Prevenient Grace

LOL! You say "strawman" and then erect your own in response.

If you're rich because you accepted a gift, and another person is poor because he refused the same gift, then the REASON you are rich and he is poor is because of the decisions you made. The riches came from the gift-giver. But you wouldn't have those riches if you hadn't made the "right" decision. You are the hinge and turning point of your own wealth.

 

Strawman? What does a person who accepts a gift add to it?

 

Why does he have to add to it in order to take credit for making the right decision by accepting it?

 

I'm sorry, but the "turning point" of wealth occured when the giver decided to give the gift. It makes no difference if someone accepts or rejects a gift if the giver never decides to give it. The "hinge" is the decision to offer the gift or not. The acceptance of the gift is not the hinge or "turning point".

 

Oh really? The gift is offered equally to two people, yet only one of them is rich. Why is that?

Free-willers love to talk about how it's the poor person's own fault if they reject the gift. But point out that it's to their own credit that they accepted it, and they dance like banshees around the topic.

 

The "deciding factor" in whether or not someone is saved is the person's decision. Every non-Cal agrees with this. Man, not God, has the final say in being saved. It cannot get any simpler than that.

 

Ummm....because the gift was offered? Could the rich person be rich without that?

 

*sigh* Strawman...again...and again...and again...and...

Please be honest and quit representing what "every" non cal believes.

 

Is your handle Webdog or Strawman ? If it's Webdog -- you more than likely hold the record for the highest tally of repeatedly saying " Strawman " . ( And you have erected quite a few in your time also .)

 

This is my last volley because you're deliberately ignoring the obvious. Once again, the gift was offered equally to two people. Why is one rich, and the other one poor?

Not because the gift was offered, but because one of them accepted it, and the other refused it. The difference between the two was hinged upon their decisions, not on the fact that they were both offered the gift.

 

I'm sorry, but the reason one is rich and the other is poor is because someone decided to offer a large gift of money. THAT is the turning point in the rich man's life. The rich man would not have been rich without THAT.

Since you want to focus on the acceptance only as the reason he is rich, why not focus on the giver buying the gift? That's the hinge...the gift could never be accepted without the giver first buying it!

The presentation of the gift? That's the hinge...the givee could never accept the gift unless the giver offers it!

 

Notice I said "deciding" factor and "final" say. I realize that you believe that God initated salvation and without Him it would never happen. We agree on the essentials of the Gospel, and for that I am thankful. But it is inescapable to realize that even though God initated salvation, the final say resides in man. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a genuine choice, would it? I mean, God doesn't force man to say yes - man has the final say. And if a man does not say "yes" then there is no salvation.

 

What does that have to do with what the gift is?

 

The final say is God's...

"Believe, and you WILL BE saved"

 

LOL!!!! :laugh::laugh:

The other is poor because someone decided to offer a large gift of money!

Oh, you guys crack me up.

 

Glad to give you a laugh on Friday. Take it home and enjoy it through the weekend. But I don't know what is so funny about a person not adding anything to a gift by receiving it.

 

Wasn't the other one poor anyways?

I suppose you don't thank anyone for giving you gifts, after all, you are the deciding factor in the whole process...

 

Has everyone that ever lived had the chance to accept or reject the Gospel? Nope.

There is no such think as [humanistic] Prevenient Grace.

 

We discussed that already. Do you have special revelation from the only two who could possibly know this, God or the individual you claim never had the chance and never heard?

 

I do have a special revelation called the Bible. :thumbs: Ok, I'll play the game...how can you possibly know that everyone that has ever lived has heard the Gospel? Do you have evidential proof to support the claim that everyone gets a chance to reject the Gospel?

The burden of proof is now on you, we know of millions of people that lived before the Gospel reached their lands, are you suggesting they heard the Gospel?

You're being ridiculous with your disordered, constant use of superlatives and pejoratives. All doctrine including soteriology must be viewed in a theological manner, not anthropological, we start with God, not man. Soteriology needs to be built upon a solid epistemological grounding in God which is distinct from a humanistic ontological base we keep seeing from our post- Enlightenment culture. Individualistic theology results in atomistic theology.

:tonofbricks: