Where does believing faith come from part 3

[Winman]

All men are given the ability to believe, whether saved or unsaved. Man was made in God's image, and this was one of the many abilities given to man. When God cursed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, nowhere does it say he cursed man's moral nature so that he no longer had the ability to hear God's word and exercise his free will to believe or not. This doctrine of Total Depravity is not found anywhere in scripture and is man-made.

Calvinist's say the unsaved man is a slave to sin. He will not and can not choose for God under any circumstance. This makes man a programmed robot. His will is programmed to always choose evil, and so he will always obey evil.

Calvinist's also believe that God regenerates a man. Now the man will not and can not choose against God, that's why it's called "irresistable grace". In this state man is just as much a slave and robot as when he was unsaved. He has no choice whether to love God of his own free will, he is forced to. That is the very definition of "irresisitable", it cannot be resisted. Calvinist's seem not to understand or otherwise disregard their own terminology.

I know this will offend the Calvinist's, but their concept of God is not much different than date rape. It is not much different from a man slipping a drug into a young lady's drink to cause her to lose her inhibitions and willpower to resist.

Even unsaved man understands this type coercion as criminal, and men are rightly sent to jail for these actions.

But this is basically what Calvinist's believe God does. An unsaved man hates God and wants nothing to do with him (unscriptural), God regenerates him supernaturally, causing his will to turn to God (unscriptural). The man has no choice in the matter, just as when the date rapist slips the drug into the lady's drink when she is not looking.

This is not love, and this does not glorify God in the least. A saved person does not love God because he chooses to, he is forced to by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit if this doctrine is true (which it isn't). It is an overwhelming force, it is irresistable by Calvinist's own doctrine.

How anyone can conceive of God like this is incredible to me.

And the God of Calvinism is not a loving God. Oh, he loves a few men, but the vast majority he hates. He created them solely to punish them with everlasting torment for his own pleasure. These poor non-elect are no different from the elect, they are sinners just as are the elect. They just happen to be unfortunate in that God did not choose them from the foundation of the world to save. They have no possible escape from this endless eternity of torture and torment.

Calvinist's cannot explain why God does not regenerate and save all men. God could save all men if he so desired, but for reasons that will never be known to us he hates many billions and billions of people and has determined even before that person was born that he will be tortured forever in the lake of fire.

And if Calvinism is true, then God is a liar, or at least very misleading. When he says his son died for all men, that is not the truth. He only died for the elect. When God says whosoever will may take the water of life freely, that is not true, only the elect can take this water if Calvinism is true. When the scriptures say God is not willing that any man should perish, this is not true. God is not only willing, but from the foundation of the world chose the unelect man to perish in everlasting torment.

And if Calvinism is true, God is a very confused person. He calls to people to come to him, all the while knowing they do not have this ability. He calls people to believe when he already knows they cannot. He tells people to take careful heed to what they hear, already knowing they do not have the ability to hear his words whatsoever.

When you Calvinist's can explain all this, perhaps I will give your doctrine a listen.

 

[Amy.G]

We believe that man is not truly free until regenerated because we are slaves to sin (Romans 6). So, the slavery to sin means that sin is our master and, therefore, we are not free.

Ok. So assuming you are correct, once a person has been regenerated, he is then free to choose God, which also means he is free to reject God. Otherwise, he is not really free. Therefore, if a person chooses to reject God (as they are "free" to do so), it is possible to be regenerated and remain lost.

This is the logic of regeneration before faith.

 

[The Archangel]

Ok. So assuming you are correct, once a person has been regenerated, he is then free to choose God, which also means he is free to reject God. Otherwise, he is not really free. Therefore, if a person chooses to reject God (as they are "free" to do so), it is possible to be regenerated and remain lost.

This is the logic of regeneration before faith.

Amy, this is a good question and something I should have anticipated. Romans 6 suggests the answer. Verse 22 says we have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God.

