Calvin vs. Arminius

[EricH]

And Calvinists would say the same of your position. So there you go

I can disprove Calvinism with one quote from Jesus Christ himself,Calvinist teach that Jesus died for the elect only and they love to use the verse in John 6:44 where Jesus says no man can come to me except the Father draw them(which is true)the problem is I say God draws ALL men while Calvinist proclaim that he draws only the elect,but what did Jesus say?

John 12:32And if I be lifted up from the earth(which he was on the cross)I will draw ALL men unto me

You can go to John 6:44 and read it in context and get an entirely different picture of this verse. The option to come is not a limited call. Those who see the son and believe on him are the ones who Jesus has been given to raise up with eternal life. There were those who followed him for the meat that perished and there were those who looked for the words of eternal life. The chapter begins with the feeding of the 5000. It goes into the lesson of Jesus being the bread of life and it continues by saying that it is the words of Jesus that are spirit and life. By taking in the words of Christ, and digesting them, we turn them into our energy for doing good. Since we are all going to be judged by our works, these good deeds, wrought in Christ, by faith, will bring us eternal life. The chapter ends with the mention of Judas. Judas was one who followed for earthly gain, like those who followed Jesus for the free lunch. He saw an opportunity to get money from the ministry, by stealing from the bag he carried for the Lord

[EricH]

Now, what I would like to suggest is that the way to reconcile these things can be done in more than one way, as the multitude of denominations will attest to. Some do a better job of it than others, and we each must weigh the choices and decide for ourselves which is the most viable. To my mind, the one that adheres best to the Bible is going to be the winner for me, as I

[EricH]

Now, what I would like to suggest is that the way to reconcile these things can be done in more than one way, as the multitude of denominations will attest to. Some do a better job of it than others, and we each must weigh the choices and decide for ourselves which is the most viable. To my mind, the one that adheres best to the Bible is going to be the winner for me, as I

[Reuben Hick]

Sorry for the italicized red font to represent the previous post - ran dry the quote quota. Rhonda Lou's previous-previous post is preserved though.

Rhonda Lou wrote:

I agree with everything you wrote, having been convinced that there are too many verses in the Bible which say that God chose/elected us. The selling point for me, actually, is just what you stated: Dead people can not give themselves life, and we are all dead in our sins.

God chose and elected that those who follow Christ would be saved.

Then it wouldn't be "election", it would be "divine recognition". God chose Abraham (Dt 10:15), Jacob (Ro 9:13),David (2 Sa 6:21). Note, it was the people who chose that failure of a King Saul (1 Sa 12:13)

He chose a specific people but not as individuals but according to each individual

[Reuben Hick]

This is an amazing statement you have made here. It deserves a post all to itself.

Unred previous quote;

[Reuben Hick]

Unred is in red, mine are in black.

Unred wrote in an earlier post:

[eric]

Just as a point of interest, this topic was pinned exactly four years ago this coming friday 21st (good friday) and has 830 posts in 82 pages. So far nobody has been able to impress me one way or the other, with all the fancy words and screeds of expositions containing hundreds of bible quotations, so........who is right and who is wrong? Poll-wise there's not much in it. Tulip leads by a nose at the moment, but the race is not over yet. .. ... . and on that note,

I'm going to bed.

[Reuben Hick]

Your comments: Which leads us all to the mighty Checkmate Question:

How can a person loves their sin (2 To 3:4) can't do anything good (Ro 3:12) hates God (Ro 8:7) alienated from Him (Col 1:21), is blinded by darkness and their own will (Eph 4:18-19); doesn't seek after God (Ro 3:11), considers the gospel foolish (1 Cor 1), can't understand the gospel (1 Cor 2:14), is blinded by Satan so one can't believe the gospel (2 Co 4:4) and is blinded by God so as not to believe (2 Th 2:11), and loves their depravity so much that they encourage others to sin (Ro 1:32) and would rather be crushed by rocks that bow the knee to Christ (Lk 23:30; Rev 6:16)

Overcome ALL of that and suddenly decide to love Christ and follow His commands without first being regenerated by the Paraclete?

[No Free Will Enthusiast has ever been able to answer that question. For Calvinism, just asking this question brings glory to God]

My comments: That

[Reuben Hick]

All previous discussion in quotes.

[Reuben Hick]

Rueben, did you get lost? After reading my last two posts again, I can see how they can be dismissed by calvinists by simply inserting that what I wrote is true, but only of the elect. I would like to address that, even though you have not brought it up.

I think I was pretty clear about why this discussion is pointless. Whatever the Bible clearly says, you deny it. I stopped reading when you invented out of thin air this differentiation of the "natural man" by this new "human being". The Bible speaks of the natural man and the regenerated man. There is no third man, nor fourth man or whatever man you need to conjure up to muddy the waters for your infinite regression of nth man. This whole thing sounds like a cheap rip off of the Masons and the degrees one progresses through.

The fact of the matter is that the natural man doesn't seek God, doesn't desire to please God, because he loves his sin and hates God. The natural man can't even understand the Bible and considers it all foolish. Now since there is no motivation to be anything else; not even an ability to do anything else but be this natural man, you just perform the magical hand wave of denial and invent a third person that the natural man allegedly desires to become (again, without explanation as to why or the mechanics of how it is done). One of the many problems with that third man is that no where in Scripture is this taught. Another glaring problem is that you don't rectify the problem of why the natural man would even care to depart from his sinfilled ways. The OT prophet also says that even as the leopard can't change his spots, neither can the natural man change from his evil ways. So designing a third man doesn't nullify that basic fundamental reality. Christ says that the natural man is a son of Satan and does whatever Satan wants. In contrast Christ says that those adopted into the Kingdom become the Father's children and want to please the Father. There is no orphanage or a foster parent intermediary taking in nth degree children. You have to make that up - a process that we all have come to expect from you. Even if there was this unicorn of the nth man, why would the nth man be any closer to loving God than the natural man? Again, you have to make that up and declare it to be true.

Now why would I, constrained by the facts outlined in Scripture, find any fruit in discussing theology with someone who finds their half-baked ideas superior to God's Word? Its like playing poker with someone who keeps changing the rules mid hand. "Yep, even though these cards look like a random collection of unrelated suits and low numbers, they really are all aces of spades."

I'm sure you are probably a great person to hang out with and rap about stuff, but I stopped heavy drinking long ago and probably can't enjoy the nuance of your dynamic scriptural adaptations.