Posted on 02/17/2002 11:35:16 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
Woody, Woody, Woody.....WHOSOEVER (that means EVERYONE Eligible)
WILL (that means freely chooses...free will)
MAY (that means are allowed)
COME (that means get in line as part of the plan)
The Bible says that everyone is allowed to be part of the plan and that some will freely choose it and some won't.
What you just said was that the plans applies only to those who desire it, who are thirsty. Calvinism says that the plan applies only to those who were preselected. Calvinism is sort of like what you said, but I think you've backslid a bit.
Calvin wrote the Book of Acts?
No, I have the order correct. If you are dead in sin, then explain why you would want to believe? You think that this is talking about a water experience. You are wrong.
You see, xzins really does believe in a kind of free will that even God does not have.
Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.The River of God really is only for those who are thirsty, who desire to come. BTW, has the Bible Gateway been giving you fits?
I haven't used it in an hour or so. Is the website down?
Whosoever will may come. (In an odd calvinist twist this becomes "not just anyone can come.")
I've had trouble with it this morning also.
Your order contradicts the text.
I'll take the text.
I stand by what I said. You misrepresented Calvinism repeatedly in your post. I pointed this out to you every time. And you are still ignoring what I did say in my response.
You see, your conception of the gospel is that Calvinism is not true. That is your presupposition. You think the God of the Calvinists is some kind of unfair monster. You learned this perspective from the same spirit who misled Wesley. You are judging God by your own Adamic-Satanic notions as to what fairness is.
Whitefield was right. Wesley was wrong. Wesley didn't understand any pivotally important thing which Whitefield tried to tell them.
How could that be? Read 1 Corinthians 3. Carnality is murderous. It can make sinners stupidly unteachable. (This is why "Mr. Love" exploded at Whitefield, ignored everything Whitefield said, and started his OWN MOVEMENT. That was a bad idea. The Church is still suffering from Wesley's hypocritically uncharitable attitude. I respectfully submit that Wesleyan's incredibly bad attitude has infested you as a Wesleyan.)
Calvinism DOES teach "not just anyone may come."
No, Calvinism does NOT teach that. Read Spurgeon.
You need to quit making these accusations a la carnal Mr. Wesley. I warned you about this, but to no avail. You don't understand our position. (And you won't heed that warning.)
You might not strain at swallowing that, but a thinking person has to step back when a verse gets twisted upside-down like that.
I have twisted nothing "upside down" like that. Calvinists do believe in the free offer of the gospel. We present it with tremendous energy. Spurgeon makes most of today's Arminians seem cold by comparison.
You ALSO say that the Bible DOES NOT say "God does not show favoritism." The bible most certainly does. Check out Acts 10:34 Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism
The KJV translation is the accurate one in this case. Your idea of "God does not show favoritism" should be rendered as "God is not a respecter of persons."
Why is this a better translation? First of all, it's because God obviously does show favoritism. But He is not a respecter of persons.
To show you what I mean, I would point out that God picked Abraham and a peculiar lineage of Abraham's descendants--i.e., the Hebrews--and refused to reveal Himself to the world as a whole. This is favoritism on an enormous scale. But it was not because God was a respecter of persons. He didn't choose Abraham or Abraham's descendants because He respected them. He favored them with Truth and faith therein because He is SOVEREIGN. This is precisely why He refused to give saving Truth to others. It has nothing to do with the Jews being noble.
Now, when God decided to abandon the very real favoritism which He had shown to the national Hebrews, He used his apostle to emphasize that no one has any excuse for saying "Well, God won't save me because I don't meet the criteria of deservedness."
The Calvinist would respond to that sinner by asserting that there is no such thing as deservedness. God is not a respecter of persons. God's election, although a matter of His sovereign favor (!), does not follow the stupid criteria which Adamic-Satanic sinners would be inclined to put forth.
And since God had changed his approach to include Gentile salvation, it was important in Acts 10 for sinners to be made aware of the fact that He is not a respecter of a person's outer presentation of religious correctness. (The Greek word for "respecter of persons" is actually "acceptor of the countenance, of the surface appearance.") God accepts people of true faith, not people of particular national type or high social position or special religiosity. These things do not impress Him--at all.
The doctrine of election has nothing to do with any of the things which might concern strictly carnal sinners. God does not overlook a person of faith and save a person of special national heritage or important social position or impressive religiosity. ALL persons who repent and believe the gospel are saved. This is the important message of the gospel's universality, of its freeness. "Whosoever will may come."
