| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/19/2004 7:52:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
This thread has 183 abuse reports. It’s now locked. Maybe you can all get along better on the next thread. |
Posted on 03/10/2004 9:37:27 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
I'm simply drawing logical inferences from the very posts of the Moderator in the context of the threat of the thread being shut down. You can draw your own inferences from them. If you'd like, I can hold your hand while you do so.
He could have; but He didn't. So in the great scheme of things, that man met his sad fate among the weeds and cinders. What will be (through the grace and mercy of God alone), will be.
What an absolutely wonderful Arminian post. I couldn't agree more. Of course, I see the opposite as well. If God, in his infinite grace and mercy, chooses to throw each and every one of us a lifesaver as we sink into the morass of our own sin, and we, through no goodness of our own, but through a simple obedience to the drawing of the Holy Spirit, choose to receive the gift of the lifesaver, who are we to say that it's outside His nature?
(scratches head)
(puzzled look)
Nevermind, maybe it's just me. But I thought that was OUR line.
the808bass: Nevermind, maybe it's just me. But I thought that was OUR line.
Nah, that's just Christianity. Show me an alleged Christian who doesn't believe in a universal, free offer of the gospel extended to all men in good faith, and I'll show you someone who's systematic theology has made a cruel parody of the truth.
Most Calvinists don't deny the universal offer of salvation. The question centers upon the efficaciousness of the atonement -- are the sins of every man, without exception, expiated? The Calvinist says, of course not, some are judged on the basis of those works. A catchphrase we've used is "sufficient for all, applied to the elect." If "elect" scares you, substitute "Christians" or "believers."
Calvinists don't believe the gospel is only offered to the elect, just that only the elect could choose to accept it. It all stems back to "total depravity."
And the difference is? Syntax, not semantics. Light years of difference between only the elect "could" choose to accept and only the elect "will" choose to accept it.
It all stems back to "total depravity."
Romans 2:14ff
When the Gentiles, who do not posess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
Hey Jude
Maybe I'm missing something here but this doesn't make sense to me. God would offer this gift to all but then only allow some to accept it? Isn't that kind of like offering candy to children but jerking it back when they reach for it?
(snicker)
If I had tried to write a better example of the Arminian contradiction, I couldn't top this one.
"Through no goodness of our own," by definition, cannot include the positive attribute of "simple obedience."
"Obedience" is "goodness," regardless of how much you hope to feign humility.
But you're right about one thing. Salvation is through no goodness of our own, no matter what the definition of "is" is.
Don't have to cite a scripture. We can choose to embrace or reject tradition. The talmid is not a magesterium to the "non-orthodox" Jew. There's also a tradition that the Sons of Jacob won battles by roaring like lions. I choose to reject that one. Nice try.
You see? This is why we don't allow any food or beverage in the computer room.
There is a light-year of difference between the two, to be sure.
Why do people reject the gospel? It's because of their nature: we love darkness rather than the light. Only because God intervenes in some of our lives, changes our values so that we are willing to no longer rebel, but submit to him, do any repent.
It's all about "could." The natural man cannot comprehend the things of God, because they are foolishness to him, because they are spiritually discerned.
It's more like offering candy to a group of hardened candy-haters. The hand remains unmoved, the offer still on the table, but because we are hardened sinners who hate God, apart from his intervention, we'd all reject His gospel.
Heard it...
God doesn't cause the rejection of Himself. Mankind is already destined for Hell. God elects His chosen and it is God who RESCUES His chosen from Hell. A vast difference in perspective.
The correct question you should really pose is; “Why doesn’t God save everyone from Hell?” But this would be no different then me asking you, "Why doesn't God allow everyone to 'hear the Word'"? From your perspective you are saying that God created an imperfect system of salvation.
All any of us can say is that is God’s sovereignty.
It's all about "could." The natural man cannot comprehend the things of God, because they are foolishness to him, because they are spiritually discerned.
... and you maintain that God grants no spiritual discernment (at any time, for any period of time) to those that are yet and shall remain unsaved ?
Now you're just trying to get fresh with me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.