is the "Whosover Wills" Promise To the Elect of God, or to ALL?

Aye, Brother, but here's the rub. If spiritual deadness is equal to physical deadness, we are dead. Even in Luke chapter 16, the rich man in hell was "alive" in that he felt, he talked, he even desired just one drop of water for his tongue. Spiritual death is seperation from God due to sin. If the soul was spiritually dead the same way a corpse is dead, then we are dead completely. The soul is what keeps the flesh alive. Once the soul leaves the body, it never will die...it will exist in either heaven or the lake of fire. But from the time God gives us our soul, through all of eternity, that soul will never die(meaning it will never stop functioning and will always hear, talk, feel, etc.). Like I stated, spiritual death means seperation from God. This spiritually dead soul can heed to the calling of God, and not be regenerated, and then made alive. That's being "born, reborn again/born, reborn from above".

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

No, we are spiritually dead, not physically dead. You guys keep treating as if one is the other. It is like being physically dead, only this time regarding spiritual things.

never said you soul was dead.

We have nothing spiritual in us, hence dead in our trespasses and sins. This does NOT mean that our physical bodies are dead. This does NOT mean that our wills are dead. We make choices. We move around. What we are separated from is all things spiritual. There is nothing naturally spiritual in us.

however, don't want to get off of the OP on this subject.

 

God uses this word to show the state of all outside of Christ. Those who need rescued, or saved, because they are incapable of doing so themselves. He spoke His Word to us, and enabled us to respond, quckiening us, or making us alive, granting our faith, and repentance, and then to come the recognition that He saved us, and regenerated us all on His own.

 

1) Justice

2) Grace

 

I am going out on a limb here, so please bear with me. The promise was made to whosever believes that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them which do diligently seek Him.

 

Rom. 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

23 they also, they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

The jews were cut off due to unbelief, and by their unbelief, we, the gentiles, were grafted into the natural olive tree, we being the wild olive branch.

Now justice happened to the jews because they willingly rebelled against God. Grace happened to us, because God chose to graft us into the natural olive tree, being Jesus, His Son.

So your response is correct. But unbelief was the "instigator" of this taking place.

 

You are a living soul. Does spiritual dead = dead in trespass and sin, which all who have lived have been and or are and does to be dead in trespass and sin have the very same meaning as God told Adam dying thou shall surly die. That is the day you die you will be dead forever unless God makes a way for this to be paid for.

Isa. 53:8,9 for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;
I understand wicked is plural as is death. From verse 8 you can see it was for our sin he was stricken. Verse 9 My understanding only for I have read no commentary to saying this. He made his grave with us the ones who are wicked that he died for. In his deaths, dying thou shall surely die, with the rich man, singular, see Luke 16 in Hades. JFB commentary does refer to dying thou shall die.

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

God made the way, The Lamb was slain before the man was created.

 

You say they are rejected because they don't come, but your system teaches that they can't come unless enabled and that God chose before the foundation of the world which ones he would enable and which ones he would not. So, in your system, they are don't come because they were rejected (not enabled).

Untrue. As I've said many times before, "The wonder of God's mercy and grace is NOT that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves ANYONE!"

This is the very essence of what I believe, even as a non-Calvinist. God is not in any way morally obligated to save anyone because we deserve it. Again, this is a point upon which we can all agree.

However, God has obligated Himself, both morally and judicially, to save whosoever will come (believe). Not because they deserve it, but because He sent forth His Son to be a propitiation for sins of whole world, which is to be applied only through faith. His universal call to "every creature" to faith and repentance obligates him to save whosoever repents and believes. The doctrine that teaches that God only grants this ability to willingly repent and believe to a select few while appearing to call "every creature" is what causes the non-Calvinists to cry, "Foul!"

I don't believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because he condemns certain people to hell. I believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because He offers a pardon to all mankind while only granted a few of them the ability to receive it, all the while expressing a desire for all to come to repentance and a frustration for those who remain unwilling.

