By the grace of God, I am honored to be in full time ministry. I also have three children and a wonderful wife. If I allow it, my time could be exhausted by this blog. That would be detrimental to all that God has given me. I will post, Lord willing, every Sunday and spend the next week preparing the next post and responding to the previous one. Feel free to drop a line, but please understand if it takes a day or two to respond. Something I will not do is continue to carry on a post forever.
By the grace of God, I am honored to be in full time ministry. I also have three children and a wonderful wife. If I allow it, my time could be exhausted by this blog. That would be detrimental to all that God has given me. I will post, Lord willing, every Sunday and spend the next week preparing the next post and responding to the previous one. Feel free to drop a line, but please understand if it takes a day or two to respond. Something I will not do is continue to carry on a post forever.
32 comments:
John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
The passage is clear. It speaks for itself. That no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draw him is clear (though not comprehensive) support for total depravity. That the one the Father raises the last day is the same the Father draws is a clear support for the 4 other primary tenets of Calvinism. It supports:
unconditional election, because the Father's drawing cannot depend on any inherent merit of the individual, because it is clear NO ONE can come before the drawing.
particular atonement, because not all are raised. Since the one who is drawn is the one who is raised, and not all are raised, not all are drawn. Simple.
effectual grace, because the one who is drawn WILL be raised the last day, not *maybe* will be raised.
and preservation of the saints, for one who is drawn cannot be said to be assured of being raised unless he will actually be raised.
The context in which this verse is said is just as explicit as the verse itself:
John 6:37 Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.
The Father's giving precedes the individuals coming. This is because, as is said in verse 44, no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him (total depravity). If the giving precedes the coming, the giving must necessarily be unconditional. How silly would it be to say that God's choice concering who to give the Son is dependent on whether or not the individual is "foreseen" to come - that is, that the Father only gives those He knows will come. Silly, because verse 44 says NO ONE comes to the Father except He draw Him. The question would become: why would some not come? Intelligence? Common sense? And whatever it is that stops them from coming - for example, intelligence - who is it that gave them that intelligence if not God Himself? One way or the other, one must affirm salvation is God's decision. The giving precedes the coming.
Also, notice what Jesus says: EVERYONE (not some, but everyone) who the Father gives WILL (not maybe) come... this unconditionally selected group of people the Father gives will all come. This is an example of the effectual call I spoke of above. The words Jesus is speaking practically need no explanation. No one can twist the words to meaning something else.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
Did Jesus fail to do the will of the Father?
39 This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day.
Everyone given to Jesus will be raised the last day. How fantastic. How simple. This affirms particular atonement and preservation of the saints simultaneously. All the ones who are given will be raised the last day. Not some, ALL. We are secure. But if not everyone who has ever lived is raised, but only those given to Jesus by the Father, particular atonement must be true as well.
40 For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
Jesus repeats Himself so that no one can purposefully misinterpret His words. Giving (which I can only interpret as election unto regeneration) is unto belief, belief is unto eternal life. Election (choice) - regeneration (actualization/application in time) - belief (logical consequence of regeneration) - eternal life (logical consequence of belief)
Period.
Verse 44 has already been mentioned.
John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me.
For those who were unconvinced with my arguments for the basis of the Father's giving to the Son as presented under verse 37 two posts above this one, this argument should lock it up. Everyone (not some) who has listened to and learned from the Father comes. Why do some listen and others don't? Jesus explains two chapters later -
John 8:47 The one who is from God listens to God's words. This is why you don't listen, because you are not from God.
We listen to God BECAUSE we are from God. One should be careful not to switch the cause and effect. Only those from God hear God. Christians usually say "if you would only listen, you would be of God." This is heresy. God has to choose to give you to the Son for you to be able to listen and come. And thus, everyone who listens is from God.
You may not like it (the Jews didn't, just read John 6:41, 8:48), but don't dismiss it’s validity. Please consider what I have said. It’s a lot, so take your time and pray about it.
