T.U.L.I.P. - Irresistible Grace

[GodsGrace]

We know from these examples, that we are the ones who are weak, and desperate everyday for His grace.

God gives grace to the humble.


It amazes me how people who build their theology from the writings and words and definitions of man, constantly resist the truth of God’s word.



JLB

Amen.
God is sovereign....
but He gave to man free will and He respects that free will.

Revelation 3:20
20‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

He stands at the door and knocks....
If ANYONE hears His voice
and OPENS THE DOOR
Jesus will come in

Anyone...
Opens the door....

Anyone that hears...
and must freely open the door.

 

[atpollard]

You explain I.G. very nicely,,,unfortunately it is not how "calvinism" explains it.

R.C. Sproul is one of the leading ‘Calvinist’ theologians of the 20th Century (He just died recently). So the explanation from Ligonier Ministries is as “Calvinist” of an explanation as you are going to find. That IS what Calvinists believe ... which is why we are so passionate in our denials when people claim we really mean something else.

 

[atpollard]

Why add words that are not in the Bible to grace, to somehow redefine it to have special categories for special categorized people?

Is the grace (unmerited favor) that God shows sinners by not immediately killing them exactly the same as the grace (unmerited favor) that god shows all people by sending the sun and rain to allow them to grow food ... and is that exactly the same as the grace (unmerited favor) that God shows the repenting sinner by washing away their sins, baptizing them into Christ and adopting them as Children of God?

Is all biblical grace equal, or might it be useful to add adjectives to describe different sorts of “unmerited favor” offered by God?

 

[JLB]

Amen.
God is sovereign....
but He gave to man free will and He respects that free will.

Revelation 3:20
20‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

He stands at the door and knocks....
If ANYONE hears His voice
and OPENS THE DOOR
Jesus will come in

Anyone...
Opens the door....

Anyone that hears...
and must freely open the door.

Sovereign is a noun.

It’s refers to a ruler.

IOW God is a Sovereign.

In the case of our God, He is the Lord of Lords and King of kings.

God is the supreme Sovereign and Lord.


Calvinism uses the word Sovereign in an unbiblical way.


The King James and New King James don’t have this word. They use Potentate which means ruler.


More modern versions use Sovereign and variations of this word as the influence of Calvinism has increased.



JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Irrelevant from the perspective of God’s purpose, which is already settled from beginning to end: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to [His] purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” [Rom 8:28-30 NASB]

• All verbs are in the past tense indicating that the matter has been settled and decided and will with absolute certainty come to pass. Those whom God has already PREDESTINED will with complete certainty be GLORIFIED.
• To claim otherwise is to deny the SOVEREIGNTY of God and the explicit claims of His Holy Word.
• God said it, that settles it, and I believe it.

atp,

There is no past tense in the Greek verb as it doesn't represent time, but kind of action.

Would you please parse every Greek verb used in Rom 8:28-30 so we can determine the nature of the verbs used?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Amen.

Why not just the words in the Bible such as grace.

Why add words that are not in the Bible to grace, to somehow redefine it to have special categories for special categorized people?

Man made words and terms are designed to prop up man made doctrines.

Calvinism is a man made theology.

The doctrine of Christ is found in the New Testament.

JLB

JLB,

So do words, grammar and syntax of sentences in your Bible self-interpret?

How do you harmonise John 6:44 with John 12:32?

How about trying to interpret this verse by simply reading the words of the text: 'Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control (1 Tim 2:15 ESV)?

Oz

 

[atpollard]

atp,

There is no past tense in the Greek verb as it doesn't represent time, but kind of action.

Would you please parse every Greek verb used in Rom 8:28-30 so we can determine the nature of the verbs used?

Oz

No, I will not parse every Greek verb in the section of text.
It is “past tense” in English because it is from a settled position in the Greek. In practical terms, the result is as certain as if it had already happened. I did not invent that interpretation, but merely read the work of Greek scholars on the subject and believed them. If you wish to debate their findings, I suggest you start with the modern translation teams that chose the English past tense and ask THEM “What the h*ll were you thinking?”

However, here is one to get you started:

προέγνω (foreknew) = Aorist Active Indicative - 3rd Person Singular

Aorist: “Is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars. The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.”

Indicative: “Is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood.”

 

[OzSpen]

No, I will not parse every Greek verb in the section of text.
It is “past tense” in English because it is from a settled position in the Greek. In practical terms, the result is as certain as if it had already happened. I did not invent that interpretation, but merely read the work of Greek scholars on the subject and believed them. If you wish to debate their findings, I suggest you start with the modern translation teams that chose the English past tense and ask THEM “What the h*ll were you thinking?”

However, here is one to get you started:

προέγνω (foreknew) = Aorist Active Indicative - 3rd Person Singular

Aorist: “Is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars. The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.”

Indicative: “Is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood.”

atp,

Why did you plagiarise this information from this website: https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=360? You have stolen this material from another website by not giving credit to the author.

Do you read NT Greek and do you know Greek grammar and syntax?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

προέγνω (foreknew) = Aorist Active Indicative - 3rd Person Singular

In which context are you speaking about this kind of aorist?

 

[JLB]

JLB,

So do words, grammar and syntax of sentences in your Bible self-interpret?

How do you harmonise John 6:44 with John 12:32?

How about trying to interpret this verse by simply reading the words of the text: 'Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control (1 Tim 2:15 ESV)?

Oz

When Paul wrote those words, was he quoting or referring to scripture, or man made theology?



JLB

 

[JLB]

JLB,

So do words, grammar and syntax of sentences in your Bible self-interpret?

How do you harmonise John 6:44 with John 12:32?

How about trying to interpret this verse by simply reading the words of the text: 'Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control (1 Tim 2:15 ESV)?

Oz

Please explain what it is that you disagree with about this statement.

The doctrine of Christ is found in the New Testament.




JLB

 

[JLB]

So do words, grammar and syntax of sentences in your Bible self-interpret?

What does this have to do with following the teachings of man?


JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

R.C. Sproul is one of the leading ‘Calvinist’ theologians of the 20th Century (He just died recently). So the explanation from Ligonier Ministries is as “Calvinist” of an explanation as you are going to find. That IS what Calvinists believe ... which is why we are so passionate in our denials when people claim we really mean something else.

Good morning A,
In my post no. 16, to which you're responding, I DID NOT mention RC Sproul.....
Why must we talk about MEN???
BTW, I did hear Sproul give a magnificent explanation of free will (on YouTube) but, I think he made up his very own explanation. I mean, are you guys Calvinist or not?? Are you a Sproulist today?

Maybe Calvinism could make up its mind as to what it believes since different persons that call themselves CALVINIST do NOT understand things the same way....??

Anyway, please address my scripture in my post no. 16....

I used the following two verses (and there are plenty more) to support my belief that Irresistible Grace does not exist. And I'm not talking about the WORD,,,,I'm talking about THE CONCEPT.

Thanks. Here it is in case you skipped over it:

*****************************************************
from post no. 16
Can man resist grace?

John 5:40
And you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life.

The word UNWILLING shows that this was a free will choice.
One could be WILLING or UNWILLING.

John 5:46
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me.

Again, Jesus says that the pharisees did not believe...making belief a free will choice.

So much of scripture makes no sense unless grace CAN be resisted.

****************************************************

 

[GodsGrace]

Sovereign is a noun.

It’s refers to a ruler.

IOW God is a Sovereign.

In the case of our God, He is the Lord of Lords and King of kings.

God is the supreme Sovereign and Lord.


Calvinism uses the word Sovereign in an unbiblical way.


The King James and New King James don’t have this word. They use Potentate which means ruler.


More modern versions use Sovereign and variations of this word as the influence of Calvinism has increased.



JLB

I'm not sure that's the reason JLB.
I think a lot of younger persons like Calvinism but I'm not sure why. Maybe because it removes the responsibility of sin from them. They feel that if they have been fortunate enough to be among the chosen,,,then perseverance of the saints is true too and they can never lose their salvation.

Also, many churches introduce this theology a little bit at a time so the members don't even realize what is happening unless they're very atunned to this doctrine.

For instance, it would be interesting to know why atpollard and
Hospes are able to accept a God that is NOT loving, NOT merciful and NOT just.

They would have to leave aside their feeling of slight superiority over the rest of us who are UNABLE to accept such a God....

Perhaps I'll start a thread on this....but we should get through T.U.L.I.P. first...

I could NEVER worship a God that allows persons to go to hell with no opportunity to be saved.

“he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.”

Calvin’s Institutes, Book 3 Chapter 23 paragraph 6.

 

[JLB]

They feel that if they have been fortunate enough to be among the chosen,,,then perseverance of the saints is true too and they can never lose their salvation.

Until finally they become lost and return to a life of sin, and the devil convinces them they were never saved to begin with because they were never predestined to be saved.

They become bitter and resentful and end up hating God and hating Christians.


Ex Christian.net is filled with such people.




JLB

 

[JLB]

he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.”

Calvin’s Institutes, Book 3 Chapter 23 paragraph 6.

How does that line up with...


For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:17



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Until finally they become lost and return to a life of sin, and the devil convinces them they were never saved to begin with because they were never predestined to be saved.

They become bitter and resentful and end up hating God and hating Christians.


Ex Christian.net is filled with such people.




JLB

Right. I just got through writing to PeterJens about this....
Eternal security is a very dangerous doctrine and those that say persons that leave the faith were never saved to begin with are obviously not in agreement with scripture....

I don't know about Christian.net, but maybe that's why it's "EX"!

We can't blame God for what WE believe and do....

 

[GodsGrace]

How does that line up with...


For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:17



JLB

Sure.,,,,but you know the answer:
World does not mean World.....

and on and on....

 

[GodsGrace]

How does that line up with...


For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:17



JLB

P.S. We end up arguing about WORDS.....
Instead of the CONCEPT of those words.

I see this a lot with the reformed...words seem to be all-important to them.

 

[JLB]

P.S. We end up arguing about WORDS.....
Instead of the CONCEPT of those words.

I see this a lot with the reformed...words seem to be all-important to them.

Until they are shown what the words actually mean.



JLB