Mel,

Awesome Post! BTW, did you know that many Arminians believe in dual covenant theology? No, not like John Hagee but nonetheless dual covenant. Let me explain.

Some of the most famous and ardent Arminians like Billy Graham when asked about those who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel often give the response that those who have not heard are judged by how well they lived their lives and their understanding of God to the best of their knowledge. Well, this is absolute blasphemy. Sorry to say but the Arminian by giving this answer is providing an alternate form or means to salvation based on works. This in essence is the idea that the Law is a means to salvation to those who have not heard. Unfortunately there is nowhere in the Bible that backs this up. It is out and out heresy to even utter this idea that outside God’s grace there is another way by means of works under ignorance of the Gospel. In fact let me state further Melvin that this is also one of the other Achilles heal of the Arminian. They can only conjecture, postulate, theorize, or guess when it comes to this issue. However this is not the case for the Monergist. Because we do not put man made limits on God we can honestly say that if God so wills it he can make himself known to ANYONE. He can even do this to those who are in isolated areas of the world. In fact, let me further say that it is the Arminian that creates this cruel God who is limited by mans means of transportation and communication. Let me expound. Think of all the centuries that took place between the Apostles and the preaching of the Gospel globally. All the people who were unfortunate and could not hear the Gospel because there was no physical means, no knowledge of other lands, or inability to communicate in their respective language meant that it was impossible to preach the gospel globally until the 1900s. That being said this is where the Arminian creates out of whole cloth the idea that God uses another covenant for those people. However praise God for the Monergist who says God is divine. Praise God that HE is greater than time, distance, and language and can manifest himself to whomever he wishes. Thank God he has no constraints and if he so willed could save the tribesman, the aboriginal, or the peasant who has never heard by directly making himself known. Yes thank God that he can save ALL people whom he wills.

In Christ,

Kyle

Melvin,

In paragraph 11, you said:

“The believer is dead to God (Eph 2:1; Col 2:13).”

I’m sure you meant to say “the sinner” or “unbeliever”.

Excellent analogy though!

(MN: Corrected. )

Wow Melvin! you hit the nail in the coffin.

Ahhh, I love it! I used to say back in college that all this stuff was not THAT important whenever discussions would pop up about it. Now I have begun to realize that theology has consequences.

This was a GREAT illustration… if you don’t mind, I’ll probably link over to your article sometime! Excellent!

Greetings Melvin; Wonderful website. Hey, you may want to try and read Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free for a different but also similar view of the matter. I have not fully decided myself about monergism or synergism, and I am not an Arminian or a Calvinist. It just seems there are Scriptures asserting God’s predestination and election of men as well as man’s choice to serve God in the OT and trust in Christ in the NT. Both sides seem to work together without our fully understanding how (sort of like how we can understand the hypostatic union and Trinity but cannot fully comprehend these things—I think it is similar with Predestination/Free Will.) I do enjoy your website though and have had it bookmarked for many months.

(MN: Yes, it’s very much like that. There is also the example of how the Scriptures can be exactly what God wants written but the men not simply be fleshly wordprocessors. In fact the “difficulty” is if it is God who choses, why is man responsible? But this question, and our inability to answer it doesn’t change the fact that God chooses any more than our inability to understand how the trinity works cancels the existence of the trinity. )

With all due respect, and I have a lot for this site, what does this have to do with any Christian? I have never understood why folks argue this when whether the person is dead or alive is none of their business. Not to mention that they can’t tell if the person is dead or alive. Am I missing something? I understand the positions and the analogy but I am really confused as to why the fact that there is a difference; matters. We are told to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to make disciples. Really, I just don’t see where this fits in.

So are you saying that Regeneration proceeds Faith? What is the “ordo salutis”? What about “you must confess with your mouth and believe in your heart”? What about that one Melvin? What about God’s desrie that all would be saved? What about that one Melvin? Finally doesn’t that make God responsible for those in hell? What say ye Melvin?

Melvin:

“What the Arminians don’t discuss is: By what means does the unsaved man, who is dead to God, become aware of the offer that God has made?”

It is simple really. The Arminians believe in two separate workings of grace at conversion. The first working of grace is when the power of the gospel message and the workings of the Holy Spirit wakes the dead man. At that point, the living man is able to choose whether he wishes to accept Jesus Christ or not. If he chooses to accept Jesus Christ, then Holy Spirit regenerates him.

Now that is well and good and reasonable based on a partial and flawed reading of scripture. The issue is what happens with the dead person made alive who according to one of the Arminian’s favorite phrase quoting Stephen the martyr in Acts “resists the Holy Spirit” by refusing God’s offer of salvation. Does God the Holy Spirit kill this man by withdrawing His life giving presence from the dead man? If so, what does that do to the biblical statements that unredeemed man will only die twice, once at the end of his life and then in the lake of fire?

Related to this: what about people who hear and reject the gospel multiple times? For instance, a person who is raised in a church yet does not commit to Jesus Christ until adulthood while generally maintaining attendance will hear the gospel easily 1000 times (52 weeks in a year times 20 years). For lack of a term that better describes what is going on, does God kill this man 1000 times? And what if this man ultimately never does accept the gospel but maintains church attendance for family, cultural, etc. reasons. Does this fellow die 4000 times?

It is reasonable to say that the Holy Spirit does not do a temporary regeneration of this person to facilitate an offer of salvation every time that the person hears the gospel. If so, how often, when, and what determines this regeneration for the purposes of making a salvation offer? Any answer would bring the Arminian much closer to “Calvinism” than he would like to admit.

This is the biggest problem with this doctrine: if the dead man is now alive, how can he then reject God? That is impossible, for the very definition of death to begin with is separation from God. Claiming that a living person can reject God is the most basic and direct of contradictions. It is like saying that up is down. It is like saying that good is evil. It is like saying that hot is cold. It is like saying that day is night. Or it is like calling a dead person a living one. The dead man made alive has no option but to be reconciled with God, because otherwise he would still be dead. So whether you are dead or living, you have no choice, no options. Your fate has been predetermined.

Arminianism either makes the dead act as though they are living or the living act as though they are dead. Even without primarily relying on exposition and exegesis of Bible verses and instead resorting to human logic, it is nonsensical and unworkable in any context except to serve its purpose in the man - centered and man - worshiping mind that values its own existence so much that it cannot countenance God having complete ownership and control over it.

Great post my brother. I’m going to steal this and pretend I wrote it…lol…just kidding.

But due to what was written in this post, you do realize that a follow up is now necessary!

How do we believers operate to win souls if the audience is dead? (I have my take on it, but I’m curious to hear yours!) (MN: We don’t win souls. And even better, we don’t lose souls. We present the Gospel and God acts to bring the person in or not. I don’t know who the elect are. I only know that I am to present the Gospel. I preach, God reaps.

One of the great things about Monergism [I think GaryV or someone else mentioned it earlier] is that it takes ALL the pressure off of me. Finney’s approach [Arminianism on steroids] does exactly the opposite. I’m under tremendous pressure to say everything exactly right, to make the show pull at exactly the right strings, to force a person to make a decision. That, partly, is where much of the idiocy that takes place during altar calls (no such thing in the Bible) comes from. You have a preacher saying to the church “The Spirit is telling me that five people are on the fence right now. They want desperately to come forward. Blah, blah, blah.” Conversion became a matter of my cleverness and not God’s power. Success is then measured by numbers, glorifying the preacher rather than the Giver of life. ) As we encounter “dead” people all around us that simply cannot hear us are we to just spread the word to any that would listen in hopes that it would fall on some good ground? (MN: Pretty much. Otherwise you would make the mistake of trying to identify who, among the unsaved, is of the elect and who isn’t. My dad is 83 years old. From his behavior and his testimony, he is a heathen, an unrepentant heathen [and yes, that is redundant]. Is he of the elect? I don’t know. And I won’t know until he dies. And even then I won’t know for absolutely certain. After all, he has heard the Gospel on many occasions. It is quite possible that God will open his heart to receive the things I have preached, but not do the opening until just before he dies. (Acts 16:14; Matt 20:8). As far as I can tell, my mom died an unregenerate sinner. But she heard the Gospel. Could God have acted on her heart before she died? Yes. Several days before her death, she new her death was a virtual certainty. Does that mean she accepted Christ? Does it mean she didn’t? It’d be great to close my eyes in death, open them in the presence of Christ and see them standing before the throne. But if I don’t, it is what God decreed, pure and simple. I have neither the expectation nor the right to ask for any more than that - that HIS will be done and not mine. )

I guess I’m asking about our responsibility as disciples insomuch as we cannot give life, but can raise our voice like the trumpet in warning.

Since no man can come to Christ without first having been drawn by God how do we carry out the Great Commission?

(MN: I don’t think the Great Commission says “Go ye therefore into all the world and convince people to become Christians.” Who are we going to teach? Those drawn by God. )

Again, very good post, I’m adding this to my arsenal!

I am of the position that we are to witness to those who profess a lack of a hope in Jesus. Once that hope has been extended to the lost, they, of their freewill, can accept the offer or they can decline the offer. Either
way, in the knowledge of God, that decision was known. (MN: This is where the Dead Milford sits up in the casket and asks Benny to raise him from the dead. )

We, on this side of heaven, want to clump this discussion into camps of freewill vs. choice. Very simply,
I choose to exercise my freewill to either accept the offer or reject the offer. No robot or no, ” I was “destined” for hell blather. (MN: Again, Dead Milford exercises his “freewill” to accept the offer to be raised from the dead. )

The argument is a time waster in my opinion. Why? You do not witness or live your life on the basis of Calvinism or Arminism. You live it on the basis of un merited grace. (MN: Actually, since you were able to raise yourself from the dead, you were saved on the basis of your ability to raise yourself from the dead. )

No more. No less.

You received it (forgiveness and eternal life) by grace and you live by grace and you will die in grace. I think we tend to unduly obsesses on this question.

(MN: Remember what I said in the posting. Our gentle Arminian is moving through the list exactly on schedule. Remember the list:

It’s really quite instructive to watch. But then, this is why I used the analogy. I dare say every Arminian steps through this exact same process. Every one of them. )

Regarding the man in the coffin, he is truly graveyard dead. Sinners are not grave yard dead. They
can think, reflect, ponder and choose. Those are not the acts of a dead man. The analogy is severely bruised in the sense that a sinner (your analogy of the dead man) can run from a room on fire and he or she can sit in a church pew and hear the gospel and make a decision for Christ and we would never know it.

