What do you make of the Samaritan woman?

And how say ye that she was not elect ?

 

Fish....
You don't know she wasn't of the elect... if she accepted Christ as the Messiah, she is one of the elect!

Can't you see farther ahead in your theology?

Listing a bunch of scenarios where man "chooses" has nothing to do with the debate! Can't you get that? The antecedent to the choice is at what hand.

All the "choices" in the Bible, all the plea's to "choose" in the Bible are under the umbrella of proof texts that declare Man is unable to come to Him and He will, by His grace decide who will be enabled to delight in God.

[ April 18, 2005, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Fish,
Can you please learn the difference between an inductive and an imperative? It would make things allot easier and less redundant around here.

 

Icthus,

Good question! Keep it up! I do not agree with 'Limited Election' of Calvinism's the five points.

Keep it up!

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

proof that the woman at the well was elect:

Jhn 4:4 And he must needs go through Samaria.

Objections?

 

Are you now saying that a non Jew could be elect? It was ONLY the Children of Israel that are referred to "God's chosen people" in the OT, the time of Jesus talking to this woman is pre-cross. My point is that all are welcome to drink of the water of life freely. </font>[/QUOTE]You err not knowing Scripture. If she had not been one of the elect, chosen in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world, she would not have been saved.

Ephesians 1:3-6
3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

 

Great point whetstone.

 

Maybe you believe in the total inability of Calvinists to understand the things of God but not of unbelievers?

Can you not plainly see that the "whosoever" is addressed to not only the woman at the well, but ALL Samaritans.

But this is a strawman. you won't find any Calvinists arguing against 'whosoever will.' In fact we are great proponents of it- whosoever wills- let him come!

This is the teachings here as Jesus was addressing the woman, who was a Samaritan. Do you now believe that ALL Samaritans are also elect? Remember this conversation was before the Cross.

I never said all samaritans were elect. But quite obviously by looking at John 4:4 at least one was.

Whetstone, its time you, Larry and the rest gave up your twisting of what Scripture teaches, and accept the Bible for what it clearly says.

It is apparent than your 'clearly' and my 'clearly' are two different things. Do you ever witness to atheists ever? do you realize that you argue your case with the exact same logic they argue thiers?

'clearly' you would have seen this if you did.

 

No wonder... I've witnessed to athiests. Yup.

 

"would not" or "could not", what's the difference this side of heaven?

Whether "would not" or "could not" they "did not" believe and therefore they end up in the Lake of Fire.

Play it safe and "...preach the gospel to every creature".

HankD

 

I understand completely what it means, my question is what is the difference this side of heaven?

None.

Whether one chooses not to or is unable to do so the result is the same.

Whether one chooses to do so or is predisposed to do so that result is also the same.

The result has to do with the acceptance or rejection of the message, so play it safe and "...preach the Gospel to every creature".

BTW, personally, I don't know which it is. In my case and if I were forced to give an answer, I would say that there was neither the ability or the latent desire to do so, although since I did do so, then therefore I must have been pre-disposed to do so.

How's that for "double-speak"?

HankD

[ April 18, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

This is basic grammar here icthus.

Who is Christ speaking to? The elders in Jerusalem
Who did he want to gather together? The children of the elders.
Who 'would not?' The elders.

Notice Christ says 'YE would not' not 'YOUR CHILDREN would not.' In other words, Christ is saying that the elders in Israel were not allowing their children to hear of the truth! He said the same thing only a few verses earlier:

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

There is no mention in verse 37 whether or not the children DID come to Christ- only that the elders 'would not.' You may buck the will of God and protest it, but you can never thwart it.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Best to carefully read scripture and let it speak for itself rather than putting our own slant on things.