Posted on 03/17/2008 8:12:36 AM PDT by Ottofire
I love how Arminians assume Calvinists are not well-studied on these issues. Most Calvinists have studied longer or harder than the average Arminian.
Most Calvinists were ardent Arminians to begin with, therefore we know of what we speak.
You are correct that God does not restrict in any way, but Romans 3:11 shows that man is incapable: "There is none who understands, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD".
If there is none who seeks for God, in Mankind, then the logical question is "What then makes it possible for anyone seek for God?", then the answer must be God's intervention and help.
The Doctrine of Free Will assumes that the effects of Adam's fall is not devastating upon his will and that his will is still spiritually alive. Whereas the Scriptures consistently teach that mankind, apart from Christ, is completely and spiritually "Dead in Trespasses and Sin".
Thus the doctrine of Free Will underestimates the destructiveness of Adam's Fall and the power of Sin upon mankind.
It is therefore, all the more remarkable, that Christ, while we were yet, dead in trespasses and sin, unlistening, unseeing and unable to move toward Him... Died upon the Cross (ON Good Friday) for Spiritually useless folks like you and I, and Arose on Resurrection Sunday, proving He has the power to Resurrect both the Physically and Spiritually dead people that folks like us were.
Blessed be His Name: The Lord Jesus Christ.
Have you had a chance to read the article yet?
Jkl1122, you need to know that I used to hold to the Armenian doctrine having grown up in a Methodist Church. But after being challenged with Scriptures and instructed to memorize them. I saw that my former doctrines were wholly inadequate to explain the Sovereignty of God in the Scriptures and were based on Man's Reasoning.
One would think that God would treat all men equally, but the scriptures show He does not. One would think he loves all men equally, but the Scriptures show He does not and I have proved it to you through Scripture you have had no response to the Scriptures presented you. I challenge you to Memorize them to see whether they are so!!
Yes, I read the document and was sad to see that it attempted to rationalize God's sovereignty away and put mankind over it and play word games so that Electos does not mean Election and other spins attempting to show that predestination, does not mean Predestination and more such philosophications.
I was sad to see the attempt to try to prove that God loves all equally after I had asked you your take on "Esau have I hated, and Jacob have I loved" from "the womb"? and have not seen any response from you.
What about Moses, Samuel and John the Baptist? All These were chosen by God Sovereignly before they were born. Beyond this how they were brought to faith? The doctrines I saw had no way of explaining that. But Calvin (and I agree) they were wooed by God actively with His love and Irresistible Grace (too good to miss). Otherwise, one has to argue they were forced.
The followers of Armenius, like Palagues(sp?) based their philosophies that Sin had not affected the will of man so badly that they would not come to God. In this they ignored the Scripture in Romans I quoted you that "NO SEEKS FOR GOD".
YOU SHOULD BE ASKING THE QUESTION THEN: IF "NO ONE SEEKS FOR GOD", THEN HOW DO MEN SEEK HIM? The answer you should find is GOD. This is the only explanation.
I'm sorry, the doctrines in that document are contradicted directly by Romans. The will of man is horribly mangled and on his own man naturally abhors God and runs from him just as Adam and Eve did. Thus, the doctrine is woefully weak as to the effects of Fall of Mankind through Adam and Eve. Not only that but it underestimates Sin today.
The Doctrine of the Total Depravity of Man by the Church of Holland in 1918 after being presented the other beliefs of the followers of Amenius in 1610, was correct. They refuted it with Scriptures just as I have done (only with them it was years of deliberation) and not by one man.
I'm sorry to see, in the document that God is not glorified as the "Author and Finisher of Faith" and in not recognizing His Sovereign acts toward believers before they confess the Faith which He has given them.
The doctrine that God did not add to the church daily "as it says clearly in acts" and the idea that MAN did it, was refuted in the Doctrine of the Unmerited Election at the same time.
I have presented you demonstrations of the Sovereignty of God with many proofs, and you have given me only statements of belief that Man is the Sovereign elector of Salvation.
12 years ago, I used to believe that Man is the chooser, now after memorizing a ton of scripture (and not just cherry picking), I find that God has been at work, more in creation than I have ever thought, more Gracious than I ever thought and more Sovereign in each and every day than I ever thought.
In going back to the Doctrines of Armenius I would have to deny the Sovereignty of God as found in the Scriptures : "There is NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD... NO NOT ONE". Which is absolutely absolute without God's intervention.
I am not a follower of Armenius any more than I am a follower of Calvin. Election does in fact mean election, and predestination does in fact mean predestination. It is just that it is not accurate to apply these terms to individuals, but rather they should be applied in a corporate sense.
Again still no reply on the relevant scriptures here. You are avoiding the issue.
I am avoiding nothing. With regards to the comments about Esau and Jacob, please provide the passage of Scripture that states “Esau have I hated, and Jacob have I loved” from “the womb”. Thank you.
Romans 9: 11-15 NASB An Excellent Passage on God's Soveriegnty over Man. I challenge you to memorize Romans 9:11 and see whether what has been said is so.
Verse 15 is also very helpful. I do admit my memory on verse 13 was reversed, but here it is:
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
It seems that Paul’s main purpose in this passage of Scripture is to show that God’s chosen people are not limited to a certain physical lineage. While that is true today, it was also true at other times in the past, as in the case of Jacob being chosen over Esau. While God has chosen certain people through which to accomplish His purpose throughout time, we know from Acts 10:34 that God is no respecter of persons with regards to salvation.
Yes, I think you've got it. For Moses, Samuel, Jacob and and others Free Will wasn't free. God had ordained their faith and much of what would happen in their lives.
The passage I gave you, talks about God's choice of Jacob before he was born, just as I said.
God chose Jacob and that blows the doctrine of Free Will. And thereby opens the question of how God instilled faith in Jacob according to His determination.
Good bye for now.
These facts, that God chose certain people through which to accomplish His purpose and that mankind has free will, are not mutually exclusive. Just because God chose to bless Jacob instead of Esau, this did not mean that neither of them were able to make their own choices.
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.