Man's responsibility.

[justbyfaith]

Another difference is that I have biblical examples of my view, and you do not.

Please give a biblical example of a time when God invaded a person's life against their will.

You will probably bring up Paul; but I would say that he had a choice in the matter. He was even resisting the Holy Spirit at the juncture of Acts 7:51; and might have continued to do so when Jesus knocked him off his horse; although he very likely would have ceased from persecuting Christians.

 

[justbyfaith]

Incorrect. It belongs to a church. "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write … Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking!" (Rev 3:14, 20; cf. 3:22; 1:4-6, 9, 11). He is standing at the door, so to speak, of a particular church, not at the heart of an unbeliever.

The Laodicean church was "lukewarm" and not of the elect; for Jesus would "spue them out of His mouth"...they were not saved.

But they are the visible church at a specific moment in history.

 

[justbyfaith]

Correct. Because the late Mitch Cervinka, a staunch Calvinist, explained it best, I will simply quote him (all emphases mine):

Another argument commonly raised in support of free will is that God cannot hold man responsible to do what is right if the man has no ability to do what is right. This argument likewise confuses free will with free agency. It is generally true that in order to be responsible a man must have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. Calvinism fully confesses that fallen men have the physical strength to keep God's commandments and the mental capacity to understand what God's commands require of them. In fact, this is the very reason why unregenerate men often react so violently against God's word—they do understand what it says, and they don't like it!

The problem with fallen man is not in his physical abilities, nor in his mental capacity to understand. Rather, man's problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness—and this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness.

So, the non-elect has the ability to choose Christ. Thank you for that.

My next question is, what happens if he does what he is able to do and chooses Christ?

Does he not cross over from being non-elect to being of the elect?

(for lack of better wording).

 

[justbyfaith]

Because there would be room for boasting if he did. Smith could point to something he did that Jones didn't do as the reason he is saved. "I'm elect because I did X, but you did not." By not conditioning election on anything man does, God ensured there would be no room for any boasting

Yet, if one person does X, he is saved, while if another person does not do X, he is not saved.

X being what is spoken of in Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, Acts 2:38-39.

I don't think that doing X is a reason to boast. Those things have nothing to do with personal merit.

 

[justbyfaith]

Sort of. That which scripture denies my theology denies.

No, your theology denies what scripture asserts.

Actually, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; since the Calvinistic view is based on faulty interpretations which may seem valid.

To whom, sir? To whom is God accountable?

The question is, to whom is man accountable?

If man is not accountable / responsible for his own condemnation in his rejection of Christ, then God is culpable in condemning him.

That Christ will draw to himself all people without distinction is a plain and simple meaning of the text. That he will draw to himself all people without exception is another plain and simple meaning of the text. Both are interpretations. One is exegetically defensible and consistent with the whole counsel of God, the other is not.

Yes, one of them holds man accountable for his decision to reject Christ; the other does not. The former is defensible and consistent with the whole counsel of the Lord.

The would follow if your interpretation of John 12:32 is correct—and that word, "if," is doing A LOT of heavy lifting there.

I have also never seen you define, from scripture, what "draw" means. I hope you have, because that would be a glaring oversight.

I have defined it...it is that God gives them the ability to receive or reject Christ without guaranteeing that they will receive Christ.

This, from the guy who refuses to provide hyperlinked quotes to stuff that has been said, admits that he's too lazy to crawl through pages of threads to find it, but invites me to either do it for him or simply ignore his comments "since that is what you want to do anyway" (October 21, 2023). The irony here is absolutely thick.

Here, it's in this thread. Go find it.

Maybe I'll do that if I find the time.

Otherwise, you are just going to have to accept the fact that I will remain ignorant of what you were trying to say.

Because I don't think that you really did do what you say you did.

So, God knew from all eternity that this person would go to the grave rejecting him, while that person would believe for a season but not persevere—and he created them anyway. He knew they would end up in hell, and he created them anyway. Like I said, "I hate to break this to you but I suspect you believe the same thing"—but for different reasons.

God could not have known the outcome of their lives until after they are created and lived their lives.

He is looking down at them from being outside of time.

Obviously, I agree. But what you are presenting is a man-centered gospel, which is not the true gospel. The entire thing centers around man instead of Christ, such that man is "ultimately responsible" for his salvation while Christ is "penultimately responsible." Your gospel has Christ playing second fiddle to man, God hoping man will choose him, even that God waits for man to give him permission.

The true gospel speaks of God's salvation of man; and it teaches us that there is something man must do in order to be saved (Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, Acts 2:38-39)

As for 1 Thessalonians 1:5, you really need to include the preceding verse: "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" (cf. 1 Cor 2:4-5). The nature of their response was the evidence that God had chosen them (cf. Acts 16:14; Luke 24:45; John 8:47). God's choice first, man's response follows. That's Calvinistic.

