John 6:44 clearly states that salvation starts with God. What you are want it to state is that man is unable to come to God period as if he has no ability to come to God. As I said before, if there were a period after "me" than you would have an argument.

Unfortunately you do not have one.

If you care to allow the Scripture to speak for itself you will discover that John 6:44 simply states that man will not come to God without God's involvement. Man is not going to wake up one day and decide that he will come to God. God has to be involved in drawing him to himself.

Who is the object of his drawing?

Well 12:32 clearly states that God draws all men.

That's Scripture interpreting scripture in play there. Something that you cry that one should do but you refuse to do. The only thing I see is Calvinism interpreting scripture.

Discerning Believer wrote:
Yamil, you keep forgetting John 6:44, "No man CAN come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
No talk of volition. It doesn't say, "No man WILL come to me" now does it?

But if you care about the context (which you do not) you would know that the subject at hand is the ressurection of the dead NOT your precious Calvinism. In fact it says nothing of "election" let alone unconditional election.

And of course you do not want to accept John 12:32 when it states:

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men unto me."

The only place that gives the object of the drawing power of God, you reject.

Makes your sincerity very suspect at that point.

______________________________________

Terry,

Query wrote:
But you say exactly that - silly!

Query wrote:
We have to be saved before we can serve silly.

Query wrote:
The blind can't see anything even if you put it before their faces!

Discerning Believer wrote:
JD and Yamil reject that man is totally depraved before God but still maintains some inherent goodness in them to come to God without the Holy Spirit drawing them.

The ability to choose God is not anymore a sign of goodness than the ability to choose your president or to go for a strough. You will not find such a ridiculous statement anywhere in the pages of Holy Writ.

The dehvastating truth is nowhere in the Bible does it state that man CANNOT come to God. But it states that he WILL NOT in many instances.

The difference between I and DB is that he sees total depravity as a problem of inability while I see it as a problem of rebellious volition.

That is why those here spend their time looking in cracks and under rocks for the truth when the truth is staring at their faces....

"For God so loved the world..."

BTW,

Jesus was making reference to physical sight, NOT understanding. He expected the Nicodemus to understand.

Discerning Believer wrote:
Randy,
Care to deal with the passage from Calvin I posted?
Don't worry, I have serious problems with false professions of faith in the Baptist church. That is due to the Finneyistic altar calls and the 1-2-3 repeat after me easy-believism salvation.

Query wrote:
How would you describe the choosing of Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob or the nation of Israel? Were they chosen for the good that God saw in them. Did God choose them because he foresaw that they would believe? Perhaps he took a shine to their Jewishness?

Query wrote:
And do you think God was unfair in choosing Abraham but passing by millions of others, or doing the same in choosing Israel and passing by other nations?

Query wrote:
Or are you saying that we are not to build doctrine on the basis of Old Testament scripture even though 2 Tim 3.16 says all scripture is profitable for doctrine?! Perhaps it should have added, "unless you don't like them"!

Now tell me, where you told about the truths of unconditional election before or after you were saved?

jago wrote:
No WOMI Haven't you heard that faith comes through hearing the Word of God. Timothy was taught the things of God as a child by his mother and grandmother.

Is that right?

ML wrote:
OK, let's take up your challenge.
I would love to see your simple declarative statements from the Old Testament that God wants every single individual ever born to be saved . Just a few uncontroversial texts please.
Now remember the texts must show "every single individual ever to exist", which presumably includes Judas Iscariot!

Actually, you have not taken the challenge at all. You only want me to do it for my presupposition, but you will not do it for yours.

Now, I am a nice guy, and I assure you, that I have a few verses that I can take you too in the OT. Nevertheless, you have to go first. That is what is called, taking up the challenge. What you are doing is passing the buck. You are so used to doing it that you are not aware anymore of when you do do it.

ML wrote:
Romans 9:10-21 would be one section of scripture often appealed to by believers in predestination/election.

badhorsie777 wrote:
...
Explain to me how a sovereign God with the ability to instill a heart of flesh, or to draw men to Christ, explain how witholding these things, these acts of mercy, to a depraved enemy of God does not demonstrate a predestined, elect few who undeservedly are made to be example of God grace, whilst others are left in their sin to manifest His justice, with all to His glory?
Anyone? This doesn't have to be just btwn the 2 of us.
God Bless,

You are resorting to the straw man of the "whole of Scripture" when I am only asking you for ONE verse: one simple declarative statement from God's word that simply state any of the Calvinistic presuppositions that you hold to. Any of them.

Do you not agree with we must start with what Scripture state?

It's a stupendous fallacy to believe that the "whole of Scripture" supports something that it never states.

badhorsie777 wrote:
You ....

Our fundamental difference is that I like to start with what the Scriptures state and develop my presuppositions around it. The Calvinist on the other hand want to start with their presuppositions and manipulate the Bible to conform to it.

That is why when I ask where in the Scripture does it state that, I get the cop out response of "the whole of Scripture." That's really another way of stating that I can't find it, but I am sure its in their somewhere through logical deductions.

Now I have given you the opportunity and sadly you are still coming out short. Honestly, I do not know how much easier I can make it for you:

1. Present your most powerful presupposition. You have a bunch of them so pick anyone.

badhorsie777 wrote:
romans it is