Ezekiel 3 Debunks "Election"

[DrJamesAch]

By election, of course, I am referring to the Reformed/Calvinist view of election, that God has elected all who will be saved, the list is made up and determined, those elected can not resist, and man has no free will and no choice in the matter.

Ezekiel 3 disagrees.

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

This passage makes it clear that the watchman would be blamed if a sinner died in their sin because of the watchman's failure to warn him. This shows that a sinner has a choice and can respond to warnings given to choose life or choose death.

If God had predetermined the sinners salvation, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Ezekiel to have written this. If the sinner's salvation is already predetermined, then there could be no possibility that his salvation could be jeopardized because of a watchman failing to give him a warning, he would be saved whether the watchman warns him or not.

Calvinism holds that God controls the salvation as well as the means (i.e., the witnesses presentation of the gospel, and the sinners response) but yet if God controls the MEANS than how could there be a failure on the part of the witness to warn the sinner? so much that God requires the sinners blood at the witnesses hand? This clearly indicates that the sinner COULD HAVE been saved had it not been for the witnesses lack of diligence. Yet there are no "could have beens" in Calvinism: you are either elect or you are not.

This one passage (among many) completely annihilates the Calvinist view of predestination and election.

 

[Iconoclast]

By election, of course, I am referring to the Reformed/Calvinist view of election, that God has elected all who will be saved, the list is made up and determined, those elected can not resist, and man has no free will and no choice in the matter.

Ezekiel 3 disagrees.

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

This passage makes it clear that the watchman would be blamed if a sinner died in their sin because of the watchman's failure to warn him. This shows that a sinner has a choice and can respond to warnings given to choose life or choose death.

If God had predetermined the sinners salvation, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Ezekiel to have written this. If the sinner's salvation is already predetermined, then there could no possibility that his salvation could be jeopardized because of a watchman failing to give him a warning, he would be saved whether the watchman warns him or not.

Calvinism holds that God controls the salvation as well as the means (i.e., the witnesses presentation of the gospel, and the sinners response) but yet if God controls the MEANS than how could there be a failure on the part of the witness warn the sinner? so much that God requires the sinners blood at the witnesses hand? This clearly indicates that the sinner COULD HAVE been saved had it not been for the witnesses lack of diligence. Yet there are no "could have beens" in Calvinism: you are either elect or you are not.

This one passage (among many) completely annihilates the Calvinist view of predestination and election.

sure Ach....:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[InTheLight]

sure Ach....:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Another on topic, point by point devastating rebuttal by the Calvinist.

 

[Revmitchell]

sure Ach....:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2014684&postcount=85

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2014684&postcount=85

sure RM...as soon as you answer anybody:thumbs::applause::thumbs:
Ach"s post is not to be taken seriously as he is not interested in truth.He is here only to disrupt any real discussion....you know...sort of like what you do:wavey:

 

[Ed B]

By election, of course, I am referring to the Reformed/Calvinist view of election, that God has elected all who will be saved, the list is made up and determined, those elected can not resist, and man has no free will and no choice in the matter.

Ezekiel 3 disagrees.

....

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

This passage makes it clear that the watchman would be blamed if a sinner died in their sin because of the watchman's failure to warn him. This shows that a sinner has a choice and can respond to warnings given to choose life or choose death.
.....

This one passage (among many) completely annihilates the Calvinist view of predestination and election.

You could use the same passage (verse 20 & 21) as a proof text to debunk OSAS.

 

[Revmitchell]

sure RM...as soon as you answer anybody:thumbs::applause::thumbs:
Ach"s post is not to be taken seriously as he is not interested in truth.He is here only to disrupt any real discussion....you know...sort of like what you do:wavey:

Is that all you got?

 

[The Biblicist]

and man has no free will and no choice in the matter.

