CALVINISM- 'Why I Am Not A 5 Point Calvinist' - By Dr. Norman Geisler (8 OF 9)

[wagsbass]

this is awesome. Thanks for uploading

[mcfirefly3]

Judgement220 says that "the doctrine of election teaches" that we have nothing to do with our salvation, but since we are told to receive it, that cannot be true. The Calvinist doctrine of election teaches that, but it usn't the Biblical one.

[mcfirefly3]

Could it really be true that a true believer should be willing to go to hell to give God the glory? Doesn't it glorify God more to receive Christ's death on the cross so we might be saved? Isn't it humbler to receive it?

[metanoeo1]

His point is contradictory on Rom. 9:13. God chose the nation of Israel and hated Edom. He says "hate" means simply to "love less." How could God possibly love a nation less if God is love as he quoted earlier. God is also just.

[apollos6640]

Dr Geisler calls himself a "Moderate Calvinist"-- anyform of Calvinism outside of "Hyper Calvinism" is Inconsistent Calvinism, so you're bound to see gaps or contradictions.

[Judgement220]

Why did Dr. Norman Geisler quoted Romans 9:11 by quoting Romans 9:13. Could this be a mistake? I don't think so because Romans 9:11 says

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)"

This verse is called "Unconditional Election", Dr. Geisler "willingly" quoted Rom 9:13 instead of 9:11. They guy is in denial I must say.

[shteve77]

@Judgement220 God didn't elect Jacob to salvation and Esau to be condemned. Read the whole verse in context with the whole chapter and the quotes from the old testament. God chose Jacob to be the one that the line of the Messiah would come through, not Esau. It is clearly talking about 2 nations. You read election & assume it means election to salvation. It was election to a specific blessing, namely to be the one who would be chosen through whom the Messiah would be born & all nations blessed.

[Judgement220]

@shteve77 You say that Rom 9 is the election for a specific blessing. Then tell me why Paul in Rom 9 mentions Wrath, Destruction, Glory, and Mercy. Paul is clearly referring to Salvation and Condemnation So you are clearly in denial too!

You are in denial because the Doctrine of Election teaches that salvation is totally beyond YOUR control, but in the hands of God, and your scared.

A true believer's attitude should be that he should be willing to Go to hell to give God all the glory.

[shteve77]

@Judgement220 In Romans 9:5 Paul says "Theirs are the patriarchs, and FROM THEM IS TRACED THE HUMAN ANCESTRY of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."

Then let's look at the verse you quoted, because Paul actually quotes from Genesis25 in Romans9:12. "not by works but by him who calls—she was told, [quote]'The older will serve the younger.'.

So let's look at the verse He quoted from in Genesis 25.....cont...

[shteve77]

@Judgement220 ....Genesis 25:23 where he quotes from "The LORD said to her, 'TWO NATIONS are in your womb, & two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.'"

He then says AS IT IS WRITTEN and quotes from Mal1, which is clearly talking about Edom(Esau) & Israel(Jacob).

This is all about God electing one brother to become the nation in which the Messiah would be born from. Not electing one to salvation.

[Judgement220]

@shteve77 you said: "his is all about God electing one brother to become the nation in which the Messiah would be born from. Not electing one to salvation."

Sure he was talking about electing one to salvation because Paul quotes Isaiah 10:22

"Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED" Rom 9:27

Again, you must read according to the context Paul quoting on scripture. You are in denial Clearly.

[paladores]

@rockertmx1 well, no man is like God besides the fact that we are made in His image and any characteristics we would share are from the Holy Spirit inside. I also agree that the rape thing was weird and i'm not sure about that argument, I mean in general though marriage is used as a metaphor for our relationship with God, whether you happen to be male or female.

[rockertmx1]

I disagree with his comparison of a man (husband) to God. The "love" between a man and woman cannot be compared to God's love. I don't consider myself an extreme Calvinist, but I think many of Geisler's arguments are weak.

[paladores]

@rockertmx1 if you don't believe that God's is related to the love between a husband and wife, you don't believe the Bible to be blunt. That comparison is made many times throughout the scriptures. Eph 5, the book of Hosea, Song of Solomon. The church is called the bride of Christ. God desires intimate relationship with his people. This is not a sexual kind of love, but a perfect love.

[rockertmx1]

@paladores I disagree because not every man is like God. Maybe the woman has more character than the man asking her to marry him. I disagree with him comparing God's love with RAPE, when in fact he doesn't necessarily know if the point that he is arguing against is true or not. No one knows for sure.

