Preaching the whole of scripture

[Iconoclast]

If you preach predestination to the lost, you'll lose way over half of them. They could be thinking, "Am I not one of the elect"? "Did Jesus really die for me"? "Was my sins atoned for on the cross"?, etc.

We need to preach that through Adam man fell. Man had nothing to redeem himself with. That Jesus came, took the sin of the world upon Himself, and died, so that whosever shall believe upon Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. You leave the message there, and see how many will understand what you preached.

Willis....that is the point this person was addressing in the article....

If you preach predestination to the lost, you'll lose way over half of them.

All are lost ,unless they get saved. Only lost sheep get found....lost goats remain lost in second death.

God tells us about predestination for a reason...it is His reason...so we should not object to what he has revealed.....we should make it known.

That Jesus came, took the sin of the world upon Himself

or the truth.....that Jesus died for a multitude of sinners worldwide...he took on Him the seed of Abraham....He died for whosoever, everyone who believes anywhere in the world

They could be thinking, "Am I not one of the elect"? "Did Jesus really die for me"? "Was my sins atoned for on the cross"?, etc.

Exactly Willis.....then they might even think......you said all that are given to Jesus.....will come.....and I have not come savingly yet....Lord have mercy on me ...the sinner...save me by your blood in mercy...could it be that you would even save me?{now that would be a good day, right there Willis!:thumbsup:[QUOTEYou leave the message there, and see how many will understand what you preached][/QUOTE]

or...we believe that they cannot believe unless quickened by the Spirit...so as we are declaring the truth to them we pray...asking the Lord to use the word of God we are offering for His Holy purposes:applause:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hos

you said;
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
1Cr 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
Those verses are in no way relevant to the statement made or posted by win...they don't contain any keywords whatsoever....
If you understand them...they do....lets look again.....The calvinist is already thankful that God has made Himself known as Lord and Saviour.His confidence comes from the covenant oath and promises given to all who will trust and obey, by a God given faith. Having the Spirit, he is now able to believe in the promises of God.1 cor2:14-15

"given to all who will trust and obey" is what I believe, but it is not Calvinism. It is GIVEN..PERIOD...and by fiat...the Result, is faith acc. Calvinism.
"Able" is not Calvinism, it is Arminianism.

Hos...what you miss here...and in other places....is that the Spirit allows the elect sheep to welcome and be a believing one everyone believing-jn3;16
Your whosoever....is my Everyone believing

I don't Miss it; I think it is putting the cart before the horse. I see this (taken alone of course) as a simple if>then conditional statement. Your view (if correct) complicates it as merely a factual statement of something which has already occured, it becomes an historical fact. This requires some evidence, otherwise it seems a case of "special pleading". I also bolded "ALLOWS" that, is I think, not an accurate representation of Calvinism, it is a more accurate representation of what I believe, but allow is not entirely appropriate given Calvinism.

everyone believing-jn3;16
Your whosoever....is my Everyone believing
Saving faith and the ability to do so comes from the Spirit directly....so in my response I pointed him to the word of God,and the covenant promise itself as the basis of our seeking assurance.not looking to our :"inner child"...or anything we do, or do not do, .The Spirit is given so that we can begin as new born babes to desire the sincere milk of the word. the non elect cannot do so.

I understand where you are coming from, although I would be more than happy for you to elaborate, and this view is perfectly coherent and consistent. Again, though, I do not think that this is the obvious way to understand Scripture. It is a "special pleading". In other words, yours is a perfectly possible explanation of the Scriptural teaching, but without a previous presupposed Calvinism, well, you are jockeying against the more obvious explanation and for more complicated one...It is "special pleading". I bolded "inner child" because I have no idea where this came from.

I know you understand total depravity and mans complete inability as you have repeated that these understandings are not unique to calvinism So iot was not---keywords--- to be searching for...it was the big picture in view

Fair enough, I realize that simple "keywords" are insufficient (of themselves)to establish the appropriate application of those verses, I was suggesting that the verses I pointed to DID posses them, and were thus more DIRECTLY relevant, or more obviously so. Thus, I was suggesting that you were engaged in "special pleading" in order to make them fit.

