Jac3510,
I am having trouble understanding your point - Do not modern Calvinist also teach that a person is saved by grace through faith and that repentance and good works are the evidence of being born again? These works do not save but are rather an outgrowth of true saving grace and faith.
Can you clarify this for me?
Thanks
Is Calvinism a Heresy?
You are correct, Locker.
The Calvinist position is that God grants irresistable grace on sinners and gives them a new heart and a new spirit regenerating them and the sinners who God makes alive automatically want to repent and trust Christ for salvation. It can be compared to a city that a jet plane has a "lock and fix" target and fires a missle at it. The city blows up as a result of the bomb. Now the Plane would be the Calvinists view of God, the lock and fix would on those he chose to save, those He marked for heaven and the city would be the sinners. The missle is His irresistable grace and it is bestowed on the city. The city blows up as a result of the bomb hitting it. So God fires his bomb, the irresistable grace on the sinner, and the sinner explodes with repentance and faith as a result of the bomb or the irresistable grace. Those (according to Calvinists) who are marked and preselected to hell before time, He just passes them by and allows them to go to His predestined location He picked for them. Evidently, He must not truly love them or want what's best for them, (or at least love them enough to save them) or He would save them like the Calvinists say He could. But for some mysterious reason, He chooses not to (according to Calvinists) and somehow it's for His glory. What's wrong with this picture? Atheists know, for it's one of their outward reasons of rejecting Christianity. They might be void of spiritual revelation and reality, but at least they aren't void of common sense and haven't been indoctrinated by false doctrines and traditions of men.
However, according to the Scriptures a sinner has a change of mind as a result of receiving the gospel message, and then believes in Christ for salvation and as he does so he is then born again. This is called synergism, and it means that man is actively co-operating with the conviction of the Spirit and His drawing and chooses to believe and place faith in Christ as he is empowered to do so by the Spirit. Monergism teaches that is totally passive in His salvation and is like the city getting blown up. The city would never blew up if it wasn't bombed. Now I am not saying man will seek God without any drawing of the Spirit. If God chose to not draw or convict a sinner, then the sinner would never seek God. But, God is omni-benevolent, which means He is all loving, and Jesus said In John 12:32 " if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." There are so many Scriptures revealing God's will for every creature (person) it's amazing.
So one seeks God, only to find that God was seeking them and drawing them first.
Hope this helps!
LowlyOne
The Calvinist position is that God grants irresistable grace on sinners and gives them a new heart and a new spirit regenerating them and the sinners who God makes alive automatically want to repent and trust Christ for salvation. It can be compared to a city that a jet plane has a "lock and fix" target and fires a missle at it. The city blows up as a result of the bomb. Now the Plane would be the Calvinists view of God, the lock and fix would on those he chose to save, those He marked for heaven and the city would be the sinners. The missle is His irresistable grace and it is bestowed on the city. The city blows up as a result of the bomb hitting it. So God fires his bomb, the irresistable grace on the sinner, and the sinner explodes with repentance and faith as a result of the bomb or the irresistable grace. Those (according to Calvinists) who are marked and preselected to hell before time, He just passes them by and allows them to go to His predestined location He picked for them. Evidently, He must not truly love them or want what's best for them, (or at least love them enough to save them) or He would save them like the Calvinists say He could. But for some mysterious reason, He chooses not to (according to Calvinists) and somehow it's for His glory. What's wrong with this picture? Atheists know, for it's one of their outward reasons of rejecting Christianity. They might be void of spiritual revelation and reality, but at least they aren't void of common sense and haven't been indoctrinated by false doctrines and traditions of men.
However, according to the Scriptures a sinner has a change of mind as a result of receiving the gospel message, and then believes in Christ for salvation and as he does so he is then born again. This is called synergism, and it means that man is actively co-operating with the conviction of the Spirit and His drawing and chooses to believe and place faith in Christ as he is empowered to do so by the Spirit. Monergism teaches that is totally passive in His salvation and is like the city getting blown up. The city would never blew up if it wasn't bombed. Now I am not saying man will seek God without any drawing of the Spirit. If God chose to not draw or convict a sinner, then the sinner would never seek God. But, God is omni-benevolent, which means He is all loving, and Jesus said In John 12:32 " if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." There are so many Scriptures revealing God's will for every creature (person) it's amazing.
So one seeks God, only to find that God was seeking them and drawing them first.
Hope this helps!
LowlyOne
Last edited by LowlyOne on Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
August
- Old School
- Posts: 2402
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
Why are some people saved and others not? What is it that those who are saved do that is different to those that are not? If two people both hear the gospel, one is is saved and the other one not, why is that?LowlyOne wrote:This is called synergism, and it means that man is actively co-operating with the conviction of the Spirit and His drawing and chooses to believe and place faith in Christ as he is empowered to do so by the Spirit.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
-
B. W.
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 8355
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
- Christian: Yes
- Location: Colorado
LowlyOne wrote:This is called synergism, and it means that man is actively co-operating with the conviction of the Spirit and His drawing and chooses to believe and place faith in Christ as he is empowered to do so by the Spirit.
August wrote: Why are some people saved and others not? What is it that those who are saved do that is different to those that are not? If two people both hear the gospel, one is is saved and the other one not, why is that?
Maybe this is what Jac3510 was trying to get at? Is salvation/damnation based on pure selection? Or do humans truly have a choice in the matter?
IMHO - God calls everyone but not everyone will choose the call. In other words - God chooses us to choose Him but the question remains - will we choose God?
How can we choose if He does not first call? How can we choose if God was not just and allowing the choice? Could it be that God holistically foreknew the need for a just and perfect plan to save and restore; then, preordained a plan to save and restore order? Therefore, He calls out, selects, those He foreknew would hear and understand this plan?
At test you see, to sort-out those who would become justified and then glorified in a new heavens and earth where righteousness reigns so that none will rebel again? He weeds out those who freely choose to reject God's plan in order to restore order at a future date and time.