[rbmath]

RE: Nations... Dr. Norman Geisler what about Rom 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad... RE:Loved less... PLEASE SHOW THIS IN THE CONTEXT ROMANS Chapter 9.. it does NOT EXIST.. The Divinely Inspired word is G3404 μισέω miseō; from μῖσος misos (hatred); to hate: - hate (13), hated (12), hateful (1), hates (12), hating (2)... It CANNOT mean "love less". another example of eisegesis to suit his views..

[rbmath]

RE:given a chance to respond: QUESTION: HOW Dr. Norman Geisler when the bible teaches people are dead in sins, slaves to sin, hostile to God, cannot understand the things of God, and have a deceitful heart and need to be born again..

[philipatoz]

Paul also doesn't say that men have no excuse because they reject Jesus (although this is also true), but that he says of the heathen ignorant of Christ, they perish because they have already rejected the light God has ALREADY given them - the very same knowledge ALL men have of God and His attributes, due to the General Revelation from Scripture. Clearly, anyone who responded to this General Revelation and wants to know more, He WILL (somehow) be faithful to provide it!

[Amhlair]

If I'm all devoted and all loving to my 4 year old, does that mean if I stop her from reaching for a flame I am coercing her? This is the part I would love someone to explain: yes our God loves us and doesn't want to coerce us to eternal salvation. But we are not all knowing or aware of eternal consequences, are we? So how does our God allow us to make 'bad choices' out of our ignorance?

.

[RomansGalatians]

@Amhlair Right Amhlair, benevolent violence is morally good even among people. Even among non-parent/child relationships. I think of John Wayne punching out his hysterical Army buddy who's about to jump out of the fox hole and charge the enemy.

How much less a moral issue for our Almighty Creator, who owns the whole universe, including our very soul. He is just in doing whatever in the world He wants with His property!

[DoctorTopper]

@Amhlair I dare you to think about the likelihood of never hearing about consequences for sin, or karma or even of the consequences of defying a mythical sprite in any world religion.

All cultures have a religion that atheists at least hear about, & all religions retain at least some of what the true living God revealed to our common ancestors "SO THAT THEY HAVE NO EXCUSE"

[philipatoz]

@Doctor, so true - note what Paul DOESN'T say - he doesn't say men perish because God didn't equip them ABLE to respond positively to Him (He reaches to ALL He foreknows will respond POSITIVELY, but who also must have HIS help to do so. ALL are born able to freely/positively respond to God, but He doesn't enable belief in those whom He foreknows, no matter how much He might help them, still would not do such.) You don't give a million dollars to a man you foreknow will throw it in the river!

[blainer19er]

Correction: Read Romans 9:10-13 for context on Romans 9:13. Go ahead and read Romans 10-13, and the rest of Romans while you're at it. Actually, go ahead and read the whole Bible! I highly recommend it.

[blainer19er]

But God IS talking about the individuals! Read Romans 10-13 to get the actual context of Romans 9:13. Indeed God didn't "hate" Esau in the way the english language suggests, but loved less, or loved differently. God loves the elect differently. Proof? If Jesus loved all individuals the same, he would have prayed for all individuals in the garden before his betrayal. Check out John 17.

[blainer19er]

God didn't force Jonah to prophecy to Nineveh! Jonah was completely willing when God commanded him to go! It's not like God used extraordinary methods to change Jonah's heart to do His will... did He?

[DoctorTopper]

@blainer19er No, God used extraordinary methods. But if God just took control of Johah's heart like a puppet, then Jonah's technically wouldn't love God at all.

God didn't create puppets that He makes some of us "love" Him. God created individuals in His image. Even when we are in darkness, we have the power to choose.

God doesn't choose for us, he wants us to decide of ourselves that we love Him, because that's what love IS

[RomansGalatians]

Calvinists do not contend that God violates the will of man. We say that God changes the heart of man (which only the Creator can do). Then, the will, being a fruit of the condition of the heart, chooses Christ. Being born again is like being re-created.

So was it cosmic rape when God created us in the first place? He didn't even ask our permission or input. Man, I would have chosen to be taller!

[CBALLEN]

Everyone needs to read this artcle....Jesuit-trained Evangelical Leader President Norman L. Geisler's Role in Destroying Evangelical Christianity in America. written by By Rick Friedrich, Jan. 1 2008:

[msb0000]

@CBALLEN - Dr. Geisler has done more for the Kingdom of God than James White ever will.

