Oh, oh.  Watch out, Dream.  I think we may be finding some common ground here.  Are you suggesting in the post above that God's call is irresistible?  (Oh, by the way, I wasn't successful in opening the link you provided).  That it is His work that changes a person's heart toward Him?

Uhhhhh, No I was posting the definition of  irresistible grace by Clavinism.. You said that it was not forced.. The post shows that according to Calvinsism it is.

I think you and I will simply agree to disagree here, then.  If you posted a response before to this passage, then why not point whoever has quoted this passage to you, in this case, myself, to it?  That is my dismay, here, and I've seen you characteristically use this method to the frustration of many others here.

There is nothing necessary to "back up" a passage when it says on its face what it is profferred to say, it is not a "claim" as you say.  Should you disagree that that passage says what it is profferred to say, it is not the responsibility of the one who first proferred it to establish your own position or belief about that scripture by being led by you, especially when you refuse to enunciate your own belief about it, i.e., you refuse to declare it.  As long as that scripture is not in some conclusory way dealt with by a responder such as you(other than by doing nothing else but ask questions and in addition, asking one to "go study"), it stands.  And it does stand, and it illustrates beautifully the irresistable grace of God, among many other scriptures, and will continue to do so in the absence of a declaration from you as to why it does not.

I will discuss your position gladly when you declare it specifically in response to this scripture I have profferred to you.

Like I said, you made the claim Im sure based on a doctrine you have been taught... Explain to me why you believe that verse means what you claim it means.. You made the claim, its up to you to prove it.

Its not enough just to claim the passage means what you say it does.. Tell us why if you can.. Dont just make a claim.. Back it up.

Getting tired of this..You posted the scripture Romans 9:16-20 and claimed they prove irresitable grace yet you refuse to tell us why you think this... Do you know or are you just passing along what you were taught?

Can you prove your claims?? Can you discuss the passage at all?

Dream, I'm so sorry, but quite frankly I don't care whether you're tired of this, it really isn't even relevant, and it's wholly within your own control.  You place yourself here skirting issues with those you engage, and it is a characteristic of your  engagement, not just with me, but with everyone here. 

There is no need to back up a statement from Paul that asks "who can resist His will?", Dream.  That is the back-up.  Do you therefore simply reject that out of hand?  If someone can resist His will, then that would certainly contradict this statment of Paul.

In the final analysis, any resistance of man can at anytime be trumped by an all-powerful God that will harden and will soften, as his will and discretion dictate to him.  This passage is crystal clear in this regard, and your proposition that the Holy Spirit can be resisted falls in light of this passage, unless you can show this passage really only applies circumstantially.  The passage needs no "back-up" in this essential understanding.
Once you have otherwise shown it does not speak to the resistance of man to God, it stands.

None of these questions make a point in my mind, Dream, that's just the point.  What is your point?  Just say it.  I'm simply not understanding your behavior in this regard.  How is someone else supposed to know your own defensive posture?  God's motives are not in issue here.  The issue brought up by you is the ability of man to resist Him.  The ability of man to resist the Holy Spirit.  If no one anywhere, ever, at anytime in the history of mankind has ever been able to or can resist God's will, and cannot do so because of the fundamental nature of man before an all knowing, powerful, and present God, then God's motives behind the hardening of Pharoah are only secondary, unless you can bring out of your mind for all of us here what you are attempting to say and argue about Pharoah.  What is it?

Of course not, Dream, and this is not at all what is in issue here.  When God Himself intends by his own design something to happen in a man, it will happen.  That is the issue.  Man's resistance to that intent garnered upon him by a move of God is nothing, it acts for naught.


Again, all of these questions skirt the issue you have placed before this board, that being man's ability to resist the will of God being moved against him, in whatever situation.
It cannot and never will withstand or resist whatever God intends to accomplish in that particular individual, if God has placed that upon him.  If this were not true, then the passage I have placed before you from Romans, in which Paul spends his concerted energy defending God's own choices to bring to pass what he determines in spite of man's resistance in any given instance, really is not only a lie, it makes no sense.


What about it, Dream, what is the point you are trying to make with it?  It does not contradict what Paul has said in the Romans passage, unless you can fashion an argument that it does youself, which is what I'm trying to get you to do so that I can understand where you are coming from.


Of course not, and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?


That's fine, Paul was not referencing Pharoah in that Romans passage to establish a truth about salvation, was he?  If he was, what is it that you think Paul was saying through Pharoah about salvation?  He used him to show that once God decides to move on an individual, He will not be resisted.  It really is not complicated.  And what ever it is you think I would have understood answering your "1st set of questions", I'm still at a loss as to the points you wish to make with Pharoah?  What are these points you are making.  It would be more logical  from my standpoint to blame you for not simply stating your own beliefs, declarations, and conclusions, rather than blaming me for not answering questions that have absolutely no meaning to me in the context of the issue under discussion.  Then there would have been no basis for your frustration.  You seem to relish blaming other people on this forum for not answering your questions, yet you don't render them the courtesy to simply respond in kind to them on the basis of declarative statements, ever.