Does God draw everyone?

[fastfredy0]

If God loves and draws everyone without exception to Himself, He is not very effective given the gate is narrow and few find their way in.

If God's drawing of men is subservient to His desire for men to self-determine (free will) their salvific decision then one concludes God shares His glory with men (contradicting Isaiah 42:8); regarding salvation, God's will is subservient to the will of men for men in this circumstance control God (God is their robot is this regard).

 

[makesends]

If God loves and draws everyone without exception to Himself, He is not very effective given the gate is narrow and few find their way in.

If God's drawing of men is subservient to His desire for men to self-determine (free will) their salvific decision then one concludes God shares His glory with men (contradicting Isaiah 42:8); regarding salvation, God's will is subservient to the will of men for men in this circumstance control God (God is their robot is this regard).

I agree. The whole format, mindset, whatever, that produces the construction is synergistic, separating the two causes in accomplishing the one result, only complete if participated in by the cooperative willed activity of both. That is not what even what is meant by "IN HIM" in our daily walk, nevermind what is accomplished by God alone in us, in faith and salvation. *But I speak here of that particular draw of the elect.

*You have addressed the term "draw" in broad spectrum to begin with, then narrowed it to this particular draw of the elect in the second phrase of your first sentence. I have yet to see a reason that God does not draw, as @Josheb at one point seemed to mean, those who are not to be redeemed, in some regard or other —just not salvifically. Even some of the Calvinist/Reformed like to say that the offer is given to all, and that the Angels proclaimed goodwill to mankind with Jesus' birth, not to mention the Psalm 19 and the Romans 1 witness to the existence of God.​

 

[Josheb]

I have yet to see a reason that God does not draw, as @Josheb at one point seemed to mean, those who are not to be redeemed, in some regard or other —just not salvifically. Even some of the Calvinist/Reformed like to say that the offer is given to all, and that the Angels proclaimed goodwill to mankind with Jesus' birth, not to mention the Psalm 19 and the Romans 1 witness to the existence of God.

hehehe

Thanks for the supportive words. However, The Cals here have been more consistent with Calvin than I . If Calvin's commentary of John 12 is read it will readily be observed Calvin thought the phrase "draw to me" meant "belief in Christ," and the "all" in both John 6:44 and 12:32 meant those who believe in Christ. Other Reformed minded commentaries (Gill, Henry) agree. I disagree. Calvin tells us he got his views from Chrysostom (indicating there are at least two ECFs who were soteriologically monergist and the Reformers were not inventing new doctrine).

The problem, as I see it, is words have meaning and we should be alerted anytime anyone argues the words written do not mean what they actually state. I don't care whether that come from a very intelligent, highly educated, well experienced and noted theologian with letters after his/her name, or a more ordinary internet forum poster. The word "all" means all. On the occasions when an "all" means "all of a given population" that population is somehow identified in the immediately surrounding text. So it is good and correct and commendable to say, "Look at the context." I simply do not believe Chrysostom or Calvin (and those who take their pov) practiced their own rule(s) when it comes to John 12:32. It is one of the occasions explaining why I prefer to call myself monergist and not Calvinist. Calvin was not always right. He was one of the most rigorous thinkers, amazing exegetes, and prolific writers in Christian history, but he was not always correct.

Two things happen very early in John. The first is the reader is told Jesus did not come to earth to judge the world (and there are very important differences between "earth," and "world") BUT we're also told Jesus is Judge. So..... the position John established very early on is the Judge came to earth, but not to Judge. The drawing we've been discussing in this thread is said to occur on the last day. What else happens on the last day? It's an important an necessary question because the gifting of eternal life is not the only thing that happens that day. John, btw, is the only NT writer who uses that phrase . He uses the phrase seven times and six of them have to do explicitly with the resurrection. The seventh occurs in chapter 12 and what is explicitly stated to occur is judgment, and specifically the judgment of those who rejected Jesus and his teachings. They are not the elect.