(MN: And as usual, they ignore or at least so water down what the Bible says, that they can then turn back to “I can decide to accept Jesus Christ’s gift. But they don’t talk about why someone who is an enemy of God, someone who, by nature, despises God, would decide to do such a thing. I guess when it says we are enemies of God, it doesn’t really mean we are enemies since we can sit in church and say “I love the Lord.” )

IF we are not careful we will run the risk of making camps of this theology and that is not the purpose of the gospel to see who is being drawn by the Spirit and to see those who are choosing to receive God’s free gift. A gift can not be accepted by a dead man. A person must be alive to receive a gift. (MN: That’s true. But it is God who makes the person alive before they receive the gift. ) The law says unless it is accepted, it is not a gift. That statement alone kills this nice coffin analogy that so many were
“slurping up!”

(MN: According to what Lafe just said, it’s not a free gift. It is a prize given to the man who makes the right decision. The wrong decision gets you hell, the right decision [which I make because there is apparently something good within me] gets you into hell. that is not a free gift. It is a reward for being in some way better than the schlepp who decided wrongly. )

People…the letter kills, but the Spirit giveth life. If Nicodemus was saved during his famous discourse with Christ it was because Nicodemus (not a dead man by any means) received the gift and the gift is by exercising your free will to accept the gift. Now, for those who want to be automatons and throw your lot to pure destiny…not so. You receive Christ by faith and faith can NOT be exercised by a dead man!
So, with that said, please send all offerings (large bills please!) to my attention and I will exercise my free will and accept your generous gift!

(MN: So Nick O’Demous reeived eternal life because he was smart enough/spiritual enough/scared enough to come to Jesus and accept what he offered? So he didn’t get a free gift either. He was rewarded for his smarts/spirituality/fear? Why did Nick come to Jesus and the others crucify Him? )

Okay, I’ll give this a shot:

The Calvinist doesn’t seem to understand that when scripture says that man is dead in his sins, therefore to God, it doesn’t mean that man can’t reject the offering of salvation that God gives him, for in the end, when man dies in his sins, he will never be justified in claiming that he didn’t have a chance to be redeemed from his sins. (MN: What is your basis for saying this? The Bible says we are enemies of God. It says we don’t want to obey Him. We don’t want a relationship with him. Why would someone who doesn’t want a relation ship with Him choose to have a relationship with Him? When it say the unsaved are blind to the things of God, does it not mean they are blind to the things of God? )

And using a literal dead man analogy really doesn’t work from where I stand. The reason being is, when a person is literally dead, there’s no more chance for salvation, or anything else for that matter. Now is the time to come to God, and accept his gift of salvation, not when your mortal coil has been terminated by the hands of God.

(MN: I think is works even better based on your objection. Because it’s only God’s action that makes salvation possible. The dead in Christ have absolutely no hope except as God acts graciously on their behalf. The analogy makes the need for God’s graciousness even more apparent. The next several paragraphs are fairly pointless and don’t really deal with the analogy. )

The bible, in many passages of scripture, refers to literal death, as “sleep.” Why? Because the sleep state is an analogy that our finite minds can understand, when it comes to defining, not only the appearance of death, but the coming resurrection of our bodies, once it goes from being mortal (corruptible), to immortal (incorruptible).

So when the bible says that someone’s sleeping, when they’re actually dead, this is a metaphor that expounds on a higher teaching, as it relates to the issues of death, eternal life, the resurrection, etc.-it doesn’t mean that the person, again, is literally dead.

Likewise, when the scriptures say that folks are dead to God, it doesn’t mean that they don’t believe that God exists, or cannot come to God, rather it means that their natures, and the choices they made in their lives, separates them from the grace of God.

(MN: Again, you argue my case for me. By their nature they reject the grace of God. Why then, would anyone accept the grace of God except that God changes their nature [makes them alive to God]? And remember, by their nature, they’re not going to ask him to change their nature. )

Now granted, human beings are born enemies of God, and are detached from God, because of their SIN nature. So were those who are now SAVED. But Jesus offers salvation for all, knowing full well in the end, that not all will bite the bait.

(MN: Your fishing analogy difinitely doesn’t work. You use stuff that appeals to the nature of the fish to attract it. Salvation doesn’t appeal to the nature of the sinner. )

Some will ask how can God know who will come to him, but yet offer salvation to everyone. Well, that’s why God is God, and we are who we are. God is omniscient, all knowing, all powerful, and works out things according to his will, and how he is able know ahead of time, those who will be saved, yet offer salvation to everyone, is a question that if I knew-I WOULD PROBABLY BE GOD, FOR ONLY GOD KNOWS!

(MN: This is probalbly the most useless paragraph of your entire comment. But I forgive you. You can’t help it. Arminians have to make various circular argument and make the sovereignty of man primary in order to defend their indefensible positions. To say that God knows who will accept is just another way of saying that a sinner will choose God and salvation even though God and Salvation are repugnant to his very nature. )

It’s like me asking how is it that there are 3 persons in the one Godhead, yet the God we serve is one Lord. Well, I have my ways in explaining this, but in the end, it boils down to this is what God says about his nature, therefore it’s settled. Why? Because if I truly knew the nature of God, and what comprises the stuff that makes God who he is, then again-I’D PROBABLY BE GOD, FOR ONLY GOD CAN TRULY SOLVE THAT MYSTERY!

(MN: I agree that God’s absolute Sovereignty and my responsibility coexisting is a mystery. But that doesn’t change any of what I said and your presentation is still rife with difficulties. You still have someone who hates God deciding in favor of God. You’re still having someone who is dead to righteousness decide for righteousness. )

In other words, as human beings, we are never invited into fully understanding the nature of God, other than the fact that he is God, and that he revealed himself in a particular way to man, and that in an epic of time, he chose to clothe himself in human flesh, in person of his Son, JESUS CHRIST! (MN: This has no bearing on the discussion. )

Likewise, God offering salvation for everyone, including those who became saved, who were dead to God, only for God to ultimately know who will make it over, and not, is something for God to contend with, and not myself-THANK THE LORD!

(MN: And this, at best, is a disguised effort to run away from the discussion. I have clearly said that only God knows who the elect are. That really isn’t an issue. )

Our only job is to go out and witness to as many folks as possible, trying to bring them into the family of God, before the door shuts and locks them out.

God casts out a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide net for everyone to have a chance, but again, because he is an infallible, omnipotent, omniscient and all-knowing God, he knows who will eventually bite the bait, and ultimately finish the race until the end.

(MN: You keep limiting God. And you keep raising man to a pretty high level. Again you assume that those who are enemies of God, who are dead in their sins, who are dead to righteousness, are going to choose God. Yet you never say why they choose God.

In the three years I have been discussing this, no Arminian has answered this quetion. )

(MN: And it gets worse folks. Now God is like the parent with a lot of kids. ) Again, some will wonder why would the broad net be cast out, if God knows only a few will bite the bait? Well, it’s like a parent having six children, who intuitively knows that there’s a strooooong possibility, that one of the children may die early, and/or become sick; become a ne’er do well; etc. but the parent decides to have the child anyway.

(MN: the rest is pretty much pointless and I’m not going to comment on it. )

Why? Well, out of love, knowing that the child may ask why were they ever born, or why did the parents ever have them, only for that child never to ask the parent-WHY THEY NEVER GAVE THEM A SHOT AT LIFE?

The parent did give the child a shot at life, and if the parent was a good parent, and worth their salt, they would’ve afforded every opportunity to the child, to benefit from the good this world has to offer, in that the child had access to certain opportunities.

However, if the child decides to reject all the good the parent is offering them, or gives them access to, but decides to rebel, and stray farther and farther, away from what the parent is trying to give the child, then if the child comes to an ignoble end-THE CHILD CAN NEVER BLAME THE PARENT FOR NOT GIVING THEM A CHANCE, even though the parent knew, or had an idea, that the child was going to turn out a ne’er do well.

But oooooh, if that child were to come to his senses, turn from his ne’er do well ways, and accept the offering and access the parent is giving them on a silver platter, then they would be set free from much pain.

The same with salvation. One can say with a surety, that the fate of the individual human being, will ultimately be determined by God, based on choices that human beings make while on this earth.

In other words, humans can never blame God for their eventual doom and fate, seeing as how on this earth, their heavenly Father, through his Son Jesus Christ, have offered them a way of escape, in spite of themselves.

In the end, it is man that rejects God, and God according to his sovereign will, therefore rejects the man who rejects him, and decides the man’s ultimate fate.

Why? Haven’t you heard? IT’S ALL IN GODS HANDS, AND ACCORDING TO HIS WILL!

(MN: Hold on there cowboy! You just spent an entire comment telling us that part of it is in our hands. You said “In the end, it is man that rejects God” and that puts it in YOUR hands. And it’s not according to God’s will. It’s according to your will since it’s your decision that saves you or condemns you. So which is it? Is it all in God’s hands or is some of it in God’s hands and some of it in our hands? )

Amen.

In the midst of the theological position it seems like the meaning and intent gets lost.

Let’s use plain talk of the implications and oversimplification of the Sovereignty of God (because it doesn’t seem like too many are actually declaring that God isn’t Sovereign, but how it’s defined is really where I’m not getting it, and I suspect that this is where a lot of the contention is).

God makes people get saved and makes people go to hell.

(MN: Not quite. Think of it more like all deserve only hell. He graciously, before the foundation of the world, chose some to be holy and blameless before Him [Eph 1:4]. Who among us deserve salvation? None. )

We are like robots, and the choices we make, deeds we do, thoughts we think, words we utter–good and bad–were because God made us do it.

(MN: No. Not quite. Before we are born again, we have no desire to love God. We only want to disobey Him. But once we are saved, our desire (because our nature has been changed) is to obey God and love Him. Don’t think of it in terms of two human beings. Look at it perhaps in terms of potter. Can a beautiful vase made by a potter do anything other than be beautiful? )

That seems to be what is implied.

(MN: Only if you assume that I am being forced to act against my nature. )

I recognize that the Bible doesn’t have to be logical, but the implication of the position has a lot of holes in it.