[CBALLEN]

@msb0000 He certainly has confused a lot of people on this issue,no matter what he's done in other areas.

[msb0000]

@CBALLEN - only to Calvinists - to those of us who are non-Calvinists, it's the plain reading of the Scriptures.

[sketchbook1]

@msb0000

...only if God wills it! :)

[philipatoz]

@CBALLEN, What a DUMB comment - and about as arrogant and as IGNORANT a statement as anyone could EVER make about Geisler! Do you not know that MOST Calvinist theologians have MUCH good to say about Geisler, and respect him immensely, with accolades over his books on OTHER subjects. Calvinist theologians just disagree with Geisler over THIS issue. EVEN James White, likely Geisler's most strident Calvinist critic, had Geisler write liner notes for his book, "The King James Only Controversy."

[CBALLEN]

@philipatoz Geisler is a Jesuit,do some research before taking his side.

[philipatoz]

@CBALLEN, very disingenuous of you to try discrediting Geisler by linking him to Roman Catholicism. You DO realize that Geisler has thoroughly debunked and long attacked the many false teachings of Catholicism, RIGHT? You have read his books "Is Rome the True Church?: A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim" and "Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences" - haven't you? Let me guess, you HAVE NOT! Anyone reading these books will know just how false your statement is!

[CBALLEN]

@philipatoz Check out where he went to college,it's a Jesuit school.Satan comes as an angel of light,DO NOT BE DECEIVED!

[philipatoz]

@CBALLEN, so WHAT where he went to college! So now you're trying to tie Geisler's views today to his earliest understandings as a young man of 20 or so - over 50 years ago? Some of the greatest Christian apologists were ATHEISTS in their 20s. Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobels. Yet you state YOU changed YOUR early theological understandings. And Geisler has well-refuted all classic Roman Catholic heresies. Evangelicals STRONGLY support his views! But you haven't read his books, HAVE YOU?

[zeph317]

GREAT points Sketchbook1! It sure seems that Calvinists evade such clear teachings and go right to their few, twisted passages! Quite frustrating! They are so hell bent on equating "work" with words such as "acceptance", "receiving" or ask, etc. Yet when you look into what works is REALLY referring to, you will never see such verbage! You see eating ceremonial foods, circumcision, attending church, baptism, communion, etc. Such are works that do not save! Geisler explains this quite well!

[MrHawklan]

The world hates GOD. But God loves the world and wishes for them to repent and COME BACK to him.

Everyone has a choice, even Paul (aka Saul), if Paul even after being blinded (by Christ) refused to come to Jesus, he would have been blind till he died. He was a killer of Christians, he hunted, tortured them. I'm sure the Christians would have been praying to God for justice on this guy. Thats when Christ came and whack him over and told him to do he's work. Guess what he accepted and was changed

[CBALLEN]

Romans 9 says it plain,the difficulty Arminians have with it is,they have trouble twisting it.If you use nations,then that means He hated the whole nation of people since nations are a group of people.God hates sinner and sin,so I guess God just loves sinners and sin less than righteousness.The sinners go to Hell BTW.

[apollos6640]

God cannot MAKE you love him. Love is a commitment, not an emotion. Its a contradiction in terms. Romans 1:18 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who BY THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS SUPPRESS THE TRUTH. 19 For what CAN be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them."

[rkg62976]

Rom.9:13-- Dr. Geisler says, "he's not talking about the individual Jacob and Esau before they were born" (4:20).

Dr. Geisler looses so much credibility when he misrepresents Rom.9. Go back to v.11, "For the children BEING NOT YET BORN, NEITHER HAVING DONE ANY GOOD OR EVIL..."

I don't understand how anyone who actually studies the Scriptures can listen to this man's presentation and take it seriously.

[Sanctum85]

I am a Calvinist by conviction from scripture alone.

[cjk9013]

This argument will go on until the end of time. You Calivinists better come up with better responses to the established fact that God loves all men and WILLS that non perish....

[rkg62976]

Calvinists are willing to engage in exegesis of any text Arminians attempt to insert their own presuppositions into. It's just that Arminians will not listen to what we have to say. They would rather hold to their own traditions.

Where does the Bible say God loves "all men"? Where does it say that God "wills that none perish"? (Remember, 2Pet.3:9 is addressed to believers, not unbelievers). Read the preceding verses. Notice the difference between "they" and "us"?

[cjk9013]

You have already been shown many scriptures and rather than take them at face value, your views cause you to force them into your mold. The world means the whole world in these scriptures, all also means all: John 1:28, 3:14-16; 1Jn.2:1, 1Tim.2:1-6, 2Pet.2:1

Why do you insist on going in circles?

[rkg62976]

What does the word "world" mean in Jn.17:9?

And I have shown that the word "world" in most of these passages does NOT mean every single human being.  Sometimes "world" has an ethnological connotation: meaning non-Jewish Christians; and sometimes it has an eschatological meaning: meaning the very creation itself, especially relating to its original Edenic glory--a state in which it will once again return.

[cjk9013]

The term "world", unless identified otherwise, typically means just that. This is evidently the case here: the world means the whole world (all human beings). And what do you say?

[rkg62976]

If I'm not mistaken, "Strong's Concordance" lists about seven different usages for the word "kosmos" (world). Sometimes it means the whole of the universe, including the earth (Mt.13:35; Acts.17:24; Rom.1:20).

In Jas.3:6 the "tongue" is the "world of iniquity".

Sometimes the "world" means Gentiles as distinguished from Jews (Rom.11:12,15).

And sometimes it is a substitution word for the "whole of mankind" (Mt.5:14; Jn.1:9,10).

Again, context is important.

[cjk9013]

Amen rkg. I do not dispute that there are different usages it. However, Calvinists often run into trouble with it if it goes against their presumption that Christ's blood was not shed for the sins of the whole world. At that point, they are compelled by that creed to cloud up the clear picture given in Scripture; because if Christ only died for some, then all these scriptures stating "whole world", "entire world", "all men", "all men everywhere" cannot really mean what they plainly state.

[rkg62976]

And would you agree that the blood of Christ is the antitype to the OT "type" of the Passover Lamb? (Ex.12; Lev.23:5; Num.9:1-14; Deut.16:1-7; Jn.1:29,36; Rev.5:6,8...etc.). And that the blood of Christ is ministered by Him in the heavenly sanctuary on behalf of His people? (Heb.7:24-25; 8:2,5,6; 9:12,23,28)

So my question-- Does Christ intercede on behalf of those who will be cast into the lake of fire? Will everyone in hell be able to say, "Christ died for me"? (That's your theology).

[rkg62976]

And how are any human beings able to enter into "the holiest" (the very presence of the Almighty)? "By the blood of Jesus" (Heb.10:19).

What unregenerate, reprobate, God-hater will EVER be able to say, "Hey, I coulda entered in, I just didn't wanta"? NONE! Christ did NOT intercede on their behalf! They have NO sacrifice for sin!

An unbiblical view of the atoning work of Christ, Arminians surely have.

[orionelatlante]

Geisler errs so much on this matter. His libertarian Arminianism has been refuted effectively and accurately by JAMES WHITE in his "THE POTTER'S FREEDOM" that Geisler simply CANNOT ANSWER.

As an Arminian to the core, Geisler did a very poorly work in CHOSEN BUT FREE that really it seems that he did not write it. He goes to great lenghts of eisegesis even in this video conference. He remainds me of what Luther said to Erasm about his book defending the Freedom of the Will.

[rkg62976]

Is Acts 7:51 really speaking about salvation? Or is it, like Mt.23:37, a judgment text?

Both of these are judgment texts and have nothing to do with Soteriology.

When people must confuse categories in order to make their point, it is a sure sign of eisegesis and the indication of a flawed argument.

Stephen is bringing a "covenantal lawsuit" against the Jewish leadership in Acts 7. Again, this is a judgment text, NOT a salvific one.

[sketchbook1]

Yes, Matthew 23:37 is a "judgement text"-- but it's one precisely BECAUSE they were not willing as a people to go to him for salvation!

And how would Jesus gathering them "as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings" NOT be "salvific"? Amazing-- was he just wanting to have a conference? Perhaps just to judge them, since you categorize it as a "judgement text"?!

For Calvinist ears, Jesus should've said... "Oh Jerusalem, I never longed to gather you... and thus you were not willing!"

[rkg62976]

Once again, there is no salvific import in this text. It is a judgment text. There are plenty of other texts which speak of salvation, but Mt.23:37 is NOT one of them.

You also misquote the text by asking, "And how would Jesus' gathering THEM..." The text says nothing about gathering "them" (The Scribes and Pharisees Jesus was addressing). Rather, it says, "..how often would I have gathered YOUR CHILDREN together..." Arminians constantly misquote the text.