It is deceptive to offer someone a gift you fully know they cannot willingly receive. Especially if you, the giver, are the one who determines the receivers natural abilities. That type of offer cannot be geniune!

Which form of "your theology" are you referring to?

As I've quoted before, Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. 'The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it' (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine)."

Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!

 

No, they don't come because they refuse to come. God rejects no one. Please don't say this again. You have been corrected.

I agree, but your argument doesn't go with this.

God is obligated to himself to keep his word. And he has promised to save all who believe and repent.

so God is obligated again. See what I mean by you say one thing, but your argument doesn't line up? Man is unable because he is blinded by his sin. God calls, man refuses to come. In fact, all men refuse to come on their own.


and per your last statement, just go with the Cannons of dort, which is where the "TULIP" comes from. And with me, just look at what I say.

 

But notice how you always stop there and never say why they refuse to come. They refuse to come because they were rejected (not chosen, not enabled, not elect). You can't get around that fact.

I agree that God rejects no one, I am correcting Calvinism, which teaches that God condemned all men to hopelessness from birth due to Adam's sin, chooses to save some from that hopeless condition and leave (or reject) the rest in their hopelessness.

If you understood my argument you would see that they go together quite well.

And why is he blinded by sin from birth? Was that God's decision or not?

Why?

 

C and A I care not about. Presently God is calling and electing a people for his name. Has nothing to do with what those elected do or think or believe IMHO.
Paul was doing his thing, what he thought God wanted him to do. He was no different that a present day Jim Jones, he was deceived in ignorance not having been called to belief. 1 Tim. 1:13 who before was speaking evil, and persecuting, and insulting, but I found kindness, because, being ignorant, I did [it] in unbelief,
He was on his way to Damascus to do more of the same, still in unbelief.

Whosoever will will not begin before Jesus returns.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die. All that have ever lived have died.
but after this the judgment: How? Is God judging dead men? For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Then their judgment will begin.

 

That is not correct. Please stop saying something that isn't true about my position. That's a straw man. God rejects no one. Please don't say that I believe that God rejects anyone because I have said over and over again that he doesn't. Do you understand? Rejection means that one may not come, but that isn't true. All may come to Christ. He rejects no one. Again, don't say anything other than this again!

We all sinned and we all will have our just punishment for our sin. And you just contradicted your self. Is God obligated to save some instead of just leaving them in their" hopeless condition"? Leaving one in their sins is not rejecting one that comes to Christ. Man sinned. God could choose to save just one person and not the rest if he so well pleases. Man doesn't deserve salvation, nor the chance to be saved. When you say rejected, you treat it like men are coming to Christ, but he says no, which isn't true.

I understand your argument quite well.

God is not the author of sin. Man sinned, not God.

Because he has no desire to. [removed by jbh] And please don't say that God rejects anyone. That's not what I believe and I have asked very nicely for you to stop using that straw man.

 

Jbh you STILL did not answer skandelon an instead resorted to attack mode. Please answer the "why" without claiming we are dishonest, etc. Very unlike you to react in this manner...

Sounds like you have been backed into a corner and the claws are coming out. There IS no genuine offer being made in your model, so if anything please stop stating there is...it holds no water.

 

thanks, I edited the portions of my post.

There is a genuine offer. A non genuine offer is one that is offered, but there is no intention to give even if one comes. A Genuine offer is one that will be true. God has promised to save all that come to him. How is that not genuine. He will save all that come to him. He will keep no one from coming to him. No man wants to accept the offer of salvation, therefore God elected. Now, if I was a supra, then you and skan might have something to argue against, but I'm not. And as I stated, argue against my points and not other Calvinists. I'm a "low" Calvinist so there are going to be things I'm not going to take as far as others because I do not see them in Scripture.