This is a perversion of the position I hold. There is no external coecion of the will of man by God, Satan or any other man. The human will is free to choose within the boundaries of its moral nature just as God is free to choose within the boundaries of His moral nature. Hence, man's will is just as free as God's will.

Ezekiel 3 disagrees.

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

This passage is not much different than Ezekiel 18 which is also used to deny OSAS. God has also predestinated that we are held accountable for our own disobedience for the use of revealed means. Failure to warn the wicked when they are brought providentially into our presence is sin and we are held accountable for sin. Failure to do so, does not mean the wicked go to hell unjustly due to our negligence as that would impute God with unjustice, but it does mean we are held accountable for their blood insomuch as we failed to warn them. Divine election of the means makes us responsible to God for the use of those means - the preaching of the gospel whether it is to the elect or non-elect (we don't know who is who).

This passage makes it clear that the watchman would be blamed if a sinner died in their sin because of the watchman's failure to warn him. This shows that a sinner has a choice and can respond to warnings given to choose life or choose death.

So, sinners in hell are sent to hell unjustifiably by God? No, this only demands that God holds beleivers responsible for failure to warn the wicked. This does not prevent any elect from being saved as God will use someone else nor does it unjustifiably send the non-elect to hell because they are judged according to their own sins.

If God had predetermined the sinners salvation, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Ezekiel to have written this. If the sinner's salvation is already predetermined, then there could be no possibility that his salvation could be jeopardized because of a watchman failing to give him a warning, he would be saved whether the watchman warns him or not.

You would be right IF God did not also predestinate the responsible use of means by the righteous. However, you simply omit that little fact from your argument. Any argument that is based on half truth is a falsehood.

Calvinism holds that God controls the salvation as well as the means (i.e., the witnesses presentation of the gospel, and the sinners response) but yet if God controls the MEANS than how could there be a failure on the part of the witness to warn the sinner? so much that God requires the sinners blood at the witnesses hand? This clearly indicates that the sinner COULD HAVE been saved had it not been for the witnesses lack of diligence. Yet there are no "could have beens" in Calvinism: you are either elect or you are not.

Although you acknowledge God has predestinated the use of means, you entirely omit that God also predestinated their responsible use. Just as God created free will in Adam and Satan, he predestinated they would be responsible for their use of free will and thus the option of sin would not be attributed to God for their improper use of free will. Likewise, we are held responsible to warn the wicked and when we do not we are held responsible for those we fail to warn in the day of rewards. However, as Paul clearly states that when we are faithful in preaching the gospel, we are always victorious whether the listeners reject or accept the gospel and God is always glorified whether they accept or reject the gospel as both the rejection and acceptance glorify God's mercy and His justice (2 Cor. 2:15-17). This is an inditement on believers and their irresponsible use of predestinated means.

This one passage (among many) completely annihilates the Calvinist view of predestination and election.

Most of your "proof texts" demand arguments based upon inferences that either omit or pervert elements of truth. Here you pervert our position on the will and you omit the element of responsibility for the proper use of means. However, irresponsiblity on the part of the beleiver does not send people to hell unjustly as that would incriminate God's exercise of justice. This passage simply holds believers accountable to God for their failure to warn the wicked when it is in their opportunity to do so.

The absolute sovereignty of God and the absolute responsibility of man are parallel truths that are paradoxical but not contradictory.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

This is a perversion of the position I hold. There is no external coecion of the will of man by God, Satan or any other man. The human will is free to choose within the boundaries of its moral nature just as God is free to choose within the boundaries of His moral nature. Hence, man's will is just as free as God's will.

Before I get to the rest of your post, I want to address this first because I've noticed a pattern in several posts now. I don't know what makes you think that every thread I start or every post I make is about some position that YOU hold. I don't know if you noticed, but there really are other Calvinists in the world. If YOU don't hold to this view of election, then YOU are not really a Calvinist and it is not YOUR view that is being addressed.

Perhaps you believe that you have created some hybrid form of middle ground minder determinism, and that your view is unique to the rest of Calvinism, but rest assured I don't dig through your posts to find out exactly and specifically what I think YOU believe in order to address views held generally by all Calvinists/Reformers etc... Thus it is pretty erroneous to begin a response with "This is a perversion of MY position".

And if you are going to cut and paste that same response over and over, correct the "coecion" because it's a dead give-away.

 

[The Biblicist]

Before I get to the rest of your post, I want to address this first because I've noticed a pattern in several posts now. I don't know what makes you think that every thread I start or every post I make is about some position that YOU hold. I don't know if you noticed, but there really are other Calvinists in the world. If YOU don't hold to this view of election, then YOU are not really a Calvinist and it is not YOUR view that is being addressed.

I don't know if you have noticed but there are other Arminians in the world. One extreme form is the Universalist who believes all men will go to heaven and another extreme form is the Arminian who denies eternal security and then there are those in between. So should I place you at either end of this spetrum or just conclude you are not an Arminian at all???

There are supralapsarian Calvinists, infralapsarian Calvinists, Presbyterian Calvinists, Reformed Calvinists, non-reformed Calvinists, etc., etc.

Now, I cannot speak for this whole spectrum just as you cannot speak for the whole spectrum of Arminianism. The only view point I can speak for is my view point. I am an independent Baptist. I am not a confessional Baptist.

So don't tell me what I am and what I am not simply because I don't fit within your particular classifications.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I don't know if you have noticed but there are other Arminians in the world. One extreme form is the Universalist who believes all men will go to heaven and another extreme form is the Arminian who denies eternal security and then there are those in between. So should I place you at either end of this spetrum or just conclude you are not an Arminian at all???

There are supralapsarian Calvinists, infralapsarian Calvinists, Presbyterian Calvinists, Reformed Calvinists, non-reformed Calvinists, etc., etc.

Now, I cannot speak for this whole spectrum just as you cannot speak for the whole spectrum of Arminianism. The only view point I can speak for is my view point. I am an independent Baptist. I am not a confessional Baptist.

So don't tell me what I am and what I am not simply because I don't fit within your particular classifications.

There are also erstwhile Calvinists who are Universalists in that they maintain all of Calvinism's other 4 tenants but also hold to a Universal Atonement who thus believe that God will Irresistably draw All men to salvation as well. It would not be accurate to say that Universalism is restricted only to non-Calvinist Theology.

 

[The Biblicist]

And if you are going to cut and paste that same response over and over, correct the "coecion" because it's a dead give-away.

I do not cut and paste anything. Just typing too fast and no spell check.

 

[The Biblicist]

There are also erstwhile Calvinists who are Universalists in that they maintain all of Calvinism's other 4 tenants but also hold to a Universal Atonement who thus believe that God will Irresistably draw All men to salvation as well. It would not be accurate to say that Universalism is restricted only to non-Calvinist Theology.

Good point! There are four pointers, three pointers, two pointers, and if James believes in eternal security then he would be classified as a Calvinist one pointer:thumbs:

 

[DrJamesAch]

..

This passage is not much different than Ezekiel 18 which is also used to deny OSAS.

Non Sequitur since this is not about OSAS and OSAS is something that I rigorously defend.

God has also predestinated that we are held accountable for our own disobedience for the use of revealed means. Failure to warn the wicked when they are brought providentially into our presence is sin and we are held accountable for sin. Failure to do so, does not mean the wicked go to hell unjustly due to our negligence as that would impute God with unjustice, but it does mean we are held accountable for their blood insomuch as we failed to warn them. Divine election of the means makes us responsible to God for the use of those means - the preaching of the gospel whether it is to the elect or non-elect (we don't know who is who).

This is a terrible rebuttal that ignores the plain reading of the text. How could God "providentially" bring a witness to the sinner, and then be accused at the same time of failing to warn him? It can't be BOTH at the same time. It salvation AND means are all part of salvation, then not only would God have to determine the salvation of the sinner but the very presentation of the gospel would have to be determined as well and there's no way that the witness could resist presenting the gospel.

God's reaction to the witness who fails to warn shows clearly that the means of delivery by that particular witness where said means and salvation or even a preordained rejection thereof were determined by God. And again, being held accountable for failing to warn them clearly shows that the sinner COULD HAVE been saved.

So, sinners in hell are sent to hell unjustifiably by God? No, this only demands that God holds beleivers responsible for failure to warn the wicked. This does not prevent any elect from being saved as God will use someone else nor does it unjustifiably send the non-elect to hell because they are judged according to their own sins.

Once again, you are reading something into the OP that was not said. The issue was not about justice, it is about election and predestination. Now I COULD argue from the justice perspective on this, but that's not the issue.

Claiming that God will simply "use someone else" defies common sense. God held a SPECIFIC person accountable for their failure to warn meaning that that particular witnesses was appointed to deliver the good news and did not. That totally debunks the determinist view that God determines the means by a divinely appointed witness because as you have erroneously interpreted Isaiah 55:11 "my word will not return to me void", that witness SHOULD HAVE been successful in at least ATTEMPTING to warn the sinner since his mission was "divinely appointed". If the means are divinely elected, then the witness can not resist his mission anymore than the sinner can resist salvation.

You would be right IF God did not also predestinate the responsible use of means by the righteous. However, you simply omit that little fact from your argument. Any argument that is based on half truth is a falsehood.

Now you are adding to the word of God. There is nothing in this text that excuses the witness on the grounds of "RESPONSIBLE" use of means. Therefore OF COURSE any argument as such would be omitted because it's a self-made caricature that you have added to the equation.

You are creating an erroneous unfounded excuse for the failure of the witness to follow through on what SHOULD HAVE been a divinely appointed presentation of the gospel. Yet here's the major problem with your argument here:

IT CAN ONLY BE AN EXCUSE IF THE WITNESS ACTUALLY ATTEMPTED TO PRESENT THE GOSPEL.

Your argument against the RESPONSIBLE USE of means implies that the witness actually attempted to USE something which shifts the argument to the HOW of presentation instead of the witness failure to present the gospel AT ALL. Ezekiel's text here is not about HOW the issue was presented, for even a person who preaches Christ "of contention" can still be successful (Phil 1:14-18) yet that is not what this passage is about-it is about the witness failing to utilize ANY MEANS and warn the sinner AT ALL.

Although you acknowledge God has predestinated the use of means, you entirely omit that God also predestinated their responsible use. Just as God created free will in Adam and Satan, he predestinated they would be responsible for their use of free will and thus the option of sin would not be attributed to God for their improper use of free will. Likewise, we are held responsible to warn the wicked and when we do not we are held responsible for those we fail to warn in the day of rewards. However, as Paul clearly states that when we are faithful in preaching the gospel, we are always victorious whether the listeners reject or accept the gospel and God is always glorified whether they accept or reject the gospel as both the rejection and acceptance glorify God's mercy and His justice (2 Cor. 2:15-17). This is an inditement on believers and their irresponsible use of predestinated means.

First sentence is redundant and has already been addressed above.
But, there is a difference in "predestinating responsible use" and the command to simply do so. Matthew 5:16 says "let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven". It is not just means but our own attitudes that can cause others to turn from the gospel, and that is not even possible if the person is elected. But, as I have just shown, this passage is not about being accountable for responsible means because the contention that God has is that the person used NO MEANS at all, THAT is why their blood is required at their hands, because they failed to use ANY means, not that they failed to use them RESPONSIBLY.

Most of your "proof texts" demand arguments based upon inferences that either omit or pervert elements of truth. Here you pervert our position on the will and you omit the element of responsibility for the proper use of means. However, irresponsiblity on the part of the beleiver does not send people to hell unjustly as that would incriminate God's exercise of justice. This passage simply holds believers accountable to God for their failure to warn the wicked when it is in their opportunity to do so.

