grace or pure sovereignty?

[The Archangel]

Aki,

I heard about the bombing today in the Philippines. Do you live there now? If you do, how close were you to the area of the bombing?

I know for a fact that one of our Southern Baptist missionaries was killed. This is a terrible thing--terror and bombing, etc.

to the Calvinists, in light of how you see man's depravity, what was God's purpose in imputing Adam's sin to everyone that got them condemned?

for, in the way i approached you, it would seem to lead to double predestination. but i doubt you cling to that. thus, you are to clarify this matter.

God's purpose? To tell the truth, I don't know about His purpose in imputation. The only things I can think of are these:

1. Imputation is a result of Adam's federal headship not God's active work.

2. God ordained that imputation be to further His glory.

3. The concept of Imputation of Adam's sin is necessary to understand the Imputation of Christ's righteousness

As for the whole double-predestination thing...well, I am a double predestinarian. If there are people elect to eternal life, then by implication, there are people destined to eternal death. The non-elect, by nature of them not being a member of the elect, are predestined, because they were not chosen, to eternal death.

Again, I don't like this. However, I believe that scripture teaches these things. It is not my job to fight the scripture but to bring me, myself, and I under submission to the scripture which is the word of God.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[Jimmy J.]

Just a thought I wanted to throw out there. I realize it's not a "biblically based" argument, but just an argument for consideration:

If it was God's plan to impute sin upon all man through Adam's unrighteousness, why didn't God impute righteousness upon all man through Christ's righteousness?

Making it available for all mankind certainly sounds more reasonable than making it certain for a few and certain that the rest could not. Especially if your one of the ones who can't.

If Calvinism is true, the good news (gospel) is not really good news to most people in the world.

Its good news for the elect and its really really bad news for everyone else.

 

[Yelsew]

Yelsew, i will agree with Archangel in this matter. the point is, where there is no law, there is no sin. come the age of perfection the only law to be obeyed was the forbidance of the eating of the fruit. with regards to Cain killing Abel, he was not given the punishment that was to be given come the Mosaic Law, for indeed, no such law existed then.

If you will read the scripture you will see the law and punishment is for anyone who kills Cain, and not for Cain himself.

 

[Aki]

to Jimmy J.:

the sin nature was passed by Adam to all his progeny seminally. on the other hand, God imputed Adam's sin to every soul! this is biblical!

in itself, it sounds bad news! with Calvinism, it can mean double predestination. but there's another view, one that will show that such design and act of God are products of His love, while not violating His righteousness and justice! i'll give a discussion of it later.


to Archangel:

thanks a lot for the concern! yup, i am at my country. i live far from the bombing, but am distressed about it. many things are rolling in my mind, so many events, people, history, officials, and principles that get confused as to why this things happen, even as i write. and if this is what comes in my mind, imagine what is in the minds of those who are directly affected!

to go to the issue at hand, i tried to write my belief as to why such imputation and sin nature were so, but changed my mind. i'll give it some other time, for i'm pressed with time now.

meanwhile, with your response, i want to go back to the very title of this thread. with what you said, is there grace, or simply pure sovereignty? if there's only sovereignty all the way, i already understand that. no personal or mocking attack, but i do not see grace anywhere there. for, grace is where God gives a soul something which it does not deserve. but then, through the imputation of Adam's sin, God is the one who caused each soul to be undeserving! and then with election, God is the one who caused His elects to be deserving. i see sovereignty there! but if grace exists there, it's hard to see how.

 

[The Archangel]

Aki,

thanks a lot for the concern! yup, i am at my country. i live far from the bombing, but am distressed about it. many things are rolling in my mind, so many events, people, history, officials, and principles that get confused as to why this things happen, even as i write. and if this is what comes in my mind, imagine what is in the minds of those who are directly affected!

The situation is terrible at best. I know of three Southern Baptist missionaries who were effected. The man killed in the blast and the parents (missionaries themselves) of a 9-month-old who was injured in the blast. Right now there is big-time prayer for the little boy. Apparently, he is stable but the blast damaged his liver. It is in God's capable hand now.

meanwhile, with your response, i want to go back to the very title of this thread. with what you said, is there grace, or simply pure sovereignty? if there's only sovereignty all the way, i already understand that. no personal or mocking attack, but i do not see grace anywhere there. for, grace is where God gives a soul something which it does not deserve. but then, through the imputation of Adam's sin, God is the one who caused each soul to be undeserving! and then with election, God is the one who caused His elects to be deserving. i see sovereignty there! but if grace exists there, it's hard to see how.