[sketchbook1]

OK but my question still stands-- "how would jesus gathering them (Jerusalem's children) NOT be salvific?"

No matter how you quote the text as regards who is to be gathered... it's still talking about salvation and it's ALSO condemning a group of people for something they do, ie preventing some from entering into the kingdom... it's about judgement because certain men were keeping people from entering in...

how truncated and silly the view that Jesus isn't talking about salvation here.

[rkg62976]

Your tradition keeps you from seeing the actual content of the passage (Mt.23:37). The focus is NOT on the "gathering of the children". The focus is on the rebuke of the Church leadership in Israel hindering the ministry of Christ. God is always justified in condemning the wicked deeds of the unregenerate man.

Why wouldn't Arminians go to texts that actually, explicitly speak about salvation? rather than going to texts that don't?  I don't understand.

[sketchbook1]

and your tradition clearly keeps you from seeing that the rebuke is because they were hindering the ministry of Christ, as you admit, which supposedly they cannot do.

But the WHOLE REASON, and nothing else, that made Christ angry and upset over their actions, is that they "shut the kingdom of Heaven in men's faces"... HE IS UPSET AT THEIR UNWILLINGNESS, which is something that if Calvinism were true, He would not do, and which would make Him insincere in either His anger or His sorrow!

[rkg62976]

Who ever said that people can't "hinder" the truth of the Gospel? Surely no Calvinist has. In fact, every unregenerate sinner hinders the witness of the Holy Spirit is some way. This is the essence of spiritually dead sinners.

[sketchbook1]

but you aren't getting the point-- even an unregenerate sinner can't really hinder God. He is really doing God's secret will.

And you still aren't getting the point of why in the world Jesus would be upset over decisions of His Father-- that is, to make those people "unwilling"? Can't you see that this makes Jesus either uninformed or insincere, in expressing anger at people KEEPING OTHERS FROM BEING SAVED when neither He Himself nor the Father really wants to save any of them?

[rkg62976]

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. True, no one can hinder God's will. This does NOT mean that unregenerate sinners can't "hinder" the preaching of the truth of the Gospel. They can and do...all the time.

What's more important is that there are teachers/preachers in the Church who can hinder the truth of the Gospel as well. They can and do...all the time.

[AgApE010]

@sketchbook1

-

Calvinism does not say that people can not be unwilling and Calvinism does not say that God does not hold people accountable for the actions that they do. This is what happens when you learn about Calvinism only from YouTube.

[sketchbook1]

@AgApE010

Way to patronize, assume and dismiss. This is what I get for dealing with Calvinists on YouTube. !

I run into this kind of presumption all the time. ( "You I can't actually be talking about REAL Calvinism, because that would be impossible to disagree with. Therefore, you must be ignorant of true Calvinism..." )

But I guess you have to do what you have to do... by eternal decree that is...

And I never said Calvinism says that God doesn't hold people accountable...

[AgApE010]

@sketchbook1

-

When did I patronize you? I think you misunderstand that word. Neither did I assume anything. Your comment made claims that no one who has studied Calvinism would ever make. I'm sorry if you hear that a lot, but maybe that should tell you something: stop making comments about things you don't understand and educate yourself in theology. Based on your lack of knowledge, you could be unwittingly scoffing at truths of God's very Word.

[sketchbook1]

@AgApE010

wow. Of course it was I who misunderstand the word. :)

And do you realize that your reply to my feeling that you patronized me was patronizing and dismissive?!

classic.

(and btw, if I'm "unwittingly scoffing at truths of God's very Word," as you say, then according to your own beliefs, it's because God eternally decreed it, not just because I've somehow not studied warped theology...)

[Mcfirefly2]

@sketchbook1 So true. He would be a insincere and even a liar over and over in the Bible if Calvinism was true. But we judge Calvinism by the word of God, not the word of God by Calvinism. And it does have the effect of "shutting up the kingdom of Heaven in mens' faces" to tell them salvation is only for a chosen few, and that God doesn't want each individual to turn to Him and be saved, when so clearly the Bible teaches that He does.

[Mcfirefly2]

m@sketchbook1 "How often would I...but ye would not" Insincere? There is no other possibility; if He does not mean that He would that they turn to Him, He is insincere, just weeping and saying that for some kind of effect. Is that what they believe about that? Is that what they think He is like? Do they think that they see through Him? That it "ain't necessarily so"? Either He meant it and would that they be saved (many were not, anyway), and He never changes, or He did not and thus He lied.

