Total Depravity...

[skypair]

The doctrine of "prevenient grace" suggests that God really 1) wants all people to receive salvation, and 2) that He is really "doing all He can" to get the job done.

1) As in "not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance," right? 2a) "Gave His only begotten Son that whosoever...," right? 2b) "And this is the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world," right? Is there something else that He could have done (short of making man a automaton)?

Arminians suggest 1) that God weeps over all lost souls, and 2) that He sends His prevenient grace to all of them, just hoping that some of them will respond.

1) There's a verse that says that, yes. 2) As in "how many times would I have taken you under My wing..." Same thing, isn't it? Did you respond, rb? Or as JDale said, did God respond for you?

But the God of the Bible is very different from this! Here we see in Matthew 11 that God *knew* what it would take for many people to repent and be saved, and nevertheless *withheld* it! That doesn't sound like God is "doing all He can" to me.

The "signs" that Korazim didn't see and that the Pharisees did see were the signs that the "Son of man" had come. Are you suggesting that God could have drawn up His plans better? You may recall that all 3 of those cities had witnesses and signs. That is why they are mentioned here in Mt 11 at all.

skypair

 

[Allan]

Belief = faith --- Congratulations! You're promoted to Calvinism 201!

Do you not know that has been an established doctrine LONG before Calvinism or Augustinism were known theological constructs?

By your leave, we'll just leave it at that.

skypair

My thoughts exactly. :laugh:

Enjoy your Friday Sky.

 

[skypair]

I can just see it now....... God saying....... "oh man..... if Jesus was only here now..... :"

EXACTLY what I thought and questioned God about before I was saved!!! Don't you see? They were looking forward to the same Redeemer Whom they would have believed had they seen! God gave both me and them as much information as we needed to believe whether it was by promise as before Christ or by its fulfillment in Christ!

So your point is very well taken --- we have to believe what we can't see. If we saw it, how hard would it be to believe? They would have believed Him (Who He was) but they still would have had to believe His promises (help thou my "unbelief") to be saved, right?

skypair

 

[Allan]

Not according to Mark 4.

Mark 4:
[11] And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
[12] That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.​

Note that this particular passage is talking about conversion, and the forgiveness of sins.
And note that Jesus does *not* want some people to be converted; He does not want them to have their sins forgiven. He forsees that they would have faith if they truly understood His message, but He explicitly says that He uses parables so that they will *not* understand Him. Again, God does not respond to foreknown faith by predestining them!
Notice that Mark 4:11-12 actually demonstrates the *opposite* of prevenient grace. This is more like an example of Divine "prevenient hardening". Consider this comparison:

• Arminians think that God wants as many people to repent and be saved as possible, and that He gives all people "prevenient grace" to enable the salvation of all people.
• But Mark 4:11-12 teaches us that God knew about some people who *would* repent and be saved, and so Jesus spoke in parables to make sure that would not happen! Jesus refrained from speaking to them clearly, "lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

The above two statements are completely in opposition to one another. Arminian "prevenient grace" is a doctrine that directly contradicts the Scriptures.
Conclusion

In Matthew 11:21-27, we can see that God sometimes withholds things from people, even when He knows that those very things would have brought people to repentance. These actions of God do not sound at all like the actions of Someone who wishes to enable the salvation of everybody.
In Mark 4:11-12, we can see that Jesus intentionally spoke in parables, instead of plain language, so that many people would *not* understand, repent, and be forgiven. This is clearly the opposite of Arminian prevenient grace. http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/prevenient.htm

Ok. I went back and read you hyper-link to which I noticed your post is actaully a
cut and paste of his work. You need better teacher.
Seeing on the whole, I can tell you it is an easy thing to disect it and show were he is wrong, misleading, and incorrect regarding anothers view and established scriptural support and one that Calvinism has never been able to scripturally disprove on some points.

He slants his work most atrociously in pretending to give the others view or ideas. Stating things like :

God gives prevenient grace to everybody, hoping that some will respond and be saved, but knowing that most will choose to return to spiritual death

As if they do not believe that God knows every soul that will come to him. God doesn't hope, He knows and they hold to this veiw as well.

Arminians, though, do not accept the doctrine of election

He is speaking falsly again here because they do believe in election and have a doctrine concerning it. They just don't hold to the Calvinistic doctrine of Election.
Or this whole portion:

The doctrine of "prevenient grace" suggests that God really wants all people to receive salvation, and that He is really "doing all He can" to get the job done. Arminians suggest that God weeps over all lost souls, and that He sends His prevenient grace to all of them, just hoping that some of them will respond. But the God of the Bible is very different from this!

He uses this continually to try to exalt his view while condesendingly deriding the other view through misrepresentation. He does not actually go scripture for scripture mind you to disprove "previent grace" but the ol' debate tactic of [you give your view with scripture] and the debater states in essence "Oh yeah, well what about this!" [and give a different scripture]. Personally that drives me up a wall from ANYONE. they do not actaully show you what the other believes and then do a verse by verse analysis of it. They give (like he does) Their own spin to it.

I have spent years going over other theological views by reading their works and how than come to that conclusion, so I could better know my weaknesses, error, and or strengths. I have changed much along the way but I have found niether the Calvinists doctrine nor Arminian doctrines are scripturally sound in ALL thier main points. I have a teachable spirit and love to learn but I want to see where I am wrong in light of scriptures context and and full counsil.

This guys work is a sad rendition

 

[reformedbeliever]

Ok. I went back and read you hyper-link to which I noticed your post is actaully a
cut and paste of his work. You need better teacher.
Seeing on the whole, I can tell you it is an easy thing to disect it and show were he is wrong, misleading, and incorrect regarding anothers view and established scriptural support and one that Calvinism has never been able to scripturally disprove on some points.

He slants his work most atrociously in pretending to give the others view or ideas. Stating things like :

As if they do not believe that God knows every soul that will come to him. God doesn't hope, He knows and they hold to this veiw as well.

He is speaking falsly again here because they do believe in election and have a doctrine concerning it. They just don't hold to the Calvinistic doctrine of Election.
Or this whole portion:

He uses this continually to try to exalt his view while condesendingly deriding the other view through misrepresentation. He does not actually go scripture for scripture mind you to disprove "previent grace" but the ol' debate tactic of [you give your view with scripture] and the debater states in essence "Oh yeah, well what about this!" [and give a different scripture]. Personally that drives me up a wall from ANYONE. they do not actaully show you what the other believes and then do a verse by verse analysis of it. They give (like he does) Their own spin to it.

I have spent years going over other theological views by reading their works and how than come to that conclusion, so I could better know my weaknesses, error, and or strengths. I have changed much along the way but I have found niether the Calvinists doctrine nor Arminian doctrines are scripturally sound in ALL thier main points. I have a teachable spirit and love to learn but I want to see where I am wrong in light of scriptures context and and full counsil.

This guys work is a sad rendition

Well thankfully Allan, my theology does not hinge upon this person.......lol. I don't have a lot of time today. This guy references another person/theologian who he says puts it a lot better than he does. I'll go read his stuff and get back with you. I think his link to the other guy is on his site. Thanks bro.

 

[reformedbeliever]

EXACTLY what I thought and questioned God about before I was saved!!! Don't you see? They were looking forward to the same Redeemer Whom they would have believed had they seen! God gave both me and them as much information as we needed to believe whether it was by promise as before Christ or by its fulfillment in Christ!

So your point is very well taken --- we have to believe what we can't see. If we saw it, how hard would it be to believe? They would have believed Him (Who He was) but they still would have had to believe His promises (help thou my "unbelief") to be saved, right?

skypair

Well no, I don't see it that way sky. God did not give them all the information they needed. If the same works had been performed they would have repented.

 

[skypair]

Well no, I don't see it that way sky. God did not give them all the information they needed. If the same works had been performed they would have repented.

This is why you still have unanswered questions and have a "somehow" theology, rb. You won't accept scriptural answers.

And you seem to expect God to give them the fully developed gospel of grace in the OT when the major Piece was missing --- Jesus!

skypair

 

[reformedbeliever]

This is why you still have unanswered questions and have a "somehow" theology, rb. You won't accept scriptural answers.

