Evidence for God from Science

B.W.,

You're getting closer. You've moved from your earlier posts of blantant Arminianism to a theological mixture. We need to clarify what you mean when you say “free-minded beings”. Calvinists do not deny that man has a will, nor will we deny that he is free to choose what he wants to choose. The problem is that man is fallen and totally depraved. If left solely to His “free-will”, he will continue in his wicked rebellion against God. Why? Because that is what he wants to do. He is a willing slave to sin, but a slave none the less.

Let's use an extreme example of a drunkard. Does the drunkard have free will? Absolutely. He has a choice of whether or not to drink. No one is forcing him to drink. He freely buys the drink, freely opens it, and freely puts it to his lips and partakes of it. So why is it so hard for a drunkard to stop drinking? Many desire to. Many are well aware of their plight, of how their lives, family, and health have been adversely affected by their addiction. Yet they continue to drink heavily, and do so freely, without compulsion. The problem is that the will of the alcoholic is a slave to his addiction. He drinks, because he can do nothing else. Now God can save the alcoholic, and has done so on numerous occasions. However, the clear majority have stayed in their sins and died that way. Their "free-will" is no advantage to overcoming their sinful nature. If God doesn't miraculously save them, they will never be saved.

Lest we think that our wills are superior to that of the drunkard, we are in the same plight with our own sins. God does not force us to sin. He doesn't have to. If left to our free will, none would ever be saved. Therefore, you are correct in concluding that “Truly, God Violates Free Will”.

Psalm 33:10-11
“The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations.”

Of course, we still have to deal with foreknowledge. You continue to suggest, without any scriptural support whatsoever, that “God can control and shape based on foreknowing what a being will do with this free mindedness given as a gift.” I have already dealt with this argument in detail, showing how it robs God of both His omniscience and His omnipotence. I'm looking foreword to your response to my previously cited objections.

At the end of your argument is where the rubber meets the road. You write that “You have a purpose and that is to reflect God's nature and character first to yourself, then to your family, next to friends and neighbors, branching out later to your community, workplace, market, and then to even your own country.” Well, that might be true, but certainly isn't a good place to start in the area of evangelism. God had a purpose for Pharaoh as well, and Pharaoh fulfilled his purpose. (Rick Warren left Pharaoh out of his book. Wonder why?).

Finally, you sum up the “free will” position quite nicely when you conclude that “It begins with you.” That is the problem with your view. It all begins with God. Again, the affects of the fall of man are all but ignored in Arminian Theology. Liberal Theology begins with the false idea that men are, by nature, good. If we just give someone an education, a good job, and a good place to live, they will be good people. That way, we can build Utopia here on earth, one person at a time. (Socialism is built on the same concept). Biblical Calvinism, however, declares the truth about man's estate, that he is not good, but wicked. (This is one of the reason's why I believe the Bible to be inspired by God. Man's writings have a tendency to be much kinder to man.) Arminianism wants both. They want to recognize man's wickedness, yet want to hold that all men have some inherent goodness (faith) in which they can use to get saved, thus making the new birth unnecessary. Arminianism, ultimately, is a man-centered theology, and is doomed to failure, as modern American Christianity can testify.

B.W.,

I realize that this took quite a bit of time and effort on your part. However, I am looking forward to seeing how you deal with my response thread. Now that you are finished with your discourse, I should be finished with my response. Feel free to post here your objections here as time permits.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad wrote:B.W.,

You're getting closer. You've moved from your earlier posts of blantant Arminianism to a theological mixture. We need to clarify what you mean when you say “free-minded beings”. Calvinists do not deny that man has a will, nor will we deny that he is free to choose what he wants to choose. The problem is that man is fallen and totally depraved. If left solely to His “free-will”, he will continue in his wicked rebellion against God. Why? Because that is what he wants to do. He is a willing slave to sin, but a slave none the less.

Let's use an extreme example of a drunkard. Does the drunkard have free will? Absolutely. He has a choice of whether or not to drink. No one is forcing him to drink. He freely buys the drink, freely opens it, and freely puts it to his lips and partakes of it. So why is it so hard for a drunkard to stop drinking? Many desire to. Many are well aware of their plight, of how their lives, family, and health have been adversely affected by their addiction. Yet they continue to drink heavily, and do so freely, without compulsion. The problem is that the will of the alcoholic is a slave to his addiction. He drinks, because he can do nothing else. Now God can save the alcoholic, and has done so on numerous occasions. However, the clear majority have stayed in their sins and died that way. Their "free-will" is no advantage to overcoming their sinful nature. If God doesn't miraculously save them, they will never be saved.

Lest we think that our wills are superior to that of the drunkard, we are in the same plight with our own sins. God does not force us to sin. He doesn't have to. If left to our free will, none would ever be saved. Therefore, you are correct in concluding that “Truly, God Violates Free Will”.

Psalm 33:10-11
“The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations.”

Of course, we still have to deal with foreknowledge. You continue to suggest, without any scriptural support whatsoever, that “God can control and shape based on foreknowing what a being will do with this free mindedness given as a gift.” I have already dealt with this argument in detail, showing how it robs God of both His omniscience and His omnipotence. I'm looking foreword to your response to my previously cited objections.

At the end of your argument is where the rubber meets the road. You write that “You have a purpose and that is to reflect God's nature and character first to yourself, then to your family, next to friends and neighbors, branching out later to your community, workplace, market, and then to even your own country.” Well, that might be true, but certainly isn't a good place to start in the area of evangelism. God had a purpose for Pharaoh as well, and Pharaoh fulfilled his purpose. (Rick Warren left Pharaoh out of his book. Wonder why?).

Finally, you sum up the “free will” position quite nicely when you conclude that “It begins with you.” That is the problem with your view. It all begins with God. Again, the affects of the fall of man are all but ignored in Arminian Theology. Liberal Theology begins with the false idea that men are, by nature, good. If we just give someone an education, a good job, and a good place to live, they will be good people. That way, we can build Utopia here on earth, one person at a time. (Socialism is built on the same concept). Biblical Calvinism, however, declares the truth about man's estate, that he is not good, but wicked. (This is one of the reason's why I believe the Bible to be inspired by God. Man's writings have a tendency to be much kinder to man.) Arminianism wants both. They want to recognize man's wickedness, yet want to hold that all men have some inherent goodness (faith) in which they can use to get saved, thus making the new birth unnecessary. Arminianism, ultimately, is a man-centered theology, and is doomed to failure, as modern American Christianity can testify.