[sketchbook1]

And it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to claim that this text doesn't speak at all about salvation. THE REASON Jesus was angry was not just some abstract sin of the Pharisees, but also the REAL consequence of that sin, which is the non-salvation of people Jesus loved and wanted to gather! Salvation is the ONLY thing that phrase is referencing!

Calvinism demands that you view the text in this truncated way-- "judgement" not "salvation".

[rkg62976]

I think anyone can see who is being dishonest, and who is doing exegesis.  The interpretation you provide is a clearly eisegesis (reading into the text one's own interpretation).

[sketchbook1]

Are you still saying salvation is not an issue in the Matthew 23:37?

Not an issue at all? Eisegesis? Really?

Was or was not Jesus angry that people were being kept from salvation, based on the actions of man? If Calvinism were true, why would Jesus be upset at them keeping people from Him who had no chance of being hindered?

That's not eisegesis at all. That's being honest and logical with the text.

[rkg62976]

The central theme in Matthew's Gospel is the Kingship of Christ. A King judges (Rev.19:11-16).

No one can keep God's people from salvation (Jn.10:25-30). This doesn't mean that falseness cannot "hinder" Bible truth. Many times, it does. This is why 2Tim.2:15 is so important; so that God's people will not be deceived by error.

I believe the Arminian system to be in error. They can't deal with the texts that actually speak about salvation.

[sketchbook1]

You can categorize scriptures to suit your predisposition all you want.

"salvific"

"judgement"

how's seminary workin' out for ya?

[sketchbook1]

sorry 'bout that last bit...

I shouldn't be snarky or rude.

I apologize.

[rkg62976]

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom.9:12). Yes, this passage is referring to Mal.1:2,3.

Notice Rom.9:11--"for the children being NOT YET BORN, neither having done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God according to ELECTION might stand, not of works BUT OF HIM THAT CALLETH"

I would suggest that Geisler is using precisely what he claims Calvinists use....Eisegesis! His traditions simply won't allow him to see the truth.

[sketchbook1]

but it's still talking about groups or nations, and the relationship between Israel and the Gentiles, not about specific individuals and salvation.

[GreekTrustsJesus]

Thank you for this message!

[heymikey802]

"God will force you to do things against your will" -- Canons of Dordt say the exact opposite. And Dordt is the defining council for the Five Points of Calvinism:

The thought that Rom 9 is referring to nations is kind of wierd. God hated a nation, but not the people who performed the evil in the nation?? How is "before they were born" a reference to nations??

Romans 9:19-20 defies this "national" election, too. It speaks of individuals, "o man", not nations, "o nation".

[sketchbook1]

Because in the original verse it says, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger."

[Dougeroma]

So, when the Bible says the unregenerate ("uncircumcised in heart") "ALWAYS" resist it really means "MOST OF THE TIME" or "EXCEPT WHEN THEY CHOOSE TO WORK SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH GOD'S GRACE"? Why can't you just believe what the text says? What are you afraid of? God's sovereignty in salvation? Regeneration is "simultaneous" with conversion because it produces conversion. Regeneration is the ontological basis of conversion which causes man to cease his continual resisting. God alone be praised.

[Dougeroma]

Interesting how Norm can quote passages that completely contradict his presuppositional libertarian freedom and by means of eisegesis completely contradict it. Acts 7:51 says the the "uncircumcised in heart [the unregenerate] . . . ALWAYS resist the Holy Spirit". This is exactly what the "extreme Calvinist" means by total depravity and the need for effectual grace. Men always and everywhere use their "freedom" to resist God's grace. Regeneration causes us to stop resisting.

[Nucc3]

Acts 7:51

51"You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. (NKJ)

I don't agree with you Dougeroma. . The unregenerate don't ALWAYS resist the HS. Was Paul not unregenerate before conversion? Were YOU not unregenerate before conversion? Regeneration is coningent on God's grace working simultaneously with the free will act of faith on man's part..

In the garden man was free to eat of any fruit. he chose.

[sketchbook1]

But Calvin states that Adam was bound to eat the fruit, as it was decreed from eternity past.

Calvinism requires the fall to be decreed also, & man has no free will whatsoever.

