Could God have saved everyone?

Hey Laurie, Not whithin the context you were using it. Refering to spanking me, which is a joke, and then makeing me raw as your daughter. Glad you cleared it up. I know you are a strange person.

 

Yeah.

Make the illustrations as close to reality as can be! Follow the biblical patterns!

Now that you are happy with the results, how many positions can you see on the theological landscape?

I'll give you a hint: I'm don't support the errors of either Calvin or Arminius.

Give it a whirl. Maybe it will be a good thing for you to run into someone like me.

Lloyd

 

I don't support or believe in two positions either. That is one thing that irratates me about calvinist was that they label you either, or. Thus the statement I made ealier was really for a couple of others on here. And I didn't mean it to necessarily to be an insult just a brick wall I have run into. You just over reacted to it. I have read some of your post and agree with much of what you write. Another irratation because you didn't take the time to find out.
That said my brother in law was reading our post and he is a free grace follower or weslyian follower too. So I know more of where you are coing from now. See post of "Free Grace theology?" I started.

Tim

 

47 years old.....yikes..that sounds old

 

Tim...Lloyd...

What don't we just call it a day and go out and get ice cream. Send Johnp the bill....i heard his rich.

 

But James, I'd rather have peas!

 

Just thought I would remind you guys to keep the thread on topic.

If all has been discussed about the original question then the thread could be closed. After a couple or three pages of being way off topic not many people are going to be edified nor desire to search through the pages for the discussion topic.

So, if possible bring it back to topic.

Thanks and May God Bless,
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Hello James.

But it will won't it? the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Rom 8:7.
If he is able to say yes that is Arminianism. If he is not able as Romans 8:7 says he is not able to respond to God to what purpose does God keep asking him to repent to?

He commands men everywhere to repent.

Is it the purpose of God's love towards this one intended to harden his heart further than it was? Is that right?
Or:
God shows His love by offering the man the chance of receiving Jesus, His death is sufficient for all, of his own will even though God knows it wlll cause an heavier punishment to the man as he rejects because he cannot receive but by God?
If the man responds to God of His own that is Arminianism, if the man can't respond yet makes this decision himself, even though he cannot make any other then the man is sovereign in his choice and God is Soveriegn no longer. If God offers something to someone who He loves that is going to cause this loved one harm then love has failed. 1 Cor 13:8 and that is contrary to scripture and also Arminian. What yer think?

If God offers something to someone who He loves, or who from His love blesses them, that is going to cause this loved one harm then love has failed in places. It is not kind to offer something to someone who cannot have it and whose sin is increased by it. Love has failed in that He did not protect but caused more harm but love never fails. 1 Cor 13:8.

So if it is your choice to eat ice cream instead of those green things, Sponsor driven, notice that you are saying that the man is eating ice cream by his own will and will not eat peas by his will will lose God's Sovereignty in the choosing. If He wants the man to choose bad and in that Sovereignty allows or permits a man to have a sovereign choice then that is His Sovereign right but as the man makes the choice that God wanted but didn't choose then God is not Sovereign and not God by His own will which will never be. He is the Sovereign LORD He says. He will not share His glory with another.

And it's there because all men are born dead in their sins? And it was not our choice to be born nor to be born sinners was it? How comes this state of affairs exists if God is not responsible?

That is not my understanding of Exodus 4:21: The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go is not force? It is not God using the naturalness of the man is it? He is acting as a force intended to prevent the man doing as he was commanded.
'I will harden' is not 'I will use his harden heart' but I will harden so that he will not.

What you think?

john.

 

Hey Tim

True statement. I did react to the statement because I customarily receive heat from both Calvinists and Arminians.

I also call myself a Free Grace theologian. The few who understand that there might be more than two systems usually think "Lutheran." This is the tact used by Paul Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology. I don't agree with original Lutheran teaching on infant baptism.

I was raised in the Ev Luth Ch of Amer (ELCA). Luther would group them with Rome if he were alive today.

I would suspect that there is significant "wiggle room" over shades of doctrine between FG theologians.

LLoyd

 

JohnP and James I cannot get into the discussion if you both assume, One that all are arminians if not calvinist, 2. That I or most on here from what I can read DO NOT believe man can come to God on his own. That has been refuted over and over again. If God had not provided the Christ then man would be lost. He (man) could not will himself back to a relationship with the Father or do any kind of work to establish it. It was God's will to make a way. It was His plan. Which is believe and be saved or believe not and be condemn. That is God's soveriegnty in salvation. He made the rules we don't get to change them, vote on them, we just have to obey.

 

Hey Tim

Nice post! It is a balance between God's sovereignty and human free will. With respect to election, I haven't got it all worked out yet.

Customarily, I favor a corporate view in which God elected Christ to be the centerpiece of redemption. All who wish may freely enter therein.

However, recently I've read an article from the Grace Evangelical Society which generalizes both God's sovereignty and human free will into God's timeless attributes. It is hard for me to explain since it is new to me. Here is the link: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003ii/badger.html


Lloyd

 

Hard reading, but it is for sure that all things are laid out before Him. Time is something we are limited too. I will say that when I say God looks down through time, it is from a human stand point. To us that is what God is doing, but for God it is just all laid out before Him.
I think if I looked back far enough in my post I would find where I argued this earlier with others on here.
I am going to re read this article because I am at break time here at work and don't have much time. But I will say I don't have it figured out yet and neither do my calvinist brothers. But getting deeper into this approach my be the right path. One thing for sure God is so much more then we can comprehend, that the learning part, and sharing can get very exciting as we get deeper and deeper.

 

Ok Tim see you around man. Peace.

john.

 

Is this in answer to my last post? I am surprised if it is John. But take care and God bless.

Tim

 

Cool man. Chuck me questions anytime. Maybe sometime in the future we can talk without conditions but to bear with one another.

john.

 

See you tomorrow James it's gone 4am here.

Thanks.

john.

 

JohnP, since you are a follower of J calvin's teachings like many others on here I guess I could just go to HIS works and get my answers. (I say this for a reason and await your reaction to this statement.)

If you continue to re-define terms, label people wrongly, and tell them what they believe then you make it very hard to have an honest debate. I am willing too do that.But as I read your last post here and you proclaim what arminian believe then I can say I am diffenantly not a arminian. Yet you would, and others on here, continue to peg me as one. When I pt out that, no, that is not what I believe, and you continue to do so then I have a right to say your not willing to listen and honestgly debate. Arminias, did not believe in eternal security. I do. Just one example.
I am very much interested in what you and KJB have to say but I don't want to waste my time fighting strawmen.

In Christ,
Tim

 

Hello Tim.

Yes of course. But you are not are you? A follower of men that is? His stuff is free to view even if you are not a follower of his. If it was open only to his followers then I don't think the sites would see many visitors.

john.