Overcoming

[37818]

View attachment 14213

Every believer here who thinks they are a Calvinist should watch this video.

 

[37818]

.

. . . and predestinarianism . . .

Romans 8:29-30, For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This is true for all believers.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

the historical record of the early churches

Here are some in the Historical Records in the Bible showing where Perserverence of the Saints, for example, was taught very soundly by the early churches of Jesus Christ, in the New Testament

-John 13:1; "Having Loved His Own which were in the World He Loved them unto the End."

-John 17:12; "While I was with them in the World, I Kept them in Thy Name: those that thou Gavest Me, I have Kept: and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition: that the Scripture might be fulfilled."

-Romans 11:29; "For the Gifts and Calling of God are without Repentance."

-Matthew 24:24; "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that (if it were possible) they shall deceive the very Elect."

see also; -John 6:36-40;
-Romans 11:2;
-Romans 8:38-39;
-Ephesians 1:13-14;
-1 Peter 1:5;
-1 John 2:19;
& -1 John 3:9.

Or are you wanting to see where the Early Church Fathers taught the Preservation of the saints?

Perseverance -Introduction -Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69. -Barnabas. A.D. 70. -Ignatius. A.D. 110. -Irenaeus. A.D. 180. -Epistola Martyrum Galliae. A.D. 180. -Clemens Alexandrinus. A.D. 190. -Tertullian. A.D. 200. -Origines Alexandrinus. A.D. 230. -Cyprian. A.D. 250. -Lactantius. A.D. 320. -Eusebius Caesariensis. A.D. 330. -Chronomatius. A.D. 335. -Athanasius. A.D. 350. -Macarius Aegyptus. A.D. 350. -Hilarius Pictaviensis. A.D. 350. -Basilius Caesariensis. A.D. 370. -Gregorius Nazianzenus. A.D. 350. -Gregorius Nyssenus. A.D. 380. -Hilarius Diaconus. A.D. 380. -Ambrosius Mediolanensis. A.D. 380. -Joannes Chrysostomus. A.D. 390. -Hieronymus. A.D. 390.

You can pick out any of those Bible teachers and I'll show you what they taught and believed regarding the Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace, just like we can show the Eternal Doctrines of Grace being taught from the Old Testament or the New Testament.

The Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace are simply the Bible teachings that God would have us to understand as to How God Saves Souls.

If the sinner is spiritually dead in the sense of total inability, then the warnings about being blotted out of the Book of Life make no sense.

When we understand that "the Book of Life" referred to there in Revelation 3:5 is just that, "the Book of Life" having to do strictly with physical life and mortality, then we'll know that being blotted out of the Book of Life meant they would die, as the Lord had just Warned them, in Revelation 3:3; "Remember therefore how thou hast Received and Heard, and hold fast, and Repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I Will Come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I Will Come upon thee."

Revelation 3:5; "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in White Raiment;
and I Will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life", (OUT OF THE LIFE OF THE LIVING)
"but I Will Confess his name before My Father, and before His Angels."

No reference is being made in Revelation 3:5, to Salvation, Election, or Perseverance, etc., or to Revelation 13:8, for example, "And all that dwell upon the Earth shall worship him,
whose names are not Written in the Book of Life of the Lamb
Slain from the Foundation of the World."

However, "The Book of Life of the Lamb" does have to do with Salvation, Election, or Perseverance, etc.

You cannot “blot out” someone who was never written there.

That is exactly what Revelation 13:8 states; "And all that dwell upon the Earth shall worship him,
whose names are not Written in the Book of Life of the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World," where the names of those who worshipped the Beast had not been "Written in the Book of Life of the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World," to start with, but any of them, lost or saved, could be blotted out of the Book of the Living, called there, "the Book of Life", if they did not Repent, because their names were written in there, along with everything they ever said, did, or thought, or dreamed, apparently.

Yet Scripture says the names begin there and are removed only by unbelief. That alone contradicts unconditional election.

They had been written in the Book of those Living, at that time, whose names and Lives could be blotted out, if they remained to be of no use to the Lord, in their willful sin.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

And historically, the early churches did not teach the system you just described. Not Jerusalem. Not Antioch. Not Alexandria. Not the Greek churches. Not even the Latin churches until Augustine introduced his new interpretation in the late 4th–early 5th century.

