Does this indicate a choice?

Do I sense some sarcasm? Really? This from someone who believes that despite all of Paul's effort in persuasion, the outcome of there doom was unavoidable? I guess that is better somehow?

What do you do with this verse, if indeed its not about the persuasion of such things as signs and wonders and only about the effectual call?

Matthew 11:21
"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

 

Yes Skan, isn't it amazing that Jesus said that those who did not repent could repent?

 

I think you are out of line with this statement. Even though many of our calvinist brothers stoop to such lows in describing our theology this is not a good reflection on who they follow.

 

Why would Paul attempt to persuade anyone anyway? Just a big waste of time and energy.

Paul should have said, Alright fellas, here's the gospel, blah, blah, blah... Now all of you who believed come with me, the rest of you can go to hell. We got to move quick, I've got four more meetings scheduled for today!

 

If I am not regenerated, how do you expect me to do anything....certainly a scriptural passage wouldnt do it & if God was my enemy, why would I care what he does. Just like Korazin & Bethsaida, Im in conflict with God. Now if god regenerates me then of course I will respond....even in sackcloth & ashes. The the real miracle you fail to see in the evil places was the awakening.

 

I think the real miracle here is the fact those who Christ didn't die for (Tyre and Sidon) could have been saved at all and repentance would have been due to signs being performed and not regeneration.

 

Furthermore, I'd like to know why Calvinists think that Paul hoped that envy might provoke and bring some of the hardened Jews to salvation as he states in Romans 11:14?

Isn't envy a provoker of man's will? And if the will of lost man has nothing to do with their being saved why would Paul have hope in it arousing some of his own countrymen through his ministry to the Gentiles? Wouldn't his only hope be in God's unconditional election of them and their subsequent effectual call?

 

But according to Jesus, (not me, not Jacobus Arminius, but JESUS) Tyre and Sidon would have repented IF they would have seen the signs and wonders performed in Bethsaida and Korazin. He didn't say, "if they had been regenerated." In fact, that would make this rebuke of Christ meaningless. He would be rebuking the cities for not being regenerated, something only God could do. Should Jesus have just rebuked God for not regenerating those cities and skipped this rebuke?

 

Since you already told me you were a Calvinist, why then dont you answer your own questions?

As for me: Ezekiel 11:19

19 I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh.

Gods doing, not ours!

 

OK, Im curious....why do you need the magic show?

 

God does give a person a new heart and spirit AFTER they believe.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also AFTER THAT YE BELIEVED, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.

 

I couldn't find a sufficient answer for this question as a Calvinist, which is one of the reasons I'm not a Calvinist anymore.

No one here is denying that God is the one who gives us a new spirit and a new heart. Do you think that Arminians believe we give those to ourselves? Do you think we teach little Arminians, "Ok, kids, you need to go to the store and pick up the materials for building yourself a new heart because next week we are going to teach yourself how to do a transplant???" Come now.

We all affirm God's work in salvation, we just disagree regarding the means He employes and the efficacious nature of such means, which the verse you presented does not address.

 

Good diversion tactic, just like a magician. Ignore what Jesus actually says and attack Webdog as if he is the one who said it.

 

What magic show? I know you and obfuscation go hand in hand...but deal with the "miracle" that those unatoned for could have been saved and the unregenerated could have repented. I didn't say it, btw, Christ did. Does calvinism know something that He didn't?

 

You were sealed after you believed, not given a new heart after you believed.

 

So technically one can be a disciple and follow Christ pre-faith? One can begin sanctification prior to justification?

 

No, Sanctification happens after justification. Without faith, there is no justification, no sanctification, no glorification.

 

You may want to update your history. Servetus broke the law. He was wanted in more places than just Geneva and requested to be tried in Geneva. Servetus was pronounced guilty. Do I agree that this was right, no, but that's not the point. Calvin tried to get him to die by hanging which would be quicker, but the council of Geneva(which was higher than Calvin) said no. That's why Servetus was burned like he was.

However, this is totally irrelevant. My doctrine comes from the Bible, not by seeing who believed it and how good they were. Fred Phelps is a baptist, but you don't see me abandoning the baptist faith because of him.

 

Matter of fact, Fred Phelps is a Primitive Baptist; I wonder if he is indicative of the kind of people they produce? Probably not, although some here seem as mean-spirited as he is.