Truth or Calvinism - That should do it.

Benefactor, I do not believe there is a universal desire to on the part of God to save every single man. If there was then God would do it.
I wonder, do you believe that God will be eternally frustrated because there will be those that He tried His best to save that simply refused?

Romans 9 is pretty clear on this topic.
THere are other clear passages as well but that is perhaps the clearest of them all.

The context of your last post, the citing of 1 Tim is that all people in a generic term.
It was not limited to the Jews but opened to all, jew and Gentile, Kings, common men.

Also we are to pray for and evangelize all people.

So, in our day many Christians are not big fans of Obama, but you know what? We are commanded to pray for him anyway, for his salvation as well as for his duties as president.

I gotta get to bed now but I will try to post again later.

Oh, and civil discussions are certainly possible.

We are brothers in Christ here. We are to Honor Him so even though we disagree in our understanding of Scripture, we should still strive to Honor God in all we do, including debate.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.
Calvinism gives God complete freedom to save.
IT is arminianism who ties God's hands by only allowing Him to save those which cooperate with His plan.
That is why we use the terms monergism and synergism.
You may say you are just a Baptist but all Baptists are either monergists or synergists.
No way around it.

 

I think you are a little trigger happy cowboy, I'm a non-cal.

Darren

 

You just said it there, desire via plan. Did God plan to save everyone? Yes or no? Unless you are a universalist you'd have to so no. I think you are far too excited about disproving a particular position that you've not thought the result is closely the same either way; God saves some, all whom believe are drawn, God is the righteous judge of all whom are cast into the lake of fire whose names are not in the book of life. The means may be in dispute but the results are similar.

Darren

 

I get my strength from the sovereignty of God, and His absolute right to do as He pleases withinthe confines of His person.

I do not believe puny humankind has any authority to tell God what he can and cannot do.

Jonah couldn't tell God what to do and neither can I.

If I wasn't a sovereigntist, I would be ashamed of myself.

Cheers,

Jim

 

How does God "Draw" a person???

In the OT, God sent prophets to speak for him, they didn't have a "Comforter".

Ec 4:1 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.

During this "church period", God, through Jesus/Comforter, speaks "DIRECTLY" to each individual.

Heb 1:1 God, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,


With the "PRE" trib Rapture the "Comforter" will again leave and Israel/world will return back under the OT law and prophets system of leadership, the Two witnesses "speaking for God".

Here's the problem I see with Calvin's doctrine,

It is based on the presents of the "Comforter/Holy "GHOST OF JESUS" being "IN THE WORLD",

and if the "Comforter" is "Taken out of the way", either in the OT or during the trib,

Calvin's doctrine fails, especially in the area of "Effectual calling",

Calvin's doctrine doesn't take into account the world without the "Comforter" being present,

and that is one of the problems with it.

 

Jer 13:17 But if ye will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride; and mine eye shall weep sore, and run down with tears, because the LORD'S flock is carried away captive.

Ps 81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.

12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels.

13 Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!

14 I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries.

15 The haters of the LORD should have submitted themselves unto him: but their time should have endured for ever.

Ro 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:


Why should Jeremiah/Paul write of weeping/sorrow for people who reject God and perish,

Yet God should not weep or feel sorrow for the same people????

Ge 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

Why would this passage be used? It has nothing to do with the topic.

Not really. No congent point was made about this topic from this verse.

Well, no. This is incorrect. This is a case of hina+subjunctive, Wallace says, “We must not suppose that this use of the subjunctive necessarily implies any doubt about the fulfillment of the verbal action on the part of the speaker” (GGBB, p. 472). You should have known this already.

How do we know this? You have stated it several times. You have not yet made an argument for it.

Again, you have not made an argument. But several points are in order. First, the section of Romans is 9-11, not 8-11. Second, this is not the conclusion of 9-11 but of a smaller portion of 11. (The conclusion of 9-11 is 11:33-36). Third, Romans 9 already plainly the fact of special election, as do other places in Scripture.

I don’t recall anyone saying differently.

Actually, we do. You do not. You force a meaning on it that is foreign to its use.

A contradiction to who? I think the only contradiction exists in your mind.

So regardless of all that, you still haven’t given a reason why Rom 11:32 denies special election.

As I said, there’s a reason this verse hasn’t been used in this discussion … Because it doesn’t address it. This is just fanciful thinking on your part.

 

I recently watched a video of RC Sproul on the topic of hermeneutics.
One of the points that he made was that we should always interpret the obscure passages with the clear.

There are many, many passages that are ambiguous about election and free will.
Taken in isolation they may seem to imply free will, or at least we infer free will from it.
John 3:16 is an excellent example.
It says that whoever believes will not perish.
But that verse does not even address the topic of who will believe and who even CAN believe.

If we go to another portion of John, we will see this issue addressed directly.
John 6 says that the father must draw a man in order for that man to be saved and that all that are drawn will be raised up.

A very important point: The giving of a choice by God does not equate the changing of the heart needed to act properly on that choice

 

As I mentioned before I am a non calvinist but this statement takes the cake of all absurdities from any camp. God had planned to saved EVERYONE so that is why Jesus dies on the cross? Would it be to the surprise of the omnipotent, omnipresent, creator of the universe that maybe such a plan would not really save EVERYONE? I'm from the whosoever will believe crowd and I have no illusions to the foolish notion of God not having the foreknowledge to estimate that His plan to save EVERYONE will result in saving only some BUT not everyone!! God is like, "oh bummer I was hoping to save everyone, silly Me".

Darren

 

How is Romans 8-9 for a leg to stand on?

How is that for a leg to stand on.
I once believed the same as you did. It was not some careful argument by a calvinist who convinced me I was wrong.
It was not wanting to hold to some tradition or being stuck in the past.
MY tradition was synergism.
MY tradition was antagonistic to calvinism.

But this passage alone showed me that I was quite possibly wrong.
I was dumbfounded to see those terms which I had scoffed at were actually in the Bible.
Foreknew, Predestined, Called, etc.

No, sir, it is you that has not a leg upon which to stand.

You most certainly are a synergist.
You believe that God's will and man's will must cooperate in order to save a man.

I am a monergist, God's will and work alone are required and are thus sufficient.

 

The modern day distortion of John 3:16 with the lopsided focus on 'whosoever believeth', is like placing the emPHASis on the wrong syLAHbull and causes confusion with the topic of God's grace. John 3:16 is not an invitation, it is a statement of fact; a wonderful summation of God's love towards us. Here's the real invitation:


“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

I know that I have nothing to do with my eternal destiny, far much less anyone else's. Christ put no such burden on me. I will forever thank God that He put me in Christ Jesus, and glory in the Lord, and rejoice that my name is written in heaven.

 

I like to post the following quotation periodically because it demonstrates so clearly the error of the doctrine that God and me saved me. I believe some call it synergistic.

John Dagg [page 322, Manual of Theology] comments on the natural man’s inability regarding salvation, as follows:

“Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible.”

 

In post 29, I addressed this "subject".

Just how does the "drawing" work without the presents of the "Comforter" in the world to "Change hearts"???

 

I read your post #29.

Are you equating the comforter of Ecc 4:1 with the Comforter of Jn 14 & 16? If you are, you're way off base. Not even the same.

 

So you have seen the light.

The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, does change hearts, or actually wills, through the process of regeneration; that is giving spiritual life to those who are spiritually dead in sin. The Holy Spirit then gives the gift of faith through which the regenerate person can respond to the Gospel Call; which, for them, is now the Effectual Call. [Ephesians 2:1-8]