John 12:48
He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

In other words, on the occasion of John 12 Jesus himself has explicitly implicitly the elect. I noted this at least twice (now thrice) in this thread and it has been ignored. I do not recall which, but one of the Reformed commentary writers noted in his examination of John that "raised up" in the Greek means exalted. What happens, according to scripture, when Christ is exalted? Jesus is (re-)enthroned, those who exalted themselves are humbled, those who humbled themselves in Christ are exalted, repentance is granted and sins are forgiven, his rule is (re-established), sinners are separated from Christ, and the further defeat of Christ's enemies ensues. The last day is not ONLY about the resurrection and (monergistic) gifting of eternal life. This too was proven (and then ignored).


Now I know disagreement with Calvin's exegesis will be deemed hubris. It's considered arrogant to imply, "I know more than Calvin," or "Calvin was wrong and I am right," but scripture is the first and final arbiter of itself, not Calvin (or Chrysostom, or Arminius, or later Reformed thinkers eisegetically interpreting scripture to support an already existing soteriology). Everything I have posted is thoroughly consistent with monergism; it's just not wholly consistent with Calvin. A lot of monergists are not 100% in agreement with Calvin. In fact, 99% of Cals are at least 1% in disagreement with Calvin because Calvin thought pedobaptism was salvific and attributed his conversion to Christ to his infant baptism. We do not all agree with each other. Pink does not always agree with Sproul who doesn't always agree with Stott who doesn't always agree with................. Monergism is not monolithic. At least one Calvinist in this thread is influenced by Lutheranism and another openly considers himself a 4.5-pointer.

Well, maybe they should burn in hell for not being wholly consistent with and loyal to Calvin .

I made the case for God drawing people to Jesus in more than one way (which is what was asked in the opening post) for more than one purpose and more than one outcome. I did not get much agreement. That's okay. We can agree to disagree. The posts are not going anywhere. I sampled from scripture from nearly the beginning to the end and did so in a manner thoroughly consistent with the core principle of monergism: God and God alone is the single, sole causal source in the sinner's salvation (as well as the design, purpose, and end(s) of His creation). Anyone can examine the case presented in its details and decide for themselves whether or not my answers to the questions asked are correct.

Does God draw everyone, and does He draw every one the same way?

Consider what Jesus said,
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.

So, is the drawing universal? Or does God draw those He chose?

Can you prove your beliefs with scripture?

.
.
Does God draw everyone? Yes.
Does God draw everyone the same way? No, but the one common aspect of all God's "ways" is that His drawing is monergistically powerful, like the hauling of a fisherman's net out of water, and the drawing accomplishes exactly what He purposes.
Consider the drawing of John 6:44. That is an excellent example of God drawing but the "drawing" should be understood as an active, strenuous, monergistic drawing and not something passive or collaborative AND that verse does not define all that scripture has to say about God's drawing people to His Son. The larger text of John 6 passage stipulates resurrection and eternal life but, again, the larger passage does not define all that scripture has to say about God drawing sinners to His Son, but it is an example supporting monergistic soteriology.
Is the Drawing universal? According to John 12 it is, but it is not universally salvific. If, by "universal" the question is intended to repeat the first two inquiries then the answers are "yes," and then "no," but if the question is asking whether or not God's drawing (to Christ) exists with everyone then the answer is, "Yes, and it occurs in a manner so that none are without excuse," but 'without excuse' should not be construed to imply the sinner's will is relevant or causal in any way. In all such cases it is God's will, God's work, and God's purpose alone that is salient.
Does God draw those He chose? Yes. God draws those He chose for salvation to salvation, and He draws those He chose for destruction to destruction, and He did so without regard to the faculties of the dead and enslaved sinner, and without asking anyone if they wanted the decided assignment.
Can you prove your beliefs? Yes, and that has been done with a plethora of scripture and in multiple different ways.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

How is that tangled up in "Election" theology? Pretty simple, to me. God decided and created and will accomplish what he set out to do. Not complicated or confused at all.

Call it what you like. (A rose by any other name - etc.)

