The Doctrines Of Grace

[PrincetonGuy]

It is on this historical and theological presupposition, that the doctrines of grace "were first taught in the 16th century" and that no one before then considered divine grace irresistable, that your entire argument descends into error.

Are you familiar with the late 4th and 5th century writings of Augustine of Hippo? From about 396 to his death in 432, Augustine unabashedly declared the sovereignty of God in salvation, the inability of man to desire the things of God, and the irresistability of divine grace. For starters, try reading his letter to the bishop Simplicianus, De diuersis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum. In this letter Augustine embarks on an extensive exegesis of Romans 7-9, in which he departs from the standard moralizing reading of Romans of the previous church fathers and instead sides entirely with Paul.

In the post that you have quoted me out of context, I also wrote,

It is true that “the text literally stipulates that all whom the Father gives to Jesus WILL come to Him,” but this does not even remotely suggest that “God’s saving grace is irresistible.”

Luke 12:34. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!

Jesus himself says here very plainly that God's saving grace is not only resistible, but that it was resisted by the city of Jerusalem. God had not given them to Jesus, so they did not come to Him. All who come to Jesus will be received by Him, but the multitudes who resist God's saving grace will not come to Him, and hence they will not be received by Him.

But what does it mean to be given to Jesus by the Father? The Father, upon our choosing to believe in Jesus by our own free will, gives us to Jesus. The city of Jerusalem chose not to believe in Jesus, consequently it was not given to Jesus.

Originally Posted by TimRout
Then again, a little further down the page:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." [Jn. 6:44/NASB]

Assuming you aren't arguing for universalism (in which God draws everyone to Christ), the only logical reading of this verse leaves us with:

a) The inability of the natural man to come to Christ.
b) The causal agent (the Father) who draws a person to Christ.
c) The salvation in Christ of every person whom the Father draws.

And that, my friend, is what we call Irresistible Grace. All whom the Father gives to the Son will be saved. All whom the Father draws to the Son will be saved. While synergists often argue that God draws everyone, and those who choose to respond are then given to Christ, this position is unsupportable in the context of John 6.

a) The natural man comes to Christ by faith when the Father draws him.
b) No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, making the preaching of the gospel vital to the salvation of men. When men hear the gospel, they are drawn to Christ by the Father through the ministry of the Holy Spirit; some men yield to the drawing and come to Christ, others resist and do not come.
c) This verse does not even remotely suggest that every person who the Father draws to Christ yields to the drawing resulting in his salvation. Indeed, “many are called, but few are chosen.”


Originally Posted by TimRout
Consider the efficacious preaching of Paul and Barnabas:

"For so the Lord has commanded us,
'I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES,
THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'" When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."

Who among the Gentiles were saved at the preaching of Paul's gospel? Those who had been appointed unto eternal life. And by what means were they saved? Faith alone --- they believed. Again brother, irresistible grace.


I'll stop there and give you a chance to respond.

Reading the words of the New Testament in context is important to their correct interpretation.

Acts 13:44. The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.
45. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming.
46. Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
47. "For so the Lord has commanded us, 'I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.' "
48. When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
49. And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region.
50. But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.
51. But they shook off the dust of their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium.
52. And the disciples were continually filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.


The preaching of Paul and Barnabas here in Acts 13 is indeed efficacious in the case of the Gentiles; but it was not efficacious in the case of the Jews. Both heard the gospel; the Jews resisted it; the Gentiles yielded to it. Was the Father not, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, tugging at the hearts of the Jews for their salvation? Of course He was, for God does not desire for anyone to perish.

2 Peter 3:9. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
​

My argument was not based upon the teaching of Church for the first 1500 years; my argument was based upon the Scriptures, providing an academically sound interpretation that is in harmony with what many early Christians believed and taught.

Yes, of course I am familiar with the Roman Catholic scholar Saint Augustine of Hippo, his early life, his writings that are found in the collected writings of Saint Augustine, and his writings that are not found in his collected writings because they reflect his deteriorated state of mind close to the end of his life (commonly known as The Retractions of Saint Augustine). And, of course, I am familiar with the influence that this Roman Catholic scholar had upon the theology of John Calvin. The critical point here is that a few of the rudimentary elements of the “TULIP” are found in the writing of Augustine, but nowhere in Augustine’s writing nor in any other writing prior to the 16th century do we find and of the five doctrines of the “TULIP” as Calvin taught them and as they are understood today by persons of the Reformed faith, whether Presbyterians, Baptists, or whatever.

The Scriptures are, I believe, the final authority of our Christian faith, and I based my post upon a few of the very many Scriptures in the New Testament that teach that God's saving grace is not only resistible, but that it was resisted by many in the New Testament, including the city of Jerusalem and the Jews to whom Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel. My interpretation of these passages of Scripture is in harmony with what many taught in the early Church, the Reformed interpretation is not.

(All quotations from Scripture are from the NASB, 1995)

 

[Vince53]

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men....
7 The same [John the Baptist] came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe...
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

No, this passage does not teach universalism, because men can reject or accept the light of Christ. But everyone has the light of Christ "that all men through him might believe."

 

[student ad x]

My argument was not based upon the teaching of Church for the first 1500 years; my argument was based upon the Scriptures, providing an academically sound interpretation that is in harmony with what many early Christians believed and taught.

While the debate of God's sovereign grace went forward for 1300 years, a unity was preached for the first few centuries that in no way contradicts monergistic grace nor was stagnant in the minds of the physicians arguing heresies of the day to my knowledge. If beginning with someone such as Cyprian you can give examples that support your claim.

Yes, of course I am familiar with the Roman Catholic scholar Saint Augustine of Hippo, his early life, his writings that are found in the collected writings of Saint Augustine, and his writings that are not found in his collected writings because they reflect his deteriorated state of mind close to the end of his life (commonly known as The Retractions of Saint Augustine).

The retractions give support to the Augustinian/Calvinistic reformed position contra to Augustine's earlier immature suppositions. It is your perogative to claim a deterioriated mind, but give some documentation, since the body of Christ depended on His teachings in this epoch to have confidence of salvation. If I am in error in my understanding of this, my brothers will correct me.

And, of course, I am familiar with the influence that this Roman Catholic scholar had upon the theology of John Calvin. The critical point here is that a few of the rudimentary elements of the “TULIP” are found in the writing of Augustine, but nowhere in Augustine’s writing nor in any other writing prior to the 16th century do we find and of the five doctrines of the “TULIP” as Calvin taught them and as they are understood today by persons of the Reformed faith, whether Presbyterians, Baptists, or whatever.

With all due respect, this seems to be fluff for a debate point.

The Scriptures are, I believe, the final authority of our Christian faith, and I based my post upon a few of the very many Scriptures in the New Testament that teach that God's saving grace is not only resistible, but that it was resisted by many in the New Testament, including the city of Jerusalem and the Jews to whom Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel.

The words from our King in John 6 disagrees with your assertion. All that the Father gives to me will come to me and I will not cast out and it's antithesis, those not called are not mine. The 'cows will jump over the moon' before our Kings words will be contradicted.

My interpretation of these passages of Scripture is in harmony with what many taught in the early Church, the Reformed interpretation is not.

Since a systematic theology was not required to defend the faith before someone like Augustine against philosophical heresies, would you care to give support for your assertion for the many who taught.

(All quotations from Scripture are from the NASB, 1995)

That is fine with me.
I'll be looking forward to your answers, as a Baptist.

 

[the particular baptist]

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men....
7 The same [John the Baptist] came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe...
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

No, this passage does not teach universalism, because men can reject or accept the light of Christ. But everyone has the light of Christ "that all men through him might believe.|

No, it does not descriptively, implicitly, or explicitly, "teach" that men have the ability to accept or reject. What the text does do is qualify who the "all men" are, just a few verses later in vs 13.

