The Elect

[Rockson]

LOL

If he has to use means to prevent belief, that shows that had an ability to believe which he had to hinder.

Tom your arguments on this are absolutely sound, straightforward ;and cannot in any way be refuted . To me seeking to do so would be like trying to assert 1 + 1 = 5. I'd trust and hope readers present and future would just admit it's self evident. If means are used to prevent something that means it had the capacity before the preventing. Our dear Calvinists friends here are in checkmate. I hope some of them will come to admit this and not feel they have to defend something they need to defend.

 

[makesends]

Grant does not mean to infuse or effectually cause. The preaching of the word is sufficient to grant faith

Romans 10:14–17 (NASB 2020) — 14 How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!” 16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.


as is the writing of it

John 20:31 (NASB 2020) — 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name.







So you do not believe God must infuse or effectually cause it?





Faith is man's response. nowhere is it stated god infused or effectually causes faith

salvation is the gift of God


Romans 6:23 (NASB 2020) — 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


again faith is granted not infused or effectually caused

The word the gospel is sufficient to cause or grant faith.

Romans 10:17 (NASB 2020) — 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

not by god infusing it or effectually causing it while witholding it from others

That you think effectually causing and infusing faith are synonymous shows you trust your constructions above what Scripture says, (that Salvation by Grace through Faith is a gift of God). That by mere decree God effectually causes all things can scarcely be denied, but how the Spirit of God takes up residence within the elect doesn't imply "infusing" of anything.

To be sure, I don't even know what you mean by "God effectually causing" faith. So I go about this by using Scriptures words and my paraphrases, and not by playing your games. Note, as an example, your construction, "witholding it from others". You talk as though to me it would be available to them if they were not 'elected out' or something. That is backwards. It need not be withheld at all, for them to fail to be saved. They are already condemned because they are not believing. There is no hint that they are impeded from God's grace, but that God's grace is only given to the elect. Your focus is backwards, as is consistent with self-determinism, as though there was something genuine and worthy intrinsic to humanity, that God should respect —no! That God MUST respect, or he is evil ("unfair") to condemn those who are unable to do what pleases him. Don't you know that they CHOOSE not to do what pleases him, being continually at enmity with him?

 

[makesends]

You need to face the fact God made man with a capability to have faith. And man uses that ability in many ways .

The onus is on you to show it is only in regard to spiritual truth he cannot have faith.

No. The onus is on you to show that they can have salvific faith, apart from God.

 

[makesends]

You are in denial of the text

Acts 28:27 (NASB 2020) — 27 FOR THE HEARTS OF THIS PEOPLE HAVE BECOME INSENSITIVE, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY HARDLY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.” ’

Yes my notion of free will stands. It is only your assumption which holds otherwise.

but that is diversion, as clearly the text reveals they grew hardened in time. They were not born that way, contrary to your doctrine.

And as the boldly highlighted text shows they might believe if they had not grown hardened

I suppose you have some logic that shows that they were not born in sin? Or is that only an assumption?

There is no implication that they were once innocent and capable of salvific faith, in and of themselves, apart from God, apart from the work of the Spirit of God in them, before they grew hardened. Can you demonstrate otherwise, without repeating what you keep saying —that the fact they grow hardened —and that by the work of God, (which you still haven't answered to me how that is possible that God doing that is fair)— shows that they were once capable of salvific faith, and without repeating your mantra that the fact they must believe somehow proves free will —which you still have not demonstrated.

LOL

If he has to use means to prevent belief, that shows that had an ability to believe which he had to hinder.

What happened to your theology's claim they are born unable to believe.

Worse, you have God typically acting to prevent belief and then judging men for their unbelief.

Did you not yourself say that he hardens them? Then why would he judge those he hardened, under your theology?

 

[makesends]

The problem with your premise is your departure from rational thought on just what it would credibly mean to take credit for something. If I told you I grabbed a life preserver someone threw out to me, and I told you that's something I willfully chose to do that would no way mean among reasonable thinking people that I was claiming credit for my salvation. People of your persuasion however want to slam people for their doing what God told them they needed to do.

When Moses we could say split the Red Sea it was none of his power which did it. It was All God. So God got all the credit BUT God told Moses to do something. Hold the rod over the water such was something he NEEDED to do. So God has told us to believe! He's not going to do that for us and you can't say that he will.

As for me too and all non Calvinists as well but we certainly don't believe things the way that you do.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The problem with your premise is your departure from rational thought on just what it would credibly mean to take credit for something. If I told you I grabbed a life preserver someone threw out to me, and I told you that's something I willfully chose to do that would no way mean among reasonable thinking people that I was claiming credit for my salvation. People of your persuasion however want to slam people for their doing what God told them they needed to do.

When Moses we could say split the Red Sea it was none of his power which did it. It was All God. So God got all the credit BUT God told Moses to do something. Hold the rod over the water such was something he NEEDED to do. So God has told us to believe! He's not going to do that for us and you can't say that he will.

As for me too and all non Calvinists as well but we certainly don't believe things the way that you do.

Using analogies is a poor excuse for understanding soteriology. The bottom line is, do you get credit for choosing to respond to the Gospel, or does God get credit for enabling you to respond to the Gospel. There's no third option. It looks like you fall into the "I get the credit" camp. So be it.

 

[TomL]

I suppose you have some logic that shows that they were not born in sin? Or is that only an assumption?

There is no implication that they were once innocent and capable of salvific faith, in and of themselves, apart from God, apart from the work of the Spirit of God in them, before they grew hardened. Can you demonstrate otherwise, without repeating what you keep saying —that the fact they grow hardened —and that by the work of God, (which you still haven't answered to me how that is possible that God doing that is fair)— shows that they were once capable of salvific faith, and without repeating your mantra that the fact they must believe somehow proves free will —which you still have not demonstrated.

Did you not yourself say that he hardens them? Then why would he judge those he hardened, under your theology?

Don't avoid the point

Your theology teaches they were born hardened

Acts 28:27 (NASB 2020) — 27 FOR THE HEARTS OF THIS PEOPLE HAVE BECOME INSENSITIVE, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY HARDLY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.” ’
This shows they were hardened in time
it also shows had they not grown hardened they could have
OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM
There is nothing in this particular text that states God hardened them

that would be this text

John 12:40 (NASB 2020) — 40 “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WILL NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED, AND SO I WILL NOT HEAL THEM.”

had God not hardened them, they could have believed

 

[TomL]

No. The onus is on you to show that they can have salvific faith, apart from God.

The scripture have already been posted but do not assume i hold they can believe apart from revelation of the truth or that they may be saved apart from the sacrifice of Christ

John 12:40 (KJV 1900) — 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

God blinded men to prevent their belief. Why would God blind someone who had no ability to see?



Why prevent from believing those who had no capacity for belief

Luke notes had men not grown hardened they could have believed

Acts 28:27 (KJV 1900) — 27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.



Jesus clearly states he hides truth for some as otherwise they would repent and be forgiven



Mark 4:10–12 (ESV) — 10 And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, 12 so that “ ‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.’ ”




unregenerate men are shown to receive the word with joy and believe

Luke 8:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

The adversary steals the word away so men will not believe

Luke 8:11–12 (KJV 1900) — 11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.



What need is there to steal away a word which cannot be believed?


John 1:6–7 (KJV 1900) — 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

John the apostle believes the testimony of John the Baptist is sufficient for faith.

John 5:45–47 (KJV 1900) — 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

John 4:39 (KJV 1900) — 39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

How much exegesis is needed to see men believed based upon the woman's testimony

John 17:20 (KJV 1900) — 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

men will be able to believe based on the apostle's testimony

John 20:31 (KJV 1900) — 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The reading of scripture is sufficient for belief

2 Timothy 3:15 (NIV) — 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 3:4–11 (NIV) — 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. 7 I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. 8 Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

As is the preaching of it.

Romans 10:10–17 (KJV 1900) — 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Acts 28:23–24 (KJV 1900) — 23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

 

[TomL]

That you think effectually causing and infusing faith are synonymous shows you trust your constructions above what Scripture says, (that Salvation by Grace through Faith is a gift of God). That by mere decree God effectually causes all things can scarcely be denied, but how the Spirit of God takes up residence within the elect doesn't imply "infusing" of anything.

To be sure, I don't even know what you mean by "God effectually causing" faith. So I go about this by using Scriptures words and my paraphrases, and not by playing your games. Note, as an example, your construction, "witholding it from others". You talk as though to me it would be available to them if they were not 'elected out' or something. That is backwards. It need not be withheld at all, for them to fail to be saved. They are already condemned because they are not believing. There is no hint that they are impeded from God's grace, but that God's grace is only given to the elect. Your focus is backwards, as is consistent with self-determinism, as though there was something genuine and worthy intrinsic to humanity, that God should respect —no! That God MUST respect, or he is evil ("unfair") to condemn those who are unable to do what pleases him. Don't you know that they CHOOSE not to do what pleases him, being continually at enmity with him?

In case you did not know the council of Dort spoke of infused faith

Article 14 stated, “Faith is a gift of God, not in the sense that it is offered by God for man to choose, but that it is in actual fact bestowed on man, breathed and infused into him. Nor is it a gift in the sense that God bestows only the potential to believe, but then awaits assent—the act of believing—from man’s choice; rather, it is a gift in the sense that he who works both willing and acting and, indeed, works all things in all people produces in man both the will to believe and the belief itself.

Effectualy caused faith is common calvinist verbage

please address the remaining verses

Grant does not mean to infuse or effectually cause. The preaching of the word is sufficient to grant faith

Romans 10:14–17 (NASB 2020) — 14 How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!” 16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

as is the writing of it

John 20:31 (NASB 2020) — 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name.

Clearly there is the implication if they read they might believe


So you do not believe God must infuse or effectually cause it?





Faith is man's response. nowhere is it stated god infused or effectually causes faith

salvation is the gift of God


Romans 6:23 (NASB 2020) — 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


again faith is granted not infused or effectually caused

The word the gospel is sufficient to cause or grant faith.

