Which do you believe?

Perhaps that was a poor choice of words but I was answering the accusation that someone would be turned away that believed just because God wanted to.
< that is true that the gospel does not get to everyone. Even the synergist will agree with this. In that sense not everyone really gets a chance but just because a person is lost doesn't mean it is because would not save that person if he believed.

 

I certainly agree. If that were the case then the gospel would have to be preached to each person in the world equally.

 

I am done for the evening.
Gotta get to bed.

Bro Bob, did you vote for monergist? I don't see anyone has voted for synergist yet?

 

I don't fit the synergist role either. It would have to have a better definition than that, for you see I also believe the Spirit must reach a man first, the only difference is I believe that God strives with all men to repent everywhere.
If a man don't let the Spirit of God lead him, he will die and go to a devil's hell.

 

I think you brought your daughter into this. Some monergist believe that the road to hell is paved with the bones of infants and children also.

 

It amazes me that trinitarians (who have no trouble believing that God is both three and one and that Christ is both God and man), have such a problem believing that God is soverign and man has free will.

Both truths are Biblical. Why does the math have to add up. Why do we have to choose up sides?


Lacy

 

If we believe that salvation from start to finish is through the sovereign grace of God, then we all must subscribe to monergism. In that way, God alone gets the praise and the glory due his name (Eph. 2:8-10; Phil.1:6; 2:12, 13; Rom. 11:33-36).

 

I agree with that Lacy; and is what I have said all along.

There is no other place to go with this except the old C/A debate and that has been covered and covered.

God draws all men by His Spirit which strives with all men. If we let His Spirit lead us, it will lead us to repentance and eternal life. If we will not let His Spirit lead us, we will die and go to a devil's hell.

 

meaning that God is dependent on man to do part of it.... without mans decision you do not believe that God can or will save anyone.

 

And this is what I though this thread was about and why I haven't jumped in on this.

 

Luk 10:42But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

The words of Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost.

 

Lies

Too many people ie Calvinists run around - saying you're misrepresenting us - that's not true - waaa waaa waaa

But it seems perfectly acceptable for those self-same defenders of accurate representation to go around willy-nilly incorrectly presenting the concept of free will - which should better be known as free ability - but hearing Calvinists spout makes me dig in my heels and use free will.

The current models and definitions put forth by the OP - are inaccurate

I voted synergism because well let's face it - I believe man has a choice - This in no way grants man super powers - because it is God alone who offers the choice - paid for the choice - and empowers the choice.

I cannot save myself - I can ask God to save me - that is it. This in no way makes me the author of my own salvation. God has a choice too - He can freely refuse to save anyone who asks Him if He wants to - whether or not this happens - who knows - He has the first, and last say about the whole thing.

Calvinists do NOT believe that whosoever will may come - they believe whosoever God wills may come - and indulging in hypothetical situations that they believe will never happen in order to make their view less repugnant is just sophistry of the highest order.

And granting babies and infants exception clauses in the Calvinist viewpoint makes you err - either the Calvinist viewpoint is correct and the devil is having some baby back ribs - or it is in error and needs to be corrected.

I have nothing against election or pre-destination - they exist and are in use - but not as the normative

As to the I would kill Christ - that is not so farfetched - I probably wouldnt have done all the torturing tho - Im a little more blunt head on a pike kinda guy.

After all Im not so foolish to think I would not have repeated Adam's sin - tho I like to think that I would have held out a little longer. Maybe even gone through a wife or two.

 

Oh really? I don't think many of your frewiller friends would like that statement.

we believe both actually.

 

That's pretty presumptuous, wouldn't you say? You KNOW that God chose you but you can't know who is elect INCLUDING YOURSELF. IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU JUST SAID YOU DO, you can't even know if YOU are saved yourself!

No, I'd say your theology had a contradiction that wipes out any foundation you think you have in Christ.

BTW, I admire your modesty and humility in knowing that God chose you -- NOT!

skypair

 

You just made salvation conditional -- which it is. But you just denied the primary tenet of Calvinism and of monergism. :laugh:

skypair

 

"Straw man?" No. It goes right to the heart of total depravity, sin nature, the way of eternal salvation -- just about every critical doctrine of the Christian church! And what you propose here is another way, monergistic or not, to eternal life.

It's more of a "boogy man" to Calvinism, really. They are scared to answer it and admittedly don't know nor can they find it out in scripture.

skypair

 

You mean as in John 1:9? "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

You could use a good dose of my "Sproul" thread regarding salvation, friend.

skypair

 

Yeah --- and we encourage lots of people NOT to choose for themselves but just to try to live Christian lives as if they were chosen thus celebrating the Pharisee in all of us.

skypair