I will only say to this that soil types 2 and 3 in the parable of the sower are living plants (which I would identify as saved, for all practical purposes, in the present tense; though they may not be of the elect).
Thank you for sharing how you understand that parable. However, I thought you were here to learn or establish what Calvinists believe. How is your autobiographical material relevant?
Again, as I said, Calvinism teaches that choosing Christ avails infinitely much, and always. However, those who are not elect never choose Christ—ever.
So, if you choose him, you're chosen. Just want to establish this.
Close. Not are, but were. If you choose him, you were chosen (past perfect). "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been fathered by God" (1 John 5:1, again past perfect).
Not [freedom] from what, but to what? And the answer is: To being able to make a free will decision for or against Christ.
I think we can work with this interpretation to remain on topic. Let's assume for the sake of argument that where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom to make a free-will decision for or against Christ. According to Paul in this passage, it's the Spirit who removes the veil, but for whom does he remove it? Everyone?
No, only in Christ is it removed (v. 14, ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται·).
[Paul] resisted the Holy Ghost (Acts 7:51), yet God saved him eventually.
Look again at this passage you have cited. These were stubborn people
with uncircumcised hearts and ears (v. 51, including a young man named Saul, v. 58). That's one of the ways the Bible describes being unregenerate. Truly, those governed by the flesh with uncircumcised hearts and ears always resist the Holy Spirit. They are literally hostile to God; they do not submit to his law (cf. 1 John 3:23) and can't please him (Romans 8:7-8). They are—wait for it—totally depraved.
God must open a person's heart before they can respond in faith (John 6:44, 65; cf. v. 37). "A woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, a God-fearing woman, listened to us. The Lord opened her heart to respond to what Paul was saying" (Act 16:14; cf. Luke 24:45). "For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction" (1 Thess 1:4-5). "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom but on God's power" (1 Cor 2:4-5). "The one who belongs to God listens and responds to God's words. You don't listen and respond because you don't belong to God" (John 8:47).
Yes, Paul resisted the Holy Spirit—until God circumcised his heart (effectual calling), whereby Paul was born again, brought from death to life, called out of darkness into God's wonderful light, becoming a new creation in Christ Jesus. It is an act of God alone (monergistic) that enables us to respond in faith, including Paul.
Grace was not irresistible, for Paul was able to resist it for a season. … God eventually got a hold of him …
Wait a minute now. I thought God already had ahold of him but Paul was resisting. How does God eventually get ahold of someone he already has ahold of?
… but there are those who resist grace whom God never lays a hold of.
If God wants to save everyone, why would there be anyone he NEVER lays ahold of?
How does [Luke 19:37] teach that evangelism isn't necessary?
Two things. First, it was a copy-paste error. As the context of the passage should have made clear, I was referring to verses 37-40 (cf. "I tell you, if they keep silent, the very stones will cry out"). I mean, we're dealing with a God who will even use a donkey to speak for him. Second, I never said evangelism isn't necessary. That was a strawman you introduced. I said, "God doesn't NEED us to evangelize, he WANTS us to and commands us to do so."
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.
You already said that, and I addressed it. Please respond to what I said. Don't simply reassert your claim.
"No one
can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" (John 6:44). "Those the Father has given me
will come to me" (v. 37). The Father gives the sheep to the Son, and they are each drawn by the Father in their due time.
Those who are drawn to Christ are enabled to come to Christ. From there, they have a choice.
And their choice is assured by God's faithfulness: "I shall lose none of all those he has given me" (John 6:39). "No one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand" (John 10:27-30).
Jesus may have as well said to some of them that "you are not yet my sheep."
I asked you to respond to what Jesus said. I didn't ask you to imagine something you think he may also have said. The point is, he laid down his life for the sheep—and some are not his sheep. That is limited atonement, right there.
P.S. As I understand it, sheep and elect are interchangeable terms. Just as nobody becomes one of his elect at any point during human history—they are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world—so also nobody becomes one of his sheep. He is in the business of gathering his lost sheep together into one fold, his church.
As you said, faith is not meritorious.
I'm glad that we agree on that. It's a big one.
I believe I have heard many Calvinists teach that regeneration precedes faith.
There is a huge difference between "regeneration precedes faith" (as you said here) and "regeneration precedes salvation" (which you said previously). All Calvinists believe the former. You said that some Calvinists on these boards have asserted the latter. We have no reason to believe that, for you have not provided any.
Election, regeneration, repentance and faith, justification, sanctification and so on, all of these things together constitute "salvation."
I am not going to provide a link because it would take too long to find the specific posts. You are going to have to take my word for it or else continue to call me a liar.
I reject both options. I choose instead to not believe you.
If you want people to believe your claim about what some Calvinists have said, you need to show that any Calvinists have actually said it (which helps establish your credibility). What you did is make a claim but provide zero evidence for it (which undermines your credibility). I am willing to take someone's word on things but only if they had established credibility previously. You have not. In fact, you keep choosing to undermine your credibility. It's weird and unfortunate, but to each their own.
And what you did, by the way, is yet another example of fallacious rhetoric. In this case, what you did was use
weasel words, which is language that is intentionally vague or ambiguous and often used to create an impression of specificity or accuracy while actually avoiding direct commitment (e.g., "some Calvinists on these boards have said"). Such words can be used to influence the readers without providing reliable, concrete information, and with plausible deniability baked in.
What I am saying is that certain Calvinists say …
See, you're just persisting in these baseless claims. What did they say, and where did they say it? You could be telling the truth, but how could anyone know? "Trust me, bro."
With your history of posting strawman caricatures of what Calvinists believe, you want us to believe your claims about what Calvinists say? Good luck with that.
I feel that you are calling me a liar (the Lord judge between me and you).
The evidence does not support that, so I have no idea why you would feel that. What I am suggesting is that you aren't credible. I can't say whether you're telling the truth or not because I don't know one way or the other. All I have is your controversial claim bereft of any evidence.
If that is the case, then there are many Calvinists who teach as Calvinism what is actually not Calvinism.
You are just stacking up baseless controversial claims. We have no reason to believe that any Calvinists teach what you're claiming they do, because you are not providing any.
.
