Actual Non Cal Doctrine

Show Scripture that says that the will of man can trump the will of God.

Neither are in the Bible in a "proof text" sort of way.

Yet men hold to both.

We have EXAMPLES in Scripture, which -- in context -- we can draw inferences from and formulate doctines of, including of course, the fact that God DOES INDEED specially elect persons according to His will.

There are far fewer cases where people start and finish the process of salvation based on their own efforts. I'd love it if you would post a few though.

 

Jerry S., Winman, Primitive Pastor, MB, and a host of others around here.

 

just answer this one question...

do we believe in jesus by act of our free will, or are we unable to do that UNLESS God enables usto be able to do that?

 

They argue positively for that doctrine at every turn.

They "hide" behind a "non-cal" position that they refuse to define. That is why I have been calling of late for people to actually publish their own doctrinal framework. If you hold it, own up to it. Then at least we can put things on the table for what they are instead of all this name calling and beating around the bush "he said -- she said" sort of crud.

If your doctrine is important enough to you to argue against other's positions then OWN IT and PUBLISH IT.

I will continue to make this call.

 

yes, as they will point ou tthat the Lord has allowed man real free will now to accept/reject jesus as their messiah...

Skan has it as to the Gospel of Jesus has inherit power in it to produce the effects of saving faith in us, and that we use our free will to accept /reject jesus!

So two main non cals positions here on BB...

Gospel itself has power toproducre saving faith, and then up to us by free will to accept/reject christ...

OR
man still have faith and free will inherit in him, that we can freely accept/reject jesus without assistance from God...

cals hold to spiritual death for all by the fall, so HAVE to havehe Lord enebale us to respond first, than we can decide to accept christ!

 

I can post hundreds of posts that exemplify my response and you know it.

You do not side with that crowd by your own published response so why defend those who do? That is rather curious... Or are you now going to revert to "anyone who is against Calvinism is a friend" as a signifier of doctrinal stance?

I chose my answer carefully in accordance with the guidelines of this board. Read their posts during debates on these points. If you agree then perhaps your own views are not quite as what you published. If you do not agree then that is fine. And, note that I have no ax to grind for or against any particular person on this board. I don't come here to see whom is saying what today so I can blast them. I offer biblical doctrine from a reasoned and learned stance both for my own edification (helps me to solidify my own doctrines and forces me to study the Word all the more) and for the edification of others, some of whom are avowed heretics in their responses to biblical issues.

 

It doesn't do much good to 'publish it' if your opponent continues to take what you say and turn it into a straw-man.

That is what you do when you hear our explanations and conclude things like "you believe that you save yourselves," or "you believe man's will trumps God's will."

This statement 'Begs the Question' by presuming that creating mankind with Libertarian Free Will wasn't God's Will. It is the lowest form of debate and its insulting.

If you want to debate us then debate our actual words and stop drawing fallacious conclusions. You know I have no problem 'publishing' what I believe about any passage, yet that hasn't stopped the straw-man and question begging fallacies.

 

First, may I make a respectful request that you not attempt to define my views? If you'd like to quote me by copying and pasting something I've written, that would be fine, but I'd really rather you not do this again. Just a friendly request.

Next, the Gospel IS the POWER of God unto salvation, it doesn't have inherit power as if it is its own entity or something. The Gospel IS THE MEANS OF GOD that has the POWER to SAVE. Those are Paul's words, not mine. God is the source of power and the gospel is His means through which to empower reconciliation/salvation.

We would actually agree with this statement, and the fact that you think we wouldn't after all our discussions is quite discouraging. :tear:

One more time, Arminians also believe the Lord must enable us to respond. I've explained this countless times. What is the empowering means God uses to enable a response? The Gospel. Are those means irresistible in bringing a man to faith? No.

 

Then you admit that you don't feed potential reformers the truth when you tell them about Christ.

I have no problem with being chosen by God once in Christ. Yet I do not believe there is anything particular about it. If it were particular it would make God a respector of men.

Paul, saved on the Damascus road was, according to God, already chosen not only for salvation but for ministry even from his mothers womb. Galatians 1:15.
Nonsense Christ Identified Him Self and Paul willing then submitted when He Called Christ Lord....

What you doubt has no effect on the truth. MB

 

Here is the proof that the will of man can trump the will of God;
1Thess 4:3
For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

God's will is that Christians do not do fornication, in fact no one. I don't think that anyone is so confused to think that some Christian sometime has never committed fornication. In fact the studies show it is between 50 to 75 percent have after they are saved.

 

1st of all, I never said that nor implied it. And 2nd, you apparently missed my post #73.

 

I'm not playing your games anymore. I asked first...do you take any kind of credit in giving yourself a gift when you receive it?

 

Dispensational ideas often rob the saints of much blessing God has for us in scripture. It has been the main teaching in many churches for this past generation....that many do not explore the Ot prophets with a view to understand what God has revealed about the gentiles who are grafted in to the root promises. We could have very profitable discussions on what God says we should be about as christians....if we could look past the dispy ideas.:thumbsup:

 

I preach the Gospel to the lost as instructed. That is the truth we are to proclaim to them. Other truths are for the mature, and those ready for meat. Unfortunately such meat is lacking in the diets of many believers, and so these balk when these truths are presented.

Apply your fallacy to Abram whom God chose according to nothing he had done, but rather according to His own choice. It's the same with us today.

According to God election is according to His calling and His purpose. You'll have to take the "respecter of persons" thing up with God, which, by the way, you use that biblical phrase out of its intended context.

My quote:

Your response:

.

He certainly did, and Paul certainly did as well. But your argument is a red herring.

As far as your "nonsense" remark, it is not nonsense that truths were revealed to Paul after salvation. It works the same for us today.

I don't make effects on truth, I simply proclaim it. The record of the Word stands; Paul had truth revealed to him as an apostle after salvation. This is why I doubt what you say to be accurate, because the Word suggests otherwise.

 

No, actually unless or until someone publishes their doctrine we have nothing to go by except what we can deduce from their other postings, and according to most, we get that wrong almost all the time.

And, why on earth are YOU taking offense because SOME on the board hold to some heretical doctrines and have argued them over and again. As far as I know YOU claim to NOT hold those doctrines, which means that you should be examining those who DO hold the abbarant doctrines to see if recanting and repentance is in order.

Also, I have said nothing of the sort in this particular thread concerning libertarian free will, so your bringing up that point is nothing more than a red herring to get us off track. You are capable of much better than that, so I am often left shaking my head when you resort to such crud in your arguments, but obviously I've touched a nerve with you and you felt the need to respond.

Perhaps you do hold some tenants that go astray of your professed Arminianism? It is not far from Arminian doctrines to semi-Pelagian doctrines and not far again to fully Pelagian thoughts (hesitate to call them "doctrines" as they go far astray from Scripture and God).