Many more questions

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Larry in Tennessee:
Thanks to everyone for your kind responses, as well as the links you have posted. The opinions on these issues are quite varied, and apparently quite intense.

Ken,
Thanks for your post. I suppose both sides agree on much more than they disagree on. Both sides agree on salvation through Christ alone, and on the fact that nobody can come to Christ apart from the calling of the Holy Spirit. The main disagreement seems to be the nature of that call. It is either an irresistable call meant for the elect only, or a call whereby He gives us a decision to make.

I will take it prayerfully before the Lord. At the same time, I will continue to share Christ whenever the chance presents itself. Hopefully the Lord will let me plant the seeds which He will grow.

Maybe this is somewhat of a paradox that I will not fully understand until I reach my permanent home. Anyway, thank you all for your responses. You have all been helpful.

Love in Christ,
Larry

Bro. Larry, I think we can each concur with what you have stated. It is needful that we witness to the salvation in Christ and at the same time it is certain that no man can come to Christ except the father draw him, these are both Christ's words. Never discontinue pursuing that witness when ever the opportunity does arise; it is then that the Spirit has purposed for that seed to be planted, what becomes of it afterward is according the the Will of the Father.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[Scott J]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Frogman:
It is needful that we witness to the salvation in Christ and at the same time it is certain that no man can come to Christ except the father draw him, these are both Christ's words. Never discontinue pursuing that witness when ever the opportunity does arise; it is then that the Spirit has purposed for that seed to be planted, what becomes of it afterward is according the the Will of the Father.

Let us also remember that the Holy Spirit came to convict the world of sin, and that all men are drawn! God has chosen to use us as vessels whereby the gospel message can be proclaimed! Man has a choice what to do with that message, whether it is to choke it, to have the ravens pluck it up, or to dwell on it, accept it, and flourish!

 

[Frogman]

Whoa! Brother Scott, I haven't converted yet

I do believe that all men shall 'see' the salvation of the Lord, Christ has been manifested in the flesh, and in these latter days God does speak through his Son Christ Jesus. I do believe the Gospel has a need to be preached, but I do not believe the Word of God is bound to the abilities and witness of men, though I do concede the use of men as instruments in preaching the Gospel, I agree with the following story:

A preacher preached a sermon each Sunday. Over to the side of the building, leaning back in a chair against the wall was a faithful servant of God never missing an opportunity to assemble in the House of the Lord. Also in the congregation many, though not all Sunday's was a man who had never professed a faith in Christ, and was into all sorts of mischief and evil. Each Sunday the preacher labored to preach a sermon to bring a conviction on the wayfaring sinner that he might be humbled and converted. One Sunday the young man was in attendance and as the preacher began his message he glanced over at the chair of the old man...it was empty. He enquired and learned that the man had passed away and had been buried since the young man's last attendance.

During the sermon the preacher poured his heart into the message but the young man's attention was on the life and witness of the old man. He suddenly began to pray aloud and to cry for mercy. The preaching stopped and the church joined in his prayer. Finally, the young man received satisfaction that he had been delivered from his sins and stood to make give his testimony. Afterward the preacher said 'tell me young man, just exactly what was it that I said in my message that got a hold of you?' The young man answered, it was not your message that got hold of me, but the knowledge that the peace to which the old man over in the corner use to witness to the day coming that he would meet his Savior face to face.

We shouldn't be so big to think that God cannot operate without us.

Lk. 19.10
10  For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

It is pretty clear who seeks and who saves that which was lost.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[William C]

We shouldn't be so big to think that God cannot operate without us.

Funny that you draw this conclusion from your story. God may not have worked through the preacher, but he certainly worked through the elderly man. And I'm quite certain that the gospel message played a role in the conversion of that young man somewhere along the way.

I'm not deny that it is God's working. I'm just pointing out the means that God uses:

His people, filled with His Spirit, proclaiming (and living) His Word.

 

[Frogman]

His people, filled with His Spirit, proclaiming (and living) His Word.

Are you sure? It seems to me, many of His people are not certain they are filled with His Spirit, and if this fear is true, then how are they proclaiming (and living) His Word?

Bro.Dallas Eaton

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> His people, filled with His Spirit, proclaiming (and living) His Word.

Are you sure? It seems to me, many of His people are not certain they are filled with His Spirit, and if this fear is true, then how are they proclaiming (and living) His Word?</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure where you are drawing that conclusion from Dallas. You believe you are filled with the Holy Spirit, don't you. I think most believers would say the Spirit guides them each day. Granted, some may have doubts about these things but I wouldn't say "many" nor would I conclude that God doesn't work through those who are filled just because some doubt they are.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />He assumes that God hasn't done everything within His will to save the lost.