Well, Grace and Sovereignty are not mutually exclusive. Because God is absolute and absolutely sovereign, there can be Grace.

The Grace that God offers is based on His sovereignty. Because God is soverign, He can orchestrate everything in history to lead to the Cross. The cross was not an accident. This thing was planned and carried-out with the utmost precision and care. Of course, this has some heavy consequences. As Isaiah says about Christ, "God was pleased to bruise Him."

Because God can and did orchestrate everything on the cross, He could provide the means and the payment for our sin. Because of this sovereignty God can offer the Grace of the Cross to those who are predestined.

Why is the cross necessary? Because God cannot and does not forgive sin. In other words, there is no arbitrary grace. God doesn't simply "write something off" and say to us "forget about it."

No God, if He is to be just, must (yes MUST ) require a payment. Because that payment is required and paid for in Christ, God can offer the benefit of that Grace to us.

I hope that helps and doesn't muddy the waters further.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[Eric B]

Aki, if you agree with them about legal imputation, then the answer to your question "why does God do that and not give so many a chance?" that they give also follows— it is "for His glory", and apart of "the unsearchable counsel of His will", and who is man to say "why does He find fault", and "what are you doing/making?". But the passge clearly does not add any other passing down of guilt other than seminally, and once again, in the actual event of condemnation to Hell, it is only works that are mentioned as them being judged by.

 

[Aki]

to Eric B:

i share the belief of both transmitted sin nature and imputed first sin with the Calvinists. i see it necessary, or rather a magnificent act of God, both for those who will be saved and those who will not be.

let me go to the details, and in discussing it is imperative to be clear that we adhere to these concepts:

1. that God will justify only those who are condemned.

2. that as sin has the wage of death, the scriptures do not teach that the sin nature itself is worthy of the second death. God hates sin, but the nature to sin is not a basis for God to condemn the each one. it is the product of such sin nature which is!

then follows the implications:

3. when a child is born he has the sin nature. but he does not have any committed sins yet. if he is left that way and dies, God cannot condemn Him because God has no basis for doing so, since sin (and not the sin nature which he already has) is the one which God uses as the basis for condemnation. on the other hand, God cannot save the child yet since God can only save only those who are condemned! thus, if God would condemn the child, He would be violating His own justice. if He accepts a child, He would be violating His own righteousness, for again God does not justify those who are not condemned! thus, either way, God is to commit a mistake.

4. hereafter comes God's genius! what He did was use his sovereignty and impute Adam's sin to every born child, thus God caused the death of such a child. now then God condemns every born child. with that, Christ's grace is automatically reaching each person upon birht!

5. when a child dies, God will not be violating His justice in saving the person since He is already free in imputing Christ's rigteousness upon such a soul, for he has put Him already into condemnation. and indeed God saves every child who dies prior to the ability to decide!

6. when a person with an enough ability to decide dies, then his volition comes into the issue. thus it is stated: "...that whosoever believeth...". God can condemn Him if the person does not accept God's salvation while God can also save him if he accepts God's salvation.

do you see my point? imputing Adam's sin to every child is a brilliant stroke of God's love to each person. God want each person to be saved, thus He imputed Adam's sin to everyone!

however, if one would cling to the TULIP theology, there is no way to know the purpose why God also imputed Adam's sin even to the non-elect except for double predestination! this is because God is the one who put each man into depravity by the imputation of Adam's sin.

on the other hand, if one does believe that each person has the ability to choose for God upon conviction, then each one chooses his own judgment.

both sides can be proven to be logical! but only one is to be accepted - that which is taugth by the scriptures!

to Archangel:

concerning grace, i understand - and even adhere to - all you said above. but i hope you give what i just wrote here a thought.

hi to both of you

[ March 06, 2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Aki ]

 

[Eric B]

OK, I see your point.

 

[The Archangel]

Aki,

Thanks for you post, there is much to discuss...and I may not finish it all tonight. Perhaps I'll e-mail you and we can discuss in a more private setting...We'll see.

1. that God will justify only those who are condemned.

