Does this indicate a choice?

Yes, the VAST majority of drowning victims want to be saved, but perhaps this is not necessarily a good picture of the discussion. The VAST majority of people would WANT to have salvation, if they truly had a conviction and belief in God and understood the reality of spiritual consequences. That physical nature of ours drives us to believe more readily on the here and now, the things "we know" are real. This is the function of faith in the life of believers. To have absolute conviction that there is more than simply the tangible in life.

 

Nope. You STILL don't get it.

I have a friend who pastors across town from me. He is away on a mission trip to the Philippines. While he is away I have a used grill, big fancy thing, that I am going to set up at his house.

I did not ask his permission, but when he sees it, he will be willing and glad to have it.

Did I force him to have the grill? No.

Did I ask his permission? No.

I just gave him something that made him willing to have it.

He does not force anybody to get saved.
He does not force anybody to get saved.
He does not force anybody to get saved.
He does not force anybody to get saved.
He does not force anybody to get saved.
He does not force anybody to get saved.
He does not force anybody to get saved.
He does not force anybody to get saved.
He does not force anybody to get saved.

Got it yet.

What a phenomenally, ridiculously ignorant and inflammatory statement!

Ask your heart doctor if he has any training. Then right before he does quadruple by-pass surgery, tell him, "No. I don't want you. You ahve let other men do your thinking for you. Get me somebody in here who has no training. I want somebody who thinks for himself!"

 

Your arguments are silly to anyone.

Enter my house with permission and you are a guest. Enter my house without my permission and you are a criminal.

Jesus said he stands at the door and knocks, and waits for you to willingly open the door and welcome him in.

He does not break the door down like a criminal.

 

I'm not angry at all, but I figured I'd go ahead repeat myself a couple dozen times at once because it is what I will eventually have to do over the next several posts in conversing with Winman.

 

Nobody said he breaks down the door, Winman. For the thousandth time he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.

he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.
he does not FORCE anybody to get saved.

Got it yet?

 

My illustration was not intended at all to be a parallel of the actual factors. It was simply to explain and illustrate the type of love wherein I view regeneration/conversion/justification: not as a quid pro quo "give and take," (husband-wife) but one of a gut-wrenching sacrifice that compels one from hatred and rebellion to love (father-son). The husband-wife type comes as a result of the father-son type. We enter through the father-son type to cause the husband-wife type.

 

Does God get a sinner's permission to enter them and change their will, making them willing?

See, you can't get around this, Jesus showed himself on the outside, patiently knocking on the door. Does he want to enter? YES!

But he does not impose himself on the sinner. The sinner has to make his own decision of his own free will to open the door. Only then will Jesus enter in.

You may not like that, but that is what the scriptures show.

 

Having been a Calvinist for a while I understand this point, however just so you Calvinists are aware of why there is so much confusion on this subject please consider the popular Reformed argument over the use of the greek word for "draw" (helko). We've all heard Calvinists speak of this literally meaning "to drag" like one dragging water from a well or dragging fish in a net. Now, if that doesn't give the impression of an "irresistible force," I'm not sure what would.

Now, I understand that this so called "irresistible calling" is also seen as an act of regeneration by which the heart of a man is effectually changed, so that the one unwilling becomes willing. However, this really doesn't undue the confusion for many because it still has attached to it the terminology of an "irresistible" "dragging" conversion. So, please forgive if people get confused.

After all, does it really matter? It's not like this misrepresentation of Calvinism is really that far off. Whether God forces one to be saved against his will, or forces one to be willing to be saved by changing his will, does it really matter all that much? Both are God irresistibly saving the elect and its not as if it is possible for any misrepresentation to harm your cause, after all God has predetermined who is going to believe it and who won't anyway, so lighten up.

 

It is not a delusional statement to say that dying people want to live. That indeed is a universal truth. People don't like death. The only ones that like death are believers who know they are going to be with the Lord, (and only then if they know that their time on earth is done), and 2, deceived Islamic terrorists who will blow willingly commit suicide thinking that that act will get them a free pass into paradise. With that deception they don't seem afraid to die either. But Winman isn't talking about Islam. He is speaking of drowning individuals. His point is valid.

Here is what he said again:

Here is the illustration expanded upon (my take on it).
A man swims 100 feet off the pier into water that is far over his head. The waters become rough, and he realizes he doesn't have the strength to swim back. He begins to yell for help, but at first is not heard. Now, losing strength, and beginning to drown he musters some more strength and calls for help. You happen to hear him. You see that he is in trouble.
You ask? What is your problem?
His strength waning, he says: "I am drowning."
You advise him: "Swim to the shore and you shall be saved."
And with that wonderful bit of advice the man breathes his last and dies.

