Calvinism Vs Arminianism

[Manu]

Is there any accurate exegetical verses which would debunk some if not all the 5 points of Calvinism? or the 5 Points of Arminianism?

I personally abandoned the Arminian view over a year ago, and I say that so to be honest.

I hope this will be a good long discussion

For those who do not know the 5 points are here:

Calvinism

T - Total Depravity (Man cannot of himself respond to the gospel/he is dead in sin)

U -Unconditional Election - God has chosen some unto salvation not based on anything we have done including knowledge of foreknown events

L - Limited Atonement - (Also known as Particular Redemption) That Christ died only for the one's he has chosen. Not for every person that ever lived or will live

I - Irresistible Grace- God's saving work in someone cannot be resisted but that such grace will result in salvation

P - Perseverance of the Sains- (also known as Eternal Security) Those who are born again can never lose their salvation

Arminianism

1)Partial Depravity - Man is able to respond to the gospel on his own and that he is not dead spiritually but rather sick
2)Conditional Election - God chooses those who he foresaw would choose him/or generate their own faith/ or would be a good candidate (There are different views in Arminianism to this)
3)Unlimited Atonement- Christ died for every single person that ever lived or will live
4)Resistable Grace- God is unable to bring someone to salvation who is unwilling to be saved
5)*Eternal Security* This point is divided among Arminians. Some say God only chooses those he knows will never fall away hence Eternal Security, or that those who willingly choose God, God in return chooses them and will never let them go. Still others deny this point; and lastly Arminius' followers were not certain about it. (Arminius believed in Eternal Security) [/b]

[Skyler]

When Jesus knocked Paul off his horse.

Lol.... Still no scripture, and this never happened.

Acts 19. I'm sorry, I had assumed you were familiar with the reference.

You're gravely mistaken. There is no account of Jesus knocking Paul of a horse in Acts 19. If I were you, I would be careful presenting scripture that doesn't exist. It severely hurts your argument.

My apologies, that was a typo. It's Acts 9:

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

And the story goes on; Jesus ordered Ananias to go to Saul and explain what he needed to do.

He also commands us to be perfect as He is perfect. Clearly, this is impossible for humans! We need God's divine intervention to enable us to reach toward that state of perfection.

That doesn't mean we are all to be perfect in every way. Jesus is speaking of heart perfection, or a perfect love. Again, God doesn't make impossible requests. Study Matthew 5:48 in context and you will see. Compare the verse to another, Matthew 9:21: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Is Jesus really commanding the person to be a perfect human being? No. Jesus is speaking of a perfect heart of love, not a perfect person.

And is it possible for a human to have a perfect heart of love, without God's divine providence?

The reason why Arminians say God can't randomly send humans beings to hell is because scripture plainly tells us he is a just and fair God. Calvinists cannot give a reason why God cannot grant genuine free will.

I didn't say he cannot. I said he doesn't. He is a just and fair God. That being the case, why should he save anyone? That's really the question. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He's under no obligation to save anyone. If he chooses to save some, all, or none, he's perfectly within his rights to do so.

Let's get this straight. When you say "He doesn't" you are trying to make an absolute statement about God that you don't know to be true. In other words, you are giving Him an attribute that you want to give Him.

You're correct.

Why should He save anyone? Because His Word says He doesn't want anyone to perish, thus, He wants to save everyone. If a person thinks from their head, then sure, it would be hard to see why he would want to save scum like us. However, If a person reads the Bible, it's all clear. He loves us. Therefore, He does not want us to go to a place made only for Satan and his angels. If God has shown great mercy, and extended the opportunity to be saved to all (which He has), why are you questioning Him? Be thankful!

I'm not questioning Him. I'm questioning whether or not you heard Him correctly. He didn't say he wants to extend the opportunity of salvation to everyone, he said he wants to save everyone. Again, why doesn't he?

He's not lying, he's telling you how he saw it--deceived by his sin, as he just said.

So,.. you're saying he had the law, but he was deceived into thinking he wasn't breaking it?.. That interpretation doesn't make sense at all. You said previously that none of has has an excuse. So which is it? Innocent or guilty?

Guilty. It's entirely possible to know something and yet believe the opposite. It's called self-deception and crops up quite frequently.

Some if not all babies are saved, because God in his grace mercifully chose to elect them to salvation. Not because they had some inherent "goodness" in and of themselves.

We've already established from Romans 7 that sin is dead without the law. So, since sin is not present to infants who don't have the law, then God can grant them heaven. Isaiah 59:2 specifically says that sin separates us from God. If sin is dead, then it cannot separate us.

No, we're still debating Romans 7. Let's hold on to that argument and see what comes of the Romans 7 passage first.

So then, the verse "What better than for a man to give his life for his brother?" doesn't apply to eternal life, just physical life? If we really believe that we can prevent people from going to hell by killing them before they're born, then why shouldn't we forgo our eternal salvation in exchange for tens if not hundreds of others?

Oh my. I'm not even sure how to respond to that. You really think God wants us to break one of the commandments by committing suicide? What exactly are you arguing here? Sorry, I dont' get it... moving on...

All right, let me break it down for you.

1. If a person dies in infancy, he or she will go to heaven.
2. Therefore, if we want to maximize the number of people that go to heaven, we should maximize the number of people that are killed in infancy.
3. Killing people, even infants, is murder. If we do so, we are guilty, and will go to Hell accordingly.
4. If we kill even two infants, that is a return of 200% on our investment of our soul. Two people went to heaven, and one went to hell.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In the interests of getting the most people possible to heaven, we should kill the most people possible before they are born. Sure, we'll go to hell, but many more who may have otherwise rejected Him will be living happily in heaven.

Why is this scenario invalid--or is it?

So, if we fall away from the faith, we're lost for good. That's the problem this runs into--scripturally, that's the conclusion we're forced to reach.

No. I using scripture to prove free will of Lot's wife, that's all.

And, I explained why that was not necessarily the case.

And yes, it's very clear in scripture that we can abandon our faith, after we are saved, and become lost again. I don't have time to post all of the scriptures urging us to "run the race", "keep the faith",.. etc.. or we will not make heaven. But if you so desire, I can post some verses proving a conditional security. (Ez. 3:20, Ex. 32:33, Is. 63:8-10, Rom. 8:13, Heb. 10:26, Matt. 24:13, Luke 9:62, Matt. 5:13... and many more)

These are more conditionals, to distinguish the non-elect from the elect. There will be many who come claiming the name of Christian, even doing miracles in Jesus' name; but not everyone who claims to be one is one. These are ways we can tell those who aren't from those who are.

Again, I'm not claiming that those who fall away were intentionally deceiving you. I mentioned self-deception before; this may or may not apply here as well.

That's what those verses in Romans 9 said.

I disagree. If they do then where?

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Actually, perhaps I was mistaken. It says he endured with longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, distinguishing them from those "vessels of mercy" which he then explains are those whom he hath called. So perhaps in this context it's not referring to all mankind, but only those who don't come to a saving faith. Which, still, doesn't imply allowing those vessels of wrath to choose--in fact it implies exactly the opposite.

1 Timothy 1:16 - "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting."

Okay, that doesn't contradict anything I've said...

If you think so, then you're deliberately ignoring the true context of the verse to hang on to your doctrine.

You're correct in that I originally misread the verse. However, all this says is that Christ is longsuffering towards those who will believe. It nowhere implies choice.

2 Peter 3:9 says, He is "longsuffering to us-ward..." Meaning all sinners.

Exactly...

Lol. Thanks for agreeing.

You're welcome.

"Whom he hath called" of the Jews and Gentiles. Not all of them.

Nice try, but scripture says He calls all men. Some accept, some refuse.

Where?

You're misunderstanding me. When we meet the conditions, we know that we are of the elect. But we were predestined "before the founding of the world".

Good! I'm so glad you agree that it's us that has to meet the conditions, not God repenting for us. Now we're getting somewhere. And yes, God planned for us to be with Him in heaven before the foundation of the world. However, now we have to accept Him to fulfill our destiny. If we don't accept, like I keep repeating, we will go to a place where we were not predestined to go, as Isaiah clearly says.

So in other words, you're saying that mankind can thwart God's perfect will?

I did. I pointed you to verses that said that mankind was "wicked from the womb", "dead in trespasses and sins", etc. You dismissed them as "not applicable".

No, I addressed them, and showed how they were being misinterpreted. You may bring up any verse you like. As Timothy said, "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:� These two verse mean that we were born into a cursed world, and because of our own willful sin, we will die the spiritual death if we don't choose God.

Yes, we were born into a cursed world. And, as products of that cursed world, we too are cursed and destined for hell unless someone pays our fine for us. As I mentioned, the verse in Luke indicates that even unconscious sin will be punished.

If God did not send anyone to hell, he would not be the righteous Judge. Because of man's sin, he cannot be righteous and just and allow him to live, unless someone has paid his fine for him. That's where Jesus comes in.

And, even if it is an atheistic question, as you said every Christian needs to be able to answer it. So get crackin'.

I did answer it, and I'm waiting for a rebuttle.

You said only that "We send ourselves to hell". That's like saying a criminal sends himself to jail. Yes, he commits the crime, but the judge is the one who sentences him. Not himself.

The problem is not that you're apologizing for presenting truth. The problem is that you're unintentionally corrupting the truth of the Gospel, by failing to learn from the mistakes of the past Church.

Accuse me of what you want. I'm only presenting what the Bible says. Period.

So do flat-earth believers, when they point to the verses that talk about the angel standing on the "four corners of the earth".

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.

You're reading this verse out of context. Jesus is not speaking of eternal things. He is speaking of blessing and talents given here on earth. This says nothing about the saved or unsaved, but rather ones who are given more spiritual gifts than others here on earth.

Umm... what? So then what are these things "worthy of stripes" that the servants are doing?

The Calvinist position is that fallen man will always, and freely, choose death over life. It is impossible for him to do otherwise in the same way that it's impossible for God to lie. It's contrary to his nature.

So, if it was against Adam's nature to sin, how did he choose to do so? Was Adam some kind of different human being? Don't think so.

It was Adam's nature to have that free will which you are so fond of ascribing to everyone. Unconstrained by a prior Curse, he chose to do so of his own free will. And, yes, he was a different human being--he wasn't suffering from the effects of sin.

Why has God given all men a conscience, and why would men every follow it?

Every man wouldn't follow it. That's because of the Curse and the sin nature passed down by Adam.

And again, what was the name tree in the garden that Adam and Eve at the fruit from?........

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I'm referring to John 6:44.

Yeah, I've read the verse.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REST OF THE PASSAGE, Jesus is saying that he came to do the Father's will--and that is, that he not lose one of those whom the Father has given him. If it is the case that Jesus will not lose any the Father draws to him, and the Father draws all men, then why are any lost?

You're referring to John 6:39. Dont' confuse God's will with God's decree. Remember, it's also His will that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9) But do they? Of course. So we know God leaves the decision up to us.

So then you're saying that God decreed who would be saved and who wouldn't? Isn't that what I'm saying?

Ephesians 2:1 says "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;". Ephesians 2:5 says "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)". Why would we have been "quickened" (literally "reanimated") if we weren't dead? How much clearer does it need to be?

Like I cleared up earlier, "Dead in sin" means we are "as good as dead" because we will suffer spiritual death, not that we are dead in the context of being unable to respond to the gospel. If that were true, then God would never ask anyone to make a choice. However, we know He does.

"As good as dead" does not necessitate reanimation. "Dead" necessitates reanimation.

I agree. We are to blame. That doesn't explain why he didn't universally pardon everyone, even if they were to blame.

Of course it does. He wants us to choose Him on our own will. I'm starting to think you may never realize this.

If it was the case that he actually didn't want anyone to perish, then why, for that matter, even create a universe in which some would perish? EVEN IF IT WAS of their own free will? Why would he give them the choice, fully knowing they would choose death?

Sounds like we're getting back to atheism. Let's see.. the basics...

Why did God create the universe?....

I'm extremely flattered that you expect that kind of an answer out of me. Hahahaha.. but the truth is,.. I can't answer that. However, it doesn't prove that free will doesn't exist. (If you were an atheist,.. I would say, "it doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. You're not an atheist, right?)

No, I'm not an atheist.

But, my worldview has an answer which is consistent with its interpretation of Scripture. Does yours?

Excuse me? I thought you were a semi-Pelagian. Now I find you're a universalist? How is sending someone to hell contrary to any of God's attributes?

(sigh)... Because it's not His plan, His will, or His desire. Clear enough?? He judges fairly.

Then why did you say it was?

I agree. We can't save ourselves. But again, there are clear conditions to receiving the gift of salvation. Repentance, belief, faith, etc... Your doctrine either ignores these, or says they are forced upon us.

They are not ignored. Rather, they are outcroppings of the state of being elect--much like one is not a Christian because he has the fruits of the Spirit, but he has the fruits of the Spirit because he is a Christian. I don't think you'd say the fruits of the Spirit are forced upon us.

"Outcroppings"... I think you mean conditions, which is contrary to your doctrine.

Nope, I wouldn't say the Fruits of the Spirit are forced upon us. They are voluntary, and necessary to maintain salvation.

I don't think it's said that they're necessary to maintain salvation. Only that they are the fruits of salvation--what will come inevitably out of a regenerated life. And no, I mean outcroppings. "Fruits" if you will.

[Andymc7]

My apologies, that was a typo. It's Acts 9:

Ok, now that we have the proper passage, let's see if Jesus disregards Paul's or Ananias' free will...

In verse 6 Paul asks "what wilt thou have me do?" indicating a willing heart.
In verse 10 Ananias says "Behold, I am here, Lord" also indicating a willingness to serve.

There are many verse saying that people were unwilling to heed to the command of God (Deut. 1:26, Is. 30:9, Matt. 23:37). Why? you guessed it. Free will. Just because God makes a request, doesn't mean the person is forced to do it.

And the story goes on; Jesus ordered Ananias to go to Saul and explain what he needed to do.

This doesn't prove election in any way, as I previously explained.

And is it possible for a human to have a perfect heart of love, without God's divine providence?

Yes. Why isn't it? Can't we love everyone?.. 1 John 3:15 says, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer". As Christians we can truly love everyone, and have a desire for them to not go to hell. Actually, we're commanded to. God causes us to have a genuine love for others. Can we resist if we want, and hate someone? Sure.

Let's get this straight. When you say "He doesn't" you are trying to make an absolute statement about God that you don't know to be true. In other words, you are giving Him an attribute that you want to give Him.

You're correct.

Ok, so instead of condemning you, let me just ask: Do you see that as idolatry? Is this creating a god in your own mind to suite your needs, instead of the God of the Bible?

I'm not questioning Him. I'm questioning whether or not you heard Him correctly.

Well, all I'm doing is reading His Word. It's pretty plain to me.

He didn't say he wants to extend the opportunity of salvation to everyone, he said he wants to save everyone. Again, why doesn't he?

I've already answered that... I feel we may be starting to repeat ourselves, thus getting nowhere.. moving on....

So,.. you're saying he had the law, but he was deceived into thinking he wasn't breaking it?.. That interpretation doesn't make sense at all. You said previously that none of has has an excuse. So which is it? Innocent or guilty?

Guilty. It's entirely possible to know something and yet believe the opposite. It's called self-deception and crops up quite frequently.

Great, I'm glad you agree that we are accountable for our own actions.

...we're still debating Romans 7. Let's hold on to that argument and see what comes of the Romans 7 passage first.

When you present a response, then we can hold on to it. Otherwise, the debate is dead.. like sin without the law.

1. If a person dies in infancy, he or she will go to heaven.
2. Therefore, if we want to maximize the number of people that go to heaven, we should maximize the number of people that are killed in infancy.

For some strange reason, your shifting the authority of life over to us. Why? We have no right to others' lives. God does.

3. Killing people, even infants, is murder. If we do so, we are guilty, and will go to Hell accordingly.
4. If we kill even two infants, that is a return of 200% on our investment of our soul. Two people went to heaven, and one went to hell.

That's a very illogical way to look at it. Again, you're putting us in place of God, for some odd reason. This argument doesn't apply to Calvinism, or anything for that matter.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In the interests of getting the most people possible to heaven, we should kill the most people possible before they are born. Sure, we'll go to hell, but many more who may have otherwise rejected Him will be living happily in heaven. Why is this scenario invalid--or is it?

Because, like I said, you are putting us in the position of God. Not good. Can you just think about what you just wrote? "we should kill"? Um... no we shouldn't. God says it's sin. Sure, we would go to hell to save 2, I get it. But it's not God's will for us to do that, obviously.

I won't respond to this argument any more, it's absurd... now, to proceed..

And, I explained why that was not necessarily the case.

I don't believe so. Lot's wife was supposed to be saved. It was God's will. She looked back on her own will, thus refusing God's will.

And yes, it's very clear in scripture that we can abandon our faith, after we are saved, and become lost again. I don't have time to post all of the scriptures urging us to "run the race", "keep the faith",.. etc.. or we will not make heaven. But if you so desire, I can post some verses proving a conditional security. (Ez. 3:20, Ex. 32:33, Is. 63:8-10, Rom. 8:13, Heb. 10:26, Matt. 24:13, Luke 9:62, Matt. 5:13... and many more)

These are more conditionals, to distinguish the non-elect from the elect. There will be many who come claiming the name of Christian, even doing miracles in Jesus' name; but not everyone who claims to be one is one. These are ways we can tell those who aren't from those who are.

You're deliberately misinterpreting scripture. We will not be ultimately saved until we reach heaven. The Bible is beyond clear about that.

Again, I'm not claiming that those who fall away were intentionally deceiving you. I mentioned self-deception before; this may or may not apply here as well.

I agree that some will be false teachers, but you're making a false assumption by claiming that applies to everyone. No, some are truly converted, then lose their salvation.

Actually, perhaps I was mistaken. It says he endured with longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, distinguishing them from those "vessels of mercy" which he then explains are those whom he hath called. So perhaps in this context it's not referring to all mankind, but only those who don't come to a saving faith. Which, still, doesn't imply allowing those vessels of wrath to choose--in fact it implies exactly the opposite.

You've just admitted to a condition, that again, we are responsible for.

You're correct in that I originally misread the verse. However, all this says is that Christ is longsuffering towards those who will believe. It nowhere implies choice.

Your interpretation is completely illogical and inaccurate. Why would God be patient with people who's already been saved?.. What exactly would He be waiting on?

scripture says He calls all men. Some accept, some refuse.

Where?

Well, since I truly want you to know the truth, I will post more for you... (I hope you don't think I'm just trying to prove myself right, I really want you to have the truth. It sets you free, as you know.)

1 Corinthians 7:17 – “But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one�

2 Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ..."

Acts 17:30 - “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent"

Revelation 22:17 – “And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Matthew 9:13 - "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Are we not all sinners?)

So in other words, you're saying that mankind can thwart God's perfect will?

You make it sound like I think man has power over God, which I do not believe. What I believe is God has granted us genuine free will, and therefore we can resist God's will, because He gives us that choice.

Yes, we were born into a cursed world. And, as products of that cursed world, we too are cursed and destined for hell unless someone pays our fine for us. As I mentioned, the verse in Luke indicates that even unconscious sin will be punished.

I totally agree with the first two lines. I totally disagree that the verse about the beatings applies to eternal destiny. Jesus is talking about expecting more from people here on earth who have been blessed more than others. Again, God will not punish those who cannot comprehend the law, and you agree.

You said only that "We send ourselves to hell". That's like saying a criminal sends himself to jail. Yes, he commits the crime, but the judge is the one who sentences him. Not himself.

I agree, but you're twisting words. Yes, in essence, the criminal does send himself to jail, because he's responsible for what he's done. However, that doesn't mean we have the authority to decide what our punishment is. It's like this: We choose right or wrong, then God chooses the punishment.

So do flat-earth believers, when they point to the verses that talk about the angel standing on the "four corners of the earth".

Lol. What does "flat-earth" have to do with anything? (Besides, Isaiah 40:22 says, "...he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...". That's thousands of years before "scientists" knew the earth was a sphere". They should have just read the Bible. Hahaha..)

Umm... what? So then what are these things "worthy of stripes" that the servants are doing?

He was specifically addressing earthly matters, not heavenly. An example would be someone speeding when they didn't know they were. They would still be punished by the law. Don't try to make these words by Jesus out to mean God will send innocent babies to hell.

It was Adam's nature to have that free will which you are so fond of ascribing to everyone. Unconstrained by a prior Curse, he chose to do so of his own free will. And, yes, he was a different human being--he wasn't suffering from the effects of sin.

I've heard people claim that Adam was different, but it's simply not true. Deuteronomy 32:8 calls us "the sons of Adam". 1 Corinthians 15:45 says Adam was made with a "living soul". Please remember, that after the fall Adam and Eve were specifically described as knowing good and evil. Yes, they were corrupted by sin, but were not unable to make the moral choice to come to God. And, I'm not the not the one ascribing free will to all, God is and He did. Just read His Word.

Why has God given all men a conscience, and why would men every follow it?

Every man wouldn't follow it. That's because of the Curse and the sin nature passed down by Adam.

No, that's because we have a choice, as Adam did.

And again, what was the name tree in the garden that Adam and Eve at the fruit from?........

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Exactly. Not the "tree of total depravity"

You're referring to John 6:39. Dont' confuse God's will with God's decree. Remember, it's also His will that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9) But do they? Of course. So we know God leaves the decision up to us.
[/quote]

So then you're saying that God decreed who would be saved and who wouldn't? Isn't that what I'm saying?

No. I'm not saying it was His decree. I'm saying it's His will, or desire.

"As good as dead" does not necessitate reanimation. "Dead" necessitates reanimation.

Sure it does. God looks to the future. He's referring to eternal life, not the present. He knows we might as well be dead if we continue in our present sinful state. We won't ultimately "die" until we receive our eternal sentence, if you will.

No, I'm not an atheist.

Phew,.. what a relief! Those people are hard to reason with. Hahaha You, on the other hand, are just slightly hard to reason with .. hehe

But, my worldview has an answer which is consistent with its interpretation of Scripture. Does yours?

Yes.

(sigh)... Because it's not His plan, His will, or His desire. Clear enough?? He judges fairly.
[/quote]

Then why did you say it was?

I never said His will was to send people to hell. I'm arguing against it. Do you know what you're arguing?

"Outcroppings"... I think you mean conditions, which is contrary to your doctrine.

Nope, I wouldn't say the Fruits of the Spirit are forced upon us. They are voluntary, and necessary to maintain salvation.

Wow. My mouth just literally flew open. You just really sounded Arminian. Hahaha.. This discussion must be doing some good.

I don't think it's said that they're necessary to maintain salvation.

But... you just said they were, remember?

Only that they are the fruits of salvation--what will come inevitably out of a regenerated life. And no, I mean outcroppings. "Fruits" if you will.

So again, you say that we have no choice but to manifest the Fruits of the Spirit, if we're saved. I disagree. Salvation does not destroy free will.

Let me say too, that you've been great to discuss this with. I've learned a lot myself. So thanks.

Andy

[Skyler]

My apologies, that was a typo. It's Acts 9:

Ok, now that we have the proper passage, let's see if Jesus disregards Paul's or Ananias' free will...

In verse 6 Paul asks "what wilt thou have me do?" indicating a willing heart.
In verse 10 Ananias says "Behold, I am here, Lord" also indicating a willingness to serve.

There are many verse saying that people were unwilling to heed to the command of God (Deut. 1:26, Is. 30:9, Matt. 23:37). Why? you guessed it. Free will. Just because God makes a request, doesn't mean the person is forced to do it.

Remember in Exodus when it says both that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and "God hardened Pharaoh's heart". If Pharaoh really had free will, then how can we say that God hardened his heart?

And is it possible for a human to have a perfect heart of love, without God's divine providence?

Yes. Why isn't it? Can't we love everyone?.. 1 John 3:15 says, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer". As Christians we can truly love everyone, and have a desire for them to not go to hell. Actually, we're commanded to. God causes us to have a genuine love for others. Can we resist if we want, and hate someone? Sure.

But can non-Christians have a love for everyone? I'm saying that without God's grace, it is impossible to be "perfect in love".

Let's get this straight. When you say "He doesn't" you are trying to make an absolute statement about God that you don't know to be true. In other words, you are giving Him an attribute that you want to give Him.

You're correct.

Ok, so instead of condemning you, let me just ask: Do you see that as idolatry? Is this creating a god in your own mind to suite your needs, instead of the God of the Bible?

My statement wasn't quite accurate. I think I'm doing a little too much speed-reading and not getting the meaning of what you're saying.

You are correct in that I'm applying that attribute to him. But, I believe that attribute to be consistent with what I read in the Bible; in addition, it's not that I don't know it to be true. As far as I have learned from my study of God's word, that is true.

1. If a person dies in infancy, he or she will go to heaven.
2. Therefore, if we want to maximize the number of people that go to heaven, we should maximize the number of people that are killed in infancy.

For some strange reason, your shifting the authority of life over to us. Why? We have no right to others' lives. God does.

I'm not saying we have a right to do that. I'm saying it's possible to do that.

3. Killing people, even infants, is murder. If we do so, we are guilty, and will go to Hell accordingly.
4. If we kill even two infants, that is a return of 200% on our investment of our soul. Two people went to heaven, and one went to hell.

That's a very illogical way to look at it. Again, you're putting us in place of God, for some odd reason. This argument doesn't apply to Calvinism, or anything for that matter.

No, it doesn't apply to Calvinism, I know. It applies to your view of the age of accountability. And, in the interests of "saving" those people, why shouldn't we "put ourselves in the place of God"? Wouldn't they go to heaven anyway?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In the interests of getting the most people possible to heaven, we should kill the most people possible before they are born. Sure, we'll go to hell, but many more who may have otherwise rejected Him will be living happily in heaven. Why is this scenario invalid--or is it?

Because, like I said, you are putting us in the position of God. Not good. Can you just think about what you just wrote? "we should kill"? Um... no we shouldn't. God says it's sin. Sure, we would go to hell to save 2, I get it. But it's not God's will for us to do that, obviously.

I thought you said it was God's will for the most people possible to go to heaven. You keep pushing that "will" back behind first his will that man should have free will, and now behind his will that man shouldn't murder. How much farther are you going to push it?

And, I explained why that was not necessarily the case.

I don't believe so. Lot's wife was supposed to be saved. It was God's will. She looked back on her own will, thus refusing God's will.

At this point it's turning more into a war of assertions than logical reasoning. Let's drop this point for now.

And yes, it's very clear in scripture that we can abandon our faith, after we are saved, and become lost again. I don't have time to post all of the scriptures urging us to "run the race", "keep the faith",.. etc.. or we will not make heaven. But if you so desire, I can post some verses proving a conditional security. (Ez. 3:20, Ex. 32:33, Is. 63:8-10, Rom. 8:13, Heb. 10:26, Matt. 24:13, Luke 9:62, Matt. 5:13... and many more)

These are more conditionals, to distinguish the non-elect from the elect. There will be many who come claiming the name of Christian, even doing miracles in Jesus' name; but not everyone who claims to be one is one. These are ways we can tell those who aren't from those who are.

You're deliberately misinterpreting scripture. We will not be ultimately saved until we reach heaven. The Bible is beyond clear about that.

The Bible is also clear that the earth is flat. IF you mistake human-oriented language for literal truth. We have to remember that the Bible was written from a human perspective. As such, we can't just say that because it makes a given statement that it is always speaking literally. We have to look at it, in the context of other verses, and say "Could this be speaking from a human perspective?"

Again, I'm not claiming that those who fall away were intentionally deceiving you. I mentioned self-deception before; this may or may not apply here as well.

I agree that some will be false teachers, but you're making a false assumption by claiming that applies to everyone. No, some are truly converted, then lose their salvation.

Then, judging by scriptures like John 15:6, they cannot return to their faith.

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Actually, perhaps I was mistaken. It says he endured with longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, distinguishing them from those "vessels of mercy" which he then explains are those whom he hath called. So perhaps in this context it's not referring to all mankind, but only those who don't come to a saving faith. Which, still, doesn't imply allowing those vessels of wrath to choose--in fact it implies exactly the opposite.

You've just admitted to a condition, that again, we are responsible for.

I did not. When I referred to those who don't "come to a saving faith" I referred to the non-elect. It's a fruit, not a condition.

You're correct in that I originally misread the verse. However, all this says is that Christ is longsuffering towards those who will believe. It nowhere implies choice.

Your interpretation is completely illogical and inaccurate. Why would God be patient with people who's already been saved?.. What exactly would He be waiting on?

The fruit to grow?

scripture says He calls all men. Some accept, some refuse.

Where?

Well, since I truly want you to know the truth, I will post more for you... (I hope you don't think I'm just trying to prove myself right, I really want you to have the truth. It sets you free, as you know.)

Thank you. I appreciate it.

1 Corinthians 7:17 – “But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one�

Finish the verse: "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk"

2 Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ..."

That doesn't mean all are called, it means all are judged.

Revelation 22:17 – “And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

And, because free will was corrupted by the Fall, no one will without God's grace.

Matthew 9:13 - "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Are we not all sinners?)

Sinners, saved by grace.

So in other words, you're saying that mankind can thwart God's perfect will?