B.W.,

I realize that this took quite a bit of time and effort on your part. However, I am looking forward to seeing how you deal with my response thread. Now that you are finished with your discourse, I should be finished with my response. Feel free to post here your objections here as time permits.

God Bless,

PL

No problem PL - I will as soon as get some rest I'll answer more. For now...

As for free minded beings, I am referring to the term I hate to use, Free Will. This term is used by just about everyone so I use it here as 'free minded beings' so people can relate to it easier than 'moral autonomy' or 'gift of reason', etc and etc…

You of all people should have known that God violates free will everyday! By this we can become saved. There is no other way. He calls.

And yes, by all means explain the Calvinist definition of 'free will'

Remarks before I fall asleep…

I hope someday that we can stop looking at people as either of this theology or that theology and judging them with dominance. That is why I said that both Armenian and Calvinist doctrine has erred. There are truths in each that we can learn from as well as errors. That is what I did in a round about way, exploring these, in the hopes of making manifest the errors and seeing the truth that is in Christ.

What is the purpose of the New Testament if not to make us shine God's true character and Nature? What purpose does the bible have telling us to put off the old man and put on the new? To forsake evil and hold fast what is good? Why did Jesus tell us to let our light shine and not lose or salt? Are we to shine — John Calvin? John Wesley? Or Christ Jesus?

Have we lost our salt by throwing it at each other while the world goes to hell in a hand basket? Should we let the world go to hell or seek those that are lost within this dark world that God foreknew would hear, understand, his call of mercy from Golgotha?

God is all knowing, all wise, all powerful and He reveals this to us all. To be all knowing is to know all things. To be all wise is to be so. God knows the best course to take to achieve his goals and who will be best the instrument to use and when.

He has the wisdom to carry out his plans in such a way that absolves God of creating sin and evil. Much wiser than Calvin and Wesley wrote about which men cleave to doctrines that neither author ever intended their writings to lead one too. Their desire was to led people to Christ.

However, unholy pride gets in the way. Ignorance in submitting to God led to the stain of murder committed in the name of doctrine. Again, in this, dominance is made known. The Scribes and Pharisees in Jesus' day use the same dominance that twisted the moral laws of God to conform to man's will. Salt is tossed out on the dung heap because it lost what?

Now, what about Pharaoh you asked? Are all born depraved? Is all humanity hopelessly lost and damned? Have not all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Therefore Pharaoh's heart was hard just as yours and mine were before we were born again. Question is what does God see and know about Pharaoh before he was ever conceived? Likewise, what did God foresee in us?

I'll tell you what he saw; He saw that if He did nothing, we all would be lost as there is no goodness in us at all. We are lost in sin and corrupt everything we touch by our striving for personal dominance. He saw people twisting God's moral laws to achieve ones on goals to achieve personal dominance. He saw we were damned unless He — God — called. He called. In this, His call permits us to hear and respond.

PL — it is God's call. That is why it is written — whom God Foreknew, he predestined, whom he predestine, he called, etc. Take the call of God out of this equation and you have either Calvinism or Armenianism.

Pharaoh rejected God and His mercy, because of Pharaoh's own hard heart born into sin — same as you and I. Difference was, we heard God's call of mercy — Pharaoh would not as God foresaw that Pharaoh would twist God's mercy as a license to continue to sin to keep his dominance alive. Why not make an example of him?

God made Pharaoh's harder than it was, sealed it, to make sure all would not succumb to Pharaoh's same acts of disobedience. God has that right as he foreknows. If you claim that God just said, “I damn you Pharaoh for the joy of it and too toy with humanity because I am sovereign as I love Calvin and hate all others.” Then what type of God is this?

If this is then the case, then God made the children of Israel violate the Ten Commandments, and all people to sin against his own moral laws. What does this say about God? What does this prove about God?

How can God truly be righteous and perfect in all His ways if he made people break his laws and also harden their hearts against himself? How can God be kind and show mercy and be fair in any of this? God would cease to be God if this was so.

A house divided against itself shall not what? Matthew 12:25, “And Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation. And every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” MKJV

This line of thinking causes God to deny his own nature and proves God is not all powerful as he cannot fairly, rightly, justly, lovingly govern all things wisely. Instead, it makes God take on the nature of man as that is how mankind would act to prove dominance.

Fact is, if left alone, all humanity would be lost. God calls out in mercy. God's wisdom in his design of humanity lets sin be the creatures own. God in his mercy calls — some will hear and some will not: God's true fairness revealed, righteousness exposed, Justice proved, Love refined, Mercy established. No violation to God's nature and character in any of this. God remains true to himself and not man.

God's wisdom tests the heart because he calls. God's all-knowing nature knows how one will answer His call before you or I were ever born. He can shape from His foreknowing all things. What's wrong with that? Please seek the wisdom and mercy of God which is wiser than Calvin or Wesley and the doctrines of men.

PL, God Bless and forgive me if I my words were too harsh. I do not mean to be harsh but try cause you and anyone else to focus on God's Nature and Character a bit more. In this you'll discover truth as Jesus is truth.
-
-
-

And yes, by all means explain the Calvinist definition of 'free will'

Let's try again. Man's will is free to do what it wants to do. It is not free to do what he needs to do to obtain salvation. In short, man's will is a slave to sin, and cannot come to Jesus Christ unless God grants him the ability to do so (John 6:65). All of man, including his will, must be born again, and that we are totally incapable of doing. It is man's free will that makes him guilty. We are, indeed, free-minded beings, willing slaves to sin, yet slaves nonetheless. We are not truly free until the Son makes us free.

I hope someday that we can stop looking at people as either of this theology or that theology and judging them with dominance. That is why I said that both Armenian and Calvinist doctrine has erred. There are truths in each that we can learn from as well as errors. That is what I did in a round about way, exploring these, in the hopes of making manifest the errors and seeing the truth that is in Christ.

Again B.W., unity is admirable, but is no substitute for truth. Correct Theology is important. We must worship in Spirit and in Truth, not just one. Any theology that gives any glory to man whatsoever for salvation is not truth, but worships the creature more than the Creator. As Charles Spurgeon said, “I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, 'If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that he is 'Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men.”

Now, what about Pharaoh you asked? Are all born depraved? Is all humanity hopelessly lost and damned? Have not all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Therefore Pharaoh's heart was hard just as yours and mine were before we were born again. Question is what does God see and know about Pharaoh before he was ever conceived? Likewise, what did God foresee in us?

Actually, the question is, what made the difference between Pharaoh and Paul? You cannot answer that question unless you attribute to Paul, the chief of sinners, some inherent goodness that Pharaoh did not have. It was God's grace alone that was the difference. He changed Paul's will, but hardened Pharaoh's.

PL — it is God's call. That is why it is written — whom God Foreknew, he predestined, whom he predestine, he called, etc. Take the call of God out of this equation and you have either Calvinism or Armenianism.

Pharaoh rejected God and His mercy, because of Pharaoh's own hard heart born into sin — same as you and I. Difference was, we heard God's call of mercy — Pharaoh would not as God foresaw that Pharaoh would twist God's mercy as a license to continue to sin to keep his dominance alive. Why not make an example of him?

Again, I must ask this. If what you say is true, then God either foreknew some inherent goodness in Paul that He was previously ignorant of, or foreknew some accidental goodness in which He was not the author of. Which position will you subscribe to? Either way, God is robbed of the attributes that make Him God. I have thoroughly exhausted and refuted the Arminian view of “foreknowledge” in this thread, yet you still promote it. There is nothing in Scripture that says that God predestined the redeemed based on His foreknowledge of their choice, faith, will, heart, etc. This, by definition, is not predestination, but rather ratification. According to you, God looks down the corridors of time, foresees those who would use their free will to accept Him, and then, now the wiser, puts His stamp of approval on their choice. Thus He actually predestines nothing, but rather bows before the Idol of "Free Will" and his goddess "Contingency".

God made Pharaoh's harder than it was, sealed it, to make sure all would not succumb to Pharaoh's same acts of disobedience. God has that right as he foreknows. If you claim that God just said, “I damn you Pharaoh for the joy of it and too toy with humanity because I am sovereign as I love Calvin and hate all others.” Then what type of God is this?

B.W., this is a strawman. You are putting words into the mouths of Calvinists, using emotionalism instead of Scripture in order to give your own failing arguments a much needed boost. In response, I will establish these Scriptural facts and allow you to challenge them however you see fit.

1.) God predestines and works all things according to His pleasure.
2.) It is God's Sovereign Grace, not man's free will, that saves souls.
3.) God does not love everybody the same (See Jacob and Esau).
4.) God does not, nor ever has, intended to save every single person. (There were some already in Hell before Christ died. Did Christ die for them as well?)

Take heed lest your strawman arguments enable you to stand in judgment of the Most High (Romans 9:19-21).

As far as God “making” people break His laws, I have already explained this over and over again. God does not “make” people sin. He doesn't have to. He just turns them over to their own wicked lusts and desires. He does, however, predestine the evil works of wicked men, and works in them to see this accomplished, as I have given many examples above (Joseph's Brothers, Pharaoh's rebellion, The Scythians in Job's day, Absolom's incest, and the death of His own Son.) God's chief end is to glorify Himself, whether we approve of His methods or not.

PL, God Bless and forgive me if I my words were too harsh. I do not mean to be harsh but try cause you and anyone else to focus on God's Nature and Character a bit more. In this you'll discover truth as Jesus is truth.

B.W., I'm not against harsh words in their proper use, as they can be most profitable. However, I insist on focusing on God's Nature and Character from Scripture. First and foremost, God is absolutely sovereign, and I will reject any theology that challenges this. Looking forward to your detailed responses in this thread.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad wrote:Let's try again. Man's will is free to do what it wants to do. It is not free to do what he needs to do to obtain salvation. In short, man's will is a slave to sin, and cannot come to Jesus Christ unless God grants him the ability to do so (John 6:65). All of man, including his will, must be born again, and that we are totally incapable of doing. It is man's free will that makes him guilty. We are, indeed, free-minded beings, willing slaves to sin, yet slaves nonetheless. We are not truly free until the Son makes us free.

Yes — this is what I have been saying. How does God grant one the ability?

puritan lad wrote:Again B.W., unity is admirable, but is no substitute for truth. Correct Theology is important. We must worship in Spirit and in Truth, not just one. Any theology that gives any glory to man whatsoever for salvation is not truth, but worships the creature more than the Creator. As Charles Spurgeon said, “I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, 'If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that he is 'Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men.”

It is a shame you cannot see the forest for the trees. I am saying the same thing but you cannot see it as such. Without God calling we are all damned. Again how does God grant us the ability to do so as you so stated above?

puritan lad wrote:Actually, the question is what made the difference between Pharaoh and Paul? You cannot answer that question unless you attribute to Paul, the chief of sinners, some inherent goodness that Pharaoh did not have. It was God's grace alone that was the difference. He changed Paul's will, but hardened Pharaoh's.

You missed my point entirely — God does not save because we are inherently good, He saves for His good pleasure thus proving to himself all that he is: He loves, He is just, fair etc and etc. Again how does God grant us the ability to become born again as you so as you stated above?

PL — it is God's call. That is why it is written — whom God Foreknew, he predestined, whom he predestine, he called, etc. Take the call of God out of this equation and you have either Calvinism or Armenianism.

Pharaoh rejected God and His mercy, because of Pharaoh's own hard heart born into sin — same as you and I. Difference was, we heard God's call of mercy — Pharaoh would not as God foresaw that Pharaoh would twist God's mercy as a license to continue to sin to keep his dominance alive. Why not make an example of him?

puritan lad wrote:Again, I must ask this. If what you say is true, then God either foreknew some inherent goodness in Paul that He was previously ignorant of, or foreknew some accidental goodness in which He was not the author of. Which position will you subscribe to? Either way, God is robbed of the attributes that make Him God. I have thoroughly exhausted and refuted the Arminian view of “foreknowledge” in this thread, yet you still promote it. There is nothing in Scripture that says that God predestined the redeemed based on His foreknowledge of their choice, faith, will, heart, etc. This, by definition, is not predestination, but rather ratification. According to you, God looks down the corridors of time, foresees those who would use their free will to accept Him, and then, now the wiser, puts His stamp of approval on their choice. Thus He actually predestines nothing, but rather bows before the Idol of "Free Will" and his goddess "Contingency".