2. that as sin has the wage of death, the scriptures do not teach that the sin nature itself is worthy of the second death. God hates sin, but the nature to sin is not a basis for God to condemn the each one. it is the product of such sin nature which is!

Aki, I would encourage you always to use scripture and the systematic application of scripture to do your studying (Just a bit of friendly advise).

Your first point. All of us are condemned. Romans 5:16 (ESV)
And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. Since all of us are condemned, then, if we follow your point one, we are all either justified or going to be justified.

We simply know this is not the case. There will be people who will spend an eternity in hell. They are the unjustified ones.

Your second point. If, as the above Romans passage states, we are all condemned, then that sin nature is worthy of condemnation. Look at the following passage: Romans 5:18 (ESV)
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Our condemnation is a result of Adam's sin--not our sinful actions.

YES, our sinful actions do play a part in our condemnation. However, if we never did anything, we would still be condemned. That is what Romans 5:18 clearly states. This is what I mean when I talk about a "Legaly Guilty Standing" before God.

I'm going to leave this here for now. Obviously, if you were to accept this, the rest of your points would need to be corrected. Therefore, I'll leave this here for now and look foward to hearing from you.

God bless, my friend--

Archangel

 

[Aki]

good evening to you! oops, there's daylight, so good day. oh i forgot, the sun is not at your side right now. yeah, whatever.

Originally posted by The Archangel:
Since all of us are condemned, then, if we follow your point one, we are all either justified or going to be justified.

actually what i mean by that is not: every man who is condemned will be automatically justified. rather what i mean is that: God cannot justify anybody who is not condemned. if one is not yet condemned, God cannot justifiy Him. if one is condemned, God will justify that person upon faith.

Originally posted by The Archangel:
YES, our sinful actions do play a part in our condemnation. However, if we never did anything, we would still be condemned. That is what Romans 5:18 clearly states. This is what I mean when I talk about a "Legaly Guilty Standing" before God.
Archangel

i share the same thought with you that if we never did anything, we would still be condemned. however, the transmitted sin nature by Adam and the imputed first sin by God are two different things. the sin nature which was passed to us seminally does not give us our guilt! but Adam's sin which was imputed to us by God, it is what got us guilty and deserving of death.

[ March 07, 2003, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: Aki ]

 

[The Archangel]

Aki,

Good morning.......or whatever. Hey, by the way, what is the temperature now where you are? Where I am, this has been "the winter of discontent." I'm a big fan of winter, snow and all that stuff, but I am about ready to be done with this cold-weather business!

actually what i mean by that is not: every man who is condemned will be automatically justified. rather what i mean is that: God cannot justify anybody who is not condemned. if one is not yet condemned, God cannot justifiy Him. if one is condemned, God will justify that person upon faith.

Ok, you say: God cannot justify anybody who is not condemned.

I agree. But, we are all condemned. IF one is not in need of justification, then he, by default, is not condemned. Since we are all condemned, we are all in need of justification. Do you agree?

i share the same thought with you that if we never did anything, we would still be condemned. however, the transmitted sin nature by Adam and the imputed first sin by God are two different things. the sin nature which was passed to us seminally does not give us our guilt! but Adam's sin which was imputed to us by God, it is what got us guilty and deserving of death.

Well, my friend, this is were we disagree.

You say: the transmitted sin nature by Adam and the imputed first sin by God are two different things.

This is not the case according to the Bible.
Romans 5:12 (ESV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Please look with me at the progression here.

1. Sin came into the world by Adam

2. The result of that sin is death (Romans 6:23 (ESV)
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. )

3. Death spread to all men (and yes, it says because all men sinned)

In point 3, death here cannot be because of an individual's sin. It is because of Adam's sin.

Where do I get this? Here:
Romans 5:12-14 (ESV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Why can't this death be due to an individual's sin? Simple: Sin is not counted where there is no law. Adam broke God's law--eating from the forbidden tree. That is the only sin that is credited to Adam's account (Although, I'm sure that he committed more.)

From the expulsion from the Garden to the Law of Moses, sin was not credited to anyone's account.

Look at Abraham. When he told the Pharoah that Sarah was his sister and not his wife, that was a sin according to the Law of Moses. However, that law having not been given yet, it was not charged to him.

However, the price or result for Adam's sin, which is death, is STILL exhibited in the human race.

What are we to, then, conclude? Adam's sin was, in fact, condemning to all of his offspring. All of Adam's offspring have a standing of GUILTY before God.

