Grace

[Scott J]

The fact is: IF an ALL KNOWING, ALL POWERFUL God pre-selects, before He even gives them life, who will be allowed to be saved - by default He is automatically ALSO pre-selecting who He will send to hell.

Nope.

No more so than if an ALL KNOWING, ALL POWERFUL God foreknows the choice that people make before He creates them.

If you are right but He in fact does foreknow who will be saved and lost then you still leave Him responsible for the condemnation of the lost while also stripping Him of the glory for saving the redeemed by giving credit to them for making the right choice.

Calvinists in fact believe that God saves the elect and simply allows the lost to continue in rebellion. All glory to God for His grace and mercy. All responsibility to man for his rebellion and sin.

 

[Scott J]

The only thing that FITS the personality of God's nature as the bible has made Him out to be is that He offers grace to all men, and then allows some to refuse that offer of grace.

Support this with scripture.

I will agree that God is gracious towards all men... but He is not equally gracious toward all men. Not everyone hears the gospel. Not everyone grows up in church. Not everyone has the opportunity to read a Bible. Not all are the objects of regeneration- not everyone is saved (and this is true whether you are right or we are right).

All experience some measure of physical blessing. All experience some measure of emotional blessing. And all are offered the chance to know God via His general if not special revelation.

 

[Scott J]

Again - My God is Holy - He does not MAKE men sin. Rejection of Christ ~is~ a sin. Ergo - Calvinism teaches that GOD CAUSES MEN TO SIN.

That's what you are teaching JD.

Not one word a single Calvinist has stated has been able to refute that.

I'm your huckleberry.

I have refuted it repeatedly as well as showing you that your line of accusation indicts you equally if it is valid- which it is not.

 

[Scott J]

Or would you - when you HAD 3 children, realize that someone was wrong and say to all three of them, "We love you, PLEASE listen to us, we do NOT want you to die," but - knowing your 2nd child's personality, and knowing that child will NOT listen to you, - continue to offer your love to that child until the child pushes you away to a point that they don't even hear your words of love anymore?

All men are that second child unless God changes them.

 

[Scott J]

But in the end - you cannot explain it any other way. Either God hates sin, and offers grace and repentance to all men, and some reject God - OR God ~causes~ you to reject Christ because He doesn't even bother to TRY to lead you to Christ.

Or else God hates sin, all men reject God, and God extends grace to the elect becaue He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy as Romans 9 clearly declares.

 

[Scott J]

Here's the bottom line TS. You seem to be applying some rule of "fairness" to God of your own creation.

ALL people deserve condemnation. No one deserves to be offered salvation- NONE. It is a matter of grace alone that God saves anyone. Some people are saved, some are lost... and still NONE deserve salvation or even a chance at salvation.

You labor under a false notion that God is unjust if one is saved without deserving the opportunity while another is lost without deserving the opportunity. This isn't the matter of "equal rights" you keep trying to make it. There is no "right" to the chance to be saved. By all "rights", everyone should go to hell.

If a governor pardons a criminal, does that actually make the person innocent? No. They are declared as if they were innocent. Does it mean that every other criminal that committed the same crime deserves the same opportunity for pardon? No. All of them still deserve punishment... it was grace that freed the one but that does not mean that the rest are no longer deserving of their sentence.

 

[Scott J]

No amount of whining about "That isn't what I meant," changes what you actually are saying.

The only thing changing what we are actually saying is your imagination.

There is NTHER EXPLANATION for what you teach.

Yes there is. The one that we actually give rather than the one you try to stuff into our mouths.

 

[Scott J]

And yes - Of course He knows which ones will love wickedness too much to listen to Him or to accept His offer. That doesn't mean He likes it. Doesn't mean He caused it. Just means He "lets them go."

This is precisely what I have expressed but you keep telling me that I attribute their wickedness to God's causing it.

God does not do unrighteousness- sin.

He does do grace- regenerating and saving sinful men.

 

[Scott J]

Again - My God is Holy - He does not MAKE men sin. Rejection of Christ ~is~ a sin. Ergo - Calvinism teaches that GOD CAUSES MEN TO SIN.

Calvinism doesn't teach this. TS falsely claims that calvinisim teaches this.

Calvinism teaches that all men of the own sinful will continue to reject Christ unless God acts in grace toward them to give them a regenerate spirit.

Please get this through your head TS. Calvinists do not teach nor believe that God causes people to reject Him. He allows some to reject Him (just as you believe) while freeing some to accept Him (you apparently believe that they can some how free themselves from their spiritual deadness in sin).

 

[Scott J]

The elect in Christ are not "people who are allowed to hear grace," the elect in Christ are people who heard the call and responded.

Really? Even though election is attributed to God before the foundation of the world?

 

[Scott J]

TS, I can honestly that I have not seen a post filled with more false and/or erroneous and occasionally dishonest information than your last one.

It is an extraordinary display of pride for someone to so frequently tell others what they believe.

You do this while simultaneously refusing to give a coherent, meaningful answer to a simple question.

You still have not answered the question, "What is the prime cause for an individual's decision to believe?" What goodness caused that decision and where did it come from?

 

[TexasSky]

Scott,

You wrote: He allows some to reject Him (just as you believe) while freeing some to accept Him (you apparently believe that they can some how free themselves from their spiritual deadness in sin).

Then say that Calvinism does not teach that God causes men to reject Christ.

Which is double-speaking.

IF you are NOT free to accept you ARE being forced into a choice for hell. That's simple logic 101.

If you are NOT free to walk out of a room, you are imprisoned in the room.
If you are NOT free to eat, you are being starved.

If you are NOT free to choose salvation, you are FORCED into choosing hell.

The elect of God have always been those who followed God, Scott.

 

[TexasSky]

Scott,

I am not "telling you what you believe."

I am telling you 1) What John Calvin taught that is now considered the doctorine of Calvinism
2) What your own words actually MEAN as you write them.

If you say the room has light in it, don't claim you didn't say the room was dark since absence of light IS darkness.

If you say man is NOT free to choose to Christ, don't say you didn't say God sends men to hell.

 

[jdcanady]

TexasSky

Again, do you believe a person can be saved without the gospel?

 

[TexasSky]

This is basic logic, basic communication, basic and proper use of the english language.

It is what Diane has been trying to tell you for weeks and you refuse to see that.

If there are 2 teams, one is good, one is bad, and you MUST play on a team, and you are NOT ALLOWED to choose the good team, you are being FORCED onto the bad team.

There is heaven or hell.
Acceptance of Christ is heaven.
Failure to accept Christ is hell.
If you are not allowed to choose heaven you are forced into hell.

Its as simple as 1+1=2.

Stop double-speaking and read, really READ what you are writing.

 

[jdcanady]

 

[jdcanady]

Your analogy fails because no one "desires" to be on God's team. All have turned away from Him and have chosen rebellion. That God calls His sheep by name does not in anyway make God the author of sin, nor does it make Him less compassionate and loving.

 

[jdcanady]

Do you believe a person can be saved without the gospel?

 

[jdcanady]

Please answer

 

[TexasSky]

JD -

Man can ONLY be saved by acceptance of Christ as Lord and savior. If you are using "the gospel" as a synonym for Christ, it is one thing. If you are using "the gospel" as a synonymn for "the bible" or "the roman road" or anything else, it is another thing.

I suspect the real question you are asking is, "Can God save men who have not been told the story of Christ by other men."

Yes. God is amazing. He doesn't ~need~ men to save souls. Certainly He wants us to teach His word and spread His word, and certainly He uses us for His glory, but He doesn't NEED us.

Throughout all of history God has used a variety of messangers to spread His word to the world, and a variety of means. He has spoken directly to men, and He has spoken through other men. He has spoken directly to the hearts of men.

I gather, from what you are trying to say, that you believe that God condemned everyone who a missionary or apostle had not yet reached to hell because He didn't care about those particular people. Or because you can't figure out how they learned about Christ to trust in Christ if they weren't sent a missionary.

Now - let me ask you.

Do you think men cannot hear the gospel of Christ without some human carrying the word to them?