You make it sound like I think man has power over God, which I do not believe. What I believe is God has granted us genuine free will, and therefore we can resist God's will, because He gives us that choice.

So what you're saying is basically that God has relinquished his absolute control in the ways of men in favor of allowing men to do whatever they want. Then what's the point of intercessory prayer, if God no longer has absolute control?

Yes, we were born into a cursed world. And, as products of that cursed world, we too are cursed and destined for hell unless someone pays our fine for us. As I mentioned, the verse in Luke indicates that even unconscious sin will be punished.

I totally agree with the first two lines. I totally disagree that the verse about the beatings applies to eternal destiny. Jesus is talking about expecting more from people here on earth who have been blessed more than others. Again, God will not punish those who cannot comprehend the law, and you agree.

I did not agree. I said that he will punish even those who did not know what the master's will was. And, that's what John said as well. How do you get from "doing what they were commanded not to" to "not doing what they were commanded to"?

You said only that "We send ourselves to hell". That's like saying a criminal sends himself to jail. Yes, he commits the crime, but the judge is the one who sentences him. Not himself.

I agree, but you're twisting words. Yes, in essence, the criminal does send himself to jail, because he's responsible for what he's done. However, that doesn't mean we have the authority to decide what our punishment is. It's like this: We choose right or wrong, then God chooses the punishment.

So, God IS choosing deliberately to send people to hell?

So do flat-earth believers, when they point to the verses that talk about the angel standing on the "four corners of the earth".

Lol. What does "flat-earth" have to do with anything? (Besides, Isaiah 40:22 says, "...he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...". That's thousands of years before "scientists" knew the earth was a sphere". They should have just read the Bible. Hahaha..)

When was the last time you took geometry? A circle is two-dimensional.

Umm... what? So then what are these things "worthy of stripes" that the servants are doing?

He was specifically addressing earthly matters, not heavenly. An example would be someone speeding when they didn't know they were. They would still be punished by the law. Don't try to make these words by Jesus out to mean God will send innocent babies to hell.

I don't see that he was specifically addressing earthly matters. He was speaking a parable! That's an application of an earthly example to heavenly matters. And I'm not saying he'd send innocent babies to hell. I'm saying there is no such thing as an innocent anything.

It was Adam's nature to have that free will which you are so fond of ascribing to everyone. Unconstrained by a prior Curse, he chose to do so of his own free will. And, yes, he was a different human being--he wasn't suffering from the effects of sin.

I've heard people claim that Adam was different, but it's simply not true. Deuteronomy 32:8 calls us "the sons of Adam". 1 Corinthians 15:45 says Adam was made with a "living soul". Please remember, that after the fall Adam and Eve were specifically described as knowing good and evil. Yes, they were corrupted by sin, but were not unable to make the moral choice to come to God. And, I'm not the not the one ascribing free will to all, God is and He did. Just read His Word.

Just because you know the difference between a supercomputer and a low-end consumer model doesn't mean you have the ability to choose a supercomputer.

And again, what was the name tree in the garden that Adam and Eve at the fruit from?........

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Exactly. Not the "tree of total depravity"

That's like saying "The word 'trinity' doesn't appear in the Bible, so the concept of the trinity is an unbiblical one".

You're referring to John 6:39. Dont' confuse God's will with God's decree. Remember, it's also His will that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9) But do they? Of course. So we know God leaves the decision up to us.

So then you're saying that God decreed who would be saved and who wouldn't? Isn't that what I'm saying?

No. I'm not saying it was His decree. I'm saying it's His will, or desire.
[/quote]

Well, then what did he decree?

"As good as dead" does not necessitate reanimation. "Dead" necessitates reanimation.

Sure it does. God looks to the future. He's referring to eternal life, not the present. He knows we might as well be dead if we continue in our present sinful state. We won't ultimately "die" until we receive our eternal sentence, if you will.

God doesn't "look to the future". He is external to time--the past, present, and future are all the same to him. I think this might be where you're tripping up.

No, I'm not an atheist.

Phew,.. what a relief! Those people are hard to reason with. Hahaha You, on the other hand, are just slightly hard to reason with .. hehe

Just slightly? Drat. I'll have to work on that.

But, my worldview has an answer which is consistent with its interpretation of Scripture. Does yours?

Yes.

Oh, you found one? Last time you said you didn't know.

(sigh)... Because it's not His plan, His will, or His desire. Clear enough?? He judges fairly.

Then why did you say it was?

I never said His will was to send people to hell. I'm arguing against it. Do you know what you're arguing?

I think you probably made a typo, so I'll leave it at that. What you said was that it was contrary to God's established attributes to send people to hell--therefore, if he did send people to hell, he'd be being inconsistent with his own character, which is unbiblical. I suspect what you meant was not "attributes" but "will".

"Outcroppings"... I think you mean conditions, which is contrary to your doctrine.

Nope, I wouldn't say the Fruits of the Spirit are forced upon us. They are voluntary, and necessary to maintain salvation.

Wow. My mouth just literally flew open. You just really sounded Arminian. Hahaha.. This discussion must be doing some good.

That's because YOU said that. XD

I don't think it's said that they're necessary to maintain salvation.

But... you just said they were, remember?

No, you did.

Only that they are the fruits of salvation--what will come inevitably out of a regenerated life. And no, I mean outcroppings. "Fruits" if you will.

So again, you say that we have no choice but to manifest the Fruits of the Spirit, if we're saved. I disagree. Salvation does not destroy free will.

No, the Fall did.

Let me say too, that you've been great to discuss this with. I've learned a lot myself. So thanks.

Andy

You're welcome, Andy.

God bless,

Skyler

[Andymc7]

Remember in Exodus when it says both that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and "God hardened Pharaoh's heart". If Pharaoh really had free will, then how can we say that God hardened his heart?

Quite frankly, I'm tired of explaining the story of Pharaoh. Look to my previous post. Pharaoh's free will with regards to his eternal soul was absolutely not violated.

But can non-Christians have a love for everyone? I'm saying that without God's grace, it is impossible to be "perfect in love".

I agree. With His grace, it is possible. I'm glad we agree.

You are correct in that I'm applying that attribute to him. But, I believe that attribute to be consistent with what I read in the Bible; in addition, it's not that I don't know it to be true. As far as I have learned from my study of God's word, that is true.

Alrite,.. well, I guess I'll have to accept that. I don't agree, but if that's how you interpret it, it looks like I can't change your mind.

I'm not saying we have a right to do that. I'm saying it's possible to do that.

Yeah, it's possible to commit suicide and die and go to hell. I don't see where we disagree here either.

Because, like I said, you are putting us in the position of God. Not good. Can you just think about what you just wrote? "we should kill"? Um... no we shouldn't. God says it's sin. Sure, we would go to hell to save 2, I get it. But it's not God's will for us to do that, obviously.

I thought you said it was God's will for the most people possible to go to heaven. You keep pushing that "will" back behind first his will that man should have free will, and now behind his will that man shouldn't murder. How much farther are you going to push it?

I'm not "pushing" it. These things have already been proven by the Bible.

The Bible is also clear that the earth is flat.

No, it's clear that it's a sphere, and that point is irrelevant.

IF you mistake human-oriented language for literal truth. We have to remember that the Bible was written from a human perspective. As such, we can't just say that because it makes a given statement that it is always speaking literally. We have to look at it, in the context of other verses, and say "Could this be speaking from a human perspective?"

What you're proposing is yet another atheistic approach to the validity of the Bible. The Bible is "God-breathed" and "God-inspired". If you doubt that, then there's other troubles for you. We don't have to try and decipher whether a certain passage is from a human perspective. It's all from God. How can you argue for the Bible, if you don't believe that?

I agree that some will be false teachers, but you're making a false assumption by claiming that applies to everyone. No, some are truly converted, then lose their salvation.

Then, judging by scriptures like John 15:6, they cannot return to their faith."If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

This is an illustration from Jesus telling us that if we abandon our faith, and don't repent, we will go to hell. However, scripture tells us that we can return to the Lord.

Isaiah 55:7 – “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon"

When I referred to those who don't "come to a saving faith" I referred to the non-elect. It's a fruit, not a condition.

I disagree. Coming to Him is our choice. Again, Jesus doesn't repent or believe for us.

Your interpretation is completely illogical and inaccurate. Why would God be patient with people who's already been saved?.. What exactly would He be waiting on?

The fruit to grow?

Nice guess, but the context is addressed to sinners, not saints. How do we know this? Because it says He's not "willing that any should perish". Who perishes? sinners. God is waiting on them to be saved. There's no other accurate interpretation of this scripture (2 Peter 3:9).

1 Corinthians 7:17 – “But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one�

Finish the verse: "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk"

Ok, that's fine. God is asking us to "walk" the straight and narrow way. That's a clear condition of maintaining salvation. The "walking" is a request, not something that's forced.

2 Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ..."

That doesn't mean all are called, it means all are judged.

Yes, all are judged based on whether or not they accepted the call.

Revelation 22:17 – “And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

And, because free will was corrupted by the Fall, no one will without God's grace.

There's not one scripture that says God gives us grace in order to be saved. Salvation comes by hearing the gospel, repenting, and believing. Romans 10:17 says, "Faith cometh by hearing (the gospel)"

Matthew 9:13 - "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Are we not all sinners?)

Sinners, saved by grace.

So you believe in universalism? Everyone's saved by grace? that's definetely not true. To break it down for you: Who is He calling? Sinners. Is everyone a sinner? Yes. Therefore, He calls everyone. Calling isn't the same as saving. He calls, but we have to accept.

So what you're saying is basically that God has relinquished his absolute control in the ways of men in favor of allowing men to do whatever they want. Then what's the point of intercessory prayer, if God no longer has absolute control?

God does not control our free will. That's why it's free. This doesn't make prayer useless, it just proves that God cares about our lives, enough to answer prayer.

