Are All Men Drawn Equally?

[webdog]

It is what Webdog SAID quantum.

He literally SAID that we were worthy of Christ's sacrifice.

He did it all for us.

That's madness, IMO. But I used to be stricken with the same lunacy.

I NEVER said that. I can't understand who said what since you cannot seem to get the quote feature right here on the BB.

Here is what I said "Well, if you want to diminish the value of those made in His image, that He felt were worthy to be sacrificed for...that's on you. He said it. I believe it."

Here is what God has said "For God so loved that world, that He gave...".

When will the ad hominems stop, Luke? Lunacy?!? I know I"m not worthy, but if in God's eye HE deems us so...who in the world are you to question HIM?!?

 

[quantumfaith]

I NEVER said that. I can't understand who said what since you cannot seem to get the quote feature right here on the BB.

Here is what I said "Well, if you want to diminish the value of those made in His image, that He felt were worthy to be sacrificed for...that's on you. He said it. I believe it."

Here is what God has said "For God so loved that world, that He gave...".

When will the ad hominems stop, Luke? Lunacy?!? I know I"m not worthy, but if in God's eye HE deems us so...who in the world are you to question HIM?!?

Luke,

I have rarely if ever "ad-hominemed" you. But you are being very un-adult like bordering on the immature. Re-read and see if you cannot figure things out.

And yes, I do sometimes click wrong, use the quote feature wrong etc. But it is So NICE of you and Courteous to point things like this out. BTW, that was completely intentional sarcasm.

 

[webdog]

Quantum, that was my reply to Luke. Him not being able to use the quote function properly has screwed up the discussion. The ad hominem was calling my line of thinking "lunacy".

I went back and fixed it...hope that clears it up.

 

[quantumfaith]

You mean I typed all of that and you just respond to that tiny snippet??

Do you think some people are born more depraved than others?

Do you suppose that all are born equally depraved but some become more depraved due to their surroundings?

How do you account for the fact that some come to Christ and others do not?

Your "non-cal" system makes man the ULTIMATE cause of his own salvation.

"Why are you going to heaven John and JAck is going to hell?"

"Because I chose..."

I have answered you questions over and over again. You just dont like my answers. So be it.

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantum, that was my reply to Luke. Him not being able to use the quote function properly has screwed up the discussion. The ad hominem was calling my line of thinking "lunacy".

I went back and fixed it...hope that clears it up.

Sorry, "my bad". I get confused sometimes (often) with technology, even though I use it everyday.

 

[Don]

God didn't call us without knowing what we are going to get.

He called us to believe(trust) in His Son and be saved or not and be condemned.

My point exactly.

 

[quantumfaith]

My point exactly.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

Did you honestly say that we were WORTHY of the sacrifice of the Son of God????? This illustrates EXACTLY the rift between Calvinists and "non-reformed" people. And then you literally said that God's GLORY was NOT a sufficient purpose for Calvary??
That is really amazing to me. And if you think that- you might be beyond reaching in this matter. However, about a decade ago, some friends of mine in college had to read Piper's book "Let the NAtions Be Glad" and they came to me saying the same things I am saying to you and I said then- "I don't think God is SELF-CENTERED! LOVE was his motive NOT SELF GLORY!!!" And here I am- so maybe one day you'll see the truth. I sure hope so. This thing ain't about you and me- it's about CHRIST. Every flower, every star, the 125 billion galaxies of the universe- it's all about HIM. Until you get that- you won't understand.

Luke, you are correct, it is all about Him, and not about us. The entire Word of God and the big picture is His Glory. We cannot comprehend this nor understand this, and for some it is hard to accept, and many wrongly see this as a negative egotism. But God cannot have a negative egotism. He is perfectly Holy and perfectly Glorious, and He will not share His glory with any other! All of this truth magnifies God and who He is and His Holy Nature and perfection, and His Sovereign reign and will. To miss all of this is to miss the big picture. This psycho-heresy self-esteem human value and worth gospel is glorifying to man, and not to Him. Andit is not the Gospel. It is another when it focuses upon man and his worth. Think about it! Taking the Gospel and focusing it on mans worth! I always knew there was something amiss with this self-esteem thing, then when I began to truly understand God, it became clear. This whole thing is all about God and His desire to reveal His glory to undeserving us.

 

[Nicholas25]

Since the subject has been changed some, I will go with it. I do know that Reformed Theology teaches that God is not the author of sin. It teaches that He did not create sin, but allows it. It teaches that man has free will to sin, but that, that kind of free will is not really free, because all they can do is sin, as opposed to turning to God. I am not Calvinist, but have read like 5 or so deep books on the theology.

 

[Jarthur001]

This thread is a reminder to me, why I do not want to post on here as often as I once did. Passages pull from context where the same poster who was told three years ago he was wrong, and many times over from that time till now...STILL misuses Gods Word.

What's the point?

People seem to believe what they want to believe.

 

[menageriekeeper]

hmpth, more bickering than discussing.

Umm Luke, somewhere in here you told someone that if they couldn't agree with "x" then they were likely never to change. Hold on to that thought, lol, cause there are several of us who aren't going to change our theology. We've held it for more years than you've been alive. (man does that ever make me sound OLD) With that in mind lets discuss rather than bicker.

Jack and John. You keep saying there is another step. Where is this step described in scripture? I dont' see another step. I see a wall. The wall of our own will.

Let's go further. You (or someone in the past 11 pages) wondered why some were put in places where accepting Christ seems, to an outsider, to be easy while others were put into awful places where Christ's name might never be heard. I'm going to tell you a true story:

Not so many years ago, but before you were born, there were two teen girls who's fathers worked in the same place.

"R's" parents were outwardly "Christian" but inside the home there was abuse, mental illness, drug abuse and enough drama that R had no concept of self worth. Indeed, she was often told that she was dumb, stupid, worthless. Poverty was always at the door in spite of the father's job.

"A's" parents on the other hand had been unable to bear children and had adopted her. She was the chosen child. Valued. Well taken care of. Taken to church not sent. Dressed in clothing that spoke of how much love her parents had for her. She was disciplined in love and never abused. She never knew deprivation.

If as you say, free will "logically" leads one to suspect that one person has within themselves something more than another that leads them to accept where another would not, you'd certainly expect that A would be the one to accept Christ's sacrifice. She had all the advantages to that end. She was taught from babyhood about Christ. She had role models that were true Christians, that loved the Lord with all their heart. Surely this child would eagerly follow her parents and loved ones' example.

Only she didn't. Has not to this day. She doesn't even pretend anymore.

On the other hand, somewhere R heard the message of Christ and even in the depths of her miserable existance, she accepted and her life was literally transformed from inside to outside.

The one that should have been hard, was soft. And the one that should have been easy, was hard.

You would say the difference is that God regenerated the first and not the second. But the Bible says that the children of a Christian are holy. (1 Cor 7:14) So how can that be? How does a child that is called holy by God resist the calling of the Holy Spirit?


When God created this earth he gave Adam the choice of obedience or disobedience. He explained the rule, the consequences, and saw to it that Adam had everything he needed both to sustain him physically and spiritually. Adam at this time had no predisposition toward evil. Remember, God had created him in His own image. After this, God left his creation unsupervised. Adam wasn't a child. He had everything he needed to make a good decision and even started from the position of desiring good rather than evil, yet he choose to disobey rather than let God solve the problem of Eve's deception.

Now, what was the punishment? Was it that mankind would lose its freewill? You would say so, but just a few "minutes" later God tells Cain that he has it within his power to bring a sacrifice that was pleasing. If Cain could chose to come, where did we lose freewill? Where did God stop allowing man to chose Him or die?

Just like God provided Adam everything he needed to sustain life both physically and spiritually, including the choice to obey or not, He has also provided for us. The fact that those provisions are different, doesn't change the fact that we have them available if only we will make use of them. My sig passage says it all: God is not willing any should perish. The reason some do, is not because God failed to provide for them, but because they refuse to use that provision.

A refused the urging of the Holy Spirit because she wanted "something different". Following Christ wasn't nearly as cool as becoming a model and drinking with her friends on the weekend.

R, on the other hand, found no pleasure in those things even though they were certainly available. She also wanted "something different". Her perspective on what different meant was radically changed when she heard the story of Christ and believed.

There is no next step. The difference between Jack and John, between R and A, is determined by their own wills.

 

[BobinKy]

hmpth, more bickering than discussing.

Umm Luke, somewhere in here you told someone that if they couldn't agree with "x" then they were likely never to change. Hold on to that thought, lol, cause there are several of us who aren't going to change our theology. We've held it for more years than you've been alive. (man does that ever make me sound OLD) With that in mind lets discuss rather than bicker.

Jack and John. You keep saying there is another step. Where is this step described in scripture? I dont' see another step. I see a wall. The wall of our own will.

Let's go further. You (or someone in the past 11 pages) wondered why some were put in places where accepting Christ seems, to an outsider, to be easy while others were put into awful places where Christ's name might never be heard. I'm going to tell you a true story:

Not so many years ago, but before you were born, there were two teen girls who's fathers worked in the same place.

"R's" parents were outwardly "Christian" but inside the home there was abuse, mental illness, drug abuse and enough drama that R had no concept of self worth. Indeed, she was often told that she was dumb, stupid, worthless. Poverty was always at the door in spite of the father's job.

"A's" parents on the other hand had been unable to bear children and had adopted her. She was the chosen child. Valued. Well taken care of. Taken to church not sent. Dressed in clothing that spoke of how much love her parents had for her. She was disciplined in love and never abused. She never knew deprivation.

If as you say, free will "logically" leads one to suspect that one person has within themselves something more than another that leads them to accept where another would not, you'd certainly expect that A would be the one to accept Christ's sacrifice. She had all the advantages to that end. She was taught from babyhood about Christ. She had role models that were true Christians, that loved the Lord with all their heart. Surely this child would eagerly follow her parents and loved ones' example.

Only she didn't. Has not to this day. She doesn't even pretend anymore.

On the other hand, somewhere R heard the message of Christ and even in the depths of her miserable existance, she accepted and her life was literally transformed from inside to outside.

The one that should have been hard, was soft. And the one that should have been easy, was hard.

You would say the difference is that God regenerated the first and not the second. But the Bible says that the children of a Christian are holy. (1 Cor 7:14) So how can that be? How does a child that is called holy by God resist the calling of the Holy Spirit?


When God created this earth he gave Adam the choice of obedience or disobedience. He explained the rule, the consequences, and saw to it that Adam had everything he needed both to sustain him physically and spiritually. Adam at this time had no predisposition toward evil. Remember, God had created him in His own image. After this, God left his creation unsupervised. Adam wasn't a child. He had everything he needed to make a good decision and even started from the position of desiring good rather than evil, yet he choose to disobey rather than let God solve the problem of Eve's deception.

Now, what was the punishment? Was it that mankind would lose its freewill? You would say so, but just a few "minutes" later God tells Cain that he has it within his power to bring a sacrifice that was pleasing. If Cain could chose to come, where did we lose freewill? Where did God stop allowing man to chose Him or die?

Just like God provided Adam everything he needed to sustain life both physically and spiritually, including the choice to obey or not, He has also provided for us. The fact that those provisions are different, doesn't change the fact that we have them available if only we will make use of them. My sig passage says it all: God is not willing any should perish. The reason some do, is not because God failed to provide for them, but because they refuse to use that provision.

A refused the urging of the Holy Spirit because she wanted "something different". Following Christ wasn't nearly as cool as becoming a model and drinking with her friends on the weekend.

R, on the other hand, found no pleasure in those things even though they were certainly available. She also wanted "something different". Her perspective on what different meant was radically changed when she heard the story of Christ and believed.

There is no next step. The difference between Jack and John, between R and A, is determined by their own wills.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

...Bob

 

[quantumfaith]

hmpth, more bickering than discussing.

Umm Luke, somewhere in here you told someone that if they couldn't agree with "x" then they were likely never to change. Hold on to that thought, lol, cause there are several of us who aren't going to change our theology. We've held it for more years than you've been alive. (man does that ever make me sound OLD) With that in mind lets discuss rather than bicker.

Jack and John. You keep saying there is another step. Where is this step described in scripture? I dont' see another step. I see a wall. The wall of our own will.

Let's go further. You (or someone in the past 11 pages) wondered why some were put in places where accepting Christ seems, to an outsider, to be easy while others were put into awful places where Christ's name might never be heard. I'm going to tell you a true story:

Not so many years ago, but before you were born, there were two teen girls who's fathers worked in the same place.

"R's" parents were outwardly "Christian" but inside the home there was abuse, mental illness, drug abuse and enough drama that R had no concept of self worth. Indeed, she was often told that she was dumb, stupid, worthless. Poverty was always at the door in spite of the father's job.

"A's" parents on the other hand had been unable to bear children and had adopted her. She was the chosen child. Valued. Well taken care of. Taken to church not sent. Dressed in clothing that spoke of how much love her parents had for her. She was disciplined in love and never abused. She never knew deprivation.

If as you say, free will "logically" leads one to suspect that one person has within themselves something more than another that leads them to accept where another would not, you'd certainly expect that A would be the one to accept Christ's sacrifice. She had all the advantages to that end. She was taught from babyhood about Christ. She had role models that were true Christians, that loved the Lord with all their heart. Surely this child would eagerly follow her parents and loved ones' example.

Only she didn't. Has not to this day. She doesn't even pretend anymore.

On the other hand, somewhere R heard the message of Christ and even in the depths of her miserable existance, she accepted and her life was literally transformed from inside to outside.

The one that should have been hard, was soft. And the one that should have been easy, was hard.

You would say the difference is that God regenerated the first and not the second. But the Bible says that the children of a Christian are holy. (1 Cor 7:14) So how can that be? How does a child that is called holy by God resist the calling of the Holy Spirit?


When God created this earth he gave Adam the choice of obedience or disobedience. He explained the rule, the consequences, and saw to it that Adam had everything he needed both to sustain him physically and spiritually. Adam at this time had no predisposition toward evil. Remember, God had created him in His own image. After this, God left his creation unsupervised. Adam wasn't a child. He had everything he needed to make a good decision and even started from the position of desiring good rather than evil, yet he choose to disobey rather than let God solve the problem of Eve's deception.

Now, what was the punishment? Was it that mankind would lose its freewill? You would say so, but just a few "minutes" later God tells Cain that he has it within his power to bring a sacrifice that was pleasing. If Cain could chose to come, where did we lose freewill? Where did God stop allowing man to chose Him or die?

Just like God provided Adam everything he needed to sustain life both physically and spiritually, including the choice to obey or not, He has also provided for us. The fact that those provisions are different, doesn't change the fact that we have them available if only we will make use of them. My sig passage says it all: God is not willing any should perish. The reason some do, is not because God failed to provide for them, but because they refuse to use that provision.

A refused the urging of the Holy Spirit because she wanted "something different". Following Christ wasn't nearly as cool as becoming a model and drinking with her friends on the weekend.

R, on the other hand, found no pleasure in those things even though they were certainly available. She also wanted "something different". Her perspective on what different meant was radically changed when she heard the story of Christ and believed.

There is no next step. The difference between Jack and John, between R and A, is determined by their own wills.

Thank you for taking the time to write such a wonderful illustration. And thank you for often being a "limiting agent" in these sometimes heated discussions of views. You are the control rods in the nuclear reactor.

 

[Don]

Menagerie, that was excellent; and I'm afraid that what I'm about to say will detract from it, so please forgive me in advance.

When I see these conversations, I am often reminded of the movie "Patton" with George C. Scott; specifically, the scene where Gen Patton is standing on a hillside, watching the German forces advance; and suddenly says, "Rommel, you magnificent _, I read your book!"

It's not a good analogy; no analogy is. However, it's indicative of what's happening. God knows the ending; we have free will, but God works all things towards the finale of the plan. Look at Job; God allowed Satan to take away Job's family, his possessions, and to do horrible things to Job himself; through it all, Job never knew that it wasn't God doing these things to him, and his friends certainly thought it was God's handiwork. Yet, even though he could have, and most folks wouldn't have blamed him, Job never denied God.

Again, Menagerie, your story is excellent; I hope that I haven't diminished it in any way.

 

[preacher4truth]

Nice emotionally charged story, of which emotion I will not allow to detract from the fact that salvation and choosing is not of us.

Romans 9:16 says it is not of us. It actually shows us it is definitely not because we chose. Not to him that willeth, or that is, determines, or chooses it, but it is of Him that calleth.

God shews mercy to whom He will. Look at the context.

Of course we would all assume the other girl would have decided to walk with God. Our reason doesn't dictate Sovereign will. It is not based on our finite understanding, God showed His mercy on the one, the other doesn't look like that has happened. It could happen later, who knows? But this is showing us God is in charge of this, not our reason, and not our choosing.

I don't believe the story concerning Cain proves we have free will. But I am going to look into that.

I just feel like if someone paints an emotional sympathetic picture to illustrate something then they feel that all of those emotional feelings it lends then makes the assumption true, and Biblical. A fuzzy feeling does not mean it is Biblically accurate.

I refer back to Romans 9:16, and its context.

I don't believe the interpretation of the story above is Biblically accurate whatsoever. I look at it in light of what God has said concerning whom He chooses, not at all as to what some person chooses. Salvation is all of Him.

I just think it is dangerous to use a story, and say "true story" as if that makes it then Biblically accurate, and our interpretation of if Biblically accurate, because it is a "true story."

 

[Luke2427]

Do you have that quote where he said we are worthy of that?

If that is the case, that is unscriptural. We were not worthy period.

Yes, here is the quote:

Webdog
Well, if you want to diminish the value of those made in His image, that He felt were worthy to be sacrificed for...that's on you. He said it. I believe it.

 

[Luke2427]

I NEVER said that.

I hate that it is your tendency to spin things you say but it is hard for you to spin this. Just say you were wrong and we can move on.

Here is what you said:

Well, if you want to diminish the value of those made in His image, that He felt were worthy to be sacrificed for...that's on you. He said it. I believe it.

The subject is "Those" which in your mind is every human being.

In your sentence something describes the subject- that they are WORTHY.

Then, in your sentence, something describes how worthy- to be sacrificed for.

Therefore what you said, and I think you said ti because you believe it, is that We were worthy to be sacrificed for. In other words We are worth the suffering, blood and death of the Son of God.

That is what you said.

Now if you want to say- Well, it's not what I meant- fine.

Otherwise we will submit this to an English expert and let them tell you that whether you wanted to or not- it IS what you said.

You will either admit it or retreat from this discussion or have it proven to you and everyone else who reads this beyond a shadow of a doubt that your sentence says that we were WORTHY of the SACRIFICE of Christ.

You are used to stubbornly digging your heels in and spinning things you say until your opponent gives up. I am not going to if it takes me all or week.

There is no sense in you denying that you said what you said and I am not going to do like most folks who engage you who get tired of dealing with you due to your stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong and they leave you to yourself with you thinking you won. It will be good for you and everyone who engages you for you to be proven unequivocally wrong on something.

You said it. Then you basically called me a liar for saying you said it. Well, you are not going to get away with that easily. Either admit it, retreat or prepare to be proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Here is what I said "Well, if you want to diminish the value of those made in His image, that He felt were worthy to be sacrificed for...that's on you. He said it. I believe it."

Emphasis mine: That IS what you said and it means that THOSE WERE WORTHY.

If he FELT they were but they really weren't then God made a big mistake at Calvary- the biggest of all time.

Here is what God has said "For God so loved that world, that He gave...".

Yes he loves the world- that does not at ALL mean that he felt is was WORTHY (your word) of the humiliating, bloody, torturous death of the second person of the godhead Trinity.

When will the ad hominems stop, Luke? Lunacy?!?

The statement is lunacy- that is not an ad hominem. It is not a description of your person- it is a description of your statement.
You are TOTALLY disqualified from crying "ad hominem" to anyone- EVERYONE who has ever engaged you in a heated debate knows that YOU are the worst on baptistboard for ad hominem. I proved that a while back remember. It will not be hard for me to locate that, and copy and paste it here if you so choose to continue along these lines.

I know I"m not worthy, but if in God's eye HE deems us so...who in the world are you to question HIM?!?

He did not deem you to be something you are not Webdog. He can't. He can't think something is true that isn't or never will be so.

If you say "I know I am not worthy" and then say "But he deems me so" then you are saying God doesn't understand the facts.

You are NOT worthy and God is not confused about the matter.

There is a higher and nobler purpose for him dying for you than YOU. It is his glory. Now his glory IS worth the sacrifice at Calvary.

 

[preacher4truth]

Yes, here is the quote:

I don't see where webdog says we were worthy, he is trying to say God SAYS we were worthy.

What does worthy mean? Defined it means deserving, having worth (deserving) and excellence. Uh. Nope.

The only thing I have trouble with is where webdog says God said that we we're worthy. God never said that ever. It's not even implied.

All this value of man thing is a new thing that has hit the church in the past years and popularized by pop psychology and self-esteem nonsense.

He chose to die for unworthy sinners regardless of anything according to His Will and purpose only, not because we were worthy, nor that He found us worthy. Does the doctrine of His choosing tell us it had anything to do with us, or our worthiness, or does it instead point merely to His choosing? Do tell me that it had something to do with us, and not just according to His Sovereign will in choosing. That is just plain wrong period.

Every time I hear one of these so called preachers, men, and usually women, out there on the radio preaching this emotional gobblety gook of "I am so valuable" I simply change the station.

He didn't die so we could find ourselves, but that we could find Him and know Him.

 

[Luke2427]

hmpth, more bickering than discussing.

Umm Luke, somewhere in here you told someone that if they couldn't agree with "x" then they were likely never to change. Hold on to that thought, lol, cause there are several of us who aren't going to change our theology. We've held it for more years than you've been alive. (man does that ever make me sound OLD) With that in mind lets discuss rather than bicker.

It doesn't increase your credibility that you are old. There are millions of old Catholics and Mormons and JW's and Satan Worshipers.

Bernie Madoff (sp?)was old when he cheated scores of people out of their retirement.

Kenneth Lay was probably about your age when he destroyed the lives of scores of people.

There are multitudes of old stupid people as well as young stupid people.

I don't know how you pointing out that you are old helps you at all.

On the other token there have been plenty of young geniuses and heroes.

Spurgeon took New Park Street Chapel which became later Metropolitan Tabernacle at the age of 19.

I am 31. I have been preaching for 15 years- how long have you been preaching? For fifteen years I have vociferously studied the Bible. By God's great grace, I have baptized over a hundred people.

What about your old age makes you more credible than me?

Jack and John. You keep saying there is another step. Where is this step described in scripture? I dont' see another step. I see a wall. The wall of our own will.

It is a simple law of nature that God put in place- Cause and Effect. For every effect there is a cause.

If John believed and Jack did not (the effect) there is a cause for it. This the crux of the matter between Arminianism and Calvinism. What is the CAUSE of salvation???

The Calvinist holds the consistent position that it is all of God- not just the provision of salvation (on that we all agree) but the process of salvation too.

You guys want the cause- the reason why John believed and Jack did not- to be human. We believe it is divine.

Let's go further. You (or someone in the past 11 pages) wondered why some were put in places where accepting Christ seems, to an outsider, to be easy while others were put into awful places where Christ's name might never be heard. I'm going to tell you a true story:

Not so many years ago, but before you were born, there were two teen girls who's fathers worked in the same place.

"R's" parents were outwardly "Christian" but inside the home there was abuse, mental illness, drug abuse and enough drama that R had no concept of self worth. Indeed, she was often told that she was dumb, stupid, worthless. Poverty was always at the door in spite of the father's job.

"A's" parents on the other hand had been unable to bear children and had adopted her. She was the chosen child. Valued. Well taken care of. Taken to church not sent. Dressed in clothing that spoke of how much love her parents had for her. She was disciplined in love and never abused. She never knew deprivation.

If as you say, free will "logically" leads one to suspect that one person has within themselves something more than another that leads them to accept where another would not, you'd certainly expect that A would be the one to accept Christ's sacrifice.

This is not true. There is no reason to expect that at all. There are factors like the emotional make up and personality of the people from birth and how those personalities hold up under certain circumstances. There are a host of factors that your story does not even come CLOSE to accounting for. And your story does not cause one to EXPECT that things would happen a certain way.

She had all the advantages to that end. She was taught from babyhood about Christ. She had role models that were true Christians, that loved the Lord with all their heart. Surely this child would eagerly follow her parents and loved ones' example.

Again, the factors that are not included are more numerous than can be enunciated.

Those factors are all causes.

Only she didn't. Has not to this day. She doesn't even pretend anymore.

On the other hand, somewhere R heard the message of Christ and even in the depths of her miserable existance, she accepted and her life was literally transformed from inside to outside.

If anything, her circumstances probably drove her to Christ- if anything I would expect HER to be MORE prone to accept Christ than the other. Your story does not help your case.

With Jesus we saw that sinful people in the depths of despair were far more likely to receive his message than those who were raised in religious backgrounds.

The one that should have been hard, was soft. And the one that should have been easy, was hard.

The opposite is true in your story as I just enunciated.

You would say the difference is that God regenerated the first and not the second. But the Bible says that the children of a Christian are holy. (1 Cor 7:14) So how can that be? How does a child that is called holy by God resist the calling of the Holy Spirit?

The fact that the children are holy has nothing at all to do with whether or not they will come to Christ.

