Featured Five questions??

For His Glory.

 

Amen to that!

I look at the disciples and get a glimpse of how God saves. They were chosen, yet they did not understand who Jesus really was until they had the indwelling Spirit. For 3 years they lived with Him, walked with Him, were taught daily by Him, and still they did not understand His death, burial, and resurrection. Even after He appeared to them, they still thought He was a ghost. But when He opened their eyes, the light came on and they understood who He really was, God in the flesh. Up until that point were they saved in the sense that we understand? No, but they would not be lost either! They were "kept" from the foundation of the world.

This is like our journey to salvation as well. We are elect from the foundation of the world. Marked out for Christ. We cannot be eternally lost, but until God's Spirit indwells us, we are not saved eternally either. But God will keep us until that time and forever after. We are blind and lost until God opens our eyes and we put our faith in Him, but we were never going to be lost eternally because God had us in His heart from eternity past. Of all those the Father gave Him, He would lose none.

 

So someone has to be given life to respond to the life giving message? Scripture teaches us to believe so that we may have life, not the other way around.

Life comes to those who die. We die when we surrender, let go, stop trying, give up (none of which are boast worthy responses). Is the prodigal son given glory or praise for coming to his senses in the pig sty? No, he has to tuck his tail between his legs, humble himself and give up trying. In Grace the Father accepts that response and credits even that 'dirty rag' as righteousness.

Some here do...or at least they have defended that position in the past.

 

Yes that is a very simplistic way of looking at John 20. You assume that because it says "and that believing you might have life" that that means you have to believe first so that you can have life afterwards.
It does not say that.
Illustration: you have to breathe to have life, don't you? Stop breathing and you will not have life.
So it is perfectly right to say to a man rescued from drowning: "breathe! I pulled you from that water that you might breath and that breathing you might have life! So breathe!"
Now a far too simple man might say: "If what he said is true then breathing MUST precede life."
But a more thoughtful person would say to the simple man- "No, silly! That statement has nothing to do with which comes first- breath or life. It is simply saying that breath is necessary for life to continue. As a matter of fact, life precedes breath by some FORTY WEEKS! But God made us so that at the start we could live so we could breathe so that later we would breathe to live. In fact you HAVE to live first before you can breath but now you have to keep breathing so you can have a whole other kind of life."

Just so God made it so that you must have spiritual life in the incubation stage before you can believe. But you at a particular point must believe so that you can have a whole other kind of life.

That may not be simple enough for some people's liking but it is what the bible unequivocally teaches.

 

So, in this parallel analogy you have equated living with being regenerated (born again) and believing with breathing, right? And you have the drowning man living, just not breathing...in the same way you have the spiritually dead man who has now been made alive (regenerated), but not yet believing.


PROBLEM: What if the man who is rescued from the water never does breath again, despite the efforts of the lifeguard? Does that also mean the man wasn't living prior to drowning?

Your analogy falls apart on the exact same basis that the theology it represents falls.

 

In our case, the lifeguard is Jesus, who is the only one who CAN give life and He never fails.

 

I like that term, "incubation stage". Good analogy.

 

Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

 

It's interesting how 'Calvinists' are quick to suggest that Jesus would be failing if His desire is not effectually brought to pass, yet they themselves affirm that even born again believers continue to sin. Does God fail when believers sin? We know he doesn't want his children to sin, so I guess by your logic God fails every time one of his own sins, right?

 

We are not assuming anything, that is what it says in black and white.

That is exactly what it is saying.

Gotta give you credit, you did a great job of explaining away John 20:31. You have argued that this verse is saying exactly the opposite of what it plainly says. Read this verse to a thousand folks and see how many would say it says a person must have life to believe. If you are lucky, you might find three folks out of a thousand who understand this verse as you do, and you can bet all three would be Calvinists. :laugh:

Do you have even one verse to support this "incubation stage"?

Oh, it's simple, but it's simply hogwash. It is amazing the lengths a person will go to to distort what scripture says to fit their false doctrine.

You should try believing the scriptures for what they say instead of twisting it to make it say what you wish it would say.

I've said it a hundred times, I'll say it again, Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of what scripture says. Here was a perfect example, even a child would understand John 20:31 says we must believe that we might have life, but Luke says this verse is really saying we must have life that we might believe.

 

The analogy is not supposed to illustrate the Doctrines of Grace. It illustrates why the phrase "that believing you might have life" does not demand that belief precedes any life whatsoever.

My explanation of how it works DOES expound upon the biblical teaching represented in the Doctrines of Grace but the analogy only illustrates the error Convicted makes in his interpretation of the John 20 passage.

 

Yes but why me? When I consider that question I must believe in Election!

As many times as I have read and used the following Scripture????

Ephesians 1:6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Ephesians 1:12. That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Ephesians 1:14. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 1:18. The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

And I like this one:

Revelation 4:11. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Many thanks Skandelon!

 

Why Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel?

Hebrews 11 tells us: "Without faith it is impossible to please God..."

 

No. We fail when we sin.

 

Exactly, so why would you assume Christ fails when we reject his genuine appeal to be reconciled?

 

I never assumed anything of the sort.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

 

Isaiah 55:11 KJV So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

And Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Word:

John 1:1, 2, 14, KJV
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.[/i]

Therefore, I don't believe Jesus Christ can fail. That being said there is a big difference between the Omnipotent and Holy God and a child by election, grace, and adoption.

 

You wrote, "the lifeguard is Jesus, who is the only one who CAN give life and He never fails," which assumes that if Christ were to genuinely invite someone to be reconciled and they chose to reject such as appeal then Christ would have failed.

I thought Jesus was the lifeguard who never failed? This verse is about those the Father hand picked, reserved, and gave to Christ while he was here. The rest of Israel was hardened, which is why they were unable to believe. (Jn. 12:39)

 

So, since you teach that all are born dead, you must be arguing that the elect are made alive in order to believe so that he may be made alive yet again? Is that correct?

 

I agree with Amy.G as I stated in my earlier response to you. Jesus Christ cannot fail. Anyhow are you not "begging the question" in your further "what if"?

You present John 6:37 in furtherance of your argument:

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

For clarification John 4:44 tells us:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

In verse 37 Jesus Christ states:All that the Father giveth me shall come to me. In verse 44 Jesus Christ states: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. The Father elects, the Father draws [regenerates?], and Jesus Christ saves all these!

We see that, according to Scripture, God the Father not only hand picked, reserved, and gave to Christ those He would save while here but those who have been and will be saved. Your conditional if in the first quote presents an impossibility which you assume to occur which I believe is "begging he question".

A fallacy in which the premise of an argument presupposes the truth of its conclusion; in other words, the argument takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.