What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[iwbswiaihl]

Going back to the meaning of regeneration, scripture says: John 3:4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

So Jesus is saying that there cannot be a regeneration of fleshy birth but in the spiritual realm there must be a second birth or in other words, a second work of grace. In the first, one is imputed with righteousness, in the second, one is imparted with righteousness and most believers are still in the first.

But if you intentionally placed this statement: In the first, one is imputed with righteousness, in the second, one is imparted with righteousness and most believers are still in the first. You have said the same thing twice: In the first, one is imputed with righteousness, in the second, one is imparted with righteousness, ???????????? You could of just overlooked this? If not, I don't get the point!

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I found an actual quote about Romans 9 in the Early Church Father Irenaeus Against Heresies. He likens the story to two nations, I believe he is referring to The church (including Gentiles), and the Jews.

Book IV. (Cont.)
Chap. XXI. — Abraham’s Faith Was Identical with Ours; This Faith Was Prefigured by the Words and Actions of the Old Patriarchs.

2. The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: “Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac,” she received answer72 from the Word, “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people are in thy body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger.” (Rom_9:10-13; Gen_25:23) From which it is evident, that not only [were there] prophecies of the patriarchs, but also that the children brought forth by Rebecca were a prediction of the two nations; and that the one should be indeed the greater, but the other the less; that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but [that both should be] of one and the same father. Our God, one and the same, is also their God, who knows hidden things, who knoweth all things before they can come to pass; and for this reason has He said, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Rom_9:13; Mal_1:2)

Of Romans 9 Irenaeus said “The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character “. What is that symbolic character? Irenaeus links them to a prediction of two nations. Jacob represents the fact that the Gentiles will be joint-heirs of faith, receiving the birthright that was given initially to his brother Esau. Esau represents the Jews, who had the birthright, but it was given up to Jacob (The church, including Gentiles).

The term “but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man" (Romans 9:10) Irenaeus, links to the fact that both Jew and Gentile have the same Father God.

He does not say that this is a prediction of the salvation of Jacob, and the damnation of Esau. I believe rather the story is a picture of the church given the blessing, and the Jews who lost it.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

That's how we get so many baby believers who do not advance.

This statement confuses me! Believing the print on the pages are you saying that is what produces baby Christians? who do not advance, surely I read that differently than your intent, enlightened this old man who's understanding is wanning as is my memory, thanks.

 

[Clare73]

I think it is important to view the whole context surrounding a verse to get the true sense of the verse. Lets look at 1 Corinthians 2:6 to the end.

"6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.
The wisdom that we have received from the Holy Spirit is not the wisdom of the world. Some of our theologies are very much influenced by Aristotle, who demanded empirical proof and if such proof is not forthcoming, it is not real. This influence discounts miracles and divine healing if there is no empirical proof that it actually happened.

The wisdom that comes from God, through the inspiration of the written Scriptures and the Holy Spirit speaking to us through them, cannot be understood by those in the world. What this means is that unconverted people cannot understand the wisdom of God, because it has not be revealed to them. They can read the Bible and understand it from a literary point of view, but they cannot know what it really means.


Only those who are converted to Christ and therefore filled with the indwelling Spirit can know the mystery of the Gospel that was hidden through the ages. The inner wisdom of God has been fully revealed to those who have the indwelling Spirit.
So there is a marked difference between the spirit of the world and the Spirit of God. We have received the Spirit of God so that we can understand what God has given us.

Every converted believer who has the indwelling Holy Spirit has been taught by the Spirit and is able to divide the Word of truth. He is able to fully understand what the Bible is actually saying, and that the Bible is all about Jesus.

John said that the Anointing which we have received teaches us all things.

Jesus was speaking to the apostles, who would be penning the Scriptures and laying the foundation of the church, guaranteeing they would be equipped for that work.
That was not a guarantee to every believer, regardless.

So, here is the verse.

1 Corinthians 2:14 is not the verse which distinguishes the mature understanding of a believer from the immature understanding of a believer.
That is found in such places as 1 Corinthians 3:1-6, 1 Corinthians 12:28; Hebrews 6:1-2, etc.