In the beginning of the post, I listed many Scriptures where the early churches in the New Testament taught the Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace, and several references concerning the Early Church Fathers, now here are some plain Bible teachings of Perserverence from the Old Testament:

"For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but My Kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the Covenant of My Peace be removed, saith the Lord, that hath Mercy on thee." - Isaiah 54:10

"As for Me, this is My Covenant with them saith the Lord, My Spirit that is upon thee, and My Words which I have Put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, or out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and Forever."
- Isaiah 59:21

"And I Will Betroth thee unto Me Forever; yea, I Will Betroth thee unto Me in Righteousness, and in Judgment, and in Loving-Kindness, and in Mercies. I Will even Betroth thee unto Me in Faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord." - Hosea 2:19-20

"And I Will Make an Everlasting Covenant with them, that I Will not turn away from them to do them Good; but I Will Put My Fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from Me."
- Jeremiah 32:40

So the question remains: If Calvinism is the biblical doctrine of salvation, why did none of the apostolic churches ever teach it?

The Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace have been taught throughout the Bible, from Job and Adam, until today. All of the churches of Jesus Christ in the New Testament taught the Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace, as did Jesus and all of the Bible writers and the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ still teach them today, despite how horribly offensive they are to the flesh of human beings, because THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE CALLED TO DO.

Quoting verses about preaching, conviction, and the power of God’s Word doesn’t answer that. I believe all of those things. But none of those passages teach irresistible grace, total inability, or unconditional election. Those are later theological constructions, not apostolic doctrine.

Nah. Jesus Taught all of the Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace and Jesus Knows His Bible.

If you want to discuss the actual point, the Book of Life and the historical record, I’m glad to do that. But simply repeating the Calvinist framework doesn’t resolve the issue.

The issues are resolved 1.) by seeing "the Book of Life" as "the Book of Life of the Living" and not assuming in a first-impulse, knee-jerk reaction that of the plural "Books" that where Opened, that "the Book of Life" automatically somehow was supposed to equate to "the Book of Life of the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World", which it certainly does not,

and then 2.) that the teachings of The Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace are plentiful throughout the Bible, from Genesis through Revelation, as well as being completely covered and represented by the Early Church Fathers, etc., of which we have had good records.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I am showing that all does not mean anything and everything. Just like a dad tells his child to not eat all the cookies. Obviously, all the cookies does not mean every cookie ever made, or every cookie in existence world wide at that particular time, but all the cookies in the box/bag.

MCSGA! - MAKE COMMON SENSE GREAT AGAIN!

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Your staunch wooden letterism grants that "He by the Grace of God should Taste death for every man" Provides Salvation for "every man" and makes no accommodation for any women or children to be saved, because the Bible only says "every man", as long as there is no possibility of bringing any other meaning of the verse under consideration.

You have "every", literally dyed in wool, but you also have "man".

What are you going to say, now? That "man" doesn't mean "man"?


"All" means "all", no matter what else God or anyone else has to say about it* (note below, to see just exactly what God has to Say about it) and "men" means "men", then, logically following your reasoning you're doing, using a mind that has been effected by the Fall of Adam, without the aid of the Holy Spirit, TO A POSITION THAT CALLS FOR THE EXCLUSION OF ALL WOMEN AND ALL CHILDREN FROM BEING SAVED, SINCE ONLY "ALL MEN" ARE INCLUDED IN GOD 'WILLING' THEM TO BE SAVED..

The literal interpretation fallacy (often called the literalism fallacy) occurs when a text, statement, or idea is interpreted strictly by the exact dictionary definitions of its words, completely ignoring context, authorial intent, figurative language, irony, or genre.

Scholars emphasize integrating historical, grammatical, and literary contexts for accurate interpretation.

"1 Timothy 2:4;
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

"Who will have all men to be saved,...."

"The Salvation which God Wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation, or a mere putting them into a Salvable State; or an Offer of Salvation to them; or a Proposal of Sufficient Means of of Eternal Salvation to all in His Word;

But "The Salvation which God Wills that all men should enjoy" is a Real, Certain, and Actual Salvation, which He has Determined they shall have; and is sure from His Own Appointment, from the Provision of Christ as a Savior for them, from the Covenant of Grace, in which everything is Secured necessary for the Eternal Salvation of human souls, and from the Mission of Christ to Effect the Eternal Salvation of human souls, and from Eternal Salvation being Effected by Him:

"wherefore the Will of God, that all men should be saved, is not a Conditional Will, or what depends on the will of man, or on anything to be performed by him, for then none might be saved;

Note: If Salvation is dependent on the individual sinner, it would be impossible for anyone to get saved.