Otherwise, no one would have died after Adam. No one would have died until after the Law was given to the children of Israel by God through Moses.

What then do we make of the flood? There was no law to justly charge humanity with sin. How then is God just in destroying the world and all the people in it, except--of course--for Noah? Because all humans are born with a Guilty standing before God.

Adam's sin pervades every single one of us. It puts us in the grave before we are even born. We are condemned before we draw our first breath or take our first step.

I hope you can see how the Bible makes the case that Adam's sin is what we are all held guilty for. We are all guilty of Adam's sin and to make matters worse, we are all guilty of our own sin too!

I hope that makes things clearer.

AND! I hope your weather is nicer than mine. God is teaching me to REALLY appreciate spring!

Blessings, my friend

Archangel

 

[Aki]

hi Archangel

the weather here is just fine. well, the equator line hits us, that gets us longing for the weather in yours.

Well, my friend, this is were we disagree.

i realized that since my last post.

I hope you can see how the Bible makes the case that Adam's sin is what we are all held guilty for. We are all guilty of Adam's sin and to make matters worse, we are all guilty of our own sin too!

the truth is, i agree totally to everything you said here. true, it is God's imputation of Adam's sin to each one that gets each one condemned!

having said this, however, will not contradict when i say that the nature to sin (or the Adamic sin nature) is different from the imputed sin.

consider this case:

with the sin nature: it was transmitted to us seminally. it causes us to commit our own sin, each one deserving condemnation.

with the imputed sin: this, on the other hand, was imputed by God to everyone. this got everyone condemned! this is where all your explanation above fits.

this is how the story goes:

first, Adam, while understanding everything his decision would get the whole mankind into, chose to disobey God.

second, such disobedience created a sin nature which is transmitted to all Adam's progeny. however, this does not equate to everone being guilty of Adam's sin. this simply creates man to be a sin-committer, not actually someone who is already guilty of sin (particularly Adam's sin) upon birth.

then, God imputed the sin to each progeny of Adam, and then everything you said goes here.

again, what you said was correct and even fits mine, but it does not contradict the thought of the Adamic sin nature and the imputaion of Adam's sin by God to everyone being different.

God is teaching me to REALLY appreciate spring!

and i always dream of experiencing winter!

 

[The Archangel]

Aki,

If I could package-up some cold weather and ship it to you in exchange for some heat, believe me brother--I WOULD!!!!

Actually today it is in the 40's.....Because it has been so blastedly cold since January, 40 feels like 90!!!!!!!

with the sin nature: it was transmitted to us seminally. it causes us to commit our own sin, each one deserving condemnation.

with the imputed sin: this, on the other hand, was imputed by God to everyone. this got everyone condemned! this is where all your explanation above fits.

this is how the story goes:

first, Adam, while understanding everything his decision would get the whole mankind into, chose to disobey God.

second, such disobedience created a sin nature which is transmitted to all Adam's progeny. however, this does not equate to everone being guilty of Adam's sin. this simply creates man to be a sin-committer, not actually someone who is already guilty of sin (particularly Adam's sin) upon birth.

then, God imputed the sin to each progeny of Adam, and then everything you said goes here.

Ok, I think I get what you are saying.

You are saying this?

1. Adam's sin caused a fallen condition in Adam and the human race. All of us are his progeny and therefore share this fallen-ness. This fallen-ness, Original Sin, is now part of being human.

2. Adam's sin, while not that to which "Original Sin" refers, is placed on our account so that we carry a guilty standing before God.

Do I understand you correctly?

If I do, I agree. You seem to want to say that imputation of original sin and imputation of guilt are two different things or at least, they happened at two different times.

I'm not sure that we need to make this distinction, however, I see nothing wrong-minded or heretical about it.

I hope you get some winter....sometime.

Blessings

Archangel

 

[Aki]

hello Arachangel

with the past couple of days i cannot be in the net, and it is usually that way for me during saturdays and sundays.

anyways, our discussion right now is leading us to a thread where i also participated. it's with the topic "did each man ever had the ability..."

actually, this is what i mean.

1. the sin nature: this was not imputed to us. rather, this was passed to us seminally as Adam's progeny. this one we carry along with our birth.

