Want Calvinist thoughts

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev. 22:19
What is the Calvinistic interpretation of this?

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev. 22:19 What is the Calvinistic interpretation of this?

I think that if someone takes away from them, they're not a true Christian. But, being that Jesus said "ALL sins shall be forgiven men except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," I think that someone can become a true Christian after doing it and repenting. I think what it says about the Book of Life is more figurative than literal.

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I would still disagree, for obvious reasons.

=)

Here is another question,
"And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Luke 9:62
Why did Jesus warn about this, if it was impossible to do? Thanks,

Okay, I haven't really studied this one too much, but these are my thoughts on that verse.

It says "having put his hand to the plough", so it sounds like he has not really started doing anything. It seems that Jesus is referring to the person who considers following Christ, but at the last moment before doing so, he looks at how his life is now, and doesn't want to have to give that up for Christ, so he decides not to follow him.

Just wrote this up quickly, so if it isn't quite clear, or if you would like more explanation, feel free to let me know!

Okay, I can accept that, however it does say, "having put His hand to the plow." To me that doesn't sound like he is still considering.

Okay, I can accept that, however it does say, "having put His hand to the plow." To me that doesn't sound like he is still considering.

I can certainly understand why you would say that it doesn't sound like he is considering, since he "put his hand to the plow". But to me that sounds like he isn't committed yet, since he hasn't begun plowing, and a Christian starts to further the kingdom of God the moment he believes in Christ.

I wonder whether the comparison could be drawn between this verse and the parable of the soils in Luke 8, particularly the rocky soil. Many people can start off claiming that they are ready to do work for Christ and to love Him and serve Him; they put their hand on the plow, so to speak. But when they turn back from the plow (i.e. the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the new plant, and it withers), they show themselves unfit for the kingdom of God. A true/unwavering believer would push past these desires and begin to put the position of his hand to use by plowing.

This soils comparison doesn't really work for or against Calvinism (a theological system of belief which, by the way, I am not a 100% fan of), but I thought it was interesting, and it might shed some light on this discussion. :)

Okay, I disagree, but at least I know how you interpret it. Thanks, I might ask more though. :)(

I dislike points of both Calvinism and Arminianism and lay claim to neither as my own beliefs. However, I've usually leaned towards the Arminian side. I've wondered for quite a while how strict Calvinists would interpret this verse:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

From Luke 13:34. I know you Calvinists are probably shaking your heads in amusement right now because this verse is so often used against your position; but I ask your pardon, as I don't remember hearing any satisfactory interpretations on this verse before. :)

I dislike points of both Calvinism and Arminianism and lay claim to neither as my own beliefs. However, I've usually leaned towards the Arminian side. I've wondered for quite a while how strict Calvinists would interpret this verse: _O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!_ From Luke 13:34. I know you Calvinists are probably shaking your heads in amusement right now because this verse is so often used against your position; but I ask your pardon, as I don't remember hearing any satisfactory interpretations on this verse before. :)

No problem! I actually haven't heard that verse used against Calvinism, and I'm not shaking my head. Believe it or not I used to be a staunch Arminian and was offended by many of the "arguments" that I heard by Calvinists, since many of them were just criticizing Arminians in general. It wasn't until I heard someone very carefully and kindly explain Calvinism that I even began to consider it, and then finally believe it.

If you wouldn't mind before I tell you my interpretation of that verse, could you explain what you mean by "strict Calvinists"? Just want to make sure we're on the same page while discussing, or things could become confusing, since I am not sure whether I am a "strict Calvinist" or not. :)

First of all, when you think about it, it's totally impossible to go against God's eternal will. (Some people would probably disagree, but I still don't fully comprehend how someone can actually deny that.) God is timeless and eternal and infinite… all of time is his creation. He's not riding along through history like everyone else is. As far as he's concerned, those whom he has saved are sitting in heaven with him right now. Perhaps it's like he's looking at a timeline - where every date on the timeline is "now".

If God had wanted to bring Jerusalem under his wing in this sense, it would have happened. Everything that ever happened is a part of God's creation, time - nothing ever surprises him. Ultimately, it was not a part of God's eternal will that Jerusalem come to him.

But, according to what is often called God's "revealed" will, God wants everyone to come to him. We don't preach just to those we think are elect. God didn't send prophets only to the elect. God calls everyone to repent and be saved, even those who ultimately will not.

So in a sense, God repeatedly tried to bring Jerusalem under his wing, knowing full well that it would not come. In their fallen state, the people of Jerusalem resisted God's "general" call. He would have gathered them under his wings, but they would not. That is not to deny that he could have regenerated every single one of these people if that had been his eternal purpose. But it wasn't - and because God revealed his (revealed) will to them, and sent prophets, and called them to repentance, they are doubly accountable.

And as an aside, if it had been God's eternal purpose to bring them under his wing, it's not as if he would have pulled them there kicking and screaming. When the Holy Spirit regenerates someone, their will is changed. They refused to come, but God has the power to change their will so that they want to come. (And to be controversial, let me mention that God has the power to save someone who never does repent - though he has made it quite clear that he does not do this.)

I definitely look forward to reading Aidan's explanation, which will probably be far clearer than mine. :P

Your explanation seems to sound good, but I have a couple questions: Where in Scripture is the doctrine of "eternal will" and "revealed will" found? And why should these two "wills" seemingly oppose each other?

@aidan - Haha! I guess basically what I mean by "strict Calvinists" is those who hold to the doctrine that before the world began, every member of humanity was predestined by God to bring glory to Himself - either by being regenerated by His grace or partaking of His wrath. That it is a part of His sovereign, eternal will is the only reason given for each man's unchangeable eternal destiny (a quite convenient position for Calvinists, I might add.) Some Calvinists even go to the point of saying that since the Fall, man has no true free will - that we are bound always to do evil and only evil until the Lord works in our hearts. ^I could say a lot more but I won't right now, because I'm interested in hearing your perspective on the topic at hand. :)^

Your explanation seems to sound good, but I have a couple questions: Where in Scripture is the doctrine of "eternal will" and "revealed will" found? And why should these two "wills" seemingly oppose each other?

Umm… this is kinda the only option, and I'll try to explain why. We have verses like the one you cited that say that God wants to do something, but it doesn't happen. Then we have verses that clearly reveal that everything God truly wants to happen, happens. "Our God is in the heavens and He does all that He pleases." Pleases, in Hebrew, is just another word for wills. He does whatever He wills. If He wants it to happen, it will happen.

So what do we do with passages that talk about stuff He wants that doesn't happen? We conclude that there is an ideal/perfect/revealed will of God, which is basically just His laws/precepts/desires for us – what He wants us to do. But we don't always do that, do we? So, in that sense, something that God wants (or wills) doesn't take place. But it's not something that was in His eternal plan that He's been orchestrating since time began. If everything always happened according to His revealed will, there never would have been a Fall, and everything would be eternally perfect. But He also never could have displayed His attributes of grace, mercy, forgiveness, patience, &etc.

I hope that makes sense. Nothing ever happens that God doesn't want/will to happen. But God's revealed will – Scripture and everything good and perfect – is not always carried out, because we are sinful, rebellious humans.

Here is another question, "And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Luke 9:62 Why did Jesus warn about this, if it was impossible to do? Thanks,

I really like Aidan's interpretation of this. From there, I think we can conclude that if someone looks back, he was never a true Christian to begin with.

So basically, if someone was a professing Christian, acted like a Christian, was maybe even baptized, the whole deal–and then turns away from the faith and "stops being a Christian", then he was never a true Christian to begin with. He was a false convert all that time.

I dislike points of both Calvinism and Arminianism and lay claim to neither as my own beliefs. However, I've usually leaned towards the Arminian side. I've wondered for quite a while how strict Calvinists would interpret this verse: _O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!_ From Luke 13:34. I know you Calvinists are probably shaking your heads in amusement right now because this verse is so often used against your position; but I ask your pardon, as I don't remember hearing any satisfactory interpretations on this verse before. :)

Well, here's one for you! :-P

The Bible calls everyone to come to Christ. Wisdom cries out in the streets! It does not bring God pleasure to see people go to Hell, but the reprobate go there to demonstrate God's justice. Just like it doesn't please God to see someone be murdered, but His will often allows it in this fallen world for a greater purpose.

Matthew 22:14–"For many are called, but few are chosen."

Romans 9:15–For God said to Moses, "I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose."

Your explanation seems to sound good, but I have a couple questions: Where in Scripture is the doctrine of "eternal will" and "revealed will" found? And why should these two "wills" seemingly oppose each other? @aidan - Haha! I guess basically what I mean by "strict Calvinists" is those who hold to the doctrine that before the world began, every member of humanity was predestined by God to bring glory to Himself - either by being regenerated by His grace or partaking of His wrath. That it is a part of His sovereign, eternal will is the only reason given for each man's unchangeable eternal destiny (a quite convenient position for Calvinists, I might add.) Some Calvinists even go to the point of saying that since the Fall, man has no true free will - that we are bound always to do evil and only evil until the Lord works in our hearts. ^I could say a lot more but I won't right now, because I'm interested in hearing your perspective on the topic at hand. :)^

Okay, so I would call myself a strict Calvinist, then. :)

I'm a little busy right now, but I will give you my interpretation of that verse as soon as I have enough time to spare to write it up.

@aidan - Haha! I guess basically what I mean by "strict Calvinists" is those who hold to the doctrine that before the world began, every member of humanity was predestined by God to bring glory to Himself - either by being regenerated by His grace or partaking of His wrath. That it is a part of His sovereign, eternal will is the only reason given for each man's unchangeable eternal destiny (a quite convenient position for Calvinists, I might add.) Some Calvinists even go to the point of saying that since the Fall, man has no true free will - that we are bound always to do evil and only evil until the Lord works in our hearts. ^I could say a lot more but I won't right now, because I'm interested in hearing your perspective on the topic at hand. :)^

I don't know where you got your definition of Calvinism if you think that what you described is "strict Calvinism." Everything in that paragraph is something that Calvin himself taught; therefore it's not "strict" or "extreme" Calvinism. It is Calvinism at its core, at its heart. It is what true Calvinists believe to be the eternal truth of Scripture.

"Extreme" or "strict" Calvinism is known as hyper-Calvinism. And the defining characteristic of that belief system is a de-emphasis of evangelism. The attitude of this group is, "If God's just going to save everyone no matter what, then we can just sit back and watch it happen. No need to get involved, because God is sovereign." I could get into why that's not at all correct, but that's not the purpose of this discussion. Just know that "extreme" Calvinism is much different than what you described.

I dislike points of both Calvinism and Arminianism and lay claim to neither as my own beliefs. However, I've usually leaned towards the Arminian side. I've wondered for quite a while how strict Calvinists would interpret this verse: _O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!_ From Luke 13:34. I know you Calvinists are probably shaking your heads in amusement right now because this verse is so often used against your position; but I ask your pardon, as I don't remember hearing any satisfactory interpretations on this verse before. :)

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you! I haven't had much spare time to write up a response. But anyways, here it is now.

I thought that Caleb's post was very well thought out, I only have one other thing to add. It says "how often would I have gathered". So I think that means that he offered it many times, and they refused, and not that he wished to do it.

Nathan shared this verse, which I think is quite applicable.
Matthew 22:14: "For many are called, but few are chosen."

I believe that God offers salvation to all, but only chooses to save some. We are all dead in transgressions and sins, so we cannot choose anything but evil apart from God's grace.

"Chosen" is another word for "saved". God calls all men to repent, "but few are chosen", aka not all accept the Gospel message. That's how I interpret it. :)

Chosen is not another word for saved… They mean two different things…

Chosen is not another word for saved... They mean two different things...

Yeah; chosen is very specific. I mean… what's the definition of chosen? This definitely does refer to the saved, but that's not all it says.

Those that are saved are the chosen ones. The set apart ones. The ones in Christ.

^isn't really going to be in this conversation. :P I'm was just observing but then added a comment ;) :P^

Those that are saved are the chosen ones. The set apart ones. The ones in Christ. ^isn't really going to be in this conversation. :P I'm was just observing but then added a comment ;) :P^

And who chose them to be set apart?

Please read this article. It explains what I was trying to say in a few words. ;)

^And I'm not going to be participating in this conversation much, if any more at all, JSYK^

Those that are saved are the chosen ones. The set apart ones. The ones in Christ. ^isn't really going to be in this conversation. :P I'm was just observing but then added a comment ;) :P^

Ephesians 1:4-5 make it clear what "chosen" means: "even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will,"

We can't just assign our own meanings to words. Chosen means just what it sounds like: God chose us before the foundation of the world to be His own. And He passed over others (Romans 9), of His own free will. You are correct that the chosen ones are the saved ones, because only those who have been chosen will be saved; but that still doesn't equate the terms. That's like saying sanctified = saved. Technically, all those who are sanctified are saved, and vice versa, but that doesn't mean the terms are equivalent.

Acts 13:48 further elaborates upon the order of events: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." So those who had been predetermined/chosen/appointed for eternal life were the ones who believe. God chooses, and then those He chooses believe.

Again, chosen doesn't just mean that God knew who would choose Him. Chosen means what it always means whenever else we use it.

Christian's thoughts are exactly mine; he's generally the best Memverser I know when it comes to discussing this subject (his dad too, probably, though I've never discussed it with him).

Okay what is your thought on this thought?
God knew who would accept His gift, so He chose them.

Okay what is your thought on this thought? God knew who would accept His gift, so He chose them.

Amen. Romans 8:28 says "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son". Predestination was never the beginning point.

@aidan - Haha! I guess basically what I mean by "strict Calvinists" is those who hold to the doctrine that before the world began, every member of humanity was predestined by God to bring glory to Himself - either by being regenerated by His grace or partaking of His wrath. That it is a part of His sovereign, eternal will is the only reason given for each man's unchangeable eternal destiny (a quite convenient position for Calvinists, I might add.) Some Calvinists even go to the point of saying that since the Fall, man has no true free will - that we are bound always to do evil and only evil until the Lord works in our hearts. ^I could say a lot more but I won't right now, because I'm interested in hearing your perspective on the topic at hand. :)^

I don't know where you got your definition of Calvinism if you think that what you described is "strict Calvinism." Everything in that paragraph is something that Calvin himself taught; therefore it's not "strict" or "extreme" Calvinism. It is Calvinism at its core, at its heart. It is what true Calvinists believe to be the eternal truth of Scripture. "Extreme" or "strict" Calvinism is known as hyper-Calvinism. And the defining characteristic of that belief system is a de-emphasis of evangelism. The attitude of this group is, "If God's just going to save everyone no matter what, then we can just sit back and watch it happen. No need to get involved, because God is sovereign." I could get into why that's not at all correct, but that's not the purpose of this discussion. Just know that "extreme" Calvinism is much different than what you described.

I apologize - I wasn't really aware of that definition. Didn't mean to misrepresent you. :)

Thanks guys for your thoughts. I cannot fully agree with you but I think I understand your position a lot better now. =)

I'm thinking about writing a paper on Why I Must Reject Both Calvinism and Arminianism. If I ever get around to it, I'll try to post it on here.

That view is made unlikely by the fact that we are too depraved to choose God by ourselves. The only reason we could ever choose Him is if He initiated it. The definition of "foreknew" isn't that one knew a particular something about someone. That means that, since God is outside of time, it was as though He was already in an intimate saving relationship with us.

But man is dead. A dead man cannot do anything.

Choose ye this day whom ye will serve…
Draw near to God and He will draw near to you…

It could be said that God makes it possible for everyone to choose, then He knows which ones will choose Him, so those are the ones He predestines.

You have been made alive, but you still "choose" to do things a dead man will do. e.g. sin.
Henceforth a dead person can do something, sin.

You have been made alive, but you still "choose" to do things a dead man will do. e.g. sin. Henceforth a dead person can do something, sin.

Yes; when you're alive, you can do things dead people do. But when you're dead, you can't do anything alive people can do–such as love God and serve God.

Choose ye this day whom ye will serve... Draw near to God and He will draw near to you... It could be said that God makes it possible for everyone to choose, then He knows which ones will choose Him, so those are the ones He predestines.

"You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you…" ~John 15:16

If He made it possible for everyone to choose, that would mean everyone was made alive.

"Choose this day" was spoken as a direction to consider all the things man can worship, and for the Israelites to make up their minds. We still do choose God, but just not until after He chooses us. But it's still important to urge people on to Christ, because God has made many people a means of causing other people to come to what they were chosen for.

Drawing near to God is called conversion. Conversion happens when sinners repent and accept Christ–which only happens because God chose them. When this happens, God draws near to them as their newly accepted Savior.

Okay what is your thought on this thought? God knew who would accept His gift, so He chose them.

Amen. Romans 8:28 says "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son". Predestination was never the beginning point.

That's clearly not the message that Romans 8 is intending to convey. If the meaning of foreknowledge there is "to know facts about someone beforehand (namely, that that person will choose Christ)," then, in that sense, God foreknows everyone. God knows everything about everyone and He always has. So if that's what "foreknew" means in this verse, then everyone is predestined and everyone is saved, because everyone is foreknown. But obviously that's not the case, so foreknow must mean something else.

In this case (and, really, in any other case in Scripture, that I know of), foreknow refers to an intimate knowledge, like that of a bridegroom to his bride – or of a God to His beloved people whom He will make His Bride. He knows them as the people whom He loves, and so He predestined them to be regenerated and sanctifyingly conformed to the image of Christ.

The whole concept of God choosing those who chose Him sounds nice, but, as Nathan said, it won't work, because the natural man cannot do the will of God (Romans 8:5). Man cannot choose God. Period. Even our best works are filthy rags. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." We can't come to Christ without God initiating the process. And God doesn't draw everyone, because the context of John 6:44 tells us that all who are drawn are raised on the last day to be with Christ. So only believers come and they only come because they are drawn by God, not because their free will "accepts" some "gift."

Again, Ephesians 1 is clear: God predestines because of His love, not because of anything that certain individuals did (or would do in the future). OT Israel was a shadow of the Church, and we are told that God didn't choose Israel because they were any better than the other nations – they were worse, in fact, in many respects. No, He says that he chose them simply because of His love for them (Deut. 7), because He knew them like a husband knows his wife, and He knew that He wanted to redeem them and call them as His own. He didn't choose them because they would accept His call (cuz a large majority of them didn't…), but because He had the right to unconditionally do so, of His own free will.

The same is true of us. We are unconditionally elected, called, and regenerated. We couldn't even begin to initiate it ourselves, because we are dead and all that we can do is rebel against God and act according to our nature, which is a slave to sin. Slaves to sin cannot break free apart from God's Spirit's liberating touch. And as we see most especially in John 6, such a liberating touch only comes to those whom the Father has already determined to give to Christ as His Bride, His sheep, His reward. It is all of grace, and it is all because "our God is in the heavens and He does all that He pleases," and for some reason, it pleases Him to save sinners.

Okay what is your thought on this thought? God knew who would accept His gift, so He chose them.

The others have addressed this quite well enough, but I'll just add this: why would God make such a plan? God's entire creation is meant to bring glory to its creator. It only makes sense that he would be wholly responsible for anything good that happens in it. That people have any inclination to come to God apart from God's election does nothing but give man some of the credit. Why, why, would God want to do that?

Besides. If we take two people, and one of them is such a person as "would accept his gift", and the other is not, what makes them to differ? How is any one person different from another in this respect, if not because God made them so? You just can't slice this issue in a way that doesn't ultimately give credit to God, or else senselessly limit his power.

And while it's surely an over-generalization to say that all doctrinal errors stem from a misunderstanding of God's timelessness, I would argue that many, including Arminianism, do. To say that God somehow looked forward through time to find out who would accept his gift seems silly when one realizes that all of time is God's creation. He's not marching along through time like the rest of us with some unique ability to see and plan the future. He's completely outside of time - from his perspective, everything is already done. To give finite man any hand in the creation of time limits God's power for the single purpose of giving one small inkling of glory to man. Why?

okay so here is another question for you. Why do Christians sin?
I believe we have a choice, to follow God, or not. What do you believe?

okay so here is another question for you. Why do Christians sin? I believe we have a choice, to follow God, or not. What do you believe?

Certainly, we have a choice. In fact, Christians are the only human beings with that choice. Unbelievers are slaves to their sin and can do nothing but go against the law of God (Genesis 8, Romans 3, Romans 8). So yeah, once the Holy Spirit regenerates us and gives us a new heart, we are finally able to follow God. But we still have our flesh to beset us, so we will inevitably sin. But true Christians will never fall into a pattern of unrepentant sin (1 John 3). Our heart's desire will always be to please God. If someone shows evidence of constant, unrepentant sin and does not display a desire to please God, it can be concluded that his or her heart was never regenerated and that he or she was never a true Christian to begin with (1 John 2).

That view is made unlikely by the fact that we are too depraved to choose God by ourselves. The only reason we could ever choose Him is if He initiated it. The definition of "foreknew" isn't that one knew a particular something about someone. That means that, since God is outside of time, it was as though He was already in an intimate saving relationship with us.

I can agree with that; and yet, I don't think that God only initiates the relationship with His elect. Is there a doctrinal problem with Him "calling all to repentance"?

Building on that concept: The one doctrine of Calvinism which I have the most problems with is probably the doctrine of irresistible grace. I don't really understand how you get that from Scripture. God calls all to repentance; but some will reject Him. This is, in fact, what I believe is the "unforgivable sin" mentioned in Mark 3:28-29.

Christian, whether "foreknow" means knowing facts or an intimate knowledge really doesn't matter to the point I'm trying to make in Romans 8.

If God predestines His elect solely because He loves them, then shouldn't John 3:16 say "For God so loved His elect…"??

You guys keep reiterating that we cannot initiate a relationship with God in our fallen state. Let me make it clear - I, for one, do not disagree with you on this point. It's the idea that He only offers to some, and that these are drawn to His irresistible grace, that I have a problem with.

John 6 makes it clear that no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws them, and that all who are drawn are raised with Him on the last day. Is there ambiguity there? It seems that all whom God draws belong to Christ. Can you provide Scripture to prove that God draws those who will eventually reject Christ?

I've got to admit I'm slightly confused by what you're saying, Matthew. You agree that man cannot initiate the relationship from his fallen state, i.e., that God himself must "draw him". But then you say that you don't accept irresistible grace - you believe that when God "draws", some of those so drawn will still be able to reject him?
Christian's already presented John 6:44, a great verse that shows how the two go hand in hand. God "draws" someone in this special (i.e. not available to all) way, and they will be "raised up" on the last day.
So is it your position that God "draws" everyone, or at least tries to draw everyone, but some reject him? What would actually cause or influence someone to accept, once God has given them the opportunity? Either God's gotta gotta gotta draw them harder, or their environment and circumstances somehow guide them, right?

Also, how does that parallel God's covenant with Adam? If we can choose whether or not to be a part of the Last Adam's seed, why can't we choose whether to be part of the First Adam's? We're born into it, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Then at some point we start exhibiting the works of Adam, i.e. sin.
So, I would argue, with the Last Adam's seed. We're born into it, whether we would have wanted it or not. But, God has so worked in our hearts that now we do want it, and will begin exhibiting the works of Christ, i.e. faith and repentance.
Does that make sense? How would you establish a solid parallel between the two Adams?

About the "unforgivable sin": would you say that "rejecting" God once is enough to ensure that one can never be saved? Just curious.
My pastor, a Calvinist, would say that the "unforgivable sin" is high-handed apostasy; that when one apostatizes, this is proof that that person was never elect. They will never be forgiven - just the same as any other unredeemed sinner - but their apostasy has demonstrated this before the world.
I don't know whether I agree with him that such apostasy proves that one is reprobate. I might agree with you - by the letter, not the spirit. Rejection of God is the unforgivable sin, and it simply equates with being reprobate. When one dies apart from Christ, having rejected the "general call", they have committed the unforgivable sin: they never came to Christ. Having never done so, they will never be forgiven for this or any other of their sins.
Of course, my pastor could very well be right. I don't know. But nobody ever resists when God "draws" them - with irresistible grace. :)

(By the way, let me mention how cool it is that we have a Calvinist majority. How often does that happen? :P)

So once you become a Christian, then you have a "free will", but unbelievers don't? Just clarifying I don't want to straw man you.

"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." John 6:44
Is it unreasonable to say that God initiates a relationship with everyone? Or the He calls all men to repentance?

Notice John 6:44 doesn't say, "Man doesn't come to me, The Father has to draw him…" It says, No man can come to me, except God draws him…" God draws him, and then the man can come, it does not say, he does come. God will raise him up in the last day, if he does come.

Now correct me if I am wrong. :) (I know you will)

"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." John 6:44 Is it unreasonable to say that God initiates a relationship with everyone? Or the He calls all men to repentance? Notice John 6:44 doesn't say, "Man doesn't come to me, The Father has to draw him..." It says, No man can come to me, except God draws him..." God draws him, and then the man *can* come, it does not say, he *does* come. God will raise him up in the last day, if he does come. Now correct me if I am wrong. :) (I know you will)

I'm agreeing with witness1615 here…the Lord draws us, and that's where our free will comes into the picture. Will we accept, or will we reject? Acts 17:30 says God "now commandeth all men every where to repent." And 1 John 2:2 says "And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." That doesn't sound like some are elected for heaven, and others not…or it would read, "but also for the sins of the elect", right? Can you find me a verse that says that some are elected for hell? Election is only in reference to the saved. If you are saved, you are the elect.

(That comment wasn't exactly directed at you, witness1615, JSYK ;) )