Would “whosoever keeps doing it” please stop using the “whosoever” card as if that word is some kind of a universal offer of the gospel trump card?

There is NO word “whosoever” in the Greek language!

The PHRASE that is translated “whosoever” in the KJV is “pas ho pistewn” which literally is: All the ones believing or “all the believing ones.”

It refers to a specific group: “those that believe” and nothing more.

It does NOT ADDRESS why anyone believes; it’s a simple statement.

In fact, this phrase “pas ho + something” is used many times by John:

“pas ho blepew” (everyone who looks)

“pas ho uphewn” (everyone who exalts)

“pas ho poinewn” (everyone who commits sin)

and on and on…..

You can see, that this phrase identifies “all in a certain group”

Unless you are prepared to give the same “universal weight” to the other exact syntactial structures by John, then you must give this one up as if it’s some universal offer of salvation.

As for myself?

I hated God until October 15th 2005 at which time He removed my stone-heart, and replaced it with a flesh-heart…what could I do but repent and put my faith in Christ???

What i once loved…I now hate. What I once hated, I now love.

Thanks and God bless,
bob

Since you posted on such a dear topic — the precious, mind-boggling, amazing, heart-wrenching doctrines of grace which are so sweet to me — I had to comment. Can I just throw in a little linky-linky here for those of us who have crossed over from the “A-word” to The Great Truth? (It’s a JOKE, people.) It’s good stuff.

Because . Good and thought provoking article and not an easy concept.
Blessed

Heresy upon heresy. Where does it end JJ??

You assume Christ is speaking about repentance unto Salvation for Jezebel. WHY?!?! is that what the Text says?? No, that’s what you insert into the Text.

All repentance in the Bible is not repentance unto Salvation. To repent simply means to change ones mind and turn away from something. God is spoken of as repenting in the Bible too. Is He getting Salvation??According to your eisegetics He must be.

What is Christ giving Jezebel space to repent from?? Fornication.Period. It’s written RIGHT in the same verses.

“I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality.

Can you take a peek into the Greek and show us where the word SOZO is there?? Can you show us where in the Bible repentance from fornication is accompanied by Salvation??

The Text does NOT say “I gave her space to repent unto life Eternal”, or “I gave her space to repent and believe the Gospel.” It simply and plainly states that Christ gave her space to repent,change her mind, turn away from her fornication.

There is NOTHING in this Text that is speaking of Salvation. Salvation is not mentioned nor even implied.

That’s my take. Read the Text,don’t superimpose your doctrines onto a Text that has nothing to do with Salvation,and never so much as MENTIONS Salvation. This is how folks get women pastors from Texts simply mentioning whose home was large enough to accommodate an assembly…….superimposing pet doctrines onto Texts that have nothing to do with their pet doctrines.

As to the ‘why do some reject eternal life and others accept eternal life?’ question I would say this: People do not accept or reject eternal life, they either trust on Christ or they believe not. (MN: And why do some believe and others not believe? ) Eternal life or eternal separation are merely the consequences respectively. Why some reject the gospel message can be for a variety of reasons I suppose. (MN: Give me some of the reasons. And make sure none of them go back to the benefit of the person who believed. ) But if Jesus said he would draw all men then I believe it and knowing that God is just leads me to the conclusion that he’s not going to invite me to the party and turn me away when I get there. (MN: But you also know that salvation is not a result of anything good within me. Those good things include such things as: being more perceptive than the other guy, having a more tender heart than the other guy, being smarter than the other guy, etc, etc. Again, give me a reason that does not depending on the character/quality/goodness of the person who believes. And as far as the going to the party and turning you away - it would be more correct to say that I get the invitation, but I have no desire to attend the party. And if I do have a desire to attend the party, it means I will not be turned away. )

We all have opportunities every day to believe something or reject something based upon the information provided. (MN: So salvation is simply a matter of getting the right information? Why does the guy who hears the gospel presented perfectly reject while another who hears the very same message reject the gospel? ) Salvation is based upon believing on the person and finished work of Christ as you know. And Paul and Silas told the Philippian Jailor that the only condition for salvation was believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and in addition, this invitation as well as the only requirement would be extended to his entire household. Never is any pre-election mentioned, just believing. (MN: And why did Felix not believe? He got a really good presentation of the Gospel as well. And all he had to do was believe.) ANd remember, we were all dead in our trespasses and sins….ALL of us! Yet Paul wrote to brethren….who were dead??? (MN: Not sure who your are talking about. All the epistles are written to believers, though the state of the unbeliever is occasionally addressed. )

The scribes (Mark 3:22-29) who said that Jesus cast out devils by Satan’s power rejected Jesus as God’s son even though they could have embraced him. (MN: And why did they reject Him? )I think a self-righteous elitism or hardness of heart could cause some to reject God’s free gift to all mankind. (MN: Then why did Nicodemus apparently accept His gift? What caused him to walk away from his self-righteous elitism or hardness of heart? ) These scribes were “…in danger of eternal damnation’ for this blaspheme against the Holy Ghost which indicates that there was space to repent (change their mind) about who Christ was and to put their trust in Him.. If not then they had committed the unpardonable sin….The only unpardonable sin which is to reject Christ.

In Calvinism as I understand it, one is pre-determined to be saved (or not) and God “causes” him or her to believe. If this is correct, then it seems that those not chosen will go to hell by simply NOT being elect and not for the consequence of sin and dying without Christ. This seems to me to be “…another gospel that is not (really) another” (MN: I can’t think of a more “gifted” gift than to give me something I have not in any way deserved. How many of us [among the saved and the unsaved] deserve condemnation? [Hint: the answer is "ALL"] If God decides to choose none of us, has he done anything wrong? Is he doing anything wrong if He doesn’t choose everybody? Is God permitted to decide who he chooses and who he doesn’t? )

Thanks for the space…… (MN: No problem )

no, it’s in the Gospel of John Calvin, actually, The Parable of the Horrible Decree, remember?
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms,
but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and,
accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say
that he has been predestinated to life or to death.” (Cal. Inst., b. 3, c. 21, sec. 5)

Check it out, sir, “each has been created for one or other of these ends”… So you may be CREATED for heaven, while your mother or son or brother may be CREATED by God FOR hell. How sweet, isn’t it!

(MN: Good! We’re now actually dealing with the issue. And yes, this would be a good description of the results of Monergism. And of course, Romans 9:22 following say very much the same thing. In fact, Romans 9 says this over and over. Esau vs Jacob - God made a difference between the two of them, BEFORE THEY DID ANYTHING. So what, other than your apparent disagreement with the premise that God can do what He pleases, is the issue?

No one said it is sweet. The question isn’t “Is it sweet?” The important question is “Is is accurate? )

Charles Wesley called it, “Oh, horrible decree, worthy of
the place from whence it came. Forgive their hellish blasphemy
that charge it to the Lamb.”

Charles Wesley exposes the Calvinistic Conundrum in his words of poetry.

Oh Horrible Decree
Worthy of whence it came!
Forgive their hellish blasphemy
Who Charge it on the Lamb.
The righteous God consigned
Them over to their doom,
And sent the Savior of mankind
To damn them from the womb;
To damn for falling short
Of what they could not do
For not believing the report
Of that which was not true.

(MN: Actually, all Wesley did was rail against a doctrine he didn’t like without presenting any biblical support for it…a little like what you have been doing. But at least now I know you understand. )

Reformed? No, DEFORMED.
Doctrines of Grace? No, DOCTRINES OF DISGRACE!

A promotion? With pay, of course. Funds from your manifold “breakthroughs?” Can I now quit my job? Oh, my boss would piss himself in glee! His countenance falls anytime we have dealings at the office. It might have something to due with the fact that–a few years ago–I told him he was destined for H-e-double hockey sticks, if he did not repent of his sins.

Love you, brother . . .
Peter.

Peter.

My God does not lie, he is a rather honest fellow, and I don’t know entirely what you mean by having shadow in him, but he is not batman. This whole discussion, again is secondary to what I was originally talking about, because this all centered around the idea, of whether or not God could blend concepts, which relied upon how he knew things. The real discussion is not about this, but I will indulge it since it seems that you guys have given up on the other discussion, I suspect because I’m so far gone from even armenianism that I cannot be helped. I suspect I was right that no calvinist wants to make any other argument than to cry foul about the context of scripture. I concede everything to you Kyle that you give about context, it still doesn’t change the claim, “It did not come to my mind” What alternate interpretation are we giving to the scripture? For instance “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” I look at that scripture, and the ones that tell us that Pharaoh hardened his heart and I come up with something that looks kind of similiar (mind you though there are differences) to synergism (if that term is even appropriate) to explain it. I look at Romans 8 and I read that “those God foreknew, he predestined, to be conformed in the likeness of his son, and those he predestined he also called, those he called he also justified, those he justified he glorified” and I see right before this that God works for the good of those who love him, and I realize that one verse only makes sense with the other. I don’t say that the scripture never says that God doesn’t predestine people, I don’t say that GOd doesn’t foreknow things, I say that the scripture must be read with a larger understanding. But you take what I quote give us your exegesis of the text and then say “so you see even though the scripture says something didn’t come to God’s mind what it really means is that he commanded people not to do something.” You see how you can’t really get from point a to point b. If you want to change the scripture to fit your views more acurately you are by all means welcome to, though I don’t think God wills it, but if you want to keep the scripture you need a better way of coping with this problem. And what about the angels preaching to Jesus, and him not know about the fig tree, where were your responses to those claims, because after all the real minor point was that God, because he is so powerful, has the power to remain ignorant of something. The major point is that God is so powerful that he can create something that freely chooses him over the God who requires supressing his own creation into submission. Of course there were many more points as well, but they were in other blogs. If you wish to return to the real discussion I will oblige but I also like this one so we can keep going if you like.

Christopher,

Calvinism is the belief that an eternal, celestial dictator exists, that there is something that watches us while we are naked and who tries to make people’s lives miserable, as well as his own, by randomly selecting a lottery of people who are more sadistic than himself into a special elite group, who rejoice in each other’s supreme ability to do nothing but remain saved. Armenianism is this same belief but the dictator lets people keep their clothes on while he watches them, and there is a criteria for being in the special elite club. Of course neither one of these ideas are worth fighting for, so I suggest working against one of them. And yes I’m joking, before someone climbs all over this description, I”M JOKING I”M JOKING!!!!

You did very well with Villiam11’s question.

Perhaps she/he is still digesting Pink: you think?

Rhetorical query here: what is so unclear about Romans 9:14-16?

Oh, and by the way–@Villiam11:

Madam/Sir,

May I be the last one, in any way, to discourage or dissuade you from participating on the Benevolent Dictator’s site, however, I must inquire:

Did you perform your due diligence on the matter of “Human Responsibility” as discussed in the Bible, before you posed your question? In other words, did you: search the myriad theological resources on the Internet; study with your teaching elder; crack your Concordance, or maybe even hit the NA27 for a nice reading?

Regards,
Peter
Acts 17:11 is my admonishment to you, Villiam11. Not too harsh, is it??

and, dead in sin means without eternal life, not without common/prevenient grace that enables - but does not force - man to receive salvation, you dummies. they’ve given you the wrong interpretation of a biblical term, and you like clones go aroung repeating it to death!

lutheranism calls it a blasphemy, wesley called it a heresy and a satan’s tool, but you can go on criticizing charismatics… if you have left Pentecostalism for calvinism, boy, you are to be most pitied of all man. i’ll rather take both k. copeland and jesse d. than calvin-i’ll burn that servetus if i ever can-the reformer anytime.

Lafe: I was not aware that I feel as though my salvation hinges upon the present topic. Thank you for letting me know. Concerning the several chapters I named…no, they do not deal with “calvinism” since you will not find the word in the Bible. They do however deal with God’s predestination of certain peoples for salvation, to the exclusion of other people. Before you tell me it does not, read Romans 9…please.

I am going to have to agree with Melvin on this one…I am not completely convinced you even understand what the discussion is about at this point. I do not say that to sound mean. I say that because you keep repeating phrases such as, “Those chapters in Romans were not in regards to making salvific decisions based upon arminism and calvinism.” No one is saying you have to be a calvinist to be saved…at least I do not think any one has said that.

I know you might not (note I said “might not”) do this, but here I go: Will you please explain, in your thinking, what “Armenianism” is and what “Calvinism” is?

Rest assured Christopher…it does not. If you are in Christ you are a new creature and you are being kept by the grace and power of God and are bound for glory. Anything else is small potatoes. And as for MN comments…about OK…what just happened?

What happened is that I explained my approach to this subject and am awaiting someone to knock it down but it can not be knocked down because there is no underlying substance to what I was refuting since what I was refuting does not amount to a hill of beans in the matters of orthodox Christianity.

(MN: I can’t knock it down - I have no idea what you just said. This is about as close as I have come to hearing a rant. No one is saying our salvation rests on denying or proving either position. No one is saying people make a salvific decision “based upon arminism and calvinism.” Given the phraseology and the way you use it, it becomes more and more clear that you really don’t understand the concept of either Arminianism or Monergism. I give up. I’m done trying to engage you in a rational conversation. If anybody else wants to give it a try, do so. But I think the exchange between Lafe and the rest of us is just about done. I hope folks learned from the episode. )

When we get to the point that people are determining the exercising of their freewill on such non consequential matters of arminism and calvinism…the church has reached an all time low. There is a general call of salvation…..whosoever will and then those who respond are indeed the called or the elect. What is so complicated about this non-issue? Let’s quit playing God in determining if I exercised or did not exercise my freewill and at what time and if I did it properly. God knows the heart of the called/elect. You do not put me in the kingdom or nor can you take me out of the kingdom based upon either calvinism or arminism. (MN: Who said anyone could? ) Neither is the thrust for my hearing the gospel and responding to the gospel. (MN: Who ever said it was? ) When Christ says in Revelation: come, let us reason together…he is not talking to dead people nor is his comments limited to his preferred lists of arminists or calvinists people. Whosoever will..I will not cast out or aside is still good Word.

Alright I’m back. First you back up your response/assertion of Jeremiah 7:31 with no exegesis of scripture just the veneer of reading the passage without use of context or history. The Jews of that time began to practice child sacrifices because they actually thought they were doing God’s will. We can see similar attributes today with all of the apostasy going on in the Church at large. In fact we see “sincere” (Humanistic speaking) who think God not only would ordain but not object to homosexual marriage. In fact he Church is rife with such nonsense now. In Jeremiah’s time the Jews were engaging in this child sacrifice as did other pagan religions in the area did. This leaven/influence of other religions seeped into Judaism also. So let us look at this passage again shall we.

“And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind.”

What God is saying is that

“which I did not command”

A: This was not his command, ie tenants of the law but rather there own vain imaginations.

“nor did it come into my mind”

B: This was not ever God’s intention. Again think Homosexual marriage happening in the Church. God foresaw this but he NEVER would have intended it.

Are you seeing the truth yet JJones? In fact let me expound upon this further. Jeremiah is receiving this message from God. As God’s prophet God is essentially saying, “I never commanded my chosen the Israelites to engage in this pagan ritual nor would that idea ever cross my mind”.

Now fast forward to today regarding the homosexual movement within the Church. God would say, “I never blessed same sex marriage nor would I ever contemplate such an idea”. Yet, God knew we would enter a time in history when we would engage in such abhorrent behavior as we got closer to the end times. That’s scriptural.

Kyle

Yet, the natural answer is, “Wait, if I HAVE to repent, but CANNOT repent unless God calls me to Himself, why does He blame me?” This is the question Paul puts into the mouth of his readers in Romans 9. If we explain election and predestination and sovereign choice correctly (I believe) it should bring about this same objection from the natural mind.

In the end our responsibility to repent and believe is enough to condemn us before a holy God, although it is not enough to save us before a holy God.

But if you see these things has silly to discuss, so be it.

Jesus never created such a dicotomy of theology. We did. Why? Because we want to infer more assurances for our salvation than what the Bible amply gives us. John 7:47-38; Isaiah 45:22 and Rev 22:17. I make outlandish statements and comments to show just how inane this bifurcation of theology is. It is meaningless and futile and makes no advancement towards righteous living or holiness and no one on this site has yet to reprove that remark. No one…even Christopher. We try to make this a “serious” discussion but in the final analysis it is like throwing water on hot rocks…a lot of steam but no power. And no I am not angry…I am intentionally using high impact words and images to show that the same is being used by those who would endorse such vapid positions as arminism and calvinism (note: vapid was my trigger word). And as for Christopher’s remarks that I chose between whether or not this is important…my answer is that this is as important as should I wear dark black socks or really dark black socks with my black funeral suit? translated: does it really matter? Did either calvinism or arminism have you treat your wife better?
Did it stop you from cheating on your income taxes? Did it make you eat onions on your burger for lunch today? Did it cause you to worship in spirit and in truth?

Did it cause you not to gossip today? Did it cause you to pick up the litter on your neighbor’s front lawn? Did it make you pray an extra 5 minutes today for the underground church in China? The point…Christopher is that there is no point to prove…but only to “dissprove!” I am intentionally being shrill to show that this debate is funny and ludricous to me and hopefully by my examples and statements that others will see the same and understand that we are not going to be judged on the basis of calvinism or arminism but did you accept the free gift of God…Jesus the Christ w/o any fine print of: subject to the finer points of calvinism or arminism being part and parcel of this freewill offer. There! I am finished and will not trouble Christopher or others on this no where topic again!