The picture here can be exemplified by a reference to the dark history of American slavery:

Say a slave is working for an abusive, demanding, and horrible master (slave to sin). Then, a wealthy abolitionist buys this particular slave's freedom and says he is free to do whatever he pleases (being set free from sin). Wouldn't it stand to reason that, out of sheer gratitude for the wealthy abolitionist's unfathomable grace, the former slave would voluntarily serve the wealthy man?

This is what the concept of "irresistible grace," though it is very poorly named, suggests. Once God regenerates someone (gives them eyes to see and ears to hear, to quote Matthew) and they see the evil master sin for what it is and the benevolent and loving master Christ for who He is, there is no doubt what choice will be made.

Unfortunately, people, like Winman, obfuscate the true meaning of irresistible grace and call it "rape." Nothing could be further from the truth. If God is God, and He is, He has absolute right to do with us as He pleases.

One of the challenges with the Arminian understanding of this aspect of theology is this: Man is not a "free agent;" he is not a law unto himself; man is not sovereign over anything. Man, I would argue, has freedom in the sense of liberty, but he does not have absolute freedom. Why? Because man exists in a created order and man exists in a fallen world, so those factors (including the sin nature) greatly impact and restrict man. Man is free to do what what he desires to do--but the desire of man's heart is only evil continually. So, we see that as bondage (Luther wrote a whole book called Bondage of the Will). We need to be set free from that bondage to be truly free, but again, it's not an absolute freedom.

Blessings!

The Archangel

 

[jcjordan]

An "act" of righteousness would be a work, would it not? Faith is not a work.

So, would you say that it is not unrighteous to not have faith in Christ?

 

[psalms109:31]

calvinist

I biggest problem is that we want to fight against the truth that the calvinist preach, but just like anything that comes from man it is incomplete.

The only complete work of God is found in every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Jesus has changed everything, through Him and His word. We are dead, but through the words of Jesus that is Spirit and life has opened the door for all men. We are saved by the road God has placed before us through His word. To believe and have life or not and be condemned.

We need to be reminded of how dead we are without Jesus and only through Jesus we have been made alive.

Praise be to Jesus

 

[webdog]

Amy, this is a good question and something I should have anticipated. Romans 6 suggests the answer. Verse 22 says we have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God.

The picture here can be exemplified by a reference to the dark history of American slavery:

Say a slave is working for an abusive, demanding, and horrible master (slave to sin). Then, a wealthy abolitionist buys this particular slave's freedom and says he is free to do whatever he pleases (being set free from sin). Wouldn't it stand to reason that, out of sheer gratitude for the wealthy abolitionist's unfathomable grace, the former slave would voluntarily serve the wealthy man?

This is what the concept of "irresistible grace," though it is very poorly named, suggests. Once God regenerates someone (gives them eyes to see and ears to hear, to quote Matthew) and they see the evil master sin for what it is and the benevolent and loving master Christ for who He is, there is no doubt what choice will be made.

Unfortunately, people, like Winman, obfuscate the true meaning of irresistible grace and call it "rape." Nothing could be further from the truth. If God is God, and He is, He has absolute right to do with us as He pleases.

One of the challenges with the Arminian understanding of this aspect of theology is this: Man is not a "free agent;" he is not a law unto himself; man is not sovereign over anything. Man, I would argue, has freedom in the sense of liberty, but he does not have absolute freedom. Why? Because man exists in a created order and man exists in a fallen world, so those factors (including the sin nature) greatly impact and restrict man. Man is free to do what what he desires to do--but the desire of man's heart is only evil continually. So, we see that as bondage (Luther wrote a whole book called Bondage of the Will). We need to be set free from that bondage to be truly free, but again, it's not an absolute freedom.

Blessings!

