DHK, You did good in stating were you disagree with the full calvinistic view. A few observations to see if I have read correctly where you might have a bit of agreement.
So, although man is born in sin, they are not born incapacitated and can at some point exercise a self will to accept or reject Christ. Would you sense discomfort using a phrase such as, "Man is born depraved and is by nature a creature consumed in sin," or is that too strong a wording?
That depends what you mean by "consumed in sin." He is born in sin; "in sin did my mother conceive me," David said, referring to his own sinful being at birth, not his mother's sinfulness.
I understand the "makes God into a monster" statement. I also agree that when "election or chosen is used it is always used in reference to believers." Would that not be some indication of the selection process of God? Perhaps it isn't palatable to consider that God doesn't select some, and so an assignment of blame is placed such as God doesn't play fair.
The Calvinist takes this position too far. I love my children. That doesn't mean I don't love the children of the neighbor next door to, and it certainly doesn't mean that I condemn them. In fact, if I have the truth and they don't it is my obligation to share it with them.
If I live right they should be able to come to me and seek the truth from me, because of my testimony. What is to prohibit them from doing that? That was the model in the OT. That is how Rahab got saved. She heard of the miracles done by the God of Israel, and therefore was saved. Israel was to be a testimony of Jehovah to those around her. Her light should have attracted others to Jehovah. It is not inconceivable that many of the Egyptians, in the end, looked to Jehovah for their salvation. But God didn't force them. It had to be their choice.
How much greater responsibility do we have in a world of 7 billion people to reach them for Christ.
A question that I am sure you have answered before is, does God actually "elect" some to be damned? Does not the Scriptures state they are condemned already? And does not Paul state we also were in such a state?
John 3:18..."but the wrath of God abideth on them."
That is until they are saved or until they "believe on the name of the Son of God." It is not an eternal condemnation. It only remains on them until they trust the Lord as their Savior. Once they die, then it is eternal. That makes our responsibility all the more greater until the person dies or Christ comes again.
"Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."
Would you agree with a statement such as: God elects some to be saved, and leaves the others to finish their natural state of condemnation? Or, is such a statement too much against your thinking?
He can save to the uttermost. There is no one so difficult or so hardened that the Lord cannot save. That would be limiting the power of God. Nothing is impossible with God. Did he not save the demoniac in the Gadarenes? He was possessed with a legion of demons.
Would not the thinking you expressed leave some to think that we so know the mind of God that we are not obligated to share the gospel with all?? Christ said: "God into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Here, all means all.
Each Scripture is so very good, and does show the heart of Christ. He wept over Jerusalem, and sweat drops of blood in the olive grove and He is how God (the Father) can experience life as a humankind. In that, your statements are completely correct.
Would you then agree with something like: Christ has no desire that any should perish, that all come to Him, and whoever the Father gives Him will come to Him.
Absolutely.
I often say that God is willing that none should perish. But many will perish, not because of God's will, but rather because man's will is so hardened against God that he will not repent. It is man that still has that choice, made in the image of God, with a will to choose between good and evil. In spite of the grace of God he chooses evil much of the time.
Irresistable Grace:
God's grace can be resisted, by anyone--saved and unsaved alike.
Acts 7:51 is ample proof of that.
But are you not ample proof that ultimately God's Grace wasn't successfully resisted by you?
My salvation experience is different than most.
Raised in the Catholic church most of my life, I never heard the gospel, and thus never resisted the gospel. The first time I heard the gospel was on the campus of a university. I did not resist the Holy Spirit, but on that evening I got saved.
However, I have preached the gospel, and have seen young men clutch the pew in front of them resisting the Holy Spirit, waiting for the first chance to get out of the building. They knew they needed to be saved. They were definitely under conviction. But they went away still in their sins. That happens many times.
God's grace is resisted, can be resisted, and thus is not "irresistable."
Perhaps it should be that the term (irresistible grace) is inappropriate and should be not that the heathen are incapable of resisting God's grace, but ultimately God's grace will successfully conclude what God deems and proclaims as His. Often, I view this issue as written from a human perspective rather than a sovereign issue of authority.
I would rather look at it from the perspective of how the Bible defines the role of the Holy Spirit in the world today. In John 16 the Spirit is come:
"to convict the world of sin, and or righteousness and of judgment."
His role is to convict of sin. If there is no conviction of sin, then how can a person be saved. Someone once said, "a person must be lost before he can be saved."
