James White vs James White on the Atonement

Below is Dr. Flowers’ latest broadcast where he addresses recent comments Dr. James White made during a debate that seems to affirm provisional atonement.

TL;DW? No problem, here is a brief outline of the broadcast.

  1. Overview of provisional atonement
  2. Plays clip of James White explaining provisional atonement
    1. “If you end up under the wrath of God it is because you’ve rejected His provision for you and you’re justly punished for your sins”
  3. Flowers acknowledges that Dr. White probably misspoke
  4. Shows a Twitter exchange where Dr. White defends himself
    1. Points out that Dr. White regularly critiques other well-known Christians for what they say
  5. Plays a clip of James White explaining Limited Atonement which is the direct opposite of his quote in the debate
  6. Plays a recent clip of Dr. White addressing Dr. Flowers’ tweet
    1. When Dr. White has a good argument, he uses it. When he does not, he marginalizes.
  7. Critiques Dr. White’s boogie man fallacy.
  8. Critiques Dr. White’s red herring fallacies
  9. Brings the conversation back to the original quote in question which Dr. White does not address

392 thoughts on “James White vs James White on the Atonement

  1. Marginalizing, dismissing, demeaning? Guilt by association….?

    We see that all the time. Being called heretics, universalists, “Pool ol this or that” ….”sleeping in class”…. liars about our previous association to Calvinism (who could really leave Calvinism, right?).

    When the facts dont go your way just name-call.

    1. FOH is right it is not a big deal, Dr. White did speak that misspoke.
      But Dr. Flowers I did not know you had the sense of humor that I saw in that video. 🙂 There you are telling Dr. White I was not trying to make you mad or angry, I was just poking a little fun at ya. All the time you had this silly little grin on your face and halfway laughing. You were making me laugh just watching you.

      I did watch the entire debate yesterday and it was one of the most Christ-centered Gospel Messages/Debates I have heard in a long time. I was very blessed and encouraged. In contrast with the Roman Catholic Gospel, it made me see the beauty of our Lord and Savior even more.

      You were correct Dr. Flowers in saying you knew Dr. White did not believe that. He said several times through the debate about how Christ in His atonement died for His elect or for His people that were elected from the foundation of the world, from all eternity being in the mind of God. I am going to post these to give context tomorrow.

      Although I do not think Dr. White was angry. I do think you frustrated and disappointed him. Due to the fact that you both have a somewhat strained, shaky relationship to begin with. I know he considers you a brother in Christ. But I have heard Dr, White say directly and indirectly that you yourself do not speak correctly about the truths of Calvinism, misunderstanding them thus misrepresenting them. I think when he when he explained to you what the Reformed faith believed about judicial hardening and man born dead in sin, total depravity, and you did not seem to understand and continued to reject his explanation over and over that really frustrated him also. That also made me laugh. I knew you were going to be a stubborn one but funny from then on.

      We know from Dr. White’s tweet he was not in a very good mood as he said it was sad meaning he thought it was pathetic and unpleasant to him. I know he is very serious when it comes to God’s Word but maybe should have lightened up a little on this one.

      He was even asked on his Dividing Line Podcast if he was going to respond in one of his shows. Dr. White said, “I do not respond to stupid,” I thought that was going over the edge there, too far and uncalled for.

      But here is the thing. I have always been the first to say that Dr, White is a little rough around the edges. I think a lot of it is the fact that he has a strong personality and people are taken back by that. Then you put a Dr. White with a strong personality and a Dr. Flowers with a strong personality together, one is Calvinist, one is a Non-Calvinist, you are going to get fireworks.

      But it would be easy to sit in sinful judgment of Brother White and compare him to ourselves and think he is dung and we are angels with hallows over our heads. It is easy to judge, so easy to gossip, have our tongues set on fire by hell and curse men and with the same tongue bless God.

      What is hard is to get on our knees and pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ who we see lacking in Character in an area of weakness and persevere until we see that weakness become a strength in Christ.

      I do think Dr. Flowers you just might have had more than one motive than just poking a little fun at Dr, White. Let’s face it. There has been a back and forth with you and him for some time. In my humble opinion (and I think you were just having some fun) you took this as an opportunity to make Dr. White look a little silly, take him to the woodshed and the whipping post. And you did. 🙂

      I also think you used it as a teaching opportunity to expound on provisional atonement. Nothing wrong with that. Go for it.

      But everyone except for FOH down below will make this mistake from time to time. I know I have, FOH says that is all John Piper ever does and even you Dr. Flowers I have seen a few places where you have misspoke. I even corrected you on your Facebook site. It had to do with John Calvin. I doubt if you remember. I am sure you remember the verse but I doubt you remember me correcting you.

      It was concerning John Calvin’s commentary on 1 John 5:1 and Calvin’s understanding of it. Let me say before I write down what Calvin said about this verse that most of the time Non-Calvinist hate John Calvin, he is the devil, he invented false doctrine and has nothing good or right to say about Biblical doctrine. Can I get an amen from the Non-Calvinist?

      But when they think they find something they believe John Calvin finds in their favor, they all of sudden want to use him, to undergird and strengthen what they believe. This just makes me chuckle and smile.

      1 John 5:1 – Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

      John Calvin says in his commentary; “Verse 1
      1Whosoever believeth He confirms by another reason, that faith, and brotherly love are united; for since God regenerates us by faith he must necessarily be loved by us as a Father, and this love embraces all his children. Then faith cannot be separated from love.”

      You see it looks like John Calvin is saying that we are regenerated by faith. Something that Brian Wagner who took a quote from Martin Luther out of context said the same of him. But the word “regeneration had a different definition back in church history and it is different today. Let me say also that the majority of-of Reformed believers/Calvinists are on the same page when it comes to the definition and meaning of regeneration today. Of course, you can look and find some who differ. Just like I can find Non-Calvinist who differ and Southern Baptist Traditionalist of all flavors, beliefs, doctrines, and understandings.

      Anyway, Calvin, Luther, and others in the past used the word “regeneration to describe the whole process of Salvation. Including, Justification, Sanctification, Forgiveness, Adoption, Glorification etc.

      Just to show you I am being honest let’s look at John Calvin’s understanding and Biblical Exegesis of John 1:12-13

      John 1:12-13 –

      12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the [e]right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

      13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

      Commentary-.”But to as many as received him – the Evangelist exalts above heaven the godly who believe in him; for he says that by faith they obtain this glory of being reckoned the sons of God.”

      “He gave them power. The word ἐξουσία here appears to me to mean a right or claim

      for they wickedly pervert this passage by understanding it to mean, that nothing more than a choice is allowed to us if we think fit to avail ourselves of this privilege. In this way, they extract free-will from this phrase, but as well might they extract fire from water. There is some plausibility in this at first sight; for the Evangelist does not say that Christ makes them sons of God, but that he gives them the power to become such. Hence they infer that it is this grace only that is offered to us, and that the liberty to enjoy or to reject it is placed at our disposal. But this frivolous attempt to catch at a single word is set aside by what immediately follows; for the Evangelist adds, that they become the sons of God, not by the will which belongs to the flesh, but when they are born of God. But if faith regenerates us, so that we are the sons of God, and if God breathes faith into us from heaven, it plainly appears that not by possibility only, but actually — as we say — is the grace of adoption offered to us by Christ. And, indeed, the Greek word, ἐξουσία is sometimes put for ἀξίωσις, (a claim,) a meaning which falls in admirably with this passage.

      My words: “Verse 12 according to Calvin and most Scholars is talking about the doctrine of adoption

      he circumlocution which the Evangelist has employed tends more to magnify the excellence of grace than if he had said in a single word, that all who believe in Christ are made by him sons of God. For he speaks here of the unclean and profane, who, having been condemned to perpetual ignominy, lay in the darkness of death. Christ exhibited an astonishing instance of his grace in conferring this honor on such persons, so that they began, all at once, to be sons of God; and the greatness of this privilege is justly extolled by the Evangelist, as also by Paul, when he ascribes it to

      God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love
      with which he loved us, (Ephesians 2:4.)

      Who believe in his name. He expresses briefly the manner of receiving Christ, that is, believing in him. Having been engrafted into Christ by faith, we obtain the right of adoption, so as to be the sons of God. And, indeed, as he is the only-begotten Son of God, it is only so far as we are members of him that this honor at all belongs to us. Here again, the notion of the Papists about the word power is refuted. (20) The Evangelist declares that this power is given to those who already believe. Now it is certain that such persons are in reality the sons of God. They detract too much from the value of faith who say that, by believing, a man obtains nothing more than that he may become a son of God if he chooses; for instead of present effect they put a power which is held in uncertainty and suspense.

      he contradiction appears still more glaring from what immediately follows. The Evangelist says that those who believe are already born of God It is not therefore, a mere liberty of choice that is offered, since they obtain the privilege itself that is in question. Although the Hebrew word, שם (Name) is sometimes used to denote power, yet here it denotes a relation to the doctrine of the Gospel; for when Christ is preached to us, then it is that we believe in him. I speak of the ordinary method by which the Lord leads us to faith; and this ought to be carefully observed, for there are many who foolishly contrive for themselves a confused faith, without any understanding of doctrine, as nothing is more common among the Papists than the word believe, though there is not among them any knowledge of Christ from hearing the Gospel. Christ, therefore, offers himself to us by the Gospel, and we receive him by faith.

      13.Who were born not of blood (21) Some think that an indirect reference is here made to the preposterous confidence of the Jews, and I willingly adopt that opinion. They had continually in their mouth the nobleness of their lineage, as if, because they were descended from a holy stock, they were naturally holy. And justly might they have gloried in their descent from Abraham, if they had been lawful sons, and not bastards; but the glowing of faith ascribes nothing whatever to carnal generation, but acknowledges its obligation to the grace of God alone for all that is good. John, therefore, says, that those among the formerly unclean Gentiles who believe in Christ are not born the sons of God from the womb, but are renewed by God, that they may begin to be his sons. The reason why he uses the word blood in the plural number appears to have been, that he might express more fully a long succession of lineage; for this was a part of the boasting among the Jews, that they could trace their descent, by an uninterrupted line, upwards to the patriarchs.

      The will of the flesh and the will of man appear to me to mean the same thing; for I see no reason why flesh should be supposed to signify woman, as Augustine and many others explain it. On the contrary, the Evangelist repeats the same thing in a variety of words, in order to explain it more fully and impress it more deeply on the minds of men. Though he refers directly to the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, yet from this passage a general doctrine may be obtained: that our being reckoned the sons of God does not belong to our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because God begat us willingly, (James 1:18,) that is, from undeserved love. Hence it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe unless he is begotten of God, and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.

      It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption.

      Another solution, still more plain and easy, may be offered; for when the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since faith, as we have said, receives Christ, it puts us in possession, so to speak, of all his blessings. Thus so far as respects our sense, it is only after having believed — that we begin to be the sons of God. But if the inheritance of eternal life is the fruit of adoption, we see how the Evangelist ascribes the whole of our salvation to the grace of Christ alone; and, indeed, how closely soever men examine themselves, they will find nothing that is worthy of the children of God, except what Christ has bestowed on them.

      Well, Dr. Flowers, I appreciate your humor and your patience with me. And the fact when I did bring this up to you, you did not say I do not respond to stupid. I am sorry I am laughing again. Leave Dr. White alone, I think he is starting to get up there in age a little and may be getting a little grouchy. 🙂

      1. KK writes, “the word “regeneration had a different definition back in church history and it is different today.”

        It still has two meanings today. There is that regeneration spoken in Ephesians 2, “…when we were dead in our transgressions, [God] made us alive together with Christ…” Then, there is the regeneration of the corrupt mind in Romans 12, “…be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”

      2. Yes, very good Rhutchin. Thank you Sir. for pointing that out to me. Although I was dealing specifically with the idea of new birth and the Non-Calvinist reaching back into history and grabbing Martin Luther and John Calvin or those oppose for the most part and then saying look, look They are on our side, they believe that faith preceded regeneration. But still a very a very good point you made.

  2. This is not that big of a deal. We know he does not believe in provisional atonement. He should just say that he misspoke. But no…. the problem has to be someone else. Then comes the derision of the messenger.

    Piper has dozens and dozens of misspeaking comments on his blog and in books. When brought to light everyone just says “oh you are nit-picking” or “he doesnt really mean it that way…. he is a card-carrying Calvinist.”

    It really is a way for them to have their cake (sound free-will-ish) and eat it to (theologize deterministic).

    1. Well, well, how are ya doing my friend and brother in Christ FOH.
      You always seem to be a little moody and grouchy, hows come?
      You need to read the reply I just posted to Dr. Flowers above. You are actually in it. Like I told him, I have misspoken, You have misspoken, Dr. Flowers has misspoken several times and I give one example above and according to you all John Piper ever does is just that. Could you throw me a couple of examples of John Piper continually doing this? I know you do and I plan to show you just that either today or tomorrow when I take your um um cough cough biblical exegesis of Philippians 1 on one of Eric’s past articles and show you just how much you misspoke on that chapter. You even would not even admit that Philippians 1:29 where it said that “For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,, you would not concede that the word “granted” means “given” It will shock you when I show you the Greek word is actually a term showing it to be a gift of grace related to the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12. Yes, Sir, the Greek words are almost identical. I mean did you forget that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. If faith has to come to a person that strongly and necessarily with common sense tells us that there was a time the sinner did not have faith.

      It seems even your daily readings FOH, they are just for finding passages to disprove Calvinism. Brother, you must grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. That is why I disappear from here 3 to 4 days at a time. Because I do not want this to dominate my life. I love my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I am to practice the presence of Christ daily in everything. Whether I eat or drink, or whatever I do, do all to the glory of God. I cannot do that if all I am doing is exposing the false doctrine and teachings of Non-Calvinism. I must maintain my fellowship with the Lord through prayer, reading, and Bible study of other aspects that pertain to my life. I know I do not know you and I cannot make a real judgment. I can give an opinion from what I have seen so and read so far. You have a deep-seated, ill will hatred toward Calvinism and maybe toward Christian Calvinist themselves. You seem to be a one-string banjo with this crusade in life to destroy all reformed believers. Yes, I know you say this is some kind of deception, calling oneself a reformed believer and not a Calvinist When you want to know the difference between the two, just let me know. Yes, they are very much intimately related, similar and overlap, but can be distinguished.

      Also, you made a comment that no one comes to the knowledge of Calvinism unless they are taught by man. Remember making that unfounded assertion. First of all, let me say this as you have probably read before. Calvinism is a nick name for some truths found within God’s words, It is part of the faith that was delivered once and for all to the saints that I will defend earnestly against the false teachings of Non-Calvinism and the Mistaken Ignorance of Pelagianism.

      But this unfound false assertion you made that no one comes to the knowledge of the truths of God’s word nicknamed Calvinism unless taught by man is really reaching and a strawman argument to defeat and dismiss the authenticity of Calvinism. Allow me to burn it down so you will never use it again Sir. With all due respect.

      Have you FOH, interviewed every Calvinist that has ever existed, is presently existing or will be existing in the future. No, I do not think so and do think you have an INABILITY to do so.

      1 John 2:27 – But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

      I am one who was never taught by God the Holy Spirit concerning the truth of Holy Scripture of Divine Election. Ephesians 1:4 John 6:37-39 for starters. I know of others who have been taught by the Holy Spirit also.

      Most people who know of Non-Calvinism and its false teachings, its exaltation of the mythical idol of free will have been taught by men. So you got it, backward brother.

      Because you have misspoken, and Brian Wagner has Misspoke Brian even in the deceitfulness of sin. He is puffed up down below, He is throwing stones at Dr. White when Brian himself on purpose took Martin Luther out of context saying he believed that faith preceded regeneration. I have with the wounds of a friend openly rebuked him. Because I have the works of Luther, so I found the quote Brian posted and if he would have just kept reading he would have seen where Luther talked of God creating faith in the heart. I gave numerous quotations from Luther’s Bondage of the Will and from other noted resources to show that although Luther was not a Calvinists he fell and leaned heavily within the Calvinist Camp.

      I kind of think you are still smarting from the regeneration precedes faith discussion because of the Calvinist really wrapped that one up good. I tell you Rhutchin was really in the zone. Brian tried hard, but the vain philosophies of men cannot defeat one whose heart is richly filled with the word of Christ. I will examine your understanding of Philippians 1 soon to show you where you have misspoken my friend

      Also brother, in your last statement, in much of your comments. You seem to be losing that gentleness of correcting those in opposition in reverence and speaking the truth in love.

      There now seems to be a stinging sinful disdain, arrogance, and contempt. Not toward our doctrine but toward our doctrine itself. Ok, I am sorry and I ask you to forgive me. I know Rhutchin and I questioned your seminary training and you’re being an ex-pastor, but your substance of what you were putting on here did not match up with it. But we should not have given you a low blow like that, such as not paying attention in class or falling asleep. So I will try and behave better toward you in the future, and it will not depend on how you treat me. But on how God commands how I should treat you. So please forgive me. That does not mean my brother that I will not call a spade a spade. I just will try to do it with more respect remembering you are my brother in Christ even if you do not respect the Calvinist Doctrine or Calvinist.

      God bless for now

  3. Thank you again so very much Dr. Flowers!

    Calvinist disputes often appear deceptively like they are based on logic.
    When a great preponderance of Calvinist disputes are heavily based upon semantics.

    Like the classic example given in Philosophy for semantic disputes.
    The boy who jumped off a rock waving his arms like a bird, claiming this proved he could fly.

    Calvinists are very careful with their word selection – making their statements APPEAR to as logical as possible.
    Making it difficult for recipients to recognize the tool-kit of semantic subtleties.

    Non-Calvinists often get sucked into such debates falling headlong into them – not realizing Calvinist’s carefully choose their words and phrases – and these are designed to be imprecise, vague, equivocal, misleading, deflecting, while being as biblical sounding as possible.

    Those who try to dialog with Calvinists without wisdom concerning this are doomed to be lead around in endless circles.

    Logic has very rigid standardized trustworthy rules.
    But anyone can shape-shift definitions for words – and make the language of scripture appear to affirm a given narrative.
    Its way to easy to play shell games with language.
    And working semantic subtleties has become a time-honored skill within this guild.

    1. Br.d my friend,
      it is a good thing you had that godly wisdom, that instructed you to choose not to discuss the doctrine of false Calvinism. Because of your intense emotions, The real reason is that everything you just said above makes me see you as one who is illogical and completely absurd. Word games and wordplay is your way. How deep and impressive can I make my words so others will others will see my superior wisdom and knowledge. For my ways are past finding out and my understanding is infinite. Hello, BR.D, are you there Sir, please come back to earth. I think I can talk to you this way and not get banned after the way you just completely obliterated every Calvinist by calling them liar who twist God’s word on purpose. You see, you are the reason I will never understand why I got banned once before and you are still here. It has to be on the basis of being biased. I was a Calvinist and you are not. I never said ANYTHING to the extent that you have falsely asserted and accused the Christian Calvinist of. But here you are, with your tongue set on fire from hell, such a little member the Apostle James said, but with it, you curse the man who is created in the image of God. Then I bet you go to church on Sunday and bless God. Sir, even if you do not believe in the doctrine, fine. You still have an obligation to be courteous, kind, respectful, speaking the truth in love and showing reverence to those you believe are in opposition. Dr. Flowers is capable of doing that. Eric the Admin is capable of doing that. I use to put Brian Wagner in this group but he approved and put his blessing on your comment. I am very disappointed in Brian. Such much ill will and hatred toward Calvinism it is spilling over toward the people themselves. You I understand, you think we are heretics. But Brian is really playing Jeckle and Hyde on me. I really do not know who he is anymore.

      Tell me something about yourself BR.D if you want to. For all I know you might be a heretic. I hope not. I mean that I really do. If Christ really possesses you I pray he really starts possessing you more frequently and more powerfully in your character. What is your religious background? Are you a Christian? Do you go to church? Do you pray and study God’s word on a daily basis? What denomination do you attend? I want to get to know you, Sir. You definitely are intelligent and have a very high IQ and a deep vocabulary. So even if you and I would have discussed the false doctrine of Non-Calvinism I probably would have spent most of my time in the dictionary looking up the words you use and it would have discouraged me anyway. But I guess it would have educated me and could have been like BR.D.

      Well, there is not much left to say BR.D. You are an inconsonant man BR.D and very indefensible to me.

      That’s all, have a good day BR.D

  4. I guess I have never understood Calvinists’ distaste for Catholicism, when in fact their whole system is derived from it. I mean, all it would take is for the Roman Catholic Church to return to the teachings of Augustine and all the little children would go running home to Mommy.

    1. Dont forget to mention that Augustine was a Catholic Bishop.

      Luther and Calvin were Catholics too from the start. Calvin fully accepted Catholic baptism and forbade any re-baptizing from those coming out of the Catholic church (including himself….He only had a Catholic infant baptism). He punished severely anyone teaching that their Catholic baptism was not valid.

      Then they both “opposed” the Catholic church saying salvation is by “faith alone,” but as it turns out it makes no difference cuz you cant have that faith unless it is given to you. That’s actually what the Catholic church teaches, except that they say that God uses them to give it to people.

      Calvinists just wanna cut out the middle man.

      1. Don’t let me forget to mention they all broke away from the Catholic church when they saw the false and heretical teachings of it. Since you do not want to tell the truth about it. FOH my brother in Christ it is because God opened the eyes of these Giants of the faith when the church was in the dark ages rules by this heretical Roman Catholic Church that did not allow the common man to read the God’s word for himself. Are you not glad they broke away from Rome? It is because of them we have the most precious doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ Jesus. Salvation is by grace through faith and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God, Not of works lest any man should boast. And yes faith is a gift of grace that had to be given by God the Holy Spirit through the intimate connection of the word, the very preaching of the Gospel.

        Romans 10:17 – 17 So faith comes from hearing [what is told], and what is heard comes by the [preaching of the] message concerning Christ.

        FOH, can you not see it my friend, I beseech you with the mercies of Christ. It is right there brother. If faith has to COME TO THE SINNER though hearing the gospel preached, THIS MEANS THERE WAS A TIME THE SINNER DID NOT HAVE FAITH.

        I just want to take a rock a hit you with it my brother, joking

        2 Thessalonians 3:2 – and that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have faith.

        FOH, evil wicked and perverse men do not have faith.

        2 Peter 1:1 – Simeon Peter, a servant, and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

        Look at 2 Peter 1:1 closely FOH. Wait pray for insight and understanding first, because man these verses are as plain as the nose on your face but you seem to be spiritually blind to them I could multiply many verses that sinners do not have faith and that God gives the gift of faith many times and seeing you do not see, hearing you do not hear or understand.

        But in 2 Peter 1:1, it says, to those who have obtained (obtained just means received FOH, nothing more) a FAITH of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

        2 Thessalonians 1:11 – Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

        FOH, faith is the work of God within you. I know your objection in advance. Faith is not a work. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to produce and create faith within you, to enable you to believe. The Holy Spirit does not believe in you. That is your responsibility. Faith is God’s work and your responsibility.

        It is God the Holy Spirit who will fulfill all his good pleasure and the WORK OF FAITH WITHIN YOU WITH POWER.

        FOH does not the Holy Scripture say, “looking unto Jesus, the author (Greek-originator, source) of our faith and Jesus is the one who will bring it to a finished state of completion in Him.

        It is the Non-Calvinist who are on the Road to Rome, not the Calvinist Christians, after all, it was DR. White who prevailed by the Spirit of God in one of the most Christ-centered, God-Glorifying messages/debates I have heard in a long time.

        Arminianism: The Road to Rome

        https://www.monergism.com/arminianism-road-rome

    2. Philip.
      What are your facts, basis, and proof for that assertion? I am so tired of the unfounded accusations on here that as sin smells like dung in the nostrils of God. Likewise with these silly, absurd and illogical assertions based on tongues set on fire by hell because of an ill will hatred of Calvinism. I watched the entire debate Dr. White had with Peter Williams a Catholic Apologist. Phillip, you know God desires truth in the inward parts of Sir and why Brian Wagner keeps approving and giving his blessing to that which is of the father of lies I do not understand. Dr. White stood strong against the fallacy and false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. As I told Dr. Flowers above, it was one of the best Christ-centered gospel message/debate I have heard in a long time. Dr. White just misspoke on one sentence. The same as I have. The same as you have. The same as I have seen Dr. Flowers has many times and I gave an example of it above if it gets posted. The same as Brian Wagner has who actually practiced the art of deceit of quoting Martin Luther out of Context in trying to prove and persuade that Luther believed faith preceded regeneration. What Brian did not know is that I have Luther’s works right here at my disposal and found the partial quote that he pulled out of a paragraph, one that was to his liking. Out of context. If he would have just continued he would have seen where Luther talked about God creating Faith in the hearts of His people. I gave Brian numerous quotes from Luther’s classic, “The Bondage of the Will” that and other noted quotes from his writings that showed that although he was not a Calvinist, he leaned heavily and fell into the Calvinist camp before he could ever be claimed by a Non-Calvinist.

      I also have all the context of Dr. White’s quotes where he talks about Christ dying for those elected in Him before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:4. This he says several times. So yes, Dr. Flowers was having a little fun and I actually laughed with him. I laughed because Dr. Flowers new he got one over on Dr, White and that does not happen too often. Dr. Flowers was very funny and humorous in that video. All the while telling Dr. White, “did not mean to make you angry” but Dr. Flowers had this grin on his face and was partially laughing. It was funny I liked it. He poked a little fun at the bear he is getting a little grouchy as he is getting older. But the rest of you guys are always on it like a chicken on a bug. CHILL OUT!!! Dude just like FOH said it is not a big deal, Dr, White should have just admitted he misspoke. But I think Dr White was frustrated and disappointed that the rest of what he said about Christ death is only for the elect in Christ was not mentioned is what made him frustrated But I do not even give Dr. White a pass on that, because Dr. Flowers said he was only poking a little fun at him and that he knew he misspoke and did not believe this way. That is in provisional atonement. So please do not accuse the Calvinist of being anywhere near in doctrine or belief with the Roman Catholic. It is the Non-Calvinist who is closer to Rome, way closer than the Calvinist. Do your homework Philip Remember how I showed you about Abraham and His justification and how God had preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to Him beforehand. You like had to different ways of being justified going on there. It is Christ and Christ alone who justifies the ungodly. Actually, if you want to understand it better watch the debate between Dr. White and Peter Williams. Look it up on Youtube. You will no longer be ignorant in your comments but knowledgeable. Listen, Philip, I learn from Christian Calvinist and Non-Calvinist alike. As long as the Non-Calvinist is not focusing on the enslaved idol of free will or things across that line. Both sides believe whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. We just disagree with how God does it. And the minister from bother sides does not break it down to the sinner. They both preach God is angry with the sinner every day, they are under the wrath of God. Their eternal destination apart from Christ is in Hell, burning in the lake of fire for all eternity where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then we tell them the remedy for their sins, to those who are under the conviction of sin, heavy laden, broken-hearted, fully of Godly sorrow, we tell them to flee the wrath of God into the loving arms of Jesus Christ. Both sides say whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. And when the sinner repents in godly sorrow from his lifestyle of sin and in faith embraces Christ he saves him from the bondage and guilt of sin, there is no longer any condemnation to the one who is in Christ. Yes, I know, we believe in Particular redemption, that Christ only died for those elected in Christ before the foundation of the world from all eternity. True. But Philip, we believe you are one of the elects in Christ. LOL 🙂 Our brother in Christ. Not only that Philip, we do not know who the elect are. We are to preach the gospel of Christ indiscriminately to all people and let God do the discriminating. So even if we are wrong, the people who are getting saved are still the ones who are putting their faith and trust in Christ to save them from the wrath of God and their sins. I do not know Philip, sometimes I think this is just a ploy of the devil to get us all off track so that we are not doing the real work and business of the Lord. We think if we can just defeat that false Calvinism or that false NOn-Calvinism we will keep souls from being deceived and going to hell. Christian Calvinist believe that Non-Calvinist is our brothers and sisters in Christ. Because they have repented of their sins and put their faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. And they continue to be believing ones because the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to the Non-Calvinist it is the power of God unto Salvation. Even Dr. Flowers believes Christian Calvinists are his brothers and sisters in Christ. Good grief. You know what my friend and brother in Christ. I am not boating, but I am good at this. Maybe too good to the point I am going to get prideful and let it dominate my life. Maybe it is time for me to go. I guess it took your comment for me to start thinking about this.

      Philip take care and God bless my friend and brother in Christ.

  5. 1 Corinthians 8:1 NKJV : ….We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

    What White did was what I call a theological Freudian slip… affirming from his spirit in an unguarded moment the universal provision and availability of the atonement. He didn’t have a traditionist in front of him with whom he was arguing, but a RC.

    At the end of Leighton’s critique of White’s reaction to Leighton’s joke about White’s misstatement, Leighton probably “misspoke” when he said – “I did this broadcast not just to be mean…”… 😉 I think he meant – “I did not do this broadcast to be mean…”… or was that a Freudian slip too… just not a theological one? 😉

    It is good to remind ourselves to prayerfully consider every public presentation we enter into and to walk circumspectly through each one. Take this as advice Leighton from one who has failed many times in public discourse… and still is reaping negatively from doing so.

    1. Now that is the Brian I know. I do not in no way commend Dr. White saying he does not respond to “stupid” That is uncalled for and just plain wrong. I will admit, and maybe I was wrong Brian, you will see it above if it gets posted in my reply to Leighton. I was actually laughing. Not in a bad way against Dr. White. You guys know how I feel about him. I actually went back and listened to the whole debate and he does affirm several times through the debate that Christ death was only for those elected in Christ before the foundation of the World from all eternity Ephesians 1:4 (I put that because that is the reference he quoted not to irritate you, So yes Dr. White Mispoke. But Leighton was very funny and humorous for some reason. If I sinned God forgive me. I could not help it. You just do not see Dr. White slipping up like that very often and it is life Dr. Flowers got one on him. There he was on video, trying not to laugh, with that grin on his face. Saying, Dr. White, I know you don’t believe that and you just misspoke. I did not mean to make you angry. I have never seen that side of Dr. Flowers before and I liked it. He can be funny. Dr. White I do not think was angry. He was frustrated, disappointed. and I think embarrassed. Just my opinion. Seems to be getting more grouchy as he ages. He has always had that strong sharp snappy personality that is a little on the rough side as we all know. But as I said several times to everyone that I have responded to above, he gave the most Christ-centered, God-glorifying message/debate in contrast to the heretical gospel of Rome I have heard in a long time. I promise you, Brian, he does not harp on the Calvinist issues very often at all. It is all centered on the beauty of Christ and what he accomplished for us on the Cross and Calvinist or Noncalvinist would have been saying praising his holy name.

      I will admit Brian, I have been somewhat disappointed by the comments you have approved and gave your blessings too. They have been unethical and downright sinfully disdainful. Just like FOH said this is not a big deal, all Dr. White had to do is humble himself and admit he misspoke, But you would think it was checkmate from what all the Non-Calvinist are saying above.

      When I was on here last time before I got banned I never said anything close to what BR.D said in his comment about Calvinist being actual liars an on purpose trying to deceive. If I had said that then or now I would be banned in an instant. I just did not understand why you gave it your blessing. Both sides I believe ( there may be a few on both sides that do not have truth in their inward parts) are trying to sincerely defend what they believe is the word of God.

      I have been a little to hard and harsh on you also my friend and brother in Christ. Forgetting so easily the forgiveness and mercy you showed me time and time again when I was on here once before. So once again I say to you love covers a multitude of sins my friend.

      God bless

  6. Thank you! Great post.

    It just points out the typical double speak that we have come to expect from the Calvinist. James white is going to have to change the L in his tulip to a U. – TUUIP, I like the sound of that! The lazy man’s TULIP

    1. I really cannot stand how some Calvinists invest so much time attempting to reconcile their absolute determinism with the concept of libertarian free will–compatibalism. It is nonsense. It is misleading to unwary people. As Dr. Flowers noted, it would be like saying that you are a Calvinist and not a Calvinist at the same time. Why not simply go by the plain teachings of Scripture?

      1. Jesse writes, “I really cannot stand how some Calvinists invest so much time attempting to reconcile their absolute determinism with the concept of libertarian free will–compatibalism.”

        Compatibilism says that God determines all things – God works all things after the counsel of His will – and the means that God uses incorporates the free, voluntary actions of sinful people.

      2. What I see is Calvinists wanting it both ways. If God has already predetermined everything since the beginning of time, then any notion of free will or choice is merely an empty illusion, period. Call it a mystery, but I deem it an inconsistency. It contradicts reality. Unconditional election makes the Bible sound unintelligible, in my opinion.

      3. Jesse writes, “If God has already predetermined everything since the beginning of time, then any notion of free will or choice is merely an empty illusion, period. ”

        It can seem that way. At the same time, using you as an example, you are making decisions and taking actions in the course of time and your decisions/actions always reflect your desires and the things you want to do. As far as anyone can tell, you have not been violated at any time and caused by God to do things you do not want – except in those cases where you want to rob and bank and God stations a guard at the front door thereby forcing to to put it off until another day.

      4. Close, but no cigar. Nobody lives as though they are controlled puppets. God does not cause people to sin because such actions are contrary to His nature. As I will continue to note, your Calvinistic theology makes the devil irrelevant. You make it sound as though our free will and reasoning is no different than animal instinct, which is nonsense. The fact that you previously admitted how my understanding of compatibalism makes sense is telling.

      5. Jesse writes, “God does not cause people to sin because such actions are contrary to His nature. ”

        Agreed.

        Them “your Calvinistic theology makes the devil irrelevant.”

        Except that Satan is a living entity and is actively involved in the affairs of people – “Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” We have examples of Satan interacting with people, Eve, Job, Peter, Judas. The Scriptures make Satan relevant and Calvinism recognizes this.

        Then, “You make it sound as though our free will and reasoning is no different than animal instinct, which is nonsense.”

        Just a misunderstanding then. Chalk it up to poor communication on my part.

        Then, “The fact that you previously admitted how my understanding of compatibalism makes sense is telling.”

        I guess that means that we agree that God determines all things.

      6. Your right it is nonsense Because that is not what Calvinists try to do. Try to have a right understanding of what they do believe so you do not misrepresent in the future my brother in Christ.

        God bless

    2. Daman my friend and brother in Christ,
      He just misspoke. I watched the entire debate he is very clear with many statements that Christ died for those God elected in Him before the foundation of the world, from all eternity. Ephesians 1:4 Particular Redemption Definite Atonement. Even FOH a Non-Calvinist above said this is no big deal so chill out bro. Dr. White just should have humbled himself and admitted he misspoke. I have done it. You have done it, Dr. Leighton Flowers, I have seen has done it many times and I even give one example above if it gets posted where I corrected him on it. He did not get all frustrated and bent out of shape like Dr. White did and I commend him on that. Sometimes Dr. White can be a little too serious and he is a little rough around the edges. But we can sit here and sinfully judge him, thinking we are better than him. Or we can pray for our brother in Christ to see that weakness in Character become a strength in Christ. It’s up to you. If you are without sin go ahead and cast the first stone. If you want to have a personal discussion on the L, the lazy man’s Tulip, I am up for it, I personally think it is the strongest point of the Doctrines of Grace. Particular Redemption. You accused Dr. White of Double talk and you did not watch the video. I did and will be posting his other comments that support what he really believes tomorrow. Even Dr. Flowers having a little fun with Dr. White told him I know this is not what you believe. So your tongue Daman spoke with Duplicity and Hypocrisy.

      God bless my brother and stay strong in the love of Christ

      1. Thanks for your heartfelt comment.
        So it’s ok for you to call me a double speaking hypocrite, but not ok for me to call JW out. Interesting.

      2. It just points out the typical double speak that we have come to expect from the Calvinist. James white is going to have to change the L in his tulip to a U. – TUUIP, I like the sound of that! The lazy man’s TULIP

        Damon, my brother in Christ, your right I should not have come on as strong as I did. But look at your quote above about Dr. White and Calvinists in general. You’re no longer having a discussion about doctrine or about what is truth in the Bible. You began making personal attacks against Christain Calvinists. You said this, “this double talk is what we have come to expect from Calvinists. First of all, Dr, Flowers was just having to poke the bear and having a little fun with Dr. White but the rest of you are always like a chicken on a bug with these ad hominem attacks. White just Misspoke, It was not double talk. You did not do your homework and watch the debate. If you had I promise you would have been greatly edified. Because Dr. White is a Calvinist? No, because he gave one of the best Christ-centered. God-Glorifying messages/debates in contrasts to Rome’s heretical gospel that I have heard in a long time. He does stay true to the fact that Christ died only for the elect that was chosen in Eternity. But that was not brought up very often at all. The centrality of the message was upon the finished work of Christ upon that Holy Cross. So yes. I openly rebuked you. For saying what you did and not knowing the background. FOH, a Non-Calvinist said it was no big deal, just that Dr. White should have said he misspoke. Dr. Flowers who made me laugh, for he was hilarious and funny in His video, told James that he knew he did not believe what he said. But Dr. Flowers knew he got Dr. White and that is a hard thing to do for he is one tough cookie and a very intelligent man. You said you only called out James White. See Damon. Once again you are not truthful. You said it is typical of the double we have come to expect from Calvinists.” Why are you doing this Damon and saying these things? Can you give me a whole lot of examples of Calvinists doing this? Because that is what you implied. Then you really have the nerve to ask me why I said you were speaking with duplicity and hypocrisy. Listen I want us to get back to being brothers and sisters in Christ when discussing these issues. Quit the personal attacks. Just deal with the substance, speaking the truth in love. So I am sorry and ask you to forgive me if I came on too ostrong, but it was all the way down the blog. One Non-Calvinist after another making personal attacks. Thinking this was checkmate or something. Dr. White just misspoke. That is all. No biggie. We have all done it. I have made some big mistakes on here and been corrected and admitted to all that I was wrong. I do not care. I want truth in the inward parts, even if that means I am wrong about Calvinism and I have to give it up and renew my mind with God’s word. But I do not want to sit around all day having to deal with personal sinful disdainful attacks. Where we curse a man with our tongue and with the same tongue we bless God. Such things ought not to be. God bless my brother and please do not be offended. There will come a time on here when I will do something wrong and someone will have to correct me. It has happened. Brian Wagner taught me a great deal about discussing and not becomiing easily offended also trying my best not to offend. But sometimes open rebuke is better than concealed love.

      3. speakingthetruthinlove,

        I’m sorry that you are a bit sensitive. I don’t mean to hurt your feelings. These type of forums are about pushing back on each other and are done lightheartedly with no malice intended. But I realize that there are some like yourself that have weak tolerance and find it hard to see these things. So I do apologize if you have taken what I have said has hurt you or Mr White.

        A gentle sensitive heart such as yourself might not be the best place on these forums, but again please don’t take that personally. It’s hard to articulate with mere type with someone so sensitive as yourself. So I hope you are feeling better soon brother.

  7. There are two issues regarding the atonement. One is the “intent” of the atonement, and the other is the “extent” of the atonement. John Owen in his “Death of Death…” addresses the “intent ” of the atonement. David Allen has an chapter in “Whosoever Will” where he addresses the “extent” of the atonement. I don’t think there is anything major in Allen’s article with which Calvinists would disagree – maybe some nitpicks..

    James White said, “If you end up under the wrath of God it is because you’ve rejected His provision for you and you’re justly punished for your sins.” White’s use of the term, “provision,” tells us that he is speaking of the “extent” of the atonement. At the end of that statement, White and any Calvinist would add, “All people are sinners and all people reject God’s provision for them in the death of Christ. All people could be justly punished for their sins.” White is not referring to the case where God has quickened the spirit and given the person faith – all such people do accept God’s salvation because that was God’s intent in quickening their spirit and giving them faith.

    1. Wow… flipping the normal meaning “extent” that Calvinists normally use for the atonement just to defend White from making a false statement about his position… I know some politicians that would benefit from that – “what-he-really-meant-to-say” kind of spin! 😂😂😂

      1. Brian,
        How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

        This (spin) idea of “One is the “intent” of the atonement, and the other is the “extent” of the atonement,” is so much parsing of words to have one’s cake and eat it too.

        I cannot count how many times a Calvinist (thinking he will plunge the final dagger in me) says something like, “Oh, FOH, you think that Christ died only to make provision for man’s salvation, not to save him!!!” (wink, I got you now!) “Oh, FOH, so man can reject what God has provided for him—making man ‘stronger than God’!” (double wink, got you on “provision” and “man-centered”—you’re toast!)

        White said exactly the same thing.

        Of course White does not believe that man is rejecting what Christ provided for him! We know that. But that fact that he blames everyone else for his Freudian slip, and the fact that RH creates this linguistic gymnastics to defend him just shows how far they will go to defend Mary-worshiping Augustine and his card-carrying crew!

      2. brianwagner writes, “… flipping the normal meaning “extent” that Calvinists normally use for the atonement just to defend White from making a false statement about his position… ”

        Oh, Brian!!! You surely know that John Owen is cited as the definitive source for the Calvinist position on the atonement. I would even bet that you have read “Death of Death…” or at least, Book 1, where Owen lays out his argument. However, even within that work, Owen distinguishes between “intent” and ‘extent.”

        David Allen, in his chapter in “Whosoever Will,” writes, “Atonement, in modern usage, refers to the expiatory and propitiatory act of Christ on the cross whereby satisfaction for sin was accomplished. One must be careful to distinguish between the intent, extent, and application of the atonement.” Then, “Three major areas comprise the subject of the atonement: intent, extent, and application. The intent of the atonement, since it relates to the differing perspectives on election, answers the question, What was Christ’s saving purpose in providing an atonement? Did He equally or unequally desire the salvation of every human? Then, consequently, does His intent necessarily have a bearing upon the extent of His satisfaction?” Then, “The extent of the atonement answers the question, For whose sins was Christ punished? There are two possible answers. First, Christ died for the sins of all humanity, either with equal intent (He died for the sins of all as He equally intends their salvation), or with unequal intent (He died for the sins of all but especially intends to save the elect). Second, Christ died for the sins of the elect only (strict particularism) as He only intends their salvation.”

        Since Traditionalists, like Dr. Flowers, give great credibility to the book, “Whosoever Will,” (even referring to it as a definitive response to Calvinism, as silly as that might seem), we should agree with Allen for purposes of discussions on Soteriology 101 since Dr. Flowers also cites it with approval. Of course, this is nothing new, so I am surprised by your comment. James White recognizes that the arguments on the atonement reflect the distinctions that Allen has made and he speaks to “extent” in the comment cited by Dr. Flowers.

        Dr. Flowers just overreacted to White’s comment.

      3. Roger, are you denying that the Calvinist/Owen’s view for the “extent” of the atonement is what Allen calls the second view if extent – “for the elect only”? Your response was that “extent” was for everyone, to try to rehabilitate White’s misstatement. I’d like you to find a quote from Owen on that one…

        I already have the misstatement by White… which in his rebuttal he indirectly admitted to being a misstatement imo by his acknowledging the hunt others make for such statement, and by not affirming or denying it was a misstatement, and by not showing how it was not a misstatement as you are attempting to do.

        If you find such a statement from Owen, I won’t mind apologizing. 😉

      4. Brian,

        Calvinists can say that man is sinful, and that man deserves death. But…They cannot say that man refuses an offer that God provides.

        A. (for them) There is no offer being made.

        B. (for them) If there were an offer being made it would “necessarily” need to be accepted (it is irresistible).

        There is just flat out no room in their hermeneutic for a statement like “If you end up under the wrath of God it is because you’ve rejected His provision for you.” This sentence clearly makes man the one who is in charge of his destiny. God provided, but man rejected. On its face, it is 100% “man-centered” and they should have the ability to call it a “misspeaking” and move on.

        The sooner White and RH admit that, the sooner we see that they are willing to have an honest discussion. All the blustering until then just clouds the discussion.

      5. FOH writes, “But…They cannot say that man refuses an offer that God provides.”

        So, FOH, is this a purposeful distortion on your part or what???

        Jesus commanded, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” So Paul, “…we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness,…” and “To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ,..”

        Now if you want, let us allow that some might respond to the preaching of the gospel without any additional help from God. Of those who still reject the gospel – who are without doubt the most depraved of men – could we not allow God to save such as He will?

      6. Brianwagner asks, “are you denying that the Calvinist/Owen’s view for the “extent” of the atonement is what Allen calls the second view if extent – “for the elect only”? Your response was that “extent” was for everyone, to try to rehabilitate White’s misstatement. I’d like you to find a quote from Owen on that one…”

        I think White would agree to this quote from Owen, “…such as was the sacrifice and offering, of Christ in itself, such was it intended by his Father it should be. It was, then, the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose; yea, and of other worlds also, if the Lord should freely make them, and would redeem them. Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world. This sufficiency of his sacrifice hath a twofold rise:–First., The dignity of the person that did offer and was offered. Secondly, The greatness of the pain he endured, by which he was able to bear, and did undergo, the whole curse of the law and wrath of God due to sin. And this sets out the innate, real, true worth and value of the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ.” (Book 4, Chapter 25)

      7. Brian,

        Jeff Bezos (worth 150 billion) has enough money to give every person in America (330 million) about $454. Amazing. He could do that. The fact that I do not have that $454 is not cuz “I refused what he could do.”

        Of course Calvinists are gonna say (and quote) that Christ’s sacrifice “could have” been great enough “for the redeeming of all and every man,” if the Father has so desired (“if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose”).

        That is not the same (that “He could have”) as saying man “refused what was offered.”

        By the way, how comforting the words of John Owen that the Father did not desire to save the 98% that are lost.

      8. Thank you Roger for confirming that Owen does not teach that the extent of the atonement was a provision for everyone, and that you agree that White misspoke both his and Owen’s view of the extent! 🙂 I can read with much accuracy what you meant to say well enough after all our conversations! 😉

      9. Exactly Brian!

        “….sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose;”

        We all agree that Calvinists follow Owen here saying that it is NOT offered to all. Why is that so hard for them to say?

        They say our task it to preach to the world “Christ crucified,” but when preaching they cannot say “Christ died for you!” to every man they meet.

      10. FOH writes, “We all agree that Calvinists follow Owen here saying that it is NOT offered to all.”

        I don’t believe Owen argues that it is not offered to all. He certainly believes that the gospel is preached to all and thereby offered to all. Owen argues that God is specifically offering the gospel to His elect and then takes steps to ensure that those elect accept the gospel.

      11. FOH writes, “They say our task it to preach to the world “Christ crucified,” but when preaching they cannot say “Christ died for you!” to every man they meet.”

        This must be true. If Christ died for John Doe and it was God’s intent that He do so, certainly God will ensure that Christ will not be denied by John Doe.

      12. brianwagner writes, “Thank you Roger for confirming that Owen does not teach that the extent of the atonement was a provision for everyone, and that you agree that White misspoke both his and Owen’s view of the extent!”

        I think you are confusing “intent” with “extent.” Certainly, by “intent,” Christ’s death was a provision for the elect and Owen makes that case. God could elect to save anyone He wanted and to bring such people to salvation.. However, the “extent” of the atonement was such that it was provided to everyone by the preaching of the gospel for the gospel was proclaimed to all. The difference between “intent” and “extent” being the degree to which God would involve Himself (or the Holy Spirit) in the affairs of some people to bring them to salvation. That, however, did not prevent anyone other than the elect from responding to that gospel – and this is what Dr. Flowers argues is possible. White accepts this when then says, such people if they reject the gospel are “justly punished for your sins.” Even Dr. Flowers agrees with this as he is not an universalist. The real issue is whether any other than the elect actually will respond to the gospel other than in a negative manner to reject it. There is a provisional atonement for all provided through the preaching of the gospel. All who hear the gospel preached and reject that gospel are justly punished for outside the gospel, eternal life is not possible. I don’t see an inconsistency in what White said and his reformed theology

      13. I’ll keep waiting then, Roger, for you finding the quote from Owen, and perhaps a confirmation quote from White, where both of them clearly the word “extent” tied to a provision of the atonement for all.

        Quotes using the term “sufficiency” or the premise of universal call won’t do. White clearly said judgment was for rejection of the atonement provided for them not for rejection of the call to accept the atonement that wasn’t provided for them.

        Maybe you should contact White and see if you can get some payback for defending his misstatement concerning his limited atonement position. 😂

      14. Brianwagner writes, “both of them clearly the word “extent” tied to a provision of the atonement for all.”

        Owen writes, “To the honour, then, of Jesus Christ…we affirm…so great was the dignity and worth of his death and blood-shedding…that it was every way able and perfectly sufficient to redeem, justify, and reconcile and save all the sinners in the world…and to bring them every one to everlasting glory. Now, this fulness and sufficiency of the merit of the death of Christ is a foundation unto two things:– First, The general publishing of the gospel unto “all nations,” with the right that it hath to be preached to “every creature,”…because the way of salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in…If there were a thousand worlds, the gospel of Christ might, upon this ground, be preached to them all, there being enough in Christ for the salvation of them all, if so be they will derive virtue from him by touching him in faith; the only way to draw refreshment from this fountain of salvation. It is, then, altogether in vain which some object, that the preaching of the gospel to all is altogether needless and useless, if Christ died not for all; yea, that it is to make God call upon men…the preachers of the gospel…may from hence justifiably call upon every man to believe, with assurance of salvation to every one in particular upon his so doing, knowing, and being fully persuaded of this, that there is enough in the death of Christ to save every one that shall so do; leaving the purpose and counsel of God, on whom he will bestow faith, and for whom in particular Christ died (even as they are commanded), to himself…A second thing to be considered is, the economy or administration of the new covenant in the times of the gospel,…Now, this administration is so opposite to that dispensation which was restrained to one people and family, who were God’s peculiar, and all the rest of the world excluded, that it gives occasion to many general expressions in the Scripture;”

        Then, “White clearly said judgment was for rejection of the atonement provided for them not for rejection of the call to accept the atonement that wasn’t provided for them.”

        Actually, it was provided to them in that it was preached to them. Anyone hearing the gospel preached would understand that they could avail themselves of that gospel and be saved. The issue for you here is that Owen said that it was not God’s intent to save any but His elect even though the gospel was preached to all including the non-elect. Let’s accept your premise – that those whom God did not intend to save and would not takes such actions as were necessary to save them could still respond to the gospel and be saved as the gospel is easy to understand and even those who reject the gospel understand fully that which the gospel says. Let’s accept that and still allow God to same whom He will. Do you have a problem with that?

      15. What I have, Roger, is a problem with your response, that is only repetitious of what you’ve already said and only more verbose… but with still no evidence of the word “extent” being used by White or Owen in the way you used it in defence of White’s misstatement and then citing Owen in support. I’ll keep waiting… but will not respond if your next response continues to be deficient. Sorry. 😑

      16. brianwagner writes, “but with still no evidence of the word “extent” being used by White or Owen in the way you used it in defence of White’s misstatement and then citing Owen in support. ‘

        You want the specific word, “extent,” and reject Owen’s description of extent. You choose to ignore the substance of Owen’s words which speak to the issue of extent.

        In John 3, you appeared at one time, to reject the identification of “kingdom of God” as referring to salvation. I suspect you tease out the word “trinity” from the Scriptures even though the word, “trinity,” is never used. So, sometimes you see the obvious; sometimes you reject the obvious.

      17. I think I will have to say WOW too along with Brian on this one Roger. My understanding of the extent of the atonement from the Calvinist Perspective is who Christ actually and only died for. The Calvinist does not believe he died for every single person in the world without exception. That is why its called Limited atonement, Particular Redemption, Definite Atonement. I am definitely open to being corrected. But I Understand the nature of the atonement but the extent extends only to those chosen or elected by God in Christ before the Foundation of the World, Ephesians 1:4. I could pull up many many particular redemption passages but I am just too tired. Had one of those insomnia nights and I still have to mow the grass. Brain why did God predetermine that? 🙂 I also know that the death of Christ in the teachings of Christ has some type of application toward the non-elect in the sense of common grace. I have heard of it in bits and pieces but I am really ignorant of this truth. I have the resources to study it. Brian’s voice just popped into my mind as soon as I wrote that. I could hear him saying. “Kevin, How about first, prayer, a study of the Word of God depending on that anointing that abides within you and teaches you all things” I remember brother 🙂 I will give my view on the extent of the atonement later on known at the “Eschatological Universalism” using the Text that Brian and I disagree upon 1 John 2:2 Universal only in a limited sense. Take for granted Revelation 5:8 for example;

        Revelation 5:8 – 8 Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:

        “You are worthy to take the scroll,
        And to open its seals;
        You were slain,
        And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
        Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

        Jesus is the Lamb of God who will take away the sin of the world.

        I have been given all authority and power in heaven and in the EARTH, now you go MAKING DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS, TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHICH I HAVE COMMANDED, AND BEHOLD I Will be with you until the end.

        Did Jesus mean what he said, for us to make disciples of all nations? We know disciples are followers of Christ and we are to baptize them in the name of Father Son and Holy Spirit. The reason for success is that Jesus has been given all power in heaven and in the earth.

        Yes, I am Postmil, not Premil Dispensational Eschatology. The seconding coming of Jesus is not imminent, it is not in your immediate future. I have gone through a few Pastors in my lifetime who have said that Jesus was going to come in their lifetime and they have gone on to be with the Lord and Jesus has not returned yet. Instead of preaching from the pulpit that Jesus is coming soon, we need to be telling people that on one knows the day or the hour. And that more than likely the next thing on your spiritual calendar is physical death. Our life is like a vaper, it is a moment and then it vanishes away. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. I believe with have thousands and thousands of years before the Lord returns. That is a good challenge for someone. Look at all the different eschatology views and see which one is closest to scripture. I know the most recent is the pre-mill Dispensational that was made came into being in the early 1830’s and was popularized by the Scofield Bible and is dominant in today’s churches. I have read much on the critique of this view, its literalism of the Book of Revelation and the fictional Left Behind Book Series and Movies. This one is new recent and suspect. I believe Jesus will win the victory in History, Sit thou at my right hand until I make all your enemies my footstool. How did I get on this?????

      18. KK writes, ” My understanding of the extent of the atonement from the Calvinist Perspective is who Christ actually and only died for. The Calvinist does not believe he died for every single person in the world without exception.”

        It is “intent” that refers to those for whom Christ died. God sent Christ to the cross with the intent of saving His elect. It is the value or worth of Christ that determines the “extent” of the atonement – that Christ’s atonement was of sufficient value for God to save as many or as few as He wanted. Christ’s atonement was not limited to just the elect but was sufficient to cover the sins of each and every person had it been God’s purpose to save each and every person. This is what I gather from Owen’s argument in “Death of Death…” In reading Allen’s chapter on the atonement in “Whosoever Will” I was confused. Either Allen is confused or I am. So, I am reading it again.

        Owen writes, “Thus clear, then, and apparent, is the intention and design of Christ and his Father in this great work, even what it was, and towards whom,– namely, to save us, to deliver us from the evil world, to purge and wash us, to make us holy, zealous, fruitful in good works, to render us acceptable, and to bring us unto God; for through him “we have access into the grace wherein we stand Rom. 5:2….The death and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ hath wrought, and doth effectually procure, for all those that are concerned in it, eternal redemption, consisting in grace here and glory hereafter.”

    2. I will have to check into it closer brother you could be right, but I do know that the extent of the atonement is talking about those for whom Christ died as in the article down below

      http://www.the-highway.com/bronson_intro.html

      On preliminary considerations, it actually begins by saying, “The problem of the extent of the atonement may be summed up in the question “for whom did Christ die?”

      Read the article brother and review the Holy Scriptures, “extent of the atonement” speaks of the question “for whom did Christ die”

      The intent of the atonement is the nature of Christ’s death and its benefits and blessings to the elect, what it accomplishes for them

      This article talks about the purpose and the extent of the atonement. From reading the article I think we can equate purpose with the nature of the atonement.

      https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/purpose-extent-atonement/systematic-theology/louis-berkhof

      Then there is this article of the nature of the atonement the seems to like the article of the purpose of the atonement

      http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/natureatone.html

      In this article, The Divine Intention of the Cross it seems to talk about the purpose and nature of the atonement briefly and then spends more time on whom Christ death actually secured Salvation for. Which would be the elect in Christ from all eternity.

      http://cpr-foundation.org/resources/essays/228

      So as of right now, I am going to have to dig into this again and understand the vocabulary. It seems as if purpose and nature can go together and intent and extent could go together but under the intent, purpose, and nature of the atonement seems to be explained also. Those Calvinist, none of them are on the same page. How can we expect the Non-Calvinist to understand 🙂 It is probably just me mixed up and needing to review.

      1. KK writes, “I do know that the extent of the atonement is talking about those for whom Christ died as in the article down below”

        Thank’s for the link. I hope to read it this week. The book begins, “The problem of the extent of the atonement may be summed up in the question “for whom did Christ die?” Here, the confusion begins. When we ask, “for whom did Christ die?” we are asking whom God intended to save. This presumes that God has a plan for the salvation of people, and God is instrumental in executing that plan to bring about, at least, the conclusion He wants. I am with Owen on this who argued (I believe) that intent responds to the question, “”for whom did Christ die?” and extent responds to the question, “who could be saved by Christ’s death?” Extent deals with the value/worth of Christ’s death as the means for a person to be saved through his own reasoning or through intervention by God to bring him to salvation.

        So, we seem to be coming at this issue from two different directions from which we each begin with different definitions of “intent” and “extent.”

        Then, “The intent of the atonement is the nature of Christ’s death and its benefits and blessings to the elect, what it accomplishes for them”

        I think this illustrates a problem in defining the issue. The issue is not “intent of the atonement.” The “intent” refers not to the atonement but to God’s purpose for the atonement. Intent asks the question, “What was God’s purpose for sending Christ to die on the cross as an atonement for sin?” The “intent” of the atonement here is to provide a remedy for sin. God’s “intent” in providing a remedy for sin is to save His elect (regardless how a person comes to be among the elect).

        Underlying all this is that God foreknows those who are His elect. However, even if we deny that God has foreknowledge of His elect (as the Open Theist claims), there is still the issue of God’s involvement in the salvation of people. If that involvement – through the Holy Spirit – encompasses quickening the spiritually dead sinner, drawing the person to Christ, giving them faith, convicting the person of sin, opening their heart to be responsive to the gospel, etc. then Calvinist Theology still accurately explains the situation.

      2. I still have to disagree with you. my friend. I have just read today about the extent of the atonement and it means for who did Christ die for, or who did he through his death on the Cross secure salvation for. The extent,, does Christ death extend to everybody without exception. Did Christ die for all? Did it extend to those elected in Christ Jesus from all eternity by the God the Father?

        I do think it overlaps somewhat. Because you could say the design of the atonement was to save the elect only,

        And what was the extent of the atonement of Christ? To whom did it extend to. To everyone without exception? Universal? Universal in a limited sense? Yes, the elect of God in Christ Jesus from all eternity.

        Matthew 1:21. “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

        Jesus is not to save every man, but only his own people, for whose ransom he made a pact with the Father, in the covenant of redemption, for it is said, he shall save his own people.”56 Jesus came to save only those (the elect) given to Him by the Father. “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out…. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” (Jn. 6:37, 39.
        John 10:11, 14-16, 26-29. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep…. I am the good shepherd, and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd…. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.”

        With his precious blood Christ purchased his church (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27); his people (Matt. 1:21); the elect (Rom. 8:32-35).”59

        Look at the title of this article down below for the extent of the atonement. It does not say nature of the atonement it says. “The Extent of the Atonement: For Whom did Christ Die For?

        http://www.geocities.ws/mattperman/extent.html

        FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE? THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT IN PAUL’S THEOLOGY, by Jarvis J. Williams

        http://www.booksataglance.com/book-reviews/for-whom-did-christ-die-the-extent-of-the-atonement-in-pauls-theology-by-jarvis-j-williams/

        I really do not think either of us is wrong in using the words exent and intent in speaking of the atonement of Christ.

        The extent of the atonement of Christ extended only extended to them, the ones chosen in Christ from eternity, intended for them only.

        Definition of extent: the range over which something extends : scope the extent of her jurisdiction
        the point, degree, or limit to which something extends

        Nothing about nature or purpose

        Now let’s look at the definition of intent: the act or fact of intending : purpose; especially : the design or purpose

        On intent, we have design, purpose and we could also add nature. So we could say the God’s design, intent, nature and purpose of the atonement of Christ.

        I do think that rather clears up this confusion my brother in Christ. What was the intent, the very nature, design and purpose of the atonement of Christ?

        I also think “intent” could possibly encompass both, the nature or purpose of the atonement and the exent of the atonement, Who did it extend to? For whom did Christ die for?

        Then we have the reprobate.

        The Atonement Provides Common Grace Benefits for the Reprobate

        https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/atonement/redemptive-benefits-for-the-reprobate/

      3. KK writes, “I have just read today about the extent of the atonement and it means for who did Christ die for, or who did he through his death on the Cross secure salvation for.”

        Yes. I think the issue has been confused. Apparently, not many Calvinists after Owen have read his “Death of Death…” and have let the non-Calvinists define the issue. However, if we think of the word, “extent,” and ask to whom does the atonement extend, we would answer that it extends to all – either all who choose to be saved and all God chooses to save and even to all those who refuse salvation. When we ask the specific question, “For whom did Christ die?” then we are asking about God’s purpose for sending Christ to die and that deals with God’s “intent.”

        I guess no one is supposed to read Owen anymore – probably because the non-Calvinists don’t have a response to Owen and would rather not deal with Owen or anyone who reads Owen. No excuse for anyone who calls himself a Calvinist not to have read Owen or Edwards on Free Will or Calvin.

      4. Roger – I guess I have to do your work for you? What do you think Owen meant by “extent” in this quote found in chapter 6 of Death of Death – “Secondly, That what persons soever the one respecteth, in the good things it obtaineth, the same, all, and none else, doth the other respect, in applying the good things so obtained; for “he was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification,” Rom. iv. 25. That is, in brief, the object of the one is of NO LARGER EXTENT [emphasis mine] than the object of the other; or, for whom Christ offered himself, for all those, and only those, doth he intercede, according to his own word, “For their sake I sanctify myself” (to be an oblation), “that they also might be sanctified through the truth,” John xvii. 19.

      5. brian wagner askes, “What do you think Owen meant by “extent” in this quote found in chapter 6 of Death of Death – “…That is, in brief, the object of the one is of NO LARGER EXTENT [emphasis mine] than the object of the other; or, for whom Christ offered himself, for all those, and only those, doth he intercede, according to his own word,…”

        I guess if you are reading Owen, that is a good thing. In this section, Owen is speaking of Christ’s oblation and Christ’s intercession. Those for whom Christ offered Himself is the same as those for whom He intercedes. Christ did not offer himself for some for whom He did not also intercede. When we speak of the extent of the atonement, we speak of the value or worth of that atonement – the extent to which that atonement could be applied by God to those it was His intent to save. Here, Owen’s use of “extent” is to compare those for whom Christ died and those for whom He later intercedes – the one is not greater than the other, nor one less than the other. This is separate from the issue of God’s intent for sending Christ to die (Whom did God intend to save by the death of Christ?) and the value or worth of that atonement (To whom could God have applied Christ’s death?)

      6. Roger – “all those and only those”. Owen is clearly saying extent and intent are limited to the same group.

        Are you waiting for God to give you “repentance” before you can admit you were wrong on this one? 😂

      7. brian wagner writes, ““all those and only those”. Owen is clearly saying extent and intent are limited to the same group.”

        I agree. In this case, Owen is dealing with the atonement of Christ and Christ’s intercession for those for whose sins He was sent to atone. Owen may speak of God’s intent to save His elect – “Christ was delivered for our sins.” and the extent to which Christ goes to accomplish this – “Christ was raised for our justification.” Owen is saying that Christ will do what is necessary – extent of His actions – to accomplish God’s plan (intent) to save His elect.

        If we speak of the atonement alone, we can say that God intended that Christ die to save His elect but that the value of the atonement was such as to extend the atonement to whatever number God chose to save.

        You have to ignore context in order to create an issue that would not otherwise exist.

        Actually, I am waiting for you to explain why I am wrong. If all you can do is nit-pick, what is that to me?

      8. Thanks for agreeing with my interpretation of Owen’s use of “extent”. I’m satisfied to take that as close as you can bring yourself to say you misspoke when you were defending White in his misstatement about the provision of the atonement for those in hell. Blessings.

      9. brian wagner writes, “Thanks for agreeing with my interpretation of Owen’s use of “extent”.”

        LOL! I love your sense of humor.

      10. I will re-read Owen to better understand where you are coming from. Although I do not think we are really that far apart overall, or anything that is a big issue. I look forward to reading Owen again.

      11. KK writes, ” I look forward to reading Owen again.”

        I find Owen difficult to read but his references to his opponent are entertaining.

  8. Brian,
    You make a good point.

    For White to whine on about this shows a lot. He could have:

    1. Said nothing
    2. Said “I misspoke. I really believe the following.”
    3. Said “I am gonna double down and repeat what I said.”

    He did none of those. He just went on and on about how silly it is for people to ….uh, parse people’s his words (something he does regularly to others).

  9. Dr. Flowers,
    I have been preparing for days now for a response to your video and brief message underneath on 2 Thessalonians 2:13. I will give Brian Wagner his Word Study. I practically wrote down everything you said on the video lol 🙂 So I could quote word for word and not misrepresent you and point out where you are misunderstanding the Calvinist and misrepresenting us. I see you are unfamiliar with what Paul Washer was preaching about the sinner seeking Salvation with the natural means and natural ability God has given him, He has no spiritual ability to seek God or do God or fear Him. I will go more into that later, I will hit all the scriptures you covered, Ephesians, Acts, and the others, The word beginning in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not refer to the beginning of the preaching of the gospel in some since which Brian Wagner refers to I believe, If I am wrong Brian correct me. It is within the context of the very verse it is within. Then we cannot just ignore other verses that support the Doctrine of Election in Christ from all Eternity unto Salvation into time and history. I will address them. I will do this in small comments. For there is much to comment on and to cover. Brian still needs to openly recant of his mistake about Martin Luther of quoting him out of context.

    I want to do this by speaking the truth in love Sir. No sinful quarreling, no personal attacks, but just iron sharpening iron and in gentleness and reverence.

    I have said there are three people on here that have influenced me the most with their godly conduct and Character. It is you, (I have watched you a lot, your debates, how you talk about what other Calvinists believer) you are for the most part always Christlike and respectful. Brian Wagner, he has a very kind and forgiving spirit, I know, for he has extended that grace to me several times. Much more than I deserved. And last but not least, Eric the Admin. Eric and I had an email debate on John 6, I was definitely wrong on my understanding of 2 verses. Eric corrected me. He did not make a big deal about it. Was gracious and kind and I just knew his Biblical Exegesis skills were better than mine. I am now reading a book again on Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis and taking some classes online. Eric is not making me feel dumb put and by not even saying nothing put this desire within me to get better at this.

    There is one thing that offends me though Sir. It is the song at the beginning of your podcast. It seems to lump all Calvinist together as being rude, disrespectful. That you cannot ask them a question without them getting angry. That they will not yield or admit if they are wrong. I immediately admitted I was wrong when Eric corrected me. Maybe you are just having a little fun because that is not how you daily and habitually carry yourself. But I think it could stunt this very important discussion and give off the wrong message.

    Now I know in your “Free Will Debate” with the two so-called Christian Calvinist, they were very disrespectful and rude. But you conducted yourself very self-controlled, godly and Christlike. Actually being Christ-Controlled. I found myself rooting for you and your debate partner 🙂 But then in loving firmness, and you were in the right, you finally spoke up and said, “Can I please just finish one sentence without being rudely interrupted. I was glad and happy for you. Open rebuke is better than concealed. That also was your best debate in my opinion. It actually made me re-think and have to restudy some things.

    I hope I am not blaspheming, but I gave you, Brian and Eric nick-name, only to boast in the Lord of your Godly Character in Christ and to encourage the rest of us on Soteriology101 to follow that example. As the Apostle Paul said follow me as I follow Christ. He would often boast of churches he founded and of their progress in the Lord. So I am not blaspheming the Trinity. I call you guys the Loving Holy Triad.

    God bless and I pray that if I am wrong or whoever is right God will open the eyes of our hearts and give us the understanding. If you feel I have offended anywhere on here. I do ask for forgiveness in Christ.

  10. Intent, extent, internal call, external call, general call, effectual call….blah, blah, blah.

    I hope everyone is seeing just how twisted/complicated /convoluted the teachings of Calvinism really are. They have their own language. Its like you have to have a degree in a foreign language just to understand it. Can you see that on your resume? I speak “Calvin”.

    1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (NKJV)….
    Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved (meaning they were Lost before believing it), if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures….

    I don’t know how Paul could have made it any clearer. When Paul first came to those living in Corinth he preached to them in their lost condition…. “that Christ died for OUR sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again”. To be saved, you have to believe Christ Jesus died for your sins. You have to receive His pardon on your behalf.

    Yet a 5 pointer will never make that proclamation (and it should be stated that within all Christendom, only 5 point Calvinists limit the work/scope of the Cross). Instead they will say “Christ came to save sinners” (while for them it should read “Christ came to save ‘some’ sinners”). They will deceptively leave the lost sinner with the perception/impression that Christ did indeed die for them, but they won’t actually say it.

    The scriptures state that Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6). Last time I checked, that pretty much covered everybody. Especially me.

    Of course the (5 point) Calvinist will teach that Christ only died for the elect.

    Well, take it from one of the non-elect. He died for me too. Praise the Lord.

    1. phillip writes, “I hope everyone is seeing just how twisted/complicated /convoluted the teachings of Calvinism really are. They have their own language.”

      Wasn’t it the Arminians who came up with “prevenient” grace? Aren’t people just saved by grace and doesn’t grace save? Yet, all are not saved – so has grace failed? So, we have “prevenient” grace and “saving” grace. Did Christ’s atonement actually save people or just make salvation possible? Now, we have two ways to describe the atonement – it can save or just make salvation possible. It’s not the Calvinists who have generated the complicated language used by many to explain salvation. It is people like you, Phillip, who don’t want to give God control over salvation and need to call things what they are not..

      1. From wikipedia….
        “Prevenient grace is a Christian theological concept rooted in Arminian theology, though it appeared earlier in Catholic theology….. Regeneration is the work of what Augustine called ‘prevenient’ grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God.”

        “Wasn’t it the Arminians who came up with ‘prevenient’ grace?”

        So, nope.

        “It is people like you, Phillip, who don’t want to give God control over salvation and need to call things what they are not.”

        Psalm 3:8 (NKJV)…..
        Salvation belongs to the LORD.

        “…so has grace failed?”

        Grace does not fail. But grace does allow for failure.

        2 Thessalonians 2:10b (NIV)….
        They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

      2. “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.”
        and
        “…the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness,…”
        BUT
        ““All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.”

    2. Here Philips goes again ranting about something he is totally ignorant about just like when he was trying to convince me there were two types of ways to Justified before God using Abraham as an example. You will not read about it I am sure. It is mostly just Holy Scripture, but it will identify for you who the “ungodly sinners” are you spoke above in your comment.

      Philip asserts: “The scriptures state that Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6). Last time I checked, that pretty much-covered everybody.”

      When was the last time you checked Philip? Where does it say that the ungodly cover everyone? Have you done an exhaustive study of the Word of God to see if your assertion and philosophy lines up with God’s word? It does not say, everybody, it only says Christ died for the ungodly and like above Christ only died for sinners. You are reading into it that Christ died for all the ungodly sinners without exception without doing a diligent study of God’s word so you will not be ashamed.

      But I am afraid once again it is too late. Let us look at some other passages of Scriptures that will qualify the ones you have mentioned but have read your tradition and indoctrination into.

      John 17:9
      I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

      Philip, Jesus does not pray for the whole wide world without exception?!?!?!? You have got to be kidding me????? No, he only prays FOR THOSE THE FATHER HAS GIVEN HIM. They were ungodly sinners.

      John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will [f]by no means cast out.

      38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

      39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up at the last day.

      Here we read again about those who were given to Jesus by the Father in verse 37. It is guaranteed by Jesus they will come to Him and he will not cast them out, And that all the Father has given to Him he will raise up on the last day.

      John 10:15
      Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep.

      26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.

      27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

      28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

      29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.

      The sheep are the ungodly sinners. They do not become sheep after they are saved as the Non-Calvinist reads into this passage so often to twist its meaning to escape its logical truth. JESUS SAYS HE GIVES ETERNAL LIFE TO HIS SHEEP. THE SHEEP ARE GIVEN TO HIM BY THE FATHER. See the theme running here in the Gospel of John Philip. The Father giving a certain elect ungodly elected sinners to Jesus here called sheep that Jesus said he will give eternal life to.

      John17:2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He [a]should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

      Again we read of ungodly sinners that have been given to Jesus, not every single person without exception. BECAUSE JESUS SAID ALL THAT THE FATHER HAS GIVEN HIM HE GIVES ETERNAL LIFE TO. They are ungodly sinners. Ungodly sinners in a Universal limited sense he gives eternal life to.

      Matthew 20:28
      Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

      Ephesians 5:25
      Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

      Acts 20:28
      Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

      John 3:16
      “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

      Matthew 26:28
      For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

      Revelation 5:9
      And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood, you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

      Ephesians 1:4
      Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

      John 17:6
      “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.

      John 1:13
      Who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

      Isaiah 53:11l
      Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

      I could continue Philip, but you will most likely not read this and even if you do your heart is hard and you are spiritually to the truth of it, It will take God giving you the spirit of wisdom and understanding in the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

    3. You should have entered the whole quote instead of just cherry picking. They defined things a lot different in Christian history than we do today Philip. The way Augustine defines it there is not even the way the Non-Calvinist defines Prevenient Grace today that cannot even be found in the Bible right along with your mythical fictitious idol of freewill mistaken pelegianism

      .Augustine: Regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit. It raises the elect among the spiritually dead to new life in Christ (Eph. 2:1-10). Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause. Regeneration is the work of what Augustine called ‘prevenient’ grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God.

      Augustine meant prevenient grace in the sense of it being monergistic, a work wholly of God in bringing a spiritually dead sinner back to new spiritual life. (I know we are not “too dead” still waiting on that one from God’s word) In Augustine’s Prevenient grace, the Holy Spirit in intimate connection with the instrumentality of the preached word of God, the passive sinner is born again/from above and repentance and faith are created and produced in him.

      Not the same as the unbiblical prevenient grace of Non-Calvinist. Please do not cherry pick anymore FOH. Don’t quote Calvinist articles out of Context, picking what you think will serve your tradition and incorrect indoctrination. It is not integrity or what God requires, truth in the inward parts. I will always check veracity when you quote from an article or from a Christian Calvinist. And I do expect there always to be a reference there as to where I can find or I will be asking you, Sir.

      The Whole article down below

      REGENERATION
      THE CHRISTIAN IS BORN AGAIN
      by J.I. Packer

      In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” JOHN 3:3

      Regeneration is a New Testament concept that grew, it seems, out of a parabolic picture-phrase that Jesus used to show Nicodemus the inwardness and depth of the change that even religious Jews must undergo if they were ever to see and enter the kingdom of God, and so have eternal life (John 3:3-15). Jesus pictured the change as being “born again.”

      The concept is of God renovating the heart, the core of a person’s being, by implanting a new principle of desire, purpose, and action, a dispositional dynamic that finds expression in positive response to the gospel and its Christ. Jesus’ phrase “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5) harks back to Ezekiel 36:25-27, where God is pictured as symbolically cleansing persons from sin’s pollution (by water) and bestowing a “new heart” by putting his Spirit within them. Because this is so explicit, Jesus chides Nicodemus, “Israel’s teacher,” for not understanding how new birth happens (John 3:9-10). Jesus’ point throughout is that there is no exercise of faith in himself as the supernatural Savior, no repentance, and no true discipleship apart from this new birth.

      Elsewhere John teaches that belief in the Incarnation and Atonement, with faith and love, holiness and righteousness, is the fruit and proof that one is born of God (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4). It thus appears that as there is no conversion without the new birth, so there is no new birth without conversion.

      Though infant regeneration can be a reality when God so purposes (Luke 1:15, 41-44), the ordinary context of the new birth is one of effectual calling—that is, confrontation with the gospel and illumination as to its truth and significance as a message from God to oneself. Regeneration is always the decisive element in effectual calling.

      Regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit. It raises the elect among the spiritually dead to new life in Christ (Eph. 2:1-10). Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause. Regeneration is the work of what Augustine called “prevenient” grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God.

  11. Salvation by the grace of God through faith.

    “unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”

    How good is the gospel!!!

    “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ”

    “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life”

    “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”

    Whosoever –
    WHOSOEVER, pron. [who, so, and ever.] Any one; any person whatever.
    Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely. Revelations 22. (Websters 1828 Dictionary)

    I love the gospel!!!

    1. DG,
      They never deal with the many verses that say that Satan “beguiles” people or blinds them. Why?

      But they do deal with the “whosoever will” verses with the wave of the Calvinist wand saying “That is true but ‘Mr Whosoever’ doesn’t will, cuz he is too-dead.” (cuz Calvinists say so).

      Satan wastes a lot of time blinding dead people. And why does God’s word tell us about Satan’s blinding if everyone is dead?

    2. DG writes, “Whosoever –
      WHOSOEVER, pron. [who, so, and ever.] Any one; any person whatever.
      Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely. Revelations 22. ”

      To this all agree.

      The dispute is over the need for the Holy Spirit to work in concert with the preaching of the gospel to bring a person to salvation. If Paul is correct when he says, “the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God….we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” The Calvinists say that the Holy Spirit must become involved to call a person to Christ else the gospel remains foolishness and a stumbling block. I think Dr. Flowers takes the position that the preaching of gospel alone and apart from any involvement of the Holy Spirit is sufficient to bring many to Christ.

      1. “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not”

        The gospel is spirit filled words from God. But as the bible says you can reject them.
        “But there are some of you that believe not”

        I love the gospel!!!

      2. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God”

        Notice – “to us which ARE saved” it is the power of God. Past tense. That’s why I love the KJV

        Jesus said – “And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand”

        Notice they can hear. Notice they can doeth them not, Notice Jesus calls it foolishness.

        Salvation by the grace of God through faith. Simple.

        I love the gospel!!!

      3. DG writes, “Notice – “to us which ARE saved” it is the power of God. Past tense.”

        Interesting that KJV has “saved” while all other translations have “being saved.” Unless one is in the KJV only crowd, he would probably take it as, “being saved.”

        Then, “Notice they can hear. Notice they can doeth them not, Notice Jesus calls it foolishness.”

        Same point Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 1.

    3. Yes and if you take a look at the word “whosoever” in the Greek or take a look at an Interlinear Bible you will see the “whosoever” actually means in John 3:16 “everyone believing one or everyone believing shall not perish but have everlasting life. It is talking about a PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE ALREADY IN A PRESENT OF ON-GOING CONSISTENT BELIEVING IN THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

      It is just not “whosoever shall not perish but have everlasting life” but whosoever or every believing one in a present state of on-going uninterrupted faith in the Gospel,

      The Non-Calvinist loves to stand behind the pulpit and thunder loudly. WHO….SO…..EVER…..!!!! Implying this means everyone without exception who has ever lived, is presently living or will ever lived. There are millions upon millions of people who have never heard the gospel of Christ.

      In John 3:16 it is talking about a particular group of people, the elect in Christ from eternity, believing ones who shall not perish but have everlasting life. God so loved the world is Jews and Gentiles.

      In John 17:9, Jesus does not pray for the world that you so feverishly believe he wants to save everybody without exception. He only prays for those the Father has given to Him. John 6:37 says all the Father has given to Jesus will come to Him and will in no wise cast them out.

      John 17:9 – 9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.

      John 6:37 – 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

      Your other verse in the book of Revelation is limited also. Not talking about everybody in the whole wide world without exception; It is speaking of those WHO ARE WILLING ONLY. THIS MAKES THEM A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE, NOT JUST A WHOSOEVER ONLY IMPLYING ANYBODY WITHOUT EXCEPTION. No, the word of God says the people spoken of are the “willing”

      Whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely. Revelations 22

      Every willing one lets him take of the waters of life freely.

      Now that is pushing back my elect brother in Christ

      1. Whosever! And we mean it! Who so and ever, anyone!
        Non- Calvinists use it as an invitation.
        Calvinists use it as an observation.
        Sad😞

    4. According to Damon Gribble : WHOSOEVER – ANYONE, ANY PERSON WHATEVER – He used this to insist universalism, Inclusivism, general atonement. The pronoun WHOSOEVER is only meant to all the descendants of Jacob-Israel in Isa. 45:4 and the elect Gentiles according to Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. As MANY as had been APPOINTED to eternal life believe. John 10:29 “The sheep that the Father gave to the Son”. It cannot be used to refer to the entire human race. If you will ask Jesus Christ as to whom did He offer His life? He will answer you back saying: “I lay down my life for the Sheep” John 10:11, 15. And who are the sheep? The answer is found in the above verses quoted.

  12. intent of Christ’s death is for the sheep (the elect) according to Jesus Himself in John 120:11, 15. The extent of Christ death was not for all human race because not all humans will go to heaven. Why we calvinist preach the gospel to all people? Because we are not omniscient like God We don’t know who are the sheep (the elect) and the goats or tares? We are incapable to determine who are the elect and who are the non-elect. But both elect and the Non-elect are all depraved to sin and was disconnected to God.

    1. Hi Jose. Those verses in John 10 do not prove Jesus ONLY died for His sheep… just like Gal 2:20 doesn’t mean He only gave Himself for Paul.

      If I tell you I paid for my family to go to Israel and later you find out I paid for my whole town to go to Israel… did I lie the first time? If some or even all of the town don’t use the tickets I bought for them, is it still true I paid for them to go?

      The Calvinist has a hard time believing God could love everyone sufficiently to actually provide for and offer grace leading to salvation for everyone, and that God is willing and able to suffer loss and rejection so that true covenant love through personal free humble trust can exist with those He made in His image.

      1. You are wrong again. I do believe on What Christ have said than you do. John 10:11, 15 clearly refers to the sheep not to the goats which shall be thrown to hell according to Matt. 25:41. The sheep shall be placed on His right side destined to enter God’s Kingdom prepared for them from eternity according to Matt. 25:34. The verses in John 10:11, and 15 according to Jesus who lay down his His life was only intended or restricted only for the Sheep. Who are these sheep? – Answer is: the descendants of Jacob-Israel and the Gentiles whom God extended His saving grace.

      2. No-one is born a sheep or eternally individually chosen by God before creation as one of His people or His beloved. See this clearly that God saves those who were not His people or His beloved but become His when joined to Christ through faith.

        Romans 8:9 NKJV — But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

        Romans 9:25 NKJV — As He says also in Hosea:
        “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.”

      3. brianwagner writes, ” God saves those who were not His people or His beloved but become His when joined to Christ through faith.”

        We should add these verses to tell more of the story:

        “Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. Now this is the will of the one who sent me – that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day.” (John 6)

        “Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me…. I tell you the solemn truth, the one who believes has eternal life. ” (John 6)

        “God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even though we were dead in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ – by grace you are saved!” (Ephesians 2)

      4. Amen… The Father is giving (present tense – not already has given) those listening to the word and believing it… and then He makes them alive and joins then to Christ and they become one of the elect in Him… Praise His Name. Confirmation of the truth they were not His or beloved elect before that as God clearly said in the verses I listed.

      5. brian wagner writes, “The Father is giving (present tense – not already has given) those listening to the word and believing it… ”

        In the course of time, God executes His eternal plan settled in eternity past.

        Then, “…and then He makes them alive and joins then to Christ and they become one of the elect in Him…”

        A fine Calvinist statement.

      6. Ezekiel 34:29-31 (NKJV)….
        I will raise up for them a garden of renown, and they shall no longer be consumed with hunger in the land, nor bear the shame of the Gentiles anymore. Thus they shall know that I, the LORD their God, am with them, and they, THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, are My people,” says the Lord GOD.’ “You are My flock, the flock of My pasture; you are men, and I am your God,” says the Lord GOD.

        Hosea 1:6-11 (NKJV)…
        And she conceived again and bore a daughter. Then God said to him: “Call her name Lo-Ruhamah, For I will no longer have mercy on THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, But I will utterly take them away. Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, Will save them by the LORD their God, And will not save them by bow, Nor by sword or battle, By horses or horsemen.” Now when she had weaned Lo-Ruhamah, she conceived and bore a son. Then God said: “Call his name Lo-Ammi, For you are not My people, And I will not be your God. “Yet the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them (THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL), ‘You are not My people,’ There it shall be said to them (THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL), ‘You are sons of the living God.’ Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel Shall be gathered together, And appoint for themselves one head; And they shall come up out of the land, For great will be the day of Jezreel!

        Hosea 2:23 (NKJV)….
        Then I will sow her (THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL) for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they shall say, ‘You are my God!’”

        Hebrews 8:2 (NKJV)….
        For this is the covenant that I will make with THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

        He who has ears, let him hear.

      7. Surprising Roger how much you think you know about God’s pre-creation plans, that you explain to be in clear contradiction of how He reveals those plans in Scripture. I think I will stick with the Scripture’s revelation of those plans and not a theology’s conjectures that contradict those Scriptures…

      8. brian wagner writes, “Surprising Roger how much you think you know about God’s pre-creation plans, that you explain to be in clear contradiction of how He reveals those plans in Scripture.”

        I do not see a contradiction between one having a plan and then revealing that plan to others. Paul writes, “To me…this grace was given, to proclaim to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ and to enlighten everyone about God’s secret plan – a secret that has been hidden for ages in God who has created all things….This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,…” Should we not think that God has always known what He was going to do even if He is only recently revealing His plans through Paul and His prophets?

      9. brianwagner writes, “Yep… you don’t see it!”

        Yes, you can’t explain it and I cannot read your mind too figure out what you are trying to say. It happens.

      10. It certainly seems I have fallen short in explaining it sufficiently for you, Roger. But I’m still hopeful. And certainly appears I’ve explained it sufficiently for others… which brings me some encouragement.

      11. brianwagner writes, “And certainly appears I’ve explained it sufficiently for others…”

        Maybe they don’t really care so they don’t ask. At least, you know I care enough about what you say to want to understand what you say.

      12. I think all concerned care and have understanding and loyalty to certain presuppositions that strongly influence their interpretation or misinterpretation of Scripture.

      13. brianwagner writes, “I think all concerned care and have understanding and loyalty to certain presuppositions…”

        So, they don’t care what you think?

      14. This began with a presumption on your part, “appears I’ve explained it sufficiently for others…” and now ends with a presumption as this certainly appears to you also, “since they care about me!” I might draw a different conclusion, but if you are happy, then I am happy for you.