2. Adam's sin: unlike with the sin nature, we did not have this naturally transmitted to us. rather, this was the one imputed to us - by God. this got us guilty before God and deserving of condemnation without our choice or volition.

the sin nature is not in itself a sin. rather, it is what causes each man to commit his personal sins. but before that, God has already put Adam's sin to everyone.


do you watch X-Men? there is also the character Archangel there, and he is a good and powerful mutant who was for a certain moment hypnotized by a villain (with the name of Apocalypse) so that the extent of his goodness changed to the same extent of his evil! i know what your thinking. what's this for

good week to you.

 

[The Archangel]

Originally posted by Aki:
hello Arachangel

with the past couple of days i cannot be in the net, and it is usually that way for me during saturdays and sundays.

anyways, our discussion right now is leading us to a thread where i also participated. it's with the topic "did each man ever had the ability..."

actually, this is what i mean.

1. the sin nature: this was not imputed to us. rather, this was passed to us seminally as Adam's progeny. this one we carry along with our birth.

2. Adam's sin: unlike with the sin nature, we did not have this naturally transmitted to us. rather, this was the one imputed to us - by God. this got us guilty before God and deserving of condemnation without our choice or volition.

the sin nature is not in itself a sin. rather, it is what causes each man to commit his personal sins. but before that, God has already put Adam's sin to everyone.


do you watch X-Men? there is also the character Archangel there, and he is a good and powerful mutant who was for a certain moment hypnotized by a villain (with the name of Apocalypse) so that the extent of his goodness changed to the same extent of his evil! i know what your thinking. what's this for

good week to you.

Aki, my friend!

Believe it or not, it was around 75-degrees here on Saturday. Today, Sunday, it was a rude awakening. I walked out side to go to church and hit the 38-degree (or so) temperature and said to myself, "Back to reality!!!!" The warm weather sure was nice while we had it.

I think that we are closer on these positions than we realize. I think we would describe it and "Plot" it differently. However, in the end, I think we reach the same conclusion--All are guilty because of Adam and all sin becuase of Adam.

So, I think we agree (even if we may not agree on the process, per se.)

As for the X-Men thing....the only thing I know about that is the move that came-out in 2000 or 2001. I thought it was cool but I don't know of the charachter "Archangel."

I never got into all that stuff, but I have friends that are. It all seems pretty cool to me. Maybe some day I'll play a big game of catch-up in the world of X-Men.

Have a good week and send some more of that warm weather our way!

Blessings, my friend

Archangel

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by The Archangel:
I think that we are closer on these positions than we realize. I think we would describe it and "Plot" it differently. However, in the end, I think we reach the same conclusion--All are guilty because of Adam and all sin becuase of Adam.

So, I think we agree (even if we may not agree on the process, per se.)

woah! that's one good thing. we had one thing in common, and that is at the beginning of it all - how man got deprave. and from here we go to totally different views, you towards the TULIP and i towards another (more clearly against the TULIP).

if you go through much of the arguments here, you'll see two approaches each side does to each other: biblical and logical.

logically, i do not see calvinism to be correct except when a calvinist claims to believe in double predestination. it's the only way i can see (or perhaps understand) the doctrine to be rational. and with that i have no more question about the entire TULIP itself, with regards to the logical approach.

and since you are a double predestinarian, i believe the only thing that causes our opposing belief is not the logic of what we adhere to, but what we see the scripture teaches! no more questions to you about the logical flow of your theology, because i already understand it, i see its rationality, and though, of course, i see my belief as the rationality that is affirmed by the scriptures. you, of course, see it otherwise.

perhaps the only thing we would likely to argue is our interpretation of various verses, and not much of the system of thought, for we have established it ourselves against each other to be logical indeed. (but then believe me, i read an article where the author says that the bible actually teaches both of our contradicting views, and that it is only until we come face to face with our Lord that we will know, not which is correct, but why God has given such opposing doctrines.)

but then what is good is that, as we have a similar beginning, and then parted doctrines thereafter, we still get to meet in the end! you see, we both get to be saved by grace through faith! and it's a good thing that one of the greatest and shortest successful soul-winning approach in the book of Acts did not use much of the arguments we put here. it is: "...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..." so then again we can have the same approach in winning souls for Christ, or in finding the elect! i just hope that the Apostle Paul is not mad at us with all our rebuttals here, for i want to be able to look at him in the eye when we get there.


this has been a nice and fruitful talk! we can have more of this, and it's a good thing to find a friend in this board!