Now you change the argument from "a perversion of MY position" to one of "Here you pervert OUR position on the will". This makes a nice convenient rebuttal when you want to attempt a refutation of areas that you disagree with Calvinists in general on while attempting to continue arguing against the whole. You take tidbits of rebuttals that you consider unique to YOUR position, and then attempt to bootstrap YOUR view as an attack against my posts against Calvinism in general. That is a very deceitful tactic, but unfortunately for you I caught on to it.

The absolute sovereignty of God and the absolute responsibility of man are parallel truths that are paradoxical but not contradictory

This is a failure to understand paradox. It is only a paradox when the apparent contradiction has an adequate explanation. Here, yours does not because your entire response is based on a caricature that has nothing to do with the initial argument. Your caricature is based upon accountability for means where Ezekiel 3 shows that NO MEANS WERE USED ANYWHERE which is PRECISELY what the witness is being judged for. You attempted to shift the facts of the argument into something that the text does not raise, and then attacked your own caricature and then claimed you have refuted the premise, and have failed to address the actual argument raised in the OP which clearly CONTRADICTS the Calvinist view of predestination and election.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Good point! There are four pointers, three pointers, two pointers, and if James believes in eternal security then he would be classified as a Calvinist one pointer:thumbs:

LOL...I used to call myself a 3.5 point Calvinist.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I don't know if you have noticed but there are other Arminians in the world. One extreme form is the Universalist who believes all men will go to heaven and another extreme form is the Arminian who denies eternal security and then there are those in between. So should I place you at either end of this spetrum or just conclude you are not an Arminian at all??? [DING DING DING DING We have a winner]

There are supralapsarian Calvinists, infralapsarian Calvinists, Presbyterian Calvinists, Reformed Calvinists, non-reformed Calvinists, etc., etc.

Now, I cannot speak for this whole spectrum just as you cannot speak for the whole spectrum of Arminianism. The only view point I can speak for is my view point. I am an independent Baptist. I am not a confessional Baptist.

So don't tell me what I am and what I am not simply because I don't fit within your particular classifications.

First of all, I am not an Arminian AT ALL, and never claimed to be such. But, I actually know what Arminius really believed because I have studied him and actually read his writings which I can certainly say that many Calvinists have not. You have not even addressed all the different positions of Arminianism (there are actually THREE primary views of thought among Arminians, and then their subfolders, and you have not even given an accurate description of the 2 you listed). If you were to admit that I am not an Arminian "AT ALL" you would have FINALLY gotten the point of something I have said over and over on this forum-I am not an Arminian.:BangHead: DUH!!

And once again, you are presuming quite selfishly I might add that I should be addressing YOUR position as if you represent the whole of Calvinist thought. I would actually contend that you don't quite have an accurate grasp on all of Calvinist thought because you only occasionally get something right when attempting to defend a charge against Calvinism.

I did not write this thread with the title, "Ezekiel 3 Refutes Biblicist" so you really need to get over yourself.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Good point! There are four pointers, three pointers, two pointers, and if James believes in eternal security then he would be classified as a Calvinist one pointer:thumbs:

I disagree with all 5 points of TULIP. Eternal Security (which I believe) is not the same as Perseverance of the Saints which is why I reject it. I would say there are some Calvinist camps that believe in eternal security AND perseverance of the saints, but the 2 are not the same. The traditional Calvinist view of perseverance of the saints is commonly MISUNDERSTOOD as PRESERVATION. The traditional view of perseverance is that God causes the believer to persevere in belief until the end and that is NOT eternal security. Eternal Security is that God justifies the believer solely on the work of Christ alone and that when ones faith is placed in Christ he is declared judicially righteous before God and the evidence and assurance of his salvation does not depend on any external evidence of performance but on the written promise of God that "ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life". Perseverance of the saints, on the other hand, is based on performance which is why the Calvinist explanation for backsliding is the excuse that "they were probably never saved in the first place".

