Luke 7:30 examples of those who reject the purpose of God for themselves

Oh no, what I have stated friend is true, and you reject it to your eternal peril, may God be pleased to grant you repentance for His Great Mercy Sake !
Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism is not a matter of one's eternal destiny. It's a curious but non-essential debate within Christianity.
 
You’re a Calvinist. Hence you believe it doesn’t matter if he rejects your theology or not. For you, he’s doomed before the foundation of the world or lucky from the foundation of the world. That’s a totally idle threat.
Exactly what I was thinking.
 
I agree, but not by "providing man the Spiritual ability by New Birth" but by providing every man, even those who haven't heard the gospel, the testimony of God upon which to have faith in God.
I disagree, I stand by what I stated.
 
Luk 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

Listen. The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God, and you say we do not have free will.

Get real.
.
In all fairness to Calvinism, I think the argument is that men don't choose to reject God. They do that by default, unless they have had it built into them from creation that they will have it within themselves the will to respond to the Gospel message after being sovereignly born again by the Spirit.
 
I disagree, I stand by what I stated.
Yes, I am aware that Calvinism rejects Romans 2:14-16 that explains how all men receive the testimony of God upon which they can choose to live for him in faith, or choose not to live for him.
 
Yes, the Pharisees were slaves to sin, and they exercised their free will by refusing to be baptised. Sadly, Calvinists deny free will, but it is there in all of us. Perhaps you should reconsider the sandy foundation on which Calvinism is built.
.
The Pharisees knowingly rejected the testimony of the Spirit performing miracles through Jesus. They chose not to believe, becoming guilty of an eternal unforgivable sin.
 
They were predestined to sin and then go to hell.
They were predestined to sin. But the testimony of God given to all men in all ages is what provides the basis upon which to either condemn them or acquit them on the Day of Christ. They will not be condemned for simply being born unsaved and guilty of sin as Calvinism asserts.
 
"They did not want to get baptised," means they exercised free will. It was their personal choice. We are not zombies, as you would like us to think.
Are you a zombie or did you choose your religion?
.
In Calvinism, God picks your religion, not you.
 
The Pharisees chose Satan
The important point here is they knowingly chose Satan in the face of the sure testimony of God on display in the life and ministry of Jesus. That's ultimately what made them accountable for the choice they made.
 
In Judaism, too.
Just ask Abram. ?
Everybody was free to go back to where they came from:

14Now those who say such things show that they are seeking a country of their own. 15If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.
Hebrews 11:14-15
 
I lean Calvinist but that’s mostly because I cannot ignore obvious indications of predestination or at least serious foreknowledge in Scripture. Moving on…

I’ve read that the Bible and ideally church as well should all focus on those who have repented and come to know Jesus. So…

The warnings against apostasy are for believers. Encouraging verses to persevere are for believers and church itself should focus on believers and our needs.

Just a side note ?️ but one that has been helpful to me in looking at scripture differently. Oh…

And interesting point unbelievers being graced without knowing Jesus. I think the Catholic Church still teaches that unbelievers can go to heaven especially when things presented a serious block to conversion while on earth ?.
 
And interesting point unbelievers being graced without knowing Jesus. I think the Catholic Church still teaches that unbelievers can go to heaven especially when things presented a serious block to conversion while on earth ?.
That sounds very merciful and loving, but doesn’t that mean that God the Father killed His Son unnecessarily? I mean if SOME people can get to heaven without Jesus, then …

(That doesn’t seem so merciful and loving, does it?) :eek
 
I struggle with scriptures that deal with this. But…

What if some of the elect are not able to become Christians? Christ died for them God knows and loves them…

Maybe they were aborted or miscarried or profoundly brain damaged or kept in such horrible conditions in the world that conversion just wasn’t the cards?

Think about church going slave owners in 18th and 19th century southern states. We’re they elect but the people they enslaved who may only have had access to heavily edited bibles if anything at all were not?
 
I lean Calvinist but that’s mostly because I cannot ignore obvious indications of predestination or at least serious foreknowledge in Scripture.
Calvinism does not own those terms.
Predestination and foreknowledge are clear Biblical principles.
Calvinism and non-Calvinism differ on what they actually mean.
 
Back
Top