Is there another way?

[admin]

• 

I would like to state "for the record, "I AM NOT AN ARMINIAN". I may believe man has a choice in salvation, however, I also believe (as previously stated), I also believe once a person accepts Christ as Saviour, your eternal salvation is secure in Christ. What just took place in the "Predestination thread, (the request to have the thread locked) was a move of desperation on the part of Fat, because he knew he could not continue to answer questions that actually dealt with the difference between the "external" and "internal" call. I clearly stated in the tread my problem is predestination, not security of the believer. Fats "asking" for the thread to be "locked" was a clear indication of his insecurity to be able to answer more difficult questions.

Jack

I'm going to stop you right here, I do like pissing matches between posters.

You should be aware that most Arminians believe in the preservation of the saints. So just to let you know your are an Arminian.

Also it was you on the other thread that refused to answer questions. The thread is still there and readers can make up their own minds and can see if the question of effective (internal) and general ( external) calling has been addressed by Phat.

Admin Dude

[Jack Koons]

• 

Admin Dude,

It sounds to me like you stand in a biased position, and therefore see through the same "filters" as does Fat. And for the record, I have debated many Arminians, and not one of them has ever said I was an Arminian; to the contrary, they actually called me a Calvinist. I personally believe both are wrong; they see through their filters and you see through yours.

Here is my question for you? In the regeneration process, (that point before salvation is received, [no indwelling Holy Spirit]), how does the person who is "dead in sins" hear God, since "dead" people can't hear?

Jack

[admin]

• 

Admin Dude,

It sounds to me like you stand in a biased position, and therefore see through the same "filters" as does Fat. And for the record, I have debated many Arminians, and not one of them has ever said I was an Arminian; to the contrary, they actually called me a Calvinist. I personally believe both are wrong; they see through their filters and you see through yours.

Here is my question for you? In the regeneration process, (that point before salvation is received, [no indwelling Holy Spirit]), how does the person who is "dead in sins" hear God, since "dead" people can't hear?

Jack

There are no Calvinist that do not believe in effective calling, there are 5 point and 4 point Calvinist but the point usually in contention is limited atonement not irresistible grace.

How can they both be wrong? Either God's uses 'irresistible grace' or He does not.

Where does it say that the Spirit can not soften the heart from outside?
Read how God controlled the heart of the Pharaoh.

Now that is the last time I play this game with you. You continually refuse to answer Phat's and Mac's questions while you demand answers from him. I play a deferent game, don't test me.

[Jack Koons]

• 

God never forces us to do anything. He does however create an environment that will 1) Let us see the truth; 2) Influence us to make the right decision.

God will not force anyone to be saved, but He makes the penalty of rejecting Him well known. He also by the same token does not force anyone to be forever lost by withholding the truth from them.

What every person receives is the truth from God, and a lie from Satan. Each person must make the decision before death, to believe God, or not. The unfortunate truth however is that Satan is really good a blinding the eyes of most people while on planet earth.

Man can do nothing to aid in the receiving of, or keeping the salvation given by God. Salvation is by faith in the The Lord Jesus Christ, that He will forgive all sin, past present, and future. One must understand that he, or she is deserving of the wrathfully judgement of God, and totally rely on the finished work of God. Furthermore we must understand that we an man have no, and will never have any righteousness of our own to present to God. His righteousness, and His righteousness alone is the only righteousness we can ever claim.

The only part we have in both salvation, and service, is to trust the Word of God, surrendering to Him by faith. That surrender, is the only "choice" we have the ability to do. When we surrender to God, He saves us. As we continue to surrender, we enter into the 'rest' of serving Him.

Jack

[Jack Koons]

• 

"Quote from: Jack Koons on Today at 12:34:18 PM
Admin Dude,

It sounds to me like you stand in a biased position, and therefore see through the same "filters" as does Fat. And for the record, I have debated many Arminians, and not one of them has ever said I was an Arminian; to the contrary, they actually called me a Calvinist. I personally believe both are wrong; they see through their filters and you see through yours.

Here is my question for you? In the regeneration process, (that point before salvation is received, [no indwelling Holy Spirit]), how does the person who is "dead in sins" hear God, since "dead" people can't hear?

Jack


There are no Calvinist that do not believe in effective calling, there are 5 point and 4 point Calvinist but the point usually in contention is limited atonement not irresistible grace.

How can they both be wrong? Either God's uses 'irresistible grace' or He does not.

Where does it say that the Spirit can not soften the heart from outside?
Read how God controlled the heart of the Pharaoh.

Now that is the last time I play this game with you. You continually refuse to answer Phat's and Mac's questions while you demand answers from him. I play a deferent game, don't test me."

According to Dr. Wayne Grudem, Professor of Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary, who is a Calvinist, states the following concerning "effectual calling", (this was actually posted by Fat):

"On page 680 under objections to the doctrine of election, paragraph 1. Titled: Election means that we do not have a choice in whether we accept Christ or not.

According to this objection the doctrine of election denies all the gospel invitations that appeal to the will of man and asked people to make a choice in whether to respond to Christ invitation or not. In response to this, we must affirm that the doctrine of election is fully able to accommodate the idea that we have a voluntary choice and we make willingly decisions and accepting or rejecting Christ. Our choices are voluntary because they are what we want to do and what we decide to do. This does not mean that our choices are absolutely free because, God can work sovereignly through our desires so that he guarantees it our choice come about as he has ordained, but this can still be understood as a real choice because God has created us and he ordains that such a choice is real. In short, we can say that God causes us to choose Christ voluntarily."

You stated:

"Now that is the last time I play this game with you. You continually refuse to answer Phat's and Mac's questions while you demand answers from him. I play a deferent game, don't test me."

The following was taken from Wikipedia under "Covenant Theology". (Fat actually used the opening sentence of the opening paragraph to support his view.) this is the opening sentence of the third paragraph:

"As a framework for biblical interpretation, covenant theology stands in contrast to dispensationalism in regard to the relationship between the Old Covenant with national Israel and the New Covenant in Christ's blood. "

I disagree. I gave answers according to what I believe, as did they. The problem is in the "framework for biblical interpretation" that I use is different than yours. And according to you, Fat, and possibly others; that just makes me wrong to start with. I hate to inform you of a simple fact: just because you, and your fellow Calvinists believe your right, does not make it so. I'll be the first to admit, that just because I believe something, doesn't make it right either.

The answers I gave may not have suited your fancy, but they were answers nevertheless.

As per your questions:

"How can they both be wrong? Either God's uses 'irresistible grace' or He does not."

God grace is not "irresistible". I taught a class years ago on 'grace and mercy'. In short, grace is, getting from God what you do not deserve; while mercy on the other hand is, not getting what we do deserve. Think of this if you would: Can you tell me anything good you have, that you deserve? The answer is, No. Now, do you believe that you deserve to go to Hell for your sins? Yes. Why aren't you there? Because God is showing you mercy. Do you deserve God's mercy? No. Even God's mercy is part of His grace; why? He is giving you something you do not deserve. With all that said, have you ever seen someone resist the loving grace of God? I have. God graciously worked with the Israelites for centuries, through the Holy Spirit. Yet they resisted. Acts 7:51 "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."  Was it not in the grace of God that the Holy Spirit reached out to the Jews? Absolutely, yet they resisted.

"Where does it say that the Spirit can not soften the heart from outside?
Read how God controlled the heart of the Pharaoh."

This was part of Fat's reply #62:

"Calvinist believe there are two types of Calling by God.

External Call

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

Internal Call

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified."

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't an "external call" that which is from without; while the "internal call" is from within? Hence the names, "external call", and "internal call".

And yes, God did control the heart of Pharaoh; He hardened it.

Jack

[admin]

• 

"Quote from: Jack Koons on Today at 12:34:18 PM
Admin Dude,

It sounds to me like you stand in a biased position, and therefore see through the same "filters" as does Fat. And for the record, I have debated many Arminians, and not one of them has ever said I was an Arminian; to the contrary, they actually called me a Calvinist. I personally believe both are wrong; they see through their filters and you see through yours.

Here is my question for you? In the regeneration process, (that point before salvation is received, [no indwelling Holy Spirit]), how does the person who is "dead in sins" hear God, since "dead" people can't hear?

