Is it God’s sovereignty that has the two latest comments coming in on the very topic I’m addressing tonight? The following is more a summary of what was covered than a formal presentation.
I just finished the first night of the session I told you about several weeks ago – “The Sovereignty of God.” Yes, I’m sitting here in Totowa (I have no idea how to pronounce it) New Jersey in a hotel next to some river. But that’s beside the point.
The speaker for the evening was Dr. James White, from Phoenix Arizona. He is the director of Alpha and Omega ministries. I believe I have mentioned him before.
I have to admit that so far the two hundred and twenty mile trek up here has been more than worth the effort. And if the next couple of days (Eric Redman will be speaking tomorrow on the sovereignty of God and the call of the pastor) are like this evening, the money I spent on the hotel room will be well spent. We will also be hearing from Robert Cameron addressing the sovereignty of God and ethics and James Domm preaching on God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.
Dr. White came in with guns blazing this evening. It was outstanding. He didn’t tell us that his message was going to change our lives. He didn’t tell us to turn to our neighbors for anything, and he didn’t tell us to clap to show how much we loved Jesus. Instead, he reminded us of the importance of the concept of God’s sovereignty in ALL things, if we are to understand what we are called to.
First, he pointed out that the concept of God’s sovereignty is all throughout Scripture and in order to deal honestly with the text we must recognize His sovereignty, even over the will of men. For the presentation he looked at Isaiah 40:12-24; 41:21-24; Psalm 33:1-22 and Ephesians 1:1-9. He unrealistically thought he would be able to cover Romans 8 and 9 as well as John 6. But the unbending clock disabused him of that idea.
Isaiah 40 points out that God is God and, well, we aren’t. It also points out that He is our creator. Unlike that which some would suggest, He is not our buddy, our girlfriend, or our boyfriend. He is holy or totally unique. He is not us. Isaiah 6 shows what happens when we begin to realize who and what God is. When that happens, we suddenly realize what we aren’t and we see our selves as men with unclean lips. Seeing who God is move us to holiness, to a desire for obedience.
Isaiah 41:21-24 demonstrates the unique attributes of god. It points out that He has exhaustive, absolute knowledge of creation. He points out that the idols men worship (including the Arminian idea of God) don’t know the future. But not only do they not know the future, they don’t know the reasons for the events of the past. Why did the dam break? Why did the tsunami destroy hundreds of thousands of lives? Why did the last arrow an archer fired into the air end up between the joints of Ahab’s armor and killing him? These things are for the purpose of His ordained will and purpose.
Psalm 33:1-22 is full of the idea of God’s sovereignty. Verse 6 talks about the heavens being mad by His word. It goes on to say that the Lord nullifies the counsel of nations. Hmm. They want to do something but He counters it. What happened to their will? It says he frustrates their plans. Again – no free will? But interestingly, the psalm goes on to say that God’s counsel stands forever and His plans are forever as well. They don’t change based on what someone may or may not decide.
Dr. White went on to point out that the best way to generate rebellion is by preaching these truths. Man is willing to let God be sovereign until it comes to man. Then God depends on man and his will. In other words, while man may grant the necessity of grace for salvation, most men, rebellious as they are, refuse to admit the sufficiency of grace in our salvation. At some point, man will contribute to the salvation process.
Ephesians points out that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. And it says we were chosen to the praise of His glory. But interestingly enough, if I played a part in the salvation, if my salvation depended on me making a decision in favor of God while I was dead in my sins, they my salvation is to the praise of my spirituality…or perceptiveness…or sensitivity…or some other good thing within me and NOT to the praise of His glory.
Dr. White pointed out an interesting question to present to an Arminian: Why pray for the lost?
According to the synergistic (Arminian) view, God is doing the best He can. He’s appealing to every one as hard as He can. He’s trying His very best. But some people refuse to respond. Given this, the difficulty seems to be in the people. So the Arminian shouldn’t pray to God. He should focus on the people he wants saved. He should do whatever he can to convince them they should accept Jesus Christ as their savior. He should pressure them, not depend on God.
Wait a minute! Isn’t that exactly what happens at altar calls and evangelistic crusades? Isn’t that one of the things the preachers do when they decide to “get people in and then help them grow”?
The conference starts at nine o’clock tomorrow morning. I may try to post a little something during lunch. I forgot to find out if the church building has wi-fi.
The Emergent church (small ‘c) is in love with deconstruction. The love to tear down the Bible, because they claim in helps people to see all of the wrong ways to interpret the text. This absurd practice feeds their extensional lust and leads them to play an endless game of “What is Truth?”. The have it backwards.
I find that the Word of God is given to me, in part, to deconstruct my wrong thinking. It’s not given to produce confusion, but to communicate Truth. I was lost wiithout it.
I am amazed at the seemingly endless multitude of anti-biblical doctrines that people hold to. There seems to be a lot of cults around passing themselves off as real Christian groups. They refuse to let their doctrine be examined in the light of the Holy Bible.
Gee Melvin didn’t James in his best “Haginesque” voice (insert Texas accent) ask,”Are ya still here or have ya gone home?” Seriously did your readers know that the “altar call” is a 19th century American invention? Most likely Mr. Finney started ths nonsense as part of his “new measures.” Anyway I doubt very much that either Luther or Calvin ever heard of an altar call! James White is very good! Sounds like time well spent Melvin.
(MN: In fact, as a good Arminian, Finney decided since “the devil has a vote, God has a vote, and we have the deciding vote” it’s fair to do anything we possibly can to make the
targetsubject decides for God. Emotion, fear, emotion, misstatements, emotian and anything else is okay, as long as the person who is dead in his sins makes that decision for God. The modern church does the same thing and worse. Take a look at Joel “Willow Boy” Osteen and at the close of one of his pep talks. How many people, after being presented with his version of the Gospel, are going to be willing to pray his insipid prayer? And how many of them will actually be born again? Finney would be extremely proud of Willow Boy. Willow Boy filled a basketball stadium with Christless decisions (the person Willow Boy presents IS NOT the Christ of the Bible. Willow Boy is simply the logical conclusion to the heresy Finney promoted. Easy believism has probably sent more people to hell than anything else in the world of Christian evangelism. And to my shame, I have undoubtedly contributed a few souls to that number. )(MN: Okay folks, it’s test time. See if you can identify each time Lafe makes a statement that has not much to do with Calvinism/Monergism. For instance, he says “everyone spouts at the same time: “I have no say in anything I do…I am completely helpless. I can not make any choices..Oh…somebody please help me!” I would think he would have understood by now that I certainly am not saying that. The unsaved can decide and can think what they want. Unfortunately, the only thing they will want to think is that which is against and in rebellion to God. But they are perfectly free to think that. See if you can identify all of the other ones - like the statement “Peter, that rascal, did not consult James White on sovereignity questions but said to the crowd…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved!” See if that rascal Lafe EVER identifies why some of the men in the crowd believe and the rest of them refuse to believe. Surely by now Lafe understands that if the person who believes makes that decision on his own, then there is something within him that was not within the one who rejected the offer. But of course, Lafe is too busy making limp-wristed sarcastic comments to even recognize that he has yet to address this issue.
Enjoy it folks. The one who comes up with the most number of Lafe dodges will receive one of the books I bought at the conference. Or course you have to pay the postage and reimburse me for the purchase of the book. )
Here we go again! The “robot on display” argument by the die hard Calvinist people. Even though there are a multitude of variables within Calvinism and Arminism.
Melvin goes for the safe route of numbed brains and no responses. We simply line up and everyone spouts at the same time: “I have no say in anything I do…I am
completely helpless. I can not make any choices..Oh…somebody please help me!”
Note: This is in spite of what Joshua said when he articulated the famous phrase: Choose you whom this day you will serve but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! Joshua should have known better but he did not have access to the writings of James White to properly school him on his limited/no choices in these matters!
Let’s not even talk about…whosoever calls upon the Lord shall be saved…that might upset some of the groupies of James White. When the crowd asked Peter the Apostle about: what must we do to be saved…Peter, that rascal, did not consult James White on sovereignity questions but said to the crowd…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved! Oh…how could Peter be so wrong on this critical issue! And that Ethiopian enuch! He was so misled by Philip. Why…that eunuch went rejoicing his way after being baptized by Philip. But..did Philip really tell him the inside scoop that the Eunuch had no say in the matter? Thus, for all purposes, the Eunuch should have just kept his mouth shut and opined for the goodness of God and maybe just maybe God would save him from his sins. In that case, John 14:11 is thrown out the window.
Why is it that Calvinistic people feel so threatened by free will and its exercise? (MN: We don’t feel at all threatened by such error. We simply deny the ability for a dead creature to decide for Christ without God first giving him a heart to believe. We see fallen man as having nothing in him - no spark, no desire in and of himself - to seek God or to obey God of his own will. Why do Arminians insist on adding man’s efforts to the gracious act of God and thereby removing the very graciousness of the act? And as I asked earlier, if God is trying as hard as he can to save people, why do Arminians pray to God to save a person? According to your theology, He can’t do anything unless the person agrees, no matter how hard you pray. According to your theology, the only person stopping a person from getting saved, is the person God is trying to save. Why don’t you focus on the person you want saved and pressure them to accept Jesus Christ? ) I know they feel most comfortable in settings that they are told what to do and how to do it because that renders their free will inoperable and thus they can lead….hey, it wasn’t me..I had no say in the matter! (MN: Actually, it sounds like you don’t know jack. But that’s just my read on the situation. )
Nice excuse…leave all of the driving to God and we bow out with no accountability. Hurray for Calvinism!!
Note: both Calvinism and Arminism have serious flaws in their conceptual approach. It is just indicative of the limited understanding that we have of the ways of God but I will not go on a fools errand and support either side unequivocally. (MN: Actually, it’s your consistently and grossly distorted explanation of Calvinism that has flaws, serious flaws. )
There..I said my piece and I am sure that the Calvinistic gatekeepers will be beating the toms toms and demanding scripture proofs and beating their chests in righteous indignation that their heroes are being attacked.
(MN: You’re right. We wouldn’t want to actually demand scripture proof that addresses the idea of why one person accepts and another rejects the offer. )
Lafe, perhaps you would be so kind as to show us the middle ground between Monergism and Synergism that you’ve found.
For the moment we’ll lay aside the fact that you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about when addressing Monergism (as your posts consistently demonstrate) and you don’t even accurately present historic Arminianism for that matter (which ALSO teaches total depravity and that natural man is unable to receive Christ in his own power).
Let’s just hear the “truth” you’ve discovered.
Tell us how it happens Lafe *pulls up chair real close and rests chin in hands*.
(MN: Lafe’s done; perhaps for the entire site and not just this thread. He continues to say the same things (your hope is in Calvinism) and makes the same thoughtless statements (Calvinism and Arminianism are full of errors - without once identifying those errors. Notice that even in this dull witted tirade he not once provides a meaningful reference to Scripture.
Lafe appears to be a man (I assume the writer is male) who loves stating an opinion and mocking the views of other WITHOUT PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR THE BASIS OF HIS MOCKING. Any fool can do that. And as my momma said: Never argue with a fool. They’ll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience. And to top it all off, his humor is weak, the sarcasm dull and misdirected.
NO more postings for you Lafe. )
Dear Gary V: I had no idea that your hope was in
Calvinism but rather in the shed blood of our Lord and Savior. Forgive me for my ignorance. Here I thought that you and others who worship at the throne of Calvin were amenable to the Word of God being of supreme value and control in your doctrine and dogma. I was wrong and for that I apologize. The next time, I will run all arguments through the prism of Calvinism…I mean why waste the time on exalting the Word of God over Calvinism and his doctrine. That way, we can all take our pride and glory in Calvinism and grovel and outdo each other in saying how deprave we are! Again for the hard of hearing and for those who are hard of learning..both Calvinism and that of Arminism are with error and as such, we can do quite fine in evangelism and proclaiming the gospel of salvation without either camp. Now, I know that without the crutch of Calvinism, some will lose their way and falter but I urge you to seek comfort and solace and wisdom in the Word of God and make Jesus your sole resource for doctrine…not Calvin or “the other guy.”
Sorry Gary V…you want a tight little package of
doctrinal statements from me so you can argue about air fluff and sky hooks and other nonsense.
