ReformedBaptist said:
I mean it in the best possible light, Gospel. It means to me that I regard you as saved and orthodox in the faith. By arminian I only use as a matter of convience to make the difference between a calvinist. The term non-calvinist is too general.
Ok, I didn't figure you meant anything other than good. I just wanted to make sure.
I understand about trying appropriate a type of label so as to better siginify to what we are addressing. But remember that Arminian is a system of theology just as Calvinism is and it has it's specific beliefs of which I do not agree with.
In the same breath, within the scope of your own theology, how can God make the offer of salvation to those whom He foreknew would not accept it? The "harden not your heart" falls within the scope of the universal, general call to salvation.
And yet in the same breath you also state God is making a general call (to repentance and salvation) to them who will not respond.
So then it is pointless for Paul to even make the statement of "harden not your heart" since Paul KNOWS they can do nothing BUT Harden their hearts (because it is the will of God) or that they can do nothing but Relent to God (because it is the will of God).
I don't believe (based on my studies of scripture) there are two types of 'calls' found in the scripture.
So I am merely acknowledging what I beleive scripture states regarding God truely offering savlation even to those He knows will not accept it (like 2 Thes 2 - they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved).
God does not only do good to those who will love him back, nor does He love only those who will love Him in return. (granted there IS a distinction in the 'type' of love given but God loves them none the less)
Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
This verse speaks of 'us' with regard to us being in the likeness of our Father:
Luk 6:27 ¶ But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Luk 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. ...
Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.
Luk 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Is God greater or equal to fallen man?
Obvious Answer: Greater and by far. For if fallen man will only do good to those who will do good back, how much greater is God who will do good even to those who will not recieve it nor give it back. As God's children we are to become like He is (as see above), and as Christ's disciples we are to be like He is. See below:
Luk 6:40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. - KJV
or
"A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher. - NASV
It can even be said that 'we' as the Church bride are to be even as He (our husband) is.
The means are not destroyed by the certainty of the end.
Agreed.
Irresistable is a poor use of languge to fit an acronymn. Effectual would be better.
I don't agree that 'effectual' is any different than 'irresistable' according to the soveriegn dotrices of grace.
Both imply that it is God by grace which compels us to be saved. Yet grace compels nothing but extends something (favor) to one/those who does not deserve it.
That extention is not a compultion to receive that which grace is offering (Gospel call) to the person. That is also why grace is the means of the Gospel call and that call is the offering of a 'gift' of salvation according to scripture that is only received "By Faith". A gift does not have to be received when it is offered yet offered a 'gift' must be regardless of intent of the recipient.
IMHO - To state that grace is 'effectual'
seems to miss the very meaning and scope of what grace is - an offer thus it is seen as synonomous with the Gospel or Good news. This offer isn't limited and thus the General Call. Therefore, IMO it appears that grace is more a subjective matter (regarding effectual) rather than objective.
Indeed, God will bring to Himself by His means those whom He foreknew. But this seems to leave out foreordained. It's not merely that God foreknew, as in knowledge. But also foreordained.
It might 'seem to' but it does not since nothing could come into existence that God did not foreordain to exist and be as He foreknew.
NOTE: Foreknew is not about 'looking into the future' but that God knows already the future, present, and past - all at once. It is that God knew and not so much as our discriptor of a time period when it was known - fore. To state that God knew because He pre-determined what each man will do puts that person in a very unbilbical position of God (though logical) making men act both glorious and wicked, righteous and sinful. So that their actions are squarely and singularly done because of God making man to want to do them. Man would then have no responsiblity and be punished because that was his intended purpose from the outset of why God created him - to endure Eternal torments for doing exactly as God made him to. Not even you agree with that as far as I know.
What is surprising to me is that those who teach men are elected because God foreknew they would believe don't see the problem they pose to calvinists in their own theology. If God knew ahead of time who would believe then their belief is as certain and unchangeable as one whom could would foreordain to salvation. Our use of foreknowledge deals with God's infallible knowledge. He is all-knowing.
Agreed, He IS all-knowing. But No, it causes no problems whatsoever. We acknowledge and fully agree that in Gods knowing who will and will not believe and that Gods knowledge of it is unchangable or certain. Yet that knowledge is in accordance with the rest of the plan of God of HOW He determined salvation to come (through faith), and how that faith would come (The Gospel or Word of God), and how that Word would come into being when men seperated from God are deserving of His wrath (by Grace).
Open theists realizing this have gone into heresy and impugned the foreknowledge of God. Calvinists contend against the idea because to them it is contrary to Scripture when we learn the "why" of GOd's election being His own good purpose (foreordination) and not because of something He foresaw in man.
Calvinists are not the only ones who contend against Open Theists my friend.
It is a true statement that God chose according to His good purpose (foreordain) and not because of something he foresaw in man.
For Man by himself and left to himself has nothing redeeming in himself because Man would be the very object of his own salvation and therefore wholely unworthy.
Therefore it by the grace of God man is revealed even in nature and his conscience any truths of God. It is by the grace of God that He reveals to man he has nothing worthy in and of himself to 'offer' to God in
exchange for salvation (works), and then continuing in grace, God reveals the very object of God's salvation to and for man - the Man Christ Jesus (who has done all the works). This Man can now 'potentially' be saved (with regard to knowing biblical truth) because he sees he can not be the object of his own salvation but that Christ Jesus 'the gift of God' is only one worthy to be that object for his/mans salvation. Therefore 'faith' in His or Christ's work unto our salvation is what saves. Faith is not a work (Rom 4:4-5) but it receives that work another has already done on our behalf.
God's foreknowledge includes this otherwise God is not truly all-knowing. Especially since the scriptures attest that those who are condemned have been so condemned by their rejection of the truth "THAT COULD HAVE SAVED THEM".
What is the converse of this statement and many more like it?
IOW - If THEY were condemned for rejecting the Truth, what does that say about 'why' those who are saved are not condemned?
.
