Is Irresistible Grace "resistible"?

My best guess is that the countless unfortunate souls prior to the message and life of Christ, and all those forward who never had the opportunity to be exposed to the Gospel, must then simply have membership in the "un-elect". Which I admit, is within the realm of possibility, but I think it fair to question such. And dont be intellectually intimidated to question under the guise that it is VERY dangerous, seemingly bordering on the edge of blasphemy.

 

Some of what you write indicates leanings toward a Mormon understanding of Christianity. I'm not pointing fingers, but I am interested to know if that is somehow influencing your thoughts.

 

Although I will let percho answer for himself, dont get the impression he is leaning "mormon" who teach, we who remain can take action on behalf of those who have passed. Dont see him implying that at all!!! Simply and honest question regarding those who have not had the good fortune to be exposed to the same "level" of the gospel as we have enjoyed today.

 

This was posted to glfredrick however others are welcome.

My main point wasn't any covenant it was choice. Choice did not work in the garden. Choice did not work at Sinai then along came Jesus and most say you have a choice to make.

Two questions.

Let me ask. Is it the choice we make or is it what God is doing?

Just what covenant are gentiles or anyone else brought into a relationship with God today????????

 

I can honestly say I don't have a clue what Mormon's teach.

 

OK, Percho, I am at a loss, sorry but once again my "simple mindedness" simply cannot understand here.

 

Calvinists would see Romans 1 as being applicable.

They would also suggest that God HAS a remedy for those who have not heard. It is DOING WHAT HE TOLD US TO DO, i.e., going out with the gospel.

Additionally, IF, perchance not doing anything would be the best course of action, then we are sinning against God by founding missionary and evangelistic agencies and sending people all over the globe with the message of the gospel.

 

I agree to an extent. I see that the only humans in history that have actually HAD a choice were the free humans who were not slaves to sin -- Adam and Eve in the Garden, pre-fall. After that, we really have no choice. We are born in sin, sinners all, and all damned because of our sin. It is God who works to redeem the elect from out of those born dead. No choice "makes" one a sinner or dead in his sin or trespasses. That just is by fact of human birth. The choice comes in agreeing with God who draws, woos, loves, graces, and calls.

 

No problem... I just see that some of their directives are similar in nature to what you have asked. They are very concerned with baptizing those who have passed into their version of the faith, largely to (in their view) increase the number of people who will pass into their terrestrial or celestial heaven.

Funny thing about Mormon theology, however. One is safer (eternally speaking) if he or she never becomes a Mormon than if they do and somehow stray a bit. Not much grace in their system. That is rather a mixed up theology.

 

You know there is a whole lot written about the elect, however I am not sure but I think you would be hard pressed to find unelect in the word. What are the elect elected for? Is it sit at the feed of Jesus play a harp and hear well done or is it to govern with the Christ in the kingdom of God. Kings and priests? Govern and teach the rest of humanity maybe? Just what is the purpose for God to establish the kingdom of God on the earth? Man was to be created in the image of God yet we presently see him as being created a new creature in the image of the Son of God. Do you think this was plan A or something went wrong and this is plan B? Have you ever thought about the following in the concept of elect and unelect?

The elect:
Ephesians 1:4-9 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

That Christ along with the elect will bring about.
Acts 15:14,16,17 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. (The elect) After this (election) I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David,(the kingdom of God upon the throne of David) which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

The un-elect included in the following:
Verse 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him: 2 Cor. 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Romans 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Hope everyone reads this and comments.

 

Part 1 of 2

"Old ways?" Now, that is funny. As this post will demonstrate, I am not being dishonest. I have pointed out a flaw in your practice which this: Giving non-Calvinists a free pass in areas where they seem to question salvation and you get in the face of Calvinists for seeming to question salvation.

Apparently you haven't been reading my posts too clearly. And, I cannot recall even one example of you defending a Calvinist as a believer when his or her salvation is questioned. Perhaps you do it behind the scenes, that is a possibility (giving the benefit of the doubt here). However, you never join the discussion to do so, so far as I can remember.

I am not a liar. Your gerrymandering of the facts of this discussion is staggering. Let's review:

Robert's post: (here); First post (mine); Second post (yours); Third post (mine); Fourth post (yours); Fifth post (mine); Sixth post (yours); Seventh post (mine); Eight post (yours); Ninth post (mine).

You demonstrated that you indeed did not give the benefit of the doubt and applied a double standard because I am known to be a Calvinist.

Here are the facts:

1. In Robert's post he said something analogous to option number one of the poll which states: Signs of the Last days, false teaching has arisen. Notice: I never took exception to what Robert said; I realized he was restating something similar to the option he voted for in the Poll.

2. In my post I said something analogous to option number two of the poll which states: Dumbed-down shallow theology is being rejected. Now, I didn't vote in the poll...but that is immaterial. By assuming the worst of my statement (again, being analogous to a choice in the poll) and not assuming the best, you demonstrate that there is no benefit of the doubt with you when engaging with Calvinists.

3. You asked how I was using "Darkness" and I refused to answer until you asked Robert about his use of "unsound doctrine." Notice: Both of these words--darkness and unsound doctrine--are themselves ambiguous.

4. When I refused to answer, you--almost immediately--jump to the conclusion that I have questioned the salvation of persons (including yourself, since you do not hold to Reformed theology). This is what you said: "I dont' have to do anything for you to qualify a statement, one that questions the salvation of most on this board. Based on your non answer I will take it that is exactly what you meant, then."

Asking a question, as you did, is not giving the benefit of the doubt. Saying something like: I've never known Archangel to question anyone's salvation for being an Arminian...it must not be that's what he meant" is giving the benefit of the doubt. But, you didn't do that, did you? No you immediately assumed that I was using darkness to be absence of Christ (ie. in a state of non-belief)

You then go on to say:

This is not true. You, not I, supplied the definition in post #54 (sixth post in our exchange) when you allude to Ephesians 5 and say "Scripture defines darkness as absence of Christ, judgment and impurity." Therefore, you had already assumed what I meant by darkness (thinking the worst) and you had not questioned Robert's equally misconstrued statement of "unsound doctrine." All this you did before I ever gave you an answer, which came in post #59.

Actually, that you asked for a clarification and pressed for one and then, when I didn't supply one, you jump to scripture to define darkness (as you see fit)--shows that you had already decided what I meant. The asking for clarification was to overturn you assumption, not to confirm it. This is proven by your posts, especially when you say "based on your non-answer I will take it [that I have questioned the salvation of the non-reformed].

You weren't looking to clarify anything. You were asking me to overturn your assumption of what I meant which demonstrated indefatigably that you assumed the worst of my statement based on me (a Calvinist) when you assumed the best of Robert's statement (a non-Calvinist). Again, the very definition of a double standard--especially when one considers that darkness has a far greater range of meaning than unsound doctrine.

And, since, as has been demonstrated, you yourself assumed that darkness=unbelief, you should have also assumed that unsound doctrine=unbelief too. The difference is that a Calvinist used "darkness" and a non-Calvinist used "unsound doctrine," which, again, is very telling when one considers that darkness has a far greater range of meaning than unsound doctrine.

I think you still don't get it. I had nothing going on with Robert. I never challenged his statement. I understood him to be stating something which was very close in intent to a choice in the poll. This has everything to do with you assuming the worst about a statement I made (again, because I am a Calvinist) and giving Robert (a non-Calvinist) a free pass. Robert and his statement has only served as a foil to highlight your application of a double standard based on whether or not someone agrees with you theologically.

Continued...

 

Part 2 of 2

Continued...

Again, I have demonstrated that you, not I, were the one who defined the word "Darkness" as unbelief.

There is no hypocrisy in what I'm writing. Your issue is that I have never come to your defense? I do not recall anyone questioning your salvation. Now, I do think it a bit narcissistic to think that I should read (or have wanted to read) all 17,654 (at the time of this post) you have written.

But, with all certainty--as I have demonstrated even today--I do try to correct people from both sides when they appear to question salvation or even when they use unhelpful words or phrases. I have never seen you do that.

The instigator here is you. You pressed for an answer to overturn you assumption. When I didn't give it, you, not I, defined "darkness." When I further refused to answer you further assumed that I had questioned the salvation of everyone who was not Reformed. These are simple facts, as I have demonstrated above.

As for pointing fingers...perhaps you didn't read what I wrote:

Now, if memory serves, I do remember you claiming or intimating that you answer in kind to people who answer you insultingly. But we all know that is not how Christians are to act. It is not "Do unto others as they have done to you." It is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So, even if people are insulting you, you should not return the insult. Now, of course, we are all guilty of this, because we are all sinners. I struggle with answering people in the same manner they have addressed me. But, there are people here, and to be frank...this includes you, who do not even seem to engage in the struggle to talk to people as you would have them talk to you. I would venture to say no one here is surprised when you tear into them. On the contrary, most people, myself included, are quite surprised when we receive a neutral or a cordial response. This is not the way things should be.
​

As you will notice (and should have noticed earlier) I have already pointed the finger at myself. You might have missed that.

Again, however, you are lashing out. Why? Because I pointed out a prejudice in you? It frightens me (for you) that you immediately point fingers and say "Archangel did this" or "Archangel did that." Never once, did you consider that you might, in fact, treat the members of this Baptist Board Community differently based on their theology, which you do.

This is why I said:

I'm afraid that through this entire exchange you've learned nothing. Instead you seek to blame other people for your actions, going so far as to misrepresent the facts (though that may be unintentional).

I'm done with this. Perhaps someday you'll learn that sniping, biting, at-the-man comments about people simply because they are reformed in theology is conduct unbecoming a brother in Christ. We can all hope and pray for that day (because your posts can be quite engaging if those sniping, biting elements are left out).

The Archangel

 

Though this might be an un-nuanced way to describe the positions, I think it is mostly accurate. A chart (here) on Wikipedia details it (again, in an un-nuanced fashion).

I am much more an Infra.

The Supra position, I think, misses the mark because it is as if God decrees the fall in order to condemn the non-elect.

I describe my position like this: God permits the fall (as opposed to decreeing it); God determines to save some through Christ; God creates humanity; God provides salvation for those whom He chose to save.

I believe in "double predestination" but I do not call it "active" on both sides. I say that God actively chooses to save His elect and He passively chooses to damn the non-elect. My position can be further described by saying that God "passed over" the non-elect.

In the way I describe this, I point this out: It is important to note that all of humanity is condemned already because of the fall. So, as described above, God is not actively choosing to damn, as the Supras would claim.

That's good! We have a point of agreement, I think. But, you do realize that I am saying that faith too is a gift?

The Archangel

 

lol...

Good answer.

:thumbsup:

 

John 6 and 10

John 6:35, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will not thirst."

- Jesus clearly shows that He is the life and we must believe in Him, then says:

6:36, "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe."

The issue is that while people see Him they are unbelieving. Now watch what He says:

6:37, "All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Notice here Jesus explains why people believe and don't believe.... It is because they need to be given to the Son by the Father (The sheep that is, we will see in a minute).... How does the Father give them to the Son? we will see in 6:44.

6:38, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." What is it? It is to save the sheep. It is to die for their sins on a cross and raise again. Jesus says this over and over. Watch:

6:39, "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it on the last day." See. The Father gives the Son the chosen sheep/elect and Jesus purchases them and loses none of them. Who are the sheep?

6:40, "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him on the last day."

Lets summarize:
v. 35- people who believe in the Son have life
v. 36- people don't believe even though they see
v. 37- All the Father chooses will come to Jesus like and believe like vs 35 says
v. 38- Jesus came to do His Father's will
v. 39- The Father's will was for Jesus to purchase His sheep
v. 40- repeat vs 35, all who believe will have eternal life

Here is how the people believe:

In verse 41-43 we see that People had a hard time believing Jesus came from heaven because of he was Joseph's son. So Jesus said:

John 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him and I will raise Him on the last day." Jesus lumped up verses 35-40 here, read them again. How does the Father draw His elect? watch:

6:45, "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY ALL SHALL BE TAUGHT BY GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."
What does it mean to hear and learn from the Father?

John 6:46, "Not that anyone has seen the Father." Jesus said this because hearing and learning from the Father does not mean physically, but spiritually. In 6:47-51 repeats and expands on His teaching we have covered. Then in 6:52 we see that people don't spiritually get his message like the Jews in John 2, Nicodemus in John 3, the woman at the well in John 4, etc. They blindly wonder how Jesus is going to let them cannibalize. They were blind, yet could physically see! In John 53-58, Jesus again expounds upon believing in Him with His figurative language.

Then we find the answers to our questions:
1. We know that those who believe have life.
2. Those who believe are given to the Son by the Father.
3. The Father draws and teaches to give the sheep to the Son.
4. So how does He draw them?

