Review of Calvinistic proof texts

[email]

what do you do with the language of john 6 what do you do with the statement of acts 13 48 now i understand the God's not fair for choosing thing but think of this... we would be heretics to say that God died in vain, but thnk of this if we are evil people ... you know like the bible says we are... who love darkness and want nothing to do with light (Christ) then how in the world would we ever care about the light had we not been "quickened" as the scriptures say... call it what you want but God had to do it

[m273p15c]

I am familiar with the argument related to Acts 13:48; however, I don't know what you have in mind by referring to John 6. Also, what passage, or passages, would you use to support the idea that nobody has any interest in good or spiritual things, and is therefore unable to "care" about the gospel?

I believe this type of discussion requires the utmost in spiritual honest, integrity, and objectivity. If either of us approach Scriptures with the thought, "Now, how can I use this to prove the other guy wrong...", we will not ultimately please God (II Timothy 2:15; II Thessalonians 2:9-12). We must be open-minded, which requires identifying and challenging our assumptions.

I look forward to hearing from you, and I pray we can have an earnest, thorough, and spiritual study that will be profitable to us both.

May God help us to have a supreme love truth

[email]

Yeah I don't care about proving you wrong, and I am unconcerned with proving Calvinism correct. Each and every system that we have of boxing up God small enough to fit into our own minds can only do one thing if we dogmatically adhere it and that is cheapen the potentency of the creator of the universe. However, with that said, I would also like to say that I don't believe that Armenianism comes as close to being correct as Calvinism. Am I a Calvinist? NO. John Calvin has not saved me and nor has any other person except for the person of the Holy Spirit. Now that we both understand that I don't want you to feel like I "just want to prove you wrong" I think we can move on to spiritual conversation. :)

The language that I spoke of from John 6 was from verses such as 37, 39, 44, and 65. All these verses speak of the Father being the one from whom the ability for salvation and the drawing to salvation comes from. In Ephesians 1:5 the Greek word for predestined, (proorizo) means to decide, choose, appoint, or set up beforehand. That whole passage seems to imply that all this was done for His purpose or His glory. This is perfectly okay too, think of Romans 9. Of course some will say that this doesn’t all make perfect sense if the Bible also says “whosoever” like it does in John 3:16, but if we don’t understand it, it doesn’t matter. John 3:16 should be understood with the “whosoever” being those that the Father knows will come to Him due to his drawing not understood as God impotently sitting there in Heaven hoping that some wicked, darkness loving person will choose Him over their own wicked ways.

What I was speaking of that implies the total lack of inherent motivation in man to seek God was the well known doctrine of Total Depravity. Gen 6:5, Eph 2:3, 1 Cor 2:14, Romans 3:9-10 & 18, and Eph 2:1ff all show this concept very well. In Romans 7:18 Paul goes into great detail about he cannot do any good from within his flesh, and we see from other things that he writes that it is only through the Spirit that he can do good. Now I know you might be saying "well lost people do good all the time." To this I would say that yes, yes they can do a good deed, but they do not have a good nature. Their behavior has been influenced by what C.S. Lewis calls "moral law." The true nature of the flesh of man is so eloquently described in Jer 17:9.

Seeing what we have just seen about the condition of man we must at least come to terms with the fact that since man really is that bad, something outside of him must draw him unto salvation. This is what makes us have an accurate understanding of why the verses from John that I cited earlier say what they say.

[m273p15c]

Since you asked so many questions, please allow me to answer them, point by point:

Yeah I don't care about proving you wrong, and I am unconcerned with proving Calvinism correct. Each and every system that we have of boxing up God small enough to fit into our own minds can only do one thing if we dogmatically adhere it and that is cheapen the potentency of the creator of the universe. However, with that said, I would also like to say that I don't believe that Armenianism comes as close to being correct as Calvinism. Am I a Calvinist? NO. John Calvin has not saved me and nor has any other person except for the person of the Holy Spirit. Now that we both understand that I don't want you to feel like I "just want to prove you wrong" I think we can move on to spiritual conversation.

Well, very good - I'm glad we are on the same page, so let's get straight to it! Shall we?

The language that I spoke of from John 6 was from verses such as 37, 39, 44, and 65. All these verses speak of the Father being the one from whom the ability for salvation and the drawing to salvation comes from.

Regarding John 6:37-65, I believe the primary fallacy is one of miscommunication and assumption. I do not deny that there is an election, a calling, or foreordination. What is under dispute is the basis of the election (Is it unconditional?), the means of the the calling (Is it the direct and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit? Without other means?), and the scope of the foreordination (Is it individual or corporate? If individual, did foreordination occur before or after God's foreknowledge of our deeds?). I see nothing in John 6:37-65 that necessarily states or implies that the election is unconditional, the calling is irresistible and apart from the gospel, or that the foreordiantion occurred without foreknowledge and apart from our actions. Therefore, I judge the passage to be ambiguous in regards to the discussion at hand. Please correct me, if I am wrong. ... Furthermore, I have no problem eagerly confessing that my salvation is predominantly dependent upon God's grace, including the gospel call (II Thessalonians 2:13-14). Since I am not a Pharisee, who believes I am entirely responsible for my own salvation and worthy of it, your argument, thus presented, poses no crisis of conscience.

In Ephesians 1:5 the Greek word for predestined, (proorizo) means to decide, choose, appoint, or set up beforehand.

Regarding Ephesians 1:3-11, again I believe the primary fallacy is one of assumption. Yes, the verse speaks of an election ("chose us" ) and predestination. But, was the election unconditional? Was predestination's scope corporate or individual? The passage makes this answer clear: "every spiritual blessing ... in Christ", "He chose us in Him ", "having predestined us ... by Jesus Christ", " In Him we have redemption through His blood ", "gather together in one all things in Christ ... in Him", and "In Him also we have obtained an inheritance ...".

Christ was the basis of the election, and as many are joined to Him, are elected "in Him". Therefore, the election is corporate. The body of Christ was elected, because God chose the Head, Jesus. This passage says nothing as to how we join the body of Christ, but other verses do (Galatians 3:26-27).

Although this passage provides supporting evidence for a corporate election , it provides no evidence in support an unconditional election. Neither does this verse confirm or deny if God foreknew us individually, much less the basis of such foreknowledge. ... Now one might say, "But the election occurred before the foundation of the world -- How could it be based on our actions, which we had not yet performed?". The key is that the election was in Him. God chose Jesus before the foundation of the world ( I Peter 1:19-20). We can still choose to reject or deny membership in that body without violating God's election of the saved " in Him". As many as join Christ's body, they become elected in Him. Those who do not join themselves to Christ will not join in His corporate election. ... Think of it this way by trying to answer this question from the passage: "Are we in Him because God chose us, or did God choose us because we are in Him ?" What is the emphasis of the passage? Jesus or us?

That whole passage seems to imply that all this was done for His purpose or His glory.

Regarding all things being done for God's glory, I believe that may be borderline blasphemy. As you said earlier, we must be careful about putting God in a theological box. We must allow Him to reveal and define His own character. Correct? Like Job's friends, we must indeed be careful that we do not act rashly, attributing inaccurate characteristics to God, heaping sin upon ourselves (Job 42:7-9). Now, did God reveal Himself as being ultimately concerned about His own glory and admiration? Or, is He revealed as being more concerned about other's well-fare ( I Corinthians 13:4-5; I John 3:3; II Peter 1:4; I John 4:10-11)? God is love, and love does "not parade itself" and "does not seek its own", but yet you say that He does everything for His own glory, regardless of how it will impact everybody else, regardless if it's fair or not. -- Have I misrepresented you? Please correct me, if I misunderstood your words, or if you have changed your mind. -- God has deliberately gone out of His way to "demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:24-26). He has sought to use our salvation as proof to His righteousness and justice! Furthermore, the demonstration is not relegated to some future clarification, but His fairness is a available for witness now ("at the present time" ). Therefore, I judge any doctrine that willingly admits to attributing either selfish glorification, especially at the expense of justice, as nothing less than heresy and blasphemy, because God has clearly and deliberately show Himself to be the opposite!

God seeks our best interest because He loves. In seeking us first, glory and praise are naturally deserving. Glory is certainly a consequence, but it is not the aim of God's actions. Ephesians 1:3-5 only say that God's actions bring glory to Him. It does not say that He did it for the purpose of bringing glory to Himself. Only a few other passages speak of God doing things for us to recognize His glory, but I believe in each of those cases, the context shows that He did so for our own best interest - so we would know who He is. I do not believe the context will allow for a self-centered, glory-seeking god in any of those verses.

Now some might ask, "Who are you to judge the fairness of God's actions!?" Well, that's a good question, except I am not using my own self-established basis of justice. I am using God's standard that He established for Himself and revealed to us (Ezekiel 18:1-32). I am not judging God. I am judging Calvin's doctrine and his false god according to Scripture.

This is perfectly okay too, think of Romans 9.

