2 opposing questions:

[InTheLight]

would even deny that God has to provide any 'additional grace" being applied towards us as both Cals/Arms say, but that we will freely decide to receive jesus, or reject him...

Another caricature.

 

[Amy.G]

have to realise here though that there are NONE who claim to be Arninians in Sotierology, but say 'non Cals"

As such, would even deny that God has to provide any 'additional grace" being applied towards us as both Cals/Arms say, but that we will freely decide to receive jesus, or reject him...

Ends up being a Gospel that states that jesus died for sinners , who will freely accept/reject Him, and that God will elect us based solely based just how we respond to his offer to receive Jesus...

Does NOT seem to offer much security/certainity that there will be a large numbers saved , nor bring glory to God as much...

What is the purpose of statements such as these other than to start arguments or divide?

No one on this board believes such dribble. Get over it.

 

[JesusFan]

What is the purpose of statements such as these other than to start arguments or divide?

No one on this board believes such dribble. Get over it.

You really believe that NONE here on BB hold that man has the inherit faith/free will still in us to make that decision for Christ APART from god doing anything other than giving the Gospel to us?

 

[JesusFan]

Another caricature.

How would YOU explain that viewpoint as being than better?

 

[Don]

I know what you meant and I hope I didn't come across as rude with my "who cares" comment. It wasn't meant that way. :flower:

No flowers necessary; send cheeseburgers instead. :tongue3:

 

[12strings]

I hope I haven't caused too many problems here. My point is simply that both Calvinists & Non-Cals are open to questions about why God doesn't save everyone:

One could ask a Cal why God did not elect and regenerate everyone, and show his great mercy on sinners who would not have otherwise accepted him.

One could ask a non-call why God places free-will at a higher value than the salvation of a sinner who is using their free-will to reject him.

 

[Don]

As such, would even deny that God has to provide any 'additional grace" being applied towards us as both Cals/Arms say, but that we will freely decide to receive jesus, or reject him...

I'm assuming that you mean someone like myself, who probably tends to be more arminian with some calvinistic leanings, but claiming to be neither arminian nor calvinist (thus, "non-cal").

To which I would respond: As InTheLight pointed out, you've created an untrue caricature, because I doubt you can point to a single quote or even concept that supports your claim that I, or others like me, "deny that God has to provide any 'additional' grace." Instead, just like both Arminius and Calvin, I'd agree that God's grace is sufficient.

Does NOT seem to offer much security/certainity that there will be a large numbers saved , nor bring glory to God as much...

Now there's an interesting comment. If I understood your comment correctly, you seem to think there will be large numbers saved, in order to bring more glory to God; yet scripture tells us the gate that leads to life is narrow, and few will find it."

Would you please clarify further?

(BTW: just like I mentioned that the calvinist must explain why "whosoever" doesn't mean "whosoever," the calvinist must also explain why God Himself says in this verse that few will find it, rather than few will be brought to it. Every jot and every tittle, you know....)

 

[Don]

I hope I haven't caused too many problems here. My point is simply that both Calvinists & Non-Cals are open to questions about why God doesn't save everyone:

One could ask a Cal why God did not elect and regenerate everyone, and show his great mercy on sinners who would not have otherwise accepted him.

One could ask a non-call why God places free-will at a higher value than the salvation of a sinner who is using their free-will to reject him.

Don't sweat it. These calvinists vice non-cal discussions seem to usually degenerate into personal grudge matches. :tongue3:

But I would say that your second question is slightly off. I think what you're getting at is that the salvation of the sinner should be a higher priority; but that leads directly back to your question to calvinists. If salvation is a higher priority than free will, then why did God not elect and regenerate everyone?

And thus, your questions seem to become circular in nature....

 

[InTheLight]

I hope I haven't caused too many problems here. My point is simply that both Calvinists & Non-Cals are open to questions about why God doesn't save everyone:

One could ask a Cal why God did not elect and regenerate everyone, and show his great mercy on sinners who would not have otherwise accepted him.

One could ask a non-call why God places free-will at a higher value than the salvation of a sinner who is using their free-will to reject him.

Your first question is (mostly) legitimate. Your second question is not.

 

[JesusFan]

Your first question is (mostly) legitimate. Your second question is not.

