Do you really understand your 'opponents' views?

[Iconoclast]

AND......you also believe that God irreparably predestined them to be BORN in a condition wherein they by their very nature are inescapably predisposed to that end, but you did not mention that factoid.... I don't know why...could not possibly guess why. Calvinists always forget that.

Predestination is not used in scripture the way you are using it here.Predestination is used of God sanctifying the elect.
If God has determined to reprobate some men.....are you saying He cannot?
Has not the potter power over the clay??

No, he is creating some irrevocably incapable of coming to him, and others irrresistably drawn to him.


Adam sinned we reap the consequence of his sin...death and seperation. Men as sinners cannot come to God....sin has bound them, they do not want to.....JBH...has answered you correctly...your portrayal is not quite accurate.
God has decreed to Elect a multitude of sinners...out from fallen mankind,to save a multitude for himself. They are irresistably drawn...yes.

Those others are left to themselves as the confession puts it;

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )
3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )

Yes, that....and that he has no intention whatsoever of enabling the ones he doesn't feel like saving to respond possitively to his call. Why not include that in the statement?

[COLOR="Red"]Election is God's choice...he does not have to save any....unless he in His perfect and Holy wisdom has purposed to do so! God does not have to "feel" like saving anyone...that is seeking to put God on our level ,as if we could be His counselor You do not really want to do that do you?[/COLOR
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

36For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Was this just an opportunity for a Calvinist to positively use the word ALL? I know the opportunities are few and far between, take it when you can get it.

Calvinists know how to understand the all ...in it's biblical context...as in ;

22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

All are in adam by physical birth.....All in Christ get there by new birth alone. it is the same word all...but not all are in Christ.

Yes, he has the "choice" between option A or option A......is there any REAL ontological sense in which he/she might have taken option B?...................NO they were irrevocably predisposed to the option they would invariably take.

This is carnal reasoning.. The scripture reveals a dead adam, not a wounded one...you want a pre-fall adam.....but that is not happening.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Predestination is not used in scripture the way you are using it here.Predestination is used of God sanctifying the elect.

I was careful with my words here... I did not suggest that God predestined anyone to damnation...I understand many Calvinists would dispute that. I was merely mentioning their status from birth.

If God has determined to reprobate some men.....are you saying He cannot?

Why would anyone say that. In fact I said absolutely nothing about what I think or believe. Please answer me honestly, do you honestly think there is a signifigant possibility that I would? (Do Reformed Preachers so pollute the minds of their flocks about DOSE EBILL PELAGIAN HERETICS that many of them actually believe that there are a signifigant number of professing Christians who would say that?) That is truly a Straw Man.

Has not the potter power over the clay??

Yes.....So... You are answering a question that needed not be asked.

No, he is creating some irrevocably incapable of coming to him, and others irrresistably drawn to him.

I would reword what I said here... I do not think think it quite accurate to say he "created" them that way. I am surprised you did not mention it. That is a (minor I think) error on my part.

....JBH...has answered you correctly...your portrayal is not quite accurate.

God has decreed to Elect a multitude of sinners...out from fallen mankind,to save a multitude for himself. They are irresistably drawn...yes.
Those others are left to themselves

Yes, as I said:irrevocably incapable of coming to him They are left to their own devices and They (left to themselves) with no effectual call are doomed. You may not phrase it the way I did but it is saying the same thing. As your confession says:yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:

he does not have to save any....

Of course he doesn't nor would I ever suggest that. Why would I? Why attempt to shoot down a proposition no one would make?

Yes, he has the "choice" between option A or option A......is there any REAL ontological sense in which he/she might have taken option B?...................NO they were irrevocably predisposed to the option they would invariably take.

This is carnal reasoning..

Whatever you want to call it... it is also precisely what Calvinism teaches..... They have the "Will" to do ONE thing... take ONE option. No more... No less As you reinforce here:

The scripture reveals a dead adam, not a wounded one...you want a pre-fall adam.....but that is not happening.

I have decidedly phrased Calvinist teaching disphemistically, and you and JBH are decidedly phrasing it euphemistically. But at brass tacks the statements are accurate.

 

[Iconoclast]

I was careful with my words here... I did not suggest that God predestined anyone to damnation...I understand many Calvinists would dispute that. I was merely mentioning their status from birth.


Why would anyone say that. In fact I said absolutely nothing about what I think or believe. Please answer me honestly, do you honestly think there is a signifigant possibility that I would? (Do Reformed Preachers so pollute the minds of their flocks about DOSE EBILL PELAGIAN HERETICS that many of them actually believe that there are a signifigant number of professing Christians who would say that?) That is truly a Straw Man.


Yes.....So... You are answering a question that needed not be asked.



I would reword what I said here... I do not think think it quite accurate to say he "created" them that way. I am surprised you did not mention it. That is a (minor I think) error on my part.

....JBH...has answered you correctly...your portrayal is not quite accurate.


Yes, as I said:irrevocably incapable of coming to him They are left to their own devices and They (left to themselves) with no effectual call are doomed. You may not phrase it the way I did but it is saying the same thing. As your confession says:yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:



Of course he doesn't nor would I ever suggest that. Why would I? Why attempt to shoot down a proposition no one would make?




Whatever you want to call it... it is also precisely what Calvinism teaches..... They have the "Will" to do ONE thing... take ONE option. No more... No less As you reinforce here:

I have decidedly phrased Calvinist teaching disphemistically, and you and JBH are decidedly phrasing it euphemistically. But at brass tacks the statements are accurate.

I am just raising obvious questions....in a rhetorical sense....I know you cannot answer them another way...there is a limit to what we can express on a keyboard. I just wanted you to pause and consider a bit...sometime it takes some meditation ,or reflection to work through these issues.

Do not rush and talk past JBH...

 

[seekingthetruth]

This is carnal reasoning.. The scripture reveals a dead adam, not a wounded one...you want a pre-fall adam.....but that is not happening.

What is it with you and all of these "confessions" and 'creeds"

Were you a Catholic at one time?

Confessions are man's words. Why dont you try God's Words?

John

 

[HeirofSalvation]

.

sometime it takes some meditation ,or reflection to work through these issues.

k fair enough: why don't we?

are you saying He cannot?

the question really is would he. A legitimate question worth discussion I would think.

,as if we could be His counselor

I think the disagreement is about what we believe is the nature of God's decision to elect and save. I do not see how the debate Cal-non-Cal has anything to do with it? What makes you say this?

This is carnal reasoning..

This one again.... we will have to discuss this one again sometime :type:

 

[preacher4truth]

Now, I have not read all of Brother Skan's posts, but the one I "thumbs" and "applause" was something I was in complete agreement. None of us woke up one morning and stated, "You know, there is a God", and did this of our own volition. It takes God to cause us to see how vile we really are.

Then your agreement with him with all the thumbs is in direct opposition to what you say now.

Iconoclast rightly represented him.

Is it because of the cal/non-cal fight that you thoughtlessly agreed with an arm against a cal without knowledge of the facts? You say you don't even know about his posts that reflect his position, yet you offer massive support for something you were ignorant of?

 

[convicted1]

Then your agreement with him with all the thumbs is in direct opposition to what you say now.

Iconoclast rightly represented him.

Is it because of the cal/non-cal fight that you thoughtlessly agreed with an arm against a cal without knowledge of the facts? You say you don't even know about his posts that reflect his position, yet you offer massive support for something you were ignorant of?

Nope. I just was in agreement with that post I "appaluded" and "thumbs", that's all. I did not thoughtlessly agree with that post. Man can only have the ability to believe after God's shows them how vile they really are.

 

[jbh28]

seriously.... calm down....

I have no need to calm down.

Why not just take my post and explain how it is inaccurate? You can't. Plainly speaking, it is an accurate representation of Calvinsit Theology. Are you avoiding actually defending the belief by whining about "hostility" I think you are. You don't like someone exposing what Calvinism really teaches/ and you have (clearly) a rhetorical gift for stating its premises in the best concievable light. You conveniently left out the parts I supplied for you. I should be thanked. Your "straw-man" is a red-herring as is the "hostility". Stop whining :tear: and expose my error.

When you desire a Christlike discussion I will. Icon did a pretty good job. I really have no need to prove to you that I don't believe what you said I believed. If I say I don't believe it, then take my word for it. Your response to my post had nothing to do with what I was saying to seekingthetruth. If you want to address that or any of my views, then sure. But don't just post stuff of what you once heard some Calvinist somewhere believed and simply think we all believe that.

Stop whining :tear: and expose my error.

When you've been around here a bit longer, you can tell me me what to do rookie. Now, if you want to discuss something, let me know. If you want to discuss the depravity of man, we can do it. You haven't offered any real argument for your beliefs, so I can hardly be said to have a red herring.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

When you've been around here a bit longer, you can tell me me what to do rookie.

