Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and John 6:37

[Arial]

If faith is not the cause of regeneration then a person can be regenerated apart from faith.

You will never understand this unless you stop overlaying your presuppositions on it! Faith is an integral part of regeneration It is what we are regenerated to.How can faith come first if our hearts are hard as stone? John 3 tells us that the Spirit causes the rebirth. Eph 2 tells us that God Himself via the Holy Spirit brings us to spiritual life when we are dead in our sins. Other places Paul tells us that without the Spirit we cannot understand spiritual things, they are foolishness to us, so how are we to understand the things contained in faith in order to spark out own regeneration? Jesus tells us that without regeneration we cannot even see (understand or come near) the kingdom of God and cannot inherit it.

However, the Bible teaches that there is something that we must do in order to procure salvation (Acts 16:31, Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, Acts 2:38-39).

Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved---you and your household. If you believe in the Lord Jesus---you will be saved. Wording it using the word "if" is not changing truth for we all acknowledge that the Bible teaches that if you believe in the Lord Jesus you are saved. What it does not teach is that we procure or merit salvation so that passage could not be saying that. You make it and your statement deny that salvation is by grace when you say we do something to merit it or earn it, or deserve it. If it is any of those things, no matter how small or large, it is no longer grace.
Hosea 14:2 OT, old covenant, covenant of works.
Romans 10:9-13 If you say this shows we must do something in order to procure salvation you do not understand grace and believe in works salvation.
Acts 2:38-39 Procuring salvation? The very idea of procuring salvation has a bad smell to it.

 

[Arial]

@justbyfaith
Posts 52,53,54 are being deleted as will anymore like them in which to argue with admin off topic, and make requests of them they have no obligation to provide you with, even if it were possible. It is a rule violation and you are no exception to the rules.

 

[makesends]

Actually, I was attempting to unify the two of you...

Pointing out that you have differences so that you might be able to hash them out and come to a same conclusion.

I know that @brightfame52 is a Calvinist, as I have known him for some time.

If you are denying being a Calvinist, then I expect that you will be arguing for certain aspects of Arminiansim very soon (if you are going to be consistent).

No, I do not deny being Calvinistic, but I claim monergism, not Calvinism. As for @brightfame52 , I'm pretty sure he would identify as a Biblicist first, before Calvinist. But I don't know him well. My point is that we are not exactly representing Calvinism as such, but trying to give Bible.

No, I don't think you were trying to unify. You were trying to bend us over a barrel of your own making, whether you realized it or not, inventing a bogus question to trap one or the other or both of us. It seems to be in your nature to do this. Your questions seem to always presume false notions, where neither yes or no will suffice, but to validate your presumption. I will not play that.

 

[Josheb]

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.

That is not an answer to my question. I did not ask for a source others make out to be Calvinist. I asked if you'd read that in a Calvinist source and, if so, would you please provide that source. If you've got it then post it if. If not, then say so.

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...

No, they do not.

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

Revelation 22:17
The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.


The group referenced in Revelation 3:20 is already saved from sin. They are identified as members of the church in verse 14. The text is eschatological, not soteriological. The same metrics apply to those in Revelation 22:17. They are identified as the "bride"!!! Additionally, neither of the Revelation texts actually mention a choice. Nowhere in either chapter do the words "choose," "choice," "decide," or "decision" occur. The audience to whom the letter was addressed are members of the church, they are directed to overcome and expected to do so.

Joshua 24:15
"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."


This Old Testament text occurs AFTER the people being asked the question had already been chosen, after they'd already been called, after they'd already been redeemed, after they'd already been brought out of slavery, and after they'd already been brought to the promised land... AND everyone in that audience already believed in God! There wasn't an atheist among them. There wasn't a single person in the group living outside an already-existing relationship with God. Furthermore, the choosing, the calling, the redeeming, the removal from slavery, and the promise of the promised land and their being brought to the promised land was all monergistically decided before a single one of them was born. God had promised Abraham all of it would happen 400 years later.


So.....

