Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and John 6:37

[makesends]

However, do you have any logical reasoning that refutes what I have been saying?

Because if you don't, then your saying that I am looking at it backwards is a subjective thing; I can just as accurately say the same thing about you.

Many logical reasons, besides logical use of Scripture, even. Here's probably the simplest, if not the grandest: If God is God, he is First Cause. All else results of his causing it to be so. God's intention first, the choice of the creature WAY WAY down the road of time and causation.

 

[justbyfaith]

No one can come to Christ unless they were chosen to. It has to be given them Jn 6:65

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

You can contend all you want, it dont mean nothing !

Being given to Jesus by the Father is not the same thing as being drawn to Jesus by the Father.

A person being drawn is given an opportunity for regeneration but it is not guaranteed to them.

If a person receives Jesus as Lord and Saviour, they are given to Jesus by the Father.

Being drawn, they are given an opportunity to receive Him.

 

[Josheb]

Being drawn, they are given an opportunity to receive Him.

Prove it.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, you would contend that. Regeneration comes before what you are describing, unless simultaneous with, or even being itself the effectual drawing. To "come to" Christ is not described in the passage to be an act of the will, but yet, to be one of faith. This is not a riddle: the faith is the work of the Spirit of God in the regenerated believer, and is the only way to be saved.

Again I say, if a person is regenerated before coming to Christ, then coming to Christ isn't necessary.

That is a dangerous heresy.

 

[justbyfaith]

Many logical reasons, besides logical use of Scripture, even. Here's probably the simplest, if not the grandest: If God is God, he is First Cause. All else results of his causing it to be so. God's intention first, the choice of the creature WAY WAY down the road of time and causation.

Is God the First Cause of everything in your opinion?

Including rape, murder, and incest?

 

[justbyfaith]

Prove it.

John 6:44.

 

[Josheb]

I have discovered through being banned a few times that any thorough refutation of hyper-Calvinism is a forbidden topic here.

How do you define, "Hyper-Calvinism"?

According to your post history, you've got at least seven ops in the Arm & Cal board, and I don't see any evidence anything was "forbidden."

 

[Josheb]

I would give as my primary argument, that if Calvinism (or hyper-Calvinism) has...

Which is it? Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism? The two are not identical and when you conflate the two you are the one who is wrong, not others.

 

[Josheb]

I will say that my contention in this post, in particular, has to do, not with a refutation of Calvinism, but with a contention that I have with it.................

Which is, that if Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election be true, then there are those who are not included in the Limited Atonement, who are not included in it as the result of God's free will choice (Ephesians 1:11) and that they do not have a choice in the matter of whether they will be saved but it is based entirely on His choice (Unconditional Election).

What does that have to do specifically with hyper-Calvinism?

 

[Josheb]

Now, it seems to me that this creates a problem from time's perspective.

Because, if a person comes to God based on His Unconditional Election, he will find that if God has not chosen him...........

No, he won't. If he was unconditionally chosen, then God has chosen him. Your argument is A = not-A. The individual in question cannot be bot A and not-A; he cannot be both chosen and not-chosen.

And what does that have to do specifically with hyper Calvinism?

 

[Josheb]

But I want to deal with the misconception that may come up when a person is introduced to Calvinistic theology, that a person may be found unable to come to Christ over the fact that he is of the non-elect. (No one knows whether they are of the elect until they make a decision to come to Christ.)

If that is what you truly want to deal with then ditch the rest and ask that question, and ask it with some semblance of sincere interst in knowing and understanding the answer and not a pre-existing prejudice.

The reality is that if anyone comes to Christ, it is the proof that he is of the elect!

No, that is not "the reality." Red herrings and straw men are never reality.

The reality is that if anyone comes to Christ, it is the proof that he is of the elect!

That is a post hoc argument. Have you ever read a noted Calvinist say a person coming to Christ is proof of his election? If so, I would like to read that for myself.

• If the horse comes to water and drinks it is proof the horse was dehydrated.
• If the horse comes to the water and drinks it is proof he drinks only from that source of water
• If the horse is brought to the water and drinks it is proof he chose to do so.
• If the horse chooses to come to the water and drink it is proof someone made him do so.

Bad op. Void of reason (and its terms are not defined).

 

[Josheb]

Being drawn, they are given an opportunity to receive Him.

Prove it.

John 6:44.

Let's take a look.

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.

I read no mention of choice. None is stated. None is implied. What is stated is that the one who comes was sent and will be raised. No mention of any "opportunity to receive him". None. What the verse states is no one CAN come unless sent. Logically, that would preclude anyone from coming who was not sent. Not sent? CANNOT come.

Try again.

Prove being drawn, they are given an opportunity to receive him.

 

[justbyfaith]

Have you ever read a noted Calvinist say a person coming to Christ is proof of his election?

I would suppose that you are of the type who would attempt to say that Paul the apostle was a noted Calvinist.