And you seem to expect God to give them the fully developed gospel of grace in the OT when the major Piece was missing --- Jesus!

skypair

Well sky, i'll admit that I don't have all the answers. That is the problem that many have with you. You think you have all the answers, and other people that may have a biblical answer is just wrong in your opinion. You just forget to put in the IMHO> . Try a little humility brother. It may really change the way people relate to you on this board. I believe I accept the scriptural answers the bible and the Holy Spirit gives me. I may not accept your "scriptural" answers. And this is "somehow" IMHO.

 

[skypair]

Well sky, i'll admit that I don't have all the answers. That is the problem that many have with you. You think you have all the answers, and other people that may have a biblical answer is just wrong in your opinion. You just forget to put in the IMHO> . Try a little humility brother. It may really change the way people relate to you on this board. I believe I accept the scriptural answers the bible and the Holy Spirit gives me. I may not accept your "scriptural" answers. And this is "somehow" IMHO.

Rb --- I've heard that from a friend. He says "I don't believe anyone who thinks they have all the answers."

Know what? That "anyone" just might, though, have the answers to what you don't know. So why would you eliminate him in your ignorance???? Why wouldn't you examine him and his scriptures and see??

Well, I know why. Because one has already set his mind to be ignorant if the alternative is to agree with some theology one has already discounted without knowing the details and thinking them out, right?

Do you know that doing that shows just as much pride in yourself as you see in me trying to give you answers???

And as you admit ---- you don't have the answers that you say "the Bible and the Holy Spirit gives me" -- else you wouldn't be in the saying "somehow" and questioning some biblical issues like you are, rb.

Please, take an offered hand. You don't need to struggle on in ignorance of the mind of Christ --- unless you proudly choose to. And that is all I have ever offered is answers as I have found them with the Bible and the Holy Spirit as my guides (well, and maybe a little "ribbing" laid along with it :laugh: )

Enjoy your Sunday, bro. BTW, I'm building a retirement home East Texas and I don't wanta hafta come up there (like Paul) and really chew you out!! :laugh:

skypair

skypair

 

[reformedbeliever]

Rb --- I've heard that from a friend. He says "I don't believe anyone who thinks they have all the answers."

Know what? That "anyone" just might, though, have the answers to what you don't know. So why would you eliminate him in your ignorance???? Why wouldn't you examine him and his scriptures and see??

Well, I know why. Because one has already set his mind to be ignorant if the alternative is to agree with some theology one has already discounted without knowing the details and thinking them out, right?

Do you know that doing that shows just as much pride in yourself as you see in me trying to give you answers???

And as you admit ---- you don't have the answers that you say "the Bible and the Holy Spirit gives me" -- else you wouldn't be in the saying "somehow" and questioning some biblical issues like you are, rb.

Please, take an offered hand. You don't need to struggle on in ignorance of the mind of Christ --- unless you proudly choose to. And that is all I have ever offered is answers as I have found them with the Bible and the Holy Spirit as my guides (well, and maybe a little "ribbing" laid along with it :laugh: )

Enjoy your Sunday, bro. BTW, I'm building a retirement home East Texas and I don't wanta hafta come up there (like Paul) and really chew you out!! :laugh:

skypair

skypair

I'm sure we would enjoy each others company sky. In this medium it is really hard to know others feelings. As fellow believers, i'm sure I would benefit greatly from the gifts you have to offer. I'd be happy to meet with you and enjoy lunch sometime, or you could come over for dinner brother. Maybe someday. God bless you.

 

[skypair]

I'm sure we would enjoy each others company sky. In this medium it is really hard to know others feelings. As fellow believers, i'm sure I would benefit greatly from the gifts you have to offer. I'd be happy to meet with you and enjoy lunch sometime, or you could come over for dinner brother. Maybe someday. God bless you.

You are very gracious, rb. That would be fun. Hopefully my house will be done by Oct 31. Today it's back to Memphis and the cockpit for me for a few more months.

maranatha!
skypair