I totally agree with the first two lines. I totally disagree that the verse about the beatings applies to eternal destiny. Jesus is talking about expecting more from people here on earth who have been blessed more than others. Again, God will not punish those who cannot comprehend the law, and you agree.

I did not agree.

One of the first verses you posted was Romans 7:9 that says, "when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." You were trying to convince me that instead of Paul speaking of the age of accountability, he was talking about before he was saved, which is untrue. "Sin revived" and "I died" are directly linked. This means because of the comprehension of the law, he became accountable for his sin.

I agree, but you're twisting words. Yes, in essence, the criminal does send himself to jail, because he's responsible for what he's done. However, that doesn't mean we have the authority to decide what our punishment is. It's like this: We choose right or wrong, then God chooses the punishment.

So, God IS choosing deliberately to send people to hell?

NO. People's sin send them to hell. If you can't convince sinners of that, than you might as well not witness. If you can't prove it's their fault they've sinned, then how can you convince them of their need for a Savior? Please tell me you get this.

So do flat-earth believers, when they point to the verses that talk about the angel standing on the "four corners of the earth".

The Greek word for "corners" in the Bible is kanaph which means "extremeties" or "borders". This doesn't mean the writers of the Bible thought the earth was a flat square. This is describing the four extreme limits of north, south, east, and west, on the known space of earth at the time (why did I explain all that to you?.. hehe)..

When was the last time you took geometry? A circle is two-dimensional.

O my.

The verse proves the earth is round, or in a circular shape. How does this apply to Calvinism??? (Are you good friends with an atheist, or something... I don't get it )

He was specifically addressing earthly matters, not heavenly. An example would be someone speeding when they didn't know they were. They would still be punished by the law. Don't try to make these words by Jesus out to mean God will send innocent babies to hell.

I don't see that he was specifically addressing earthly matters. He was speaking a parable! That's an application of an earthly example to heavenly matters. And I'm not saying he'd send innocent babies to hell. I'm saying there is no such thing as an innocent anything.

There is if you can't comprehend the Law. It seems your confused. Do you believe all infants and mentally handicapped people go straight to hell, no exceptions? (I'm not posting the verses again. I refuse. Study it out. )

Just because you know the difference between a supercomputer and a low-end consumer model doesn't mean you have the ability to choose a supercomputer.

Hahahahaha.... I've already responded to a silly assertion like that, sorry.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Exactly. Not the "tree of total depravity"

That's like saying "The word 'trinity' doesn't appear in the Bible, so the concept of the trinity is an unbiblical one".

No, it's not. It was to make the point the when Adam and Eve chose to sin, they gained the knowledge of good and evil. Nowhere does it say that they became totally depraved, or totally unable to call on God, or any other phrase like that.

Well, then what did he decree?

Our genuine free will, of course.

"As good as dead" does not necessitate reanimation. "Dead" necessitates reanimation.

Sure it does. God looks to the future. He's referring to eternal life, not the present. He knows we might as well be dead if we continue in our present sinful state. We won't ultimately "die" until we receive our eternal sentence, if you will.

God doesn't "look to the future". He is external to time--the past, present, and future are all the same to him. I think this might be where you're tripping up.

Ok fine, I worded it wrong. He knows the past, present, and future. Therefore He knows if we choose a sinful life, we will suffer spiritual death in the future.

No, I'm not an atheist.

Phew,.. what a relief! Those people are hard to reason with. Hahaha You, on the other hand, are just slightly hard to reason with .. hehe

Just slightly? Drat. I'll have to work on that.

You may have moved from "slightly" to "moderately". Hehehe

But, my worldview has an answer which is consistent with its interpretation of Scripture. Does yours?

Yes.

Oh, you found one? Last time you said you didn't know.

I believe I was talking about knowing everything about God, and why he created the universe. If you know that answer, then please, enlighten me.

I never said His will was to send people to hell. I'm arguing against it. Do you know what you're arguing?
[/quote]

I think you probably made a typo, so I'll leave it at that. What you said was that it was contrary to God's established attributes to send people to hell--therefore, if he did send people to hell, he'd be being inconsistent with his own character, which is unbiblical. I suspect what you meant was not "attributes" but "will".

No. If God sends people to hell, it is against His established attributes. Why because He doesn't send them, their sin does. God cannot tolerate sin, therefore He has no other choice but to punish it.

Nope, I wouldn't say the Fruits of the Spirit are forced upon us. They are voluntary, and necessary to maintain salvation.

Wow. My mouth just literally flew open. You just really sounded Arminian. Hahaha.. This discussion must be doing some good.
[/quote]

That's because YOU said that. XD

Hmm.. well, somehow it got quoted to you.. so anyway... hehe. No wonder I was in utter shock. lol

So again, you say that we have no choice but to manifest the Fruits of the Spirit, if we're saved. I disagree. Salvation does not destroy free will.

]No, the Fall did.

Any scripture to prove that?

Let me say too, that you've been great to discuss this with. I've learned a lot myself. So thanks.

Andy

You're welcome, Andy.

God bless,

Skyler

You too

[Skyler]

Remember in Exodus when it says both that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and "God hardened Pharaoh's heart". If Pharaoh really had free will, then how can we say that God hardened his heart?

Quite frankly, I'm tired of explaining the story of Pharaoh. Look to my previous post. Pharaoh's free will with regards to his eternal soul was absolutely not violated.

No, it wasn't, because it never existed in the first place.

But can non-Christians have a love for everyone? I'm saying that without God's grace, it is impossible to be "perfect in love".

I agree. With His grace, it is possible. I'm glad we agree.

Then why would he ask us to do something that's clearly impossible?

You are correct in that I'm applying that attribute to him. But, I believe that attribute to be consistent with what I read in the Bible; in addition, it's not that I don't know it to be true. As far as I have learned from my study of God's word, that is true.

Alrite,.. well, I guess I'll have to accept that. I don't agree, but if that's how you interpret it, it looks like I can't change your mind.

No, I think only God could at this point.

Because, like I said, you are putting us in the position of God. Not good. Can you just think about what you just wrote? "we should kill"? Um... no we shouldn't. God says it's sin. Sure, we would go to hell to save 2, I get it. But it's not God's will for us to do that, obviously.

I thought you said it was God's will for the most people possible to go to heaven. You keep pushing that "will" back behind first his will that man should have free will, and now behind his will that man shouldn't murder. How much farther are you going to push it?

I'm not "pushing" it. These things have already been proven by the Bible.

I'm sorry, I just haven't gotten it yet.

The Bible is also clear that the earth is flat.

No, it's clear that it's a sphere, and that point is irrelevant.

Not if you interpret every passage literally whether or not it was meant to be interpreted in that way. That's my point.

IF you mistake human-oriented language for literal truth. We have to remember that the Bible was written from a human perspective. As such, we can't just say that because it makes a given statement that it is always speaking literally. We have to look at it, in the context of other verses, and say "Could this be speaking from a human perspective?"

What you're proposing is yet another atheistic approach to the validity of the Bible. The Bible is "God-breathed" and "God-inspired". If you doubt that, then there's other troubles for you. We don't have to try and decipher whether a certain passage is from a human perspective. It's all from God. How can you argue for the Bible, if you don't believe that?

I'm not saying it's not from God. I'm saying that, for us to be able to understand it, it had to be written in human language, plain enough for the common man. That's why it has phrases like "sunrise" and "sunset". Of course, the sun isn't really rising and setting; the earth is rotating on its axis. But it's speaking from a human perspective. And we have to take that into account.

I agree that some will be false teachers, but you're making a false assumption by claiming that applies to everyone. No, some are truly converted, then lose their salvation.

Then, judging by scriptures like John 15:6, they cannot return to their faith."If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

This is an illustration from Jesus telling us that if we abandon our faith, and don't repent, we will go to hell. However, scripture tells us that we can return to the Lord.

It says nothing about abandoning our faith and not repenting. It simply says abandoning.

Isaiah 55:7 – “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon"

The word there basically means "repent". It's not implying that he was once saved, and then fell away.

When I referred to those who don't "come to a saving faith" I referred to the non-elect. It's a fruit, not a condition.

I disagree. Coming to Him is our choice. Again, Jesus doesn't repent or believe for us.

No, and neither does the Holy Spirit "love" or "longsuffer" for us. We do. BECAUSE we are Christians.

Your interpretation is completely illogical and inaccurate. Why would God be patient with people who's already been saved?.. What exactly would He be waiting on?

The fruit to grow?

Nice guess, but the context is addressed to sinners, not saints. How do we know this? Because it says He's not "willing that any should perish". Who perishes? sinners. God is waiting on them to be saved. There's no other accurate interpretation of this scripture (2 Peter 3:9).

No, he's not willing that any of those whom He's elected to eternal life should perish. John 6:39: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

If he really is referring to all sinners, then Jesus will then raise everyone up at the last day. Again, back to universalism.

1 Corinthians 7:17 – “But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one�

Finish the verse: "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk"

Ok, that's fine. God is asking us to "walk" the straight and narrow way. That's a clear condition of maintaining salvation. The "walking" is a request, not something that's forced.

I don't see that it's a condition of maintaining salvation. It's a command, yes, but nowhere does it say "or you will be lost". Now, I don't think that means we can just go out and steal, pillage, and rape, just because we're elect! It means that when we are elect, we will seek to do God's will, because that is the "new nature" that has been given to us, courtesy of Christ's death on the cross.

2 Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ..."

That doesn't mean all are called, it means all are judged.

Yes, all are judged based on whether or not they accepted the call.

The verse, though, doesn't say that. So it's more or less irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Revelation 22:17 – “And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

And, because free will was corrupted by the Fall, no one will without God's grace.

There's not one scripture that says God gives us grace in order to be saved. Salvation comes by hearing the gospel, repenting, and believing. Romans 10:17 says, "Faith cometh by hearing (the gospel)"

Ephesians 2:8 "For BY GRACE are ye saved THROUGH FAITH; and that not of yourselves, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD" (caps added)

Matthew 9:13 - "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Are we not all sinners?)