"and if any should "be saved", it would be of him that willeth, contrary to the express words of Scripture; but God has an Absolute and Unconditional Will respecting their salvation, and which Infallibly Secures Eternal Salvation:

"nor is it such a will as is distinguishable into antecedent and consequent; with the former of which it is said, God Wills the salvation of all men, as they are His Creatures, and the Work of His Hands; and with the latter He Wills Salvation, or not Wills Salvation, according to the future conduct and behaviour of sin-cursed individuals;

"But the Will of God concerning man's Salvation is Entirely One, Invariable, Unalterable, and Unchangeable: nor is the Will of God concerning man's Salvation merely His Will of Approbation or Complacency, which expresses only what would be Grateful and Well Pleasing, should it be, and which is not always fulfilled;

"However, it is God's Ordaining, Purposing, and Determining Will, which is never resisted, so as to be frustrated, but is always Accomplished: the Will of God, the Sovereign and Unfrustrable Will of God, has the Governing Sway and Influence in the Salvation of men;

Eternal Salvation rises from God's Ordaining, Purposing, and Determining Will, and is according to the Will of God, the Sovereign and Unfrustrable Will of God, which Absolutely has the Governing Sway and Influence in the Salvation of men;

"and all who are saved God Wills they should be saved;

"nor are any saved, but whom He Wills they should be saved:

"hence by "all men", whom God would have saved,
cannot be meant every individual of mankind,
since it is not His Will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved,
unless there are Two Contrary Wills in God;

Note: For anyone to think God is Saying He wants every individual of mankind to be saved is impossible.

"for there are some who were before Ordained by Him unto Condemnation*, and are Vessels of Wrath fitted for destruction**; and it is His Will concerning some, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned;

"nor is it fact that all are saved, as they would be, if it was His Will they should; for who hath resisted His Will? but there is a world of ungodly men that will be condemned, and who will go into Everlasting Punishment:

"rather therefore all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1 Timothy 2:1* are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; and therefore all are to be prayed for, even all sorts of men, because God will have all men, or all sorts of men, saved;

I Timothy 2:1; " I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions,
and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

There is the expression "all men" in the verse above and it shows exactly who is intended by those words "all men" and it is those who are to be prayed for:

2; "For kings, and for "all" that are in authority;

The Bible says there in this next verse that it is talking about "all who are in authority
that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in "all" Godliness and Honesty."

And if "all" always means "all" then someone is getting an extra Portion here for them to obtain the Grace of having "all" without exception "GODLINESS AND HONESTY". That is a lot. U think?

3; "For this is Good and Acceptable in the Sight of God our Savior;"

It is "Good and Acceptable in the Sight of God our Savior" for them to pray for "all men".

Adapted from 1 Timothy 2 Gill's Exposition and there plenty other good stuff there concerning these verses.

Alan, the word “man” in Hebrews 2:9 is ἄνθρωπος, the generic term for humanity, not the male‑only term. Genesis 1:27 makes this explicit: God created “man”… male and female. So the argument that a literal reading excludes women misunderstands the language of Scripture.

Ascetic X’s point was simply that Calvinism consistently restricts universal terms (“every man,” “all,” “whole world”) to mean “elect only.” Your reply doesn’t address that. It just assumes Gill’s system and then reads the text through it.

If you believe “all men” in 1 Timothy 2:4 means “all kinds of elect men,” then say so plainly. But that is a theological interpretation, not the natural reading of the passage.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

In the beginning of the post, I listed many Scriptures where the early churches in the New Testament taught the Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace, and several references concerning the Early Church Fathers, now here are some plain Bible teachings of Perserverence from the Old Testament:

"For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but My Kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the Covenant of My Peace be removed, saith the Lord, that hath Mercy on thee." - Isaiah 54:10

"As for Me, this is My Covenant with them saith the Lord, My Spirit that is upon thee, and My Words which I have Put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, or out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and Forever."
- Isaiah 59:21

"And I Will Betroth thee unto Me Forever; yea, I Will Betroth thee unto Me in Righteousness, and in Judgment, and in Loving-Kindness, and in Mercies. I Will even Betroth thee unto Me in Faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord." - Hosea 2:19-20

"And I Will Make an Everlasting Covenant with them, that I Will not turn away from them to do them Good; but I Will Put My Fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from Me."
- Jeremiah 32:40


The Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace have been taught throughout the Bible, from Job and Adam, until today. All of the churches of Jesus Christ in the New Testament taught the Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace, as did Jesus and all of the Bible writers and the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ still teach them today, despite how horribly offensive they are to the flesh of human beings, because THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE CALLED TO DO.

Nah. Jesus Taught all of the Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace and Jesus Knows His Bible.

The issues are resolved 1.) by seeing "the Book of Life" as "the Book of Life of the Living" and not assuming in a first-impulse, knee-jerk reaction that of the plural "Books" that where Opened, that "the Book of Life" automatically somehow was supposed to equate to "the Book of Life of the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World", which it certainly does not,

and then 2.) that the teachings of The Eternal Doctrines of God's Grace are plentiful throughout the Bible, from Genesis through Revelation, as well as being completely covered and represented by the Early Church Fathers, etc., of which we have had good records.

Alan, none of the passages you quoted address the historical question I raised. The issue is not whether God is faithful to His covenant people, I agree with that. The issue is whether the apostolic churches taught the Calvinist doctrines of total inability, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and perseverance as defined by TULIP.

You haven’t provided a single example of any apostolic church, or any pre‑Augustinian father, teaching those doctrines. Quoting Old Testament covenant promises doesn’t establish Calvinism, and asserting that “the doctrines of grace have always existed” is not evidence.

If the early churches taught Calvinism, then simply name one: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, the Greek churches, or the Latin churches before Augustine. If none of them taught it, then the point stands, Calvinism is a later theological development, not apostolic doctrine.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Calvinists consistently deny the simple, clear statements of scripture.


Hebrews 2:9

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.


Calvinists: Every man does not mean every single man. It means only every elect man.



2 Corinthians 5:15

And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.



Calvinists: Died for all does not mean everyone. It means all the elect only.



1 John 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


Calvinists: The whole world does not mean everybody in the world. It means just the elect.



I Timothy 2

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.



Calvinists: All men does not mean every single man. It means only some men, who are the elect.

What we as reformed do is try to make every verse align with each other. Let us examine these verses you've posited into this thread, okay? I am using the 1995 NASB, FYI.

But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.[Hebrews 2:9]

You stopped short in posting the context of this verse. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, “I will proclaim Your name to My brethren, In the midst of the congregation I will sing Your praise.” And again, “I will put My trust in Him.” And again, “Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”[vss 10-13]

So obviously vss 10-13 clarify who they are in vs 9 that were being addressed. Seeing that John 10:11, 15 Jesus stated, "and I lay down My life for the sheep", and that all are not sheep but some are likened to goats, then we see He did not die for goats.

More later...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Exactly. I’ve studied the early churches for years, and predestinarianism simply isn’t there. The first known instance of a church adopting anything like unconditional election or monergistic grace appears only in the North African Latin churches influenced by Augustine, beginning around 397–430 AD. That’s when Augustine developed and promoted his new doctrine of predestination.

Before Augustine, no church, Greek or Latin, held anything resembling later predestinarianism. That isn’t opinion; it’s the consensus of historical scholarship. The early fathers consistently taught real human freedom, universal atonement, and resistible grace. The shift toward determinism begins with Augustine, not with the apostles and not with the early churches.

The "sin is inherited from Adam" (as opposed to "death spread to all men for all have sinned") came from post-Augustine Catholic doctrine. Augustine built a doctrine based on a Latin mistranslation which grew into the Catholic doctrine).