Thus God justly sets each being in time and place, in all the eras and epochs of history, according to God plans and decrees that govern towards specific end.
Without God calling out, selecting from the midst, making the plan, no-one could choose. If God did not call out to Adam and Eve in the Garden, plus revealing that only His sacrifice can restore, humanity would forever be lost.
God made the ability for humanity to make choices so He can justly redeem. To engage this ability, God calls out to all of Humanity while we run and hide amongst our world to see, to test, to prove, to try, those He forenew would return to Him and who will not.
Is this what Jac3510 is referring too?
-
-
-
Because the condition of the hearts of those who were saved were open and receptive being good ground. The others were not. See the parable of the sower.Why are some people saved and others not?
Nothing, because God's drawing was greater up to that point. One plants, one waters, but God gives the increase. Those who responded to the Holy Spirit's conviction had seed planted in them by maybe a neighbor, and later in life a co-worker watered that seed, and God gave the increase. The others who are not saved "yet" may have seed planted and heard the gospel, but that seed might not have been watered. Thus, God hasn't gave the increase in that sinner YET, and I do mean YET.What is it that those who are saved do that is different to those that are not?
This is a faulty question by the Calvinist/Reformed Christiand (though it is a good one) because the Calvinist assumes or intentionally makes the two look like they both were in a nuetral state. If this is so, and one gets saved, who can we say made the choice? God only. But, it is erroneous to assume that both sinners are at the same place mentally, and that the condition of their hearts are exactly the same. Here is why.If two people both hear the gospel, one is is saved and the other one not, why is that?
2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
Now say two 20 year olds hear the gospel. They come from two different backgrounds. One comes from an atheist background, and has never went to church. The other comes from a background where God is acknoweldged, and that one has been to church each easter and Christmas, but this one like the other is unregenerate. You have two different heart and mind conditions. Satan blinds the minds of those who don't believe through deceptions, wrong beliefs, and misconceptions and preconcieved thoughts concerning Christ, the gospel, and the church scene. Now with the atheist, you could say his ear is more stopped up with deception and darkness from ideas that's came in his path up until this point, preventing him from hearing the truth, and more so than the other.
Now if I whisper something, one is going to have a more difficult time hearing it that the other. For example, one old guy with a hearing aid will not be able to hear my voice whereas another without it can hear it better. Such is the same with the two people, the atheist and the other. So what must be done, is the Holy Spirit must draw, convict, and break down the lies and deception where BOTH can see Christ with an unveiled face and depart from satan's kingdom and sin and enter into the Kingdom of God by faith in Christ. So, the reason on chooses to believe is because God first drew them, their ground and condition of their heart was good, ready and receptive, and God brought them out of darkness into the light.
Now their is so so much more that could be said and discusses more in depth, but this should be a sufficient answer to those questions.
Now, I ask the Calvinist a question. Out of the two who hears the gospel, on gets saved by God and the other didn't. Both hear the gospel invitation to come and drink of the water freely, and to come to the Father through Christ's cross and resurrection, both hear that God loves them and Jesus died for them to provide forgiveness, and His arms are outstretched to them and open, but only one get's saved by God. Was/is God sincere in the invitation?
What do we make of the Mandate to Preach the gospel of salvation to every creature? If you knew what biblically consists in the gospel of salvation found in the Holy Scriptures, you'd know that the invitation to drink of the water of life is in it, and the inivitation to "come" to the Father through Christ's sacrificial work. But, the gospel of salvation also has in this the commands to repent and believe and these are the steps or choices a sinner has to come. The Holy Spirit is faithful to initiate and draw them the whole way, but they must co-operate. He isn't going to repent or believe for them.
So, my question is again, is God really sincere in His invitation to those whom don't come, or if your calvinist, to those whom He foreordained to hell?
Remember, God loves the World, and want's all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
Imagine this scenario: Parents from around the world send their children to a rustic camp set in the midst of Kendtucky's Bluegrass Region for the summer. All one hundred children become infected with a deadly virus during the first week of camp and have but one monty to live. Fortunately, a specialist who has seen a similar outbreak in New Mexico knows of a treatment: the Yucca cactus, when ground to a pulp, blended with vinegar and ingested over the period of three weeks, will completely counteract the virus and return the children to full health.
Unfortunately, every single child finds the smell of concoction so utterly repulsive that no amount of coaxing by even the best of counselors succeeds in getting anyone to eat any of it. TO make matters worse, the virus somehow drives the children mad, prompting them to lash out in foul language devilishly at those trying to help them and accuse their counselors of gross misconduct. Luckily, yet another specialist develops a serum that, when injected hypodermically, creates within the child an insatiable passion for eating the Yucca mash.
Now imagine the news of the virus reaches the alarmed parents. The camp director immediately sends a letter reassuring them that he LOVES all their children, that he is offering to ALL their children the life-saving Yucca mash in LIBERAL QUANTITIES, that he will supply this expensive preparation without charge and that all children will be brought to the cafeteria three times a day and "strongly urged to eat".
Three months later, the parents arrive in the Bluegrass to retrieve their children. But at the campsite, they are stunned to discover that seventy-five children have died from the virus. Interrogating the director, they discover that the life-saving food could not work its wonders unless the child was injected with the appetite stimulant. On further questioning they discover that the director had chosen to inject only twenty-five children with the serum, though he had an unlimited supply at his disposal. To say nothing about their anger and grief, the parents are utterly perplexed!
In Chorus they immediately challenge the claim made by the camp director in the letter they had received, asking, "How can you claim to have "loved" the seventy-five dead children if you could have saved them but didn't?" We can imaging just how unconvincing some of the director's answers might be: "But I offered the Yucca mash liberally, freely and passionately." Yes, but all this talk about the merits of mixture misses the issue of the serum! "But the children are to blame, since they ate exactly what they wanted and violently rejected my help!" Yes, but you fully controlled exactly what each child wanted! "But note how much attention I lavished on these children in the last weeks of their lives." And you call this love--to provide the most exciting camp activities to a child as she dies, while you withhold the very serum of life?
The directors claim to love all children rings hollow at best, deceptive at worst. If love will not employ all available means to rescue someone from ultimate loss, it is hard to hear the announcement of universal love as good news. Indeed, it is hard to hear it as love at all. In our judgment, it becomes meaningless to claim that God wishes to save all while also insisting that God refrains from making the salvation of all possible. What are we to make of a God whose walk does not match his talk?
----------above scenerio given by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph Dongell
Scripture to meditate on:
Isa 45:22 - "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
Hymn to sing in worship:
Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.
Ending note:
That Hymn adequately and biblically reflects the salvific and redemptive love that God has for not just some children in all the world, but all the children in all the world. If you don't believe that, you'd be hypocritical to sing it and ought not too.
Lowly One
Unfortunately, every single child finds the smell of concoction so utterly repulsive that no amount of coaxing by even the best of counselors succeeds in getting anyone to eat any of it. TO make matters worse, the virus somehow drives the children mad, prompting them to lash out in foul language devilishly at those trying to help them and accuse their counselors of gross misconduct. Luckily, yet another specialist develops a serum that, when injected hypodermically, creates within the child an insatiable passion for eating the Yucca mash.
Now imagine the news of the virus reaches the alarmed parents. The camp director immediately sends a letter reassuring them that he LOVES all their children, that he is offering to ALL their children the life-saving Yucca mash in LIBERAL QUANTITIES, that he will supply this expensive preparation without charge and that all children will be brought to the cafeteria three times a day and "strongly urged to eat".
Three months later, the parents arrive in the Bluegrass to retrieve their children. But at the campsite, they are stunned to discover that seventy-five children have died from the virus. Interrogating the director, they discover that the life-saving food could not work its wonders unless the child was injected with the appetite stimulant. On further questioning they discover that the director had chosen to inject only twenty-five children with the serum, though he had an unlimited supply at his disposal. To say nothing about their anger and grief, the parents are utterly perplexed!
In Chorus they immediately challenge the claim made by the camp director in the letter they had received, asking, "How can you claim to have "loved" the seventy-five dead children if you could have saved them but didn't?" We can imaging just how unconvincing some of the director's answers might be: "But I offered the Yucca mash liberally, freely and passionately." Yes, but all this talk about the merits of mixture misses the issue of the serum! "But the children are to blame, since they ate exactly what they wanted and violently rejected my help!" Yes, but you fully controlled exactly what each child wanted! "But note how much attention I lavished on these children in the last weeks of their lives." And you call this love--to provide the most exciting camp activities to a child as she dies, while you withhold the very serum of life?
The directors claim to love all children rings hollow at best, deceptive at worst. If love will not employ all available means to rescue someone from ultimate loss, it is hard to hear the announcement of universal love as good news. Indeed, it is hard to hear it as love at all. In our judgment, it becomes meaningless to claim that God wishes to save all while also insisting that God refrains from making the salvation of all possible. What are we to make of a God whose walk does not match his talk?
----------above scenerio given by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph Dongell
Scripture to meditate on:
Isa 45:22 - "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
Hymn to sing in worship:
Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.
Ending note:
That Hymn adequately and biblically reflects the salvific and redemptive love that God has for not just some children in all the world, but all the children in all the world. If you don't believe that, you'd be hypocritical to sing it and ought not too.
Lowly One
-
puritan lad
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
- Contact:
I'm working on a reply to Jac, but for now, I'll respond to Lowly One.
First, God does not offer salvation to anyone. He Saves (Matthew 1:21). I hear alot about the modern "offer of salvation", but I cannot find it in the Bible. God neither seeks nor requires our approval, He gets it. He performs the necessary heart transplant (Ezekiel 36:26). "It is not of Him who wills, nor of Him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16). Those who are saved are "born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13). Pretty clear to me. "Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), not of the Lord and man. Synergism is unscriptural. The clay has no power over the potter whatsoever.
And those whom Christ died for cannot go to Hell, for He has secured our eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12), and "gives His sheep (not goats) eternal life, and they shall never perish". CHrist did NOT die for Pharoah's sins. Pharaoh led a "Purpose-Driven Life" (Romans 9:17-18). Sobering thought...
First, God does not offer salvation to anyone. He Saves (Matthew 1:21). I hear alot about the modern "offer of salvation", but I cannot find it in the Bible. God neither seeks nor requires our approval, He gets it. He performs the necessary heart transplant (Ezekiel 36:26). "It is not of Him who wills, nor of Him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16). Those who are saved are "born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13). Pretty clear to me. "Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), not of the Lord and man. Synergism is unscriptural. The clay has no power over the potter whatsoever.
And those whom Christ died for cannot go to Hell, for He has secured our eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12), and "gives His sheep (not goats) eternal life, and they shall never perish". CHrist did NOT die for Pharoah's sins. Pharaoh led a "Purpose-Driven Life" (Romans 9:17-18). Sobering thought...
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN
//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
Puritan Lad wrote
God does offer salvation to people. First, I will point you to Cain.
Genesis 4:6 So the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted?
God offered Cain a chance in the form of a hypothetical question to "be accepted" if Cain would "do well". Yet Cain did not. Was God pretending, having preselected Cain for hell, or was God serious in that Cain could have been accepted?
Now I point you to the days of Noah.
"My Spirit shall not always strive with man" declared God in the days of Noah (Gen 6:3). If the men of Noah's generation were foreordained to damnation, as Calvinism teaches, in what sense did the Spirit strive with them, since they were fulfilling their foreordained role in refusing the testimony of Noah? 2 Pet. 2:5 - God did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; Who was Noah preaching to? It was those who weren't spared and were punished by the flood because God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. If no man, either elect or reprobate, can resist the will of God, against whom or what is the Spirit striving when He "strives with man"? If there is in man no faculty of decision which God takes into account, any striving of the Spirit that fails to bring man to submission proves God incapable of performance. Any "striving" not intended to bring man to submission would be a farce and prove God hopelessly insincere. If decision rests with God alone, any striving at all is totally phony and superfuous.
2Chronicles 24:19 - Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them back to the Lord; and they testified against them, but they would not listen.
2 Chronicles 36:15 And the Lord God of their fathers sent warnings to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending them, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. 16 But they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy.
I guess there was no decision which God took account here huh?
Isaiah 66:4 So will I choose their delusions, And bring their fears on them; Because, when I called, no one answered, When I spoke they did not hear; But they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight."
So what would you make of these verses? I could probably give about 15-20 examples found through out Scripture. But this should be sufficient. Tell me these instances of people didn't have a chance!
First, God does not offer salvation to anyone. He Saves (Matthew 1:21). I hear alot about the modern "offer of salvation", but I cannot find it in the Bible.
God does offer salvation to people. First, I will point you to Cain.
Genesis 4:6 So the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted?
God offered Cain a chance in the form of a hypothetical question to "be accepted" if Cain would "do well". Yet Cain did not. Was God pretending, having preselected Cain for hell, or was God serious in that Cain could have been accepted?
Now I point you to the days of Noah.
"My Spirit shall not always strive with man" declared God in the days of Noah (Gen 6:3). If the men of Noah's generation were foreordained to damnation, as Calvinism teaches, in what sense did the Spirit strive with them, since they were fulfilling their foreordained role in refusing the testimony of Noah? 2 Pet. 2:5 - God did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; Who was Noah preaching to? It was those who weren't spared and were punished by the flood because God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. If no man, either elect or reprobate, can resist the will of God, against whom or what is the Spirit striving when He "strives with man"? If there is in man no faculty of decision which God takes into account, any striving of the Spirit that fails to bring man to submission proves God incapable of performance. Any "striving" not intended to bring man to submission would be a farce and prove God hopelessly insincere. If decision rests with God alone, any striving at all is totally phony and superfuous.
2Chronicles 24:19 - Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them back to the Lord; and they testified against them, but they would not listen.
2 Chronicles 36:15 And the Lord God of their fathers sent warnings to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending them, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. 16 But they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy.
I guess there was no decision which God took account here huh?
Isaiah 66:4 So will I choose their delusions, And bring their fears on them; Because, when I called, no one answered, When I spoke they did not hear; But they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight."
So what would you make of these verses? I could probably give about 15-20 examples found through out Scripture. But this should be sufficient. Tell me these instances of people didn't have a chance!
-
puritan lad
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
- Contact:
Sorry Lowly One, There was no offer of salvation here. Cain chose to disobey, but could not repent because “He was of the Wicked One' (1 John 3:12). His choice was a result of His own sinful nature, totally depraved.God does offer salvation to people. First, I will point you to Cain.
Genesis 4:6 So the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted?
God offered Cain a chance in the form of a hypothetical question to "be accepted" if Cain would "do well". Yet Cain did not. Was God pretending, having preselected Cain for hell, or was God serious in that Cain could have been accepted?
You have given NO verses that teach that God “offers” salvation. Examples of commanding the wicked to repent do not show an “offer” of anything. You ignore the fact that God's Word NEVER returns void, that it ALWAYS accomplishes that which He intended it (Isaiah 55:11). This was true in Noah's day as well. The word Noah preached accomplished God's purpose (unless Isaiah was mistaken).So what would you make of these verses? I could probably give about 15-20 examples found through out Scripture. But this should be sufficient. Tell me these instances of people didn't have a chance!
Proverbs 16:4
"The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."
John the Baptist preached the gospel of repentance to the Pharisees (Matthew 3:7-8). Jesus also told them the truth, but they would not believe (John 10:25-26). Why did they not believe? Because they were not His Sheep. Jesus did not say that they were not His sheep because they did not believe. Instead, He plainly told them that they did not believe BECAUSE they were not His sheep.
Jesus purposely hid the kingdom of God from them. (Matthew 13:11). This is why Jesus spoke in parables. The Pharisees were “disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed” (1 Peter 2:8).
When Peter preached to the Gentiles, “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48). Not hard to understand, but hard for many to swallow. They are too much in love with what John Owen refers to as “The Idol of Free Will”, an idol which challenges God to do His work of salvation, and then tells God to His face, “My council shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure”.
Yes, they had a choice. However, they could only choose those things which were allowed by their sinful nature. God must regenerate a person before he can even see the kingdom of God, let alone choose it. (John 3:3)
John 6:65
“And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.””
Would you like to talk about pharaoh? Most Arminians don't, for obvious reasons.
God Bless,
PL
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN
//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
P.L. wrote
Pro. 16:32 He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, And he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city. Here, we see that man is capable of ruling his spirit, knowing that God gives grace to the humble and provides the ability to do so.
Puritan Lad wrote
Come on now, you got to do better than quote John 10:26 to support the faulty monergism doctrine. As for this verse, the biblical interpretation goes about like this. Jesus' "sheep" were those given to Him by His Father (John 10:29). These people were previously the Father's sheep—that is, they were the believing remnant in Israel—and the Father gave them to be under Christ's pastoral leadership (John 17:6).
When Jesus arrived in Israel, most Jews were not of the believing remnant, and were, therefore, not among the sheep that the Father gave to Jesus. Those who were not of the believing remnant before Jesus came (not surprisingly) did not believe in Jesus, either. This is what Jesus is acknowledging when He said, "You do not believe [i.e., in Jesus] because you are not of my sheep [i.e., you are not among those who believe in my Father, and are thus not of the group He has given me.]"
Jesus did not declare it impossible for them to believe, He only observed that their not believing was not surprising, because they were already rejecting the truth of God before Jesus even arrived.]Also, we must remember the context of this verse. Context Context Context!
John 10:22 It was now winter, and Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah. 23 He was at the Temple, walking through the section known as Solomon's Colonnade. 24 The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked, "How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus replied, "I have already told you, and you don't believe me. The proof is what I do in the name of my Father. 26 But you don't believe me because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep recognize my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, 29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. 30 The Father and I are one."
Look at verse 25. He told them already and they didn't believe what he said.
Lastly, when examining this verse, it must be noted that their unbelief did not derive from some eternal, irrevocable decree of God. This is evident (if one takes of their reformed glasses) from the fact that to the same men Jesus appealed in verse 37 and 38, “believe the (My) works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."
To take this further, it's really sad, that many make the error of trying to derive an order in the process of salvation from a verse that is metaphorical and merely meant to be descriptive. I mean, if a shepherd says about certain sheep that are grazing among his own flock, “These ones are not white, because they are not of my sheep,” does that prove that the wool of his sheep was black before he obtained them, and then became white after they became his sheep? Is the shepherd declaring that the sole reason that his sheep have white wool is because they are his sheep? No, the only real conclusion one can draw from such a statement is that the shepherd only has sheep with white wool in his flock. Likewise, Jesus was simply describing His true sheep among the bigger “flock.” His sheep believe. Those who are not of His flock don't believe. He was not establishing an order in the process of salvation.
I wonder why people don't quote the two verses that follow John 10:26 in order to be certain his interpretation fits the context. There we continue reading, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27-28 ).
Here Jesus continues to describe His relationship with His sheep. He mentions things that they do and things that He does for them. Not only do they believe in Him, but they also hear his voice (because they are near and attentive), and they follow Him (because they have obediently submitted to Him). True Christians believe in, listen to, and obey Jesus. Jesus, like any good shepherd, knows which sheep are His. He gives them eternal life, promises that they won't perish, and also guarantees that they won't be stolen. Clearly we see this is a two-sided relationship, both sides having responsibility.
How would we fare if we used this same means of interpreting John 10:26 to interpret Jesus' words regarding a just-converted prostitute, recorded in Luke 7:47?:
“For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for [because] she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
Was Jesus teaching that the reason this prositute's many sins were forgiven was because she first, prior to being forgiven, "loved much"? Or was Jesus simply describing people who have been forgiven much, identifying them as being people who love God much? The answer is obvious. Thus we should be extremely careful in deriving an order of the process of salvation from John 10:26, grasping for a cause and effect relationship in a
statement that was only meant to describe true believers. With this being said, the interpretation that reformed teachers give has nothing to due with the context, Jesus' intent to His hearers. The only way to come up with such a view is to isolate this text from the context and quote it by itself.
Puritan Lad wrote
John 13:11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. I'll say this again, this was not the gospel message that was hid from them. In context, it is talking about the word of the kingdom, the four conditions of the heart and fruitfulness. But then we have the verse that says Christ is speaking in parables so that they will not understand and be converted, with their sins forgiven. That makes no sense in the Calvinist model. Why use parables with the totally depraved? It would be unnecessary.
I do believe that this question is unanswerable in terms of Calvinist presuppositions. Upon those suppositions, the natural man is incapable of repenting or believing. He can only do these things if God first works a special unilateral work of regeneration in to the heart, bringing him from death to life, which then allows the man to be freed from his blindness, to repent of sin and to put his faith in Christ. These presuppositions are not found in scripture, but they are a necessary part of Calvinist anthropology.
Obviously, if these Calvinist assumptions were correct, and if God did not wish for a man to repent or believe, there would never be any occasion for God to further harden a man's heart or conceal His message in mysteries, since the man's default condition, lacking special grace, would preclude any possibility of his repentance or faith anyway. God need do exactly nothing, and He would thereby guarantee that man would never repent or believe.
The fact that God is specificly said to actively "harden" certain peoples' hearts, to "blind their eyes" and to conceal His mysteries "lest they should be converted," bears eloquent testimony that the Calvinist view is wrong, and that God sees the sinner as one who, even in a state of being "dead" (like the prodigal son—Luke 15:24), has the potential of repenting and believing, unless God takes special steps to render this impossible in certain cases (e.g., Pharaoh, the Jews of Jesus' day).
This seems so obvious to me that it is hard to imagine why there are Bible students who are still Calvinists. "Seeing, they see, and do not perceive..."
1 Pet. 2:8 ...and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
If you look at greek wording and word play, you would be able to see what Peter was trying to say. They were appointed to stumble, as a consequence of them being disobedient to the word. Jesus talks of two types of houses being built in the gospels. The wise one put in to practice what Jesus said, and his has was built on the rock. The foolish one did not do so, and built his house on the sand. The storms came, and the foolish house fell, which was the consequence of being disobedient and not putting into practice Jesus' Words. Same message being portrayed here. No problem for the non-calvinist.
....continue on
Sorry, but the sinful nature of man is not a machine that controls the rest of mans spirit, soul, and body. The Calvist view of fallen man is incorrect. Look at what God said to Cain. "And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." This is clear, how much clearer can it get. Cain, being of the wicked one could have ruled over the sin at the door and it's desire for him. Was God deceiving Cain telling him he should do something, implying that Cain was able and without excuse if he didn't, if God foreordained that Cain would forever remain of the wicked one as you say? Proverbs talks of something similar.Cain chose to disobey, but could not repent because “He was of the Wicked One' (1 John 3:12). His choice was a result of His own sinful nature, totally depraved.
Pro. 16:32 He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, And he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city. Here, we see that man is capable of ruling his spirit, knowing that God gives grace to the humble and provides the ability to do so.
Puritan Lad wrote
.John the Baptist preached the gospel of repentance to the Pharisees (Matthew 3:7-8 ). Jesus also told them the truth, but they would not believe (John 10:25-26). Why did they not believe? Because they were not His Sheep. Jesus did not say that they were not His sheep because they did not believe. Instead, He plainly told them that they did not believe BECAUSE they were not His sheep
Come on now, you got to do better than quote John 10:26 to support the faulty monergism doctrine. As for this verse, the biblical interpretation goes about like this. Jesus' "sheep" were those given to Him by His Father (John 10:29). These people were previously the Father's sheep—that is, they were the believing remnant in Israel—and the Father gave them to be under Christ's pastoral leadership (John 17:6).
When Jesus arrived in Israel, most Jews were not of the believing remnant, and were, therefore, not among the sheep that the Father gave to Jesus. Those who were not of the believing remnant before Jesus came (not surprisingly) did not believe in Jesus, either. This is what Jesus is acknowledging when He said, "You do not believe [i.e., in Jesus] because you are not of my sheep [i.e., you are not among those who believe in my Father, and are thus not of the group He has given me.]"
Jesus did not declare it impossible for them to believe, He only observed that their not believing was not surprising, because they were already rejecting the truth of God before Jesus even arrived.]Also, we must remember the context of this verse. Context Context Context!
John 10:22 It was now winter, and Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah. 23 He was at the Temple, walking through the section known as Solomon's Colonnade. 24 The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked, "How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus replied, "I have already told you, and you don't believe me. The proof is what I do in the name of my Father. 26 But you don't believe me because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep recognize my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, 29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. 30 The Father and I are one."
Look at verse 25. He told them already and they didn't believe what he said.
Lastly, when examining this verse, it must be noted that their unbelief did not derive from some eternal, irrevocable decree of God. This is evident (if one takes of their reformed glasses) from the fact that to the same men Jesus appealed in verse 37 and 38, “believe the (My) works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."
To take this further, it's really sad, that many make the error of trying to derive an order in the process of salvation from a verse that is metaphorical and merely meant to be descriptive. I mean, if a shepherd says about certain sheep that are grazing among his own flock, “These ones are not white, because they are not of my sheep,” does that prove that the wool of his sheep was black before he obtained them, and then became white after they became his sheep? Is the shepherd declaring that the sole reason that his sheep have white wool is because they are his sheep? No, the only real conclusion one can draw from such a statement is that the shepherd only has sheep with white wool in his flock. Likewise, Jesus was simply describing His true sheep among the bigger “flock.” His sheep believe. Those who are not of His flock don't believe. He was not establishing an order in the process of salvation.
I wonder why people don't quote the two verses that follow John 10:26 in order to be certain his interpretation fits the context. There we continue reading, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27-28 ).
Here Jesus continues to describe His relationship with His sheep. He mentions things that they do and things that He does for them. Not only do they believe in Him, but they also hear his voice (because they are near and attentive), and they follow Him (because they have obediently submitted to Him). True Christians believe in, listen to, and obey Jesus. Jesus, like any good shepherd, knows which sheep are His. He gives them eternal life, promises that they won't perish, and also guarantees that they won't be stolen. Clearly we see this is a two-sided relationship, both sides having responsibility.
How would we fare if we used this same means of interpreting John 10:26 to interpret Jesus' words regarding a just-converted prostitute, recorded in Luke 7:47?:
“For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for [because] she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
Was Jesus teaching that the reason this prositute's many sins were forgiven was because she first, prior to being forgiven, "loved much"? Or was Jesus simply describing people who have been forgiven much, identifying them as being people who love God much? The answer is obvious. Thus we should be extremely careful in deriving an order of the process of salvation from John 10:26, grasping for a cause and effect relationship in a
statement that was only meant to describe true believers. With this being said, the interpretation that reformed teachers give has nothing to due with the context, Jesus' intent to His hearers. The only way to come up with such a view is to isolate this text from the context and quote it by itself.
Puritan Lad wrote
Nope, Jesus did not hide the kingdom of God from them, he hid the mysteries of/about the kingdom of God from them. This wasn't dealing with the gospel message.Jesus purposely hid the kingdom of God from them. (Matthew 13:11). This is why Jesus spoke in parables. The Pharisees were “disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed” (1 Peter 2:8 ).
John 13:11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. I'll say this again, this was not the gospel message that was hid from them. In context, it is talking about the word of the kingdom, the four conditions of the heart and fruitfulness. But then we have the verse that says Christ is speaking in parables so that they will not understand and be converted, with their sins forgiven. That makes no sense in the Calvinist model. Why use parables with the totally depraved? It would be unnecessary.
I do believe that this question is unanswerable in terms of Calvinist presuppositions. Upon those suppositions, the natural man is incapable of repenting or believing. He can only do these things if God first works a special unilateral work of regeneration in to the heart, bringing him from death to life, which then allows the man to be freed from his blindness, to repent of sin and to put his faith in Christ. These presuppositions are not found in scripture, but they are a necessary part of Calvinist anthropology.
Obviously, if these Calvinist assumptions were correct, and if God did not wish for a man to repent or believe, there would never be any occasion for God to further harden a man's heart or conceal His message in mysteries, since the man's default condition, lacking special grace, would preclude any possibility of his repentance or faith anyway. God need do exactly nothing, and He would thereby guarantee that man would never repent or believe.
The fact that God is specificly said to actively "harden" certain peoples' hearts, to "blind their eyes" and to conceal His mysteries "lest they should be converted," bears eloquent testimony that the Calvinist view is wrong, and that God sees the sinner as one who, even in a state of being "dead" (like the prodigal son—Luke 15:24), has the potential of repenting and believing, unless God takes special steps to render this impossible in certain cases (e.g., Pharaoh, the Jews of Jesus' day).
This seems so obvious to me that it is hard to imagine why there are Bible students who are still Calvinists. "Seeing, they see, and do not perceive..."
1 Pet. 2:8 ...and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
If you look at greek wording and word play, you would be able to see what Peter was trying to say. They were appointed to stumble, as a consequence of them being disobedient to the word. Jesus talks of two types of houses being built in the gospels. The wise one put in to practice what Jesus said, and his has was built on the rock. The foolish one did not do so, and built his house on the sand. The storms came, and the foolish house fell, which was the consequence of being disobedient and not putting into practice Jesus' Words. Same message being portrayed here. No problem for the non-calvinist.
....continue on
Mark 10:17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" 18 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not bear false witness,' 'Do not defraud,' 'Honor your father and your mother.' " F46 20 And he answered and said to Him, "Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth." 21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me." 22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Can you say this man did not have a choice, Puritan Lad? Notice that Jesus loved Him, and if He truly did, then He would not have wanted Him to make the decision he did. He had a chance, but blew it.
Can you say this man did not have a choice, Puritan Lad? Notice that Jesus loved Him, and if He truly did, then He would not have wanted Him to make the decision he did. He had a chance, but blew it.
-
August
- Old School
- Posts: 2402
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
Lowlyone,
The conclusion that can be reached from your position is that God is not God. Because salvation depends on the will and works of a man, man ascribes divinity to himself. God is not God because He depends on man. Man himself determines whether he will be saved. This means that God's grace is not irresistable, but man can reject the grace of God. Man then has more power than God, God passively waits to see what man will do.
Your emphasis seems to be on what man must do to be saved, and not on what God has done in Jesus Christ. Therefore Jesus is not the only way of salvation.
I would also caution you not to build a strawman as regards Calvinism. It does not teach that man has no action in his own salvation, he must believe, by accepting. The WCF states:
The conclusion that can be reached from your position is that God is not God. Because salvation depends on the will and works of a man, man ascribes divinity to himself. God is not God because He depends on man. Man himself determines whether he will be saved. This means that God's grace is not irresistable, but man can reject the grace of God. Man then has more power than God, God passively waits to see what man will do.
Your emphasis seems to be on what man must do to be saved, and not on what God has done in Jesus Christ. Therefore Jesus is not the only way of salvation.
I would also caution you not to build a strawman as regards Calvinism. It does not teach that man has no action in his own salvation, he must believe, by accepting. The WCF states:
John 1:12 and Acts 16:31 are the Scriptures that are referred to in this regard. Where we differ is on where the ability to accept and believe comes from. You hold that the ability comes from man, while I agree with the reformed teaching that it is as a result of the work that the Holy Spirit has done in us, since faith, through grace, is a gift of God.But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. (WCF 14.2)
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
August wrote
Sorry, but God is God, and your understanded of my position is distorted. Basically, Reformed teachers teach their students (if it's not the calvist view of how things go, God is not God). So when Calvinist hear from the Scriptures themselves they are wrong, the run behind the strongholds and lies that those who disagree are giving man divinity. God doesn't depend on man, He WORKS WITH man. Man does not have more power than God. But I guess those with reformed thoughts don't realize that God's power and God's ability are two different things. God is all powerful, but He isn't all capable.
God does not move passively, He is actively convict the world of sin, righteousness and jugdment. Not just those that will be saved.
2Cor 6:1 - We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.
I have to go august, I will respond to your other thoughts when I can.
Be blessed.
Lowly
The conclusion that can be reached from your position is that God is not God. Because salvation depends on the will and works of a man, man ascribes divinity to himself. God is not God because He depends on man. Man himself determines whether he will be saved. This means that God's grace is not irresistable, but man can reject the grace of God. Man then has more power than God, God passively waits to see what man will do.
Sorry, but God is God, and your understanded of my position is distorted. Basically, Reformed teachers teach their students (if it's not the calvist view of how things go, God is not God). So when Calvinist hear from the Scriptures themselves they are wrong, the run behind the strongholds and lies that those who disagree are giving man divinity. God doesn't depend on man, He WORKS WITH man. Man does not have more power than God. But I guess those with reformed thoughts don't realize that God's power and God's ability are two different things. God is all powerful, but He isn't all capable.
God does not move passively, He is actively convict the world of sin, righteousness and jugdment. Not just those that will be saved.
2Cor 6:1 - We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.
I have to go august, I will respond to your other thoughts when I can.
Be blessed.
Lowly
-
August
- Old School
- Posts: 2402
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
All you basically did was respond to my post with one long ad hominem. Let's discuss when you are back.LowlyOne wrote:August wroteThe conclusion that can be reached from your position is that God is not God. Because salvation depends on the will and works of a man, man ascribes divinity to himself. God is not God because He depends on man. Man himself determines whether he will be saved. This means that God's grace is not irresistable, but man can reject the grace of God. Man then has more power than God, God passively waits to see what man will do.
Sorry, but God is God, and your understanded of my position is distorted. Basically, Reformed teachers teach their students (if it's not the calvist view of how things go, God is not God). So when Calvinist hear from the Scriptures themselves they are wrong, the run behind the strongholds and lies that those who disagree are giving man divinity. God doesn't depend on man, He WORKS WITH man. Man does not have more power than God. But I guess those with reformed thoughts don't realize that God's power and God's ability are two different things. God is all powerful, but He isn't all capable.
God does not move passively, He is actively convict the world of sin, righteousness and jugdment. Not just those that will be saved.
2Cor 6:1 - We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.
I have to go august, I will respond to your other thoughts when I can.
Be blessed.
Lowly
I don't know if it makes sense to continue, however, if you are going to defend your position in this fashion.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
Ausgust wrote
Yes I am emphasising or better yet, focusing on what man must do to be saved. That is biblical, for this question is even found in the bible. The Philipian Jailer to be exact. Here is how a Calvinist must understand the salvation of the Philippian jailer: When the jailer asked what he must do to be saved, he was obviously not yet under the influence of God's irresistible grace, or else he would already have been regenerate and would have already received the sovereign gifts of faith and repentance. Thus he was still totally depraved, always using his freedom to resist God. (That being so, we must wonder why a totally depraved person is sincerely asking what he must do to be saved. If the Calvinist says it is because this totally depraved person is under conviction from God, it must be that God is bestowing “resistible grace” rather than “irresistible grace.” Yet the totally depraved sinner, according to calvinists, will always use his freedom to resist God, so he would never sincerely seek to be saved. This jailer, however, was obviously sincerely seeking.)
August wrote
August wrote
Faith comes from God, but not in the Calvist sense, that God only gives saving faith to those he chose for heaven and passes by the rest.
Ephesians 2:8-9
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
R.C. Sproul says on page 119 in his book “chosen by God”, that the faith by which we are saved is a gift from God.
Exegesis
So what was Paul referring to when He said “it is the gift of God?” what was the “it” he was talking about? What is the gift of God?
To the woman of Samaria our Master said," If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, Give me a drink; you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water" (John 4:10). Some say "The gift is the living water." Others think it is the gift of the Holy Spirit. In John 7:37 Jesus stood and cried out to all on at the last day of the feast saying “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.” In John 4:14 He said “but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”
Now it's obvious that all who haven't drank of the water that Jesus gives are thirsty. So Jesus offers this living water to all who are lost, and thirsty. How true is that old hymn that goes “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world” and He loves them enough to save every one of them as well.
Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here we see that the gift of God is eternal life. So, we can conclude that the living water, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life all comes and is part of what comes with for those that come to Christ on this side of the Resurrection. Finally, we can conclude that the gift of God Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8 is salvation. The gift of salvation, by grace is the gift.
Even John Calvin said in Calvin's commentaries volume 11 pg 145 of this text that “he (Paul) does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God. A.T. Robertson noted: “grace is God's part, faith is ours” In addition, it is very clear from the Greek that Paul was not referring to faith as a gift from. For the “that” is neuter in form and cannot refer to “faith” (pistis), which is feminine. Salvation by grace is the ends and faith is the means to apprehend the ends. As a result of what we have discovered other Scriptures saying concerning this specific passage, it is safe to say that Paul was say that “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this [salvation is] not from/of yourselves, [this salvation] is the gift if God. Jonah 2:9 says “salvation is of the Lord.
Your emphasis seems to be on what man must do to be saved, and not on what God has done in Jesus Christ. Therefore Jesus is not the only way of salvation.
Yes I am emphasising or better yet, focusing on what man must do to be saved. That is biblical, for this question is even found in the bible. The Philipian Jailer to be exact. Here is how a Calvinist must understand the salvation of the Philippian jailer: When the jailer asked what he must do to be saved, he was obviously not yet under the influence of God's irresistible grace, or else he would already have been regenerate and would have already received the sovereign gifts of faith and repentance. Thus he was still totally depraved, always using his freedom to resist God. (That being so, we must wonder why a totally depraved person is sincerely asking what he must do to be saved. If the Calvinist says it is because this totally depraved person is under conviction from God, it must be that God is bestowing “resistible grace” rather than “irresistible grace.” Yet the totally depraved sinner, according to calvinists, will always use his freedom to resist God, so he would never sincerely seek to be saved. This jailer, however, was obviously sincerely seeking.)
August wrote
I guess you think I am building a stawman argument in that thinking man has no action in his own salvation. I know One must believe, by accepting. However, this happens slightly prior to regeneration. At least that's what the bible says.I would also caution you not to build a strawman as regards Calvinism. It does not teach that man has no action in his own salvation, he must believe, by accepting. The WCF states:
August wrote
I'll go over John 1:12 and Acts 16:31 later. However, I do not hold the ability to repent and believe is reproduced, originates or comes from within fallen man. Some Arminians may think so, but that's not Scripture.John 1:12 and Acts 16:31 are the Scriptures that are referred to in this regard. Where we differ is on where the ability to accept and believe comes from. You hold that the ability comes from man, while I agree with the reformed teaching that it is as a result of the work that the Holy Spirit has done in us, since faith, through grace, is a gift of God.
Faith comes from God, but not in the Calvist sense, that God only gives saving faith to those he chose for heaven and passes by the rest.
Ephesians 2:8-9
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
R.C. Sproul says on page 119 in his book “chosen by God”, that the faith by which we are saved is a gift from God.
Exegesis
So what was Paul referring to when He said “it is the gift of God?” what was the “it” he was talking about? What is the gift of God?
To the woman of Samaria our Master said," If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, Give me a drink; you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water" (John 4:10). Some say "The gift is the living water." Others think it is the gift of the Holy Spirit. In John 7:37 Jesus stood and cried out to all on at the last day of the feast saying “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.” In John 4:14 He said “but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”
Now it's obvious that all who haven't drank of the water that Jesus gives are thirsty. So Jesus offers this living water to all who are lost, and thirsty. How true is that old hymn that goes “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world” and He loves them enough to save every one of them as well.
Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here we see that the gift of God is eternal life. So, we can conclude that the living water, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life all comes and is part of what comes with for those that come to Christ on this side of the Resurrection. Finally, we can conclude that the gift of God Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8 is salvation. The gift of salvation, by grace is the gift.
Even John Calvin said in Calvin's commentaries volume 11 pg 145 of this text that “he (Paul) does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God. A.T. Robertson noted: “grace is God's part, faith is ours” In addition, it is very clear from the Greek that Paul was not referring to faith as a gift from. For the “that” is neuter in form and cannot refer to “faith” (pistis), which is feminine. Salvation by grace is the ends and faith is the means to apprehend the ends. As a result of what we have discovered other Scriptures saying concerning this specific passage, it is safe to say that Paul was say that “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this [salvation is] not from/of yourselves, [this salvation] is the gift if God. Jonah 2:9 says “salvation is of the Lord.