 

[makesends]

hehehe

Thanks for the supportive words. However, The Cals here have been more consistent with Calvin than I . If Calvin's commentary of John 12 is read it will readily be observed Calvin thought the phrase "draw to me" meant "belief in Christ," and the "all" in both John 6:44 and 12:32 meant those who believe in Christ. Other Reformed minded commentaries (Gill, Henry) agree. I disagree. Calvin tells us he got his views from Chrysostom (indicating there are at least two ECFs who were soteriologically monergist and the Reformers were not inventing new doctrine).

The problem, as I see it, is words have meaning and we should be alerted anytime anyone argues the words written do not mean what they actually state. I don't care whether that come from a very intelligent, highly educated, well experienced and noted theologian with letters after his/her name, or a more ordinary internet forum poster. The word "all" means all. On the occasions when an "all" means "all of a given population" that population is somehow identified in the immediately surrounding text. So it is good and correct and commendable to say, "Look at the context." I simply do not believe Chrysostom or Calvin (and those who take their pov) practiced their own rule(s) when it comes to John 12:32. It is one of the occasions explaining why I prefer to call myself monergist and not Calvinist. Calvin was not always right. He was one of the most rigorous thinkers, amazing exegetes, and prolific writers in Christian history, but he was not always correct.

Two things happen very early in John. The first is the reader is told Jesus did not come to earth to judge the world (and there are very important differences between "earth," and "world") BUT we're also told Jesus is Judge. So..... the position John established very early on is the Judge came to earth, but not to Judge. The drawing we've been discussing in this thread is said to occur on the last day. What else happens on the last day? It's an important an necessary question because the gifting of eternal life is not the only thing that happens that day. John, btw, is the only NT writer who uses that phrase . He uses the phrase seven times and six of them have to do explicitly with the resurrection. The seventh occurs in chapter 12 and what is explicitly stated to occur is judgment, and specifically the judgment of those who rejected Jesus and his teachings. They are not the elect.

John 12:48
He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

In other words, on the occasion of John 12 Jesus himself has explicitly implicitly the elect. I noted this at least twice (now thrice) in this thread and it has been ignored. I do not recall which, but one of the Reformed commentary writers noted in his examination of John that "raised up" in the Greek means exalted. What happens, according to scripture, when Christ is exalted? Jesus is (re-)enthroned, those who exalted themselves are humbled, those who humbled themselves in Christ are exalted, repentance is granted and sins are forgiven, his rule is (re-established), sinners are separated from Christ, and the further defeat of Christ's enemies ensues. The last day is not ONLY about the resurrection and (monergistic) gifting of eternal life. This too was proven (and then ignored).


Now I know disagreement with Calvin's exegesis will be deemed hubris. It's considered arrogant to imply, "I know more than Calvin," or "Calvin was wrong and I am right," but scripture is the first and final arbiter of itself, not Calvin (or Chrysostom, or Arminius, or later Reformed thinkers eisegetically interpreting scripture to support an already existing soteriology). Everything I have posted is thoroughly consistent with monergism; it's just not wholly consistent with Calvin. A lot of monergists are not 100% in agreement with Calvin. In fact, 99% of Cals are at least 1% in disagreement with Calvin because Calvin thought pedobaptism was salvific and attributed his conversion to Christ to his infant baptism. We do not all agree with each other. Pink does not always agree with Sproul who doesn't always agree with Stott who doesn't always agree with................. Monergism is not monolithic. At least one Calvinist in this thread is influenced by Lutheranism and another openly considers himself a 4.5-pointer.

Well, maybe they should burn in hell for not being wholly consistent with and loyal to Calvin .

I made the case for God drawing people to Jesus in more than one way (which is what was asked in the opening post) for more than one purpose and more than one outcome. I did not get much agreement. That's okay. We can agree to disagree. The posts are not going anywhere. I sampled from scripture from nearly the beginning to the end and did so in a manner thoroughly consistent with the core principle of monergism: God and God alone is the single, sole causal source in the sinner's salvation (as well as the design, purpose, and end(s) of His creation). Anyone can examine the case presented in its details and decide for themselves whether or not my answers to the questions asked are correct.

.
.
Does God draw everyone? Yes.
Does God draw everyone the same way? No, but the one common aspect of all God's "ways" is that His drawing is monergistically powerful, like the hauling of a fisherman's net out of water, and the drawing accomplishes exactly what He purposes.
Consider the drawing of John 6:44. That is an excellent example of God drawing but the "drawing" should be understood as an active, strenuous, monergistic drawing and not something passive or collaborative AND that verse does not define all that scripture has to say about God's drawing people to His Son. The larger text of John 6 passage stipulates resurrection and eternal life but, again, the larger passage does not define all that scripture has to say about God drawing sinners to His Son, but it is an example supporting monergistic soteriology.
Is the Drawing universal? According to John 12 it is, but it is not universally salvific. If, by "universal" the question is intended to repeat the first two inquiries then the answers are "yes," and then "no," but if the question is asking whether or not God's drawing (to Christ) exists with everyone then the answer is, "Yes, and it occurs in a manner so that none are without excuse," but 'without excuse' should not be construed to imply the sinner's will is relevant or causal in any way. In all such cases it is God's will, God's work, and God's purpose alone that is salient.
Does God draw those He chose? Yes. God draws those He chose for salvation to salvation, and He draws those He chose for destruction to destruction, and He did so without regard to the faculties of the dead and enslaved sinner, and without asking anyone if they wanted the decided assignment.
Can you prove your beliefs? Yes, and that has been done with a plethora of scripture and in multiple different ways.

Thanks. You have, as always, gone to a lot of effort to make your point, and I appreciate it.

"All" in some passages —for example, in 1 Timothy 4:10— is a universally inclusive word. "'All' means all" yet the emphasis is on the Savior. Thus, what the universalist claims is all-inclusive is not about whom God saves, but about the fact that nobody is saved by any other means.

Is the Drawing universal? According to John 12 it is, but it is not universally salvific. If, by "universal" the question is intended to repeat the first two inquiries then the answers are "yes," and then "no," but if the question is asking whether or not God's drawing (to Christ) exists with everyone then the answer is, "Yes, and it occurs in a manner so that none are without excuse," but 'without excuse' should not be construed to imply the sinner's will is relevant or causal in any way. In all such cases it is God's will, God's work, and God's purpose alone that is salient.
Does God draw those He chose? Yes. God draws those He chose for salvation to salvation, and He draws those He chose for destruction to destruction, and He did so without regard to the faculties of the dead and enslaved sinner, and without asking anyone if they wanted the decided assignment.

Nevertheless, I have to say, that because of the phenomenon that has been termed, Total Depravity, those who reject Christ DO reject him, and there is no indication of causal neutrality on their part. They ARE (present tense (and I mean, 'continuously')) at enmity, and with every breath are choosing rejection. This IS disbelief, for which (John 3:18) they are already condemned. They condemn themselves, even though they are from the beginning monergistically condemned BY God. This is not a cooperative effort, though it is not precisely antithetical to the monergism of Salvation —they are condemned by default, and by imputation —not by one being synergistically completing the work of another. The lost condemn themselves, but the saved do not save themselves.

(OT: This is part of why I say that we are not yet complete persons —not until the dust settles.)

 

[makesends]

Call it what you like. (A rose by any other name - etc.)

That doesn't tell me how it is tangled up. Explain. What do you mean by "tangled up in" and how do you see it as true that it is tangled up?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

That doesn't tell me how it is tangled up. Explain. What do you mean by "tangled up in" and how do you see it as true that it is tangled up?

"Election" is related to Rom 9. When God has MERCY, they're "Elect", and whom he "hardens" is not "Elect"

 

[makesends]

"Election" is related to Rom 9. When God has MERCY, they're "Elect", and whom he "hardens" is not "Elect"

Do you think that those whom he hardens are just left up to chance what happens to them?

 

[Josheb]

Thanks. You have, as always, gone to a lot of effort to make your point, and I appreciate it.

"All" in some passages —for example, in 1 Timothy 4:10— is a universally inclusive word. "'All' means all" yet the emphasis is on the Savior. Thus, what the universalist claims is all-inclusive is not about whom God saves, but about the fact that nobody is saved by any other means.