The Archangel

Your are applying what we know of modern day slavery into the meaning of being a slave when the text was written. When one became a slave "back in the day", it was voluntary...they CHOSE to become one due to the debt owed to the debtor. The only way it could be repaid was by giving himself to the debtor. This is the perfect vision of a sinful man realizing his great debt and giving himself (voluntarily) to the debtor. If anything, the slave analogy support free will

 

[webdog]

DHK

First I want to say that I do not use the word stupid lightly. The use of this word was not allowed in my home. However:

1. I have been accused of lying and being ignorant by carpro. Are these pejoratives? What is the real difference between stupid and ignorant? Furthermore to accuse one of lying is even worse.

2. My God and Savior has been accused of making men robots and forcing them to believe by you and Winman. That shows an abominable ignorance of Scripture.

So I used the word stupid which is no more pejorative than ignorant or lying.

Now you say in your response to my post in part:



The above remarks are simply a disgusting parody of what I said. I will say this. I had rather be God's robot than delude myself into thinking I am the author of my own salvation.

Furthermore, dragging the heretic Benny Hinn into the discussion makes me wonder. Are you, a moderator, calling me a heretic? I thought that was not allowed on this Forum. You take me to task for using the word stupid after I have been called a liar, ignorant, and believe that God makes us robots. And then you call me stupid and cleverly imply that I am a heretic like Benny Hinn.

You then say:



The above is completely false, furthermore, it is blaspheming God to make such asinine remarks as:


The above is true if you will take the time to read and comprehend Ephesians 2:1-7. the Apostle Paul states:

2. Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, [by grace ye are saved;]
6. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

So you see God did regenerate us in time.

I then said:


I could have said that in the mind of God on the basis of the above Scripture His elect were already glorified but I thought that would be beyond your ability to comprehend.

One final remark by you. You say:

First, Dagg's book is not a commentary. It is the first book of theology written by a Southern Baptist. Second, perhaps as you grow spiritually you will come to appreciate Dagg's remarks. Stranger things have happened but there is always hope.

OR, if you were to look up hypocrite, your picture should be shown. You have NUMEROUSLY stated all those who don't believe as you claim sovereignty over God, you called me a self righteous Pharisee...and YOU want to cry over alleged attacks?!?

 

[Amy.G]

So, would you say that it is not unrighteous to not have faith in Christ?

I don't understand what you're asking. But the fact remains that faith is not a work, period. There is NO righteousness apart from Christ's.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, this is a good question and something I should have anticipated. Romans 6 suggests the answer. Verse 22 says we have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God.

Webdog said it perfectly.

God did not capture us as slaves against our will as your analogy implies. We are slaves of God willingly. We have chosen to be a bondslave just as was done in the OT, which was a shadow of our enslavement to Christ.

 

[webdog]

So, would you say that it is not unrighteous to not have faith in Christ?

I don't think the question is phrased correctly. Righteousness only comes through faith in Christ. That is what your question is asking, if it is not unrighteous to not have faith.

 

[Winman]

Unfortunately, people, like Winman, obfuscate the true meaning of irresistible grace and call it "rape." Nothing could be further from the truth. If God is God, and He is, He has absolute right to do with us as He pleases.

This is where you err greatly. God's sovereignty is not his only attribute. God has many other attributes which he cannot violate. God's greatest attribute is not his sovereignty, it is his holiness.

Rev 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

God cannot do with us just as he pleases. He must be just, he must be loving, he must be merciful and compassionate, these are all attributes or qualities of God that cannot be violated.

God cannot lie, that would violate his perfect sinlessness, his holiness.

God is just, he must be fair. God would not choose some men to perish before the foundation of the world before that person is even born, and choose others to have everlasting life without just cause.

Calvinist's use Romans 9 to argue that God can choose to have mercy on whom he will, and choose to show wrath to others. That is true, but it is not without just cause. That chapter is contrasting those who accept Christ through faith, with those who try to attain righteousness through their own works. God has chosen to show mercy on those who come in faith to Christ, and show wrath on those who try to work their way to heaven.

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Calvinist's pull scripture out of context to try to prove their cruel concept of God and do not read the whole chapter which is summarized here at the end.

There are many scriptures to show God is just. For instance, God does not punish a child for the sins of their parents.