1 Corinthians 2:14 distinguishes between the believer and the unbeliever.

What the verse is actually telling us is that the natural man is not a converted Christian believer indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The natural man is unconverted and still a person of the world. Without the indwelling Spirit teaching the things of God he cannot know them. We cannot say that a converted believer is not spiritual and cannot understand spiritual things. There is no mixture of natural and spiritual in the converted believer. Every Spirit-filled believer has the mind of Christ. Some say that only Pentecostals and Charismatics are truly Spirit-filled. I don't believe that at all.

Every single person who has received Christ and are converted to Him is Spirit-filled and has the mind of Christ, so that they can judge all things pertaining to things spiritual and does not have to be judged by any person.

Not according to the NT, where that refers to spiritual maturity, something which grows (1 Corinthians 3:1-6).

If that were the case, God would not have appointed teachers to the church (1 Corinthians 12:28), nor would there be infants in Christ (1 Corinthians 3:1-6), nor would the writer of Hebrews have been vexed (Hebrews 6:1-2).

If anyone uses 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 to distinguish between "carnal" and "spiritual" Christians, is quoting the verse out of context. Some people who think they are more "spiritual" than others think they can use the verse to try and convince those whom they think don't have as much of the Spirit as they do, to be instructed by them in spiritual matters. Often those who think they have the "full Gospel" and are "baptised with the Spirit" will look down on those in mainline non-Charismatic denominations and treat them as if they are not Spirit-filled. This looks like spiritual pride and arrogance to me.

So it is not that we "idolise intellect over Scripture" at all. The verse shows the significant difference between an unconverted person who is worldly thinking, and a converted, Spirit-filled Christian who has the mind of Christ.

 

[misput]

It is in the revelation of Paul.

Your issue is with Paul, not me.

Actually my issue is with God and I do not believe He considers man to be a sinner until he knowingly and willfully sins, "is drawn away by his own lust". Obviously my issue is not with you because you are just someone in cyber space that I enjoy debating with : )

 

[bmjackson]

But if you intentionally placed this statement: In the first, one is imputed with righteousness, in the second, one is imparted with righteousness and most believers are still in the first. You have said the same thing twice: In the first, one is imputed with righteousness, in the second, one is imparted with righteousness, ???????????? You could of just overlooked this? If not, I don't get the point!

Further blessing needed.

 

[bmjackson]

This statement confuses me! Believing the print on the pages are you saying that is what produces baby Christians? who do not advance, surely I read that differently than your intent, enlightened this old man who's understanding is wanning as is my memory, thansks.

Same problems here lol People get stuck because of the teaching that no further blessing is needed. Holiness is imparted when one is holy.

 

[Clare73]

The word of God presents the following idea, “whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him”.

Act 10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.​

Cornelius was chosen by God to be the first to receive the Holy Spirit, due to his, prayers and good works.

He didn't receive the Holy Spirit before his relative and close friends who were also present (Acts 10:44).
All received the Holy Spirit at the same time, with no mention of anything other than their simply being there.

Act 10:4 And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, "What is it, lord?" So he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God.​

We see this idea in the dialog, between Jesus and his disciples. When talking about who will receive the Holy Spirit, there is a distinction between those who “choose rightly”, and those who “choose to sin”. The first work being:
Joh_6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

That was in response to a specific question regarding Jesus' statement: ". . .work. . .for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you," (John 6:27), to which they replied:
"What must we do to do the work God requires?" And to which Jesus replied:
"The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:29)
There is nothing about receiving the Holy Spirit here.

Joh 14:15-24 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me​

​

This is the Lord's Supper and Jesus' promise not to leave his apostles alone but to send them a Counselor/Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to be with them forever, which they received at Pentecost.

This is not about "making a distinction" between those who "chose rightly" and those who "choose to sin."

Romans also states there is no partiality with God, those who do evil will perish, and those who do good receive life.

Rom 2:2-11 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ​

For there is no partiality with God.

And that refers to partiality in his justice.

In context, Romans 2 is establishing that no one is righteous because no one meets God's standards for righteousness.
Romans 2 is not about those who "choose rightly" and those who "choose to sin," it's about no one
"choosing rightly."

1Pe 1:17 And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear;

Which is about God's impartiality in justice, not about those he judges.

2Co 4:6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

We see that God gives the light of his words to all people.

2 Corinthians 4:6 is speaking to believers about believers, it is not speaking of those who "choose to sin."

Joh_1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
Joh_12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them.​

We see there is a time when people have that light, as stated “While you have the light”.

