"No Conditions?"

[TCGreek]

I didn't ask anybody to debate an analogy, I asked a question. You guys sure go through quite a bit to not answer a question, eh? :BangHead:

"The rest of us see right through your lame analogies." Npetreley. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

 

[webdog]

"The rest of us see right through your lame analogies." Npetreley. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

I know...when the truth is seen through something, it's better to just suppress it, attack it and the person.

 

[TCGreek]

I know...when the truth is seen through something, it's better to just suppress it, attack it and the person.

Webdog,

I don't think we are attacking you. What gave you that impression?

 

[npetreley]

While I'm not "evangelical arminian"...I will say this:

If I cut down a tree with the saw I already possess...or you give me a saw to cut down a tree...does the act of cutting down the tree, or the saw ever change?

This is the question. It's about an analogy.

If faith is a "work" if man already possess the ability to have it...or whether it's given...it remains the same either way. Faith is faith. If it's a work in ones view...it must be a work in the other's view.

This is not a question, but it starts with a false premise. "If faith is a work". It is not a work. So the rest of your statement is based on a falsehood.

The only sense in which faith is associated with work is that God works it in us.

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

God works in us to believe. We don't work. It is the work of God.

See? Scripture. No analogies.

 

[webdog]

Webdog,

I don't think we are attacking you. What gave you that impression?

Maybe being called lazy?

 

[webdog]

This is not a question, but it starts with a false premise. "If faith is a work". It is not a work. So the rest of your statement is based on a falsehood.

I started with the false premise RB started with. I agree it's false...but I get real tired of hearing if faith came from within man, their (non cal's) faith would be a work.

I already addressed that Scripture, btw...without using an analogy.

 

[skypair]

The text does not say this. This is the problem with arminian election. It is an insertaion into the text. It does not say they were foreknown that they would believe, repent, et. It says they were foreknown.

Even Sproul admits that the passage is ONLY speaking about believers. Therefore, it is no "insertion" to say that He foreknew who would believe. It is the very CONTEXT of the discourse.

I am not by any means glorified. I will not be until I die and see Jesus. But its certainty is unquestionable.

You don't understand scripture then, RB. 1Cor 15 shows us that we are "terrestrially" glorified by the indwelling Spirit. In John 17:22, Jesus professes to have given us His glory! Do you doubt it still?

God foreknowing is not a problem for me. Of course He would know ahead of time whom He would choose, predestine, justify, sanctify and glorify.

He doesn't have to know "whom He would choose" if He knows who would choose Him, right? Then He could choose/predestine them to election -- to any of the spiritual "gifts" (1Cor 12:7-11) and to "gift" ministries to 1Cor 12:28.

It does not say God knows who will believe and on that account blesses them. It says the exact opposite in fact. Their election is based on God's good pleasure and will. Nothing more. God's foreknowledge, election, and predestination is the reason men repent and believe. In other words, they believe because they are elect. They are not elect because they believe.

See, this last tells me that you believe the exact thing you accuse me of believing --- that we believe because we work not work because we believe.

The problem is, to you "election" is salvation -- to me, "election" is works that God has the saved do.

We are chosen not because of anything in us (either repentence on our own, faith on our own, contrition on our own, et.) but because God willed to do so. He willed to do so because it seemed good to Him to do it. Therefore it is all of grace. This is exactly what the Scriptures teach and robs man of all the glory of his salvation.

So God "willed to do so" and our repentance and contrition are merely obedience of a saved person. Is that it? We just wake up one morning and know we are saved -- we go to church and Viola! -- they are teaching that very thing! So the pastor says "I invite you to give your life to Christ" and you do it cause you ARE "elect," after all. "I'm saved already," you say, "so I must be about the works of my Father." And so it is "work, work, work" to prove your "election" and "calling" are sure. Lovely!

Q: Where'd you ever repent from self to God? Where'd you receive the gift of salvation? of the indwelling Spirit?

If this doesn't sound like you, maybe that ISN'T the way you were saved, right? Maybe there was more to the event on your side than you are willing to admit now. Sorry, RB. I'm getting burned out with this kind of nonsense. Let's keep our testimonies simple and according to the gospel, 1Cor 15:1-4, Acts 2:38, etal. Let's not remake the foundations of faith in Christ and forgiveness of sin, (Heb 6) but strive to grow forward from there.

skypair

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

The text does not say this. This is the problem with arminian election....It is impossible for them not to come, either in the evangelical arminian scheme or the calvinist.

I recommend reading and tutoring outside of the fractional camp of Calvinists and/or exclusive Reformed thinkers that have lead you to practice referring to non-calvinists as arminian. It appears you have been theological reduced to believing there are only two possible camps, arminian or calvinistic. Even if you wish to hold to Calvinism/Reformed Theology, this approach to non-Calvinistic theology will bring injury to yourself over the long haul.

There are some good thoughtful resources within the Calvinist/Reformed camps that refrain from such oversimplifications in their writings and dialogues and I encourage you to consider their influence.

We are chosen not because of anything in us (either repentence on our own, faith on our own, contrition on our own, et.) but because God willed to do so. He willed to do so because it seemed good to Him to do it. Therefore it is all of grace. This is exactly what the Scriptures teach and robs man of all the glory of his salvation.

(My emphasis)

I have never discovered an adequate explanation (I have read and heard many attempts to respond) that can effectively make the case for the claim that man responding to the gospel somehow ROBS GOD of His glory in salvation.

This ideology is based on the erroneous belief that in some way God either loses some aspect of his Sovereignty or Omnipotence if the gift of salvation is in any way received or responded to by man in any volitional capacity.

The problem is, though the "SPIRITUAL" emanates from God he CONSISTENTLY and repeatedly, throughout Scripture, leaves its use and benefit in our hands.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved"

"Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind"

"Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess but but ye filled with the Spirit"

Hey let's take that last one. "Be ye filled with the Spirit". Now obviously NNE is going to be filled (i.e. controlled or yielded) with the Spirit unless what? They make the choice to acquiesce to His presence and work. Demonstratively in Scripture we see this being done through walking in the light as He is in the light. Not walking according to the flesh.

While this Spiritual phenomenon known as "being filled with the Spirit" cannot be accomplished through HUMAN RIGHTEOUSNESS (a work that attempts to merit the filling of the Spirit), it still involved HUMAN CHOICE. If I do not choose to be filled then I will not be. I will then be choosing to walk in the flesh.

Is God ROBBED of His Glory because whether I am filled or not is contingent upon MY making that choice to yield? Of course not and do not misunderstand me. The actual filling of the Spirit is God's doing but it is CONTINGENT upon my yielding ("be ye filled" is present passive meaning "allow yourself to be filled" hence where yieldedness is drawn).

In fact I submit that Calvinism is what robs God of His glory. God's glory is the offering of salvation to ALL mankind and the propitiation of salvation by Christ for all men so that those humans, from Adam onward, REGARDLESS of the severity of their sinfulness and their undeserving state, had, have and will have available to them the gracious, merciful and eternal offer of salvation. That is God's glory.

It is quite clear in not just the three verses I noted and the one I focused upon but throughout Scripture, God's glory is never robbed in any capacity because it includes by Divine design the volition of humanity to accomplish His work. My belief is that this limited and short-sighted view of Calvinism is ultimately based upon those who attempt to understand the entirety of Divine Sovereignty and impose upon it their human limitations.

 

[npetreley]

Maybe being called lazy?

Sorry, but it's true. Analogies are an intellectually lazy way of "proving" a scriptural point. Use scripture, not analogies.

Don't take the word "lazy" so personally. I'm lazy. It's my middle name (or one of thousands).

 

[webdog]

Sorry, but it's true. Analogies are an intellectually lazy way of "proving" a scriptural point. Use scripture, not analogies.

Don't take the word "lazy" so personally. I'm lazy. It's my middle name (or one of thousands).

I will say again...Jesus used analogies, and I would hardly refer to Him as being "lazy", or it being a "lazy" way to prove a scriptural point. BTW, my analogy wasn't in response to a scriptural point, but the calvinistic man made argument that if faith came from within man...it would be a work.

I can be lazy...but I'm not a lazy person. If I was lazy, I would have just submitted to calvinism instead or doing my due diligence.

 

[npetreley]

I will say again...Jesus used analogies, and I would hardly refer to Him as being "lazy", or it being a "lazy" way to prove a scriptural point.

And I will say again, that Jesus IS the truth. You aren't.

I will add that Jesus often used analogies to OBSCURE/HIDE the truth to some of His listeners. Analogies are so easily twisted to mean different things that they are perfect for this purpose (obscuring the meaning).

 

[webdog]

I will also say again...ANYONE can use an analogy, and my analogy was not twisted to hide anything. It was so simple, a kindergartner could answer it. That's probably why it was ignored and ridiculed.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I didn't ask anybody to debate an analogy, I asked a question. You guys sure go through quite a bit to not answer a question, eh? :BangHead:

Not at all. WHat I see others asking for is biblical truth, not human illustrations. nothing wrong with them, but an human illustration is not going to convince me of doctrine--Scripture will.