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

God is loving and merciful. He must show all people his love and mercy. He must give all people equal opportunity to be saved.

Matt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

God loves all men, the just and the unjust, and commands us to do the same. God does not choose some men to be the elect, and others to be damned for his pleasure. God has no pleasure whatsoever in the death of the wicked.

Eze 33:11 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?

So, God cannot violate his attributes being just, of love, compassion, and mercy at the expense of his sovereignty.

And God must give us a free will to choose to believe or not. Otherwise we are programmed robots or puppets. As I wrote before, to drug someone to affect their inhibitions and willpower is an easily recognized crime. But you believe it OK for God to do this. To hold someone captive and brainwash them is criminal. Even the unsaved recognize this, but Calvinist's believe this behaviour acceptable.

And your analogy is very poor. If I was a freed slave, I am not going to agree to be the slave of the man that freed me, I am going to go out on my own and enjoy my freedom. I would not let another man hold me in bondage ever again. I might agree to work for that man for an acceptable good wage, but no way am I being a slave again.

 

[The Archangel]

I know this will offend the Calvinist's, but their concept of God is not much different than date rape. It is not much different from a man slipping a drug into a young lady's drink to cause her to lose her inhibitions and willpower to resist.

Even unsaved man understands this type coercion as criminal, and men are rightly sent to jail for these actions.

This shows that you think way too highly of man. You are equating salvation with violation and not only is this inaccurate, it is highly improper.

Your presupposition is that man is the measure of all things. Why else would you call salvation, even salvation by intervention, a violation? To you man's will is held inviolable, therefore God cannot do something with man unless man first gives Him permission.

Rescue swimmers are taught to subdue the persons they rescue because, in the struggle of drowning, they might do serious harm to their rescuers. Now, would you call the act of a rescuer subduing a drowning person a "violation?" You would if you are logically consistent.

Rather than be jailed as a rapist, the rescue swimmer is hailed as a hero, even though he or she had to subdue the drowning person. So, your analogy falls absolutely flat.

All men are given the ability to believe, whether saved or unsaved. Man was made in God's image, and this was one of the many abilities given to man. When God cursed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, nowhere does it say he cursed man's moral nature so that he no longer had the ability to hear God's word and exercise his free will to believe or not. This doctrine of Total Depravity is not found anywhere in scripture and is man-made.

Man was, indeed, made in God's image (the meaning of the Imago Dei is about representation, not necessarily inherent, created-in traits) but now that image is fallen and is not what it once was.

Before the fall, God said that man was very good. After the fall, God said the intention of his heart is only evil continually. There is quite a difference.

Calvinist's say the unsaved man is a slave to sin. He will not and can not choose for God under any circumstance. This makes man a programmed robot. His will is programmed to always choose evil, and so he will always obey evil.

This is a false assumption. God does not "program" man, as such. Man follows his "only evil continually" heart. The fallen heart is our default program. This is why a new heart (replacing the heart of stone with a heart of flesh) is necessary.

Calvinist's also believe that God regenerates a man. Now the man will not and can not choose against God, that's why it's called "irresistable grace". In this state man is just as much a slave and robot as when he was unsaved. He has no choice whether to love God of his own free will, he is forced to. That is the very definition of "irresisitable", it cannot be resisted. Calvinist's seem not to understand or otherwise disregard their own terminology.

But this is basically what Calvinist's believe God does. An unsaved man hates God and wants nothing to do with him (unscriptural), God regenerates him supernaturally, causing his will to turn to God (unscriptural). The man has no choice in the matter, just as when the date rapist slips the drug into the lady's drink when she is not looking.

How, then, can an unsaved man with an "only evil continually" heart something to do with God?

This is not love, and this does not glorify God in the least. A saved person does not love God because he chooses to, he is forced to by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit if this doctrine is true (which it isn't). It is an overwhelming force, it is irresistable by Calvinist's own doctrine.

How anyone can conceive of God like this is incredible to me.

