were generally opposed to anything and everything John Calvin supported, were in this case strongly in favor of the execution of Servetus at the stake (while Calvin urged that he be beheaded instead). In fact, the council that condemned Servetus was presided over by Ami Perrin (a Libertine) who ultimately on 24 October sentenced Servetus to death by burning for denying the Trinity and infant baptism.[35] Calvin asked that he be beheaded instead of burnt, knowing that burning at the stake was the only legal recourse.[36] This plea was refused and on 27 October, Servetus was burnt alive—atop a pyre of his own books—at the Plateau of Champel at the edge of Geneva."

Even those strongly opposed to Calvin were in favor of the execution. I only wish the Councils of Geneva had shipped him back to Vienne where he escaped prison. However, it would have sent a message to other heretics to those who cared not for the souls of men desiring to follow in the footsteps of Servetus. Somewhere I read that (at least) one such person was detoured from following in the footsteps of Servetus after the execution of Servetus.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the sentence was pronounced by the Councils of Geneva, not Calvin. If Calvin had the authority, Servetus would have been beheaded, rather than burned. That in itself shows where Calvin stood with the Councils.

As for sic implications that John Calvin (while not even a citizen), took some twisted delight in the burning of Servetus when it could not be further from the truth, Tim Challies states truthfully on his blog:

"It should be noted that Calvin was the only person who suggested a lighter sentence, asking the court to allow Servetus to die painlessly by beheading. Calvin prayed with and for Servetus and earlier in his life had sent Servetus a copy of his Institutes. Interestingly, Servetus returned the book with many abusive and insulting comments written in the margins. Despite this offense, Calvin showed clear pastoral concern for this man’s soul." tim challies blog

John Calvin only had a part in Servetus' arrest and investigation, as in recommending to Genevian authorities to investigate him. He was sorry that Servetus went against his advice to come to Geneva, and sorry the council did not give him a quicker less painful death. Not only is there no evidence of John Calvin being unrepentant, it is a judgmental attitude considering he:

"preached over two thousand sermons. He preached twice on Sunday and almost every weekday. His sermons lasted more than an hour and he did not use notes." (not to mention tens of thousands of pages of commentary on Scripture, the first Protestant systematic theology, among his many other writings)

"Within Geneva, Calvin's main concern was the creation of a collège, an institute for the education of children. Although the school was a single institution, it was divided into two parts: a grammar school called the collège and an advanced school called the académie. Within five years there were 1,200 students in the grammar school and 300 in the advanced school. The collège eventually became the Collège Calvin, one of the college preparatory schools of Geneva, while the académie became the University of Geneva."

"when he could not walk the couple of hundred yards to church, he was carried in a chair to preach. When the doctor forbade him to go out in the winter air to the lecture room, he crowded the audience into his bedroom and gave lectures there. To those who would urge him to rest, he asked, “What? Would you have the Lord find me idle when he comes?”

None of these historical facts bear the mark of a bitter unrepentant sinner.

It is difficult today to even wrap the mind around what it would have been like to live in Europe during the Reformation times. Blood was shed on every side in the region, consider the Puritan John Foxe and his "Book of Martyrs", with descriptions of executions of Protestants under "bloody" Mary I. Catholics and Protestant persecuted the Anabaptists. It was a dark time in Christian history, let's be careful not to put out the few Protestant lights that burned especially bright in a time of great darkness.

 

[ladodgers6]

Hi @ladodgers6
You bring up too many points and no time today,
but you said this:

Calvinism says that the grace of God which created the new willing man is irresistible. But it simply does not address the concept of the new man being able to or not being able to refuse the gospel if he were so inclined.

If something is IRRESISTIBLE, HOW am I able to decide against it??? It means I CANNOT decide against it.

irresistible
ɪrɪˈzɪstɪb(ə)l/
adjective

1. too attractive and tempting to be resisted.
   "he found the delicious-looking cakes irresistible"
   sinonimi: tempting, enticing, alluring, inviting, seductive; Altro
   • too powerful or convincing to be resisted.
     "she felt an irresistible urge to object"
     sinonimi: uncontrollable, overwhelming, overpowering, compelling, compulsive, besetting, irrepressible, ungovernable;

irresistible
US /ˌɪr·ɪˈzɪs·tə·bəl/
impossible to refuse, oppose, or avoid because too pleasant,attractive, or strong:


irresistible
(ɪrɪzɪstɪbəl
1. adjective
If you describe something such as a desire or force as irresistible, you mean that it is so powerful that it makes you act in a certain way, and there is nothing you can do to preventthis.

I do agree with you here, believe or not. We do not know who created the term TULIP. But this acronym was created to help people remember these Doctrines.

Here is a excerpt from a prominent leader Michael Horton in Reformed Theology next R.C. Sproul. Limited atonement (the "L" in TULIP) is an unfortunate label, found in no Reformed confession. It is better to speak of the work of Christ as specific or definite in its intention and scope. Alternative terms such as "Definite Atonement" or "Particular Redemption" seem more useful in clarifying this position.

Why does he said this? Because people get confused or do not understand what we are saying. Like in your post here. We believe the Atonement has a efficacy position. Christ's Atonement has a purpose or plan of what it will do. Not just make it possible to be saved. Because as discussed before about Prevenient Grace. You believe there is a place between Life and Death where sinners are placed to make their decision to be saved or perish. And nowhere in Scripture; partial regeneration is taught. Either we are ALIVE in Christ or Dead in Sin! And in Ephesians Paul is clear that God MADE US ALIVE, "WHILE" we were DEAD. And who is the only ONE that can resurrect us?

Just think about it before you respond.

Here is an excerpt from R.C. Sproul on the "L" word. Please do not misunderstand me. I do believe in the teaching of the TULIP. We just prefer Particular or Definite Atonement, because it does not confuse what we mean by it.

Particular Atonement​

However, the idea of irresistibility conjures up the idea that one cannot possibly offer any resistance to the grace of God. However, the history of the human race is the history of relentless resistance to the sweetness of the grace of God. Irresistible grace does not mean that God’s grace is incapable of being resisted. Indeed, we are capable of resisting God’s grace, and we do resist it. The idea is that God’s grace is so powerful that it has the capacity to overcome our natural resistance to it. It is not that the Holy Spirit drags people kicking and screaming to Christ against their wills. The Holy Spirit changes the inclination and disposition of our wills, so that whereas we were previously unwilling to embrace Christ, now we are willing, and more than willing. Indeed, we aren’t dragged to Christ, we run to Christ, and we embrace Him joyfully because the Spirit has changed our hearts. They are no longer hearts of stone that are impervious to the commands of God and to the invitations of the gospel. God melts the hardness of our hearts when He makes us new creatures. The Holy Spirit resurrects us from spiritual death, so that we come to Christ because we want to come to Christ. The reason we want to come to Christ is because God has already done a work of grace in our souls. Without that work, we would never have any desire to come to Christ. That’s why we say that regeneration precedes faith.

I have a little bit of a problem using the term irresistible grace, not because I don’t believe this classical doctrine, but because it is misleading to many people. Therefore, I prefer the term effectual grace, because the irresistible grace of God effects what God intends it to effect.

Think of it as with the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus. Was Saul able to resist it? Did God's Grace complete its effect on what God wanted? Did Saul convert into Paul? Was Paul shown the Truth and believe it? Or did Saul resist it and blame God for doing this to him? Or did Paul trust Christ and followed him?

Just think on it, Pray on it, and ask God for wisdom to understand this.

God Bless!

In Christ Our Justification, Sanctification, and Redemption 1 Cor. 1:30

 

[redleghunter]

Did I say that God told me Calvinims is evil? We are soon going to end all discussion because you keep saying untruths about what I said. I offer scripture and reason that is so solid, all your team can do is throw mud or insist positions that are irrational and mutually exclusive. It is wearying to be falsely accused or told that cruelty is really gracious. What is more, I have seen that the position of Calvinism (which has recently repackaged itself under "reformed" which is deceptive telling a reasonable man something important) renders a man unable to consider anything else. There is a kind of blindness to scripture and reason that sets in.

I have yet to see you provide any exegesis of Holy Scriptures.