The question of who winds up getting saving faith within the distribution of peoples across the globe is a different question. God does favor some and not others. And it has nothing to do with respect, because that would speak of pre-conversion deservedness. It has to do with the sovereignty of God's grace.
And if you think that God elects based on foreseeing that such-and-such a person would believe the gospel, you'd better re-think that. God's foreknowledge is not merely precognitive. If you will read 1 Corinthians 2:14 honestly, you will discover that it proves my entire position. God does favor some people with a spirit of receptiveness to the Truth. It is a wonderfully strange display of His sovereignty. And His sovereignty is part of His glory, a glory which you have not yet seen clearly.
You DO fall back again and again on QUESTIONING the salvation of those who disagree with your theology. I can't tell if that's a "debating technique" or a self-esteem issue, but it's inappropriate.
You are being too naive, brother. I say that's inappropriate. Arminianism is the Lie of Eden. You just haven't noticed that.
Most churchgoers really are lost.
We are told to work out our "own" salvation with fear and trembling. It is a weighty thing.
That's one of the Calvinists' favorite verses.
I stand and fall, not to you, but to the Lord.
Good point. But it's not the point of the discussion. I do assume that you are regenerate.
Fortunately, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37)
That's another one of my favorite verses. It ranks up there with John 3:16 in my theology of God's wonderful grace.
The problem is, a lot of people who claim that they have come to Christ have merely walked an aisle and joined a church. Hypocrisy is an amazing, self-deceiving mess.
Do NOT tell people that every seemingly positive response to the gospel is saving faith. If you disturb them very badly by that warning, it's because they need to be disturbed. The people of true faith will appreciate your warning.
They might also appreciate it if you quote the part of the verse which you left out. The verse actually says "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."
That is one of the most strongly Calvinistic verses in the entire Bible. Billy Graham uses it in all of his altar calls. He just never uses the first half of the verse. We Calvinists are right to complain about that, I think!
However, if I walk over to a box of dead rats, and say "whosoever climbs up on my hand will receive this tasty cheese", none of them will come unless I have the power to give them life in order to respond.
We are all "dead in trespasses and sins", we need to be "born again", we need to be "made alive in Christ Jesus" before we will come.
Jean, the above is the statement that started this discussion about God showing favoritism or not showing favoritism. I said that the bible says "God does not show favoritism."
Doc replied in post #464 -- False. The Bible does not say that God does not show favoritism.
The issue was whether or not the Bible SAYS, "God does not show favoritism." It clearly does."
Yes, X, I know this. I have been following this thread.
"I replied with the scripture from Acts 10:34, that shows that the Bible does indeed say "God does not show favoritism."
But the question is, as always, what is the context. This is why I stress interpreting Scripture with Scripture.
If I were to say to you that, as an employer, I do not practice discrimination in my hiring practices -what does that really mean? Does this mean I simply pick whoever wants to work for me? No, obviously I do discriminate when I hire. I look for the best available talent. I look for dedication and loyalty. I look for honesty and integrity. That is discrimination. Rather, when I say that I do not discriminate in my hiring practices, we must understand this in the context of racism. I do not discriminate based on color, sex, creed... Yet I do indeed discriminate.
This is precisely my point when I reference Romans 9. This is a passage which agrees with your Acts passage as well as Galations 3:28 in which it suggests God does not discriminate or more accurately, God is not partial. But how are we to understand this. Romans 9 contains the very words which claim that God chooses not only from Jews but also from Gentiles. When we take Galations 3:28, Col 3:11, Romans 10:11,12 we see that God, indeed, is not partial, but what is meant by "not partial". Certainly, you and I agree (I hope) in the final Judgement in which the unbeliever will be eternally punished. Well, here God is now showing partiality, preference or discrimination -you pick all apply. So we realize that we must understand the context of these claims of impartiality. Back to Romans 9 we see that God chooses certain individuals. How does he choose them? Does He choose men over women, Jews over Greek, free men over slaves...and I may add any other distinctions apply as well -white over black, white collar workers over blue collar workers, smart over dumb... Of course he doesn't discriminate this way. Nonetheless, we know he does discriminate. Ultimately some individuals will be judged to eternal condemnation and punishment. Romans 9 makes clear those God chooses (remember, as much as you don't like it, these are Scripture's words, not Calvin's, not Woody's, not the doc's, not mine. I'm sorry you don't like the implications of this, but I feel compelled to accept these words and not change the definitions. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture. And Romans 9 makes clear that, while God doesn't make His choices on various human distinctions, He does make His choices based soley on His good pleasure and for His own glory.