I come from an assumption that God has not made the fundamentals of the Scripture a difficult or complicated thing to understand. No doubt, the deeper things of the Scriptures, due to their inexhaustible depth can go on and on...but the basic understanding of the gospel as taught in the Scriptures is not hidden in complicated metaphor, but rather obvious to all who seek in Spirit and Truth.

Non elect persons do not have desires for humility or believing prayer. They might have a religion that is based on their own thoughts, rather than God's

No, but neither do the "elect" at ground zero, it requires some time in the process of sanctification for motives such as these to be realized. These are not requirements for salvation...they are not the basic "gospel". The sinner, at the point that he comes to Christ no more exhibits these motives than the damned.

 

[webdog]

[/B]



1] you should have questioned the first statement as we know that God loves sinners in Christ.....savingly....he is angry the wicked everyday.
The love of God is In Christ.

2] unless you believe that God loves those in hell forever....you have a massive contradiction on your hands. Saying it is all up to the sinner ,and God has done all that he can....does not change what God does, or does not do...he changes not.....so how do you reconcile your own 2] quote with the fact that Jesus will send multitudes to hell on the last day?

1. Instead of questioning the statement I dug into Scripture to research God's love. It contradicted the reformed / calvinist view.

2. I do believe God loves those in Hell forever, so no contradiction. If I were a judge and my son committed a murder...and I was on the bench judging him based on his actions, would I love him any less after I sentenced him to death? Of course not. It would pain me to do so, but I would never hate him. Actually the view you propose of God hating those He withstood His atonement from and the ability to accept Him while judging them for just that is so far off kilter it was an easy decision recanting my view. I instead now embrace God's love AND righteousness...not His love OR His righteousness. I would suggest you do the same :thumbs:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Icon,

Do you ever get tired of correcting the misapplication, misdirection, and misappropriation of Scriptures by those who argue against the Calvinistic view?

This pre-supposes he is correct. Why not ask Skandelon if he tires of correcting mis-understandings and mis-applications of Arminian Theology. You act as though you are speaking (in the third person) about uninformed retards who have never considered these topics before. I could pick apart Icon's post there, and he would also have a rejoinder for it, and on and on. He would pick apart my rejoinder, I could pick apart his. Allow me to submit this to you, despite my disagreement with Icon, I can at least aknowledge these types of things:

I understand where you are coming from, although I would be more than happy for you to elaborate, and this view is perfectly coherent and consistent.

Have you ever been capable of understanding not only the tenents of, but indeed the MERITS of another point of view? It is the Merits and strengths of an opposing point of view that one needs to reasonably consider and debate them. Please post a quote of yours where you were able to distinguish the merits of the Arminian point of view.

That being said, Icon's post is not accurate, It is full of conditional statements that Calvinists deny are in fact conditional statements. Read them more closely next time.

 

[agedman]

2. I do believe God loves those in Hell forever, so no contradiction.

Would you give Scriptures for this belief?

If I were a judge and my son committed a murder...and I was on the bench judging him based on his actions, would I love him any less after I sentenced him to death? Of course not. It would pain me to do so, but I would never hate him. Actually the view you propose of God hating those He withstood His atonement from and the ability to accept Him while judging them for just that is so far off kilter it was an easy decision recanting my view. I instead now embrace God's love AND righteousness...not His love OR His righteousness. I would suggest you do the same :thumbs:

This is assuming that those in hell are actually "His son."

That is not the case.

Jesus states, "I never knew you."

Your illustration is based upon an relationship that does not exist between the unregenerate humankind and God.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

unless you believe that God loves those in hell forever....