The problem was that he couldn't swim to the shore. He was drowning. If he could have swam to the shore then he wouldn't have drowned; he would have saved himself. But he wasn't able to do that. What did he need? He needed a Saviour.
He needed someone stronger and greater than he, that would come and grab him by the hand and place him on solid ground in a place of safety.

Salvation is a call for help. It is a call by the sinner to the Saviour. And He comes and takes the sinner by the hand, draws him out of the morass of sin, and places him on the solid rock where alone he will have salvation and forgiveness of sins.

 

Amen! Praise God!

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

As I said to Amy, the analogy wasn't perfect and it was not a primary analogy, it was a response to one, relatively little, thing Winman said.

Had I been arguing for a full analogy of soteriology, I would not have cast a drowning swimmer. I would have cast a swimmer that had already drowned and was in need of rescue and resuscitation.

So, given the original scope of the analogy, it is invalid to push it as far as you, Winman, and others have.

The initial scope was to exemplify how a lifeguard is taught to subdue a person who is in the midst of drowning.

If I had to do that analogy over again--seeing where people have pushed it to a place I did not intend it to speak to--I would have cast the person drowning as a suicide attempt having thrown himself or herself into a river or some body of water, desiring to die. In this case the rescuer does subdue them and rescue them according to their will.

So, as I said, not all drowning victims want to be saved.

The Archangel

 

His point is, in fact, invalid because it brings subjective experience and applies it as a universal truth. And, the point of the "delusional" comment was not that some that are drowning want to be saved. The delusional comment was to this statement by Winman:

It is delusional to take one's subjective experience, as Winman has clearly done, and make it a universal truth. That is the nature of the "delusion" and not the idea that some who are drowning want to be saved.

To suggest that the conversation between Winman and I has to do primarily with drowning people is not the case; the conversation is about his universal application of personal, subjective experience.

How does the sinner know he is in need of saving? That is the question for which certain strains of Arminianism have no good answer. And, that is the question.

The Archangel

 

[/QUOTE]
Was Isaac Newton delusional as he observed apples dropping from the trees in his orchard. He observed that they all fell toward the earth and none toward the heaven, and thus determined what we now know as "the law of gravity." It was his observation, his experience. But you say it is delusional to take one's subjective experience as Newton has clearly done and make it a universal truth?? Was Newton wrong to do so?

Winman said he was a lifeguard. Newton grew up as a farmer. As a farmer observed apples, a lifeguard observes people swimming. They both draw conclusions on their observations, and their observations can be quite valid. The greater the number of people observed and the greater period of time spent observing, the more valid are the results. The results can also be verified against those of other lifeguards.
I also have never seen a drowning person that didn't want to be saved, though I am not a lifeguard.

 

Bro. DHK,

That is one sweet analogy you laid out there! I wish I could articulate my words in such a manner as these are! :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

Look at Romans 2:14,15. He has the witness of the law and of his own conscience.
Romans 1:20 states that they are without excuse.
Psalms 19:1-3 tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God.

Romans 10:13-15 puts the onus of their salvation upon us to some degree.

Innately a sinner knows he is need of saving in the same way a thief knows he must avoid the police station. But, according to Romans 2:15, the thief does have a conscience. He knows where the police station is. If he is going to be saved from the wrath of the law, he must first go to the police station, where he will face the penalty of his sin. The question is: Will you be there to meet the thief and pay his penalty for him--a fine?
Or, will you be there to meet the sinner with the gospel, that he may know that Christ has already paid his fine, and he has the chance simply to accept it by faith.

 

Archangel,

Still disagree with you on the "drowning thingy".

I do think survival is a universal instinct common to all, some (very few in number) override this instinct either due to desperation, depression or some fanatical commitment to a false belief system. It is in our DNA to seek to survive and desire to be rescue, perhaps it is that ever present "hope" that we have. Some just never know where to place that ultimate hope.

 

But what is the context of those words about Jesus standing at the door and knocking? Is He speaking to unbelievers? No. He addresses the church of the Laodicians; Rev 3.14 tells us this. Then Rev 3.22:

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
​

I have heard people argue, "That's all very well, but churches may include in their membership some who profess to be Christians, but in fact are not." But if Jesus had meant those words about knocking at the door to be applied to every sinner, what would be the point of mentioning "the church at Laodicea" and "the churches" at all?

I think the idea of an Almighty Saviour standing meekly outside a sinner's heart, awaiting permission to enter owes more to Holman Hunt's painting than to scripture.