Posted on 12/29/2002 9:23:52 PM PST by PFKEY
Hope no one minds the vanity too much.
I was thinking last night about this idea and was trying to make it jive somewhat with the notion of predeterminationalism if that is the correct word.
Also was curious regarding what the various Christian denominations taught on this subject.
Lol. You believe He offers the same salvation to all men, but predestines some to Hell? Is it an empty offer then?
No, man was already on his way to hell by virtue of the sin of Adam, God, being under no obligation to save anyone, by His grace, chose to show mercy to some of those condemned to hell by the sin of Adam.
"Is it an empty offer then?"
Thank you for asking that question! Answer: no. An empty offer would be a God who could not accomplish His purposes, a God who would offer salvation to a people who would have never accepted it unless He had interviened in their lives, and yet still refused. That would be an empty promise.
They interpret that as drawn by Christ, not drawn to Christ. Christ can draw all men to Him and be resisted, the way a roach runs from the light. But they want you to say that men are drawn by Christ and therefore can't resist. It is a subtle but important distinction. Christ sets Himself as a light to all men, we can choose ourselves to resist that light. Salvation is there for all men.
Greetings! And just where would i find the above reference? If it is in a scriptural passage, could you point me to it? If not, please tell me where the reference is found. Thank you, i await your answer.
Try Romans 5:18 compared with Jn.16:9.
But what does scripture matter to someone who cannot understand Jn.3:16?
Amazing that someone would fight against infant salvation.
Even OP states that he believes the babies all elect and therefore saved.
Please do not post me with your silly questions.
The article I posted states the case for infant salvation in a very clear state.
An "empty offer"? Of course not. The fact of an offer being genuine, does not depend upon it being accepted by any particular recipient of that Offer.
But God alone determines the span of a Man's days upon this earth, and just what "persuasive Graces" will be showered upon one Man, and not upon another. Certainly God does not "owe" Grace to any man, for He has elected (in Biblically-recorded examples!!) to withhold Graces which He foreknew would have been sufficient to "persuade" a Man to Repent:
And instead of electing to employ such Graces to persuade these Men (of Tyre and Sidon and Sodom) to Repent -- as He foreknew that they would repent, if granted such Grace -- He chose instead that "this day their lives would be required of them", setting them forth as an example of judgment instead:
In short, you can praise the "free will" of Man to the Heavens, but at the end of the day a Fallen, unregenerate Man who hates God is -- without the "persuasion" of divine Grace -- ALWAYS going to reject God (Romans 8:5-8, etc).
And God does not "owe" Grace to any man, and He alone chooses whether or not to withhold such Graces (as in the case of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom), and how much Grace to employ (a great deal indeed in Paul's case!!) -- foreknowing just "how much" grace will be sufficient for one Man, and not for another.
Thus, the Offer is freely and genuinely available to all Men, but God by His sovereign election of Grace has infallibly pre-determined just who among Men is actually going to accept the free Offer which is made.
What other standard of Divine Omniscience are we to use, given that Matthew 11 clearly states that God does foreknow what the different Free Choices of Men would be if He had elected a different dispensation of Grace -- thus establishing God's absolute and unrelenting foreknowledge of the contingent free choices of Men?
Beyond the fact that the "Open Theism" doctrine of Foreknowledge is bald-faced heretical on the prima facie basis of its humanistic denigration of God's Omniscience, it is directly contrary to the primary evidence on the Case -- Matthew 11 (and secondarily Isaiah 40-46, etc.)
Okay, how's this: The Salvific Will of God is not "universal" in the sense of a God who is desperately trying to save everyone, and yet often failing in His forlorn attempts.
The Commandment of God which attends to Salvation is universal in the sense that God commands all Men everywhere to Repent. THAT is universal.
This is not the same as saying that all Men will Repent. In fact, were it not for God's merciful Regenerating Grace unto His chosen, then none would obey the Universal command to Repent.
I admit that the first time that the first time I saw our friendly newbie's screen name, it caused a double-take on my part... I figured, "well, either he's making fun of Calvinists, or he is making fun of stereotypes about Calvinists". I'm happy it is the latter, but there's no accounting for taste (busting CDL's chops).
On the other hand, when I was changing my screen name a coupla years back, I very nearly went with "Presbyterians_wear_Black", so I'm hardly one to judge (grin).
White or gold are used for Sundays (each Sunday represents the Resurrection), feast days, and holy days. Green, signifying hope, is used for Pentecost. Blue is used for feasts of the Mother of God. Red is used on the feast day of a martyr and also on feasts commemorating the cross. Purple is used during the week days of the Great Lent and fasting periods. Black or purple for a funeral service or Liturgy for the dead.
The black-robed clergy of Presbyterianism, on the other hand, is pretty monochromatic in our tastes. (Hence the Royalist slur against the Presbyterian Clergy in American-Revolutionary days as "the Black Regiment of rebellion").
I'm okay with that. It is our "religious tradition"...
...and at least it makes shopping for us an easy task.
I wear the Black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.
I wear the Black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.
Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'ta be a Man In Black.
I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the Black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.
And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believin' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believin' that we all were on their side.
Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move, to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.
Oh, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off, a little of the darkness on my back,
So 'till things get brighter, I am the Man In Black.
Actually I thought Tammy looked like a hooker too..It was perhaps a reaction to the holiness tradition they came out of..
Actually I thought Tammy looked like a hooker too..It was perhaps a reaction to the holiness tradition they came out of.. 935 posted on 01/13/2003 6:47 PM PST by RnMomof7
Here, I'll split the difference...
Tammy Faye might have had (and has even today) the fashion sense of a hooker, but "looks like a hooker"?
Aside from the "Julia Roberts" Hollywood Pretty Woman standard of, um, "hookery", the term we are looking for here is "heroin chic" --- and her myriad Fashion Sins aside, Tammy Faye ain't quite there yet (though without a lotta prayer, she may well get there).
And sisters, no doubtaboutit.
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.