Free Republic

If one can be made spiritually alive apart from their response to Christ, that would seem to have negated the necessity of the cross. If grace is being dispensed at His good pleasure, then faith is really irrelevant.

If one is alive prior to repentance why need they repent?

I would place the emphasis a bit more on submission, I guess.

With the mind a man can understand the gospel,with his will he may even search for the truth of the gospel, with his emotions he may even be moved by the gospel, but no man can willingly submit to the call of the gospel in their spirit (which is dead), apart from Divine intervention.

The thing which has bothered me the most about this discussion is that it seems to make the work of Christ something of an after thought. To me Christ is the central theme of Christianity. If there were no Christ there could be no elect. God through his Holy Spirit draws men to the gospel of Christ.

Just a question.

When we say no man is "willing" to come to salvation that would present a problem.

It appeared the rich young ruler was "willing" to come to Christ if he (the rich young ruler) could define the terms.

Many theologians and psychologists would place the "will" in the sphere of the soul not the spirit. Very few would argue that the soul was "dead".

On this basis I'm not real comfortable with the T definition. But then again, what do I know.

You're number three is correct, he wanted his head chopped off!!

I guess Wesley should have adopted Calvin's attitudes for dealing with people. I'm sure Servetus thought Calvin's attitudes were so very Christlike.

Perhaps there was, and my/your free choice to accept or reject that sacrifice will play a vital role in my/your eternal destination.

Didn't mean to post to you specifically, but to board in general. Especially those professing Calvinists out there.

To me the question seems very valid. If God could, at his good pleasure "elect" a people to himself, then what is the necessity of a sacrifice for our sin? If God chooses to "make us alive, spiritually", totally apart from any action on the part of spiritually dead mankind, than our salvation is a work of God the Father ,and Him alone.

If Salvation is the work of the Father, the actions of the Son seem to be quite meaningless. This really goes against scripture.

God could have, at His good pleasure, "elected" a people without the necessity of sending the Son. The soverignty of God is reason enough to "elect" a people, but obviously this is not the case in scripture.

T= total depravity.... ok

U= unconditional election....ok

L= limited atonement.... why is any atonement needed if God need simply elect one for salvation?

That's avoiding the question, and really quite aa arbitrary use of that fallback position when it comes to a discussion of Calvinism. Just hoping to get a valid response.

"Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" had nothing to do with their response to Christ. Why was His death necessary?

An honest question

If salvation is a predetermined work of God, not subject to any decision any man may naturally make, why was the death of Christ on a cross necessary?

This is not a baiting question, so no flames please. It just seems logical that God could have elected to save any man without the sacrifice of Christ if man's response to that sacrifice is not possible.

I think the term man made theological box is pretty self explanatory. Calvinism,dispensationalism,armenianism,... all systematic theologies. Proper is probably not a term I would be comfortable with, but in general I take great comfort in knowing that the Holy Spirit who indwells me can enlighten me, as I earnestly search out the scriptures. Am I ever in error as I read and study? yes. Are all men? yes. Has any man ever cornered the market on truth as they have expounded the scriptures? no

Just reinforces for, me why all man made theological boxes truly fail to encompass the mysteries of the gospel.

I am very Calvinist in my doctrine btw, and a lurker for probably four years. I really love reading these threads, I discuss them with a couple of the deacons at my church all the time. Having officiated at several funerals for infants, I just hoped to get some input from some of the more vocal Calvinists on the topic. Not trying to bait.

So then why oppose abortion? Seems to me, under that belief that the unborn has a 100% chance of going to heaven for eternity. If born, especially in most areas of the globe it's odds are significantly worse of entering heaven.

Just a question. Would a Calvinist by definition then, believe that all babies do not necessarily go to heaven, only the elect babies?