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Aki:
(but then believe me, i read an article where the author says that the bible actually teaches both of our contradicting views, and that it is only until we come face to face with our Lord that we will know, not which is correct, but why God has given such opposing doctrines.)

Aki, when it comes to our desire to reconcile with our Calvinistic brothers I can understand wanting to make these types of statements, but I have to respectfully disagree. I don't believe God has given us opposing doctrines. I think He has given us a consistant, logical, and very clear doctrine. The problem is us. We as human vessels make mistakes. We take passages that are intended to teach one thing and we apply it to another. (Notice, for the sake of unity, I'm speaking about all of us, because we've all done it at one time or another). We are looking at a text that was written 2000 years ago in another culture, another language, and a much different historical context than we are in today. This will cause us to read texts and misapply them to doctrines that the author was never intending to address.

I don't believe the debate of Calvinism versus Arminianism was ever on the minds of the New Testament writers. This makes it difficult to discern their intent at times, but not impossible.

The debate board in those days that would have been the busiest would have been titled: "Gentiles, do we let them in?"

On one side you would of had the Judizers insisting that the Gentiles get circumsized and following the law in order to enter the new covenant.

On the other side you would have the apostles, specifically Paul, arguing which phrases like, "He chose them..." and "He appointed them to eternal life..." and "Israel was hardened but the Gentiles will listen..."

The Judiazers say, "That's not fair!"; "We are his chosen people, not them!"; "He made the promise to our forefathers, not theirs!"

Paul answers with chapters like Romans 8, 9, 10 and 11. And the book of Galatians (as examples).

IMO, being a stauch Calvinist for over 9 years, I believe Calvinism takes much of the debate that was centered on the ingrafting of the Gentiles and applies it to support 3 of the 5 points of Calvinism.

1. Total Depravity (Total Inability): They use passages that have to do with Israel's "inability" to respond to the call of the gospel due to their unique hardening. They use texts like John 6 where Jesus is speaking to Israel, who are either hardened (meaning not enabled to come to Christ) or they were the Remnant who did not receive the hardening (Rom. 11).

2. Irresistable Grace (Effectual Calling) : They use passages that have to do with the irrestiable method that God uniquely employed to call his first apostles to support the means God uses to call us all. He called them by personally and supernaturally revealing Himself to them, he calls us to faith in their message.

3. Unconditional Election: Effectual calling necessitates then need for God to arbitrary choose who will receive the "effectual call" and who will not. Calvinists teach that choice is unconditional. I believe that God's choice of the Remnant, more specifically the apostles, was quite unconditional. He chose Paul unconditionally, Paul was just as bad as the next Pharisee. All of the Israelites deserved the hardening for their rebellion, but God in his grace and in order to fulfill his purpose unconditionally chose people out of Israel to carry out his redemptive plan. Calvinists apply this election to a universal election of all people who are saved. I don't see that supported in the text.

So, it's my opinion that God has not presented contradictory doctrines, but has taught doctrines that are applicable to a specific place and time and must be understood in their proper context.

No, that does not mean that the scripture in not applicable to us today, we should know the means God has brought salvation to the world, but it does not mean that everything Jesus or the Apostles said in regard to the nature of man (in light of Israel's hardening), the call of man (in light of the apostle's call), and the election of man (in light of the election of the remnant), should be applied to a universal soteriology of all mankind.

 

[The Archangel]

Originally posted by Aki:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Archangel:
I think that we are closer on these positions than we realize. I think we would describe it and "Plot" it differently. However, in the end, I think we reach the same conclusion--All are guilty because of Adam and all sin becuase of Adam.

So, I think we agree (even if we may not agree on the process, per se.)

woah! that's one good thing. we had one thing in common, and that is at the beginning of it all - how man got deprave. and from here we go to totally different views, you towards the TULIP and i towards another (more clearly against the TULIP).

if you go through much of the arguments here, you'll see two approaches each side does to each other: biblical and logical.

logically, i do not see calvinism to be correct except when a calvinist claims to believe in double predestination. it's the only way i can see (or perhaps understand) the doctrine to be rational. and with that i have no more question about the entire TULIP itself, with regards to the logical approach.