Now, I specifically referenced the kjv in this verse. It does not say "conviction" but "assurance".

That is not my view. It is yours (as you admit). I said, "On your view, did the death of Christ secure their salvation? No, it only made them savable. What has to happen for them to be saved? They must choose to receive him. Without that choice, they are doomed. That makes them ‘ultimately responsible’ for their salvation, as I said. Christ is penultimately responsible, whereas the sinner is ultimately responsible."

On the Calvinist view, the death of Christ secured their salvation. He did not just make them savable, but actually and completely saves them. They choose him because they first were chosen.

In my view, they are saved when they place their faith in Christ. Faith isn't necessary in your view?

I do, each and every single time you mispresent what Calvinists believe (like me)—including this post, above.

How did I misrepresent Calvinism in the post above?

 

[justbyfaith]

As a matter of fact, we can't even know who is saved and who is not—even on your view, where that can't be known until the person dies (at which point it's too late anyway).

That is not my view, it is what I have said is the view of Calvinism.

As the person who does not persevere to the end was never saved in the first place according to it.

 

[justbyfaith]

In your Bible, John 10:26 says, "You are not my sheep BECAUSE you do not believe"—which carries the implication that they can become his sheep by believing.

In every single other Bible in the world, it says the opposite: "You do not believe BECAUSE you are not my sheep"—which carries the implication that only his sheep become believers (cf. Acts 13:48).

Even in those Bibles, it should be clear that not being Jesus' sheep does not necessarily mean that they will never believe.

In my Bible, the translation is valid; and it's premise is also not contradicted by the many other Bibles that you are mentioning.

Need I say, also, that I am kjv-superior in my theology; and therefore I believe that wherever there is a discrepancy, that the kjv trumps all other versions.

 

[justbyfaith]

justbyfaith said: by the way, the problem of evil...

—is a related but separate topic.

(Side Comment: You said that you don't see Calvinism having any explanation for the problem of evil. First, that tells us something about you, not Calvinism. Second, I can recommend some reading material on that subject. Then you would see.)

Maybe just spue forth the argument as it is presented in your reading material. I may not have access to a book store that carries the book or books in question as I do not purchase things on the internet (I'm old-fashioned that way).

 

[justbyfaith]

In my view, they are saved when they place their faith in Christ. Faith isn't necessary in your view?

Indeed it isn't; because in your view, regeneration precedes faith; and therefore one may be saved before they have faith and therefore they would be saved apart from faith.

 

[justbyfaith]

This, from the guy who refuses to provide hyperlinked quotes to stuff that has been said, admits that he's too lazy to crawl through pages of threads to find it, but invites me to either do it for him or simply ignore his comments "since that is what you want to do anyway" (October 21, 2023). The irony here is absolutely thick.

Here, it's in this thread. Go find it.

See, you don't want to have to search for your own posts, either.

 

[justbyfaith]

You are losing the plot. Allow me to recap:

1. First, I said Calvinists believe that "man has a choice in the matter, and that he always and only chooses sin, for which he is responsible—which is why he is facing condemnation!"

2. Then, in response to this, you replied, "So, his condemnation is based in merit (or the lack thereof)."

3. So, I attempted to correct that misperception by reiterating, "His condemnation is based on demerit (i.e., his many sins)."

Merit, worthy of praise. Demerit, worthy of condemnation.

To make it even more clear, we're talking about those who go to the grave rejecting Christ and the reason they face condemnation. We are not talking about the elect and their salvation.

(Side Comment: No, the salvation of the elect is not based on his personal merit. It is based on Christ's merit, which is to say his righteousness. The merit of the regenerate elect is not the ground of his salvation but the fruit thereof. God works in those he saves to produce fruit or merit that proves his salvation, good works which God prepared in advance for us to do.)

Okay, I will accept your arguments.

However, I would still say that mankind is responsible for his rejection of Christ because he is able to make a decision for Christ (at such a time that he is being drawn to Christ).

If he is not able to make a decision for Christ, then he is not responsible / accountable for a decision to reject Christ.

You wrote:

Correct. Because the late Mitch Cervinka, a staunch Calvinist, explained it best, I will simply quote him (all emphases mine):

Another argument commonly raised in support of free will is that God cannot hold man responsible to do what is right if the man has no ability to do what is right. This argument likewise confuses free will with free agency. It is generally true that in order to be responsible a man must have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. Calvinism fully confesses that fallen men have the physical strength to keep God's commandments and the mental capacity to understand what God's commands require of them. In fact, this is the very reason why unregenerate men often react so violently against God's word—they do understand what it says, and they don't like it!

The problem with fallen man is not in his physical abilities, nor in his mental capacity to understand. Rather, man's problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness—and this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness.

.So I assume that your position is not that the non-elect cannot come to Christ; but that he will not come to Christ.