There, you have your answer.

For he wrote,

Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10, For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11, For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12, For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[justbyfaith]

Let's take a look.

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.

I read no mention of choice. None is stated. None is implied. What is stated is that the one who comes was sent and will be raised. No mention of any "opportunity to receive him". None. What the verse states is no one CAN come unless sent. Logically, that would preclude anyone from coming who was not sent. Not sent? CANNOT come.

Try again.

Prove being drawn, they are given an opportunity to receive him.

Alright, I'll try again. (the verse in question addressed a different aspect of your question).

Try Revelation 3:20, Revelation 22:17, Joshua 24:15.

These verses show that there is a choice involved; and, in conjunction with John 6:44, can be said to substantiate that a person can come to Christ if the Father does draw him; and that therefore the person has an opportunity to receive Christ; even a decision to be made about Him, when drawn to Christ.

 

[makesends]

I would contend that when a person is drawn to Christ, he is enabled to come to Christ and all hindrances are removed.

Then you have described regeneration, because you said all hindrances are removed.

But that being drawn to Christ does not = being regenerated.

The person drawn to Christ is given an opportunity to receive Jesus as Lord and Saviour; and if he so receives Jesus he will then be regenerated.

You insist that man is saved by an act of his will, contrary to scripture. By grace through faith. That is the gift of God; the will of man follows, not leads.

 

[Arial]

Jhn 6:44, (1) No man can come to me, except (2) the Father which hath sent me draw him: (3) and I will raise him up at the last day.

I would say that (3) us in reference to (1) and not necessarily in reference to (2).

When Jesus says, "I will raise him up at the last day", he is referring to those who come to Him and not necessarily those who are drawn to Him.

Those that are drawn to Him are the ones that come to Him and they are the same ones who are raised up at the last day. There is no other legitimate way to read that scripture. You are trying to make it fit what you want to believe it says and the way you do so makes no sense at all. No one CAN come to Him. Unless the Father draws them. Besides later He says no one can come to Him unless it is granted him by the Father. And He also says it is the ones God gives Him that come to Him, explaining why they didn't believe.

 

[makesends]

You know, in your theology, whether or not He condemns you is entirely up to God.

What makes you think He won't condemn you?

Who said he won't condemn me? I don't think he will, because his Spirit witnesses to my spirit (or so it seems to me) that I am a child of God. My condemnation (or the removal of it) is no longer my prime concern. I long to see his face, to know him as I am known, to see in person his infinite joy and delight in what he has done.

And no, in my theology all are subsumed under frustration and condemned to death, though, yes, by God's decree. But that is the default state of man. They are going to hell. And all continue to pursue that track, condemned because they do not believe, going there to pay eternally for their own choices made, according to their very nature, to rebel against God. The course is interrupted when God changes their nature, not until God changes their nature, and only IF God changes their nature. They have desire for relief from their slavery, perhaps, but not for God, but for themselves. That is still rebellion. And this they will do, fooling themselves, until he regenerates them.

Because in Calvinism God saves some and condemns others based solely on His free will choice.

What does the Bible say is the reason anyone is condemned? 'Condemns' is not the right word there. The phrase you need is "decrees their condemnation" or "decrees their reprobation". God's choice is based solely on his use of them, which includes a whole lot more besides their condemnation. God doesn't invent a pool of people from which to choose. God creates each individual for God's purposes.

What makes you think that you are going to fall on His good side?

Because there are certainly some people whom He will condemn.

Because his Spirit witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God. And if you question is, might I not be fooling myself? —Yes, indeed I can do that.

But the question is not where do I fall out in this matter, but who decides it.

 

[makesends]

So, God is behind the murderer and rapist?

There you go, trollishly using words to make it sound like predestination and decree blames God. I credit God for his intent in causing that there be rape and murder. Is that the worst you can come up with? Are you going to tell me that God did not intend that Satan fall and that Adam disobey and that all humanity be subjected to frustration? What was it —an accident?

 

[makesends]

There are two books (well more than two but I mention two as I have been going over them again recently) that if you have not read, your might enjoy. They give insight into exactly what the mindset is and the complete illogic of it and the blindness of those who have built an image of God they can handle to hear anything else. Both are by James White.
The Potter's Freedom and Debating Calvinism. The first deals with Norman Geisler's book Chosen But Free, the second a debate between White and David Hunt.

I've read Potter's Freedom. I need to get Debating Calvinism —well, both, since I can't find Potter's Freedom. I love James White, though sometimes talking with him —at least in public— can be pretty intimidating

 

[makesends]

Again I say, if a person is regenerated before coming to Christ, then coming to Christ isn't necessary.

That is a dangerous heresy.

The Calvinists, Reformed, and I all insist that the regenerated WILL come to Christ. You may as well say that we don't believe repenting is necessary either. You would be just as wrong.

You continue to put the cart before the horse. You want eternity to hinge on YOUR decision, and not on God's.