1 COR. 12:3 DOESN'T SUPPORT TOTAL INABILITY

Then you truly do not see God as efficacious. God cannot produce the ends that He wishes to produce.

Secondly that still does not prove your point nor does it answer the question. Nice illustration, but it is faulty. Men hate the things of God unless God changes their desires. Men do not seek God because men hate God because of our sinful depraved nature. The fact that the apostles were here does not change the fact that we are depraved. Therefore it does not change the fact that if God "calls us on the phone" we would most likely check the caller id and decide to let the answering machine get it.

In other words, our natures hate the things of God, the gospel does not change this. This does not mean that the gospel is powerless to save. It means it is the power to those who are being saved.

 

I do not see efficacious as getting everything he desires, I never said that. I said it means He can produce exactly what He means to produce. On his own, without the cooperation of man. So God can purpose those who will glorify His grace and he can let the rest praise His justice. This is supported in scripture.

As for the gospel enableing men to be saved, we both agree with that. It does not allow all men the ability to do that, and you would be making an assumption to say that it does. The gospel and the Holy Spirit call the sheep into the flock. Those who believe are the elect.

Humanistic psycology is not theology, scripture is. We can know who God is based on scripture, we can also know who man is. This is not an assumption it is true. Man is wicked outside of God changing man.

 

Since you bring up the word thelo, let us look at it. It is translated as will, but means an emotional desire. Can God ordain something that does not meet with His emotional desire so as to secure His glory through his sovereign decree? Yes, we can look at Clavary, we can look at Job, we can look at Lazarus. God is efficacious not because he gets what he desires, but because He produces the ends in which he wants to produce, or the ends that he desires. In your theology, this cannot happen outside of the cooperation of man. You ask could this be a possibility? My mother taught me never to play the "what if" game. The bible does not support "what if God chose to let us chose" theology. I must take it for what it says.

As far as humanistic psycology, I bring this up because that is where "american theology" has gone too. It puts man in a light that he can pull himself out of depravity, and that there is some inherant good in man that allows him to do this. The bible speaks of man as wicked. Wicked people do not hear the gospel message without God quickening him to believe.

You say that man is able to respond to God. By saying this, you must believe that man is not blind, he is just squinting a little. He is not deaf, he just has to cup his hands to his ear. He is not dumb, his voice is horse. He is not dead, he is just kind of sick. That is not how the bible pictures man.

 

Hi sturgman;
a quote from you;
-------------------------------------------------

As far as humanistic psychology, I bring this up because that is where "American theology" has gone too. It puts man in a light that he can pull himself out of depravity, and that there is some inherent good in man that allows him to do this
-------------------------------------------------

No one said anything about man having good in him, but the Calvinist. Why do you insist that Arminians believe this? God in His Sovereignty offers man a choice. Just like he did Adam. He does not loose sovereignty just because he offers a choice. I know you say that Adam was the last to have freewill. You have not shown this to be true. It is only in the speculation of Augustine and Calvin that this came from. You say we have no freewill because it isn't in the Bible and I say freewill is obvious because choice is given every time Salvation is offered. The whole Bible is about Choice and it's consequences either positive or negative. This idea of Arminians believing man is good before being saved just isn't so. You should know this if you really know what Arminians believe.

Man does not pull himself out of anything God does it. God just doesn't force him to accept something or force him to want it. God Draws man. another word for this is lure's. There is no scripture for irresistable. I know your going to tell me there is and that's your belief. That's fine, but there are those of us who believe contrary to Calvinism. For you to assume that we believe something we have not stated isn't right. Why do you say this? who told you this?
Romanbear

 

2 Tim. 2:4 uses the word "thelo" and 2 Peter 3:9 uses the word "boulomai" so either way you want to interpret it that's fine, both uses of the word are covered.

I know I have been considered unlearned by some here, and I am thankful for this. But from my studies (from Strong's Vine's and Young's compared), I believe "thelo" and "boulomai" are used differently. One is indicative of desire and the other of purpose.

To desire is very different than to purpose, though the distinction may not be recognized in our present society.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

'lure's'

Also another word for deception.

Bro. Dallas

 

bro Bill, Nice way to avoid my point. So both are covered. That doesn't change anything. This was just a quick way to focus on something else without having to answer the reality of how you see man differently than scripture does.

