Having said this, let us now consider each question at some length to see if there is any merit to them at all:
Question 1: Does this text show this desire as sin? (James 1:13).The question does not even begin to make any sense at all. What has James 1: 13 got to do with whether "unbelief is sin" James 1:12-18 does not even begin to speak on the nature of Sin. It is speaking about the believers life and the fact that must not allow sin to rule his life (meaning that becomes a habitual practice) consider the context for a moment:
'Yesterdays video' advocated unbelief as Sin and thus cannot be paid for by Jesus' blood shed since unbelievers go to hell: an argument for limited atonement for a few. James shows this inner desire is neutral and not treated as sin.
Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.This passage has nothing to do with whether man is a sinner from birth and is utter corrupt as a result. And for this man to read it as such, truly is to read ones own thoughts into the context, once they have isolated a single sentence or verse from its full context. Which no Christian (if they truly are one) should ever do.
Lets now consider what Jesus Christ has to state on "desire" and whether it is sin (depending on the nature of that desire); for the Lord quite unequivocally makes it plain that men main desire are sinful in Matthew 5:27-32, 15:19-21. But there is no interaction with such text as these above, they conveniently ignored.
What about another text from Matthew on this matter: "The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil." The question for us now - what does the bible teach about the unregenerate nature of man? Simply this, that it is continually Evil all the time Romans 1-3, Ephesians 2:1-3.
Question 2: Is this passage excluding anyone from being a sinner? (Isaiah 53:6)
If this passage says all sinned then all iniquity is laid upon him (Jesus sacrifice prophesied): The atonement was for all ( however, Just as the father sends the rain and sun on all, not all benefits)Misunderstanding the Calvinist point of view based on the question being a straw man and incorrect. It is not that we don't believe all men are sinners! It is in fact, that "not all people will be saved by God determined choice" and the atonement was made full for only those it was procured for - the offer of the gospel in a general sense is for all; but the actual shed blood cover the elect of God - those it was made for.
Consider for a moment, the later part of the context of Isaiah 53:
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.If ones interpretation of a single verse does not even begin to make sense when it is seen in light of the whole passage. It is therefore, an error that need to be discarded. It was the "sins of the many" "the transgressors" that he atoned for. Not for every single person to ever live - the gospel of John alone makes this point clear in John 6, 8 and 10 when Christ says that "the Jews" that the father has not given to him do not belong to God nor him.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
And on top of this, we can see this in Romans 9: 1-6, that election is very much alive - it is Pauls over all other Jews and not all Israelites are of Israel (vs. 6).
Question 3: according to Jesus, does anyone "have" anything at all?
Since it is at the end that 'even that he has shall be taken away' then, all 'have' something from the outset. It is only what you do with that (neutral) that defines you.At first, this seemed to be a question which had no logical framework to even be seen as worthy question. But now upon reading the context of the first passage mentioned; there is a issue at this point that needs to be addressed. And that is the conflation of texts to draw a conclusion that is not even stated in the texts. And that is what seems to be - that everyone "something" that can determine God's favour; or at least this how I am understanding the objection. I could be wrong here as it is not even clear.
Consider for a moment, the text from the Matthew 13:
Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
When this one verse read in light of the context of the passage and the full chapter. One soon realises that Jesus is actually making it clear, that his parable were in effect ways to leave the masses of unbelieving Jews in a stumbling zone. The parable were not given for the believing disciples, but for the unbelievers - it was a way to really point to the fact that they were perish for they were not of the elect - remnant of God.
And Matthew 25, makes this point all the more clearer in the parables mentioned their 5 wise virgin, 5 foolish. The Sheep who had a place prepared in heaven before the world even existed; the goat who were destined for eternal fore.
Question 4: This passage tells us the decision for giving the 'authority to become children of God' came before or after 'as many as received him'? (John 1:12)
If the passage says 'receive him' came first then God did not make a decision before the life time of the person. No fixed 'elect' group.Here in this question lies a faulty method of reading a passage with a preconceived notion of "Human freewill" and "Human ability" where in reality there is no such allusion being offered in the context at all.
Let us consider the context of this verse now:
The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.No doubt that some people received him as did other reject him, and no doubt this emphasis' choice; but it however, does not in the slightest prove that it was or is a "free" choice, for every choice we make is constrained and manipulated by our own nature. In other words, our choices are limited to our natural human conditions.
But right here is where the choice in 'receiving Christ' gets all the more complicated; for since we are not naturally inclined or have no natural disposition towards God due to our corrupt and sinful natures; therefore, it is not our own 'receiving' but as the text states "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
So instead of being a text that teaches man's freedom in Salvation; it in fact, denies and rejects the very notion this question presupposes. It turns into a baseless assertion.
