An Open Response to My "Arminian" Brothers & Sisters

That was my point exactly. He's not telling you to pluck out your eyes, but that's what the text says. Similarly, He's not telling us that hell will have a bigger population than heaven, He's telling us that more people take the broad road than the narrow one.

Of course He is. If He did otherwise, then it might imply free will. Instead, He's influencing our decisions with (among many other things) commands, advice, and reason. If the Word did not exist, we'd just go our merry way in sin. That's not free will. Free will means you can approach someone and give him two options: "God or Not-God, you decide." And there's a 50/50 chance they'll pick one or the other. Free will is NOT mankind born with an inclination toward Not-God, and then influenced to bring about repentence and faith.

Yes. The little ones are His. He said so.</font>[/QUOTE]Good point. But how can you, of all people, reconcile that? You mean your god is not going to preserve their lives long enough to give them the free will choice of salvation or damnation? He's just going to whisk them off to heaven without so much as a "by your leave" and not wait to see whether or not they might have chosen hell if they had lived? How could he do that and violate his number one priority, which to honor every person's free will choice?

 

"MY god?" With a small g? I assume you are telling me I am not Christian.

You don't mind, I am sure, if I take serious offense to that, do you?

Choice is for those mature enough to make a choice. That is why Paul was alive before he knew the law. Until then, sin nature is involved only with unintentional sins which are covered by Jesus as the sacrifice for all sins.

Since I am the one quoting Bible in context in extended fashion, and you are only being snide with your response, if, as you imply, our deities are different, I claim mine as the God of the Bible and Creator of the Universe and everything there is and my Savior and Redeemer.

Who's yours?

 

Helen, it was a joke - a charicature of your view. (see the smiley?) In the context of a god who would honor man's will over his own even to the point where he would not take a child, the word doesn't deserve a capital g.

 

I'm told I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I did not see that as funny in the slightest, I'm sorry. I am attempting to keep "my view" as totally biblical as possible. Nor is it a matter of 'honoring' man's will above His own, but of allowing man's will within His own.

 

I agree, Helen. God commands, not merely asks, all people to repent and believe.

One of the frustrating things I find in this forum is that so much of the debate is miscaricatures of what both Calvinists and anti-Calvinists believe. We tend to attribute unrighteous motives to each other, as if those with whom we are debating are outright reprobates.

I plead guilty to my share of mean-spiritedness in this forum, in spite of my intentions not to do so.

Maybe we should delete all of the threads in this forum, start over, and show the world we are Christians by our love, even while we disagree on some points of soteriology. Otherwise, I may have to stop my involvement here as I oftentimes leave this forum feeling spiritually dirty - like I've been involved in spiritual mud wrestling.

Ken

[ November 10, 2002, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

AAGGGHHHH! And lose all that work I have done referencing things? Oh PULEEEZ no! I appreciate your apology, though, and I know I have lost it before, too, and I apologize as well.

There now... that's that.

But oh my goodness I have time on some of these posts! If anyone is going to erase them, let me know so I can lift some of the stuff!

 

I'm sorry - I didn't mean to offend you. I do not believe your view is Biblical, but I do not think you believe God would honor man'ss will over His own enough to put babies back so they'll have time to make a free-will choice. That was the idea of the charicature.