Which is about belief, not about sins.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Actually my issue is with God and I do not believe He considers man to be a sinner until he knowingly and willfully sins, "is drawn away by his own lust". Obviously my issue is not with you because you are just someone in cyber space that I enjoy debating with : )

That raises the question of how the Gentiles who did not have the law, were a law unto themselves? I believe this passage gives the answer that God does considers the sinner because of their conscience; Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous. 14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them. But I also remember a verse, which I have been trying to find lately but have yet to find it because I forget the wording of it enough to just locate it, it goes like this, that a man was being told that he had sinned and he told the person that and the man replied something like this; don't you know that God knows you did not know that was a sin, and that makes me think that an intentional violation which is a sin is worse than when one has not come to that understanding and they sin in ignorance of it being wrong, a sin indeed, but not in willful defiance, if that makes sense.

 

[Clare73]

Going back to the meaning of regeneration, scripture says: John 3:4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

So Jesus is saying that there cannot be a regeneration of fleshy birth but in the spiritual realm there must be a second birth or in other words, a second work of grace. In the first, one is imputed with righteousness, in the second, one is imparted with righteousness and most believers are still in the first.

Imputed righteousness (justification) is by faith only (Romans 3:21-24, Romans 3:28).

Imparted righteousness is through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

 

[Clare73]

I know this has been a common understanding, even I thought it. Not due to scripture, but due to tradition.
However in reading the Early Church Fathers, on the topic of Predestination. I found the following quote:

Iranaeus - Against Heresies - Book 3 Ch 21-End

Chap. XXII. — Christ Assumed Actual Flesh, Conceived and Born of the Virgin.

3. Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two generations, connecting the end with the beginning, and implying that it is He who has summed up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam himself. Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul “the figure of Him that was to come,” (Rom_5:14) because the Word, the Maker of all things, had formed beforehand for Himself the future dispensation of the human race, connected with the Son of God;

God having predestined that the first man should be of an animal nature, with this view, that he might be saved by the spiritual One. For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in vain.
So the early church traditions are not like today's.

Nor are they like what you propose.

Animal nature does not mean sinful. . .animals don't sin.
Animal nature is a distinction of human nature from angelic nature, which angelic nature is purely spiritual, while human nature is both spirit and animal.

 

[Fervent]

Why do you think that Jesus was born of a virgin? Do you think that being conceived by the Holy Spirit made Jesus humanity different from everyone else who was born the normal way? What do you think made Jesus the perfect sacrifice for sin? I'm just a bit puzzled as to where you are coming from in this.

As Athanasius said "What was not assumed was not healed." And, of course, there is Hebrews which says He was like unto his brothers in every way. The "fallen nature" that undergirds the T in tulip leads to a denial of Jesus' actual humanity, and if Jesus was not actually human like everyone else then humanity is not healed. The Manichean influence on Augustine's theology of treating the flesh as evil that persisted until the ruthless precision of Luther and Calvin extending its logical consequences without regard for the historic teachings of the church lead straight to docetism.

 

[misput]

That raises the question of how the Gentiles who did not have the law, were a law unto themselves? I believe this passage gives the answer that God does considers the sinner because of their conscience; Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous. 14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them. But I also remember a verse, which I have been trying to find lately but have yet to find it because I forget the wording of it enough to just locate it, it goes like this, that a man was being told that he had sinned and he told the person that and the man replied something like this; don't you know that God knows you did not know that was a sin, and that makes me think that an intentional violation which is a sin is worse than when one has not come to that understanding and they sin in ignorance of it being wrong, a sin indeed, but not in willful defiance, if that makes sense.

Leviticus 5:17
English Standard Version
y“If anyone sins, doing any of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, zthough he did not know it, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity

 

[Clare73]

Another way of looking at it is that the Holy Spirit works in concert with the Gospel preaching but not in an irresistible manner as Calvinist teach.

"Irresistible" is not Calvin's word.

It is from TULIP, which comes from those who disparage what they think Calvin wrote.

The sinner's free will cooperation with the Holy Spirit results in both remission of sins and receipt of the Holy Spirit. That is why Peter is able to promise remission of sins and receipt of the Holy Spirit to those who Repent and are baptized. Salvation and what Calvinist refer to as regeneration are not two separate events.

Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them​

And this Gospel call is not reserved for a select group of people.

Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
​

This is echoed in Mark 16:16:

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.​

Late Add: Its not that the Work of the Holy Spirit starts after the sinner believes. The work of the Holy Spirit is in concert with the preaching of the Gospel. If the sinner cooperates, the work of the Holy Spirit results in both the new birth and salvation. Acts 17:51 says that men can resist the Holy Spirit.

 

[Clare73]

True repentance goes beyond intellectual assent.
Baptism of itself does not wash away sin - it is a demonstration of Repentance.

And of dying with Christ. . .dying to sin as Christ died for sin, to rise to newness of life in him (Romans 6:3-10).

 

[Clare73]

Its a shame from my perspective that you did not show any proof from the bible. Especially that Jesus had a Divine nature!

Would you show that to me about the Divine nature being active in Him when He walked as man: I would like to see that expressed in the bible.

Well, since you asked. . .

Let's begin with John's gospel:

John opens his Gospel with the "Word" (logos), which in Greek philosophy was the First Cause, the great Intelligence and Reason behind the Universe, which John declares is the recently despised and crucified man, Jesus of Nazareth, who is the eternal Logos, source of all wisdom and power, and who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

In the beginning was (past tense) the Word--the Word is eternal (see Jn 17:5, 24; 1Jn 1:1-3),
which Word was with God--distinct from the Father, personality (personhood)
and which word was God--deity of the Word, who is distinct from the Father,
through him--male personhood,
all things were made--creator (Col 1:13-17),
in him was life--all life in creation is in and through him (Colossians 1:17),
the life was the light of men--the Word revealing,
the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14)--incarnation,
which incarnation reveals the Word to be God's Son, the only begotten of the Father (Jn 1:14),
to which Hebrews 1:3-4 testifies.

Then what do you conclude from what Jesus states about himself?

He came down from heaven (John 3:13, 6:38, 42, 62, 8:58, 17:5, 24; 1 John 1:1-4),
from glory (John 17:5, John 16:28) where he was before (John 6:62),
"before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58), and
was sent by God (John 5:36-40, 10:36, 13:3, 16:28),
possessing all authority (power) in heaven and earth (Matthew 26:64, 28:18; Luke 10:22; John 13:3, 13)
to die as a ransom for the sins of many (Matthew 20:28, 26:28; Jn 10:11)
with power to forgive sin (Matthew 9:2-6),
to conquer Satan (John 12:31; Luke 10:18; Mark 1:23-26, 5:6-13),
to speak for God (John 7:16, 8:25-28, 12:44-45, 49-50, 14:10; Luke 9:35, 10:16),
and to judge all mankind (John 5:22, 27, 8:26, 12:48; Matthew 25:31-33),
as the exclusive (barring all others) way to God (John 14:6),
the source of all truth and life (John 1:4, 14:6, 5:25-26, 6:40),
the decisive factor in the eternal destiny of every man (John 3:18-19, 36; 5:24, 6:40, 8:24-25),
equal with God--doing what God does (John 5:18-19, 8:19, 12:44-45, 14:7-9, 16:15, 17:10),
--as the Father works, so the Son works (miracles) - (John 5:17),
--as the Father gives life, so the Son gives life (John 5:21),
--as the Father is Judge, so the Son is Judge (John 5:22),
--as the Father is to be honored, so the Son is to be honored (John 5:23),
--as the Father has life in himself, so the Son has life in himself (John 5:26)
--as the Father sends with authority and power, so the Son sends with authority and power (John 20:21)
--as the Father makes law, so the Son makes law (Matthew 5:24-47, 12:7-8, 19:9, 21:23-27, 23; Luke 6:5)
--as the Father confers the kingdom, so the Son confers the kingdom (Luke 22:29),
empowering the apostle to speak for him, as well as for God (Luke 10:16; John 13:20),
to recall and understand all things correctly (John 14:26, 16:13-15; Luke 24:48-49), and
speaking exactly what God told him to say when he made these claims about himself (John 12:49).

Jesus is saying in these claims that he is no less than God.
And this is the way the Jews understood him (Mark 2:3-7; John 6:41-42, 10:30-33, 5:18, 8:58-59, 19:7), which is why they killed him.

