Arminians are pro-choice

If a billionare hands me a million dollars -- it is ALL of HIM. I would not have it - did he not give it to me.

But the Calvinist says "yes but you held out your hand to accept SO YOU EARNED a million -- nobody gave it to you" -- that is nonsense obviously.

If God holds up a piece of wood and tosses it in to the fire and to the other piece of wood says "I make you into a teddy bear" -- it is all of God -- the wood has no part except to be dead wood.

But if God chooses to ENABLE sentient living beings to CHOOSE life -- and then having ENABLED them -- some CHOOSE life and some do not -- it is still GOD who enabled and GOD who provided life. The fact that the Sentient being ENABLED by God to choose -- does not act EXACTLY as a piece of dead wood "anyway" - always comes as a surprise to Calvinists.

At least to "some" on this board.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Then how can salvation be all of God, unless that choice is also God's doing?

I suspect it has to do with God's desire to express His mercy and grace and justice. How else could we know those things about God? But that's a different topic.

Same reason you and I do. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know how to make it any plainer! If you take the illogical thought of recieving being a work into the world or to another believer beside calvinist you will get laughed at!

Recieving or accepting something that is already done does not make that person a PART of or, in anyway responisable for that gift. It is completely of the giver.

I have stated that over and over Whatever, but you refuse logic and stick with you calvinist def. which are rather absurd at times. Now I realize you don't like the idea that God gives man choice but that is a calvinist thing. Again I do not see why the don't question God when people disobeyed God in the Bible. Does the make Him weak or not soveriegn?

Whatever you did not answer one question from my last post, just posted more questions.

 

Don't Calvinists "receive" salvation as well? (Col 2:6, Heb 9:15, 1 Pet 1:9, Rev 3:3, etc., etc., etc.)

 

So if you agree "we receive" salvation, why are you saying "unless God does the receiving then salvation cannot be "all of God"." "? You appear to be defending the very thing you are arguing against in this thread.

 

The multitude who have never heard the gospel--

Are they unbelievers? They are probably without excuse--Ro. Ch. 1--we are all without excuse; many have not had opportunity to accept or reject. So much for freedom of choice and of the will.

Why does not God destroy us all--save a remnant--like Noah's Flood?

All of mankind has been depraved since the fall of Adam. If God spares anyone--it is strictly by His Grace for His Good Pleasure by His Sovereign Will. God has chosen to save an "elect" through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The elect have nothing "good" to contribute to this salvation because they are unable to recognize "good" without God giving the faith to believe The Word. All of the praise, honor and glory go to God. Jesus paid it all.

The same could be said for "the faithful" referenced in Hebrews 11.

This is not about a "fairness" doctrine--it is about the Sovereignty of God--something about which many of us seem to "have not a clue".

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Maybe. But still your point earlier was that if one "receives", it is not all of God. Now you're saying one "receives" in both views.

 

Here's the quote I was referring to:

"I'm saying that receiving is a necessary part of obtaining salvation, so unless God does the receiving then salvation cannot be "all of God"."

Perhaps I misunderstood your point, because I understood that to mean that God is the giver, we are the receiver. Now I think you're saying God is doing both the giving and the receiving - which I don't at all understand, for if someone offered someone else a gift, the giver is not doing the receiving.

 

Sounds like a puppet/puppeteer.

 

Actually that IS the point - Calvinists need to ignore.

As you are doing.

Actually it is NOT an integral part to God's decision to PROVIDE salvation. He had to die on the cross for our sins if we were to be saved -- no matter what you choose.

So if you are making the sinner's choice - a Part of Christ's work to die for us - you are wrong.

Secondly - GOD had to CHOOSE to either ENABLE choice or leave it depraved. God CHOSE to "DRAW ALL MANKIND" and even most Calvinist ADMIT that the DRAWING of God "ENABLES what total depravity DISABLES".

So again - your analysis is in erro.

In my theology GOD IS making the choice to DRAW ALL MANKIND. (John 12)

In my theology God IS making the CHOICE to have that DRAWING power supernaturally ENABLE what depravity DISABLED by way of choice (something that EVEN some Calvinist here will admit to).

This means that "salvation" is ALL of God.

Just as our holding out our hand -- has NO part in earning a bilion dollars - so our receiving salvation has no part in MAKING that way of salvation.

That is a Calvinist defintion. Arminians have never bought into it. Arminians almost never go for the Calvinist "redefinition of terms".

Have you noticed that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Excellant Post Bob! I think we are on the same track.

 

Agreed Tim. Your posts have zeroed in on the point repeatedly. Excellent focus!

In Christ,

Bob.

 

It is actually easier than you are making it.

I gave the simple #1, 2, 3, 4 "steps" starting with the lost world "whom God So LOVED".

You seem to want to "start" at a point AFTER an individual has RECEIVED SALVATION. Fine - just pick step 2 and the one who chooses to "accept".

Even Calvinists here will admit that step one is SUFFICIENT to ENABLE the choice for LIFE that total depravity DISABLES!

In Christ,

Bob