No Bill. You have interacted with me enough to know that I do not believe this at all.

Calvinists don't believe that God has done everything within his power to save all the lost, just the elect.</font>[/QUOTE] Note the difference between your two statements. No, as a matter of fact, I do not believe that God has done everything within His power to save all the lost. If He had, all of the lost would be saved. I do believe He has done everything within His perfect will to save the lost.

Arminians do believe God has done all within his power short of violating his own plan.

What plan Bill? If the free will of man supercedes God's plan then how can His plan be certain? If the preachers of the Great Awakening had chosen not to believe it would have reshaped all of human history. This is an obvious example but in fact if any believer had ever chosen differently it would have changed history to some degree. God is not subject to the whims of men.

The reason some are not saved is because it was not apart of God's plan to force love or worship from his creatures.

'...And the reason some people are never conceived is because it is not a part of God's plan to force the egg to receive the sperm. God ordains physical life and God ordains spiritual life.

If this were His will why go to all the trouble of creation/sin/resurrection etc? Why not just make himself a line of rocks to love him and worship him?

Because the purpose of creation is God's glory, not the salvation of mankind. God gets the glory from His acts of mercy and His acts of justice.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I have never argued that God wants to force people to go against their will. He does change the will of the elect but this is an act of grace, not coercion.

Semantics and rhetoric. We too believe that God changes man's will. Not irresistably as Calvinism assumes, but by the Word of truth which must be accepted or denied by each individually.

And you accuse me of semantics and rhetoric? God can change man's will but not to the point of accomplishing His perfect will and purpose?

My quote was refering to Calvinists who use rhetoric like, "Its impossble for man to have free will and God be Sovereign." Nothing in impossible with God.

But it isn't Calvinist rhetoric Bill. It is yours. I and others have told you how we reconcile this point. No one, not even God, can act outside of their nature no matter how much free will you give them. God has free will yet cannot deny Himself as it would be against His nature. Man has free will but will not exercise it to reconcile himself to God because it is not in accordance with his nature to do so.

Yes, even Calvinism is possible, just unsupported biblically.

Arminianism is not possible and is unsupported by the whole of scripture.

God's sovereignty in no way violates man's free will to act within his nature.

Yes it does. If God's sovereignty, on the one hand, removes man's ability to do that which God, on the other hand, requires of him in order to be saved.</font>

It cuts the other way as well Bill. If man's free will, on the one hand, removes God's ability to accomplish that which, on the other hand, He purposed then God cease to be sovereign and any plan of salvation that He might offer is totally undependable.

1. The Fall into sin gives man his nature. We agree.

2. God tells man in order to avoid being condemned in this nature he must repent and believe. We agree.

3. Because of the original condition however man is not able to do that which God demands in order to escape the condemnation of that nature. We don't agree.

Accurate with this correction- ... man is not willing to do that which God demands in order to escape the condemnation of his nature.

Example: Your child disobeys you and as a result breaks both legs. Actually, to be more realistic, this should say, your child disobeys you so you break both of his legs, but anyway, you say to him, "if you want your legs to be fixed get up and walk to the hospital."

That's not possible!

Exactly!! That is why I in mercy and love would pick the child up and carry him to the hospital. Just as God picks up unworthy sinners and takes them where their disobedient hearts will not.

Will a child, aware of the physicians ability to heal him refuse to be carried to the hospital and follow instructions? No. Why? Because his will has been changed by a recognition of the costs of disobedience and his helplessness.

Moreover, God not only controls the means of salvation but the circumstances that will bring someone to a change of heart and will.

Why would you demand it if its not possible?

I wouldn't. I would do it for him. That does not mean however that I go around looking for every child with broken legs so that I can take them to the hospital.

And then how could you judge him for it
Son, you didn't get up and walk to the hospital like I told you so I'M going to torture you for eternity now. ABSURD!?

This is where your analogy really breaks down. Those in hell are not being punished for being in hell, they are being punished for sin. Likewise, the child would not be judged because his bones broke but because he was disobedient. He acted according to his natural attitude (disobedience) and received the consequences.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Again Larry, I would encourage you to make the choice. As far as I know, Calvinists do not claim that man has absolute free will but neither does God per the examples given above. We, like God, act with free will in accordance to our nature.

Semantics.

