Why bother?

[Aaron]

There is not one Calvinist preacher that I know who does not believe that the Gospel is the message of salvation to sinners. Sure. We believe the regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit that illumines the mind of the individual to their sin and enables them to believe. But believe what? The Gospel. You simply do not understand the doctrines of grace. It's either that or you callously choose to misrepresent it.



Please stop being the martyr. It is embarrassing. This is not personal. I am simply being blunt in opposing your misrepresentations. You need to develop some thick skin and stop being so sensitive.




Well, you have the "free will" to chose not to discuss.

When Scandal speaks of the "power of the Gospel," he is speaking of something completely different than that of which we speak. He thinks the mere utterance of the words to have some kind of magic effect like an incantation in a Harry Potter story.

In his view, simply being within earshot of a preacher imparts faith. It can't be helped, BUT, the hearer then has the power to eject that faith and go away unbeliever.

 

[MorseOp]

When Scandal speaks of the "power of the Gospel," he is speaking of something completely different than that of which we speak. He thinks the mere utterance of the words to have some kind of magic effect like an incantation in a Harry Potter story.

In his view, simply being within earshot of a preacher imparts faith. It can't be helped, BUT, the hearer then has the power to eject that faith and go away unbeliever.

He is thinking something along that line. The only reason it concerns me is that there are many on the BB who read but never/seldom post. His misrepresentation has to be confronted. I recognize that I am never going to be able to convince him. That is not my purpose.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

He is thinking something along that line. The only reason it concerns me is that there are many on the BB who read but never/seldom post. His misrepresentation has to be confronted. I recognize that I am never going to be able to convince him. That is not my purpose.

And so we continue to post for the lurkers (somewhere) amongst us! :wavey:

 

[annsni]

In my studies, I came upon John 8:47 and found it interesting in light of the argument about the Gospel vs. regeneration.

"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

What is your interpretation of this verse?

 

[psalms109:31]

In my studies, I came upon John 8:47 and found it interesting in light of the argument about the Gospel vs. regeneration.

"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

What is your interpretation of this verse?

John 8 :
39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[Some early manuscripts “If you are Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

The context is very important and Jesus gives the reason why, because of their murdering ways.

Matthew 23 :
29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[Psalm 118:26]”

Luke 11:51
from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

1 Thessalonians 2 :
13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. 14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.[Or them fully]

Praise God there is still hope for them, that I have not fallen into a hopeless trap. That by the power of the Holy Spirit that resides in His temple and through the words of Spirit and life and not the words of dead men that they turn to Jesus and the veil will be removed and be saved.

2 Corinthians 3:
12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

 

[Sevenzedek]

I am describing your behavior. This thread was not an honest attempt at finding out what Calvinists believe. You already have an opinion of what that is. This thread was about trying to draw Calvinists in to your playpen and criticize their approach to preaching the Gospel. It is not personal with me. It is a matter of the truth.

You know better than to suggest such nonsense. You're being obtuse.



You need to understand the Gospel.

Obtuse - to be annoyingly insensitive and slow to understand.

I do not want this to become a bicker match, and I do not like to be the one who says so, but some of your comments are patently un-Christ-like and inappropriate. For instance, a teacher of the Gospel should be patient to teach. Can you imagine a pastor standing up in front of his congregation and telling them they are being obtuse—that they are being annoying and slow? How patient has God been with you and me? You and I ought to show the same mercy and patience to others.

You and I MIGHT agree on some Calvinistic doctrines—I am unsure—but you and I are have the high calling to love our neighbors; especially those of God's household. Your subsequent posts demonstrate the symptoms of a callous heart. For instance, you require your brother to grow thick skin rather than adjust your attitude and represent Christ's love to him.

Please stop being the martyr. It is embarrassing. This is not personal. I am simply being blunt in opposing your misrepresentations. You need to develop some thick skin and stop being so sensitive.

Well, you have the "free will" to chose not to discuss.

Stop being so sensitive and "get" my argument, you martyr? Come on! YOU should be embarrassed. You have made it personal with my brother.

If I was the moderator, I would shut this down. I am beginning to think that most of the threads on the Baptist Board are bicker matches. May my entering the fray at this point be pleasing to our God.

 

[Bronconagurski]

you are comparing apples and oranges Skandelon. You are suggesting that we give regeneration power while you give the gospel power. The problem is we both see regeneration as the result of the power we are talking about. Regeneration is not the power, the Holy Spirit is the power spoken of. Where is the power in the gospel?

Eph. 6:17 and the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God.

There is your power of the gospel right there. Without the Spirit wielding the sword, where is its power?

and there is the doctrines of Grace

Grace is being given something we don't deserve. But faith is trusting that what God said about Jesus, the gospel, is true. Each man is brought to the brink of belief by the Holy Spirit, but he can choose to reject. If man can have a lack of faith, then he can have faith. When the disciples could not cast out a demon, Jesus told them it was because of lack of faith. When others were healed, Jesus told them their faith made them whole. Now did Jesus cause His disciples not to have faith, or the people that were made whole to have faith? Hmmmmmmmm. Why did not Jesus say, "God has given you the faith to make you whole?"

 

[Skandelon]

There is not one Calvinist preacher that I know who does not believe that the Gospel is the message of salvation to sinners. Sure. We believe the regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit that illumines the mind of the individual to their sin and enables them to believe. But believe what? The Gospel. You simply do not understand the doctrines of grace. It's either that or you callously choose to misrepresent it.

What have I specifically said that misrepresents. You just admitted yourself that the gospel is simply information to be believed and that the enabling POWER is in the work of regeneration.

Both the gospel (the proclaimed truth of redemption, the appeal to be reconciled) and the work of regeneration are WORKS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, right? So, how can you accuse me of believing that men are saved apart from a work of the Holy Spirit simply because I teach that the enabling power is in the gospel itself? You can't. You can only say that there are TWO works of the Holy Spirit (1) Regenerative (powerful/enabling) and (2) Gospel (informative to those who have been regenerated).

Please stop being the martyr. It is embarrassing.

Again, you are making this personal. That is what is embarrassing. Just discuss the topic and leave personal comments out. It is very simple.

This is not personal. I am simply being blunt in opposing your misrepresentations. You need to develop some thick skin and stop being so sensitive.

Thus far you've called me obtuse, not able to understand the gospel, thin skinned, sensitive, playing the martyr etc. That is PERSONAL and not necessary brother. Just discuss the subject. We can do better than this.

Well, you have the "free will" to chose not to discuss.

Thanks for reminding me. :godisgood:

 

[annsni]

Praise God there is still hope for them, that I have not fallen into a hopeless trap. That by the power of the Holy Spirit that resides in His temple and through the words of Spirit and life and not the words of dead men that they turn to Jesus and the veil will be removed and be saved.

So the order is that the dead men hear the words, turn to Jesus, THEN the veil is removed and they will be saved?

 

[Skandelon]

I agree that the risk you present is a valid one. However, the logic you use can be applied to being saved apart from works. As Paul said, Shall we sin so that grace may abound? God forbid! If "Calvinists" are apathetic, the problem is with the "Calvinists;" not the doctrine.

That may be the case, but as one who has been both Calvinistic and now non-Calvinistic I recognize the distinction in my deliberation process. As a Calvinist, I tended to reason things like, "Well if its meant to be, then it will be..." or "If God wants me to talk with that person, then I will..." and I'll leave it at that. Now, I feel I have a responsibility, a compelling desire to approach the person lest I miss the opportunity. I feel like I could actually effect someone's eternal destiny and that motivates me to obedience, whereas before I might not admit it out loud, but I'd think, if God wants them to be saved they will be and I'm here if he wants to 'use me'...but the responsibility 'to move' was put back onto God to 'make it happen' so to speak. If God wanted me to talk to that person then He better arrange the circumstances to where it happens... Where as now, I just act when I recognize the need...I don't put it back off onto God to 'make it happen.'