About the regeneration thing-- Calvinists have a great way to get around that... you see, once God regenerates you, you are no longer unregenerate, so obviously you will "freely" choose to believe in God, etc... So, technically, when the person is no longer resisting God, he is already no longer unregenerate.

[thor2me]

the "book of the lamb that was slain BEFORE the foundations of the world." .. sounds like He knew that Adam would fall.

Regeneration BEFORE belief. 1 JOhn 5:1

Those who believe (present tense) HAVE BEEN (perfect tense) born again "regenerated".

The cause of the belief is the act of regeneration that happened BEFORE belief.

[gwposey1]

@thor2me - What version of the Bible are you reading (not to mention all the weight that Calvinists put on verb tense to prop up their ridiculous beliefs)? In no way is 1 John 5:1 saying that regeneration precedes belief - again, unless you're arguing that one can be regenerated/"born again"/etc. and NOT be saved, then there's no leg to stand on.

By the way, my understanding from the Greek is - πιστεύω pisteuō "believes" and γεννάω gennaō "is born", doesn't imply one happening before the other

[sketchbook1]

"Extreme Calvinism" doesn't say that the unregenerate resist the Holy Spirit at all. Indeed, it claims that by God's sovereign decree from eternity past, they are actually fulfilling His good pleasure by being unregenerate, and are really not resisting Him at all.

[TheDougeroma]

The Bible teaches that the unregenerate ALWAYS resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51;Rom.8:7) and that God leaves the reprobate in this resisting - as in the case of Pharoah (9:16-18) to demonstrate the glory of His power in judging them. It was God's will that Pharoah remain reprobate/resisting and it is this secret will that is never resisted by either the reprobate or the elect. The unregenerate always resist God's Preceptive Will but cannot resist His Sovereign will.

[sketchbook1]

So you agree with Calvin that God eternally reprobates the unregenerate from eternity past without regard for anything they could or couldn't do, but only for His pleasure in their eternal, predestinated perdition?

[TheDougeroma]

If God eternally reprobated the unregenerate from all eternity then all would be reprobated because all are unregenerate. The elect are a subcategory of the unregenerate just as undeserving and unworthy as any of God's mercy. I agree with Paul that God's choice in this matter is completely free (Rom. 9:14-16). Neither election or reprobation depends on the sinner (9:10-11). Complain that it's not "fair" or makes man "excusable" (9:14,19) but its Paul's theology that provokes such complaints.

[thor2me]

Rom 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Did he not know before creation who would and would not accept Him? Yet He still created all those who will perish. To Him be glory forever.

[thor2me]

You are incorrect. You should actually READ a reformed book before you claim to know what Calvinists teach. Man left to his own will ALWAYS resist God's will, they are enslaved to sin and hate the things of God, that is why they DO resist because the things of God goes against their NATURE.

[sketchbook1]

but they were CREATED to do that, according to Calvin himself--due to God's eternal, sovereign decree before anyone did anything at all.

Was Enoch left alone? Was Melchizedek left alone? Was Job left alone? Was the unregenrate Centurion left alone?

It's not that they are just left alone, as some semi-Calvinists want to preach (Calvin viewed this as inconsistent) -- it's that they were eternally created as sinners to be damned.

[sketchbook1]

I say again, there is no such thing IN REALITY as "resisting" the Holy Spirit to Calvinism-- because call it what you will, no amount of resisting or obeying will prevent anyone, damned or saved, from ever being able to do anything that was not eternally decreed by God.

Resisting means nothing in Calvinism, nor does lawbreaking or guilt or repentance or crime or sin...

it's all rendered mute in light of Calvinistic definitions of God's sovereignty.

[thor2me]

From Him and through Him and To Him are ALL things... yes.

Yet since we are bound by time and do not have foreknowledge, we are bound by and are responsible for our actions. God works His decrees WITH our free choices (What you meant for EVIL, God meant IT (evil) for good.

therefore, our actions are real, based on our choices, there is real guilt, real sin and real repentance.

[TainoRebelde]

The Lutheran paradox of election to salvation (in the calvinist sense) and universal grace- drives people to missionary apathy.

[sketchbook1]

Calvinists may wholeheartedly disagree with you in principal, but they cannot deny the truth of it in practical, day to day living.

The Missions Team at my former church in Florida, a Presbyterian church, began changing its missions philosophy, from supporting individual missionaries and mission work, to simple church planting and building specific churches. And it had to be reformed church building if they were to support it. It wasn't even focused on evangelizing anyone, but building bldgs.