Question 5: Is it possible God has self control, and if so - after 3 attempts against - releases someone to their deliberate sin, so that he therefore with good reason without pleasure in the death of the wicked? (Galatians 5:22-23, Job 33:29-30, Ezek. 33:11)
If these passages are true - at face value - there is no Irresistible grace?This question makes absolutely no sense at all. there is no logic in making a question based on 3 different context which have nothing to do with each other; moreover, they have no relevance to the doctrine that they supposedly refute.
Irresistible grace is just the same truth that Regeneration addresses, that when God brings his people to faith - he renews them, by removing the sinful nature (or heart) and putting a new nature (or heart) in them that seek to live and obey Jesus Christ as Lord.
Now what about these above texts, how do they related and what are their teachings about:
Galatians 5:16-26 is about the fruits of the Spirit, which is something that is evident in Sanctification. The connection being made here is not correct. "self control" is a fruit that the Spirit brings forth in a believer. It is not speaking about God's being. Job 33: 29-30 without getting lost in the misdirection, we need to bare in mind that verse 29 states "Behold, God does all these things" what things are being addressed? Well all things that are spoken of in the previous 28 verses. Consider one brief section in verses 12-18. And as for the final portion of scripture mentioned, Ezekiel 33:11 while it is true in one sense that God take no pleasure in the death of wicked; it is also true that he can say in another sense that he does take pleasure in the death of people in Deuteronomy 28:63 which reads:
And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it.It is such a fashion that one runs into an error when taking a single verse that in context is not even dealing with the issues at hand. But such passages have nothing to do with the subject that we are considering which Irresistible Grace (Regeneration); we can consider many passages; but one that stands out at this point is this one:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honour at the revelation of Jesus Christ.It is texts such this one that make it clear that the act of regeneration must be take place before man can respond to God. And it is texts like this that are all too often ignored by Arminians, this subject is seen in many other passage Ezekiel 11 and 36, John 3:1-21. But notice the words that Peter uses here "According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope" God himself caused the believer to be "born again" regenerated to a living hope - it is amazing to think upon these things. It is Monergistic in nature - it is God who makes us alive in Christ said Paul Ephesians 2:4-5.
Question 6: Does this passage speak of any possibility of being cut off? (Romans 11:22)
If some one can be cut off, then what Paul says is true: 'therefore let him who stands heed lest he falls (1 Cor. 10:12)Now we come to an important issue that in such a question is evident; but in all cases, it is glossed over by the Arminian and that is in their hast to reject the Sovereign election of God. Which is 100 % biblically attested. They overlook the simply reality that if election is not true and that we should fear being "cut off" then they themselves are left in a far worse predicament. And that of course, lies in the fact that they have no security for their own faith because they simply rely to much on their own ability.
Let us now consider the Romans 11 passage, to see what we can gather from it:
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.Far from being a passage that teaches the absolute certainty of being "cut off" it
in fact teaches the opposite to be the case; rather than it teaching that will or could happen, it teaches us that the true Spirit filled Christian will by the work of God will endure to the end because they display "the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness." The scriptural teaching at this point, is resoundingly clear salvation is a gift bestowed on an undeserving people, not based on anything in them, but upon the kindness of God. It removes all boasting, all pride, and self attainment. And what is left is a humble person that relies on God's mercy daily.
The Arminian, however, due to having no certainty according to Arminius' understanding of scripture - can have no guarantee at all
Question 7: What does this passage say is the purpose for God testing Hezekiah? (2 Chronicles 32:31)
If sola scriptura is true (the bible is the sole true and reliable source which God has given to know about him); and if the word of God is explicit about what God is like, then when we read this ....
If God wants to know something, then it follows his foreknowledge is not absolute; he knows all that is knowable and foreknows what he 'makes' happen.This objection seems to be based on a confusion of topics and issues as far as I can tell. It is confusing God's omniscience with Gods foreknowledge in the first place. the first aspect is to do with God's decretive will - in that he knows all that will take place, because he has declared and set it in motion according to his own will. The latter issue is the fact that God knows intimately the people whom will believe in Christ, based on his absolute knowledge of the person. The next issue at hand in this is the confusion of the different kinds of foreknowledge God possesses. (1) the active participation that God has in Salvation (Romans 8:28-30, Romans 11:2-3, 1 Peter 1:19-21). And (2) that where God knows things passively such as events that will take place.
The biggest issue at hand in this objection, however, is what seems to be the advocating of the Openness view; where God does not know certain thing that will take place before they come to pass, but only upon or after they do. (Again I could be wrong on this) Nevertheless, this objection face serious issues such as these:
(1) If this is the 'openness view' then can we ask if the God of this view - if this is what this man believes it - did he know about the objector existence before it came to pass?
(2) If it is the view of this man, then does the father have knowledge of the Son's sacrificial given for mans sins?
(3) And if this is the man's view, does he has absolute confidence that he will remain a Christian in the future?
The insurmountable problems that this objection raises are tremendous and weighty - In fact, it goes further in the very God head, the triune nature - if each member does not have intimate knowledge of the others role in salvation then how do they effectively redeem humans? Just a simple inquiry.
