No, it is not out of context. Feel free to include it. Because we believe, God has given us the right to become his children, "children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."
It was absolutely His decision what to do with those who believe in Him! And I am incredibly grateful for the love He has expressed in giving us a new life in Him.
But the point of that entire passage is that first, He was refused by the very people He came to -- His own -- which sort of refutes Calvinism's idea of irresistible grace. Second, anyone who believes is given the right to become a child of God. Third, the decision to make believers children of God is entirely God's. We could not have achieved that status ourselves, despite any belief we have in Him.
Do you read this verse the same way I do?
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Daniel David, Mar 12, 2003.
Page 3 of 3
-
-
-
Ok guys, I have a question here that to some will probably seem ludicrous, but I would appreciate an answer. My question is simply this:
What is the spiritual importance of understanding this from one point of view over the other? Do we not all agree that the basis for our salvation is repentence and faith in Christ as our Redeemer? Whatever we may believe about how we came to this faith and repentence is a secondary issue at best, the important thing is that we have done so.
I understand the desire to delve more deeply into the Word, and to have a clearer understanding of what it teaches. But the fact remains that the gospel message itself is beautifully simplistic. Beyond that, most doctrines are only individual interpretations of scripture that have become widely accepted as truth. I am not in any way saying that there is no truth to be found in doctrine, I am only asking why some feel it is important to sway the opinion of others toward what they believe when it is not a necessary element of salvation. -
I don't know what others would say but I think the issue goes to the heart of the glory of God and his rights as God. I am not questioning the salvation of those who disagree with me, though I think there are some inconsistencies. I think it goes to how we view God and that is why I am firm in my position.
-
Wondering One, the reason I am willing to confront on this issue is that the end result of Calvinism is "too bad for most of the world, God didn't REALLY love you enough to send His son for you; it was only for us chosen who were predestined from before birth."
Calvinism presents hopelessness to the rest. They use the word 'choice,' but those others really have no choice because God did not select them from the beginning.
To me, this denies God's essential character of love and justice and mercy, altogether. Love means you care for someone's welfare more than your own. John 3:16 says God cared in this way enough to send His Son, and Revelation 13:8 says the sacrifice was a reality from the foundation of the world. John 3:16 says 'whoever' or 'whomsoever' (or whatever word your preferred translation uses -- they all indicate that 'whoever' is not a 'preselected few') believes will inherit eternal life.
It is absolutely essential that all men know that they are free to choose Christ, despite having a sin nature. His very mission is to rescue a man from himself, and give him a new nature.
It is not just, it is not merciful, and it most certainly is not love to condemn the vast majority of people created to hell by virtue of their sin natures and only select a few to be saved. This gives the appearance of randomness to us and denies everything He has created within us which declares the meanings of justice and mercy.
And so, because I feel the very character of God is at stake, I will confront Calvinism whenever possible. They claim that those who don't agree with them deny the sovereignty of God. Baloney. He is more sovereign than that doctrine will allow, for He is sovereign enough to give us the choice and still be in complete control. It's like a parent giving a choice to a small child -- the parent never loses control no matter which choice the child makes.
In God's case He has known the end from the beginning, so He does know what our choices will be, but that does not mean He has chosen for us. The command to "Choose this day whom you will serve" did not end with the Israelites entry into the Promised Land. It has rung down through the ages since Adam and Eve. And so even the writer to the Hebrews literally begs his readers, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion". And we see here also that it is not sin which condemned them, or us, but unbelief: "So we see that they were not able to enter because of their unbelief." (From Hebrews 3)
Chapter 4 begins with the following:
Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.
That does not sound to me like only those God has already chosen will be allowed in. Does it sound like it to you?
And yet that is what the Calvinists here are saying -- that despite all the pleas and arguments presented throughout the entire Bible, only those pre-selected by God will ever be rescued anyway.
I cannot leave people here with that kind of fatalistic hopelessness.
And so I take the time to respond as often as I can. -
I really wish Helen would confine her comments to what she believes rather than what she would like for us to believe. Once again, she has said somethings that simply aren't true. She has been corrected before but has continued anyway. :( ... What will it take??
-
Murph -
Who shut "their view down" (whatever that means)? I certainly didn't. What good is a question if no one can answer it?
I think the discussion here is helpful, particularly in rebuttals becuase it shows that both sides have answers for the other side. If no one answers my posts, people might think I am right (God forbid). If no one answers the posts of the other side, they might think they are right (God forbid). I think the discussion is well worth having becuase it demonstrates some points that people need to wrestle through. -
Helen, along with Pastor Larry and others, I tire of being told what I believe. You do not accurately represent calvinism in your rebuttal of it. I hope this is accidently and done in ignorance and that none of it is purposeful.
You say that believing makes you a sheep. Christ said the opposite.
Here is what some people do and I think on this issue, you have also:
Take a few passages that seem to contradict. Take a passage here, a passage here, and a passage here. Mix them up in a bowl. Toss it up in the air and accept whatever falls down that you can grap. Now, I am not saying that you do this with every issue, just this one.
When interpretation is done correctly, each passage is examined at face value. All possible interpretations must be considered. Then, when you are satisfied that all possibilities have been uncovered, you move to the next one. After all passages have been examined and all possibilities considered, then and only then can you begin to weed out the false ideas.
Take John 3:16, we know that God loves the world. The text says it. In 1 John 2, it says that a friend of the world is at enmity with God. Now, if we examine all possibilities of these two passages, we will quickly understand that the "world" in John 3:16 is not the "world" in 1 John 2. The "world" in 1 John 2 refers to a governmental system that is controlled by Satan himself. It includes but is not limited to false gods, false ideas, sin, corruption, etc. God does not love that "world".
So, back to the passage. I asked about a specific verse. Once the different interpretations have been arrived at, we can move on and check them against other passages.
Jesus said that they did not believe because they were not sheep.
This passage can only have one interpretation. No other passage will contradict it. No other passage will need to be balanced against it. No, we set it aside and then move on. Once we consider the other passages, we can compare the various interpretations to this one.
This is not a general debate about calvinism. Please stick to the topic. Arguing about choice and free will and responsibility and other issues is not immediately relevant right now.
I sure hope all this makes sense to everyone. At least it makes sense to me. -
I want to go back to an early post and challenge an assumption. Preach the Word said:
Then PTW goes on to say:
Here is my view in summary. The Jews in John 10 were providentially and temporarily blinded by God who, in his sovereignty, used their blindness to bring about the way of salvation through the death of Jesus on the cross. After Jesus' resurrection, Peter preached the gospel to these Jews, stating God's intention that every one of them be saved.
Consequently, I think you are misinterpreting John 10 because you are taking it out of its proper place in the unfolding story of God's provision for salvation. Because you misinterpret it, you also misapply it and take it to mean that some people can be saved, but others can't. The truth is that God intended for every one of those Jews to be saved just as he intends for "all men to come to salvation" today. Preaching for all men to come to salvation is the message the apostles preached and I intend by God's grace to carry on that tradition. -
Thank you swaimj, and God bless. In accord with Murphy's request, I am not going to keep bantering back and forth. Besides, everything have to say has been said. I do appreciate you adding this, however. I had not thought about it from that direction.
-
As my request to cease with the personalities in this thread has been ignored I have moved this thread to the Cal/Arm debate.
Murph
Page 3 of 3