(MN: Not really. Though I dare say there are somethings you may not be willing to follow out through or that you may not, as with folks who are generally steeped in an Arminian environment, have a good hold on the basics of Monergism. )

The position may be the truth, but it seems like there are some other points that are missing from it to be clear. (MN: Such as? )

Peace and blessings

brother Melvin, you said “please don’t quote scripture that you interpret as saying that a man chooses to accept or reject.” what most arminians forget is that there is no metaphysical explanation inherent in any verses which they use in order to claim that man has free will. in other words, if there’s a verse that says “choose life” or “if you are willing…,” the verse doesn’t say anything about who causes the individual to choose life or what makes the individual willing. the verse would have to say “choose life, because you have the ability in yourself to do so” or “if you are willing, being able to will in either direction…” or something like that. any Calvinist (or monergist) can say “if you are willing, sinner, come to Christ.” but of course, he could and should qualify the question by saying “but you will only be willing to come if the Father grants you the power (John 6:65).” and herein lies the metaphysical explanation: man is commanded to believe, and some men do beleive, but it is God who “irresistibly” causes the individual that believes to believe (Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 1:29; John 6:44). the arminian can’t give any verses anywhere in the bible in his favor that gives a metaphysical explanation as to why one man believes and another doesn’t.

also, what the arminian confuses in all of his misinterpretations of scripture in favor of free will is man having a will and man having a free will. these are two completely distinct ideas. the question is: what is a will? the dictionary definition is “The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action.” nothing in this definition implies free will at all. so just because men and women in the bible make choices or are commanded to make choices doesn’t mean that man has a free will. it only means that man has a will. so unless the arminian can show from scripture that man’s will is free from God’s control, then he has nothing to work with. on the other hand, there are many verses which teach that God does control man’s will (Proverbs 16:33, 20:24, 21:1, Philippians 2:13). the verses given here apply generally, to groups of men if not all men. more specific examples are in 1 Samuel 18:10,11 (an evil spirit from God making Saul choose to kill David), 1 Kings 22 (an evil spirit from God causing Ahab’s prophets to lie), 2 Samuel 24 (God using Satan to incite David to sin so that God could punish Israel and David, compare 1 Chronicles 21). these are all negative examples. a more positive example would be Paul’s conversion (Acts 9, compare with Galatians 1:15,16). for Paul’s example, the choice was made in Acts 9, to believe in Christ, but the metaphysical explanation was in Galatians 1. NOTE: Paul didn’t freely (whatever freely means) choose Christ, but was set apart (elected) and effectually called. God is the cause of his belief in and love for Christ. i hope that if someone replies against my post, that they will refute me point by point with scripture proofs.

by the way, for those of you who may not know what i mean by metaphysics, i’m talking about the nature of reality, why things are what they are and why people do what they do, i.e. cause and effect. the dictionary definition is the “branch of speculation which deals with the first causes of things.”

Oh the endless debates of the Saints…
Let’s just rejoice when someone comes to the saving knowledge of the faith in Christ Jesus, whether by “free-will” or “election.”

Make no mistakes about it folks. I don’t expect a definite and unanimous resolution to this issue. I presented it to generate discussion and to give those who hold one position or the other the opportunity to present their case in a fairly non-hostile environment. I generally work to make sure no one takes shots at each other since the encourages folks to continue. The post will stay open for a while. Be careful not to simply repeat yourself. Don’t feel as though you have to respond to someone’s comment if the only thing you are going to do is repeat something.

And above all - no bloviating.

Melvin,

I have some insights into this posting, and can I clarify for the millionth time that I am not an arminist either. There is this story in the bible called the prodigal son, I think you probably know it, but the punch line to it all is “this is my son who was dead”. Now what is interesting about this statement is that the son was actually very alive, but yet still dead. See he was alive enough to realize that the pigs he was feeding were having a better life then he was, but he was dead in that other sense. Now do you think the prodigal son means anything in connection with say our relationship to God, or was it just a fanciful story Jesus made up on the spot?

(MN: It’s all about context JJ. What was the father saying about the son? He was saying that the son is no longer there with him, that the son had left him. Clearly there is no implication that the son was not able to respond to the father had the son been near the father. Clearly there is no implication that if the father had sent the son an e-mail that the son would not have been able to read it. The fact that the same word is used, doesn’t mean it is used the same way. I’m sure you can think of a bunch of examples in English. For starters, The use of the word COLD to describe water is not the same use when describing how you received by someone. Killing a crowd can get you the death penalty unless you are telling your agent how your comedy routine went last night. I could be getting myself in trouble with the if I describe my television as “hot” unless I’m Paris Hilton. Greek and Hebrew are the same way. The context of the word’s use is important in determining what the word means. )

Another story I think you might like. Ezekiel was taken by the spirit of the lord to the land of dry bones, these people were dead. I mean they could not walk, because they were dead. Their spirts were hardened towards GOd, but they were dead. Why they were probably deader than any man Binny Hinn could raise from the dea, but God said “Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD. ” (MN: Again - context. Context determines the extent of the use of a word. Otherwise you would have to say that Jesus was dead when he was in the storm with the disciples since Paul describes those who have died in Christ as those who are asleep. But I don’t think you believe that. And did you notice it was God who brought the bones to life and not the bones themselves? The bones didn’t be ask to be covered with muscle. The bones and the muscles didn’t ask to have the skin put on. The bones, skins and muscles didn’t ask to be given breath. But once they (the dead body) were given breath, their nature changed. They went from dead to alive. Yes. I definitely like that story. I think I will use it much more than i have in the past. An excellent illustration of exactly what the Monergist is saying. ) So you see death is not really the issue is it Melvin?

Melvin,

I have an article that may further be of help to those who have sincere questions on this subject. Please review the link and see if you consider it appropriate: The question of freewill in salvation and election

I am new to this stuff. I am going to attempt to jump in. Be nice.
You wrote:
“What the Arminians don’t discuss is: By what means does the unsaved man, who is dead to God, become aware of the offer that God has made?
It seems as if you are using the aforementioned statement to emphasize the flaw in Arminian theology. You would probably say that Arminianism is flawed because if a man is dead to God which you would say is indisputable according to the scriptures, there is no capacity to accept the offer of salvation on the part of the dead man. I will assume from your writings that you would say that it is God that brings “alive”, and one is so gracious for that act by God that they choose to live their lives for him.
If true, it seems your argument violates your own rules that forbid conclusions based on false assumptions or straw men. A couple points.

1. Paul didn’t mean death the way you mean death.
This is why your argument has been so difficult for many to refute.
First your argument is based on the assumption that death to God is the same as death to us. Stated differently, your argument assumes that the relationship between God and man in death is the same as the relationship between man and man in death. That is flawed if we believe that God is real, and God is as transcendent and powerful as we proclaim, then there can be no “real” “death” to God on any level, natural or spiritual. Thus Jesus remarks to the Pharisees that God is the God of the living and of the “dead”. This scripture was profound because it signified that to God; even those who are dead are really alive. If you take away your flawed assumption, one would clearly see that in the scriptures you cited in Ephesians and Collosians, Paul is using death as a metaphor to convey a legal meaning and one would see clearly the Arminian possibility. Death here is being used as a term of art such as consideration in contract law or probability in tort law. Here death is used to represent standing or status with God. “You who he made alive who were dead by your trespasses”. If death is perceived from this perspective the Arminian position seems very tenable. Status is not related to capacity. One can exercise their will to be free from “death”

2. Secondly you assume that the characteristics of death are the same in both contexts.
Here I am speaking specifically to your conclusion when you assert that God makes one alive to live so to speak.
You assume that As the man in the casket to Benny Hinn, so is the man to God. Dead as a doorknob. Not able to respond or even be aware until they are made alive. But is that really true biblically or even anecdotally in your own life? One could argue that God deals with people in the scriptures that you would consider the bible characterizing as spiritually dead or unsaved. Saul, the Ethiopian in the chariot, Naaman, the Phillipian Jailer. Etc. Moreover, other scriptures imply the power to choose before being made “alive”. Ps. 95:7-8. Joel 2:28 among others. Both of these scriptures imply awareness of God before they are made alive. And even in your own life, can you truly say that the first time you encountered God or the presence of God was when you were made alive. Similar to Romans 1:19, I believe that the courting happens long before our great decision. There Paul writes that through the Unrighteous of Men.. dead men…have the knowledge of God in their inner consciousness. They are aware, they have a conscious.. even though they are dead.. Therefore there is no making “alive” in the sense you speak because they are already alive in that sense. They can hear and see and they harden their own hearts, and most importantly they can call and be saved. Based upon this position the Arminian position looks good.
If you are right then salvation is more like Jesus Resurrection of Lazarus then Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, or Peter’s message to the 3000.
God will command and then one is made alive period, rather than offering salvation which implies the power to reject and implies preconsciousness to understand the terms of the offer. Moreover, if you are right about the death analogy, then no one will ever be lost, because once that command is given to live, there is no turning back, there can be no rejection. Lazarus could not go back into the grave and die. He was alive!! Therefore the word offer is inconsistent with your position and analogy. You really want to use the word command. Yet we know that isn’t right because where is Choice? You have to use the word offer which means you have to reject your death rationale.

Altogether, it seems you go too far with your concept of death by imposing that concept into the scriptures and then concluding based on that. You will probably say that the scriptures do it themselves but I think there are some serious distinctions, some of which I have outlined above. If death is perceived properly the way it was intended in the scriptures, as a term of legal art and not as a picture of reality, the Arminian position, despite its problem with the way its undercuts God’s sovereignty, seems more tenable and the Monergist position is the one with more problems.
Thoughts?

Once again, your comments in the last post depend on a faulty assumption about death. That dead state has nothing to do with the term death Paul uses. While those bones which are actually dead can’t say or do anything, man who is legally dead can say and do alot.
Remember, this isn’t Lazarus which is someone who was actually dead, this is the Prodigal Son who was legally dead, but who came to himself.. by himself… and then came home..by himself.

JJones, I did a write up awhile back on the prodigal son story. PLease read and comeback.

http://juliankandyministries.blogspot.com/2008/01/fix-that-scripture-p1.html

Praise the LORD!

Dear Christian Friends,
I have been really prayerful concerning this discussion and the other ones over the past 2-3 weeks and this is what the Holy Spirit told me.
1. A sinner or unbeliever cannot fall away.
2. A sinner or unbeliever cannot depart the faith.
3. A sinner or unbeliver were never converted(CAME to Repentance!)
4. Only a believer or a Christian who at one time by a Sovereign Act of GOD calling him/her(GOD drawing the sinner), heard the Gospel(Romans 10:17 Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of GOD), Repented(Man repented-TOTAL acknowledgement that he/she is a guilty sinner in need of a SAVIOR and accepted the gift) and believed the gospel, accepted the gospel faith(baptism…and becoming born again) and kept the faith(We ALL must ENDURE to the end)….can(it is possible) willingly(man’s choice) fall away.

I agree with Election/Chosen and everybody on here agrees that SALVATION is a GIFT! But man is responsible for his decisions/choices and actions–Why? The LORD is going to judge everyone according to their works.

Question. Can a Christian fall away? The answer is here.
Hebrews 6:4-6 speaks to Christians–not sinners!
Heb 6:4-6 FOR IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, (5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, (6) IF THEY SHALL FALL AWAY, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

These scriptures vividly state the POINT OF NO RETURN! The greatest biblical example of the POINT OF NO RETURN…Judas Iscariot. None of us walked with, talked with, supped with, witnessed personally the SON of GOD like Judas did! That’s why, we MUST pray LORD create within me the right spirit and do not take your Holy Spirit away from me!

The apostasy or the great falling away is not about sinners who NEVER heard the gospel….Only a Christian believer CAN(Possibility and the scriptures declare that there will be a great falling away and it is happening before our very eyes-Amen)….fall away.