I avoided the analogy to get the point. Do you or others actually believe that you cooperate with God in being born again/justified?

 

[webdog]

Why would I answer your question if you avoid mine?

Define "biblical truth". We both use the same Scritpure, but disagree on the application. Jesus used both Scripture and analogies. If you guys want to avoid that plain fact, well, that's on you guys.

If I recall, you guys use plenty of analogies (log floating down a river...corpses can't choose anything, etc.)

 

[npetreley]

I will also say again...ANYONE can use an analogy, and my analogy was not twisted to hide anything. It was so simple, a kindergartner could answer it. That's probably why it was ignored and ridiculed.

I don't think you deliberately twist your analogies. You simply cherry-pick analogies to suit your conclusion. That's natural. You see it that way, so you concoct an analogy that represents how you see it.

But that's what's wrong with analogies. USE SCRIPTURE. Scripture wasn't written to suit your conclusion, so the worst you can do is misinterpret it -- but that is what makes for a real debate. Let's debate about whether or not your interpretation is correct, not about whether you picked a suitable analogy.

You're not only lazy, you're incredibly stubborn. We can show you scripture that contradicts what you say ("chosen TO salvation") and you just won't admit you were wrong. That's yet another reason I will NOT discuss analogies with you. If you have such a hard time facing the truth of scripture, what chance is there we can discuss anything in terms of analogies?

Final statement and then I'm done with this: Use scripture. That I will discuss. Hawk your lame analogies and you can do it without me.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Why would I answer your question if you avoid mine?

Define "biblical truth". We both use the same Scritpure, but disagree on the application. Jesus used both Scripture and analogies. If you guys want to avoid that plain fact, well, that's on you guys.

If I recall, you guys use plenty of analogies (log floating down a river...corpses can't choose anything, etc.)

Oh well. I will wait for Scripture support for the point your tried to make.

 

[webdog]

I don't think you deliberately twist your analogies. You simply cherry-pick analogies to suit your conclusion. That's natural. You see it that way, so you concoct an analogy that represents how you see it.

But that's what's wrong with analogies. USE SCRIPTURE. Scripture wasn't written to suit your conclusion, so the worst you can do is misinterpret it -- but that is what makes for a real debate. Let's debate about whether or not your interpretation is correct, not about whether you picked a suitable analogy.

You're not only lazy, you're incredibly stubborn. We can show you scripture that contradicts what you say ("chosen TO salvation") and you just won't admit you were wrong. That's yet another reason I will NOT discuss analogies with you. If you have such a hard time facing the truth of scripture, what chance is there we can discuss anything in terms of analogies?

Final statement and then I'm done with this: Use scripture. That I will discuss. Hawk your lame analogies and you can do it without me.

You are right...I am stubborn. I also don't take half verses lightly ("chosen to salvation"...how...through)

 

[webdog]

Oh well. I will wait for Scripture support for the point your tried to make.

"faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the Word of God"

Faith is faith. There is no magical 'saving faith' given to the elect to use. That is fiction.

I think you know that point I was trying to make based on your false notion, but will not admit it. Whether faith is given, or if all men have it, it is the same thing.

 

[skypair]

Does faith originate from the human heart or from God?

God.

Does it arise from the unregenerate and on account of that God chooses them?

False dichotomy. It arises in response to those who choose Christ.

Or does God choose them and on account of His choice people will be believe,...

If God wills that ALL come to repentance, then ALL would believe. That is not the case, is it. The "equation" calls for belief on MAN'S part, too.

skypair

 

[skypair]

In fact I submit that Calvinism is what robs God of His glory. God's glory is the offering of salvation to ALL mankind and the propitiation of salvation by Christ for all men so that those humans, from Adam onward, REGARDLESS of the severity of their sinfulness and their undeserving state, had, have and will have available to them the gracious, merciful and eternal offer of salvation. That is God's glory.

I think you are on to something here. The name of "Christian" is given to us to God's glory --- but it is only WE who have been "espoused" to Him who can have that "glory." We who have actually said "I do" to God's invitation.

Calvinism, by contrast, eschews any "glory" and even denies saying "I do." That would be "works," right? This is all very disturbing when considered in the context of marriage imagery per Eph 5:32. Does this speak to them "lvining unwed with" God?

skypair