I cannot have a reasoned Christlike conversation with such vicious hostility
let me know when you want to leave the insults at the door and then we can have that conversation

 

[jbh28]

I cannot have a reasoned Christlike conversation with such vicious hostility
let me know when you want to leave the insults at the door and then we can have that conversation

oh please. I'm not insulting you. you came in here to a conversation and misrepresented my view. Don't change the conversation and play the victim. I'm not hostile to others and don't insult others. I however don't take kindly to those that misrepresent others views. Or present other's views in ways that makes them appear as evil while leaving out critical info. If you want to discuss my actual views, we can do so. You claimed that I missed things in what I said, well, so did you.

Do you want to discuss the depravity of man since that seemed to be where your opposition was.

 

[Skandelon]

Now, I have not read all of Brother Skan's posts, but the one I "thumbs" and "applause" was something I was in complete agreement. None of us woke up one morning and stated, "You know, there is a God", and did this of our own volition. It takes God to cause us to see how vile we really are.


Take a homeless drunk with liver trouble. Someone sees him, and has pity on him, and gives him some money to buy some food. W/O that money being given to him, he could not buy anything whatsoever. He was/is helpless to do anything about it. After that person gave him that money, he can now buy some food to eat. However, he chooses to buy the booze, and he ends up dying from liver failure.

This is a caricature of us. We are helpless in our fallen state. W/O a work from the Lord, we would all die lost. When God grants us the gift of faith, we can choose to believe Him, or not. We do not die from a lack of atonement, but from a lack of belief. Some take the gift of faith, and exchange it for a lie.

The gift of faith can excahnged for a lie, and they will die eternally because of it.

:thumbsup: Well said Willis!

 

[Skandelon]

HeirofSalvation If you want to actually address my views and not a straw man, I'll have a conversation with you. otherwise, your hostility will be ignored.

jbh, I'd be interested to know what specifically he wrote that you would reject as being true and why. I'm not asking in hostility or anger. I'd just honestly like to know what specific things do you believe are 'straw man' arguments and why.

Sometimes I think people use the 'straw man fallacy defense' to avoid having to answer actual implications of their system, but maybe that is not what you are doing in this case? If not, then it should be simple to quote the misrepresentation and restate your view in opposition to it as I do continually around here. For example, recently someone accused me of believing men are born basically good, and I had to explain that was a straw man, because I don't believe men are born good, I just believe the gospel is more powerful than they do. For me the gospel is sufficiently powerful to overcome man's corruption, but for them the corruption of man was more powerful than God's Holy Spirit wrought gospel appeal.

 

[jbh28]

jbh, I'd be interested to know what specifically he wrote that you would reject as being true and why. I'm not asking in hostility or anger. I'd just honestly like to know what specific things do you believe are 'straw man' arguments and why.

Sometimes I think people use the 'straw man fallacy defense' to avoid having to answer actual implications of their system, but maybe that is not what you are doing in this case? If not, then it should be simple to quote the misrepresentation and restate your view in opposition to it as I do continually around here.

It had nothing to do with what I wrote. Icon did a good job in his reply so I don't think I need to repeat what he said. God does not keep people from coming to him. HOS said that I believe God does. People don't come to him because they don't want to. His post was not in reply to what I said. I was answering a question that seekingthetruth asked me.

I've asked him if he wants to discuss the depravity of man, I'm willing to do so. But don't come into a conversation with statements that have nothing to do with what I'm speaking about. It was not designed to debate but to put down. It was implied that I'm saying things but conveniently leaving out information to deceive. I do not do that.

I'm not asking in hostility or anger.

Of course. I know you wouldn't do that.

 

[Skandelon]

God does not keep people from coming to him.

How is God's choice to punish mankind for the Fall with a nature that is totally unable to come even when invited, not interpreted as God 'keeping people from coming?' Please explain this. If I punish my dog for chewing up my shoe by locking him in a pen and then call him to come to me, then can he come? Of course not. I locked him up and thus I'm the one keeping him from coming. It would be considered cruel and unjust for me to then go punish the dog for not coming to me when I called him, don't you think? How is that NOT accurate?

HOS said that I believe God does.

Actually he said, "you also believe that God irreparably predestined them to be BORN in a condition wherein they by their very nature are inescapably predisposed to that end," which to me seems accurate unless you deny that it was God who decided man's nature after the Fall. If not God, who?

People don't come to him because they don't want to.

And they don't want to because....?????

His post was not in reply to what I said. I was answering a question that seekingthetruth asked me.

Well, an off topic post is different from a 'straw man.' Which is it?

 

[jbh28]

We believe that people reject God because they don't want to come to him,

God irreparably predestined them to be BORN in a condition wherein they by their very nature are inescapably predisposed to that end...

God can save anyone, so it cannot be said to be an "irreparably" condition. Now, outside of God, of course it's irreparable. But God can redeem anyone. The death of Christ was sufficient to save everyone. Also, as Icon said,

Predestination is not used in scripture the way you are using it here.Predestination is used of God sanctifying the elect.

Man doesn't want to come to God. Even with the wonderful Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, man still rejects God.

God is not standing at the gate of heaven with people coming to him and he chooses some and reject others.

No, he is creating some irrevocably incapable of coming to him, and others irrresistably drawn to him.

No, people don't come to him because they choose to not come to him. They have no desire to come to Christ. It's not God creating people unable to come just so he can send them to hell. In addition to this, God could do this if He wanted to and would be just to do so. God is not obligated by any thing outside of himself to save anyone.

What election does teach is that God is at the gate of heaven calling for all men everywhere to repent and come to him. All men turn their own way and reject him. He chooses some of these to save.

Yes, that....and that he has no intention whatsoever of enabling the ones he doesn't feel like saving to respond possitively to his call. Why not include that in the statement?

God has sent his only Son Jesus Christ do pay for our sins. That death is sufficient for all mankind. God has every intention of saving anyone that believes. God has given his gospel. He doesn't have to save anyone, much less everyone. If God doesn't save someone, that someone goes to hell to pay for his sins. We all deserve nothing short of eternal damnation. So God does save some. Those that don't get saved never wanted to be saved. God doesn't reject people that want to be saved.

he has made an offer to all that believe.

and again has no intention to save those irrevocably predetermined not to believe.

Here is the same straw man from above. I do not believe people are predetermined not to believe. I think I've stated this many times over. God has made an offer to save all that believe.

Man has a choice,

Yes, he has the "choice" between option A or option A......is there any REAL ontological sense in which he/she might have taken option B?

no, man has a choice between option A or option B. Option A, reject Christ. Option B, accept Christ. Man always chooses what he desires most and men naturally do not desire to come to Christ, so he always chooses option A. Option B is there and he could choose it if he wanted to.

 

[jbh28]

How is God's choice to punish mankind for the Fall with a nature that is totally unable to come even when invited, not interpreted as God 'keeping people from coming?'

So, do you believe man is born depraved or not? Man can come if he wanted to.

Please explain this. If I punish my dog for chewing up my shoe by locking him in a pen and then call him to come to me, then can he come? Of course not. I locked him up and thus I'm the one keeping him from coming. It would be considered cruel and unjust for me to then go punish the dog for not coming to me when I called him, don't you think? How is that NOT accurate?

Because man sins because he wants to sin. He has chosen to sin. His just punishment is to be in hell. God doesn't lock us up and keep us from coming to him.

And they don't want to because....?????

They desired their sin more than they desired to come to Christ. They rejected the Gospel

Well, an off topic post is different from a 'straw man.' Which is it?

It misrepresented what I believe. That's a straw man.

 

[Skandelon]

So, do you believe man is born depraved or not?

You are avoiding my question by asking me a question I've answered many times. Yes, men are born depraved, but their depravity is not more powerful than God's solution for their depravity. The gospel is more powerful than depravity.

Man can come if he wanted to.

But, in your system, would you admit that man is unable to WANT to come, even when invited by God, due to God's choice to punish mankind for the Fall? Is he 'enabled' (John 6:44) or not?

They desired their sin more than they desired to come to Christ. They rejected the Gospel

Why did they desire sin more? Why couldn't they have desired to come more?

It misrepresented what I believe. That's a straw man.

No, I'm asking you what the implications of your beliefs and you are avoiding the answer because you KNOW the answer.

Answer one question: WHY CAN'T A NON-ELECT MAN WANT TO COME TO CHRIST EVEN WHEN INVITED?

 

[jbh28]

You are avoiding my question by asking me a question I've answered many times. Yes, men are born depraved, but their depravity is not more powerful than God's solution for their depravity. The gospel is more powerful than depravity.

Well, you seem in your statements to go back and forth depending on what I say. The Spirit is more powerful than depravity. People will be in hell that have heard the Gospel. People will also be in hell that have not heard the Gospel. It's the Spirit that changes my heart from a heart of stone to a heart of Flesh. (Ez 36)

But, in your system, would you admit that man is unable to WANT to come, even when invited by God, due to God's choice to punish mankind for the Fall? Is he 'enabled' (John 6:44) or not?

He's only "unable" because he doesn't want to come. Really, I think we have the same answer here. What does John 6:44 say? It says no man can come unless drawn. So why is man "unable" to come? It's because he doesn't desire to. He doesn't want to.

Why did they desire sin more? Why couldn't they have desired to come more?

No one is keeping them from desiring. Again, what does the Bible say? Why do you think they desire sin more and not the glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

No, I'm asking you what the implications of your beliefs and you are avoiding the answer because you KNOW the answer.