Dear Melvin,

In Romans 5, Paul uses “dead” to mean under judgment. He opposes death to eternal life or “justification of life”. We are either condemned (dead) or justified (alive). So dead isn’t about depravity, but rather simply not having eternal life. You seem to be mixing metaphors. Dead isn’t about our inability to respond to the gospel, but rather our lack of eternal life.

God be with you,
Dan

People: The unsaved man is not “dead” to God. When
Nicodemus debated Jesus, Nicodemus was not dead.
He listened and asked questions and his questions were about his so called “dead” spiritual man. You are only “dead” spiritually when you continue to reject the offer of repentance from dead works. If and when you continue in your rejection of the offered free gift…you
remain dead in your sins.
When in the Book of Isaiah, when it is said, “come, let us reason together…..” that conversation can not take place with a dead man. A dead man can not reason.
We need to put aside this endless debate about Calvinism and Arminism because it (the differing sides)
will last until we are in our new bodies and then we can
laugh with and at each other for our reasoning blunders committed while in this tent of flesh. Freewill means just that. It is free to exercise for or against the things of God and we can will or choose the options before us. When God said whosoever comes to me I will in no wise cast out….dead men can not do that!
The coming to Christ means we have heard the gospel and have made a freewill response to its call. Jesus Christ did not die on a cross to promote Calvinism or Arminism. That is the “gunk” of mankind raising high
“flalooting” arguments that in the final analysis do not
amount to a hill of beans.
You will not be judged on how well you demonstrated the tenets of arminism or calvinism but on the principles of submission and obedience to the Lordship of Jesus the Christ. When Paul was pressing ontwards
towards the mark….I do not believe he was asking himself….”now is my calvinism in order or is my arminism doctrine up to date? No. That was a later development of debaters and philosophers who had too much time on their hands. Jesus never divided up the N.T. into such nonsensical camps of belief. He is the object of our attention and focus and worship and study and not calvinism or arminism or at what time did freewill enter the consciousness of man or am I free to chose or deny the Christ. Seeking the kingdom is not based upon your developed doctrine of arminism or calvinism. It is Jesus Christ and Him crucified! All else pales in contrast to this goal.

Mr. Jones I pray all is well. I would like to know what resources do you recommend regarding this post. I am looking for a GREAT resource that explains Monergism & Synergism. Thanks and have a blessed day.

(MN: Start with A. W. Pink’s “The Sovereignty of God” )

Before I ever heard of the terms Monergist or Arminian, or whether you would say i was elected or that I selected; I believe without any doubt that God is Sovereign. His sovereignty is complete and is perfect. So I admonish us all do not worship free will. Do not hold onto your free will and serve it like an idol. Holding onto it with such vigor will cause you to miss out on one of the most important processes of this race that we all run, and that is having an abiding and intimate relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. If we would reflect back to that faithful night in the garden of Gethsemane it is the example of our saviour total surrender of his will to God our father (Matthew 26:42-44) (Luke 22:42)that through his scarifice on the cross we experience the profound joy and peace that grace provides. Because of Jesus example we must surrender our will totally to the Father. As scary of a concept this can be even for some christians it must be done , for it is how we work out or faith and run the race. My humble testimony is that I depend on God’s sovereignty. It brings me over abiding peace, great hope, and exceedingly great joy!

Corinthians 1:4-9

Greetings. If I may comment–Jesus said that both the dead and the living can believe: ” …He that believeth in me though he were dead yet shall he live and whosoever that liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”

Also, Can this analogy be applyed conversely? Mr. MIlford becomes a recipient of God’s sovereign grace and is raised from the dead. He is now alive to God but dead to sin….?? The converse presents all kinds of problems for the monergist position, in my opinion.

A real scenario is found in Rev. 2:20,21,22. Jezebel is obviously dead and stinking; she is seducing God’s servants to commit fornication. God then commands her to repent (turn or burn), gives her space (time) to repent, but “she WILLETH not to repent of her fornications.”

Dr Robert Shank’s take on this passage is as follows:

“Consider especially the words of our Lord, ‘I gave her space [time, opportunity] to repent…and she repented not.’ If Calvinism’s thesis of monergism is correct, if repentance hinges on the decision of God alone, if man repents only as a consequence of a special immediate act of God, we are left to wonder why Christ gave Jezebel opportunity to repent without giving her repentance. If her failure to repent was the consequence of His own decision, in what sense did He give her opportunity to repent? If He did not choose for her to repent, why did He do something directed toward repentance? If He did something directed toward repentance, why did He not do everything needed? If the repentance of Jezebel and His servants hinged on His own decision rather than theirs, where is any sincerity in His warning of dire consequences to come ‘except ye repent’? No logic, no reason, no sensible meaning can be found in the text if it be denied that there is latitude in the will of God and that man’s agency and responsibility to repent are authentic rather than artificial, imaginary and symbolic, as monergism insists. Monergism collapses in the face of Revelation 2:21.”

What’s your take?

In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas

(MN: What you are about to read is pretty much part of the end results of the basic Arminian doctrine. But at least they are consistent. Not only do you decide to come in but you decide to get out as well. Notice he uses the same words I do but definitely not the same way. )

Dear Christian Friends,

the Holy Spirit told me to share this scripture.

Matthew 4:4 KJV
But he answered and said, It is written, Man SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD
THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.

That’s natural life, spiritual life, and after life!

Matthew 4:4 SETTLES the case for all mankind. Whether saved or unsaved…

GOD’s WILL is set and established. We all agree on that! Amen.

We(Man) do not get to WRITE THE RULES…The earth’s is the LORD’s and the fulness thereof. All power in heaven and earth is given unto ME. I know we all agree here!

We all agree that no man can live without GOD…So the lets ack the following questions:
Can man reject GOD?
Can man’s willful disobedience cause GOD to reject HIM?
Can a Christian fall away or apostasize(is that a word)?

The parable of the 5 wise virgins(converts) and the 5 foolish virgins(converts) TELLS us that some Christians if they ain’t livin right and doing HIS will…they will get left behind. Therefore a Christian IS RESPONSIBLE to live and walk in the Spirit and NOT according to the works of the FLESH. Amen.

The servants with 5 talents, 2 talents, and the 1 talent…Christians are chosen, sent, and sanctified by GOD to do a work for HIM in our respective generations!
The problem is as whole in the USA, we Christians represent CHRIST very, very poorly! Do we agree? Amen.

To be Cont’d.

There are so many comments that I really do not have the time to follow so I will simply ask my questions and Melvin you can answer it in this one concise location.

Let me preface that I do not believe a man can wake up in the morning and decide to get saved than I believe that a fish can come to the conclusion that he is tired of being wet and attempt to towel dry himself. It is God that draws men to God and without that no man can come to Christ and with coming to Christ no man can come to the Father.

Here go the questions.
1. What is the Christian’s role in carrying out the Great Commission as found in Acts 1:8; Matthew 28:18-20, etc.?

2. Romans 6:2 declares us to be dead to sin. So according to your analogy it is impossible for a Christian to sin. Is this what you believe? If it is not then why does your analogy work for Milford but not for Christian?

Two closing points:
1. Proverbs 11:30 makes it clear that the individual that winneth (continually wins) souls is wise.

2. For the record I am neither Armanian, Calvanist,etc. The theology of dead men, no matter how sincere the men, is always dead theology. I think we need to drop the labels and the deification of men’s theology and just become Christians again and disciples of Christ.

BTW I enjoy your blog.

Melvin it is true what you are saying. When I got saved in the spring of 1988 at the age of 16. It was God who brought me into His kingdom, not me choosing Him. It was through a series of events in my life that the Holy Spirit put on my heart to accept Christ. I just did not get this notion to accept Christ out of the blue. It was predestined before the foundation of the world to happen. We need to understand this seriously, espeically in African-american congreations. We have no clue really how to do biblical chrisitanity as a people. It will change how we evangelize, do mission work, preaching & teaching,etc. Calvinism is the only way to go.

Ah, spare us this Calvinist b***s*** (MN) . I’ll rather take all the Charismatic non-sense than that TULIP blasphemy, “You’re goin’ to hell, baby, ’cause the good Lord never loved, never gave His Son for you, and you’ll never be saved, but will writhe in hell for ever ’cause that was His good will…” Yea, sure, Wesley has said that what Satan never achieved Calvinists’ God did…

Melvin,
It took me a long time to reach the understanding that He is God and we are not. We were created for the sole purpose of bringing HIM glory. Yet somewhere in our self-righteous humanness, we seem to think it’s all about us, our rights, our choice. Did Adam have a choice in being created? Who are we to question our creator? He said it, it is so.

It took my husband and I a long time and TONS of stretching in place that we didn’t want to be stretched to realize this. But, truly once we did, it was quite freeing. In EVERY aspect.

God is God is God.

I think you have referenced the following verses already, but these are the one’s that God used to really speak to us in this area.

“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? ” Rom 9:14-24

May we continually seek HIS truth and not our own.

Thank you again for a great post!

You gotta wonder if these folks who lean towards an “Arminian” view are saved, eh? sarcasm I mean faith is living, no? dead folks don’t struggle. btw brother Melvin - I would hardly call the repeated biblical teachings that man is accountable to God and we are free and accountable to respond - “glossing over”.

Sincerely - a very calm “Calvanist”.

(MN: Lafe made several errors and made several attempts at misdirection in his argument. Let’s pretend this is a verbal version of Highlights Hidden Pictures. (Remember reading those in the Dentist/Doctor’s office? Ah, the Timbertoes, the sloppy and neat twins Goofus and Gallant!). See how many jumps in logic, circular arguments, and other violations you can find in the following text. Whoever finds the most will get a signed copy of the book “Willing Myself to Salvation” by I. Sayve Mi, one of the fresh new voices out of China. In it, find out how enemies of God suddenly decide to be friends with God and how those who refuse to seek righteousness force themselves to do exactly that. )

Christopher: Yes, scripture is correct but when you properly apply the verse that you wish for me to comment upon, if you are set uoon the flesh of course you can not please God. But, if you choose not to be set upon the flesh, you can, as Nocodemus did, set your mind upon what God has placed before you as choices and exercise your freewill.

A natural example: if you are a smoker, you are set upon the flesh and pleasing the flesh with nicotine. But if you chose not to smoke and change your orientation and attitude, you can see that there is a way out. The same is for the sinner man. When he sees the terrible results of sin and has come to the end of his rope, he or she can say or cry out….”God, help me!”

