Want Calvinist thoughts

Your majority is getting slimmer. ;)

I forgot to mention - I do believe that God has to draw someone before they can be saved, because, without conviction of sin, why would one see the need to be born again? So I'm not refuting that. :)

To your first post: (which, I realize, wasn't even really directed at me)
With regard to salvation, it's not that Christians have a "free will" and unbelievers don't. No one really has a choice about whether they're born into the New Covenant or not, just like the had no choice about being born into the Old Covenant (not the covenant with Israel, although, come to think of it, no one had a choice there either).
However, only Christians have freedom of will when it comes to obeying God or sinning. The sinner is a slave to sin, and just because he rejects sin or the greater sin in a particular instance, he's necessarily doing this for the wrong motives. He may even have a slavish desire to fix himself and do right - but that's not really a good motive, is it? He needs to turn to Christ.
Christians, on the other hand, have been set free. They can choose to obey God with the right motives, or they can sin - whether by obeying with the wrong motives or by not obeying at all.

To the second:
Generally, God does call all men to repentance. They have sinned against their holy Creator, but owe him perfect obedience, which they cannot give him without Christ. So God does call the world at large to repentance. But he doesn't step in to change the hearts of them all - he doesn't owe this to anyone. He could let us all go to hell. But he does call everyone, by means of general and special revelation. And in the end, they are accountable for rejecting this general call.
The first sentence of John 6:44 could indeed be read that, "The Father draws someone, then they are given a choice of whether to come." But the second sentence says that he will raise them up on the last day - surely not referring to an unrepentant sinner. And one can say that the "he" of this second sentence simply refers to the "one" who accepts the call, but taking Jesus' statement at face value, that cannot be the meaning. Or if it can, why would he be so ambiguous, especially in the context?

Here's the next verse, 45 (also 46, though it touches on a different subject): "It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father."

Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ. This is obviously the Father taking action, speaking and teaching - hearing and learning are passive exercises. Moreover, everyone whom he teaches comes. And we can see that drawing and teaching are really the same thing - unless we're going to chop it up even more and say that when God "draws" someone they can resist, but when he speaks and teaches they can't. :P
When God draws someone, they will come. Sometimes we have the tendency to use the word "draw" and forget what it actually means. The Greek word is defined as drag or draw. God's pulling, and somehow we're resisting? What, did he decide to "go easy" on us? One does not simply win a tug-of-war against God.
So the distinction between the general call and the effectual call is this: The general call says, give me the perfect obedience due me - and look! I've even provided a way for you to do the impossible. Come to Christ!
The effectual call is not so much a "call" as that very act of "drawing". Since we cannot by nature come, he doesn't somehow provide a way and let it be rejected! He provides the way, and the good work he has begun, he brings to completion, by bringing us!

To the third: Yeah - the majority never was that large anyway. (Maybe I shouldn't have deleted this post when I first posted it with my sister's account. :P)

To Rachel, about 1 John 2:2: If Christ is the propitiation (i.e. atonement) for every single person in the world, they are saved whether they repent or not. He has paid for their sins, and they are blameless before God. This verse isn't saying that Christ paid for the sins of every single person, but that it is sufficient for any number of sins, no matter who committed them. But that doesn't mean that all of these sins actually are atoned for in this way - or everyone would be saved.
Look at the context: Christ is our advocate. The whole point of this verse is to show that Christ's advocacy is sufficient. He is enough to ensure our standing before God, nothing more is necessary.

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.

I think Christendom today has a morbidly-skewed understanding of free will. No one believes in free will in the truest sense of the word. No one believes that humans are free to do whatever they will. Humans cannot will themselves to sprout wings and fly, to breathe underwater, or even to be perfect for a full day! As is the case with any conscious being, humans are free to will anything they wish, as long as it is in accordance with their nature. So this is the question we must answer: What is our nature, and what are its limitations, if any? The Bible answers this question. Our nature is fallen in Adam, dead in sin, enslaved to sin – and all of this is something we're born into! If anyone wanted to raise a red flag about injustice or unfairness, this would be the point to do it. We have no choice but to be born "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked," instantly viewed as an enemy of God and in rebellion against Him.

This is our nature. And its limitations are essential to our understanding of human free will. We cannot do good, by our very nature. We can only offend God. And if we ever do anything having the appearance or effect of good, it was by the grace of God. Only when our nature has been fundamentally changed can we begin to do good. Our perception of our will as "free" has not changed, because we're always free to do what we want. But our wants have changed. Now we can do what we want, and what we want can be good.

"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)

It is unreasonable, yes, because that's not at all what Jesus says here. Why would He even say, "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him" if everyone gets drawn? Why even make the observation? The whole point, from the context, is that the unbelieving Jews have not been drawn to Jesus by the Father, and that's exactly why they won't believe in Him. Of course God calls all men to repentance, but He is not required to enable all men to repent. And we know that He doesn't, because when God grants repentance, people repent! That's why grace is irresistible – because when God enables/gives grace, it's basically like He's working through the person to make them exercise the grace He's given them. His regenerating grace never goes unexercised.

In addition, I wholeheartedly agree with the point about the context that Caleb made: The very next verse says that all who are taught by God come to Christ. And it's clear that being "taught by God" is synonymous with the "drawing" or "dragging" in the previous verse. (If you're skeptical, by the way, about the "dragging" translation, look at how the same Greek word is used in John 21:11, Acts 16:19, or Acts 21:30.) So all who are drawn to Christ will come to Him, and all who come to Him are raised with Him. There is no universal drawing present in this passage. The entirety of Christ's discourse here radiates with exclusive language. In fact, what's awesome is, Jesus repeats himself down in v. 65 of Chapter 6: "And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." He says this right after He has stated, "But there are some of you who do not believe." So, essentially, He confirms that God chooses those to whom He will grant faith and repentance, because He says, "There are those among you who do not believe…and, as I said, this is due to the fact that no one comes to me unless God lets him." So, really, He's saying, "You don't believe, because God hasn't given you faith. The initiative is God's, and He only gives it to some."

So, God calls everyone but some men are stronger than God and God is unable to bring them to Himself?

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.

I really don't understand what's so hard to comprehend about the word "elect"… Elect means to choose out of many. It is an exclusive term by definition. Election so obviously precedes salvation that it's laughable that people try to argue otherwise. Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:4-5, and Acts 13:48 are so crystal clear about that fact.

But to answer your question, no, no one is elected for hell… And no one claims that… so I don't get your point. God elects some, and those He doesn't elect go to hell. It's as simple as that. And, in that sense, they were destined to go to hell – not because God was playing a game of eeny-meeny-miney-mo, but because He did not destine them for heaven. Peter references this truth in 1 Peter 2:8b: "They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do." Yes, this sounds barbaric and unjust. But once you really think about it, it's not. All have sinned. All deserve to be destined to hell. So the real wonder is that God destines anyone for heaven! The fact that He leaves many on the trajectory to hell is not an injustice. In fact, it is the very heart of justice that rebellious sinners get their due punishment. The amazing part is that God shows mercy and, through Christ, redeems some rebels so that they can spend eternity with him in heaven.

And that sort of leads into your quotation of 1 John 2:2. Your interpretation totally destroys the meaning of propitiation. If this verse is talking about "all people who have ever lived and ever will live," then Jesus' death only procured potential propitiation (say that five times fast xD). Propitiation is the turning aside of wrath. It's when God looks at a sacrifice and says, "That is sufficient to absorb and turn away My wrath from the sinner, so that he escapes punishment." Does God say that for all of mankind? Of course not. If that were the case, all would be saved. If Jesus turned away the wrath of God from all sin, then there is no wrath left to be absorbed or experienced. No one should be in hell. In fact, no one could have ever gone to hell, even before Jesus died, because Jesus was going to take the wrath for them, and God operates outside of time, so He would have acknowledged that.

But, no. People were in hell already when Christ was on the cross. Thousands go to hell every day. If your interpretation of 1 John 2:2 is true, then, there is a lack of potency in Christ's sacrifice. He didn't come to "save His people from their sins," as Matthew 1:21 tells us; He came to "make salvation possible for all mankind." But we never see that anywhere in Scripture. We see Jesus giving His life for His sheep, sanctifying His Bride the church, giving His life as a ransom for many. So when we come to passages like this that talk about propitiation for the whole world, we can immediately rule out the possibility that this is talking about "all people who have ever/will ever exist." Because then Jesus' death ultimately accomplished nothing. Ultimately, the efficacy of His work would be up to each individual, as they choose or reject Him. And a large majority of His blood, then, was shed in vain, because billions of people for whom He died will burn in hell under the wrath of God. That is nonsensical and borderline unthinkable.

So what does "the whole world" mean? Well, we know even just from later in the chapter that world cannot always mean "all people who have ever/will ever exist." 1 John 2:15 tells us that we are not to love the world. But wait!! World means all people everywhere!! So we can't love anyone!! – said no one, ever. =P Obviously, world can and does have different meanings. So we need to look at the whole of John's writings and see how he uses the word and what his focus is when he uses it. And we find, then, that one of John's primary themes that spans all of his writings is that Christ has come for all nations, to "purchase men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation" (Rev. 5). Salvation is no longer limited to Jews; Gentiles – all people groups everywhere – have been purchased by the blood of Christ. In other words, salvation is open to the whole world! Not just one ethnicity in the middle east. That is the mystery that Paul so often talks about in his epistles. That is the focus of so much Old Testament prophecy. The Messiah would come to save and to rule in the hearts of men from all the nations.

So what is John saying here? Jesus came to turn God's wrath away – as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world – not just from us Jews, not just from the people whom God has always been interested in, but from people all over the world! The whole world has been opened to the reception of the gospel! And Jesus became the propitiation – the atoning, satisfactory sacrifice – for the whole world wide, not just the Jewish nation. And His death actually saves His sheep, His Bride, His Church. It doesn't just make salvation possible if people will only choose Him. It actually saves those set aside for Him from before the foundation of the world. It is the consummation of God's covenant with Him to set apart a people who would worship and adore Him forever. And when we repent and believe, that is the evidence that we have been the objects of God's affection from eternity past, and He has regenerated our hearts and given us the grace necessary for that repentance and faith. It is all His doing, and He has been so gracious to pluck us out of the mass of humanity on their way to hell. Not because we deserve it or because He saw we would accept it, but simply because He wanted to.

So, God calls everyone but some men are stronger than God and God is unable to bring them to Himself?

high-fives

That's something else I forgot to mention: This idea that God's heart's desire is that everyone will accept the grace He has given them and turn to Christ, but that the vast majority reject this grace and He is left powerless to save them… it is so man-centered. As if God can't do what He wants. As if He doesn't do whatever He pleases. As if He's sitting up in heaven wringing His hands, hoping that someone, somewhere will accept Him today. But that's not the God that Scripture presents to us. And it's not the one that we should be presenting to people.

God calls everyone, and lets every man decide if they want to accept that call, rather than dragging them into a relationship, that the only reason they would want is because God wants them too.

How can love be forced? (I know you have heard that one before) [Edit: Probably[

Yes, you're rehashing the same old rhetoric that every other person who doesn't like the way Calvinism initially sounds does. Except that I've already addressed your first proposition. Native man cannot want God. Native man cannot "accept" God's call (not that that's biblical language anyway, but we'll leave that be for the moment). Native man can sin. That's it. And then, by the grace of God, they can repent and believe.

Ummm… why can't it? I mean, it doesn't feel forced to us, so does it even matter? If He hadn't "forced" Himself on us, we would still be dead. We would be utterly without hope and destined to eternal destruction. I'm certainly glad He brought me back to life against my will and made me believe, because I don't like the alternative. Of course, once I was made alive, I wanted to love God, because He had given me a new heart. So while you could say that He forced me to love Him because He gave me that new heart, I feel none of that force. I feel only His grace and mercy in saving me.

Okay, so why can't I tell people, "just live", "If God wants you to be saved you will, don't worry about it."

I am not try to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your position.

And does man have to do anything to be saved? I.e. Believe, Faith, Repent, etc. or does God just give these things like as a package deal with Salvation?

The top half of my post was to biblebee, explaining, that Her question was not what I believe.

Good answer for the bottom though.

Also, many say the Ark is a picture of Salvation… Do you believe that people didn't enter they ark because God didn't want them too, or because they refused to?

Okay, so why can't I tell people, "just live", "If God wants you to be saved you will, don't worry about it." I am not try to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your position.

The age-old question that separates hyper-Calvinists from biblical Calvinists. ;) We preach the gospel because that's what we're commanded to do. God has not only ordained who will be saved but also through what means they will be saved. And He has called us to tell people the good news. That means, then, that the means through which people will be saved is the preaching of the good news. So we must go preach, for people can only believe by hearing the Word of God. If all Christians stopped sharing their faith and no one else ever got saved, that would be God's plan (because it happened), but I don't think that will ever happen, because it would be blatant disobedience to do so.

And does man have to do anything to be saved? I.e. Believe, Faith, Repent, etc. or does God just give these things like as a package deal with Salvation?

Ummm… yeah, man has something to do with being saved. He's the one being saved. XD But yes, all of the ability comes from God. Man exercises the ability by the use of God's irresistible grace. But yeah, I like the term "package deal." XD Because all of them go together. If God regenerates a person's heart, he will repent, he will believe, and he will be saved. So yeah, it all comes from God.

Also, many say the Ark is a picture of Salvation... Do you believe that people didn't enter they ark because God didn't want them too, or because they refused to?

It's an awesome picture of salvation! I use it every time I give a tour at our local creation science center. I'd say the answer is a little bit of both. Just as in actual salvation. Because they did not get on the ark, we know that God, in His eternal, unchangeable, unbreakable will, did not want them to. Otherwise they would have done it, because our God is in the heavens and He does/causes whatever He pleases. But we do know that God's revealed, perfect will, as expressed through the words of Noah, the preacher of righteousness, was that everyone have a chance to repent of their sins and put their faith in that ark for salvation. But they refused and rejected the call to salvation. Ultimately, that's because God didn't work in their hearts to respond savingly. He chose not to save them. And He was perfectly just to do so, because they all deserved to drown in that flood. As did Noah and his family. But He was merciful and had favor on them and saved them. He could have done that with all of humanity, but He didn't; and that's His prerogative.

The top half of my post was to biblebee, explaining, that Her question was not what I believe. Good answer for the bottom though.

Ah, okay. My bad.

Thanks. =]

Okay, so why can't I tell people, "just live", "If God wants you to be saved you will, don't worry about it." I am not try to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your position.

The age-old question that separates hyper-Calvinists from biblical Calvinists. ;) We preach the gospel because that's what we're commanded to do. God has not only ordained who will be saved but also through what means they will be saved. And He has called us to tell people the good news. That means, then, that the means through which people will be saved is the preaching of the good news. So we must go preach, for people can only believe by hearing the Word of God. If all Christians stopped sharing their faith and no one else ever got saved, that would be God's plan (because it happened), but I don't think that will ever happen, because it would be blatant disobedience to do so.

So Christians can go against God's will? When they sin?

According to Reformed Theology when someone, lets call her Molly, accepted Christ it wasn’t made of her own free will, but because God created her specifically to accept Christ, without a choice.

Now suppose Molly’s grown son dies without accepting Christ. Reformed Theology tells us that God created Molly’s son specifically to spend eternity separated from God, in hell. Therefore all the years of prayer, anguish and hope that Molly’s son would someday accept Christ was a waste of time.

It’s one thing to have a loved one that rejects God because of his own choice, but it is another to believe that person never had a chance because God never permitted or allowed them a chance.

To follow predestination to its logical conclusion we should not feel any sense of grief or sadness when an unsaved friend or relative dies and spends eternity in hell. Rather we should rejoice because the person is going to hell, just as God intended.

Do you pray for the unsaved? If they aren't predestined to heaven, then your prayers are in vain…right? Same as with the Great Commission. Why would Jesus command us to go and preach everywhere, when those who are predestined will be in heaven anyways? Why does God say He takes no pleasure from the death of the wicked, especially if He created certain of us for eternal damnation? I'm just trying to raise some questions here…

Christians can go against God's revealed will: don't sin, obey me, come to Christ. (Well, except the last one, if they're already Christians. :P) They can't go against his eternal purpose; neither can sinners.

Let me take a moment to point out that the questions you're raising are purely emotional. That's not necessarily a bad thing, per se, I'm just pointing that out. :)

That a loved one never accepted Christ is always sad. We pray for them, hope for them, witness to them, for nothing. And you seem think that it would be uncharacteristic of God to let us go through all this pain when there was never any possibility of the loved one coming to him. I can (a little bit) understand that you would feel that way.

But again, you have hit upon the problem of misunderstanding God's timelessness, and also his right to do whatever he wants. God is completely outside of time. Even if the choice was given to Molly's son in the Arminian sense, the outcome is necessarily a part of God's timeless plan. God has written this story, molded these pots, how can they possibly (and why should they) have any say in the final product? For more information, see also the previous three pages of the debate. :)

Then you state that "[t]o follow predestination to its logical conclusion we should not feel any sense of grief or sadness when an unsaved friend or relative dies and spends eternity in hell." Really? That's not a logical conclusion, that's an emotional conclusion. And either way, it's completely wrong. Why would you not be sad that your loved one went to hell just because that's what God planned? You should still feel sorry for that person, though you should note God's complete justice in burning a sinner in hell forever. The vessels made for dishonor still glorify God - his justice. But on an emotional level, why should that lead you to not be sorry for the person?

Let me answer your next question with another question: Do you pray that your loved one will be miraculously healed? If God decides not to miraculously heal them, then your prayers are in vain…right? Yes, and this is no problem. We don't pray so that God will see things our way and make the decision that we like. We pray primarily for our own sakes, to unburden ourselves before God, trusting that not our will, but his will be done. He knows best, and what he wills he will do.

And about the Great Commission - we literally just went over that. :P I'll quote Christian: "The age-old question that separates hyper-Calvinists from biblical Calvinists. ;) We preach the gospel because that's what we're commanded to do. God has not only ordained who will be saved but also through what means they will be saved. And He has called us to tell people the good news. That means, then, that the means through which people will be saved is the preaching of the good news. So we must go preach, for people can only believe by hearing the Word of God. If all Christians stopped sharing their faith and no one else ever got saved, that would be God's plan (because it happened), but I don't think that will ever happen, because it would be blatant disobedience to do so."

You said everything I wanted to say as I read Rachel's comment, so I don't really need to say much. XD

I will reiterate what I think were Caleb's main points:

1. God can do whatever He wants, and if Scripture presents Him a certain way, that's how He is whether we like it or not, and He doesn't have to conform to our ideas of how He should operate.

2. Prayer is just as much (perhaps even more so) for us as it is for God's plan. Yes, He works through our prayers, but He also changes us through them. We don't know who will be saved and who won't, so no prayer is ultimately in vain. Our prayers help us to trust God's judgment and to know that His will is perfect, whether our loved one goes to heaven or hell.

3. We have every reason to grieve over loved ones who do not repent. Jesus did that! Jesus grieved over the Jews who rejected Him in Matthew 11, and then in the next breath He's exalting God the Father for hiding His truth from those same people so that they wouldn't be saved, because it was His "gracious will." Our attitude should be the same: we exalt God for whatever His choice is – to save or to condemn – but it's not wrong to grieve if His choice is the latter.

Furthermore, I wanted to add my own point. You ask us how we can pray for unsaved loved ones. I will pose to you the same question! Why in the world would you pray that God would save someone if it's ultimately up to them to accept or reject Him? By doing so you're acknowledging that it is ultimately God's prerogative. If you pray, "Lord, please help so-and-so to accept you," you're still asking Him to be the one that initiates the regeneration and salvation. No matter how you spin it, prayer for the unsaved is an undeniable affirmation of the sovereignty of God in salvation.

Okay, so why can't I tell people, "just live", "If God wants you to be saved you will, don't worry about it." I am not try to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your position.

The age-old question that separates hyper-Calvinists from biblical Calvinists. ;) We preach the gospel because that's what we're commanded to do. God has not only ordained who will be saved but also through what means they will be saved. And He has called us to tell people the good news. That means, then, that the means through which people will be saved is the preaching of the good news. So we must go preach, for people can only believe by hearing the Word of God. If all Christians stopped sharing their faith and no one else ever got saved, that would be God's plan (because it happened), but I don't think that will ever happen, because it would be blatant disobedience to do so.

So Christians can go against God's will? When they sin?

What Caleb said. Of course they can. In the same way that anyone does – disobeying His revealed will in His Word. But no one can go against His eternal, immutable will, because He does whatever He pleases.

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)

I'm just going to reply to what was directed at me…

You're confused? Haha. When I see Biblical problems with both opposing doctrines, I'm not surprised that somebody's confused. :P
"What would actually cause or influence someone to accept, once God has given them the opportunity?" Um… their own free will? :) God works in man's life so that he can accept it. But the responsibility lies with the man himself. If you say instead that God works in man's life so that he will accept it, and add that He allows His non-elect to remain in their sinful nature with absolutely no hope of redemption, you must deny the fully Biblical doctrine of human responsibility.

Does the Adam analogy have to have perfect parallels?
Also, if you're not part of the seed of Adam, as far as we are concerned, you're not even in the picture. (Angels, as wholly spirit-beings, don't count here, as those who are perfect have no need of salvation, and those who are fallen (as far as we know) have no hope for salvation.) Yes, we don't have a choice to be born into the seed of Adam; but that's not even really applicable, in my opinion, as no "beings" (i.e. consisting of a body and a soul) exist who were not born into the seed of Adam. (Of course you'll disagree with me, but that just shows the bias that both of us have in our thinking. xD)

The unforgivable sin is defined as "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit". I can't see this any other way except as a lifelong rejection of the Spirit's call. What would it be then if, as you say, everyone whom He called came to Him, no exceptions? How is it even possible to commit "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" if His working in your life is irresistible?

How do you fit irresistible grace and special election with Acts 10:42, "God is no respecter of persons"/"God does not show partiality"?

Imagine the scene after the end of the world. The elect are with their Creator rejoicing, while the reprobate are burning in the lake of fire. As they suffer their just punishment, they are weeping in agony and regret, and some cry to their Creator: "Why am I not there with You? Why is my old buddy Jack up there, and not me? Couldn't you have given me a chance???"

Scenario 1. The Lord's answer: "By your very nature, you rebelled against Me. It was not My will to give you salvation. That is, I didn't want you here. You were destined to display My wrath; that's the reason why I made you."

WHAT?!?!?

(Clarification: This is an emotional argument. Yes, and there's nothing wrong with it being so. God Himself uses emotional arguments. But more than being just an emotional argument, it is an appeal to the attributes of the Biblical God, who loves the whole world (John 3:16), loves mercy more than wrath (Psalm 145:8) and has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32).)

Scenario 2. The Lord's answer: "Listen, I did give you a chance. You are a reprobate, sinful man, and that is your nature; but I wanted to save you. So for your whole life I worked in your heart, sent people like Jack into your life, and put you in situations where I hoped that you would accept Me, pleading for you to come, knowing full well that you wouldn't. I love you, and I wanted you to come to repentance, but it is now too late; the time I gave you was not forever. I must now act on My nature, and I cannot deny Myself. Sin has no place in my kingdom. You refused the salvation I freely offered you; so now I must punish you in accordance with My justice."

Which scenario is more in line with the Biblical God?

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"?

Oh, He does CALL all. [Matthew 22:14]

I'm just going to reply to what was directed at me... You're confused? Haha. When I see Biblical problems with both opposing doctrines, I'm not surprised that somebody's confused. :P "What would actually cause or influence someone to accept, once God has given them the opportunity?" Um... their own free will? :) God works in man's life so that he _can_ accept it. But the responsibility lies with the man himself. If you say instead that God works in man's life so that he _will_ accept it, and add that He allows His non-elect to remain in their sinful nature with absolutely no hope of redemption, you must deny the fully Biblical doctrine of human responsibility. *But what makes one man to differ from the next? We are all created the same, right? Then it is merely our circumstances that influence us to accept. Or if somehow we're _not_ created the same - then God gets all the credit anyway. We should either all except or not except - unless you think we're merely products of our circumstances or not equals.* Does the Adam analogy have to have perfect parallels? Also, if you're not part of the seed of Adam, as far as we are concerned, you're not even in the picture. (Angels, as wholly spirit-beings, don't count here, as those who are perfect have no need of salvation, and those who are fallen (as far as we know) have no hope for salvation.) Yes, we don't have a choice to be born into the seed of Adam; but that's not even really applicable, in my opinion, as no "beings" (i.e. consisting of a body and a soul) exist who were not born into the seed of Adam. (Of course you'll disagree with me, but that just shows the bias that both of us have in our thinking. xD) *It is those very "beings" who are the seed of Adam, yes. Just as all _regenerate_ beings are the seed of Christ. You've certainly answered my question - you can't draw any good parallels. But your raised another, perfectly valid, "Why should there be a parallel?" There's no passage in the Bible that says the parallel has to be exact. But there _is_ a parallel in some ways, e.g. "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." (Rom 5:14). "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor 15:22) So if there's a parallel in those ways, it would make sense that it would be parallel in many other ways, to the point that Christ can be called the "Last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45). God loves types and shadows, and Adam and his seed are meant to be a type of Christ and his - therefore I think it's a valid argument, even if its not one of the strongest. :)* The unforgivable sin is defined as "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit". I can't see this any other way except as a lifelong rejection of the Spirit's call. What would it be then if, as you say, everyone whom He called came to Him, no exceptions? How is it even possible to commit "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" if His working in your life is irresistible? *It's not possible. I probably agree with you, that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is lifelong rejection of the Spirit's general call. (Oops, I think the word "general" got stuck in there somehow. :P) No one who is elect will ever commit this sin, and apostasy never happens to the "good soil", though it may be seen among thorns and rocks.* How do you fit irresistible grace and special election with Acts 10:42, "God is no respecter of persons"/"God does not show partiality"?

I think you have the wrong reference there… do you mean Romans 2:11? If that's the verse you're meaning, I can't help but laugh - God shows no partiality between _Jews_ and _Gentiles_, in the context. But even so, it isn't partiality to draw some and not others. God doesn't _owe_ this to anyone. (That'll come out fairly strong in my next post…

<blockquote> Imagine the scene after the end of the world. The elect are with their Creator rejoicing, while the reprobate are burning in the lake of fire. As they suffer their just punishment, they are weeping in agony and regret, and some cry to their Creator: "Why am I not there with You? Why is my old buddy Jack up there, and not me? Couldn't you have given me a chance???"

Scenario 1. The Lord's answer: "By your very nature, you rebelled against Me. It was not My will to give you salvation. That is, I didn't want you here. You were destined to display My wrath; that's the reason why I made you."

WHAT?!?!?

(Clarification: This is an emotional argument. Yes, and there's nothing wrong with it being so. God Himself uses emotional arguments. But more than being just an emotional argument, it is an appeal to the attributes of the Biblical God, who loves the whole world (John 3:16), loves mercy more than wrath (Psalm 145:8) and has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32).)

Scenario 2. The Lord's answer: "Listen, I did give you a chance. You are a reprobate, sinful man, and that is your nature; but I wanted to save you. So for your whole life I worked in your heart, sent people like Jack into your life, and put you in situations where I hoped that you would accept Me, pleading for you to come, knowing full well that you wouldn't. I love you, and I wanted you to come to repentance, but it is now too late; the time I gave you was not forever. I must now act on My nature, and I cannot deny Myself. Sin has no place in my kingdom. You refused the salvation I freely offered you; so now I must punish you in accordance with My justice."

Which scenario is more in line with the Biblical God? </blockquote>

WHAT?!?!? (Gotta love emphasis.)

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:14-24)

Thanks, Paul - there it was in our Bibles the whole time. :)

Your "emotional" argument tries to lay a guilt trip on God. But God doesn't owe ANYONE salvation. He doesn't owe us a "chance" at salvation, he doesn't owe us anything. We owe him perfect obedience. We shouldn't be surprised that he didn't give everyone a chance, we should be surprised that he gave anyone a chance.

Generally, God does love the whole world. And generally, I'm sure he loves mercy more than wrath. (Though how is Psalm 145:8 supposed to prove that…?) But they are both necessary parts of his character. God desires to "show his wrath", and "make known his power", so he endures the "vessels of wrath" who are "prepared for destruction"! On the other hand, he makes known the "riches of his glory" in "vessels of mercy", who are "prepared beforehand for glory". (The reason I keep quoting so much is because I can. Because what I'm saying is exactly what the Bible says.)

Your second scenario is silly, to be honest. "I tried really hard, I began the good work, I manipulated you in ways I probably shouldn't have in light of your free will, but you stood in the way. Now it'll never come to completion, because of this stupid deadline. I really wish you had come."

That does nothing but limit God's power, and his "right" over the clay.

Okay, so why can't I tell people, "just live", "If God wants you to be saved you will, don't worry about it." I am not try to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your position.

The age-old question that separates hyper-Calvinists from biblical Calvinists. ;) We preach the gospel because that's what we're commanded to do. God has not only ordained who will be saved but also through what means they will be saved. And He has called us to tell people the good news. That means, then, that the means through which people will be saved is the preaching of the good news. So we must go preach, for people can only believe by hearing the Word of God. If all Christians stopped sharing their faith and no one else ever got saved, that would be God's plan (because it happened), but I don't think that will ever happen, because it would be blatant disobedience to do so.

So Christians can go against God's will? When they sin?

What Caleb said. Of course they can. In the same way that anyone does -- disobeying His revealed will in His Word. But no one can go against His eternal, immutable will, because He does whatever He pleases.

Have to be careful with names, because my name is Caleb as well.

So basically you believe that when a Christian sins, it is because God wills Him too?

Also, what to you think about paradoxism, (just coined it)
The belief that the Bible teaches the sovereignty of God, and that man has a free will, but then the Bible leaves it at that, and so should we.

The correct reference was Acts 10:34.

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"?

Oh, He does CALL all. [Matthew 22:14]

So in the parable that happens right before that verse… God invites people to the wedding, why does God invite people if He knows they can't come?

.

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"?

Oh, He does CALL all. [Matthew 22:14]

So in the parable that happens right before that verse... God invites people to the wedding, why does God invite people if He knows they can't come? .

^^

So in the parable that happens right before that verse... God invites people to the wedding, why does God invite people if He knows they can't come?

The call goes out to the whole world. Some people are saved by it; some people aren't. Everyone HEARS it, but not everyone listens.

I agree.

What Caleb said. Of course they can. In the same way that anyone does -- disobeying His revealed will in His Word. But no one can go against His eternal, immutable will, because He does whatever He pleases.

Have to be careful with names, because my name is Caleb as well. So basically you believe that when a Christian sins, it is because God wills Him too? Also, what to you think about paradoxism, (just coined it) The belief that the Bible teaches the sovereignty of God, and that man has a free will, but then the Bible leaves it at that, and so should we.

When a Christian or anyone sins, it is a part of God's eternal purpose. That doesn't mean it is right, or make it any less against his revealed will. God's not "moving their hand", but it is a part of his plan.

Paradoxism sounds great (I know a family who thinks that way), but the Bible doesn't teach free will in the Arminian sense, when viewed in light of the rest. We could apply this same thinking to our justification - the Bible says it is by faith, and also by works. Which is it? It is obviously faith, when viewed in light of the rest of scripture.

(And thanks for pointing out the correct reference. That passage has exactly the same application as Romans 2:11.)

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"?

Oh, He does CALL all. [Matthew 22:14]

So in the parable that happens right before that verse... God invites people to the wedding, why does God invite people if He knows they can't come?

For the same reason that we are told to be perfect. We can't be perfect, but we should be. Sinners should come to Christ, but apart from God "drawing" them, they cannot. Like Nathan said, we all hear it - but not everyone listens because not everyone has been brought out of darkness into light. Some are still blind and deaf and dead in their sins - they need the special work of the Holy Spirit to quicken them.

"When a Christian or anyone sins, it is a part of God's eternal purpose. That doesn't mean it is right, or make it any less against his revealed will. God's not "moving their hand", but it is a part of his plan."
Okay, that makes sense. I prefer that wording linguistically.

Here are more verses about respect of persons, do you think that they all are meaning racial respect?

For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: Deut 10:17

Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. 2 Chron. 19:7

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. Eph. 6:9

But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there * is no respect of persons.* Col 3:25

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. Jas 2:9

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 1 Pet. 1:17

So basically you believe that when a Christian sins, it is because God wills Him to? Also, what to you think about paradoxism, (just coined it) The belief that the Bible teaches the sovereignty of God, and that man has a free will, but then the Bible leaves it at that, and so should we.

It is in God's eternal, unchangeable will for Christians (and non-Christians, as well) to sin, yes. Every murder is the result of God's plan from eternity past. Every abortion. Every rape. Every theft. Every lie. Nothing happens outside of the control of God. Every act of sin is the result of Him removing His hand of common grace from the sinner's will (because every act of decency is the result of His common grace acting on their will). He allows sin because He is glorified in the punishment of sin, and also because sin is a fully necessary part of His perfect plan. The greatest act of sin in human history, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, was predestined in every aspect by God. The men who delivered Him up were doing so according to the "definite plan" of God (Acts 2:23). That means they had no choice but to do so, because God was withdrawing His grace from them. He essentially made them sin. And I know that seems to contradict James 1 where we're told that God does not tempt anyone to sin. But it's a paradox that Scripture is apparently perfectly comfortable with, so I am comfortable with it. In fact, depending on your translation, Isaiah 45:7 explicitly states that God "creates evil." So, again, yes, this is a paradox. But it's the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us.

The Bible does not teach that man has a "free will" according to the definition you impose upon that phrase. Man is free to do whatever he wants to do – whatever his nature allows him to want. And it just so happens that man is confined to a sinful nature that only allows him to want to sin. So man is not free to choose between good and evil. He is free to choose what sins he wants to commit. =P And even that is ultimately governed by the immutable, eternal will of God.

On the subject of God not being a respecter of persons. You don't even take those passages to mean what you're trying to say that they mean. Did God discriminate against other nations in the Old Testament? Most definitely. Did He give all nations the same chance at salvation and redemption that He gave Israel? Certainly not. God elects. He chooses out of masses. He chose, out of the mass of nations existent in the Old Testament, the nation of Israel. He has the free will to do that! The people living in China during the events of the Old Testament, I believe, had virtually no chance at being saved. Why don't people make more of an issue out of that? I don't really know. It's perfectly consistent with my theology – that God can save whoever He wants and totally neglect others, because they are rebels against Him – but it's not consistent with your theology that necessitates that God give everyone the same chance. Yes, they all had general revelation in creation, but everyone knows that that's not enough to save.

The uncomfortable truth is that God let millions of people go to hell in the Old Testament with no hope of ever knowing Him, apart from the truths that would have been communicated by their ancestors (who ultimately came from Noah's family), but even those would easily have become hopelessly mangled and corrupted in very little time. You seem to believe that your God would never allow such a thing to take place – letting people go to hell with no chance at salvation. I believe that God has the prerogative to make that decision. Because all have sinned against Him. All would have made the exact same choice that Adam and Eve made, so all are rendered guilty in God's eyes. And, therefore, they are born rebels and they live rebellious lives. They have no hope. And they deserve no hope. But, for some, God chooses to give them hope, through Christ. He never had to give anyone any hope. But He does. To some. In that sense, He does pick and choose, according to His love. And, as I've said over and over again, He has every right to do so.

When we're told that God is no respecter of persons, this is communicating in human terms something of the justice of God. God doesn't let people into heaven because they are more famous, wealthy, or respected in worldly terms. He doesn't bend justice when someone does something that we would deem moral or respectable. This is not at all talking about who He chooses to save, but rather the standards by which He saves. It's almost saying the exact opposite of what you want it to say. It's saying that _there's nothing that humans could do to get God's attention or get Him to save them._ He makes that choice, for the choice is His alone to make.

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"?

Oh, He does CALL all. [Matthew 22:14]

So in the parable that happens right before that verse... God invites people to the wedding, why does God invite people if He knows they can't come? .

^^

As Caleb said, He invites because His perfect will is that everyone will come. Just as His perfect will is that no one will ever murder, no one will ever lust, no one will ever lie, etc. We MUST come if we are to be saved. But the invitation says nothing about the recipients' ability to come. And other passages of Scripture do. Romans 3, quoting Psalms 14 and 53, is abundantly clear: No one seeks after God. We rebel against Him. That's all we do. He must change a heart, He must give new birth before one can see His kingdom. Only after one is born again, after a new heart is given can one repent and believe. And all who are given a new heart will repent and believe the gospel. That was the crux of God's promise to give new hearts throughout the Old Testament. At that time, the chosen people of God were not all saved; they did not all submit to the law of God and trust in the Messiah. "But," God says, "one day I will have a people where all of them have new hearts and all of them will submit to my law." That is the whole promise of the New Covenant. So those with a new heart will believe. And only those with a new heart can believe. God only gives a new heart to His elect; so, again, the decision is up to Him.

Now I would very much disagree.
Evil is part of God's plan, but God certainly doesn't not cause evil, or compel people to sin. People sin because of their desires.
"Death is the punishment for sin. Sin originates in desire—one’s own desire. James 1:14 hints that evil comes from one’s own desire. It was by Satan’s own desire that his pride in his own beauty and abilities overtook him.

In the “very good” original creation, it seems likely that Satan and mankind had the power of contrite choice.1 In the Garden of Eden, the woman was convinced by her own desire (the tree was desirable to make one wise—Genesis 3:6). Satan had not entered her; she was enticed by her own desire.

God is not the author of sin; our desires are. God did not trick or deceive Satan into becoming full of pride. God hates pride (Proverbs 8:13), and it would not be in His character to cause one to become prideful. Nor was He the one who deceived Eve. Deception and lies go hand in hand (Psalm 78:36; Proverbs 12:17), yet God does not lie or deceive (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18)."
~Bodie Hodge

Okay… I totally get what you're trying to say, and I would have made those same arguments at one point in my life. But you didn't directly respond to any of the verses or arguments I gave. God says in Isaiah that He creates evil. Peter says in Acts that God was directly controlling the sinful actions behind the greatest act of sin in human history. If that's the case, then why would we believe that He isn't in control of all the billions of lesser sins?

Christian, the evil mentioned in Isaiah 45:7 is the not the evil we think of connected to that word, i.e. sin. The meaning is in a contrast to peace, such as wars, injury, calamities, etc.

In Genesis 1:31, it says that everything God made was very good. Evil+sin came as a result of man rebelling against God.

As far as the Crucifixion.
Yes, that was God's plan, but I don't believe God caused the Crucifixion, or perhaps Crucified himself.

I would liken it to perhaps a game of basketball, you might make a move and it is in your plan that the other player will respond accordingly. When that player does he falls right into your plan, you didn't cause him to do that but you did know he would. Only God knows exactly how the other player will respond. You can throw the ball wherever you want, but God knows where you will throw it. Hence He has His plan.

And I agree with Rachel about the Isaiah verse.

Christian, the evil mentioned in Isaiah 45:7 is the not the evil we think of connected to that word, i.e. sin. The meaning is in a contrast to peace, such as wars, injury, calamities, etc. In Genesis 1:31, it says that everything God made was very good. Evil+sin came as a result of man rebelling against God.

The serpent was evil before man sinned.

Evil came about as the result of good being created. There's an opposite to everything. God indirectly brought the concept of evil into existance, but it wasn't active until Lucifer rebelled. God was looking over the earth when He said "it is all very good."

Christian, the evil mentioned in Isaiah 45:7 is the not the evil we think of connected to that word, i.e. sin. The meaning is in a contrast to peace, such as wars, injury, calamities, etc. In Genesis 1:31, it says that everything God made was very good. Evil+sin came as a result of man rebelling against God.

And no sin fuels the motivation for wars? There is nothing evil about injury or calamities? I am aware that many modern translations translate the word "evil" as "disaster," which is fine. But it's the same Hebrew word that is translated as evil. And I think there's a reason for that.

Yes… I never said anything to contradict that. But God didn't stop creating after Genesis 1:31. Everything is the result of His handiwork. If He does whatever He pleases, and He's in control of everything, that means that everything that happens is what He was pleased to bring about. And, very often, He is pleased to bring about evil, because it serves His purposes in the earth. Again, the crucifixion, the greatest evil of all time, was part of His predetermined plan. No one could have thwarted it, because that's what He planned. I don't know how you guys can twist that to say that He wasn't in control of the whole thing. If God planned it that way, nothing can change. So He caused it. Even if you just say that He "knew" it was going to happen, that means that it can't happen any other way. Which, again, means that He caused it. There's no way around it besides going with the idea that God doesn't actually know everything – a theology called open theism, which is a heresy. I find that to be the only other consistent position regarding God's knowledge and sovereignty besides the Reformed position.

In reply to witness1615

Christian, the evil mentioned in Isaiah 45:7 is the not the evil we think of connected to that word, i.e. sin. The meaning is in a contrast to peace, such as wars, injury, calamities, etc. In Genesis 1:31, it says that everything God made was very good. Evil+sin came as a result of man rebelling against God.

The serpent was evil before man sinned. Evil came about as the result of good being created. There's an opposite to everything. God indirectly brought the concept of evil into existance, but it wasn't active until Lucifer rebelled. God was looking over the earth when He said "it is all very good."

Precisely (aside from the term Lucifer, but that's another debate for another time). The fall of Satan is unexplainable apart from an understanding that God can cause evil. Where does evil come from? Our desires, as has already been stated. All of our actions flow from our inner desires. Where, then, did Satan get inner evil desires? He was created mutable – neither with a pure heart nor with an evil heart. Neutral, essentially. As were all angels. That's why some were able to fall and some righteously fought on God's side. So, again, where did Satan get the temptation to be proud? That doesn't just happen. Evil had to come from somewhere. And there's only one solution, as much as we hate it. God had to be the instigator. And why would He instigate such a thing? Because of the beautiful redemption that was always the centerpiece of His plan, which couldn't be accomplished without someone to tempt Adam and Eve. And the only way to get a tempter is to incite evil of some sort.

I wouldn't debate you on the subject of the name "Lucifer", but I would listen. I don't find Satan named as anything in the Bible other than "Satan."

Anyway… basically, you're saying there are, in a sense totally different from that of humans, elect and reprobate angels. Of course "elect" doesn't mean they've accepted Christ, because it doesn't work that way for them. But would you still apply those terms?

It's weird to think that God would plant evil in the heart of an angel, but the Bible does specifically say that God planted evil in the hearts of men.

I just sound so mixed up, to myself, saying this. It makes it sound like those who are sinful are forced to be sinful. But God's not the Wizard of Oz. He has laid out a PLAN, that people and angels should choose certain things; He has predestined the whole plot of the redemption story.

Yes, you could say angels are elect and reprobate as well. In the sense that God foreordained that some of them would follow Satan in his rebellion and some would remain faithful to God. But only in that sense. Essentially, the main point to consider is that they are mutable beings just like man in his original state, so they are able to choose according to the desires presented to them and the commands given to them. The only way a mutable angel could choose evil is if an evil temptation was presented to him. At least, that's the only way I can see it happening. If someone else wants to correct me, I'd gladly hear it, because I want to know other sides to this.