Not a single one of these verses actually states what was claimed. None of the verses cited soteriologically prove "Being drawn, they are given an opportunity to receive Him." I will therefore extend one more opportunity to you to do what was asked and prove the claim, "Being drawn, they are given an opportunity to receive Him." Keep in mind you now know what to look for and what to avoid. Keep in mind an inference proves nothing. What is read into a text proves nothing because someone else might just as well read into the exact same text something entirely different.


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

 

[Josheb]

I need to get Debating Calvinism

No, you do not. That book is quite possibly THE worse book on Arminianism ever written. It's certainly the worst I have ever read. Hunt's arguments are sophomoric and his handling of scripture inept. I know Arminians who wish he'd never bothered to teach. Against White, it wasn't a fair fight. Try Roger Olsen. Or, if you're looking for a debate setting then give ear to the conversations White and Michael Brown have. Brown handles scripture much better than Hunt (although, imo, still flawed) and the two men discuss their differences with respect that draws the hearer into thought and self-examination.

Save your time and money and pass on White v Hunt.

 

[makesends]

I would say the same to you. It seems to me that it becomes the excuse in the secret mind of the Calvinist that he wanted to choose God but God wouldn't let him...therefore in his belief he places the responsibility for his condemnation squarely on God's shoulders in that he says that the choice is entirely up to God and that mankind has no choice in the matter of whether or not he is saved (I am addressing this as an issue of Calvinism whether you personally believe in it or not; since it is believed by Calvinists).

Why does it seem to you "that it becomes the excuse in the secret mind of the Calvinist that he wanted to choose God but God wouldn't let him..."? If I am a Calvinist, it is not because of Calvin nor Calvinism. I believe what I do because of Scripture and logic and personal experience and prayer.

First of all, your notion there would depend on Calvinism blaming God instead of crediting him, and to come to the doctrine of Predestination and Decree independently from all the other doctrines, since they immediately counter the notion that "God would not let me". It is not so. the whole point of view is off, though representative of your self-deterministic mindset. Second, the Calvinist doesn't say that man has no choice. They only say that God's regeneration of man is not done in consultation with nor by permission from the person being regenerated, and that the resulting yielding of the will to God is not the cause of God's choosing that person, but the result of it. Again, man's choice is the result, not the cause.

If God's predestination of a person does not prevail over anyone's decision to receive Christ, then the free will of man is a factor in whether or not a person is saved; and man's free will choice to receive Christ can be held as being the catalyst for his salvation.

 

[makesends]

Is God the First Cause of everything in your opinion?

Including rape, murder, and incest?

The first cause of all things, since all things result from first cause. Would you claim they happen by accident? Or did they happen by the perverse will of man and the perverse will of man happen by accident? Or the perverse will of man happen by Adam's disobedience and Adam's disobedience by accident? Chase the logic where it goes. to the end.

 

[Mr GLee]

Cant no one choose to come to Christ except they were chosen by God. Jn 6:44

44 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.

Yes a new creation is his work the faithful creator ."let there be" and "it is very good"

 

[makesends]

No, you do not. That book is quite possibly THE worse book on Arminianism ever written. It's certainly the worst I have ever read. Hunt's arguments are sophomoric and his handling of scripture inept. I know Arminians who wish he'd never bothered to teach. Against White, it wasn't a fair fight. Try Roger Olsen. Or, if you're looking for a debate setting then give ear to the conversations White and Michael Brown have. Brown handles scripture much better than Hunt (although, imo, still flawed) and the two men discuss their differences with respect that draws the hearer into thought and self-examination.

Save your time and money and pass on White v Hunt.

OH! Is that the book? Yeah, I have read it, or excerpts. I agree, it was no contest. In fact, I'm amazed at White's forbearance with several opponents, most lately the debate I watched with William Lane Craig on Molinism. At times it seemed White must have been half-asleep for not pouncing on and obliterating WLC.

 

[justbyfaith]

You insist that man is saved by an act of his will, contrary to scripture.

Not contrary to scripture (Romans 10:13).

 

[justbyfaith]

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.

Those that are drawn to Him will not necessarily come to Him (it is not guaranteed that they will come).

But those who are given to Him by the Father are guaranteed to come..

 

[justbyfaith]

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?

I would tell you that, yes, God is not the first cause of murder and rape and incest...but that He is the first cause of free will in His moral agents...and that this free will, as it is unjustly utilized, is the first cause of murder and rape and incest.

No, I am not being trollish in what I am saying to you; but I fear the reality that in pointing your finger at me, you have three fingers pointing back at you (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42). I would suggest searching your own heart; because any time we see a flaw in others, the same flaw is usually three times as real in our own lives.

 

[justbyfaith]

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.

But in your theology, a person is regenerated before they repent and / or come to Christ. How then is repentance / coming to Christ, necessary to regeneration?

 

[justbyfaith]

Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved---you and your household. If you believe in the Lord Jesus---you will be saved. Wording it using the word "if" is not changing truth for we all acknowledge that the Bible teaches that if you believe in the Lord Jesus you are saved. What it does not teach is that we procure or merit salvation so that passage could not be saying that. You make it and your statement deny that salvation is by grace when you say we do something to merit it or earn it, or deserve it. If it is any of those things, no matter how small or large, it is no longer grace.
Hosea 14:2 OT, old covenant, covenant of works.
Romans 10:9-13 If you say this shows we must do something in order to procure salvation you do not understand grace and believe in works salvation.
Acts 2:38-39 Procuring salvation? The very idea of procuring salvation has a bad smell to it.

I would suggest reading the verses in question on a regular basis until their meaning reaches your heart.

The Bible teaches merited favour (1 Peter 3:12, Proverbs 12:2).

It is still not salvation by works.

 

[justbyfaith]

No, I do not deny being Calvinistic, but I claim monergism, not Calvinism. As for @brightfame52 , I'm pretty sure he would identify as a Biblicist first, before Calvinist. But I don't know him well. My point is that we are not exactly representing Calvinism as such, but trying to give Bible.

No, I don't think you were trying to unify. You were trying to bend us over a barrel of your own making, whether you realized it or not, inventing a bogus question to trap one or the other or both of us. It seems to be in your nature to do this. Your questions seem to always presume false notions, where neither yes or no will suffice, but to validate your presumption. I will not play that.

If you cannot unify by coming to an agreement about the topic in question then of course my goal in pointing out your differences will not come to fruition.

And I think that you insult me by saying that I have ulterior motives other than what I have proclaimed to you to be my motives.

And also, the concept that the two of you seem to be in disagreement about is not a "bogus question".

 

[justbyfaith]

That is not an answer to my question. I did not ask for a source others make out to be Calvinist. I asked if you'd read that in a Calvinist source and, if so, would you please provide that source. If you've got it then post it if. If not, then say so.

No, they do not.

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

Revelation 22:17
The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.


The group referenced in Revelation 3:20 is already saved from sin. They are identified as members of the church in verse 14. The text is eschatological, not soteriological. The same metrics apply to those in Revelation 22:17. They are identified as the "bride"!!! Additionally, neither of the Revelation texts actually mention a choice. Nowhere in either chapter do the words "choose," "choice," "decide," or "decision" occur. The audience to whom the letter was addressed are members of the church, they are directed to overcome and expected to do so.

Joshua 24:15
"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."


This Old Testament text occurs AFTER the people being asked the question had already been chosen, after they'd already been called, after they'd already been redeemed, after they'd already been brought out of slavery, and after they'd already been brought to the promised land... AND everyone in that audience already believed in God! There wasn't an atheist among them. There wasn't a single person in the group living outside an already-existing relationship with God. Furthermore, the choosing, the calling, the redeeming, the removal from slavery, and the promise of the promised land and their being brought to the promised land was all monergistically decided before a single one of them was born. God had promised Abraham all of it would happen 400 years later.


So.....

Not a single one of these verses actually states what was claimed. None of the verses cited soteriologically prove "Being drawn, they are given an opportunity to receive Him." I will therefore extend one more opportunity to you to do what was asked and prove the claim, "Being drawn, they are given an opportunity to receive Him." Keep in mind you now know what to look for and what to avoid. Keep in mind an inference proves nothing. What is read into a text proves nothing because someone else might just as well read into the exact same text something entirely different.


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

You misquoted Revelation 22:17.