Show me specifically in the text where all men's salvation hinge on a choice for or against Christ. What then, do you do with the thousands who die in their sins today without Christ, and never having heard of Him ? Were they born of God ?

And if thats the case, and its not, why would the Holy Spirit just a few verses later contradict Himself and say in no way can a man be born again of the the will of the flesh or the will of man, but a man must be born of God.

John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[RobertZ]

c) This verse does not even remotely suggest that every person who the Father draws to Christ yields to the drawing resulting in his salvation. Indeed, “many are called, but few are chosen.”



​

I would love to hear a Calvinist interpretation of "Many are called but few are chosen"

I really dont see any way around this scripture other than the fact that many are dealt with by the Holy Spirit but only a few respond.

 

[RobertZ]

I think Mathew Henry sums it up.

The day is coming, when hypocrites will be called to account for all their presumptuous intruding into gospel ordinances, and usurpation of gospel privileges. Take him away. Those that walk unworthy of Christianity, forfeit all the happiness they presumptuously claimed. Our Saviour here passes out of the parable into that which it teaches. Hypocrites go by the light of the gospel itself down to utter darkness. Many are called to the wedding-feast, that is, to salvation, but few have the wedding-garment, the righteousness of Christ, the sanctification of the Spirit. Then let us examine ourselves whether we are in the faith, and seek to be approved by the King.


Matthew 22:14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

 

[mlqurgw]

I would love to hear a Calvinist interpretation of "Many are called but few are chosen"

I really dont see any way around this scripture other than the fact that many are dealt with by the Holy Spirit but only a few respond.

Many are called by the preaching of the Gospel. It is an outward call that lays before all the testimony of the mercy of God in Christ. But many do not hear the call inwardly with the heart. They hear it with the ears but it goes in one and out the other. Those who are chosen are made by the grace of God to hear not only with the ears but with the heart. They are the ones who not only hear the call but heed the call.

 

[RobertZ]

Many are called by the preaching of the Gospel. It is an outward call that lays before all the testimony of the mercy of God in Christ. But many do not hear the call inwardly with the heart. They hear it with the ears but it goes in one and out the other. Those who are chosen are made by the grace of God to hear not only with the ears but with the heart. They are the ones who not only hear the call but heed the call.

That makes sense and im afraid that I know which one of those categories I fit into. You guys pray for me please, I know I cant change my own heart as its up to God, im without hope unless God speaks to my heart again.

 

[Tzaousios]

In the post that you have quoted me out of context, I also wrote

By no means was it quoted out of context. Your comment about the historicity of the "doctrines of grace" was self-contained and thus able to be challenged on its own merits. Saying it was taken out of context in this instance is just a deflection tactic.

My argument was not based upon the teaching of Church for the first 1500 years; my argument was based upon the Scriptures, providing an academically sound interpretation that is in harmony with what many early Christians believed and taught.

Nevertheless, you made a categorical statement about the historicity of the "doctrines of grace" in which you asserted that they were not taught in concept before the sixteenth century. This assertion can be challenged and I did challenge it.

Yes, of course I am familiar with the Roman Catholic scholar Saint Augustine of Hippo...

You sure take great pains to make sure everyone knows that Augustine was a "Roman Catholic scholar." Does that carry some sort of stigma in your mind? You are trying to employ a fallacious guilt-by-association tactic here and it will not fly.

...his early life, his writings that are found in the collected writings of Saint Augustine, and his writings that are not found in his collected writings because they reflect his deteriorated state of mind close to the end of his life (commonly known as The Retractions of Saint Augustine).

What is the distinction that you are making between "found" and "not found" in his collected writings? It appears to be another diversionary tactic on your part.

