Cured

In your schema:
That part that says God predestined some.
That God foreknew.
That God ordained.
That God chose.
That God hated one.
That God blinds some.
That all the Father gives Him will come to Him.
That none can come unless the Father draw him.
That His sheep hear His voice.
That we love Him because He first loved us.
That it is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

.. and many more. It is fruitless to harp on ONE passage of scripture to the exclusion of so much else. No, if all there was to it was "whosoever" then of course no one would believe in predestination.

Why not let this rest? Why try to make predestinarians into your own personal cyber-mission field?

 

Exactly and I don't...

 

You just choose to ignore the parts of the Bible that make you uncomfortable?

 

Ah, so I read you right. You're saying man's free will is more sacred to God than man's eternal destiny. Too bad, given that man has a fallen nature and doesn't make very good decisions.

 

No matter how you slice it, if election is based on foreknowledge, then believers elect themselves, and God is powerless to do otherwise.

Gordon Slocum said:

On the contrary, it is foreknowledge as you define it which ties God's hands.

 

Here's a part of something I found--don't know who wrote it, but C. H. Spurgeon wrote something similar.

The Arminian's Prayer

"God, I thank you that You provided salvation for every person and that everyone has the equal opportunity to that salvation. And I thank You for my salvation. Actually, I thank me some for my salvation because You gave us all the freedom to choose. Yes, God, every man You gave the freedom to choose or reject You. I chose You and I'm sure You're happy that I did.

After You provided salvation for everybody it is good that somebody responds to it. I responded to it and I thank You. Well, really, it was my choice so I don't thank You for my response. I'm sure You're grateful to me that I responded. If I and some others had not chosen to respond You would not have any children and that would be too bad. So I know that You're delighted with those of us that had the good sense to do what is right, to love You and choose You."


There's more of it but this ought to be enough to get some folks bent out of shape. If you don't like it, then tell me what part is not true.

 

C'mon Allen, you've gotta be kiddin me. You don't know the difference between "to" and "through"? You've got to engage in a lot of sophistry to get around that verse.

 

Umm, you were chosen TO...THROUGH (or by)... I do know the difference and see they are BOTH there.

No sophistry there just plain bible. You stop where you want, I will take the whole counsil of God concerning the verse He put forth.

In case you don't already know this, no one disputes God chose us TO SALVATION from the beginning but we find in this verse and (as Gordon displayed) others as well concerning Why we were chosen TO salvation. That being by the sanctification of the Spirit and Belief of the truth. Do you deny the scripture you yourself put forth?

It is quite odd that God places the 'AND' in there isn't it?

 

It is sad to see a brother in Christ TRY to bring discord and anger intentionally to those for whom Christ Jesus died who do not hold your view point. To grieve the Holy Spirit so and assume you did something funny, I confess - is beyond me. Let all strife, malice, evil speaking be put away from you...

BTW - Spurgeon spoke against what is called libertain free will and not the same type of free will espoused today. Spurgeon also admitted the scriptures speak to BOTH Gods soveriegnty and mans choice and that the two are both true yet they are parallel truths that do not seem to meet except in eternity. No man can hammer those doctrines together this side of heaven. This is from the latter portion of Spurgeons "Defence of Calvinism". I found it also interesting that if there were two spots open regarding the apostles, that he would nominate Wesley and Whitefield. He also had Moody come to his church and preach, an attrocity that the majority of Calvinists would have condemned him for and called him (of all people) a liberal in need of repentence!

 

Yes, and who calls on the name of the Lord? The "whosoever" is always qualified by "believes" or "calls" or some such. Calvinism does believe that whosoever calls will be saved. There will be no one who calls who is not saved; there will be no one saved who has not called.

Let us first point out that this is a logical argument, not a biblical one. Logic is fine, but our theology is based on Scripture. Second, let us point out that God has never denied anyone the chance to love him. All who desire to are welcoem to love him; in fact, they are commanded to love him. They simply do not want to. They love their sin more.

So your argumnets, in spite of being called an argument that "cuts to the chase about as well as any argument I have read on this board," is really no argument at all since no one disagrees with it.

The difference is not that one side believes "whosoever believes will be saved" and the other side does not believe that. The difference is in how many or when unbelievers, who hate God and are turned against God, are made able to believe, and whether or not that ability is effectual.

So again, we need to make sure that we are arguing against what people actually believe. Arguments like you made are simply diversions from teh real issues.

Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

Allan , you are out of line . Tom's contribution of an Arminian prayer are spot-on . The substance of the prayers are what many non-Cals here on the BB hold . But when it comes to actual prayer ( and not in the pulpit where their error-filled teaching gains ground ) Synergists are as Calvinistic as the Calvinists here .

The free-will teaching in Spurgeon's day was of the same variety as we see in evidence these days . You must not have read much of Spurgeon's sermons . You and others from your side would grit your teeth so hard under his preaching on the same subject matter that both sides discuss here . CHS actually expected some folks to be angry under his plain preaching . The " Beloved Spurgeon" would not be so beloved by a number of BB members if they would have actually been under his faithful preaching .

Charles Spurgeon said that the teachings of man's responsibility and God's sovereignty are both taught in Scripture . He further went on to say that that there was no falling out between the two -- they did not need to be reconciled , there was no breach in the friendship .( My paraphrase .)

As far as D.L.Moody is concerned -- I do regret that Spurgeon invited him in his pulpit to preach on a number of occasions . Spurgeon's dear friend John Kenndey of Scotland rebuked Spurgeon for doing so . Kennedy also wrote a rather lengthy paper on "The Evils Of Hyper-Evangelism " which dealt with Moodyism . I have no doubt that Moody was a Christian . I have no doubt that he was fervent for the Lord . But he showed little discernment regarding some basic Bible doctrines . He displayed little discernment regarding some of his friends like Drummond and his writings like " The Greatest Thing In The World " and " The Ascent Of man " .

 

Is it o.k. with you that I give God all the glory for giving me the desire to choose Christ? I know I could not have chosen Christ if left to my own devices. God had to intervene! That is my testimony, and it is consistent with Biblical doctrine. God gets all the glory, and He shall not be robbed of that glory!

 

I respectfully disagree. My argument was against those who believe in predestination, which I do not.

Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

Okay I missed your miss - it's the words "through" and "by" you don't differentiate. Guess what - they're not the same.

Like I said - SOPHISTRY.

Now let's take this verse, which is really very easy to understand, and brake it down into its elements:

-- Now why would Paul be bound to give thanks to God and not the people themselves for their salvation? Answer: because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation.

This tells us who the "you" are that Paul is thanking God for. And who is beloved of God? Those whom He foreknew.

WHO did the choosing? Answer: God.
WHO was chosen? Answer: "You".
WHEN did this choosing take place? Answer: "from the beginning".

WHAT destination were these beloved people chosen to? Answer: "to salvation".

HOW will God ensure their arrival to that destination of salvation that he has chosen them to? Answer: "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:".

Just plain english, that's all it is. It's easy to understand, but hard to accept if we want it to say something other than what it actually says.

Now here's what the Arminian would like this verse to say:

But we are bound to give thanks alway to you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because he loves everyone the same, and God hath from the beginning, after he looked into the future and saw you saying the sinner's prayer, chosen you to salvation by your profession of faith which you have of yourselves, for this natural-born faith is the one little island of virtue we have left by which we can be saved, and it is not the gift of God.

Nice strawman, eh?

Here's another one:

Again, plain english. But I know that there must be some way we can get the credit for our salvation in this passage.

 

I am NOT an Arminian, however, I would like to offer an analogy:

(Can we all agree that eternal salvation is much more valuable than one trillion dollars? I thought so.)

If someone offered me a gift of one trillion dollars, the only condition was I had to stretch out my hand to receive the gift, and I did so, who would I thank for the one trillion dollars?

- My stretching out my hand was not my idea.
- My stretching out my hand did not produce the gift.
- My stretching out my hand did not make me eligible for the gift.
- My stretching out my hand was only in order to receive the gift.

Who do I thank? Me? Really?

 

O.k., and what would you think of all those other people who were given the same offer of a trillion dollars but they refused? How stupid is that? You may not be able to take credit for the trillion dollars, but you could at least thank yourself for not being so stupid as to refuse the trillion dollars like the others did.

 

Blammo,

The problem with your analogy is that it doesn't fit many testimonies, including mine. When I look back at my conversion, I don't see it as God offering me an option and then I studiously took it. I became so distraught over my sinfulness that I simply threw myself at the mercy of Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. That desire did not come from myself. Throwing myself at God's mercy was my only option. It was the only thing I wanted. I was not so disinterested that I could have just as easily rejected Him. No, I desperately wanted His forgiveness. I wanted His covering. And I came to Him in faith.

 

I'm guessing all this was because you were made aware of your condition before God. Now - who opened your eyes to that? Was it you? How could that be possible?