Rev 22:17, And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

 

[Josheb]

OH! Is that the book? Yeah, I have read it, or excerpts. I agree, it was no contest. In fact, I'm amazed at White's forbearance with several opponents,

Hunt is known among some as an "apologist." I point that out because he's NOT a theologian. This is one of the reasons the White/Hunt "debate" wasn't fair. White is well-educated (at least two doctorates), very intelligent, and very practiced. It is akin to the proverbial bring a knife to a gun fight (except White has a Howitzer and is trained to use it). Hunt wrote a book titled, "What Love is This?" that is recognized on both sides of the debate as grossly misrepresentative of Calvin and Calvinism. Anyone who has read White's arguments with Hunt KNOWS a few things about Hunt. First, his debate with White came more than a decade prior to "What Love is This?" so Hunt knew what Calvinism teaches and he went ahead and said things he knew were false. That makes him a liar, not simply an ideologue devoted to his doctrine in ignorance of what others teach.

Now, personally, and partly because I was not educated when I came to Christ and am now very educated, I do not hold Mr. Hunt's lack of education against him. Many great teachers and writers in Christian history were uneducated. He has a degree from UCLA but it is not in any religious area of study. If memory serves me correctly, it's in business or accounting. Hunt is what we might call a "layman's apologist."

One last curiosity. Hunt is a subscriber to Eternal Security, or the Perseverance of the Saints, the "P" in TULIP, but he rejects the necessity of Calvinism to hold that view. That makes him a "one-pointer," but it places his pint at the exact opposite end of Arminius. Arminius subscribed to the doctrine we now call "Total Depravity," the "T" in TULIP. Hunt explained he was trying to take a "middle ground" approach that was neither Calvinist or Arminian in "What Love is This?" Hunt is generally considered Arminian, but he argued against Total Depravity in "What Love...?" so he is NOT truly Arminian. At best he is Provisionist and at worst he is Pelagian (although that may be a difference without distinction). He had no business representing Arminianism in the debate with White (and that probably explains why he did such a poor job). Sadly, Flowers' Provisionism is beginning to influence even Arminians like Olson.

most lately the debate I watched with William Lane Craig on Molinism. At times it seemed White must have been half-asleep for not pouncing on and obliterating WLC.

Well, he's getting old (but not nearly as old as Hunt). I suspect White's reserved appearance is because he truly endeavors to show his "opponents" respect. I've never heard him be rancorous or insulting. He can be blunt and his reasoning unyielding but he's not disrespectful.


Two last notes: White is Reformed Baptist, not Presbyterian or Anglican, so he comes to his Calvinism through a more evangelical vein. White is also a theonomist, but not quite like the Reconstructionists. Which, I suppose brings me to a third point that just occurred to me. Gary Demar (of American Vision) wrote a book in response to Hunt titled, "The Reduction of Christianity" and Demar is not very forbearing. He can be quite vicious. You might be able to find a pdf of it online.

 

[makesends]

But in your theology, a person is regenerated before they repent and / or come to Christ. How then is repentance / coming to Christ, necessary to regeneration?

Where did I say they are "necessary to regeneration"? They are necessarily a result of regeneration. You didn't say what they are necessary to, nor what you meant.

 

[makesends]

I would tell you that, yes, God is not the first cause of murder and rape and incest...but that He is the first cause of free will in His moral agents...and that this free will, as it is unjustly utilized, is the first cause of murder and rape and incest.

No, I am not being trollish in what I am saying to you; but I fear the reality that in pointing your finger at me, you have three fingers pointing back at you (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42). I would suggest searching your own heart; because any time we see a flaw in others, the same flaw is usually three times as real in our own lives.

He is the first cause of all fact. If he is the first cause of free will, and free will is the main cause of rape and murder, then he is the first cause of them too. No cause came before him. How much more obvious can it be?

 

[makesends]

If you cannot unify by coming to an agreement about the topic in question then of course my goal in pointing out your differences will not come to fruition.

He and I agree. Read what we both say. He says words to the effect that one has no choice in his salvation. I am a monergist. That we differ on how we took your meaning in a badly stated question does not divide us. But what you want is like a political party of the last many years, who by "unity" mean, agreement with your terms.

And I think that you insult me by saying that I have ulterior motives other than what I have proclaimed to you to be my motives.

And also, the concept that the two of you seem to be in disagreement about is not a "bogus question".