I didn't fail to see that at all. God has provided the plane (sic) so to speak.
God IS the plane... The "plane" is salvation. What other plan is there? Can we "work" to earn salvation (or even the right to approach God)?
God allowing anything exerts His sovereignty. If He has allowed every person to accept or reject a gift, that is being sovereign. It's a matter of perception.
I can see why you would say that it is a matter of perception. That is about the only leg left on your stool. It doesn't solve your dilemma, however. God is not really about perceptions, He is about truth and though truth can be viewed from multiple angles it cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same place. That would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.
His gift. If all sinners are already rejected, there is no salvation for anyone as that includes us all. John 3:18.
Which is true, except, that praise God, "when the fullness of time had come, He sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law..." Where there is no way in human terms, God makes a way on His own terms. Thanks for citing John 3:18. That passage essentially says what I just said. Christ came to save sinners. Note that it does not say that "sinners come to Christ to be saved."
While contrary can mean opposite, I didn't mean that in how I used it. I was referring to logically. We can focus on the semantics, or the topic.
Point taken...
When you insert "it seems" in every reply and then reply to what you "seem" to think is said, you are doing just that.
I am trying to be nice and give you the benefit of the doubt. If you like, I can be more forceful.
I didn't bring up any label...no idea what you are talking about here.
So none of what you wrote about my only being able to see things one way because of my "position" isn't the same as bringing up a label. Wording it softly doesn't change the tenor of your argument. See the point directly above this...
The very act of believing requires choice, which is contrary to monergism. The proof is so simple, yet you fail to grasp it.
I grasp it well... I also reject it. Understanding a point and accepting a point are two different arguments. I'm bringing meat to the table, you are using one-liners to shoot my points down. How about you bring the positive argument for synergism from the Scriptures like I asked WAY above?
Just to be clear (and I'm not using this as a debate point because that would be an argument from authority) I have been the pastor of a congregation in a church that was as far Arminian (Pelagian in practice!) as a congregation can get. They were in a General Baptist denomination that recoiled from hyper-Calvinism circa 1825. I am SO versed in the arguments from the Arminian or IFB perspective that I can play the role without fail. But I reject the Arminian argument for all the reasons I cite above in actual debate points.
While I was pastor of those good people for 5 years, the number one question I took was, "Pastor, how can I pray to regain my salvation. I sinned last night..." They had adopted synergism to a logical conclusion and with it, had come to hold that their salvation depended on their continual coming to the Lord to become purified. The only time they embraced monergism was in the case of infants and children and "retarded" (their word, in their articles of faith) people, of whom they claimed God would just save whether or not they wanted salvation. My response to all that silliness was to suggest that I start causing retardation or wiping out infants so as to insure the salvation of the flock! Of course, they did not take kindly to that sort of talk, even when I was laughing my head off when I said it. The logical inconsistencies and scriptural inconsistencies in their system of theology were emphasized to me repeatedly during my ministry tenure.
Oh, and they were not evangelistic at all. All talk and no action. I ended up leaving the pastorate because one of the deacons had a problem with the fact that he had to try to lead an unsaved husband of a church member to Christ (really!) while I was on a mission trip.
I've shared the testimony above to say again, that I UNDERSTAND your points. I simply do not accept them.
I've worked with congregations (I was also associational moderator for 3 years, leading 7 churches and participated with their national and international ministries including writing articles for their journal) who were Arminian to the nth degree and the ones I've seen are more worried about what is wrong with people outside the church than in presenting the saving gospel with those people. And, that is exactly where Arminianism (or any like derivative) leads eventually, for if one has to come to Christ in faith, then EVERYTHING they do wrong before they are truly saved (if they ever are truly saved under that sort of system) must be "corrected" in their way of life without the help of the only One who CAN help them, Christ!
I'm out of town for several days, so I expect that this thread will be closed by the time I return. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask in another thread.