WOW!! really?? I guess I don't understand Calvinism as much as I thought then. Yes, he loves them, and it in fact grieves him that men choose damnation over eternal fellowship with a loving God. Are there no passages in Scripture which express how grieved God is at the damnation of the wicked? Perfect Justice....ergo sin must be punished...perfect Love...in that Jesus was willing to satisfy the conditions to allow the guilty sinner to go free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NiCaXyU4eM

Can a Cal not write a song like this and remain theologically consistent?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Would you give Scriptures for this belief?
This is assuming that those in hell are actually "His son."
That is not the case.
Jesus states, "I never knew you."
Your illustration is based upon an relationship that does not exist between the unregenerate humankind and God.

Well, at least we have honesty folks...perish the thought, that Calvinism teaches that "God Loves You!" God in fact loves...the elect....whether or not you are one of those is, well, for him to know...and you to find out on judgement day. I will say this aged.....your theology is consistent. [snipped by administrator]
"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Ezekiel 23:11)
This may be...the only question I am aware of in the Scriptures, that God simply does not know the answer to. And it hurts him.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon,

Do you ever get tired of correcting the misapplication, misdirection, and misappropriation of Scriptures by those who argue against the Calvinistic view?

Sometimes.....those are the posts where i snap out a bit..:smilewinkgrin:

The thing is.....we are all learning...so I try to remove obstacles because these God given truths are for our comfort and edification. Some resist...but they hurt themselves...not me.

23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

They oppose themselves....and notice ...;

if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth

Truth is given or witheld by God...as we recently posted....it is not inherent in man. As far as the gentle and patient...it is easier if someone is not trying to stab you in the back as you do it...or poke your eye out:thumbsup:

Also...in a forum like this...there are many who do not post...but just like to read and learn...so putting forth the word over and over can be useful.
some who look at the posts are not yet saved...so you never know where God will prosper His word....

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Once in awhile.....even those who oppose....have a good point or maybe a verse that is helpful. Being they resist it also causes us to keep sharp.

 

[agedman]

This pre-supposes he is correct.

Of course.

Why not ask Skandelon if he tires of correcting mis-understandings and mis-applications of Arminian Theology.

Perhaps one day I might, but that wasn't who I posted at this point in time.

You act as though you are speaking (in the third person) about uninformed retards who have never considered these topics before.

I made no such assumption in my mind nor in the post. However, you seem to have taken offense when none was meant. Perhaps not in your case, but usually such offense might generate from a prideful condition of what Paul would refer to as "knowledge puffed up."

I could pick apart Icon's post there, and he would also have a rejoinder for it, and on and on. He would pick apart my rejoinder, I could pick apart his. Allow me to submit this to you, despite my disagreement with Icon, I can at least aknowledge these types of things:

Acknowledgement does not mean acceptance. If Icon, you, or anyone else is to view the Scriptures as authoritative, then there must be a move to acceptance of even that which might be unpalatable to human thinking.

For instance: Because John, in the Revelation, records that the names in the book of life were written before the foundations of the world, then it follows that they were in fact written at that time. They were not written as some other time of "human" history. As Winman pointed out, there is no record of names have been added to the book of life.

Therefore, though unpalatable as it may be, truth of Scriptures present a view that Icon agrees and some would argue against because they don't like the taste.

Have you ever been capable of understanding not only the tenents of, but indeed the MERITS of another point of view?

Two answers:

First, yes - because I am human and still have the mind of human understanding which is limited and self serving.

Second, no - because the "merits" of views that are not Scripturally sound have no merits in which to value.

It is the Merits and strengths of an opposing point of view that one needs to reasonably consider and debate them. Please post a quote of yours where you were able to distinguish the merits of the Arminian point of view.

Why should I do that?

Why would I post what I consider has no "merits or strength?"

The ultimate end of such a view is that man has some kind of innate capability that the Scriptures do not warrant. When the Scriptures plainly state, "No man..." it doesn't fudge with "every man is given a void that only God can fill." When the Scriptures state, "My sheep hear My voice..." it doesn't fudge with "you are given multiple kinds of grace from God."

