Do you read this verse the same way I do?

No, it is not out of context. Feel free to include it. Because we believe, God has given us the right to become his children, "children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

It was absolutely His decision what to do with those who believe in Him! And I am incredibly grateful for the love He has expressed in giving us a new life in Him.

But the point of that entire passage is that first, He was refused by the very people He came to -- His own -- which sort of refutes Calvinism's idea of irresistible grace. Second, anyone who believes is given the right to become a child of God. Third, the decision to make believers children of God is entirely God's. We could not have achieved that status ourselves, despite any belief we have in Him.

 

Pastor Larry, case in point of why I don't like the NIV. The DE translation allows too much freedom.

That is not what the text says. It says "who were born... not of the will of man but of God."

No. It refutes your mischaracterization of Calvinism's idea of irresistible grace which permeates every discussion you engage in on this topic.

No conflict or disagreement here. And who will believe? Those who are born of the will of God.

I agree completely. But if you actually believe this what exactly is your argument with calvinism? The redeemed have the ability to believe for the same reason a baby bird has the belief that it can fly- it is a gift of God by our new spiritual nature.

 

But you must reconcile these together. You want to assert the priority of John 1 without respect for how it fits in with John 10, John 6, and other passages. I do not so easily accept your reasoning. Jesus clearly says that lack of belief is a result of not being a sheep. That is explicit. And the explicit passages must be used to interpret the not so explicit ones. I am also unconvinced that John 1 supports you. John 1:13 supports us and leads us to the position that all of John 1 is against you since we are brought into his family by the will of God, not the will of man.

[/qb] I don't disagree with his tellign them to believe. That is every man's responsibility. But why didn't they believe?? John 10:26 gives that answer and addresses the causal factor in it. I think that word "because" needs more attention than you ahve given it.

So you are admitting that your free will is affected by your nature?? So you admit you really don't have free will after all.

I think it is taught all through Scripture. It is a choice. They can do whatever they want. But SCripture teaches that we are by nature the children of wrath, walking according to our own desires. There you have the teaching of nature and desire clearly explained. The nature determines the desires and therefore the actions. These people do not want to be saved.

But our point is that your correlation is based on a faulty premise.

You know better than this Helen. Why do you stoop to this?? You know our reasoning is much more solid. Let's disagree on realities. John 10:26 as we understand seems to correspond perfectly with the book of John as a whole. In fact, I intend to preach a series very soon from teh book on John on evangelism. You should come hear how a calvinist preaches the gospel ...

 

Ok guys, I have a question here that to some will probably seem ludicrous, but I would appreciate an answer. My question is simply this:

What is the spiritual importance of understanding this from one point of view over the other? Do we not all agree that the basis for our salvation is repentence and faith in Christ as our Redeemer? Whatever we may believe about how we came to this faith and repentence is a secondary issue at best, the important thing is that we have done so.

I understand the desire to delve more deeply into the Word, and to have a clearer understanding of what it teaches. But the fact remains that the gospel message itself is beautifully simplistic. Beyond that, most doctrines are only individual interpretations of scripture that have become widely accepted as truth. I am not in any way saying that there is no truth to be found in doctrine, I am only asking why some feel it is important to sway the opinion of others toward what they believe when it is not a necessary element of salvation.

 

I don't know what others would say but I think the issue goes to the heart of the glory of God and his rights as God. I am not questioning the salvation of those who disagree with me, though I think there are some inconsistencies. I think it goes to how we view God and that is why I am firm in my position.

 

Wondering One, the reason I am willing to confront on this issue is that the end result of Calvinism is "too bad for most of the world, God didn't REALLY love you enough to send His son for you; it was only for us chosen who were predestined from before birth."

Calvinism presents hopelessness to the rest. They use the word 'choice,' but those others really have no choice because God did not select them from the beginning.

To me, this denies God's essential character of love and justice and mercy, altogether. Love means you care for someone's welfare more than your own. John 3:16 says God cared in this way enough to send His Son, and Revelation 13:8 says the sacrifice was a reality from the foundation of the world. John 3:16 says 'whoever' or 'whomsoever' (or whatever word your preferred translation uses -- they all indicate that 'whoever' is not a 'preselected few') believes will inherit eternal life.

It is absolutely essential that all men know that they are free to choose Christ, despite having a sin nature. His very mission is to rescue a man from himself, and give him a new nature.

It is not just, it is not merciful, and it most certainly is not love to condemn the vast majority of people created to hell by virtue of their sin natures and only select a few to be saved. This gives the appearance of randomness to us and denies everything He has created within us which declares the meanings of justice and mercy.

And so, because I feel the very character of God is at stake, I will confront Calvinism whenever possible. They claim that those who don't agree with them deny the sovereignty of God. Baloney. He is more sovereign than that doctrine will allow, for He is sovereign enough to give us the choice and still be in complete control. It's like a parent giving a choice to a small child -- the parent never loses control no matter which choice the child makes.