The thief on the cross was not troubled by arminism or calvinsim arguments when he recognized that his sinful ways were in direct contrast to the holy man who was dying next to him and seeing a choice, he said, “Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom!” What was the response of Jesus? Did he state….hold on. Are you of the calvinism persuasion or the arminism persuasion and is this an act of your freewill? No….he said….today you will be with me in Paradise! Did that sinner on the cross repeat a sinner’s prayer or say certain key phrases or words before he was accepted intot he kingdom? Did he speak in tongues or was he water baptized? Did he agonize over whether or not his choice was an act of a freewill person or a “robot” who was destined to go to heaven or hell? The answer to all of the above is no, no and another No!

People….come out of this calvinism/arminism stronghold and get back to basics which is the Lordship of Jesus and servanthood. We can talk for the next 90 weeks and split hairs about Bible verses that support or deny our sacred positions on this philosophical argument but the question is: “Are you born again?” and not are you calvinistic or arministic in your approach to Jesus? I contend that if Paul the Apostle or James or Peter were with us today and this “argument” was raging in the church, they would rebuke it. (MN: I didsgree. He wrote too much on it and indicated how important God’s sovereignty is to allow the differences to go unchallenged. ) Well, in their place, I will rebuke it! There. It has been properly and thoroughly rebuked now let us move on to things that edify. For everyone one’s information, there is no such thing as a calvinist or an arministic Christian. Either you are born again or you are not. No camps of Apollos or Peter or Paul or arminism or calvinism camps….just Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Melvin,

I find it so interesting that your colleagues require such scrutiny out of my own formulations, but when you assert your own you are given a free pass. You may be of the opinion that the prodigal son means something other than what it does, and cry foul that I haven’t read it in context, but I clearly have read it in context. But here is a scripture within the perfect context for this argument Hebrews 6: 1-6, and I suggest you and the rest of the Calvinists here give me a good answer for this scripture. Furthermore, I am tired of hearing that all the scriptures I have listed are out of place, that seems to be the single tactic of each Calvinist on this site. Use your logical arguments, which I see you are capable of, and minimize my claims by showing their fallacious qualities, but stop trying to say that my interpretation of a scripture is not yours, we already know that! Oh and out of curiosity what is Hebrews 6 referring to, for you Calvinists out there, since I know that I have obviously ripped that out of context as well. And my point with the story in Ezekiel was to stress the counter argument you bring up, that death to God is simply irrelevant, of course since I am guilty of equivocation I suppose the point has been lost. But if we stay to the scrutiny that you require of death, then that seems to be an even bigger problem for a Calvinist, since we have many dead people walking around, it also seems to be a problem for those who are elected but have yet to profess their faith. Unless of course you simply disregard Romans 10: 9-10, which I’m beginning to think many Calvinists might.

Julian of God,

I endured reading your post and I must confess I wasn’t enlightened. As a side note I hope you realize that Julian of Norwich, whom I assume you take your name from, was a mystic which would not have in any way agreed with your interpretation of the prodigal son, I know because I have an interest in T. S. Eliot who happened to be influenced by her, and since you have claimed authority on this topic of the prodigal son, I will claim authority on Mr. Eliot. Now to your points and Melvin if you are following along that would be wonderful. The prodigal son is one of three stories, the only time in the new testament when Jesus gives three parables in a row. And yes he is speaking to a crowd of people, but he is making sure that the Pharisees overhear him. And all three of his stories are very related. The first two are brief. He tells the story of the lost sheep, and ends by saying Luke 15:7 “I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” After this he tells the parable of the lost coin, and he repeats this ending, but then to drive the point home to those really stubborn people, to drive the point into the minds of those who think there is some special elite group of people who God cares for and that the rest do not matter he prepares a much more detailed explanation. You see the Pharisees understood the value of a sheep very well, and so they could relate well to sheep. They understood the value of gold, so they could relate even better, but when it came to the value of the most important object, they clinged to their elitism, much like the angry brother. No sheep does not come back to its owner, it is a dumb animal which needs looking after. No a coin does not jump back into the hands of its owner, it is an inanimate object. But you see a person, which I hope you are for my own sake (otherwise I need a psychological evaluation), does make decisions. A person can decide what to do. The prodigal son illustrates beautifully the point that we must return to our owner, who wants us back very badly, but it is us who must return, otherwise we will be left with the pigs. The point of the stories is not to emphasize that the father seeks us, but to show what is truly valuable to God, in the midst of those who maintained some sort of smug elitism. So you see Calvinists actually are the ones who take this story out of context (and completely miss the point). The one thing you did get right however is that we can only return if our father wants us, luckily though we know that he does, because after all our God is also a jealous God.

Michael,

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t really have any good books on this topic in my own shelf. I would suggest not to get caught in the debate, most Armenians, I believe, don’t really accept the term synergism anyway, and it seems to be a distinction that draws upon a clear misunderstanding of assumptions between distinctions. For instance, Augustine, whom I admire greatly, would be considered in the monergism camp, but I wouldn’t call him a Calvinist, though undoubtly every Calvinist who reads Augustine probably thinks he was way ahead of his time on the matter. Still I’d be happy to answer any specific questions you have on the topic, though I think a good many people on this post would like to keep me out of that sort of discussion. Cheers!

Kyle and GaryV,

I don’t know if you can read my last post on “his own pointy hat” but I did provide a long list of scriptures to support my claims, and I have many more. I want to continue this discussion with you, and I want to be fair about it. I did have a reply for your kyle, but I’m sure I didn’t post it, but I would like to address your scriptures. If you can email me the list again I will respond, I do have an answer for each one. I also realize over the course of most my postings that I have had this sort of sarcastic tone, which I enjoy using rhetorically, but I also realize that you may have taken great offense to it in some capacity. I want to clarify that I am just passionate about this topic and I truly mean no disrespect to any blogger, I just like to make people think defensively about their own claims. So if any blogger does take offense to the way I respond, I’m sorry, and please let me know and I will place a more acceptable spin on what I have to say. Cheers!

What I find telling is the response by the Arminian regarding Free Will. They defend it with such visceral language and lack of scripture. Oftentimes they will not answer the question directly and run around the issue.

However, it seems the Calvinist is very thoughtful and direct. We use scripture verses and we even ask the Arminian to use scripture also.

Sadly this debate seems to be one that gets little traction due to the unwillingness of the Arminian to use scripture in their defense and refute our scripture in our defense. This in essence is not a debate but rather one side (Arminian) refusing to defend and answer. I hope the likes of Enoch who posted hear could use a little more energy quoting scripture and less energy dropping curse words.

Kyle

sovereignGracePreacha,

I don’t think you really believe the nonsense you’re insisting upon. I want to you reread this statement:

“what most arminians forget is that there is no metaphysical explanation inherent in any verses which they use in order to claim that man has free will”

Any claim in scripture that is metaphysical requires an article of faith, because by its nature its non-empirical, its part of the pneumenal realm. Free will as a phenomena is the question at hand, if it is tied to another reality beyond our own faculities, such as the question of differentiation that you purpose, then most likely it would be a self-defeating argument. You have just presented another case for free will, from the fact that there is not a metaphysical explanation, that you so desire. But I think that you were just trying to maybe sound smarter than you actually are and maybe the real question you have as your post alludes to, is what basis is there in general for appealing to freedom, given scripture? And as far as transcendent realities are concerned I cannot think of a better scripture than Paul’s own explanation of Christ’s death in Galations 5:1. Furthermore what do you mean by saying that man’s will is free from God’s will. How for instance would my free will be seperate from my mother’s free will? My mother has the ability to strike me down, or make my life miserable in some ways, but that doesn’t make her an absolute authority in some way. This is the dichotomy that Calvinists always tread in, they want us to demonstrate either that our free will makes God’s will so irrelevant that it is not possible for us to have free will, or they want us to have so little of an ability to make decisions that we resemble them.

Kyle,

What question have I refused to answer for you? I will not defend Aminianism, because it is not mine, but I will not accept calvinism. And as far as Wesly is concerned there are several other things you should be aware of. He probably had an adulterous affair, he was sincerely confused about the role of his own calling, and he had legal troubles as well, he may have even helped purpetuate the death of an unborn child (no this is not a joke or sarcasm). But I also remember this story in the bible about a guy who persecuted christians and had then stoned to death, who went on to do some important things as well, so whatever you mean with these character attacks they won’t work. I haven’t embraced the fact that Calvin aided in killing someone, why do you find it necessary to belittle Wesley in this manner? Mother Teresa at the end of her life said similiar things, do you want to defame her as well, because perhaps then we can finally agree, lol.

Melvin,

Sorry for the bombardament of posts!

(MN: Not a problem. But I’m afraid you can’t deny being one or the other. Either you believe it’s God’s work to save me or you believe it’s MOSTLY God’s work to save me. And no matter how mostly that mostly is, the little bit that’s left is simply a degree of synergism (man and God working together). Denying labels doesn’t erase concepts. Heck, denying concepts doesn’t even erase concepts. )

Question Mel,

I have been looking at the pulpit pimps open matches for the last few weeks and i must admit that there is no center court better than this one. Point counter point etc. In one of your comments on JJ’s last posting you said {Either God elects [with all that terms means to a monergist] or God takes into account what people are going to do [which is the basic position of an Arminian]. Either God causes or God reacts. Anything short of God causes REQUIRES that God react - however minor that reaction may be.}

Can God not do both? ie God knows what is going to happen even though on any given day in any given situation we (finite humans) may be faced with multiple choices and courses of action open to us he knows what ours will be. So does he not cause knowing our response and then he reacts? (MN: No. What you’re describing isn’t a reaction. It is a continuation of what he planned. We GENERALLY use the term “react” to mean as a response to something that happens, something I didn’t necessarily have control over or whose outcome I didn’t necessarily know. ) I am actually not establishing a position just yet but asking a question because the comments have caused me to think even deeper about what I believe and I am in the process of so doing. (MN: And that is one of the reasons I raise the Monergism issue every once in a while. I guarantee you, Monergism and the understanding that goes into it is about the closest thing you can be to being absolutely pimp-proof.) ) I am asking the question given the plethora of scripture being thrown around supporting both positions is there the possibility of both being true? I still need to do a lot more reading, thinking and praying. Anyway that’s my initial thoughts as I mentally commence wading into the subject. (MN: Enjoy the wade. We’re waiting for you in the deep end of the pool. )

“Feed the flock, not on the flock.”