I did not read the op to be asserting our inquiring about universalism. The premise of salvation being universal was not asserted, only God's drawing people to Christ. If God's drawing is only done in one way and only done for one purpose (salvation) and with the intent to save everyone, then that is universalism. The op is couched in Arminianism and Arminiainism is not universalism.

Besides, universalism is a prohibited topic. It's not likely the owner of the forum was blatantly breaking his own rule .

Nevertheless, I have to say, that because of the phenomenon that has been termed, Total Depravity, those who reject Christ DO reject him, and there is no indication of causal neutrality on their part.

100% but, ironically, both Calvin and Arminius agreed TD is universal. Salvation is not universal, but TD is. It is from that condition we are saved.

They ARE (present tense (and I mean, 'continuously')) at enmity, and with every breath are choosing rejection. This IS disbelief, for which (John 3:18) they are already condemned. They condemn themselves, even though they are from the beginning monergistically condemned BY God. This is not a cooperative effort, though it is not precisely antithetical to the monergism of Salvation —they are condemned by default, and by imputation —not by one being synergistically completing the work of another. The lost condemn themselves, but the saved do not save themselves.

(OT: This is part of why I say that we are not yet complete persons —not until the dust settles.)

Yep.

 

[Carbon]

hehehe

Thanks for the supportive words. However, The Cals here have been more consistent with Calvin than I . If Calvin's commentary of John 12 is read it will readily be observed Calvin thought the phrase "draw to me" meant "belief in Christ," and the "all" in both John 6:44 and 12:32 meant those who believe in Christ. Other Reformed minded commentaries (Gill, Henry) agree. I disagree. Calvin tells us he got his views from Chrysostom (indicating there are at least two ECFs who were soteriologically monergist and the Reformers were not inventing new doctrine).

The problem, as I see it, is words have meaning and we should be alerted anytime anyone argues the words written do not mean what they actually state. I don't care whether that come from a very intelligent, highly educated, well experienced and noted theologian with letters after his/her name, or a more ordinary internet forum poster. The word "all" means all. On the occasions when an "all" means "all of a given population" that population is somehow identified in the immediately surrounding text. So it is good and correct and commendable to say, "Look at the context." I simply do not believe Chrysostom or Calvin (and those who take their pov) practiced their own rule(s) when it comes to John 12:32. It is one of the occasions explaining why I prefer to call myself monergist and not Calvinist. Calvin was not always right. He was one of the most rigorous thinkers, amazing exegetes, and prolific writers in Christian history, but he was not always correct.

Two things happen very early in John. The first is the reader is told Jesus did not come to earth to judge the world (and there are very important differences between "earth," and "world") BUT we're also told Jesus is Judge. So..... the position John established very early on is the Judge came to earth, but not to Judge. The drawing we've been discussing in this thread is said to occur on the last day. What else happens on the last day? It's an important an necessary question because the gifting of eternal life is not the only thing that happens that day. John, btw, is the only NT writer who uses that phrase . He uses the phrase seven times and six of them have to do explicitly with the resurrection. The seventh occurs in chapter 12 and what is explicitly stated to occur is judgment, and specifically the judgment of those who rejected Jesus and his teachings. They are not the elect.

John 12:48
He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

In other words, on the occasion of John 12 Jesus himself has explicitly implicitly the elect. I noted this at least twice (now thrice) in this thread and it has been ignored. I do not recall which, but one of the Reformed commentary writers noted in his examination of John that "raised up" in the Greek means exalted. What happens, according to scripture, when Christ is exalted? Jesus is (re-)enthroned, those who exalted themselves are humbled, those who humbled themselves in Christ are exalted, repentance is granted and sins are forgiven, his rule is (re-established), sinners are separated from Christ, and the further defeat of Christ's enemies ensues. The last day is not ONLY about the resurrection and (monergistic) gifting of eternal life. This too was proven (and then ignored).


Now I know disagreement with Calvin's exegesis will be deemed hubris. It's considered arrogant to imply, "I know more than Calvin," or "Calvin was wrong and I am right," but scripture is the first and final arbiter of itself, not Calvin (or Chrysostom, or Arminius, or later Reformed thinkers eisegetically interpreting scripture to support an already existing soteriology). Everything I have posted is thoroughly consistent with monergism; it's just not wholly consistent with Calvin. A lot of monergists are not 100% in agreement with Calvin. In fact, 99% of Cals are at least 1% in disagreement with Calvin because Calvin thought pedobaptism was salvific and attributed his conversion to Christ to his infant baptism. We do not all agree with each other. Pink does not always agree with Sproul who doesn't always agree with Stott who doesn't always agree with................. Monergism is not monolithic. At least one Calvinist in this thread is influenced by Lutheranism and another openly considers himself a 4.5-pointer.

Well, maybe they should burn in hell for not being wholly consistent with and loyal to Calvin .

I made the case for God drawing people to Jesus in more than one way (which is what was asked in the opening post) for more than one purpose and more than one outcome. I did not get much agreement. That's okay. We can agree to disagree. The posts are not going anywhere. I sampled from scripture from nearly the beginning to the end and did so in a manner thoroughly consistent with the core principle of monergism: God and God alone is the single, sole causal source in the sinner's salvation (as well as the design, purpose, and end(s) of His creation). Anyone can examine the case presented in its details and decide for themselves whether or not my answers to the questions asked are correct.

.
.
Does God draw everyone? Yes.
Does God draw everyone the same way? No, but the one common aspect of all God's "ways" is that His drawing is monergistically powerful, like the hauling of a fisherman's net out of water, and the drawing accomplishes exactly what He purposes.
Consider the drawing of John 6:44. That is an excellent example of God drawing but the "drawing" should be understood as an active, strenuous, monergistic drawing and not something passive or collaborative AND that verse does not define all that scripture has to say about God's drawing people to His Son. The larger text of John 6 passage stipulates resurrection and eternal life but, again, the larger passage does not define all that scripture has to say about God drawing sinners to His Son, but it is an example supporting monergistic soteriology.
Is the Drawing universal? According to John 12 it is, but it is not universally salvific. If, by "universal" the question is intended to repeat the first two inquiries then the answers are "yes," and then "no," but if the question is asking whether or not God's drawing (to Christ) exists with everyone then the answer is, "Yes, and it occurs in a manner so that none are without excuse," but 'without excuse' should not be construed to imply the sinner's will is relevant or causal in any way. In all such cases it is God's will, God's work, and God's purpose alone that is salient.
Does God draw those He chose? Yes. God draws those He chose for salvation to salvation, and He draws those He chose for destruction to destruction, and He did so without regard to the faculties of the dead and enslaved sinner, and without asking anyone if they wanted the decided assignment.
Can you prove your beliefs? Yes, and that has been done with a plethora of scripture and in multiple different ways.

Me thinks you should read (re-read) the institutes on these things.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Do you think that those whom he hardens are just left up to chance what happens to them?

No "chance" involved - if you're not DRAWN to Christ, you're hell-bound. period.

 

[makesends]

I did not read the op to be asserting our inquiring about universalism. The premise of salvation being universal was not asserted, only God's drawing people to Christ. If God's drawing is only done in one way and only done for one purpose (salvation) and with the intent to save everyone, then that is universalism. The op is couched in Arminianism and Arminiainism is not universalism.

Besides, universalism is a prohibited topic. It's not likely the owner of the forum was blatantly breaking his own rule .

Yes. I did not mean to be invoking universalism at all, but just mentioned it as the extreme use of "all" in that verse. The truth of the meaning does not mean that "all" is not universal, but that the point of the language is not about the scope of God's intention, but rather about the means of salvation.

100% but, ironically, both Calvin and Arminius agreed TD is universal. Salvation is not universal, but TD is. It is from that condition we are saved.

Yep.

Agreed.

 

[makesends]

No "chance" involved - if you're not DRAWN to Christ, you're hell-bound. period.

Amen that much!

 

[Josheb]

Me thinks you should read (re-read) the institutes on these things.

Me thinks the opportunity to discuss all of my posts availed itself for the better part of three pages and was neglected and abused with non sequiturs like....

Sometimes I think you’re a closet synergist. No offense intended, I’m just sayin.