That being said, Icon's post is not accurate, It is full of conditional statements that Calvinists deny are in fact conditional statements. Read them more closely next time.

Calvinists are in denial.

Which group denies that man is totally depraved but touts that each person has ability by their own volition to "come to Christ" and be saved?

Which group denies a limited atonement but still limits atonement.

Which group denies the ultimate perseverance of the saved and makes salvation conditional upon man keeping some man generated walk.

Which group denies that faith is the grace of God measured to all who will be saved, but make faith as a human generated trust in which to curry favor with God.

Calvinists are in denial???

 

[convicted1]

Agreed...that is why our doctrine is the only one where we can truthfully approach the lost with the true "Good News" without an asterisk attached.

The Gospel is not as complex as some make it out to be. Sure, the Holy Ghost must lead them, and show them what they must do to be saved. But the Gospel is not complex.

Acts 8:26-39

26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.



Philip preached Jesus to this Eunuch, and when he confessed Jesus(as Philip told him he must do), he baptized him.



Romans 10:9-15
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!



On either side of the debate, both sides believes the unbeliever must believe in order to be saved.



John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

 

[freeatlast]

Allow me....as Icon is not here:








This Could be you!! Examine your self Winman....and see if you indeed are in the Faith.....Lest happly you be found to fight even against God!

I am always here to humbly instruct anyone who sincerely wants to learn :thumbs:

The bible says the way to know is IF we keep the commandments.
1John 2:3
And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.

 

[webdog]

Would you give Scriptures for this belief?

John 3:16 comes to mind first, along with Romans 5:8

This is assuming that those in hell are actually "His son."

That is not the case.

Jesus states, "I never knew you."

Your illustration is based upon an relationship that does not exist between the unregenerate humankind and God.

Who is assuming those in Hell are His "sons" Certainly not I! You took my analogy someplace not intended, as all imperfect analogies seem to end up.

Let me see...Jesus commands US to love even our own enemies which He describes as a "perfect" love...yet He loves His enemies imperfectly?

Ok.

 

[Iconoclast]

1. Instead of questioning the statement I dug into Scripture to research God's love. It contradicted the reformed / calvinist view.

2. I do believe God loves those in Hell forever, so no contradiction. If I were a judge and my son committed a murder...and I was on the bench judging him based on his actions, would I love him any less after I sentenced him to death? Of course not. It would pain me to do so, but I would never hate him. Actually the view you propose of God hating those He withstood His atonement from and the ability to accept Him while judging them for just that is so far off kilter it was an easy decision recanting my view. I instead now embrace God's love AND righteousness...not His love OR His righteousness. I would suggest you do the same :thumbs:

WD,
Thanks for being honest in your post and owning what you believe at this time.

I instead now embrace God's love AND righteousness...not His love OR His righteousness. I would suggest you do the same :thumbs

Well I believe that the Love of God is In His Son.God's puts this love in our hearts. I do not believe that God loves those in hell. I believe we can know this from psalm 22....that Jesus cried out....why hast thou forsaken me...

The scriptures in the Nt are clear that the love of God is In Christ...as far as I can tell....

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.


The unsaved do not have this....

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


We are to speak the truth in love...and to show love to our enemies.....but that is the goodness of God being expressed to them. it is temporal like any common grace blessing that is common to all men.

 

[thomas15]

Well, at least we have honesty folks...perish the thought, that Calvinism teaches that "God Loves You!" God in fact loves...the elect....whether or not you are one of those is, well, for him to know...and you to find out on judgement day. I will say this aged.....your theology is consistent. Hateful maybe, and completely at odds with the loving God of the Scriptures, but consistent.

Iconoclast and agedman do not have a comprehensive Biblical understanding of the D0G and the doctrine of predestination/election coupled with a true working definition of the all-knowing feature of Jehovah. Using those terms in a sentence does not mean you know and understand them. Their faith is in the abundance of great thinkers that espouse what they think are their own views.