Sorry..won’t happen. I have repeatedly stated my
positions here that the Word of God lends credence to. All of us are without full knowledge but with the knowledge that God has revealed that is sufficient for holy and righteous living…be content with that and quit following after the doctrines of man…what a waste of time!
As Paul stated….”follow me as I follow Christ”….not Calvin.
Peace…..
Detroit,
Apparently I have to stop working on the page so late at night. I just deleted your comment.
You asked: If God has established who will be saved and who won’t why should be bother to pray for people?
The short answer is: Because He tells us to in such places as:
Matt 5:44
Luke 6:28
Rom 8:26 - including what to pray for the unsaved
Col 1:9 for the saved as well. Why bother if God has determined what will happen?
1 Thess 5L25
2 Thess 3:1
Prayer is one of the means God uses in accomplishing His decrees just as using us to present the Gospel is THE means He uses to act on the hearts of men.
Basically, I said that God hasn’t established or chosen who will & won’t be saved, but He does know who will & won’t choose to get saved.
(MN: But it doesn’t say “We chose Him from before the foundation” It doesn’t even say “He chose us, based on who He knew would accept, before the foundation.” It says “He chose us. I can’t understand why you think it’s okay to make it say something it’s not saying. Our choice or a condition is nowhere in there. The only condition might be that we can live holy and blameless BECAUSE He chose us. But our being holy and blameless has nothing to do with His reason for choosing us. Us being holy and blameless is part of His purpose in choosing us. )
Matthew 5:44 & Luke 6:28 are talking about persecution.
I do agree that Romans 8:26 gives a good way to pray for the lost/unsaved. Colossians 1:9 is a good scripture to pray…but it’s specifically for us as believers.
(MN: But why pray for them? God can’t do anything if they refuse to come around. We should pressure the unsaved to believe, not ask God to change their hearts. After all, according to the Arminian, God can only do what the unbeliver permits Him to do. And if the unbeliever rejects God, then there’s nothing God can do no matter how long or hard I pray for the person. According to you, God’s hands are tied. What good does prayer do? )
IThessalonians 5:25 & 2nd Thessalonians 3:1 are good because we need others to pray for us so that the gospel can be preach & doors of utterance may opened.
You said, “Prayer is one of the means God uses in accomplishing His decrees just as using us to present the Gospel is THE means He uses to act on the hearts of men.”
I do agree with that. We are like a tunnel that God uses to accomplish tasks in the earth. He gave us dominion & it’s up to us to get the Gospel of Christ out so that He can work on the hearts of men.
(MN: But it doesn’t say “We chose Him from before the foundation” It doesn’t even say “He chose us, based on who He knew would accept, before the foundation.” It says “He chose us. I can’t understand why you think it’s okay to make it say something it’s not saying. Our choice or a condition is nowhere in there. The only condition might be that we can live holy and blameless BECAUSE He chose us. But our being holy and blameless has nothing to do with His reason for choosing us. Us being holy and blameless is part of His purpose in choosing us. )
Are you serious….dang I can seriously see why there are so many confused christians.
Yes He chose us, purpose-wise, not salvation-wise. Salvation is a choice for all of mankind…no one is exclueded if anyone was then God would have to cease from being God due to going back on a promise. (John 3:16-17)
(MN: I usually try to be a little more subtle. But I think I will take a slightly different approach.
One of the ideas you and virtually every Arminian hold to is that you, in and of yourself, decided to accept God’s offer, that you chose to accept God’s offer. You point out that any one who is saved chose to accept God’s offer. And of course, those who end up in hell are there because they chose not to accept God’s offer.
What you never discuss, what you seem to stay as far away from as possible is the reason you chose and the reason others refuse His offer. Sure John 3:16 says “whoever believes”. But what you never discuss is WHY do some believe and others refuse to believe; why some choose and others reject? You never, ever speak of why a God-hating sinner would believe?
Let’s do a comparison as see what we come up with if we use your approach.
Bubba accepts the offer God makes and has eternal life. Buford, on the other hand, rejects the offer and when he dies he lifts up his eyes in hell. Why did Bubba accept the offer and why did Buford reject it?
Spiritually, the two men are identical. Even an Arminian initially agrees with this. They all lack understanding, they have all turned aside, they have become useless, none of them do good, none of them seek God, they keep decieving with their tongues, their mouths are all full of bitterness and cursing, their feet are swift to shed blood, and the path of peace they have not known, and in their eyes there is no fear of God. (Romans 3:10-18) They are identical. The Bible makes no difference between them or any other human being. Every single unregenerate human being is in exactly this state.
But here’s what the typical Arminian will say:
1. When the Gospel was presented Bubba’s heart was in a position and of an attitude to receive the truth, Buford’s was not.
2. Bubba was more discerning that Buford and understood the truth.
3. Bubba was seeking God so he responded when God made the offer.
4. Bubba’s circumstances were so desparate he had no choice but to accept God’s offer.
5. Bubba had always sought to do what was right so when the Gospel was presented, he accepted. Buford, on the other hand, was not trying to do what was right and so rejected the offer.
Somewhere along the way to salvation, a difference suddenly developed betwen Bubba and Buford. At least that is what you say. Afterall, each and every answer you give makes a difference between Bubba and Buford. Each and every answer places some good (however slight) in Bubba (discerning, seeking, understanding, attitude, etc.). God saves Bubba not because God is gracious, rather God chose Bubba because God is gracious and saw that Bubba wasn’t quite as bad as Buford. The choice speaks well of God (for being kind of gracious) and it speaks well of Bubba for making the right decision, seeking God, being discerning, etc.
The question you never answer completely is “Why did one [who hates God] choose, and the other one [who also hates God] not choose? You even get close when you say “He moved on Bubba’s heart and Buford’s heart, but only Bubba responded.” What you don’t address is WHY DID BUBBA RESPOND? And every answer you and others provide focuses more and more on the non-existent good within Bubba.
According to the Bible, there is nothing difference spiritually between Bubba and Buford. But according to you there is a difference. There is enough of a difference to cause one, in and of himself, to accept God’s offer.
Here’s what Monergists are saying:
There is no difference between the two men. If left on their own, each man would curse God until the day he dies - and beyond. Neither man seeks God. Neither man does good. Neither man understands. Both men have turned aside. Both men have deceiving tongues. Both men’s feet are swift to shed blood. Again, each man is more than willing to curse God. Each man has a heart of stone. Each man is dead in his sins. Each man is deserving only of death at the hand of God.
Unless God changes each man’s heart, neither man will ever, of his own desire, choose God. Unless God changes each man’s heart, both men will continue to hate God, to curse God, to refuse to seek God, to reject a relationship with God, and to be blinded to the good news of the Gospel. If left to his own devices, neither man will ever come to God. Both men’s hearts are wicked, hostile to God. Neither man is able to obey the commandments (even though commands them to). And neither man wants to obey the commandments.
The only way either of them will ever want to seek God is for God to give him a new heart, a heart of flesh rather than stone. And neither man is going to ask for that new heart.
If God chooses to give Bubba a new heart, Bubba will then seek God - and God will be in a relationship with him. Before God gives Bubba a new heart, Bubba will refuse to seek God. Once God gives Bubba a new heart, Bubba wants God. Bubba has been given a new heart, a renewed mind, a new set of desires, and eternal life. God doesn’t make Bubba love Him. Bubba, with his new heart, wants to love and, consequently, obey God.
Buford was not given a new heart. As a result, Buford still hates God. He still refuses to seek God. Is God making him hate Him? No. Buford is doing exactly what his heart desires. And when he dies, he will have exactly what he desires, separation from the presence of God.
WHy did God renew Bubba’s heart? To bring praise and glory to God. Why did God refuse to renew Buford’s heart? To bring praise and glory to God. Do I know the “why” of Bubba’s selection? No. Do I know the “why” of God not selecting Buford? No. However, I do know that there was nothing within Bubba that caused God to select him. And I know there was nothing within Buford that caused God to refuse to select him.
Agian, unless you just WANT to call God a liar, ther is nothing withiin the creature to cause the Creator to select him. A particular creature is selected only through the love and wisdom of God and only to the praise of the glory of His GRACE. If there was some within Bubba that was worthy of the selection, then the selection is not to the praise of the glory of His grace. It is to the praise of the glory of His grace and Bubba’s attitude, wisdom, discerning, or you name it.
Until you can answer the question “Why did Bubba believe and Buford reject the offer” without pointing to something deserving within the creature, you need to stop talking about the unregenerated creature making a decision.
Why does a person “choose” God? Because God moved in his heart to make the decision. Why does the person respond to God’s move in his heart? Because God moved in his heart to respond to the move. Why does the person seek God? Because God moved in his heart to seek God. Why does the person not reject the preacher? Because God moves in his hear to not reject the preacher.
Every single human, if left to his or her own devices, would willingly march straight into hell, shaking his fist at God and cursing him. It is only God’s gracious bestowing of a heart of flesh on those whom HE selects, that enables those, and only those, to seek God and to CHOOSE to love God. )
Jesus died for the redemption of all of mankind. Just knowing of His death, burial, & resurrection alone doesn’t produce salvation. (Romans 10:9-10) Ephesians 1:13 even shows that we choose, God has just presented the option.
If all that you stated is correct then our salvation doesn’t even need/require faith. If what you say is correct then we are simply robots and God is using a remote.
The bible does say that it is God’s desire that all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.(1Timothy 2:4) God is no respecter of persons.
(MN: Look again. Who is the “all” being spoke of there? Is Christ the Mediator for all men? Does Paul want all men to lift up holy hands? Does he want all women, including the unsaved women, to exhibit godliness? Here is where the Arminian EXPLICITLY puts God’s will as subordinate to man’s. )
Your view of “changing a person’s heart” is twisted. God cannot force a person to do anything. He can allow situations…(and don’t take that too far like many do)…. (MN: Again, he doesn’t force anyone to do anything. When He gives them their new heart, they want very much to do what He asks. But again, would a God-hating sinner EVER pursue the things of God? And, by the way, what is accomplished when a person has their heart changed? )
Our prayers permit & make way for God to work on a person’s heart. The person can either chose or deny Christ. (MN: Actually, my view of “changing a person’s heart” is consistent with the rest of Scripture. It does, however, grate on the sensibilities of those who would insist on sharing in the glory and graciousness of God. )
You yourself said, “Prayer is one of the means God uses in accomplishing His decrees just as using us to present the Gospel is THE means He uses to act on the hearts of men.”
(MN: Being a means is not the same as getting permission any more than using paint remover as a means for getting paint off of old furnture entails getting permission from the furniture to remove the paint. Besides, how does my prayer, according to your system, give God permission to work on the hearts of the unsaved? )
Kill yourself….
If you want to, go ahead kill yourself. God cannot stop you. It’s a choice of your own. It’s the same with salvation. God did his part in giving up His Son to pay the price for redemption & it’s up to every man to choose or not choose Jesus.(John 3:16-17; Romans 10:9-10)
” According to the Bible, there is nothing difference spiritually between Bubba and Buford. But according to you there is a difference. There is enough of a difference to cause one, in and of himself, to accept God’s offer…”
No I didn’t say there was any difference spiritually. Both of them are spiritually dead. That is why a person has to choose or not choose God. It’s a soul thing. It’s up to a person’s will. Soul contains the mind, will, emotions, reasoning, & intellect. (MN: Tell me again why one dead person chooses and the other dead person rejects. )
It’s true that a person’s heart will be ready when they decide to make Jesus their Lord. Then the Gospel of Christ is presented to them several times throughout his/her life. One man sows, another waters, but God gives the increase. As we minister the Gospel to a person God is working on that person’s heart. It is then up to the person to choose or reject Jesus.
(MN: While this is likely the last posting for PUL on this particular thread, I did want you to see this next portion. Notice how self-centered and basically insecure PUL’s salvation is. Notice that I decide, on my own, to turn to God and I can, at any point decide to turn and walk away from God. Getting saved depends on me and staying saved depends on me. None of this is to the praise of God’s glory or His grace. It’s all about me. This is Arminianism in its most arrogant form.
And the reason it’s likely his last is because PUL simply keeps saying the same thing over and over again, never addressing that which is presented or at best forcing everything into his “I Can Choose God” template. )
Regardless of how much God works on a person’s heart, it is still up to the person to choose God. (MN: And what, exactly, is God doing while He works on this person’s heart? )
You can reject Jesus & nulify your salvation right now if you want to. All you have to do is denounce Jesus as your Lord and have nothing to do with Him. He cannot nor will He stop you from doing so.