Really? So, the rescue swimmer that subdues and saves a drowning person, perhaps a suicide jumper, is not demonstrating love to that person?

Again, you're showing that you think the absolute free will of man is the highest order of the universe.

And the God of Calvinism is not a loving God. Oh, he loves a few men, but the vast majority he hates. He created them solely to punish them with everlasting torment for his own pleasure. These poor non-elect are no different from the elect, they are sinners just as are the elect. They just happen to be unfortunate in that God did not choose them from the foundation of the world to save. They have no possible escape from this endless eternity of torture and torment.

Again, you give man far too much credit. This statement shows that you believe man deserves grace, or at least he deserves an opportunity to receive grace.

The fact of the matter is this: Man deserves nothing except a violent, immediate death and an eternity in hell--and that from God Himself.

Regardless of your contention, God doesn't have to save anyone. We are truly thankful that He chooses to save some.

Calvinist's cannot explain why God does not regenerate and save all men. God could save all men if he so desired, but for reasons that will never be known to us he hates many billions and billions of people and has determined even before that person was born that he will be tortured forever in the lake of fire.

Again, man doesn't deserve salvation, as you're suggesting here. But, we do agree on something: I have no idea why God doesn't regenerate and save all. Could he? Absolutely. Does He? No. Why? I have no idea (and that bothers me a bit...but a vessel of pottery such as me has no rights over and against the potter).

And if Calvinism is true, then God is a liar, or at least very misleading. When he says his son died for all men, that is not the truth. He only died for the elect. When God says whosoever will may take the water of life freely, that is not true, only the elect can take this water if Calvinism is true. When the scriptures say God is not willing that any man should perish, this is not true. God is not only willing, but from the foundation of the world chose the unelect man to perish in everlasting torment.

And if Calvinism is true, God is a very confused person. He calls to people to come to him, all the while knowing they do not have this ability. He calls people to believe when he already knows they cannot. He tells people to take careful heed to what they hear, already knowing they do not have the ability to hear his words whatsoever.

When you Calvinist's can explain all this, perhaps I will give your doctrine a listen.

We know that "all" does not mean everyone without exception. Even you yourself made that argument from John 3.

God does indeed call all people. This is both the basis of salvation for the elect and further judgment for the reprobate.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Your are applying what we know of modern day slavery into the meaning of being a slave when the text was written. When one became a slave "back in the day", it was voluntary...they CHOSE to become one due to the debt owed to the debtor. The only way it could be repaid was by giving himself to the debtor. This is the perfect vision of a sinful man realizing his great debt and giving himself (voluntarily) to the debtor. If anything, the slave analogy support free will

No. In some cases slavery was voluntary, and a good life. Slaves even had slaves themselves. But, in other cases men and women were enslaved and they had no choice in the matter.

Further, I am not making a theological argument from my "slave argument." It is only an analogy and an imperfect one at that.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Webdog said it perfectly.

God did not capture us as slaves against our will as your analogy implies. We are slaves of God willingly. We have chosen to be a bondslave just as was done in the OT, which was a shadow of our enslavement to Christ.

I responded to him here, so I'll refrain from repeating myself.

But, in addition to what I said, the passage of Romans 6:22 that talks about being set free from sin and have become slaves to God is interesting because "set free" and "having become slaves" are both passive participles, meaning that the being "set free" is not voluntary and the "having become slaves" to God is not voluntary either.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

Does Paul use it as "choose" in Romans 11:2? Of course he does, I don't think there is any disagreement about that. But, and this is where Strongs is not-so-strong--the context and a particular author's usage is much more informative than a lexicon. And so if Paul uses the same exact word in 11:2 and it means choose, then 8:29 also means choose.

I don't agree, I think ordain or know falls more in line in that verse, particularly when the context is speaking of the remnant God has preserved.

I certainly didn't say "everything...but." Does God ordain that evil exist? Sure. Does He cause people to sin or to do evil? No (thus the James passage).

There certainly is a tension in the Bible about this and it is left unresolved. Facts are presented and though they don't fit nicely, they are still scriptural facts to be accepted. So, it fits with my theology.

If you claim it is "unresolved"...how can you claim it fits your theology? In my theology is is quite resolved.

Josephus, as valuable as he may be from time to time, is not scripture. The question is: What does the scripture (specifically Joshua 24) say?

...well it doesn't say Abraham was an idolater There are extra-biblical references throughout Scripture like Jasher that point to truth outside Scripture as well. "Fathers" is clearly speaking of lineage, and like you say in regards to not naming individuals, does not name Abraham as well. The Israelite came from a lineage of idolaters, it does not say Abraham was one of those in the lineage who was.

 

[psalms109:31]

slave

No one can be forced to be a slave, you can choose death instead.

 

[The Archangel]

God cannot do with us just as he pleases.

Really? Scripture itself stands against you:

Psalm 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

Will He go against His nature? No. Neither will sinful man.

God is just, he must be fair. God would not choose some men to perish before the foundation of the world before that person is even born, and choose others to have everlasting life without just cause.

Romans 5 is against you here:

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Even though mankind didn't break specific commandments of God, man still died between Moses and Adam. This shows that mankind is held guilty for Adam's sin and mankind dies because of Adam's sin.

Calvinist's use Romans 9 to argue that God can choose to have mercy on whom he will, and choose to show wrath to others. That is true, but it is not without just cause.

This is not the case. Mercy, by definition, is given without just cause. If one deserves mercy, it is no longer mercy.

And your analogy is very poor. If I was a freed slave, I am not going to agree to be the slave of the man that freed me, I am going to go out on my own and enjoy my freedom. I would not let another man hold me in bondage ever again. I might agree to work for that man for an acceptable good wage, but no way am I being a slave again.

In the antebellum south you'd surely "bond-servant" yourself to your generous benefactor. If you didn't you'd not be able to survive. An African-American former slave would not be able to make his own way in the south.

Further, the passage of Romans 6:22 that talks about being set free from sin and have become slaves to God is interesting because "set free" and "having become slaves" are both passive participles, meaning that the being "set free" is not voluntary and the "having become slaves" to God is not voluntary either.

So, scripture would, again, be against you.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

This shows that you think way too highly of man. You are equating salvation with violation and not only is this inaccurate, it is highly improper.

Your presupposition is that man is the measure of all things. Why else would you call salvation, even salvation by intervention, a violation? To you man's will is held inviolable, therefore God cannot do something with man unless man first gives Him permission.

The scriptures show that God indeed gives man a say in his salvation.

Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

You notice that explanation mark there? You don't see that often in scripture. Jesus was being very emphatic that he longed to save the people of Jerusalem, but they refused.

Matt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

God calls men, he draws them, but some men refuse to obey and come to God.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Jesus does not say a man cannot come to him here, he says they "will not".

To believe Calvinism, you must completely ignore, disregard, or explain away hundreds of verses throughout the scriptures that clearly contradict it.

Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Please tell me, and do not ignore this question. Did the apostle Peter here on the Day of Pentacost, when the Holy Spirit fell on him with tongues of fire, and speaking in tongues violate God's sovereignty here by telling men to "save yourselves"??

If the apostle Peter were alive today you Calvinists would declare him a blasphemer and a heretic.

 

[webdog]

I responded to him here, so I'll refrain from repeating myself.

But, in addition to what I said, the passage of Romans 6:22 that talks about being set free from sin and have become slaves to God is interesting because "set free" and "having become slaves" are both passive participles, meaning that the being "set free" is not voluntary and the "having become slaves" to God is not voluntary either.

Blessings,

The Archangel

The context determines how even present or passive participles are used. The context of the whole of chapter 6, and particularly the immediate surrounding text shows a voluntary action...

19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Amy.G]

No one can be forced to be a slave, you can choose death instead.

Slam dunk. :thumbs: