Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: George W. Bush; drstevej; fortheDeclaration; winstonchurchill
I suppose you would claim that God did intend to save everyone (if they, corrupt and fallen creatures, gave Him, their Creator, permission to do so) and that is why Christ died for the whole world.

Close, but not quite. God's intent was that salvation be made possible for everyone.

Once you accept that God made it possible for everyone, then you make a radical statement about the nature of God that he would make it possible but would ALSO deny it as a matter of His choice. It seems a birfurcation of his own will.

26 posted on 07/20/2002 1:38:59 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: xzins
God's intent was that salvation be made possible for everyone.

Scripture please.

27 posted on 07/20/2002 3:53:20 AM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
Xzins Is the High Priest a type of Christ? Was the Lamb a type of Christ? Was His sacrifical atonment universal , or was it specific?
29 posted on 07/20/2002 10:31:41 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
I suppose you would claim that God did intend to save everyone (if they, corrupt and fallen creatures, gave Him, their Creator, permission to do so) and that is why Christ died for the whole world. Close, but not quite. God's intent was that salvation be made possible for everyone. Once you accept that God made it possible for everyone, then you make a radical statement about the nature of God that he would make it possible but would ALSO deny it as a matter of His choice. It seems a birfurcation of his own will.

Amen. God respected the free will of His creation that He even self-limited Himself in allowing their decisions to go against His own desire for them (Matt.23:37, Rom.10:21)

What the Calvinists refuse to accept is that while God allows mankind to choose for or against Him, He does not allow man to choose what the consquences of those decisions will be.

Reality still remains reality and man cannot change that.

There are two choices, but only one reality, (Jn.3:36)

30 posted on 07/20/2002 1:17:07 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: xzins; drstevej; Jerry_M; RnMomof7; Jean Chauvin; rdb3; Wrigley; Matchett-PI; Dr. Eckleburg; ...

God's intent was that salvation be made possible for everyone.

The very words "Christ died to save all men" seem to have an air of majesty worthy of God. However, it cannot be said that Christ offered atonement and secured the salvation of all men. This is the heresy of Universalism, vile and disgusting. The entire wording of such a construction then is reduced to this simple contention: God has made a "possible salvation" for all men. Please note though, that the very wording of this construction implies that a "possible salvation" by grace is not in and of itself a salvation by grace, but at best is a salvation in the use of grace by the man.

It must be stated up front that a "possible salvation" by grace is most definitely NOT an actual salvation by grace; the certainty of the salvation of not one human being is provided for. This grace led NONE to salvation. Before a "possible salvation" can become an actual salvation something must be done. Those who defend a mere "possible salvation" must contend then that man must perform that something for a mere "possible salvation" to become an actual salvation. The efficacious act comes from the man who can accept or stifle and kill the grace of God.

In order for the Arminian's construct to be proved there then must be some inequality in the mix that will determine the final outcome of either salvation or damnation. If grace is the inequality, then the Reformed theologians position is correct and Arminianism is overthrown by the concession. If it is in the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation through faith that he supplies, then salvation is not by grace. Salvation is ultimately by the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN.


Is the inequality:

    1. the GRACE of God?

    2. the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN?




Now, the Arminian will maintain that God has given every man a "Prevenient Grace" to overcome man's Totally Depraved nature. This is the Arminian's attempt to avoid the Pelagian idea that the natural fallen man is capable of fully grasping salvation for himself. This is part of what the Arminian means when they say that God has made salvation possible for all men. But the very way that the Arminian has constructed his unBiblical "Prevenient Grace" he has either made himself a man exalting hypocrite or he has just disguised the fact that he is still fully Pelagian his belief.

Now, it must be stated at this point that the man, prior to the offer of "Prevenient Grace" has absolutely nothing but his own natural fallen VIRTUE to use in his decision on whether or not to receive this "Prevenient Grace". Man without the aid of anything from God must decide whether or not to receive the grace that he will then use to create his own salvation from the mere "possible salvation" that Christ wrought on the Cross.

Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Arminian believes that the natural fallen man is fully capable of creating his own salvation from the tools that he finds conveniently left by God. What a Pelagian man exalting doctrine!

55 posted on 07/20/2002 6:33:57 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
But wait a minute, one of the Arminian pet verses says God wants 'all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.' Of course, this is in context of the elect, but Arminians ignore this.

I have not met many Arminians that actually say it is God's divine will to save everyone...they say things like God made salvation "possible" like you are saying. This way, they can skip around the obvious problem that if it was God's divine will to save everyone, God is a failure because not everyone is saved. However, by using this logical dancing, you are ignoring the obvious implication of the Arminian mis-interpretation of the passage in question. It clearly states God's will is that everyone will be saved. This is not even remotely close to God simply making salvation "possible" for everyone. There is an enormous difference between God making something possible and it being his efficacious will.

Ultimately, both the altered version of Arminianism that says "salvation is possible for all" and the few that just flat confess what their mis-interpretation of Scripture shows....that God wants everyone to be saved in his divine, sovereign will.....are false and Calvinism must be correct with particular redemption.
167 posted on 07/21/2002 11:22:30 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson