Truth or Calvinism - That should do it.

But don't you say the same thing? He didn't save them, though he could have, even in your view. So he "passed" them over.

Au contraire. It makes perfect sense in the Calvinist view. It's just that you disagree with the Calvinist view.

So you are saying that God wanted to save them, but didn't want to save them bad enough to do everything he could to save them?

 

This is the end result of arminianism right here.
God wanted to, but not enough.

 

Could you be more specific about which of these Calvinists have a problem with, and why they have this problem.

On #2, could you be more specific about "universal revelation of the light of Christ"? I am not sure what you mean by that.

 

You completely avoided my questions.
So I will repeat them:

Are you saying that the triune God of scripture is unable to save someone who does not want to be?
Is He unable to save the entire world if that was His plan?
Is he not really omnipotent after all?

 

If God is powerless to save anyone who won't allow him to, why do we pray to him for anybody's salvation? Why do we have prayer meetings prior to a revival to ask God for revival?

Lemme tell you, I have loved ones who show no interest in spiritual things. I am praying that God will do a number on them. That he will display his power to them, that he will slap them up the side of the head to get their attention. That he will scare the daylights out of them by showing them their sin and the consequences. And finally that he will change their heart and over-ride their will and save them. I pray for God to make them willing.

When it comes to their salvation, I'm not the least bit worried about God's violating their will. I want him to do what it takes to save my loved ones.

When you pray for God to save someone, what do you pray?

 

But didn't we already establish (and you agreed) that Rom 11:32 was talking about "all" as in "Jew and Gentile" as in Romans 3? Are you changing your mind on that already?

I don't recall this coming before. Can you show that the biblical word translated 'foreknowledge' always only means prescience? Can you specifically deal with the use of the word in Rom 11:2? Can you also explain why foreknowledge is never used of a fact about people? And explain how God doesn't foreknow unbelievers in the same way? (You might have to think about that for a minute, but when you do it will totally blow your whole theology away).

Actually, let me just explain: God foreknows everything by your definition. So God foreknows the unbelievers as well. And if he saves those whom he foreknows, then he will save unbelievers since he foreknows unbelievers as well as believers. Only if you properly define foreknowledge in its biblical usage can you avoid this problem.

This is a major problem. You are establishing your own truth based on what it means to you. Yet truth is universal. It means the same thing to everyone.

I would interested to see how. This as been charged many times, but no one has ever actually stepped up to show this.

 

This is a "Classical" response from most clavinist, one the one hand, God desires, on the other, he doesn't,

Jesus died for all sins that the world might be saved, but God's "desire" is not to save the whole world.

Your doctrine is not "Consistence" throughout the scriptures, and a double minded God is unstable in all his ways.

Pr 1:28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

The contradiction occurs when you try to place it in context with the "whole Bible", rather than just the NT.

Man's "depravity" didn't grow worse from the OT to the NT.

Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Pr 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

God never told Abraham he would stop him before he sacrificed Issac, as a matter of fact, Abraham "BELIEVED" God was going to let him go through with the sacrifice and then "RESURRECT" Issac from the dead.

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Job 34:3 For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat.

Pr 17:3 but the LORD trieth the hearts.

Faith come by "hearing", but depending on your "taste" for "Light or darkness", you can swallow or spit it out.

God "TRIES" everyone, same as he did Abraham.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it (Abraham's faith) was counted unto him for righteousness.

 

Is this the only lame excuse that Calvinist can come up with?

If the Sovereign God allowed a free will choice, how would my choice affect His Sovereignty?

 

==I don't know why you can see that. God could have turned Israel to Him at that time if He wanted to. However His plan was to allow a hardening in Israel until the fullness of gentiles has come in (Rom 11:25-32). It is all part of God's plan (Acts 4:27-28).

==I have never seen a Calvinist say that just because God desires someone to be saved they will be saved. What I believe, and I think most Calvinists would agree with me, is that God desires all to be saved (1Tim 2:1-6) but only those who come to Him in faith will be saved (Jn 3:16, etc). However no man can/will come to Christ in saving faith (Rom 3:9-12, Jn 6:44) unless they are given to the Son by the Father (Jn 6:37) and drawn to the Son (Jn 6:40,44). These are those who believe and are saved (Jn 17:1-3).

Simply because God desires something does not mean He will bring that something to pass. That is a mystery.

==God desires all men to come to Him and be saved. However only the elect (those given to the Son by the Father) will do so (Jn 6:37-40, 10:26-29, etc).

==I don't agree with that. Man's freewill will always choose to reject (Rom 3:9-12, etc). Only when God works will the sinner turn to Christ.

==The door of salvation was open to them. However, because they were not of His sheep, they did not believe (Jn 10:26-27).

I think we have to stop trying to make election make sense to us. We cannot fully understand election. All we can do is repeat what Scripture says. Sometimes that leaves us scratching our heads, sometimes it cofuses us, sometimes it makes perfect sense, but we must always go with the Scriptures.

 

==That's right (Eph 1:3-9, Jn 10:26-27, 17:1-2).