...and that found in Post 70.

 

[Carbon]

Me thinks the opportunity to discuss all of my posts availed itself for the better part of three pages and was neglected and abused with non sequiturs like....

...and that found in Post 70.

Okay bro this seems very important to you. Give me a post number and I will do my best to considrer it and look to it in context and give you my thoughts. Not that I have to be right, I dont need to be. Whether you agree or not is your buisness. But I will give it a fair treatment.

Personally, and I mean no offence, but I think there are some places where the rubber meets the road that you dont quite see. If your like me, and I am not judging you, it takes a long time even after we believe we are entirely reformed to go through all the old luggage that sneaks to the surface now and then. We will spend our lives reforming.

If this works out to where you still disagree, that's ok, this is not a salvational issue. But it is an interesting topic and isnt that why we are here?

 

[Carbon]

100% but, ironically, both Calvin and Arminius agreed TD is universal. Salvation is not universal, but TD is. It is from that condition we are saved.

Of course, they both believe that. It's in how they understand and explain TD is where they differ.

 

[Josheb]

Me thinks the opportunity to discuss all of my posts availed itself for the better part of three pages and was neglected and abused with non sequiturs like posts 22 and 70].

........Give me a post number and I will do my best to consider it and look to it in context and give you my thoughts...

There are twenty of them sitting in the thread already and your best is absent.

I can see this is not well received so, having answered the questions asked, said my piece, not wanting to foster any ill will, and the posts not going anywhere anytime soon, I will post no more to the dissent. Thank you all for the time and effort. It helped me search the scripture and test my understanding. .

[You're] welcome, we agree to disagree again.

Don't just agree to disagree. Let it go. Or should I read those words to mean, "We agree to disagree, and I am going to continue to post my disagreement to you whenever you take up the op with any other poster?" Just let me know if that's what I am to understand those words to mean. You and I are okay (as far as I am concerned) but posts from #56 on make things worse, not better (and nothing has been done to address the errors of Post 22, 32, 33, and 46). Someone once (unnecessarily) told me,

"I’m sure you understand people will not always agree with us. And some will try and argue and be rebellious. I see debates going back and forth and both sides going about it wrongfully, including myself. Someone once told me, kindness is more ruthless than meanness."​

I completely agree. The kind thing for me to do is no longer engage a dissent where the content is misrepresented and I am told I'm thought to be a closet synergist or need to read a book, portions of which I can quote from memory, because things get worse if I start addressing that nonsense. I'll engage new contributions as I have interest (as I did with the posts of @makesends), but don't expect me to re-engage your posts. It's not okay to ignore 20 posts and say, "Pick one and I do my best." I will post no more to the existing dissent, so when I take up the contents of others' posts remember we've agreed to disagree.

Let it go.

Do better in the next op because there will be another occasion when we do not view things identically and cogent discourse is possible. Can you live at peace with this post?

 

[Carbon]

There are twenty of them sitting in the thread already and your best is absent.

Don't just agree to disagree. Let it go. Or should I read those words to mean, "We agree to disagree, and I am going to continue to post my disagreement to you whenever you take up the op with any other poster?" Just let me know if that's what I am to understand those words to mean. You and I are okay (as far as I am concerned) but posts from #56 on make things worse, not better (and nothing has been done to address the errors of Post 22, 32, 33, and 46). Someone once (unnecessarily) told me,

"I’m sure you understand people will not always agree with us. And some will try and argue and be rebellious. I see debates going back and forth and both sides going about it wrongfully, including myself. Someone once told me, kindness is more ruthless than meanness."​

I completely agree. The kind thing for me to do is no longer engage a dissent where the content is misrepresented and I am told I'm thought to be a closet synergist or need to read a book, portions of which I can quote from memory, because things get worse if I start addressing that nonsense. I'll engage new contributions as I have interest (as I did with the posts of @makesends), but don't expect me to re-engage your posts. It's not okay to ignore 20 posts and say, "Pick one and I do my best." I will post no more to the existing dissent, so when I take up the contents of others' posts remember we've agreed to disagree.

Let it go.

