God wanted but Jerusalem was not willing

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often I have desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" Mathew 23:37

What is irresistable about God's call there?

People can and do resist God's will and call for salvation. it's not irresistable.

here's another thought:
"whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven". It doesn't say "whatsoever is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth."
this implies that we are co-creators with God for His plan on earth. We have input, not just marching orders.

 

Not so we are not co creators with God. Where did you get such a notion?
MB

 

I assume therefore that you never pray for anyone to be saved. Why would you? According to you, God might try His best, but He can't save anyone. Or if He can, He doesn't love them enough to do it.

 

why not? we do it anyway.

 

that's the risk of free will.

 

Because God is the creator alone. We do not create from nothing. We use what God has already created
CREATE, v.t. [L.]
1. To produce; to bring into being from nothing; to cause to exist.

We build from God's creation. We do not create.
MB

 

I always liked the way JRR Tolkien explained it, in his "theory" of subcreation.

 

Talk about misrepresenting someones post. And intentionally as well.

 

@Ran the Man doesn't seem to think so.

 

I'll take that.

 

You being a Calvinist would be the one who would not pray. According to Calvinist; if it's meant to be, it will be, Man has no choice in the matter. According to Calvinist, man cannot be saved unless they are elect. Men can pray for Salvation and God would not hear them. You have to deny most of scripture in order to come to these conclusions.
MB

 

Fatalism is more complicated than that.

Basically speaking there are two common viewpoints.

The first is held by most Atheists and full Arminians. Basically people are just the some of their inputs/environment. Humans react in a certain way to certain stimuli. The stimuli and reactions are very complicated and nuanced. Only an omniscient God knows who will end up being serving him or not based off of the stimuli. So once God starts it going, he know how everything will end even though he won't mess with our choices.

The second is held by Calvinists and most Muslims. Take the same case as the Arminians except no one is going to end up serving God. Now we all had the same "free-choice" that the Armenians had, except things are gloomier in that if God doesn't intercede, no one is going to end up following him. Now we will react to the stimuli still and feel "in control". But it is only an illusion because God already knows we will fail in the end. It's not that he really prevents us from succeeding, He just knows he will fail.

It's like my playing chess against a grand master. I've already failed before I began. The grandmaster didn't force me to fail or prevent me from making the right moves, I just didn't stand a chance.

But God then intercedes and gives some humans "new hearts". This changes the reaction of the humans to stimuli in a manner which they will serve God.

"Men can pray for Salvation and God would not hear them." is therefore not believed by Calvinists. Or at least not from what I can tell from the few books by R.C. Sproul I have read. Calvinists believe that such people are doing so because God has chosen them or because they are trying to fool other people who are listening.

"Man has no choice in the matter." is also not true. Man had the choices he would normally have made. These choices without God's intercession would lead him to Hell.

"a Calvinist would be the one who would not pray." A Calvinist would believe that praying is a sign of being the elect, so they would definitely pray. The only difference is that many of the prayers would sound like the prayer of a Stoic.

"You have to deny most of scripture in order to come to these conclusions." I wish the scriptures were definitive one way or the other on this, but they aren't. There is a way to read the Bible which doesn't counteract any part of TULIP. I don't read the Bible that way, but many do.