      15. Brian,
        There is so much more in that John 10 passage!

        What led me into Calvinism was about 40-50 verses, repeated to me. Over and over….and add in a little brow-beating “you have a man-centered theology” and “you are glorifying yourself.”

        What led me out of Calvinism was daily reading of large chunks of Scripture and seeing the endless, endless verses that are overlook by Calvinists or make no sense within the Calvinist worldview. John 10.
        ——-

        7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.

        ————-
        Here, Jesus is the gate. A gate does not bring someone irresistibly into anything. A gate is very passive. It is the way in: Use it, or not.

        “But the sheep have not listened to them.” Wow….it is all about either listening to God’s voice or other voices. But listening is our job.

        “Whoever enters” Yeah, yeah….. I know Calvinists add words “whoever is who God makes enter” ….but it just never sounds like that.

        It sound like Christ is giving an open, sincere invitation to enter.

        Imagine how many heard him say these words! (For Calvinists) If they did not enter it was cuz they were not elect So….again Christ is insincerely offering this to the crowds!

        Good News!

      16. FOH writes, “Imagine how many heard him say these words! (For Calvinists) If they did not enter it was cuz they were not elect ”

        They key phrase in John 10 is, “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” Here, Christ refers to His crucifixion. His sheep are those given to Him by the Father (John 6). Jesus knows His sheep and He says that He will die for them. It is only His sheep that are in view and none other.

        Do you propose that we understand “sheep” in John 10 as each and every person in the world?

    2. Jose leosala writes, “Why we calvinist preach the gospel to all people? Because we are not omniscient like God We don’t know who are the sheep (the elect) and the goats or tares? We are incapable to determine who are the elect and who are the non-elect.”

      We preach Christ to all people because Christ commanded it. God saves people and then uses those people as the means to bring His elect to Christ. Thus, God chose Paul and sent Paul out to the gentiles. Anyone who preaches Christ has the confidence that he is God’s person to reach out to His elect. “For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things? For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.”

    3. Jose,
      What exactly do you preach?

      Do you say Christ died for the world (like so many verses do) and they are supposed to “know” that “world” means “all kinds of people”?

      Do you say “God loves you” to them? In most cases (if Calvinism is true) He does not.

      Do you say “Christ died for sinners….Christ died for you” to them? In most cases you would be lying to them…. and making them an insincere offer that Christ did not make.

      Calvinists are reduced to a watered-down Gospel.

      “Christ died for some sin. Christ died for some sinners. You must repent and believe. Some of you can; most cannot. If you can, do it. If you cannot then you were not given the special grace needed to do so.” Good News indeed!

      Jose, did you learn what you know about “the doctrines of grace” by reading the Bible or having someone or some book (web site) show you step by step how it must be true (that is how I “was taught” to be a Calvinist). It was not something that I found on my own.

      1. I preach the gospel to all people regardless if elect or non-elect because I don’t have the capacity to pinpoint who are the elect and who are the non-elect (goats). One thing I’m sure that the sheep will respond positively to the gospel call because they are drawn by God the Father to the Son. To the non-elect of course they cannot come back to God in their own accord because they are spiritually dead even if they will acknowledged or accept the seed sown to them it will not flourish just like the seeds that was sown to the wayside, stony ground and the thorny ground-they are the so called “nominal christians” – pseudo christians. Remember that only the good soil (the elect) succeeds while all the rest of the other types of soil were all failures.

      2. Rhutchin writes…. “I preach the gospel to all people regardless if elect or non-elect….”

        No you don’t.

        Rhutchin continues…..“I don’t have the capacity to pinpoint who are the elect and who are the non-elect (goats).”

        Israel, My Elect (Isaiah 45:4).

        That would make the Gentiles the non-elect.

        Pretty easy.

      3. Jose,
        Thanks.

        If you preach the Gospel, that is great! I think you missed my point.

        My point is that If Calvinism is true (God only loves the elect, Christ only died for the elect) then what is said to a non-elect person is important.

        Imagine, you are in a room that is pitch black. You cant see anything. There are several people including your wife is in there. You will not say, “I Iove you with all my heart and want to sleep with you.” More than the intended person (your wife) will hear that message.

        Possibly you might say, “I want everyone to know that I love my wife with all my heart.” But that is just news to them; it does not affect them.

        Same with the Gospel. If Calvinism is true then God does NOT love everyone, and Christ did NOT die for everyone. Therefore you cannot preach as though He did.

        You can tell a sinner: “Christ died for a very small amount of elect people. You might be one, likely not.” But this is not Good News!

        Calvinist want their cake and eat it too. They want Calvinism to be true, but they want to preach to every man that God loves him.

        You can’t have both.

      4. The term “WORLD” used in so many Bible verses does not refer to the entire human race. Why? because not all human race will go to heaven. My understanding for the term “world” refers to the world of the elect-the descendants of Jacob-Israel and the Gentiles whom God extended His saving grace that are scattered worldwide.

  13. brianwagner writes, “The Calvinist has a hard time believing God could love everyone sufficiently to actually provide for and offer grace leading to salvation for everyone, …”

    Not exactly. To the Calvinist, the gospel is proclaimed to all people and this is by God’s grace who raises up people to proclaim the gospel. The mere proclaiming of the gospel is met by rejection by all people. It is only when the Holy Spirit interacts with the gospel to give the new birth and then faith that people can be, and are, saved.

      1. brianwagner writes, “… great example Roger of what I said… “…have a hard time…”

        Only to an Unievrsalist. We non-Unievrsalistsis understand that all will not embrace Christ and God’s grace accounts for the difference.

      2. Israel is God’s elect agree with that, but Jesus and Paul extended the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles. Paul was an apostle sent by God to both Jews and Gentiles. Jesus extended the Living Water to the Samaritan Woman (non-elect, a gentile). It’s hard to pinpoint who are the elect and non-elect when you are in the front line doing evangelism. I don’t trouble myself in determining who are the elect and non elect because as what I have said I don’t have the capacity to determine that by the time I am facing with crowds to evangelize. You tell me Israel is God’s elect, yes I know, but if you are already in the actual field facing multirace audience, you cannot tell who are the Israelites the descendants of Jacob-Israel and those Gentiles whom God extended His saving Grace. You will say I tell a lie to the Non-Elect, well that’s not my problem. I believe God will not condemn me. If you do then that’s your problem. I’m satisfied to preach the gospel preached by the apostle Paul to all people. The elect are drawn by God the Father to the Son and are saved while the non-elect may pretend too or symphatize or reject but are not genuine just like to the fate of the seeds sown to the wayside, and thorny ground. All of the other types of soil were all failure, Why? because they don’t belong to the Sheep given by the Father to the Son. The same seeds (same gospel, not another gospel) has been sown to ALL TYPES OF SOIL (all people of the world) but only the good soil benefited and succeed to the end.

      3. Lying is always a sin. And Jesus said even the evil one knows as long as the Word stays in the hard heart… it can believe and be saved.

        Luke 8:12 NKJV — “Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

        Jeremiah 4:3-4 NKJV — For thus says the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem: “Break up your fallow ground, And do not sow among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem….”

      4. brian wagner writes, “Jesus said even the evil one knows as long as the Word stays in the hard heart… it can believe and be saved.”

        “…it can believe…” With nothing else or as the word is applied by the Holy Spirit? Can a person see or enter the kingdom of heave (i.e., be saved) unless the Holy Spirit first initiate a new birth.

      5. Hebrews 4:12 NKJV — For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

        It’s a shame people don’t believe this innate divine power of the Word. The evil one evidently understands it. The Word certainly starts a good work in the shallow and thorny soils. They just need to repent of their shallowness and thorns for the Word to finish its work of salvation.

      6. brian wagner writes, “It’s a shame people don’t believe this innate divine power of the Word….The Word certainly starts a good work in the shallow and thorny soils.”

        Is it an innate power that must be wielded by the Holy Spirit or is it effective on its own? If God has not prepared the good soil, can the word create good soil? If the soil is not good, can the word overcome the thorny or rocky soil or to prevent Satan snatching it away? The word has divine power in the hands of believers for believers exercise its promises, but not so for non-believers – non-believers need help from the Holy Spirit to tap into the power of the Word. Don’t they?

      7. Great questions, Roger! The verse I shared, Heb 4:12, is clear enough, as is the evidence of the positive influence of the Word in the parable of the sower in the two soils (with no mention of predestination or HS influence).

        Heb 4:12 NKJV – For the word of God [is] living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

        The terms – living, piercing, discerner all point to innate ability and accomplishment on its own. Jesus said – “the truth sets free”. And the whole gospel of John was written to unbelievers for the purpose of producing faith before they receive everlasting life (which is given in the new birth, not the ridiculous convoluted idea of everlasting life being given some time after the new birth, as if there are two different spiritual lifes given as part of salvation).

      8. brian wagner writes, “The verse I shared, Heb 4:12, is clear enough, as is the evidence of the positive influence of the Word in the parable of the sower in the two soils (with no mention of predestination or HS influence).”

        However, the truth of Hebrews 4:12 does not mean that it is the only truth. One verse cannot explain the entire situation so we look for additional information, and truth, in other verses. That Hebrews 4:12 makes no mention of predestination or the HS influence does not mean that we are not to consider such things based on other Scripture.

        Then, “The terms – living, piercing, discerner all point to innate ability and accomplishment on its own.”

        Yes, when divorced from the rest of Scripture. Yet, Paul writes, “the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God,” indicating that the word is not perceived the same by all people leading us to conclude that the Word can affect something in one person that it does not in another.

        Then, “Jesus said – “the truth sets free.”

        Yes, but He prefaced it by saying, ““If you continue to follow my teaching, you are really my disciples…” Not everyone is set free by the truth of the Scriptures.

        Then, “And the whole gospel of John was written to unbelievers…”

        Yet, all are not saved. So, people asked, “How could that be?” Was John not convincing??

        Then, “(which is given in the new birth, not the ridiculous convoluted idea of everlasting being given some time after the new birth, as if there are two different spiritual lifes given as part of salvation).”

        That just means that the new brith only enables one to see and enter the kingdom of God and does not convey everlasting life (as one obtains only by entering the kingdom of God) but only makes possible the belief in Christ by which one enters the kingdom of God and gains everlasting life.

        The point of this discussion is whether the word, by itself, affects a positive change wherever it goes or only in concert with other factors (e.g., the wielding of the word by the Holy Spirit). We don’t seem to have gotten far in that discussion. However, it does seem that different people are affected in different ways by the Word, and that indicates that other factors come into play.

      9. Jesus said clearly what those factors are that influence the Word’s effect in hearts… hardness, shallowness, and choking “thorns”… and that even the hard soil could believe and be saved if the Word remain. It’s surprising, Roger, that you would think Jesus left out the more important information (in your view) of predestination when interpreting this parable to His disciples. I guess you think He must have been content in the knowledge that future theologians would “helpfully” read that into the text. 😉

      10. brian wagner writes, ” and that even the hard soil could believe and be saved if the Word remain.”

        The issue being, could it happen absent “good” soil. There were the two failures that, coincidentally, were not “good” soil. So, even though “the hard soil could believe,” there is no guarantee of this outcome – supporting my point that something more than just the “Word” is in play (i.e., the HS is also involved).

        Then, ” I guess you think He must have been content in the knowledge that future theologians would “helpfully” read that into the text.”

        Maybe Jesus figured that a person reading all the Scriptures (and therefore, everything He said – not just the parable) would be able to put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

      11. Imo, Roger, you are equivocating on the word “Word” that influences all the soils… and the clear indication how the other three can become good soil.

      12. brianwagner writes, ” you are equivocating on the word “Word” that influences all the soils… and the clear indication how the other three can become good soil.”

        The clear indiction is that the Word has uneven effects – Some receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. Some hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the worries and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. Some after hearing the word, cling to it with an honest and good heart, and bear fruit. I guess it pays to begin with an honest and good heart; otherwise, who knows what will happen – actually, God knows.

      13. Others will determine easily, I believe, which of us Roger is reading their theology into the text contrary to what Jesus had in mind when teaching His disciples the meaning of that parable. Take the last word if you wish in this thread between us. 😊

      14. “Others will determine easily I believe which of us Roger is reading their theology into the text….”

        Amen, brother.

        God bless.

      15. The non-elect cannot reject or accept the offer of the grace of Salvation simply because of the following reasons: 1. They are spiritually dead and has no capacity to comeback to God in their own accord even if they will use their own determinism, it is an offense to God. The offer of the grace of Salvation was not extended to them by God the Father. Granted, even if the preachers of the gospel may offer it to them-to the non-elect, the seed sown will not prosper it will still die. This is supported by the “other types of soil”. Only the good soil prospers to the end, why? because they belong to the sheep whom Christ died for and have paid for their sins.

      16. Jose… you not only ignored what Jesus said about the hard heart being able to believe and be saved… you need to read John 3 again.

        Jesus wasn’t wasting his breath with unregenerate Nicodemus in helping him understand how important it is to believe on the Son for everlasting life.

        Why is it so hard for some to believe that God is well able to sufficiently speak to unregenerate hearts to enable each of them to seek? Why wouldn’t you want to believe that clear evidence in Scripture when it’s presented?

        Is loyalty to determinism and the predestination of all things that important, though those premises are not clearly taught in Scripture?

      17. brian wagner writes, “Why is it so hard for some to believe that God is well able to sufficiently speak to unregenerate hearts to enable each of them to seek?”

        This is not a problem for the Calvinist. God is well able to speak sufficiently to unregenerate hearts to enable each of them to seek Him (it is God who begins a good work in them) and this explains why His elect seek Him. When a person does not seek God (the non-elect) then we know that God did not speak to their hearts and it was never His intent to so speak.

      18. Ah… but He does speak to all sufficiently… glad you confirmed, Roger, that you believe God is able to do so! You’re almost there. 😉

      19. brianwagner writes, “He does speak to all sufficiently”
        That is the thinking of the universalist. If God spoke to all sufficiently, then all would be saved. If all are not saved, then God did not speak to all sufficiently.
        So, I guess the issue here must be one of context. Toward what end do you see God speaking to all sufficiently? You have said “to seek him” but not all do seek Him, so it cannot be that.

      20. Sufficient enablement to freely seek His mercy… not sufficient enablement that forces irresistible seeking of a few. We’ve been done this parsing of “sufficient” before, Roger. I’m convinced the Scripture evidence and logic support my view that avoids the false doctrines of universal unjust salvation and predetermined unjust damnation.

      21. Brian,
        We have been around this block before!

        They just assume (they bring that to the Scriptures) that man is “too dead” to seek God even though Christ says it to a huge crowd, and Paul says it on Mars Hill to pagan.

        Seek first the kingdom ….

        Acts 17:27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

      22. Yes, I just responded to Jose about how the clarity of the Bible is what brought me out of Calvinism.

        Sure…. a case can be made for Calvinism by interpreting 40-50 verse a certain way (just look at RH, he only quotes the same ones over and over). I should know, that was the 50-verse-scaffolding that taught me into Calvinism.

        But the clarity and tenor of the ALL of Scripture is what got me out.

        Reading chunks of the Bible every day and imposing Calvinism on all of it just got harder and harder for me. The Bible does not sound like the “Good News” is that God created 95% of His creation (created in His image!!) so that He could take pleasure in NOT choosing them to be with Him and be tortured in Hell….long before they had a say in the matter.

        That would be considered a devious, criminal plan in our world, and certainly we fall short of being as loving as God is.

      23. FOH writes, “Reading chunks of the Bible every day and imposing Calvinism on all of it just got harder and harder for me.”

        After you rejected the idea that God foreknows the future perfectly, the rest was easy to deny.

      24. “God foreknows the future perfectly” because He is a perfect God that cannot commit mistakes. He is a perfect Architect who planned destinies. If His plans made were imperfect, then it will delimit His attribute

      25. “YOU” – is is personal pronoun in the second person – thus it cannot be used to refer to the entire human race. God’s elect are both Jews and Gentiles, but does not mean the entire/universal human race on earth.

      26. Jose,
        The main discussion here is what does a Calvinist say to a non-believer.

        If you say to a person in front of you “you can be born again…” or “Christ died for you…” or “God loves you,” then you are very likely misleading them.

        If that person is not “part of the elect” (as Calvinists define that) and you tell him “God loves you,” then you are telling them a falsehood.

        A Calvinist cannot say to ANY person in the world “Christ died for you.” (Because you just dont know)

        A Calvinist cannot say to ANY person in the world “God loves you.”

        That is the discussion here. Not whether “you” means universalism.

      27. I will repeat that it is a fact that no human beings on earth is omniscient like God. A human preacher cannot detect who are the goats-non elect and the sheep-elected ones. Although there are clues for that like the one said by Jesus that the sheep hears His voice and does not listen to strange voice. It will take time to do that assessment otherwise you can no longer do the evangelism mandate. To the non-elect, the gospel is foolishness and we don’t persist to offer it to them. Jesus gives a clue not to offer the pearls to the swine lest they will come back to devour you.

      28. Human preachers of the gospel are not omniscient because they are not God. They don’t have the capability to determine who are the elect and the non-elect. Even you yourself (are you?) if you belong to the Non-Calvinist you cannot say that you know everything and can tell at once who are the elect and the elected right away by the time you are faced with your audience while doing evangelism. The parable of the sower is a proof that the gospel seeds (same gospel was sown to all of the types of Soil which represents the entire human race) The final decision is made by God the Father if He will allow or dis-allow those persons to come to Christ in order to avail of the payment of their sins and to received the grace of Salvation provided to them by Jesus Christ. It is no longer the job of the preachers of the gospel to classify who are the elect vs. the non-elect. This is the job of God by the time of the great white throne judgment to classify the sheep vs. the goats according to Matt. chap 25. Bear this in mind that ONLY the good soil prospers to the end, while the rest of the types of Sol is a failure. Why? Because Christ did not pay for their sins. Christ only offer or lay down His life to the Sheep not to the goats.

      29. Jose,

        Another thought about the word “you”. My wife just taught this passage in a Bible study last night…..

        Mark 5, Luke 8, and Matthew 9 all record the story of the woman being healed by Christ.

        We need to read the Bible and listen to what it teaches us about God in Christ.
        —————

        Mark 5:30 At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?”

        31 “You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”

        32 But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. 33 Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. 34 He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”

        ————
        A. Christ realized that power had gone out from Him. Does that remotely sound like He set the whole thing up from eternity past? Why would God mislead us—- telling us that “Christ realized that power….” if He immutably planned it from before time?

        B. Christ asks “Who touched me?” You could make a case that this is rhetorical and He really knows…. but He is still implying to the crowd that this is happening in real time….. not a planned scenario by Him since before time.

        C. What does Christ say to her? Words that are forever written in God’s eternal word. All three accounts say, “Daughter, your faith has healed you.”

        What would the people in this crowd understand?

        a. Christ has the power to heal.
        b. Christ healed a woman who came to Him.
        c. Christ does not appear to have set this up in any way.
        d. Christ says that she is healed because of her faith.

        How in the world….. in any stretch of the imagination…. would any people in that crowd understand that Christ planned that from before time, and that the woman was given some special faith? He even says “your faith.”

        You could never come to a Calvinist conclusion reading the story (3 times!) in the Bible.

        No….. you have to “be taught Calvinism” from the reformers, and somehow come to that story and say (like Calvinists do all the time!) “It doesnt really mean what it says.”

      30. “daughter, your faith has healed you”- The faith Jesus referring to here is not the self-generated faith of the woman. It’s the faith that was given to her by God just like the faith that Lydia used to believe of Paul’s preaching of the gospel according to Acts 16:14

      31. Jose,
        Very dangerous. You are just adding to the Scriptures. Christ says it was her faith and you say it was not.

        You are just imposing man-made theology into each of these hundreds of passages. You are just imposing the idea that the faith was given to her when you have no Scriptural reason for that.

        It appears that you are getting all the 40-50 key talking-point verses from Calvinist web sites and saying that all of the other 99% of Scripture must bow to them.

        I was there too! and have seen many young men go the same direction.

        I still encourage you to engage with the rest of Scripture!

      32. No, I’m not adding to the scriptures. That is only your opinion. When the Scriptures tells something about “imputed righteousness of Christ on the believer”- you don’t have the right to own that thing because it is originally not yours, it was only given to you by Christ you need to be humbled down in awe of God’s mercy on you. The same thing with the case of the faith of the woman when Christ have said: “your faith has made you whole….” The problem is that you are trying to let the woman own that thing when it cannot be.

      33. Jose,

        I understand your position. You have a couple of non-negotiable presuppositions (man is “too dead” and Christ only died for a small, small portion of those made in God’s image). Those are the T and the L of TULIP. No matter what we write, you are just going to repeat those as “givens” over and over. Been there.

        You are coming to the Bible —and this blog — with those as absolute truths.

        No matter how many times you see in Scripture saying like this:

        ‘your faith’
        ‘go, your faith has healed you.’
        ‘if you had faith’
        ‘oh you of little faith’
        ‘Because you have so little faith…’
        ‘I have not seen so much faith in all of Israel’
        ‘By faith he (Abel) was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings’
        ‘And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him’….
        ‘Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?’
        ‘Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

        ….you will just superimpose your presuppositions.

        These are clear statements (hundreds of them). Sentences like…. “looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith…” Do not negate human faith. Of course Jesus is the founder of the Christian faith!! That phrase hardly wipes out the entire 11th chapter that immediately precedes it!

        Please read the 11th chapter of Hebrews and see if there is any hint of the idea that all “the ancients were commended for” a faith that was irresistibly given to them. That makes no sense. It appears that the point of the chapter is to encourage faith. In Calvinism, the whole chapter teaches us nothing.

        The writer could have saved energy and said, “All these people were irresistibly given faith. And you might be given faith too, or not.”

      34. FOh to Jose, “…Christ only died for a small, small portion of those made in God’s image).”

        I think Jose’s position is in line with Revelation 5, “Thou [Christ] wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” Whether this is a ‘small, small portion” is not known – FOH made up that part.

      35. FOH writes, ‘you are getting all the 40-50 key talking-point verses…and saying that all of the other 99% of Scripture must bow to them.”

        I think Jose recognizes that those 40-50 verses (and more) are truth and are not negated by any verses in the rest of Scripture. The need is to harmonize all verses and the truth that they tell us. Even you don’t try to do that.

      36. Re: Christ statement to the woman : “your faith has made you whole…”Jesus is not referring to the self-generated faith of the woman but rather to the faith that was given to her by the author and originator of Faith according to Hebrews 12:2. Faith is a gift from God even the disciples are requesting Jesus to increase their faith. The woman might not be aware of that capability placed on Jesus that she was already exercising the thing provided for her. Just like the statement in Isaiah 45:5 regarding God’s naming Jacob even if he does not have known about the matter.

      37. brianwagner writes, “its undermining of the doctrine of Scripture’s clarity.”

        The 40-50 verses to which FOH often refers, and never allows to influence his thinking, are know for their clarity.

      38. That’s a prejudiced statement, imo, Roger.

        My view is that FOH sees how Calvinists reasonably infer their views from those 50 verses and also how they also ignore reasonable alternative views for those verses… but FOH is more alarmed, like I am, at how Calvinists willfully ignore multitudes of clear Scriptures that contradict the idea of the eternal immutable predestination of all things before creation which underlies their rejection of the freewill expressed in those verses.

      39. brian wagner writes, “My view is that FOH sees how Calvinists reasonably infer their views from those 50 verses and also how they also ignore reasonable alternative views for those verses…”

        FOH is careful to avoid any discussion of the 40-50 verses. He even mangles the “O, Jerusalem, Jerusalem…” verse to make his point. I doubt that he has reasonable alternatives to those verses and that explains why he avoids them. He complains about me citing those verses but never challenges my view of those verses as he might every now and then to support his claims.

        Then, “contradict the idea of the eternal immutable predestination of all things before creation which underlies their rejection of the freewill expressed in those verses.”

        In other words, the Calvinists insist that God has perfect foreknowledge of the future.

      40. I believe God has perfect foreknowledge but it does not confirm the eternal immutable predestination of all things before creation. We disagree on the definitions of “perfect” and “foreknowledge”… though in “my opinion” 😉 my definitions of those words are reflected best in most Scriptures.

      41. brianwagner writes, “I believe God has perfect foreknowledge also that does not confirm the eternal immutable predestination of all things before creation.”

        Doesn’t conflict with it either. Your system does not produce a different outcome that an “eternal immutable predestination” system. The end result is the same under each; how you get there doesn’t really differ either – the only thing that differs is your unwillingness to put flesh on the bare bones of your system.

      42. Not the same… disagree… there us not only one way that the future works out in God’s mind that agrees with what you think His mind was locked into and limited to knowing before creation. Sorry. I wish you would at least state that we disagree when you state they are the same in your opinion. Can you do that in the future?

      43. brianwagner writes, “Not the same… disagree… ”

        Where is the disagreement on outcomes. We both have God making decisions based on the same information. Otherwise, we only differ on the timing of His decisions. So, where is there room for change – what basis exists for this?

      44. We’ve discussed this. I’m surprised you don’t remember. Determinism has only one series of events forever… a b c d e f g…. Dynamic omniscience allows for things working out differently… a b1 c3 d7 e f2 g…. because God has multiple good choices to freely choose between… So things do not clearly turn out the same in our two views of the future.

      45. brian wagner writes, “Dynamic omniscience allows for things working out differently… a b1 c3 d7 e f2 g…. because God has multiple good choices to freely choose between.”

        Determinism has the same good choices to choose from as God is as aware of all future contingencies under the one scenario as the other – this because the information base is the same under either one. Do you have an argument that says that God’s choice among possible good outcomes would be different under one scenario? You basically speculate here (which is not bad because speculation often precedes clear evidence), but there is nothing in the Scriptures that leads us to the conclusion that God’s choice under one scenario would be different under the other scenario. Your conclusion, “So things do not clearly turn out the same in our two views of the future,” does not follow necessarily from the premise of “multiple good choices” as multiple good choices exist under both scenarios.

      46. Roger, you should know that I’ve shared how God’s clear revelation of all “might bes” would be duplicitous if in His mind they are already all “will bes”… so that’s evidence enough for me though I’m guessing it still aul not be for you. 😉

        But God’s multiple choices are also based on all the free choices He leaves to man… which as contra-causal in many cases… leaves the future to branch off in different directions… not able to be known as settled in only one direction before creation.

        I like how prayer is part of all this. Jesus told his disciples – Matthew 24:20 NKJV — “And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.” It is clear the Father according to Jesus may not made have decided yet when the fall of Jerusalem was to take place… Therefore He would only know of possible dates for it at that point.

      47. Well said Brian.

        They ignore multiple hundreds of verses in Scripture (that led me out of Calvinism) and we look for alternative, yet valid, interpretations of their 40-50.

        You have done it patiently, what, 3-4 times with John 6:44 and it’s as if you never said a word!

        Imagine this scenario…

        “What about Cain could have/ should have resisted in Genesis?” John 6:44

        “What about God repenting that He had created man with Noah?” John 6:44.

        “What about Moses and God relenting to not destroy the people?” John 6:44

        Do that 200 more times.

        Then, okay let’s have a look at this silver bullet. (enter Brian’s valid, Greek professor interpretation).

        Answer???

        The Answer????

        John 6:44.

      48. “God repenting He created man during the time of Noah” – doesn’t teach that God is a sinner to repent. He is Holy and will never be tainted with sin. About “Cain resisting in the book of Genesis” – God is sovereign, He can allow or dis-allow human decisions but the end is the completion of God’s purpose. About “Moses relenting not to destroy people” – God is sovereign. He can allow or dis-allow things/human decisions to happen but the end is still the completion of God’s eternal plan. Why? because No ONE can thwart God’s plan for eternity. He can override man’s will if He wish and nobody can hinder Him for that.

      49. Jose,
        Now I KNOW you are just repeating what you get off theology sites and not speaking for yourself!

        No one says “thwart” anymore!

        And besides…. the Bible is full of hundreds of examples where men did something God did not want them to do (they “thwarted His will”) …. and He even says “I did not want you to do that!!” (hundreds of times) and they do it!!

      50. A sinner can violate God because it was allowed by a Sovereign God. If God will not allow it to happen this would mean that His being a Sovereign is threatened by humans. Anybody can make use of the term “thwart” because their is no law that provides to screen who is authorized to use that term. Also, it does not automatically imply that a person does not have originality because he uses that term. That is only your opinion.

      51. FOH writes, “They just assume (they bring that to the Scriptures) that man is “too dead” to seek God…”

        Distorting again, are you? You know that the “assuming” is based on John 6, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” Without God taking the first action, people are “too dead” to seek God. It’s one of the 40-50 verses that you have deleted from the Scriptures.

      52. brianwagner writes, “Sufficient enablement to freely seek His mercy… not sufficient enablement that forces irresistible seeking of a few.”

        Your parsing never explains why the one is different than the other. Three points of sufficiency – “freely, “seek” and “mercy.” If all are “sufficient,” then there is no basis to conclude that the seeking is anything other than irresistible. If “God’s mercy” is actually sought, God would certainly provide mercy.

