Evidence for God from Science

This destructive debate over a man-made theological construct - the theological box of Five Point Calvinism - is harmful to both believers and unbelievers alike. Even Calvinists often disagree on various points, the complexity of which has filled many volumes. In the three following posts, is my view, which I believe to be Scriptural. I'm prayerful that some might see how God can be both sovereign and have also given us free will connected to an eternal destiny.

I sincerely apologize in advance for the length of my posts.

The problem is, Five Point Calvinism is a man-made theological construct that tries to put our omnipotent God, Who transcends time, space, dimension, and parameters we don’t even know about, into a box. And its complexity and the circumstances surrounding its extremely late development should be clue to its falsity. Note that for over 1,500 years of church history there was no talk of such a theological construct as Calvinism. And the complexity of Calvinism necessitates a theological understanding foreign to the common, everyday man – note that Scripture was written so that the poorest, unsophisticated, barely literate man can understand it’s simple truths and thus be saved. It was NOT written just for theologians or for the theologically savvy.

So what would any common man think: reading 1 Timothy 2:4, that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”? Or 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting ANYONE to perish, but EVERYONE to come to repentance.” And if God is the one who must first regenerate a man before coming to belief, then why is He waiting? On Himself? NO! Who is He waiting on? “YOU!” Or Ezekiel 18:23: “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when THEY turn from their ways and live?” Well, if it pleases God for man to repent, does it make any sense that it also pleases him for some men to disobey His commands to repent? That He WANTS them to disobey Him and continue in rebellion?

“Whoever believes”; “Whomsoever will”; Etc, Etc. So many plain readings show an obvious choice. John 3:16-1: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” Note the inclusiveness of the word “world” – it’s EVERYONE. Note that the very same (inclusive) "world" that is under condemnation is also the same one He came to save.

Calvinism must repeatedly add to the simple, everyday meanings of words like “all men” and “world” to magically become “the elect” and the “elect world.” Yet, if these meanings were true, they could have easily been written or elaborated upon, so as to have made such dubious interpretations abundantly clear. But, make no mistake; no common man would ever glean the Five Points from his reading of the Bible. If Five Point Calvinism were a true Scriptural construct, certainly NO one but theologians and the theologically sophisticated would ever have grasped it. And, even Calvinists, there is significant disagreement. But the Bible was written for ALL men to understand its simply message, that God loves ALL and wants ALL to repent!

Does God only call SOME to repentance – or ALL? Does Scripture say he desires even SOME men to perish – or NOT ANY? Does God expect those He continuously warns to repent to do so, OR NOT? Does God command things one cannot do? Does God desire that SOME men remain in rebellion to Him – does He DESIRE their continuing sin? Man’s continuing sin brings horrific devastation to both Christians and non-believers – does God desire this? Pre-fall, WHO made Adam sin or Lucifer in Heaven rebel? IF God had designed some me so as to not be able to repent - that He never desired such men to come into relationship with Him or to abandon their rebelliousness - THEN WHY IS HE ANGRY AT THEM? WHY DOES HE REPEATEDLY WARN THEM TO DO WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY HAS NOT CREATED THEM ABLE TO DO? This makes no sense whatsoever!

The Ultimate Sports Team

If you were planning the ultimate sports team (and, like God, knew the future motivations and hearts of potential recruits), and you had a PREDETERMINED criteria for all those whom you desired to be on this (future) team? Would you not recruit ONLY those whom would be willing to submit to your leadership, whom would best respond and obey your superior coaching and directives, whom would express regret and do their best to turn from and learn from their mistakes, who would remain forever loyal to you and practice their hardest? If you had the ability to FOREKNOW HOW EACH POTENTIAL RECRUIT WOULD RESPOND, would you not recruit those you foreknew would be willing to adhere to your predetermined criteria? Would you even bother to recruit or prepare for those who you foreknew would NEVER submit, reform, remain loyal, practice, obey, etc? Absolutely NOT, what would be the point? You would ONLY recruit those you foreknew would respond to your fore-ordained, predetermined criteria. And as you know that NO recruit can achieve what your future goals for them are without 1) YOU making their future success possible to begin with or 2) without THE RECRUITS’ WILLINGNESS TO SUBMIT TO YOUR LEADERSHIP, making it possible for you to then lead and mold them into what you want them to be? You see, this analogy is much like how God calls those He foreknew!