I get irritated yes when I make a statement, but then have one argue the opposite. I say all may come. there is no need for anyone to say I believe the opposite. I say that God rejected no one that comes to him for salvation. To say that I do is to misrepresent me. To say that there are some Calvinist that believe that is irrelevant. I don't. I do not believe that God sits in heaven and chooses some for heaven and some for hell without anything else being part of the picture. Man is on his way to hell because of his sin and has no want to come to Christ. God could have just let all men stay just as they are, but he didn't. he choose to save. he didn't choose to save all. I don't know why, just like none of us knows why not all are saved. All we do know is that men naturally want nothing to do with Christ.

Now, I enjoy discussing things with both you and Skan. All I ask is that arguments go against what I say, not what you know other Calvinist believe.

 

I guess we define "reject" differently. I agree with Webster:

a : to refuse to take for some purpose, or use

b : to refuse to hear, receive, or admit.

c : to refuse as lover or spouse

If what God does to the non-elect is not rejection, I don't know what is. You seem to assume that "rejection" means there is a desire to be saved on the part of the human, but it doesn't. It just means God didn't choose them, he rejected them.

Also, don't you believe John 6:65 to mean that God must enable men to come to Christ before they may come? May those who haven't been "enabled" come?

That is beside the point. We are talking about how you refuse to acknowledge that God "leaving them in their hopeless condition" is the same as "rejection," not about what I think God has obligated himself to do.

Again you assume that rejection can only happen if someone is wanting to come to Christ but can't. I've never accused you of believing that. I'm accusing you of believing that God rejected them PRIOR to their being born thus causing them to be sealed in their hopeless, rejected condition.

Agreed.

Agreed

I've never said that. I explained it again above so maybe now you understand my point?

Clearly you don't if you think what you just said.

Agreed.

Why doesn't he have any desire to come when invited? Could it be because God didn't elect him? Didn't enable him to come? In other words, "rejected him?"

 

Let me ask you this. Are all saved? Of course you would answer no. Do people attempt to get saved other than faith in Christ? Sure, but God rejects these people. The context of the discussion is if when God calls people to come to him, he will reject no one that comes to him in faith.

No. You are looking at it as people are neutral which isn't the Calvinist position, nor mine. Election is not about keeping people out of heaven. It's because of their sin, not because God didn't elect them that they don't want to come. Without any election, no one would want to come. So election(or lack thereof) cannot be the reason for man not wanting to come to Christ. When we put election into the picture, we see why man does come to Christ.

 

The problem with JBH'S view is that it denies declared attributes of God. If God is no respecter of persons, and if all men are equally evil and justly condemned, then he must either regenerate all or none to be no respecter of persons.

When God declares himself to be no respecter of persons, this means he does not show favoritism. If God only elects some men and regenerates them so they are willing to come, and leaves the other in their natural rebellion, he has shown favoritism to those he regenerated.

It is true God would be just to destroy all men, but if God has chosen to be merciful and spare men, he must offer all men an equal opportunity to be saved if he is no respecter of persons. If a man must be regenerated to be made willing, he would have to regenerate all men to be true to his own declaration of himself.

On the other side, if all men have the ability to respond and believe, and he has made the offer to all, he has been equally gracious to all and was no respecter of persons.

 

The problem with JBH'S view is that it denies a declared attribute of God. If God is no respecter of persons, and if all men are equally evil and justly condemned, then he must either regenerate all or none to be no respecter of persons.

When God declares himself to be no respecter of persons, this means he does not show favoritism. If God only elects some men and regenerates them so they are willing to come, and leaves the other in their natural rebellion, he has shown favoritism to those he regenerated.

It is true God would be just to destroy all men, but if God has chosen to be merciful and spare men, he must offer all men an equal opportunity to be saved if he is no respecter of persons. If a man must be regenerated to be made willing, he would have to regenerate all men to be true to his own declaration of himself.

On the other side, if all men have the ability to respond and believe, and he has made the offer to all, he has been equally gracious to all and was no respecter of persons.

 

Are you going to advocate then that all are saved? You did say that "he must either regenerate all or none to be no respecter of persons."

The context of "no respecter of persons" is that God will judge all people equally. And of course remember I believe that God chooses people according to the good pleasure of his will, not with respect to a persons faith.