The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

AP ^ | 3/24/01

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Would you say that it is impossible that "free will" would be part of God's plan?

Old Saw #2 is really a restatement of Old Saw #1.

I look to Scripture for answers, as we've been instructed to do. Do you find anything in Scripture that says man's sovereign will must be a part of God's plan?

Instead, I think we find hundreds of passages which attest to God's singular, omniscient, perfect decree as being the sole motivating force in all existence. Within that reality, we recognize our place.

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5.

In what way do you see this as comforting?

How could you not see this as comforting?

If our salvation, our eternal bliss in Paradise, is assured and actually brings pleasure not only to ourselves but to God, the creator of the universe, how much more comfort do we need?

[Quester]

Your position is we have enough free will to force God to act , but not enough to walk away?? In case one we have an unregenerate man that can force God to act according to his will and a regenerate man that can not do as he chooses.

Noone forces God ...

He has already issued the invitiation.

The banquet has already begun.

Our seat is already there.

We need only join the party in progress.

Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

And with that ... I must go. God's blessings to you and yours ...

[CindyDawg]

How do you wish someone a good holiday here? Happy Easter sounds superficial:') Have a Blessed day of Remembrance.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Back at ya.

BigMack

[Dr. Eckleburg]

LOL. There're lots of us. Besides Kevin, George W. Bush is a spectacular KJV-er. So are Aggressive Calvinist and Precisian.

And I think there are more among some of the newer names on the 55-names-long-and-growing list of Reformed saints.

Looking forward to the day when your name is added. 8~)

[Alex Murphy]

Nor do I see what's underhanded in not applying a label to myself.

It's only underhanded when you refuse to wear the label printed in a big 128 pitch flashing red embossed font with two spotters carrying bullhorns ahead of you announcing "here comes a heretic!", I fear.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

All together I think there are about 50 of them that post here.

BigMack

[CindyDawg]

FM (in just a minute)

[rwfromkansas]

"Its main tenets do not readily appear from a plain reading of Scripture."

Um, yes they do. It is just because the church has bought into the Arminian reading that we don't see it until it is pointed out to us. Calvinism is all over Scripture.

And Vance is no moderate.....have looked at his book and it is pure trash and unfounded accusations.

[IMRight]

"Its main tenets do not readily appear from a plain reading of Scripture."

Um, yes they do. Calvinism is all over Scripture.

Right. That's why it took 1500-1600 years before anyone discovered them there.

[rwfromkansas]

It is underhanded to drop the specific 5 points and try to get the core issue of where salvation begins?

Monergism is the essence of Calvinism. If you understand salvation in a monergistic manner.....that, as Scripture says it was God who "began a good work in you..." not you making the choice, you HAVE to eventually agree with all 5 points of Calvinism. It just will happen.

It is highly erroneous of you to claim that by trying to elicit agreement on this major point at first people are being "closet" Calvinists and "underhanded."

As for your church situation, I highly doubt they "tried to take over."

[rwfromkansas]

Calvinists argue. I did not see that debate, but we argue. We debate.

We don't have a problem with striving for God's truth and sometimes getting tough to do so. It is too bad the rest of the church isn't so vigorous to fight for the truth like we are and instead cries "can't we all get along smooch smooch."

Yeah, we fight. But, we Calvinists all share in common a love of Jesus Christ and God's sovereign grace. At the end of the day, that is what matters.

[RnMomof7]

There is no question that God's Grace will precede the choice to follow Him. As a creature (and that's all we are apart from Him) man does not have the ability to say "yes" to God. That doesn't force the situation though. Your usage of "will" is "unusual". Those who are not regenerated will not chose Him, those who are will.

Those that are unregenerate can not choose Him. All men do as they will to do (that is free will) .

Let me ask you a question, can you honestly say that having God give you a will that can and will choose Him is an evil thing? An undesirable thing?

When I hear people say things like " God does not FORCE you" I wonder if we live in the same reality . Is it an undesirable fate to be in the presence of the Eternal God? Is it a fate worse than death to run to Him ? Why would He have to FORCE us to come?

Did Lazarus yell out from the tomb, "I do not choose to live thank you anyway" .

We read in Romans that every man will stand before God without an excuse .That is a very important principle . God reveals himself to all men , He takes nothing away from from men,He refuses no one that comes to Him. All men are held responsible to respond to the call , and will be judged so. Paul tells us that no man seeks God or even understands God. When God regenerates (quickens) us , our ears and eyes are opened and we can for the first time see God without the barrier of Adams sin separating us from Him. We then will seek and understand.

As Calvinists , we do not see God as taking anything away from the reprobates, but as adding to the elect the grace to see and hear without the static of sin. He does not remove from us our free will, He makes it more free in Him.

[Alex Murphy]

As for your church situation, I highly doubt they "tried to take over."

By his own admission, these "closet Calvinists" either succeeded in taking it over despite his attempts at fighting them, or succeeded in scaring him away from the fight, and he fled the church.

Either way, by his own admission, his theology was tried and found wanting.

[RnMomof7]

I ain't scared are you? :

You would be if understood

So Mack what does the bible mean when it speaks of the elect?

[IMRight]

Let me ask you a question, can you honestly say that having God give you a will that can and will choose Him is an evil thing? An undesirable thing?

Undesireable? No of course not. But there are lots of things that are desirable that also do not exist.

Can you say God giving you a hug is an evil thing? Does that mean people get hugs from Him every day?

Your points boil down to "If everyone had the choice - how could any of them possibly say no???" Which is no different that asking how Adam and Eve could have screwed up when they had everything so perfect. Free will combined with " the sin that is within me that is not my sin" makes it very possible. Not "desirable", but far too common. We are bent.

[JohnnyM]

"As Calvinists , we do not see God as taking anything away from the reprobates, but as adding to the elect the grace to see and hear without the static of sin. He does not remove from us our free will, He makes it more free in Him."

And we are now back to the question. If He gives to the elect the eyes or the Grace to see their sin and be saved and to unelect He does not give such Grace, and it is this Grace that determines man's fate, then how can this be considered just.

We read in Romans that every man will stand before God without an excuse.

Can't this man then say, God you did not give me the Grace that was given to the elect, so of course I could not choose your Son, I could only reject Him, because I was wired to reject from the foundation of the world. This does not seem just to me.

JM

[RnMomof7]

(As an aside to the GRPL: has any of you found that, if you drop the 5 points, and just discuss monergistic regeneration, you get a lot further? I found that, as soon as I dropped the title "Calvinism" and ignored the 5 points, but focused on how "it's all God from start to finish," I was able to elicit agreement from an hardened anti-Calvinist that what I believed was Biblical after all.)

I is who I is Jude, I do not fly under a false flag

I never expect anyone to accept what I say as true, that is the work of the Holy Spirit to illumine scripture not mine .

Those, that as students of the scripture, will go and read like Bereans , to search out the truth will see it and understand it . Those that are afraid to let go and let God be truly sovereign , will not bother..

In the last year or so the number of Calvinists have grown here because they have gone to the "book" to verify what Calvinism teaches . They finally stop reading past the "hard parts" and justifing in their minds that it can not possibly mean what it says and reading on .

[rwfromkansas]

I personally don't really have an eschat. stance. I find the subject rather confusing. I probaly lean amill, but am not vigorously against the historic premill position. Some great reformed folks have held that position.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

yawn. :-)