What do you mean by "deteriorated state of mind"? This is an unsubstantiated remark that is merely opinion and ad hominem. Further deflection and diversion on your part.

And, of course, I am familiar with the influence that this Roman Catholic scholar had upon the theology of John Calvin. The critical point here is that a few of the rudimentary elements of the “TULIP” are found in the writing of Augustine, but nowhere in Augustine’s writing nor in any other writing prior to the 16th century do we find and of the five doctrines of the “TULIP” as Calvin taught them and as they are understood today by persons of the Reformed faith, whether Presbyterians, Baptists, or whatever.

Here we have again, Augustine the "Roman Catholic scholar," only now this epithet is joined to a mentioning of John Calvin and TULIP. More fallacious guilt-by-association and failure to deal with the real historical theological issues.

The Scriptures are, I believe, the final authority of our Christian faith, and I based my post upon a few of the very many Scriptures in the New Testament that teach that God's saving grace is not only resistible, but that it was resisted by many in the New Testament, including the city of Jerusalem and the Jews to whom Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel. My interpretation of these passages of Scripture is in harmony with what many taught in the early Church, the Reformed interpretation is not.

No one here is asserting that they are relying on other sources over and beyond Scripture nor denying that they are the final authority of the Christian faith. This is just another deflection tactic meant to paint your opponents as big bad traditionalist Roman Catholics.

Once again, I will reiterate that that categorical statements you made about Augustine and the historical-theological development of the doctrines of grace were self-contained and therefore able to be challenged on their own merits.

That being said, it must be pointed out that those statements were categorically false on both a historical and a theological basis. Augustine's letter De diuersis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum was written in 396, which is over thirty years before he died. It is not exactly a "later writing" and also is not contaminated by his supposed "deteriorated mind" even if we take that assertion as being true. If you had read this important document you would have seen that the concepts of the doctrines of grace are very much present and exegeted masterfully from Scripture.

 

[Hammster]

I would love to hear a Calvinist interpretation of "Many are called but few are chosen"



I really dont see any way around this scripture other than the fact that many are dealt with by the Holy Spirit but only a few respond.

You need to look at the context of that verse in relationship to the parable. Who did the invitation go out to? When it went out, did anyone accept? Is there somewhere in the parable where it states that those at the wedding feast chose to be there?

Also, keeping in context of the parable, "call" is not used in the same way as it is used in other passages like Romans8:30.

 

[Vince53]

In order to make their system work, Calvinist philosophers invented the doctrine of irresistible grace. Since the Bible teaches that God gives everyone the power and ability to accept Christ, it was necessary for Calvinists to divide grace into two types: useless grace, in which God pretends to call men to Himself; and irrestistible grace, in which God pretends that people come to Him.

Acts 7:51 ¶Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Calvinists explain away this verse by saying that God only gave these men phoney grace, and they were not able to receive it. But Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men," shows that these men had resisted genuine grace.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

No one here is asserting that they are relying on other sources over and beyond Scripture nor denying that they are the final authority of the Christian faith. This is just another deflection tactic meant to paint your opponents as big bad traditionalist Roman Catholics.

Once again, I will reiterate that that categorical statements you made about Augustine and the historical-theological development of the doctrines of grace were self-contained and therefore able to be challenged on their own merits.

That being said, it must be pointed out that those statements were categorically false on both a historical and a theological basis. Augustine's letter De diuersis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum was written in 396, which is over thirty years before he died. It is not exactly a "later writing" and also is not contaminated by his supposed "deteriorated mind" even if we take that assertion as being true. If you had read this important document you would have seen that the concepts of the doctrines of grace are very much present and exegeted masterfully from Scripture.

I wrote nothing at all to imply or suggest that anyone in this thread is “relying on other sources over and beyond Scripture” or “denying that they are the final authority of the Christian faith.” Therefore, this alleged “deflection tactic” was not used in my post. Neither did I mean “to paint [my] opponents as big bad traditionalist Roman Catholics.” Anyone who is familiar with my posts regarding Roman Catholics knows very well that I have defended them rather than castigated them.