As far as prayer is concerned, many don’t get help from God or answers because they don’t pray. Or when they pray they don’t know who they are & what is his/her’s in Christ. They ask, like saying, “Will You?” instead of ,”You said…so do it”.
If I have already told you that I will let you borrow my car & you ask what I have already told you I would do all I am going to do is say, “yes”. Only thing is you won’t have my car just my “yes”. Now if you said, “I will take it at such-and-such time”…then I would give you the keys and you would be on your merry way.
1st Timothy 2:4-6 says, “4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,…”
He desires ALL to be saved…no respector of persons. Jesus gave Himself as a ransom FOR ALL.
God wants all to be saved. Jesus didn’t just die for some, but for all & that gives each person the oppurtunity & choice to get saved.
(MN: So let’s see. You said:
a. Jesus didn’t just die for some, but for all people in the world.
b. Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all people in the world.
Based on these statements, it seems rather difficult to avoid the following bit of reasoning.
1. Rejecting Jesus Christ as your savior is a sin.
2. Every one has had their sins paid for
3. All of the sins of all of the people in the world have been paid for (or does it say somewhere that only SOME of the sins of all of the people in the world have been paid for?)
4. Since all of the sins of the people in the world have been paid for, and God isn’t going to make them pay for their sins again, then everyone in the world is going to heaven, since all of the sins of all of the people in the world have been paid for.
Based on what you say, how do you avoid going down this path?
Oh, and if you say “Rejecting Jesus Christ as your savior is the unpardonable sin” you will indeed be banned from this thread for the rest of the discussion. )
Thanks for your response Melvin. So the scripture texts your presented aren’t a good enough reason for an Armenian to pray for the lost?
(MN: The fact that God [according to them] is trying His best to save them but they refuse to respond is the reason there is no point in praying to God. It’s out of His hands [anthropomorphically speaking] and sits squarely in the hands of the guy God is trying His best to save. If what the Arminians say is true then that which Christ commanded makes no sense. )
As well I just want to understand fully what your saying, that God uses our prayers to him as a means to accomplish his will in saving people he has already decided that he will save? (MN: Yes. That is what I am saying. Just as He uses the preaching of the Gospel as a means for saving the people He has already decided He will save. )
That doesn’t make much sense to me, in the same instance praying to God for someone who is ultimately going to decide themselves if they are going to choose him seemed to not make sense according to the preacher. This seems to be that you have let this preacher present a scenario that is a direct assault on both sides of the fence, and accepted it because he said it in support of the position that you hold to be true. Just my opinion.
(MN: Not at all. People respond to the Gospel BECAUSE God has chosen them. Notice who believes in Acts 13:48 - those who were appointed by God. As many AS WERE APPOINTED believed. But He uses preaching/teaching/writing/etc as the MEANS to bring a person in. The fact that I was chosen from before the foundation of the world doesn’t change the fact that I have to hear/read the Gospel before I can accept it. Preaching is a means.
How did the preacher assault both sides of the fence? )
I find it kinda creepy how calvinists and other stuffy reformed types get off on the fact that God didn’t die for everyone, just them. It has an elitist tinge.
(MN: Actually, as usual, you are looking at it quite backwards. Consider this:
I [one of those elitist Calvinists] am saved purely on the basis of God’s grace. Like all those around me, I was a God hating sinner, shaking my fist at God. I had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I was [and let's face it still am] deserving only of hell. I wanted no relationship with Him and cursed His name and broke His law whenever I had the chance. Yet despite this, He graciously saved me through the death of His Son, the Son who said He will keep every one of the ones He, the Father, gave to Him. He gracious put within me a new heart that desired Him. And with that new heart, I responded.
On the other hand, you humble Arminians say “He saved me because I was wise enough or astute enough or tender hearted enough or seeking Him enough, that I responded to His call. All those other people, the ones who are going to hell, were too foolish, not astute enough, hard hearted, not seeking Him and got exactly what they deserved. But me, well, I agreed to God’s call.
Uh, tell me again who’s elitist. There was nothing special in me that caused God to call me. But there was apparently something special in you, and not in the others, that caused Him to save you. That differentiation you insist on makes you an elitist BY DEFINITION. Unless of course you mean something else by the word “elitist.” )
Melvin, I promise you, Lord willing, as water is wet, and as the sand is dry, that one of these days, you and I will greatly debate this topic, and your perverted on the sovereignty of God, and your twisted obsession and distortion, of Arminian views.
(MN: And what is the distortion of the Arminian view? Arminians say God offers but man has the final say. He can choose to accept God’s offer or he can refuse God’s offer. Since God makes the same offer to both [according to Arminians], and He wants them both to be saved, then there must be a difference between the two men that causes one to accept and the other to reject. And you even try to come up with differences! You just never explain the source of the differences. So again, where is the distortion? )
Oh, the reason why I say one of these days you and I will have a lengthy debate on this topic, is due to me being in the throes of several projects I’m working on. But it will, Lord willing, come to past…
(MN: But if you want it to happen, surely God won’t violate your will by arranging circumstances such that it doesn’t happen! What happened to man’s free will and God not forcing anything on him? )
Seekerman,
Can I sit and watch the debate? And if so can there be a Q & A session too?
Kyle
Mel,
I want to win a book!…here is my count of “Lafeisms”
1.Here we go again! The “robot on display” argument by the die hard Calvinist people.
2.)Melvin goes for the safe route of numbed brains and no responses.
3.)We simply line up and everyone spouts at the same time: “I have no say in anything I do…I am
completely helpless. I can not make any choices..Oh…somebody please help me!”
4.)Note: This is in spite of what Joshua said when he articulated the famous phrase: Choose you whom this day you will serve but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! Joshua should have known better but he did not have access to the writings of James White to properly school him on his limited/no choices in these matters!
5.)Let’s not even talk about…whosoever calls upon the Lord shall be saved…
6.)that might upset some of the groupies of James White.
7.)When the crowd asked Peter the Apostle about: what must we do to be saved…Peter, that rascal, did not consult James White on sovereignity questions but said to the crowd…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved! Oh…how could Peter be so wrong on this critical issue!
8.)And that Ethiopian enuch! He was so misled by Philip. Why…that eunuch went rejoicing his way after being baptized by Philip. But..did Philip really tell him the inside scoop that the Eunuch had no say in the matter? Thus, for all purposes, the Eunuch should have just kept his mouth shut and opined for the goodness of God and maybe just maybe God would save him from his sins. In that case, John 14:11 is thrown out the window.
9.)Why is it that Calvinistic people feel so threatened by free will and its exercise?
10.) Nice excuse…leave all of the driving to God and we bow out with no accountability. Hurray for Calvinism!!
11.) Note: both Calvinism and Arminism have serious flaws in their conceptual approach. It is just indicative of the limited understanding that we have of the ways of God but I will not go on a fools errand and support either side unequivocally.
12.)There..I said my piece and I am sure that the Calvinistic gatekeepers will be beating the toms toms and demanding scripture proofs and beating their chests in righteous indignation that their heroes are being attacked.
I was being nice in only counting 12 but you could also look at it like there wasn’t one shred of meaningful, relevant dialogue in that whole rant.
It would be nice if you could get Dr. White to autograph my copy of whatever you send
Pimp-u-licious, I am so sorry. I did it again - and this after spending some twenty minutes responding to your comment.
This is the new protocol - If I don’t address a comment before 10 o’clock at night, then I don’t address it until the next day.
Could you please (pretty please) reconstruct the comment and resubmit it? I had some really good stuff to say about it.
Mea Culpa dude.
Is is just me, or has anyone else noticed no one addressed the references I presented in the posting? All they have is the same tired exclamations of “God looked down through the corridors of time and saw who was going to accept Him and who wasn’t.” Even if that was true, why, from the objections of the Arminians, did God create souls He KNEW were going to reject him?
Not only that, but I’ve been waiting for about a year for any Arminian to answer:
Since God PURPOSELY placed 99% of the people who ever lived in places and times where it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to ever even HEAR the Gospel or even the NAME of Christ, and He further never SENT anyone there to give them what they were too remote to hear in any other way, how is Salvation an open invitation to ALL men??
Can men be saved without the Gospel?? No.
Can men be saved without calling on Jesus?? No.
Does the Bible say that God put every person where he wanted them, and in the time period when He wanted them to live?? Yes. (Acts 17).
So, since there CANNOT be Salvation apart from hearing the Gospel………
and since there is NO OTHER Name by which men may be saved beside Christ’s…….
and since God PURPOSELY put the vast majority of people where they could NEVER hear the Gospel which ALONE is the power of God unto Salvation….
and since He NEVER lifted a finger to get the Gospel to these people……….
HOW was the Gospel offer of Salvation through Christ an OPEN INVITATION to ALL MEN when God made certain they would NEVER hear it, and therefore NEVER have the opportunity to respond??
How was it those men’s FREE WILL DECISION to either accept or reject a Gospel God KEPT from them purposely??
Arminians………..step up. Lafe?? Beuller?? Beuller??
Gary, the passage of Scripture in Acts 17 regarding the times & boundaries set by God,
……..if you go to verse 30 you see Paul’s take on the matter. ” And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent. ” Now God is not unreasonable, and while we may not know of the peoples in the past, God knows. In this present time, as long as we obey Jesus’ commandment to go into the all the world and preach the gospel, then men will hear. Just my two cents…based solely on what Paul said.
(MN: Lesha, I’m not quite clear on what your point is. Please amplify. )
Firstly, all this talk about Monergism and Arminism is way over my head as I have never been the brightest crayon in the box. So Gary please put your gun on safety.
What I was trying to say in responding to Gary’s point of the Acts 17 dilemna is that
the answer to his question, is found further on in the same chapter, specifically in verse 30.
Paul divides the history of humanity into two segments - on one hand we have ” the times of this ignorance that God winked at” and on the other hand we have the “but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.”
This era (if you will) of commanded repentance for all men is from the time of Jesus Christ coming to earth and will end when the Holy Spirit departs the planet.
Leesha,
Great question. Yes we are to preach repentance to the world. No one would ever deny that. However, we could not preach to the entire world the moment after Pentecost. The fact remains that half the world was unknown for another 1600 years. Most of the world never heard the gospel even after Paul penned those words.
You see there is a difference between the directive (Preach repentance to the world) and application (The ability to Preach repentance to the world).
In essence Paul’s proclamation given by the Holy Spirit was indeed true but was not possible to the extent regarding the entire world at that moment in history.
Rather a better meaning is at that point in time the election was no longer limited to a select group of people based upon geological/ethnic basis but was now meant for the world i.e. every nation tribe and tongue.
I hope that cleared it up.
Kyle
Hi Leesha!! Shoot, I’m not even armed!!
Your observation doesn’t answer the essential question. Yes, God is now commanding men everywhere to repent since the Advent of Christ.
However, that doesn’t alter the fact that Acts 17 clearly states that God put all nations of MEN both WHERE and WHEN He wanted them to live.
If you lived in Guyana in 33 AD, and died the year after Christ ascended having never heard the Gospel, how was the Gospel your free choice to accept or reject??
You never heard it. And why?? Because God placed you where the Gospel had not yet penetrated. Was that an accident?? Did Satan sneak you where the Gospel couldn’t yet reach behind God’s back??
Naturally, no.
And since God is both Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnipotent (all powerful), he could EASILY have either placed you in a time and area where the Gospel could reach and you would hear it, or He could have sent a preacher to reach you wherever you were.
So, what if He did NEITHER, and allowed you to NEVER hear either the Name of Christ or His Gospel??
He KNEW where you were and He had the POWER to reach you…………but He didn’t.
How was the Gospel a free offer to you, when God in His Omniscience purposely placed you where it never reached you in time, and His Omnipotence never acted to GET you the message of Christ??
Frankly, that has been the condition of the majority of the people who have ever drawn breath.
God preserves a REMNANT for Himself. Only a remnant. And this remnant is pulled by His Grace out of the mass of damned humanity.
Everyone is damned by sin, an enemy of God, a hater of His precepts, and unless in His MERCY He plucks a remnant out of that mass of sin-shackled humanity, EVERYONE would go to hell……….and justly so.
So often we ask why God doesn’t save EVERYONE………..ALL of the Massa Damnata who hate Him with a viciousness that defies description.
Rather, we should ask why He deigns to free ANY of His intractable and malevolent enemies from their spiritual death and bondage so they can LIVE and UNDERSTAND and FLEE to Him.
GaryV states Can men be saved without the Gospel?? No.
Can men be saved without calling on Jesus?? No.
I thought God does as He pleases? “lump it or like it” comes to mind.
Now I don’t fundamentally disagree with you, but I would caution you in one aspect – your use of Acts 17.
Paul’s says all men are equal in God’s eye 17:26, we all come from Adam, and this statement was surly a polemic against the Greek’s pride, his audience. God does indeed give rise and fall to nations, and He surly established their geographical locations and what they would and would not conquer. Paul repeatedly uses secular sources to convey a truth they (the Greeks) would have known well, and want no part of, all men have no excuse and non Greeks are not “barbarians”. Paul is saying God is evident in all men’s hearts. This is not a chapter I would use to say if I understood you correctly, that God has appointed men to places (geographically) so that they may remain blind to God. That brother is a stretch as wide as my own free will defenses you have already heard.
I may be misunderstanding you, but your comment implies God’s plan of salvation from the very beginning did not include all nations, and all peoples; which I would argue it surly did by the word of many prophets. Israel was not exempt from judgment, nor were they given a free pass because God would use them to bring the world to knowledge of God (Him). Romans 3:25 – this was no hidden event (Christ crucified) it was indeed for the world to see. God is slow to anger and patient. In acts 17 Paul is saying the time is now – repent and believe you have no excuse, Christ is God, no such man made Greek idol will suffice.
(MN: So you’re saying saying Little Running Bear and his girl friend Bossy Maiden knew about the crucifixion, and the resurrection? Or perhaps they were at least marginally aware of the nation of Israel.
I’m afraid all they had was creation as a witness to God. And according to Romans 1 they suppressed the truth of that testimony. )
Melvin,
Are you suggesting all men, (before the witness of Christ), did not know God and that men like Running Bear and his concubine Going South over in the ANE parts of Queens are judged by the timing and delivery of the gospel message in a strictly historical context of time and place of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection? Maybe I am misunderstanding you? (MN: No, you are not misunderstanding me. Salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. I understand your concern. It certainly doesn’t seem fair as we count fair. But you have to ask yourself - which of us does God owe salvation? As some have said, I don’t wonder that he leaves so many to follow their hearts into hell. Rather I constantly marvel at the fact He chose to save any of us, least of all, me. If He chose to leave us all condemned to hell, He is still just and righteous and holy. )
My point, Acts 17 in no way specifically suggests God places men specifically in one location in order for them to be judged and unaware of God’s kingship as creator. (MN: No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t suggest a lot of things. No one is claiming it does.) God does hold men responsible for what in creation they have rejected, but if men respond to that revelation, God will surely provide a means for the gospel to be heard. (MN: But they won’t in and of themselves respond to that revelation. ) Perhaps again, it is as if my contention that if man responds to even a natural revelation, before Christ, that irritates the Sovereignty of God in your opinion? Acts 8:26-39, the eunuch for example responded with what little information he had, no? (MN: At best, we can say God moved on the eunuch’s heart and provided Philip to present the gospel. The eunuch accepted because God had opened his heart to be receptive. He was going to believe. But he had to hear/read/etc the Gospel in order to believe. Consider Lydia as another example (Acts 16:14) of one whose heart was opened by God to receive the sayings of Paul. Had God not opened her heart, she would not have beleived. She was already God fearing (also done by God). But even with that, it was God who opened her heart to believe. ) Just like Acts 17:27 says.
(MN: The eunuch responded to a presentation of the Gospel, not “with what little information he had.” Acts 8:35 says “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.” This isn’t just the light he had. Before Philip appeared the poor eunuch was trying to figure out just what it WAS saying.
While there is a natural revelation of God (Romans 1), there is no natural revelation of Jesus Christ. And apart from God moving on their hearts, men reject the natural revelation and instead pursue worshiping the creatures rather than the creator. )
before Christ, no one was saved? Abraham, Moses etc..or only those specifically mentioned in scripture?
God fearing folks, before Christ all condemened? None, zero, zip, did not worship the creature?
GaryV and Mel Man,
I always understood that the atonement and Christ’s sacrificial death and work on the cross was for the Old Testament Saints also, who of course did not know the name of Jesus, but did have some elements of the Gospel (the Law and the prophets).
Likewise, it would seem that Noah and his three sons (from whom all the nations descended from) had some elements of the Gospel as well (Genesis 3:15), even if it wasn’t with the clarity that many modern men have (with access to complete Bibles and teaching aids/commentaries).
The Good News is in both testaments. The Old Testament (Law and Prophets) basically said this is what is going to happen; while the New Testament (Gospels, Epistles, Acts) said this is what has happened.
My point to ponder is that the Gospel was not restricted or confined by time or geography.
Peace and blessings
Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”
“God never ever could have credited righteousness to Abraham’s account had not Abraham’s sin be paid for and it was on the cross of Jesus Christ though Christ had not yet come into the world, that’s no more difficult to understand than that our sin should be credited to Christ who care 2,000 years ago. He is the apex of redemptive history.” - MacArthur
Mark, your ability to weasel around the clear text amazes me. Yes, Acts 17 DOES INDEED teach that God placed INDIVIDUALS where and when He wanted them to be.
Or does God NOT have all knowledge?? Are you an open theist??
Here are the verses in question translated word for word from the Greek.
Act 17:26 He made also of one blood every nation of men, to dwell upon all the face of the earth — having ordained times before appointed, and the bounds of their dwellings —
Now……….of what are NATIONS comprised?? PEOPLE. Therefore, in setting the bounds of the nations He set the habitations of those nation’s PEOPLE.
That means that God PURPOSELY both set the bounds of every nation AND populated it with PEOPLE to live WITHIN those bounds.
Or can you show us Biblically a nation that is devoid of people?? I thought not.
Therefore, with God having set nations populated with people within bounds that were COMPLETELY EXEMPT from the Gospel for ages, during which time EVERYONE who died there died without Christ………….how did THEY have the free will choice to hear the Gospel??
Also, God IS Sovereign…………..and IN His Sovereignty He has determined that only through THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST will men be saved. You seem to imply that God does it by some other route. Can you verify that Scripturally?? Good luck. We do however have evidence that God FORBIDS the preaching of the Gospel in some places.
What happened to those who died between the times God forbid the Gospel in Asia and when He afterward allowed it?? How was a Gospel they were forbidden by God to HEAR an open invitation to them??
Act 16:6 ¶ Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.
I however have no problem proving Scripturally that without the hearing of the Gospel of Christ NO MAN can be saved, therefore since God purposely kept hundreds of millions from the Gospel through the ages by putting them in nations where He FORBADE the Gospel to go, the assertion that the Gospel of Christ is an open invitation to EVERY man is untenable.
It’s not an open invitation to those whom God prevented from hearing it…………which is the majority of men who ever lived.
As it is written:
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!
Act 15:7
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
1Cr 4:15
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
1Cr 15:1
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2Cr 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Eph 1:13
In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation:
Eph 3:6
That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Col 1:5
For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
2Th 1:8
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 2:14
Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Ti 1:10
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
Now, I have been unable to locate in either the didactic or narrative portions of Scripture where anyone has ever been saved outside of the Sovereignly designated means appointed by God - the hearing of The Gospel. Where do you find these Texts which say that God does this without the Gospel??
And, would that even help your case, since the vast majority of people who have ever lived have NEVER heard the Gospel, and that because of where and when God ordained they should live??
If 1 person in a million for example got saved by this phantom “other method beside the Gospel”, how does that help you when STILL the VAST majority of people STILL never heard it because of where and when God set their habitations??
God knows the sparrow that falls, the hairs on your head, yet He had no idea where and when those who never heard the Gospel would live??
And was He then powerless to get them the Gospel once He discovered where they were?? If the Gospel is a free offer to ALL men, why didn’t God GET them the Gospel, since the Biblical record is that WITHOUT the Gospel NO MAN can be saved??
No way around it - the proposition that the Gospel of Christ is a free offer to all men CANNOT be supported Biblically, because God Himself COULD have gotten it to all men if He so desired, but didn’t. He actually KEPT the Gospel from untold millions by putting them out of the reach of the Gospel, and not sending a single soul to rectify that.
GaryV,
Didn’t you know that it was Paul’s fault for not preaching to the whole world? That goes for Peter and the rest of them too. For example, not having adequate transportation at the time is not God’s fault and is NO excuse. If Paul had been a little more industrious he could have built a better ship to sail to other continents to preach the Gospel. But no, Paul had to walk around with sandals, camels, and donkeys. This Paul character was quite a dolt. Didn’t he realize that you can’t save many souls that way.
I mean really, this guy was a sore loser. Think of all the souls that went to hell because He and the band of other apostles took YEARS just to go a few hundred miles. All those American Indians died because no Apostle was willing to go north up through Russia, over the land bridge through Alaska, down through Canada, and into America.
GaryV, you and your Monergist ilk know nothing. You think that somehow God is responsible for directly saving souls when it’s obvious that it’s other peoples fault. I hope all the Apostles felt such shame for not trying harder to preach everywhere. I only wished they worked smarter and not harder. How dare you say that God planned it this way. How dare you!
Maybe if ancient man spent a little less time building Pyramids and Coliseums we would have had planes and cars by 4 AD and not have had this problem. I wouldn’t want to be those people on judgment day.
Kyle
Spoken like a true Arminian Kyle LOL!!
MN,
And the other thing I like to point out in addition to “why pray” is…
Why pray like this?
“Oh God, please change Melvin’s heart, save him! Draw him and save him!!! Overcome that hard heart of his!”
That makes little sense also give the free will theory.
(MN: Exactly!!! Instead, if Arminians are going to be consistent, you should be talking to me and trying to convince me that I need to be saved. You should have practiced hours and hours in order to make as polished a presentation of the Gospel as possible. Afterall, it’s my view, my will, my opinions you have to overcome. And if you don’t overcome them I will not be convinced and I will die in my sins. God doesn’t have anything to do with it. It’s my will and my will alone. And it will be your fault because you didn’t present the Gospel well enough. You should use music and entertainment to keep me engaged. You should work hard not to offend me so I won’t walk away. You should dress elegantly and convince me that once I become a Christian my whole life will change for the better. And if you are a preacher, you should have an emotion laden altar call, scaring, cajoling, reasoning, and guilting me in the audience until I come forward, walk down the aisel and “make a decision for Christ.” Or until I call the number of the TV screen and ask for prayer, making a decision for Christ and getting a miniuture replica of the Ark of the Covenant when I include a love offering of at least $25. )
Wow Melvin i was there at this conference. That is what we all need to hear. We are not in control of our salvation as many think. God chose us we did not choose Him.
“Oh God, please change Melvin’s heart, save him! Draw him and save him!!! Overcome that hard heart of his!”
Well, at the risk of being a moron – I have uttered like words on behalf of those whom I love. In my own human ignorance, filled with desire, I ask that they are saved by an act of God moving them to repentance and faith. (MN: Not according to Lafe. They can’t be moved by God unless they are willing to be moved by God. ) Thankfully the Holy Spirit presents my selfish ramblings and drastically theological shortcomings from being raised a stinking Armenian, to God in a more sophisticated theological proper way (Romans 8:26-27).
(MN: Yes, God saves despite our misconceptions, depending of course on what the misconception is. )
If I may, I would caution those here who may have the doctrine of God’s sovereignty completely down pat, know it and can defend it vigorously with utter precision, logic, and scripture, begin to think that this equates to Godly wisdom. It does not; it simply means you’re a good theologian, and I suspect Hell will be filled with such men as well.
In other words – use your free will and lay off Lafe.
Blessings!
(MN: Nice, but pointless rhetoric in the last paragraph. It didn’t address the issue. But I’m sure it made you feel good.
I’m also sure Lafe can defend himself. But it is interesting that you have said nothing to refute what was said. If, accoring to the average Arminian, my salvation is depending on me exercising my will, there is no point in praying to God to save me. He’s already trying His best but I’m frustrating His will. A Calvinist has no problem praying the prayer Robert prayed for me. An arminian has no reason to pray it.