I am familiar with several arguments based in Romans 9; however, I do not know which one you have in mind. Rather than laboring to refute every possible argument that mentions Romans 9, I will allow you to first present your argument(s) based on this chapter, and then I will gladly respond to those.

As consolation, I will offer these two general remarks regarding this chapter: Please keep in mind that "works", as defined in the book of Romans, is limited to actions that merit, deserve, or earn salvation (Romans 4:4; 9:30-32). It does not refer to mere action of obedience. It is a misuse of any passage in Romans to deny that we have any responsibility before God in relation to salvation (Romans 1:6). In Romans, Paul is battling an extreme position (salvation based on perfect law keeping - a merit based system), so we must exercise great caution in directly applying his reasoning to our tangentially related discussion.

Finally, please keep in mind that in this context, Paul was condemning those who wanted God to respect their own chosen basis for mercy and compassion. They had no desire to submit to God's standard for mercy (Romans 10:31-33). It would be a mistake to assume that God's election is both closed and unconditional, because God did not consult man regarding the basis of His standard.

Of course some will say that this doesn't all make perfect sense if the Bible also says "whosoever" like it does in John 3:16, but if we don't understand it, it doesn't matter. John 3:16 should be understood with the "whosoever" being those that the Father knows will come to Him due to his drawing

Now, that's not fair! What if I said Romans 9 should be interpreted in light of John 3:16? Is that an argument? We must harmonize the verses! John 3:16 and every other recorded gospel plea, always extends an open invitation. Not one plea offers any hint that the election is closed. So, why should we add words to the context? Too many passages teach that Jesus died for all, and each one has the right and will to either accept or reject the sacrifice. Much more here:
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ement.html

not understood as God impotently sitting there in Heaven hoping that some wicked, darkness loving person will choose Him over their own wicked ways.

Who said God was sitting there impotently?

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

And, what is the object of God's hope in this passage?

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Romans 8:20-21)

Which method exhibits greater power? Reasoning, persuading, and wooing a remnant (Isaiah 1:18; Hosea 2:6-8, 14-23), or forcing them to "love" you through brute Philistine power?

What I was speaking of that implies the total lack of inherent motivation in man to seek God was the well known doctrine of Total Depravity. Gen 6:5,

Yes, I am very familiar with this "well known doctrine". It is refuted here:
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/depravity.html

Now in regards to Genesis 6:5:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, " I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:5-9)

I included a few more verses, because the context is relevant. ... Yes, man was truly wicked - even totally wicked, but that does not establish Total Hereditary Depravity, does it? It only establishes Total Depravity. The verse does not answer how these antediluvians became depraved. Did they become depraved because they were born that way, or because they had seared their conscience through the long-term practice of sin (I Timothy 4:1-2; Ephesians 4:17-19; Romans 1:18-32)?

Furthermore, we see that Noah was quite the opposite. In fact, God did not destroy him. Noah found mercy with God. Why? The text tells us: "Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God" . How did Noah get this way, if he was born totally depraved?

Eph 2:3,

Regarding Ephesians 2:1-3, please see the following answer:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ians_2_1_3

1 Cor 2:14,

Here's the passage, plus context:

But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him ." But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ. And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? (I Corinthians 2:9-3:3)

The proposed interpretation completely ignores the context, which relates to the inspiration and origin of the apostles' message. Paul was not saying that carnal people cannot hear or understand anything God says. His point is to sustain the origin of his message by comparing his spiritual message to carnal philosophies (see also, I Corinthians 1:18-31). True, man cannot know or decipher God's will without His help. But, what is the solution taught by this verse? Direct operation of the Holy Spirit? No! God revealed His will through Holy Spirit inspired apostles and prophets, who would teach and write to others. If the direct operation was the solution, why was it limited to the apostles and prophets? Furthermore, why did the problem persist in the Corinthians even after they were saved?

Please notice that Paul equates "carnal, as to babes in Christ". Are "babes in Christ" totally depraved? Apparently, they cannot understand spiritual things and require carnal language, so they must be totally depraved according to your definition. Furthermore, please note that Paul had to continue to speak to them as carnal men. In fact Paul says clearly, "even now you are still not able, for you are still carnal "! Were they still totally depraved? Elsewhere in the same book, Paul says they "were washed, ... were sanctified, were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (I Corinthians 6:9-11). How could they be unable to receive spiritual things, still be carnal, and yet still be "washed, sanctified, justified ... by the Spirit of God" ? Did the direct operation of the Holy Spirit fail them? Consequently, the language in I Corinthians 2:14 cannot equate to Total Depravity , since they Corinthians still suffered from it. ... Also, even if true, the passage still does not establish how man got that way. It must be supplied through assumption. Correct?

Romans 3:9-10 & 18,

Here's the verses quoted plus context:

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written:

"There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:9-18)

At most, this passage supports Total Depravity. Where is the reference or implication to this nature being inherited? Actually, it says, "they have all turned aside", and "they have together become unprofitable". How can you and I turn from a nature with which we were born? How can we become unprofitable, if we were born unprofitable?

Furthermore, please note that this is poetic language, subject to figures of speech, such as hyperbole. For example, have your feet ever been "swift to shed blood?" Mine have not, but yet this passage says this failure is symptomatic of us all. Or, are we not associated with the guilt described here? Did you ever have the "poison of asps" under your lips? Neither have I! Like many of the Psalms (one of which Paul quoted here) the language is exaggerated to emphasize a point. It would be a critical mistake, impossible to maintain consistently, to take this language literally. For example, just a few verses earlier, Paul clearly stated that the Gentiles originally knew God but rejected Him (Romans 1:18-32). How could they ever know God, much less reject Him, if there is "none who understands"?

and Eph 2:1ff all show this concept very well.

Unless you want to expand your argument to additional verses, this may well already been answered in by my previous response to Ephesians 2:1-3. Please let me know if you had something more in mind, because I will be happy to respond to it.

In Romans 7:18 Paul goes into great detail about he cannot do any good from within his flesh, and we see from other things that he writes that it is only through the Spirit that he can do good.

Please let us examine the referenced passage in more detail:

But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man . But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (Romans 7:8-24)

The proposed interpretation is simply inconsistent with the context, ignoring several technical details. First, please notice that Paul was originally alive! How could he have ever been alive, if he was born dead?! How could sin ever "come to life" in Paul, if it was always with him (see NIV, NAS, and BBE rendering of Romans 7:9)? How could the commandment bring death, if he was already dead? How could sin kill Paul, if he was already dead?

Furthermore, please notice that Paul, in his sin enslaved state, still willed to do good!!! How could he want to do good, if his will was totally depraved? How could his reluctance to do evil be a testament to the sinfulness of his choices, if he was wholly given to it, without conscience? This chapter clearly teaches that Paul was once without sin, denying hereditary depravity. And, it also teaches that man (Paul) had both will and a will to do good, before he was saved! What he did not have was a way, how to do good (" how to perform what is good I do not find"). That is what God supplied - not the will, because Paul had that before he was saved!

Now I know you might be saying "well lost people do good all the time." To this I would say that yes, yes they can do a good deed, but they do not have a good nature. Their behavior has been influenced by what C.S. Lewis calls "moral law."

Despite your caveats, I believe you have surrendered your point. If man voluntarily does anything good, then he is not totally depraved by definition. The absolute requirement is inescapable, since man is totally depraved. ... I am not arguing that man has a good nature when he finds God. I am saying that man can, and some men do want to do good - to know their Creator, even though they have not yet been saved.

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him , though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising." (Acts 17:26-29)

First, please notice there's God hoping for us to look for Him again - stated in Scripture - not a creed. Second, please notice that God is not far from us. It is not a miraculous thing that we find God. In fact, He has positioned everything to make it relatively easy for us to find Him. Finding God is really not so hard as Calvin would like for us to think!

Also, what about Cornelius? He was "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always." (Acts 10:1-3). He was all of this before an angel appeared to Him, before he sent for Peter, before Peter came, before Peter preached the gospel, before Cornelius received the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit, and before he was baptized! How did he do all these things if he was totally depraved, unaware of God, and in all ways opposed to God?

The true nature of the flesh of man is so eloquently described in Jer 17:9.

Agreed, but is this nature received at birth or from long-term abuse of sin? What does the passage indicate?

I realize this is quite lengthy, but you did ask a lot of questions. Also, I know that I was quite "sharp" on some points, but you seem to be a straight-forward guy. Seriously, I do want you to know that not one day has gone by, since your first inquiry, that I have not brought this case before the Lord, asking for help, wisdom, mercy, and love. My directness is a product of my concern for both of us and the difficulty generally associated with this doctrine's subtle deceptions and long-established, addictive prejudices. I pray you will not misunderstand my motives and that you may be able to overlook my weakness, where I spoke to sharply or made it too personal.

Incidentally, as you might can tell, many of these thoughts are repeated in our series on Calvinism. Since you are serious about discussing this with me, I would encourage you to read those, because I am their author, plus I believe they contains answers to several questions you have raised. Inevitably, I will repeat some of the answers already found there...

I look forward to hearing from you again - at your convenience.

[email]

its 3am, i'm absolutely beat, i dont care about capitalizing letters lol. with that said...

what i mean by total inability or total depravity is that man is as bad off as he can ever be and not as bad as he can be. I have hindu friends that are nice, really nice and they cook very tasty food. they make it for me and i eat it. a kind gesture, done completely devoid of the leading of the God that brings and sustains salvation. They arent bad people. They arent saved either. without God's help, they are never going to be.

Why do to i "think" the whole world fell in adam and that God is crazy enough to hold someone accountable for something that was done long ago before you or i or anyone was even born. Think of the levitical priests paying tithes to melchizideck... how did they do this and how were they responsible for this. Hebrews explains it all. Romans explains a concept of "all that we lost in adam" this is most likely what its talking about if you use scripture to interperet other scripture which is a remedial hermenuetical principle.
I dont get excited at the thought of the fact that some people just might be foreordained to go to hell, but thats fair if they are (all have sinned :/ ... ya know?)... thats the arguement from Romans i was talking about. if you find someone that gets excited about this they are very sick. we are to simply accept that this MAY be a way that God does things. This is why we are to appreciate all the more that our salvation was not of our own merit.

I dunno friend... i was thinking to myself about this born depraved thing and i thought of something, no one had to teach me to be selfish as a child. No one had to teach me to be manipulative. when i was born i was of an unconfirmed moral character. I had inherited a nature from my parents who got theirs from theirs and so forth back to adam. At the point where we had lived a bit and had a regular patern of sinning actions then we had an obviously undelightful moral character. This is why parents find it compelling to show a lad like myself how to share or how to stop crying to get my way and such. Granted i may not have known right from wrong fully at this point. i don't remember when i did, i just know that before i was saved i had learned right from wrong but i dont know why i am giving you my childhood story here.. oh yes its 330AM i forgot what i was doing. but yes... we see that the nature was there all along and that is where the sinful actions of my infantile character revealed my nature from whence these actions came...ok there thats what i meant with total depravity lol.

just as in the case that we can say that God is a jealous God without it making God be jealous like a middle school girl is jealous, or like a boy is jealous when a lass takes a liking to his friend when he had hoped she would have taken a liking to himself. Just like this we can say that the granduer of the creator sustainer God allows Him to be able to get away with saying that His glory is way up there on his "things to do list"

we both know the scriptures well enough to chit chat back and forth with them and that excites me. (here you have just read a side note that was a fleeting thought through my imagination)

if there is anything but unconditional election i fear in my heart of hearts that you have entered into the realm of salvation by works... i will tell you what i am saying and not what i am not saying that way there are to be no inferrences... unless God did it all you are left with some big "hmmms"... such as... is the deciding that one is wrong in their ways you know to come to repentance... or to choose ones own salvation a work? i would suggest to you that yes, yes it is and here's why. God condemns people for adultery if they have adulterous thoughts and murder if they have murderous thoughts... if these thoughts are noteworthy and if Christ would say "that is a sin" then they have done an act of doing something... something which is a deed... so thinking ... is a deed.... and if there is no contingency on deeds for salvation... hmmm... thats as much as i want to muster up on this right now.... I believe that what happens is that Holy Spirit draws people out of their nature of Sin and shows the people that they are wrong... some people say that there is then a choice, but i say that there is then irresistable grace. i know i know you dont like the term because things come to mind like well God wanted israel to repent like in luke and israel didn't ... here jesus was talking about national israel... not "all israel" as paul puts it in romans... you know the all israel that will be saved when obviously not every jewish blood having person is going to be saved in the context. anyways i want to point out something... and its just a side note... 10 times pharaoh hardened his own heart ... 10 times God haredened it. i know that persons can do and think and run and live and choose things... that's a no brainer. but the bible says that God grants us the gift of faith... this faith is the enablement of salvation

anyways on to other things that C's and A's fuss over...
I also know that in 1 tim it says that "God wills that all would come to salvation" and this seems to be a big problem for a lot of calvinists... i dont think so i just think that its one that doesnt slip into the grasps easy places of my theological mind... and why is that ? because God wills that we would all live lives in perfect harmony with him but he doenst Make it happen. I honestly don't understand everything about the bible or God... there i said it ... i am but a fool trying to sort out a wise mans pennings... i think where i am going with this is something like this... i know that we can tango theologically for miles... we even may end up doing this... but i want you to know that i don't want to pretend to have all the answers... i have been asked this... "if God doesnt like Sin and the devil tries to make all this bad stuff happen and make people sin then why not just kill off the devil now and save the trouble"... I DUNNO LOL... he just doesnt... but yet he still wants us to not sin but he doesn't kill off the devil... ??? explain that :) there are things that i just dont know and i dont know why God allows things that hurt him to happen if he knows that they are going to but i will say this it would seem to me that all things considered ... it is by the knowledge of the truth that men are saved but yet you can get lost people to explain the Gospel... and this is because is has not been given to these people by the God just as john 6 says to come to Jesus... i am just taking all these scriptures together. God's purpose is just too dang hard for me to grasp man... flat out... i dont know what else to say at this point ... maybe this... we still have these conversations because this is the case... Let me suffice this all to say that since 1 tim 2 is about prayer and whatnot that you and i will both pray are fannies off for the lost and as we are going we will present the gospel to all whether or not we believe that people are foreordained to come to a WORKING knowledge of the truth. this verse and the obvious election of God that everyone must eventually come to terms with made it into the same inspired word of God and i love them both... this verse keeps my Election loving buddies from forgetting that they don't have a dang clue who in the world the elect are ... and this verse makes my armenian buddies think that they dont have a clue in the world who will "choose to be saved" and they all go out and witness... so more power to God for doing what he did...... A lot of things are good, but what God has done before time began is best... and that seems to be that for his glorious purposes that we dont have a full understanding of is set aside his elect to show in the most intimate ways possible His love... e l e c t i o n is in there and so is 1 tim 2:4... i know he desires to see the truth in the hearts of all men but he doesnt MAKE it happen... election and the drawing of the holy spirit and whatnot are things that he clearly MAKES happen... i find that it is much more profitable to all of us to keep this verse fresh in our minds as we go through each day thus causing us to live like we want the best for each person we run into... what you and i are dealing with is what God makes happen b/c he is good. so yes... that brought no resolution to anything but made me think a bunch

anyways onto other things...

i dunno... i just really feel burdened for the soul who believes the keys to eternity are on their keychain. this is why we get people trying to scare people into heaven and whatnot it's also saddening when people think that they are losing thier salvation i had a buddy think that the other day... just all makes me sad. anyways...

What also makes me sad is this... when you have a good girlfriend and you love her so much that you want to spend the rest of your life with her but you make no plans whatsoever of how to get that accomplished... too many of my friends say " i love you "to their girlfriends and " i want to marry my lady" but i see them making no preperations for this to happen.. eventually they will buy a ring and all but a ring doesnt guarantee that it will work ya know?... i dont know it just drives me bananas. With my girlfriend i know what i want the end to be... i want our lives to be always together i never want her to be with anyone else besides me so therefore i have planned the Ends... to get there I MUST plan the means or i am a fool... on a much larger scale God has done the same thing with the elect... He can't plan the ends and not plan the means... God is no fool, there is no "lookie there!" with God there is no change there is no nothing like this... he loved us so much that all this has been done. if he wanted to spend eternity with his elect... he just may have had to do a little planning (election) for this to happen

i was pondering the God's glory thing and i realized that if God wants to do things that way His case is proven to how cool He is ... then whatever he wants to do to do this is ok. Like allowing the fall of man to happen. i really think that God allowed it to happen that way not only would see that God is a great creator God and a great sustainer God, but holy smokes... he must be a really loving God too because it pleased Him to bruise His son for our sakes... there would have been no concept of this love within us had everything not went down as it has so far... but we can't overlook something... This has brought so much more glory to God... this is what i mean... not that God is so hardnosed and arrogant sitting up there in heaven not giving to pieces of monkey crap about anyone but Himself and just being like oh i dont care if you are saved or not but you are gonna see that i am one BIZAD dude! As i said earlier there is a big difference when a perfect infinitely wise and awesome God shows his Glory than when we do it... think of a sunrise friend... what purpose does it serve to make it so beautiful... it could be ugly and still light up the sky because thats what the sun does its hot and bright so it lights and heats... but each morning and evening God paints the sky so that we will see his glory and fall in love with him over it. thats what i meant. I am uninterested in whatever God you were speaking of that doesnt care about people... the whole his glory and what he has done for people through his son thing go hand in hand....

i dont know what else there is to talk about because i read the other email too long ago now... anyhow get back at me on these things and we will chat some more... (oh yes and let me restate my apologies on typographical errors and grammatical errors) (let me also say that i am not going to proofread this message because i have to get up in 4 hours and i wish that i would not have checked my email when i woke from my slumber)

but you know ... i guess its cool that i did.... i had a really good time thinking about God's glory while doing this. I also remembered afresh how thankful that i am hereditarily incapible of doing any good on my own... If i weren't a stillborn so to speak then God wouldnt be creating a new man in me, he would have no need to... but he does.... he creates a NEW nature with an unconfirmed character that "as we are going" we are to confirm the new and holy nature that God has placed in us by way of the Holy Spirit...)

i dont know where we are now.. but good talk... i love you

[email]

im going to die tomorrow its 515... why i am up

[m273p15c]

I took almost a week - I'd rather you take your time, chew on it, and not kill yourself. Plus, we have a tendency not to think about something once we have answered it. Somethings have to be "slept on".

Pray and meditate on the verses and logic. I plan on taking my time examining your response. (haven't looked at it yet, but will later tonight...)

Thanks for being open-minded and thoughtful!

[email]

I really feel like the section on the in search of truth web site that deals with falling away from grace is missing a section... a section that equips those who hold your position on how to hermenuetically deal with Hebrews 6. hypothetically if there was going to be such a section, what would that section say? There should also probably be a treatment on what Ephesians says about the holy Spirit, which we have at the moment of salvation, sealing the believer until the day of redemption... these are all things that an adherant to "falling from grace" must attempt to work around... You guys know that i care about love and peace and civil theological exchanges, so i thought that this would be a welcomed question.

I would also like to add something to my little mind-venting on 1 TIM 2:4 that i honeslty cannot believe i forgot to include in my last email... that this passage is by no means saying that all people have the chance to be saved... i have been thinking about dealings with passages that people of my similar theological views usually try to dodge and then taking really good looks at them... because all the bible is valuable.. and if that's true so are the passages that we dont really know what to do with and i guess that's where i am right now... maybe that's why my 1st paragraph looks like it does ??? i dunno?

[email]

i do believe john 6 is talking about what you have said it doesn't exactly say... while it does not say "listen here people unconditional election!..." it DOES say all those ... as in each of those, as in each individual... Of these Jesus says that he would lose none... you can't call this a group thing... Christ is obviously saying what He is saying here about individual people... I think that comes a lot closer to unconditional election than most will let on to.

[email]

alright... its been a couple days since you responded so ive had some time to read some more things on your website

what i have found very alarming is the charge you have laid upon folks like myself who believe in the total inherited depravity of man that you said we believe in it to allow ourselves to continue in our sin... thats stupid. i have nothing more to say

Total depravity simply means that from birth we have inherited the inability to do anything on our own merit to obtain our own salvation... we arent as bad as we can be but we ARE as bad off as we can be... this is what the doctrine means

[m273p15c]

You may believe my comments were stupid, but I have had several frank discussions with Calvinists, in which they expressed a lack of guilt for their sin - after all, they could not help but sin. You may think it stupid, but it is an unavoidable, logical conclusion of Calvin's, total hereditary depravity. Calvin's people are free of any responsibility. If they are responsible, then that necessarily implies they have ability. Otherwise, such a god we be most cruel, bestowing responsibility without ability. ... You may not think this way, but many people do, if they follow Calvin's logic through to its ultimate end. Do you believe you are responsible or accountable for your sins? Do you believe you ever had a choice to do otherwise?

Also, you are understating the case for total depravity. If one is capable of wanting to do do, or even if they do good, then they are not totally depraved. What does the word "total" mean? Does it not mean all, 100%. Please read the quotes from Calvin and the Presbyterian confession again. They are quite explicit in this regard.

Nobody is arguing that any action we do, or could do, would ever merit salvation. The question is could God specify some kind of criteria, so the gospel would call, or select some type of person He desires (like humble vs. proud - I Peter 5:5-7)? No one is arguing that satisfying these criteria merits, or earns salvation. ... However, do you believe that someone can want to do good before they are saved? Can he will to do what's right? (Please review our previous discussion of Romans 7.) If you do, then you do not believe in "total hereditary depravity", at least as Augustine, Calvin, or the Presbyterian church has defined it. Otherwise, how can the depravity be total?

If man can will to do good before he is saved, then why can't he accept a free invitation to become good - to be saved? By God's grace, He has made it trivial from a "work" standpoint (Romans 10:5-10; Acts 17:26-27). All we have to do is want to do good, be unsatisfied with our current status, and we will be open to the gospel call. Is that now how Paul describes himself, before he was saved, in Romans 7? He was wanting to be saved, looking to be saved (Romans 7:18, 24). Therefore, why would it be difficult to imagine that he would choose to be saved, as soon as the opportunity was provided? I believe this is a watershed question. Either you will have to move closer toward Calvin and abandon any hope of there being some good in the non-saved, or you will have to confess that man can desire and will to do good, before being saved (like Cornelius - Acts 10:1-3; the "good ground" from the parable of the sower), which IS free-will and not total depravity, by definition. The passage your provided earlier states the case succinctly: Man can will to do good, but the "how" or the "strength" is not within him (Romans 7:18). God provides the "how" or the "power", but the will and desire is our own. Therefore, those who respond to the gospel are not totally depraved; otherwise, they would have no desire, want, nor will to do good.

If you still think this is not applicable to your beliefs, then please define the words "total", "hereditary", and "depravity". Also, please provide quotes from Calvin et al, allowing them to define their doctrine. ... I guess you could continue to call your beliefs "total hereditary depravity", but it would be very confusing, because it is not consistent with the meaning of the words or the original, traditional definition of the doctrine. ... All I'm saying is that your beliefs are already pointing in a direction away from Calvinism, such that his words and labels are becoming less applicable to your thoughts. I believe you have already begun to move away from his theology!

I'm preparing answers for your more recent questions, but I wanted to send these ideas to you more quickly. Plus, I wanted to check on you to see how things were going. I'm glad you are looking over the articles. Have you given any more thought to the Scriptural arguments from my last email (3 days ago)?

Thanks.

[m273p15c]

I really feel like the section on the in search of truth web site that deals with falling away from grace is missing a section... a section that equips those who hold your position on how to hermenuetically deal with Hebrews 6. hypothetically if there was going to be such a section, what would that section say?

What verses in Hebrews 6 do you believe pose a problem and why? I'm not sure what argument you had in mind. ... Thanks!

There should also probably be a treatment on what Ephesians says about the holy Spirit, which we have at the moment of salvation, sealing the believer until the day of redemption...

Here's the verses you mentioned:

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14)

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption . (Ephesians 4:30)

What do you think this sealing is? Is it an impenetrable, protective seal that is to immutably endure until Judgment Day? That fits with Calvin's doctrine, bus is that what the text says? Let's look first at the original for a little insight on the word, "seal", to see if there are other possible meanings:

• Strong's - 4972 sfragi,zw sphragizo {sfrag-id'-zo}
  Meaning: 1) to set a seal upon, mark with a seal, to seal 1a) for security: from Satan 1b) since things sealed up are concealed (as the contents of a letter), to hide, keep in silence, keep secret 1c) in order to mark a person or a thing 1c1) to set a mark upon by the impress of a seal or a stamp 1c2) angels are said to be sealed by God 1d) in order to prove, confirm, or attest a thing 1d1) to confirm authenticate, place beyond doubt 1d1a) of a written document 1d1b) to prove one's testimony to a person that he is what he professes to be
  Origin: from 4973; TDNT - 7:939,1127; v
  Usage: AV - seal 22, set to (one's) seal 1, stop 1, seal up 1, set a seal 1, vr seal 1; 27
• [United Bible Society - Barclay] sphragizo seal, secure with a seal; mark with a seal, set apart by a seal; affix to be true, acknowledge, prove (Jn 3.33); jÅ auvtoi/j to.n karpo.n tou/ton when I have safely delivered to them the sum that has been raised (Ro 15.28)
• [Friberg] sfragi,zw 1aor. evsfra,gisa( mid. evsfragisa,mhnÈ pf. pass. evsfra,gismaiÈ 1aor. pass. evsfragi,sqhn seal; (1) lit. seal up, secure by putting a seal on (MT 27.66); fig. as keeping someth. secret seal (up), conceal (RV 10.4); (2) as providing a sign of identification or ownership (mark with a) seal (RV 7.3); metaph. of endowment w. the Spirit (EP 1.13); (3) fig. fr. the idea of an official seal on a document; (a) confirm, attest, certify (JN 3.33); (b) metaph. as a business t.t. indicating a safely accomplished transaction sfragi,zein tini to.n karpo.n tou/ton seal to someone this fruit, i.e. safely turn over to someone this kind provision (RO 15.28).
• [Louw-Nida] sfragi,zw (a) put a seal on 6.55 (b) mark 33.484 (c) give in secure manner 57.87 (d) deliver safely 15.189 (e) make known 28.53
• [Liddell-Scott] 38958 sfragi,zw sfra¯gi,zw, Ion. sfrhgi,zw, f. i,sw, Att. iw/:-to seal, Eur.:-Med. to seal for oneself, have sealed, Plut.ass., pf. part. evsfragisme,noj sealed up, kept under seal, Aesch. II. to mark as with a seal, to mark, Anth.; deinoi/j shma,ntroisin evsfragisme,noi, of wounded persons, Eur. III. metaph. to set a seal on, confirm, stamp with approval, N.T., Anth.: Med. to assure of a thing, c. acc. rei, N.T.: to limit, Anth. 2. to seal or accredit as a faithful servant, as a believer, tina, N.T. From sfra gi,j

All variants of the root ( sphragizo) are found in: Matt. 27:66, Jn. 3:33, Jn. 6:27, Rom. 15:28, 2 Co. 1:22, Eph. 1:13, Eph. 4:30, Rev. 7:3, Rev. 7:4, Rev. 7:5, Rev. 7:8, Rev. 10:4, Rev. 20:3, Rev. 22:10.

Although the word can definitely mean protect, it can also mean to certify or acknowledge. (It can also mean to hide, but that's not pertinent, except to note there are even more definitions - not just one.) We should not assume the meaning of any particular usage, but rather we must look at the context to determine the most appropriate meaning on a case-by-case basis. For example, the references in Matthew 27:66; John 3:33; 6:27; Romans 15:28; and Revelation 7:3-5,8 all employ the meaning of "marking" for the purpose of certification, claiming, or ownership. Such a seal can be broken (Matthew 27:66-28:2). Could this be the meaning in Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30? If the meaning here was one of protection, then that would do little to provide the down-payment or guarantee of our salvation ("earnest money"). In Calvin's theology, no one knows whether he is elect or not, so he does not know if he is protected or not. How could this provide the confidence suggested here and in II Corinthians 1:22? However, if this "sealing" refers to something that is observable and identifies us as belonging to the Lord, then such meaning fits perfectly with the context of supplying "earnest money" for the purpose of generating confidence. Such a mark, or seal could be cast off, or removed, if the wearer switches allegiances by being unrepentant or by believing in a false gospel. We see that this indeed possible in multiple passages (Galatians 1:6-8; 5:4; Hebrews 3:12-13; 2:1-3; I Corinthians 9:27; I Corinthians 10:11-12; I Timothy 1:19-20; Galatians 5:4; Acts 8:22-23; Romans 11:16-23).

Furthermore, there is nothing in the language to mandate that this "seal" (whatever it is, for sake of argument) is unremovable until the day of redemption. The two verses say that it was given "for" or "unto" that day (1:14 and 4:30 - Grk eis = "into, unto, to, toward", compare to Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28, "for remission of sins"). In other words, the seal was given to bring us to that point, but that does not necessarily mean it cannot be removed. Strictly, the language is a statement of purpose - not duration. Neither, the context nor the strict definition of words will allow the Calvinistic interpretation. At best, the meaning is ambiguous and should be interpreted in the light of other Scriptures, but I would not even surrender that. More on the consistency of this interpretation below...

these are all things that an adherant to "falling from grace" must attempt to work around... You guys know that i care about love and peace and civil theological exchanges, so i thought that this would be a welcomed question.

Your questions are welcomed and appreciated.

i do believe john 6 is talking about what you have said it doesn't exactly say... while it does not say "listen here people unconditional election!..." it DOES say all those ... as in each of those, as in each individual... Of these Jesus says that he would lose none... you can't call this a group thing... Christ is obviously saying what He is saying here about individual people... I think that comes a lot closer to unconditional election than most will let on to.

I believe you are confusing the calling with election. The election is corporate (see previous discussion of Ephesians 1:3-11). However, the calling is addressed to all individuals (Mark 16:15-16; Romans 10:16-21; I John 2:1-2, 15-17). Christ's body, the church, does not respond to the gospel call as a body. The members respond as individuals ("whoever"), and only when they do respond, do they become part of His body (Romans 6:1-6; Galatians 3:26-27). At which point, they become partakers in that corporate election, which God established before the world began. In short, God established the means and characteristics of who would be saved, when He elected the saved in Jesus.

I would also like to add something to my little mind-venting on 1 TIM 2:4 that i honeslty cannot believe i forgot to include in my last email... that this passage is by no means saying that all people have the chance to be saved... i have been thinking about dealings with passages that people of my similar theological views usually try to dodge and then taking really good looks at them... because all the bible is valuable.. and if that's true so are the passages that we dont really know what to do with and i guess that's where i am right now... maybe that's why my 1st paragraph looks like it does ??? i dunno?

I appreciate your honesty here, but I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation. The immediate context states that we should pray for all men ( vs.1-2), especially those in authority, so we can lead a peaceable life. It is those outside the body, like kings and people in authority, who can disrupt our peaceful lives. Do you not agree that "all men" in I Timothy 1:1-2 includes the non-elect? Since the context clearly uses the exact same phrase to refer to non-elect (v.1-2), then we must have a solid reason in the context for changing its meaning in the context (v.3-6). Fair? Do you see such a reason in the context to shift meaning in the same context? ... A similar argument could be made for I John 2:1-2 ("And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world."). Just a few verses later, John refers to the "world" again as containing people would be lost (I John 2:15-17). Does "the world" in these latter verses refer to the elect? Obviously not. Plus, John seemed to be deliberately extending the circle past the elect ( "an not for ours only but also for the whole world."). Which part of the world is not included in the "whole world"? In summary, the Calvinistic interpretations of these verses does significant injury to the context, violating it on multiple points; therefore, I reject it.

It may seem that I am doing to Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30 what I am not permitting you to do to I Timothy 2:4, which would not be fair. But, I believe there is a distinct difference. ... Yes, we should use other passages to help us interpret ambiguous passages, which are passages that can be legitimately interpreted multiple ways without violating either the context, word definitions, or grammatical rules. But, we cannot use other passages to dismiss unavoidable or otherwise contradictory statements in other passages. The key here is that a disputed verse must have some reason for what appears to be "play" in its interpretation, beside it is hard or it does not fit my thinking. How will God's Word ever convince us of our error, if we are permitted to insert "understood meaning" into any verse that contradicts our theology? Do you see my point? There is a reason for the order or system of using passages to interpret each other. We must both resist choosing the order based on impact to our thinking.

Case in point, if John says that Jesus died for the whole world, then He died for the whole world - period. I cannot change it to mean only the elect without changing the words of the text. However, if Paul says that we were sealed for the day of our redemption, I can only gather the purpose of God's seal, because the words do not say anything about duration. I can also gather or infer the duration, if I assume, that God's will and purpose is the only will and purpose in motion. However, that's assuming the thing to be proven, is it not?

If you do not see the difference in hermeneutic, please let me know which parts are troublesome.

Again, let me say that I appreciate your honesty in these matters. It is rare to find someone who will volunteer the difficulties he sees in his own thoughts or theology. That is a critical hallmark of integrity, although I must confess that the ultimate hallmark is what we do with those difficulties.

May God help us to have open hearts and friendly speech.

[m273p15c]

BTW, I do still plan to address the questions and thoughts you raised in the "Jesus saves" email, but obviously it will take me longer, because of the length. ... Just in case you were wondering.

[email]

i Do indeed believe that our Lord died for the whole world... I do believe that His sacrifice was a potent enough sacrifice for all mankind. all sins that have ever been committed or ever will be committed were on his shoulders at the cross and he defeated sin in general by living a perfect life and when he died death could not hold him and he therefore arose. of course no matter what your theology is we know that not everyone gets ahold of the full power of what he did. I believe that Christ died with the whole world in mind in the sense that all mankind has benefitted from what he did, but only the elect are fully benefitting (redemption).

heres the way i look at this... i interperet "whosoever" passages in light of passages which clearly demonstrate election... and you interperet election with the whosoevers... believe it or not, i have done both and for the larger part of my christian experience i have done the latter... What i found after much wrestling is that no matter how badly i wanted to pretend like God is just s really hopeful God and that no one was really predestined personally to heaven or hell that i eventually just had to do one of two things... find a way to make it go away all the way or believe it... and considering the inumerable number of passages i was had to try to deal with we see where i ended up... and surprisingly i appreciate the Lord more than i ever did before and i love him all the more deeply as well... thats JUST ME, and im not saying that i love God more than you... anyhow... now i am simply left with the understanding of the larger amount of scripture and a "hmm well then there must be something that Calvinism doesnt cover 100 percent" on a few passages... LIKE 1 tim 2:4... which i have already told you doesnt hurt my feelings... God "wishes" many things...

Basically what i am saying to you is this... by brain is far too frail and God is far too God for me to get it all the way lol

[m273p15c]

I believe I have answered all your "clear election" passages, have I not? I see things quite the other way around, where there might be one or two troubling passages to me, but that's it.

Since I have answered all of the passages you have mentioned, the choice is up to you. To continue discussing and respond - or to walk away.

Your original long email does not contain hardly any Scripturally based arguments. It's mostly philosophy and traditional reasoning. Short of responding to the philosophies, showing where they contradict Scripture, which I plan to do, I do not know what else I can do in this discussion, unless you decide to answer the arguments and reasons I presented based on Scripture.

We can still do this, but the discussion will have to move from the realm of chit-chat, held at arms length, to a back-and-forth analysis.

I believe the ball is firmly in your court, If you do not think this is fair, please let me know.

Thanks

[email]

I believe that you have shown me that you have been well trained in the study of arminian theology... and i believe that you have provided a response to all the things you felt that you should respond to thoroughly. what i do not believe is that you have open mindedly done so. What i expressed to you in my last email is that i had been in the arminian camp for quite some time... I decided to step back from my own reasonings and ideas and examined only the Bible and the writings of theologians and then i arrived at where i am now... I dont care if you do this or not, but what i would like to see happen is instead of this going on for years to come I want you to ask yourself one question... maybe two i dont know maybe more but i am bored with this... how can you tell me that your idea of salvation is not salvation from works since a choice is a work... and how can you pretend that the arminian gospel does not render God impotent in finishing his plan of glorifying himself?

"God would be unrighteous (just as we would) if he valued anything more than what is supremely valuable. If he did not take infinite delight in the worth of his own glory he would be unrighteous. For it is right to take delight in a person in proportion to the excellence of that person's glory." - John Piper

Romans 11:36 says, For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

I think that this fairly explains my reasoning behind why i think that creation is for the glory of God.

[m273p15c]

Well, I could argue with you about who's really the open-minded one, but that would only work if both are us were open-minded. Since you believe that I am not being open-minded, surely you will concede that such an effort would be wasted.

I believe that you have shown me that you have been well trained in the study of arminian theology... and i believe that you have provided a response to all the things you felt that you should respond to thoroughly. what i do not believe is that you have open mindedly done so. What i expressed to you in my last email is that i had been in the arminian camp for quite some time... I decided to step back from my own reasonings and ideas and examined only the Bible and the writings of theologians and then i arrived at where i am now... I dont care if you do this or not, but what i would like to see happen is instead of this going on for years to come I want you to ask yourself one question... maybe two i dont know maybe more but i am bored with this... how can you tell me that your idea of salvation is not salvation from works since a choice is a work...

I already answered this in a previous email. In fact, I was waiting on your response to my answer. Please allow me to reiterate: The failure here is a misunderstanding of "works" as defined by the Bible itself, especially in the book of Romans:

Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt . But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, (Romans 4:4-5).

"Works" are deeds that earn one salvation. Simply making a choice could never merit nor earn salvation in any theology; therefore, it is not a "work" as defined in the Bible. You may call it a "work", but the Bible is my authority.

and how can you pretend that the arminian gospel does not render God impotent in finishing his plan of glorifying himself?

Well, you already admitted this difficulty yourself:

i Do indeed believe that our Lord died for the whole world... I do believe that His sacrifice was a potent enough sacrifice for all mankind. all sins that have ever been committed or ever will be committed were on his shoulders at the cross

Then why aren't all people saved, if all sins were carried away at the cross? If the reprobates' sins were removed at the cross, what condemns them? Why didn't Jesus' sacrifice save them, if it eliminated the reprobates' sins? Either, Jesus' sacrifice failed, or He did not die for the whole world's sins, or Calvinism is false. ... Pure Calvinism is wonderfully consistent - with itself, but horribly inconsistent when compared with Scripture. This is the reason people can write amazingly logical books, provided that they only touch on a handful of Scriptures, whose interpretation is properly biased by a foregone conclusion.

A dodge, you say? Now, I have truly answered this question previously too: God ultimately brings more glory by persuading and nurturing the elect than He does by brute-forcing them (Isaiah 1:18-20; Hosea 2:1-16). What takes more true power? Animating a child's arms and legs to do your will, against their will? Or, reasoning with them, explaining to them, and convincing them to obey of their own free will? Anybody can brute force their child into submission, but few can raise a happy, willing follower.

Furthermore, you are assuming that God wants specific people, instead of a specific kind of people. In the latter case, God's gospel is fully equipped and potent to complete such a work (Romans 1:16; Isaiah 55:10-11; II Thessalonians 2:13-14).

"God would be unrighteous (just as we would) if he valued anything more than what is supremely valuable. If he did not take infinite delight in the worth of his own glory he would be unrighteous. For it is right to take delight in a person in proportion to the excellence of that person's glory." - John Piper

This is sophistry. Where is Piper's Scripture? Piper assumes that God's glory is supreme, and he assumes God's glory arises from His brute force rather than His character. However, Jesus clearly showed us that God's true power arises, not from sheer strength, but from His character:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me , Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. (John 14:6-10)

Jesus did not transport the apostles back to the Creation, or forward to the resurrection, or aloft to Armageddon, to witness the true God. No, Jesus evidenced God in His deeds and words.

Therefore, God brings greater glory upon Himself, by humbling Himself, teach us, and serving others, which example He intended us to follow (John 13:3-17; Philippians 2:1-9). Reading Philippians 2:1-9, we learn that true glory comes not from exalting oneself, but from humbling oneself, esteeming others of greater importance, and serving them - in short, loving others truly.

I fear that you may have read too many books, beside the Bible, and then you bring your prejudice to the Bible, when you do finally read it, as evidenced in the interpretation below:

Romans 11:36 says, "For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen."

I think that this fairly explains my reasoning behind why i think that creation is for the glory of God

No, actually it doesn't support your position at all - unless you are assuming the thing to be proven. Please don't just inject meaning into the passage, but rather break it down, analyze it, and bring the true meaning out. What does this passage say? I do not operate off the "keyword-exist-in-text-therefore-my-theory-is-true" hermeneutic. It's rashness overlooks too much...

• "of Him ... are all things" - God is the Creator and ultimate source of all things, which in this context is especially applicable to "depths of riches of wisdom and knowledge". Clearly, God is not the originator of sin, so some limitation is obviously understood, which is best established by the preceding verses (notice the adjoining,"for" at the verse's beginning).
• "through Him ... are all things" - All good things are worked through God's strength. Although this necessitates God as the source of means, it necessarily implies that someone else is also active; otherwise, who is the one doing something "through God"? If Calvin is correct there is only "God", nothing "through God', because that would imply a second willing, working force, requiring a passage "through", which God supplies. I believe I already presented that possibility in the past two analysis of Romans 7.
• "to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever" - God, being the Creator and sustainer of all good things, is the rightful recipient of all glory.

Yes, what's your point? I never said He was not due glory, or that any glory was going anywhere else but to God. I already know what I'm going to say on that last day, "I'm an unprofitable servant" (Luke 17:10). But, just because all things lead to God's glory, we should not assume that is His supreme concern. Remember, all things work out to our good too (Romans 8:28). Does that mean that "our good" is equally supreme as God's glory? How can you avoid this conclusion and be consistent with your interpretation?

Let's pause and be frank for a moment -- In our current state, we believe in two completely different God's. One God values His character supremely, willing to humble Himself to satisfy love and mercy, while maintaining justice. The other being values His own glory above all else, and He is willing to sacrifice fairness, love, and justice for the sake of compelling people to cough up that praise. ... Now, the difference between my interpretation of your belief and your interpretation of my belief, is that I can show you verses where God exhibits hope and love at the expense of His short-term glory (Philippians 2:1-9; Acts 17:26-27; John 3:16; Romans 5:6-10). But, you cannot show me verses where God increases His glory at the expense of justice or love, at least I have yet to see them. I have showed you verses where God has promised to be fair, punishing people only for their sins, not the sins of their fathers (Ezekiel 18:20-32; II Corinthians 5:10). I have showed you passages where God suffers long so all will repent (II Peter 3:9). I have showed you verses that prove man is born innocent, not depraved (Romans 7:9-11; Deuteronomy 1:39). I have shown to you ... Ahhh, what's the use? Clearly, you do not care how many verses I show you, how many of your questions I answer, or how few Scriptures you have to stand on. You have a theology, Lewis, Piper, Wallace, et al, and you are sticking to it. I don't mind playing "20 questions", but if you are not listening to the answers, and you have already made up your mind, what's the point?.

I'll leave you with one last verse:

The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies! Your people shall be volunteers In the day of Your power; In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, You have the dew of Your youth. (Psalm 110:1-3)

God's exercise of power does not eliminate the possibility of our own free-will. Instead, the exhibition of God's true power creates volunteers! Are we volunteers, or does the Christ not reign in power?

Thanks for your consideration.

BTW, Please don't blow through this note like you have the others. I feel like you are skipping 99% of my thoughts.

[email]

M273P15C, M273P15C

why do you think that the universe was created?

[m273p15c]

The problem with Calvinism is not that there is no truth in it. There is some truth in it. The problem is that it over-emphasizes one truth to the exclusion and violation of others. It focuses on a subset of passages, dismissing the greater portion. It is this selective, over-emphasis that produces a contorted view of God.

According to the Bible, God created the universe, created man, and redeemed man for many reasons - not just one. We will only understand the truth when we harmonize all of the revealed motivations. These reasons were:

• for His glory (Isaiah 43:7)
• for the universe to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18)
• because He loved us (John 3:16)
• to rejoice and take joy in His people (Isaiah 63:17-19)
• for us to do good works (Ephesians 2:10)
• to reveal the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:8-11)
• for Him (Colossians 1:16)
• and more...

Calvinism is one theology that tries to summarize it all in one reason: for God's own glory - and no other reason. However, if Calvin's reason contradicts other Bible reasons, then it is false (Titus 1:1-2, 9). I believe the view I have presented harmonizes all of these reasons, including God's glory. So...

EMAIL, EMAIL,

Why do you believe a doctrine that contradicts God's revealed character pertaining to justice (Ezekiel 18:20-32) and love (John 3:16; I John 4:7-10; Romans 5:6-8)? Especially considering that Calvinism grossly blasphemes God's character in the very arena where God chose to particularly manifest His justice and mercy (Romans 3:25-26)?

[email]

m273p15c, m273p15c

here's what i am thinkin... you can tell me how im wrong lol see thats a humor comment saying i am still in good spirits
anyways... i like to look at it this way... God did do a ton of stuff like you said for various reasons

the main idea with all these things is to cast a full view of the spectrum of God's glory... calvinism doesnt undermine the mercy of God, and i say that because theres no reason for God to save anyone... BUT he does because he loves people and he wants to show his mercy to them... the stark contrast between the predestination of the vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath is to make the vessels of mercy more appreciative of their election... or so i gather... you are exactly correct on the distorted view of God thing... there are bazillions of truths about God and bazillions of facets that he shows how awesome he is through... if one is to focus to much on one then they do not behold the magnificence of the others... SOME calvinists do that... but then again so do some arminians and so do some people that arent fit to be called anything... but what i am saying is that one doesnt have to do that in calvinism... i look at it this way... all things are for God's glory so i do all things for the glory of God... witness, study, worship... and in each of those areas i see different colors of the spectrum.

[m273p15c]

I appreciate your good humor and trying to close the gap, but I think we are still standing in two vastly different worlds. To illustrate:

Why are the reprobate ultimately lost? Sure, sin - but, whose sin? I believe the unavoidable conclusion in Calvinism is God's sin!!! ... Now, I know you would never say that, but please humor me for a second as we walk through this. ... Whose sin condemns the reprobate?

Let me know what you think.

[m273p15c]

Now that I had some spare time, I wanted to address all of the points you raised in this note, which I did not address in other emails:

what i mean by total inability or total depravity is that man is as bad off as he can ever be and not as bad as he can be. I have hindu friends that are nice, really nice and they cook very tasty food. they make it for me and i eat it. a kind gesture, done completely devoid of the leading of the God that brings and sustains salvation. They arent bad people. They arent saved either. without God's help, they are never going to be.

I think we may have already covered this, but I do not believe someone has the ability to save themselves - completely by themselves. I believe the elect require God's help (grace); however, that does not completely exclude them from the process. They must answer the call, which I believe they have the will to do (Romans 7:15-18). God provides the "how" and the "what" to do to be saved, but we supply the "will" (Revelation 22:17 ).

Back to your friends: If they have enough "good" in them to care about you, to try to do what they believe is "right" (albeit misguided), then what prevents them from answering the gospel call? If they are concerned about doing little good things, which are of no eternal consequence to them, then why can't they accept the gospel call, which is presented as having eternal consequence to them? Why can't they react like the Israelites in Acts 2:37, once they hear the same message?

Why do to i "think" the whole world fell in adam and that God is crazy enough to hold someone accountable for something that was done long ago before you or i or anyone was even born. Think of the levitical priests paying tithes to melchizideck... how did they do this and how were they responsible for this. Hebrews explains it all. Romans explains a concept of "all that we lost in adam" this is most likely what its talking about if you use scripture to interperet other scripture which is a remedial hermenuetical principle.

This is an interesting proof-text. I had not heard previously heard this one. Let's examine it more closely to see if it holds up under closer scrutiny, shall we?

Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils . And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him . (Hebrews 7:4-10)

First, please notice that the context is superiority, not responsibility ("how great this man was", "the lesser is blessed by the better"). To corroborate this idea, the writer acknowledges that the connection between Levi and Abraham is not fully accountable ("so to speak"). Therefore, we cannot say that everything Abraham did was the same as Levi doing it; otherwise, why the stipulation ("so to speak")? Second, I believe this presents reciprocal logical difficulties. For example, if a father is ever saved/elected, are all his descendants automatically saved? Would they not answer the gospel call and receive an eternal blessing through their father? Finally, even if we were seriously considering this as a possible interpretation, we would first have to reconcile this possible (not necessary) conclusion with the clear teaching of Ezekiel 18:

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself . But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord GOD, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live? But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not fair.' Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not fair.' O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways," says the Lord GOD. "Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies," says the Lord GOD. "Therefore turn and live! " (Ezekiel 18:20-32)

God clearly states that the father's sins are not passed down to the children. In fact, He exhaustively covers all the scenarios to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. Therefore, as you originally suggested, we should use this passage to help us interpret Hebrews 7.

I dont get excited at the thought of the fact that some people just might be foreordained to go to hell, but thats fair if they are (all have sinned :/ ... ya know?)... thats the arguement from Romans i was talking about. if you find someone that gets excited about this they are very sick. we are to simply accept that this MAY be a way that God does things. This is why we are to appreciate all the more that our salvation was not of our own merit.

Yes, all have sinned, and that is why they die - not because of Adam's sin (Romans 5:10). But, if total hereditary depravity is true, then we are unable to prevent our sins! Since we are incapable of stopping any of our sins, we are therefore unaccountable. Is it fair to ever hold anyone accountable for something that they could not possibly prevent or have influenced? What does God say is "fair" in regards to this question (Ezekiel 18:25, 29)?

I dunno friend... i was thinking to myself about this born depraved thing and i thought of something, no one had to teach me to be selfish as a child. No one had to teach me to be manipulative. when i was born i was of an unconfirmed moral character. I had inherited a nature from my parents who got theirs from theirs and so forth back to adam. At the point where we had lived a bit and had a regular patern of sinning actions then we had an obviously undelightful moral character. This is why parents find it compelling to show a lad like myself how to share or how to stop crying to get my way and such. Granted i may not have known right from wrong fully at this point. i don't remember when i did, i just know that before i was saved i had learned right from wrong but i dont know why i am giving you my childhood story here.. oh yes its 330AM i forgot what i was doing. but yes... we see that the nature was there all along and that is where the sinful actions of my infantile character revealed my nature from whence these actions came...ok there thats what i meant with total depravity lol.

There's multiple problems with this line of reasoning. First, it is anecdotal. >From my experiences, I can tell you about several children, at the earliest of ages, who would share without instruction or provocation. I can tell you of kids who cherished the idea of helping someone. Their eyes would light up at the possibility. What does this prove? Nothing! As you already noted, we cannot trust our heart to reason through such things; therefore, we must lean on God's revelation (Jeremiah 10:23).

Secondly, "guilt" is associated with the soul. "Souls" sin and bear guilt - bodies do not sin (Psalms 41:4; Isaiah 3:9; 28:17; Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Micah 6:7; Habakkuk 2:10; James 5:20; I Peter 1:22 ). It is our soul that is sent to hell (Proverbs 23:14; Matthew 10:28). It is our soul that goes to heaven. We are given a new body for both circumstances ( I Corinthians 15:51-53). We get our souls directly from God - not our parents ( Hebrews 12:9; Ecclesiastes 12:7)! Therefore, if our soul has a sinful nature at birth, it is because we got it from God - not Adam! How can we receive a depraved nature, if our sins are received from God?

just as in the case that we can say that God is a jealous God without it making God be jealous like a middle school girl is jealous, or like a boy is jealous when a lass takes a liking to his friend when he had hoped she would have taken a liking to himself. Just like this we can say that the granduer of the creator sustainer God allows Him to be able to get away with saying that His glory is way up there on his "things to do list"

we both know the scriptures well enough to chit chat back and forth with them and that excites me. (here you have just read a side note that was a fleeting thought through my imagination)

if there is anything but unconditional election i fear in my heart of hearts that you have entered into the realm of salvation by works... i will tell you what i am saying and not what i am not saying that way there are to be no inferrences... unless God did it all you are left with some big "hmmms"... such as... is the deciding that one is wrong in their ways you know to come to repentance... or to choose ones own salvation a work? i would suggest to you that yes, yes it is and here's why. God condemns people for adultery if they have adulterous thoughts and murder if they have murderous thoughts... if these thoughts are noteworthy and if Christ would say "that is a sin" then they have done an act of doing something... something which is a deed... so thinking ... is a deed.... and if there is no contingency on deeds for salvation... hmmm... thats as much as i want to muster up on this right now....

I covered this in other notes. Just as reminder, the primary problem is a failure to define and use the word "works" as the Bible defines it, especially as it pertains to salvation by grace. "Works" is defined as something that "merits" salvation (Romans 4:4-5). Beyond all debate, neither baptism nor any choice or deed, can ever earn salvation. Why? Because only one sin is required to "earn" death (Romans 6:23)! We would have to live our lives perfectly, keeping God's law perfectly to "earn" salvation. Since we all have at least one sin on our account (Romans 3:23), none of us can ever "earn" or "merit" salvation, no matter how many good works we do. Since the extense of a righteous deed and and a sinful deed are not comparable, they cannot be classified in the same "works" category. Why the difference? Anybody can do one good deed, but it takes perfection to be holy like God. Therefore, good deeds and bad deeds are not comparable. Consequently, what is true for one is not necessarily true for the other.

I believe that what happens is that Holy Spirit draws people out of their nature of Sin and shows the people that they are wrong... some people say that there is then a choice, but i say that there is then irresistable grace.

Well, it can only be labeled "irresistible" if it can be resisted. It is only a choice, if the process must somewhere pass through the gate of my will. If you clarify what you mean, we can easily attach the correct definition on this one, and remove any controversy regarding the labeling.

i know i know you dont like the term because things come to mind like well God wanted israel to repent like in luke and israel didn't ... here jesus was talking about national israel... not "all israel" as paul puts it in romans... you know the all israel that will be saved when obviously not every jewish blood having person is going to be saved in the context. anyways i want to point out something...

Whoa, whoa! Paul may or may not have had a different Israel in mind than Jesus, but he was in a completely different context! The original argument was based solely on this one verse. In addition to creating a confusing double contrast, we need some grammatical basis for changing who the identity of "you" in the middle of Jesus' statement. What grammatical basis would you use for applying the first "you" to the spiritually elect of national Israel, while the second "you" refers to the entire physical, national Israel? I don't see any room for maneuvering in this text. Am I missing something?

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34)

Even if I temporarily grant that Jerusalem's children were different people than the people who made up the city of Jerusalem, how can we accept that national Israel prevented spiritual Israel from being saved? I believe more troubles arise from the proposed interpretation than by accepting the clearer one.

and its just a side note... 10 times pharaoh hardened his own heart ... 10 times God haredened it. i know that persons can do and think and run and live and choose things... that's a no brainer.

Therefore, Pharoah had some part and responsibility in the matter, correct?

but the bible says that God grants us the gift of faith... this faith is the enablement of salvation

Actually, I disagree with your premise. I'm unaware of a verse that says God grants us our personal faith. Now, He may have given us all "the system of faith", or just "the faith", but I don't know of any verses that says what you said. In case I have overlooked a passage, would you mind providing that reference or references?

I also know that in 1 tim it says that "God wills that all would come to salvation" and this seems to be a big problem for a lot of calvinists... i dont think so i just think that its one that doesnt slip into the grasps easy places of my theological mind... and why is that ? because God wills that we would all live lives in perfect harmony with him but he doenst Make it happen. I honestly don't understand everything about the bible or God... there i said it ... i am but a fool trying to sort out a wise mans pennings... i think where i am going with this is something like this... i know that we can tango theologically for miles... we even may end up doing this... but i want you to know that i don't want to pretend to have all the answers...

I don't know how to convince you of this without examining many points, as I have done, but I believe the weight of clear passages is vastly in favor of the "free-will" position. At best, I believe you have only provided ambiguous passages, favorable to your case only when interpreted in the light of prejudice. Yet, I have presented several passages as clearly dismissing Calvinism, yet you do not respond, but yet you continue to cling to Calvinism. Why?

I understand that we have to make decisions some times without understanding everything, but if you don't understand everything on the matter, why would you decide against the majority of clear passages?

i have been asked this... "if God doesnt like Sin and the devil tries to make all this bad stuff happen and make people sin then why not just kill off the devil now and save the trouble"... I DUNNO LOL... he just doesnt... but yet he still wants us to not sin but he doesn't kill off the devil... ??? explain that

That does not bother me nearly as much as the charges against God's justice and love, not to mention that is in conflict with revelation.

there are things that i just dont know and i dont know why God allows things that hurt him to happen if he knows that they are going to but i will say this it would seem to me that all things considered ... it is by the knowledge of the truth that men are saved but yet you can get lost people to explain the Gospel...

Yes, but if they do not believe it, then it will do them no good. There is a vast difference between faith and knowledge.

and this is because is has not been given to these people by the God just as john 6 says to come to Jesus...

I believe you are injecting meaning into John 6 . In fact, I believe I still have an standing question as to how you get this meaning from John 6.

i am just taking all these scriptures together. God's purpose is just too dang hard for me to grasp man... flat out... i dont know what else to say at this point ... maybe this...

So, why do you continue to believe the way you do, if the evidence points the other way? If you disagree with my presentation of the evidence, then why? Let's get it out before us, discuss it, and weight it.

A lot of things are good, but what God has done before time began is best... and that seems to be that for his glorious purposes that we dont have a full understanding of is set aside his elect to show in the most intimate ways possible His love... e l e c t i o n is in there and so is 1 tim 2:4... i know he desires to see the truth in the hearts of all men but he doesnt MAKE it happen... election and the drawing of the holy spirit and whatnot are things that he clearly MAKES happen... i find that it is much more profitable to all of us to keep this verse fresh in our minds as we go through each day thus causing us to live like we want the best for each person we run into... what you and i are dealing with is what God makes happen b/c he is good. so yes... that brought no resolution to anything but made me think a bunch

Huh?

anyways onto other things...

i dunno... i just really feel burdened for the soul who believes the keys to eternity are on their keychain. this is why we get people trying to scare people into heaven and whatnot it's also saddening when people think that they are losing thier salvation i had a buddy think that the other day... just all makes me sad. anyways...

I believe you are only considering the other extreme. Although we must choose, our burden is negligible compared to what God did. ... But, it would be a mistake to short-circuit the guilt that God intended to help us reform (II Corinthians 7:8-11). Maybe there was a good reason for your buddy wondering if he was still saved?

What also makes me sad is this... when you have a good girlfriend and you love her so much that you want to spend the rest of your life with her but you make no plans whatsoever of how to get that accomplished... too many of my friends say " i love you "to their girlfriends and " i want to marry my lady" but i see them making no preperations for this to happen.. eventually they will buy a ring and all but a ring doesnt guarantee that it will work ya know?... i dont know it just drives me bananas. With my girlfriend i know what i want the end to be... i want our lives to be always together i never want her to be with anyone else besides me so therefore i have planned the Ends... to get there I MUST plan the means or i am a fool... on a much larger scale God has done the same thing with the elect... He can't plan the ends and not plan the means... God is no fool, there is no "lookie there!" with God there is no change there is no nothing like this... he loved us so much that all this has been done. if he wanted to spend eternity with his elect... he just may have had to do a little planning (election) for this to happen

Yes, but would it be love, if you forced "your lady" to marry you? That is not what God wants (Hosea 2:14-16). Furthermore, would it really be "glory", if He programmed the words to come out of mouth, like robots? Is that what you want in a wife or a child? What's more glorious to you, a child who follows you or a computer who obeys you? God wants those who choose Him and none others (Psalm 110:3).

i was pondering the God's glory thing and i realized that if God wants to do things that way His case is proven to how cool He is ... then whatever he wants to do to do this is ok. Like allowing the fall of man to happen. i really think that God allowed it to happen that way not only would see that God is a great creator God and a great sustainer God, but holy smokes... he must be a really loving God too because it pleased Him to bruise His son for our sakes... there would have been no concept of this love within us had everything not went down as it has so far...but we can't overlook something... This has brought so much more glory to God...

Again, what brings more glory? Wooing a remnant, or forcing a remnant? What exhibits the greater power? Anybody can brute force, animate their child .... Like I said, we covered this before.

this is what i mean... not that God is so hardnosed and arrogant sitting up there in heaven not giving to pieces of monkey crap about anyone but Himself and just being like oh i dont care if you are saved or not but you are gonna see that i am one BIZAD dude!

How can you avoid this logical conclusion?!!!

As i said earlier there is a big difference when a perfect infinitely wise and awesome God shows his Glory than when we do it...

So, you mean God calls us to a higher standard than He will follow?

think of a sunrise friend... what purpose does it serve to make it so beautiful... it could be ugly and still light up the sky because thats what the sun does its hot and bright so it lights and heats... but each morning and evening God paints the sky so that we will see his glory and fall in love with him over it. thats what i meant.

Yes, but do only the elect see that sunrise, or can everybody see it, wonder, and be held accountable (Psalm 19:1-6; Romans 1:20-21)?

I am uninterested in whatever God you were speaking of that doesnt care about people... the whole his glory and what he has done for people through his son thing go hand in hand....

But, how can you escape the fact that, this is the god you have chosen to serve? How is he different beside you just saying so?

i dont know where we are now.. but good talk... i love you

Agreed. Questionable. Double agreed.

May God help us both to have open hearts.

[email]

m273p15c .... i believe that what i believe doesnt matter really

the evidence only points in the opposite way to you... i came OUT of the arminian camp...

i don't have ALL my theology straightened out... but more than enough of it to realize that i made the right choice... hey look i used that word lol

[m273p15c]

Clearly you have made your decision. If my previous words had no impact on your conscience, then repetition of them will surely not help. "Lo, we turn to the Gentiles..."