Again, you fail to see only to seek to find fault — There is nothing good in man as I stated throughout my discourse. You are reading into things that are not there. God knows everything — period. Nothing accidental involved. How does God prove He is fair and righteous and loves? Again how does God grant us the ability to become born again as you so stated above?

God made Pharaoh's harder than it was, sealed it, to make sure all would not succumb to Pharaoh's same acts of disobedience, Romans 917. God has that right as he foreknows. If you claim that God just said, “I damn you Pharaoh for the joy of it and too toy with humanity because I am sovereign as I love Calvin and hate all others.” Then what type of God is this?

puritan lad wrote:B.W., this is a strawman. You are putting words into the mouths of Calvinists, using emotionalism instead of Scripture in order to give your own failing arguments a much needed boost. In response, I will establish these Scriptural facts and allow you to challenge them however you see fit.

1.) God predestines and works all things according to His pleasure.
2.) It is God's Sovereign Grace, not man's free will, that saves souls.
3.) God does not love everybody the same (See Jacob and Esau).
4.) God does not, nor ever has, intended to save every single person. (There were some already in Hell before Christ died. Did Christ die for them as well?)

Take heed lest your strawman arguments enable you to stand in judgment of the Most High (Romans 9:19-21).

I have stated the four points cited above throughout my discourse and proved each to be true. Again how does God grant us the ability to become born again as you so stated above?

Now -

First and foremost PL- you cannot see. Your world view is clouded that you cannot see God only Armenian and Calvin doctrine about God. Tis a shame. Did not Jonathan Edwards use emotionalism to great effect or cold logic?

Let's follow your line of thinking further: The point still stands — believing in Christ for salvation, period. How does one believe?

Let's look at something. Is 'believing' having a complete full assurance a work of human will, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind? Does believing consist of 'running' translated in Romans 9:11 which E-Sword defines as — Runneth - word occurs in Greek writings denoting to incur extreme peril, which it requires the exertion of all one's effort to overcome?

Romans 9:11, “for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of the One calling, it was said to her, "The greater shall serve the lesser;" Gen. 25:23 even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau." Mal. 1:2, 3. What then shall we say? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be! For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will pity whomever I will pity." Ex. 33:19. So, then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the One showing mercy, of God. LITV

This passage has been used to build a case that cannot stand in the light of other scriptures. Lets; look at this further.

According to text case here, which is out of context with rest of scripture, you could argue that any feeling you have, any work you do, regarding salvation is of mere human origin and cannot be trusted due to the desperately wicked heart of humans, Jeremiah 17:9.

If then was the case, salvation is based solely of God's selection, in which no one could ever be assured of. No feeling, no works, no deeds could assure us of salvation. If this was really the case, then the work Jesus did on the cross is of no effect as everything is based solely of God's selection.

The best you can do to be assured of salvation is live however you want because in the end God selects. Good works are pointless. Feelings and knowing(s) in the mind cannot be trusted. There is no way anyone can be assured of salvation. Only by death and afterwards would you know if you were one of God's elect! Thus, just hope that the hands of an ever kind providence have chosen you — live and let live.

If all is based on this type of selection, why did Jesus die on the cross? To save the elect only? How — when the elect cannot possibility know they were selected because the elect would be dependant upon their wills, mind, feelings of knowing assurance, deeds, works, and etc, which according to Romans Chapter Nine, one cannot trust!

Therefore, based on this type of logic about God's election's selection no one could ever be assured of salvation and the cross of Christ will have no purpose as there would be no logical reason Jesus had to come for Salvation as God just selects. Maybe God sent his son to just tell the elect they are the elect?

This cannot be either as the elect could not be certain. God selects — just hope he chose you as you cannot trust any human agency, feelings, assurances, even assurance perceived from coming heaven or the bible cannot be trusted as that is all part of him that wills and runs.

Why? Because God will have mercy on whomever he will have mercy, and will pity whomever He will pity, and harden whomever we wills and there is nothing to be assured about. You cannot trust anything — just hope you are selected.

NOW, I hope you can see how false this line of logic is and how it fly's in the face of all scriptures. Jesus tells us to believe in Him. Even Jeremiah 17:7, “Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.” KJV tells we can trust the Lord.

If you can trust, you believe, if you believed, you have faith in God's work; His call to all that will hear and understand what this belief and faith is all about: God's work calling us back into a relationship with himself for his service.

You can be assured of your salvation! You can believe! You do have responsibility! You can know the Lord! You can trust the sacrifice of Christ that was for all so some of the all can be saved. Those that are saved bear good fruit.

It is like what Jesus said in Luke 13:18-19:

Luke 13:18-19, “Jesus asked, "What is the Kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it with? It is like this. A man takes a mustard seed and plants it in his field. The plant grows and becomes a tree, and the birds make their nests in its branches." GNB

The seed is the word of God, His call — His dominion re-established within us, it is small but grows. It takes time to grow. The individual is affected by the word as it grows and as growth implies, in time one will change. A person will change from serving selfishness, sin, the ways of the world to reflecting what God is truly like as revealed by Christ Jesus' nature and character. Walk as He! 1 John 2:6-7, 1 John 4:21.

This takes time and within time, ones faith will grow larger so that others can find comfort in your shade and discover shelter and rest by your example of faith. Is that you? Are you growing? Maturing? Changing? Do others find rest and seek shelter by our living faith in God?

