Posted on 09/30/2002 9:19:01 AM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Because I have been remiss in sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with my neighbor.
Seriously, I don't mind the questions...makes me dig and think. However, it's getting too late for me tonight to delve into all of this, so I need to continue this later...
I've said this before. I have a very simple faith...not naive...simple!
BigMack
Sure sounds like you're denying God's sovereignty here: the end of the world can't come until the last of the elect chooses to repent and believe. So long as that last person holds out, the world can't come to an end?
Ah, you mean the fictional Jesus of your erroneous scriptural exegesis, performed without aid of revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost? That Jesus? The one that's required to wait on that one, single, solitary, final repentant soul?
Do you have a man REALLY called of God as your pastor, that is a strong leader, and has not watered down the gospel?More than one HERE.
Do you have the link for this article?
(It did not turn up when I searched the LA Times' site.)
Don't let them turn you to the dark side girl, your simple faith in what God has told us, is true.
Hi BigMack. Let me throw down the gauntlet. Show us all how any analysis of the Scriptures that has been presented by those of us this group would classify as "Calvinists" has violated the immediate context of any of the passages or the broad context of Scripture. I contend that the exegesis is sound. (I don't like the label "Calvinist" myself becase the doctrine predatates Calvin and I would say is the orthodox position of Peter and Paul.) The problem is that autonomous man does not like being brought squarely to grips with the idea that he is not the absolute source of authority in the universe. One does not have to like a conclusion for it to be true. God is the sovereign ruler over all of the universe he made, including the hearts and will of men. That said, it is also true that God is good and not the author of sin. The two statements are not mutually exclusive and the Scriptures are not ashamed to proclaim both truths.
Rn is mischaracterizing the free choice (Arminian) position for effect....clear contrast.
Actually we believe that man is dead from the fall. We believe not that he has enough spiritual life left to desire God, but that the Lord enlivens him to see the choice before him. In that momentarily enlivened/enlightened state he can see clearly to make a choice. (We call that prevenient grace....God's grace that comes before salvation.)
Calvinists actually also believe in prevenient grace but in a different way. The see the prevenient grace of God FULLY AND COMPLETELY saving a person BEFORE that person believes. In other words, they think that for a brief moment of time UNBELIEVERS are saved.
We believe that no man is saved until he believes.
Also, a lot of people "born again" are at church for the spiritual goodies/ spiritual high. Remember the parable of the sower? A lot of seeds get choked by weed/ love of the world.
Finally, you forget that a lot of non believers are ethical people. a lot of church people are sinners. A lot of the "good" people who aren't religious were born with (to use CS Lewis' term) "good digestion". They have a bit of wealth, a healthy body, and a good personality. They don't feel the need for God in their lives, since they lack nothing (they think).
I know druggies and drunks who desperately seek God, but fall again and again into their sin. Ditto for gays. Ditto for people with bad tempers, people with bad marriages, etc. But they repent and try again. They go to church not because they are "saved", i.e. born again and perfect, but because they are sinners and seek to change.
Is the church a house of God, or a hospital for sinners? Did Christ come to save the sinner, or to make the perfect feel good inside?
So God failed?
Can God create a rock he can't pick up?
Becky
IF God wanted too, do you think He could have given us freewill to choose? Do you think that if He gave everyone free choice He could have foreknew who would accept and who would reject, then use that knowledge to forward His plans? Would that be possible for a sovereign God?
Becky
When you boasted that you get pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. That is the definition of schadenfreude.
I know the definition. 'twas I who used the word, remember?
It is a malicious pleasure and the kind of pleasure that only a spiritual Tare would get.
I am so glad you Calvinists are all perfect. I admit that it is a pleasure that is sinful, and an impulse I should avoid. But I can learn to overcome it. Can you get over your smug habit of judging others unto eternal damnation?
Oh, BTW, Jesus is not describing the way things are in His church, but the way things are in His kingdom. You Roman Catholics are always getting that confused.
I think we've shown what side confusion reigns on. Or have you and Mack reconciled your differences?
SD
Becky
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.