 

And again Bro Bill, you problem is not anything accept that you do not like what the end leads too. It is not that the scriptures do not lead you there. The real thing is that you don't like the end so you try to explain it away in a whole new way. All because you don't like a God that would do that. That is no reason to believe in bad theology.

Let us look at some other text that lead us to a point where you would say that God isn't seen as "good".

How about 1 Kings where Elijah stayed with the widow and her son. It was a famine all over the land, widows were not being provided for because Israel could not feed their own families much less the widows. So what does God do, sends him to a pagan land to help a gentile widow. What about the jewish widows? Why didn't God provide for them?

How about Esau? Esau was no worse then Jacob. Why did God choose the sneek?

How about the pool of bethesda? Jesus asked one person among hundreds if he would be healed. Why not the others? Did the others not want it? We never know because Jesus never offered them healing.

Judus? Judus was ordained to betray Jesus, yet Jesus said it would have been better for him if he had never been born.

Hey, how about the whole world outside of the jewish nation? They were chosen to recieve the things of God. Why not the others? They were all just as sinful.

The fact of the matter is that not believing something because you do not like it, is not good theology.

Now to the matter at hand. Scripture is not unclear about how it views man. It does not speak of man in anyway but wicked. That is where we get total inability. Wicked men, not only do not seek God, but do not want anything to do with God. Your view of theology seems to think that if man hears the Gospel, then they will automatically want the things of God. This is not true. It takes a change of heart to want the things of God.

 

First of all, I do not spend every waking hour on this board, if I abandoned a conversation, it is because I didn't want to wade through a load of nonsence to get back on it. I have other studying to do.

Second, I do not know the calvinist you know, but I see that God has many means to call His elect. I do not see that we have two different calls, I see it as one call, it is a general call that goes out to all, but is effectual for the elect. Only the elect will respond to the general call.

You ask what the purpose is for evil and suffering? You say it is to influence man, I say it is to give glory to God. Without evil and suffering you have a naked man, a naked woman, a snake, in a garden. That is all. But with those things we have the things we find most precious about God, like mercy, grace, forgiveness.

I did not leave my arguement behind, I asked the question of the nature of man which you never answered. I just refocussed it to the real debate, that you do not like where scriptures lead.

 

Sorry, I must have missed getting my calvinist handbook. But believing in one call that is only effectual for some does not dethread the verce in ROmans, "Those He justified, He glorified" I don't see why you would think it does.

Second, if you look back, what I have been trying to get you to answer, but you still have not is scriptures view of the nature of man. It sees man (apart from the regeneration of God) as wicked. How is it that you can hold man in such esteem to say that he would want anything to do with God in the first place. As far as 2 Peter and 1 Timothy, these were not arguements that I was making towards you necessarily. That, in my mind is not a problem text.

 

Jesus justified all mankind by the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. That was not done for only one segment of the population of the world, but for all mankind, because he made it so by extending the invitation to the gentiles (all the non Jews). To the best of my knowledge there is no reference to the gentiles in the Old Testament that describes any of them as be "the elect"

Now we know how he justified us. What does it mean that "the justified" are Glorified? Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. So we who believe are Glorified by having life eternal in Jesus, the Glorious, and worthy Lamb of God. Those who do not believe are self condemned, and not glorified! If you do not believe in Jesus, how can you believe in atonement?

 

How do you know? Do you know my friends? I've never seen a couch potato run 26 miles.

Yes, I am saying that

And you make my point.

In vs. 14 it states,
"that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" A literal translation "that the promise of the Spirit we may receive through the faith." The Holy Spirit who opens and applies the promises OF salvation- (Justification, sanctification, glorification ) is received by faith yet at the same time Paul is clear in Eph. 2:1 and the Lord Jesus is in John 3:3 it was the Holy Spirit who gave us spiritual life or regeneration and enabled us to receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. As the Lutheran theologian Flacius Illyricus stated "The Spirit from without, kindles within us some spark of faith Whereby we lay hold of Christ, and even of the Spirit Himself, that He may dwell within us" (NOTE: Lutherans and Calvinist while not in total agreement do agree the Holy Spirit produces regeneration)

I never said this text is not even addessing my point since he is referring to who can truly profess Jesus is Lord.

Because Jesus is referring to those who falsely profess faith in his name and Paul is saying that no one can call Jesus Lord in a true confession without being in the Holy Spirit. It seems you are looking for a secondary meaning in Jesus words that are not there. God Bless