When God created this earth he gave Adam the choice of obedience or disobedience. He explained the rule, the consequences, and saw to it that Adam had everything he needed both to sustain him physically and spiritually. Adam at this time had no predisposition toward evil. Remember, God had created him in His own image. After this, God left his creation unsupervised.

God left his creation unsupervised??? Where do you get this??

Adam wasn't a child. He had everything he needed to make a good decision and even started from the position of desiring good rather than evil, yet he choose to disobey rather than let God solve the problem of Eve's deception.

Now, what was the punishment? Was it that mankind would lose its freewill? You would say so, but just a few "minutes" later God tells Cain that he has it within his power to bring a sacrifice that was pleasing. If Cain could chose to come, where did we lose freewill? Where did God stop allowing man to chose Him or die?

That is not at all the crux of what God tells Cain- not at all.

He said sin lieth at the door. The point is that Cain did evil because Cain was evil.

Just like God provided Adam everything he needed to sustain life both physically and spiritually, including the choice to obey or not, He has also provided for us. The fact that those provisions are different, doesn't change the fact that we have them available if only we will make use of them.

All of this is nothing but assumption and not taught in the Bible anywhere.

My sig passage says it all: God is not willing any should perish. The reason some do, is not because God failed to provide for them, but because they refuse to use that provision.

God IS not willing that anyone should perish- that is true. It is not the immediate will of God that ANY should perish. He does LOVE the WORLD. But for the greater good (which is NOT about man) God is ultimately willing to allow them to perish that his holy purposes might be fulfilled.

A refused the urging of the Holy Spirit because she wanted "something different". Following Christ wasn't nearly as cool as becoming a model and drinking with her friends on the weekend.

A refused the urging of the Holy Spirit for the same reason we ALL refuse the urging of the Holy Spirit- she is wicked to the core. So are we all.

A refused the urging of the Holy Spirit, not for some reasons you ASSUME, but for reasons the Bible makes clear- The carnal mind is at enmity with God and is not subject to the law of God neither indeed CAN IT BE.

R, on the other hand, found no pleasure in those things even though they were certainly available. She also wanted "something different". Her perspective on what different meant was radically changed when she heard the story of Christ and believed.

R accepted Christ for the exact same reason ALL who accept Christ do. It is spelled out very clearly in Scripture- THOSE he called he justified and those he justied he also glorified. Romans 8

There is no next step. The difference between Jack and John, between R and A, is determined by their own wills.

No sir. There is no next step in your mind because you can't see it. But it is a simple LAW of NATURE that for every effect there is a cause.
There is a CAUSE for why people will what they will.

The problem with Arminians and those not reformed is that they CANNOT understand this. They think man's will HAS NO CAUSE. There is no CAUSE for WHY men choose what they CHOOSE.

But this violates logic and the Word of God.

THERE IS A CAUSE for why people choose what they choose.

WHY does John CHOOSE to follow Christ and WHY does Jack refuse?

Is it beCAUSE John is better than Jack?

Or is it beCAUSE God changed John's will?

It is one or the other- refusing to take this step is what leaves you in darkness on this matter.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't see where webdog says we were worthy, he is trying to say God SAYS we were worthy.

What does worthy mean? Defined it means deserving, having worth (deserving) and excellence. Uh. Nope.

The only thing I have trouble with is where webdog says God said that we we're worthy. God never said that ever. It's not even implied.

All this value of man thing is a new thing that has hit the church in the past years and popularized by pop psychology and self-esteem nonsense.

He chose to die for unworthy sinners regardless of anything according to His Will and purpose only, not because we were worthy, nor that He found us worthy. Does the doctrine of His choosing tell us it had anything to do with us, or our worthiness, or does it instead point merely to His choosing? Do tell me that it had something to do with us, and not just according to His Sovereign will in choosing. That is just plain wrong period.

Every time I hear one of these so called preachers, men, and usually women, out there on the radio preaching this emotional gobblety gook of "I am so valuable" I simply change the station.

He didn't die so we could find ourselves, but that we could find Him and know Him.

Yea you've got good points but-

God can't SAY we were worthy unless it is so. God cannot tell a lie.

For Webdog to say God SAID it or FELT it is for Webdog to say it is SO.

Therefore Webdog is saying that according to the judgment of God which MUST be accurate and right- we were WORTHY of the HELL Christ suffered. That is atrocious in the highest degree.