I know it is hard to hear ( it is the hardest teaching of Jesus IMHO) that man has a complete inability to come. It does grate as it were against one's own view of self-determination and highly valued self-autonomy.
The Greek word there is pantas (all), which signifies the totality of the persons or things referred to and, in the light of the rest of the NT, what is referred to there is the elect.
I don't have a Jn 5:48-49 in my Bible.
“Election” deals with God’s choices. For instance, the Bible refers to an election of:
If God is controlling our faith through election, then why in the Gospel's did Jesus marvel at some for unbelief and other's for great faith? No our faith is not strictly up to God as it comes by hearing God's word and we all choose what we listen to (Romans 10:17).
God is not unaccountable - we can take Him at His word. We went over John 3:3-8 in Posts 14-22 on this thread - so I don't want to rehash. John 3:3-8 does not clearly teach that one must be born-again in order to believe - that requires a peculiar interpretation of that passage that about 90% of Christendom rejects.
Which does not alter the fact that it refers to the totality of the specific people, men, everyone referred to and, in the light of the rest of the NT, what is referred to there is the elect.
Do you not marvel at your own faith, at being able to believe what you were not able to believe before? I sure do!
And is not the choice made according to the disposition God has or has not worked within the individual (Php 2:13, Jn 6:37), without which work of God no unregenerate one would/could come (Ro 8:7-8)?
Which does not alter the fact that in the Greek, pantas (all) means the totality of the persons or things referred to and, in the light of the rest of the NT, what is referred to there is the elect.
Do you not marvel at your faith? I do. . .that I now am able believe what I was unable to believe before.
And it is God's work in the disposition that gives us to choose what we listen to (Php 2:13, Jn 6:37).
None of this word salad appeals to reason or scripture.
You are not Jesus. Jesus marveled at the contrast of faith and unbelief that He encountered. It would make no sense for Him to do so if everything was scripted from eternity past by God as the WCF proclaims. And if everything was scripted, then why didn't Jesus clearly allude to that? Jesus's astonishment was to encourage certain choice behaviour - like choose to believe!
Where is the scriptural argument that God disposes some to salvation and others to reprobation? Have you considered the possibility that predestination applies to a class of people (believers - those that can be said to be In Him) as opposed to some Totally Depraved individuals who fortunately for them happen to be "elect" even though they did not exist before what Calvin attributes to be a decree before the foundation of the world?
The point is not about reason or Scripture, it's about the meaning of the Greek language.
And God chooses some (but not all) to be saved (1 Pe 1:2).
It has been said, Grace and Election are on the same side of a coin with a "fill in the blank" on the other side. What is viewed as grace in time is viewed as election from the perspective of eternity. To preach grace alone is to preach election.
Twisting God's word to support your presuppositions is never the answer. There are 90 uses of the greek word "pantas" in the NT and they are consistently translated in English to some variant of all or everyone Greek Concordance: πάντας (pantas) -- 90 Occurrences None of the major English translations agree with you and Jesus knew what He was saying.
This shows God preferring some, but leaving others to a horrific fate like the passer-by Pharisee in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Per Calvin and the WCF, everyone (saved & damned) does exactly what God decreed they do - as they could not do otherwise - and yet their eternal destiny could not be more different. Does Calvin present a just God where people are constrained to act exactly as scripted and yet judged by the content of that script? If not, the problem is with Calvin. God is not glorified by injustice.
Nor do they disagree, because we don't have that meaning for "all" in the English language, among many other things which the Greek language has that the English does not and, therefore, cannot be translated exactly into the English.
As previously stated, I don't defend "Calvinism," or any other "ism," only "Paulism."
How so? Please elaborate,
Scripture is not a theological treatise which teaches Calvinism, Lutheranism, Arminianism, Molinism, Augustinianism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., etc., etc. Many would turn the Bible into a neat, tidy theological handbook. It would make life so much simpler for folks.
I think there's a natural principle here. It's common for people to compare other people with animals. And the bible does it as well. In the bible, the enemies of God tend to be compared to aggressive predator animals. God's children are compared to passive sheep, and converts are compared to fish. (I know there are exceptions to this rule).
Good response. God's drawing is necessary (John 12:32), but not irresistible as Stephen states that people commonly resist the Holy Spirit in Acts 7:51.
I agree that Satan is our enemy per 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, but God desires that we be saved (1 TImothy 2:4). God will not make us do what He commands us to do.
In Calvinism, if God really wants something, then proof of what He wants is found in what He gets. If God really wants a certain thing, then He gets a certain thing. However, as a non-Calvinist, I believe that Jesus sincerely desires everyone to come to know Him, but just because I don’t believe that He forces His love on to everyone, doesn’t mean that I question His sincerity. I believe that God wants everyone to be saved freely. Nevertheless, Calvinists assume their own premise, as a fact, in order to reach a Calvinistic conclusion. In order to avoid Circular Logic, Calvinists should first attempt to prove that God always gets what He wants, rather than just assuming it.
There's no question that people resist the Holy Spirit. I still think there's a mystery involved that makes it tough to square away one position over the other.
Indeed, Paul would likely not have chosen to come to Christ, aside from Christ’s visible encounter along the road to Damascus, though even that is still speculation, just as anti-Christians do sometimes convert to Christianity without major revelations of God. Some even have a death-bed conversion. Clearly, God was not going to wait that long since He intended to call him to evangelism. Nonetheless, two facts remain: (a) God didn’t make Paul positively respond to His orders, and (b) others in similar severe circumstances chose not to act positively to God’s orders, such as Balaam and Jonah. Paul still had his own choice to make while he was blinded for three days. He could have chosen to harden his heart, like with Jonah and Balaam. It is question-begging to suppose that since Paul made the right choice, that his choice must have been made for him.