My advice to readers of this “subject” read it with a sense of humor and afterwards, like the comics, go on to something more germane that Jesus identifies with.

(MN: Okay….What just happened? )

“…whosoever believeth…everlasting life.” John 3:16
Does whosoever mean a select few?

(MN: Benjamin, you keep skipping past an essential. WHY does the “whosoever” decide to believe? The Monergistic position is that God moves sovereignly on his or her heart. And without that sovereign work in that person’s heart, they will not believe. “Whosoever” no place implies that a person overcame their status as an enemy of God and on their own decided to believe. It’s similar to “whosoever was born with one leg shorter than the other will limp. Did that whosoever decide to be born with one leg shorter than the other? How does stating the condition for eternal life in any way imply the ability to believe despite one’s fallen nature? Whosoever is born with big brain will rule the world. Again, where is the idea of choice on the part of the whosoever to have the big brain? “Whosoever” simply identifies a population group. It isn’t an inidicator of the exercise of one’s will. )

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” John 12:32
Does all mean all? (sincerely, Bill Clinton)

Those who claim that God chooses some and that others are just out of luck are just as deceived as those who claim that Romans 10:9-10 prove that ‘confessing’ Christ is essential for salvation. So I guess there are no elected deaf mutes???

The confess and confession in both verses are referring to one’s “testimony” of salvation, not a requirement to receive it.

Sorry Melvin (It’s nice to see you again) to change gears a little here, just my way of showing that a host of subjects are misunderstood. I have often revisited even those areas that I thought I was certain of (was told by my passa) only to have the Lord show me different when I truly sought the truth.

(MN: So answer the question: Why do some reject eternal life and others accept eternal life? )

Someone is doing gymnastics here but it is not me. Whether or not it is voluntary is rather a secondary point because it calls into question whether or not GOd knows everything, and we can talk about that point later. Also there are the facts that the angels ministered to jesus, and also that he did not know about the fig. 19:15 is irrelevant by the way I had filed away for a different point, sorry for the confusion. Why would the verse repeat itself twice, using your interpretation, “I did not tell them to do this, nor did I tell them to do this.” It doesn’t make sense. “I did not tell them to do this, no did it enter my mind.” That sounds clearly like a claim for ignorance, I don’t how else someone could say they didn’t know. (MN: Look, if you want to deny omniscience to your god, you go right ahead. But the one I worship, you know, God - He knows everything. But as I said, given that your god can’t keep you sealed to the day of redemption, I’m not surprised he comes up short in knowledge as well. But if that’s what you want for a god, hey - knock yourself out. Why, I’ll bet your god even tells a lie every once in a while. And there’s probably a little bit of shadow in him. )

13For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

“6 1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3And this will we do, if God permit.

4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

7For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

8But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.”

Again for you or anyone else, who is the Apostle addressing? If this is addressing simply non-converted Jews then why would he address them in a way that they have been converted? If he is addressing converted bretheren, then it appears that he is admonishing them about being thier lack of maturity and fruitlessness. Please take note of what he is conveying in Heb. 6:3-9. And let me reinstate, how can one “fall away” from a thing if they were never apart of? Please address that.

God Bless, TOG

Now as far as the seed from the sower, just because the seed was tossed on the ground doesn’t make the ground sprout in bloom. The scripture says that when it “fell on good ground… it produced…” Now the question becomes, “How does the ground become good? Answer is in Luke 13:6-9 “And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.

Luk 13:7 “And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’

Luk 13:8 “And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure.

Luk 13:9 “‘Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”

The tree won’t bear any fruit until the ground has been prepared by the vine-dresser (i.e. Christ). Even though it looked like it should have had something on it, it was useless to the owner. Like us in our sinful state- useless, unglorifying to our Lord. But when Christ chooses to step in and work on us. And it is Christ choosing to step in. The verses leading up to it help to show that mankind is useless and will die in their sins. Christ steps in and delivers us from the “axe”. When it comes down to the seed, the ground is unprepared, the ground is perverted and the Word of the Lord only produces in what Christ prepares (the good ground). No matter how much of the Word is laid upon the ground, it doesn’t make it un-responsible. But it cannot grow unless the Lord prepares the heart (makes it flesh instead of stone to receive the Word- thus producing life!)