and since you are a double predestinarian, i believe the only thing that causes our opposing belief is not the logic of what we adhere to, but what we see the scripture teaches! no more questions to you about the logical flow of your theology, because i already understand it, i see its rationality, and though, of course, i see my belief as the rationality that is affirmed by the scriptures. you, of course, see it otherwise.

perhaps the only thing we would likely to argue is our interpretation of various verses, and not much of the system of thought, for we have established it ourselves against each other to be logical indeed. (but then believe me, i read an article where the author says that the bible actually teaches both of our contradicting views, and that it is only until we come face to face with our Lord that we will know, not which is correct, but why God has given such opposing doctrines.)

but then what is good is that, as we have a similar beginning, and then parted doctrines thereafter, we still get to meet in the end! you see, we both get to be saved by grace through faith! and it's a good thing that one of the greatest and shortest successful soul-winning approach in the book of Acts did not use much of the arguments we put here. it is: "...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..." so then again we can have the same approach in winning souls for Christ, or in finding the elect! i just hope that the Apostle Paul is not mad at us with all our rebuttals here, for i want to be able to look at him in the eye when we get there.


this has been a nice and fruitful talk! we can have more of this, and it's a good thing to find a friend in this board!

</font>[/QUOTE]It is very nice to talk with someone who is looking and searching for what the "other side" says. This is education in its finest form. Obviously, we disagree on some points. I am, as you well know, a 5-Pointer.

I don't think that being a Calvinist or an Arminian has a bearing on salvation. There are some interpretations, Yelsew's for example that are not Biblical at all. That may have a bearing on someone's salvation.

However our disagreements are most likely based on who Christ died for. I think the Bible says the "Elect" and you may think differently. OR you may believe in God's forknowledge as opposed to predestination. Either of these two contrasting positions is not terribly different.

The only thing is, about Calvinism, I believe that a person should believe like a Calvinist and do ministry work as an Arminian--like salvation depended on their work and presentation.

I think the Calvinist may have a more wonder, awe, and grace filled walk, however. Please understand that is not a put-down or a "Slam" in any way.

Since I became a Calvinist, I find myself wondering about the wonderful, awsome God that we serve. I'm sure you do the same.

Have a good day, my friend.

Archangel

 

[Yelsew]

I don't think that being a Calvinist or an Arminian has a bearing on salvation. There are some interpretations, Yelsew's for example that are not Biblical at all. That may have a bearing on someone's salvation.

Yelsew's opinions are just as valid as your opinions Archangel, so you need not be concerned about His Salvation! Furthermore, you have not been able to refute his beliefs, all you have done is thrown up smoke screens to obscure what his is saying.

 

[The Archangel]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't think that being a Calvinist or an Arminian has a bearing on salvation. There are some interpretations, Yelsew's for example that are not Biblical at all. That may have a bearing on someone's salvation.

Yelsew's opinions are just as valid as your opinions Archangel, so you need not be concerned about His Salvation! Furthermore, you have not been able to refute his beliefs, all you have done is thrown up smoke screens to obscure what his is saying. </font>[/QUOTE]Yelsew,

Your obtuseness is ridiculous. You claim: Yelsew's opinions are just as valid as your opinions Archangel but yet you give NO thought or idea to the validity of my posts or the posts of other Calvinists, for that matter.

It is clear that you are here, not to discuss the intricacies of Arminian and Calvinist theology. No, you are here to fight against people who are supposed to be your brothers and sisters in the faith.

You claim to want others, such as myself, to give your posts validity--yet you give no such consideration to others. Instead you engage in ad hominem arguements rather than discuss the issues.

You accuse people, especially me in the post quoted above, of giving "smoke and mirror" tricks as a response to your posts. However, when I ask for chapter and verse so that we can discuss passages like grown men, you give nothing--except accusations of trickery.

You insult people, including me, with statements such as:

Is everybody in Kentucky as thick headed as you?

AND

If ya keep tryin' I'll stomp yor sittin' part deep into your blue grass! Tain't nuttin' so mulish, as a puny man thinkin' he can outsmart God! So quit already!

So, my avice to you is this: Before you begin to debate with people, make sure that you are able to debate with your mind and not unabated passion. Then, when someone challenges your position, you won't have the customary knee-jerk reaction that we've all seen here. Then, and only then, will you be able to engage in fruitful dialogue.

A word to the wise should be sufficient and you who has an ear (or two), let him hear.

Blessings,

Archangel