I know that no will is completely free. I can't fly on my own power because I don't have that ability. We are talking about the ability to accomplish that which God demands for the day of judgement, so please don't try to move the goal posts of your position with this type of rhetoric.</font>

I am not trying to move anything Bill. I believe what I believe for reasons, not semantics nor rhetoric. I am willing to accept that you have deduced your position logically- I simply disagree with you.

What I do find objectionable is the tactics you employ. It is dishonest to persistently mischaracterize the positions of others and put "words" in your opponents mouths (straw man).

 

[The Archangel]

Scott,

I enjoyed reading your post. I have tried to discuss things with Bill on many occassions. He is fun to debate. I'm sorry that Finals have kept me from participating this past week or so.

You wrote: It cuts the other way as well Bill. If man's free will, on the one hand, removes God's ability to accomplish that which, on the other hand, He purposed then God cease to be sovereign and any plan of salvation that He might offer is totally undependable.

It is amazing how many people want to define freedom as a libertarian freedom. It can be seen that this is not so!

I often wonder why the libertarian-free-will people don't rail against God for not giving them wings to fly. We obviously do not have the ability to fly--we are not free to do it (of course baring technology).

It is like the driver on a foggy mountain road in the middle of the night. The driver is not free to drive wherever he wants--THERE ARE GUARDRAILS.

Thank God that we have liberty and not freedom. Otherwise, we'd fly off the mountain, so to speak!

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[William C]

What plan Bill? If the free will of man supercedes God's plan then how can His plan be certain? If the preachers of the Great Awakening had chosen not to believe it would have reshaped all of human history. This is an obvious example but in fact if any believer had ever chosen differently it would have changed history to some degree. God is not subject to the whims of men.

This is what I'm talking about. You assume that God couldn't remain sovereign in accomplishing his ultimate plan at the same time man is free. That is a false assumption. God's sovereignty and man's free will are both clearly seen in scripture. To emphasize one at the expense of the other goes against the clear teaching of scripture. Can God not remain in control while men make real volitional choices by their own wills? If you say no, then you are saying that is impossible for God to accomplish something, thus claiming He is not all powerful.

The reason some are not saved is because it was not apart of God's plan to force love or worship from his creatures.

'...And the reason some people are never conceived is because it is not a part of God's plan to force the egg to receive the sperm. God ordains physical life and God ordains spiritual life.

I agree, but this doesn't address my point. God desires all to be saved as scripture clearly teaches, the reason some are not is because of their unwillingness, not God's. He longs for all to come to him and he provides the means by which they can do that but some are unwilling.

If this were His will why go to all the trouble of creation/sin/resurrection etc? Why not just make himself a line of rocks to love him and worship him?

[/qb]

Because the purpose of creation is God's glory, not the salvation of mankind. God gets the glory from His acts of mercy and His acts of justice.

Once again I agree. But how does God recieve the most glory? Through forcing certain individuals to love him? Or by allowing people to know him and choose to love and worship him?

God can change man's will but not to the point of accomplishing His perfect will and purpose?

God changes man's will by giving them knowledge of the truth through the gospel. The gospel convicts and enlightens the mind so that one can reason and count the costs of following the Savior. That is God's perfect will and purpose.

God has free will yet cannot deny Himself as it would be against His nature.

You assume that allowing man to chose salvation or reject it would be "deny Himself" and "against His nature."

He gave Adam the ability to choose. Was God denying Himself and going against His nature then? What if Adam chose not to sin? Oh no, God's whole plan would have been twarted! Not. God is sovereign but man still has free will to chose who he will follow.

Man has free will but will not exercise it to reconcile himself to God because it is not in accordance with his nature to do so.

I agree. If man were left alone he would not reconcile himself to God. But God didn't leave us alone. He sent Christ, the apostles, the Holy Spirit, and the gospel as the means to reconcile the world to himself. Can we respond to that? YES! If we couldn't, it would be quite meaniless to untilize these means.

Yes, even Calvinism is possible, just unsupported biblically.

Arminianism is not possible and is unsupported by the whole of scripture.

This statement shows you inability to deal with scripture objectively and honestly. It also shows that you don't believe God to be omnipotent. Nothing is impossible for God!

It cuts the other way as well Bill. If man's free will, on the one hand, removes God's ability to accomplish that which, on the other hand, He purposed then God cease to be sovereign and any plan of salvation that He might offer is totally undependable.

Its not the same. Let me explain why. Our free will doesn't demand anything of God nor does it judge God. God demands fallen men to repent and then judges them for their response. Free will doesn't demand God to be Sovereign and then judge Him if he doesn't. Free will doesn't enable or disable God's sovereignty as your analogy seems to infer. God is sovereign in and through our free will as he works all things together for good. This is seen in the garden and it is seen throughout creation.

Accurate with this correction- ... man is not willing to do that which God demands in order to escape the condemnation of his nature.

Actually you probably mean to say that man's unwillingness makes him unable, right? (More semantics, you know what I mean.)

Example: Your child disobeys you and as a result breaks both legs. Actually, to be more realistic, this should say, your child disobeys you so you break both of his legs, but anyway, you say to him, "if you want your legs to be fixed get up and walk to the hospital."

That's not possible!

Exactly!! That is why I in mercy and love would pick the child up and carry him to the hospital. Just as God picks up unworthy sinners and takes them where their disobedient hearts will not.

You missed the point of the analogy Scott. God looks at the mass of humanity and says to them, "Repent or you will perish," yet, according to you He doesn't grant them the ability to do that which he demands. In this analogy you switch the child from being a "non-elect" child to an "elect" one in order to avoid the difficulty of your position.

Go back and see the child as being non-elect. You say to him, "Get up and go to the hospital," and when He failes to do it, you condemn him to hell. Yet the next kid you tell the same thing but you pick him up and carry him. How is that just?

I know what your going to say. "We all deserve hell, it would be merciful it he just carried one." But that avoids the real issue here. The issue is that God is demanding the same thing of all people who are in a fallen condition and judging them based upon their response to that demand. If some are granted the ability to understand and respond while other are not, eventhough he demands the same thing from both then the incompletion of that demand itself cannot be justly judged. Man's not understanding would be grounds for injustice, for it would be giving man an excuse.

Why would you demand it if its not possible?

[/qb]

I wouldn't. I would do it for him.

Again, your switching the analogy to speak about an elect child rather than an non-elect one.

That does not mean however that I go around looking for every child with broken legs so that I can take them to the hospital.

You wouldn't? Scott, if you had the ability know of and carry every child with broken legs to the hospital you wouldn't do that? I find that hard to believe. Even pagans would do that.

And then how could you judge him for it
Son, you didn't get up and walk to the hospital like I told you so I'M going to torture you for eternity now. ABSURD!?

This is where your analogy really breaks down. Those in hell are not being punished for being in hell, they are being punished for sin. Likewise, the child would not be judged because his bones broke but because he was disobedient. He acted according to his natural attitude (disobedience) and received the consequences.

You don't get it. The reason the child was disobedient was because his legs were broken. Moreover, he wasn't able to do what was necessary to mend his legs because you didn't choose to carry him all the while you were saying to him, "Get up and walk or you'll be condemned."

What I do find objectionable is the tactics you employ. It is dishonest to persistently mischaracterize the positions of others and put "words" in your opponents mouths (straw man).

I say "unable" then you say, "no its unwilling" and you think that answers the argument because I've attacked a strawman. But the argument is the same regardless of what terms you select.

The verse Calvinist use most often to support the T of Tulip says, "No one can come to me unless the Father has ENABLED them." That sounds alot like ability to me. But, hey Scott, if you want to dance around the issues with semantics I understand, sometimes its the only way to avoid the hard questions.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Let us also remember that the Holy Spirit came to convict the world of sin, and that all men are drawn! God has chosen to use us as vessels whereby the gospel message can be proclaimed! Man has a choice what to do with that message, whether it is to choke it, to have the ravens pluck it up, or to dwell on it, accept it, and flourish! </font>[/QUOTE]Scott E.,

Please show me in scripture where it says that during the very week that or any week since Jesus Christ arose from the dead that all people everywhere in the world were/are "drawn to Him".

I presume you're going to answer John 12:32

How did that drawing take place during the week immediately following Jesus' resurrection?

What was its effect?

That would include the people in what we now know as China and even the natives here in North America.

And while you're at it, how did those folks who died in those same places the week before Christ died get a fair shake at Salvation?

It seems to me realistically that a lot of lost people must have died in history without it ever being possible for them to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now unless God granted them some sort of special pass that bypassed their free will to receive or reject the Gospel then you would have to say that God allowed them to go to hell.

I ask you - How is the end result any different from what Calvinists have claimed for years? That He saves some through election and others he permits to die in the lost condition they were born to.

 

[Hardsheller]

Scott J.

Thank you for your clear and incisive answers to all these questions.

I have been blessed by your insight.

Hardsheller

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
This is what I'm talking about. You assume that God couldn't remain sovereign in accomplishing his ultimate plan at the same time man is free. That is a false assumption.

No. This is in fact a false statement by you. What you seem to assume is that free will must be boundless in order to be free. As your own illustration about flying proves, everyone and everything is limited by their nature. I believe that man has free will within his nature. This does not violate God's sovereignty. I do not believe that man has the power to act outside of his nature no matter how much freedom he has.

One your point- you have the freedom at any time to start flapping your arms and fly away... but your nature disallows it.

On the point of salvation, man has the ability to discern the facts, say any required words, and go through all of the motions. What he does not have the power to do is to overcome his own sinful will. He requires a new nature and thus a new will in order to "fly" so to speak. The new will is the wings he never had before. It requires nothing less than a miracle directly from the hand of God to accomplish this change.


In a very real sense, I think Arminians discount the miraculous nature of salvation by humanizing it. It is a miracle performed by the Spirit of God that creates a new spiritual creature out of the old one.

God's sovereignty and man's free will are both clearly seen in scripture. To emphasize one at the expense of the other goes against the clear teaching of scripture.

And that is one major reason to reject your position. Regardless of what you say, your concept of free will violates God's sovereignty by granting man a power that even God does not have- the ability to employ his free will to overcome his nature.

But, hey Scott, if you want to dance around the issues with semantics I understand, sometimes its the only way to avoid the hard questions.

Bill, I never doubted your understanding of how to play word games and semantics.

The inability is a direct result of the unwillingness. Can a person hear and understand and even give intellectual assent to the facts of the gospel? Yes. Can they physically perform every act that a Christian engages in? Yes. But they will not do these things in Spirit and Truth unless God regenerates them thus it will not result in salvation.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Scott J:
What you seem to assume is that free will must be boundless in order to be free.

No I don't. As I have stated time and again, I am speaking about about man's ability to respond to God offer in the gospel. That is it! In regard to responding to God, is man free? I say yes, you say know. I don't think man's "freedom" is boundless just because he can reason and count the costs and decide if he is or is not going to follow Christ. BTW, the bible talks about man doing both of those.

I believe that man has free will within his nature. This does not violate God's sovereignty. I do not believe that man has the power to act outside of his nature no matter how much freedom he has.

What exactly is it about man's nature is it that makes him unable to do that which God calls and fully expects him to do in order to get out of that nature?

One your point- you have the freedom at any time to start flapping your arms and fly away... but your nature disallows it.

On the point of salvation, man has the ability to discern the facts, say any required words, and go through all of the motions. What he does not have the power to do is to overcome his own sinful will. He requires a new nature and thus a new will in order to "fly" so to speak. The new will is the wings he never had before. It requires nothing less than a miracle directly from the hand of God to accomplish this change.

I agree. Salvation is a miracle and we surely need a new nature, but the new nature is applied through faith.

In a very real sense, I think Arminians discount the miraculous nature of salvation by humanizing it.

Funny I though salvation had something to do with humans.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Please show me in scripture where it says that during the very week that or any week since Jesus Christ arose from the dead that all people everywhere in the world were/are "drawn to Him".

This didn't occur until the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was sent to convict the world of sin. Not just a certain number of people, but the world! I cannot say what happened in between - the BIble is silent there. We do know that Jesus Christ was the light who brought light to all men. The Bible is not silent in that regard.

That would include the people in what we now know as China and even the natives here in North America.

Yes. It would. If the Bible says that the world would be convicted of sin, it would seem that they were convicted of sin as well.

And while you're at it, how did those folks who died in those same places the week before Christ died get a fair shake at Salvation?

I would guess that God is a merciful God in this case, but again, the Bible is silent about what happened between the resurrection and Pentecost.

It seems to me realistically that a lot of lost people must have died in history without it ever being possible for them to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Quite true.

Now unless God granted them some sort of special pass that bypassed their free will to receive or reject the Gospel then you would have to say that God allowed them to go to hell.

Or that God allowed them to go to heaven. Why put God in a box?

I ask you - How is the end result any different from what Calvinists have claimed for years? That He saves some through election and others he permits to die in the lost condition they were born to.

Because you assume the conclusion.

This is an interesting quote:

God will hold those who never hear the gospel responsible for what they did with the light that they had in this world. Paul said of the pagans that God had revealed Himself to them in nature (Rom. 1:18-21) and in conscience (Rom. 2:12-16). They must give an account of what they did with this light and will be punished accordingly.

