Does this indicate a choice?

It seems like many freewillers like to use the "marriage" illustration of salvation. I prefer to use the father-son illustration:

A rebellious little brat of a boy keeps wandering onto the street in spite of his father's commands and warnings. One day the boy wanders toward the street and his father spots him and shouts at him to stop. The boy purposefully and rebelliously continues. The father then runs toward the boy. Soon, while chasing his son into the middle of the street the father sees a car coming toward his son. He grabs him by the arm and pulls him right out of harm's way, but gets hit himself.

Right at that moment, the saved son realizes what his father did for him and is forever thankful. He is forever glad that his father did not let him simply exercise his free will because it would have resulted in his demise. He still now exercises his free will, but his will has been changed by what his father did for him.

Stop making salvation a little quid pro quo arrangement. Recognize it for what it really is: a gut-wrenching, heart-throbbing realization that God intervenes on behalf of a rebellious God-hater and makes him His child who loves Him for what He did for him. The thought that God would not let me go but died for this puke of a worm and regenerated me with purpose to be His own for reasons that I could never understand that have nothing to do with any intrinsic worth in me makes me want to fall prostrate before God and thank Him eternally.

Salvation is ALL of God. It's not God and I, it is God alone.

 

I agree with you here, but it is both. Read the sermon on the mount, it is very positive in showing God loves us and wants to do good things for us.

It is not all fire and brimestone, it is both.

 

You simply have no clue what you're talking about.

We who hold to reformed theology say this: We begin as persons unwilling to come to Christ, but God draws us in such a way that we--though once unwilling--become willing and run to Christ. OK. That should be clear.

What your hideously stupid example of "date rape" suggests is that there is never a time when the person becomes willing. In a date rape situation, where the victim is given a roofie or some other drug, they (the victim) are passive. What reformed theology states is that the unwilling person whom God makes willing is active in their repentance and faith.

Therefore, you example, analogy, whatever, is hopelessly flawed.

We have told you this time and time again--hence the word "ignoramus." If you are going to persist in describing our position as something it is not, and if you are going presume to tell us what we actually believe, then you are, in fact, demonstrating your vast ignorance. To continue to be intentionally ignorant as you are demonstrating is to move further down the continuum between ignorance and stupidity. One hopes you will remove your head from the sand and disagree with what we actually believe, not insult us by saying we believe something that we don't.

You might imagine all the Calvinists who claim you follow a works-based religion by being more of an Arminian. You will notice that I have never leveled that accusation. Why? Two reasons: 1.) I don't believe that believing in Christ to be a work and 2.) Those of your theological persuasion take offense at the idea--all the while telling us you don't actually believe it is a "works" salvation.

Yet, despite the deference I and other (though not all) Calvinists show you by our restraint in calling your system of faith "works salvation," you seem unable or, more likely, unwilling to afford us the same courtesy--always sending offensive and incendiary comments our way that are based on your ignorance and your unwillingness to "play nice" with those you are supposed to regard as "brother."

So, to recap, date rape and God's work to make the unwilling willing are NOT the same thing. Therefore, if you are to demonstrate your charity, you will not refer to "Irresistible Grace" as "Date Rape" again. If you persist in your errant and indefensible analogy, we will all see a clear example of someone who fancies himself a Christian yet is unable or willing to display Christian charity to his brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Archangel

 

The problem with your story is that you have the "father" saving his "son". God is not our Father until we place our faith in His Son.

 

I will be addressing the bold-italic words in the quote above.

Winman Writes: I know for a fact if I asked you if God asks a person permission before he changes their will that you would say NO!

You presume again, as you do in most of this paragraph.

The fact of the matter is that God does not need to ask our permission. Does He? No. Because if God had to ask our permission that would make us sovereign, not God.

Before God changes our will, we would, in fact, say "no." But this is no different than the swimmer in distress being rescued by a life guard. The life guard is not sent to reason with the swimmer; the life guard is sent to subdue the swimmer and bring him or her to safety.
Winman Writes: You can't have that, that would be man saving himself in your view.

You presume, falsely, again. I fully believe what the scripture says: A person must repent and believe. This must be an active decision on their part. (Again, I've told you all this before, you simply think you know better what I believe).
Winman Writes: Well, that means God forces or imposes himself on the person.

So? Does not the life guard impose himself or herself on the drowning swimmer? Sure. Does the life guard seek the swimmers permission? No. Why? Because those in the middle of drowning are not thinking clearly and cannot and should not be reasoned with. Saving them from death is the utmost priority and the imposition of the will of the life guard on the drowning swimmer is required.

What your statement shows is that you think man is quite alright by himself. You want to attribute abilities to the heart of a man that any man does not have. How can an "only evil continually heart" come to Christ without being subdued?

The Archangel

 

One regular poster has a quote from Abraham Lincoln that aptly applies to Calvinists;

"If you call a dog's tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have? Four, just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it so."

That fits you to a "T".

 

But the swimmer can refuse to be saved by the life guard allowing himself to drown. The life guard cannot save him against his will.

 

This is not so. Lifeguards are taught to subdue and immobilize the drowning swimmer. If they do not, the drowning swimmer will sink himself and the life guard.

The Archangel

 

Have you never heard of a drowning person panicking? Yes they will drown both of them and it has been known to happen. So it is not a good analogy for how God forcibly saves us.

 

Oh....I see now. What is going on here is this: Winman thinks himself sovereign over what I believe. So, while refusing to show deference and charity, you think you know better what I believe than I do.

This is a delusion. You are, I fear, delusional--you think you better know what I believe than I do. You think you are in my head. You are having a delusion of godhood.

Sad.

The Archangel

 

I've never argued that God "forcibly" saves us. God makes the unwilling willing and then the willing run to Him.

Second, I was using the swimmer/life guard analogy to argue for what I believe happens in salvation. I was using the analogy to show where Winman was incorrect in his addressing of the issue at hand. So, the analogy I used was a response, not a primary argument. Context!

The Archangel

 

How is "making" the unwilling willing any different than force?

 

What is so hard about this that this argument has broken out.

God draws, God teaches how we should pray, and most of all God Saves. :BangHead: If you feel the need drop the :tonofbricks: on me. I'll love all of ya and there isn't a thing that you can do about it

 

A drowning person wants to be saved. In Calvinism he would not.

 

I'll offer an imperfect analogy:

The drowning (and panicking) swimmer is subdued by the life guard. In the midst of the struggle, the swimmer realizes that the life guard is there to rescue the swimmer (the swimmer realizes his or her need of rescue) and the swimmer ceases struggling against the life guard and becomes a willing and thankful "passenger." The once-unwilling has become willing based on the life guard's subduing of them and, as a result of the subduing, they become willing to be saved.

Again, not a perfect analogy. But it's the best I can do at the moment.

The Archangel

 

Wrong.

The Archangel

 

Of course they do. I grew up on the beach in Florida, used to surf nearly every day. I have helped persons who were drowning, almost all were shouting for help.

Like I said, you guys think people are stupid. The only one you are fooling is yourself.

 

So your experience--and your experience alone--is now a universal truth applicable to all persons and all situations?

Delusional.

The Archangel

 

I'm delusional? You are the one who thinks people want to drown.

But let's say they did, some folks have tried to kill themselves this way. Well, if you jumped in and pulled them out, wouldn't that be against their will?

 

He calls you delusional, yet he believes people who are drowning don't want to be rescued. :laugh: This is just plain stupid with a capital S!