A proposition (Calvinistic or no?)

[justbyfaith]

"monergist" is a term that most <non->Calvinists don't understand and bears definition, so you define it.

 

[justbyfaith]

Also concerning debate mode:

2Co 12:20, For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:

 

[Arial]

No; I asked the Calvinists here to set the table.

Well ok. You set the table with "what does every Calvinist have to say about---" and refuse to engage with what follows in the form of a debate.

Effectual grace...what is that; and where is it implied in scripture?

I have defined effectual grace in salvation already, as grace that is effective in doing what God sends it to do. It is implied in everything that God says about Himself and who He is. Nevertheless I will give you one example of who God says He is in this regard. Is 55:8-11 For my thought are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, s are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
Notice what God says about Himself in that set of scriptures.

I assume that you are contending that the grace of John 6:44 will not fail to bring a person kicking and screaming to Christ.

As an aside: adding inflaming words that reflect you opinion of something and nothing more, weakens your argument. It does not strengthen it.

John 6



41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 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— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Those drawn to Christ by the Father are those who the Father granted to come to Christ and are the ones He will raise up on the last day. Do you see anywhere those Christ chose in the Bible coming to Him kicking and screaming?

It has always been my contention that being drawn to Christ does not necessarily mean being given to Christ.

Your contention does not align with what Jesus says above.

 

[Arial]

However, apparently in Calvinism, one is saved before they call on the name of the Lord; and therefore calling on the name of the Lord isn't really necessary.

Apparently no such thing. How can you even say that in response to this.

It is not a Calvinistic concept though. Far from it. The Calvinist knows it is their duty to evangelize since Jesus tells us to. And the reason we must do so is found in Romans 10:13-17 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, :How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!: But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith come from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

So the Calvinist looks at it as we preach Christ and Him crucified so that men hear. The faith and believing will come from God.

It is disingenuous to adhere to your misrepresentation after having clearly been shown otherwise. And lacks all sincerity in what was presented in the OP.

 

[Josheb]

That no one can come to Christ unless they are drawn to Christ does not mean that those who are drawn to Christ are necessarily given to Christ.

Sure it does.

To think otherwise is to believe the almighty God acts fruitlessly. To think otherwise is to believe the sinfully dead and enslaved creature can overcome God's action. To think otherwise is to believe God willfully acted with purpose and then willfully changed His will and willfully permitted His purpose and His action to prove ineffective. To think otherwise is to believe God makes His own Son's blood worth less than the sinfully enslaved creature's will. There is a whole lot wrong with that premise.

John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

God works in both direction: He sends Jesus and draws (drags or hauls) the sinner to the one He sent. God sovereignly, righteously closes the distance from both directions and He is effective doing so and He does not make Himself dependent on the creature dead in sin.

 

[justbyfaith]

I have defined effectual grace in salvation already, as grace that is effective in doing what God sends it to do. It is implied in everything that God says about Himself and who He is. Nevertheless I will give you one example of who God says He is in this regard. Is 55:8-11 For my thought are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, s are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
Notice what God says about Himself in that set of scriptures.

Of course what is the purpose for which God sent His word? In some cases, it is to save a soul. In others, it is to make a person accountable for their sins on the day of judgment, so that they have no excuses or objections at the just judgment of our Almighty Father.

Your contention does not align with what Jesus says above.

It does.

As a matter of fact, if being drawn guarantees being given, then the teaching is Universalism (heresy).

Because all are drawn at some point in their lives (John 12:32).

Being drawn enables a person to make a decision to either receive or reject Christ; that is all.

It does not guarantee salvation.

A Calvinist here has said, in agreement with this, that not everyone who goes to church is necessarily born again. If they depart from church life and go into the world of unbelief, it is said that they were "never saved in the first place".

However, in all of their church-going, is it possible or even probable that they were never drawn to Christ?

Yet they were not saved.

Which, in effect, proves my contention that not all who are drawn to Christ are necessarily given to Christ.

 

[Arial]

Neither is Matthew 2:15 quoted in the context of the verse that Matthew quoted it from (Hosea 11:1).

In Matthew 2:15, Jesus is the Son of God; while in the original passage, the son of God is Israel.

NT interpreting OT. The OT was types and shadows of what was coming in Christ. Jesus is the true and faithful Son coming out of Israel, who brings salvation to all peoples.

 

[justbyfaith]

Apparently no such thing. How can you even say that in response to this.

It is disingenuous to adhere to your misrepresentation after having clearly been shown otherwise. And lacks all sincerity in what was presented in the OP.

I want to make it clear that I believe that the doctrines in Calvinism are self-contradictory.

I have concluded this because certain Calvinists say one thing and then another Calvinist arises and says "that is not the teaching of Calvinism."

