Does God COMMAND all people to be saved and NOT GIVE them away to do that?
God says to RECONCIL ourselves to Him. But not give a way to do that???
That is the scripture that few of the Calvinist can explain. What could they say?
Romans 9 is a great passage to reveal bad assumptions about the necessity of God giving everyone an equal chance.
God commanded Pharaoh to "Let my people go." Did this mean that God is obliged to enable Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go?
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
God raised Pharaoh up for "
this very purpose" of not letting the people go. When God commanded Pharaoh to "Let my people go" was it in the hope that just maybe Pharaoh would let Israel go? Maybe God forgot to look into his crystal ball and peek into the future? It was God's "
purpose" to free the people of Israel himself with mighty judgments on the people of Egypt and the Pharaoh so that he would "
show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth." This passage clearly shows that God has no obligation to give commands to people who can obey them. God gives commands to the world to believe. It makes them responsible to believe, but it does not enable them to believe. The assumption of so many is that if God commands something, he is responsible to enable everyone to obey the commands. The scriptures does not teach such an assumption. In fact, as in Romans 9, it teaches the opposite, that God can command Pharaoh, or the world, or anyone he wants to do anything he wants and he is under no obligation to enable them, or to make sure they have the ability to obey his commands.
With the Pharaoh, God not only gave a command that he knew would not be obeyed, or could not be obeyed, he purposely chose Pharaoh and hardened his heart so he would not obey. There was never really any decision with Pharaoh, he never had intention of letting Israel go because God intended to harden his heart all along.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
This of course does not mean that God waved some magic wand to make Pharaoh's heart hard, but rather he hardened Pharaoh's heart by lifting him up to power. That is in verse 17... "
For this very purpose did I raise thee up." Pharaoh's hard heart was hardened by putting this evil hitler in power where he could offer the most opposition to God.
This argument that God must give everyone a chance smacks of a denial of humanism. It assumes that we all
DESERVE a chance. It fails to see us as sinners and rebels. It questions the righteousness of God in that it says God must give everyone a chance. It is the same argument as Pauls imaginary opponent in verse 19.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who with standeth his will?
The opponent says it would not be fair for God to find fault. This is the same statement as Deborah's rhetorical question "Does God COMMAND all people to be saved and NOT GIVE them away to do that?" Deborah could easily be the imaginary opponent that Paul is replying against.
Pauls bottom line is that God has the right to do with his creation as he pleases.
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
The assumption of Deborah's rhetorical question is that the potter (God) is obligated to attempt to make all good pots because we are really all neutral clay and not so bad. The scripture teaches that the clay is in Adam, in sins and trespasses. God could make all bad pots if he chose. God's making of bad pots reveals his wrath, power, and longsuffering.
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
Gods making of good pots reveals the riches of the glory of his goodness.
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?
One Calvinist did explain that and preached against regeneration (salvation) before faith! His name was SPURGEON. He laid the blame on man for not being saved. That is the truth, it is man's fault if he does not accept the Lord. Spurgeon, that if a man does not, it because he "would not".
Many say, that he "could not". It is man's fault, NOT God's fault.
Spurgeon, as most particular baptists, taught that it was mans responsibility to repent. He laid the blame on man for not being saved because it was mans responsibility. I hope the reader notices the flawed thinking on Deborah's part. She assumes because Spurgeon believed in human responsibility (as most or even all particular baptists do) that this means that Surgeon taught faith before regeneration. Again, she assumes that God is obligated to give commands only to people who have ability. Then she makes this leap of logic that assumes also that because Spurgeon believed in human responsibility, that he must have believed in faith before regeneration. Spurgeon, being a particular baptist believed the exact opposite, he believed regeneration was the work of God that caused faith.
Accepting Jesus, is a command, repenting is a command. There's nothing wishy-washy about it. Accepting Jesus, is not about feelings, or pride, or any such man nonsense. God just said "Do it!" Trust God that Jesus is the Savior and trust Him. Put your trust in Him. God already reconciled Himself to the world through His Son, now we are to reconcile ourselves to that truth. God will change the heart of stone
So in the above paragraph, God has Christ shed his blood to reconcile each and every man to himself, but that did not save anyone. Christ died, and it made men savable, but his shed blood did not actually save anyone. The paragraph shows a view of the atonement that is blasphemous. It is a denial that Christs blood saved anyone, but an affirmation that Christ blood merely makes men savable. So then, Christ died to present this theoretical possibility that all men will be saved, and then must be up in heaven biting his nails hoping that man, in man's sovereignty will accept this possibility of salvation. I guess for me, I do believe different. I believe that when Christ died, he unleashed an absolute salvation so powerful, that I was saved to the uttermost by by God's grace alone, by Faith alone, through Christ alone.
Yes, God changes hearts of stone, and makes them hearts of flesh. He does not ask permission, he does not act weakly, he acts powerfully. 1 John 5:1 is the strongest verse in the Bible on regeneration preceding faith. The verb "begotton" is a tense in greek (perfect) that is a past action with present results. The participle "who believeth" is the present tense result.
Faith is not of human origin, but it is something that is the work of God in the human heart.
Phil 1:29
because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf: It is granted by God.
Of course this is why john 6:44 says "
no man can come to me." The word "can" is the greek word for ability. No man has the ability to come to Christ. Not that they have no choice, men have choice, but because of our sin nature, we always choose our own path of evil unless the work of God is in our hearts to change that.
Turn from your gospel of human merit to the gospel of 100% grace.
