Replies

The only reason that man is considered unable to respond to the Gospel is because the Calvinists say that he is not elected to do so.

That is a distortion and complete mis-statement of the Calvinist position. Even Arminians agree that man is unable (total inability) to "choose" God on his own. Else, why would he need "Prevenient Grace" in order to do so? Calvinists say no different. Man, by and on his own, cannot choose God, respond to God, or in any way come to a saving faith in God apart from God's Grace being first shed upon him. Where we differ is the extent of that Grace, both in scope and in application.

The fact is if you are 'yielding' in your Christian walk, you are making a decision for or against God and thus cooperating with His grace (the hated concept in Calvinism)

Ah, you must ever remind us that Calvinists *hate* opposition. Prejudicial asides don't further your case, Ed. I asked you to stop doing that. I thought we were going to discuss this calmly and rationally. It seems you just can't resist getting your little digs in. Enough!

There is a world of difference between the Christian's response to God's Grace, and the unbeliever's response. For one thing, a Christian is in relationship with God, and therefore can cooperate. A Christian has had his free will restored, and is able to make a real choice for or against God. Calvinists don't hate the concept of cooperating with God's Grace, we just rightly apply it where it is true, and that is after conversion.

Phi 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

God sets up man for failure in this system due to unconditional election and then states that man is responsible for that failure! ***Total Inability arise from the fact that man is already a sinner, not just a potential sinner. He is born that way!*** And, how according to Calvin, did man get that way? God decreed it that way. Moreover, Christ dealt with Adams sin and His grace is greater then Adams sin (Rom.5)

My, how you accuse God! And how you falsely accuse Calvinists! What does God's Word say?

Rom 9:14-33 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

I can imagine that Arminians have some problems with that passage, because it clearly indicates that some are "fitted for destruction" and some have been "afore prepared unto glory". Sounds like Presdestination to me! Also, even though Israel's children be numbered as the sands of the sea, a remnant will be saved. Not because they rejected God by their "free will", but because ...it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Looks as though it is not man's will that determines his fate, but God's Will, and His Mercy.

***He is born in a state of already resisting God's Grace.***

And why is man born that way? It is due to God's unconditional election so that the damned would remain damned. Thus, no man is damned because he is a sinnner, he is a sinner because he is damned!(not elected)

***It's not a decision he makes, it's his natural reaction.***

Man is held accountable for rejecting God at the point of nature because he has the knowledge of God but rejects it.

No, man is born that way because he is of his father, Adam, who sinned. Man is born a sinner because Adam sinned. That is an unavoidable truth in the word. Man sins because he is a sinner. He is born that way. It is his nature to sin. Man is held accountable to God because he is a sinner, not because he has rejected God at the point of nature, because that knowledge cannot save him. The natural revelation stands as a witness against man. Romans 1 says that because of the natural revelation, God gave them up to their sins, gave them over to their sins, and they are justly condemned for their sins.

Unconditional election is not the agency by which man is damned. Their own sins are the basis. The ONLY basis. You wrestle with this because it gives man no quarter. It allows man no say in his fate. You don't like the idea that it is God who IS in control, and it is He, and He alone, who chooses.

***It is God's Grace that apprehends a man, and causes him to turn and receive God's gift of salvation. It is never man deciding that he will stop resisting Grace, and receive God's gift. God must first enable the man to receive, or he will not, and therefore cannot.***

And the reason man cannot is because God will not!

Thus, the sum of Calvinism is putting man is hopeless situation, saving some, damning the rest and then blaming those who are not chosen for being damned in the first place!

That's what you'd like people to believe, but it just isn't so! Man put himself in that situation, by sinning. If you're going to blame someone, blame Adam. Calvinism is not about putting man in a hopeless state and then blaming him for being that way. That's pure Bull-winky! The reason man cannot choose God is because he cannot! You are trying to portray the Calvinist conception of God as some sort of mean, capricious, cruel, sadistic, and utterly evil Supreme Being that resembles Saddam Hussein and his sons much more than it does the God of the Bible. the reason you do that is clear: If the Calvinist position appears to be one that seems unfair, then the Arminian position by contrast looks much more attractive. It tickles the ears with its talk of man "cooperating" with God in his salvation, of man being able to "choose" God, or reject Him, and puts man in the "catbird" seat, making him the "captain of his soul", and the "master of his destiny", with the promise that if he will "cooperate" with God, he will be blessed. The question begs itself: Who's in charge in that scenario?

Moreover, all your protestations regarding Adams sin are made void by the fact the second Adam undid the condemnation of the first Adam, so that all men are now savable because of the greater grace of the Second Adam. Only man's rejection of that grace damns him (Jn.16:9). The one result of Adams sin that has not been dealt with yet is death itself but it will be in the future (1Cor.15)

Is that so? So, you're saying that Christ's work on the cross kind of "half-saved" man, and it is man who must complete the process to be saved? If Christ's death, burial and resurrection undid the condemnation for sin for all men, why are men still dying in their sins? Why are men still reprobate? Couldn't God do more? Oh, I know, it's because now man gets to decide his own fate, by either acceptiing or rejecting Christ's work. So you're saying that man really is in control. Then answer me this: if the condemnation for sin was dealt with on the cross for all men, how can God still hold them accountable for that which has already been paid for by Christ? Either it's paid for or it isn't. You want to have it both ways. Chargeable to men unless they believe it has been paid. Again, it's man who decides his own fate, not God.

That is completely and utterly unscriptural, and I cannot believe that a Baptist would hold such a position! That's no teaching of the Baptist church that I've ever heard!