Originally posted by Me4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />[qb]Calvin denies that "FREEDOM" from sins captivity is offered to "ALL",
No. Rather calvinism would say perhaps that all men are content in their bondage to sin. God rescues some but let's the others continue exactly as they please.
Paul said he wasn't "content", he possess the "WILL" but not the "means",</font>[/QUOTE] That was a SAVED Paul, not an unsaved Paul. Romans 7 deals with the struggle Christians have with sin in the flesh even after being indwelt by the Spirit. He didn't "possess" the will btw.
KJV- 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
NASB- 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
Young's (sometimes beneficial if you wonder how much interpretation went into the English translation)- 18for I have known that there doth not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh, good: for to will is present with me, and to work that which is right I do not find,
Paul didn't take credit for that "will". He specifically used language that avoided taking credit for that "good will".
and what about the "young man" who had kept all the commandment but still "lacked" something, was he content with sin, he was still in bondage.
Yes. He was. He wanted to be affirmed and praised. He was coming to Christ to get Christ's approval that he had sufficiently saved himself.
Jesus looked through his facade seeing that sin of pride, materialism and self-glorification that
he was very much contented with and asked him to give that up... He went away sorrowful.
He was willing to give up things that he was content not to do anyway. His pride was boosted by his self righteousness. But asking him to submit... exposed his true contentment with sin.
Self-reformers are very frequently moral and self-righteous. They are very content being lost since they think God will favor their honesty, values, ethics, good works, etc. They glory in those things... but doing "good" selfishly and/or for the glory of man is just as sinful as doing bad.
Calvin doctrine about man's attitude toward sin doen't match what the scripture say.
Still stuck on that goodness of man being prerequisite to salvation thing, huh? Basically what you are saying is that only if man is good enough to be discontented with sin will he accept salvation... That definitely does not match scripture.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
If a governor pardons a guilty prisoner, that doesn't entitle every other prisoner to a pardon or even the opportunity for a pardon.
It does if they are all guilty of the same crime (sin) </font>[/QUOTE] Nope. A pardon is an act of grace. It is not deserved nor is it a "right" either to the person who receives it or the one who doesn't.
You can't with-hold "JUSTICE" because of "Personal predilection", that's a "Kangaroo Court", run by a "DISHONEST JUDGE",
JUSTICE demands that all human beings go to hell. They are condemned already.
God is most certainly sovereign no matter what you say over who He will regenerate/pardon. It is not dishonest in the least to give a gift to one person who doesn't deserve it but not another who likewise doesn't deserve it.
God is entitled to "personal predilection" anytime He so chooses... it is His opinion that matters first and most. It is not YOUR place to judge why He does what He does.
Stating that God does not have the right to choose according to His own good pleasure is not only unbiblical but blasphemous.
Jesus died for the sins of the "Whole world", and it would be a "slap in the face" of Jesus by the
"JUDGE" to with-hold his offer to pay their fine, especially after he already died to pay that fine.
You still haven't answered my answer to this ridiculous line of reasoning.
If Jesus died to pay that fine... then that fine would be paid. Period. All go to heaven no matter what.
We both limit the extent of God's grace... at least I don't think you are a universalist but since you won't answer direct questions it is hard to tell.
Anyway, we differ on what limits that extention. You limit it to men who are good enough to make the right decision. I limit it (scripturally) to God's good pleasure.
God told man what the "wages of sin" were, then told man how to avoid having to pay those wages himself, "Belief in Jesus".
That isn't what that verse says... It says the wages of sin is death... but the
GIFT OF GOD is eternal life.
Get it ME? GIFT. Not opportunity to choose what's behind door 2... Certainly not the "right" to choose.... The GIFT.
In fact, I should thank you for reminding me of that passage since it expresses pretty much what I have been arguing for and you have been arguing against:
Romans 6:20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. (Notice "free from"... ie had none)
21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22But now being made free from sin, ("made" free... not chose to be free) and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. (The fruit comes
after "being made..." ie. regenerated)
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (not through your own good decision... through Jesus who won the redeemed's salvation on the cross)
The "Deep things", like Parables, are only understood by those who have "Ears to hear", "Eyes to see",
Only those to whom God gives ears can hear and eyes can see... No one ever just chose not to be blind and became sighted. No one ever just chose to hear and lost their deafness.
in other words, there more information in a verse that just the words you see on paper.
No there isn't. There is depth required in understanding a verse, its interpretation in light of other scripture, and its application... but you do not have a license to add information to what God inspired based on some "spirit" led whim you have.
My beliefs don't come by reading other men books, and neither are they "predetermined", I have to given an account of every word someday, and I have enough "fear/respect" for God that if they are not "his words", I might "catch hell".
Yet you just claime the right to see more information in a verse than what God inspired.... that is not respect for His Word.
I won't attempt to guess where your beliefs came from except that they reflect an exalted view of man and his goodness.
Quite obviously, not all have that same "Fear/respect".
Start with that beam in your own eye.
My one objective is to conform my interpretations and beliefs to what
all of the relevant texts say... not to take a pen knife to those that contradict what I believe as you do.