Christopher: Will all respect, you argument is all wet and is superfluous at best. Jesus did not think on the cross…”OH, this guy is one of us, he was predestined so I will utter these lines to him.” Hogwash! The Word of God regarding salvation is applicable to all or is applicable to none. There are no classes of people being saved based upon calvinism or arminism. That is a class of gibberish debate that you apparently enjoy being engaged in since it occupies your time and gives you a chance to bump some brain cells together. Why is the Body of Christ (at least on this particular post) so caught up in this no where debate? Ask yourself: Do you think for a nano of a second that Jesus’s shed blood reaches a calvinistic person quicker than a arminian person? Of course not! So…why do you engage in this fantasy of thinking that “your” position on calvinism or arminism amounts to a hill of beans? It does not. Calvinism or arminism does not save nor do they promulgate righteous living or servanthood. How many who read this post have a daily check list of things that you do or do not do based upon the specious argument of this is arminian in nature or degree or that is calvinistic in nature or degree? Answer: None! If we fight over this polysyllable nonsensical argument, we are boxing the air and airing out our gums. That is how critical such vapid distinctions amount to as it regards holy living. It is a pile of dung (see Paul the Apostle regarding what qualifies as a dung heap). Yes, I said dung. D-U-N-G.

(MN: Unfortunately, living a certain way with the idea I am somehow earning God’s approval is as repugnant to God as living in blatant sexual impurity. One is more obvious to the world, but both offend Him greatly. To whatever degree a person sees themselves as having contributed to, and continuing to contribute to God’s grace and His glory, that person is calling God a liar. And to that degree, they are actually engaged in dead works. This is one of the reasons why a right view of God’s sovereignty, His magnificent grace, and His over flowing love is so essential. His totally unwarranted grace is the reason I live a holy life. It is the reason I am willing to count all else as dung. It was His grace that brought me into the Body to begin with.

The general tenor of your previous paragraph seems one of stubborness, almost purposely misrepresenting that which I have been saying. Whether you like it or not, if you are saved, God chose you from before the foundation of the world. He didn’t choose you because He knew you would make a good decision. He didn’t choose you because He knew you would seek Him. He didn’t choose you because of any intrinsic value in you. He chose you for His own reasons (I don’t know what they were) even as He chose me [and I don't know the reason for that either], and in that choosing has showered you with grace indescribable. He has secured you with a faithfulness that cannot be broken. When you listen to Paul, you can almost hear him shouting as he says “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise and glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us. IN all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration…that we should be to the praise of His glory. [Eph 1:5-12]. I’m not pentecostal/charismatic/etc. but every time I read that passage it’s like a liberal listening to Obama speak. I just get goosebumps and want to shout! But being a cold and arrogant Calvinist, I resit the impulse. But some how believing that “God knew I was going to believe and that’s why He chose me before the foundation” just doesn’t do it for me. )

When I read all of the answers and postings, it comes down to one thing….are you living holy and in right relationship with God and your fellow believer? If not, you can argue with the best of them regarding the finer points of calvinism and/or arminianism and at the end of the day, nothing has been accomplished but a lot of carbon dioxide has been expended into the air! (MN: I disagree. If nothing else, God’s glory [which He says He will share with no man, not even a misguided Arminian] is maintained. My place as the creation and the pot is maintained. ) When the Word of God bemoans arguments about genealogy and other subjects that amount to counting bubbles in a bottle of liquid soap, I would surmise that this “hot” topic would be at the top of the list of “bubble counting! (MN: I don’t think God’s glory, graciousness, kindness, and wisdom are soap bubbles. And I don’t think we can equate arguing over geneologies as equivalent to disagreeing about the very nature of God and His graciousness in our lives.

Then of course, there is the “Why do I live a holy life?” issue. Do I live a holy life because of what God has done in His overflowing grace or do I live a holy (actually rules-based) life because I don’t want to go to hell? The quality of those two lives is completely different. They look similar. But the true issue is that of the heart. And once you understand the idea of God’s sovereignty, the quality of you life will almost immediately change for the better. But the transition is tough and I have to depend on God’s sovereign will in your life. )

Brother JJones and Brother Kyle and Melvin–THANK YOU! THANK YOU for rebuking the other “enoch” and Brother JJones you hit the nail on the head about this person, “And if you had the intention of making another blogger look even more fanatical….” Thank you for discerning that!

I hope and pray that others reading my comments on this blog are stirred up for CHRIST and drawn to live for HIM. I pray that each of you can discern my heart and love for the LORD and for HIS people: whether they are saved/converted or unsaved/unbeliver.
I do have zeal for CHRIST but I would never, ever curse or condemn someone for their views. None of us have a heaven or a hell to put anyone. When one rejects me, I am a persistent salesman and when the SPIRIT says leave that person alone, I just shake the dust off my feet(Smile). Amen. I just pray to the LORD to open their eyes and show them the error of their ways(Smile)! I know prayer changes things–just ASK my wife(let her tell her side of the story of our courtship and she claims I prayed every suitor away from her-Amen)! I learned a long time ago, NO 2 people will THINK and BELIEVE exactly the same. Each human being is created uniquely and individually. But it is a marvelous thing when 2 people can unite in agape love. So since we live in a day of identity theft-my blogger name is no longer EnochWalked but OFFICIALLY EnochWalkedWithYHVH.

So to the other “enoch”, I quote from the movie and television show, Highlander….THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE…I am the only Enoch here…Repent and learn to season your words with grace and humility…then maybe you will be received! There is a southern saying, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Now back to the discussion.
JJones, I say Amen to your comments on this post and the PointyHat post concerning the Sovereignty of GOD and man’s free will capacity to morally choose right from wrong. The scriptures you listed Deuteronomy 30:19 Joshua 24:15, Galatians 5:1,Lamentations 3:38-40, Deuteronomy 5:26-27, 1 Kings 11:5-6, Genesis 4:7(The Holy Spirit took me here too), Matthew 23:7. I quote your words…”And Ezekiel 33:11, seems pretty meaningless without free will, in fact Ezekiel entirely seems meaningless without free will, because how is the blood of the untold on his hands, if he doesn’t have free will? Ezekiel I should say is a great case study in Free Will that submits toward God. Ezekiel 18:23-24 is the most powerful verse for this case.”

Amen Brother JJones! Amen!

These above referenced scriptures clearly shows that man is responsible to line up with the conditions for accepting the Gift of GOD.

P.S. Brother Seekerman, I claim you as my brother and if we meet in this life or the next life…”I am going to get you (Friendly way of shaking my finger at you)” Seekerman, you cracked me up with your parody comedy dialogue of answering my questions, and I will be praying for you Brother…All is well between you and I. Amen.

To Be Cont’d.

God is not arguing or debating with himself these “fine” points of arminism and calvinism…so why are we?

(MN: God doesn’t debate with himself. This is a bogus statement and irrelevant to the discussion. )

Just because God has prior or foreknowledge of your acts that does not mean that you were “doomed” to choose God.

(MN: If God CHOSE me [not had foreknowledge], then I was doomed to choose God at the appointed time. )

If you were to stretch out, if you could, your entire life history as seen from the vantage point of eternity, you would see choices that you made. Just because God knew those choices does not mean that you automatically were predestined to choose his gift.

(MN: If God CHOSE me [not had foreknowledge], then I was doomed to choose God at the appointed time. )

God’s grace is a gift. This grace gift is offered to whosoever….Not…eenie, meenie, minnie..moe.

(MN: No one said it was God going “eenie, meenie, miney, moe.” You are misrepresenting the premise. I am saying that God [for whatever His reason] prepared some as vessels of wrath prepared beforehand for destruction [Rom 9:22] and others as vessels of mercy, prpared beforehand for glory [Rom:23]. God made the choice for His reasons. Trying to dismiss it as if God is selecting arbitrarily is not a valid defense. Though I can see how it might make you feel a little better. )

Whosoever will, I will not cast aside or out. The will part is our part. We can exercise our will for the gift or exercise our will against the gift. You are not duty bound to accept a gift! Why is that concept so difficult for the readers of this site to understand?

(MN: Again, you side step the actual discussion. The entire issue is that only those who have been chosen by God will accept. And having accepted, they will not be cast out. This verse doesn’t address the idea of the will and our ability to choose on our own at all. )

God did sit up in heaven and say…you live…you die.. (MN: Romans 9:22. 23 - some created for glory and some created for destruction. But His grace is shown because all are worthy only of destruction, even the ones he pulled from the fire. )
you live…you….. If so, we were all duped and were all puppets in His great play…and that means some of us were destined to be wood for his hellfire. Sorry. Wrong God. (MN: You’re duped if you aren’t reading what the Bible says. I’m not duped. I know that God can do whatever He wants. I know that God chose me from before the foundation of the world. As I said, coming to an understanding of Monergism can be a major shaking up of your world. And if you, as an Arminian are surrounded by Arminians, it can be mighty scary too. But God is able to provide you the support you need to make the break. )

For those who want to be pampered and feel special over eveyone else….sorry…get a boxer or a beagle who will fawn over you.

(MN: Actual, a Monergist doesn’t feel special. He feels humbled and totally undeserving of the grace God has poured out in his life. And rightly so. There was nothing in me that I can see that would cause God to choose me. Far from being special, it humbles me to recognize that I am no better or more deserving that the street walker, the drug addict, the murderer, or the wife beater. It’s not a matter of feeling special. It’s a matter of feeling undeservedly blessed. On the other hand, the Armenian, who has to behave a certain way in order to stay saved, can certainly feel special. “I thank God ” he says. “that I’m not like the adulterers, swindlers, the unjust or even like this street walker. I fast twice a week and I tithe of all I get.” They believe they meet the conditions God has to be accepted by Him. The Monergist recognizes that we can’t meet any conditions He sets up. But like the woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, we fully understand what grace was shown to us, the unworthy sinners. We feel anything BUT special. I AM the beagle that fawns over God. )

He who has the Son has life..he who does not have the Son does not have life. That’s odd! It does not say..he who has calvinism or arminism has life or he who does not have calvinism or arminism does not have life. Now how did I miss that?

(MN: That’s odd. Monergists don’t say that either. He who has the Son [whether he realizes he was chosen from before the foundation of the world or not] has the life. He who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. You keep trying to make me say things I’m not saying. But the question remains: Why did I, an enemy of God, a man who loved sin and hated God, a man who was enslaved to sin, choose God yet the other man who is an enemy of God, a man who loves sin and hates God, a man who is enslaved to sin, continue to reject God to the day he dies to open his eyes in hell? What was there in me that caused me, of myself, to choose God? And why didn’t it also cause the other guy to choose God? )

Ok Professor Melvin(Man you are like those professors that keep challenging us students…This is good!)

Here is the crux of the matter! THIS IS HEAVY REVELATION!

I have been prayerfully studying this thing and I come to 2 solid conclusions.

First Conclusion:

There are 2 bloodlines: The woman’s seed and the serpent’s seed; the children of GOD and the children of Satan. Abel and Cain. Jacob and Esau. Sheep versus children of the devil
(wolves in sheep’s clothing), don’t cast your pearls to the swine, come out from among them and be ye separate; JESUS CHRIST, the son of GOD and the Anti-christ, the son of perdition.

Scripture reference:Mat 13:24-30

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: (25) But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. (26) But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. (27) So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? (28) He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? (29) But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. (30) Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Mat 13:36-43 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. (37) He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; (38) The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; (39) The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. (40) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. (41) The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; (42) And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (43) Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

A tare looks like a grain of wheat only until the harvest? I am not a farmer here, somebody help me?
So are we in agreement here, Professor Melvin, GaryV, Kyle, and other Monergists?

Second Conclusion and this applies to BELIEVERS/CHRISTIANS Only: I do not acsribe to OSAS. Once Saved Always Saved. How can you have a great falling away of tares, children of the devil??????????I believe our salvation from GOD is a Conditional Salvation based upon faith and obedience (I am not talking about works…Faith and Obedience)

There is NO EXCUSE for a Christian to fall away or depart the faith! BUT and a big BUT, a disobedient sheep or disobedient Christian does not have free license to do what they want to do. I think this is where we digress.

All of us before conversion had a free will and after a sovereign divine intervention from GOD, we heard the call and we accepted the call. I do believe that every child of GOD has and can have at 1 time or another…the 4 heart conditions…the parable of the 4 soils. Do we agree here?

Well, there are too many IFs and Conditional terms to a believer(*****I HUMBLY REPENT TO ALL OF YOU ABOUT MY EARLIER POSITION ABOUT ALL MANKIND BEING OFFERED SALVATION AND HAVING A CHOICE IN THE MATTER and I ASK FOR YOUR FORGIVENESS AND the HOLY SPIRIT is telling me to CORRECT what I said concerning Judas…Judas was a devil from the beginning, a tare among the wheat.****)

I still stand on the Salvation being conditional and there are plenty of them, that a BELIEVER CAN FALL AWAY! This is WHY, WE must take up our cross daily (DIE to self will, our will daily) and follow HIM! A Christian is dead to himself or herself and live because of HIM–HE gives HIS life in us!

So, what does this make me? A Zealous Believer in the whole inspired word of GOD. I am not learned enough in Calvinism, Monergism, Synergism?, Arminianism to say that I ascribe to any of them. I label myself that I know that I that I know that HE (CHRIST) lives in ME and in HIM I have my being: Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Label me as An “Acts 17:28ist”! I am going to cook dinner now!

Last thing.

What made me REPENT on my position? Two scriptures.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Joh 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Last, Last thing for today!

We still ARE responsible for sharing the word to the ENTIRE WORLD!

GOD bless!

OK, OK…I know I said I was done for today but I had to come back after dinner. Professor Melvin and others out there.
Do the following scriptures apply to believers, the children of GOD:Matthew 13:3-9 KJV
And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; (4) And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: (5) Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: (6) And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. (7) And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: (8) But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. (9) Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

I believe these seeds are Christians.
Question: Who is at fault or responsible for these seeds being
1.devoured by the fowls(wolves, enemy)
2.scorched and burnt up and withered away
3.fell among thorns and the thorns choked them
4.fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit.

The scriptures teach that each believer is RESPONSIBLE for their works–to bear fruit.
Do we agree here?

My Scriptural answer to support why Christians are responsible and accountable to bear fruit:
John 15:1-8 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. (2) Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. (3) Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. (4) Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. (5) I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (6) If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (7) If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. (8) Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

This scripture places on the ONUS on the believer to ABIDE in HIM, verse 6 states if ye abide not in CHRIST, ye WILL NOT bear fruit and YE will be cast away to Hell fire and verse 7 states IF ye abide in CHRIST, ye will bear fruit…that is a conditonal salvation? YES or NO.

So what does that make me theologically?

Last one before I sign off tonight.
This is the solid proof showing our Christian’s salvation IS Conditional and NOT Unconditional.
Luke 6:46-49 KJV

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (47) Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: (48) He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. (49) But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

(MN: Sorry, but the only thing that “proves” is that the fellow who is calling Him Lord isn’t obeying Him. Where does it say the fellow was saved. And even if he is saved, where does it say he lost his salvation.

Or are you looking at the whole thing as if it’s something I have to earn and work hard to keep. If you are indeed born again, you’re not going to have sinning as an overwhelming desire. )

In order to persevere or endure to the end, we must continue with HIM, abide with HIM and obey HIM to the end. Amen.

(MN: And if I am indeed saved, I will persevere. The perseverance doesn’t keep me saved. The perseverance is a demonstration of my salvation - showing my faith BY my works. You really have it backwards. I don’t persevere in order to stay saved. Rather I will persevere as a result of being saved. )

Melvin you said,

“Sorry JJ, but you really can’t do that. The Arminian/Monergist debate involves the nature of God, not what ifs on our part. Your what if is not really relevant to the discussion. At best, you are redefining the terms. )”

The point is that you have made the case that I must agree with either one of two generalizations, about the nature of God, and my point is that there at least exists the possibility that both can fail, which is why I do not have to embrace either doctrine, as you alluded to earlier. In fact the generalization is only true if it is true for every specific case defined by the terms, otherwise it can’t operate as a generalization/doctrine.

About my point regarding election, what I meant was that Wesley seemed to have a confused view, or I should say a partially-articulated view, of election, which is why I do not take the whole train ride with him. Again, though I caution you to not paint the world black and white, especially where God is concerned. I know it is convenient to say that I’m not a monergist that must make me a synergist, but that doesn’t have to be true. And if you will remember in a very earlier post, when I first started writing on this blog, I explained that I believed God could have the power to remain ignorant of something, so he very well could blend these ideas, though I do not think that either one of these things are entirely true, I just think that Wesley was the closest of them all. I also respect Calvin’s writings, especially on all the literature that is beside this point, which makes up the majority of his writing. And I love Augustine’s confessions, so I do not think this as simple as everyone wants to make it.

(MN: Understood. But I’m not talking about Wesley and what he thought. I’m talking about God and what the Bible says of His actions from before the foundation of the world. And there is no indication that he chose to remain ignorant about something. That would seem to be little more than a gimmick to explain away the obvious flaws of synergism. )

In fact scripture does give us places where God does not know everything, seemingly by will, but here are the verses, and you decide. Jeremiah 19:15, and Jeremiah 7:31, and Jeremiah 32:35

(MN: JJ, you have got to be kidding me. The last two have nothing to do with God knowing or not knowing. If you look at them, the more likely interpretation is that God never told them to do this thing. What you have done is take a phrase from the Bible and equate it to a similar set of words and the way we use them today.

But that is not what He is saying here. And if it was what He was saying, there is nothing to indicate that it was voluntary. So your interpretation would actually deny one of the rock-rib characteristics of God - His omniscience. Are you starting to see how badly a person can screw up when they do all kinds of gymnastics to avoid the truth? )

good morning, melville, i guess that leaves you to address your points to #s 3, 5, & 6. re: cornelius.

To the Robots who want the security of not making decisions with their freewill: I guess the thief on the cross barely made it in but of course Jesus was waiting for him to utter those “magic words” and then Jesus said, “ah finally you said it! I could not die until you said what you said because you were destined to say those words and I had to wait for them so that they could be recorded and become the N.T!” That is the “genius” of this vapid argument about arminism and calvinism and yes I can attacking both sides…Christopher and I am not making a choice because there is nothing to chose!

(MN: Again, if you are going to defend Arminianism at least compare it to that which we are actually saying. No one said or implied Jesus said such a thing. Your quote about Jesus not being able to die until the thief made some comment made no sense at all. In fact, I’m sensing a bit of frustration on your part as you start to throw out random and nonsensical objections and accusations. And of course, you are only attacking one “side”. )

The so called choices are not valid choices since God did not make them..why should we? This debate is only an exercise in futility since Jesus did not die for calvinistic
or aministic leaning believers…He said: whosoever will, I will in no way cast out. The whosoever includes anyone and everyone who responds to the gospel message. (MN: And you still have not explained why some accept and some reject. This really appears to be a question you seem completely incapable of answering. You throw out a lot of distractions, but you never actually answer the question. Here. Here’s another opportunity. You chose Christ. Why did you choose Christ and the other guy reject Christ. Let’s see if you can focus on that question and answer that single question. )

And for the issue of if they are truly saved and are truly in the Lord…that is God’s determination but he who has the Son has life……. This is a know so salvation. It is not based upon biting our nails and hoping that our calvinism or arminism wins the day. It won’t. The Blood of Jesus does covers all sin including the artificial nonsense of calvinism and arminism. (MN: It’s not a matter of ARMINIANISM or Monergism saving the day. Only God saves, not a philosophy. I really am getting tired of trying to explain that to you. But I guess if you didn’t keep saying it, you still wouldn’t be able to present a real argument for your position - though I’m not quite clear what that position is. )

In Genesis, God never formulated a plan that some are never to be saved or have a chance to be redeemed.

That is not a just God or a loving God. However, once you have the exposure and chance and you refuse or rebuff his grace gift…IT IS ON! You have exercised your freewill against God. The prodigal son returned to his senses and returned home. A sinner can backslide and return to his senses and confess and be restored. (MN: I think He’s perfectly just. We ALL deserve hell. But He, in His graciousness, chose some of us for eternity with Him. He doesn’t owe anyone anything. So anything He does is both gracious and just. Please explain to me the fallacy in that statement.

Another analogy: Am I being unjust and unkind if I walk into an animal shelter two minutes before closing and pick one puppy to take home with me, KNOWING that the rest of the puppies will be destroyed at the close of business that day? All souls are deserving of hell. He chooses to have mercy on whom he will have mercy. )

A backslider does not sit down and ponder: Hmmm…is this a calvinistic decision I am about to make or is it an arminism decision that I am about to make? What tomfoolery! (MN: I agree!!! That’s why none of us would say anything as idiotic as that. Why do you insist on putting words in our mouths and then disproving the words you put there. How about disproving the words we actually speak? By the way, what is an Arminian decision? You really seem to be losing it. It would be a lot easier on you if you simply addressed the issues rather than making stuff up. ) This is akin to debating whether or not if a person is baptized by immersion or sprinkling…are they really baptized? We expend a lot of mental energy quoting our favorite supportive scriptures and giving examples of why our position…be it monergism or others.. is now the favored or currently hip position and then down the road we realize that it was a lot of blather. This argument is as valid as whether wearing long pants or shorts to church makes one worldly and not saved. Duh? Who cares?

(MN: With respect to Monergism and God’s absolute sovereignty: Paul, Peter, John, God, Jesus, etc, etc )

Does it make any difference in relating to Jesus and you being holy? Answer…No! Not in the least. It is a feel good argument to bandy around and when the dust settles…nothing has been accomplished and we are left with people thinking…well am I ONE OF THE CALLED OR CHOSEN ONES OR WAS MY DECISION FOR CHRIST DONE ON MY OWN VOLITION AND WITHOUT THE DRAWING OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD? If so, how can I know that I am really saved? OH…save me calvinism and arminism. Please come to my rescue with your conflicting and battling scriptures!
Answer: John 3:16. “whosoever…believeth…shall not perish……you get the drift!

