Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
agapē----love
Jesus said; 'True religion is this; that you visit the widows, and feed the orphans.'
James 1:26-27
Indeed. Also:
Matthew 5:43-48
You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Did God set an example for us when He invited all men alike, even those for whom He designed the call to be a savour of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation?
Indeed. Also:
Matthew 5:43-48
You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Did God set an example for us when He invited all men alike, even those for whom He designed the call to be a savour of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation?
Indeed. Also:
Matthew 5:43-48
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Did God set an example for us when He invited all men alike, even those for whom He designed the call to be a savour of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation?
Am I to be perfect, just like this?
This makes absolutely no sense. Why would He do that? No one has given a reasonable answer.There is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation.
Why is there no clear and unambiguous verses that teach this?Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts.
What does "ingratitude" have to do with anything, if it all up to God who will believe or not? Again, this isn't making any sense.Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness. Institutes 3.24.8
Wait. The beginning of the quote from the "Institutes" noted "There is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation." Looks as though he did. But for no apparent reason.So Calvin did NOT teach that God calls all men to salvation as Calvinists erroneously teach.
Thanks for the information. It certainly doesn't make any sense for a Calvinist to claim that there is a general call to the non-elect.Third, John Gill denied the "general call" doctrine. I know of no Calvinist who who accuses Gill of being a hyper-Calvinist. Gill taught that God calls only those who are thirsty to come.
The Calvinist's "general call" doctrine is absurd and thoroughly contradictory!
I agree. God does NOT call the non-elect at all. I have said many times here that God leaves the non-elect alone. God doesn't even bother with them. The gospel goes right over their heads.This makes absolutely no sense. Why would He do that? No one has given a reasonable answer.
Specifically, WHY call someone who He has not chosen? It is senseless.
There is no reasonable answer. God would not call those He has no intention of saving as modern Calvinists teach. And He would not call them to increase their condemnation as Calvin taught. Eternal damnation is eternal damnation.No one has given a reasonable answer.
God does NOT call the non-elect at all.
I agree. God does NOT call the non-elect at all. I have said many times here that God leaves the non-elect alone. God doesn't even bother with them. The gospel goes right over their heads.
I was citing Calvin only to show that his "universal call" doctrine does not resemble the "general call" doctrine that modern Calvinists teach.
John Gill had it right. There is no universal call to all men to be saved. God calls only those who thirst.
There is no reasonable answer. God would not call those He has no intention of saving as modern Calvinists teach. And He would not call them to increase their condemnation as Calvin taught. Eternal damnation is eternal damnation.
There is no reasonable answer. God would not call those He has no intention of saving as modern Calvinists teach. And He would not call them to increase their condemnation as Calvin taught. Eternal damnation is eternal damnation.
We know from Galatians 4:22-31 that Hagar and Sarai allegorically represent two covenants: Hagar the covenant of the law and Sarai that of the promise.
Galatians 4:23,24,28
His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.
So, in Romans 9:6b ('For they are not all Israel which are of Israel') it is clear that those that are the children of promise are true Israel, whilst those that are the children of the flesh are not. It is also clear that the additional examples of Jacob and Esau are not to be taken literally but allegorically.
Romans 9:10-13
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; ( For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; ) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Paul is asserting that his fellow Israelites must be as (like) Isaac (children of promise) rather than like Ishmael (children of the flesh). Paul is not averring that Isaac was eternally saved and Ishmael was not. They allegorically represent the two covenants.No allegory.
When Paul asks if God is unjust, he is asking if God is unjust to exclude the children of the flesh (those that pursue righteousness through the law) from being his children. In the very next chapter, Paul explicitly talks about this pursuit of righteousness:
Romans 10:1-4
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.
God has mercy on whomsoever he wishes - that is, God provides the mercy - Jesus Christ - and anyone who puts their faith in Him is adopted as a Son.
Paul's conclusion is telling (v.30-32). It confirms that God does not foreordain some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation.
Agreed!
Just ol' old Jack trying to dial in the minors
Posting only for cleanups in the minors, ie, we agree pretty much in the majors, eg, you could care less what agape truly means (not a put down as most could care less in today's time); however areas that those that agree to disagree can present a good argument pulling out the sand where our building topples (in the majors that we do agree upon).