Luke 17:5-10, “The apostles said to the Lord, "Make our faith greater." The Lord answered, "If you had faith as big as a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'Pull yourself up by the roots and plant yourself in the sea!' and it would obey you. ”Suppose one of you has a servant who is plowing or looking after the sheep. When he comes in from the field, do you tell him to hurry along and eat his meal? Of course not! Instead, you say to him, 'Get my supper ready, then put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may have your meal.' The servant does not deserve thanks for obeying orders, does he? It is the same with you; when you have done all you have been told to do, say, 'We are ordinary servants; we have only done our duty.' " - GNB

Are the birds coming to you to nest and rest in the faith like you shine? Or are does it scare them away? Are you busy tossing the mulberry trees out of other's lives by shining God's kingdom so they can find rest? Or turning people away from the faith that saves by tossing them away? What type of servants are we? A friend of God or not?
-
-
-

BW. You are trying way to hard to resolve a truth and a falsehood. You are all over the place theologically in an attempt to “resolve” the debate. On one hand, you write that it's God's call, but then you just have to have that Pelagian idol of free will in there somewhere. You want a predestining God, yet, want God to change His mind based on His “deep foreknowledge”. You want man to be depraved in his fallen nature, yet at the same time want to give man the “power of choice” in his eternal destiny, even though this is clearly refuted in the Scriptures.

The fact is that a Christian is either a Calvinist or an Arminian. (Those who deny being either are Arminian, as I have pointed out earlier). There is no middle ground, and your attempt to find some has left a discourse which is nothing short of a wordy theological mess. Here is the deal…

1.) Either man has the ability to come to God of His own free will, or he must be born again. It's one or the other B.W. It cannot be both.

2.) Either God elects unconditionally (not of works), or He elects based on a “deep foreknowledge” of our actions, works, choices, etc. It's one or the other B.W. It cannot be both.

3.) Either Christ died to save His people from their sins and secure their eternal redemption, or He died to make salvation a mere possibility for everyone, and thus died for no one in particular. It's one or the other B.W. It cannot be both.

4.) Either God quickens whom He will, or we have the power to overthrow God's grace and resist it. It's one or the other B.W. It cannot be both.

5.) Either Christ gives His sheep eternal life and they will never perish, or a sheep can use his “free will” to become a goat and ultimately perish. It's one or the other B.W. It cannot be both.

In short, B.W., you are trying to resolve the debate with a compromise, and end up offering nothing except confusion. An Arminian friend of mine recently gave me a book hoping to “help me resolve the conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism”. The problem is that I have already resolved the conflict. Calvinism is true and biblical. Arminianism and it's “free will” offshoots are false and unbiblical. Easy. Conflict resolved.

B.W., I am not doubting your faith. I know that, especially in a heated debate, it is easy to forget that. However, I love clarity, and for this reason have draw the clear line in the sand between Biblical Calvinism and unbiblical Arminianism. I am not afraid of the division. However, your attempt to resolve the debate it nothing more than muddying these lines. You go back and forth in both areas. In the end, you just have to have that libertarian free will in the picture. I deny that it is there, and will place the burden of proof on you to show it. I have posted alot in this thread, and look forward to your replies on each particular post. However, if this is not possible, I have also refuted 13 of your mainstay arguments, again with scriptural clarity, in my July 11 post (the 12th post in this thread if I counted correctly). I would at least like for you to take the time, at your convenience, to offer a reply/comment, or a clarification to that one.

God Bless,

PL

PL you repeated state "It's one or the other B.W. It cannot be both."

I think to say that is putting limits on the Power of God. Jesus was Both 100% man and 100% God. Yet in the mind of man this seems illogical.

I know you would not say that He can be only be one or the other but not Both God and Man, because this is the doctrine of the Trinity and to do so would be to limit the power of God. Yet that is what you do when you say that it can be mans free will as well as completely a work of God. I know that does not sound logical, but neither does the fact that Jesus is 100% God and 100% Man. If one is possible with God then both are.

Gods powers and abilities are limitless beyond the logic of man. He not only foreknows everything we will do, he knows our hearts better than we know our own hearts. As a result he also knows how we will respond to to any given number of infinitely different stimuli and the infinite results of all of the infinite number of decisions that resulted from that stimuli.

You may be correct in that God would have the power to force any one of us to be totally committed to Him. But by forcing us into commitment, the love that we would appear to show toward God, would be meaningless to Him. Love or commitment without the option to "not love or commit" is not "love or commitment" at all.

God reveal Himself to all us in many ways. Some recognize them and some do not. He knows who will recognize them and who will not. In that sense you are correct that he chose who would believe and who would not. But not because he forced us to, but because He limited the power in which he invoked on on the world for us to see Him. He loved us too much to force us to love him. Everyone has the same opportunity to see and understand His power. But not everyone has the same heart, so everyone will see what He revealed to us in a different way. (Some are more different than others. Islam, Buddha, etc... But Christianlty is more different than all others.)

He could have used more power to cause everyone to "love" Him. But He did not use that power because as I said earlier, it would be meaningless to Him. He gave us all a "choice or an offer or the call". What ever you want to call it, it was available to all. We were each put in a certain place and time for the purpose to seek God.

Acts 17:
26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

And I know that you will return with verses that says that no one seeks after God. And you are correct we will not seek after God unless God reveals himself to us. But he has revealed himself to all of us in some way. But realizing that God exists does not save us. We must be presented with the Gospel:

To Accept Christ: whether logically or formally or spiritually he must come to these conclusions but not necessarily in this order.

1. Man must decide whether God made the Earth and Man or whether it was an accident. (God reveals this through his creation)
2. Man must decide which religion is the correct religion. He can look at other religions and compare
(God reveals this through his word and archeology and logic, etc... )

but most importantly:
3. Man must hear the Gospel (revealed by God through Christians)
Gospel means "Good News", but until the good news can be appreciated you must accept the Bad news, which is that we are all sinners. And being sinners we are sentenced to eternal death in the lake of fire. For the Wages of Sin are Death.

But the Gospel or "Good news" is that Christ stepped out of eternity and into time and became a man and was crucified and had all the eternal sins of the world put upon him so that all who accept Him as their Saviour would not have to endure that eternal sentence in the lake of fire.

