Is anything really accomplished by this forum or not?

here now,

Yes, about my boss...that is what is needed......the work of God in him!

God bless you!

No I am not King James.......I am King James Bond.

I like my Scripture shaken but never stirred! LOL

It is just a funny name I made up.....although I am really a king.

I have my own throne with its own running water and a lid on it!

KJB

 

KJB, did you have to paint a picture?

 

[ August 03, 2005, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: here now ]

 

Maybe three were of their father the devil and not God's children?

Be careful with this statement, the is two seed heresy, if you really believe it, if not, reconsider it. We all were once children of wrath; we all were dead obeying only the spirit of disobedience.

Now, having said that, let me say that no parent loves their children more than God, but let me say too that the love of God is not based on an emotional bond of any kind.

All the elect were elected in the only begotten Son of God; He is the object of God's everlasting love; and through His everlasting covenant of Grace, He has drawn us to Himself with the cords of love.

Also, if the scripture says we were chosen in him (Jesus Christ) before the foundation of the world, then how did God choose some lost sinners for eternal life and not others?

Before the foundation of the world is before creation, before that of the heavens and the earth of Ge. vs. 1.

Thus, God chose those Christ Redeemed prior to the fall of man, not after. To say it is after is to deny scripture when it says he hath chosen us from the beginning, and in Jesus before the foundation of the world. It would also mean that God was surprised by man the finite creature's fall from His covenant of works.

We must be careful here also. God did not decree sin, nor ordain it, but he did foresee it in Lucifer and in man and He did enter into an everlasting covenant to reconcile His elect to Himself in Christ Jesus.

And the world too, for the world shall pass away and there shall be a new earth.

Bro. Dallas

 

You can't be all bad, then. Forgive me for thinking otherwise.

 

Frogman,

You posted;

Now, having said that, let me say that no parent loves their children more than God, but let me say too that the love of God is not based on an emotional bond of any kind.

That is a most excellent point you make there!

You also wrote;

Also, if the scripture says we were chosen in him (Jesus Christ) before the foundation of the world, then how did God choose some lost sinners for eternal life and not others?

Before the foundation of the world is before creation, before that of the heavens and the earth of Ge. vs. 1.

Yup I agree with all of my heart!

It is not something that is easy to understand unless God has humbled us to the point of seeing ourselves as having nothing to do with salvation......WOW....none of it was of me! Now that humbles a man!

You posted;

God did not decree sin, nor ordain it, but he did foresee it in Lucifer and in man and He did enter into an everlasting covenant to reconcile His elect to Himself in Christ Jesus.

On that statement....why would we say God did not decree or ordain sin?

I mean God most certainly knew what and who He was making when He designed Satan.

I have to say that God was fully aware of everything He was doing and all things have a purpose.

Satan belongs to God and was made for a reason.....not an accident.

If God did not want Satan to exist.....God simply would stop sustaining him.....for Satan is not an individual self sustaining creature.

His entire being is relative to the will of God in keeping him.

Now by saying this I am not saying God is a sinner even if God uses agents to cause others to sin.

A great case in point would be Job.

God used Satan to inflict disaster upon everything Job had........Satan used Chaldean raiders and others for his cause.

Now it best to remember that nothing could have happened to Job or his family and possesions unless God had decreed to lower His hedge of protection.

So in all reality....even though Satan and Chaldeans will be held as guilty for all of their dastardly deeds and actions.......God will not!

For who would hold Him in the first place?

To what creature does He have to give an answer?

It is best summed up with the words of Job.

Job stood up and tore his robe in grief. Then he shaved his head and fell to the ground before God. He said,


"I came naked from my mother's womb, and I will be stripped of everything when I die. The LORD gave me everything I had, and the LORD has taken it away.

Job knew very well Who is in control of all things! Job knew Who gives...and takes!

Praise the name of the LORD!"

In all of this, Job did not sin by blaming God.

I am certain that Job placed blame on all of the wretched raiders.....because they looted, plundered, and killed.

And Job knew very well that not only could God have stopped all of this......He did not stop it, so He must have decreed it to take place.

The entire plan of the event took place in the heavenly realms without the consent, choice, or will of Job, his servants or his children.

Simply;

The LORD gives...and the LORD takes away!

And He can do it however He wants to.

All things belong to Him to do with as He wills. This includes children, Satan, and Chaldean raiders

And in all of this we do not sin by blaming the LORD!

God bless! Regards, KJB

 

Let me put it this way for the Free-willers. Most Calvinists would see "elect" as a mystery of the mind of God and above our comprehension. We use it only in the form the Bible presents it as those who are predestined to salvation before the foundation of the World. How, when, why, who... is not for us to ask, but accept. Look at it this way, everyone I meet, I treat as an elect and share the gospel with them as much as I can. Some of the most unexpected people will ask for more and then you hear Jesus' command, "unbind him and let him go". Sometimes they turn to God, sometimes they return to their wicked ways, but we believe it is the Spirit that moves them and no manipulative tactics can push the Spirit into action.