But even the Arminians amoung us don't have the understanding of these concepts as well. While I tend more towards the calvanistic view of things, I think that calvanists spend too much time worrying about who is among us elect and not enough time and effort making disciples for Christ.

Many (Calvanists) assume, incorrectly in my opinion that since they are of the elect, they have a special ability (that the Arminian believer doesn't have) to see in the Bible concepts that are not in the Bible. I refer to covenant/replacement theology. To the covenant believer, Jehovah is ready willing and able to break his promises to the sons of Abraham through Isaac through Jacob and give that which is promised to others. As kids we used to say "Indian Giver' to someone who gives something to someone, then takes it back and gives it to another.

 

[agedman]

WOW!! really?? I guess I don't understand Calvinism as much as I thought then. Yes, he loves them, and it in fact grieves him that men choose damnation over eternal fellowship with a loving God. Are there no passages in Scripture which express how grieved God is at the damnation of the wicked? Perfect Justice....ergo sin must be punished...perfect Love...in that Jesus was willing to satisfy the conditions to allow the guilty sinner to go free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NiCaXyU4eM

Can a Cal not write a song like this and remain theologically consistent?

You back your view with no Scriptures!!!!

I didn't state God is not grieved nor Christ weep over humankind.

For you to consider that for eternity this is God's view will need more than just a feel good song in which the mercy of God is sung and is not a statement of support of a specific doctrinal view.

BTW, one could hold a Calvinistic view and write this type of song; it would fit nicely into the Calvinistic thinking.

Consider the songs of Issac Watts:

Alas! and did my Savior bleed,
and did my Sovereign die!
Would he devote that sacred head
for sinners such as I?​

 

[agedman]

Well, at least we have honesty folks...perish the thought, that Calvinism teaches that "God Loves You!" God in fact loves...the elect....whether or not you are one of those is, well, for him to know...and you to find out on judgement day. I will say this aged.....your theology is consistent. Hateful maybe, and completely at odds with the loving God of the Scriptures, but consistent.

"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Ezekiel 23:11)
This may be...the only question I am aware of in the Scriptures, that God simply does not know the answer to. And it hurts him.

BUT with all that you posted, it did not prove by Scriptures that God loves those in hell.

You are assuming that because God does not "take pleasure in the death of the wicked" that He extends His unconditional love to those in hell.

Prove that is true by Scriptures.

So far, you haven't.

The Scriptures state:

Psalms 5:4-6 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. ​

 

[webdog]

BUT with all that you posted, it did not prove by Scriptures that God loves those in hell.

You are assuming that because God does not "take pleasure in the death of the wicked" that He extends His unconditional love to those in hell.

Prove that is true by Scriptures.

So far, you haven't.

The Scriptures state:

Psalms 5:4-6 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. ​

Why some take poetic, figurative Psalms literally...I cannot understand.

Do you also consistently take the rest of Psalm 5 literally?

 

[webdog]

WD,
Thanks for being honest in your post and owning what you believe at this time.

This time...I own what I believe all of the time

Well I believe that the Love of God is In His Son.God's puts this love in our hearts. I do not believe that God loves those in hell. I believe we can know this from psalm 22....that Jesus cried out....why hast thou forsaken me...

It was God's love that sent His Son and for the Son to lay His life down for man.

The scriptures in the Nt are clear that the love of God is In Christ...as far as I can tell....

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.


The unsaved do not have this....

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


We are to speak the truth in love...and to show love to our enemies.....but that is the goodness of God being expressed to them. it is temporal like any common grace blessing that is common to all men.

I don't see how this proves that God loves only believers, only that God has a special love for believers in the same way there is a special love within the Godhead.

 

[Iconoclast]

Of course.



Perhaps one day I might, but that wasn't who I posted at this point in time.



I made no such assumption in my mind nor in the post. However, you seem to have taken offense when none was meant. Perhaps not in your case, but usually such offense might generate from a prideful condition of what Paul would refer to as "knowledge puffed up."




