Originally posted by Helen:
1. It is a mockery to call someone to do something that person cannot do.
By your definition, not by God's and not by Calvinisms. Man's inability is not God's fault. It is his own fault. That is what you seem so willing to overlook. He can turn to God anytime he wants to. The Bible declares that whosoever
will may come. But they have to will. These people don't want to. And it is no mockery to command them to. They can if they want to; they don't want to. Their inability is a moral inability because sin has blinded them and corrupted their minds (cf. Eph 4:17ff).
When asked what one must do for salvation, the jailer was told "Believe." Did Paul have a supernatural revelation that this jailer was one of the chosen? Or was this simply the universal command for salvation: believe! If that jailer could not have believed because he was not one of the Calvinistic elect, then Paul would have been mocking his condition.
Not at all. If the jailer was not one of hte biblical elect, then he would not have wanted to believe.
By what Scripture, then, do you claim that the man who is unregenerate is not capable of the opposite -- having a tendency toward sin but sometimes making good choices?
Scripture never says that unsaved man can do no good at all. THat is not total depravity (which you should know because you have bee here long enough). TD says that every bit of man's being is corrupted by sin. He can make good choices, but he does not choose God and he does not make them for God.
2. Romans 8 NEVER says that the unbeliever cannot respond to God. It says that his works cannot please God. It says nothing an unregenerate man can do can please God.
You have just contradicted yourself. He cannot please God but he is able to respond to God?? Would you really have us believe that responding to God does not please him???? We may need to be having a different discussion if that is really what you think. You apparently think that there is some sort of difference between pleasing God and pleasing God. I think they are pretty much the same.
Once again you are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Either accept what Scripture says, or make contradictoyr statements to Scripture. You say that nothing an unregenerate man can do can please God. I agree. That is what Romans 8 says. In light of Heb 11:6 and that fact that one cannot please God without faith, unregenerate man cannot even have faith. Therefore, you have just made the Calvinist point.
But responding in faith is not a work.
Christ did say that the work of God was to believe on him whom he sent (john 6:29). I am not sure what you want to do with that clear statement of Christ.
If she does not like the giver, it does not matter what the gift is, she will refuse it. People at enmity with God, probably via fear as much as sin itself, will refuse wonderful things -- things that make no sense to us on this side of the fence.
Again, you have made the Calvinist point. When God gives someone life, he changes their likes and dislikes. Therefore, they do not refuse it.
That being said, I don't really appreciate you twisting my meaning.
My point was not about your personally, but rather about the arminian demand that man has to be able to be in control of his own destiny. There was nothing personal intended to you directly. I was rather commenting broadly on your position.
5. You are avoiding the point about Calvinism not really being an invitation to Christ.
I am not avoiding it all. I am instead affirming exactly what Scripture says, that whosoever
will may come. I am not mocking anyone and neither is God. People who don't come don't want to come. That is what you keep missing for some reason. I have yet to figure it out. They don't want it.
and you are utterly unnecessary to the rest as far as Calvinistic doctrine is concern.
Not actually. Paul affirmed in 2 Tim 2:10 that preaching was necessary so that the elect might be saved. He was affirming the existence of unsaved elect, who needed to hear the gospel so that they would be saved. So the preaching of the word is absolutely necesssary.
But for those who hear of your doctrine, it is a fearful thing. I have seen this fear expressed in a number of emails from those who read these discussions.
Then you should correct their abberant theology and direct them to Scripture.
I have spent a LOT of time reassuring them that when Jesus said "all" who were heavy-laden were invited to come, that He meant it, and that when we read that God so loved the WORLD, that He meant that, too.
I would assure them of the same thing. And I would focus on on the "come." You keep leaving that out, Helen. Why??? Why omit that little part that you don't like. We believe that whosoever
will may come. We believe that all
who come will find rest. I am getting tired of saying that but you just keep blowing right past it.
You folks are doing a lot more damage than you can imagine with your unbiblical doctrines.
I can't imagine how fervent preaching of the biblical text does damage or qualifies for unbiblical doctrine. You have yet to show one verse rightly interpreted that we contradict. We on teh other hand have shown many that you simply ignore or twist to fit your doctrine.
I am fighting the doctrines of Calvinism as expressed by Calvin and other Calvinists themselves.
Not in this conversation you aren't, and not in any conversation you have had on this board.
7. I am amazed that you think my desire to have Christ living through me so people can see His love and kindness is ridiculous.
I amazed that you think I said that. But seeing how you read Calvinists in general, I am not all that surprised. Let's take a look at what I actually said, shall we???
but will endeavor all the more to make sure that it is Christ living through us and not ourselves, so that at least the people we are in contact with will see a true invitation to Christ and not a theology which only engenders more fear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculous ...
What is ridiculous is your implication that we are not preaching a true invitation to Christ and that our theology engenders fear. We don't and it doesn't. Our theology engenders worship and trust in God because we realize that we are fully dependent on him. You have twisted biblical theology to the point that you don't even recognize it. Since you do it to Scripture, I am not surprised that you do it to me. I wish you wouldn't do it to either.
8. According to the Bible, the death of Christ took away the sin of the world. That debt is paid. Men are not sent to hell for anything Christ already paid for, but rather for refusing Christ Himself.
Is refusing Christ not a sin??? If not, then why do people go to hell for it?? If it is, then how is it not a part of "the sin of the world." Is this a case where "all" doesn't mean "all"????
9. You stated that Philippians 1:6 was a "Calvinist" verse. Give me a break!
LOL ... The verse says that God began the work. You keep saying man begins it. Calvinists believe that God begins it.
There is not one verse in the Bible which declares predestination unto salvation.
I already debunked this notion many times. You simply don't read or don't follow the text of the Scripture when it is explained.
Once again, you have presented a post full of logical holes and scriptural deficiencies. You continue to address something that we don't believe. You continue to imply that we believe thigns we do not. You continue to miss the plain wording of Scripture in an effort to maintain your position. Why??? That is all I want to know. Why??
[ January 23, 2004, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]