question on Calvinism

Seriously, though, the tares and the wheat both grow in God's kingdom. God planted the wheat and Satan planted the tares.
The wheat are God's elect, the tares the unelect in Christendom.
Obvious, ja ?

 

erratum:

I mean, in 'Christendom'. Sorry.

 

npetreley,

I have before me and study the KJV and it was printed by A.J. Holman Company, Philadelphia. At times I refer to the Greek when a verse appears stilted by way of wording.

It is old and valuable truth to me, that we are to let the wheat and tares to grow together until He judges each soul. So, in this statement of yours, I agree with you.

There are false liberal preachers who preach every Sunday. As far as more evangelical congregations we hope that the officials use their best discernment to make sure 99 44/100 sure that their pastors are saved men.

Pastors teach and edify their brethren but there are times that true pastors preach to the lost/the tares. I am sure you agree with this most recent sentence.

Wherever the Word is preached with clarity the Holy Spirit draws people toward Christ. John 12:32 indicates that if Jesus is ' . . . lifted up from the earth, He will draw all men unto Himself.'

I agree with you that a sinner left to himself alone, will not choose Jesus; but where the simple message of Christ is preached or witnessed to, the Spirit will also attend that interaction between the sinner and God's Word and Jesus Himself.

Yes, we believe that God 'wishes' all sinners to be saved, as says, I Timothy 2:4. The Greek word is {thelei} suggesting a positive and hopeful Mind set coming from our Lord on behalf of His created beings.

Christ and the evil one are poles apart; they are opposites, so why would the Lord ordain sinners to remain in their sins? This would be counterproductive and He would be in collusion with the intentions of 'the great dragon.' [Revelation 12:9 a,b,c,d]

As to the creatures free will, this is also documented in the Word of God. Revelation 22:17f,g says, 'And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.' 'Willing' and 'taking' reflect the human sinner's response to drinking of the water of everlasting life.

God in His Being has ordained the response of the humans who He has created. [I John 5:13]

Regards . . .

 

Indeed that insertion/edit is needed in Calvinism to qualify and unqualified statement in John 12:32.

However, my point was simply that Calvinists do admit that the power identified there DOES solve the total depravity problem of being unnable to choose.

The point remains.

Again you duck the point. The text identified is showing that power which solves the TD problem.

Calvinists love to pretend the difference is TD between Arminians and Calvinists - but the truth is that BOTH groups admit that the John 12:32 power "Solves that problem".

That means the "real difference" is that Arminians accept ALL as being ALL - and Calvinists make it "ALL of some arbitrarily small group arbitrarily selected out from among the MANY of Matt 7".

An amazing edit of the text in my view.


No man can come to me, except the Father which sent me, draw Him - John 6:44 -

And of course "ALL mankind are drawn" John 12:32. Same author, same book, same concept fully explained. Exegesis is the friend of the Arminian position.

God sent Him to be the "savior of the World" 1John 4:14

You seem to testify "oh no he did not!"

John is actually pretty well versed in this Arminian idea that he keeps repeating.

Notice in John 1 "Coming into the World Jesus is the light that enlightens EVERY one".

Not the words of a Calvinist.

now see that was not so hard! WE agree that this drawing of John 12:32 IS enabling and DOES solve the TD problem.

So TD is not "the difference" rather the difference is accepting ALL and WORLD for what they are.

Arminians do. Calvinists don't.

It is simple.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
You said:
And of course "ALL mankind are drawn" John 12:32. Same author, same book, same concept fully explained. Exegesis is the friend of the Arminian position.

Exegetically, how do you argue from the context that all should be taken as "all inclusive"? Unless I missed it, you offered no exegetical evidence but an assumed interpretation.

May God bless you

 

Absolutely! When you dated your wife people might have said of you that you wooed her to yourself. This attempt was a strong drawing surrounding her and she apparently responded to your call.

Why do some resist. Matthew thirteen gives you your answer. Each person who resists Christ has their own reason and those who believe to life have their determination as to what swayed them into a saving trust in Jesus.

God does not need to look down through eternity until the last believer steps into the church/Kingdom of God. This is the way some Calvinists and Arminians speak of God dealing with a more Biblical understanding of Scripture. The fact is, that Almighty God because of His Omniscience has always known who were/will beHis elect. But His election was based on who responded to the inner calling of the Spirit of God in the life of the sinner.
</font>[/QUOTE]That means that God plays favorites then, which you say Calvinists teach. If election is conditional, based on who God knows will respond to the inner calling of the Spirit of God, that is, by definition, favoritism. THAT is partiality. You accuse Calvinists of believing in a God that is partial, yet what you describe is favoritism, because it bases election in something in man not in God. You embrace what you seek to deny. Partiality IS to look into the future or just "know already"who's good enough to pick God and then God chooses them based on something in them. THAT is God showing partiality because it has God picking someone because of something in THEM!.

"Each person who resists Christ has their own reason and those who believe to life have their determination as to what swayed them into a saving trust in Jesus."

Ok, then explain how anybody that the Bible describes like THIS: is man who is deceitful (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness (John 3:19), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20) can do that.

What could possibly motivate somebody to choose Christ with that in their hearts? Do they have some spark of life in them, though Scripture clearly teaches they do not? You see, to that requires "self-actualization," which is logically impossible. NO POTENTIAL CAN ACTUALIZE ITSELF, because only things that are actual can actualize a potential. To do as you say would require a reason and motivation and desire to exist and not exist simultaneously within the unsaved person in order to have faith and choose Christ. That is not possible. (This same principle, btw., is the cornerstone of the Cosmological Argument which both Arminians and Calvinists embrace as correct when doing apologetics with atheists. I suggest you carefully think about what you are saying if you seek to deny this axiom.).

 

Gene M. Bridges,

This is not a difficult question to answer.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit on the lives of the lost overshadows and opens all the doors that would, without God's help, would remain closed. (Revelation 22:17) The Spirit of God attends His Word and calls the lost to Christ.

 

Gene M. Bridges,

You were trying to explain away that Matthew thirteen does not speak to the issue of election. Clearly, 3-7 deals with all the non-elect and their reason for not uniting with Jesus. Only verse eight speaks of the seed that fell on the 'good ground' of the human heart/life which took seed and grew and became fruitful. Some Christians yield few fruit as noted in the 30 fold, 60 fold, and the believers who are walking in the Spirit who yield to the Lord 100 fold.

Election, in truth, is determined by the response of the sinner to the call of the Spirit of God. The whole purpose of the first verses of Matthew thirteen show that the Lord has ordained the free agency/free will of the lost sinner, as also in the case of Adam and Eve.

I am interested in what your slanted understanding of Jesus' Parable of the Sower is all about.

Brother Ray