In God's case He has known the end from the beginning, so He does know what our choices will be, but that does not mean He has chosen for us. The command to "Choose this day whom you will serve" did not end with the Israelites entry into the Promised Land. It has rung down through the ages since Adam and Eve. And so even the writer to the Hebrews literally begs his readers, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion". And we see here also that it is not sin which condemned them, or us, but unbelief: "So we see that they were not able to enter because of their unbelief." (From Hebrews 3)

Chapter 4 begins with the following:

Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.

That does not sound to me like only those God has already chosen will be allowed in. Does it sound like it to you?

And yet that is what the Calvinists here are saying -- that despite all the pleas and arguments presented throughout the entire Bible, only those pre-selected by God will ever be rescued anyway.

I cannot leave people here with that kind of fatalistic hopelessness.

And so I take the time to respond as often as I can.

 

I really wish Helen would confine her comments to what she believes rather than what she would like for us to believe. Once again, she has said somethings that simply aren't true. She has been corrected before but has continued anyway. ... What will it take??

 

Larry I feel that Wondering one had a good thought and I regret that you so quickly shut their view down especially as I look at the fact that they are new to this board. I am also discouraged by your comment above that you claim not to question my salvation as a non calvinist but you see inconsistencies. I am not exactly sure what you mean by this and please don't bother explaining. I feel that the gloves have been taken off quite enough in this thread so far and I don't plan on any more personal issues being raised or debated. I want to encourage everybody that if we cannot cover any new ground with this thread that we should refrain from posting. Since Preach the word simply wanted to see if anyone agreed with his interpretation on the passage in question I feel he must surely be satisfied because 4 pages full of pro and con have been posted. What am I saying? that the uglyness must stop NOW!!!! and please don't anyone bother wasting bandwidth to reply that I am too sensitive and no uglyness exists here. The verse has been discussed, if you wish to add something please do so but let the constant rebuttle of the oppositions posts cease.

Murph

 

I thought she had a good question as well. That is why I answered it. I do believe there is something at stake here, namely the character and glory of God. So that is what I said.

Who shut "their view down" (whatever that means)? I certainly didn't. What good is a question if no one can answer it?

[/qb]Why does that discourage you? I think it is inconsistent to say that it is all of Christ, so long as I generate faith. I think it is inconsistent to argue that christ forgave all the sins of the world while people still go to hell. I think there are a number of inconsistencies that need to be dealt with. There was no attack intended in that and I am truly sorry that you took it that way.

I think the discussion here is helpful, particularly in rebuttals becuase it shows that both sides have answers for the other side. If no one answers my posts, people might think I am right (God forbid). If no one answers the posts of the other side, they might think they are right (God forbid). I think the discussion is well worth having becuase it demonstrates some points that people need to wrestle through.

 

I want to go back to an early post and challenge an assumption. Preach the Word said:

Jesus was not speaking to the Pharisees alone when he made this statement, he was speaking to the Jews. Check vss 24, and 31.

Then PTW goes on to say:

I agree, they could not believe. Here is my question. Was Jesus saying that they could not believe in that particular circumstance or was he saying that they could not believe and would never be able to believe because they were not part of his elect? I believe that the first option is the biblical answer and here is why: After the cross, thousands of these Jews heard the gospel and came to salvation. Note Peter's sermon to the Jews in Acts 3 (which is delivered in Solomon's portico--the same location where Jesus told them they were not his sheep!). Note that Peter is speaking to the Jews in verse 12 when he addresses the "men of Israel". Peter recognizes God's soveriegnty in verse 13. He also places the blame for Jesus' death directly at the feet of the Jews in 13-15. Then in verse 17, Peter says "I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers". Then Peter merges God's soveriengty and man's responsibility into it's perfect blend in verse 18: "What God foretold by the mouth of the prophets that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled". Next, in verse 19, Peter invites the Jews to repentance. Finally, Peter reveals God's ultimate intention in verse 26: "God, having raised up his servant sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness".

Here is my view in summary. The Jews in John 10 were providentially and temporarily blinded by God who, in his sovereignty, used their blindness to bring about the way of salvation through the death of Jesus on the cross. After Jesus' resurrection, Peter preached the gospel to these Jews, stating God's intention that every one of them be saved.

Consequently, I think you are misinterpreting John 10 because you are taking it out of its proper place in the unfolding story of God's provision for salvation. Because you misinterpret it, you also misapply it and take it to mean that some people can be saved, but others can't. The truth is that God intended for every one of those Jews to be saved just as he intends for "all men to come to salvation" today. Preaching for all men to come to salvation is the message the apostles preached and I intend by God's grace to carry on that tradition.

 

Thank you swaimj, and God bless. In accord with Murphy's request, I am not going to keep bantering back and forth. Besides, everything have to say has been said. I do appreciate you adding this, however. I had not thought about it from that direction.

 

As my request to cease with the personalities in this thread has been ignored I have moved this thread to the Cal/Arm debate.
Murph