So, does your proof text show "universal opportunity" or does it simply agree with the rest of scripture and give us comfort that we need not worry about our status in life and that God chooses who He chooses.
"Your question is different. As opposed to asserting simply that the bible doesn't say such a thing, you are asking whether it supports the arminian concept of "universal opportunity" for salvation.
Our answers would be different to that questions if you are a calvinist, wouldn't they?
Acts 10:34 establishes a basic principle: "God does not show favoritism." It's in the context of Peter explaining how the gospel of salvation has now gone to the entire world of gentiles. (That in itself says, "univeral opportunity" because once you've got Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles, then you've covered the entire range, haven't you?)"
To repeat my point in a different way. If we took your statement that God "does not show favoritism" as a "basic prinicple" we must then conclude that all men are saved. Why are all men saved? Well, as X said, because God doesn't show favoritism. I know I am putting words into your mouth, but I'm simply showing what your argument will do when taken to it's logical conclusion. Obviously God does show favoritism -to those who believe. Our disagreement then is on how one comes to belief.
I dare say it is the reformed position to make all scripture agree. When I look at various arminian proof texts they appear to contradict the clear teaching of other passages which teach the fact that God has chosen us. (An arminian friend of mine even admits after a word study that the scriptures do favor determinism over free will) Do we have the right to change the meaning of the word "elect" as some arminians do? Do we have the right to change the meaning of the word "foreknew" to mean God knew who would choose him (this is not its use in Scripture see Acts 26:5, Romans 11:2)
Take a look at 1 Peter 1:20: "Who [Christ] was verily foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times to you." If you check your greek interlinear you will notice that "foreordained" is actually proginosko (Strong's 4267). It is the very same word we find in Romans 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Do we read 1 Peter 1:20 to suggest that God the father knew that Christ the Son would eventually choose him, so God chose him? That's a bit absurd. Rather, we understand this word to mean, as the KJV (THE Bible according to FTD) uses, foreordained. God knew Christ "would choose him"? or God determined before the foundations of the world that Christ will accomplish propitiation for the beleiver? The answer is quite obvious which is why reformed christians cannot ignore these passages and cannot change their meanings. We cannot deny predestination. We must reconcile Scripture with Scripture.
"In this passage Paul connects the same phrase, "God does not show favoritism" to everyone.
Those who deny universal opportunity deny a straightforward interpretation of "whosoever will may come.""
No, we simply reconcile this with scripture's clear teaching of predestination.
Jean
That's one of the implications of 1 Corinthians 2:14.
What 1 Corinthians 2:14 is actually teaching is that you have to have the Spirit in your soul in order to embrace converting Truth. (And the Spirit is like the wind. He blows where He pleases. This is why most people who hear the gospel witness remain unconverted.)
Please don't accuse us of obfuscation. Our exegesis, which in this one case happens to be that of the KJV translators, is better, not worse. Please see my #508.
And, as in the example of birth where we are totally powerless to bear ourselves, we are totally powerless to bear ourself again. We are as much in debt to our Father for spiritual life as we are to our parents for physical life. The scriptural analogy/picture/parable is perfect.
No but one that was knocked down by the Irresistible Grace of God, was a primary figure in it :>)
Has anyone else notices they changed their format..it is not as user friendly as it was..and it is very slow now!
Do you really mean you're saying that you have to be born again before you repent? If so, we must be further apart than I thought.
And, try as I might, after reading at least eight different translations, I see in no way that 1 Corinthians 2:14 refers to anyone other than the believer.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
You weren't kidding, you really are further apart than I thought.
Ward can a man that is blind see his sin? How does a "natural man" see his sin? He compares himself to other men.. "I am not like so and so"
It is not untill our eyes are open that we see our sin, not as men or the world see it..but as how it is seen by a Holy God.
Psalm 51 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Untill we can see how we have broken the heart of God we can not even begin to repent.
My bad. JimRob is apparently a Calvinist - once posted, always posted. Should've read non-believer. I just don't see how it "proves" docs' point.
Is the implication that you have to be "born again" (regenerated) before you can come to Christ?
BTW Jerry, I'd still like you to respond to my #199 question about the Westminster Catechism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.