Sir Norman Anderson, a respected evangelical, has pointed out that some who never hear the gospel become conscious of their sinfulness, abandon all efforts to earn God's favor, and cry out for forgiveness. He contends that they are to be viewed in the same situation as most of the Old Testament believers who were saved by God's grace through faith even though they had only a vague concept of Christ. He writes, "The believing Jew was accepted and blessed not because of the prescribed animal sacrifices he offered, not even his repentance and abandonment to God's mercy, but because of what God Himself was going to do in His only Son at the cross of Calvary" (Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism,1984, p.153).

 

[Hardsheller]

Scott E.,

Your quote from Norman Anderson doesn't make any sense at all.

Arminians on this forum have consistently stated that the Gospel must be Preached in order for men to hear it and exercise their free will.

If God somehow zaps them with enough conviction for them to get to Heaven is that not a violation of their free will?

They certainly didn't ask to be convicted of their sin. This was an external act they had no control over.

Arminians and Calvinists on this forum have consistently agreed that there is only one way to Salvation - Jesus Christ - And that Faith in Christ either after or before regeneration was/is always evident in the life of the believer. How can they have faith in one whom they have never heard of? (Sounds almost like a verse I read somewhere)

To say that there are those who have never heard or been exposed to the gospel but who will be saved is belief in a passive form of election.

In my opinion the Silence of the Scriptures regarding all the lost masses of the world between Pentecost and the Missionary Expansion of the Church seems to enhance the Calvinistic view rather than the Arminian view.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Scott E.,

Your quote from Norman Anderson doesn't make any sense at all.

Because you couldn't follow it or what?

If God somehow zaps them with enough conviction for them to get to Heaven is that not a violation of their free will?

Forcing man to say yes or no is a violation. SImply showing the facts of sin is not. There's a big difference there.

They certainly didn't ask to be convicted of their sin. This was an external act they had no control over.

I may not be in control over someone asking me if I want pancakes or waffles for breakfast, but I still have the free will to choose one or the other.

Arminians and Calvinists on this forum have consistently agreed that there is only one way to Salvation - Jesus Christ - And that Faith in Christ either after or before regeneration was/is always evident in the life of the believer. How can they have faith in one whom they have never heard of? (Sounds almost like a verse I read somewhere)

Jesus Christ is still the answer to salvation, either way. But in the same way that Jesus Christ somehow sanctified those who believed in GOd in Old Testament times, is it not possible that God can do the same now? Is it possible that God, knowing that there will not be a person to share the gospel, can use the Holy Spirit to share the gospel? I think that there is.

To say that there are those who have never heard or been exposed to the gospel but who will be saved is belief in a passive form of election.

Not if God somehow enlightens their hearts and allows them to choose a faith in Him.

In my opinion the Silence of the Scriptures regarding all the lost masses of the world between Pentecost and the Missionary Expansion of the Church seems to enhance the Calvinistic view rather than the Arminian view.

Then you would say that those whom the gospel never reached all go to Hell?

 

[Hardsheller]

Scott E. You asked.

"Then you would say that those whom the gospel never reached all go to Hell? "

I would say that all those whom God has not elected go to Hell.

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:

would say that all those whom God has not elected go to Hell.

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

Amen.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
In regard to responding to God, is man free? I say yes, you say know.

No. Man is indeed free to consider God's offer... and he will always reject God's offer unless God changes him within.

I don't think man's "freedom" is boundless just because he can reason and count the costs and decide if he is or is not going to follow Christ.

So man is capable of doing something good that leads to his salvation- without which God is unable to save him? Reasoning, counting costs, and deciding are all works of the mind. People are paid salaries to do these things every day. If God is not able to save without these good works of man- Is God truly sovereign? Is man saved by grace or the works of his own mind?

BTW, the bible talks about man doing both of those.

Yes I know. This is a record of the effect, not the cause.

What exactly is it about man's nature is it that makes him unable to do that which God calls and fully expects him to do in order to get out of that nature?

His depraved, self-centered will. Absent the change of regeneration, man will always think he can save himself through some act of his own.

Salvation is a miracle and we surely need a new nature, but the new nature is applied through faith.

In John 3, Jesus compared it to natural birth. When one chooses to be born physically then you can make your point that he can choose to be born spiritually. As breathing comes natural to the new born, faith/repentance/salvation come natural to the spiritually new born.

Funny I though salvation had something to do with humans.

Yes. Humans are the object of it, not the performers of it.