Search results

The first sentence contradicts the last. If you can't see that it is "both/and" not "either/or" I don't think anything I can say will help change that. Would it help if I quoted Calvin or some other Calvinistic scholar to point out your error? Would you listen to them?

:applause::applause: Well said.

That is what John 12:39-41 clearly states, yes. Don't you think this would be redundant if indeed men are born totally unable from birth? He is blinding those who have rebelled against him for generations so as to bring redemption to the world. He has bound all men over to disobedience...

Of course I agree that the work on the cross is a part of that gracious work, but don't you also affirm that God is the one who graciously inspired the gospel, preserved the gospel and sends it to "every creature?"

Just read the quotes again and you will see that its both, not one or the other as you seem to think. You are the one who said things like "faith has nothing to do with it," which is completely unbiblical and not even Calvinistic scholars would agree with on on that point. We are saved by...

Depends on if you consider the gospel a gracious work of God or not.

I've read through the thread P4T and I don't know how to say it more clearly. Here are direct quotes from the non-Cals in that thread: "Of course, it is by grace through faith." - Gershom "God's grace provided salvation through faith alone." -Gershom "The grace of Christ that provides...

What if a canidate used all his time on the first question or two? Would he just not be able (or have to) answer the rest? Shouldn't there be some time limit on any given answer for that reason?

JesusFan, I didn't see that you replied to this post???

I'd take issue with the second characterization. It's not that we believe there is "enough" in fallen man, but we believe the gracious Gospel to be powerful enough to save fallen man. It's not about us trying to say men are better, it about saying God's means are sufficient so that men are...

I believe if you look at the context of your discussion DHK explains you his view when you confront him with this charge. You wrote: "Grace alone, champ. But you don't believe it was grace alone, correct?" He replied: "The grace of Christ that provides salvation that must be accepted by...

But why couldn't they (Israel) believe? Option 1: The Calvinist's Reply "Because they were born totally depraved and thus unable to believe in Christ." -Calvinist Option 2: The Biblical Reply "For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded...

I just did a search and didn't find anyone who denies that we are saved by Grace through faith. Can you at least give us a name or the thread where it was said? I'd like to know so I can rebut such a blatantly false statement. Thanks

:thumbsup: Well said. There is nothing in scripture which contradicts the very strong implication of universal ability which comes with the universal offer. In John 6, the passage most quoted by Cals to support their view of total inability, the gospel was being hidden from Israel (Jesus'...

That is just as erroneous as MB's statement. There have been Calvinists, Arminians, and many somewhere in between from the beginning of the SBC. No one group "slipped in."

Could you point us to one person here or any where who says "it is not Grace that saves?" We believe as you do, that we are saved "by Grace through faith." Even our ability to believe in Christ is graciously granted to us by our creator. With all due respect, I say this is love and with...

Your first sentence contradicts your last. The Gospel cannot be sufficient to save all if ONLY those elected by God have the means able to do that.

I'd encourage you to read up on your history. Many, if not most, of the founders of the SBC were unapologetically "reformed" or "Calvinistic" in their views. They didn't "slip" in as you seem to think. They have been around from the beginning and this issue has been a point of contention...

No, if that is what God's plan was then how could it be wrong? I just think that would be inconsistent with the revelation of scripture. The gospel is meant for "every creature" thus it seems inconsistent to me to presume it is not sufficient to save whosoever hears it.

Correct. So the question is whether God sent the gospel to effectually save a select few or to provide the sufficient means necessary for free moral agents to make a free moral response.