The perseverance of the saints in TULIP ultimately leads to Arminianism because assurance of salvation is dependent upon works which is why I therefore disagree with all 5 points of TULIP.

Calvinists use the common ground of T and P to cause others to reject "Arminianism" by default. However, most Calvinists only explain T far enough to get the person to agree with only HALF of depravity without explaining inability. Both depravity and inability go hand in hand in T in TULIP. This is why most Non Calvinist are considered at least 1 or 2 point TULIPERS because they don't understand what the Calvinist actually means by Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints.

 

[Revmitchell]

First of all, I am not an Arminian AT ALL, and never claimed to be such. But, I actually know what Arminius really believed because I have studied him and actually read his writings which I can certainly say that many Calvinists have not. You have not even addressed all the different positions of Arminianism (there are actually THREE primary views of thought among Arminians, and then their subfolders, and you have not even given an accurate description of the 2 you listed). If you were to admit that I am not an Arminian "AT ALL" you would have FINALLY gotten the point of something I have said over and over on this forum-I am not an Arminian.:BangHead: DUH!!

Unfortunately for some cals if you are not a cal they do not know what to call you except an arminian. They cannot function outside of their own systematized paradigm. If you do not fall prey to irresistible grace and effectual calling then they have an innate struggle to not lump you in with everyone else. I believe it is just a bit if laziness.

 

[The Biblicist]

Non Sequitur since this is not about OSAS and OSAS is something that I rigorously defend.

Well then welcome to the "Calvinist" club as you would be a one point Calvinist.

How could God "providentially" bring a witness to the sinner, and then be accused at the same time of failing to warn him?

You are confusing "God" with the righteous. God may providentially bring a person accross my path tomorrow that I have never met and in doing so I discover he is a lost person. I am responsible for how I respond to that providential circumstance which I did not create but am found in.

It can't be BOTH at the same time. It salvation AND means are all part of salvation, then not only would God have to determine the salvation of the sinner but the very presentation of the gospel would have to be determined as well and there's no way that the witness could resist presenting the gospel.

You are confusing CIRCUMSTANTIAL providence with responsibility and then confusing both with divine election. Suppose that person is one of God's elect, and I am irresponsible in warning him? Does that mean God is unable to save him, or his time for saving him was then and not later by some other responsible agent????? You are trying to confine God and election and human responsibility to but one providential circumstance. God is not that simplex.

God's reaction to the witness who fails to warn shows clearly that the means of delivery by that particular witness where said means and salvation or even a preordained rejection thereof were determined by God. And again, being held accountable for failing to warn them clearly shows that the sinner COULD HAVE been saved.

Just as the elect will not be saved apart from the elected means through reseponsible agents, the non-elect are not excused of their sins due to irresponsible agents nor are they saved if they are confronted with responsible agents. The only difference is that the irresponsible agent is held accountable for failing to warn them and thus accountable at the day of judgement for his responsibility in regard to the wicked he failed to warn. The wicked go to hell for their sins not failure of hearing the gospel.

Once again, you are reading something into the OP that was not said. The issue was not about justice, it is about election and predestination. Now I COULD argue from the justice perspective on this, but that's not the issue.

That is the problem with you OP it leaves out what is necessary to deal with this passage properly. It not only omits justice but responsible means.

Claiming that God will simply "use someone else" defies common sense. God held a SPECIFIC person accountable for their failure to warn meaning that that particular witnesses was appointed to deliver the good news and did not.

You are denying human responsibility because you imagine that absolute sovereignty and absolute human responsibility are contradictory rather than paradoxical truths.