Quite simply, it teaches that salvation is impossible for anyone apart from the drawing action of God.
Now, with that in mind we have to consider many questions...
1. Does God drag "study the Greek for 'draw'" the non-elect as well as the elect?
2. Does God play a charade while drawing everyone if He draws men that He knows will always refuse to repent and believe?
3. Is God not strong enough to successfully draw those whom He desires to save?
That should be a good starting place to get the brain gears kicked in.
Ryan has a bit to say on the issue, so I won't go too deep.
I like these short answers- no offence Ryan. Brother Richard, I will address the issue of the "draw" soon. Ryan, your answer is coming also. Thanks for the reply.
As God-fearing Christians, we distain anything that would be a reproach on the name and character of God. The Reformed approach to the drawing of God was pointed out by Richard. Is it a charade for God to draw those He knows will not repent? This is an interesting point, one that is simular to points we non-Calvinist raise, one being this: Why would God command all men to repent if He alone can allow them and enable them to? If God, as Calvinism teaches, only enables a few to repent, why command all men everywhere to do so? Why would God plead with and cry over the very ones He has decreed could never repent? Is this not a charade?
Another point is this: Can God not be powerful enough to draw all the way those He begins to draw? Does this make men stronger than God? On the flip side, we could ask this question- Is man stronger than God when he goes against His will? Some Calvinist believe man can never go against the will of God, thus God is the author of sin and causes(is pleased with) man to sin. This could lead into a whole different ball game.
When we choice to disobey God, does this mean we are stronger than God? A thousand times NO. Likewise, the sinner that does not choose to obey is not stronger, either. He disobeys, just like we do even after salvation.
God specifically told Adam, "Do not eat" Did God desire Adam to eat? Is not, Adam went against God. This did not make Adam stronger than his Father, no more than my children not doing my desire and will. If so, then you really have a charade.
These are legit points, but they are swiftly raised from the other side about the same process. Calvinism has created the charades, not non-Calvinism.
Ryan, thanks for the reply. I say this in as much love as I can muster up- your study skills are lacking. I wish to show you some things that will help you in your walk, even if you are a Calvinist ;).
You say that John 6 :44 teaches TULIP. I will address the so-called TULIP found within this verse. #1- “T”- This verse says nothing about God having to give new life to the body in order to believe. It states what it states- than no one can come to Jesus unless drawn of the Lord. Where is the “death state” of man? Where is the “new life” of the corpse?
#2- “U”- Where is the proof that God has choosen those based on no merit of their part? I can just as easily say the opposite. “ See, God has choosen them based on the fact they will choose Him.” Please do not make the verse say what it clearly does not.
#3- “L”- Two things- Number 1- every man will be raised in the end. Every soul will have an immortal body, every body will have life. Some bodies will be in the Lake of Fire, some in Heaven. I think I know what you mean, but understand the death of Christ is responsible for the resurrection of all, not just some. Number 2- the opposite of limited atonement is not universalism. This is a common misconception that the theory of Calvinism( though not by itself ) has created. When Christ died, man still had to believe by faith.
#4- “I”- the effectual call as you say. This is what the famed Westminster Confession of Faith says about the “I”- All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
There is nothing about the resurrection stated here nor anywhere else under this section. In fact, it goes on to say this heresy- Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
You will not find the “I” in this verse my friend.
#5- This is so much debated in your circles I will not even address it now.
This answers really most of what you said. You kind of repeated some things here and there about some of TULIP being taught here and there.
This little bit of truth will help you I hope- Do not use verses out of context. For example- you said “You may not like it (the Jews didn't, just read John 6:41, 8:48), but don't dismiss it’s validity.” I read John 6:41, and it clearly states that the Jews did not like the fact that Jesus claimed to be from Heaven. There is NOTHING stated in either of the two verses about any of the things we are discussing. Do not try to compare our situation to that of the Jews. Nothing they murmured about has anything to do with TULIP. Maybe I am reading it this- then again all I can do is read. You have a troubling history of misusing verse and misquoting me. In the future, use verses that are fitting to the situation, and avoid the Rock Warren method of Bible interpretation.
Lastly, you say that only those of God can hear God. How does this apply to the situation of God calling for all men to repent? How does it fit in with the OT, when unsaved/ unregenerated men heard God? Why give the gospel to all men if only a few already saved men will respond and be –uh , umm saved again?
Why don't you post what I ACTUALLY wrote? All of it? I never said the verse talks "about God having to give new life to the body in order to believe." I actually say:
"That no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draw him is clear (though not comprehensive) support for total depravity."
"Where is the proof that God has choosen those based on no merit of their part? I can just as easily say the opposite. “ See, God has choosen them based on the fact they will choose Him.” Please do not make the verse say what it clearly does not."
1. Does the Father's drawing depend on any merit within the individual who cannot come before the drawing?
2. Where is my exegesis of the passage in context, especially John 6:37, 39, and 40? Is citing context not allowed?
"every man will be raised in the end."
Unsubstantiated. Fact: every verse in John 6 in which Jesus speaks of raising up the last day refers to individuals who are given (verse 39), believes (40), drawn (44), and eats His flesh/drinks His bllod/has eternal life (54). Where is *every man* mentioned? You see no parallel between them who are given/drawn and them who believe/eat His flesh and drink His blood? Do both not refer to one group of people, who have been given/drawn and proceed to come and believe?
"the opposite of limited atonement is not universalism."
LOL! I never asserted such. I merely pointed out that if all who are drawn are raised the last day (and they are), and all men without exception are drawn, then all men without exception will be raised the last day - universalism.
"You will not find the “I” in this verse my friend."
So the one who is drawn is possibly not raised? The one who is given may not come? Eisegesis.
The point about the Jews was an analogy, goodness gracious.
"Lastly, you say that only those of God can hear God. How does this apply to the situation of God calling for all men to repent? How does it fit in with the OT, when unsaved/ unregenerated men heard God? Why give the gospel to all men if only a few already saved men will respond and be –uh , umm saved again?"
A sad evasion. The actual text is left untouched. But to answer your questions:
1. Everyone can hear the gospel message, not everyone can understand it. Surely you aren't taking Jesus' words in John 8:47 literally, as in He wasn't speaking loud enough!
2. The OT is as consistent as the NT. God has blinded the some's understanding by leaving them spiritually dead. Read Matthew 10:9-16, it covers OT and NT applications of this. God calls all men to repent... so? As Luther said:
"How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning, as though the moment a thing is commanded it is done, or can be done?"
The gospel is preached to all men because derrr, we don't know who the elect are!
Please post what I say for the benefit of myself and others. I'd rather people know what I actually say, and the context in which I say it.
Well, you elected not to post Ryan's reply (which I find odd, if it is so obviously "lacking in study skills"), so I won't say anything to your half of his conversation.
COncerning your reply to mine,
God demands perfection from the human race, knowing that such a request is an impossibility unless He were to intervene. Likewise, demanding all repent, even though all will naturally REFUSE to do so, doesn't make it an unfair demand.
Your pleading and crying verse is debatable as to interpretation. You know this. As such, it's ill-advised to use it as a prooftext.
"Some Calvinist believe man can never go against the will of God, thus God is the author of sin and causes(is pleased with) man to sin. This could lead into a whole different ball game."
Um, God willed to allow man to fall of their own choice. He could have stopped it, right? Well, He didn't and as such it was His will for it to happen. This is nowhere near the same as "God causing sin and is the author of sin". Jerry, this reeks of another straw man your side builds against Calvinism.
"Did God desire Adam to eat? Is not, Adam went against God."
God desired to let Adam eat. Otherwise, He would have stopped him, just as He stopped Abimelech from sleeping with Sarah. Yes, Adam broke God's law, but it was God's will to allow him to do this. Otherwise He would have stopped it.
All in all, you really failed to address any of my questions.
Sorry guys. Pure mistake on my part. In the middle of all this my brother in law wanted me to do some research on a double barrel 10 ga. he purchased. I am to shoot it this week. Both barrels at the same time. Yeah, I know.
I will post the next responses later on. As I said, I apologized to Ryan for failing to do so. FOR THE RECORD: I AM SORRY FOR NOT POSTING RYAN"S REPLY. Besides, God decreed it Ryan- don't get made at me.
No, God opted to allow it. Doesn't negate your responsibility, nor is it God's fault for allowing the natural consequences, even though He could have averted it.
:-)
10 gauge, huh? He plan on bear hunting?
Haha, it's ok Jerry. Perhaps God decreed it so that you might remember to post my responses in your other topics?
"But election and evangelism go together. The person who says, 'God will save those He wants to save and He doesn’t need my help!' understands neither election nor evangelism. In the Bible, election always involves responsibility. God chose Israel and made them an elect nation so that they might witness to the Gentiles.
"In the same way, God has chosen the church that we might be witnesses today. The fact that we are God’s elect people does not excuse us from the task of evangelism. On the contrary, the doctrine of election is one of the greatest encouragements to evangelism."
Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, "An Exposition of the New Testament Comprising the Entire 'BE' Series"--Jkt. (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1996, c1989), 1 Th 1:8.
-JM
Due to traveling plans, this is the last of this post. Hope everyone had a good time. Ryan, I understand that you want me to post everything you write, but I ask you to understand this: I will have the last word. Call it the what you will, but I run this here joint ;) However, today I will let you have the last word. I will leave your last post alone. Happy Easter.
Richard, I will leave you with this bit of info. Here are some of the others that helped erect that straw man you smelled earlier.
Palmer -A Calvinist- " He could have prevented it, but He did not prevent it: ergo, He willed it. Thus one must conclude ,'It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin' ". The Five Points of Calvinism.
Calvin- A Calvinist- "Man wills with an evil will what God wills with a good will."
Palmer again in his book Sovereignty- "This is the awesome biblical asymmetry: God ordains sin, and man is to blame"
Calvin again in his Institutes- " It is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by His decree."
Pink- A Calvinist in his book the Sovereignty of God writes this concerning the sin of Adam- " He decreed beforehand that he should do so."
I could go on, but I would like for the record to show that the leading Calvinist of yesteryear seem to think that God is the author and cause of sin. The difference between you and them is the fact they carried this out to the logical conclusion.
I am willing to leave this as it is. I will not address anymore of Richard's either, except to say this:
Richard wrote-Your pleading and crying verse is debatable as to interpretation. You know this. As such, it's ill-advised to use it as a prooftext.
This reeks of a retreat into a straw hut. Richard, you know as well as I that any verse is debatable as to it's interpretation. The entire Bible is even debated about it being the Word of God, without error, etc etc. What you have seemingly done was found yourself cornered by pure Bible, and you went for the cop-out. With that being said, anyone you debate about anything can say the exact thing you said.
Are you willing to go on record about every time God asks men to repent?
Jerry, one reply hardly constitutes a discussion. How are you "exposing" Calvinistic interpretation as errant if you are unwilling to actually deal with the relevant texts in question? Surely, if my study skills are poor, you should be able to show me why my understanding of John 6:37-45 is incorrect. Sadly, this topic reminds me of Geisler's eisegetic non-response to this passage. No positive argument is presented as to what it DOES mean, only what it CAN't mean. Makes me wonder why you let anyone respond at all.
Brother Ryan- please read my original post and explain to our viewers where I said I would "deliever" on what it does mean. Reread it please. Go ahead, I will wait...
There, now that your mind is refreshed, where have I said I will expose Calvinistic interpretations? I wanted thoughts, and that is what I got.
Besides, these verses are debateable as to it's "true" interpretation, so as Richard says, "it's ill-advised to use it as a prooftext."
Rest assured my dear brother, a positive argument is coming.
I see what you write. Are you not persuaded?
"where have I said I will expose Calvinistic interpretations?"
Here:
"Why? I am not out trying to make a name for myself. I simply wish to expose the *error of Calvinism*."
To expose an error, you must refute the Calvinist's interpretations... right?
"Besides, these verses are debateable as to it's "true" interpretation, so as Richard says, "it's ill-advised to use it as a prooftext."
All who are given come...
No one can come unless the Father draws - him who the Father draws will be raised the last day...
All He has given Me I should lose nothing...
Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day
Pretty clear. Giving precedes coming, drawing precedes coming, everyone given/drawn will be raised the last day, everyone who believes will have eternal life/be raised the last day.
Can't wait for that argument, though :)
Hey bro.
I know you have the last word and won't post this, but here's a parting thought. Or two.
1. Check this...you're fully convinced that you're exposing error and bring doctrinal pureness to the Church....but then you claim the last word and refuse to discuss an issue to the point of completion. What do you expect to accomplish with that?
That would be like me creating a blog about errors in the Bible, reply once to your argument without addressing the issues, and then close the comments after I have the last word. Can't you see that what you're doing is accomplishing nothing for anyone?
2. About your quotes...you misunderstand. And I know, you're tired of hearing that. Listen, though...if you see your boy walking to the edge of the porch, and you know he's going to fall, and you don't stop it, you just ordained that he fall.
Likewise, God ordains things in that He doesn't prevent them from happening, which He could. This does not make Him the author of sin, nor does it mean He causes men to sin. He just sees it and chooses to allow it to happen. There is a clear difference that you're just not grasping.
I understand what you are saying about both. Here is the situation I am in- take this post for instance-
http://anti-calvinism.blogspot.com/2008/03/can-anyone-answer-these-questions.html
25 comments, few of which pertained to the actual post. I have to cut someone off sometime. For me to meet my "goal" of "putting to silence foolish men", it very well wouldn't do me good for me to be silent on my own post, now would it?
Listen, I know what you are saying about this. I am jokingly writing this, but I am the "potter" of this blog "clay".
As for the the second part, it seems that the leaders of Calvinism believe this, as I carefully have shown.
ordain-to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law
How do I know he is going to fall?
Could I have really stopped him from falling? Did I create him perfect and command him to stay of the edge of the porch? We can use examples like this if you wish, but sooner or later we have to realize they do not work well.
I understand where you are getting with this. But this is something I know for a fact you do not get- you can let your child do something that is not your desire or will.
I understand what you are saying about both. Here is the situation I am in- take this post for instance-
http://anti-calvinism.blogspot.com/2008/03/can-anyone-answer-these-questions.html
25 comments, few of which pertained to the actual post. I have to cut someone off sometime. For me to meet my "goal" of "putting to silence foolish men", it very well wouldn't do me good for me to be silent on my own post, now would it?
Listen, I know what you are saying about this. I am jokingly writing this, but I am the "potter" of this blog "clay".
As for the the second part, it seems that the leaders of Calvinism believe this, as I carefully have shown.
ordain-to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law
How do I know he is going to fall?
Could I have really stopped him from falling? Did I create him perfect and command him to stay of the edge of the porch? We can use examples like this if you wish, but sooner or later we have to realize they do not work well.
I understand where you are getting with this. But this is something I know for a fact you do not get- you can let your child do something that is not your desire or will.
Ryan, Ryan, Ryan- you are a hoot. Fellers, I must run. Happy Easter and for those that are offended to use the word "Easter", Happy Resurrection Sunday. If you have parting thoughts, they must wait a little while. Grace and Peace.
Yo...in regards to part 2...check it.
It is possible to drag something to you that does not actually come?
No.
If it is dragged, it comes.
If it doesn't come, it wasn't dragged.
Therefore, if God drew all men, all men would come.
If God drew some men, some men would come.
Since all men don't come, God didn't draw all men. The best you can hope for, in the text, is "God tried to draw, but failed."
Just a thought.
Of course, you'd also have to answer these, as well:
1. Why would God draw men He knows would never repent and believe? (enter the election and depravity aspect)
2. Why would God draw men whose sins have not been atoned for? (enter the atonement aspect)
Good thoughts. What about this- you said if you drag it, it comes. The word "draw" pictures a net, a fisherman if you will. Have you ever lost a fish? Have you ever dragged it in the water only to lose it 3 feet from the bank? We both have, some of our biggest ones. So yes, it is possible to drag something, only to not get it in our hands. Using your exact same logic, when does that put this? Honestly- use the same logic.
As for your questions, for God to draw those He knew would not repent is still better than for Him to ask those to repent that He alone has decreed that they cannot.
Your second question is caused by Calvinism. If I believe Jesus atoned for sin period, then that question is meaningless.
Did God fail when Israel disobeyed the Ten Commandments? Did God fail when we ceased to give thanks in all things, for it is the will of God? The blame, in my world, is on man for failing, not God.
If it got away from you, you were not sucessful in dragging the fish. It beat you, and you failed to accomplish your purpose in drawing it.
Where did God degree in inability of man to repent? They cannot repent because they WILL NOT repent. This is due to our being born slaves to sin (John 8:34), which is a direct result of the Fall.
God demanded perfection by giving the Law, yet He knew perfection was impossible. Is this unfair on God's part?
You say Jesus atoned for sin. Tell me now what it accomplished that day on the cross.
You should start an article discussing the purpose of the atonement, for whom it was accomplished, what it was supposed to do, and whether or not it worked.
I believe this may help things, Richard.
Did God try to make the nation of Israel obey the Ten Commandments?
Did God want the nation of Israel to obey the Ten Commandments?
These are simple yes or no answers.
1. God certainly didn't do everything He could have, otherwise they would have. Therefore, He more desired that they disobey Him than for their obedience.
2. Maybe so, but not enough to make it happen.
Nope. Sorry. Helped nothing.
:-)
So that leaves us with a God that desires disobediance.
I ask again, Did God try, at all, to make the nation of Israel obey the Ten Commandments?
Was the nation of Israel so strong that God could not make it do what He wanted?
Yes, God desires obedience. Yes, He enforced the keeping of the Law.
Yet....He did not do all in His power, because He did not desire to. He more desired what happened than what could have happened.
Comes with the sovereignty aspect.
Likewise, though God wants all to repent, He doesn't make the necessary steps to ensure it happens. He could make all men repent, if He wanted.
But He didn't.
Why?
Do you really believe God wants all to repent? Earlier you wrote what God wants, He gets.
How can a holy God desire evil? Can you really say that a righteous and holy God desires disobediance and things contrary to His character? A person can not hide behind the soverignty of God in this answer. In their zeal to protect the soverignty of God, Calvinists have smeared the character of God.
According to the theory of Calvinism, a God who is love desires the damnation of billions.
A God who demands obediance desires disobediance. We could go on, but here is another question- How can someone who protects the soverignty so much say that God has two wills that contradict each other?
The only thing that makes sense and dosen't libel the character of God is if He has given us the geniune choice of accepting Him.
The atonement idea is one to mull over, though this will of God business is interesting too.
He who God draws will be raised the last day. Either:
God draws all people without exception, and all people without exception will be raised the last day.
God draws no people, and no people will be raised the last day.
God draws some people, and these people will be raised the last day.
We can safely rule out the middle option. We know God draws and that people are raised the last day, so the question is to what extent He draws. I guess my posts are really funny to you (for some reason), but it would be great if you could answer whether or not all people without exception are raised the last day. If you could tell me what it means to be raised the last day, and who specifically will be raised the last day, that'd be great too. Try to use some Scripture when answering, please; the closer to the context, the better.
Re-read John 6:44- No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
It seems to me that the ones that come to Jesus are the ones raised.
"It seems to me that the ones that come to Jesus are the ones raised."
So even though the antecedent actually goes back to him who is drawn, the point is the same either way. How? Because the one who comes is the one who is first given (verse 37). So if you'd like to shift the focus, that's fine by me.
John 6:37 Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.
So, because everyone who is given will come to Jesus, either:
All men without exception come to Jesus.
No man comes to Jesus.
Some come to Jesus.
Again, we can rule out the middle one. Also, because we know that the people who come will never be cast out, but rather raised the last day, either some are given, come, and raised the last day, or all men without exception are given, come, and are raised the last day. Like I said, the point is the same:
"...it would be great if you could answer whether or not all people without exception are raised the last day. If you could tell me what it means to be raised the last day, and who specifically will be raised the last day, that'd be great too. Try to use some Scripture when answering, please; the closer to the context, the better."
"Do you really believe God wants all to repent? Earlier you wrote what God wants, He gets."
Indeed, which means that God is more willing that things happen the way they are than He is willling for all to repent. It's quite simple...repentance is impossible apart from God's intervention. Not all repent, therefore God MUST NOT be working all men towards repentence (if He is, He is failing miseribly). It's safe, then, to conclude that though God might want a man to repent, He doesn't want it enough to make it happens.
"How can a holy God desire evil? Can you really say that a righteous and holy God desires disobediance and things contrary to His character? A person can not hide behind the soverignty of God in this answer. In their zeal to protect the soverignty of God, Calvinists have smeared the character of God."
Not at all. Think about it...could God have hidden the Tree that was in the garden? COuld He have instilled a distaste for that tree within Adam and Eve? Certainly. God could have buried the tree to protect the human race.
But He chose not to, knowing good and well what would happen. SO you have to ask yourself....if GOd wanted sinlessness more than anything in the world, why didn't He do what was necessary to ensure perfect obedience. The fact, God more desired the outcome that He knew was coming, rather than make it not happen.
"According to the theory of Calvinism, a God who is love desires the damnation of billions."
And according to your theory of moderate Arminianism, God isn't powerful or caring enough to save the billions that will be damned apart from His intervention. What love is that?
"A God who demands obediance desires disobediance. We could go on, but here is another question- How can someone who protects the soverignty so much say that God has two wills that contradict each other?"
There is no contradiction; it's a matter of what God most wants. If I put a gun to your head and demand your money or your life, you're going to want your money. However, as you desire your life more, you will surrender your wallet. There is no contradiction here...even though you wanted both, you desired one more than the other. If GOd desired the salvation of the human race more than He desired what is currently happening, tell me why He doesn't change men?
"The only thing that makes sense and dosen't libel the character of God is if He has given us the geniune choice of accepting Him."
That's right, because God can't save a man against his will. That's garbage, bro, for several reasons.
1. Everyone makes the choice to reject Him. THere are none good, there are none who seeks God. I agree whole heartedly that God gives men choice. However, I also appreciate His willingness to save men that, of their own accord, would reject Him.
2. What made you accept God while your buddies don't? Were you smarter, more enlightened? COuld you see your sin better? What was it within you that made you see the light?
3. According to you, it wasn't finished on the cross. All Jesus did was mak men able to save themselves, if they so desired.
4. Think about this...if GOd wanted, He could work in the lives of men and thus influence all of mankind to freely choose Him. WHy doesn't He?
"The atonement idea is one to mull over, though this will of God business is interesting too."
All you gotta do is ask yourself, "If God is sovereign, is He truly getting what He wants?"
Indeed, a lot to take in.
Richard- what it boils down to is this- Calvinism's God desires the damnation of billions. He desires evil above good. My God has offered salvation, and mankind has damned himself. You are erecting this straw man that God has done everything in His power to save mankind. He has not. He has left the choice to us.
Ryan- hard to say where to start with you. You are grasping for straws (possibly to help Richard with his straw man) when you refuse to see the plain as day statement in the verse. If the "antecedent actually goes back to him who is drawn" does not that antecedent go back to the "no man" at the beginning?
I may bring up some of these points in the future. Until then, thanks as always. This is it for this one.
Post a Comment