Man is quite capable of responding to the gospel. There is no scripture that says man cannot respond that is a Calvinism doctrinal issue and has nothing to do with what I said.
Mike, what does John say? John 1:12-13, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, WHO WERE BORN NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD." It is man who is deceitful (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness (John 3:19), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20). Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by my Father, this is a universal negative proposition. This is a plain statement of universal inability. "Can" does not indicate permission, it indicates ability or power, Mike. To say no one can do this is to say, no one is able to do it.
I disagree they claim that man in his natural state is dead in sin and therefore cannot see, hear, understand. or respond to the gospel. Your reference of Romans 3 would certainly imply that with out the whole truth of Romans 3:9
No, Mike. Calvinists say they can hear, see, and understand the facts of the gospel, but they lack the moral ability to respond in a positive manner. Again, you are assuming that they are speaking of natural ability, not moral ability. Do you or do you not understand these distinctions?
This is utterly ridiculous Man is not God and is not placing Himself on the same level as God by accepting an Invitation. This as I said before comes from a complete lack of understanding of who God is and what He is.
I understand that God is purely actual without any contingency in Him. He can not violate the nature of an Uncaused Necessary Self-existent Being. I understand that your point of view implicitly grounds itself in man. It has God acting in a contingent manner. This is basic logic. Your view denies that God is purely actual without any potentiality in Him or the capacity for it, because that would mean God is not purely actual.
I understand that you believe man is mortally wounded not completely affected byto the radix of his being. He's not really dead. (That's the lie of the serpent, by the way, he's only on his way to the grave. He's still able...). Now, let's see if that makes sense. What must be true if that is to be true?
You can say that man is in a state of passive actuality with respect to his salvation. He's not completely dead and he has a natural ability. This makes salvation syngergistic. He can respond and he does respond, and he is regenerate. "Regeneration by/through faith." Scripture calls us "new creations" (indicative). Now, if we are new creations and we are participating with God somehow in our justification, since we add faith to the atonement and the Spirit'S "wooing" as Ray calls it, then we have have an active actuality actualizing partt of this creative process. That's TWO SEPARATE ACTUALITIES. 1 + 1 = 2. This is dualism.
The other alternative is to say we are potentialities, which requires we are truly dead in sin (a premise you seek to deny, but at least moderate Calvinists do embrace it). Now, we have a case of a potentiality actualizing with respect to faith, because the view requires syngergy, the actualization of faith to add to the atonement (if potential) or to appropriate the atonement (if the atonement is considered actual) plus the "wooing of the Spirit." This means that a potential is actualizing itself in the new creation, and that results in an impossible self-causation, because a potential is actualizing itself, in other words it is existing and not existing at the same time.
In both views, God is reacting as well. This has God acting contingently. That violates the principle of a Being of Pure Actuality with no potentiality in Him, because it would be contrary to such a Being's nature to act contingently to anything with respect to an ex nihilio act! You might say that God does this voluntarily, but that would still require God having a capacity for contingency, and that still violates the qualties of a purely actual Being, but let's assume that much can be possible. This isn't what the view of unconditional election teaches, Mike. The view ANCHORS or GROUNDS regeneration in faith. It GROUNDS election (and Scripture surely teaches that God elects (election is the Greek "eklektos." It is rendered as "elect" and "chosen." Strongs #1588.
Matt. 22:14, "for many are called [kletos], but few are chosen [eklektos]."
Kletos, "called, invited."
Matt. 22:24, "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect [eklektos]."
Matt. 22:31, "And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect [eklektos] from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other."
Luke 18:7, "now shall not God bring about justice for His elect [eklektos], who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?"
Rom. 8:33, "Who will bring a charge against God’s elect [eklektos]? God is the one who justifies;"
Romans 16:13, "Greet Rufus, a choice [eklektos] man in the Lord, also his mother and mine."
Col. 3:12, "And so, as those who have been chosen [eklektos] of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;"
1 Tim. 5:21, "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen [eklektos] angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality."
2 John 1, "The elder to the chosen [eklektos] lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth,"
3 John 13, "The children of your chosen [eklektos] sister greet you." ). The ANCHORING of election outside of God and in man will ALWAYS violate both the idea that God elects and that man does not and it even more importantly destroys the idea of God being purely actual without any potentiality in Him. This can not be overcome, and there falls the entire soteriology. (This is why Arminians seek to change their theology of God...Open Theism is a prime example).
If you do not understand what Love is then you will never understand what and who God is. Read 1st Cor 13.
How is 1 Corinthians 13 relevant at all, here? God is light, God is love, God is Spirit. No problem. We believe and teach this. Are saying that you think that God is "dragging people kicking and screaming into God's kingdom" in our view? That would be unloving. I agree. However, we don't teach that at all. We teach they come voluntarily. If anything it would be just for God to condemn us all anyway, but He does not. It is loving for Him to elect some and not others, because that way He gets the greatest amount of glory. It would be very loving and very just for Him to save everybody too, but He does not so. Thus we conclude that one reason He does that is probably because He would not get the greatest amount of glory if He did. I tell you what present a thread on 1 Cor. 13 and let us take a look at it. I honestly would be interested in that. Thanks.
There is not one pedal of what is called the tulip that I accept as absolute truth.
So, you believe you can lose your salvation?
I never said Paul was unregenerate in fact I said the opposite. I think you should try and comprehend more of what you read maybe this is why you misunderstand so much.
No, apparently, you're the one that doesn't understand. I said that your interpretation of Romans 7 is the same interpretation of Augustine. You and he (and I) all hold to the same interpretation. The Anti-Nicene Fathers said that Paul was writing as an unregenerate man.
As to the rest of your post I do not place my trust in man obviously you do.
No, you do, because you have clearly said man is able to do something that he lacks the moral ability to do. I do not trust man, and I believe my salvation is monergistic. I chose Christ, but know what I was like before I came to Christ and how darkly I can dream...No, I trust God, because I know apart from Him changing my heart, I would not have believed. No, I trust Scripture, but my I often use logic to test my faith, because Scripture teaches that faith and logic are complementary processes and that logic exists as a concomitant of His existence, because absolutes exist. We are God's creations. We reason. Logic is the process of sound reasoning. Scripture teaches that God reasons. God does so logically, this is manifestly true, because it is axiomatic that truth does not contradict itself. God requires faith of us, therefore faith and logic are not contradictory processes. Perfect faith does not contradict logic and logic does not contradict faith. Arminian theology will always embrace one or more logical contradictions. Internally, it is self-existent, but the final test is the test against the theology of God.
We know from Scripture (too numerous to post) that God is pure actuality without an potentiality in Him. (Geisler). Arminianism, particularly with the doctrine of election grounded in man's innate ability to believe, has God acting contingently. This can not be, because it would contradict the nature of God. Arminianism must necessarily rely on such falsehoods as potentials giving rise to actualities and self-causation. These are logical fallacies that theism as a whole rejects. Arminianism can not be true, because at one or more points at least one of these fallacies must be embraced. For example, if election is based on faith in man and man is dead in sin as Scripture says, then a potential is actualizing itself, falling into the impossibility of self-causation. Arminianism thus says man is not truly dead, he is merely mortally wounded. However, this is not in Scripture. Arminians try to modify this and many will say that man is dead in sin but he still has the moral ability, because natural ability presumes moral inability. However, that's a non-sequitar and circular.
'