But maybe I’m missing it. Why would you pray that prayer for me if it’s all about my will and not God’s will or ability?
MArk, try to stay focused and answer the question. )
Melvin,
Why is it interesting to YOU that I have not refuted what was said? Did it ever cross your mind that maybe I agree? - Perhaps it is you that needs to stay focused. (MN: Didn’t sound like you agree. But perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying. )
Why would you pray that prayer for me if it’s all about my will and not God’s will or ability?
wow! what a leap of rubbish! Focus Melvin on what I actually wrote and not your wishful thinking. (MN: No leap here. The basic position is that God will not override my will. He will not act unless I first move toward Him. According to Lafe and the rest of the Arminians, I have to exercise my will before God can act.
Let me guess, Lafe prays a theologically inconsistent prayer, and God does not hear him? Is it your contention that those with Armenians views (man must do something) are unsaved?
(MN: My only assertion is that Lafe is being inconsistent with his own theology. His theology insists that man’s will is superior to God’s when it comes to salvation. If my will is superior to God’s with respect to salvation, why should Lafe, or Robert, or anyone else pray to God to override my will…which of course is something the Arminian says God would never do?
To try a slightly different way - if a person’s salvation is dependent on that person in and of themselves responding to the Gospel, then there is no reason to pray to God. God can’t act unless the person agrees. According to Lafe’s position, God is already doing the best He can to save me. Why, according to Lafe’s view, should Robert ask God to save me? God can’t do anything more than what He’s doing right now.
This question isn’t about whether or not I should pray for another. I’ve already clearly stated that it is the appropriate thing to do. What I am questioning is the CONSISTENCY of his position. )
Fair enough, and I won’t speak for Lafe.
That said - why do you think one’s inconsistency is so important with regards to this specific issue (man’s “freedom” to choose or reject God’s truth and God’s Sov election)? I ask only to better understand your ultimate concern here, because maybe I am over looking somthing important. Thanks.
(MN: God says we are to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Without consistency we cannot have truth. If I worship a god I define as being incapable of acting in accordance with His will but instead limited by my will, then I am not worshipping God in truth. I am not worshiping God.
The more I am willing to be inconsistent [the less priority I hold for consistency], the easier it is to move away from the truths of God. And the more I am concerned about being consistent, the more I will look at the implications of what I believe and how what I believe aligns with the Bible. Theaverage Arminian knows the Bible says we are to pray for others, that God would move in their lives. The typical Arminian believes God is incapable of moving in a person’s life unless that person gives God permission, so to speak.
These two positions are inconsistent. The thoughtful person has to be willing to work that inconsistency out. And if they do, they will come to the conclusion that God acts according to His purpose for the sake of His glory and my will has nothing to do with it. Despite the assertions of Joel “Willow Boy” Osteen, it’s all about God, His purpose and His glory, not me and my best life now. )
Got it - thank you. I am begining to better appreciate how God’s Sovereignty offends men.
maybe I am missing something - sorry. I think you meant pimp u whatever-icious, I did not see Lafe say man’s will is not subject to God’s will.
You may be correct. Pimpulicious is explicit in the statement. However, Lafe’s position very strongly implies the exact same thing. I don’t think I am distorting his position is saying this.
Hey Mark,
Nice to see you here brother…
Maybe this will help.
If we are “inconsistent” in our theology that means that there is something that is false that we believe.
We cannot believe that the moon is made of cheese while at the same time be professing that it’s made up of “moon dust”…the two positions are incompatible, one of them (or both of them) is incorrect.
And….
Since we are all trying to see the truth here, having inconsistencies is a sign that we are not done yet…there is still a problem Houston!
So when MN points out that lafe is inconsistent, by praying that God would do the exact thing that Lafe would say that God won’t do…what he’s not making a specific comment about how Lafe prays, he’s really trying to get Lafe to see the folly of his own position, and then be consistent.
In this case a consistent Arminian is called a “Universalist.”
When an Arminian gives it enough thought, to say that God get’s what he wants, God wants all men to be saved, therefore they all will be saved, he either changes his position and realizes that the facts of Arminianism are internally inconsistent, or becomes a “Universalist.”
(MN: And how does he avoid becoming a “Universalist”? By digging in and figuring out where he is getting his facts wrong. For instance, does God want all men in the world saved or is Paul talking about all of a specific set of men? Does “whosoever” speak of all men or does it refer to the men and women on whose hearts God moves? Does God see down the corridors of time who is going to believe, or do they believe because He chose them at the beginning of that corridor? Most Arminians don’t examine their position deeply enough to ever see the inconsistency. Instead, they build a set of practices that have little or nothing to do with Biblical evangelism, discipling or church building. And those practices are rife with inconsistencies. As a result, people are “won” with a lie, taught a lie, and practice a lie. As I’ve said before, I had to stop using “The Four Spiritual Laws” because it was not consistent with Monergism. )
Hey Robert!
I do indeed see the inconsistency in the prayer analogy – thanks man! As you state with moon analogy, two things can’t be both true and false - you do know your getting philosophical
If we are “inconsistent” in our theology that means that there is something that is false that we believe.
Let’s consider the book of Proverbs in regards to this statement, ok? In it we have:
The righteous are blessed by God; and yet the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper. Inconsistent? I would say no, because other scripture balances it (i.e. the books of Job and Ecclesiastes for instance). My point and question would be – man (the elect) will share in the same error as Job’s friends when we make certain Truths rigid and wooden to all aspects of life, the exact thing Job’s friends did, no? Yet, scripture is clear – two paths, life or death – and as moral agents made in God’s image - choose. Moses and the prophets repeat this choice theme over and over. They also utterly convey the absolute Truth that God is in complete control of all that is going on around them. On the other hand, when one does choose God, because man is clearly unable, it was by God’s gracious act. Would God command of men something He “predestined” them unable to do? Is this not inconsistent?
I think an “under the sun” theology will always be incomplete (inconsistent in some way or another), and that does not in any way mean God’s wisdom and Truths for mankind are lacking.
Make no mistake - I have greatly appreciated your insights and value and look forward to your thoughts, And I thank you brother.
Btw - If Melvin was implying “I” can’t help but avoid being a Universalist – the phrase getting ready to go ghetto on sum body might be forth coming!
John 12:37-40, “Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
39 Therefore they COULD NOT believe. For again Isaiah said,
40 “HE has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.”
Sounds like Sovereignty to me!
Keith,
No one (short a fool) is denying God’s sovereignty. Key words in your passage - “yet they were not believing in Him” after many signs -verse 37. John is giving evidence (the prophets had forseen and already delivered this message) why Israel rejected Christ. God’s judgement, as Israel knew, or should have known, was absolute. Now tell my why Isarel was NOT responsible when John writes of Jesus saying ‘you will die in your sins unless you believe’ in 8:24?
Did Israel not have a choice and did God not already beforehand (the prophets) reveal His Sovereign plan, lest anyone complain? Sounds to me like God gave them the freedom to choose, and yet no matter what choice they made it equates to His eternal plan.
You might think of me as a troll. I drop in on this website here and there after running into a search on one of your ‘pimps’ a few months back. I have to admit, I find it quite interesting that as much as you assault the credibility of these modern day, self-proclaimed prophets, you almost simultaneously cling to words attributed to ancient, self-proclaimed prophets who relatively anonymous with the exception of their name. You then use these words to demonstrate the ‘obvious’ inadequacy of some modern doctrines. Ever ponder the irony of that? Since you still worship and unseen, and unheard god, I’m going to assume that you don’t. Ever consider that you might be just as misguided as some of the preachers (not pimps) that you rail against?
(MN: No irony there. The demonstration is that the doctrines preached by the pimps don’t match the statements in the Bible. The men and women who make the statements at least outwardly agree with this site’s view of Scripture. In that, we have a standard to measure. Certainly it has occurred to me. Remember, I haven’t always been a Christian and I haven’t always seen the Bible the way I do. What you may want to consider is are you misguided in rejecting the Bible as The Truth and as an accurate and true communication of The Gospel. After all, having relative anonymity is not a strike against a person or the truth they proclaim. And of course, the idea of being “self-proclaimed” contains a bunch of assumptions within the very statement.
By the way, our God is hardly unheard. Every man hears Him in their hearts through those pesky laws He wrote on them. And every man sees His work in the universe around us, they simply choose to suppress the truth shown in that work.
By the way, don’t expect me to give you much more air-time. You will likely become relatively anonymous rather quickly. )
Mark,
Ok…I’m going to take this stuff one sentence at a time and try and respond:
Quote
Wouldn’t that be comparing apples to oranges?
You want to justify an error in logic using two “seemingly contradictory passages” that are explained by “historical context”?
I don’t think so…that’s not good reasoning pal…
I know you’re trying to say that “because a psalm seems to contradict then the “free will/Sovereignty” issue might be the same way” but I don’t think that’s gonna fly. On the one hand we are talking about poetry and Hebrew grammar/history issues, and on the other we are talking about clear didactic passages teaching A, while some passages seem to say “B”.
Here is my take: Those who like to hang on to the autonomous will of man take a “cllear teaching” passage such as John 6 and then compare it to a passage where man is commanded to choose something and say it’s “equal opposites” in nature and evidence.
I think that’s really bad reasoning, and just grasping at straws.
Uh…exactly….
Another category error…God is God. He does what He pleases.
God commands us to keep the commandments…yet…He knows darn well that we cannot…
(Is that being inconsistent or doing it for a reason known or unknown to us?)
God told Moses to go to Pharaoh and tell him to let dem Israelites go….yet in the same conversation He said the following:
Inconsistent or God’s perogative to do and say what He chooses for his own reasons?
It’s ultimately to bring Him the most glory…reprobation or election….all of it was designed to do one thing…magnify God’s attributes and Glorify Him.
When a person hangs on to the “free will” thingy, all they are saying is that this whole thing has some other aim behind it…reward…men getting something…whatever…
I just don’t think you’ve made a good case here..at least 2/3 of it…that middle part was just great!
My question to you is: Why do you hold on to the “Free Will” thingy like grim death? Since this concept is not defensible in scripture except on a “philosophical” level, why do you cling to it brother?
Hey Robert,
Yes and No if I understand you correctly. Maybe I am not conveying it correctly. God cannot do whatever He pleases if it violates any attribute of His. God cannot lie, nor can God sin or tempt men to sin, I think we both agree. God cannot promise men something He will not deliver. God will not refuse any man that calls on His name in mercy and repentance, and those that do have been elected to do so. Man is made in the image of God, and the first cause of his own actions as moral beings. Maybe I am dense, but I don’t mean to cling to free will as much as I just see some part of it that remains true, even if not didactical ( or at lest I have thus been unable to show such).
Has God not, built into life itself - rewards and consequences? Blessings and cursings? If so, based on what, if not man’s “freedom” to choose life or death? God chooses to save whom He pleases, and it pleases the heavens when one sinner repents over the 99 righteous men who “need” no repentance, thus damned to hell. There seems to me to be some element of man doing something, albeit guided by His sovereign hand.
thanks for helping me work through this brother.
Mark,
You are stating it correctly…no problems…man chooses but man is not a “sitting on the fence-completely-neutral-being-who-is-unaffected-by-any-outside-influence.
As Pastor McClarty said; “you are either Satan’s puppet or God’s puppet, either way….SOMEBODY is pulling your strings” in an ultimate way…
There are rewards and consequences but my question to you is: Why does knowing that God is ultimately the cause of all that happens, instead of some “indeterminate impersonal force in the universe” make it so hard for you?
You DO agree that SOMETHING is the ultimate cause of all that happens right?
Well, the bible tells you what it is…God.
The think I keep mentioning that nobody addresses that the bible actually TEACHES this…in TEACHING PASSAGES…
But the view of free will is philosophically inferred by looking at passages that have nothing to do with TEACHING WHO WILL COME AND WHY…
Is that more clear?
Hey Rob,
Yes God is the ultimate cause of all things.
Yes man is either being pulled by satan or God.
Yes there are clear didactic passages that teach man is unable to come to Truth without God’s act.
However, is there not a difference between man choosing to do something “good” and man being given by God the freedom to choose an object (God); the tax collector unable to lift his eyes to heaven because he knows he is unworthy? Luke 18:13. This does not seem to me to be a work or merit of man, thus not works based.
