has God Determined/Caused Sinners To be Depravied And unable To get saved ?

<sigh> Standard Calvinist strawman argument. So disappointing.

"...so that through Him all men MIGHT believe"

Keyword is might. That is a conditional word. Belief in this case is not a certainty, it is a possibility.

 

No strawman, this is the very lynch-pin difference in the two theologies. If you claim God's sovereignty, how can you do this?

 

You're on the right track bro.

 

Im not trying to be cute or fence with anyone, Im honestly trying to dig deep in-order to understand.

 

Well, fellas, let's take a look at Jezebel. If there was anyone in the bible that would fall in the "non-elect" category by her "doings", she would fit the bill. But in Revelation, she was given a space to repent, and she repented not. She ended up dying lost. God elected/chose to give her this opportunity of repenting, and she refused to do so.

 

That would depend on how one wants to view what is really "sovereign?"

Some think sovereignty must mean having complete and utter control of every thought, desire, action, movement, event, will etc. This view has God needing to play both sides of the chess board to guarantee victory. He has to be the General of both armies, to make sure the right one wins. Some don't find this view all that "powerful" or "sovereign." In fact, IMO, it makes Him appear a bit weak and childish....like a kid in the sandbox with his army men.

On the other hand, some understand sovereignty as depicted in the scriptures, where God is working out all things for His good and ultimate purposes DESPITE the rule of the evil one over this fallen world. This view has God genuinely overpowering his opponents and winning because He is God while his opponent is a mere creature. This view doesn't place the source of the evil will of creatures in the same place as the source of God's good will.

 

Really?!? And this is how you view DoG? A Chess Game! I certainly hope not.

Know one I know considers God as a Player? Where did that come from? LOL

But to relinquish Gods authority to sinful man is truly a distortion in the direction of self.

 

Just as apostate Israel was given forty years to repent, but she would not. She kept enticing those early Christians to fornicate with her with her relentless Judaizing.

 

I'm sorry if you don't like the way I believe scripture revels God's plan of salvation.

I don't see how God allowing man to respond to His wonderful gift of salvation found in the Gospel of His Son lessens His sovereignty.

 

Some believe this way? Provide a quote and proof.

I believe your view of God is more akin to your sandbox illustration, at least in its illogical and fantastical and irreverent conclusions.

What an unfortunate view of God you present here, whether being sarcastic or facetious, or not, it is clearly wrong and fails to hold His Person in awe. He doesn't have to ensure anything to get a "win." What imprudence on your part to paint Him this way.

All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and by Him all things consist, or, are held together. Even Satan created for Him, and for His purposes.

For you to compare His Sovereign purposes and control over all creation, that He has made for Himself, in the inflammatory way you have above is uncalled for, and is a total misrepresentation of other believers, and is downplaying the truth that God is Sovereign.

Life isn't a chess board. What is this "playing both sides of the board?" What nonsense. That is how you want to portray God? This is how the true God in Scriptures, who made all things for Himself and His purposes appears to you? How sad. Talk about implications to come from a theology, as you've stated cals have implications to face. Wow.

He has to be the general of both armies? He already is. He's Lord of All, and Almighty, King of Kings, in control of all things at all times.

 

I agree. I couldn't believe that when I read it. It comes across as totally irreverent of Holy God.

Unbelievable.

 

Of course not. I was using the chess game as an analogy. We would see God as taking on a real opponent with his own independent will and strategy, where as your view would have God playing both sides of the board in the sense that is what would be required for your perception of "Sovereignty."

So, what about Jesus as a sheep herder or God a hen longing to gather her chicks? They are called analogies to explain differing perspectives. Forgive me for presuming you would understand that. :saint:

 

The latter two are warranted analogies --because they actually come from Scripture. Using the "analogy of a chess game and God as a "player" clearly go beyond the bounds of propriety to say the least.

 

LOL ....ok....forgive me for pointing out something you guys close your eyes to ....simply put, In your doctrine of salvation , MAN interacts with God to determine if someone is saved. By contrast, Calvinism insists that salvation is by grace from beginning to end. for the Calvinist, salvation is a precious gift, there is no games play, no cosmic Meglo Maniac Control Freak. That is a figment of your imagination, one so focused on believing that man must play a decisive role in salvation ..... thus you clarify the Arminian position & viewpoint very clearly to me. Thanks.

 

Ok, then I change my analogy to this:

Calvinism: God is like a shepherd seeking to find the lost sheep that he casually determined to desire to get lost in the first place.

Calvinism: God is like a hen longing to gather his chicks who are unwilling because he made them to be unwilling by nature from birth.

You're right, those are better than his playing both sides of a chess match. Thanks :thumbs:

 

now your being childish.....so I will end the discussion on my end. goomby

 

But God didn't causually determine that. People are lost of their own accord --it's their sinful condition that makes them lost.

Your "analogy" failed.

In my world hens are female,so I don't know if the pronoun "his" is quite right.The Lord did not make anyone unwilling. People are unwilling by virture of their depraved nature.

Your "analogy" failed.

It's back to the drawing board for you Skan. It's not looking so good for your side there.

 

What do you mean when you speak of "their own accord?" Do you mean according to their inherited nature adopted from Adam according to the fall by which they cannot even respond to God's appeal to be reconciled?

Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the Calvinistic scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices. Thus, I think the analogies are all a pretty accurate representation.

 

Skan,your basic premise is that God made folks to be sinners --that He forced them to be sinners. No Calvinist believes that.

Faulty premise = invalid conclusion.

 

My premise is based upon the commonly known view of many Calvinistic believers call "compatiblism," in which they argue that a man's choice is "free" if it is in accordance with his desire. To me this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God, thus there is NO basis of independence upon which to claim any form of true freedom.

When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices, but as explained above it cannot if indeed all desires are likewise determined (decreed) by God.