What did God tell Esther through her uncle? God was not limited to Esther to save the Jews, but Esther would be held responsible if she did not. So likewise, God's elect will be saved as God is not limited to me or you nor do we know the predestinated time in a person's life when they will be saved through responsible means. That wicked person that goes to hell does not go to hell because he did not hear the gospel but because of his sins. However, those who knew the truth and were not responsible with the truth in regard to that wicked person are held accountable for their irresponsibility to that person.

That totally debunks the determinist view that God determines the means by a divinely appointed witness because as you have erroneously interpreted Isaiah 55:11 "my word will not return to me void", that witness SHOULD HAVE been successful in at least ATTEMPTING to warn the sinner since his mission was "divinely appointed". If the means are divinely elected, then the witness can not resist his mission anymore than the sinner can resist salvation.

How do you know the time and place God has determined save one of his elect during their life time? You don't know! How many times does God send preachers to his elect before saving them? You don't know! During that period of rebellion how many of God's people failed to warn that elect before it was God's appointed time to save them? You don't know! Are they all held responsible who failed in their responsibility to warn him? YES! Did God save him anyway at his appointed time? YES! So we are held responsible when we do not warn the elect even though God will eventually save that elect through responsible means.

Now you are adding to the word of God. There is nothing in this text that excuses the witness on the grounds of "RESPONSIBLE" use of means. Therefore OF COURSE any argument as such would be omitted because it's a self-made caricature that you have added to the equation.

You are adding to the text "election" as your whole post concerning this text is about refuting "election" and yet it is not found there! You are adding to this text "predestinated" when your post is about refuting predestination.

If you are going to select a text that says NOTHING about election, predestination, Calvinism, and irresistable grace and yet use it for that, what right have you to complain if I correct your irresponsible use of this text by bringing in those things that must be considered to properly understand election and predestination. The whole context YELLS that God's holds this person RESPONSIBLE and if you cannot see that then why are you even using this text as that is the crux of your whole argument against election is it not?????

Your argument against the RESPONSIBLE USE of means implies that the witness actually attempted to USE something which shifts the argument to the HOW of presentation instead of the witness failure to present the gospel AT ALL.

First find the word "gospel" in this text? The text says "warn"! The text is pointing out the RESPONSIBILITY of the watchman to warn and what are the consequences to the WATCHMAN if he does not warn. The wicked cannot possibly be sent to hell for the Watchman's irresponsibility as that would make God unjust when the fault would be the Watchman's instead of the wicked. The wicked go to hell because they are "WICKED."

Ezekiel's text here is not about HOW the issue was presented, for even a person who preaches Christ "of contention" can still be successful (Phil 1:14-18) yet that is not what this passage is about-it is about the witness failing to utilize ANY MEANS and warn the sinner AT ALL.

The text is about RESPONSIBILITY and being held accountable for IRRESPONSIBLITY. Responsibility for duty toward the wicked. Again, it is not the irresponsibility of the watchman that sends the wicked to hell. What sends him to hell is that he is "wicked." However, your whole argument is based upon the idea that irresponsibility by the watchman sends people to hell. Again, if that were true then God would be incriminated as unjust because God sent someone to hell for another person's fault.





It is not just means but our own attitudes that can cause others to turn from the gospel, and that is not even possible if the person is elected.[/QUOTE]

You are ASSUMING that God has predestinated the salvation of His elect THE VERY FIRST TIME they hear the gospel! What gives you the right to make that ASSUMPTION??? Does not God's word say some "plant" while other "water"??????

 

[DrJamesAch]

Unfortunately for some cals if you are not a cal they do not know what to call you except an arminian. They cannot function outside of their own systematized paradigm. If you do not fall prey to irresistible grace and effectual calling then they have an innate struggle to not lump you in with everyone else. I believe it is just a bit if laziness.

I would like to see how many Calvinist/Reformers etc.. disagree with the following:

"In this state of free will of man towards the True Good is not only maimed, wounded, bent, weakened, infirm; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace".