Featured Exalting the view of man

If I have mischaracterized non-cals, please show me how this is so that I may repent. May I respectfully ask, on what basis does God elect sinners to salvation?

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87400

 

You just need to leave them to the quagmire of arrogance they live in. It is like liberalism, it is a disease that eats at their souls.

 

Will do. Tell me how are posts like the one linked below acceptable and considered about ideas alone. It is posts like this that show the Calvinist bias on this board.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2008762&postcount=1

 

In the Light:

I have respectfully asked how my previous post in this thread misstates the non-cal position. Please shed light so I may rightly understand your position and repent if proven wrong.

I further asked, On what basis does our Lord elect sinners unto salvation?

I thank you in advance for your responses which will include biblical proof texts to support your position.

 

See post #36 , in this thread where you assert non-Cals make election into a matter of justice.

Now you are question begging. In order for me to answer your question I must accept your premise that God elects people to salvation. But I'll play along anyway. The basis whereby God elects sinners to salvation is Grace.

 

You did impose. You made a false accusation about what others believe. You therefore imposed that on others in a dishonest way. If you want to know what we believe ask do not tell.

 

And that attitude is pure arrogance.

 

I have no problem with an opponent of my theological distinctives offering their opinion. I will offer my correction and/or rebuttal and consider that part of the debate. It is different if they are intentionally trying to misrepresent me or question my motives even after I have explained myself. In those cases I just disengage from the debate (Proverbs 26:4). In extreme cases I avoid the poster permanently.

As to the comment that got your chaps in a twist, I stand by it. In fact I will drill down on it a bit further.

If a person denies total depravity (that man is completely fallen in all his faculties because of sin) then they somehow believe man retains some positive spiritual ability. Call it potential if you will. This is how the Arminian can believe the sinner can exercise saving faith without it first being gifted by God. You call this dishonest and a false accusation. I call it a logical conclusion of understanding both sides of the issue. I also was an Arminian for 20 years. My comment was not made without having some personal knowledge and experience on the other side of the issue.

Why is it that Skandelon and I were able to have a productive and civil discourse on the same subject without throwing bombs at each other? Neither of us called the other dishonest or guilty of making a false accusation. In the end we both disagreed. Last time I checked neither one of us used a blunt object during our discussion.

I have nothing personal against you. The only thing I can think of that causes you to act so over the top is your disdain for Calvinism and Calvinists.

 

So, now, convictions equal arrogance.

The difference between you and me is that I do not consider criticism of my beliefs to be arrogance.

 

I was not talking about criticism. I was talking about intentionally misrepresenting the view of someone who is different than yours. To say that someone believes something they do not claim and denounce is 1.) to impose it on them and 2.) arrogance to argue with them about what they believe.

You do not get to say what I or anyone else believes. Holding a "conviction" about what someone else believes and they have denounced is just weird and it is arrogant because you are saying you know better about what they believe than they do themselves. Get over your self.

 

Then you shouldn't do it yourself.

Problem is not all non cals deny total depravity. And not all non cals are arminians.

Your accusation about what others believes is a bomb itself.

You certainly did.

I do not disdain Calvinism. I disdain arrogant calvinists. It is in fact a known problem among Calvninists

 

First, God had caused the writers of Scripture to be as clear on this topic as many here seek to make it, we would not be having this discussion.

What we do have is man trying to lay out a process in understandable terms. However, the process is a Divine one. As such, some of its aspects take place not in what to a human seems like a serial set of actions but what to human observation looks like single parallel action.

 

So God made the Gospel difficult to understand?

So you're saying that it's a mystery.

 

The gospel is not difficult. The word of God gets preached, some receive it some do not. End of story. It is the hyper intellectuals who try to much up the gospel with processes never given in scripture to satisfy their snip desire to use logic over scripture.

 

Then you and I just see things differently.

 

Justice versus Grace

Thank you, In the Light, for your responses. If I may respectfully ask you: please define 'grace' so that we may have a common understanding of the term. What, exactly, does it effect?

Also, is this 'grace', as you define it, given to all without exception?

Are there conditions attached to the giving and receiving of this 'grace'?

I thank you in advance for your respectful reply.

P.S. If you do not believe that election is unto salvation, then please state the purpose of election as you understand it.

 

If I may respectfully respond to your point, Dr. Ach. The theme throughout Romans 9-11 is of vital importance to every serious Christian. In Romans 8, Paul has just declared that God's love cannot fail. Nothing can stand in the way of it. Nor is anyone or anything greater who can separate us from His love.

Having said that, Paul feels it necessary to explain the failure of Israel (with the exception of a few) to believe and receive their Messiah. He illustrates this perplexing question by listing all the numerous advantages given the Jews. Yet, despite these wonderful privileges, they did not believe.

The inevitable question then arises, Did the Word of God fail?.....i.e., Did God's love for Israel fail?

His answer is shocking. "For they are not all Israel which are of Israel."

Paul then enters into the controversial teaching of election by His grace alone. It concerns people....specific people whom he names.

Paul was not introducing a new heretical doctrine. Instead he was explaining Old Testament theology that is applicable today.

God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy.

It was true in the Garden. It was true with Moses. It is true with Christ and it is true in the 21st century.

It is God's will alone which dictates who are the Elect and who are the Reprobate.

Thus, it was never God's will that all Israel would receive Christ as Messiah.

However, Paul promises that there is a remnant of Jews who will absolutely come to saving knowledge of our Lord and Savior. So all is not lost because God has elected and predestined them to be among the called.

Is it not humbling to know that the Lord willed to have mercy on us undeserving sinners?