Acknowledgement does not mean acceptance. If Icon, you, or anyone else is to view the Scriptures as authoritative, then there must be a move to acceptance of even that which might be unpalatable to human thinking.

For instance: Because John, in the Revelation, records that the names in the book of life were written before the foundations of the world, then it follows that they were in fact written at that time. They were not written as some other time of "human" history. As Winman pointed out, there is no record of names have been added to the book of life.

Therefore, though unpalatable as it may be, truth of Scriptures present a view that Icon agrees and some would argue against because they don't like the taste.





Two answers:

First, yes - because I am human and still have the mind of human understanding which is limited and self serving.

Second, no - because the "merits" of views that are not Scripturally sound have no merits in which to value.





Why should I do that?

Why would I post what I consider has no "merits or strength?"

The ultimate end of such a view is that man has some kind of innate capability that the Scriptures do not warrant. When the Scriptures plainly state, "No man..." it doesn't fudge with "every man is given a void that only God can fill." When the Scriptures state, "My sheep hear My voice..." it doesn't fudge with "you are given multiple kinds of grace from God."




Calvinists are in denial.

Which group denies that man is totally depraved but touts that each person has ability by their own volition to "come to Christ" and be saved?

Which group denies a limited atonement but still limits atonement.

Which group denies the ultimate perseverance of the saved and makes salvation conditional upon man keeping some man generated walk.

Which group denies that faith is the grace of God measured to all who will be saved, but make faith as a human generated trust in which to curry favor with God.

Calvinists are in denial???

Very positive and helpful post:thumbsup::flower::thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I will be polite, as I feel that, if you bother to listen or consider these will be appropriate and also informative answers to last portion of your last post. I will not attempt (at this time) to answer the previous portions. I will answer from a Classical Arminian perspective your questions...albeit, I harbour no illusions that you are asking them without a belief that you already know the answers:

Which group denies that man is totally depraved

neither side does

but touts that each person has ability by their own volition to "come to Christ" and be saved?

Neither view does, Arminianism does not contend that any natural man has any desire or ability to come to Christ or to choose of their own ability.

Which group denies a limited atonement but still limits atonement.

You will dislike this, but Arminianism denies Limited Atonement and believes that the application of the Atonement is limited to those who accept. Others could describe this more clearly than I could.

Which group denies the ultimate perseverance of the saved and makes salvation conditional upon man keeping some man generated walk.

Again, I know you don't believe this but, neither side does...Arminianism is not a rejection of Perseverance....I believe in Perseverance wholeheartedly, and I am a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians myself. I am also a Molinist, which pre-supposes Perseverance, someone has lied to you about Arminian belief, and you aren't aware of it.

You are not merely ignorant of the MERITS of the alternative view, you are also obviously ignorant of the CONTENT of the alternative view.

Which group denies that faith is the grace of God measured to all who will be saved, but make faith as a human generated trust in which to curry favor with God.

This sentence was hard to understand, but I will break it down into two parts. Here goes:

Which group denies that faith is the grace of God measured to all who will be saved,

Probably both sides, in that "Faith" and "Grace" are simply not the same word, and they do not carry the same meaning. This sentence is akin to saying: "Which group denies that "faith" is "grace"?

The answer is: both sides

and makes salvation conditional upon man keeping some man generated walk.

Again, neither side. There are Arminians who believe that one may freely choose to abandon their faith and become apostates, and I will leave it to them to justify why they believe that, as that is not something I believe and it is also not something inherently germaine to Arminianism. I can't conscience it myself....but I do know this: It has nothing whatsoever to do with a "man generated walk"

Calvinists are in denial???

Of the conditionality of certain statements in the Scriptures, yes. One cannot even explain what a "Conditional Statement" is to Icon, without him immediately bloviating about "vain-man-centered philosophy" and whatnot. As he appears to not care to distinguish between them, but rejects them out of hand. Mind you, he uses them, but he acts, and I think you do as well, as though they are not conditional statements, and rather consigns to them a mere ancillary meaning about an historical fact.