is the "Whosover Wills" Promise To the Elect of God, or to ALL?

But you believe they were passed over (rejected) by God before the foundation of the world and CANNOT come. This is a direct contradiction of what you and Tom said, you both said "All may come".

Do you think we cannot discern the difference between saying "none who come shall be rejected" and "All may come."?

You really believe people are quite gullible don't you?

 

All may come. nothing I said contradicted it. And not, God doesn't reject anyone. He allows them to stay exactly where they want, in their sin. You act as if God stands at the gate of heaven and people are coming to him, yet he accepts some and rejects others. This though is not the case. Everyone is running away. Jesus stands at the gate with arms open inviting all to come to him. Since no one comes, he elects to save some. All may come because God rejects no one.

There is no difference. all that come will be accepted(not rejected), therefore all may come.

No, not really. You still haven't shown my contradiction yet. I'll give you a hint, go grab a dictionary and look up some terms. It might help you out.

 

It is(true offer) because of what I said in my previous post. No need for me to repeat it again.

 

This answer is tantamount to a teacher who disciplines a room full of unruly students by chaining them all to their desks. Then throughout the course of the day goes around and removes the chains from a select few and then announces to the class, "I want us all to be reconciled. Whoever comes up to the front of the class can have candy and be reconciled, but if you don't come forward I will beat you relentlessly."

How is that offer in anyway genuine? How can anyone say that the students who remain in chains "may come?" Just because the teacher invites them to come, doesn't grant them that ability.

 

Would you unchain Charles Manson?

 

That's not the situation at all, but nice try though. There are many flaws in your analogy. As a former Calvinist, you should be smart enough to figure them out.

Again, as we have said, all may come.

 

In your system, He rejected them by choosing not to die for their sins (assuming you affirm limited atonement). He rejected them by choosing to judge all men for the sin of Adam by making them all born with a nature that is unable to willingly come when the appeal for reconciliation is offered. He rejected them when He chose before the foundation of the world not to regenerate them (or effectually call them) prior to their hearing the gospel's appeal. How can you argue that God did not reject the non-elect of your system.

We are not arguing that they are trying to come but can't, we are arguing that God has condemned them from birth to be born unable to willingly come when called. That is our objection, not the picture you keep painting.

 

Jbh, we don't need to resort to personal insults by implying that I'm not smart enough to figure your system out. After all, if your system is correct then I'm only as able to understand your dogma as God has made me, so you would only be insulting Him indirectly anyway. You know as well as I do there are supra, infra and all other kinds of Calvinists in our world, all of which would answer these charges a bit differently, so lets not play that immature game, ok?

How is the analogy flawed with regard to the point is was being used to make? We will adapt it as needed. Is it that some of the chained up kids might be trying to get loose but can't? Because that is beyond the point of the analogy and could easily be adapted to correct that issue by simply adding ear plugs to in the mix to where only the unchained kids have their ear plugs removed so as to hear the appeal for reconciliation. Does that help?

 

Absolutely! Wouldn't you?

 

What you said in your previous post is akin to someone standing in a morgue proclaiming "I will not turn down anyone who will come to me".

You are a pretty logical person from our interaction, but I cannot believe you adhere to something as illogical as this!

 

No, they don't come, so they are not rejected. Words have meanings and you can't just plug a word in there just to make an appeal at emotion. And actually I say that Christ died for the believers. It was never intended to save unbelievers. and Calvinism doesn't reject(and actually affirms) that Christ dead was sufficient for every person and every sin

How is judging people for sin "rejecting" them as the term has been used. Are you now advocating that God isn't just?

I've only explained it a few times. They don't come to be rejected.

the problem is that your objection is faulty. You have a system that is somehow obligated to offer salvation to all, which just simply isn't true. Men sin.(Romans 3:23) They deserve hell. (Romans 6:23) Unless you are going to advocate that man doesn't deserve hell, then you cannot have any objections to my "picture" that I presented. God offers salvation to whoever will come. Man's sin is what keeps him from wanting to come to God, not God keeping him from coming to God. God isn't obligated to save anyone. No one that comes to God will be rejected. All may come.

I find it so interesting that the non-cals think they know more about our theology than we do.

 

You actually are starting to get it. Salvation is about God saving us, not us going to God. No one gets saved outside of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Man is dead in his sins(he's a willing sinner) and has no desire to come to Christ. God's invitation is open to all, but no one want to seek him.

 

...so you are conceding it is not a real offer?

of·fer (ôfr, fr)
v. of·fered, of·fer·ing, of·fers
v.tr.
1. To present for acceptance or rejection; proffer:

FWIW I reject the "corpse" understanding of spiritual death...and while I believe salvation is about God saving us, it is not contradictory to us going to God.

 

There was no personal insult in my post. You should know that I don't resort to that.

And your system you made yourself as smart as you are?

I'm not playing any immature game. Let's not resort to side track game calling. and I'm very aware of the different kinds of Calvinist in the world. I've a low-moderate Calvinist. (depends on which "list" you look at)

the analogy is flawed because i appeals to the idea that the kids want to come to the front. No one is "trying to get loose but can't."

 

No, it is a real offer that no one wants because everyone wants to stay in their sin.

So, we are not dead in our sins and trespasses, but actually have some natural good in us? That's not what the Bible teaches. And the "corpse" would only refer to our spiritual deadness, not that our wills are dead.

 

You constantly word things in your posts that accuse God of wickedness,or impure motives..and most times you fail to offer scripture...so what are we to conclude???
It seems as if you delibrately mis-represent the biblical position on all of these items underlined.
Could you demonstrate where these ideas are taught as you suggest?

 

How can a corpse want anything? How can a corpse sin for that matter? In addtition what good is punishment to a corpse? Too many flaws to keep going...

I don't ever recall saying that. The Bible teaches we are separated from God (actual spiritual death) due to our trespasses and sins (not Adam's, btw)

 

As I said in my post you quoted, but seemed confused in it, we are spiritually dead. It doesn't mean that our wills are dead. We make choices.

and if you agree that we are totally separated from God and have nothing good in us, then what was your objection to then?

 

Rom. 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the good news of the Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to every one who is believing, both to Jew first, and to Greek. Heb. 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation;
which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord.
and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];

Where did this gospel word come from and what was it about?

Heb 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. We, the us that heard this message from them that heard it from the Lord, concerning a world to come that would not be subject to angels, whoever they are, but to man. Lets look further. Speaking to Cornelius, Acts 10:36,37 The word which [God] sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all That word, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, Is this the world to come that man resurrected in the image of the resurrected Jesus Christ will inherit with him, in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump, the kingdom of God?

Is there an open invitation to all mankind at this time to enter the kingdom or is God inviting according to election. Cornelius above is interesting in this respect. Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. Not to take all of them, not to offer to all of them but to take out of them. Did this begin at Pentecost and is still what God is doing in the world today or is he now doing something different that I don't know about? Whosoever will? Verse 15 James says the prophets words agree that this would take place. I will give you one that was in out Sunday school lesson this past Sunday yet neither the lesson book nor the teacher understands this to be so, Jer. 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: Is Zion the church? Ezekiel 36:22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not [this] for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen,(Gentiles,same word) whither ye went. God scattered them among the Gentiles. A people for his name.

What happens after this taking out of the nations a people for his name?

Verse 16: After this (after taking out a people for his name) I will return, (The coming of the Lord the last trump) and will build again the tabernacle of David, (The throne of David that Jeremiah was instrumental in to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down,) which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: (heal the breaches) (created when Jeremiah finished his commission, to build, and to plant.)

Now we are getting to the whosoever will, Verse 17 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.

Notice they seek not only the Lord but the ones called for his name. This is the same time frame as Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.


What say Ya'll?

 

Having only "skimmed" through this, someone my have already addressed what I am about to ask, so if they have, please forgive me.

Now, it seems the "backbone" of this thread is in regards to "election". I have two questions for both sides, "C" and "A", to answer. If you answer them with scripture, you will find the answer.

1.) What caused the Jews to be "cut off"?

2.) What caused us to be "grafted in"?

If you answer these with scripture, you will see what election is.



i am I AM's!!

Willis