Featured Calvinists vs Armenians: A Challenging--But Senseless--Debate

And we aren't even addressing the Lutherans! They seem to want it both ways----unconditional election but resistible grace. I have tried just about every angle I can imagine to make that concept "work" in some coherent manner. I've failed every time.

 

Grace is offered by God and chosen to be received by man. Grace is offered to every single person indiscriminately and only received by those who believe. The credit for salvation can never go to the receiver no matter what they part in receiving it because nothing can be received unless it is first offered by the one who has the power and authority to offer it. No man told God to offer it nor could he. The grace of God is purely the plan of God and man is only the recipient of that plan. The elect become the elect after they have received the grace of God.

John 3:16
John 1:12,13
Romans 3:22
Romans 5:12;18

 

It is my belief that there is more to look at before you make such a decision about this on going argument. It's true both evangelize but is it to the same end, I can't help but wonder.

"Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
..Notice they didn't say you have to be regenerated first so you can believe. Regeneration for all intents and purposes is being Saved.

The understanding of Romans 9 is in reading it in context. Try starting at the beginning of the book and read to the end for clear understanding.

The division was place there by misunderstanding and will not be removed until it's clear truth..
MB

 

From Eternity past Godhad te elect written down in lambs Book of Life, and they were found to be in Christ before foundation of the world, so how could they choose Jesu before God choset hem?

 

They hold that GOd gives saving faith to the Baby in the water, and that Jesus is spirituall in the Communion also...
in between Cayjolic andReformed positions, much less Baptist!

 

God's choice is tied up in those who believe and you need to try harder on your typo's it has reached absurd heights.

 

All who are appointed [ordained] for eternal life will believe.

 

Every single person who has and shall live? No, absolutely not.

No, assuredly not. They become believers after they are drawn by the Lord and enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

The elect are known by God as his chosen ones (elect) before the foundation of the world. You cannot use Scripture to contend that people become elect in their lifetime.

 

Jesus said though they did not accept him , but that the Father choose them and gave them to Jesus!

 

When you accept that God did all of the saving, no way I can boast that "I choose to accept Jesus, while you failed to!"

 

Who says that?

 

NOT saying that you do, but that is what Arminian theology reduces down to, as there has to be a reason why one accepts and one does not same message heard!

 

No sir, this is why we cannot have discussions. This kind of impositions on others is quite dishonest. No one claims that nor believes that and to think that you know there is only two options to believe is arrogant. It is also an informal fallacy called the "either or" fallacy. The bigger problem with this other than it being a fallacy is it is dishonest and falsely accuses people of holding to a position they do not hold. It is a mere debate tactic to make the one leveling the accusation feel as if they have won the debate.

In other words it is a cheap shot and I believe you are better than this.

 

Think about this though, we state that the sinner accepts Jesus due to God enabling him to do that, but if one denies that, then on what basis did the sinner choose to accept? Why dd he and not someone else? smarter/better why?.
It is either/or, in that either God does it all, or we assist Him by cooperation...

 

No its not. See you all are looking to create a doctrine on who gets the credit. So in your mind if man responds in any way then he must share the credit with God. I do not see it that way. It certainly is not what I have espoused. See you guys try to set the perimeters of what the debate should be thereby placing on other with whom you disagree beliefs they do not in fact hold to.

If you want to engage me ask me what I believe and deal with my words. Do not put positions or words in my mouth. It is dishonest debate.

Man's response to God is not evidence of cooperation of salvation. That is a poor argument. God created salvation, God offers salvation, therefore the credit is all his regardless of how man responds. The response is not in fact cooperation.

If I hand you a gift wrapped in paper with a bow do you then say we worked together to give you the gift? Is your reception of that gift ever considered part of the giving?

 

Unless/until the Holy Spirit enables us to freely respond, none of us could even desire/want to get saved by God, correct?