Perhaps you are not familiar with The Retractions of Saint Augustine; they were written in the last few years of his life and they are not included, for the reasons that I posted, in any of the collected writing of Saint Augustine. Nonetheless, there are some scholars who do not believe that The Retractions represent Augustine’s “deteriorated state of mind” (I did not write "deteriorated mind” as you incorrectly quoted me). For this view, and some basic information regarding the contents and historical value of The Retractions, please see here: http://www.augnet.org/default.asp?ipageid=272

I am weary from being wrongly quoted and misunderstood; therefore I shall take leave of this thread.

 

[the particular baptist]

In order to make their system work, Calvinist philosophers invented the doctrine of irresistible grace. Since the Bible teaches that God gives everyone the power and ability to accept Christ, it was necessary for Calvinists to divide grace into two types: useless grace, in which God pretends to call men to Himself; and irrestistible grace, in which God pretends that people come to Him.

Acts 7:51 ¶Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Calvinists explain away this verse by saying that God only gave these men phoney grace, and they were not able to receive it. But Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men," shows that these men had resisted genuine grace.

Why the prooftexting? Please use sound exegesis from Scripture in context that all men for all time have been atoned for and the only thing separating them from heaven is to will themselves saved. While youre at it, explain the thousands who die in their sins every day who have never heard the Gospel. Are they saved, and if not on what basis are they judged and sent to hell.

 

[Tzaousios]

I wrote nothing at all to imply or suggest that anyone in this thread is “relying on other sources over and beyond Scripture” or “denying that they are the final authority of the Christian faith.” Therefore, this alleged “deflection tactic” was not used in my post. Neither did I mean “to paint [my] opponents as big bad traditionalist Roman Catholics.” Anyone who is familiar with my posts regarding Roman Catholics knows very well that I have defended them rather than castigated them.

Alright. If you feel that because Augustine comes out of the Roman Catholic Church, he is considered a saint and a doctor of theology in it afterall, he is not tainted by that association, why did you say that he had a deterioriated mind when he wrote his later writings?

What is the distinction you are making between the things he wrote when his mind was not deterioriated and the things he wrote when his mind was deteriorated?

Perhaps you are not familiar with The Retractions of Saint Augustine; they were written in the last few years of his life and they are not included, for the reasons that I posted, in any of the collected writing of Saint Augustine. Nonetheless, there are some scholars who do not believe that The Retractions represent Augustine’s “deteriorated state of mind” (I did not write "deteriorated mind” as you incorrectly quoted me). For this view, and some basic information regarding the contents and historical value of The Retractions

I am familiar with the Retractationes of Augustine. However, his purpose for writing this work was not to "retract" things he thought were in grave error or things he wished he had not said. Rather, it was to expand upon points that he never had the chance to delve into in detail because of his duties as a bishop.

Besides, the Retractationes does not repudiate any of the concepts of the doctrines of grace which he detailed extensively in his letter De diuersis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum in 396. Something tells me you have not read this work and are trying to deflect attention from your seemingly not knowing what it contains. If you knew what was in it, you would see that your historical-theological argument falls to pieces.

I am weary from being wrongly quoted and misunderstood; therefore I shall take leave of this thread.

It seems that you do not want to face the challenge that I have put forward against your assertions about the history of the doctrines of grace. Alright, you have exonerated yourself from the charge of baiting and mudslinging. Are you going to face the challenge that I have put forward about the historical theology?

 

[TimRout]

Thoughts On Irresistible Grace
​

In order to make their system work, Calvinist philosophers invented the doctrine of irresistible grace. Since the Bible teaches that God gives everyone the power and ability to accept Christ, it was necessary for Calvinists to divide grace into two types: useless grace, in which God pretends to call men to Himself; and irrestistible grace, in which God pretends that people come to Him.

Acts 7:51 ¶Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

When Calvinists say that God's grace is "irresistible", we mean that man has no power to overcome the Holy Spirit. We do not mean that man is incapable of hating God, rejecting God, or bucking the goads of righteous inclination. Indeed, the natural man is an enemy of God and is incapable of subjecting himself to righteous authority [Ro. 8:6-8].

In Acts 7:51, Stephen is not suggesting that the Holy Spirit is trying to save these Jews, but is unable due to their hard hearted resistance. Rather, he is simply noting that these men, whom he has already identified as "uncircumcized of heart", are doing what all fleshly men do. This conclusion is affirmed in verse 53, which stipulates that the Jews had received the Law but did not keep it. Why had they not kept the Law? Because they were uncircumcized of heart.

Once again, free will is not taught in this or any passage of Scripture, but must be eisogetically imported by the reader.

Calvinists explain away this verse by saying that God only gave these men phoney grace, and they were not able to receive it. But Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men," shows that these men had resisted genuine grace.

Two thoughts:

1. I have not argued that God gave these men "phony" grace, and I would challenge you to produce specific scholarly citations from recognized Reformed sources that support your allegation.

2. If we handle Titus 2 consistently, then once again we are left with two options. Either "all men" refers to the elect (as Calvinists argue), or "all men" refers to all persons exhaustively AND demands a universalist reading. Consider the text:

11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

While πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις can be legitimately rendered "for all men", the Dative Case generally demands that the gift be delivered. That is to say, those to whom salvation is brought, receive it. Therefore, every one of these "all men" will be saved. This causes no difficulty if we are speaking of all elected men (Irresistible Grace), but causes great difficulty if we are speaking of all men exhaustively (universalism).

Verses 11 through 14 form one sentence. Who are the "all men" as defined in this context? The "us" who are instructed by grace to deny ungodliness and worldly desires, and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age. And how do these "us" regard the Lord? He is "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ". And for whom did Christ die on that cross? Christ gave Himself for that very same "us" (Limited Atonement) to redeem the "us" group from every lawless deed and to purify them as a people for His very own possession. "All men", therefore, refers to God's chosen people, and not to all persons exhaustively.

I'm sorry brother, but once again, the only free will found in this passage, is the free will you brought with you.

 

[Vince53]

The book of Romans tells us that those who never heard the Law will be judged by their own consciences, which will either accuse them or excuse them. God, Who commands us to go into all the world to preach the Gospel,clearly wants these people to be saved.

 

[Vince53]

The book of Romans tells us that those who never heard the Law will be judged by their own consciences, which will either accuse them or excuse them. God, Who commands us to go into all the world to preach the Gospel, clearly wants these people to be saved.

 

[Vince53]

Romans tells us that those who die without knowledge of the Law are judged according to their consciences. God's commands that we are to preach the Gospel to all the world shows that God does want these people to be saved.

 

[Hammster]

In order to make their system work, Calvinist philosophers invented the doctrine of irresistible grace. Since the Bible teaches that God gives everyone the power and ability to accept Christ, it was necessary for Calvinists to divide grace into two types: useless grace, in which God pretends to call men to Himself; and irrestistible grace, in which God pretends that people come to Him.



Acts 7:51 ¶Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.



Calvinists explain away this verse by saying that God only gave these men phoney grace, and they were not able to receive it. But Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men," shows that these men had resisted genuine grace.

What reformers can you quote to back up this claim?

 

[JSnell]

That makes sense and im afraid that I know which one of those categories I fit into. You guys pray for me please, I know I cant change my own heart as its up to God, im without hope unless God speaks to my heart again.

I'm there too. I've already had so many people pray for me, but I don't believe I've been converted. It's like the gospel shines the light on what God put there in someone to be converted and it happens; and others it shines on and shows that there was nothing there to be converted with and they are doomed.