You see, there is NO contradiction between God’s sovereignty and our free will, He chooses those who will FREELY, yet undeservingly, accept His totally unearned gift of salvation. YES, God IS sovereign, but in His sovereignty He has given us a totally unmerited choice to accept or reject, which is born of His mercy, love and grace. And WITHOUT our free will, our sins would ultimately be due to how God has created us to be, that GOD would be the ultimate cause of those who remain in rebellion and sin.

Call it what you will - whatever theological identification, whatever term. But the bottom line is that it's an enormous mistake to believe that God has not put a choice before EVERYONE (whether to follow him, to repent, to accept Jesus, etc), that they can ALL choose to obey - or not.

In Acts 17:30, God “COMMANDS ALL people EVERYWHERE to repent..." Did God give the world a command that He does not desire ALL men obey? Does God DESIRE rebellion of some men? As God expects His word to be obeyed, would He create some so that they could not obey it? Either God expects His commands to be obeyed or not! Which is it?

But no one can obey God's commands on their OWN – certainly not within their OWN power. God must help and guide us to belief. A contradiction? NO! Through our God-given free will, ALL men are BORN able to either be WILLING to embrace God's overtures and proactive initiatives - OR to REBUFF them. God knows exactly who will reject all approaches He will make to them (and certainly through the General Revelation, already HAS; Some He has provided much more - the Gospel). So He knows that Person A will be positively receptive to His initiatives and that they will listen to and obey the promptings of His Spirit, so that HE can LEAD them to belief and salvation - but this can only be accomplished by God, Who made this possible through the Cross, ALONG WITH a person so WILLING to allow God to do what only HE can do (save us). God knows that Person B will remain UNWILLING to positively respond to His initiatives and that this UNWILLINGNESS will be permanent. God knows that no matter how much He tries to reach Person B, He will ultimately be rejected.

It has ALWAYS been God's desire that those He has always known would be WILLING to be led and enlightened, BY HIM, and who HE could accomplish salvation for, through 1) what He would provide them (a free, unearned choice made possible only by Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection) AND 2) their WILLINGNESS to respond as HE would lead them. ALL men are born either able to BE WILLING or UNWILLING (Acts 7:51: "... you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.") to embrace God's promptings. He leads ALL SO WILLING - all the way to belief and salvation. Thus, God chose the eternal fate of ALL men, before they were born, as He foreknew those who would be WILLING to respond as He desired them to - and those who would NOT. THESE are the basis of His choice: His pre-established criteria, His foreknowledge of our eternal choices, and His sovereign choice to save those who would meet HIS criteria, and that would be receptive to His leadership - all the way to salvation . He set the criteria for His people and chose all who He foreknew would meet it (their WILLINGNESS to embrace His prompting and leadership). All we can do, as mere beggars, is be either WILLING to accept what God wants to make possible for us - or UNWILLING. But HE created the choice, and He gave us the free will to embrace or reject WHAT HE WANTS TO ACCOMPLISH in us (salvation). He approaches us FIRST, and it is HE Who accomplishes HIS saving work! But He does not make our choice for us, and the ultimate ramifications and eternal destinations of our decisions have parameters which He has sovereignly locked into place.

You see, God has revealed Himself to ALL men in several ways: Through the “General Revelation,” Scripture says, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” For others, God has given much more – He’s given them knowledge of the Gospel. So, to ALL men God has already revealed more than enough for man to positively respond to Him, to reach BACK to His ALREADY outstretched hand. But we must reach BACK. God will not GRAB our hands to pull them back to Him, certainly one He well knows has his hand firmly and deliberately locked behind himself, in a stubborn and evil refusal to acknowledge God's Perfect Love.