Sinners, saved by grace.

So you believe in universalism? Everyone's saved by grace? that's definetely not true. To break it down for you: Who is He calling? Sinners. Is everyone a sinner? Yes. Therefore, He calls everyone. Calling isn't the same as saving. He calls, but we have to accept.

It says "sinners". Not "all sinners". What he is saying is that those he comes to call are not righteous, but sinners.

So what you're saying is basically that God has relinquished his absolute control in the ways of men in favor of allowing men to do whatever they want. Then what's the point of intercessory prayer, if God no longer has absolute control?

God does not control our free will. That's why it's free. This doesn't make prayer useless, it just proves that God cares about our lives, enough to answer prayer.

But how can he answer prayer, especially prayer for the salvation of a loved one, if he doesn't interfere with that free will?

I totally agree with the first two lines. I totally disagree that the verse about the beatings applies to eternal destiny. Jesus is talking about expecting more from people here on earth who have been blessed more than others. Again, God will not punish those who cannot comprehend the law, and you agree.

I did not agree.

One of the first verses you posted was Romans 7:9 that says, "when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." You were trying to convince me that instead of Paul speaking of the age of accountability, he was talking about before he was saved, which is untrue. "Sin revived" and "I died" are directly linked. This means because of the comprehension of the law, he became accountable for his sin.

I've explained over and over again that he is speaking from his perspective. He read the law, and the sin that he thought was dead came up fighting. He discovered that he was, in fact, dead.

I agree, but you're twisting words. Yes, in essence, the criminal does send himself to jail, because he's responsible for what he's done. However, that doesn't mean we have the authority to decide what our punishment is. It's like this: We choose right or wrong, then God chooses the punishment.

So, God IS choosing deliberately to send people to hell?

NO. People's sin send them to hell. If you can't convince sinners of that, than you might as well not witness. If you can't prove it's their fault they've sinned, then how can you convince them of their need for a Savior? Please tell me you get this.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

So do flat-earth believers, when they point to the verses that talk about the angel standing on the "four corners of the earth".

The Greek word for "corners" in the Bible is kanaph which means "extremeties" or "borders". This doesn't mean the writers of the Bible thought the earth was a flat square. This is describing the four extreme limits of north, south, east, and west, on the known space of earth at the time (why did I explain all that to you?.. hehe)..

When was the last time you took geometry? A circle is two-dimensional.

O my.

The verse proves the earth is round, or in a circular shape. How does this apply to Calvinism??? (Are you good friends with an atheist, or something... I don't get it )

I'm not saying you're a flat-earther. I'm saying that you're making the same mistake they did--you're interpreting passages that were speaking from man's perspective as applying to an objective understanding of God's nature.

He was specifically addressing earthly matters, not heavenly. An example would be someone speeding when they didn't know they were. They would still be punished by the law. Don't try to make these words by Jesus out to mean God will send innocent babies to hell.

I don't see that he was specifically addressing earthly matters. He was speaking a parable! That's an application of an earthly example to heavenly matters. And I'm not saying he'd send innocent babies to hell. I'm saying there is no such thing as an innocent anything.

There is if you can't comprehend the Law. It seems your confused. Do you believe all infants and mentally handicapped people go straight to hell, no exceptions? (I'm not posting the verses again. I refuse. Study it out. )

No. I believe that those who go to hell are those who are guilty, either by "association"--the Curse--and/or their own sins. Those who do not are the equally guilty, but undeservedly pardoned sinners who I've labeled the "elect". I said before that I don't know for certain what the proportion of elect to non-elect infants is, but I'd say that it's probably about equal to the proportion of elect to non-elect adults.

Just because you know the difference between a supercomputer and a low-end consumer model doesn't mean you have the ability to choose a supercomputer.

Hahahahaha.... I've already responded to a silly assertion like that, sorry.

How did that get there?

That was part of another argument that I decided not to include because it wasn't applicable. It must've slipped through the cracks.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Exactly. Not the "tree of total depravity"

That's like saying "The word 'trinity' doesn't appear in the Bible, so the concept of the trinity is an unbiblical one".

No, it's not. It was to make the point the when Adam and Eve chose to sin, they gained the knowledge of good and evil. Nowhere does it say that they became totally depraved, or totally unable to call on God, or any other phrase like that.
[/quote]

Romans 5:17 "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)"

This clearly isn't talking about merely physical death. If it were, then the "life" he mentions would have to also be physical life, living forever physically--which, as I'm sure you'd agree, is not the case.

"As good as dead" does not necessitate reanimation. "Dead" necessitates reanimation.

Sure it does. God looks to the future. He's referring to eternal life, not the present. He knows we might as well be dead if we continue in our present sinful state. We won't ultimately "die" until we receive our eternal sentence, if you will.

God doesn't "look to the future". He is external to time--the past, present, and future are all the same to him. I think this might be where you're tripping up.

Ok fine, I worded it wrong. He knows the past, present, and future. Therefore He knows if we choose a sinful life, we will suffer spiritual death in the future.

Even so, how can he "reanimate" someone who's not yet dead?

No, I'm not an atheist.

Phew,.. what a relief! Those people are hard to reason with. Hahaha You, on the other hand, are just slightly hard to reason with .. hehe

Just slightly? Drat. I'll have to work on that.

You may have moved from "slightly" to "moderately". Hehehe

Yay! Progress! XD

But, my worldview has an answer which is consistent with its interpretation of Scripture. Does yours?

Yes.

Oh, you found one? Last time you said you didn't know.

I believe I was talking about knowing everything about God, and why he created the universe. If you know that answer, then please, enlighten me.

That's easy. 42.

I never said His will was to send people to hell. I'm arguing against it. Do you know what you're arguing?

I think so. I'm not entirely sure that you haven't bumped me over into hyper-Calvinism though. I'm running some of my arguments past my unofficial source for all things Calvinist to see.

I think you probably made a typo, so I'll leave it at that. What you said was that it was contrary to God's established attributes to send people to hell--therefore, if he did send people to hell, he'd be being inconsistent with his own character, which is unbiblical. I suspect what you meant was not "attributes" but "will".

No. If God sends people to hell, it is against His established attributes. Why because He doesn't send them, their sin does. God cannot tolerate sin, therefore He has no other choice but to punish it.

What about his justice? Is that not an established attribute?

Rom 3:5b-6: "...Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
"God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?"

So again, you say that we have no choice but to manifest the Fruits of the Spirit, if we're saved. I disagree. Salvation does not destroy free will.

]No, the Fall did.

Any scripture to prove that?

Romans 8:6-8: "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

Clearly, if it's God's will for everyone to come to him, then coming to him would please him greatly! Unfortunately, they can't. Figures.

[Skyler]

Let me see if I can summarize our arguments so far. I began the argument when you pointed out all the "conditionals" in Scripture and cited them as evidence for free will. I disagreed and explained why I felt that a conditional did not necessarily imply choice. I don't think you contested this point; if you did, forgive me, but I missed it.

In addition, I brought up the issue of the age of accountability. Assuming(you know what they say about that... ) that you were of the Arminian persuasion, I suggested that Arminians apply the Calvinistic doctrine of sovereign grace to those infants who die in infancy. You corrected my misunderstanding, explaining that you in fact did not believe in total depravity, but added a misunderstanding of your own: that Calvinist doctrine means that all infants and mentally disabled people are going to hell.

At that point goat interrupted with an irrelevant critique of Biblical inerrancy.

Then our discussion continued regardless, with you stating that God has never in scripture ignored the free will of man in respect to his eternal destiny. You then argued that longsuffering is not compatible with Calvinistic theology.

In addition, we were discussing the chapter in Romans where Paul is speaking of being "slain by sin". Your position is that he was referring to the real spiritual actions described as taking place, while my position was that he was speaking from his perspective "as a man".

Is that a pretty accurate summary of the arguments so far?

Skyler

[Andymc7]

But can non-Christians have a love for everyone? I'm saying that without God's grace, it is impossible to be "perfect in love".

I agree. With His grace, it is possible. I'm glad we agree.[/quote]

Then why would he ask us to do something that's clearly impossible?

But it's not. Remember, Mark 10:27 says, "...with God all things are possible". Even though the Spirit helps us overcome the temptation to hate another person, we still have to be willing to allow the Spirit to lead us.

You are correct in that I'm applying that attribute to him. But, I believe that attribute to be consistent with what I read in the Bible; in addition, it's not that I don't know it to be true. As far as I have learned from my study of God's word, that is true.

Alrite,.. well, I guess I'll have to accept that. I don't agree, but if that's how you interpret it, it looks like I can't change your mind.

No, I think only God could at this point.

And He can, so I'm optimistic.

The Bible is also clear that the earth is flat.

No, it's clear that it's a sphere, and that point is irrelevant.

Not if you interpret every passage literally whether or not it was meant to be interpreted in that way. That's my point.

I'm not interpreting every passage literally, but there are some that can be.

What you're proposing is yet another atheistic approach to the validity of the Bible. The Bible is "God-breathed" and "God-inspired". If you doubt that, then there's other troubles for you. We don't have to try and decipher whether a certain passage is from a human perspective. It's all from God. How can you argue for the Bible, if you don't believe that?

I'm not saying it's not from God. I'm saying that, for us to be able to understand it, it had to be written in human language, plain enough for the common man. That's why it has phrases like "sunrise" and "sunset". Of course, the sun isn't really rising and setting; the earth is rotating on its axis. But it's speaking from a human perspective. And we have to take that into account.

I agree, and I have taken that into account. It seems like you're generalizing my analysis of the whole Bible based on my interpretation of one passage.

Then, judging by scriptures like John 15:6, they cannot return to their faith."If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

This is an illustration from Jesus telling us that if we abandon our faith, and don't repent, we will go to hell. However, scripture tells us that we can return to the Lord.

