Can the Non-Elect Come Under Conviction?

I don't recall wrestling with it. Are you sure you've got the right person again?

I really don't get your premise. You seem to think that unless man can "choose", there's no point in preaching to them. What if God uses men's preaching as part of His work to save them? Would you refuse to do His will just because it doesn't work the way you think it should work?

Because some of the world is the elect. As Charles Spurgeon once said (and I have to paraphrase loosely from memory), "If God had painted a white stripe down the backs of the elect, I'd know to whom I should preach. Since he hasn't done this, I shall preach to everyone."

I don't entirely agree with this statement, and I think it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I think that God uses the Gospel to harden hearts as well as open them, so even if we knew who the elect were, it would still make sense to preach to everyone. That is, after all, what God told us to do.

 

The analogy isn't perfect but you are missing part of it. Not every patient is suitable for every treatment.

But back to the point, I responded to SFIC's (non)answer. You guys are still avoiding the critical question of prime cause. For every cause and effect relationship you can and often should continue to ask the question "Why?" until you reach the prime cause.

The prime cause for the salvation "choice" is "goodness". Whose goodness saved you?

 

Scott J.;
Those are your words not mine. I think it is choice. I think God made us that way where we could choose and we can't change it if we wanted to. I think He put before us Choose the Lord and live or choose the world and die. What so ever a man soeth so shall he reap. simple as that.

 

So you are then saying it is a person's goodness that leads them to repentance?

So your answer to my question "Why does one person accept and another reject?" is that ultimately that one "sows" well and another "sows" wrongly?

Sowing btw can never be confused with "non-work".

 

I been planting tomato plants and got to shower and

We shall continue I suppose?

 

nept;
You quote Spurgeon and then say you don't agree with him, which is it?

Share the Gospel.
What I am saying is if all are pre-chosen for Heaven or Hell, what is the purpose. I would of liked to ask Spurgeon that.

Why did Jesus die, if all were pre-chosen. And I know you say well they were not chosen yet but later or something but if you have said if they are not in the plan they can't go. How am I going to go over and tell my neighbor; "sorry but you are going to hell". No, thank you,

 

I hope that he like I would have told you that God did not "pre-choose" anyone for hell. Man chooses hell for himself... and all men would do so if left to their own "good will".

 

it is a choice, Brother Bob. All through the scriptures we see important words that denote choice:

choose, yield, and a two letter word that we all use several times in our lifetime... 'if'.

If is one of the key words in the Bible to denote choice.

If you do this then I will do this. If you do this then this will be the result.

Wherefore as the Holy Ghost hath said, Today if you will hear my voice Harden not your hearts as in the provocation.

Yes, man has a choice. Man can choose good or evil, life or death.

Therefore, choose life.

 

Man chooses hell, well I can agree with that in a round about way. He loved darkness rather than light, but you say the one who chooses hell could not of chose Heaven, is that right or not?

 

Amen;
SfiC

 

C'mon, Bob, read my post.

Because God is working all things accoring to His good pleasure and purpose. That includes HOW the Gospel is propagated. At a purely academic level, I agree that if everyone refused to share the Gospel (which would be massive disobedience), then God would still save His elect. But what's the point of disobedience when you can do what your loving Father has told you to do? It is an HONOR to be used by God to accomplish His will, knowing full well that He can do it with or without me.

Can you say the word "atonement"? Sure. I knew you could.

Why would you do that? How do you know he's going to hell?

It's getting harder and harder to reply to your posts. You're not making any sense at all.

 

if man is able to choose hell, man has to have an alternative offered to make that choice. Eternal life in Christ is offered.

When man chooses hell, he has rejected Christ. There is the choice. Man has chosen between heaven and hell. Both were set before him and he chose the latter.

I can set a sour piece of candy before a child and a sweet piece of candy. I can tell that child that one is sour, the other sweet. The child must make a decision which to choose. If I set before him and say 'now, you can only have the piece on the left' that child had no choice at all. It was already decided by someone else.

God is not like that. His Son died for my sins, and not mine only, but for the sins of the 'whole' world. A choice has to be made by all.

 

No. I am saying that he will not so choose because it is alien to his nature. His spirit is at enmity with God.

He is capable of choosing Christ in the same sense that he is capable of obeying every letter and spirit of God's moral law... of making the absolute right choice on each situation... in such a way that he cannot be condemned. Jesus demonstrated that sinlessness is indeed "possible".

So the question is "will" man make all of those right choices? We know that none will though all "can".

So the other question is "will" unregenerate man choose to believe of his own goodness? We know that none will though all can... it requires the righteousness of another, Christ, to both fulfill the requirements of the law and supply that "goodness" we need to free our spirits unto belief.

 

Let me clarify what I mean by "choose hell".

Men make sinful, selfish choices that lead to hell. If a man truly believed in his heart of hearts the horrors of hell and that he was going there... he wouldn't trade them for earthly pleasure like he does.

Men don't "choose hell" per se but rather choose the path that seems best to them though its end is utter destruction.

 

Scott J.;
Go back and read your own post please. It don't make no sense at all I am sorry. I like you but man I would hate to try and remember that.

 

If everyone stopped preaching the gospel, God would stop saving people. How can they know who to call on if one is not sent to proclaim as John the Baptist did, 'I am not that light but am come to bear witness of that Light.'? One must hear the word in order to be saved... read Romans 10. If one could be saved without the hearing of the gospel, then God's Word would be a lie.

And we know that God is not a liar. Numbers 23:19, 20

 

nept;
You say its getting harder to reply to my posts when you I think believe a man "can" choose hell but he can't not choose hell. What kind of response is that, I never heard such running around in my life.

SfiC;
They will take that the wrong way and say thats why they go preach when in fact you are saying by hearing they can choose.

 

Man doesn't really choose between heaven and hell though. If they believed in both places and believed in what the Bible said about them then there would TRULY be "no choice". Offer any rational person a choice between eternal bliss and eternal torment and more than likely the first thing out of their mouth will be "That's no choice".

Now offer him a choice between pursuing his own pleasures and taking up a cross in the hope of a pleasure after death that he doesn't really believe exists or if it does that he can devise his own way in... and then you have a more accurate picture of the choice sinners face.

If you told that child that one piece was sour but would heal them of a disease and the other was sweet and would always carry the promise of more sweetness... even up to the grave then what would the choice depend on? It would depend on the goodness, wisdom, intelligence, etc to motivate them to have faith in what you said.

So then when they were cured, you could not deny that they deserved at least partial credit for saving themselves. In fact, you would have to give them the primary credit since it was their choice that made the critical life/death difference... all you did was provide a neutral choice so no glory whatsoever should go to you.

IOW's, you acknowledge that you believe the difference between the saved and lost is personal goodness, right?

 

using the man has no choice view, let's take it a step further...

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

To the lost sheep of the house of Israel. If this is to be taken literally, then Paul would not have been called to preach to the Gentile nation, but to the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel.'

But scripture tells us that because Israel rejected the true King, He sent preachers into the highways and byways to invite those who were not the elect to become as sons.

 

Scott J.

That is exactly what is offered man, but men loved darkness rather than light.