See what I mean? Now, I know that's not every Calvinist. Like the OP said I KNOW many very evangelistic Calvinists. I'm only speaking from my own experience and some of those who I talk to about this who either are Calvinistic or used to be. I just think there is a difference in the way a person with a more 'deterministic' worldview approaches life than someone who feels they really can 'make a difference.' Understand my point?

 

[annsni]

That may be the case, but as one who has been both Calvinistic and now non-Calvinistic I recognize the distinction in my deliberation process. As a Calvinist, I tended to reason things like, "Well if its meant to be, then it will be..." or "If God wants me to talk with that person, then I will..." and I'll leave it at that. Now, I feel I have a responsibility, a compelling desire to approach the person lest I miss the opportunity. I feel like I could actually effect someone's eternal destiny and that motivates me to obedience, whereas before I might not admit it out loud, but I'd think, if God wants them to be saved they will be and I'm here if he wants to 'use me'...but the responsibility 'to move' was put back onto God to 'make it happen' so to speak. If God wanted me to talk to that person then He better arrange the circumstances to where it happens... Where as now, I just act when I recognize the need...I don't put it back off onto God to 'make it happen.'

See what I mean? Now, I know that's not every Calvinist. Like the OP said I KNOW many very evangelistic Calvinists. I'm only speaking from my own experience and some of those who I talk to about this who either are Calvinistic or used to be. I just think there is a difference in the way a person with a more 'deterministic' worldview approaches life than someone who feels they really can 'make a difference.' Understand my point?

See, you are arguing from just your own former beliefs. I do not know of any Calivinist (and I know a ton) who ever approach evangelism that way. None.

 

[psalms109:31]

So the order is that the dead men hear the words, turn to Jesus, THEN the veil is removed and they will be saved?

You have to reach people where they are at. They are blinded by their hatred and their murdering ways to hear.. Doing the will of their father not God who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and the wicked to repent and live. They have to realize this and turn to Jesus and the veil of hatred will be removed if not they will be part of the generation that will pay for the shedding of the blood of the prophets. The other scripture that i posted is important with what i am saying in the original post without it my words are just words.

 

[Sevenzedek]

That may be the case, but as one who has been both Calvinistic and now non-Calvinistic I recognize the distinction in my deliberation process. As a Calvinist, I tended to reason things like, "Well if its meant to be, then it will be..." or "If God wants me to talk with that person, then I will..." and I'll leave it at that. Now, I feel I have a responsibility, a compelling desire to approach the person lest I miss the opportunity. I feel like I could actually effect someone's eternal destiny and that motivates me to obedience, whereas before I might not admit it out loud, but I'd think, if God wants them to be saved they will be and I'm here if he wants to 'use me'...but the responsibility 'to move' was put back onto God to 'make it happen' so to speak. If God wanted me to talk to that person then He better arrange the circumstances to where it happens... Where as now, I just act when I recognize the need...I don't put it back off onto God to 'make it happen.'

See what I mean? Now, I know that's not every Calvinist. Like the OP said I KNOW many very evangelistic Calvinists. I'm only speaking from my own experience and some of those who I talk to about this who either are Calvinistic or used to be. I just think there is a difference in the way a person with a more 'deterministic' worldview approaches life than someone who feels they really can 'make a difference.' Understand my point?

I think I see your point. Even though I see that all things are predetermined according to the bible, determinism is not what I would call biblical. The fact that God knows all things beforehand means that all things are predetermined. Determinism would place the onus of our God-given responsibility on God.

You would agree that we are to fulfill our responsibility to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Would you also agree with the scriptures that say that it is also God who works in us the willing and doing of our responsibility? You would also agree that we responsible for obeying God. Would you also agree with the scriptures that say that it is God who makes us willing in his day of power? You would agree that it is our responsibility to come to Christ. Would you also agree with the scriptures that say that no one can come to Christ unless the Father who sent him draws us? You would agree that it was the Pharisee's responsibility to believe in Christ. But would you also agree with the scriptures that say that the reason why they didn't was precisely because they were not his sheep?

This is what the scriptures state. But, if I wait for God to do what I am commanded to do, then the problem is not with the doctrine in the scriptures. The problem is with me because I have not obeyed.

Apart from Christ, I can do nothing. Therefore, I am responsible to do what I cannot do on my own.

Why bother? Because I am commanded to by God.

 

[Iconoclast]

See, you are arguing from just your own former beliefs. I do not know of any Calivinist (and I know a ton) who ever approach evangelism that way. None.

ANNSni

You are correct of course and have been doing a good job on these posts:thumbs::wavey:

 

[Yeshua1]

The above seems to confirm the conclusions I have been coming to about the differences between Calvinism and Non-Calvinism. Both believe basically the same thing; They just use different definitions and terminolgy. They misrepresent each other and then argue against those misrepresentations.

Not at all!

Cals affirm the full effect of the fall, as man is born spiritually dead in sin natures, and cannot save himself apart from the work of God on His behalf thru the Cross of Christ!

Much of modern non cal though more akin to catholic thought, as they see ourselves able to co assist God in the salvation process, by choosing to come to Christ by own violation!

 

[MorseOp]

Obtuse - to be annoyingly insensitive and slow to understand.

I do not want this to become a bicker match, and I do not like to be the one who says so, but some of your comments are patently un-Christ-like and inappropriate. For instance, a teacher of the Gospel should be patient to teach. Can you imagine a pastor standing up in front of his congregation and telling them they are being obtuse—that they are being annoying and slow? How patient has God been with you and me? You and I ought to show the same mercy and patience to others.

You and I MIGHT agree on some Calvinistic doctrines—I am unsure—but you and I are have the high calling to love our neighbors; especially those of God's household. Your subsequent posts demonstrate the symptoms of a callous heart. For instance, you require your brother to grow thick skin rather than adjust your attitude and represent Christ's love to him.



Stop being so sensitive and "get" my argument, you martyr? Come on! YOU should be embarrassed. You have made it personal with my brother.

If I was the moderator, I would shut this down. I am beginning to think that most of the threads on the Baptist Board are bicker matches. May my entering the fray at this point be pleasing to our God.

When you place yourself in the position of a teacher (which Skandelon has done), and your words have the potential of negatively influencing others, you should be confronted. When you constantly regurgitate the same arguments over and over that is being obtuse. If I lose my temper you may rightly label me as angry. If I smile at good news you would probably call me happy. Those are not personal attacks or praises, they simply explain that person's present state. I did not call Skandelon an idiot or a moron. I labeled his behavior.

Also, this is not a church. If it was then this type of dialog would not be taking place. More than likely it would be in private where I can attempt to reason with the individual. But in here? It just doesn't work that way. This thread was started in order to bait Calvinists. I am totally convinced of that. Personally that does not bother me. I am more concerned with the lurkers. No one who participates in these threads is likely to change their minds. I do not see Van or Winman becoming Calvinists any time soon, nor do I see Iconoclast or myself embracing Arminianism.

 

[psalms109:31]

You would agree that it was the Pharisee's responsibility to believe in Christ. But would you also agree with the scriptures that say that the reason why they didn't was precisely because they were not his sheep?

The Workers Are Few
35 Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. 38 Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”

Sheep is a hyperbole it has nothing to do with anyone physically, because no one is physically a sheep it has to do with their attitude.

A sheep will blindly follow a shephard, and need someone to take care of them because they can't take care of themselves. A goat on the other hand are leaders, stubburn and can take of themselves.

Have you ever heard of a Judas goat they will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared.

Most people are sheep they are following someone, and the one they are following use to be a sheep, but they have become a teacher of what ever they have been following.

Jesus sheep will following Him blindly and Jesus asked Peter three times to take care of His Lambs, sheep. If anyone is placed in leadership, through election they are to take care of His sheep also.

Few are the workers and so many sheep, lets pray to the Lord of the harvast to send out more workers to plant, to water, so God will cause it to grow and increase the Kingdom of God.
Ephesians 1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,


James 1:
16 Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. 17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[Isaiah 52:7]

I praise God that no one can take His sheep out of His hands, so we should come to Him knowing we will be saved.

 

[percho]

In my studies, I came upon John 8:47 and found it interesting in light of the argument about the Gospel vs. regeneration.

"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

What is your interpretation of this verse?

As I would John 10:26,27

The choice is God's and God's timing, see Paul.


What are the odds the Pharisee Saul was one of those saying, crucify him?

 

[WITBOTL]

Grace is being given something we don't deserve. But faith is trusting that what God said about Jesus, the gospel, is true. Each man is brought to the brink of belief by the Holy Spirit, but he can choose to reject. If man can have a lack of faith, then he can have faith. When the disciples could not cast out a demon, Jesus told them it was because of lack of faith. When others were healed, Jesus told them their faith made them whole. Now did Jesus cause His disciples not to have faith, or the people that were made whole to have faith? Hmmmmmmmm. Why did not Jesus say, "God has given you the faith to make you whole?"

Hi Bronconagurski,

I think you have hit on one of the fundamental disagreements between the Doctrines of Grace and an "Arminian" type concept. That is that each man is brought to the brink of belief vs. elect men being brought across the brink of belief. This is certainly one of the points of disagreement. I think there is a lot of talking past each other in this forum and a lot of arguing against positions that are not really held the way they are argued against.

Of course I find it incredulous to see the Holy Spirit working just to the brink and then standing back and doing nothing else. I also think that the gulf between us as sinners and God is an infinity in width and if God came half way we'd still be an infinity away. If he came 99.9% of the way that .1% that is our responsibility would still an infinite distance. .1% of infinity is infinity. I believe God does it all, but I also believe that we participate, choose, exercise our (changed) will. I do not believe we are dragged kicking and screaming to the cross against our will. The means which God uses to accomplish his purpose are in part human and natural, but they are also in parts divine and supernatural.

One of the fundamental areas of disagreement which causes this argument over "brought to the brink of belief" vs brought all the way is the understanding of a particular redemption of a foreknown and predestined elect vs. a general redemption of a post facto known, post facto chosen (not predestined) elect. I think the basic disagreement is over a general provision of salvation which is particularized by man vs. a salvation provided without national distinction but particularized by God solely by grace.

I think it is a fair question to say what aspects of salvation are general and what aspects are particular. Who particularizes them and how. We all agree there is particularity at some point because I don't believe any of us advocate for a universal salvation. Basically, it is in the answers to these questions that the disputes arise.


With respect to man and his ability to have faith, I think it is important to distinguish between the faith in Christ unto salvation and faith in anything else. Does man have the faculties as a human for faith? He most certainly does. However his sinful nature is in fact an impediment to faith in Christ which is unto salvation. This is mostly accepted on both sides of the argument which is why even Arminians require the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Even Arminians accept the problem of the sinful nature with respect to faith. They solve it through a generic prevenient grace while someone who holds the Doctrines of Grace solve it through a particular and effectual call.

You see, that man can have faith due to his human nature makes him responsible to have faith. That man cannot have saving faith in Christ is due to the effects of the sin of Adam and is actualized in the expression of his will against God because he is actively spiritually at enmity against God. The great problem with respect to faith is not total any kind of ability as a man, but total spiritual inability due to the extent of the gulf fixed between him and God by sin. There is no way that this gap can be bridged only part way. What good is a steel bridge that spans most of the span and leaves the rest finished in clay?

The dispute with respect to faith is not whether man has (or can have) faith, or whether the faith that man acts in is his own, but the dispute is what the source of that faith is before he is active in it? Is the source inside of himself, generated by an effort of the will because of an inkling of a spiritual ability which is stirred by a generic prevenient grace? Or, is the source of faith grace itself from God and from a particular purpose of God, stirred by the particular workings of God in that man, for the intent purpose of saving him particularly which purpose was from before the foundation of the world?

Should we not at least get the points of dispute accurately before us before we engage in the debate?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hi Bronconagurski,

I think you have hit on one of the fundamental disagreements between the Doctrines of Grace and an "Arminian" type concept. That is that each man is brought to the brink of belief vs. elect men being brought across the brink of belief. This is certainly one of the points of disagreement. I think there is a lot of talking past each other in this forum and a lot of arguing against positions that are not really held the way they are argued against.

Of course I find it incredulous to see the Holy Spirit working just to the brink and then standing back and doing nothing else. I also think that the gulf between us as sinners and God is an infinity in width and if God came half way we'd still be an infinity away. If he came 99.9% of the way that .1% that is our responsibility would still an infinite distance. .1% of infinity is infinity. I believe God does it all, but I also believe that we participate, choose, exercise our (changed) will. I do not believe we are dragged kicking and screaming to the cross against our will. The means which God uses to accomplish his purpose are in part human and natural, but they are also in parts divine and supernatural.

One of the fundamental areas of disagreement which causes this argument over "brought to the brink of belief" vs brought all the way is the understanding of a particular redemption of a foreknown and predestined elect vs. a general redemption of a post facto known, post facto chosen (not predestined) elect. I think the basic disagreement is over a general provision of salvation which is particularized by man vs. a salvation provided without national distinction but particularized by God solely by grace.

I think it is a fair question to say what aspects of salvation are general and what aspects are particular. Who particularizes them and how. We all agree there is particularity at some point because I don't believe any of us advocate for a universal salvation. Basically, it is in the answers to these questions that the disputes arise.


With respect to man and his ability to have faith, I think it is important to distinguish between the faith in Christ unto salvation and faith in anything else. Does man have the faculties as a human for faith? He most certainly does. However his sinful nature is in fact an impediment to faith in Christ which is unto salvation. This is mostly accepted on both sides of the argument which is why even Arminians require the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Even Arminians accept the problem of the sinful nature with respect to faith. They solve it through a generic prevenient grace while someone who holds the Doctrines of Grace solve it through a particular and effectual call.

You see, that man can have faith due to his human nature makes him responsible to have faith. That man cannot have saving faith in Christ is due to the effects of the sin of Adam and is actualized in the expression of his will against God because he is actively spiritually at enmity against God. The great problem with respect to faith is not total any kind of ability as a man, but total spiritual inability due to the extent of the gulf fixed between him and God by sin. There is no way that this gap can be bridged only part way. What good is a steel bridge that spans most of the span and leaves the rest finished in clay?

The dispute with respect to faith is not whether man has (or can have) faith, or whether the faith that man acts in is his own, but the dispute is what the source of that faith is before he is active in it? Is the source inside of himself, generated by an effort of the will because of an inkling of a spiritual ability which is stirred by a generic prevenient grace? Or, is the source of faith grace itself from God and from a particular purpose of God, stirred by the particular workings of God in that man, for the intent purpose of saving him particularly which purpose was from before the foundation of the world?

Should we not at least get the points of dispute accurately before us before we engage in the debate?

WITBOTL, I dont think anybody is arguing that DOG Believers & Arminian Believers have a level of synergy that you can reach across the fence & have dialog & debate... its these game changer people who for all intents & purposes resemble Pelagius who argued for the existence of free will & I can see his point (BTW P was of the Morgan family making him a Welshman). It was his argument, 'how could you be be responsible for something if we do not have free willing in that matter'

Pelagius argues that the will, rather than being bound by sin, is actually neutral....so that at any moment or in any given situation it is free to choose either good or evil. Sounds logical, right.

To follow that line of reasoning however, you have to build & maintain a whole radically different doctrine to the worlds accepted orthodox theology (mainly Augustinian)

1. Do not accept Original Sin....ie, Adams sin only affects Adam.

2. Those born since Adam has been born into Adams same condition before his fall--a position of neutrality so far as sin is concerned

3. People can live free from sin if they want to.

Hope Ive communicated this doctrine correctly.....but back to my original point, these folks that hold to this doctrine are the ones that throw the monkey wrench into the Historic orthodox belief system --- NOT the Arminian.