It says nothing about abandoning our faith and not repenting. It simply says abandoning.

I agree this particular passage doesn't, but let's look at a very similar one in Romans 11, starting with verse 20:

"Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee"

Paul was addressing proud Gentiles here. He explains that a portion of Israel was broken off, and exactly why they were. Unbelief. Not because of random choice, but because of a wrong choice of the people. He also tells them to not be proud, but fear, because if they fall into unbelief, He will not spare them either.

"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."

See the condition here? Continuing in His goodness.


"And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again."

Yet another condition, and, if they (the rebellious people) meet this condition God will bring them back, and forgive them.

Isaiah 55:7 – “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon"

The word there basically means "repent". It's not implying that he was once saved, and then fell away.

The word "repent" was used extensively throughout the Old Testament. If that is what "return" means here, no doubt it would have been used. The word "return" means exactly that. In the original Hebrew, the word was "shewb", meaning "to turn back".

Jesus doesn't repent or believe for us.

No, and neither does the Holy Spirit "love" or "longsuffer" for us. We do. BECAUSE we are Christians.

Please remember, when you say this, you're implying that we are forced to be loving and longsuffering, or that our free will to choose not exhibit those things is destroyed after we are saved. This concept is found nowhere in scripture. It is a false belief of man. And why is this unbiblical belief so increasingly popular? It takes away any blame on our part, if we fail to be longsuffering or loving.

...the context is addressed to sinners, not saints. How do we know this? Because it says He's not "willing that any should perish". Who perishes? sinners. God is waiting on them to be saved. There's no other accurate interpretation of this scripture (2 Peter 3:9).

No, he's not willing that any of those whom He's elected to eternal life should perish. John 6:39: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

The part that I underlined is conveniently added to try and saved the false doctrine of predestination. I would be cautious in adding to, or taking away from God's Word. Remember again, in John 6:39, it's the Father's will that He should lose nothing. This means He wants it to happen, but He's left it up to us.

If he really is referring to all sinners, then Jesus will then raise everyone up at the last day. Again, back to universalism.

No. I already proved that it was God's will, not His decree. His will can be resisted, as we see so often.

Ok, that's fine. God is asking us to "walk" the straight and narrow way. That's a clear condition of maintaining salvation. The "walking" is a request, not something that's forced.

I don't see that it's a condition of maintaining salvation. It's a command, yes, but nowhere does it say "or you will be lost". Now, I don't think that means we can just go out and steal, pillage, and rape, just because we're elect! It means that when we are elect, we will seek to do God's will, because that is the "new nature" that has been given to us, courtesy of Christ's death on the cross.

Notice again what I bolded. We will. I suppose you still believe that we will be forced to love and serve God. That's not a loving God, but a dictator. It totally contradicts the very nature of God. In addition, it doesn't matter if you don't see the condition in the passage as one to maintain salvation. There are many others, which I've already posted, that clearly state if we don't keep our faith, we will lose our salvation. Again, why is the Bible full of requests for us, if we will are going to do them anyway? I guess the apostles didn't believe in "unconditional election" . If they did, then Ephesians 6, urging Christians to put on the whole armor of God, wouldn't exist,. If you're belief is true, the many requests in the Bible would be similar to someone saying, "Please, with all that is within you, make every effort to breath today!". Hahaha.. that's insane. No, the apostle Paul wasn't lunatic. He knew that there was a possibility for a Christian to fall away from the faith. That's why he preached to "fight the good fight".

2 Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ..."

That doesn't mean all are called, it means all are judged.

Yes, all are judged based on whether or not they accepted the call.

The verse, though, doesn't say that. So it's more or less irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Lol... so you must believe that God has a judgement for the fun of it? c'mon. You really believed people are judged by whether or not God elected them? This is ridiculous. Think about it. God would be judging Himself by what He had done!

There's not one scripture that says God gives us grace in order to be saved. Salvation comes by hearing the gospel, repenting, and believing. Romans 10:17 says, "Faith cometh by hearing (the gospel)"

Ephesians 2:8 "For BY GRACE are ye saved THROUGH FAITH; and that not of yourselves, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD" (caps added)

Yes. By God's grace we're saved through.... what? Faith. Yet another condition. Did you know that in the New Testament alone (NKJV) the phrase "your faith" or "their faith" is given 33 times? However statements such as "God's faith" or "Jesus' faith" don't appear once. Hebrews 11:6 "...without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Wow, there's a lot in this verse to refute Calvinism. We must have faith, we must come to Him, we must believe, and lastly, contrary to "total depravity", we have the ability to diligently seek Him.

So you believe in universalism? Everyone's saved by grace? that's definetely not true. To break it down for you: Who is He calling? Sinners. Is everyone a sinner? Yes. Therefore, He calls everyone. Calling isn't the same as saving. He calls, but we have to accept.

It says "sinners". Not "all sinners". What he is saying is that those he comes to call are not righteous, but sinners.

I don't think that's accurate. You're trying to say He calls some, but not all sinners. But remember, your doctrine says He only calls the elect. So, you're contradicting yourself. "Limited atonement" says He only died for the elect, not the sinners.

God does not control our free will. That's why it's free. This doesn't make prayer useless, it just proves that God cares about our lives, enough to answer prayer.

But how can he answer prayer, especially prayer for the salvation of a loved one, if he doesn't interfere with that free will?

The Holy Spirit will plead with those that we've prayed for, but the ultimate decision is up to them. From personal experience, I've prayed for loved ones who have been saved, and then some have not been saved, and rejected the call. Does that mean that God didn't hear my prayers in both cases? no. It means one person rejected, while the other accepted.

One of the first verses you posted was Romans 7:9 that says, "when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." You were trying to convince me that instead of Paul speaking of the age of accountability, he was talking about before he was saved, which is untrue. "Sin revived" and "I died" are directly linked. This means because of the comprehension of the law, he became accountable for his sin.

I've explained over and over again that he is speaking from his perspective. He read the law, and the sin that he thought was dead came up fighting. He discovered that he was, in fact, dead.

You make it sound like his sin "snuck up on him", like he didn't know it was there. This is false. Again, this is a highly inaccurate interpretation of scripture. Paul is stating that spiritual death came only when he could comprehend the law.

NO. People's sin send them to hell. If you can't convince sinners of that, than you might as well not witness. If you can't prove it's their fault they've sinned, then how can you convince them of their need for a Savior? Please tell me you get this.
[/quote]

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

I'm not explaining this fully to you again. God is choosing people for service, not salvation.

I'm not saying you're a flat-earther. I'm saying that you're making the same mistake they did--you're interpreting passages that were speaking from man's perspective as applying to an objective understanding of God's nature.

And I disagree. I say you're refusing to accept the true context of scripture, at times.

Do you believe all infants and mentally handicapped people go straight to hell, no exceptions? (I'm not posting the verses again. I refuse. Study it out. )

No. I believe that those who go to hell are those who are guilty, either by "association"--the Curse--and/or their own sins. Those who do not are the equally guilty, but undeservedly pardoned sinners who I've labeled the "elect". I said before that I don't know for certain what the proportion of elect to non-elect infants is, but I'd say that it's probably about equal to the proportion of elect to non-elect adults.

You've just admitted that we are accountable for our own sins. That's progress Also, when a person uses the word "probably", that means he/she doesn't know for sure, so therefore the argument becomes fallacious.

Romans 5:17 "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)"

This clearly isn't talking about merely physical death. If it were, then the "life" he mentions would have to also be physical life, living forever physically--which, as I'm sure you'd agree, is not the case.

No, actually I do believe Christians will receive a new glorified physical body and live forever. You don't?

Ok fine, I worded it wrong. He knows the past, present, and future. Therefore He knows if we choose a sinful life, we will suffer spiritual death in the future.
[/quote]

Even so, how can he "reanimate" someone who's not yet dead?

Because He speaks of our ultimate "reanimation" when we get to heaven. If you believe we receive this on earth, then why wouldn't we go straight to heaven once we're saved? Or, why would we ever sin again? We receive a down payment for eternal life only. We have to "run the race" to actually recieve it.

You may have moved from "slightly" to "moderately". Hehehe
[/quote]

Yay! Progress! XD

Hmm... but what are you progressing to?.... truth?.. I would have to differ.

But, my worldview has an answer which is consistent with its interpretation of Scripture. Does yours?

Yes.

Oh, you found one? Last time you said you didn't know.

I believe I was talking about knowing everything about God, and why he created the universe. If you know that answer, then please, enlighten me.

That's easy. 42.

Cute

I never said His will was to send people to hell. I'm arguing against it. Do you know what you're arguing?

I think so. I'm not entirely sure that you haven't bumped me over into hyper-Calvinism though. I'm running some of my arguments past my unofficial source for all things Calvinist to see.

Hahaha.. I'm glad you "think" you know what you're arguing. And seriously, I hope I haven't pushed you over into hyper-calvinism. That means I've done a really bad job.

If God sends people to hell, it is against His established attributes. Why? because He doesn't send them, their sin does. God cannot tolerate sin, therefore He has no other choice but to punish it.

What about his justice? Is that not an established attribute?

Of course. That's one of the things I've been trying to convince you of. God is just, therefore He will not unfairly send some to hell, after He has sent His Son to die for the whole world.

Hmm.. I just thought of something. Do you believe that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was not powerful enough to save the whole world?

Rom 3:5b-6: "...Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
"God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?"

I'm not sure why you used this verse. All this is saying is that our sinfulness magnifies God's holiness more, and gives Him more of a reason to judge us. Paul goes on to say that it would be ridiculous to do evil so that good can result from it. So, I'm not sure how this strengthens your argument.

So again, you say that we have no choice but to manifest the Fruits of the Spirit, if we're saved. I disagree. Salvation does not destroy free will.

]No, the Fall did.

Any scripture to prove that?
[/quote]

Romans 8:6-8: "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

This passage does not in any way prove that the fall of man destroyed our free will. It only proves that man rejects God because he allows himself to be the servant of Satan.