Does Jesus not say “the man who humbles himself will be exalted? Does God do the humbling, or is something else at work? It seems, unlike the Pharisees, trusting in one’s self is the difference, surly not works based righteousness. Therefore, man may do no good (work) since he is totally depraved, but man may choose (faith) an object (God) and be imputed righteousness. That said, why the law if not to bring humility and helplessness and the exposure of sin? Why the law if not to re-direct man’s attention away from works and to the “object” - God? Would you consider the law, God’s means for bring man to his knees? Does God have to act in man before man realizes he is in need? Or has God given man all he needs to know to choose the object of his faith? Thanks man, and be humble in your reply
Mark,
Quote:
Yes it does…and they did…they chose what they wanted most at that moment; as we all do…but hear me know.
Everyone who is a free willer, hear this…Mark…are you listening?
They chose their hearts desire.
Could they have chosen against their own desires?
YES
NO
Ok…then…the question is NOT whether they chose, or that they had the freedom to choose what they wanted…but WHY they chose the way they did.
that’s always been the issue and the one that never seems to get addressed.
Could they have chosen anything else?
No.
God writes the future before it happens, he tells us what He’s determined to accomplish.
There is a word in that clause that was sited it’s “hina” or translated in English “so that”
It’s used like this:
“…they still did not believe SO THAT the word spoken by the Prophet Isaiah would be fulfilled”
The hina is a “causal sort of preposition”…it explains the cause of something.
“I tied you up tightly (hina) so that you’d not be able to escape.
In this case, they didn’t obey for the purpose (God’s purpose) that God’s pre-written history would be fulfilled.
Question: Was there ever a chance that they wouldn’t fulfill the words of the prophet?
Of course not.
Getting clearer?
Robert - Got it, much more clearer! Thanks. I think your explanation is a lot better than Jonathan Edwards (on Free Will) for what that’s worth.
Keith - my apologies, I was getting anoyed with myself
Mark,
Nothing in my quote nor anything I have said denies man’s ability to choose. The problem with man is that due to his sin nature, total depravity and (possibly most telling) his bondage to sin, man will always choose sin. It is not unless and until God FIRST regenerates man from spiritual deadness that man can choose righteousness.
I think Robert’s point about WHY one chooses is the key I was overlooking, and I know Melvin as probably said the same thing a million times. (MN: More like one million, four hundred twelve thousand, three hundred and sixty eight times. But who’s counting? ) The moment man says there was anything in him that another man does not have, puts Christ’s blood in a half filled glass; some need only a portion of it and others need more, and that seems to be just plain silly on all levels.
Man does have a choice, but man won’t choose God on his own. If scripture ever gave any example of this, I would be wrong, but is does not as best I can see. I still need to refine how one’s faith plays a part, but it appears faith is a compliment to what God has already done - His election. Before this discussion I would contend that this act of God must be received in some way. I think now I am more along the lines of saying yes man must repent and believe, and that in and of itself is still an act of God, not something man does unaided.
I may not use the term free will the same way, but I still wouldn’t go around saying God creates some men in His own image to damn to hell, even if it is true in a systematic theological sense. Man gets what he chooses, because God has not acted in Him. I am beginning to understand the utter effectiveness the doctrine of election may have on some folks – what could be better than forcing men to their knees and solely relying on God’s grace and love and utter care for whom He created for His eternal joy? Now that’s something to share, which is good news indeed! Thanks Robert and the others who have been patient, and a thanks to Melvin (grumpy arse that he is)
for a great forum to work through these issues for the benefit of others. I will take up no more of your space. Blessings!
(MN: You’re welcomed.
By the way, you make reading through a hundred of Pimpulicious’ comments utterly bearable. Thanks. )
Mark,
Read my post on this thread where I clarified what most Monergist believe vs. what Synergist “assume” we believe. (aka Lafe)
I’m assuming that your still struggling with the “Order of Decrees” and Hyper-Calvinism vs. those of us who subscribe to the Synod of Dort.
For example your stated, “but I still wouldn’t go around saying God creates some men in His own image to damn to hell” I wouldn’t believe that either and I’m a Monergist. In fact, this is what a Hyper-Calvinist/High Calvinist would believe. And of course one would assume such especially when coming out of Arminianism. Why do I say this? Because I too had many assumptions and struggles with “perceived” notions of Monergism which were not true during my transition. Only after in depth study did I realize that many of my objections to Monergism were based on my ignorance and perception of what Monergism was.
For example, during my Arminian days if you told me about Calvinism my mind immediately spit out images of Men as robots, God is cruel, God only loves some, God is a tyrant, etc, etc. However, after my embracing of Divine Election I still had so many things I struggled with. However, after intense study the real truth of God’s nature put all my fears, assumptions, and perceptions to rest.
Let me make some points:
God’s general love for all mankind is seen throughout humanity in that he provides for both the reprobate and the elect. God is Love and he loves ALL (common favor, common grace)
God showers this love upon ALL even though we are enemies of God.
God provides so much to us even though we by nature hate him.
God chooses to save some enemies by means of “Saving Grace“.
Everyone is provided common grace, certain people are provided Saving Grace. Common grace and Saving Grace are mutually exclusive.
God’s love is so deep that even if he didn’t provide anyone with Saving Grace the very fact that he allowed millennia of human beings to exist as his enemies and yet heaped common grace upon them all shows the level of his love.
As enemies the reprobate has no excuse when judgment comes. Even in spite of our hatred for God the very fact that He cared for His enemies is even more a reason to send us to hell.
An author is one who creates, writes, scribes, and produces. God is NOT the author of sin.
We were created in the very image of God. As such we had NO RIGHT (God never decreed such) to sin. God however permitted (Passive) sin to happen thus relinquishing him from being responsible for the creation of sin.
God however IS responsible for salvation (Active) seeing that we as fallen sinners chose to become enemies. Once enemies by choice (Man’s Decree) it was God’s choice (His Decree) to save some enemies.
I hope this cleared up some things.
Kyle
Kyle,
Thank you brother; I truly appreciate your willingness and sincerity to bring further clarity to what many folks struggle to understand.
May I ask – do you think that you were saved before this “transition”? In other words, must one be a “Monergist” to be regenerated?
And btw- Yes, you did clear up quite a bit. Thanks for taking the time to help me and others work through this.
Mark,
Mine or Your salvation was in no ways contingent upon “initial” theology or the theological position we will hold even unto death. We only need to look at scripture to see the very condition of mankind (T-Total Depravity) even though they were the elect.
David was one of the elect of God and he was a murdering adulterer. Peter, denied the very God he walked and talked with. And yes I too still sin and for years I was of the belief that “I” chose God (Arminian) which gave the glory to “me” which is sin. Yes, I compared Murder, Disbelief, and Arminianism. Sin is Sin. Sin in any form is against God but in no way can separate You or I from God. Being an Arminian will NOT send you to hell. Don’t get me wrong! I’m NOT saying You, I, David, or Peter have/had a license to sin and it does not matter what we do. Rather what I’m saying is that our sins Past, Present, and Future do not dictate whether we are saved or not. This is the (U) in TULIP which is known as Unconditional Election. In other words your Election is not based upon any of your Conditions. What I mean is that your election and salvation was not predicated on any of your works which include both good and bad works. In essence the good things you have done did not merit salvation because even your good works are as filthy rags and the bad works (Sin) you have done will not prevent your salvation.
The fact remains that most people today are Arminian. And regardless of this fact if they are saved their theology won’t send them to hell. That being said, the movement towards Arminianism was a recent movement of the past 300 years or so. Prior to this the majority of Christians were Monergist.
Kyle
Kyle my friend,
How is God’s love deep (in terms of common grace for those not elected) when man’s mortal time is brief (if the person is healthy and lives in a place that has enough sustenance and some semblance of law and order) and eternity is endless for the immortal man (separated from God, burning in the Lake of Fire where the smoke of his torment rises forever)?
How did we choose to be enemies of God when all of the progeny of Adam were not there and did not receive the command from God?
Peace and blessings
(MN: TJ, please don’t take any offense to this. It is an observation rather than a condemation.
Have you (the readers, not TJ) noticed we can often begin to cull a person’s theology as they ask questions? For instance, if TJ means exactly what he is asking, what might we assume his views are on original sin, man’s innate goodness, and the indiscriminant “universality” of God’s love?
The young woman in the back, waving her arm excitedly. Go ahead and answer. )
Mel Man,
No offense taken or will be taken (provided people are not offensive
).
I purposely limited my words in the question.
Hopefully the questions will elicit a thoughtful response and not a prepackaged answer.
Peace and blessings
Tee Jay,
I can’t answer your limited question. It would take too much bandwidth to attempt to answer such a vague question which would result in us going down a rabbit hole with no answer. We’ve already done that numerous times already.
So just ask the question.
Kyle
Re TJ’s question - In my humble opinion, It isn’t that man choose to be God’s enemey as much as it is man knows God but does not give Him glory. That makes man responsible and thus God’s enemey. When the Jews put idols in the temple, who knew God more? That is why His wrath burns daily against sin, why His own have their names written in the book of life from time past, and why all men are responsible.
(MN: So why do some men choose to give Him glory and others go to their graves never giving Him glory? Why did some Jews NOT worship the idols? Why did “His own” choose to become “His own”? Oh, and what’s the difference between choosing to be God’s enemy and refusing to give Him is glory? )
So why do some men choose to give Him glory and others go to their graves never giving Him glory? Why did some Jews NOT worship the idols? Why did “His own” choose to become “His own”? Oh, and what’s the difference between choosing to be God’s enemy and refusing to give Him is glory?
Melvin, we both agree everything that happens in creation is under God’s control.
Where you and I and perhaps others differ? - God gave man freedom to choose, and when man does choose (Truth / God) it was because God moved upon man (the only created thing made in HIS image) to choose such. I could be wrong, but I think your position is that you deny that “God’s will” could possibly mean two different “under the sun” things. One which is moral and the other is Sovereign. In other words, God desires (moral will) obedience, holiness, salvation, and life AND His eternal plan (Sovereign will) is of course made certain and that includes evil, wickedness, hell, and sin.
If God’s will is only Sovereign, He must be the author of evil and man’s disobedience takes on a whole new meaning (or no meaning at all) - disobedience becomes impossible since God ordained it. In addition, morality becomes insignificant if the only will of God is His Sovereign will.
Question - do you believe that Lucifer was once the Archangel of light in God’s presence?
If so, what changed his heart?
(MN: It appears so. I have no idea. The Bible doesn’t address it and I don’t wish to theorize. Angels aren’t humans. They’re…well…angels. )
Lucifer was an angel of the Lord’s. When we study, we learn that Lucifer’s name translates to mean son of the morning, bright, radiant, beautiful. Lucifer fell from God’s grace when he allowed pride to set in. That same pride caused him to go against God and God will not allow anyone or anything to come before him. We are to exalt God and not ourselves. We should remain humble and let him exalt us. Please remember that pride does go before a fall. Also be careful in speaking negatively of God’s preachers and pastors whether male or female. Keep your opinion to yourself and pray to the Lord for understanding. (read Proverbs 3) It’s easy to go with our own thoughts, but the truth is, our thoughts may not be right so we have to line up with the only truth there is. That is the Word of God. The Holy Bible!! End of Story!!
(MN: Let’s see - our thoughts may not be right so we have to line up with the only truth there is. But then you say we shouldn’t do what the only truth there is says to do. So how does that work? Apparently, we are to work hard to align our thoughts with the Bible where it says we are to point out those who preach doctrine contrary to what the Bible says. But we can’t do this because we should keep our opinion to ourselves. So how does your opinion line up with what the Bible says? )
Well..I see where the die hard Calvinist have had a field day while I was away…but that is OK. I continue to state: a plague on both houses (C v. A. arguments) which amount to a hill of beans.
Now..for the robots who can not think for themselves and want someone to lead them by the hand and tell them that they are a precious few minority that God is saving and everyone else is “fire fodder”….shame on you.
(MN: Everything between the front and the end of his comment were equally thoughtless and irrelevent. I decided not to punish you folks with his natterings. I had expected better, but alas, Lafe has little to offer but obviously uninformed opinion not backed by even a modicum of Scripture. Beleive me, I’m doing you a favor. )
People of God…be blessed and come out of this C. v. A.
nonsense/gibberish. It leads to nothing but puffy flesh.
Totowa….toe-toe (think the wizard of oz)…
toe-toe-wuh or wah.
(MN: There you go. Don’t ever say this site isn’t informative. )
Pam,
I believe it would be
“dweezel dwazzle dwazzle dwone time for this one to come home”…
I’m not sure what cartoon that came from but it’s a slice of my child hood.
Marky mark,
Quote:
Tell that to all the “…ites” that lived around the nation of Israel whom God chose not to save.
Tell that to all those living in China while Christ was alive…
There have been multitudes who don’t have or didn’t have the gospel.
If you come from the perspective that God owes men salvation then that’s a big deal…if not…then I trust God for his right decisions.
Since nobody has ever deserved anything BUT hell…
I thank God that’s he’s chosen some.
bob
Mark,
I guess I should have included this in the other comment:
Quote:
No…the OT saints were saved the same way we are; by God’s election of them.
But again…the pagan nations around Israel?
Uh Uh…
bobby ole pal
Yes, all mankind deserves hell. Yet, all mankind bears the image of God. If Who Flung Poo is over in China, how can we say he was not credited righteousness the same way Abraham was?
After Christ, as I attempted to point out with the enuach example, all who God wanted to hear the gospel, surley would be made certain. What scripture(s) do you base the exact timing of God never crediting righteousness to a geographical distant man’s account after Christ’s cross? This is interesting on several levels and I’d like to know what you think. Thanks
(MN: Melvin stands back and allows Robert and Mark to have a congenial discussion for a few minutes.
Ms. Mav, popcorn? )
actually - I am going to wisely back out of my question, as it is probably foolish to agrue about what God has already revealed to all men, whether before, during or after Christ. Who Flung Poo knew exactly enough of God, which unless God opened his eyes he would have rejected (Romans 3:11)
soory melly..shows over
(MN: Rats! So Mav, can we get that popcorn anyway? Burn Notice will be on shortly. )
Mark,
You said, “Man does have a choice, but man won’t choose God on his own. If scripture ever gave any example of this, I would be wrong, but is does not as best I can see”.
How about Psalm 14:1-3, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is NONE who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
3 They have ALL turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is NONE who does good,
NOT EVEN ONE”.
Folks! A reasonably good site that I recommend for all of the heavy hitting Calvinist types who visit this site for their refreshment and to see that their position is not next to God is: http://www.inplainsite.org. When you get there, go to Section 8A and read the various documents about your God like grip on John Calvin and his doctrine.
(MN: The rest of it was his usual set of non-relevant nattering. Again, he doesn’t defend Synergism. He simply continues to beat on the strawman he established months ago.
Please do visit the site he recommends. Especially take a look at Dave Hunt’s work. In fact, if you have a mind to, get Hunt’s and Geissler’s works and read them. Then you will see why Lafe has such a poor presentation. As one fellow said, Geissler’s and Hunt’s works have probably done more to convince people of the validity of Monergism than any work done by Pink, Edwards, Calvin, or others. )
Lafe,
Put your strawman away. Do you worship Jacob Arminius? NO! Yet your called an Arminian. Why? It’s the theology not the person. So let me knock down your strawman so you can put it back.
Monergism, Calvinism, Divine Election, and Augustinianism
VS
Synergism, Arminianism, Decisional Regeneration, Pelagianism.
It’s doctrinal differences not the person. You know that strawman is starting to look a little ragged.
Kyle
Brothers and Sisters: I noticed in some of the comments about my comments that some of you are calling me a rascal and other foolish names! Come on
bro (and sis), let us reason together…though your loyalties be as strong as steel to Calvin, you can be free if you so desire!
(MN: The rest of it was his usual set of non-relevant nattering. Again, he doesn’t defend Synergism. He simply continues to beat on the strawman he established months ago. )
Mark,
You are getting to be “no fun” are you?
Actually you’ve heard me say this here and elsewhere…that though we differ on things, you don’t take things personally, and you are gracious in your manner…( mostly)
Myself, and many that I deal with could learn a lesson about being more Christianlike from you…thank you for that.
Now…having buttered you up….
Forcing?
Daniel-san…wax on….wax off….
If God wanted ALL to be saved he sent Christ at a very bad time in history. What kind of Sovereign God would send Christ to earth 2000 years ago when we only had camels, horses, and not too sea worthy ships? Talk about bad timing. - Yikes!
So here is poor Paul and the rest of the apostles running around a small piece of real estate why 90% of the world is dying and going to hell. Sheesh! what kind of God is this?
But it gets worse. We have Christ saying things like,” Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day”
Man this bites! You mean people can only come to Christ if they are “first” drawn by the father? That’s not fair. What about all the people who have never heard the gospel. They sure got ripped off.
Or how about this one, “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
God likes to reveal himself to whom he pleases. I don’t like this one bit.
And then Christ goes ahead and thanks God by saying,” I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight”.
Talk about unfair. How could Jesus thank God for withholding the truth to some?
Oh! The nerve he has to say this, “I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.”
Oh that one really irks me! First Jesus is thanking God for hiding the truth to some and then has the nerve to say he only prays for the ones God has given him. - The nerve!
Or how about this prophecy from Isaiah, “He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them”
I swear if I find out who Isaiah was talking about in regards to who is blinding and deadening these people hearts why I’m going to……………
Oh the heck with it. I’m going to reconvert to Arminianism. At least I get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
( I moved recently that is why I have not been here lately.)
Kyle
Kyle,
Oh, come now! Let’s not go using the words Christ actually SPOKE! We need to just stick to what we humans actually think of as “fairness,” and let our emotions and flawed sense of “justice” trump the words of our Lord!
[/sarcasm]
Romans 8:7–The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so. Question: If our carnal mind is not able to submit to God, then does this not mean that something (or, rather, someone) outside of us must work on our mind before we are even able to submit to God. And since not every single person will submit to God, does this not mean, then, that God does not perform that work on all men? And since He does not perform that work on all men, then does that not mean that He only performs that work on certain men? And how does He decide whom to perform that work upon?
Now, before you say that you did something to cause God to turn your heart toward Him, remember Romans 4:5–But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. God justifies the ungodly. In other words, there is nothing in us that causes God to say, “Wow! That Hiram Beancounter! He’s such a good person! I have just got to save him!” Unless Jesus misspoke when He said, “There is only One who is Good, that is God.” And the Holy Spirit led Paul astray when He led him to write “There is NONE righteous…there is NONE who does good…there is NONE who seeks after God…there is NO fear of God before their eyes.”
I, for one, am not afraid to say that there was NOTHING in me that caused me to break down and admit I was a sinner worthy of eternal condemnation. I am not ashamed to say that it was God who tore down the wall in my heart and caused me to turn my back on myself and worship Him and Him alone.
Robert,
Re: “Drizzle, Drazzle, Drozzle, Drome, Time for this one to come home.” Was this what you were thinking of?
I want to make some points regarding assumptions made by Synergist here.
First, you naturally assume we are all “Supralapsarian Hyper-Calvinist”? What I mean is that Arminians falsely claim that we Monergist state:
#1 Men are robots
#2 Have no “will”
#3. God only “loves” the elect
#4. That the Gospel shouldn’t be preached to everyone.
#5 That man is as evil as he can be.
#6. God uses equal intimacy or Double Predestination regarding the elect and the reprobate.
Now let me address the above assertions.
We are NOT robots. Every action is not some function directed by God in every instance. God probably doesn’t care whether you chose Cheerios over a bagel this morning.
We DO have a will. However, we don’t have the ability to Choose God (Free Will) due to our fallen nature. Prior to salvation we exercised our will to sin daily.
God loves everybody (common grace) but does not love everyone equally (Saving Grace). The fact that unrepentant sinners enjoy any aspect of this life including food, shelter, family, a job, etc is an example of God’s general love for mankind.
The Gospel IS to be preached everywhere. We are merely given the instruction to preach the Gospel. We are not here to judge/guess who is to be saved or unsaved. God does the saving we do the preaching.
Man is totally depraved but not completely evil in the sense that sin encompasses his entire nature BUT that does not mean man is necessarily as evil as he can be. For example we are not all Adolf Hitler or Ted Bundy but we are ALL sinners. So we don’t believe man is as evil as he could be but rather that sin has infused itself in every facet of his nature.
God is not the author of evil and is in no way responsible for yours or anyone’s sin. We are. God Passively allows the unrepentant sinner to continue as he does. He simply allows them to hang themselves with their own rope. However, out of love God interferes with the nature of some people and actively saves them literally from themselves. These are the elect who God saved based on absolutely nothing that we did. For everything we did was just like the reprobate. And like the reprobate we enjoyed our sin nature and willingly executed our hearts desire to sin. So Reprobation is passive and election is active.
Lastly concerning Supra and Infra. These are terms which describe the order of God’s decrees. Arminians unfortunately assume we all are Supralapsarian.
Kyle
Any one care to wager that Lafe is going to come back with the same set of strawmen, completely ignoring what was just said?
I’m betting he will.
Beautifully said Kyle…….you Monergist heretic you.
Kyle,
Nice comment post…if you don’t mind, it’s gonna become a blog entry at
http://www.goshareyourfaith.wordpress.com
bob
Tooter Turtle…yes I think it was…now I’m dating myself…arggg…
Ok…Mark and everyone…just thinking out loud here.
This whole comment chain has caused me to do some studying…
Let me see if I can put this into words here:
The Old Testament elect saints were not saved by sacrifices nor by obeying laws.
The sacrifices were there as a “shadow” of the real sacrifice to come, the saving sacrifice. These things were only there as a reminder to them just how sinful they were; to “draw the elect to Christ” as it were.
Same thing with the “Great day of Atonement.
There were those who obeyed, those who didn’t and those who were outside of the chosen ones….i.e. Hittites, Amorites, etc.
This situation is NOT the same as a pigmy in Africa today; Christ has died and risen, the two situations are not equal/opposites.
IF there is an elect somewhere in the jungle today, God will get the gospel to him.
I hope I didn’t muddy the waters more…
Mark…does that make sense?
GaryV…see any issues with that?
Aaaaaaaaaah……….finally my brethen!
Robert, no issues at all. The sacrifices, while not salvific, looked forward to the Great Sacrifice to come. Before Christ, those in faith looked forward to Him. After Christ, we look back upon Him in faith.
In either case, faith (the gift of God not naturally resident in fallen man) in Christ is the center.
Hey Robert,
The OT sacrifices were part of worship as well. God hated them unless done with a right heart “attitude.” I do agree, anyone who God desires (purposes) to save will indeed hear the gospel of Christ. His plan is never hindered; it’s eternal.
I think our generation suffers from the arrogance that we are superior to eras gone by. After all, they didn’t have internet, and Blackberries, GPS and Twitter……so how could God effectively get the gospel to the ‘world’ before now? How many persons would actually be impacted by the Holy Spirit’s arrival on that particular Pentecost, considering there was no YouTube then?
(MN: Teleport people from one location to another. Project a huge picture of Paul/Peter/John/You Name Him to present the Gospel. By not having people be born in places where the Gospel didn’t get to, by moving on people’s hearts to go where the Gospel is being preached, etc., etc., etc, )
Why are we so sure that the Sovereign God couldn’t get the gospel around the world to all men in His own time? (MN: No one said He couldn’t. We said He DIDN’T even though He could have. ) Is it so hard to say, hey, I really don’t know PLUS the folks of eras gone by are already dead, so arguing about whether they heard the gospel or not is a dead argument, no pun intended? (MN: Not at all. It’s at the heart of the argument that God offers the Gospel to all people. If the people of eras gone by never heard the Gospel then either God couldn’t or chose not to get the word to them. If He COULDN’T then He has limitations. If He chose not to, then the offer isn’t to everyone. ) Afterall, there is no repentance in the grave.
Our generation is not evangelising the world, our generation is struggling to hold on to the pure and holy faith of Jesus Christ delivered to us by the apostles. (MN: But we are also told to preach the Gospel in season and out and to present a reason for the hope that lies within us. We’re not here just to run a holding action. We are here to tell others about Jesus Christ. )
This is the age of rampant apostasy, and the much adored, psuedo-omnipresent Internet dispenses more evil than good, and will be a dominant player in extending the reach and power of the ‘man of sin.’ It will be spreading the gospel alright, just not the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it will have the power to reach ‘all men.” Is the Internet then greater than the Sovereign God?
Lesha, the fact that God COULD have reached the entire populated world in a nanosecond but DIDN’T only solidifies our case.
The fact that God could have EASILY done what Arminians SAY (Allow the Gospel to be a free offer to everyone) yet He DIDN’T, clearly shows that He didn’t DESIRE to bring the Gospel to every man.
Otherwise, the inescapable conclusion is that He is POWERLESS to do so.
Does anyone but me find this humorous given that it was delivered by the same “much adored, psuedo-omnipresent Internet?
No offense but…
wha?
Hello, Robert:
It’s the pseudo-omnipresent Tower of Babel I’m tellin’ ya!
Regards,
Peter.
Mark,
Quote:
I think that this is where we get hung up a lot…the word “desires”
You just said that God desires something that he knows darn well he’s not gonna get…as James White would say…”The eternally frustrated God….”
How about we rephrase that…
God reveals His commands to us (moral will) while at the same time, all things are under his sovereign control. (eternal decrees) “decretive will” if that’s how you spell it.
How’s that? Fair enough?
GaryV, thanks for commenting on my thoughts about the OT saints…much appreciated.
Robbie old boy,
You are my linguistic hero!
ok, so we use your words (or White’s) instead of mine. Did we both not just say the same thing? You know I have never said God is “frustrated” about anything, so why this semi-secular “decretive will” language?
(MN: If God wants something and doesn’t get it, He’s been frustrated. You may not use the word “frustrated” but the fact is still there.
How do you figure the term “decretive” is secular only? It goes to God decreeing certain things. That is, He says they will be but we don’t necessarily know why they are or even that He has established those things. An example is Joseph and his knuckle-headed brothers. They willingly disobeyed God’s legislative will (don’t kill people and don’t mistreat them - from the time of Adam, Nimrod and the rest) but they, in willingly doing the evil in their hearts, played right into his decretive will (Abraham will be the father of a nation and God is going to make it so). By doing the evil they wanted to do, they moved God’s decretive will (or secret will) along. People often try to get around this by talking about God’s perfect will and his permissive will. Unfortunately, they speak as though He has two wills, one that’s perfect and one that settles for whatever He can get. Example: God’s perfect will was that Israel have Him only as a king. But since they weren’t willing to do that, He “permitted” them to have an earthly king like the nations around them. In essence, God got frustrated and had to work around what the folks wanted. )
God does not “desire” hell for folks, but he surely decrees it. No argument here. So, does scripture teach us that God has no “personality”, He feels no “emotion”, etc ….? Surely scripture does not teach us that God is without “desire.”? I realize I am using “human” terms – and in no way encourage human emotions to equate to an unchanging Sovereign God, but…come one man… relationships with fallen sin filled men requires something beyond a sovereign God who creates in His own image for the sole purpose to destroy? Godly wisdom is not strictly didactic; it is inspired and confirmed by God’s word, no? Jesus weeps, the Holy Spirit groans- and on and on… (MN: I’m not clear on what you mean by Godly wisdom being inspired. Do you mean that Godly wisdom is fueled by knowledge illuminated by the Holy Spirit? )
If God “repents” does that mean He changed His mind? NO. But He did change His course of action, didn’t He? Prayer…(human act) does matter, but it will always conform to God’s “decretive will”, no?
(MN: No, not always. I pray for a lot of things that don’t conform to God’s decretive will. I pray my diabetes would go away [it hasn't], that my wife’s MS would vanish [it's still here], that my 1992 Honda would have turned into a steel gray 2010 Corvette the next time I walked into my garage [it's still a pseudo-hoopty] and that Cirrus Aircraft Company would decide they wanted to give me an SR22 for no particular reason [I still have to rent low and slow C172's from Freeway]. But somehow, none of this stuff happens. Are the things I ask for part of His decretive will? Probably not. At least not so far.
On the other hand:
September 11, 2001, 19 Muslim crazies killed over three thousand Americans. Part of God’s decretive will? Yes.
July 18, 1975, I married Peggy Jones. Part of His decretive will? Yes.
June 13, 1980, Peggy miscarried and we lost a baby. Part of God’s decretive will? Yes.
August 6, 1945, the United States drops an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. It killed outright as many as 140,000 people. Through the years thousands more died painful deaths as a direct result of the bombing. God’s decretive will? Yes.
My purpose in going through all of these is to make sure you understand what is meant by His decretive will. It also goes toward an explanation of God not being the author of evil. )
I don’t think that God not “desiring” evil / sin frustrates Him in any way whatsoever.
(MN: Frustrate does not mean to get upset. It means, in its simplest, to not get what you want. I want to retire. However, my debt frustrates that desire. There is something I want and there is a condition or circumstance that keeps me from getting it. The Bible says there is nothing that can keep God from getting what He wants. If He wants to save a person, there is nothing that will keep that person from being saved. As a result, all of the people He didn’t choose will meet the end they desire - eternal separation from Him.) Everything is under His control; “directive will” and that includes sin and evil. Re: prayer, my point was God hears us, our prayer does matter, and in fact it should help us remain in His will, not our flesh. I think one diminishes the “personal” attribute of God by concluding sin / evil is His will simply because everything that happens under the sun is subject to His control and directive will. It is like hanging your entire theological hat on “God is love” alone. Surely that sets up a bogus god divorced of His holiness and wrath. I am just trying to communicate there is the personal / relational attribute of God that expresses “grief” over sin and evil
(MN: There certainly is the danger of diminishing the personal aspect of God’s relationship with us. Just as there is the danger of under-emphasizing the personal responsibility in the discussion of Monergism. Our goal is to do neither. )
I do understand and appreciate your explanation about directive will being moved along without God being the author of evil. I had not heard this explained before, thank you. That makes sense and I’ll ponder on it.
Ok - I got this in my email today from Got questions
God ordains future events in such a way that our freedom and the working of secondary causes (i.e., laws of nature) are preserved. Theologians call this “concurrence.” God’s sovereign will flows concurrently with our free choices in such a way that our free choices always result in the carrying out of God’s will (when I say ‘free choices’ what I mean is that our choices are not coerced by outside influences).
Wrapping this up, God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin in the Garden of Eden. With that knowledge, God still created Lucifer and Adam and Eve because creating them and ordaining the fall was part of His sovereign plan to manifest His glory in all its fullness. Even though the fall was foreknown and foreordained, our freedom in making choices is not violated because our free choices are the means by which God’s will is carried out.
This makes sense and pretty much along the same lines Robert stated. Thanks for the goal clarification! Blessings!
Mark,
Arggg…
Why do we continue to cling to the unbiblical notion of a libertarian free choice?
The bible NEVER SPEAKS of our choices as “not coerced by outside influences”
That’s a man-made construct, entirely unbiblical….
My friend…you are like a relative…I love you but I’d also like to strangle you sometimes
I’m sure you feel the same way about me and so I’m secure in saying that to a brother like you…. 
The bible speaks of our will’s as “enslaved to sin” “of our Father the Devil” and other things but never “free” like it’s described here.
Might I suggest that you just accept what the bible says about it?
God is Sovereign…all things ultimately originate with Him.
We make choices. Before we are saved our choices are enslaved to Satan…to sin…otherwise known as our “hearts desire”.
When God changes our heart…our heart’s desire is now Him.
God knows things not passively like this article assumes, but actively as:
“By Him, through Him and for Him all things were created”
and
“His is before all things in Him all things hold together”
Sorry…a huge swing and a miss on this one brother….
Mel Man and Robert,
I was thinking along the same lines as Mark (that’s probably a big surprise to you:) ).
Perhaps “decree” needs to be broken down a little so that it doesn’t come off as being too theologically deep or in a philosophical vacuum.
1. a formal and authoritative order, esp. one having the force of law: a presidential decree.
2. Law. a judicial decision or order.
3. Theology. one of the eternal purposes of God, by which events are foreordained.
4. to command, ordain, or decide by decree.
6. bidding, urging, prompting.
That said, are we to understand that when God decreed, that He actually ordered, commanded, ordained, decided, urged, prompted, purposed, foreordained (fill in the blank with every thing you mentioned) men to sin, including Adam?
Peace
(MN: The fact that a word has multiple definitions does not imply it means all of those all of the time. While I am in no way implying you are like them, the use of multiple definitions simultaneously is one of the favorite tricks of the pulpit pimps. Creflo especially likes to do that. In our case, number three is the definition we are generally working with.
For instance, God certainly did not order me to contract diabetes. He didn’t communicate with me at all in the matter, other than having the Nurse Practitioner tell me my glucose level was around 400 (as opposed to a normal level of around 85). Yet it is a part of His decree. Some how, His purpose, whatever that is, is accomplished in my life and in the world around me.
God didn’t order the thirty-nine moonbeams who were members of Heaven’s Gate to commit mass suicide in order to take a ride on the ship inside Hale Bopp comet. But His purpose is accomplished in the event. )
Tee Jay,
What’s the difference in your mind?
In my mind a thoughtful response is no different than a “prepackaged answer.”
don’t we “prepackage” all our thoughts? I would hope we straighten our thoughts out before we open our mouth…
(MN: My thoughts exactly. There is a difference between a knee jerk response and a response I have spent time thinking through and developing. Let’s face it, the same question over and over again will give the same answer. But if the asker thinks the answer is incorrect, the asker must demonstrate the error so the answerer can rethink his answer. That which the pimp defenders present, telling me to keep my mouth of the men and women of God, are thoughtless reactions. Defending the abosolute sovereignty of God through the accurate use of Scripture is not. )
Robert and Mel Man,
In my mind a prepackage answer can be an answer that answers a similar question, but doesn’t quite answer the question at hand. Or it can be an answer based on some one else’s reasoning, and not necessarily based on your reasoning (some people know what they believe, but not why they believe what they believe). (MN: Neither of these has been the case here. The folks you are talking to know what they believe and why they believe it. If the answer I provide doesn’t quite answer the question it’s because either I didn’t quite understand the question or you didn’t ask the question you really had. By this I mean we often refine our questions as we come to better understand the circumstance driving the question in the first place.
I might tweet you and ask “Where is Tom Clancy having his book signing?” And you would respond “At B. Dalton’s” But it’s not until you get to the B. Dalton’s in Bowie that you realize Clancy is at another B. Daltons. Now you refine your question to “Which B. Dalton’s is hosting Tom Clancy’s book signing?” I then respond “The one in Columbia Heights”
But when you get there, you don’t see anyone. So you tweet me again “What time is the book signing?” And I respond “Tomorrow”. None of the answers were prepackaged and none of them quite answered the full question you had but they answered the question you asked. But you had to ask one to determine you needed to ask a second and third. The discussion of Arminianism/Synergism vs Monergism has been around for a while. The issues have been well defined. Your questions are not new. The only new thing is your perspective and perception of the Monergist is saying. But even that is only somehat unique. In other words, the questions you are asking and the objections you are making have all been said and done before by better men (on both sides of the discussion) than us. )
In my mind a prepackaged answer comes from someone who comes to the question with the mindset that he already knows or has the answer. A thoughtful response (in my mind) is given when there is a clear understanding of the question and perspective of the questioner. Of course my mind could be wrong
(MN: We determine your perspective as we dialogue [which is what we have been doing for the last several weeks. As I figure out where you are, what you understand, and how you perceive things, my responses take those into account. The absolute sovereignty of God isn’t compromised, and the semi/outright arminianism is rejected. But yes, and attempt is made to understand WHAT you are saying as well as you basis for saying it. )
Thanx for the thoughtful response Mark
Peace
Tee Jay,
Quote:
I would HOPE that we do this!
How in the world would we get along if we didn’t think that the things we have the answers to were actually true?
Example: you believe that you just made a true statement…at least I HOPE you thought what you just said was the truth and not a complete lie.
The fact is: we all believe we have the truth…yes…we listen to other viewpoints, and we test them and weigh them against the evidence.
If they are found to be true, we hold to them…if not, we discard them.
All we are saying here as Monergists is that like you, we believe our position to be biblical, and we came to that belief by a study of the scriptures.
When you ask a question, we strive to answer it.
When you object, we strive to answer your objection.
Please keep in mind that as MN said; what we are discussing are not knew questions.
MN would have to shut down this website if everyone would just pick up a copy of the works of John Owen, John Gill, Calvin’s institutes, and Hodges, and Reymond’s Systematic theologies.