Search results

And this is what leads to the problem of objectively considering all sides of an issue. What happens is that a Calvinists (especially a younger less educated one) thinks he understands "Arminian" views but really only understand something like the "foresight of faith" explanation and then...

The foresight of faith view is what many see as the Arminian explanation of biblical predestination. They teach that God looks down the corridors of time to see who will have faith and then predestines them to have faith. Honestly, if I believed that is what Arminians really believed I'd...

Oh, I agree. I unapologetically think Calvinism is wrong and having been one before I know exactly how it felt to think Arminianism was wrong too. I get that. But, both sides, if they are to be objective and fair in a debate MUST be able to fairly articulate the views of the other. I...

Nevertheless, it shows that being enslaved to something doesn't mean that we can't be influenced by a divine message appealing for us to be reconciled. After all if satan can't tempt a saint to sin, surely God is powerful enough to influence a natural man to repent, don't you think?

Then why do you both avoid providing the text I requested? This is why I have stopped engaging you in discussions. You actually still think I would disagree with this. Of course God enables us (he enables us by inviting us to be reconciled), we just don't believe he does it "irresistibly" as...

And what you fail to see is that God must have been the one to decide what was forced upon ALL of us, thus this point doesn't avoid our argument. Plus, you've yet to show in scripture where "total inability" is a result of the Fall. Labor pains and toiling the soil and knowing good/evil is...

Scripture also says that believers are "slaves to righteousness," but does that in any way imply that believers can never choose to sin again? Obviously not.

When I read the account of the Fall of man in Genesis I see were it speaks of all the curses that came with the fall. I read where it talks of the toiling the land and labor pains. I see where it teaches that men now know both good and evil. But, can one of you show me where it talks about...

I said it is the testimony of some. RC Sproul is one of them. I've also heard others here on this board testify to the same thing as they explain the difficulty of accepting these teachings. That is a factual statement, not a misrepresentation. And that is all I was referring to, so now you...

The recent tread about animals going to heaven brings up an important question regarding the free will of man. In the Calvinistic system what real difference is there between the choices and nature of man and that of animals? 1. Both are born "spiritually dead" in the sense that the spirit is...

And what work is that if its not to "make them alive" which is what I said from the beginning? :confused: 1. It is sent to "every creature," according to scripture. 2. Why do they hear it according to Calvinism? Because they are already alive, which brings me to the point of the OP...

Well, as I stated there are exceptions, but in my experience with MANY students who have become "Calvinistic" they had (or have) little knowledge of the scholarly views of the "Arminian" perspective. They say things like, "What else can you do with Romans 9 or John 6 or Eph. 1?" and have...

I think it is more than that. Believers who become Calvinistic are typically NOT "Arminian" prior to becoming Calvinists...they are "nothing." They are simply ignorant of the issues surrounding the difficult passages such as Eph. 1 and Romans 9. They don't know how else to deal with these...

Well, if Calvinism is true the non-elect people are going to wish they were animals, because at least God won't send them to hell for making their animalistic/instinctive choices of which they have no ability to change. :thumbs:

So you are saying the "words of life" are the means God uses to bring people to life who are already born again as "sons and daughters?" Again, seems redundant for God to use the means of "words of life" to bring life to those already living.

I'm saying that Calvinism gives unbelievers a good defense or excuse for their unbelief. I understand that the fault of depravity in the Cal system rest on the representation of Adam in the fall, but that is beside the point. We are talking about AFTER the fall when God makes an appeal for...

Jesus calls his words "spirit and life" yet Calvinists maintain that men cannot accept them unless they have first been made alive (regenerated). Doesn't it seem redundant for God to send words meant to bring men new life only to those who he has made alive already by some other means?

The question of the OP is "Does repentance come from God or People?" And the non-Calvinist answer is that repentance must be "granted/allowed" by God, but that does not mean it is irresistibly applied. How you suspect that is not related to the OP is beyond me. But, I suspect you will...

I disagree. Point 1 exalts the view of man by giving them an excuse for their unbelief. They can say, "God didn't spiritually discern the gospel for me so I could understand it and accept it." A perfect defense. Point 2 affirms they are "without excuse," because God has spiritually...

Correct. This is why Jesus speaks of "humbling yourself" and points to children as what we must become like in order to enter the kingdom. "The meek shall inherit the earth." Jesus said, "Humble yourself and you will be exalted," not "God will irresistibly humble you so as to exalt you."