Define...

Warm Christian greetings!

To be dead spiritually means to be unable to do anything to turn to the Lord unless He turns you to Himself by His Holy Spirit.

Lazarus was physically dead in the tomb, he could not do a thing to bring himself alive and walk out of the tomb, Christ did it all. So it is with being spiritually dead.

To say that some choose Christ, and not others because of "freewill" is to say that you are better because you chose Christ, and your neighbour didn't. That is spiritual pride. Salvation is all of grace - the reason people don't like Calvinistic theology is because it strikes at the root of the proud sinful nature we all have.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton

 

Well said, Robert.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

 

Isn't choosing to surrender to God a better moral choice than not wanting to surrender to God? Isn't not being thrilled with the idea of a Messiah a bad thing? How about being enamored with the idea of sin? Doesn't that make you worse than those who are not so enamored with sin? Isn't hardening your heart an evil choice?

If you chose to surrender to God because you like the idea of a Messiah, you are not enamored with sin, and you didn't harden your heart against Him, how does that not make you better morally (or less evil) than the one who doesn't surrender because he hates the idea of a Messiah, he is loves sin, etc.....?

I'm not trying to "paint" anything...I just don't understand how the answers given by freewillers to this question are not contradictions:

I understood how much I needed Christ, and he didn't....and yet I'm not smarter.

I didn't love my sin as much as He did....but I'm not better.

I saw my need, and he didn't....but I'm not more enlightened.

How can these statements be true, and yet the one who makes the right moral choice not be better IN SOME WAY than the one who didn't?

PS. You are welcome to say that this is an area of paradox or mystery in your position.

PPS. Onion rings vs. french fries really doesn't cut it as an example, because loving onion rings is not a better moral choice than loving french fies. (Pizza vs. liver might work, though.)

 

Are people who choose Christ more moral than those who are not? I wouldn't say that. Some of the most "moral" people don't choose Christ. Some of the most "immoral" people do. This decision is beyond a moral choice.

How about this question. There are a lot of Christian men who are trapped in the sin of pornography. Other Christian men are not trapped. Where does this decision come from? Both groups are Christians. Let's assume that the Holy Spirit convicts both sets of men that pornography is wrong. Why do some choose one way and others choose another way?

It's because you're wearing the glasses of Calvinism.

Correct.

Correct.

I think that all people see what they need in God, some just choose not to follow. Remember, Christ was the light who gives light to all men.

Because it's not about being better. Arminians do state that man is depraved - there are no levels of depravity as far as who can choose and who cannot. Choosing Christ doesn't make them better in the same way that Calvinists maintain that God doesn't choose the elect and therefore the elect is better.

Don't have to. It is consistent with both Scripture and with the theological constructs of Arminianism.

But I really can't stand onion rings. For me to eat them would put a dent in my morality - that's how much I hate the things

 

Grrrrrrr.......

Is it a moral choice of not? Isn't one of the options morally good, while the other is not?

And I would answer that the synergism between the Holy Spirit and the individual believer in the work of sanctification is a bit of a mystery. He works, and so we work, but we must work. He always completes what He begins, but it is a process that we cooperate in. And yet, every true believer will eventually no longer desire pornography in any way, and that changed desire will be wholey worked by the Holy Spirit.

If all people get equal enlightenment (In other words, there is no difference in the way God works within individual people.), then the difference in one person choosing God and the other choosing to continue following Satan has to be within the person choosing, does it not? There has to be some little germ of something different in the one person than the other, no?

 

I have people in my family who make onions a moral issue as well. I just consider them unenlightened....

 

It's beyond simple right and wrong. It's a decision that transcends morals, if only because it's a decision that cannot be made without the first step of the Holy Spirit.

Such an idea sounds good, but is not logistically feasible. If a Christian who is addicted to pornography is killed on the way home from work, he died desiring that sin.

I would maintain that the "He works then we work" is the same in salvation. Scripture makes it clear that both parties have to do their part for man to be saved.

I agree that God always completes his part - we have to choose whether to cooperate or not. This includes the salvific process.

The germ could very well be nature, though that doesn't explain it all. The germ could be nurture, though that doesn't explain it all. It's simply a choice. We are all faced with choices in our life that we choose in spite of nature or nurture. Very intelligent people who were brought up in rich families have chosen to do menial work with their lives. They make such a choice. Other people supercede their inherited intellect and escape their environment and do great things. Why do such people choose such things? Such a germ found within man is up to man. God reaches his gift of salvation to all men - they take it upon themselves to follow or reject.

 

I understand your point. Of course a lifeless body is unable to do anything. But what about the dead soul? Is it unconscious? Is it unaware of God or of truth? Is it unaware of the consequence of rejecting salvation in this lifetime? I think your answer would be "no", "no", and "no". And based upon that, I think that the calvinistic practice of equating death to total inability is flawed.

I see things like this Dr. Ray and I think there is biblical evidence for this. I believe that bound up in the preaching of the gospel is the ability to hear the gospel with a spiritual ear, understand it, and choose to believe it. The gospel is the "power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes" and the faith to believe comes not by some special act of sovereign grace but simply by hearing the gospel. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes through a simple act of gospel proclamation (my paraphrase but I think the grammar supports it).</font>[/QUOTE]swaimj,
Very well put. I agree! I don't understand where these people come up with this calvinistic theology. It just doesn't fit Scripture, not the way I see it.

Rev 22:17
"17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
(KJV)

 

Robert J. Hutton,

The person who receives Christ doesn't think himself or herself better than one of those souls that refuses the Gospel. The person who accepts Christ through forgiveness has bowed to the message and the Messenger of the Gospel, namely Jesus.

Every Christian knows the absolute truth that salvation is by grace. [Ephesians 2:8] Our salvation is all of God and we can take no credit before faith or after our life changing experienc with our Lord. What Calvinists refuse to see with their spiritual eyes is that some sinners have faith in Jesus, believe the Gospel, and ' . . . mix faith' [Hebrews 4:2] when hearing the truth of the holy Gospel. Those who do not humble themselves before the Triune Godhead refuse to add the ingredient of faith. Let me quickly point out that our faith is not a 'work' or 'good work' because God approves of a sinners reliance on Him for salvation and everlasting life. 'For God so love the world that whosoever believeth in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.'

Some Christians are not willing to accept the old, Reformed, diatribe.

 

Terry,

I would recommend that you start with a book entitled Grace Unknown by R.C. Sproul.

Also, check out this link: www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

 

R.C. Sproul has admitted to writers that I have read that he does not always have answers as to this matter of 'Unconditional Election.' (If the glove doesn't fit--you can't aquit.)

 

One must hear the truth, believe on Him before God enters into the life.

 

If anybody claims to have the answers to any major doctrine of the Bible, I would regard them with suspicion.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

 

If anybody claims to have the answers to any major doctrine of the Bible, I would regard them with suspicion.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org[/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Primitive Baptist,

John 6:35-37: 'Cometh' is a verb--an action word; 'believeth' is a verb--an action word. Human beings must make a decision to come and to believe in Jesus message and truth. Men and women have to take 'action' as described in our 'free will' position and truth.

I would hope you don't think that God is the one described as coming and believing.

In John 6:37 says, 'All that the Father giveth Me shal come to Me. . . ' The Father God gives to the Son only those who have received His Son. [John 1:12].

Jesus said Himself, ' . . . and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.' Is it the English or the Greek that confuses you about what our Lord has said?

The Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson tells us about the verse noted above that it is a ' . . . strong double negative as in verse 35 with second aorist active subjunctive of {ballo}. (By this he means that God absolutely will not cast out any one who comes to Him, contrary to what you have been taught by your instructors in the faith). My ( ) bracketed inclusion. Dr. Robertson also says this. 'Definite promise of Jesus to welcome the one who comes.'

 

Ray Berrian said:

I don't believe in cart before the horse theology... If they have received the Son already... Tell me how they can be given to him from God since they already have him!... What kind of double talk is that?... The Primitive interpretation of that is embraced in the doctrine of Election!... Romans 8:28-30!... Brother Glen

 

Perhaps the problem is in your understanding. No one here disagress that all who thirst are invited to drink. Everyone here believes in the whosoever will passages. Every time those are cited I simply smile and then frown at the misunderstanding. No one disagrees with that. The question is a different one: Do all men thirst? And if not, why do some thirst and others not? That is the question.