Biblical Election

OK. Read the above statement made by Timtoolman. Now read the very next sentence in the same post.

Talk about misrepresenting someone's positions. I don't know any Calvinist that wants to see his worst enemy, let alone his best friend, go to hell.

But it gets better!

What Calvinist says "God would not give man a choice?" We say the choice is out there, but man is incapable of making the right choice unless God regenerates them. If you're going to misrepresent us, please don't do it in a post, the main point of which, is that we misrepresent you.

I'll let you in on our secret: our manual is called the Bible.

Strangely enough, I agree with you on this one. An Arminian believes you can lose your salvation. I don't think you go that far. So, then, I will CHOOSE to use the term "synergist."

Oh, this one is just toooo beautiful. On our last 22 page thread the three of you that disagreed with me not once listened to the verses I included, nor my rebuttals of your use of Adam and Eve as a proof-text of man freely choosing God, nor my defining of theological terms, nor my basic word studies of the words "whole world," "world," and "all." Should I go on?

No, because I don't listen to a thing you say when I debate you.

 

Calvibaptist you are a wild man. You took insult to something that was not meant as insult. I was trying to explain what goes on really in the minds of some non calvinist. And that the strawmen that calvinist buid that we are putting ourselves above God is really not true.
You said you wer through yet you rant and ramble on. Your out of control, How about a truce? This post was too Whatever and was sincre. If you can't leave and walk away, which I hope you can, then we will deal with that later.

Calvibaptist:
No, because I don't listen to a thing you say when I debate you.

And yet you take the time to answer my post line by line. You don't see the humor in that. Just do what you said and give up, walk away Cal. I do not wish to carry on a debate with you either.

[ February 22, 2006, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Timtoolman ]

 

I choose to emulate Paul who was neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Both are correct in some points and both are wrong in some points, when compared to Scripture.

 

Tim,

Thanks for the reply. I think you make some good points, but I would first respond that there is plenty of pride to go around for all sides of the debate.

I don't think it is necessarily prideful to think that one knows the truth. If I thought I was wrong then I would change my mind. But one can (and should) do that without exhibiting a proud spirit, and if one exhibits a proud spirit it does not make their beliefs wrong.

I don't want to see anyone go to hell either. Most Calvinists don't, and I'm really not sure where this objection came from. But, I think it is more likely that my lost friend and relatives will eventually be saved if the choice is left to God than would be saved if the choice is left up to themselves. To say it another way, I trust God to do "the right thing" far more than I trust my lost friends to do "the right thing".

As far as "telling God how to be sovereign", I think it would be better stated that we try to define God's sovereignty the way the Bible does. Some people would have God turning over the outcome of certain events into the hands of man. I don't think that's a proper interpretation of the Bible but if we disagree over this point we still ought not be prideful or mean-spirited about it.

As for the terms, I've heard it said before that whoever defines the terms will win the debate, and I think that's true. Yes, many people have different shades of belief all along the spectrum, but that's even more reason that we ought to listen to each person and answer his questions and statements and concerns, rather than answer questions that he is not asking and argue against points that he is not arguing for. Both sides could do better at that.

 

Timtoolman, you forgot to put the smiley-face I left at the end of my sentence. That meant that I was finding humor with what I was saying.

I hope I didn't upset you. I was just having a little fun.

 

Timtoolman, you forgot to put the smiley-face I left at the end of my sentence. That meant that I was finding humor with what I was saying.

I hope I didn't upset you. I was just having a little fun. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Yes but I am getting over it. I didn't see the face, sorry.

 

This little incident does bring up a point, though. One thing we all have to remember, myself included, is that we are all friends here. We are not debating with unbelievers. As far as we know, we are on the same team.

I hope to continue discussions with you, and others, in a friendly manner (with room for a little sarcasm occasionally).

 

Loss of salvation is the main one.

 

Is that why we have to continually explain to the Calvinist's that they are wrong?

I would say it is the Calvinist's trying to overthrow all non-calvinist souls.

Calvinism teaches nothing but a prideful and arrogant doctrine. Modern day Pharisees. 'Lord, I thank thee that I am not like that sinner over there...'

Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. </font>[/QUOTE]And arminianism teaches that you thank God you had enough goodness to save yourself.

 

God was speaking to the Israelites, God's chosen people. We have to remember, the Israelites rejected His Son, so therefore, Salvation was offered after the cross, to every Gentile man, woman, and child. </font>[/QUOTE]According to the johnny come lately doctrine of dispensationalism.

 

You have really mangled this text.

The problem with the Pharisee is that he believes he is righteous, not that he believes he has been chosen over "that sinner over there". He believes he is better than "that sinner over there" because that person over there IS a sinner, and he is not. The man who Jesus says is justified is justified because, unlike the Pharisee, he recognizes his sinful state and asks for mercy.

But since you raised the issue of "sinners", let me ask the question, if one person leads a better life than another, who made that difference? If we made the difference, then we have the right to take credit for it. If God made the difference, then we have NOTHING about which to boast. So even if we were to compare ourselves to "those sinners over there", we have only God to credit for anything that makes us better than another person. None of it came from ourselves. That is unlike the Pharisee, who not only was blind to his sin, but attributed his righteousness to his own works.

Spurgeon put it better than I can. The part that illustrates the verse best is the second part, but I included the first part because it is extremely relevant to the real issue.

From "Sum and Substance of All Theology":

 

That is a gross mis-characterization. I guess then you think that Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, Adoniram Judson and many other men through out chruch history are proud and arrogant. Oh, we might as well through in the Apostle Paul too. </font>[/QUOTE]I am still waiting for an answer to this. SFiC do you believe that these men and many others were prideful and arrogant?