Can the Non-Elect Come Under Conviction?

And whose fault is that?

For the one in the jungle who never heard the gospel, the preaching of the cross, it is the fault of the church. Someone failed to obey the gospel and to go and preach.

For the man who simply 'don't want to hear it', that man is inexcusable.

But both die and go to a devil's hell and ultimately, the lake of fire

 

Hebrews, chapter 8

"10": For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

"11": And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

"12": For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Seems to me the Lord said He would take care of that.

 

I am not sure that it can be argued that He does from any biblical perspective. We know for a fact that everyone even in the scripture didn't get "equal opportunity". As was pointed out earlier, Paul certainly had an extraordinary experience. Certainly people who actually sat in the presence of Jesus while teaching for 3 years had a unique opportunity. John tells us how large the number of books needed to contain the words and deeds of Jesus.

Those who sat under the ministries of directly inspired Apostles certainly had a unique opportunity.

From a purely experential point of view, we know that people have, are, and will died/dying/die without ever hearing the gospel at all. Yet Romans 1-2 make it clear that these are guilty.

I think a much better way of saying that is that God miraculously resurrects a dead carnal spirit that is at complete enmity with God and grants a new spirit. The choice to believe and be saved naturally flows from that new nature.

To say man "can't refuse" would be equivalent to saying that an unconscious, drowning man that is saved will refuse to breath.

Effectual and resistable are mutually exclusive.

I don't know that I would buy either generalization but I will answer this point as if it is your position.

They idea that man can refuse is in the abstract one I can agree with in the same respect that I can believe that man can "choose" salvation of his own accord or live a perfect and sinless life. It isn't really though a question of what can be done but what will be done according to one's spiritual nature.

Unregenerate, carnal man will not accept Christ because it is simply not consistent with his spiritual nature. The regenerated man will accept Christ because it is the only choice consistent with his nature. Any other choice would be as unnatural as choosing not breath or pump blood or have brain waves.

 

That's because your 'limited" knowledge doesn't know how the "TRUTH" is manifestd to "ALL MEN".

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Ro 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; </font>[/QUOTE] This makes them guilty for not seeking God and living perfectly according to the dictates of conscience that all men have per Romans 2. Theoretically, (and I would suggest just as probable as man making the "good" choice to believe without being renewed of God) a man could always live in submission to his conscience's guiding of "good"/"guilt" thus obeying the law and being saved by his merits.

I think it is every bit as unreasonable/unbiblical to suggest that carnal man will have the goodness of himself to deny self in favor of Christ as it is to suggest that a man could obey the full letter and spirit of God's moral law to the perfect standard of Christ. Both make man's merit the cause of salvation and only differ by degrees. One says that man's merit can please God completely. The other says that man's merit can please God enough.

There is no provision anywhere in scripture for a person to be saved based solely on knowledge gained through the general revelation of nature. Only the special revelation of scripture and in particular the gospel can make a man wise unto salvation.

And not all men have been exposed equally to that light. Not all men hear the gospel.

Yes. And a man has just as much ability to live perfectly as he does to accept the gospel without being infused with a new spirit by God.

Noah didn't choose God first. God chose Noah. Genesis 6 says that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. It does not say that Noah chose to accept a deal God offered by the merits of his own good will.

 

Luke, chapter 7
"50": And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.


Luke, chapter 18
"42": And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee

Luke, chapter 17
"19": And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.

Luke, chapter 8
"48": And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.

 

For by grace are ye saved through faith AND THAT not of yourselves....

Faith is the human expression that evidences the God's act of grace.

 

Before we get too far off, men are not condemned only because they reject the gospel. They are condemned because they sin against a holy God. The problem is sin. The solution is Christ's atonement.

 

You're right. It doesn't make sense to tell everyone Jesus loves them. That's not the Gospel, anyway.

I'd address the issue about the song, but that would take more energy than I have right now.

 

Maybe you've shortened the verse to "faith cometh by hearing the word of God". That's not what it says. It says faith comes by hearing, and HEARING comes by the word of God. It is important to note that "word" in the Greek is rhema (utterance, spoken word) not logos.

So then faith comes by hearing and hearing (having ears to hear) comes when God says so.

 

Scott J.;
Just quoting the Scriptures what Jesus Himself said. I don't want to try and correct Him, would you?

nept;

I think you probably will think about it next time you sing that song. lol

 

Absolutely not. However I also wouldn't want to construe these quotes to the point where they are contradictory to the context of the whole of scripture and moreover to words Jesus spoke Himself... Would you? [/QB][/QUOTE]
And since you brought it up, let's include some of the Lord's statements that must be considered in how we interpret those statements... which were made in the immediate context of physically healing people rather being accepted into the kingdom.

Uh-oh... You have to use phrases out of context to "prove" your point... we can give you the whole context which could not possibly be clearer.

Uh-oh again!

No man can come to Christ unless the Father draw him... and Christ WILL raise him up at the last day. You have to deny the very meaning of the words to deny that who the Father draws Christ will raise up... especially in light of verse 45 that says that "every man" "that hath heard and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." This verse specifically precludes the notion that men will hear and learn of the Father and NOT come to Christ.

 

Scott J.;


Originally posted by Brother Bob:
Luke, chapter 7
"50": And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.


Luke, chapter 18
"42": And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee

(These two say "saved thee", and I alway try to read enough to get the context of the Scripture for that is where far too many go wrong.)