 

[justbyfaith]

Sure it does.

To think otherwise is to believe the almighty God acts fruitlessly. To think otherwise is to believe the sinfully dead and enslaved creature can overcome God's action. To think otherwise is to believe God willfully acted with purpose and then willfully changed His will and willfully permitted His purpose and His action to prove ineffective. To think otherwise is to believe God makes His own Son's blood worth less than the sinfully enslaved creature's will. There is a whole lot wrong with that premise.

John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

God works in both direction: He sends Jesus and draws (drags or hauls) the sinner to the one He sent. God sovereignly, righteously closes the distance from both directions and He is effective doing so and He does not make Himself dependent on the creature dead in sin.

If all who are drawn are given, the teaching is Universalism (heresy).

All would be given because all are drawn (John 12:32).

 

[Arial]

Of course what is the purpose for which God sent His word? In some cases, it is to save a soul. In others, it is to make a person accountable for their sins on the day of judgment, so that they have no excuses or objections at the just judgment of our Almighty Father.

You are avoiding and deflecting. The subject in this conversation is effectual grace. If God gives saving grace does it save, or is it ineffectual in doing what it is intended to do, and its effectiveness become dependant upon the fallen creature?

 

[justbyfaith]

NT interpreting OT. The OT was types and shadows of what was coming in Christ. Jesus is the true and faithful Son coming out of Israel, who brings salvation to all peoples.

In the OT, "the son of god" is clearly Israel.

I would say that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, took Hosea 11:1 out of context in order to make his point.

 

[justbyfaith]

You are avoiding and deflecting. The subject in this conversation is effectual grace. If God gives saving grace does it save, or is it ineffectual in doing what it is intended to do, and its effectiveness become dependant upon the fallen creature?

My statement was right on subject. Read it again.

 

[justbyfaith]

Take it up with them

I am taking it up with them. Feel free to ignore my statements if they do not apply to what you, personally, believe.

 

[Josheb]

I am reminded In the Treasury the ones assigned to counterfeiting study the original as a light it exposes the counterfeit .

In one sense saying what the Calvinist think compared to another is like what does each of think when studying the word.. . . . endless

Like with the gospel the knowledge of God commanding us with it get understanding. its the understanding . . studying takes time.

And Calvin was one of the most exacting and prodigious theologians in the history of the Church. Imperfect, but exemplary nonetheless.

We do not need any man to teach us according to John 14.

And yet the guy who said that also stated his audiences had all the Law, the psalmists, and the prophets to teach them AND he sent twelve men into the world to teach others. When he said,

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I said to you.

He did NOT state no one else was necessary or desired. To interpret the verse that way contradicts the precedent set by the entire rest of scripture. God uses others. To read that one sentence in John's gospel to say no one else is needed would directly contradict what John wrote elsewhere about himself.

1 John 2:27
And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him remains in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you remain in Him.

John's audience might never have learned what he taught his readers had God not sent John to teach them. One of Jesus' last commands was "teach them my commands." God uses others, and it is foolish to ignore those who God had walk the Christian life before us to teach future generations.

And while imperfect, few can rival Calvin's the enormity and depth of his examination of scripture. I started reading him while Arminian and hated doing so, but came to the gradual realization, against my delight, the man was better at scripture than me. Imagine the temerity of that guy .

 

[Arial]

That is Unlimited Atonement, to say that the "propitiation" is available to all.

I specifically said that propitiation is applied to the elect only.

"The sins of the whole world" is not what is being interpreted as the sins of the elect. Propitiation is what is applied to the sins of the elect. The whole world is interpreted to mean that salvation is available to all nations etc, is powerful enough to save all, but limited to the elect in its purpose, that Christ is the only means of salvation and the remission of sins.

 

[Josheb]

"monergist" is a term that most Calvinists don't understand and bears definition, so you define it.

Monergism is the belief God is the sole causal agent in salvation. There's an entire website filled with monergists asserting monergism disproving another false and baseless claim about Calvinists.

 

[justbyfaith]

To think otherwise is to believe the sinfully dead and enslaved creature can overcome God's action.

God's action is to give to man a free will decision to either receive or reject Him.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17);

And where the Spirit is drawing a man, God does not force the issue of receiving Christ; He gives to man a choice.

 

[Arial]

So, thanks for agreeing with me.

You had to completely reverse what I said in order to make it look as though I was agreeing with you! That is pretty underhanded.

 

[justbyfaith]

I specifically said that propitiation is applied to the elect only.

In the verse, "propitiation" is applied to "the sins of the whole world".

The elect, only?

"the whole world" in the verse, is a greater number than of "us only"

 

[justbyfaith]

I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, btw.

(Revelation 12:11).