 

Hello Texas Sky (and others):

I stand by my argument. Choosing to accept a gift most certainly does involve "exertion", "functioning", "performance", "travail" and "undertaking" (as per your list). It seems that the way you argue your point is simply to assert something - there is no underlying justification, no actual defence for your claims - you simply state things like "Accepting love is not production, toil, trial, or an undertaking". To me, this is not the proper way to conduct a debate - you need to go the next step and argue for your statement.

You may think I am being harsh, but consider, by contrast, the way that I have proceeded. I have taken the concept of "acceptance" and analyzed it, "opened it up" if you will, to see what it really means. It is this failure to do the work of working out the meaning of acceptance that puts your position in such a precarious state.

I have stated that acceptance, by its very nature, entails a process of mental deliberation, mental processing. If I had simply stopped there, I would be employing the same kind of approach that you seem to be using. However, I took the extra step of actually defending my claim. I will try to be more precise in articulating my underlying argument:

1. A set of alternatives are presented to the person - acceptance or rejection.

2. Choosing among any set of alternatives requires the execution of some mental processing, some "work".

3. Since it is the person who, by your argument, does the accepting or the rejecting, this person is necessarily the agent that performs such processing.

4. Therefore acceptance involves work on the part of the acceptor.

What, specifically, is wrong with my argument?

 

Back to the OP.

My problem with the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate is that it is open to all rather than restricted to Baptists.

I do not like to debate with Non-Baptists. I mean, what is the point?

We already disagree over many issues anyway so what will be accomplished by debating this subject with those whom we have so little in common?

 

What will be accomplished by debating this subject with Non-Baptists? My guess would be, the same thing that's accomplished by debating it with Baptists.

 

Re: Whether accepting the gift of salvation is a "work"

Another way to look at this is to ask "Does the acceptor deserve "merit" for his choice. Presumably many Arminians will argue that we indeed are responsible for accepting the gift of salvation but that we deserve no merit - "lest any man should boast". Is this a viable position? I don't think so.

We need to analyze the concept of "merit" - not leave it as a vague unspecified concept, but rather try to determine what it means. I think it is clear that merit is credited to an agent whenever such an agent is fully responsible for performing some task in objectively the right way, when that agent could also have performed the task in the objectively "wrong way".

The possibility of making a "wrong" decision is absolutely vital to my argument - otherwise there is really no decision to make, no possibility to "go wrong". If the agent making the decision is responsible for that decision, he must be the agent to whom we can allocate "credit" or "merit" for making the "right" choice. What other agent could deserve the merit?

Accepting salvation is objectively better than rejecting it. Since, according to the Arminian position (as I understand it), it is the "acceptor" that, rather obviously, does the "accepting", that person deserves merit - he has made the "right choice".

 

Nothing. Only that it destroys the Arminian's desire to hold on to both libertarian free will and the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone.

Keep plugging, Andre.

 

You are over analyzing, Andre, one of the first steps in going down "that road". I pray God gives you wisdom and discernment, and that you try not to lean on our human knowledge too much. God bless.

The fact of the matter is: God gives man gift, man accepts of rejects gift. Man cannot work for salvation. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Take it at face value.

 

Webdog, is Andre overanalyzing or are others simply ignoring the obvious.

Lets look at similar works:

1. Judging the unrighteous.
2. contemplating a strategy.
3. cursing an enemy
4. battling a heresy
5. Pondering a purchase
6. ignoring the obvious.

some people get paid for these works, the rest seem to be hobbies. Of course, this is hardly a comprehensive list...

 

I am frankly suspicious of the "you are over-thinking" type of argument. Since when was a serious, open-minded investigation of an issue a problematic thing?

All I am seeking is consistency and sense. I believe that I have effectively argued that acceptance of salvation meets a reasonable construal of what a "work" is, or what is "meritorious". Again, I ask: What is wrong with my argument? How does "you are over-analyzing" not really amount to "I do not have an answer for your question"?

I have to agree with Andy T. It appears to be unworkable to argue for both libertarian free will and salvation by grace and nothing (I mean really nothing ) but.

I appreciate the generous tone of your post, but when you say "God gives man gift, man accepts of rejects gift. Man cannot work for salvation. That's it." are you not begging the question at issue - namely, can acceptance be an act that does not, in some way, impute merit to the recipient of the gift?

Ironically, I would actually like to believe what I understand you to believe - that acceptance is a free will act that is not effectively a work or that does not confer merit to the recipient.

 

You said it...THEY GET PAID, they EARNED THEIR PAY DOING THE ABOVE THINGS. Are you suggesting we EARN salvation? I would certainly hope not! Accepting a gift IS NOT A WORK!