Another Poll for everyone on the Baptist Board to see what side of the fence youre on

[Winman]

bump......

 

[Robert Snow]

The equivalent is not in the Greek.Instead, all of His own have and shall be drawn to Himself. You need to check out John six for clarification.

If I had a dollar for every time I have heard a Calvinist use these tactics, I would be rich. It is amazing that so many good translations make this same mistake!

 

[kyredneck]

bump......

................

 

[HankD]

Here we go again, again, again... ad infinitum, ad naseum.

I would like to burn down the fence.

Doesnt this hash-rehash prove that there is something we either don't or can't know about so-called mono/syner-gist theory based upon the Word of God?

What is so discouraging to me about TULIP calvinism is not so much his teachings but that his adherents seem to put him on an undeserved pedestal of which no mortal man is worthy.

Also there seems to be a great deal of "the pride of life" engendered by many on both sides in these debates:

Isaiah 65:5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.​

Then there is the strife and contention these debates cause.

1 corinthians 3

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?​

Then there is the numerous phrases and "signal words" of calvinism
e.g. "effectual calling", "irresistable grace" which sound good and indeed may have a reality but as such are not found in every Scripture within it's context (which phrases are sometimes necessary as are many other elements of any systematic theology, however calvinism seems plagued with an abundance of them).

Someone said

And He certainly doesn't call those who live their entire lives out of the reach of the sound of the Gospel of Christ

However the Scripture declares in one context:

John 1
8 He (John the Baptist) was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.


My own presumption is that this "light" is the reproval/conviction of the Holy Spirit upon the entire world whether they have heard the gospel or not.


John 16

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.​

In another post I balked at the idea of "unconditional election" because the Scripture does not IMO support that theory (although I wouldn't outright and completely deny it).​

My view is that in all probability, conditions existed (or perhaps it's better to say reasons) in the outside-of-time election/predestination because of the passage:​

Ephesians 1
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.​

We are not given the details of that "counsel of His own will".​

What criteria was used in the predestined choice of the elect is IMO unknown but not unconditional. If it was/is unconditional then why the "counsel of His own will"? Else we must believe that it was a non-counsellary whimsical choice which seems out of keeping with our God.
Of one thing we can be sure: the underlying premise of that consel is that we all were/are incapable of saving ourselves.​

Somehow involved in that counsel (in my estimation) is this passage.​

John 3
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.​

Lastly, we are being carried down along the river called the Time Continuum into which God has entered from the eternal state. ​

I don't think we can presently comprehend the process and that is why we are so conficted in theology amongst ourselves concerning these concepts of "election" and "predestination" because there seems to be proof texts for both sides of Calvin's fence (help, nohelp).​

Personally I am perfectly happy to categorize these Scipitural entities (predestination, election, etc) under the umbrella of "mystery " or the "incomprehensible" rather than "calvinism".​

Because one day we will know and understand:​

1 John 3
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.​

1 Corinthians 13
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.​

My advice FWIW to arminianist and calvinist alike (and especially myself, Lord I pray) and a piece of advice many perhaps most already possess from the Scripture:​

Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.​

HankD

 

[Winman]

Bump

This is just to keep both polls up top where people can view both and make a vote.

 

[kyredneck]

Bump

This is just to keep both polls up top where people can view both and make a vote.

Winman, how can you with clear conscience consider this thread a fair and balanced poll?

 

[Winman]

Winman, how can you with clear conscience consider this thread a fair and balanced poll?

Well, I agree with you that the language used in the original question is somewhat biased. But I also believe everyone here is intelligent enough to see past that and answer the basic question.

2. God has chosen to save a select number of people who he irresistibly draws to Himself while passing by all others who were born without the ability to willingly repent from their sin and be saved, and who will spend eternity burning in a lake of unquenchable fire; all to the praise of God's glorious grace and justice.

He forgot to add that Calvinist's eat babies for breakfast. :tongue3:

But, as I said, this language did not influence me, and I think most here are smart enough to see past this and answer the original question:

Please tell us which of these statement best represents what you believe about salvation:

1. God has chosen to provide the means and ability for all sinful men to willingly turn from their sin and be saved.

2. God has chosen to save a select number of people who he irresistibly draws to Himself while passing by all others who were born without the ability to willingly repent from their sin and be saved, and who will spend eternity burning in a lake of unquenchable fire; all to the praise of God's glorious grace and justice.

I do believe your poll was much more straightforward.

I just wanted to keep both polls up top and see how people answer them. I think it incredible that both polls have consistently contradicted each other and do not know how to interpret that.

By the way, if you poll would have sank down to the bottom, I would have bumped it up as well.

 

[Hardsheller]

Fine, but how is number 2 not an accurate description of what you believe? (though I admit, its purposefully worded to be hard to swallow)

That could have been entered as the "understatement of the year".

 

[Skandelon]

Originally Posted by Skandelon
Fine, but how is number 2 not an accurate description of what you believe? (though I admit, its purposefully worded to be hard to swallow)

That could have been entered as the "understatement of the year".

No, the understatement of the year was, "Obama is a liberal."

This statement, though accurate, purposefully emphasized the difficulty your dogma presents.