The difference between Calvinists and Armenians (as I see it)

I will pray for you and hope you have a good trip. The debate has been good.
Have you really met someone who does not know there is a Supreme Being? I don't think I have. I have had some tell me they don't believe in God but I said a lot of things when I was a wild young man that I regret now but mostly just to get back at the religeous people. God Bless,

 

:applause: From the guy who is so above ad hominem.

Who was asked to explain the verse? You were.
Who did not explain the verse? You didn't.
I think the verse is rather easy to understand.

Instead of taking your advice, I think I will read and study the bible. (The third item on your list.) Maybe going to school and reading books is where you went wrong?

Does Christ's blood have the power to save all sinners? Or is it only good enough for those who believe? Who limits the power of the atonement?

I rest my case. :smilewinkgrin:

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=813511#post813511

In response to...

You said...

 

Isaiah 66:4

What do those who believe in an absence of free will do with this verse:

"I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes and chose that in which I delighted not." Isaiah 66:4

To me, this verse plainly states, though not in direct reference to salvation, that God called some and they did not answer. In fact, they did something contrary to His will, something in which He did not delight.

Now, did they not answer out of a free will? Or did they not answer because they had been predestined to not answer? Has God predestined events to happen which He does not delight in?

 

Yes.

Yes it was predestined, but they weren't forced not to answer.

Yes.

Here's the foundation of your mistake:

I don't know of anyone on this board who believes in the "absence of free will". The issue is the inclination of a person, which is what determines how he will exercise his will, within the limits imposed by God.

 

Well, apparently I made it and didn't feel saved at the time I made the comment but had to wait upon the Lord for I couldn't save myself, and leave it up to you to take it out of context. It means I had to suffer over my sins until God felt it was right to save me. The first time I made the commentment I didn't feel save right then but after God did save me I have always felt saved. There is a difference in time, in ceasing to do evil and learning to do good. I guess you it was different for you though. I doubt if you ever felt unworthy and unsaved when you were repenting of your sins.

So, you don't owe me an apology Npet; and I wouldn't want one from you anyway. But you still made a remark that questioned my Salvation to which I would not do to you.

As I said, you stoop low when you question my Salvation but it is a sign you just can't answer the posts with Scripture so you attack the poster, I think its called an ad homenim. I believe someone made a thread which you posted on that also and called me the biggest Hypocrit on here in that thread. It seems you go from post to post making remarks about me. Do I get under you skin or what?

 

You posted 3 verse out of context. I have asked you for the meaning of 2 words to prove you have. 10 post later..nothing. If you know their meaning post them. If not, I was right. All you do is replace the word with another.

BTW..education never hurts anyone. Education can come in many ways, and is not limited to schools. I get tried of people using “no schooling” as an excuse not to use their God given brain. A degree, only means you paid $50,000 for a paper that says you have been educated. Today, one can learn nearly as much on their own if they have a heart to learn and willing to take the time. One can research on the internet, and use intelligence perception, with Biblical discernment to gain understanding. You cannot believe everything you read on the net, but with Holy Spirit and good reason you can know what is truth, and what is lie. If nothing else read a dictionary.

The rest of your post is hot air being you do not even know the meaning of the words, (not a slam toward your intelligence, but a call for you to learn them) or have failed to post their meaning after countless times of me asking you too and therefore not worth a reply.

 

johnp and pinoybaptist are two that come to mind.

...and we discussed this week that a person's inclination is weighed by not only desire, but necessity.

 

Necessity and desire can not be set off against one another. Anything that is a necessity is also a desire. It is necessary that you eat, therefore you desire it, and you desire it even if your body due to malfunction does not signal the hunger. You desire it because you know it is needful.

You have yet to show how one's choice can be contrary to one's desires. And furthermore, how can one's desires be contrary to their nature?

God "called" to Isreal, and Israel chose according to their natures. God calls all men every where to repent, but not all men are THE called according to His purpose. The external, audible call is to all within hearing, and the internal, inaudible call is to all with ears to hear what the Spirit says.

"They that are not of God heareth not His words" John 8:47

 

There are different desires, resulting in different things. They are not all inclusive within necessity.

If I need surgery to repair my heart, the surgery is not a desire, living is. The desire is to not have the surgery, but my condition has been pointed out to me that outweighs desire. The surgery is a necessity, but it is not a desire. Everything that's necessary cannot be labeled as a desire. Same holds true in salvation.

 

Necessity or not, the underlying motive for the surgery is your desire to live. Your choice was coerced by your desire. You may not "desire" (as in crave, welcome, look forward to) the drugs, the knife, the pain; but you still desire the surgery itself because your desire to live is greater than your desire to avoid pain.

I'm surprised that no one has suggested that even though a person can not decide against a desire, nevertheless that person can have contrary desires. Anyone want to make that claim? Or do you just want to go on and on trying to prove that decisions are made in a void?

 

Decisions are not made in a void, but by coming to conclusions based on facts steming from both necessity and desire. Calvinism eliminates this, as the only decision can be the choice between one thing...a non choice.

 

Calvinism establishes that choices are made according to one's desires, which are in turn according to one's nature. Man decides, in accordance with his nature, to rebel against God. God gave him a choice, and he chose in accordance with his nature. In order to deliver man from his fallen nature to which he is bound, God sends forth His spirit into the man to bring newness of life and the promise of freedom from that sinful nature.

 

...but are they? I know calvinism establishes this point, but I do not believe Scripture does. If this were true, after one is regenerated and made a new creation, one would choose according to their new nature, and sin would not be an option. Man's nature is self. Once they understand that they are on the path to hell, the option presents itself, and the point of "greater desire" taking precedence (sin) no longer is the greater desire, but self preservation. If you maintain that we are bound to the greatest desire, it's to preserve self. We know that not all come to Christ, so this should show that the greatest desire does not govern us.

 

I am not suggesting the present eradication of the sin nature, and I didn't think I would have to stipulate that.

You seem to suggest that the decision to receive Christ is a natural process based on desirable vs undesirable options. Also, you contradict yourself. You suggest that a man will chose Christ based on his "greater desire" of self-preservation. Then you admit that not all chose Christ. Do they not all have a "greater desire" for self-preservation?

This might explain some things. Is that your concept of salvation? A fire escape? Do people get saved because they don't want to burn? If so, then it's no wonder that preachers have to emphasise works and law in order to squeeze some evidence of real salvation out of their people. No wonder that certain people I know can look me in the face without flinching and tell me that they are just as saved as I am even though there's been no change in them. They "accepted" Christ so they're not going to hell, but He can just stay out of their way for now. A changeless salvation is no salvation.

And who would it be that might work such a change? According to scripture, it is God who works in you both to do and to will of His good pleasure.

 

You stated that man chooses the greater desire...not me. I don't believe man's choice is based on "greater desire", for if it were, a believer would never choose sin...only the "greater desire" to please God according to his new nature. If a believer sins then, is sin the "greater desire"? That would go against their "new" nature. Faith comes by hearing (understanding - not desire), and that (understanding - not desire) from The Word of God.

I don't know what you are saying here, but this is not my view of salvation at all.

 

The issue of desire in regards to salvation is not one of "greater desire" at all, but rather one of whether desire exists at all. The unregenerate do not desire God. They have NO desire for Him. As you said, man's nature is self.

The regenerate man has a conflict of natures. You would not dispute this, and neither would you dispute that, in spite of that conflict, God has ensured the salvation of those that are born again.

Your problem is in your view of the unregenerate. If they are "free to choose" in the sense you imply, then you also imply that the unregenerate possess two natures which are in conflict. If the unregenerate have only the "nature of self" within them, then how would they turn to God unless they were first given a nature that is contrary to the self?

How can a man desire that which he does not desire, or believe that which he does not believe, or love that which he does not love?

 

would you say that again.

 

Webdog, good debate, gotta say bye for now.

 

You have questioned my salvation. Do you want me to dig up that quote, too?