Many more questions

Semantics to avoid the argument.

Yes, man is capable of faith, without which God is not willing to save him.

God can do whatever he wills. I believe He wills to save those who have faith. You believe He saves an arbtrary selection of people who have faith as a result. My view is more biblical.

Again, God can save whomever he wants, because He is indeed Sovereign. He wants to save those who persue salvation through faith, not those who perue it through the works of the Law.

Really, then why does God call unsaved men to do these things?

No one here thinks man can save himself. That's a straw man mischaraterisation.

 

Semantics to avoid the argument.</font>[/QUOTE] Labeling to avoid the argument.

This is not semantics Bill. There is nothing absent in man required to be saved except the 'good' will. Man is free... he simply is not good in his natural state. His nature limits his freedom just as the nature of God limits His freedom. Man's decisions absent the direct influence of the Holy Spirit will never rise to God's requirement for 'good.'

Yes, man is capable of faith, without which God is not willing to save him.</font>[/QUOTE] So man does in fact seek God, right? Man does "do" good, right? So salvation is God's grace plus man's self-generated faith and good decision, right?

Ultimately, God is not sovereign in matters of salvation under your system. He can only hope that man is good enough to accept it. It is up to the goodness of man to activate salvation. Also, since God does not see to it that all men everywhere hear the gospel, He is unjust for condemning lost people who might have believed if they had the chance.

I am sorry Bill. But under your system, all of mankind would be hopelessly lost.

He just can't save anyone who does not make good choices, right?

As do I. You say man is the source of this goodness (faith). I say it is God.

I don't think God does anything arbitrarily as this implies that He is haphazard about it. I don't claim to know the dimensions of God's purpose but it governs the world none the less.

Not that you have proven. But you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is...

Again, God can save whomever he wants, because He is indeed Sovereign. He wants to save those who persue salvation through faith, not those who perue it through the works of the Law.</font>[/QUOTE] You didn't answer the question. You talked around it. BTW, I notice you also avoided discussing Jesus' comparison of new spiritual birth to physical birth. Where does a person's will play into their conception or delivery?

Because He is just as well as loving.

No one here thinks man can save himself. That's a straw man mischaraterisation. </font>[/QUOTE]No. You can't make that charge since this is my answer to your question... BTW, you quoted incompletely to make your charge of "straw man." This is a dishonest tactic in avoidance of evaluating the merit of the response.

 

Yes Bill, as a matter of fact, I do. Do you know what pompous and condescending mean?

Thank you for recognizing that I am failing to play semantics just as I have been arguing.

What is moral or just in allowing anyone to decide for themselves whether to believe or not and then providentially denying most of the world the opportunity to hear the gospel? Your position does not escape the same dilemna that you would foist upon Calvinism.

But to answer your question- This question is why what you want to avoid by calling it semantics is absolutely critical. You still want to equate everything back to the argument that you have defeated in your own mind. Namely, that if one does not agree with you in saying that man has full freedom to choose salvation on his own then they must believe that man has a lack of ability. I don't believe either position is true biblically.

I believe that man is unwilling in complete harmony with his sinful nature and is therefore unable as a result, not a cause. To call the distinction of something as a result rather than a cause 'semantics' is not legitimate. The critical thing that defeats your claim is that all men acting on their own 'will' reject God.

Adam had the ability and the freedom to choose. I believe that we do as well. But just as Adam used this freedom and ability to deify himself and seek his own way, we will also unless God intervenes.

 

Bill et al ...

Here is a random thought....

Dealing with the entire story-line of scripture and, thus, with a "Whole-Bible-Theology," how does one account for the outright election of Israel?

Certainly Israel did not choose!

Just a question....I'd like an answer to. (this is not to imply that I don't have an answer)

Blessings,

Archangel

 

The scriptures themselves state that God elected the Jews to be his chosen race.

There are other similar scriptures as well

 

Yelsew,

Thank you for your answer. I realize the Jews were elected. My question, to clarify, is related more to the question of "How were they chosen?" and "Why were they chosen?"

Blessings,

Archangel

 

Yes I do, but really Scott you shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

One, the scripture doesn't tell us specifically the fate of those who have never heard the gospel so you are speculating here. Second, as I have stated men understand the divine nature and eternal attributes of God through what is revealed in nature thus making all man without excuse. Your dogma removes that understanding thus giving them back their excuse in judgement.

Scott, when I say "semantics" I mean that my arguement is applicable to both views. Regardless of how you word it man is unable. You just describe it a bit differently than some do. I personally used to argue it the same way that you are because that's the way Sproul argues it as well. But for simplicity I just say, "total inablity" and I expect you to understand what I'm refering too. I understand your argument but it doesn't change the objection that I have raised. Man's nature is the cause of man's unwillingness and thus his inability. Only God has control over what man's inborn nature is capable of, therefore this explaination affords the same objections. It's just semantics.

This is actually a contradiction. You have just said that man's unwillingness makes him unable and now you say we had the same ability and freedom as Adam. What exactly do you believe were the effects of the fall? Do you not believe the "T" of TULIP?

 

Bill,

You wrote:

My friend, this is dangerous. It would seem (as per point 1.) that you think that Christ is NOT the only way to salvation. I hope this is not the case.

It would also seem (as per point 2.) that you hold to some type of natural theology--that man can be saved by the knowledge of God gained through nature. Again, I hope this is not the case.

Please help me out here!

Blessings,

Archangel

 

This demonstrates a major flaw in your position. The scripture does tell us what happens to those who never hear the gospel. Your statement "Second, as I have stated men understand the divine nature and eternal attributes of God through what is revealed in nature thus making all man without excuse" alludes to it. Christ is the way. It is appointed to man once to die then the judgment. Everyone stands guilty before God and no one deserves to hear the gospel much less receive the gift of God's grace.

The issue of those who never hear the gospel is a non-issue under calvinistic suppositions. It appears to be irreconcilable with the character of God under arminianism.

Operating from your current presuppositions, you must leave the door open to the notion that those who don't hear the gospel in this life will be afforded some other fate than those shown in scripture. I used to struggle with this concept a great deal before becoming calvinistic.

No. Not at all. I never said man did not have a choice nor have I said that he doesn't have mental capacity. In fact, I have asserted over and over that the only thing men lack is the good 'will.'

I know what you mean. I simply deny the charge.

If this is truly what you believe then you are applying a double standard. You say that God is sovereign but yields to man's choices. No matter how you word it- the conclusion can only be that God is not sovereign if you are willing to apply the same critical method to your own arguments as you do mine.

That's nice to know. I have heard and read a little from Sproul but not on these specifics that I can remember. It is quite encouraging that he uses similar arguments and arrives at the same conclusion.

But it does. One way agrees with scripture. The other way does not. I believe and scripture teaches that the means are as important as the outcome.

Man's nature does not cause his will so much as the two are indivisible and interdependent- almost synonomous. A person without a will- natural or regenerate- lacks an integral part of what makes one a man.

This is actually a contradiction. You have just said that man's unwillingness makes him unable and now you say we had the same ability and freedom as Adam. What exactly do you believe were the effects of the fall? Do you not believe the "T" of TULIP? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. Which makes ULIP obvious conclusions. We are born with Adam's sin nature- the result of his spiritual death. It is imputed according to scripture. We are not marred- still retaining a distorted spiritual image of God. If we were then God would be condemning Himself when He condemned the lost. We retain nothing God-like spiritually therefore nothing genuinely good.

The freedom and ability we have is to choose to sin or not. God does not force us to sin. The simple fact is that every man, save one, has used and will use that freedom and ability to rebel against God.

We have our own eyes. Yet no one would deny that we inherited them from our parents. In the very same way, we have our own nature inherited from Adam. But just as having our eyes by inheritance does not force us to see anything that our parents see (we can keep our eyes closed), inheriting Adam's sin nature does force us to sin. Both are acts of will and complete accordance with our nature- to see or to sin.

 

That's not what I said Angel. I simply said the Bible doesn't specifically address the fate of those who never heard the gospel while here on earth so we would be speculating as to how God will punish them differently from those who have been entrusted with the message. No one is saved apart from Christ, but how one is judged and condemned could very well be different. I don't know, its mere speculation.

It also could be that some believers are responsible for some not hearing the message. The bible does speak about the blood being washed from the hands of the messengers once their audiences have heard and rejected their message. This seems to imply that they would carry their blood if they refused to deliever the message they were appointed to give.

People are only saved through Christ's blood. But as Romans 1 points out, nature can give testimony to God's eternal qualities and divine nature and I'm sure that would include his revealed plan of redemption for the world. Nature is just one of the many means God has employed to draw men to Himself.

It's because man CAN understand this that makes him without excuse. Yet, Calvinists try to maintain that man cannot understand the things of God. This gives man a perfect excuse. Just like when a child returns to his father after not completing the instructions given to him and says, "Dad, I didn't understand what you meant." Mankind cannot say that to the Father on judgement day because nature reveals what is needed to lead one the the knowledge of truth, which is sumed up in the gospel.