Hyper-Electionism - the worst kind of heresy

I agree with this statement of yours. There is no seperation in time between the various events you describe, they are all part of the same even.

Having said that, let me qualify that by saying even though all these events that are combined as one event in time, it is still an event in time.

God determined, before the foundations of the world, the day in which he would perform this event on me, and at that point I was included in Christ.

Some electionists, make the mistake of saying I was included in Christ before the "event" we are speaking of takes place, that is bad theology and totally contrary to the Scriptures.

IFBReformer </font>[/QUOTE]However, the Calvinist would say regeneration always occurs but not necessarily the outward call, faith, and enlightenment.

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
1689 London Baptist Confession

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Westminster Confession of Faith

I do not agree. No elect person is incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. That would imply a dependence on human reason (synergism). The call, regeneration, faith, and enlightenment always occur as a single event in the life of the elect when the righteousness of Christ is imputed by faith. However, the Holy Spirit may call fallen elect to repentance and faith many times. And, of course, the Holy Spirit daily calls, gathers, enlightens, and keeps all believers in the true faith.

[ June 29, 2004, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

No, nobody says that man has this amount of good in him where he just snaps out of it and comes to God all on his own. We believe God has been drawing all, (John 12:32) and you may argue as to why one comes and not another, what "all" really is, different types of "calls", etc. but still, given the fact that we acknoiwledge some sort of move from God to each person, you cannot accuse of what you have just said above.

Basically, the reason this keeps coming up, is because if God concluded all in sin just to have mercy on some, then those whom he did not intend to give mercy to were selected for Hell. If God is the one who ordained for man to be born as enemies of Him, then man in that state was selected for Hell. He then saves some out of this, and the rest remain selected for Hell. "That is their purpose" James White tells us. Then, all the citing of Romans 9 to prove that God has these "vessels of wrath" which is supposed to "answer to 'the natural objection sinful minds will raise'/'Man's carnal mind['s] further objection'". Why would it be an "objection" otherwise?
Why can't your side see that if "vessels of wrath" means "individuals" preordained to Hell, that is the same thing as "selected for Hell", almost word for word?

Once again, on Romans 9:
WHAT is really being asked here? "Yet" find "fault" for what? "Why would God unconditionally choose someone else and not me/[others], and save them by 'enabling' them to repent, yet leave me/[others] in this helpless state, dead in sin, unable to repent, yet still hold me/[them] responsible [i.e. 'find fault'] for my sin, and send me/[them] to Hell when I/[they] couldn't even 'resist His will' to place me/[them] in this state (before I[/they] were born, even) in the first place?". This is what people are asking Calvinists today, who then in turn simply project this into the text. Think about it: who would ask Paul such a question in the first place? One of the "non-elect"? But who could know now that they are ultimately non-elect? Or is it just any arbitrary listener who happens not to like God's election process? Do you think the Jews would really care if all unbelieving Gentiles and apostate Jews were preordained to destruction? They probably already believed that. Would Gentiles care whether individual Jews were "vessels of wrath"? If anything, some may have hastily presumed something like that, but then Paul corrects them, later . But otherwise; what would that have to do with them?
"Ability to repent" is not even being discussed here. Neither is any inescapable state or fate. Paul had just mentioned Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh, These may be individuals, but what were they being used to illustrate? Step back another few verses: "not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed." (v.8) Paul argues that simply being "Abraham's children" does not make one a child of promise, because for one thing, Abraham had other children beside just the Jews. But God had declared that "In Isaac shall your Seed be called." (v.7) Being from Isaac also wasn't enough, because Esau also was his child. But God had still unconditionally chosen Jacob (v.12, 13), not because of any righteousness of his (Jews thought that their forefathers must have been chosen because of being more righteous, thus "works" rather than "Him that calleth"), for they were not even yet born when God made this decision.(v.11) So the whole point here is that it must be more than physical lineage from Abraham. The next step is that even being of Jacob's physical lineage is not enough. The whole context is two groups "the Children of the flesh", and "the children of promise". It says nothing about the individuals in either group being unconditionally elected or preteritioned into those groups. It just assumes two groups, and emphasizes that what many thought was the class that mattered (Jew as opposed to Gentile) was actually not the right one.

 

How thoughtful and merciful the Lord is to have a 'saved elect infants' and 'non-elect, lost little ones. You make the Lord God hypocritical when He invited the children to sit at His feet. He must have chased off the non-elect into the meadow or woods. Don't waste our time with your theological contortions. God is God and is not fashioned in any way like the evil one; and we are created after the likeness of God. [James 3;9] Would you damn some babies and children or would you receive them into Heaven, through the blood atonement? The concept of non-elect babies is birthed out of the darkness of Hell.

David's dying son was born out of adultery and still was awarded a place in Heaven with Jesus. [II Samuel 12:23]

One poster said,'Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through
the Spirit . . . '

Ray: You were clearly inferring that the Lord, our Savior, damns the rest of His created beings/souls.

 

Ray Berrian said
This is why Irresistible Grace is a false doctrine. [John 5:40] . . .and I have more references to resisting the Gospel if you are still not convinced by these two . . .

You just display your ignorance of the doctrine you criticise. Calvinism does not teach that the gospel is not resisted by the lost. It teaches that when God decides to save a man, THEN the gospel is made irresistible to him.

Ray: Wrong! The Lord through the Apostle Paul is writing to the church not the people who are sinners. Have you forgot that all Christians are 'spiritual judging all things.' [I Corinthians 2:15a & I Cor. 2:16c] You have again got caught in your false theory of Total Depravity. You'll have to watch that pit-fall once again.

Oh, so Paul says to the church, Rom.9: 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" ? Another priceless bit of Free-will exegesis.

Ray: Read it in the Greek. God speaking through Paul says, 'WHAT IF . . .' This is purely hypothetical.

A gem! Seeing then that He did not endure the vessels of wrath, I take it He will not make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? ?

I had said, 'Why not tell the readers that your sort of free-willism was the Romanism
the Reformers warred against?' To which you replied,
You wish. The Reformers when along with the ancient Catholicism minus some Catholic doctrines like purgatory, penance, adoration of Mary and so on. The five points of Calvinism go back to the alleged great theologian, St. Augustine. Some Protestants and non-Catholic denominations have drank deeply from the error of this false teacher, the Augustinian.

Haven't you heard of, for example, Luther's 'ON THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL', and Erasmus' controversy with him on it?

Or the Council of Trent, example CANON XVII.-'If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.'

And from Chapter V of Trent, 'they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.'

That is a good statement of Arminianism, but it was the official statement of Romanism, issued in 1547.

Please show the readers the Calvinism you say characterized Rome at that time.

Try to explain from the Bible, how God can maintain His Divine justice/fairness and still damn, of His own will and accord, the majority of the world's population. We believe Jesus died for the sins of every sinner. [I John 2:2] Do you 'white out' this verse with 'liquid paper?'

Easy. For example, Rom.3: 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom. 5: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--

No, I do not white out 1 John 2: 2And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. I take it in its most natural sense - for the sins of all nationalities. Your difficulty arises when you make it everyman, for the scripture not only says Christ is the propitiation for the sins of 'the whole world', it says He MADE propitiation for their sins. He actually satisfied God for His people's sins. He did not make it possible, He actually did it. Or has He still to do it?

I assume you believe not everyman will be at peace with God. Surely you then can see that Christ could not have made propitiation for them?

Actually, I am able to read the Book of Romans and have been able since about eight years old. Don't just write it down, give it your best shot at interpreting it. We'll let you know when you miss the mark.

It was YOU who said, You Calvinists have a problem because Jacob was the 'deceiver' while Esau, in my studies, was more Godly than his brother. But, according to Calvinists the Lord rewarded Esau and sent him to Hell, while throwing open the gates of Heaven to his malicious brother, Jacob. Oh, but let me say it for you, God is sovereign and does what pleases His own will and Divine purposes. But, I think we should give the Lord a little more credit as to His credibility and Divine justice toward all human beings who are born into this world. YOU made God's treatment of Esau dependent on his conduct, rather than God's sovereign choice of one sinner over another.

Hebrews 11 declares Esau and Jacob as being the sons of the promise who would and have inherited everlasting life.

You read that into it. That would make all Israelites inheritors of everlasting life. And it plainly ignores the other reference in Hebrews to Esau - a profane person.

If only Jacob was saved Isaac would not have 'blessed' Esau also. And why should Isaac explain about ' . . . things to come' if he was selected for Hell by this alleged brutal, sovereign God who autocratically picks people for Hell, merely for His alleged glory and praise. How weird is that?

Isaac's 'blessing' of Esau was far inferior to that of Jacob. It is like God's goodness to the reprobate, His longsuffering toward them. As to God being brutal, it is you who have too high a view of sinful man. God could righteously cast us all into hell, but in His great love He chose many to be saved by the sacrifice of His Son. That is amazing grace - I would not call it weird.

So if God has anything to do with making people millionaires, then perhaps He loves them more than some of us who have less money. Things do not matter to the Lord; He values most our life of holiness lived in His Presence and in our world.

You write-off God's goodness to men in giving material blessings, Acts 14:17 Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness."

'Jacob and Esau were children of faith, as was their father (Hebrews 11:20). So it is not merely little me who believes this. Dr. Tenney was Dean of the graduate school of theology at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, with a Ph.D. from Harvard University. You really need to rethink this whole maze of error that you have apparently thought was right.

Since when did a Doctorate stop one being foolish? Dr.Adam Clarke, as I recall, considered Balaam a child of God. Of course, he was also an Arminian.

In Him

Ian

 

Ray Berrian, Th.D.

Did you get your doctorate online, Ray ?

Where is the proof I challenged you with on Calvinism being a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church brought out by Calvin from there ?

 

IFB Reformer,

You said, 'But we must understand that when we say some people are predestined to
damnation, what we are really saying is that God chose to leave them to
their just punishment for their sins.

God did not predestine them to sin and thus deserve damnation, but he did
predestine to leave them to their just punishment as he could have done
with all us.'

Ray: This false line of thinking is not your new concept, but an old one. It is a way of putting on a 'smiley face' on the Lord God in relation to the elect, while saying, "Well, He just passed by the majority of His created beings." This view does not make the non-elect any closer to being saved than the Arminian view, only we rightly believe that God has made all persons responsible to receive Christ. If they neglect or reject Jesus they have pivoted their own soul toward the gates of Hell. If your theory were right, God elects the saved and equally as well, damns the rest of the human population all down through the centuries, with the same good pleasure. Everything rotates either by believe or not believing. Our Lord's words speak for themselves. 'He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he who believeth not shall be damned.' You will not find any Superlapsarianism or Sublapsarianism anywhere in the Bible and surely not in Mark 16:16.

Faith is not a work; it is a human who has been moved by the Holy Spirit to trust in Christ as only Savior.

Election is a true fact but it becomes cognizant to the believer only when a sinner believes in the holiness of Jesus Christ and sees his or her need of salvation and everlasting life, enough so that he or she believes the message of the Gospel.

I have met people who believe in this Unconditional Election, who because they have ingested this error, don't know for sure that they, themselves are even saved. But they can explain this erring doctrine, for which we give them no credit.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

We've been around and around on this topic with Ray for ages. Don't expect to get anywhere with it.

What amazes me is that so many people focus on Calvin, whereas Martin Luther expounded on the bondage of the will long before Calvin ran with the theme, and Augustine had touched upon it before Luther (which is where Ray makes the connection between Calvinism and the Catholic Church).

Where the whole "it comes from the Catholic Church" chant breaks down is that Martin Luther is the one who basically started the reformation! And Calvin was only 8 years old when Luther nailed his 95 theses at Wittenberg Church.

The point is, if the Catholic Church had, at any time, held to the tenets of what we now call "Calvinism" -- and even if it could be argued that this Catholic doctrine - if it ever existed - started with Augustine, the Catholic Church had long since abandoned these "pre-Calvinist" tenets before the reformation, let alone before Calvin, himself.

 

If so, then man is not saved by the faith of Christ alone but by his own reason, strivings, good works, and prayers. He can be helped in this endeavor to save himself by the prior enlightenment of the Holy Spirit over a period of years or even decades. He, in effect, becomes a co-Redeemer with Christ.

The preaching of the law brings man to a knowledge of his sins but it does not enlighten or save man. Man does resist enlightenment but man's degree of resistance is not a cause of his enlightenment.


Ray: Oh, I understand. The Godhead is a Divine Puppeteer. We have no personality, no emotions, no will, and no ability as to our faith response to the stage manager.

Satan is the puppeteer. Natural man thinks that he is master of his own destiny but Satan is pulling all the strings. Only when man has been regenerated and saved through the faith of Christ alone is man, with help of the Holy Spirit, free to do good works.

[ June 30, 2004, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

Well put. Here's another way of saying it (from Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will):

The Scripture, however, sets forth such a man, who is not only bound, miserable, captive, sick, and dead, but who, by the operation of his lord, Satan, to his other miseries, adds that of blindness: so that he believes he is free, happy, at liberty, powerful, whole, and alive. For Satan well knows that if men knew their own misery he could retain no one of them in his kingdom: because, it could not be, but that God would immediately pity and succour their known misery and calamity: seeing that, He is with so much praise set forth, throughout the whole Scripture as, being near unto the contrite in heart, that Isaiah lxi. 1-3, testifies, that Christ was sent "to preach the Gospel to the poor, and to heal the broken hearted."

 

At the bottom of my above post, I show that this passage is not speaking of individual damnation. It is comparing physical Israel with spiritual Israel, and showing that one group corresponded to rejected Esau, and the other to chosen Jacob. Salvation of course is individual, but this is all telling us that it is on being in one group, and not the other. And yes, the criterion is faith, rather than "works" (or physical inheritance).
But faith, as we practice it is not a "work", and your citing of John 6:28-29, only shows that as a "work" it is credited to God, not us. That does not necesarily mean that He made one believe and not another. Else, He would really be "believing" for them.
On the flipside, what your reasoning also would suggest (and especially in the "perseverance" debate) is that we ARE saved by "works", only God gives us the ability to do the works!

This is what I would say was a mystery that we cannot now understand, rather than tearing Rom.9 from its context and trying to make a mystery out of a premise of God leaving people helplessly trapped in sin. (Which the scriptures do not teach when such proof-texts are read/understood correctly.)

Its justness is questioned, because it is a trap, and the same line of "flipside" reasoning as the above (If He "allowed" sin, He must have ordained it for His purpose) would lead one to conclude that God did predestine them to sin and "deserve" damnation. It all becomes a script, that is written out and then "plays" out. And the emotions in question come from God, through conscience (the same that tells us we should not raise our children to be criminals, only so they can be "left in just condemnation"), and His self-revelation in scripture (His plan is for the good of man), and other such principles we get from Him.
So these issues of how god's plan works out are the areas where we should conclude it's a mystery, instead of trying to squeeze some doctrine of unconditional reprobation into the Bible, and then pleading "mystery" only for the resulting "why's".

 

I would word it slightly differently, because I don't think you can leave God "off the hook" for anything. God created Adam knowing that Adam would sin and bring down the human race along with him. Therefore God is ultimately responsible for the existence of sinners, and for their damnation. That does not relieve Adam of his responsibility in the matter, though. Adam made a choice - one that God foreknew and expected - but it was still Adam's choice.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for us. God withdrew His Spirit from Adam, such that we all inherit a "dead" spirit. We are born spiritually "dead", and unlike Adam, we are born deserving what our nature causes us to deserve. We are, as the Bible says, "condemned already".

But that doesn't mean we would get any worse than what we deserve if God sent all of humanity into the lake of fire.

Let me put this in the most emotionally unconfortable manner possible so you get my point. Suppose God wanted to intentionally create wicked beings for no other purpose than to send them to hell. Do they deserve hell any less because they were created for that purpose? A wicked being is a wicked being, no matter how he got that way.

But let me temper this with one more thought. All God would have to do to create such beings would be to give them self-will, but withhold His Spirit from them. Since sin is, at its most basic root, "not agreeing with God", then if one does not have the Spirit of God, one is in no state to agree with God unless by accident. A self-willed being without the Spirit is by nature self-centered not God-centered.

The bottom line is that it is impossible to say the fate of the wicked is unfair, no matter how you look at God's participation in the process.

Were it not for Jesus, any OTHER fate than damnation for the wicked would be unfair.

 

The Bible says, that 'Satan is the god of this world' but even this is decreed by the will of Almighty God. God has allowed the Devil to blind all human beings.

No one but the Holy Spirit can woo or call a person [John 12:32] to receive salvation. The fact that He is drawing ALL people to Himself insures His Divine justice within His vary nature and toward all sinners.

In your view the Lord is the puppeteer in using the Spirit of God to call out only His elect. The rest of humans, both God and Satan allow sinners to be dancing around in their sins on the stage of life, only later to be damned.

The first verse that you might have learned from the Bible is still true. {John 3:16} Once the Gospel message goes out, all are drawn to receive Christ. Almighty God, contrary to what Calvinists teach, not only invites all sinner to His grace, but 'commands all people, everywhere to repent.' [Acts 17:30] The only alternative is to make the Lord a liar and at best a hypocrite. Are you willing to clad Him in this kind of vesture?

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Whosoever believes means whosoever believes. That does not even address the question of election or free will. All it says is those who believe will be saved. Why they believe, by whose power they believe, etc., are all found elsewhere in the Bible.

I'm willing to say that God rightly commands all people to repent, because everyone OUGHT to repent. Whether or not God gives anyone the ability to repent is up to God.

The problem with your analysis is that you ASSUME that God would not command something without giving the hearer the ability to comply. This is a non-sequitur, and is easily disproven using the Bible itself. Can you love the LORD your God with all your heart, sould and mind of your own free will? God commanded us to do exactly that. If you believe that God would not command us to do something without giving us the ability to comply, then you must be able to obey not only this commandment, but all of the law of your own free will.

Using your own logic, there is no need for Jesus to go to the cross, because all we have to do to be righteous is respond to God's commands by obeying them of our own free will, since -- according to you -- God would never command us to do something without also giving us the ability to comply.

 

Once again, here, you are creating a "mystery" that the Bible does not teach. You cannot answer why He would leave people trapped like that, (except "just to have people to damn to show His glory and make the saved more appreciative", and here we are getting further and further from the Good News) but we can answer that He gives people a way around this inability. You're saying He is "withholding" it, by including the way around itself as one oif the things man could not do in the first place. (i.e. it's apart of the "Law" that we had the problem with in the first place). That defeats the whole purpose, except, again, unless you conclude that the purpose is just damning people to impress the saved, or whatever other reason.

All of this calls into question what exactly does "deserve" mean.

And this calls into question what exactly "ought" means.

Statments like "deserve" and "ought" are human words that we use for certain meanings. What you are doing is taking tham and giving them new meanings for God. In other words, basically, God is just pronouncing people as "deserving" (user defined word) hell, and to justify this, declaring that they "ought" to repent, though He witholds an "ability" from them. The rest of the script of "means" is just another roundabout way of accomplishing this single goal of just damning people. Then it is sealed off with "It is God's right to do that", and scriptures bent to fit it.

Once again, as sovereign Creator, He could have done anything He wanted to, including the above, and who could say anything against it? He could have created us as a 2D stick-figure world, too. But all of that means nothing compared to what He has revelaed as His intent and will/plan for man. All people are doing is building up a hypothetical scenario ("what He has the right to do") reading it into scripture, and then proclaiming it a mystery.

 

I'm using these words as defined in Webster's dictionary.

deserve: to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital

If you build something fit for the trash heap, then it deserves to be tossed in the trash heap. If you do anything else with it, you are granting it undeserved mercy (grace). If you give half your objects grace and don't give the other half grace, that is not unfair, because ALL of them deserve the trash heap. If anything is unfair, it would be to give ANY of them anything but the trash heap - hence the need for a redeemer.

Likewise, if -- hypothetically -- God purposefully creates a wicked people, then those wicked people deserve what wicked people deserve. God tells us what they/we deserve - we don't have to make it up or imagine it.

ought: used to express obligation (as in moral obligation

obligation: a : a condition or feeling of being obligated b : a debt of gratitude

Especially given what God did (sacrificed His Son for our sake), everyone OUGHT to repent. Everyone on earth has a moral obligation (debt of gratitude) to repent. But that does not infer that any of us have the ABILITY to repent of our own free will. All it says is that we have a moral obligation of gratitude to repent.

It is not a user defined word. See above.

I don't know where you get this. God does not need to justify His actions or motives. God is simply stating a matter of fact. We OUGHT to repent.

He does not withhold the ability from ALL of them. He withholds the ability from those who are not His elect.

That's exactly right. And once you truly come to terms with this truth and respect it instead of treating it with disdain, you'll start to see that the Bible really does teach election, and that election is liberating and an insurpassable source of comfort and security to us, the elect.

Most of all, it is infinitely humbling, because we have to face the fact that we had absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with becoming the elect. We are what we are due entirely to God's mercy, having nothing whatsoever to do with our environment, character, works, desires or will (free or otherwise). If I could tell the elect from the non-elect, I could truly say of a non-elect person, "there but for the grace of God go I".

 

Someone said, 'I'm willing to say that God rightly commands all people to repent . . .'

Ray: It would be superfluous of the Lord to command every sinner to repent if He was not willing to receive them into the fold of Christ.

Someone said, ' . . . because everyone OUGHT to repent.'

Ray: Why should everyone try to repent if God has already ignored or rejected those most unfortunate of damned souls?

Someone said, 'Whether or not God gives anyone the ability to repent is up to God.'

Ray: You are correct here. God in His sovereignty has opted to invite all human beings to become personally a part of the family of God. [John 1:12] The Apostle Paul states the same in I Timothy 2:6 and then John again in his old age says in I John 2:2 that Jesus not only died for the sins of the elect but ' . . . for the sins of the whole world.'

Whether you live on an island of the sea, on a mountain-top or in Borneo it matters not at all to the Lord. He does not want to place anyone in the eternal destruction of Hell.

Jesus said in Matthew 25:41,

'Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels.'

Dr. Homer A. Kent, Jr. Th.D., Professor of N.T. and Greek from Grace Theological Seminary says in his part of "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary' in Matthew 25:41:

Though the righteous have been pronounced blessed by the Father and enter a kingdom prepared for them before creation, the fate of the wicked is not stated in such specific terms of election. The everlasting fire was not prepared for them but for the Devil and his angels {Revelation 20:10}. Neither do men inherit eternal fire (contrast the righteous, Natt. 25:34), but go there by refusing God's grace.' [end quote]

Ray: Nevertheless, all sinners will end up in the Lake of Fire. [Revelation 20:14-15]

Berrian, Th.D.

 

You switched gears in order to twist the point. There's a big difference between "ought to repent" and "should try to repent".

What I said was that it makes perfect sense that everyone has a moral obligation to repent due to our condition and what God did for us.

When you respond with "why should everyone try to repent", you have already ASSUMED they might have the desire and ability of their own free will. If they did have the potential desire and ability, then I would agree with you -- what would be the point if they were among the non-elect? But YOU put that twist into the argument - it is not in the text.

All the text says is that everyone is commanded to repent. You assume from this that command implies ability. I soundly refuted that assumption by pointing out that God commands us to do MANY things we cannot do of our own free will -- such as obey the first and most important of the 10 commandments.

Why would God command us to do such things if they were beyond our ability? Because WE OUGHT TO DO THEM. Because it is the right thing to do to love the LORD your God with all your heart. Yet we cannot of our own free will do so, just because it is commanded -- anymore than we can repent just because it is commanded.

You can prove me wrong anytime, Ray. Just obey the whole law of your own free will and get back to me when you've got it licked.

 

npetreley said:

Oh, okay. There goes credibility. I won't even try to discuss anything with this Th.D. from now on.

It's one thing to repute someone with what you know to be facts, it's another to fabricate things and present them as facts.

Let God be true, but every man a liar.

 

npetreley,

You Calvinists are again found trying to go around "Cape Horn" with a lot of words to try not explain the plan truth. Beyond Acts 17:30 also explain briefly I Timothy 2:5-6 and I John 2:2. I love to see you men contort the meaning of Scripture in order to putty the holes of erring Calvinism.