(MN: The main drift I get is that after all the reading, you still do not have anything close to an understanding of Monergism. If you did, you wouldn’t present the non-arguments you keep tossing up.

Tell you what - given that you really don’t understand the concept, check out “The Sovereignty of God” by A. W. Pink. You can actually read it for free right here: The Sovereignty of God. But here’s a clue for you. Make sure you understand the argument before you try to disprove the argument. So far all you have done is make yourself look pretty silly.

Tell you what! Let’s have a conference and draw up two Bibles: One for the calvins and one for the arminist! (MN: More silliness and transparent distraction on your part. What makes you say there should be two different Bibles. One of us is interpreting it correctly and you are not. )

That will settle the argument and we can then get converts to our respective positions and thus further divide the Body of Christ into more splinter groups and the world can see how united we are! (MN: Uh, we only have one Bible now and we are still divided into splinter groups. What’s your point? )

This idea just came to me! It is brilliant. We can create a world wide movement and become ossified in our thinking and then we can condemn others who do not accept our theological position. (MN: Hmm. I think you have already done that. Your thinking is ossified and you have spent quite some time condemning. ) We will be a force to be reckoned with! Money…power…guilt…churches…conferences…
books…videos…

All those who wish to be involved with this say “Yea!”

The elect are the whosoever will’s and the non-elect are the whosoever will not’s. - D.L. Moody -

“…whosoever believeth…everlasting life.” John 3:16
Does whosoever mean a select few?

(MN: Benjamin, you keep skipping past an essential. WHY does the “whosoever” decide to believe? The Monergistic position is that God moves sovereignly on his or her heart. And without that sovereign work in that person’s heart, they will not believe. “Whosoever” no place implies that a person overcame their status as an enemy of God and on their own decided to believe. It’s similar to “whosoever was born with one leg shorter than the other will limp. Did that whosoever decide to be born with one leg shorter than the other? How does stating the condition for eternal life in any way imply the ability to believe despite one’s fallen nature? Whosoever is born with big brain will rule the world. Again, where is the idea of choice on the part of the whosoever to have the big brain? “Whosoever” simply identifies a population group. It isn’t an inidicator of the exercise of one’s will. )

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” John 12:32
Does all mean all? (sincerely, Bill Clinton)

Those who claim that God chooses some and that others are just out of luck are just as deceived as those who claim that Romans 10:9-10 prove that ‘confessing’ Christ is essential for salvation. So I guess there are no elected deaf mutes???

The confess and confession in both verses are referring to one’s “testimony” of salvation, not a requirement to receive it.

Sorry Melvin (It’s nice to see you again) to change gears a little here, just my way of showing that a host of subjects are misunderstood. I have often revisited even those areas that I thought I was certain of (was told by my passa) only to have the Lord show me different when I truly sought the truth.

(MN: So answer the question: Why do some reject eternal life and others accept eternal life? )

People and Christopher in particular…I am using droll humor to try to explain a point and that point is: quit trying to read into verses your hoped for position be it calvinism or arminism because neither one is there! Therefore, I am attacking that which is not there to be attacked but is created by man.

Jesus never created such a dicotomy of theology. We did. Why? Because we want to infer more assurances for our salvation than what the Bible amply gives us. John 7:47-38; Isaiah 45:22 and Rev 22:17. I make outlandish statements and comments to show just how inane this bifurcation of theology is. It is meaningless and futile and makes no advancement towards righteous living or holiness and no one on this site has yet to reprove that remark. No one…even Christopher. We try to make this a “serious” discussion but in the final analysis it is like throwing water on hot rocks…a lot of steam but no power. And no I am not angry…I am intentionally using high impact words and images to show that the same is being used by those who would endorse such vapid positions as arminism and calvinism (note: vapid was my trigger word). And as for Christopher’s remarks that I chose between whether or not this is important…my answer is that this is as important as should I wear dark black socks or really dark black socks with my black funeral suit? translated: does it really matter? Did either calvinism or arminism have you treat your wife better?
Did it stop you from cheating on your income taxes? Did it make you eat onions on your burger for lunch today? Did it cause you to worship in spirit and in truth?

Did it cause you not to gossip today? Did it cause you to pick up the litter on your neighbor’s front lawn? Did it make you pray an extra 5 minutes today for the underground church in China? The point…Christopher is that there is no point to prove…but only to “dissprove!” I am intentionally being shrill to show that this debate is funny and ludricous to me and hopefully by my examples and statements that others will see the same and understand that we are not going to be judged on the basis of calvinism or arminism but did you accept the free gift of God…Jesus the Christ w/o any fine print of: subject to the finer points of calvinism or arminism being part and parcel of this freewill offer. There! I am finished and will not trouble Christopher or others on this no where topic again!

My advice to readers of this “subject” read it with a sense of humor and afterwards, like the comics, go on to something more germane that Jesus identifies with.

(MN: Okay….What just happened? )

So, to reiterate…what Paul spent three chapters on in Romans (the greatest systematic theology of the Christian faith ever written) was a waste of time? And if you want to know how this impacts the rest of life, simple…just take a look at Romans 12-16. There is a reason Romans 12 starts off with “Therefore…”. When Paul finally gets to the “practical” teachings of Romans (ie. Civil matters, church matters, etc…) he goes into it because of what He had been saying in Romans 1-11. You can also find the same deal in Ephesians, where Paul starts off his great work on the Church with the truths of election and predestination. I guess he thought (or the Holy Spirit rather) that a well thought out understanding of these theological concepts helps us to understand what God is doing in the world and why.

But if you see these things has silly to discuss, so be it.

Hello, Christopher:

You did very well with Villiam11’s question.

Perhaps she/he is still digesting Pink: you think?

Rhetorical query here: what is so unclear about Romans 9:14-16?

Oh, and by the way–@Villiam11:

Madam/Sir,

May I be the last one, in any way, to discourage or dissuade you from participating on the Benevolent Dictator’s site, however, I must inquire:

Did you perform your due diligence on the matter of “Human Responsibility” as discussed in the Bible, before you posed your question? In other words, did you: search the myriad theological resources on the Internet; study with your teaching elder; crack your Concordance, or maybe even hit the NA27 for a nice reading?

Regards,
Peter
Acts 17:11 is my admonishment to you, Villiam11. Not too harsh, is it??

Melvin and Kyle,

My God does not lie, he is a rather honest fellow, and I don’t know entirely what you mean by having shadow in him, but he is not batman. This whole discussion, again is secondary to what I was originally talking about, because this all centered around the idea, of whether or not God could blend concepts, which relied upon how he knew things. The real discussion is not about this, but I will indulge it since it seems that you guys have given up on the other discussion, I suspect because I’m so far gone from even armenianism that I cannot be helped. I suspect I was right that no calvinist wants to make any other argument than to cry foul about the context of scripture. I concede everything to you Kyle that you give about context, it still doesn’t change the claim, “It did not come to my mind” What alternate interpretation are we giving to the scripture? For instance “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” I look at that scripture, and the ones that tell us that Pharaoh hardened his heart and I come up with something that looks kind of similiar (mind you though there are differences) to synergism (if that term is even appropriate) to explain it. I look at Romans 8 and I read that “those God foreknew, he predestined, to be conformed in the likeness of his son, and those he predestined he also called, those he called he also justified, those he justified he glorified” and I see right before this that God works for the good of those who love him, and I realize that one verse only makes sense with the other. I don’t say that the scripture never says that God doesn’t predestine people, I don’t say that GOd doesn’t foreknow things, I say that the scripture must be read with a larger understanding. But you take what I quote give us your exegesis of the text and then say “so you see even though the scripture says something didn’t come to God’s mind what it really means is that he commanded people not to do something.” You see how you can’t really get from point a to point b. If you want to change the scripture to fit your views more acurately you are by all means welcome to, though I don’t think God wills it, but if you want to keep the scripture you need a better way of coping with this problem. And what about the angels preaching to Jesus, and him not know about the fig tree, where were your responses to those claims, because after all the real minor point was that God, because he is so powerful, has the power to remain ignorant of something. The major point is that God is so powerful that he can create something that freely chooses him over the God who requires supressing his own creation into submission. Of course there were many more points as well, but they were in other blogs. If you wish to return to the real discussion I will oblige but I also like this one so we can keep going if you like.

Christopher,

Calvinism is the belief that an eternal, celestial dictator exists, that there is something that watches us while we are naked and who tries to make people’s lives miserable, as well as his own, by randomly selecting a lottery of people who are more sadistic than himself into a special elite group, who rejoice in each other’s supreme ability to do nothing but remain saved. Armenianism is this same belief but the dictator lets people keep their clothes on while he watches them, and there is a criteria for being in the special elite club. Of course neither one of these ideas are worth fighting for, so I suggest working against one of them. And yes I’m joking, before someone climbs all over this description, I”M JOKING I”M JOKING!!!!

Melvin~ “One of the things the folks who respond to the various Monergistic articles do is sort of skip over the dead part. The Arminian says “Oh yeah. Each person (who is dead to God) can decide to accept Christ on their own.”

Because . Good and thought provoking article and not an easy concept.
Blessed

Uncle Melvin, oh benevolent dictator, I’m BACK! Long time no see, everybody!

Since you posted on such a dear topic — the precious, mind-boggling, amazing, heart-wrenching doctrines of grace which are so sweet to me — I had to comment. Can I just throw in a little linky-linky here for those of us who have crossed over from the “A-word” to The Great Truth? (It’s a JOKE, people.) It’s good stuff.

Great post! Great analogy.

As for myself?

I hated God until October 15th 2005 at which time He removed my stone-heart, and replaced it with a flesh-heart…what could I do but repent and put my faith in Christ???

What i once loved…I now hate. What I once hated, I now love.

Thanks and God bless,
bob

I’d also like to chime in and say one thing:

Would “whosoever keeps doing it” please stop using the “whosoever” card as if that word is some kind of a universal offer of the gospel trump card?

There is NO word “whosoever” in the Greek language!

The PHRASE that is translated “whosoever” in the KJV is “pas ho pistewn” which literally is: All the ones believing or “all the believing ones.”

It refers to a specific group: “those that believe” and nothing more.

It does NOT ADDRESS why anyone believes; it’s a simple statement.

In fact, this phrase “pas ho + something” is used many times by John:

“pas ho blepew” (everyone who looks)

“pas ho uphewn” (everyone who exalts)

“pas ho poinewn” (everyone who commits sin)

and on and on…..

You can see, that this phrase identifies “all in a certain group”

Unless you are prepared to give the same “universal weight” to the other exact syntactial structures by John, then you must give this one up as if it’s some universal offer of salvation.