And after the 1000 year reign of Christ, he will step down and subject himself to the Father for eternity. (1 Corinthians 15:28 Christ sacrifice was an eternal sacrifice and the Father and Holy Spirit are in Awe of this act of Love) This does not mean he is no longer God or part of the Trinity and the degree of subjection is not defined. But consider that before the birth of Jesus, Christ was eternally a Spirit although he may have manifested himself as a man in the old testament. But now he is forever confined to the Glorified body of Jesus. This does not limit his power or deity in any way, but it was the greatest sacrifice on His part because of His love for humanity.

I think this last part is rarely explained when sharing the Gospel, but I think it is very important, because it more completely demonstrates the Sacrifice of God and His love for us. It was not just His time on the cross that paid for our sins. It was an eternal Sacrifice. This part may challenge some of you. I would like to hear any of your thought on this.

Last point:
Some Calvinists will say that the Atonement was only for the elect and to say that it is for all would be called universalism. but that is incorrect. Atonement was for all.(1 John 2:2) But only those that applied the Blood of the Atonement would be the elect. At the first passover, if the Jews had only sacrifice the lamb but not put the blood on their door post, they would not have been saved.

In Christ

puritan lad wrote:2.) Either God elects unconditionally (not of works), or He elects based on a “deep foreknowledge” of our actions, works, choices, etc. It's one or the other B.W. It cannot be both.

PL, I note that you have creation and election occurring "sequentially". The way you say it, it sounds as if God first forms in His mind the decision(s) as to who will exist for all of time (at which point He will of course know exactly what each person would be like) and once He has done that, from that pool of humanity He elects (unconditionally) those that He will save. Why sequentially and not concurrently?...

...sorry, if this is something that you have already dealt with.

ttoews wrote:

puritan lad wrote:2.) Either God elects unconditionally (not of works), or He elects based on a “deep foreknowledge” of our actions, works, choices, etc. It's one or the other B.W. It cannot be both.

PL, I note that you have creation and election occurring "sequentially". The way you say it, it sounds as if God first forms in His mind the decision(s) as to who will exist for all of time (at which point He will of course know exactly what each person would be like) and once He has done that, from that pool of humanity He elects (unconditionally) those that He will save. Why sequentially and not concurrently?...

...sorry, if this is something that you have already dealt with.

Actually, I have election occuring before creation, based on the Scriptures.

...He chose His elect in Him before the foundation of the world, predestined them to adoption as sons, according to the good pleasure of His will. (Ephesians 1:4-5)

Verse 4 blows away the Arminian view of foreknowledge. It clearly says that He"chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless..." It does not say that He chose us because He foreknew that we would be holy and blameless.

...He has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. (2 Timothy 1:9)

...God from the beginning chose us for salvation. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)

Hope this helps if I understood your question correctly. The God of the Bible is a sovereign, predestining God. His council shall stand, and He does nothing contingently.

Isaiah 46:9-11
"Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,' calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it."

God Bless,

PL

I think to say that is putting limits on the Power of God. Jesus was Both 100% man and 100% God. Yet in the mind of man this seems illogical.

I know you would not say that He can be only be one or the other but not Both God and Man, because this is the doctrine of the Trinity and to do so would be to limit the power of God. Yet that is what you do when you say that it can be mans free will as well as completely a work of God. I know that does not sound logical, but neither does the fact that Jesus is 100% God and 100% Man. If one is possible with God then both are.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. We know that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man, because this can be supported by the Scriptures. However, Arminianism in any form cannot be. What we see in the Scriptures is that “No man can come…”. When it comes to the issue of human ability, that pretty much settles the issue.

Gods powers and abilities are limitless beyond the logic of man. He not only foreknows everything we will do, he knows our hearts better than we know our own hearts. As a result he also knows how we will respond to to any given number of infinitely different stimuli and the infinite results of all of the infinite number of decisions that resulted from that stimuli.

I've addressed the issue of “foreknowledge” already in this thread, but I'll summarize it again here.

1.) There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that shows God predestining based on a foreknowledge of hearts, choices, decisions, wills, etc. Foreknowledge in the Bible is always applied to persons, not their actions. In fact, Romans 9:10-13 is pretty clear that God's election is totally independent of our actions.

2.) If, by some chance, you bound God to the foreknowledge of actions, the question becomes, “What did God foreknow”? Did he foreknow some inherent faith in man that He was not responsible for? Where did that faith come from? The Bible says that our faith is not of ourselves. It is true that God does foreknow, because He predestines, and wroughts all of our works in us.

3.) God doesn't just offer us some stimuli and then predestine based on a foreknowledge “of decisions that resulted from that stimuli.” He saves. He has “secured eternal redemption”. For who? Everybody? If so, then no one could ever go to Hell.

These are the main issues involved here. Arminians must somehow believe in a self-generated faith, a God with everchanging decrees, and invent some libertarian “free-will” that is unknown to the Scriptures. That believe that God's grace is given equally to everyone (though Scriptures disagree), and therefore, the difference between Heaven and Hell must lie within the person himself. Those who make better use of God's grace are saved, whereas those who aren't quite as smart, faithful, etc. don't, even though they had just as good of a chance. They have a Christ who went to the cross in order to save everyone who ever existed, in which case He failed.

No matter how you slice it, God's Sovereignty and Man's libertarian “free-will” cannot be reconciled. The question then becomes, “where does the fault?” Do we presuppose some imperfection in God in order to maintain our liberty? This is the issue. Arminians just have to maintain that idol of free-will, and therefore must subject God to this idol, along with their goddess Contingency. God Himself cannot properly decree anything apart from man's future choices.

Now let me clarify a few items, since reading your post along with B.W.'s

First, God does not force us to Love Him or to Sin. He just gives us a heart to Love Him. This we do freely, but cannot do without this heart. Man, if left to his “free-will”, will never come to God. However, those whom God effectually calls will come to Him, and do so freely. If He does not give us a new heart, then we will keep on sinning, however freely.

Second, many are horrified at the Doctrine of Election, although it is Biblically inescapable. However, be assured that no truly penitent man has ever been turned away from Christ based on election. It is rather, election that enables this repentance. We may shudder at the idea of people condemned to Hell based on election, but keep in mind that they are doing exactly what they want to do. As I said before, they are willing slaves to sin, but slaves nonetheless. The reality is that all deserve Hell, and are “condemned already”. It is God's grace alone that saves, and this He does not give to everyone, but “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy”.

You are partially correct in stating that “Everyone has the same opportunity to see and understand His power. But not everyone has the same heart, so everyone will see what He revealed to us in a different way.” I agree. But it is God alone who controls the heart. Believing in Christ is the direct result of the regenerating power of the Spirit. Until then, one cannot even see the kingdom of God, let alone choose it.

“And I know that you will return with verses that says that no one seeks after God. And you are correct we will not seek after God unless God reveals himself to us. But he has revealed himself to all of us in some way. But realizing that God exists does not save us. We must be presented with the Gospel”

True, but the gospel itself is no guarantee of salvation. Many hear the same gospel that we did, and still go to Hell. In any case, God Word always serves its purpose.

To Accept Christ: whether logically or formally or spiritually he must come to these conclusions but not necessarily in this order.

1. Man must decide whether God made the Earth and Man or whether it was an accident. (God reveals this through his creation)
2. Man must decide which religion is the correct religion. He can look at other religions and compare
(God reveals this through his word and archeology and logic, etc... )

but most importantly:
3. Man must hear the Gospel (revealed by God through Christians)
Gospel means "Good News", but until the good news can be appreciated you must accept the Bad news, which is that we are all sinners. And being sinners we are sentenced to eternal death in the lake of fire. For the Wages of Sin are Death.

The first two, while helpful in the area of apologetics, are useless in Salvation. Many “choose” Christianity and will never see the light of the Holy City. It is the Spirit alone that regenerates. Without it, we will never choose anything that profits us in eternity.

But the Gospel or "Good news" is that Christ stepped out of eternity and into time and became a man and was crucified and had all the eternal sins of the world put upon him so that all who accept Him as their Saviour would not have to endure that eternal sentence in the lake of fire.

Yes, it is “Good News”, not “Good Advice”. The gospel tells us what has been accomplished, not what can happen if you use our wills correctly. Yes, all who accept Him as their Saviour will be saved, but only those whom God enables will accept Him.

As for the 1,000 reign stuff, I've dealt with that in the End Times Forum.

Last point:
Some Calvinists will say that the Atonement was only for the elect and to say that it is for all would be called universalism. but that is incorrect. Atonement was for all.(1 John 2:2) But only those that applied the Blood of the Atonement would be the elect. At the first passover, if the Jews had only sacrifice the lamb but not put the blood on their door post, they would not have been saved.

If that is true, then we should get some of the glory for our own salvation. We were smart enough or good enough to apply the blood, whereas our unsaved neighbors were not. Thankfully, my Saviour has already applied the blood (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Acts 20:28; Hebrews 9:12). This is the root of the debate concerning the Atonement. Calvinists believe that Christ Actually made full payment for our sins. You seem to hold that Christ give us the ability to pay for our own sins by “applying the blood”, thus He hasn't really “secured eternal redemption”.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad wrote:Hope this helps if I understood your question correctly.

sorry, I wasn't very clear. I should have said that it appears that you have the decision to create "Bob" coming before the decision to elect "Bob" as opposed to those being concurrent decisions w/i the mind of God.

Actually, I have election occuring before creation, based on the Scriptures.

...He chose His elect in Him before the foundation of the world, predestined them to adoption as sons, according to the good pleasure of His will. (Ephesians 1:4-5)

It seems nonsensical to suggest that God could decide to elect Bob before He has decided to create Bob. I would classify the foundation of the world as an act of creation....not the decision to create. I don't think any of the verses that you listed rule out current decisions wrt creation and election...assuming that it is appropriate to talk of God deciding things in a consecutive vs. concurrent fashion

Last point:
Some Calvinists will say that the Atonement was only for the elect and to say that it is for all would be called universalism. but that is incorrect. Atonement was for all.(1 John 2:2) But only those that applied the Blood of the Atonement would be the elect. At the first passover, if the Jews had only sacrifice the lamb but not put the blood on their door post, they would not have been saved.

Thank you. Isn't it true that according to the law an individual had to physically take a lamb to the high priest to be slain for the atonement of his sins? What I'm trying to say is the offer was there and God did not physically pick the person up and carry him to the tabernacle or temple to have his sins covered. It took an act of faith and a physical response on the part of the individual.

To me the same mentality applies to our ultimate Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. God provided the Sacrifice for once and for all, and regardless of whether a person is dead in sin or totally depraved, this universal offer still stands. We either reject it or go to the cross in faith. We take part in the universal sacrifice. How anybody can say that this is an act of works in beyond me. This is nothing more than a genuine and humble response to God's invitation...and if it's done with a sincere heart towards God than God in his love and mercy will keep His promise.

ttoews wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Hope this helps if I understood your question correctly.

sorry, I wasn't very clear. I should have said that it appears that you have the decision to create "Bob" coming before the decision to elect "Bob" as opposed to those being concurrent decisions w/i the mind of God.

Actually, I have election occuring before creation, based on the Scriptures.

...He chose His elect in Him before the foundation of the world, predestined them to adoption as sons, according to the good pleasure of His will. (Ephesians 1:4-5)

It seems nonsensical to suggest that God could decide to elect Bob before He has decided to create Bob. I would classify the foundation of the world as an act of creation....not the decision to create. I don't think any of the verses that you listed rule out current decisions wrt creation and election...assuming that it is appropriate to talk of God deciding things in a consecutive vs. concurrent fashion

No, you weren't clear, God decided to elect and decided to create"from the beginning, before time began. Election, however took place prior to the actual creation.

However, that is irrelevant in regards to why God elects. One thing is clear from Scripture, and that is that God elects totally independent of our actions. His grace is totally undeserved.

Quote:
Last point:
Some Calvinists will say that the Atonement was only for the elect and to say that it is for all would be called universalism. but that is incorrect. Atonement was for all.(1 John 2:2) But only those that applied the Blood of the Atonement would be the elect. At the first passover, if the Jews had only sacrifice the lamb but not put the blood on their door post, they would not have been saved.

If that is true, then we should get some of the glory for our own salvation. We were smart enough or good enough to apply the blood, whereas our unsaved neighbors were not. Thankfully, my Saviour has already applied the blood (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Acts 20:28; Hebrews 9:12). This is the root of the debate concerning the Atonement. Calvinists believe that Christ Actually made full payment for our sins. You seem to hold that Christ give us the ability to pay for our own sins by “applying the blood”, thus He hasn't really “secured eternal redemption”.