I find this really droll. Earlier you two were saying that nothing mattered except the very words of Scripture, and now you are all into the Church Fathers. I think you need to make your minds up.
The fact is that apostasy was creeping into the churches in the time of the apostles. That is why the New Testament is such an argumentative book. Paul tells Timothy to stay in Ephesus specifically to combat false teaching (1 Tim. 1:3); false teachers were in Corinth and Galatia; they had secretly entered the church Jude was writing to, and some had left the churches John was addressing, proving themselves not to be Christians at all (1 John 2:18-19). If this happened while the apostles were still living, how much worse would it have been after their passing? The one doctrine that seems to be common among just about all the Church Fathers is baptismal regeneration. Should we accept that as sound doctrine?

'Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are His.'

 

[JonC]

I am showing that all does not mean anything and everything. Just like a dad tells his child to not eat all the cookies. Obviously, all the cookies does not mean every cookie ever made, or every cookie in existence world wide at that particular time, but all the cookies in the box/bag.

You are responding to, but ignoring @Anthony Pritchard at the same time.

What you need to show is those circumstances a Christian cannot endure through Christ. If you cannot provide a circumstance that conquers the believer then "all" does mean "all" in that context.

 

[JonC]

I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.[Philippians 4:13]

By using the same eisegesis as you did in the above, we can commit rape, murder, molestation, lie, commit adultery and idolatry, take the Lord's name in vain, steal, &c through Him who strengthens us. Because doing all things through Him literally means all things, right? "All means all, and that is all that all means."

Per Calvinistic eisegesis, perhaps. But Calvinists do not allow Scripture to provide doctrine. They take verses as stsnd alone points to discuss and interpret.

You did this here. @Ascetic X is right. You forget that verse divisions do not equate to thought divisions.

Here is the text -

I know how to get along with little, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my difficulty.

The "all things" is not focuses on things being done but enduring through Christ.

 

[JonC]

Exactly. I’ve studied the early churches for years, and predestinarianism simply isn’t there. The first known instance of a church adopting anything like unconditional election or monergistic grace appears only in the North African Latin churches influenced by Augustine, beginning around 397–430 AD. That’s when Augustine developed and promoted his new doctrine of predestination.

Before Augustine, no church, Greek or Latin, held anything resembling later predestinarianism. That isn’t opinion; it’s the consensus of historical scholarship. The early fathers consistently taught real human freedom, universal atonement, and resistible grace. The shift toward determinism begins with Augustine, not with the apostles and not with the early churches.

This is true. Predestination is related more to Greek philosophy (fate).

Calvinism is neo-Christianity. Prior to Beza (after Calvinism) salvation was not considered a category under sovereignty (Calvin was close, but it wss Beza who made the change).

Prior to the 16th century many docrines we take for granted did not exist. Penal substitution did not exist. Limited Atonement did not exist.

But Calvinism has influenced the landscape (not because of Calvin but because of the influence of Presbyterian and Methodist Churches in the UK and US).

Most are now Calvinists to some degree. At a minimum most have adopted Calvin's atonement (PSA).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Most are now Calvinists to some degree. At a minimum most have adopted Calvin's atonement (PSA).

Praise the Lord!

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave, the issue isn’t slander or tone. The issue is doctrine. Calvinism teaches that the unregenerate are unable to repent, unable to believe, and unable to respond to God in any way unless they are first regenerated. That is not a controversial summary, it is the standard TULIP framework.

If a person must be regenerated before they can believe, then the universal biblical commands to repent and believe cannot be taken at face value. That is the inconsistency being pointed out.

This is exactly that I am talking about. If, as I did in this post earlier, make the following claims, which are true by the way:

No. It's not contradictory. It's true. And it is your willing ignorance that allows you to say such a stupid thing. You ever heard of Charles Spurgeon, the "Prince of Preachers"? A 5 point Calvinist. How about John Knox famous for saying "Give me Scotland or I die". What about William Carey, who basically started the cross cultural mission movement. Yep, a Calvinist. This is why these discussions don't go well. After repeatedly fielding nasty and ignorant statements for people too lazy to even go and look something up themselves folks loose patience. You are welcome to continue on if you wish.

What I am saying is that basic common respect would allow that my post deserves consideration at least - as a post. Could it be possible, if what I said there is true, that maybe you have less than a full understanding of what Calvinism is or teaches? Like maybe for instance, the inability refers to a moral inability - to quote a famous Calvinist "we can't only because we won't". Doesn't that change anything? Additionally, just like non-Calvinists, among Calvinists there is a wide range of belief as to whether actual regeneration precedes faith or if it is a matter of enlightenment, or understanding, or if the order being described is in time or logical in nature. For that matter, there is a wide range of belief in the way that determinism, contingency, and free will interact. I personally agree with Richard Muller in that Puritan era Calvinism and early Calvinism had a much more varied and less absolutely deterministic system than currently taught by many modern TULIP advocates. (The TULIP itself coming rather late.)