==Once God starts working to draw a person to the Son they will come. He has 100% success rate, for He never fails. That is what Jesus said when He stated, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (Jn 6:37, see also Rom 8:29-30). There are no exceptions. Those the Father has given to the Son will come to the Son. No exceptions, no failures.

Also it is not that they "can't" resist, it is that God works in their lives in such a way that they choose to come to Him. How does that work? I'm not sure, but I know that the Bible clearly teaches that at the very moment of salvation God gives a person a new heart and puts His Spirit in them (Ez 36:26-27). That causes the person to obey Him (vs27). That is why we follow Christ, because the Spirit is in us (1Jn 3:9-10).

==That is a question no humanbeing can answer (Deut 29:29). Btw, rejecting Calvinism does not solve that mystery.

==I doubt the Word of God, or it's Divine author, determines truth by what we "buy" or "understand". It is up to us to prayerfully dig into His Word and see what He says. I am disturbed by the all too human logic in your reply. We must rely 100% on Scripture. We can't understand anything spiritual, much less election, on our own. We need the Holy Spirit and His Word.

 

==No double mind here. Simply following the entire witness of Scripture.

==I'm not clear how you reached that conclusion. After all, election is in the Old Testament as well. Why did God choose to reveal Himself to Abraham? Moses? David? Joseph? And not to others? We can't answer those questions. Why did God choose the 11? Why did He choose Paul? Why? We can't answer those questions. It is the mystery of Divine Election.

==Nobody said it did.

==I'm not clear why you think those verses refute election because they don't. Those are statements of fact. Recall what I said above? We need to follow the entire witness of Scripture. Jesus said that no man can (is able) to come to Him unless they are drawn to Him by the Father (Jn 6:44). Paul said that no man, left on his own, seeks after the true God (Rom 3:10-12). There are others, but those are just two examples off the top of my head.

==I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic of election. Btw, I don't disagree with what you said here.

==Thats true. Only the elect, those given to the Son, will "swallow" it (to use your terminology). Thats what Jesus taught.

 

The hardening was a result of their rejection of Jesus as Messiah.

? They say it all the time. They say if God desires something then He will do it or else He is not sovereign.

No. Calvinists say that God only desires that the "elect" be saved. That is why He passes over the others.

If Israel wasn't His sheep, then what was the point of Him coming to them?

 

Let's skip all the other and answer this, because it answers all the other.

1. Jesus told Israel, "I would, you wouldn't", and that was "BECAUSE" they had closed their eyes/ears/hearts to his messiage.

If "Sovereign will/predestination" had "decreed" that God wasn't going to give them to Jesus to "MAKE" believers out of them,

"WHY" would Jesus make an offer against the "predestine will of God", and then "ACCUSE Israel" of being at "FAULT" for closing their eyes/ears/hearts to his message???

Jesus was only sent to Israel, and "his own received him not",

Your doctrine is "BLAMING GOD" for not given them what they "NEEDED" to be saved,

but Jesus died for all sins that the whole world "might be" saved,

So your doctrine also "ACCUSES GOD" of witholding what is "NEEDED" to be saved from the "whole world".

Predestination "denies" that it is "POSSIBLE" for the whole world to be saved, fulfiling God's "DESIRE" that "NONE PERISH",

But everyone won't have "FAITH", and without man "FIRST" having Faith, God won't save, Grace/salvation/regeneration only comes "AFTER" faith, never before.

And God has a reason for sitting up the plan of salvation this way.

 

So you don't that that all, both Jew and Gentile, are under sin? Because the all of Romans 3 is intended to include both Jew and Gentile.

I accept it. You don't have to make me.

then show how.

No it doesn't. The point is that they don't love him. Did you even read Rom 11:2? It talks about God casting off people. It is not talking about God loving people. You see, you cant' even deal with the Scripture in its context.

In both cases, it is people who are foreknown, not facts about people.

I can't help but notice you don't have an answer. Why not explain how I am wrong?

You haven't yet made an argument. You keep making assertions, but you haven't used the text to support you. That's bad. You have not stepped up. You haven't even begun. At least some of the others here actually tried. They failed miserably because the text is just too clear, but at least they tried. You haven't.

Yes, excellent truth. Isn't it. If you accept that, then you have much in common with Calvinism.

Have you stopped to think that your understanding might be faulty? I can't speak for others, but I know I fully accept John 1:9.

But what is the enlightenment? That's what I am asking.

But you acknowledge that the verse doesn't say that, right?

Again these verses clearly teach that Universalism is false and that special election is false. [/quote]Show how, please. I feel like a broken record. But you aren't actually saying anything here.

 

Show how, please. I feel like a broken record. But you aren't actually saying anything here.[/QUOTE]

Don't feel too bad Pastor Larry. He hasn't answered a single one of my posts yet either. It's the common way of dealing with an opponent in a debate when you don't have an answer.

 

Then how do you explain it's existence in Isaiah 6, long before the coming of Christ? How do explain Matt 13 where the parables are told, not to clarify, but to conceal so that they will be hardened.

Not all. You need to learn a bit more about Calvinism. Most see that there is a difference between his desire and his will, based on the use of certain words in the Greek NT. It is an argument worth considering.