John 6:59- This was done in Capernaum in the synagogue.
John 6:60- Many followers grumbled because of His difficult teaching... They confessed they were confused...
John 6:61- Jesus asked, "Does this cause you to stumble?" Answer: Yes
John 6:62- He asked, "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?" Im not sure what Jesus is doing here, but it seems like He is trying to to say that there is nothing they can do to get it, not even a great miracle. See Luke 16:31

HERES THE BIG POINT: Jesus here shows how the Father teaches and draws:

John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." Here Jesus shows How the Fathers will works. The Father chooses and draws the sheep by the Spirit through the work of Christ. The flesh profits nothing, nothing at all. Jesus shows that His words He was speaking were spiritual words. Remember what He said to Nicodemus:

John 3:12, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" In other words, You can't believe earthly words therefore you definitely cannot hear spiritual words. They are give by the Father through the Spirit. He alone gives Life.

After Jesus said this to the people at Capernaum He then said again:

John 6:64, "There are some of you who do not believe." Why? Because
1. They need to be elect sheep.
2. They need to be taught words and drawn
3. They need the Spirit to give them these words.

John 6:65, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." See. Nobody believes unless it is given to them from the Father!

This connects to John 10 beautifully, I wont be so lengthy:

10:3, "The sheep hear his voice and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out."
10:11: "I am the good shepherd; he good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep."
10:14: "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me"
10:15: "Even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; I lay down My lief for the sheep."
10:16: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd."

After Jesus spoke this about the sheep, the Jews were arguing whether or whether not He was insane. They asked Him if He was the Christ and He said:

10:25, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me."

10:26, "But you do not believe because you are not My sheep."

10:27, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me."
10:28, "and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
10:29, "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of my Father's hand."

 

Very good and good luck I have already posted some of the chapter 10 verses without response. God is in the saving business whom he will and when he will and in his time. It is we who do not quite understand this. However we will be alright because Thank God he loves us. The Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world died for mankind. The feast of unleavened bread sin being put out of our lives a note here there is a sabbath on the first day and on the seventh day which I don't quite understand yet. Maybe an on going process to completeness I'm not sure. Feast of firstfruits which is Pentecost the giving of firstfruit of the spirit, the elect a sabbath. The feast of trumpets coming of the Lord heralding in of the kingdom and resurrection a sabbath. Day of atonement binding of Satan so can't deceive the nations a sabbath. Feast of tabernacles gathering residue of men seek the Lord and the elect a sabbath. Last great day of the feast last sabbath new heavens and new earth New Jerusalem comes down from heaven healing waters from tree of life whosoever will may come.

I don't have this chiseled in stone but studying and a rough outline. Somewhere in this is maybe another resurrection white throne judgment and so forth. Some of you with better understanding help me out.

I know man you need a lot of help. I'm semi open.

 

First of all, I don't think the Bible teaches anywhere that it is immoral or even slightly wrong for God to force anybody to do anything he wants.

Secondly, it should not even SEEM that we are saying that God FORCES people to be saved. Everyone who gets saved WANTS to be saved. God simply changes their WANT.

Before regeneration they WANT nothing to do with God. Then God gives them a new heart and suddenly they WANT God. There is no FORCING there- there is simply transformation.

 

If you are going to exchange with Webdog get used to this kind of stuff. Calling people liars is his M. O. He gets personal and attacks you for getting personal and then when you point out that he does it- he denies it. Then you prove it by posting his posts and then he spins those posts saying you took him out of context.

That's what you sign up for when you engage webdog.

 

I had hoped to get a response to this from quantum or anyone for that matter.

Why is it against the nature of God to force people to do things against their will?

That seems to be the cornerstone of "non-cal" doctrine. But it is not in the Bible.

And why can "non-cals" not get that NO CALVINIST, NO NOT ONE, believes that God forces people into heaven or hell against their will???

I think it is his prerogative if he WANTS to. God has every right to do with his creatures whatsoever pleases him. If it pleases him to display his wrath by forcing a sinner into hell, then God is under NO obligation to the contrary. God owes the sinner NOTHING. NOTHING.

But we Calvinists do not believe that is how God works anyway. We believe everybody who wants to go to heaven to be with and worship Christ forever can- and will for that matter.

And everyone who does not want to worship Christ DOES NOT HAVE TO.

The thing is that God changes the "want to" with those he elects.

Why is that so hard for Armin... I mean "non-cals" to get?:thumbs: