Does God force you to believe or can you resist? Irresistible Grace -- Not a Bible Teaching.

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Tulip6.htm ^ | Al Maxey

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

God gives a man the gift of faith. As a result of that gift, Man believes. However, man would never believe unless that gift was first given to him, which gave life to a deadened heart.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Rather than merely stating your propostion that Calvinism is false, answer the questions that I posed to xzins which are the logical consequences of his "gospel." If you do not want to do so and merely want to throw back the disputable words of Arminius in response, then we really cannot have a discussion can we?

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

It is Calvinism that preaches a 'false Gospel' that is why Calvinistic soul winners do not preach it, they preach like Arminians.

Please do not lob bombs and run away. Explain what you mean by that statement.

By the way, while you are answering questions, the Bible clearly teaches that the Father predestinates his people. What is the basis of that predestination? Is it based on the sovereign pleasure of God or is it based on something meritorious in man?

[RnMomof7]

Jhn 1:13   Which were born, not of blood, nor of

the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,

but of God. "born of the will of God"

I'm not real sure what your point is here

This does not say born of the free will of man does it? I think the meaning is clear and I wonder how it is you can not see it xzsins?

I don't mean to offend any Lutheran brethren, but Luther is not someone I'd ever use. He has far too much baggage.

He carries the SAME baggage that Wesley does..

[RnMomof7]

Unregenerate man can believe in many things Hank..He can believe he will win the lottery , or that Miss Cloe is right and he will meet his deam woman . or that there is no God, or that there are many god or that he can will his eternal salvation

One thing the unregenerate can not believe is the gospel

[RnMomof7]

It is God's will that all men be drawn to the Cross (Jn.12:32)

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Dec were all men without exception saved on Calvery? Does all mean all?

Or does the just God demand double payment for the sins of man?

First the atonment with the death of His son and then with the same sin being paid for a second time in the fires of hell?

[xzins]

At this point, I no longer want to hear of verses that appear to support your position. Deal with the logical consequences

It appears that DmWt opposes the bible, doesn't it? It appears that calvinism prefers logic to scripture, doesn't it?

DmWt doesn't want to hear that it's possible to desire your own child's salvation, but realize that God gave the child the right of free choice, so that that child must believe.

Let me ask you, DmWt, this question posed by Hank Kerchief? You have only 2 choices.

According to Calvinism, when a person comes to Christ,
1. Does the person believe?
2. Or does God believe for the person?

[xzins]

Nope, Rn. Luther has things far worse than Wesley or Calvin.

Are you familiar with his anti-semitism?

I'll freepmail it to you?

BTW, you and DmWt need to quit attacking me and deal with scripture instead?

[fortheDeclaration]

Below is the so-called Calvinistic 'logic'. Calvinists love to pretend that they are 'logical' yet, they are instead 'rhetorical'.

Third, it appears that Calvin adopted a peculiar approach to truth, judging from his earlier book, which appeared in 1532. This book was a critical edition and commentary on the Roman philosopher Seneca's work De clementia (“Concerning Clemency”). In this book Calvin demonstrated his scholarly abilities, but also showed that he favored the opinions of the rhetoricians over those of the dialecticians. The dialecticians believed that a statement's truth is best tested by how well it fits into a coherent logical system. The rhetoricians believed that a statement's truth is best tested by its clarity and elegance as well as its persuasive power. (Robert M. Kingdon, “John Calvin,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed, 1982, Vol 3, p 671)

Calvin's tendency to underplay the importance of logic can also be seen in his Institutes. Here are just three examples from the Institutes where Calvin emphatically states ideas that are logically weak — a sure indication of the rhetorician's approach to truth. First, any discussion of free will is logically related to the subject of divine predestination. However, when Calvin discusses Adam's free will, he claims that it is unreasonable to introduce the subject of divine predestination. It were here unreasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. (Book 1, Chap 15, Sec 8). Second, the idea that human punishment is ultimately based on man's actions is logically contradictory to the idea that it is ultimately based on God's decision. Yet, Calvin states both of these ideas in the same sentence. Though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 8). Third, Calvin states that man makes voluntary choices which are not free. This is an obvious logical contradiction which can be avoided only by adopting a very narrow and inappropriate definition of volition. … a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice. (Book 2, Chap 5, Sec 1) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/712991/posts

[fortheDeclaration]

It is God's will that all men be drawn to the Cross (Jn.12:32) Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

And so? Does one contradict the other?

When did Christ say the first and then the second statement?

Do you not think that after Christ finished His work on the Cross, the Father now drew 'all men to Him'

Finally, let us look at that deadly Calvinist 'proof-text'

In that same chapter Christ also says,

But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me and believe not,(vs.35) And this is the will that of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him on the last day (vs.39)

After that, in vs 45 Christ states

It is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me

And again,

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him

Not understanding the coming death, burial, and Resurrection, it had to be revealed to them by the Father (Matt.16:17).

It was, however, the Father's will that all come to believe on Christ, but they would not and thus they were not 'drawn' even though they 'saw' and 'heard'

Nowhere in that chapter is 'unconditional election' being taught. Vs.40 makes it very clear that everyone who saw Christ, and believed would have everlasting life.

The error of the Calvinists on John 6:44 is two-fold. First, and foremost is the misapplication of a verse with a decidedly Jewish context as a doctrinal statement on salvation in this age. And secondly, in a spiritual sense, there is a the fallacy of making the drawing of God irresistable and equating it with salvation....It seems to have been forgotten by Calvinists that in John 6:44 it is the Father who draws but in John 12:32 it is Christ who draws. No longer would some men be drawn to him by the Father, but Jesus Christ himself would draw all men to himself. (The Other Side of Calvinism, Vance, p.511) Dec were all men without exception saved on Calvery? Does all mean all?

No, all sins were paid for (without exception)

Now, the Lord Jesus Christ holds the keys to death and hell and salvation is found in Him.

Thus, the Calvinists have a weird Kantian view of reality.

If someone is not saved it is not because the gift is not real or incomplete, but because they rejected it.

The Calvinists think that if the gift is rejected, it becomes defective.

Or does the just God demand double payment for the sins of man?

No double-payment, if you reject the free offer of grace, you stand on your own 'merits'.

The issue of 'double jeropady' is an interesting one. It can be argued that at the Great White Throne judgement sins will not be brought up since they were paid for!

What will be brought up are your 'good works' and they will fall short of the Righteousness to come into the presence of a Holy God (Isa.64:6)

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God , and the books were opened and another book was opened, which is the book of life and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works And the sea gave up the dead which were in it and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them and they were judged every man according to their works....and whosoever was not found written in the book of of life was cast into the lake of fire. (vs.15)

Nowhere is sin mentioned as the final critera at the last judgement, works are.

That is why religious people are harder to win then others because they think their works are going to save them (God will not send me to hell, after all, I am not that bad).

Are you now happier being a 'Calvinist' then you were as a Weslyian? You do not seem to be! (Phil.4:4)

[xzins]

The issue of 'double jeropady' is an interesting one. It can be argued that at the Great White Throne judgement sins will not be brought up since they were paid for! What will be brought up are your 'good works' and they will fall short of the Righteousness to come into the presence of a Holy God (Isa.64:6) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God , and the books were opened and another book was opened, which is the book of life and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works And the sea gave up the dead which were in it and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them and they were judged every man according to their works....and whosoever was not found written in the book of of life was cast into the lake of fire. (vs.15) Nowhere is sin mentioned as the final critera at the last judgement, works are.

Good material for thought. It'll give me something new to consider. Thanks.

[RnMomof7]

BTW, you and DmWt need to quit attacking me and deal with scripture instead?

Hbr 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

We have used scripture..it is just that when the truth of God's word hit you feel like you have been attacked. THAT is what the word of God does to error..

I am still waiting for you to tell me if all men without exception were saved on calvery.

[RnMomof7]

Luther has things far worse than Wesley or Calvin.

Are you familiar with his anti-semitism?

I'll freepmail it to you?

BTW, you and DmWt need to quit attacking me and deal with scripture instead?

LOL xzins..I have been giving you scripture (as has Tex )for days...and HOW do YOU respond? With trying to change the topic to slander and away from scripture to deflect your error..

Be consistant ..YOU stick to scripture..(you do this every time you get in doctrinal trouble X..come on lets talk about the Atonment

Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, and Sola Deo Gloria

[xzins]

You brought up Luther, I didn't. I didn't post it. I offered to freepmail it.

However, you haven't dealt with a single scrap of scripture mentioned on this post.

You offered John 6:37-39 and I answered it. DmWt then called me a heretic because I didn't agree with him/her and you chimed in.

[RnMomof7]

Lets let the lurkers decide xzins..any reader can see that I have responded over and over with scripture..

Come on xzins lets talk about the atonment ..

I say that my sin was what nailed Jesus to the cross and He shed His blood for me personally on that day..without any reservations.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

"It appears that DmWt opposes the bible, doesn't it?"

Sir, you merely quote scripture and say it supports a particular teaching. Every doctrine must be reasonable in light of the enttire word of God. When you have been asked to defend your doctrine, you avoid the defense by casting an accusation against me. I guess you want to avoid logic because your doctrine cannot be logically defended. In other words, your doctrine must be unreasonable.

Despite your bomb throwing, I have sought to embrace the Bible and subject what I think I understand to analysis and inquiry. You claim support from the Bible, but seek to avoid any critique of your doctrine. That is very clearly dishonest and dissembling. Then when backed into a corner, you make a personal attack on Martin Luther. Pitiful.

"DmWt doesn't want to hear that it's possible to desire your own child's salvation, but realize that God gave the child the right of free choice, so that that child must believe."

Frankly sir, I have not earthly idea of what you are talking about, nor do I understand how you can claim what I do or do not want to hear. This is your modus operandi, isn't it. Whenever you are forced to defend your teachings, you change the subject, ask an off the wall question to throw your interlocutor off the trail and even inject a personal attack. Again dissembling and intellectually dishonest. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I am sure nothing could shame you if you are unwilling to defend what you believe.

Let me ask you, DmWt, this question posed by Hank Kerchief?

No, sir. I won't answer any of your questions until you answer the questions that have been posed to your over the past days but you have consistently failed to address. I think you are really afraid to do so because you really don't have any answers.

Just because you started this thread, you cannot dictate the terms of this discussion.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Rather than raise other issues and questions about Calvinism for your buddy, why don't you answer the questions posed to him. Address those before you start throwing out other things. Until you and your friend do so, I will not begin to address anything that you throw out as a distraction. You too appear to be avoiding the issues I have raised about your doctrine. Rather than run away, deal with them.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

If you will look, sir, you will see that I have answered his question. You will not answer mine. Afraid?

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

No you have not. You look back and answer them. I have brought before you the logical consequence of your doctrine. That post was full of questions. You have not and will not respond. Lurkers beware, xzins is the one on the run! Answer the questions, sir! I will return when your do so. Stop avoiding and changing the issue.

[xzins]

Show me the corner, DmWt. I'm not boxed in by anything. You have the odd argument that you don't want scripture involved. I can see why since you can't deal with it.....and neither can calvinism. It's bankrupt as is your silly personal attack mode against me and others who believe in free choice.

You misrepresent and fair readers will go back over these posts and see that you misrepresent.

Here's the truth. Read it and repent.The Scripture, The truth