Whitefield also wrote in his letter to Wesley:

"Who ever preached any other election than what the Apostle preached, when he said, "Chosen ... through sanctification of the Spirit?" (2 Thess. 2:13)."
...
"I beg you would observe that your inference is entirely set aside by the force of the Apostle's argument, and the language which he expressly uses in Colossians 3:12-13: "Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye."
...
"You know, dear Sir, the Apostle exhorts us to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3)."
...
"For whether you can believe it or not, the Word of God abides faithful: "The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded" (Rom. 11:7)."
...
" But as the sovereign Lord of all, who is debtor to none, he has a right to do what he will with his own, and to dispense his favours to what objects he sees fit, merely at his pleasure. And his supreme right herein is clearly and strongly asserted in those passages of Scripture, where he says, "Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Rom. 9:15, Exod. 33:19)."
...
"There was an eternal compact between the Father and the Son. A certain number was then given him as the purchase and reward of his obedience and death. For these he prayed (Jn. 17:9), and not for the world. For these elect ones, and these only, he is now interceding, and with their salvation he will be fully satisfied."

So, Whitefield is using 2 Thess. 2:13, Colossians 3:12-13, Jude 1, Romans 11:7, Rom. 9:15, Exod. 33:19, John. 17:9 to support his teaching. I am curious how you (Philip) explain these verses.

All I am striving for is the reconcilation of all verses in the Bible.

Philip wrote:This destructive debate over a man-made theological construct - the theological box of Five Point Calvinism - is harmful to both believers and unbelievers alike. Even Calvinists often disagree on various points, the complexity of which has filled many volumes. In the three following posts, is my view, which I believe to be Scriptural. I'm prayerful that some might see how God can be both sovereign and have also given us free will connected to an eternal destiny.

Philip, have you got the right thread? I don't see Calvinism as a system up for discussion. What made you do this? Your own posts above are a man-made construct. Should I just dismiss you now? What is free will? Can you define it and then prove it, please. What is the will free from? *All* outside influences? Then we'll see about the rest. But please do define the terms you are using here.

Perhaps not put into the right thread, nonetheless I have chimed in because this thread is full of important aspects relating to election and free will, and thus I felt led to do so. It is clear from Scripture that ALL men have before them a choice that Scripture indicates CAN be made. And it most definitely shows that we CAN resist God's Spirit. Oh, but if God is sovereign, and He ALLOWS resistance to His Spirit - then how is this not allowing a choice? And notice, His great ANGER over this resistance. And if a man must be regenerated by God before belief - outside of such a man's will - then why were Paul and Peter attempting to go far beyond just preaching the Gospel but also trying to win converts with CONVINCING arguments and pleading their case - AS IF, these men had something to decide? If God just merely regenerates before belief is possible, what the heck was Paul trying to convince anyone of anything, as upon being regenerated, PROBLEM SOLVED?

Do we have unbracketed free will - that is, can we do things outside of the parameters that God created for us? No! We can't fly, we can't become invisible, etc. And we can't escape the awful punishment that a choice of unrepentant rebellion locks us into. God created hard parameters with stark choices, with either blissful or horrific eternal consequences. He created our very choice and is the Author of all that makes one of them an avenue unto eternal life with the Lord. How that is not sovereign is beyond me. God is supposedly sovereign, but somehow He can't give us free will if He so desires to? Huh?

Again, this Five Point construct did not exist for the first 1,500 years of the church. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that ANYONE cannot obey God. And yet, they need to be WILLING and RECEPTIVE to His initiatives to do so. They can't do it without Him, but they can IF they are willing to positively respond as His spirit instructs - or NOT.

One must ask themselves why the vast numbers of those evangelized since Pentecost, of whom have been saved through hearing and responding to preaching of missionaries and preachers who unmistakeably have believed that ALL hearing the Gospel message have the ability to receive and respond to it? Literally, a vast ocean of non-reformed evangelism and missionary work has brought true converts across the world vs. the tiny trickle of those saved through Reformed teachings. How many martyrs to the faith have not believed that God truly offers His grace and mercy to ALL of humanity and that Jesus died for ALL? Did God not spread His faith primarily through the (SUPPOSEDLY heretical) belief that we all have a choice and that all who desire to be saved can and will be? Why do you think that most Christians are tremendously repulsed by the teaching that our God of love, Who told us to pray for even our enemies, Who said He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, Who let puny men spit upon and brutally kill His son, out of unfathomable love, yet also nonetheless supposedly condemned billions to lives of misery and suffering now and horrific punishment for eternity, without providing them the Solution He had in Christ? For most, this would mean God hates as much as He loves.