Think a better way to phrase this would be:

Does God exault the free will of man to a level high enough that man is really possessing a free will sufficient to freely decide for Jesus, that man has a will equivalent to God in the matter of the salvation process?

 

[Don]

Think a better way to phrase this would be:

Does God exault the free will of man to a level high enough that man is really possessing a free will sufficient to freely decide for Jesus, that man has a will equivalent to God in the matter of the salvation process?

Not better phrasing at all; because the end result of your re-wording ("does God exalt the free will of man to a level...equivalent to God") means "does God place man at the same level as Himself?"

If yes, then scripture is violated. If no, then we circle back to the first question: why didn't God elect and regenerate everyone?

(and I reiterate the questions that are related, but you're choosing not address here: why does "whosoever" not mean "whosoever"; and why does God say "find" if He really means "I'll bring you.")

 

[quantumfaith]

Not better phrasing at all; because the end result of your re-wording ("does God exalt the free will of man to a level...equivalent to God") means "does God place man at the same level as Himself?"

If yes, then scripture is violated. If no, then we circle back to the first question: why didn't God elect and regenerate everyone?

(and I reiterate the questions that are related, but you're choosing not address here: why does "whosoever" not mean "whosoever"; and why does God say "find" if He really means "I'll bring you.")

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Amy.G]

You really believe that NONE here on BB hold that man has the inherit faith/free will still in us to make that decision for Christ APART from god doing anything other than giving the Gospel to us?

None that I'm aware of. Maybe you can name names?

No man can come to God apart from the Holy Spirit drawing him. I know of no one on this board that believes differently.

 

[Aaron]

1. For the Cal: How do you reconcile God's love for sinners with the fact that He damns millions to hell who he has apparently created as "vessels of wrath" and who were doomed from eternity never to believe? In other words, does God love his plan of election more than he loves sinners?

What's to reconcile? None are damned unjustly.

 

[Don]

What's to reconcile? None are damned unjustly.

And if we'd leave it at that statement, we'd all be in agreement.

 

[Tom Butler]

And of course the arminian *should* throw out the chant of "whosoever." It was God Himself that made the statement "whosoever believeth on me" in multiple verses; and since God is not a liar nor the author of confusion, the calvinist must satisfactorily answer why "whosoever" doesn't mean "whosoever."

Here is one Calvinist's extremely satisfactory and incontrovertible answer:

Whosoever means whosoever. Whosoever believes in Him will have everlasting life. Without exception.

Revelation 22:17b says "....whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely...."

Every Calvinist I know believes "whosoever will...." Or, to put it another way, "...anybody who wants to..."

 

[Don]

Here is one Calvinist's extremely satisfactory and incontrovertible answer:

Whosoever means whosoever. Whosoever believes in Him will have everlasting life. Without exception.

Revelation 22:17b says "....whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely...."

Every Calvinist I know believes "whosoever will...." Or, to put it another way, "...anybody who wants to..."

Tom, every arminian and non-cal on this board also agrees with that. But looking through this thread, you've got some cals who state that it's not "anybody who wants to," but only those that God elects/chooses. Refer to post #3 of this thread as the proof.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is one Calvinist's extremely satisfactory and incontrovertible answer:

Whosoever means whosoever. Whosoever believes in Him will have everlasting life. Without exception.

Revelation 22:17b says "....whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely...."

Every Calvinist I know believes "whosoever will...." Or, to put it another way, "...anybody who wants to..."

or this.........
15that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during,

16for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.


DON....

you've got some cals who state that it's not "anybody who wants to," but only those that God elects/chooses. Refer to post #3 of this thread as the proof.

Sure...because the bible teaches that.....jn6:44....romans3;10-12

 

[Amy.G]

or this.........
15that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during,

16for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

What translation is that?

 

[webdog]

Well this is fun.

In the interest of full disclosure, I simply wrote both questions to see what kind of comments they would invoke. I myself am much more in line with the calvinists than the arminians.

1 further question...

Would any arminians disagree that God loves his glory more than he loves sinners. A calvinist would say that God does not choose to save everyone not because he wants to uphold free will, but because he is glorified in the judgement of sin. Would an arminian say that God chooses not to overcome our free will to save us because he is glorified when sinners turn to him of their own free choice? ...so in either situation, God is glorified, AND not all are saved?

First we need to define love. How does God do so in 1 Corinthians 13?