Do better in the next op because there will be another occasion when we do not view things identically and cogent discourse is possible. Can you live at peace with this post?

Josh, if you do not want to go over your posts, then say so.

 

[Josheb]

Ugh!

This thread isn’t about you.

Edit by Admin. Poor attitude.

Is the problem inherent in Post 78 alone not seen?








For the record: The thread is not about winning or losing, either.... and I did not lose . Every single person who has ever lived will be drawn in judgment to Christ crucified and resurrected. The elect will be drawn in salvation, the non-elect in condemnation. John 6:44 is about salvation, but John 6:44 is not the only verse in the Bible about God drawing people to Jesus, and it does not define God's drawing for the entirety of scripture. A plethora of scriptures (like John 12:32) have a lot more to say about God's drawing. Jesus is not just Savior. He is also Lord, and everyone will confess him as such. Not all will do so as their Savior. The op did not limit its questions to salvation. It gave John 6:44 as something to be considered, nothing more. The word "salvation" is nowhere to be found in the op and this is not the soteriology board.

• Every single person ever made will stand before Christ in judgment.
• They will do so (monergistically) by the will of the Father.
• The elect will be drawn in salvation.
• The non-elect will be drawn in condemnation.
• The will of the sinner is irrelevant.
• John 6:44 is about salvation.
• John 12:32, despite John Calvin's views to the contrary, is about judgment of the unbelieving.
• Jesus is both Lord and Savior, not just one or the other.
• Jesus is Judge, and everyone will be judged through him.
• Every person will confess him as Lord.
• Not every person will confess him as Savior.
• The op does not limit its inquiries to the discussion of salvation.
• John 6:44 was asserted as a verse to be considered. Nothing more.
• The opening post does not mention "salvation" or in any way overtly limit the discussion to that one matter.
• The op was not posted in the Arm v Cal board.

And if it were not for the blatant hypocrisy of "The thread is not about you," and the blatantly off-topic personal attack, "You're a poor loser," I'd be happy to prove every single one of those bullet points with goodwill.

 

[Carbon]

Ugh!

Is the problem inherent in Post 78 alone not seen?








For the record: The thread is not about winning or losing, either.... and I did not lose . Every single person who has ever lived will be drawn in judgment to Christ crucified and resurrected. The elect will be drawn in salvation, the non-elect in condemnation. John 6:44 is about salvation, but John 6:44 is not the only verse in the Bible about God drawing people to Jesus, and it does not define God's drawing for the entirety of scripture. A plethora of scriptures (like John 12:32) have a lot more to say about God's drawing. Jesus is not just Savior. He is also Lord, and everyone will confess him as such. Not all will do so as their Savior. The op did not limit its questions to salvation. It gave John 6:44 as something to be considered, nothing more. The word "salvation" is nowhere to be found in the op and this is not the soteriology board.

• Every single person ever made will stand before Christ in judgment.
• They will do so (monergistically) by the will of the Father.
• The elect will be drawn in salvation.
• The non-elect will be drawn in condemnation.
• The will of the sinner is irrelevant.
• John 6:44 is about salvation.
• John 12:32, despite John Calvin's views to the contrary, is about judgment of the unbelieving.
• Jesus is both Lord and Savior, not just one or the other.
• Jesus is Judge, and everyone will be judged through him.
• Every person will confess him as Lord.
• Not every person will confess him as Savior.
• The op does not limit its inquiries to the discussion of salvation.
• John 6:44 was asserted as a verse to be considered. Nothing more.
• The opening post does not mention "salvation" or in any way overtly limit the discussion to that one matter.
• The op was not posted in the Arm v Cal board.

And if it were not for the blatant hypocrisy of "The thread is not about you," and the blatantly off-topic personal attack, "You're a poor loser," I'd be happy to prove every single one of those bullet points with goodwill.

I would like to publicly apologize to you Josheb. I made the remark you are a poor loser. The flesh got the best of me and that was out of line. The purpose here should be to perhaps try to convince others' minds, not to irritate them. So by seeking to serve grace, I don't promote sin. Nor do I want to stir up any corruption. I will seek to address principles, not attack persons.