Romans 10:17 (NASB 2020) — 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

not by god infusing it or effectually causing it while witholding it from others

finally i stated nothing about what God must respect

I posted scripture that deserves an answer

 

[TomL]

Tom your arguments on this are absolutely sound, straightforward ;and cannot in any way be refuted . To me seeking to do so would be like trying to assert 1 + 1 = 5. I'd trust and hope readers present and future would just admit it's self evident. If means are used to prevent something that means it had the capacity before the preventing. Our dear Calvinists friends here are in checkmate. I hope some of them will come to admit this and not feel they have to defend something they need to defend.

God's word should be exalted above all our attachments to any theology

 

[TomL]

I exegetically render many scriptures, all of which affirm, and the rest of scripture which does not deny, that God is the beginning source of absolutely all things, to include what I render exegetically to demonstrate that the very Gospel, and, particularly relevant to this discussion, the work of God in the effectiveness of the Gospel, in producing salvific faith, even "belief", which is by GRACE alone, makes it logically unavoidable that the belief that is commanded is a result of the Gospel —even of the work of God— and not of the will of man.

The way I think you can deny it is to depart from logic, and to lay a lens of self-determinism over what you read, where you assume that man's innate ability to believe things is not the result of facts from outside him, nor even of things done to him inside by the Holy Spirit.

That you think your eternity, and the very reason God created anything at all —his Dwelling Place, and the Body and Bride of Christ, and the Children of God, for his infinite glory and praise— hinges on your fickle will, should be evidence enough for you to doubt your point of view.

None of that addresses the verses posted

Please leave opinion of what I think out of it

What is required of you is to address the texts posted

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-elect.1116/post-56613

 

[TomL]

You are posing a strawman for what I believe. Belief is necessary, and I have not said otherwise. But belief is by faith, both of which are granted of God, as is repentance. You can look it up for yourself. It's right there in Scripture. @The Rogue Tomato just now quoted one of them. And they are affirmed all over Scripture.

Again to grant does not mean to infuse or effectually cause

faith is granted by revelation

given revelation, man may believe

I have posted many verses showing such

 

[Rockson]

View attachment 525

Almost funny but seeing the seriousness of your error out of respect to you I'll choose not to laugh. Too bad you didn't notice Jesus used other analogies of what a sinner is, such as he called sinners as being sick. Lk 5:31 So what does that do to your cartoon?

To bad too you didn't notice how the Bible uses the term spiritually dead as being merely out of the presence of God and the Prodigal Son parable Lk 15:24 gives one a good picture of it. He was dead and yet he could think, reason and respond. Your cartoon above gives no possibility of that now does it?

Too bad you didn't notice too that Jesus told even some believers that they were dead and needed to wake up and strengthen what remained of their faith. Rev 3:1,2 It didn't mean they were dead, dead as being the same as physical death. Too bad you didn't notice that Paul stated "we are dead to sin" (Col 3:3) which doesn't mean we're not capable of sinning unless you're going to claim that you never do. So consider it's obvious the Apostle Paul's analogy of how he used the word "dead" doesn't agree with yours.

 

[Rockson]

Using analogies is a poor excuse for understanding soteriology.

And yet you fail to recognize that God through the bible did this very thing. I might add you Calvinists use them too but you always claim to be against them

The bottom line is, do you get credit for choosing to respond to the Gospel, or does God get credit for enabling you to respond to the Gospel.

Let me put it this way God will give us the credit and rewards for responding to his grace. By the way you'll even see Jesus do this and express this in different ways in the gospels. Do some studies....you'll find it there.

It looks like you fall into the "I get the credit" camp.

Or maybe you fall into the not understanding the gospel camp?

 

[brightfame52]

@Rockson

Let me put it this way God will give us the credit and rewards for responding to his grace.

Thats works and in variance of Grace Rom 4:4

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

 

[civic]

I believe all the bickering can be distilled down to who shall have the credit over being the hinge and turning point of their own salvation? God, or man's own free will? Settle it once and for all. There's no need to battle prooftexts. Either admit you take the credit, or credit God. After that, you can consider the matter closed.

As for me... God was the hinge and turning point of my salvation.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.

No one denies Gods grace precedes salvation. God draws, convicts and man believes in response or does not believe and remains lost.

Its as simple as that.

 

[brightfame52]

No one denies Gods grace precedes salvation. God draws, convicts and man believes in response or does not believe and remains lost.

Its as simple as that.

The drawing is regeneration, so the regenerate respond in Faith

 

[civic]

The drawing is regeneration, so the regenerate respond in Faith

nope drawing is not regeneration. judas was drawn to Christ as one of His disciples. You failed once again with your presuppositions, assumptions etc.....

 

[brightfame52]

nope drawing is not regeneration. judas was drawn to Christ as one of His disciples. You failed once again with your presuppositions, assumptions etc.....

Yes it is, its the Power of God as well. We believe according to the working of His Great Power Eph 1:19-20

19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

 

[civic]

Yes it is, its the Power of God as well. We believe according to the working of His Great Power Eph 1:19-20

19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

lol read what came before this on the same passage. This is another example of eisegesis.

we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christwhen you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

hope this helps !!!