For openers, Gal.4, "Things of this character have been spoken conveying (also) another meaning....." My ol' buddy Mr. Luther was close in his German rendering, and Mr. Chemnitz with others cleaned it up to where I shared their collective rendition.
Even Philo, the past master of allegory, called whate he found in this passage, not allegory, but in a spiritual sense. Keeping this brief only to give you a head's up that there is a necessary cleanup needed in the minors.
No allegory here either, ie, spiritual as in Gal.4:24.
"...Jacob have I agaped,..." Using the English structure of thoughts regarding the concept of "love," as compared to the Greek "agape," perverts this passage along with about hundreds of others. Already addressed this many times previously.
Paul is asserting that his fellow Israelites must be as (like) Isaac (children of promise) rather than like Ishmael (children of the flesh). Paul is not averring that Isaac was eternally saved and Ishmael was not. They allegorically represent the two covenants.
No allegory.
Agreed!
Just ol' old Jack trying to dial in the minors
Sorry, but I don't understand you.
I believe there is just one call; to mankind. Some respond, while others reject.I agree. God does NOT call the non-elect at all. I have said many times here that God leaves the non-elect alone. God doesn't even bother with them. The gospel goes right over their heads.
I was citing Calvin only to show that his "universal call" doctrine does not resemble the "general call" doctrine that modern Calvinists teach.
John Gill had it right. There is no universal call to all men to be saved. God calls only those who thirst.
There is no reasonable answer. God would not call those He has no intention of saving as modern Calvinists teach. And He would not call them to increase their condemnation as Calvin taught. Eternal damnation is eternal damnation.
I believe there is just one call; to mankind. Some respond, while others reject.
Actually, I don't assume that. I've conceded the point for the sake of argument. Because the invitation went out through the kingdom, "many" could mean all, but it doesn't have to.The two parables are both about the unfaithful stewardship of the Jewish leaders. Both parables are against them. Btw, you also read things into the text that aren't there. The parable does NOT teach a "general call" of salvation to all men. It says that many are called and not that all are called. You have been conditioned to see things that aren't there.
Thanks for admitting that you added to scripture to further your view. There's nowhere in the parable that says that, or that they invited some whom they weren't authorized to invite. The man was there for the same reason a lot of people are in church. He was looking for what God could give, not God himself. The fact that he wasn't clothed in the kings garments attests to that.First, my statement "Let's call these too" was ad-libbing on my part. The servants clearly called some whom they were not authorized to invite. Explain why one who was not clothed properly was invited?
All I've said is that a call (external) goes out. In other words, the preaching of the gospel.Second, Calvin himself did not teach that God calls all men to salvation. He said that God brings the gospel to them to further condemn them. In commenting on Jesuss statement that many are called but few are chosen Calvin said,
[T]here is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation. Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness. Institutes 3.24.8
So Calvin did NOT teach that God calls all men to salvation as Calvinists erroneously teach.
Actually, there are some who have said that he leans towards hyper-Calvinism.Third, John Gill denied the "general call" doctrine. I know of no Calvinist who who accuses Gill of being a hyper-Calvinist. Gill taught that God calls only those who are thirsty to come.
No, it's not. And if you understood what Calvin said in his quote, you wouldn't make that statement.The Calvinist's "general call" doctrine is absurd and thoroughly contradictory!
Interesting theory. Where does he get his "material"?The Boxer has said that the elect are regenerated in the womb - so they are primed to be 'thirst' for the gospel.
I agree. God does NOT call the non-elect at all. I have said many times here that God leaves the non-elect alone. God doesn't even bother with them. The gospel goes right over their heads.
I was citing Calvin only to show that his "universal call" doctrine does not resemble the "general call" doctrine that modern Calvinists teach.
John Gill had it right. There is no universal call to all men to be saved. God calls only those who thirst.
There is no reasonable answer. God would not call those He has no intention of saving as modern Calvinists teach. And He would not call them to increase their condemnation as Calvin taught. Eternal damnation is eternal damnation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?