I'm not avoiding anything Skan. If you are going to resort to this, I'll just ignore you. You just don't like my answers. Don't say I'm avoiding the answer. I don't want to do that. So let's not have to go to that.

Answer one question: WHY CAN'T A NON-ELECT MAN WANT TO COME TO CHRIST EVEN WHEN INVITED?

BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO COME!
You answer the question...oh wait, you would say that same thing right? He is depraved from birth. The gospel is presented. He still doesn't desire to come. Man is corrupt. Man is evil. We all are corrupt and evil. The gospel is there, man still rejects the Gospel.

What do you think of the Gospel? I think it is wonderful and so do you. We look at how bad we are compared to a holy God. We see how much we deserved hell, but God loved us and sent his only Son Jesus to die for us on the cross. How anyone could reject that is beyond me! But people do. They don't desire to come. They think they are "good" and don't need God. They want to make their own way to heaven. Whatever the case is, they reject the gospel of Jesus Christ because they do not want to accept it. God doesn't keep them from coming. They have the gospel there, but choose to reject it.

Our differences in reality is not why man chooses to reject the Gospel, it's why he accepts it.

 

[Skandelon]

Well, you seem in your statements to go back and forth depending on what I say.

You will need to quote my statements which appear to be in contradiction to what I've always said. I think I have been very consistent on this point. A good thing about an online forum is that there is proof by simply going back and reading it. If you can find contradictions I'd be glad to address them, otherwise such accusations amount to nothing.

The Spirit is more powerful than depravity. People will be in hell that have heard the Gospel. People will also be in hell that have not heard the Gospel. It's the Spirit that changes my heart from a heart of stone to a heart of Flesh. (Ez 36)

Yes. Your point is?

He's only "unable" because he doesn't want to come. Really, I think we have the same answer here. What does John 6:44 say? It says no man can come unless drawn. So why is man "unable" to come? It's because he doesn't desire to. He doesn't want to.

Why doesn't he want to? Read John 12:39 for your answer.

No one is keeping them from desiring.

His totally depraved nature is not keeping him from wanting to come to Christ? That is like saying, "No one is keeping the lion from eating the head of lettuce." His innate nature, given to him by God, is keeping him from wanting to eat lettuce. "No one is keeping a rabbit from eating a steak." His maker is. The only way to get a lion to eat a head of lettuce is to turn him into a rabbit and the only way to get a rabbit to eat a steak is to turn him into a Lion. Your system reduces mankind's free choices to animal instinct thus making the creator culpable for his choices.

Again, what does the Bible say? Why do you think they desire sin more and not the glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They CHOOSE to. Its not because God didn't choose them, or neglected to grant them something he granted you, which whether you admit it or not is the reason you desire and they don't.

BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO COME!

I ask you why he can't desire to come and you answer by saying he doesn't want to come. That is not an answer to the question.

In Calvinism, the reason someone doesn't want to come is because God hasn't enabled him to want that, period. Most Calvinists are willing to admit that as it is the basis for their doctrine of Totally Depravity. You don't want to admit it because you are honest enough to know where it leads regarding divine culpability.

You answer the question...oh wait, you would say that same thing right?

No, I'd say the man is free (contra-causally free) and thus enabled to accept or reject God's gracious provisions and appeal for reconciliation. You cannot make that claim. You can only say "because he doesn't want to," while avoiding the man behind the curtain pulling their levers of desire.

God doesn't keep them from coming. They have the gospel there, but choose to reject it.

So, you believe all men are enabled to come?

Our differences in reality is not why man chooses to reject the Gospel, it's why he accepts it.

Just the opposite.

We both believe he accepts it as a result of God's work, you just believe the work is effectually applied and I believe it can be rejected. It's the reason men reject God that really set's us apart and creates huge problems for your system, because the real reason a man doesn't have faith according to your system is because God didn't grant him faith, period.

 

[jbh28]

They CHOOSE to. Its not because God didn't choose them, or neglected to grant them something he granted you, which whether you admit it or not is the reason you desire and they don't.

I agree 100%. They choose to not come.

I ask you why he can't desire to come and you answer by saying he doesn't want to come. That is not an answer to the question.

You'll have to go and ask people that reject Christ why they rejected him. You'll get your answer.
Since we are having this same discussion on the other thread. Let's choose one place, so We don't have to go back and forth. I think this topic is more inline with the other thread anyway.

"Calvinists do believe in man's responsibility, but deny his ability to repent and believe the gospel. The two terms are not synonymous. Calvinists believe that man's inability to repent and believe are caused by his own sin ... not any positive imposition on God's part."