I'm amazed that you derived that from my comment. God commanded His elect to preach the Gospel to all creatures, right? Matt 28:19. Romans 10:14 says, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?..."

But if you need proof of God ordaining both, look at Isaiah 10:5-7, "O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few."

God ordained destruction of many nations by Assyria but they had other reasons. Nevertheless, God directed Assyria to accomplish His purpose. (read verse 15 too) The point here is Assyria operated fully according to its own desires but God was using them to judge nations.

Prevenient Grace wrote:
...The problem is that there is no clear and adequate basis in Scripture for this concept of universal enablement...
(monergism.com)

Dwane wrote:
John can you tell me what the point is of evangelism if God saves whom he wills?

Our Savior has bid us preach the Gospel to every creature. He has not said, “Preach it only to the elect.” And though that might seem to be the most logical thing for us to do, yet, since He has not been pleased to stamp the elect on their foreheads, or to put any distinctive mark upon them, it would be an impossible task for us to perform! Therefore when we preach the Gospel to every creature, the Gospel makes its own division and Christ’s sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

John UK wrote:
You'll get used to Multi-Moniker-Man. He pops up now and again, tells a lot of fibs to stir people up, and then crawls away to his little hole in the Kilmarnock Nursing Home.
Only kidding Presby.
Thomas, it was your unusual statement that leant itself to scrutiny. Here is what you said: "How can a grace precede its effect? The effect is the grace given."
I couldn't grasp what you meant, so I never commented.

Mike wrote:
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."
The drawing of God is grace, and precedes the coming of the man. The coming follows, and is the effect of the drawing.

EDIT: I meant how then does the grace precede the draw if they are equated to each other?

Jorfoil wrote:
Again!!
See your post below 6/7/12 12:58PM
Dwayne's question is, "How did God bring him to believe?"
Your response is all to mortal!!!
You always avoid giving the Holy Spirit His glory! A sure sign of the Arminian conviction.

John UK wrote:
Mike, if you know of one, please do tell.

John UK wrote:
I think the answer lies in.... "And you hath he quickened, which were dead in trespasses and sins...."

Ezekiel 36:26, "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."

and

John 3:4-8, "Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

west coast reader wrote:
My point was noticing how much of a “troll” (controller) Jim has become even in proxy.
If I offended you, I am sorry.

west coast reader wrote:
I’ve spent the past 5+ years fasting, praying, and searching, researching in tears and turmoil over the Bible version debate.

west coast reader wrote:
Strongs is helpful to explore the uses of terms in varied settings. I also suggest the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK) and King James Concordance (KJC) King James Dictionary (KJVD)
Learning Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic doesn’t make you a scholar.
The KJV is fantastic! Don’t approach it and God in doubt, rather… seek in Faith!

west coast reader wrote:
Isn't it interesting that even when Jim isn't engaged in a KJV slander-fest that he is able to control the board without even using words?
Others do it for him.

I wasn't knocking the KJV and I don't dislike the KJV at all (I have several copies). I simply stated that these snake handling cults utilize the "tried and true" KJV and it was thus appropriate to allow for it to be used. Jim's motives may have been to highlight a controversial passage that these cults love to quote for a personal reason but it was nonetheless appropriate.

Jim hearts KJV wrote:
Notice that when Jim Lincoln discusses a controversial verse (like a serpent/healing verse), he resorts to using a KJV. Why didn't he use the inerrant NASB which he always otherwise would? Perhaps he only trusts the more perfect KJV with the most challenging Bible passages.

Tennessee Wise wrote:
Why do we continue to hide behind the man John Calvin? All Calvin did was exposit the word of God.

Dwayne wrote:
I 100% agree! Most people will reject christ but some will accept him. That accepting him is what i think mans duty is. I no i cannot save myself but i must choose to accept him.

The essential point of the passages in John is how an unwilling person becomes willing to choose to accept Him. And those that God enables do in fact come and Jesus will in no wise cast out (John 6:37) The critical parts of verse 44 is that "No man *can* come *unless* the Father draws him". This agrees perfectly with Romans 3 and Matt 22. The primary action is God's and he enables a person to come and those that are enabled in fact come willingly (who previously were unwilling) and, as I stated below, Jesus will raise him up at the last day.

John UK wrote:
You ask, "Why does God do that?" I do not know. Any theologians help out with that?

Dwayne wrote:
So you think some people will not even be able to get saved?
I thought God so loved the WORLD.

However, according to Romans 3:11, none seek after God. That is the sad state of affairs in this fallen world. The call to salvation is universal but most choose to die in their sin. Many are called but few are chosen. Matt 22:14. Read the parable of the marriage feast in Matthew 22:1-14. This sad state of affairs in man's rejection of a Saviour is exactly what is being communicated.

Like I said, it's the text itself that you have to grapple with.

Dwayne wrote:
That is correct! i just belive that all people will be drawn by God at some point in time.

Dwayne wrote:
. I will tell you one thing i am not a robot. I have the full right to believe or not to believe.
I CHOOSE to believe therefore i am saved!

No, I think you missed a step in there. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37 You may have the action in the second part of that verse recognized but once the Father drew you, you couldn't nor wouldn't want anything else. Also, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me drawm him: and I will raise him up oat the last day." John 6:44 So, the initiating action is from the Father and you became the willing participant.

John for Jesus wrote:
Jim...Calvin used poor reasoning. Instead then trying to figure out what was confusing him through reason, he should have let scripture interpret scripture.

Christ is my Lord wrote:
"Calvinists" do not want to burn at the stake, but they want truth taught, truth that has drastically effected their view of God and His sovereignty! I believe this truth creates a more thankful humble believer, our atleast it should.

one Book wrote:
I did not say there were "REVISIONS"
Please do not lie to make your point.
There were *ZERO* - *NO* - revisions of the KJV from 1611 till today.
The majority of modern versions have used the Westcott and Hort - Nestle-Aland Greek text. W&H are the Anglican Liberal heretics to which I refer below.

one Book wrote:
There have been some minor word and grammar amendments to the King James Version since 1611...

one Book wrote:
I would "exclude" modern versions with the W&H text, because the Holy Spirit would not use the heretical input of popish sympathising, Scripture rejecting Liberals to "compete" with the existing published Word of God, namely the KJV.

John UK wrote:
There is a world of difference between someone who reads and studies only the KJV, because he believes it is the most accurate translation we have in print today, and those who have developed some bizarre and illogical doctrines about the AV1611, who are known generally as KJV-Onlyists.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
many who support King James Onlyism mean just that, not all of course, but I don't see how you can't run into those here on SA who are closed minded as any cultist, and these cultists love to quote those writers that James White speaks of,

I'm also familiar with the cultist mind having been in a cult-like church for years. The Lord graciously brought my wife and I out and opened our eyes to the truth of His word. It is remarkable how tenaciously the cult influenced mind holds on to certain ideas in order to validate and protect itself.

To your point regarding writers that James White has quoted: another thing that baffles me is how one can keep putting their trust in those who have been fully exposed (in print) as misrepresenting (inadvertently at best and deliberately at worst) others to build their case. And then how caustic some of these people can be. Even the KJV can not be misunderstood on what John fully communicated in his epistles regarding love for the brethren. Yes, even after being immersed in a cult-like church for so many years, this really baffles me.