Since that is the case; and it is also a valid interpretation of John 12:32 that Christ draws all men to Himself without exception,

I would say that in being drawn to Christ, that "will not" is being dealt with; so that the person being drawn is given an opportunity to turn his "will not" into a "will do"...

In being drawn to Christ, he is faced with hell as the consequence for continuing to reject the Lordship of Jesus and deliverance from sin that He offers to him.

And this is a strong motivation for him to say "yes" to the Lordship of Christ.

Is he also capable at this juncture of saying "no" to Christ? He most certainly can!

It may be that his love of sin is greater than the drawing power of Christ in that particular instance.

God will exert His drawing power only to the extent that it will produce free will in the man (for where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom, 2 Corinthians 3:17); but Christ will not overpower the man so that he has no choice but to receive Christ.

He is a gentleman (Revelation 3:20).

Even Pharaoh, when he was faced with overwhelming evidence of YHWH's power, God hardened his heart so that he would be able to continue in the choice that he had always made about YHWH. Could Pharaoh have chosen YHWH? he might have done so because the hardening of his heart was only enough to counteract the effect of the overwhelming evidence that was before him; so that always Pharaoh had a free will decision that was placed in front of him. Pharaoh, in being drawn to Christ, was able to make an unhindered decision for or against Christ; however, this decision would not be overtly affected by the miracles that he saw coming from YHWH's hand. So God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that Pharaoh would be able to make his decision from the standpoint of having free will and not because he could not help but believe for that he saw overwhelming evidence of YHWH's power.

 

[Arial]

However, you have not shown that being drawn to Christ guarantees being given to Christ.

Jesus showed it in John 6. He shows it again in John 10



2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”




24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

LISTEN TO HIM!! Why do you kick against the goads?

 

[Arial]

There have been cases of men who denied Christ after having ministered the gospel for many years. One of them even worked closely with Billy Graham.

That is meaningless because it is hearsay and neither you or anyone else knows what was in the man's heart, or what kind of clothing he was wearing---that of a sheep or that of a wolf in sheep's clothing. If one is not one of Christ's sheep, no amount of ministering the gospel will penetrate their heart. They may spout all the right words but they do not believe.

 

[Arial]

Where does it say, once forgiven, always forgiven?

I think that that may apply to soil type #4;

but as for soil type #2, he is clearly forgiven (because he believes) and is a living plant.

You do not believe what is said to you because you cannot hear it. That is why you keep asking people to do what they have already done for you. I covered that twice for you. Others have covered it for you.

 

[Arial]

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/my-testimony-justbyfaith.204/post-46790

That is your testimony. I am asking about Jesus---what did He do that makes the remission of sin possible? Get you eyes on Christ for once instead of yourself.

 

[justbyfaith]

Jesus showed it in John 6. He shows it again in John 10



2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”




24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

LISTEN TO HIM!! Why do you kick against the goads?

None of that proves that all those who are drawn to Christ are also given to Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

That is meaningless because it is hearsay and neither you or anyone else knows what was in the man's heart, or what kind of clothing he was wearing---that of a sheep or that of a wolf in sheep's clothing. If one is not one of Christ's sheep, no amount of ministering the gospel will penetrate their heart. They may spout all the right words but they do not believe.

Right. I believe that he affirmed that he believed that he was saved / born again. Yet, he didn't endure to the end.

So, he was never saved in the first place?

 

[justbyfaith]

You do not believe what is said to you because you cannot hear it. That is why you keep asking people to do what they have already done for you. I covered that twice for you. Others have covered it for you.

And I have covered it for you, and shown you clearly in scripture, that a person may be forgiven for a season and yet not be of the elect.

Here, I'll do it again.

Luk 8:13, They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

Act 10:43, To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission (forgiveness) of sins.

Because I believe that you agreed with me when I said that only soil type #4 is of the elect.

And above, it speaks of soil type #2 as being forgiven.

 

[Arial]

Right. I believe that he affirmed that he believed that he was saved / born again. Yet, he didn't endure to the end.

So, he was never saved in the first place?

I don't care what you believe about it. It is meaningless and does not create a fact.

We find within the Bible whether or not he ever believed in His heart by the fact that he did not endure to the end. And the Bible says all those who believe in the Christ of the Bible have eternal life and no one can take them out of His hands. Eternal life is what? Eternal. Not life or death or-----anything. Also you do not know what the rejecting was----was it a season of doubt that he endured and then came back? Is he dead? If he is not no one can say he did not endure to the end.

How do you know you will endure to the end?

 

[justbyfaith]

That is your testimony. I am asking about Jesus---what did He do that makes the remission of sin possible? Get you eyes on Christ for once instead of yourself.

That is a very basic question and the answer ought to be known by anyone who claims to be a Christian.

I feel that you are insulting my intelligence in that you have even asked it.

But the answer is, that He died on the Cross for our sins.

Even the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15).