Clearly, if it's God's will for everyone to come to him, then coming to him would please him greatly! Unfortunately, they can't. Figures.

Nope, it not that they can't. They won't. Huge difference. I see you still fail to see that. Of course it would please God if all would come to them. That further strengthens my argument that God allows people to choose. We know for a fact that all men don't choose God.

[Andymc7]

Let me see if I can summarize our arguments so far. I began the argument when you pointed out all the "conditionals" in Scripture and cited them as evidence for free will. I disagreed and explained why I felt that a conditional did not necessarily imply choice. I don't think you contested this point; if you did, forgive me, but I missed it.

You must have not read any of the scripture I posted. The Bible clearly lays out conditions for salvation: Hearing, repentance, belief, faith, following..etc... I think it's just that we interpret the same scriptures differently. I believe I have a much stronger case for these things being requested of us, not forced upon us. There is simply no scriptural evidence of them being absolutely dictated in our lives.

In addition, I brought up the issue of the age of accountability. Assuming(you know what they say about that... ) that you were of the Arminian persuasion, I suggested that Arminians apply the Calvinistic doctrine of sovereign grace to those infants who die in infancy.

I countered with the fact that Arminians believe in the concept of a just and fair God, in dealing with eternal destiny. Calvinists do not, by claiming He unconditionally chooses by random selection, who will be saved, and who will be damned. Thus by Calvinist doctrine, God contradicts His own nature by making it His will that some will perish.

You corrected my misunderstanding, explaining that you in fact did not believe in total depravity, but added a misunderstanding of your own: that Calvinist doctrine means that all infants and mentally disabled people are going to hell.

I made the wrong assertion that Calvinists believe all infants go to hell. For that I apologize. However, they would have to believe that some are sent to hell, even though they cannot comprehend the law.

At that point goat interrupted with an irrelevant critique of Biblical inerrancy.

Hahaha.. that's something I know we agree on.

Then our discussion continued regardless, with you stating that God has never in scripture ignored the free will of man in respect to his eternal destiny. You then argued that longsuffering is not compatible with Calvinistic theology.

In addition, we were discussing the chapter in Romans where Paul is speaking of being "slain by sin". Your position is that he was referring to the real spiritual actions described as taking place, while my position was that he was speaking from his perspective "as a man".

Is that a pretty accurate summary of the arguments so far?

Yep, seems pretty accurate to me (although I had to counter a couple of your points above, sorry )

[Skyler]

Let me see if I can summarize our arguments so far. I began the argument when you pointed out all the "conditionals" in Scripture and cited them as evidence for free will. I disagreed and explained why I felt that a conditional did not necessarily imply choice. I don't think you contested this point; if you did, forgive me, but I missed it.

You must have not read any of the scripture I posted. The Bible clearly lays out conditions for salvation: Hearing, repentance, belief, faith, following..etc... I think it's just that we interpret the same scriptures differently. I believe I have a much stronger case for these things being requested of us, not forced upon us. There is simply no scriptural evidence of them being absolutely dictated in our lives.

I think that depending on which glasses you're wearing--Calvinist or, in your case, semi-Pelagianist--you'll see the evidence pointing in your direction. Our thread so far seems to exemplify that fact. That being the case, we perhaps should switch solely to hunting for inconsistencies in each others' positions.

In addition, I brought up the issue of the age of accountability. Assuming(you know what they say about that... ) that you were of the Arminian persuasion, I suggested that Arminians apply the Calvinistic doctrine of sovereign grace to those infants who die in infancy.

I countered with the fact that Arminians believe in the concept of a just and fair God, in dealing with eternal destiny. Calvinists do not, by claiming He unconditionally chooses by random selection, who will be saved, and who will be damned. Thus by Calvinist doctrine, God contradicts His own nature by making it His will that some will perish.

Calvinists also believe in a just and fair God. God's will is that justice should be served, is it not? Even from the semi-Pelagianistic position? So then the fact that some people are condemned, while not God's preference, is certainly within His will. The only difference is, the condition of salvation for semi-Pelagianists rests in man's hands, while in Calvinism it rests in God's hands.

P.S. God didn't choose the elect "randomly". He has a plan.

You corrected my misunderstanding, explaining that you in fact did not believe in total depravity, but added a misunderstanding of your own: that Calvinist doctrine means that all infants and mentally disabled people are going to hell.

I made the wrong assertion that Calvinists believe all infants go to hell. For that I apologize. However, they would have to believe that some are sent to hell, even though they cannot comprehend the law.

I do. I pointed out scriptures to that effect.

Then our discussion continued regardless, with you stating that God has never in scripture ignored the free will of man in respect to his eternal destiny. You then argued that longsuffering is not compatible with Calvinistic theology.

In addition, we were discussing the chapter in Romans where Paul is speaking of being "slain by sin". Your position is that he was referring to the real spiritual actions described as taking place, while my position was that he was speaking from his perspective "as a man".

Is that a pretty accurate summary of the arguments so far?

Yep, seems pretty accurate to me (although I had to counter a couple of your points above, sorry )

OK, good. Now we've been having sort of a quote-war, with each person quoting the last person's post in its entirety and responding to every other sentence. I think one of your last posts demonstrated the problem with that, when it misquoted you as me. So how about we try to instead present our arguments as points, and then respond to those points without quoting the entirety of the post? If necessary, of course, we can quote pieces here and there, but let's try to avoid the same problem that you had.

So in this post I've made two points.

First, that our beliefs are influencing the way we interpret the Scriptures, and therefore we don't really have a whole lot of common ground to start from, so we should look for logical inconsistencies instead of proof texts.

And secondly, I think what you were trying to say is that God's will is clear that he doesn't want anyone(elect or otherwise) to perish, and that the Calvinistic view is that God's will is final, so for God to be consistent he couldn't send anyone to hell; therefore, God cannot send someone to hell and be consistent with his own character.

I'm not absolutely certain on this point, and I'll say that up front. But I think, from what I've read, that God does indeed have a "general" love for all his creation as per John 3:16(the word for "world" there is the Greek word kosmos, from which we derive cosmos--the universe). He also has a "special" love for His elect, which is specific and irresistible. In 2nd Peter 3:9, for example, when he's referring to "any" it's clear from the context that the "any" is the elect, not the world as a whole. So it's not inconsistent.

[Andymc7]

I think that depending on which glasses you're wearing--Calvinist or, in your case, semi-Pelagianist--you'll see the evidence pointing in your direction. Our thread so far seems to exemplify that fact. That being the case, we perhaps should switch solely to hunting for inconsistencies in each others' positions.

Actually Skyler, I get the feeling that your "glasses" are permanently planted on you, so maybe we should just agree to a stalemate. Besides nobody likes to repeat themselves continually.

Calvinists also believe in a just and fair God. God's will is that justice should be served, is it not? Even from the semi-Pelagianistic position? So then the fact that some people are condemned, while not God's preference, is certainly within His will.

Then why does His Word say the opposite?

I would also appreciate no being labeled a "semi-Pelagianist". I've never even heard of it, and would prefer being called a Christian, and nothing else, please. Thank you.

The only difference is, the condition of salvation for semi-Pelagianists rests in man's hands, while in Calvinism it rests in God's hands.

The biblical truth is that the decision for salvation does rest solely on man. If not, who in the world repents (as requested continually in the Bible)? Does God repent for us? Do He believe for us? Does He force us to have faith?

P.S. God didn't choose the elect "randomly". He has a plan.

And that plan is to send whomever He chooses to hell, after His Word so plainly says the gospel is extended to all? Your doctrine makes God out to be the most evil tease that ever existed. He commands "all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30), but then refuses to allow some to. C'mon Skyler, do you really believe this nonsense? (Sorry, as you can tell, my patience could be a little thin)

I made the wrong assertion that Calvinists believe all infants go to hell. For that I apologize. However, they would have to believe that some are sent to hell, even though they cannot comprehend the law.

I do. I pointed out scriptures to that effect.

If you did, I must have missed them. Also, I'm saddened that you believe God sends infants to hell, who are totally innocent of the law, as His Word says.

we should look for logical inconsistencies instead of proof texts.

That's fine, but it seems that you want to get away from what the Word says. That's usually not a good idea. Sorry if this is an inaccurate assumption.

And secondly, I think what you were trying to say is that God's will is clear that he doesn't want anyone(elect or otherwise) to perish, and that the Calvinistic view is that God's will is final, so for God to be consistent he couldn't send anyone to hell; therefore, God cannot send someone to hell and be consistent with his own character.

Again, you're taking the atheistic approach the God is to blame if we go to hell. We are clearly to blame if we reject Him. Until you can admit to this, I'm not sure we can proceed with the discussion.

I'm not absolutely certain on this point, and I'll say that up front. But I think, from what I've read, that God does indeed have a "general" love for all his creation as per John 3:16(the word for "world" there is the Greek word kosmos, from which we derive cosmos--the universe). He also has a "special" love for His elect, which is specific and irresistible. In 2nd Peter 3:9, for example, when he's referring to "any" it's clear from the context that the "any" is the elect, not the world as a whole. So it's not inconsistent.

This is nothing more than a deliberate misinterpretation of scripture to fit a man-made doctrine. It's not clear from the context in 2 Peter 3:9 that it's addressing the elect. If so, this verse would basically be saying that it's God's will that a certain few come to repentance. That is totally untrue, due to other verses, such as the one from Acts 17, that clearly shows "all men everywhere" are commanded to repent. Are you going to try and say this means the "elect" too?

Since you're wanting to make points instead of using scripture, I'll quote Dave Hunt from his book "What Love is This?":

“To say that God commands men to do what they cannot do without His grace, then withholds the grace they need and punishes them eternally for failing to obey, is to make a mockery of God’s Word, of His mercy and love, and is to libel His character.�

I can't say I agree more.