Those who adhere to Five Point beliefs should wonder why God's character in Scripture cannot fit into their man-made box? Because to make Him fit, God would have to be One of amazing beauty and love, but also a God of unimaginable hate as well as a nightmare to everyone else - as He's supposedly given some no chance, no choice, and only horrible suffering and blackness. And does God view the fact that some continue in sin as being GOOD? Does He DESIRE that? Could God, with any credibility, tell US to love our neighbor (everyone!) and yet HE hates BILLIONS. So God supposedly has created most men to be just as He desired they remain (in unrepentance, continuing in rebellion and unbelievably evil), and yet He is angry that they are just as He made them to be? Something is horribly wrong with the Five Point theological box! And it grieves the very souls of MOST Christians! Wonder why that might be?

And those intent upon trumpeting that God has supposedly doomed most men, before they ever sinned or were even born, not based upon any sin, but merely upon God's desire - well, what if they are WRONG? You see, if Calvinists are WRONG, they are doing tremendous damage to evangelism efforts. Unbelievers hearing that THEY might not be one of God's Elect, thinking that THEY might not have ever been meant to be one of them - that God just simply hates them and billions more anyway. Well, do you not think that such a theological understanding of God would repulse them, to make them flee Christianity with all their might? But if CALVINISTS are RIGHT, none of this talk really matters. As God is sovereign, in the end, all will be as He wants it anyway, and so why all the fuss? But God help those trumpeting this belief if they are wrong - as the damage to evangelism and the slander of God's Holy character will have terrible consequences for millions. And I wouldn't want to stand before God accused of THAT!

I think I have a better understanding of the predestination and elect thing, thanks guys for sharing your opinions and views

Philip wrote:This destructive debate over a man-made theological construct - the theological box of Five Point Calvinism - is harmful to both believers and unbelievers alike.

Correction: The "theological box of Five Point Calvinism" is a biblical response to a "man-made theological construct" called Arminianism at the Synod of Ddort. Far from being harmful, it is the gospel. Referring to an opposing theology as "man-made" is a common practice in an effort to hold one's own theology as more "spiritual" or "godly". However, once we get outside of Scripture itself, all theology is, on some level, man-made (ie. prone to error). We all have a "man-made" theology, and even the rejection of a "theological box" is itself a man-made theology. For example:

Philip wrote:"In the three following posts, is my view, which I believe to be Scriptural."

See what I mean? What you are about to write, in your own words, is man-made. The question isn't whether or not we have a theological box, but rather or not the box is hymned in by sola scriptura (sorry Byblos).

Philip wrote:Even Calvinists often disagree on various points, the complexity of which has filled many volumes.

If you are referring to the 5 points, there is really no disagreement among Calvinists. Those who reject certain points are not Calvinists, but go by other names (Amyraldians, etc.) In any case, One cannot logically reject any single point on it's own. They all stand or fall together. Besides, the objective truth of Calvinism does not depend on how many points professing Calvinists hold to.

Philip wrote:In the three following posts, is my view, which I believe to be Scriptural. I'm prayerful that some might see how God can be both sovereign and have also given us free will connected to an eternal destiny.

We shall see. Haven't read the rest of your posts yet, but we need to see how you define "free will". What exactly is it from from?

Philip wrote:I sincerely apologize in advance for the length of my posts.

No problem. Just may take a little longer to respond in order to read and digest the material.

Puritan Lad, could you please clarify what you mean by this:

Correction: The "theological box of Five Point Calvinism" is a biblical response to a "man-made theological construct" called Arminianism at the Synod of Ddort. Far from being harmful, it is the gospel.

I know you don't mean that "theological box of Five Point Calvinism", itself, is the gospel. So, before you're accused of saying that Five point Calvinism, is the gospel that saves, and one can't be saved without believing in Five point Calvinism, please clarify what you mean.

Thanks

Sure. This...

RickD wrote: Five point Calvinism, is the gospel that saves

...does not necessate this...

RickD wrote: one can't be saved without believing in Five point Calvinism, please clarify what you mean.

"Belief in Calvinism" is not part of the Calvinist "ordo salutis". More on that later.

[Pelagian tweak]Besides, Arminians would, on some level, agree with this, since their gospel, at the root, doesn't actually save, but rather merely makes salvation possible for those who have enough natural virtue to make the right decision using their "free will".[\Pelagian tweak]

Besides, Arminians would, on some level, agree with this, since their gospel, at the root, doesn't actually save, but rather merely makes salvation possible for those who have enough natural virtue to make the right decision using their "free will".

First, I thought this was the gospel that saves, by believing it:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

As far as what I understand about Arminianism and Calvinism, they both believe the passages from 1 Corinthians, is the gospel. Belief in that gospel, is what saves. Of course Calvinism and Arminianism, and other isms within true Christianity, disagree about non-essentials.

but rather merely makes salvation possible for those who have enough natural virtue to make the right decision using their "free will".

This is a misrepresentation of what Arminianism teaches. Natural virtue, is not at all what Arminianism says is what allows people to believe the gospel. Tell him, Danny. That's an Aunt Sally.

I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross. (Charles Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856).

I just want to be clear, Spurgeon believed that one couldn't preach the gospel, without preaching Calvinism's interpretation of the gospel.

PL, I just want you to clarify for everyone. Can one be saved, without believing in the tenets of Calvinism? Is Calvinism's interpretation of the gospel, the only valid interpretation?

Form what I gather I think that almost every Christian denomination believes in the same gospel that saves BUT I think that issue is how one gets to that Gospel.
It's sort of like saying that all agree that Christ is the way to God and the ONLY way, BUT the way TO CHRIST is what is being "debated".
Or something like that.

Philip wrote:The problem is, Five Point Calvinism is a man-made theological construct that tries to put our omnipotent God, Who transcends time, space, dimension, and parameters we don’t even know about, into a box.

That's an argument that religious pluralists make when we hold to sola scriptura (ie. "God is too big to be put in a box". How one can acertain the bigness of God while rejecting His revelation of Himself is beyond me.) However, as I pointed out in the last post, we all have a theological box (or at least we had better). Truth matters.

Philip wrote:"And its complexity and the circumstances surrounding its extremely late development should be
clue to its falsity. Note that for over 1,500 years of church history there was no talk of such a theological construct as Calvinism."

Not sure of the rationale behind this argument. On what authority shall we suggest that something complex cannot be true (even if Calvinism were complex, which it isn't). And I would note that Arminianism is the novelty in church history. The doctrines of soveriegn grace (nicknamed Calvinism, though contrary to popular evangelical belief, Calvin did not invent them) are as old as Scripture itself. ("Jacob I loved and Esau I hated"). You will find the doctrines of sovereign grace taught throughout church history. (References available upon request).

Philip wrote:And the complexity of Calvinism necessitates a theological understanding foreign to the common, everyday man – note that Scripture was written so that the poorest, unsophisticated, barely literate man can understand it’s simple truths and thus be saved. It was NOT written just for theologians or for the theologically savvy.

You may google "Ordo Salutis of Calvinism" and see if "theological understanding" ever appears there. I haven't seen it. If anywhere, we would include it under sanctification. There are plenty of saved people who are wrong about how they got saved. (Afterall, one of us is, of necessity, wrong.) And Calvinism is not hard to understand, just hard for many to accept. My 10 year old, mentally retard daughter understands the doctrines of sovereign grace. John 10 is a very simple chapter outlining these doctrines for the unsophisticated ("I know my sheep"; "my sheep hear my voice, they follow me"; "I give them eternal life so that they will never perish, neither can anyone snatch them out of my hand"; "You do not believe, because you are not my sheep"; etc.)

Philip wrote:So what would any common man think: reading 1 Timothy 2:4, that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”? Or 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting ANYONE to perish, but EVERYONE to come to repentance.” And if God is the one who must first regenerate a man before coming to belief, then why is He waiting? On Himself? NO! Who is He waiting on? “YOU!” Or Ezekiel 18:23: “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when THEY turn from their ways and live?” Well, if it pleases God for man to repent, does it make any sense that it also pleases him for some men to disobey His commands to repent? That He WANTS them to disobey Him and continue in rebellion?

How would the common man reconcile the fact that “God loves the world” with the fact that He also “hated” Esau? Whatever your answer to that question, I think we all agree that it requires some amount of theological study and knowledge. The "common" man would simply see an inconsistency. A good reason why "common men" and novices are ineligible to exposit scripture. Those men must be learned, able to teach, dedicated the the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, and laboring in word and doctrine. One of the biggest problems with 21st century American Christianity is that we have too many "common men" who fancy themselves as preachers. The apostles themselves spent 3 years studying under the greatest of teachers. Theological study is (or should be) a prequisite for preaching, for the same reason that I don't perform heart or brain surgery.

(And Christ isn't merely "waiting" for people to get saved. He actually saves them.)

As for the scripture references themselves:

1 Timothy 2:4 clearly refers to all types of men (not just Jews). Paul is not expounding the doctrine of justification, but is defending his ministry as an apostle to the gentiles (1 Timothy 2:7). Context matters, and just a little study of such makes it understandable to even the common man.

2 Peter 3:9 clearly has a limited audience. "He is patient with you". He was addressing any and all of his readers, "those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith." (2 Peter 1:1). Again, context matters.

Ezekiel 18:23 is simply the universal call of the gospel, showing that God is always inclined to accept the repentance of anyone. No calvinist would deny this. But this does not refute the doctrine of election in His most wise and determinate counsel. This is why Jesus could weep over Jerusalem, and yet at the same time speak in parables in order to hide the kingdom from them.

Philip wrote:“Whoever believes”; “Whomsoever will”; Etc, Etc. So many plain readings show an obvious choice. John 3:16-1: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

Belief is a choice? You are going to have to show that to be true. How does one "choose" to believe? Which voluntary muscle will I exercise in order to do this? Where does John 3:16 mention a choice? How does one change his heart to believe that which he currently doesn't believe? Why does the Bible tell us that faith is a gift of God? Why does Ezekiel tell us that God will put His Spirit in us and cause us to obey? Where is the "free will" in these passages? How would the common man understand them?

The gospel is good news, not good advice. Whosoever will" simply identifies those who will be saved. The passages says absolutely nothing about a choice.

Philip wrote:Note the inclusiveness of the word “world” – it’s EVERYONE. Note that the very same (inclusive) "world" that is under condemnation is also the same one He came to save.

Did he succeed? Did Christ actually saved everyone in the world, or only the elect, those who believe (and belief is a gift from God.)? What does it mean that God saved the world? Universalism?

Since we are on the subject, how would the common man understand John 6:44 ""No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." How about John 1:13? "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." When the Word of God clearly states that we are not saved by the will of man, on what authority will we suggest that "free will" (whatever that is) plays any role in our salvation?

We can see that, without proper context, the "common man" would only see logical inconsistencies between certain Scriptures. We can't just pick and choose which passages that we will accept as the "plain reading". Finally, just referring to scriptural exegesis as "dubious" doesn't refute it. You will have to show why it is incorrect rather than appeal to the "common man" argument.

RickD wrote:

but rather merely makes salvation possible for those who have enough natural virtue to make the right decision using their "free will".

This is a misrepresentation of what Arminianism teaches. Natural virtue, is not at all what Arminianism says is what allows people to believe the gospel. Tell him, Danny. That's an Aunt Sally.

Rick, that's not an Aunt Sal, since whichever way you want to spin it, on Arminianism it is our ultimate decision to come to Christ.