 

[Fervent]

What you say here is absolutely not scriptural at all: because of your statement here and I am not a Calvinist, but attend a Baptist church: "It leads to a claim that the nature that common men are born with is not the nature that Jesus was born with, but that Jesus was born with a pre-fall humanity that is decidedly different". It surely is true that all born of Adam DO NOT have the nature that Jesus was born with and you can not show a hint of a verse in the scriptures which would support this opinion. Opinion because of showing no proof of your statement. Man if born of a fallen nature because all came from Adam. Jesus did not come from Adam but the Holy Spirit over shadowed Mary who was a virgin and she had the Son of God, no sexual relations put Jesus in her womb. Explain how a virgin has God's Son. Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”
Luke 1:27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her ,is of the Holy Ghost.

When I speak of Jesus' nature I am referring only to his human nature. Denying that Jesus' human nature is the same human nature as ordinary humans have is the ancient heresy of docetism. Hebrews 2:17 is the most explicit statement of Jesus sharing in an identical human nature, but there are plenty of other Scripture that show it. Calvinism is not the only thread of modern Christianity guilty of this brand of docetism, it is common among all who accept the Augustinian view of the fall unmodified which is built on a mistranslation and speculation around why infants were baptized in his day.

 

[roman2819]

I believe in predestination, wherein God chooses whom He will save and destroy the rest on judgment day

John 12: 37-40 "... THEREFORE THEY COULD NOT BELIEVE because Isaiah had said, " He (God) has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts so that they could not see (with spiritual eyes), nor understand with their heart (mind), and be converted, and I should heal them. God prevented them from believing. Why would God actively prevent people from believing if He wants everybody saved? How does salvation come? When a person believes, Acts 16: 28-31. If believing is the first part of salvation and is necessary for salvation, and God prevents people from believing, how does that fit in with "God wants everybody to get saved?"
.

The key to understanding Isaiah 6:10 "Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, .... lest they see with their eyes, ... and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”" is to understand that God was speaking in anguish and exasperation. He was not instructing Isaiah to harden their hearts.

Have you ever tell someone about their mistakes but they keep repeating and refuse to change? After umpteenth warnings, you said, "I said enough!. Do what you want". These are words you used when you are exasperated, when you throw up your arms and give up. Example: When children spend hours playing video games or party and do badly in exams, mum will say in exasperation, "Yes, play more video games. Party more. And you will do even better!" A mild example of anguish compared to God's exasperation.

For 300 years during the North and South Kingdom, God sent prophets to warn Israel about idolatry, but they refused to repent. . The more warnings they heard, the more callous and numb they became. Have you seen non-believers who hardened their hearts after hearing the gospel? I have, they just didn't want to be convinced, they came back with more ridiculous questions, and If you try to explain more, your words can cause them to be more callous because they just want to act defiant.

In case we do not comprehend why Israel were so callous: Idolatry was not only about burning incense to images of Baal and foreign gods - that would be so boring. Instead, there were temple prostitutions and orgies; it was a sin with sexual indulgence that the people refused to give up. So don't even mistaken that God ever hardened their hearts one bit, but instead, understand why He could not win them back. This demonstrate that He give people free will to people to sin against him, or to repent and turn back.

As Isaiah's warnings fell on deaf ears, God said "keep on calling them and hardened their hearts" By understanding these are words of emotional anguish and exasperation, then we can explain what Matthew or John meant when they. quoted from Isaiah: The people in Jesus' time were similar to those of Isaiah's generation -- callous and spiritually blind. And because they could not understand, Jesus spoke in parables - earthy stories with heavenly meaning - to help them see. So Jesus spoke in parables because Isaiah's words about spiritual blindness were also applied to the people. that the people in Jesus' tim.

Jesus said the disciples were given understanding by God. These are words of humility and way of writing Scripture. It does not literally mean that God literally select some people to understand while not giving to others. Back then, people don't say they choose to believe God or accept Jesus as saviour - the way we say today; instead they said God chose them.

 

[John Mullally]

"Irresistible" is not Calvin's word.

I did not term it Calvin's word.

It is from TULIP, which comes from those who disparage what they think Calvin wrote.

TULIP was not invented by Calvin's enemies - his follower's fleshed it out much later. Category:Five Points of Calvinism - Wikipedia

 

[QvQ]

I read Calvin and the question was not "Is God Love? or "Does God Love Me?" "How can I make God Love Me?" "Can God choose not to Love me?" "Can I make God not love me?" "If I am bad, will God still Love Me."
The question in Calvin is "Do I Love God?" Do you?
That is the basic question of Calvin, simply stated.
IMHO