In other words, a lot of Calvinists believe that free will, and by that I mean real alternative choice possibility free will, along with God's sovereignty is the proper understanding of these things. And the "determinism" that Calvinism brings is easily derived just from scripture alone from instances of Biblical pronouncements and events as illustrated by which God's sovereignty is also proved - without doing any violence to man's free will. The list of these points goes on and on but no one is willing to discuss them. Instead you keep repeating the same caricatures and literally ignore it when someone posts what Calvinists did and preached. What you lose is fruitful discussion and what you prove is intractable opinion and the fact that nothing further will be learned.

 

[DaveXR650]

The "all things" is not focuses on things being done but enduring through Christ.

Thanks a lot Jon. I'm the only Calvinist on here who thinks that John 3:16 includes "all" the people in the world and then you come on and tell everyone that "all" doesn't necessarily mean "all". (Well, at least it appears that Calvin agreed with me.)

 

[Ben1445]

Jesus stated, "and I lay down My life for the sheep",

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

-Said Jesus to a gentile woman who believed in Him as He refused to help her. There was clearly a barrier of physical lineage in question. It is not a sufficient answer to say that He was speaking only of spiritual Israel.

 

[Ben1445]

we can't only because we won't

To say that this is equal to total inability is confusing. To say that we won’t is literally to say we will not. To have introduced the human will into the discussion doesn’t show total inability. It shows ability to respond to Christ. And certainly some do respond to Christ. And we understand that their salvation is not of their own will, it was provided by Christ. But they certainly have willed that they themselves be saved as is evident by their faith in Jesus Christ. So “salvation is not of him that willeth” though he does will it to be applied to himself. It would not apply to him if he willed it to not apply to himself.
The choice is ours. Do we accept the salvation? Do we serve the Lord? Or do we serve other gods? Do we reject Christ?

How long halt ye between two opinions?

 

[DaveXR650]

To say that this is equal to total inability is confusing. To say that we won’t is literally to say we will not. To have introduced the human will into the discussion doesn’t show total inability. It shows ability to respond to Christ. And certainly some do respond to Christ. And we understand that their salvation is not of their own will, it was provided by Christ. But they certainly have willed that they themselves be saved as is evident by their faith in Jesus Christ. So “salvation is not of him that willeth” though he does will it to be applied to himself. It would not apply to him if he willed it to not apply to himself.
The choice is ours. Do we accept the salvation? Do we serve the Lord? Or do we serve other gods? Do we reject Christ?

Thank you for a genuine reply. Confusing as it is, it happens to be what many Calvinists actually mean. So, what honest people should do when they see that is at least acknowledge that we may indeed have some common point of belief. You are correct in that it doesn't show inability in the same sense as if you were required to jump over the church steeple. But if it turns out that all men naturally tend to not want to believe and if that is truly universal among men then it certainly is inability. So when a Calvinist says this what I don't accept is a repetition of the "fact" that Calvinists are saying that God shuts men out by asking them to do what they can't possibly do, when in reality they are saying that natural men, by their own free will naturally sin, don't want to stop sinning, and don't think they need to come to Christ because they by their own free will consider doing so as weak and stupid. And as long as they do that they cannot come because they will not come.

Even Edwards, considered to be one of the more deterministic in philosophy amongst theologians said that men are completely free to do what it is that they most want to do. What he objected to was the idea that men are totally free from all influences and supremely sovereign in themselves and that they have a completely free and uninfluenced ability to determine even what it is they desire.

I admit it is confusing. And I admit I certainly don't have it all figured out. And I at least admit that guys like John Lennox (a free willer) and William Lane Craig (a Molinist) are definitely not idiots and I don't dismiss them out of hand. They have lots of good points. But all I ask is that you guys who are not Calvinists give the same respect to Calvinist theologians as you give to them and stop the dismissing all they say out of hand. Demanding further explanation is certainly proper and I appreciate those types of questions.