God Bless,

I may have mislead the point I was trying to make. I probably should not have stated this this way:
But only those that applied the Blood of the Atonement would be the elect.
but rather:
But only those to which the Blood was applied would be the elect.

The point was not who applied the Blood but that it must be applied by someone whether it is God or us. But that the Atonement was not the application of the blood. Only when we accept Christ is the blood applied. Otherwise the elect born in the last 2000 years would have been saved at birth because the blood was already applied.

The only thing I was trying to point out is that Atonement does not Save without the application of the Blood. Whereas I think you may hold that Atonement does apply the blood. Am I correct?

YLTYLT,

I sense that you disagree with Calvinism. However, you seem to be the first non-Calvinist so far to have understood the issue. The nature of Christ's work, the glory of God in salvation, and the gospel itself are at stake. Let's look at the atonement, and what it accomplishes according to the Scriptures.

First, let me deal with some common objections. You brought up 1 John 2:2, and from this concluded that the "Atonement was for all". Is that really what 1 John 2:2 means?

Arminians usually point to passages such as this, that included the phrases "whole world", or "all men". However, such phrases are rarely, if ever, universal in their scope. This is even true in our speech today. What would you make of this TIME ONLINE Blog concerning Princess Diana: The World Grieves Online. Does the "world" refer to every single person? I have to confess that I did not grieve, and certainly not online. Perhaps my lack of grief is a sign of my still sinful heart, but I honestly didn't lose much sleep over the Diana tragedy. In any case, it is obvious that the reference here to the "world" should be applied to "many people, Diana fans from all over the planet". The birth of Christ was said to be "good news of great joy that will be for all the people" (Luke 2:10), yet somehow that good news of great joy escaped King Herod. In fact, if you go back to Luke 2:1, you'll see that Caesar Augustus sent out a decree, that "all the world should be taxed". However, the Chinese, Aborigines, and American Indians never paid a dime to Caesar.

I think you can see my point. If the "world" were taken to mean every single person on planet earth in the Scriptures, then Scripture would certainly teach universal salvation. For example, 2 Cor. 5:19 - "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ" would teach that every person on planet earth has been reconciled to God. Obviously, this is nonsense.

Most of the verses that speak of salvation of "the world" or "all men" fall into one of two categories:

1.) They were written to correct the erroneous belief that salvation was for Jews only, eg. Paul wrote 1 Timothy 2:3-4 for the express purpose of defending his ministry to the Gentiles (See 1 Timothy 2:7).

2.) They were written to a select group of people, and, in context, were meant for those people in particular. For example, 2 Peter 3:9, an Arminian mainstay, tells of a promise that was "toward us". "Us" in the passage clearly refers to the elect (see 2 Peter 1:1).

Now for the next objection, you write,

"But that the Atonement was not the application of the blood. Only when we accept Christ is the blood applied. Otherwise the elect born in the last 2000 years would have been saved at birth because the blood was already applied."

There are two problems with this view, as common as it is. First, it clearly teaches "Salvation by works". It is up to us to "accept Christ", thus applying the blood. The result is a very different gospel from the one Calvinists know. We believe that Jesus, Our Savior, actually saves. Arminianism, no matter how you slice it, cannot consistently believe that. Instead, their Savior only "offers" salvation, and leaves it to our "free-will" to choose it. While the idea of Universal Redemption may, on the surface, sound good in suggesting that Jesus' ""Atonement was for all", in reality it cheapens the atonement to a monstrous degree. While it is pleasing to the ear to hear it said that Christ's work on Calvary was for the salvation for everybody, it actually teaches that Jesus' work on the cross was effectual in saving nobody. In this case, there are millions of souls right now currently burning in the fires of Hell who were just as much bought with the blood of Christ as you and I. What kind of "atonement" does that leave us with? More on this shortly.

The second issue is that, in fact, the redeemed are "saved", even before time began (2 Timothy 1:9). While they may not be "born again" until many years after their birth, their salvation has been accomplished. This is the meaning of Jesus' dying words, "It is finished".

Now, as for the atonement, what is it according to the Scriptures, and to whom is it applied. You wrote, "Atonement does not Save without the application of the Blood. Whereas I think you may hold that Atonement does apply the blood. Am I correct?"

You are correct. What did Jesus Christ go to Calvary to accomplish? Did His work actually save anyone, or did it merely make salvation possible for those who can, in themselves, generate enough faith to believe? Did Christ actually pay for sins, or did He make a potential payment and let us decided whether or not to complete the transaction? What saith the Scriptures?

Isaiah 53:11-12
"He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors."

If Christ's desired end was the salvation of every single individual, he would not be "satisfied", but, as a matter of common observation, be soundly defeated and extremely disappointed.

"He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21) (not "offer" them salvation).

"the Son of Man has come to seek and to save" (Luke 19:10).

He "purchased the church [lit. the "called ones"] with His own blood" (Acts 20:28).

He "gives His life for the sheep" (not the goats) (John 10:11).

"Christ ... loved the church and gave Himself for her" (Ephesians 5:25).

"...with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:12).

This last passage in particular (Hebrews 9:12) clearly refutes the idea that the atonement is ineffectual until we apply the blood. Christ has already applied it for His people. He has secures their eternal redemption. Now who did Christ secure eternal redemption for? I'll dare anyone, save Bernie, to say every single person who ever lived. Christ's work was an established plan of salvation, not a hopeful possibility. Not one drop of His blood was wasted.

Hope this explains things better. In any case, you have nailed the main crux of the issue in the debate.

God Bless,

PL

FFC wrote:It really was scary because I didn't know what He was going to require of me, but it didn't take long for me to see that anything He asked me to do He gave me the strength and grace to accomplish.

I still sin and I still have doubts at times, but when I do I go back to the bible and read his promises and see that it's not about anything I could ever do or accomplish, it's about what He, God through Jesus, already did and accomplished at Calvary.

It's good to see that FFC has become a Calvinist. Now I need to work on Jac.