I am not goign to respond to all of this. We have been through it. We have answered these questions from Scripture many times and it didn't make any difference to you then so I don't suppose that it will now. And it really isn't worth it to me or you, but let me hit a few highlights.
I do not read anywhere in the Bible where man is unable to respond.
Roms 8 makes it explicit. The fact that you don't think it does shows that you are changing this passage from what it says to fit your belief. It says "cannot" and "not even able." There is no way to get around that without twisting it.
Now, what kind of 'will' is it that can operate when there are no REAL choices to be made?
There are real choices ... this is back to the same old line from you that you just won't give up. They do not want to make any other choice. They can make whatever choice they want. They are unable only because of their own sinfulness. That is not God's fault.
[qutoe]
4. You cannot build a doctrine by using a verse out of context.[/quote]This coming from you?????
I would love to see Scripture dealt with in context. I am begging for that. I have been for a long time.
The circularity of Calvinism needs to stop. If he had not NEEDED to believe then Paul would not have told him to, and if he did not need to believe, being one of the foreordained elect, why would Paul TELL him to believe? The question remains, WHY would Paul tell him to believe IN ORDER to be saved if he was already saved????
He wasn't saved already. I don't know why you would even think that. He did need to believe. I don't know of any Calvinist who would deny this. The fact that you make this charge shows that you are twisting our beliefs to conform to what you wish us to believe. We do not believe this.
The problem you have here is that you think "elect" and "saved" are the same thing. The jailer needed to believe because he was unsaved. His election is what caused him to be interested.
I did not contradict myself in discussing Romans 8. Quit twisting what I am saying, please.
I didn't. I used your words to demonstrate that you contradicted yourself.
God does not force Himself on anyone.
At least we can agree on that ... even though you think we don't
In the broad terms of this debate you are. There is not a problem with that. You simply don't understand how the terms are used. Arminian refers to people who deny the sovereign election of God. Calvinist refers to people who do believe that. Arminian does not mean that you accept all the points of arminianism such as losing your salvation. Calvinism does not mean you accept all teh points of Calvinism. Again, we have been through this and you refuse to acknowledge the truth about it. In the end, I don't really care what you call yourself. It doesn't bother me either way. I refer to you as an arminian because there is no other word that characterizes your position.
14. I know that people who don't come to God don't want to come. That was never the argument.
That is exactly the argument. They ahve a real choice. They can come if they want.
15. If preaching is necessary so the elect might be saved, then God's foreordination needed help! Where is His sovereignty then? And why is the choice of God and HIS work not then sufficient without them? And if He chooses to use man's cooperation where salvation is concerned, then what is the big deal with giving man free choice in the matter anyway?!?
Preaching is a part of God's foreordination. It includes preaching. Where he ordains the end, he necessarily ordains the means.
16. "The unsaved elect"???? How can the elect be unsaved? I am stunned that intelligent people can argue in such circles and do it with a straight face. I don't mean that to be insulting, but I am truly amazed.
Your amazement stems from your misunderstanding. AS I said before, you confuse "elect" with "saved." I quoted a verse where Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, talked about the unsaved elect. Read it and you will see that I am right. Helen, you come in here and claim to know what you are talking about but then mess up on something like this and act like I am dumb. "Election" is to "salvation" (2 Thess 2:13). That is fundamental to any progress in understanding. "Election" is not equal to "salvation."
]That is precisely what I do.
So you are teachign them Calvinism?? Why are you arguing against it here if you are directing them to Scripture which teaches it???
[qutoep]
This is all biblical.[/quote]And reading very quicly, I don't see anything that contradicted Calvinism in that. It only contradicts the straw man you have made up in your mind.
20. Please, I guess you need to show me again where any verse or passage I have used has been 'twisted to fit' 'my' doctrine.
Rom 8; Rom 3; John 6; etc. Too many to begin to list here.
I know I am presenting Calvinism as it has been presented by Calvinists and also as it is being presented, in all its various forms, on this board.
You are not ... not by the evidence youare giving here. You are consistently misrepresenting things. That is why this discussion is so frustrating. It is hard to discuss things with people who will not represent their opponents correctly.
If you have the Calvinists writings there in front of you, please give evidence for a Calvinist who believes that election is the same thing as salvation. You have said that here. Please show us someone who believes that.
In the end, Helen, this will never be solved until accurate exegesis of Scripture becomes more important than it is now. I hope that day comes. Until then, this kind of thing will continue. It is increasingly frustrating to have this discussion here because the format does not lend itself well to it.
