Featured Irresistible Grace, John 6:37

One of the major errors in our seeking understanding of God's revelation is to take the position we cannot understand it because God created time. We know God created physical time, but we do not know much of the spiritual realm of God before He created physical time. Is one of His attributes spiritual time. To claim He exists without sequence is an argument from silence. If we actually stick with His revelation, He relates to us sequentially. Certain things took place before the foundation of the world, i.e. He chose us in Him, and the Lamb of God was known before the foundation of the world. Then other things occur from the foundation of the world, i.e. during the period of creation to the end of days. For example names are recorded in the Lamb's book of life, not before the foundation of the world, but from or after the foundation of the world. To deny this because God created physical time is simply scripture nullification

And note this, the ones that push such a view, push an understanding that does not actually mesh with revelation.
Why embrace a tool to nullify scripture and make it of no effect.

 

Why do you keep insisting on this 'judicial hardening?" it would make more sense biblically speaking to see it as being God doing "Judicial Awaking", in order to bring out of a hard herated people a faithful remnant unto Himself!

he did the same in Elijahs time with the 7,000 faithful jews to yahweh, did he exercise 'Judicial hardening' at that time too?

 

Because that is what the Bible teaches. It clearly reveals that God actively "sends a spirit of stupor" and hardens their hearts. That is something scholars on both sides of this debate have affirmed for a very long time and it makes me wonder why you wouldn't.

Right, but one has to 'become hardened' first. They aren't born hardened, the scripture says, "they became hardened" and it warns us not to allow our hearts to grow hardened as well, a senseless warning if we were born that way.

 

Close. Its when you assume your view is the truth when that is the very point up for debate. It is the lowest form of debate and meaningless circular reasoning. I'd rather not partake.

Why did you stop quoting on that verse? Keep going...

It says, "Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved praise from men more than praise from God."

Does that sound like one of your so-called elect? Do elect people often refuse to confess their faith because they love the praise of man?

Same thing is talked about in John 2:

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men.

I don't think these verses support your premise.

Then you must not be understanding my view, because I have made no such denial. No one, and I mean no one can come to Christ unless invited/drawn/enabled. Romans 10:14 tells us this plainly. But HOW does God draw the lost to himself? By what MEANS are we invited/drawn and enabled?

Say it with me: G - O - S - P - E - L

And since they are being blinded from the truth of the gospel they can't come. Once the gospel is made clear to them and the blinders are lifted "they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" Acts 28

 

OK we have a difference of opinion.

HankD

 

We don't like it because it confuses people like you who don't know beans from apple butter about theology- much less Calvinism.

Thoughtful people do not get confused by it. They understand that the idea is not that no one ever resists the grace of God. They understand that those who employ the term realize that EVERYONE resists the grace of God for some amount of time.

Thoughtful people know what we mean by the term in that God's grace in bringing the elect to himself at the point he so wishes to do so- at that point it is irresistible.

But people like you waste so much of our time having to explain that to you repeatedly that we prefer to identify this clearly taught Scriptural doctrine by other terminology.

Now, when we speak to people with some theological understanding (usually those with some training, but sometimes there are those very intelligent Christian theologians who have no formal training)- with THEM we CAN use the classical terminology.

Does that answer your question?

 

Skandelon is exactly right.

Both sides have historically affirmed judicial hardening.

Right.

This is why Calvin taught something that many of my Calvinistic brethren have forgotten. That God can and does awaken people to a certain point by the Spirit effectuated Gospel and not bring them on to redemption. They are, in essence, still-born spiritually. They have not been fully born again, thus they have not been saved at all. But there was a conception spiritually and a period of spiritual incubation.

But God, for these people, allows them to die spiritually like an unborn child might die in the womb.

This explanation fits with the MANY apostasy passages in Scripture where people are called "twice dead" and it is said of them "they become entangled AGAIN" and "RETURN to [the old life]" etc, etc, etc...

Also, God can take a man whose natural condition is blindness and harden that blindness more. Not that they see less than before- no. Blind is blind. But that the disease worsens in this case from one which the Gospel heals to one which the Gospel does not heal.

These are people who the Bible speaks of as being "without hope" and "beyond repentance," etc...

 

Oh well said!:thumbs:

 

Van,

This is the work of the flesh,not the drawing of God.

This passage does not refer to the Apostates being drawn by the Father.
Jesus just taught on election and they could not stand it, so they went off into apostasy.

Where do you see that they were drawn anywhere in the text.When the father draws it is always effectual.:thumbs:

 

It is amazing to me how Calvinists rewrite scripture. Now we have the assertion that those who became Christ's disciples were not drawn by the gospel of Christ. I kid you not, that is the claim.

Next, believing that the miracles of Jesus demonstrates He is the Messiah is not the drawing of God. So Calvinists think Jesus performed those miracles by the power of Beelzebub? Everything He did was in accord with the Father, including His miracles.

Just one of the myriad of fictional assertions of Calvinism is that scripture teaches all who are drawn are chosen. But it is no where in scripture. Rather men are drawn by the Father but not given to Christ is the actual teaching. The actions of God showing lovingkindness to men, whether healing the sick, or dying on a cross draw us to God. We love Him because He first loved us.

 

We just believe what the scriptures teach...like here. No need to re write anything.....sheep believe the word:thumbs:

36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him
You could believe truth also .

Where do you come up with this evil idea?

Repent of this .

 

More of the same shuck and jive from the Calvinists.

Do Calvinists believe what scripture teaches, i.e. Christ died for all mankind? Nope.

Did God blind them, or were they blind already and incapable of being blinded. Every scripture Calvinism cites to support the false doctrine screams Calvinism is false.

Why did they need to be blinded so they would not believe and be healed? Folks, the very passage cited demonstrates Calvinism is false doctrine.

It was the Calvinist that claimed when Jesus performed miracles, and people were drawn to Him, that was not the drawing of the Father. Now they run away from their absurd assertions and pretend they know not what they asserted. Just read it folks, in context, not the snippets of the slice and dice Calvinist.

 

As do we all. It's when you assume your view is the scriptural one, that you commit this very basic circular fallacy. We all believe our view is biblical, otherwise we wouldn't believe it. Now argue for your view instead of begging the question...

:laugh: Nice cover. I must say, you fall from your errors with grace. :applause:

You apparently still aren't getting my position. I'm the one arguing that God is hardening Israel (a view supported by Calvinistic and non-Calvinstic scholars alike). You are the one attempting to argue that God only hardened the leaders.

It's called sarcasm, and it is something you seemed to be well versed in, so I thought you could receive it without taking it so seriously. If not, I can go with out.

I'm not sure how you think that addresses my argument. I'm done here. Goodnight. :sleeping_2:

 

Van...you posted...

they are trying desperatly to prop up, as legitimate, a very ((VERY)) flawed system,
[offensive statements edited]

 

Here is some comentary that is very good regarding regarding the extreme errors of Calvinism...

 

Ah yes!! More corporate "double speak". Look, Calvinism is continually seeking to reinvent the wheel. When the term "Irresistible Grace" was shot down, the term "effectual calling" came to the forefront. Then when "Limited Atonement" was blown to pieces, then they ushered in the term "Particular Redemption". They speak outta both sides of their mouth, if'n you ask me.

 

:sleeping_2::sleeping_2::sleeping_2::sleeping_2:

 

I think you might find that the term 'perticular redemption' predates the term 'limited atonement' (around 1905!) Spurgeon was using 'perticular redemption' as theological term some 50 years earlier