Jack


There are no Calvinist that do not believe in effective calling, there are 5 point and 4 point Calvinist but the point usually in contention is limited atonement not irresistible grace.

How can they both be wrong? Either God's uses 'irresistible grace' or He does not.

Where does it say that the Spirit cannot soften the heart from outside?
Read how God controlled the heart of the Pharaoh.

Now that is the last time I play this game with you. You continually refuse to answer Phat's and Mac's questions while you demand answers from him. I play a deferent game, don't test me."

According to Dr. Wayne Grudem, Professor of Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary, who is a Calvinist, states the following concerning "effectual calling", (this was actually posted by Fat):

"On page 680 under objections to the doctrine of election, paragraph 1. Titled: Election means that we do not have a choice in whether we accept Christ or not.

According to this objection the doctrine of election denies all the gospel invitations that appeal to the will of man and asked people to make a choice in whether to respond to Christ invitation or not. In response to this, we must affirm that the doctrine of election is fully able to accommodate the idea that we have a voluntary choice and we make willingly decisions and accepting or rejecting Christ. Our choices are voluntary because they are what we want to do and what we decide to do. This does not mean that our choices are absolutely free because, God can work sovereignly through our desires so that he guarantees it our choice come about as he has ordained, but this can still be understood as a real choice because God has created us and he ordains that such a choice is real. In short, we can say that God causes us to choose Christ voluntarily."

You stated:

"Now that is the last time I play this game with you. You continually refuse to answer Phat's and Mac's questions while you demand answers from him. I play a deferent game, don't test me."

The following was taken from Wikipedia under "Covenant Theology". (Fat actually used the opening sentence of the opening paragraph to support his view.) this is the opening sentence of the third paragraph:

"As a framework for biblical interpretation, covenant theology stands in contrast to dispensationalism in regard to the relationship between the Old Covenant with national Israel and the New Covenant in Christ's blood. "

I disagree. I gave answers according to what I believe, as did they. The problem is in the "framework for biblical interpretation" that I use is different than yours. And according to you, Fat, and possibly others; that just makes me wrong to start with. I hate to inform you of a simple fact: just because you, and your fellow Calvinists believe your right, does not make it so. I'll be the first to admit, that just because I believe something, doesn't make it right either.

The answers I gave may not have suited your fancy, but they were answers nevertheless.

As per your questions:

"How can they both be wrong? Either God's uses 'irresistible grace' or He does not."

God grace is not "irresistible". I taught a class years ago on 'grace and mercy'. In short, grace is, getting from God what you do not deserve; while mercy on the other hand is, not getting what we do deserve. Think of this if you would: Can you tell me anything good you have, that you deserve? The answer is, No. Now, do you believe that you deserve to go to Hell for your sins? Yes. Why aren't you there? Because God is showing you mercy. Do you deserve God's mercy? No. Even God's mercy is part of His grace; why? He is giving you something you do not deserve. With all that said, have you ever seen someone resist the loving grace of God? I have. God graciously worked with the Israelites for centuries, through the Holy Spirit. Yet they resisted. Acts 7:51 "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." (General calling or effective calling?) Was it not in the grace of God that the Holy Spirit reached out to the Jews? Absolutely, yet they resisted. There are TWO types of callings being discussed, you just can't get your head around that.

"Where does it say that the Spirit can not soften the heart from outside?
Read how God controlled the heart of the Pharaoh."

This was part of Fat's reply #62:

"Calvinist believe there are two types of Calling by God.

External Call

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

Internal Call

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified."

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't an "external call"(general calling) that which is from without; while the "internal call"(efective calling) is from within? Hence the names, (general calling), and (efective calling). Just man made terms.

And yes, God did control the heart of Pharaoh; He hardened it.

Jack

Sorry you didn't take my warning Jack, find your fight somewhere else. You got one more post if you choose and you're out of here.
Good by.

[michaelf]

• 

That's good advice, no one should remain in a church they do not agree with doctrinally. (I must admit however, I believe about 95% of church goers, have no idea what they believe, or why.)

Disagree with what you have said but agree with what I think you mean.
There are doctrinal issues you should leave a church for but there are many you should not leave over.
I have yet to see a large group for mature Christians agree on everything.