John, chapter 12
"32": And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Wisdom of Solomon chapter 12

"20": For if thou didst punish the enemies of thy children, and the condemned to death, with such deliberation, giving them time and place, whereby they might be delivered from their malice:

 

Calvin doctrine has two very "glaring" contradiction of scripture,

1. God supplies the "faith" to be saved.
2. Regneration/salvation before "faith".


Each doctrine by default, automatically establishes the opposite,

EX: predestination of the saved, by default, establishes the predestination of the lost.

Calvinist keep this in mind, because it's something you miss in the scriptures.

God calls, man hears the words of God.
Satan calls, man hears the words of satan.

The "seed" (word/God call) is sowed in the world, if a man takes it to heart, he's saved,

But, if a man doesn't take it to heart, Satan comes and take the word away from man.

Lu 8:5 A sower went out to sow his seed:

Lu 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

Lu 8:12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

Here's my point, God calls and offers man salvation,

Satan calls, offering "temptations, cares, riches, pleasure of this world,

man is in the middle chosing which side he want's to believe.

Satan is known as the "great deceiver", a title which, under the doctrine of predestination, is totally useless, because there's no one to be deceived.

Ge 3:1 Now the serpent (Satan) was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world (Satan) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Under predestination, satan has no role "whatsoever" as a "deceivers/blinder" of men,

God has elected whom he save, and "GOD" has elected whom he'll condemn, Satan is totally left out of the picture.

BY default, when God is made totally responsible for the choices men make, Satan is also totally eliminated from the picture.

In the OT, sins were not forgiven until a sacrifice was made, if God accepted the sacrifice, the sin were forgiven, if not, sin still laid at the door.

Ge 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.


It's the same today, a sacrifice must be offer to God and accepted "BEFORE" God will forgive sin.

1Co 5:7 For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Being "regenerated" before having the faith to claiming Jesus as our sacrifice, is equivalent to having your sins forgiven before offering the sacrifice.

This is why Jesus said: "No man" is regenerated, until after my sacrifice has paid the wages of his sins, then he can be forgiven.

 

It's very simple. According to the free-willer, God sovereignly decided to allow man to be sovereign when it comes to his eternal destiny. Now, in my particular case, I used my sovereignty over my eternal destiny to reassign God as sovereign over my eternal destiny. But God refused and said, "I am sovereign, and I have decided with my sovereign will not to allow you to tranfer the sovereign will I gave you back to me, so I sovereignly reassign the sovereignty over your eternal destiny back to you."

We argued about it for a while, and finally came to the agreement that my left sock should be sovereign over my eternal destiny. But that doesn't mean God is not sovereign. He sovereignly decided to tranfer His sovereignty to my left sock.

Are you getting this down? You'll be tested at the end of the week.

Seriously, it is a contradiction in terms to say God can sovereignly assign man sovereignty over his eternal destiny and God still remains sovereign. Once God passes the responsibility to man, He is no longer sovereign over man's eternal destiny. Period.

 

Tom, nept;
God will take the devil's power at the end when time ceases. As of now He is going to and fro through the whole world seeking whom He may devour and God is standing at the door of the heart of man and asking him to open the door to his heart and let God come in. There is a Scripture that says the Kingdom shall be overcome. Did you forget that Jesus was crucified and who do you think did it. I know Jesus laid down His life but still took the devil to hang him and thrust Him in the side with a sword. Also there is "death". Where do you think that came from, "because God sinned?" I don't think so but man was deceived by who? "Satan". The Lord could of called ten thousand angels but it was His choice not to but let the devil do what had to be done so the plan of Salvation was in place. What about Job, did God step back and let the devil have his way with Job? God could destroy the devil today if it was his wish but it is not. The day is already set when God will do that. Amen brothers,

God is still sovereign if that is how he created it to be. The devil sure didn't.

 

So, we have a scenario where God and Satan are equals, but neither of them is able to stand against the power of the human will.

Somehow, that doesn't square with God's telling Satan he could pester Job for a while but couldn't kill him.

I am still trying to figure out the mindset that makes man's will sovereign over God's will, and labels the view that God's will is sovereign over humans as heresy. </font>[/QUOTE]Sovereign will/predestination, eliminates any influence of Satan over man's decisions/destiny.

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Jos 24:15 choose you this day whom ye will serve;


Not to mention the un-necessary act of given man the law, since sovereign will/predestination prevents man from either obeying/disobey the law or holding man accountable.

Ro 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.


This is the "flip side" of Calvin's doctrine, or doctrine by default, if everything is predestined by sovereign will, then 99.9% of scripture does not apply as stated, therefore it is un-necessary.

[ May 04, 2006, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Me4Him ]

 

John, chapter 12
"32": And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, Are you a universalist? If not, this verse is every bit as problematic for you as for me.

BTW, you still haven't answered my question. What is the critical difference between you and a lost person? Whose "good choice" initiated your salvation?

 

Scott J.

Luke, chapter 10
"42": But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

(Me)

John, chapter 3
"19": And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

(lost)

universalist? Why would you ask such a question after all the posts I have made on here, just to be nasty or what?

 

No. Just to make the point that the text you cite must be interpretted by both of us according to context in a way that is not obvious when taken out of context. Out of context, this verse suggest that Christ will save everyone... unless you are saying He can try to do something and fail.

Why did you choose that way Bob? That's the question. Not whether you did choose or not, for most people on both sides believe that we have "chosen that good part".

The question is what caused us to make such a choice... Was it our own goodness that makes us different from the lost or did God provide that "goodness" that separates us from the lost?

I'm not interested in "how" you think we are saved... We'd probably agree on the experiential means whereby people are saved. I am interested in why you think you chose righteously while another with perhaps even more opportunity and reason to accept Christ than you did not.