        Then, “I’m convinced the Scripture evidence and logic support my view that avoids the false doctrines of universal unjust salvation and predetermined unjust damnation.”

        Maybe, but it doesn’t support something less than receiving that mercy. I don’t think you can explain how a person becomes sufficiently free to sufficiently seek after sufficient mercy or what sufficient is in each case. From what I remember, you just declare it to be so – doing no more than offering an opinion.

      53. My opinion conforms to Scripture and the doctrine of God’s mercy revealed in it better than yours in my opinion. 😉 Others can decide… but freely makes irresistible illogical… There are more choices than just the one to seek mercy. Take the last word in this thread… we’ve discussed “sufficiency” many times and still don’t agree on its meaning. 😎

      54. brian wagner writes, “My opinion conforms to… my opinion.”

        You need to take it beyond opinion and show that it actually works and is consistent with the Scripture. You have written a lot of articles on the Scripture – do any of them offer a verification of your opinions? Why not bring them forward – how hard is it to cut and paste – and include them in your comments.

        Then, “we’ve discussed “sufficiency” many times and still don’t agree on its meaning.”

        I think that is because you cannot explain what you mean by “sufficiency.”

      55. How can the non-elect reject the gospel if it was not offered (not drawn to the Son) to them by God the Father. And also, how can the non-elect respond to the gospel call when they are spiritually dead and does not have the capacity to come back to God in his own accord?. Using the pronoun YOU to teach universalism cannot be accepted simply because not all human race will go to heaven. Teaching a universal efficacy of Christ’s death would mean double punishment for the non-elect because If Christ have paid for the sins of the non-elect (including unbelief) then they should be in heaven, but they are still being sent to hell. It would only mean that the extent of Christ death was not offered to the non-elect because Jesus Christ offered or lay down His life for the sheep not to the goats. The saving grace of Christ while hanging on the cross does not work (no effect) to the one crucified on His left side while it works to the man crucified at His right side.

      56. Jose – being dead in sin is not spiritual inability to respond to God’s enlightenment before regeneration just like being dead to sin is not spiritual inability to keep from sinning after regeneration.

        The gospel is offered to all… even you believe in a universal call… right?

        You just seem to have a hard time understanding that universal provision does not mean immediate universal application. I can buy tickets for the whole class… offer them to the whole class… but only those who humbly gratefully take them will benefit from my payment.

        Looking at it negatively… I can spend all my savings for enough medicine to save all the class who are all dying… offer each of them the medicine… and those who refuse it, not trusting me or my medicine, will still die. I was their only savior too even though they rejected me… right?

        1 Timothy 4:10 NKJV — For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

      57. brianwagner writes, “being dead in sin is not spiritual inability to respond to God’s enlightenment before regeneration…”

        This is an opinion that Brian offers. What Brian does not provide is an explanation describing how he thinks his opinion might agree with Scripture. For example, John 3 clearly states that the new birth is required for one to see the kingdom of God. Brian has “enlightenment” before the new birth, so we know that whatever “enlightenment” is to Brian does not encompass seeing the kingdom of God. What benefit, then, is such enlightenment? We don’t know because Brian hasn’t even figured that out himself – other than to say that it is something that enables a person to seek God – whatever that means.

        Then, “…just like being dead to sin is not spiritual inability to keep from sinning after regeneration.”

        Forgetting that being dead to sin is a spiritual condition that contends with one’s physical condition of desiring sin – the issue Paul deals with in Romans 7. If one is not dead to sin, how can being dead in sin not be a spiritual inability. We don’t know because Brian hasn’t explained that either.

        Then, “You just seem to have a hard time understanding that universal provision does not mean immediate universal application.”

        This from the man who objects to James White’s comment. White accepts universal provision to mean “The gospel is offered to all… even…in a universal call…” except that White would call it an universal command to repent and believe the gospel.

        Then, “I can spend all my savings for enough medicine to save all the class who are all dying… offer each of them the medicine… and those who refuse it, not trusting me or my medicine, will still die.”

        Is this before or after the “enlightenment” that enables them to seek medicine to heal them?

        Then, “1 Timothy 4:10 NKJV — …God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.”

        Isn’t it those who don’t believe who need God as their savior? How is God the savior of those who believe (thus, presumably, having already obtained salvation)?

      58. Very poor opinionated analysis, in my opinion 😉, of my explanations of biblical truth that I gave about spiritual death and enlightenment.

        The new birth after enlightenment is clear in John 1:4-13, 12:35-36, 20:30-31, and 1Peter 3:23-25. Roger, you continue to hold onto the strange eisegesis of “see kingdom” in John 3 from a conversation about new birth that Jesus had with a man before his new birth, enlightening him so he would seek to believe in Jesus.

        Any normal reader of John 3 and those passages listed above would see new birth follows faith in enlightenment in the truth… unless their loyalty to manmade reformed theology causes them to keep their eyes closed to the evidence… like you seem to still be doing. Very sad.

      59. Faith is provided first by God so that the sinner will come to decide to come to the Son, not vice versa. This is supported by the case of Lydia’s conversion in Acts 16:14

      60. Jose,
        The Scripture clearly says that Lydia was at the water where people go to pray —-and BEFORE there is any mention of God’s intervention it says she was a worshiper of God.

      61. That is the GRACE of GOD that you cannot see happening within the life of Lydia. It is not literally written in that particular passage. If you insist that Lydia was saved because of her self-generated faith used to come to Jesus then your gospel is adulterated mixed with human effort not purely the grace of God. You will be teaching that in order to be saved, you need to add self-effort to Christ payments of sins at Calvary. It will show that Christ’s payment was not enough there is a balance left for the sinners to pay. This is not the gospel preached by Paul.

      62. FOH to Jose writes, “The Scripture clearly says that Lydia was at the water where people go to pray —-and BEFORE there is any mention of God’s intervention it says she was a worshiper of God.”

        Lydia was attracted to the religion of the Jews – she was a “a worshiper of God.” Yet, Paul writes in Romans 19, “I bear them witness that the Jews have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.” There is no presumption that “worshiper of God” means that one is a believer – this was obviously not the case with Lydia.

        So, what is FOH trying to argue? What point is he trying to make?

      63. “being dead to sin is not a spiritual inability…” – No I don’t believe this statement or position. I would rather believe what Jesus Christ have said in John 15:5 “… apart from me you can do nothing” (why? because a person is disconnected to the true Vine. He is dead futile even if he will use his self-generated faith or self decision, it will never please God, it’s an offense to God. Romans 3:10-11 “No one is righteous and NO ONE ever seeks God”) than you do. Jesus Christ is credible and can never be mistaken of what He says.

      64. “savior of all men specially to those who believes” – The grace of God is operative before a sinner can be able to believe and be able to decide to come to Christ to claim for the payment of his sins and the grace of Salvation provided for Him by Christ on the cross. “All men” does not refer to all humanity to be included in heaven. It is delimited by “specially to those who believe”

      65. Brian says: “I was their savior too even though they rejected me, right?” – This is not true with Jesus Christ. He only gave His life for the sheep not to the goats according to John 10:11, 15. Though the preachers of the gospel may offer it to all, yet the truth remains that it is God the Father who finally decides on on He will allow or dis-allow to come to Jesus by the time the gospel is being shared. How can Jesus be the savior of those goats destined to hell if He did not pay for their sins? It will become a double punishment in Hell, if Christ was punished for the unbelief of those goats when the the reality is that the gospel for them-goats is just foolishness.

      66. Jose,
        A few things in your reply show me that you are like I was…. a Christian first, then you learned Calvinism. Your statements are below and they have good answers from Scripture in this blog and elsewhere. You just have to be willing to listen. I came out of Calvinism by reading hundreds scriptures that did not make sense (in Calvinism). Then I went to find answers to the things Calvinism taught me:

        —How can the non-elect reject the gospel if it was not offered…. (who said it is not offered? “When I am lifted up I will draw all me to myself…”. That “not offered” idea is one Calvinist just impose.

        —And also, how can the non-elect respond to the gospel call when they are spiritually dead and does not have the capacity to come back to God in his own accord? (the prodigal son was “dead” —Christ said it two times. Also we are dead to sin and still sin.)

        —…..to teach universalism cannot be accepted simply because not all human race will go to heaven. (this is a classic Calvinist play “All things except Calvinism are “universalism”. Not true.)

        —Teaching a universal efficacy of Christ’s death would mean double punishment for the non-elect. (Brian’s example is fine. If someone wants to pay at the door for a ticket that is waiting, that would be double payment. But we can’t “pay for our sins,” so there is not double payment. If someone does not use the ticket paid for them that is different. A person is not “paying for his sins” going to hell (not removing the sin, like Christ does). That is the Catholic Purgatory idea.

        —The saving grace of Christ while hanging on the cross does not work (no effect)…. (this is another imposed idea from Calvinism. There is no backing up of Scripture for this…… just stating it).

      67. FOH to Jose, “—How can the non-elect reject the gospel if it was not offered…. (who said it is not offered? “When I am lifted up I will draw all me to myself…”. That “not offered” idea is one Calvinist just impose.”

        You are speaking of the offer of the gospel made through the preaching of men – which is more a command, “Repent and believe.”. Jose is speaking of the offer God makes to His elect as John 6, “And Jesus was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” If God does not grant the non-elect the ability to come to Christ, then they can still respond to the gospel – but Paul tells us what that response is: “we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.”

        So, there are two offers, one attributed to God’s common grace to both elect and non-elect (who are thereby drawn to Christ for different motives) through the preaching of the gospel and one through God’s saving grace to His elect through the Holy Spirit.

      68. There were two offers because, the preachers of the gospel has no capabilities to distinguish who are the elect-sheep and the non-elect-goats at the time they will face the audience. All types of soil-entire human race is the subject of evangelism as supported by the parable of the sower. The same gospel-seed was sown to all types of Soil, but sad to say that it was only those who were sown to the good soil who prospers to the end while the rest died. Jesus Christ said that: He only offer His life on the cross only to the sheep, not to the goats. And who are the sheep? Answer is: Jacob-Israel according to Isa. 45:4 and the Gentile believers in I Peter 2:10. And who are the goats? – they are to be placed on the left side of God and shall be thrown to hell according to Matt 25:41

      69. FOH to Jose writes, ” (the prodigal son was “dead” —Christ said it two times. Also we are dead to sin and still sin.)”

        We are told that the prodigal son “came to his sense.” There could be many reasons for this. We also note that his reason for returning to His father was not because he loved His father but because he wanted his selfish desires met. In addition, Jesus does not insert himself into the parable, so are we to believe that a person can come to God and be saved without Christ? FOH has a very loose system of exegesis that is more eisegesis than anything else. FOH wants to believe what he wants to believe and he will not let the Scriptures get in his way.

        When FOH says, “we are dead to sin and still sin,” he knows that believers come out of a life of sin and that life is not immediately destroyed – the “old man” of that sinful life wars against the new life in Christ and sometimes wins. What this has to do with the discussion at hand – the ability of the non-elect to respond to the gospel – escapes me, and I doubt that FOH can explain it.

      70. Jose,

        One more thing here. I started making comments on this blog about a year ago and fell right into a trap. I thought that RH was a person looking for dialog. Several of us have since that time realized that no matter what is said, the point is deflected, demeaned, insulted, or redirected in such a way as to make any such attempt at “dialog” meaningless.

        TS00 and others have publicly stated that they will not respond to comments by RH since he uses these methods. So please dont look from any responses from me to his postings (I just let him have the last word every time).

        Now I just posted to you about the Prodigal son, and it appears that RH highjacked the conversation and added some points that no one ever discusses.

        A simple point in that parable is that Christ calls him “dead” twice and yet he “came to his senses.” The father did not go looking for him. The father did not irresistibly bring him to himself. The dead man came to his senses.

        By any simple reading of the story (no deflecting, brought-to-the-text presuppositions) we can at least assume that the Scripture is teaching us that a “dead man” can “use his senses,” …… which is what this thread is about.

        John MacArthur has a 75 minutes sermon on this parable making sure that everyone knows that “the son is dead” (the father had a funeral for him he says). Then he says it should be called the “Parable of the Seeking Father,” and he claims that when the father met him by the house coming home, that is the “seeking” part.

        That just illustrates to what length a Calvinist will go to extrapolate some presupposition from the text.

        That the father was irresistibly “seeking” and bringing the son home is in no way the lesson of that parable….. but a motivated Calvinist can make a text say whatever he wants!

      71. FOH writes, “…RH highjacked the conversation and added some points that no one ever discusses.”

        These are points that you will not discuss because they do not fit your philosophy. You have no answers – there may be no answers because the points Christ makes in this parable do not go in that direction. However, you seem free to extend the parable into the direction in which you want to go. Certainly, the parable makes the point that the son came to his senses – but look at his reasoning as Jesus describes it; his motives are clearly selfish. Yet, you want to ignore this and pretend that something else is going on. You obviously have an agenda and will not let the Scriptures prevent you obtaining that agenda.

      72. Jose,

        I forgot to mention that regarding the question of man being “too-dead” the Scripture says many times that man can and must seek God. Notice that the first one below even says that we must believe that He rewards those who seek Him. Anyone telling you that any reference to “seeking” is selfish does not have Hebrews 11 in his Bible.

        Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

        Acts 17:27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

        James 4:8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

        Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.

        Matthew 6:33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

        Proverbs 8:17 I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.

        Psalm 9:10 Those who know your name trust in you, for you, LORD, have never forsaken those who seek you.

        Psalm 27:4 One thing I ask from the LORD, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple.

        Psalm 34:10 The lions may grow weak and hungry, but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.

        Psalm 40:16 But may all who seek you rejoice and be glad in you; may those who long for your saving help always say, “The LORD is great!”

        Psalm 63:1 You, God, are my God, earnestly I seek you; I thirst for you, my whole being longs for you, in a dry and parched land where there is no water.

        Psalm 105:4 Look to the LORD and his strength; seek his face always.

        Lamentations 3:25 The LORD is good to those whose hope is in him, to the one who seeks him;

        Psalm 119:10 I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands.

        Zephaniah 2:3 Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, you who do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the LORD’s anger.

        Luke 11:9-10 “So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

        Psalm 119:2-3 Blessed are those who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart— 3 they do no wrong but follow his ways.

        Matthew 7:7-8 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

        Isaiah 55:6-7 Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

        Deuteronomy 4:29-31 But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and obey him. For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors, which he confirmed to them by oath.

        Matthew 13:44-46 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. 45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

      73. FOH to Jose writes, “Anyone telling you that any reference to “seeking” is selfish does not have Hebrews 11 in his Bible.”

        Up to this point in the discussion, only the prodigal son has been identified as selfish. FOH appears to be trying to confuse the issue.

        Then, “Notice that the first one below even says that we must believe that He rewards those who seek Him.”

        In the citations, FOH purposes mixes verses that specifically speak to believers and others that speak to all. Perhaps, he does this to confuse the issue. Lamentations 3:25 is interesting in that it identifies those who seek God as those who hope in Him. Many of the verses are statements of fact and add nothing to FOH’s argument. I don’t think FOH cares preferring a greater number of verses to the substance of those verses.

      74. Regarding the so many verses suggesting self determinism used by man in his attempt to seek God and that God rewards those who seek Him: They were able to do that because God was the one who energized them for that act. Remember that man becomes futile due to his disconnection to the true vine according to Jesus in John 15:5. All humanity was disconnected to God because of Sin that separates from God-thus man becomes spiritually dead and cannot come back to God in his own accord. Romans 3:10-11 says: “there is no one righteous no one seeks God”. God will reward those who seek Him because it was God who pre-intervenes in their lives before they can do the act of seeking. This is supported by John 5:21- God the Father and the Son gives life to those that are spiritually dead. Also, the Holy Spirit quickens spiritually dead persons according to John 6:63.

      75. Jose writes… “God will reward those who seek Him because it was God who pre-intervenes in their lives before they can do the act of seeking.”

        Sounds like God rewards them (with spiritual life) before they even seek Him. So what Jose meant to say is “God rewards them so they can seek Him.”

      76. phillip writes, “So what Jose meant to say is “God rewards them so they can seek Him.”

        As there is nothing in man to be rewarded, God’s initial work in a person that results in the person seeking God is a gift. As the person then seeks God, he is rewarded as Jose states. So, your conclusion above is wrong, and you misunderstand jose’s point.

      77. So Phillip,

        The message of the whole Bible is …

        By faith (that I irresistibly gave him) Abel…..

        By faith (that I irresistibly gave him) Noah…..

        By faith (that I irresistibly gave him) Abraham….

        By faith (that I irresistibly gave her) Rahab….. etc etc

        “Your faith (that I irresistibly gave you) has made you whole.”

        “If you only had faith (but I have not given it to you) you could….”

        God will reward those He has given faith to, for their faith.

        “Have faith in God,” Jesus said (if He irresistibly give it to you) (but if He doesn’t….. never mind).

        And yet it is so simple and clear in Scripture….

        Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

        Even Paul says…. what does the Scripture say!!!

        Rom 4:3 “What does Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'”

        Any of those places (and hundreds more like it) would have been a good place for God to say “the faith I give you” or some such idea. Never comes close. In stead man-made theology goes digging around in the haystack for a needle that wipes away all these hundreds of clear verses!

      78. FOH writes, “Rom 4:3 “What does Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’”

        The question you are afraid to ask is, “Why does one believe and another does not?” The Calvinist delves into this issue and you do not.

      79. Rhutchin writes… “The question you are afraid to ask is, ‘Why does one believe and another does not?’”

        The same reason why one believes “regeneration precedes faith” and another doesn’t.

        People can believe whatever they want to believe.

      80. phillip writes, “People can believe whatever they want to believe.”

        In other words, Phillip is clueless. We already know that people can believe whatever they want to believe. So, given that situation, why does one believe in Christ and another does not? Even Phillip seems to be afraid to go there.

      81. Rhutchin writes…. “So, given that situation, why does one believe in Christ and another does not?”

        Again, for the same reason one believes “regeneration precedes faith” and the other doesn’t.

        Answer: People can believe what they want to believe.

      82. Phillip,
        Yep. And some people seek and find Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Of course nature and nurture have a lot to do with it.

        But this discussion is really no use as long as Calvinists are using different definitions for believe, faith, reward, listen, obey, turn, draw near…. The world is told to do these things….but Calvinism says that they are all impossible.

        Why? A very few verses (4-5-6) interpreted a certain way that teach that man is “too-dead”.

        All that when there are hundreds of Scriptures that teach to the contrary — not to mention logic and what we see with our own eyes.

        But Phillip, get ready to be disparaged and told how dumb and clueless you are. Lashing out at the person seems to be a Calvinist trait here.

      83. Phillip,
        You make a good point here.

        Within the body of Christ there are those who believe regeneration precedes faith and those who dont.

        Even within Calvinism there are those who believe in infant baptism and those who do.

        Calvinists have Amillenialists and post-millenialists…. pre-mill likely by now!

        But the key is that Calvinists separate all other “believings” from the believing in Christ. You can do anything, think anything, believe anything except believe in Christ.

        They teach (based on their own interpretation of Romans 3:11) that no one can even seek God….. yet…..

        We see Christ say “seek first the kingdom”

        We see Christ say “seek and you shall find”

        Hebrews 11:6 tells us that man “must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

        The Bereans were open minded, listened earnestly, and searched the Scriptures.

        Acts 17:27 …God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him,

        No, no, no! Man cannot seek — we filter all through our interpretation of viper venom-on-the-lips Romans 3!

        Lydia went to the water where women pray and she was “seeking” in that the Bible calls her a “worshiper of God”

        The dead Prodigal son came to his senses….. going to the Father (not the Father to him).

        Somewhere in these comments (another thread) I have listed dozens of seek, listen, return, come, verses showing how man can and does heed the call of Christ.

        That’s what the Bible teaches but they come to the Bible with the presupposition that man is too-dead. Tough sledding after that.

      84. Jose to Fromoverhere : Jesus Christ have declared it already that futility of self-determinism including the issue of seeking, that those who are still disconnected to the True Vine can do nothing. You may oppose Jesus as what you are doing now (you will never win), and the truth will remain to be solid non-negotiable. You call on Him as your Lord but it will be too shameful if you will deny His final conclusion on the matter. Those heroes of faith mentioned in Heb. chap 11 were able to put their faith in God because they are using that faith that was once given to them by God and they were commended for that because they don’t use their own self-generated faith in order to please God. Self-generated faith is useless and an offense to God. Why? Man will boast of it in his attempt to claim for the forgiveness and the grace of Salvation that is 100 % provided by Christ on the cross. If you keep on insisting man’s self generated faith to reach out to God, then your gospel is adulterated with human fleshly efforts, it’s not a pure grace gospel of salvation, an adulterated gospel that is cursed according to Gal. 1:8. Regarding the verse that was pointed out where Jesus says: “Come all of you who are heavy laden…” Seek first the kingdom of God…” etc. = These cannot be done by those that are disconnected to the true vine – all of their self-generated efforts are futile of no effect and will never please God. Jesus Christ will only recognize those efforts by the time they receive God’s enablement of Grace, meaning there was a provision of grace for them in order for them to become connected to the True Vine because they cannot do it for themselves alone. Why? Because they are DEAD spiritually. The good Soil needs to be prepared first by God before it has been sown with the seeds of the gospel while the other types of Soil doesn’t have any preparation made by God that’s why all of them never prosper and died.

      85. Jose,

        Your post is full of assumptions and presuppositions that determinists/ Calvinists make for their theology. Here is a good example of one:

        “Those heroes of faith mentioned in Heb. chap 11 were able to put their faith in God because they are using that faith that was once given to them by God and they were commended for that because they don’t use their own self-generated faith.”

        How you can be so bold as to say why God commended them!?

        You say, “they were commended for that because they don’t use their own self-generated faith,” when you absolutely no biblical ground for saying that. How is the simple reader supposed to know that if he starts reading the book of Hebrews?

        You require the reader to have some “helps” books nearby! That reminds me of the Catholic church, “Let us tell you what every passage means.” I have never seen any biblical discussion about given-faith and self-generated-faith.

        We are just supposed to know this? Men teach us what the Bible does not? Men get to choose “oh that is self-generated faith and that is God-given faith…. says me.”

        “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

        Jose says this verse really means, “God irresistibly gave Abraham faith, and Abraham, having no choice, believed God…. and God then credited to him as righteousness.”

        You can make the verse say that if you want…. but what’s the point? What’s the message?

        The simple message is that God something and a man named Abraham believed Him!!! God said lots of things in the Bible that people didnt believe. But Abraham did. That’s the simple message. Why add man-made ideas to it?

        “By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did.”

        Reformed teaching and Jose say this verse really means …

        “By given-to-him faith Abel brought God a better offering than given-no-faith Cain.”

        But Cain is told BY God…. Gen 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” So, in your theology God is telling Cain, “you can and should do what is right and rule over sin” but He is not giving him the ability to do it??

        What’s the message? What is the point of the Bible? Reformed theology says we cannot learn from the Bible…. we can only do what we are told (robots). We dont learn to have faith from Hebrews 11….. either God gave us faith or not…. so that passage has no real point.

        What happens when you read in Luke 1…

        “…a priest named Zechariah, …. his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.”

        You have two choices:

        1. You say, “Let me add to Scripture and say that God gave them irresistibly the ability to observe all these commands. He is commending them for not doing it with their self-generated faith.”

        2. You say, “It doesn’t really mean what it says, because we know that ‘No one does good.'”

        So, Jose, we have to read every passage with the reformed theology books next to us (I did!!) or go to monergism.com to find out what these verses mean.

        It really is simple to read. Zechariah and Elizabeth observed God’s commands. They still need Christ. But they were not God-haters (what Calvinism teaches).

        I got so tired, day after day reading the Bible, squeezing all of the Bible through the tiny reformed filter…. and saying over and over: These passages must not mean what they clearly say.

      86. FOH to Jose writes, “How is the simple reader supposed to know that if he starts reading the book of Hebrews?”

        Absent a knowledge of other Scriptures, the simple reader is open to an carnal, imaginative understanding of Hebrews.

        Then, “You require the reader to have some “helps” books nearby! ”

        Yes – Genesis through Revelation.

      87. Some more thoughts on faith and reward…

        Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.

        Enoch pleased God? That is what the Bible says. With his living by faith, he pleased God.

        11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
        ———————-

        I used to reward my kids for the books they read in the summer. But I never read the books for them and then rewarded them!!

      88. FOH,

        It makes no sense for God to reward people for seeking Him when they were irresistibly compelled to do so. Could they have chosen not to seek Him? No. Not in Calvin-land.

      89. Phillip,
        They might possibly try to make the case that they were “rewarded with faith” but that still does not work for them in two ways:

        a. The passage clearly shows that faith is first and the reward is after.

        b. They would still have the problem with the idea of a “reward” at all, since that inherently implies some kind of deed on the person’s part.

        You can expect here some more illogical responses about God giving them the faith that he “commends” them for. The word “commend” is in that chapter 4 times. Any simple reading of that word in context implies some kind of act of faith on the part of the person that “God commends” him for!

        I know these are loathsome ideas to Calvinists, but it is all over Scripture, in many form, in many genres of Bible literature, and many books.

        It’s just the way God set it up, whether reformed determinists like it or not.

      90. FOH,

        Mark 16:14 (NKJV)….
        Later He (Jesus) appeared to the eleven (apostles) as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.

        Wouldn’t it be unjust for Jesus to rebuke/scold/berate the 11 for not believing when, according to Calvinism, they couldn’t? Didn’t the Son know that the Father withheld from them the ability to believe?

      91. Phillip,

        Yes that would be unjust and inconsistent….but that is not a problem in Calvinism.

        When all else fails just start saying “We know those passages do not mean what they say because we filter everything through John 6:44, Romans 3:11…. etc,” Rinse, repeat.

        What exactly do any of these passages mean for them?

        How exactly can Christ scold his chosen ones for the lack of faith that He has withheld from them?

      92. phillip writes, “It makes no sense for God to reward people for seeking Him when they were irresistibly compelled to do so.’

        People are not irresistibly compelled to seek God. By grace, an irresistible grace, their hearts are opened like Lydia, the blind see, the deaf hear, they are struck down on the road to destruction – God begins a good work in them and that work cannot be resisted.

        Then, “Could they have chosen not to seek Him? No. Not in Calvin-land.”

        Of course, they could have chosen not to seek Him. So far, none have – such is the joy of a new birth, the gift of faith, and being set free from sin.

      93. Rhutchin writes…“Of course, they could have chosen not to seek Him. So far, none have….”

        And yet (James 1:21 NIV)…
        “Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you (just like God did when He opened Lydia’s heart), which can save you.”

        And remember, humility is NOT a gift.

        Rhutchin continues…“… such is the joy of a new birth, the gift of faith, and being set free from sin.”

        Just another great example of depraved sinners believing what they want to believe. Though they reject the notion, believing/accepting Calvinism is an excellent example of free will.

      94. I had said…“Of course, they could have chosen not to seek Him. So far, none have….”
        Phillip responded, “And yet (James 1:21 NIV)…
        “Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you (just like God did when He opened Lydia’s heart), which can save you.”

        Phillip does not explain his point leaving us to read his mind. Since we can’t read his mind, let’s just deal with James. James speaks to believers for James introduces this section, “This you know, my beloved brethren.” Paul had been more gentle writing, “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” earlier, Paul had said, “I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good.” Thus, Christ exhorts, “seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness;” The believer struggles and makes choices – sometimes even to disobey God – but none choose to depart from God; only to seek Him Him even more that they might be made pure.

      95. Amen… The elect cannot depart from his union with Christ, the True Vine. Why? The elect is now locked-up by the love of God in that union, so that even if he will try to eject, it cannot be according to Romans. 8:35-39.Aside from that/. The Holy Spirit still SEALS the believer.

      96. Yep! Once elect… always elect… just not eternally immutably elect as an individual before creation. There is no choosing someone before they even exist! And determinists don’t believe there was a real choice anyway… that word “elect” is an anthropomorphism, for there was not a moment when there was a choice made… In determinism, God is locked in and limited to one line of events working out only one way. He never makes any real choices. 😉

      97. brianwagner writes, “In determinism, God is locked in and limited to one line of events working out only one way. He never makes any real choices. ”

        Let’s grant that such is the case. Why do you find that upsetting?

      98. Theological determinism rejects the truthful clarity of Scripture, Roger, where God says He does make real choices! Why don’t you find it upsetting that theological determinism rejects that clarity of Scripture?

      99. brianwagner writes, “Theological determinism rejects the truthful clarity of Scripture,…”

        Or maybe the Scriptures are clear and you don’t want that outcome.

        Then, “…where God says He does make real choices! ”

        Or we just see God executing His real choices made earlier.

        Then, “Why don’t you find it upsetting that theological determinism rejects that clarity of Scripture?”

        Obviously, if we identify “theological determinism” as Calvinism, I don’t think it rejects the clarity of Scripture.

      100. FOH writes, ‘I never read the books for them and then rewarded them!!”

        And did not get them any books to read or otherwise influence them to read books. They sorta just did it on their own and then at the end of the summer, you rewarded them. Not really a good analogy.

      101. I don’t argue with the verses you have presented. What I believe in that issue of man’s seeking God is that The Grace of God is operative before the act of seeking God. Why? because No one is righteous and NO one ever seeks God according to Romans 3:10-11. Man can only be able seek God if his dead spirit is enabled by the Grace of God.

      102. Jose writes, “What I believe in that issue of man’s seeking God is that The Grace of God is operative before the act of seeking God.”

        This is in line with Philippians 1, where Paul, speaking to believers, writes, “God who began a good work in you…” To offset the depraved condition of people, God must begin the good work of salvation in the person. So, Romans 8, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?”

      103. I agree with FOH’s insights on the initiative of the prodigal and Roger makes a good point that his motives may not have been that spiritual. But the over all purpose and lesson of this parable is being overlooked, imo.

        As the third of three stories given to unmerciful Pharisees because they didn’t like Jesus’ merciful outreach to sinners… Jesus was reminding them how joyful heaven, angels, and the Father is when sinners repent… seeking to escape their sinful lives (even if for the wrong reasons or with feigned words)… and how mercifully God (Father and Son) runs to encourage them in their search for a change from their life of sin.

        The application clearly being… don’t be like the unmerciful older brother who thinks he’s the chosen one and the only one deserving the Father’s favor.

      104. Brian:
        You mention that RH brings up selfish motives.

        The Calvinist hero Jonathan Edwards (in “Sinners in the hands of an angry God”) repeatedly appeals to selfish motives to get people to “fly from the wrath to come.”

        “And let every one that is yet out of Christ, and hanging over the Pit of Hell, whether they be old Men and Women, or middle Aged, or young People, or little Children, now hearken to the loud Calls of God’s Word and Providence.”

        “If this should be the Case with you, you will eternally curse this Day, and will curse the Day that ever you was born, to see such a Season of the pouring out of God’s Spirit; and will wish that you had died and gone to Hell before you had seen it.”

        “Now undoubtedly it is, as it was in the Days of John the Baptist, the Ax is in an extraordinary Manner laid at the Root of the Trees, that every Tree that brings not forth good Fruit, may be hewen down, and cast into the Fire.”

        “Therefore let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the Wrath to come. The Wrath of almighty GOD is now undoubtedly hanging over great Part of this Congregation: Let every one fly out of Sodom: Haste and escape for your Lives, look not behind you, escape to the Mountain, least you be consumed. ”

        The “dead” prodigal son “comes to his senses” and “flies from” the humiliation and misery to come. That is what the Scripture teaches. Why teach something else?

      105. FOH writes, “The “dead” prodigal son “comes to his senses” and “flies from” the humiliation and misery to come. That is what the Scripture teaches.”

        Making clear that it is love of self that motivates him to action. If all sinners would act only from selfish motives, all would seek God.

      106. brianwagner writes, “the over all purpose and lesson of this parable is being overlooked, imo.”

        Explaining context never hurt anyone. Great comment!

      107. The decision made by the prodigal son to come back home was made possible because there was a pre-intervention of the grace of God in His life. A dead man cannot do that for himself alone if his will was not influenced or energized by the grace of God. This is supported by John 15:5; John 5:21; John 6:44, 65. Same case with the Rev. 3:20 “Jesus knocking outside the door and He will only enter if the door is opened for Him. We cannot insist using man’s self determinism in obtaining salvation otherwise it is no longer purely Grace of God. It will appear that you were saved because of your own effort and that you have a part in that Salvation provided by Jesus on the cross, that is why when you fail or commit sin then you lost your salvation because your salvation depends on yourself.

      108. The gospel is offered by the preachers of the gospel on earth to all humans, but it is God the Father- (John 6:44, 65) who finally decides on whom He will allow-disallow to come to the Son to claim for the payment of their sins and the grace of Salvation.

      109. I am surprised that you cannot see the duplicity involved here.

        It is like saying to a child “yes, you may have a cookie!” while knowing that the cookie jar is empty.

        Embarrassing that you are defending the Calvinist’s right to tell everyone “Christ died for you!” when your theology teaches that he did not!

      110. FOH writes, “Embarrassing that you are defending the Calvinist’s right to tell everyone “Christ died for you!” when your theology teaches that he did not!”

        No Calvinist would tell a general audience that “Christ died for you!” He might do so when talking to believers as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 15. However, when preaching to the world, the Calvinist presents a simple Scriptural message – You have sinned and come short of the glory of God – everyone must give account of his life to God. Repent and believe the gospel.

      111. The statement : When I am lifted up I will draw ALL MEN unto me” – You interpreted ALL MEN to mean the whole human race. No, it cannot be. Why? Christ cannot promise salvation or offer it those whom He did not intend to lay down His life as payment for their sins. So, what does ALL MEN implies, well safely, it is referring to ALL of the Sheep that Christ died for that are scattered all over the world. Its not true that God loves all men. He said : “I love Jacob but hated Esau. The Pot-maker has the right to create “vessels destined for Honor” and another vessel destined for wrath”

      112. Jose,
        John 1:9 NKJV — That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

        Is light from Christ given to each person a gracious gift? What do you think was Christ’s purpose in giving it to each person?

        Can the sovereign Potter have a good original intention for each vessel to be a vessel of honor… and then choose to make it into a vessel of wrath only after it freely chooses to reject that intention and becomes marred in His hands? He doesn’t mar some on purpose that He was intending to be vessels of honor… does He?

        1 John 2:2 NKJV — And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

        Isn’t Jesus presently according to this verse the propitiation for all the sins of the whole world? It says “is”, not “was”… and propitiation for “sins” not for “some people”.

        Romans 8:9 NKJV — But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
        Romans 9:25 NKJV — As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.”

        If God says – “not His”, “not My people”, and “not beloved” before one is joined to Christ through faith by the HS, then theology of man makes God a liar when saying people are born His sheep, His people, His beloved and have eternally immutably been so.

      113. Jose to FOH writes, ‘The statement : When I am lifted up I will draw ALL MEN unto me” – You interpreted ALL MEN to mean the whole human race. No, it cannot be. Why? Christ cannot promise salvation or offer it those whom He did not intend to lay down His life as payment for their sins. So, what does ALL MEN implies, well safely, it is referring to ALL of the Sheep that Christ died for that are scattered all over the world.”

        The Greek text has only “pantas” that has the basic meaning “all.” The Greek word for man does not appear. Thus, Jesus says, “I will draw all unto me.” So, we can ask the question, Who is in view here? Jose’s view is legitimate. Jesus could easily be speaking of all those whom the Father has given him (John 6). There is no reason for Christ to think that He would draw those who were not given to Him by the father. FOH imposes his personal philosophy onto the verse to get what he believes.

      114. Jose:

        That is the “too-dead” argument that is demolished by Luke 15 and many other places in the Word.

        Come unto me all ye who labor….

        Oh Jerusalem….I would have gathered you but you would not (Christ wanted; they said no).

        At least you are honest!! You said…. “The offer of the grace of Salvation was not extended to them by God the Father.”

        Most Calvinists says it is because people refuse or because of man’s sin. But you are honest that true Calvinism teaches it is because God (who is Love) did not love them or invite them.

        Boy that is Good News!

      115. FOH writes, “Oh Jerusalem….I would have gathered you but you would not (Christ wanted; they said no).”

        The Scriptures actually say, “How often I have longed to gather your children…” Such are the ways of men to misrepresent the Scriptures.

        Then, “Most Calvinists says it is because people refuse or because of man’s sin.”

        Calvinists say that people refuse “the gospel” and this because they are “slaves to sin.” You seem to have forgotten much of what you thought you knew about Calvinism. Given that you even forget what the Scriptures say, no one should be surprised.

        God’s saving grace is given only to His elect – “It is God who began a good work in you…” The “good work” to which Paul refers is God’s grace.

      116. Jose,
        I came to Christ as a child. I lived contentedly in that growing relationship for years. Later I was taught Calvinism (it was the beginning of the YRR wave).

        I was taught to bring suppositions to the Bible:

        Man is too-dead (or dead men dont make choices).

        Christ always gets what He wants —- or if Christ wanted someone saved they would be (and no one else can be).

        After reading the Bible through year after year, I saw hundreds of verses that contradicted this idea: We are “dead to sin” yet we still sin. Paul calls himself a slave to sin three times in Romans 7.

        I also saw many more verse (hundreds more!) that said “Come unto me all who labor…” “When I am lifted up, I will draw all men…”

        But how can this be! God must always get what He wants, right???

        “Oh Jerusalem….. I would have…. but you would not.”

        “If you had faith ….”

        “Now go invited everyone since they will not come….”

        Many, many verses (parables) straight from mouth of Christ reveal that Scripture makes a point to teach that Christ does NOT get all that He wanted to come to Him.

        Any teaching that Christ always gets what He wants is not based on the Bible. It “sounds” great…. sure, people want to honor God. I get that. But that is not what the Bible teaches.

  14. I want to know what gospel the Calvinist preaches to the non-elect. I mean you can’t say that Jesus died for you and wants you to go to heaven, and you can believe and be saved……wouldn’t that be a lie to that person if he is non-elect? Is it ok to lie to the non-elect if you don’t know that they are non-elect?

    1. Dg writes, “I want to know what gospel the Calvinist preaches to the non-elect.”

      Since only God knows His elect from the non-elect, God just tells the Calvinist to preach the gospel to all and He will sort everythign out.

      Then, “I mean you can’t say that Jesus died for you and wants you to go to heaven, and you can believe and be saved……wouldn’t that be a lie to that person if he is non-elect?”

      Of course. What if God does not intent to save that person to whom you say, “Jesus died for you.”? You end up a liar.

      Then, “Is it ok to lie to the non-elect if you don’t know that they are non-elect?”

      Of course not. Just stick with the gospel – Only in Christ is there forgiveness for sin.

      1. Or better still – what DO you say to people when you tell them the gospel.

      2. DG writes, “what you would say to a person? Please give me an example.”

        You are a sinner. One day, you will die and then you must give an account of your life to God. Because of your sin, God will not allow you to enter heaven and you will spend eternity in hell. There is a way for you to escape this – you can convince someone else to take your place in hell. Do you have anyone who would agree to take your place in hell?…. God put His son on a cross because of sin – now anyone can be saved from their sin – Jew or gentile, black, brown, red, or white, straight or gay, etc. – simply by believing God and giving up their life of sin to serve God.

      3. Below is what Rhutchin’s presentation of the gospel from his Calvinistic perspective (which I don’t have a problem with if said from perspective)

        Rhutchin writes,
        “You are a sinner. One day, you will die and then you must give an account of your life to God. Because of your sin, God will not allow you to enter heaven and you will spend eternity in hell. There is a way for you to escape this – you can convince someone else to take your place in hell. Do you have anyone who would agree to take your place in hell?…. God put His son on a cross because of sin – now anyone can be saved from their sin – Jew or gentile, black, brown, red, or white, straight or gay, etc. – simply by believing God and giving up their life of sin to serve God”

        I will just break down some misleading points.

        “Because of your sin, God will not allow you to enter heaven”
        This is not a true statement from a Calvinistic perspective. Calvinists teach that you were either elected for heaven or barred from access before the creation of the world by a secret decree. The Westminster confession states that it has nothing to do at all with anything foreseen including sin. Yes Calvinism says you will go to hell because of your sin, but that is not why you were not chosen for heaven and has nothing to do with why you were not chosen for heaven.

        “There is a way for you to escape this”
        This is very misleading; If the person is non-elect they are non-elect. You cannot say to a non-elect person that “there is a way for you to escape this” when there actually isn’t. That is a lie to a non-elect person.

        “God put His son on a cross because of sin – now anyone can be saved from their sin – Jew or gentile, black, brown, red, or white, straight or gay, etc. – simply by believing God and giving up their life of sin to serve God”
        Very misleading again. What if the person he is speaking to is non-elect. He has just lied again by giving them a false sense that “anyone” can be saved. It’s not actually true within Calvinism that anyone can be saved. It is only the elect that can be saved. The non-elect cannot be saved and were not elected to be saved from before they were born. It doesn’t matter whether you are Jew or Gentile, black, brown, red, or white etc. etc. If you are non-elect you are non-elect and cannot by simply believing give up your life of sin and serve God. You just can’t if you are non-elect.

        That’s the truth. Call it grossly misleading or call it a lie?

        I’m not meaning to be derogatory, but just pointing out how a non-Calvinist sees this. All done in love and lightheartedly.

      4. DG,

        Well done. Now remember that what you just dismantled was the take-your-time thoughts of the most entrenched, experienced determinists on this blog. He had all the time he wanted and knew that he was gonna be examined….. and still could not articulate how to wordsmith and navigate the two-sides of double speak.

        Besides….. even if you had not been able to find those several points of error, could one call what he said “Good News”? Nah. Just information. Certainly not Good News!

      5. DG writes, “I will just break down some misleading points.

        1 “Because of your sin, God will not allow you to enter heaven”
        This is not a true statement from a Calvinistic perspective. Calvinists teach that you were either elected for heaven or barred from access before the creation of the world by a secret decree.”

        This is true, but not the whole story. Before either had done anything, God said, the one will serve the other. So it is that God knows whom He will save when He creates the world. However, Paul wrote, “Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!” Even the Calvinist can preach this.

        2. “There is a way for you to escape this”
        “This is very misleading; If the person is non-elect they are non-elect. You cannot say to a non-elect person that “there is a way for you to escape this” when there actually isn’t.”

        In a large group, the Calvinist understands that he is but the instrument of God to call out to God’s elect. This is true in a group that includes both elect and non-elect. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world – there is no other propitiation for sin – and God applies this to whom He will.

        3. “God put His son on a cross because of sin – now anyone can be saved from their sin – Jew or gentile, black, brown, red, or white, straight or gay, etc. – simply by believing God and giving up their life of sin to serve God”
        “Very misleading again. What if the person he is speaking to is non-elect.” He has just lied again by giving them a false sense that “anyone” can be saved. It’s not actually true within Calvinism that anyone can be saved.”

        Again, DG does not seem to understand what the servant of God is doing in preaching. The preacher is sent by God to all the world – elect and non-elect – to preach the gospel and through that gospel to call out God’s elect (in whom the Holy Spirit has begun a good work). However, the preaching of the gospel is not without effect on the non-elect – “…we are a sweet aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing – to the latter an odor from death to death, but to the former a fragrance from life to life.”

        Then, “That’s the truth. Call it grossly misleading or call it a lie?”

        Or call it DG’s misunderstanding of the Scriptures.

      6. I liked one your posts for the first time!

        It is a great example of Calvinists on the back foot saying many words but really saying nothing.

        Great post! I like it.

      7. Rhutchin writes…. “Just stick with the gospel – Only in Christ is there forgiveness for sin.”

        Just more deception by the Calvinist.

        While “only in Christ is there forgiveness for sin” is a biblical fact, it is not, however, the gospel.

        Again, for the reading impaired, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (NKJV)….

        “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you THE GOSPEL which I PREACHED TO YOU, which also you received and in which you stand, BY WHICH ALSO YOU ARE SAVED, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures…”

        Knowing that Christ died for sin, or YOUR sin, doesn’t benefit ME at all. The Lost sinner must know/understand that Christ died for THEIR own personal sins. I was saved (by God) when I believed Christ died for ME.

      8. This goes along with DG’s question on another thread: What do they even preach?

        Christ died. Nope.

        The Gospel that Paul told us to preach is that Christ died for “our sin”. This kind of broad statement is made everywhere in Scripture. Those within hearing would naturally assume that this would/could apply to them.

        Blood available (Passover) for the doorposts of those who apply it.

        Serpent-on-pole available for those who find it and look and live.

        Ark available for those who enter in.

        Remedy is provided by God. Accepted in faith (not indication that the faith was specially provided).

      9. FOH,

        Understood.

        But all of this is rooted in their (false) understanding of election. They have turned heaven into some kind of elitist country club. Calvinists look at the Lost just like Israel looked at the Heathen.

        I mean, just look at the brain cells here…

        Rhutchin writes… “What if God does not intend to save that person to whom you say, ‘Jesus died for you’? You end up a liar.”

        It grieves my spirit.

      10. Phillip,
        I love looking at the OT and especially the parallel to Passover (Christ was crucified at Passover also!).

        They say we are liars if we tell someone Christ died for you and yet they do not believe. That is like Moses telling an Israelite, “The Lord says to apply the blood to the doorpost.” Who did that work for? Anyone who applied the blood.

        Later, if someone says their firstborn was killed that does not make Moses a liar! It simply means the provision was available, but they did not apply it.

      11. FOH writes, “The Gospel that Paul told us to preach is that Christ died for “our sin”. This kind of broad statement is made everywhere in Scripture. ”

        FOH, like Phillip, leaves out the part that such things are said only to believers.

      12. phillip writes, “Again, for the reading impaired, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (NKJV)….
        “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you THE GOSPEL …”

        Phillip leaves our the part where Paul is speaking to believers – “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand.” Any, and all preachers, can, and should, speak such things to their congregations.

        Then, “The Lost sinner must know/understand that Christ died for THEIR own personal sins.”

        As Jesus said, “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” (John 6)

      13. For further clarification.

        Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 15:3)… “For I delivered to you first of all that WHICH I ALSO RECEIVED”

        What did Paul (also) receive (believe)?

        Galatians 2:20b (NKJV)….
        “…..and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved ME and gave Himself for ME.”

        Until YOU believe that Christ died for YOU, YOU are not saved.

    2. DG,
      This is one of the huge questions where Calvinists stumble so often!

      Jose says they preach to all because they are not omniscient and RH says they do it cuz they are commanded to.

      Look at the preaching in the Bible. It is broadcasted to all who could hear. The message was always: “you must” “you can” “turn from your ways,” etc. It is always in the form of an invitation or open statement. To all those who “cannot turn” because God has not regenerated-first them, the invitation is hollow and insincere.

      Calvin knew this….. which is why he and Luther say that it is a way for God to “mock them” and contrast His goodness to others.

      Look at how the Bible shows some respond to this preaching….

      Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
      ———-

      Why did they believe? Because they examined in the Scriptures to be persuade/ convinced (And why did they? “of more noble character”).

      Calvinists say all the time “if you get credit for believing, you take credit from God.” (That is true “because we said so.”)

      What does the Bible say?

      1. FOH writes, “The message was always: “you must” “you can” “turn from your ways,” etc. ”

        FOH made up the part about “you can.” What does the Scripture say?

        “No one can come to Me,…” (John 6)
        “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me,…” (John 6)
        “..apart from Me you can do nothing.” (John 15)
        “…those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8)

  15. Rhutchin writes… “What if God does not intend to save that person to whom you say, ‘Jesus died for you’? You end up a liar.”

    I’m looking forward to hearing what Rhutchin actually does say to a lost person when he presents the gospel – whether he lies to them or not?

    1. DG,
      Most Calvinists lie when/if they evangelize.

      They tell people that God loves them and Christ died for them. Which of course, if they are not elect, is not true (for them).

      Piper tries to say God loves everyone with a lame example of loving every woman in his church but not the same as he loves his wife.

      Piper did not decide (completely in himself with no input from anyone) that he would create some of those women for eternal destruction —- like he preaches that God did. No squeezing love out of that that scenario.

      1. FOH,
        They should just be honest with their “gospel” message. They should just say when evangelizing “Hey, it’s highly improbable that you are one selected for salvation by a secret decree from before you were born, but there is a slight chance that you could be.

      2. FOH/Damon,

        2 Corinthians 4:1-2 (NIV)….
        Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

        If our Calvinist brothers did the same, this is what we would have.

        “Jesus died to save sinners. Now, not all sinners mind you, but a select few. The odds are you are not one of them. You see, before the foundations of the world, God was pleased to predestine a small group, unconditionally of course, called ‘the elect’ for salvation. It was only these for whom Christ died. The vast majority of mankind He was equally pleased to simply pass by. These are called the reprobate. Christ didn’t die for these unlucky souls. Again, statistically, you fall into this group. But, by chance, if and when you do believe, be assured that your salvation was a guarantee and the eternal flames of the lake of fire was never an option for you. You were never ever in danger of eternal damnation. That’s the good news. However, if you are one of those reprobate, then, well…..bummer”

    2. DG,
      I have never heard a Calvinist say that we are liars if we tell people that Christ died for them. Ah…. I see… he also says, “What if God does not intend to save that person….” (that shows his baked in Calvinistic position).

      I explain it simply that God does love you and Christ died for you, but just as we see in any relationship, He leaves some of the “personal relationship” parts to us. Of course Calvinists go ballistic when they hear that —and they say “fortunately He doesnt cuz we’d all be dead” (which is of course because of their world view that a sinner cannot hear God’s call—- it’s all in the presuppositions).

      Oh…and to your question of whether they say “God loves you” or not. It takes about 2 minutes on the “Puritan Board” site to find many guys who will gladly and boldly write that of course God does not love the reprobate!

      How sweet.

  16. Phillip,

    Often a Calvinist will minimize the impact or import of a verse in an epistle, saying “it was written to the church.” (“Our sins” only means the church reading the letter not “the world’s sins.”). On its face that is already bad hermeneutic since we would have to say what is written to the church in Ephesus applies ONLY to the few believers in that time and area. Not a good plan and demonstrates a shaky hermeneutic.

    Also when those epistles make statements like the ones below, Calvinists bluster with some sort of “These people were never part of God’s church.”

    …some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

    …that you have abandoned the love you had at first.

    …your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

    …For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them

    …severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

    …For some have already strayed after Satan.

    …Some have rejected these and have suffered the shipwreck of their faith.
    ———————–

    You can’t have it both ways….. Oh, I forgot, they are used to having it both ways. Double speak again.

    The epistles were written to a specific church in time but you cannot make the non-Calvinistic points in them go away just by saying “that was only for that church.”

    1. FOH,

      I am well aware of Calvinist tactics. In regards to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 rhutchin writes….

      “Phillip leaves out the part where Paul is speaking to believers – ‘Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand.’ Any, and all preachers, can, and should, speak such things to their congregations.”

      When Paul said “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received” his Corinthian audience was in a lost/unsaved condition. Those who received it were saved. No doubt some didn’t receive it and left (Acts 8:24). But Paul proclaimed his gospel to all everywhere he went.

      Also, I can’t see folks like White, Sproul, and Piper standing before their congregations and saying “Christ died for our sins” without first taking a careful gander around the room to see if there were any first time visitors. For them, can you imagine an unknown newcomer walking into the church, taking a seat, and just moments later hears “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures”. How dreadful!

      1. Phillip,

        Can you imagine a Calvinist evangelist? What does he say to a huge crowd of listeners?

        “You can be born again tonight!” Nope.

        “Christ is calling you!” Nope

        “The invitation spoken of in this parable is for you!” Nope.

        A non-elect person in the audience hears the same “tonight!” “Calling you” ” invitation is for you…” but …..nah, it’s not.

        Good News!

      2. FOH,

        I visited a reformed “bible” church for about 3 years. I honestly can’t recall the gospel every being preached. At least not blatantly. Masqueraded or otherwise.

        I found this video several years ago. In it White says “Maybe we need to stop proclaiming the gospel “What will you do with Jesus?’ and proclaim it the way the Bible presents it ‘What will Christ do with you?’”

      3. Phillip,

        Very typical Calvinist response to downplay “what we do with Jesus.” They cant have that! How about these verses then?

        Fixing our eyes on Jesus…. Hebrews 12:2

        Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”John 11:40

        If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. 1 John 4:15

        In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus. Philippians 2:5

        Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:38

        But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord…..1 Peter 3:15

        If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

        Very truly I tell you, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me. John 13:20

        ——————–
        These are not very “passive” verses!

      4. FOH,

        Agreed.

        And it was this same John who wrote…

        John 5:34 (NKJV)…
        Yet I (Jesus) do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved.

        John 20:21 (NKJV)…
        ….but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

        White says… “The Shepard chooses His sheep.”

        This is true.

        Ezekiel 34:30-31 (NKJV)….
        Thus they shall know that I, the LORD their God, am with them, and they, the house of Israel (the Northern Kingdom), are My people,” says the Lord GOD.’ “You are My flock, the flock of My pasture; you are men, and I am your God,” says the Lord GOD.

        Then….

        John 10:25-26 (NKJV)…
        Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.

        Calvinist will say…. “Notice it reads ‘you do not believe, because you are not my sheep’. It doesn’t say…. “you are not my sheep, because you do not believe”.

        Again, true. But consider the following….

        Matthew 10:5-7 (NKJV)….
        These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (the Northern Kingdom). And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”

        Matthew 15:23 (NKJV)…
        But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (the Northern Kingdom).”

        Just think how offensive this must have been to the sheep from the House of Judah.

      5. phillip writes, “When Paul said “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received” his Corinthian audience was in a lost/unsaved condition.”

        Paul is writing to these people at a later time. He is referring back to that first time. So, yes, their were other people in attendance at that earlier time, but Paul now is speaking only to those who responded to his message and now are saved.” Thus, Paul uses personal language, “Christ died for our sins,” and it should be obvious that he is not referring to that first meeting and all those who were in attendance. I do not understand how Phillip can conclude that it does.

        Then, “I can’t see folks like White, Sproul, and Piper standing before their congregations and saying “Christ died for our sins” without first taking a careful gander around the room to see if there were any first time visitors.”

        The careful pastor will make sure that those attending the sermon understand the context of such statements. No Pastor should make this claim when appealing to unbelievers in the meeting to accept God’s salvation.

      6. Rhutchin writes… “Thus, Paul uses personal language, ‘Christ died for our sins’, and it should be obvious that he is not referring to that first meeting and all those who were in attendance. I do not understand how Phillip can conclude that it does.”

        1 Corinthians 15:1-2a, 3b-4 (NIV)….
        Now, brothers and sisters, I WANT TO REMIND YOU OF THE GOSPEL I PREACHED TO YOU, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved (they were Lost before receiving it)….THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures….

        Poor rhutchin. What a heart of stone.

      7. Phillip,
        If you look at Paul preaching in natural context you see this…. (Acts 17)

        10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

        —————-
        He preached to all.
        They received it with eagerness.
        They examined the Scriptures (to be reasoned in their mind).
        They were more noble.
        You have to invent (and bring to the Scripture) any idea of a special dose of faith being given

        Then, later….

        22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

        24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 GOD DID THIS SO THAT THEY WOULD SEEK HIM AND PERHAPS REACH OUT TO HIM AND FIND HIM, though he is not far from any one of us…..

        30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent…..

        32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed.

        ——————–
        Preach to all.
        Preach that God did things so that men would SEEK Him.
        Call ALL men everywhere to repent (Calvinists cannot tell a man to repent if they believe he cannot do it —without special help).
        Hearing of the resurrection some sneered, other believed. No mention (here or anywhere) that they got a special dose.

      8. FOH,

        And here’s another one.

        Acts 13:7 (KJV)….
        Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and DESIRED to hear the word of God.

        A depraved sinner who “desired” to hear the word of God. “O this can’t be!” screams the Calvinist.

      9. Phillip,
        Yes sir! No record that Paulus got a special dose to ask…. and no record that —even though he was seeking the word— he ever responded positively to it.

        How about this one. Mark 10.

        17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him….. 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

        —————
        A. This man sought out Christ (can’t have that!)
        B. This man had been “doing good things” (cant have that!)
        C. Jesus felt a love for him. Jesus loves someone who rejects Him!
        D. He went away grieving and rejecting the offer of Christ.

        How clear does the Scripture have to be? We see that: (a) God does not always get what He wants, (b) not all that happens is what God wants, (c) people can “seek God,” (d) Christ sincerely offers to people—but they can reject Him, and (e) Christ loves someone, but still lets them decide negatively and reject Him.

        If this were written by a Calvinist we could never have someone ask Christ about eternal life….. then reject Him.

      10. FOH,

        The biblical examples are almost endless, but here’s another one.

        Mark 12:28-34 (NKJV)…..
        Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?” Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”

        So much for depraved sinners not being able to understand any spiritual truth.

      11. Phillip,

        The ones that really kill me are all the names, personal names, of people who had faith in Hebrews 11. For Abel it even tells us that his example still speaks to us (so we would follow it! Exercise faith!).

        But no…… nope…..all these examples have to have the brought-to-the-text idea that by (special, given-to-him) faith Abel….

        By (special, given-to-him) faith Enoch…..

        By (special, given-to-him) faith Noah….

        By (special, given-to-him) faith Abraham….

        And on and on it goes…..as they add human ideas to the Scriptures.

      12. FOH,

        Agreed.

        With all the biblical examples of people coming to faith, there is not one, NOT ONE, which even hints of a supernatural work of grace causing the lost sinner to believe.

        The gospel of John is filled with folks coming to faith in Christ. Each and every time it was either because of something Jesus said (by word; directly or indirectly) or did (divine miracle).

      13. phillip writes, “With all the biblical examples of people coming to faith, there is not one, NOT ONE, which even hints of a supernatural work of grace causing the lost sinner to believe.”

        An excellent summary of the non-Calvinist position.

      14. so, your gospel of Salvation-entrance to God’s Kingdom can be obtained by obedience to the law. This is another gospel as what Paul have said you are cursed. Galatians 1:8

      15. FOH,

        Acts 13:12 (NKJV)…
        Then the proconsul (Sergio Paulus) believed, when he saw (by evidence of the miracle) what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.

        However, still no mention of any inner working. The word and miracle were sufficient to convince him.

      16. phillip writes, “A depraved sinner who “desired” to hear the word of God. “O this can’t be!” screams the Calvinist.”

        No, phillip. Even Calvinists understand the power of the gospel and a natural curiosity in the depraved to hear the gospel to see how he might justify himself – we see this response in the Jews who confronted Christ. However, if that desire is righteous, then is it not true that, “God who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus”? Has not God confounded Phillip again through His word?

      17. I wrote, “…it should be obvious that he is not referring to that first meeting and all those who were in attendance….”
        Phillip was constrained by God to quote the Scripture, “…I WANT TO REMIND YOU OF THE GOSPEL I PREACHED TO YOU,…”

        Those, we see that Paul speaks to those within the Corinthian church reminding them of that first meeting where Paul preached the gospel to them and they believed. Paul does not include this to whom he preached and who did not believe. Thus, we see Paul reiterating to the believers that “CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS” and does not include any others. Phillip surely understands what Paul says here for he is unable to argue against Paul. Phillip is reduced to a feeble attack, “What a heart of stone.” That is because he cannot make Paul say what he wants and must abdicate his point.

      18. Poor, poor rhutchin. Wrong on 2 Timothy 2:10. Wrong on Romans 8:10. Wrong on 2 Thessalonians 3:2. Wrong on Romans 8:7-8. Now wrong on 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

        The list just continues to grow.

        Rhutchin, again, please put down Calvin and pick up Christ.

      19. phillip writes, ” Wrong on 2 Timothy 2:10….”

        Phillip is always offering his opinions but never able to contradict the Word.

    2. FOH writes, “On its face that is already bad hermeneutic since we would have to say what is written to the church in Ephesus applies ONLY to the few believers in that time and area. Not a good plan and demonstrates a shaky hermeneutic.”

      FOH fails to read the Scriptures. The letters of Paul will begin something like, “From Paul,…to the saints [in Ephesus], the faithful in Christ Jesus.” Because of the term, “faithful in Christ Jesus,” commentators will apply this to all believers. FOH calls this a “bad…shaky hermeneutic.” It is FOH’s shakey hermeneutic to extrapolate the Scriptures to speak to unbelievers without those Scriptures pointing us in that direction.

      Then, “when those epistles make statements like the ones below, Calvinists bluster with some sort of “These people were never part of God’s church.”

      Now, FOH complains about verses that apply specifically to the church. However, Jesus said that the wheat and tares will reside together in the church. Not everyone who attends the church is saved and not everyone who is active and joins the church is saved. Paul gives warnings to the church and everyone, except FOH, recognizes that not all within the physical church are saved.

    1. Interesting that Damon would give his blessing to this comment, I have noticed that some of my comments are not making it, but the comments made against Calvinist, in particular, are all over this blog and not really anything discussing God’s word. Seems a little biased to me my friend. You let Damon talk to poor little me saying I am so sensitive and weak, that I am not made for blogs like this and then my reply did not make the post. You know he was being condescending and belittling me Brian. I demand that you honour your word and remove the post immediately. Let your yes be yes and no be no, anything else is sin brother. I do commend you for taking the stand and controlling the issue though. Just start from the top and let the deleting begin, I am sure some will be mine also. But I was only confronting my brothers biblically for sinning against me by attacking my character of Calvinist personally. That is wrong and I called it tongues being set on fire by hell, cursing men created in the image of God and then blessing God, such things ought not to be, Things oh so heated up because Dr White misspoke and one thinks they have won a victory. Guys, we are still brothers in Christ, but the way you are sounding off in the comments it is as if you do not really believe that. If not just tell us what you really think of us. I believe each and every one of you are my brothers in Christ. If I say I am sorry or forgive me. I am weak or too sensitive and should not be on here. I thought that is what Christians are supposed to do?????? I was banned before hmmmmm

  17. DG,

    You wondered above how a Calvinist preaches the Gospel. One of their most lauded, Jonathan Edwards, preached (several times) a famous message “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” that was later printed and distributed. He said this:

    “But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again…..

    The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours….

    Now God stands ready to pity you; this is a day of mercy; you may cry now with some encouragement of obtaining mercy.”
    ————

    So many things in that sermon!

    There are unsaved listening in this congregation….and God abhors them! But…. Edwards tells them all that God is ready to pity anyone listening. They have but to cry out now and obtain mercy.

    This and many other sermons from Calvinists show that they tell people (“elect and non-elect”) to accept the provision of Christ. (For them) This is an insincere offer, deception, and a lie.

    His closing words are a general offer to all who are out of Christ. Preached as any non-Calvinist would, inviting everyone to trust Christ…. and believing that they can.

    “Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come.”

    1. Preached as any non-Calvinist would, inviting everyone to trust Christ…. and believing that they can.
      “Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come.”

      This because of 1 Corinthians, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused it to grow.”

  18. FOH that was a great closing debate by Dr White you posted.
    You see the gospel is not an invitation, it is a command to repent and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ

    John 8:24 – I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

    Revelations 20:15 – Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

    Hebrews 2:3 – how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

    Hebrews 12:29 – for our “God is a consuming fire.”

    Acts 16:31 – They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.”

    That is an imperative, a command to believe upon the Lord Jesus, not an invitation or a polite request if you want to. Then the other verses show what Jesus, the wrath of the Lamb of God will do to those who refuse to obey the commands of the Gospel.

    Revelation 6:16 – They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!

    https://youtu.be/HKciLp1B3K0

  19. Philip said,

    John 10:25-26 (NKJV)…
    Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.

    Calvinist will say…. “Notice it reads ‘you do not believe because you are not my sheep’. It doesn’t say…. “you are not my sheep, because you do not believe”.

    John 10:26 – 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep,

    Of course, we course we say it reads that way my brother in Christ because it does. It says (look at the verse above and check your NKJV) “you do not believe because you are not my sheep”

    I do not even know why you mentioned the, “you are not my sheep, because you do not believe”

    I do know this, the sheep are ungodly sinners that Christ laid down his life for and died on the Cross.

    John 10:15 – 15 As the Father knows Me, even so, I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

    Jesus lays down his life for ungodly sinners, the sheep the Father gave Him

    John10:28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand

    The Father gave the ungodly sinning sheep to Jesus and he lays down his life for the ungodly sinning sheep and gives the ungodly sinning sheep eternal life.

    If the sheep were already saved and believing, then why did Jesus have to lay down his life for the sheep. Now once he lays down his life for the sheep, his death on the cross for the sheep the Father gave Him (John 6:37-39) he gives them eternal life.

    John 17:2 – 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

    I see a theme and a connection running through God’s word here

    God bless my brother in Christ

  20. This is my last comment. I am sure there will be many who will be glad to see me go. I am not insensitive or weak. I do believe my comments, responses, and rebuttals speak for themselves. But I have come to realize this is an exercise in futility. This argument has raged on for centuries and carry on for centuries after we all have died and went to heaven if he tarries. My focus needs to be living for the Lord and doing what is pleasing in his sight. I do not want this to become my one crusade in life. I give that advice to all of you. Do not waste your time here. It is unprofitable and a waste of time. Just look at how we treat and talk to each other. God forgive us all. I ask anyone that I offended to please forgive me in Christ. I know if I stay I will be banned eventually by the one who banned me before. Even though my behaviour has been decent. But they are other things I want to accomplish for the Glory of God. Being here is preventing me from doing that. It weakens my fellowship with the Lord. Hope you all find whatever it is you are looking for here. God bless take care and see you in Paridise

  21. Calvinists say they “can’t know who is elect” so they preach God’s love and Christ’s death to all men. We have already demonstrated how that leads to lying to men…. telling them that God loves them and Christ died for them (when, if they are not elect, that is a lie).

    Once, I explained this to a Calvinist and he got it. I thought that might help him see the faults of Calvinism. Instead….. he said “I realized now I have to stop telling people that God loves them.”

    Good News!

  22. Jose,
    Let’s look at another practical example.

    Many American children (in church or not) know the simple classic tune, “Jesus loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so.”

    Another classic is “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world.” These simple classics are taught and loved by all.

    But for Calvinists they should not be!! No Calvinist should help in Sunday School and teach kids to sing “Jesus loves me. This I know” Are you kidding me!? They cannot just tell all children that they meet “Jesus loves you.” Calvinists should never, ever sing “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world.”

    They have to sin “Jesus loves ALL KINDS of little children, all KINDS OF children of the world.”

    Now, granted many Calvinist do sing these songs. But they are basically lying.

    They say, “I dont know which kids Jesus loves, so I tell them all”….. the whole time knowing that His love does not extend to some children of the world.

    1. FOH,

      Here you go.

      Jesus hates the little children.
      Those children called the non-elect.
      Red and yellow, black and white.
      They’re reprobated in His sight.
      Jesus hates the non-elect of the world.

      Or how about…..

      Jesus hates me this I know
      For the Bible tells me so.
      Little ones that He rejects.
      They are doomed because He neglects.

      Yes, Jesus hates me.
      Yes, Jesus hates me.
      Yes, Jesus hates me.
      The Reformers tell me so.

      1. Ouch!

        Those tunes are just not as endearing!

        Calvinists claim the moral high-ground saying they “give more glory to God” since they say He does everything in salvation.

        What they dont want to admit (and commit great linguistic feats to talk around) is that this “necessarily” means that He rejects/ hates/ “passes-over” / all others. No love offered. No capacity to accept Christ offered. Never intended. No blaming it on man’s sin or rejection….since He never intended to save them from the start.

    2. Phillip writes, “[Calvinists] have to sing “Jesus loves ALL KINDS of little children, all KINDS OF children of the world.”

      Yes, they sing the truth – For God so loved Jewish children and gentile children, black children, white children, arab children, Indian children, chinese children and God gave His son so that those children, and only those children, who believe in Him would have eternal life.

  23. Jose,

    I want to demonstrate what I mean. My point is NOT what Calvinists believe. We all know what that is. The point is —how do you live it out…. what do you say?

    It is important to NOT misrepresent God and His truth.

    The Calvinist side on the blog is represented by a few people who want to juggle God’s words. James White is not really one of them. He misspoke in that video and he could easily fix that.

    However some people on this blog will endlessly juggle words. Here is an example:

    “Actually, White said, ‘If you end up under the wrath of God it is because you’ve rejected His provision for you and you’re justly punished for your sins.’ It is sin that sends people to hell; it is escape from hell that White speaks of. People are in hell and cannot escape because they reject Christ’s provision for both Jew and gentile in His death and resurrection.”

    ——————

    Do you see how tricksy that is trying to be? White said, “because you’ve rejected His provision for you.” “You” is a pretty simple word. We dont have to say “the world means some of the world,” or “all people means all kinds of people.” “You” just means you.

    Now our word-juggling friend says …. “because they reject Christ’s provision for both Jew and gentile.”

    Again, of course we all know that Calvinists believe that Christ died for only a teeny, tiny portion of humanity (taking pleasure in sending the rest to hell) …. but that is not what White said. He said “because you’ve rejected His provision for you” (which is of course what most people believe that simply read the Bible— and are not taught Calvinism).

    1. FOH writes, ““You” just means you.
      Now our word-juggling friend says …. “because they reject Christ’s provision for both Jew and gentile.”

      No word juggling here. Christ provided for both jew and gentile and thereby “you” has no limits and applies to any person whether Jew or gentile. FOH ignores his original misreading of White and presumably accepts my correction.

  24. If the Calvinistic concept of absolute determinism is true, then why would God tell Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, just to have them do it anyway? Why would God cause the devil to deceive and them to be deceived? Also, how come God never speaks of total depravity as being one of the curses of the fall? I think that this shows Calvinism to be all the more silly. The “exegesis” done by the Reformed people here is outright twisted and nonsensical–that much I have observed. It only proves them to be sooo deceived.

  25. From Jose to Jesse: 1st Ques: “… why would God tell Adam and Eve not to eat…” My answer: How can Adam and Eve be able to exercise their freedom if there was no choices given to them by their creator? 2nd Ques: “Why would God cause the devil to deceive them…” ? – Well,God can even use satan in order to accomplish His will/plans. This is supported by the case of Job and the case of Judas Iscariot joining the 12 apostles even if he is tagged as the “son of Perdition”. 3rd Ques. : About God’s silence of mentioning the term “Total depravity” – Don’t be too literal, the term was only used by Calvin but it’s bases are shown in several scripture passages. Don’t tell me that you will not brush your teeth because it was never mentioned by God. That line of thinking is hypocrite and silly. The goats are really deceived but not the sheep because the sheep knows the voice of the Good Shepherd and does not listen to strange voice.

  26. Jose:

    I appreciate that you want to give all the glory to God for our gracious salvation in Christ. So do I! But I want to do it the way the Bible says it.

    It is difficult to patch together the Calvinist position from a few verses (or half verses!) taken out of context from here and there. I did that when I was a Calvinist.

    But there are many, many times more passages like this:

    Acts 17: 11 And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. 12 As a result, many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men.

    Acts 28:23 He explained and testified about the Kingdom of God and tried to persuade them about Jesus from the Scriptures. Using the law of Moses and the books of the prophets, he spoke to them from morning until evening. 24 Some were persuaded by the things he said, but others did not believe.

    To the average reader (who has not been taught reformed theology) it looks like these “open-minded people” “eagerly listened” and they “search the scriptures” and believed as a result. And it looks like Paul is “persuading” some but not others (Acts 28 and elsewhere). To the averages reader it sounds like the listener is participating, hearing, listening, searching (that is seeking), and being persuaded.

    Why does someone have to be persuaded if he has been given irresistible faith? It just does not add up.

    I know Calvinists do not like the sound of that, but it is what the Bible says. All of these hundreds of verses are just somehow wiped away by the Calvinistic interpretation of ….say John 6:44, Roms 3:11. ((Several good non-Calvinistic interpretations have been offered for these go-to Calvinist verses)).

    The rest of the Bible tells a different story than the reformed story….. which is why I left Calvinism.

    1. FROMOVERHERE,

      So you are a former member of the Reformed camp? Why did you leave? What made you begin questioning your theology? It couldn’t be because God had meticulously decreed it to be so. I am simply curious–that’s all.

      1. Jesse:

        I don’t mind you asking.

        My story is well documented in the various comment sections of this blog.

        Swept up in the So California reformed wave in the late 70’s (that got MacArthur, Piper, and thousands of little guys like me), which is now called the YRR, I got a reformed college (then seminary degree) and broke up a near-marriage relationship with my newly-minted aggressive attitude.

        Later, I began to read large portions of the Bible (only the Bible) every day and it just did not add up. I would encounter many, many verses every day that made no sense in the reformed world….. and instead of just whisking them away with the filter-verses of Calvinism I tried to listen.

        Many, many days would go by with these hundreds of (non-reformed) verses piling up and I only very occasionally did I encounter (finally!) a reformed verse. It became apparent to me that it was a lot easier and more biblical to find an alternative interpretation to these 40-50 rare verses than it was to filter the rest of the Bible through them!

        Sure, if someone is taught to come to the Bible with the presuppositions that man is “too-dead” to hear God’s call (T), and that Christ only died for a small number (L) then of course, he wants to filter the tidal wave of contrary verses through those ideas. But it renders the vast majority of the Scripture meaningless and even deceptive.

      2. FOH,

        To follow up on Jesse’s inquiry, how long (time wise and a ballpark figure would suffice) would you say you were reformed?

      3. last couple years of college and few years after. still member of a reformed church and preaching in one on Sunday!

    2. FOH to Jose writes, “But there are many, many times more passages like this: Acts 17: 11…Acts 28:23…”

      These say, “…many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men.” and “Some were persuaded by the things he said, but others did not believe.” So some but not all in each case. Jose has sought to explain the difference between some believing and some not believing – something you do not attempt to do. You do not like Jose’s explanation but have nothing to offer. So, why dismiss Jose’s explanation out-of-hand?

  27. Jose,
    Just had a thought.

    What is the Good News for you?

    What do you tell people?

    Christ died for some (not many) people…Good News!

    Christ decided before time began if you were elected or not…..Good News!

    God planned that the vast majority of humans (created in His image) are created for damnation….. Good News!

    Whatever you do today, sin/ obey, honor/ dishonor, respect/ rape….. was decided immutably by God before time…. Good News!

  28. Rom. 8:28 says : All things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. – These verse speaks of God’s Sovereignty. He can turn out even those unpleasant circumstances into a blessing in disguise. Man posses a will, but this will was marred with evil and become so friendly with the old nature that is why Paul says: I’m not doing what is right but rather the things that are contrary to God. From this example, you cannot conclude that it is God who becomes the author of everything you do. Man is not a robot when created by God. A sovereign God can even override Man’s will if He wish to do it, no one can hinder Him. He can easily trim out the branches without asking permission to the branch. A child of God is not yet perfect as of this time because God’s grace is still at work continuously up to the time of absolute perfection when Christ comes back-Phil.1:6 . Meaning, the believer is not yet a perfect product but that goal shall be achieved by the time when Christ returns. He will give the Child of God a glorified body-perfect, cannot sin unblemish not subject to decay- suited to reside in heaven. About : “Christ died for some (not many) people … Good News!” My answer is : It can never be denied that God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Also, the Pot Maker has the right to create a vessel destined for Honor and another vessel destined for wrath. Most people preaches God’s love but failed to tell them that God also hates people. Fromoverhere is trying to annoy me by his wordings “majority of humans are created for damnation” calling it as the Good News. But I don’t say that to people. He is the one who says that putting it to my mouth. The truth remains that you cannot edit nor revise what God has declared that God loved Jacob and hated Esau according to Romans 9:13; and also vessels created destined for honor and another vessel destined for wrath according to Romans 9:21.

    1. Jose,
      I am not trying to annoy you!

      I am just telling you the logical end of Calvinist theology. I am a seminary trained ex-Calvinist. I understand where it leads.

      My main point in all of this is …. Sure, you can dwell on the Calvinist interpretation of 40 verses of the Bible and filter ALL the rest through those verses. There is comfort in the feeling that you are “honoring God” and that you are “in good company of other.” But for me the weight and tenor of ALL the rest of the Bible tells the story of a God who is love (not just loving …. God is love), and a God who created man in His image, and a God who calls all men to Himself (when lifted up), and a God who says “come to me all who are weak and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.”

      I could go on and on with His goodness.

      But it was too hard for me to say “God is love” and “God created, before time, people to be tortured…. before anything they had done or thought.” That just is not love.

      The God who planned ahead of time to condemn 90+% of humans in history to hell before they did a thing or even existed does not match the huge, massive message of the Bible.

      Sure, that idea can be pieced together with a verse here and a verse there….. but that is not Good News. It is Bad News!

      When the Angel of Death (Exodus 12) went throughout the land what did he look for? He wanted to see who had the faith to apply the blood of the lamb on the door post. Those who had the faith, and applied the blood (the sacrifice that God provided) were saved.

      That is the message of the Bible. God provides a gracious, unmerited escape. We apply it in faith.

      1. FOH writes, “I am a seminary trained ex-Calvinist. I understand where it leads.”

        Or maybe, you were just a seminary trained Calvinist wanna-be and have no idea where it leads. Given the blatant errors you make regarding Calvinism, it’s hard to conclude that you were ever a Calvinist – in terms of grasping Calvinist doctrine (else, you would not make the errors you do – unless it is on purpose)..

  29. Reading through the Bible… 2 Chronicles 29.

    6 Our ancestors were unfaithful and did what was evil in the sight of the Lord our God. They abandoned the Lord and his dwelling place; they turned their backs on him. 7 They also shut the doors to the Temple’s entry room, and they snuffed out the lamps. They stopped burning incense and presenting burnt offerings at the sanctuary of the God of Israel.

    8 “That is why the Lord’s anger has fallen upon Judah and Jerusalem.”

    —————-

    “That is why the Lord’s anger has fallen…” Because of what they did.

    Of course that does not sound like something He wanted or planned. This is just one of thousands of such statements in God eternal Word that allow us to see the world the way He created it.

    If they had obeyed things would have been different. But in the reformed/ Calvinist/ determinist world, things could not have been any different. This determinism does not seem to be what the Bible is teaching.

    1. FOH writes, ‘Of course that does not sound like something He wanted or planned.”

      All spelled out in Deuteronomy and elsewhere. Even you admit this, “If they had obeyed things would have been different.” Obedience resulted in God’s favor; disobedience resulted in God’s anger (a human trait to describe God’s reaction).

      Then, “…in the reformed/ Calvinist/ determinist world, things could not have been any different.”

      Even in the Calvinist world, obedience leads to God’s favor and disobedience to His anger. So, why the distortion – purposeful??

  30. Hezekiah goes in 2 Chronicles 29, speaking to the Levites and priests and says….

    11 My sons, do not neglect your duties any longer! The Lord has chosen you to stand in his presence, to minister to him, and to lead the people in worship and present offerings to him.”

    ——
    These guys were twice chosen (chosen people, chosen as priests) and for years they were still not doing what God wanted.

    The Bible is abundantly clear that it is possible for man to do what God does not want. God does not always get what He wants. Once you begin to superimpose that (reformed) presupposition (God always gets what He wants) onto the Bible, your exegesis will go off course.

    1. FOH writes, “The Bible is abundantly clear that it is possible for man to do what God does not want.”

      Yep. God gives people free will.

  31. Jose,
    I appreciate your intentions.

    It seems like you are eliminating or making less important a lot of the Bible based on the idea in Romans 3:11.

    I and others have exegeted that passage in many places on this blog. Of course a person has to be willing to even look at the options. A couple of articles “God-haters” etc on this blog deal directly with that verse and its source Psalm 14.

    It is an interesting passage and like I said I it has been explained many times….but you have to be willing to at least listen and reflect on it.

    It is also a very poetic passage and says this….

    13 “Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”
    “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
    14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
    15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood
    ————

    Does all this also apply to all people at all times? All people’s throats are open graves? We all have viper poison on our lips? Every person’s feet shed blood?

    You might say…. Silly FOH, these are just figures of speech to make a point.

    Yep.

  32. Re: Poetical passages in Psa. chap.14 “their throats are open graves, their tongue practice deceit” … et. al = these are the expressions the psalmist used on how man is described as totally depraved sinners. My response YES it applies to all humanity. No one is righteous all have sinned both elect and non-elect are guilty and deserves to go to hell, that’s why Christ came to offer His life to His people according to Matthew 1:21 “… for He will save His people from their sins. Who are these “His people” mentioned? According to Jesus Himself as recorded in John 10:11, 15 = “He lay down His life for the sheep”. I believe, Christ is not joking here. Who are the Sheep? The Answer is revealed in: Isa. 45:4 Jacob-Israel and the Gentile believers according to 1 Pet. 2:9-10… Very Clear, right? Jesus can never be mistaken when He divulged His purpose and intentions of offering His life on the cross. The problem is that the non-Calvinists are still of unbelief mode about the matter when Jesus Christ-the One who personally offered His Life on the cross has already revealed to us who will really be the beneficiaries of His sacrifice.

    1. Jose Leosala writes, “Christ came to offer His life to His people according to Matthew 1:21 “… for He will save His people from their sins. Who are these “His people” mentioned? :

      Jesus said, “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing,…” (John 6)

      “His people” are those given to Him by God.

      1. Jose writes….. “Christ came to offer His life to His people according to Matthew 1:21 ‘… for He will save His people from their sins’. Who are these ‘His people’ mentioned?”

        Naturally, rhutchin went to John 6 and concluded… “‘His people’ are those given to Him by God.”

        FOH is right. Calvinists interpret all scripture thru their twisted view of John 6.

        But what does the Bible say?

        Luke 1:68-80 (NKJV)….
        “Blessed is the Lord God of (who?) Israel, For He has visited and redeemed His people (the nation of Israel), And has raised up a horn of salvation for us (the nation of Israel) In the house of His servant David (Judah), As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, Who have been since the world began, That we (the nation of Israel) should be saved from our enemies And from the hand of all who hate us, To perform the mercy promised to our fathers And to remember His holy covenant, The oath which He swore to our father Abraham: To grant us that we, Being delivered from the hand of our enemies, Might serve Him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life. “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest; For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, To give knowledge of salvation to HIS PEOPLE (the nation of Israel) By the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God, With which the Dayspring from on high has visited us; To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, To guide our feet into the way of peace.” So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.

        Luke 2:26-32 (NKJV)….
        And it had been revealed to him (Simeon) by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law, he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said: “Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, According to Your word; For my eyes have seen Your salvation Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of (read carefully) Your people Israel.”

        Jose continues… “The Answer is revealed in: Isa. 45:4 Jacob-Israel and the Gentile believers according to 1 Pet. 2:9-10… Very Clear, right?”

        Eh….No. Peter is addressing Jews.

      2. Phillip,
        I have shown that no matter how many passages, verses, stories, narratives you bring to a Calvinist, he just rinses and repeats with John 6:44.

        But notice they dont use all of John 6.

        6:70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)
        ————-

        John 6 is certainly important, but no more important that the hundreds of other verses from Christ that are non-Calvinistic. Besides, in many places several alternative interpretations of their one-key-verse have been given. Brian has done it 3 times —but always gets told “you dont have an interpretation for 6:44” cuz it’s just not one that fits their narrative.

        Granted, once one has made the choice to be a Calvinist, and begun to filter all things through Calvin’s determinism, it is hard to give that up.

      3. FOH,

        Agreed.

        “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve?”

        How ironic. The twelve tribes of Israel/Jacob His chosen ones (1 Chronicles 16:13, Psalm 105:6, Isaiah 45:4, Isaiah 65:9). Twelve apostles given 12 thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.

      4. FOH,

        We’re all here to learn from each other. I know I have learned a lot from some of the comments here.

        But poor rhutchin. He’s wrong on 2 Timothy 2:10. Wrong on Romans 8:10. Wrong on 2 Thessalonians 3:2. Wrong on Romans 8:7-8. Wrong on 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

        Should we trust his interpretation of John 6? Hardly. I mean, he’s what? 0 for 6? 0 for 8? 0 for whatever? If this was baseball, he would have already been sent down to the minors. Shoot. He might be out of baseball altogether.

        O how I pray he would jettison that heart of stone. PLEASE rhutchin. Put down Calvin and pick up Christ!

      5. You know what,
        A most definite change of mind. I still see the most condescending remarks made by the Non-Calvinist here especially towards Rhutchin, and no substance. How about it Philip? Give us your Scholarly Biblical Exegesis Understanding of 2 Timothy 2:10, Romans 8:10, 2 Thessalonians 3:2, Romans 8:7-8, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Let’s see what ya got bro. I see Rhutchin doing nothing but putting forth his argumentation from the Holy Scriptures and very little refutation if any of it. Philip is the same person who challenged me on the “Doctrine of Justification”, This guy. Philip, had two ways of being justified before God going on. That is until I showed him that he was to be ashamed because he had not studied to showed himself approved in rightly dividing the word of God. As God had preached the Gospel before hand to Abraham. Oh its true, search it out on the internet guys, respectfully. And it talks about Abraham being justified in the context of Christ justifies the ungodly by faith. I asked Philip basically, What are you going to do just rip Abraham out and say he was justified one way and then others were justified though the imputation of Christ. I am not even sure Dr. Flowers Believes that.

        Then you still have FOH, the seminary trained ex-Pastor. I promised you I would respond to your man-made exegesis of Philippians 1 that you made on one of Eric’s last Articles. That I will if I am allowed.

        Mr Brian Wagner. I will try to help you understand the Biblical understanding of Soft-Compatibilism.

        Let’s start with a definition Brian my friend and I mean this respectfully.

        “Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. … Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans have some free will.”

        Now you give your definition of “free-will” or “libertarian free-will” I think I heard you say one time that you believe individuals choose according to their desires. I think so correct me if I am wrong. But Please give me a definition if you would Sir and I promise to dialogue respectfully and not be rude or condescending. I know you like a little sarcasm so do not worry I will not be offended. If I am not mistaken you do not even agree with “libertarian free-will” I know I could be remembering you completely wrong my friend and brother so I need you to clarify. I know what we are getting into (if you choose to do so is deep) so terms will need to be clarified and defined. So that is why I am asking. I will not use Calvin and you will not use Flowers.

        I did not come back to sinfully quarrel. To bash my brothers in Christ who are Non-Calvinist. Or to be rude or disrespectful. I plead and beg that we all do the same thing and respond to substance and not be condescending. John Calvin was one of the most Christ-Centered Scholars I know and I say that without apology. I do not agree with a lot he has wrote. But I agree with more of what he wrote of the Bible than I do with the Non-Calvinist here.

        “Put down the Calvin and Pick up the Bible” What you really mean is just “take our work for it” “Put down the Bible and pick up what the Non-Calvinist is saying” I won’t recant, I will not repent, the Holy Scriptures has arrested my heart with a deep seated conviction of truth.

        Someone give me their understanding of John 6. Eric did and it just did not fly. Instead of just quoting Scripture and saying we are wrong give us your understand and give us your pet verses also. We are not afraid. Then do not be condescending when we answer you. Be respectful and mature and answer back as men of Christ.

        God bless you and may the Grace of Christ be with you all always

      6. FOH writes, “But notice they dont use all of John 6.
        6:70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve?…”

        One might suspect that there was a point to this comment by FOH, but we don’t know because he doesn’t tell us and we cannot read his mind. So, what’s the point here?

        Then, ‘Brian has done it 3 times —but always gets told “you dont have an interpretation for 6:44” cuz it’s just not one that fits their narrative.”

        Brian has this opinion about something being distributive across something. I did not understand the argument when he presented it, so if Brian would repeat it, that would really help me. I would ask FOH to explain Brian’s take on john 6:44, but I doubt that he understands it either – even though he loves to cite it.

      7. phillip writes, “Jose writes….. “Christ came to offer His life to His people according to Matthew 1:21 ‘… for He will save His people from their sins’. Who are these ‘His people’ mentioned?”
        Naturally, rhutchin went to John 6 and concluded… “‘His people’ are those given to Him by God.”

        Let’s add John 17 to the mix.

        – “Jesus said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son, that the Son may glorify you, even as you gave Him authority over all mankind, that to all whom you have given Him, He may give eternal life.

        – “I manifested your name to the men whom you gave Me out of the world; Yours they were, and you gave them to Me,…”

        – “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom you have given Me; for they are yours;”

        Then, John 10

        – “My sheep hear My voice…My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”

      8. Jeremiah 23:3 (NKJV)….
        “But I will (that’s a promise) gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.

        Ezekiel 34…..
        And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD to the shepherds: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool; you slaughter the fatlings, but you do not feed the flock. The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd; and they became food for all the beasts of the field (the Gentile nations) when they were scattered. My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and on every high hill; yes, My flock (the House of Israel) was scattered over the whole face of the earth, and no one was seeking or searching for them.” ‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, nor did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock”— therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the LORD! 10 Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them.” ‘For thus says the Lord GOD: “Indeed I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock on the day he is among his scattered sheep, so will I seek out My sheep and deliver them from all the places where they were scattered on a cloudy and dark day (a reference to the tribulation period; a time of Jacob’s trouble). And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land; I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, in the valleys and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them in good pasture, and their fold shall be on the high mountains of Israel. There they shall lie down in a good fold and feed in rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I will feed My flock, and I will make them lie down,” says the Lord GOD. “I will seek what was lost and bring back what was driven away, bind up the broken and strengthen what was sick; but I will destroy the fat and the strong, and feed them in judgment.” ‘And as for you, O My flock, thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I shall judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and goats. Is it too little for you to have eaten up the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the residue of your pasture—and to have drunk of the clear waters, that you must foul the residue with your feet? And as for My flock, they eat what you have trampled with your feet, and they drink what you have fouled with your feet.” ‘Therefore thus says the Lord GOD to them: “Behold, I Myself will judge between the fat and the lean sheep. Because you have pushed with side and shoulder, butted all the weak ones with your horns, and scattered them abroad, therefore I will save My flock, and they shall no longer be a prey; and I will judge between sheep and sheep. I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them—My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David a prince among them; I, the LORD, have spoken. “I will make a covenant of peace with them, and cause wild beasts to cease from the land; and they will dwell safely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods. I will make them and the places all around My hill a blessing; and I will cause showers to come down in their season; there shall be showers of blessing. Then the trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase. They shall be safe in their land; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke and delivered them from the hand of those who enslaved them. And they shall no longer be a prey for the nations, nor shall beasts of the land devour them; but they shall dwell safely, and no one shall make them afraid. I will raise up for them a garden of renown, and they shall no longer be consumed with hunger in the land, nor bear the shame of the Gentiles anymore. Thus they shall know that I, the LORD their God, am with them, and they, THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, are My people,” says the Lord GOD.’ “You are My flock, the flock of My pasture; you are men, and I am your God,” says the Lord GOD.

        “O say it isn’t so!” screams the Calvinist.

      9. phillip writes, ““O say it isn’t so!” screams the Calvinist.”

        Silly Phillip!!! You know that everyone, including Calvinists, says Jeremiah and Ezekiel are consistent with that which Jesus said in John 10 because Jesus said all three things.

      10. Let’s also add these to the mix….

        Matthew 10:1-6 (NKJV)…..
        And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him. These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles (Ouch!), and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to (whom?) THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.

        Matthew 15:24 (NKJV)….
        But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.”

      11. phillip writes, “Let’s also add these to the mix….”

        Good additions. we see that Jesus spoke at length about His sheep and pretty much summarized all this in John 10. “I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me,,,I lay down My life for the sheep. And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock with one shepherd.” I think all agree that Jesus speaks here of both Jews and gentiles – a prominent theme in John.

      12. Rhutchin writes…. “I think all agree that Jesus speaks here of both Jews and gentiles – a prominent theme in John.”

        Please point out to me where you read “Gentiles” in the verses of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and John.

      13. phillip asks. “Please point out to me where you read “Gentiles” in the verses of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and John.”

        In John 10, “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock with one shepherd.” Here, “the other sheep” would be gentiles.

        In John 1,
        10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
        11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

        As v11 seems a clear reference to the Jews, v10 use of “world” would encompass Jew and gentile.

        In John 3, “God so loved the world…” The Jew would think that God loved the Jews and not the gentiles. The point here, coming after the discussion with Nicodemus, would be that God so loved the gentiles as well as the Jews.

        I don’t read “gentiles” in your citations of Jeremiah and Ezekiel and did not claim to do so.

      14. Rhutchin writes… “In John 10, ‘And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock with one shepherd’. Here, ‘the other sheep’ would be gentiles.”

        But what does the book say?

        Jeremiah 50:17 (NKJV)…
        “Israel is like scattered sheep; The lions have driven him away. First the king of Assyria devoured him (the House of Israel/the Northern Kingdom/fold); Now at last this Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has broken his bones (the House of Judah/the Southern Kingdom/fold).”

        Hosea 1:11 (NKJV)….
        Then the children of Judah (one fold) and the children of Israel (the other fold) Shall be gathered together, And appoint for themselves one head (Shepherd); And they shall come up out of the land (the Gentile nations where God had scattered them), For great will be the day of Jezreel!

        Ezekiel 37:21-24 (NKJV)….
        “Then say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations (Gentiles), wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation (one fold) in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations (two folds), nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms (two folds) again. They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be My people, and I will be their God. “David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them.”

        I believe, and this is just my opinion based upon the support of scripture, that in John 10 “this fold” that Jesus speaks of is the House of Judah. He was, after all, in Judea. The “other sheep I have which are not of this fold” is a reference to the House of Israel. Jesus is prophesying about the reunification of the nation of Israel. And it was rather ironic that the Jews who heard him were also “divided” (John 10:19).

      15. phillip writes, “I believe, and this is just my opinion based upon the support of scripture, that in John 10 “this fold” that Jesus speaks of is the House of Judah….Jesus is prophesying about the reunification of the nation of Israel.”

        God does not seem to be finished with Israel and worldly promises made to it. However, there is a new focus in the NT and it is obvious – that focus is on the gentiles. “the Lord said to Ananias, “Go, for Saul is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;” (Acts 9) Then, “all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also.” (Acts 10) Then, Paul, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1) I think it could be argues that the “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” reveals a Jew/gentile distinction especially as we read of God largely ignoring the gentiles in the OT.

        Then, “And it was rather ironic that the Jews who heard him were also “divided” (John 10:19).”“

        The division is explained without a hint of your psoition–

        20 And many of them were saying, “He has a demon and is insane. Why do you listen to Him?”
        21 Others were saying, “These are not the sayings of one demon-possessed. A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?”

      16. Jose commenting to Phillip : Phillip says that the “Other Sheep” mentioned in John Chap 10 is referring to the Northern Kingdom-Israel the rest from the 12 tribes who were separated from Judah-the Southern Kingdom.

        I can say that Phillip is one-sided and does not tell the whole truth. Why ? The following verses proves that the Gentiles belong to the “Other Sheep” that was mentioned by Christ Himself in John chap 10.:

        Eph. 3:6 Gentiles are fellow heirs and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel.
        Col.3:11 There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised , Barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
        Gal. 3:8 “… God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand saying: “In you all the nations shall be blessed”.
        Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are ALL ONE in Christ.
        Rom. 9:24 Even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.
        Matt. 12:21 And in His Name Gentiles will trust.
        Acts 28:28 Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it. i, e.:

        These are the dead to sin Gentiles activated by the Father and the Son-John 5:21= so that this activation will cause them to hear the truth of the gospel of PURE GRACE not adulterated with human fleshly which is considered dead or of NO effect when used to seek salvation offered by Christ to the Sheep. The whole truth is that : The sheep mentioned in John chap 10 is composed of mixed Jews (Judah Southern Kingdom; Israel-Northern Kingdom) and Gentiles whom Jesus offered His life on the cross.

        Phillip does not tell the whole truth because he is now trying to LIMIT the composition of the Sheep given by the Father to Christ. Maybe he wants now to embrace the L. in the TULIP. Can’t be surprised !!! God is sovereign. God can override Philips’ fleshly efforts, which is inspired by the old nature in order to conform to the will of God.

      17. Jeremiah 23:3 (NKJV)….
        “But I will (that’s a promise) gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries where I have driven them (God scattered both Houses of Israel and Judah. God never drove out Gentiles), and bring them back (where they were once before) to THEIR FOLDS (two folds, two nations, two kingdoms); and they shall be fruitful and increase.

        Acts 1:6 (NKJV)….
        Therefore, when they (the 11 apostles) had come together, they asked Him (the promised Messiah), saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

        This does not, however, limit salvation to His chosen people (1 Chronicles 16:13).

        Zechariah 8:23 (KJV)….
        Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We (Gentiles) will go with you (a Jew): for we have heard that God is with you.

      18. No one disputes the conclusion reached in the OT that God made promises to the physical nation of Israel. Some see the fulfillment of certain of those promises in the restoration of Israel in 1948.

        Nonetheless, when John writes his gospel account, he introduces the concept of “world” and it is clear that his gospel is directed not just to the Jew but to the gentile also. Jesus also uses the term, world, in that which He spoke to the Jews. The Jews would have understood the term, “world,” to mean that Jesus was speaking of the gentiles and not just the Jews. John wrote, “God so loved the world…” and this must have driven the Jews wild because they believed God only loved the Jews, His chosen people. You are forcing the OT onto the NT when the NT should be used to understand and explain the OT.

      19. Jeremiah 31:10 (NKJV)….
        “Hear the word of the LORD, O nations, And declare it in the isles afar off, and say, ‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, And keep him as a shepherd does his flock.’

        Rhutchin writes… “You are forcing the OT onto the NT when the NT should be used to understand and explain the OT.”

        I have supplied ample numbers of scripture, even whole chapters, that clearly state that it is the House of Israel and the House of Judah that make up the two folds referenced by Christ in John 10.

        You want “other sheep” to refer to Gentiles.

        But maybe I’m wrong.

        The word “sheep” is found 41 times (KJV) and 45 times (NKJV) in the NT (including the 4 gospels). Can you please provide me one clear, unambiguous (not left to interpretation) time it refers to Gentiles?

      20. Hi Philip! How about the judgment of the nations (Gentiles) in Matthew 25. It would be strange to see that dividing of Sheep and Goats as Jews on one side and all the Gentiles on the other side in that parable, wouldn’t it? Rather, some are sheep nations for how they treated “my brethren” and some are goat nations for all they treated “my brethren”… wouldn’t you say? Thanks.

        Mat 25:31-33 NKJV – 31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides [his] sheep from the goats. 33 “And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.”

      21. Blessing, brother!

        Isaiah 11:12 (NKJV)…
        He will set up a banner for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

        Ezekiel 34:17 (NKJV)…
        ‘And as for you, O My flock, thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I shall judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and goats.

        Based upon the overabundance of scripture, Matthew 25 could be referring to the nation of Israel who had been both scattered and gathered from among the nations, which consisted of different kinds of sheep (fat and lean), rams, and goats. And while certainly Gentile believers will follow the Jews (Zechariah 8:23), there is still no clear evidence, even in Matthew 25:31-33, that Gentiles make up the sheep, but only that He will separate the sheep from the goats.

        I am not trying to be difficult, brother. I just want to see an actual biblical example of a Gentile believer who is referred to as “a sheep”.

      22. You’re being very difficult brother! 😂 The word “nations” in 25:32 is the same word “Gentiles”… right? They are being separated from one another… either nations from each other or Gentiles from each other… not Jews from among them. You are certainly reading your view into that verse, imo. And who are the “my brethren”? They don’t seem to be sheep nations or sheep Gentiles or goat nations or goat Gentiles.

        If you can’t concede you are reading your view into a verse that seems to me to more normally support sheep Gentiles… then one of us needs more sharpening in our hermeneutics according to normal rules of grammar and context. 😉

      23. “…then one of us needs more sharpening in our hermeneutics according to normal rules of grammar and context.”

        Ouch! Where have I read that before? 🙂

        If we are going to let scripture interpret scripture, can you provide another scripture supporting that gentiles (believers) are sheep?

      24. Phillip… I meant that sincerely… I am willing to sharpen my use of normal rules of grammar and context. I gave you my breakdown of the grammar of Matt 25:32. Where did I go wrong? Also, how about Paul’s use of “shepherd the flock” to the elders at Ephesus in Acts 20:38. It would be a stretch to think he meant – take care of only the Jewish believers… wouldn’t it? The word “flock” means normally “flock of sheep” though I guess it could be a flock of geese, Paul had in mind? 😉

        Paul also mentions “sheep” in Rom 8:38, and I know you want to see that context as Jewish believers… but I doubt the normal Roman believer, Jewish or Gentile in background, would have read Rom 8 and thought Paul only meant the Jews when he said “we” or “us” in the last verses of that chapter. Again, I think you are reading what you want to see into that passage, because I think it is because of your loyalty to your chosen restrictions on the word “elect” and because I think you’re feeling it is the best way to defeat the predestination of Calvinism.

      25. Brian,

        I know, brother.

        As you have said before, we are all sometimes guilty of reading our beliefs into the text at times.

        Hopefully, the Lord will correct my vision where it is blurred. It is my hope and prayer to get all scripture right.

      26. Mine too, Phillip… mine too… a hope and prayer for the Lord to help me get it right!

      27. Brian,

        Perhaps our comments crossed paths, but, when you have the time, I would still appreciate your feedback regarding Matthew 15:21-28.

        Biblical facts (not open to interpretation)….

        1. She was a Gentile (verse 22)
        2. She was a believer (verse 22, 25)
        3. Jesus called her a “little dog” (verse 26)

        What am I missing?

      28. Phillip – I hope you will respond the same to “what am I missing” as it relates to Matt 25:32.

        As for Matt 15:21-28, I think you want this passage to help your theological view of “sheep = only Jews”, when you should know that historical passages were not given to teach such doctrinal defintions. Miracle stories were given in the gospels to affirm the deity of Christ. Matthew stuck a number of such stories in about Gentiles, for the original Jewish reader of this Jewish gospel to see that Christ was not just for the Jews.

        Like the wisemen and centurion stories before hers, Jesus was demonstrating that “great faith” was not just a Jewish thing. That was the main import of this story. It was not to teach that all believing Gentiles should only be seen as “little pet dogs”… and not also as “children of God, or “sheep” from another “fold”.

        You can also tell me what you think of the evidence I gave you of Gentile sheep in Acts 20:38, if you wish. Thanks.

      29. Brian,

        Dear Brother, I am just looking for consistency. I think it is harmful when I hear believers say that we sometimes have to “harmonize” the scriptures. I see the word of God as a divine Rubik’s cube. There is most likely just one right answer.

        You wrote…. “It was not to teach that all believing Gentiles should only be seen as ‘little pet dogs’… and not also as ‘children of God’, or ‘sheep’ from another ‘fold’.”

        Then our Lord missed a great teaching opportunity here when he referred to a Gentile believer as a “little dog” if she was indeed “a sheep”.

        Again, Jeremiah 23:3 (NKJV)…
        “But I will gather the remnant of My flock (the House of Judah and the House of Israel) out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to THEIR FOLDS; and they shall be fruitful and increase.

        I only see/read of two folds. Are you teaching a third? Or do Gentile believers somehow get consumed within both Houses of Israel?

        Look, brother, several times I have stated I don’t have it all figured out. Matthew 25 and Acts 20 should make us stop and reflect. However, I am not going to throw out gobs of scripture, even chapters, because of 2 or 3 (even 5) instances. Maybe, just maybe, there is another viable (and biblical) explanation that needs to be considered that aligns with all of holy writ. A believer shouldn’t be “questioned” (for lack of a more harmful term) for challenging tradition. I mean, I could easily be completely wrong, but what if I am right?

        Regardless, Matthew 15 cannot be simply explained away. She was a Gentile believer and the Lord Jesus called her a “little dog”. That’s just a fact. If it makes us uncomfortable, tough. This doesn’t mean salvation wasn’t possible for the Gentile dogs; even by faith they could become the children of God, but it doesn’t mean they were somehow transformed into sheep either. Again, even saved, the unnatural branches (Gentiles) never become the natural branches (Israelites) (Romans 11). And the natural branches never become unnatural even after being cut off. That’s a biblical fact too.

        I love you, brother. Please don’t take this defensively or in a mean spirited way.

      30. I don’t take your explanations Phillip in a mean spirited way. And I’ll wait for you to make some response for the passages (Matt 25, Acts 20) that clearly don’t fit what you think you see in Matthew 15 and the sheep passages for Israel.

        You do know Jesus called her “little dog” as compared to children, not in comparison to sheep. And you would agree that children of God or sons of God is used for Jewish and Gentile Christians. I have no problem seeing a difference between Jewish branches and Gentile branches, and I also don’t see a problem, like you do, for Jewish elect and church elect.

        Terms of identity just don’t have such easy divisions in Scripture as you might wish. The term “brethren” is a good example. Context and grammar is what determines the greater meaning of how terms are used.

      31. Brian,

        You wrote… “You do know Jesus called her ‘little dog’ as compared to children, not in comparison to sheep.”

        Honestly, brother, that is just your opinion and you know it. Please don’t state it as an obvious fact. He did say the “children’s bread” was intended for the “lost sheep of the House of Israel.” The “crumbs” were given to the “little dogs”.

        See? This is why I search for consistency. You say I am reading what I want into Matthew 25, when you then take Matthew 15 and read into it what you want.

        All scripture should fit perfectly together.

      32. Jose leaving a comment here: Re: Matt. 15:22-28 as it relates to Matt. 25:32. the ques posted: What am I missing as it relates to Matt. 25:32? = It was pointed out that the woman that Jesus call as “little pig” is a believer of Christ = As a believer, this Gentile woman is obviously included in the flock of Christ, therefore she becomes a Sheep. Why did Jesus call her as “little pig” ? = Jesus is just exposing to His Jewish readers the cultural belief of the Jews regarding their limited knowledge that they were the only ones that God loves.

        May I also add another verse in support of the Gentile believers as included in the Sheep that Christ mentioned in John chap 10. In Acts 6:5, Nicolas is a proselyte Jew (former Gentile) was included among the 7 deacons in the early church that was founded on the day of Pentecost.

      33. phillip to Brian writes, “If we are going to let scripture interpret scripture, can you provide another scripture supporting that gentiles (believers) are sheep?”

        In Acts 20 (noted by Brain earlier), 1we read, “..from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them, “…I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ….Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;…”

        Here, the church, comprised of Jews and gentiles, is called a “flock” and the elders are to “shepherd”the church of God because wolves would come in not seating the “flock.” Paul pictures the church as a flock of sheep.

        The term “sheep” is defined in John 10, “…you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” When Christ says, “…My Father, who has given them to Me,…” refers us to John 6, “I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” The common threads between the two is that “you do not believe,” and “All that the Father gives Me.” From this we understand that sheep are those who believe in Christ and God has given these sheep to Christ.

        Thus, we have Christ clearly describing believers as sheep and Paul later using this description to speak of the church as a flock over which the Holy Spirit has placed men that Paul calls, “shepherds.”

        God’s use of the term, “sheep,” in the OT as a reference to the Jews is used in the NT in a broader than just the Jews. Jesus applies the term, “sheep,” to believers; Paul to both Jewish and gentile believers.

        In John 10, when Jesus says, “I lay down My life for the sheep, and I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock with one shepherd,” we can reasonably understand Jesus to be speaking of Jewish believers as “sheep” and another group of believers as “other sheep.” Paul, whom God sends to the gentiles, says in Ephesians 2, “Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands– remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” Paul writes that Christ, “made both groups into one” and “He might make the two into one new man…reconcile them both in one body to God,” and we understand that Paul speaks of Jews and gentiles. So, Christ has brought together Jewish and gentile believers making them one body or one flock. Thus, we identify the “other sheep” or “other believers” of whom Jesus spoke in John 10 as gentile believers.

        Brian also cited Romans 8, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.” The citation is to Psalm 44 that Paul applies to believers in Romans 8. The common thread is that both David and Paul refer to those whom God has chosen – Israel in the OT and believers in the NT.

        As we read the OT, we see the special bond that God has with Israel – Israel is His flock. In the NT, we see a special bond between Christ and believers – believers are His sheep.

      34. Brian,

        Matthew 15:21-28 (NKJV)…..
        Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to THE LITTLE DOGS.” And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the LITTLE DOGS eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

        This Canaanite woman was a Gentile believer. And yet the Lord referred to her as a “little dog”. Was she “a sheep”?

      35. Let me add especially in light of Matthew 10:5-7 (NKJV)…

        These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “DO NOT GO INTO THE WAY OF THE GENTILES, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”

      36. phillip writes, “Let me add especially in light of Matthew 10:5-7 (NKJV)…”

        Paul expands on this in Ephesians 3, “…by revelation there was made known to me the mystery,…which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,…”

        Having had this made known to him, John makes this a theme in his gospel account.

      37. Jesus said…. “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

        So in the words of FOH quoting Calvinists…

        “These verses don’t really mean what they say…”

      38. I do apologize to FOH in this blog for mentioning his identity. I also do believe like him that there are those who refused to be identified as Calvinists and yet they are Christians too that belongs to the Sheep of the Good Shepherd with the SAME DOCTRINE of SALVATION (2 Peter 1:1) as what the Calvinists believe. Maybe they just want the comforts of not being/pressured or ridiculed as if they place themselves on the neutral ground and to avoid themselves to be labelled as Calvinists.

      39. phillip writes, “So in the words of FOH quoting Calvinists…
        “These verses don’t really mean what they say…”

        No. John Gill comments on this verse, “as a priest, or as a Saviour and Redeemer, [Jesus] was sent to make satisfaction and atonement for the sins of all God’s elect, and to obtain eternal redemption and salvation for all of them, whether Jews or Gentiles; but as a prophet, in the discharge of his own personal ministry, he was sent by his Father only to the Jews; he was the “minister of the circumcision”, Ro 15:8 that is, a minister to the circumcised Jews; he was sent only to preach the Gospel to them, and work miracles among them, in proof of his Messiahship; and upon their rejection of him, then his apostles were to be sent among the Gentiles; but he himself was sent only to the Jews, here styled “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”: by “the house of Israel”, is meant the whole body of the Jewish nation, so called from Israel, the name of Jacob their father, from whom they sprung; and by the “lost sheep” of that house, are more especially designed the elect of God among them: for though all the individuals of that house were “lost” persons, considered in Adam, and in themselves, as the rest of mankind, and Christ, in the external ministry of the word, was sent to preach to them all; yet the elect of God are only “sheep”: they are the sheep of Christ, of his pasture, and of his hand, whom he has the particular care and charge of; and who, in their natural state, are lost and straying, and could never find their way, or recover themselves from their lost state in Adam, and by their own transgressions; but he came to seek, and to save them, and to these his ministry was powerful and efficacious.”

      40. John Gill is a Calvinist. And this is just his Calvinistic opinion, nothing more and should be treated as such.

        But even this is telling. I quoted scripture (gobs of them). Rhutchin quoted Calvinist John Gill. I say “what sayeth the scriptures?” When rhutchin says “what sayeth the Calvinist?”

        But, like my brother Brian often says… “We’ll let others, rhutchin, decide who is being honest with the scriptures.”

      41. Now, Phillip… I don’t think I said “honest with the Scriptures”… 😉 But I do think most others are smart enough to see who in a debate is handling the Scriptures based on normal rules of grammar and context. They must of course be willing to use those rules without prejudice when reading those passages. Unfortunately we all have a tendency to bring “what we want to see in a passage” to the passage before we read it carefully. Most of us then still think we are being “honest” in describing what we see after we read it.

      42. phillip writes, “John Gill is a Calvinist. And this is just his Calvinistic opinion, nothing more and should be treated as such.”

        LOL!! Phillip had quoted FOH on Calvinists to claim, “[To Calvinists] These verses (Matthew 10:5-7 ) don’t really mean what they say…” So, I quoted John Gill, a Calvinist, who writes that the verses mean exactly what they say. Rather than concede that he got this one wrong, you can see where Phillip goes after that. You can’t make this stuff up.

      43. My quoting FOH was a reference to what he sees as Calvinists try to explain away the vast majority of scripture.

        I let scripture interpret scripture. Rhutchin, and those like him, lets Calvinists interpret scripture for him (case in point Gill’s commentary built solely upon Calvinistic faulty beliefs).

        For the record, I don’t believe I am wrong (especially in light of the abundance of scripture to back me up). But based on rhutchin’s batting average (0 for whatever now), I wouldn’t trust his interpretation (or John Gill’s) at all.

      44. phillip writes, “For the record, I don’t believe I am wrong (especially in light of the abundance of scripture to back me up).”

        I just find your wiggling around very funny.

      45. Phillip,

        It is the Calvinist authors that help them take the 40 verses (sheep, John 6:44, Eph 1:11, Roms 3:11, etc)—- interpret them a certain way….. filter all other (contrary) verses THROUGH this filter (not letting those thousands of verses ever, ever hint at anything else ….cuz the “top 40” must rule) … and then piece together their determinist, all-decisions-made-by-God position.

        They are very dependent on these authors (I was) and they were in book form in my early Calvinist days. Now days, a quick glance at monergism.com will fix ya up real nicely with the right go-to verse.

        But the real issue is wanting it both ways . God doesn’t love all ….but He loves all. Christ’s sacrifice was for all but not for all. Man is free, but not free. Man chooses things…. but God choose everything. It just never ends. Whatever is the right thing to say at the moment— dont hesitate to pull out a very Arminian sounding explaination…. no worries.

        Piper says “Dont waste your life” as-if our decisions matter and can change anything from what is already decided by God.

      46. What is interesting is the fact that none of the New Testament authors tell us to filter the whole of Scripture through those select Calvinist proof-texts. A lot of those can easily be understood from a non-Reformed framework, in my opinion.

      47. Jesse writes, “A lot of those can easily be understood from a non-Reformed framework, in my opinion.”

        At some point, you have to identify some verses as subordinate to others. God has free will and man has free will. When God’s will clashes with man’s will, who decides the outcome. Obviously, God does. Thus, all those verses in the Scriptures that speak to man’s will are subordinate to those verses that speak to God’s will and God’s will always prevails. If God did not want the Jews to stone Stephan, he would have stopped them as He did when Peter was put into jail. God did not allow the Jews to harm Jesus until the time appointed by Him.

      48. FOH,

        Agreed. And that was my point.

        Just look at the overabundance of scripture I provided to prove my position on John 10. Meant nothing (because their hearts are hard).

        As you say, it all has to fit into “their” interpretation of John 6:44. Instead of letting all scripture interpret those verses (John 6:44 and etc…), they let their (twisted) interpretation of those verses (John 6:44 and etc…) interpret the rest of scripture. And if your premise is wrong, so will be your conclusions.

        As you already know, I believe Israel, and Israel alone, is God’s elect (Isaiah 45:4). I also believe that the nation of Israel (both nations, both houses, both folds) is God’s sheep (Ezekiel 34:31). But one does not have to be elect (and Israelite) nor a sheep (an Israelite) to be saved. Praise God!

      49. phillip writes, “Just look at the overabundance of scripture I provided to prove my position on John 10. Meant nothing (because their hearts are hard).”

        That’s because you don’t accept the notion that things changed in the NT so that the OT Scriptures become subordinate to the NT. The OT testament passages you cite were spoken by Christ as were the NT passages, and it was Christ who changed our focus to see that the gentiles were also to be saved. Thus, it was Christ who pointed us into a new direction for understanding what He was doing. You just got stuck in the OT and see everything in the OT light.

      50. Numbers 23:19 (NIV)….
        God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then