Simple. You don't truly believe in grace alone, but you believe in a combination of grace + free will.
Since the Bible is as clear about man's freedom to choose right from wrong as it is about the Trinity, there is no problem.
Well, there is a problem among the RT view: apparently to the RT, free will equals power to do things. But it doesn't. It isn't about power or ability. It's about choice. But since RT denies free choice, there isn't any way to have a real conversation about that.
It is inconsistent to say "Grace alone!" while at the same time arguing that grace can be resisted.
I'd love to read a rational explanation for that, because it is as false as can be.
Since we know that the Holy Spirit can be (and has been) resisted (Acts 7:51), of course grace can be. That's the WHOLE point of the free gift of eternal life.
Unless God forces the gift on people, which the Bible NEVER teaches, the gift can be accepted (received by faith) or rejected.
Thus, at the end of the day, you believe in grace + cooperation = salvation. That's not grace alone. That's grace + something else.
I'd like to make something clear here. Man's free faith is NOT "cooperation", as if his faith "helps" God in saving him in any way. Please remove that misunderstanding from your view of non-Calvinists.
The Bible SAYS that God is "pleased to save those who believe", yet it NEVER says anything about God being pleased to choose who will believe, or even that He chooses who will believe, which is the foundation for RT's doctrine of election.
The plan of salvation begins with God and ends with God. But He does require that man receive the free gift. It's not forced on anyone. Seems that RT thinks that if man must believe to be saved, that means that man obligates God to save them. Why does RT make that conclusion? It is unfounded.
The issue is that when God makes a promise to save, He has obligated Himself. Man has nothing to do with what God does. When God promises to save those who believe, He has obligated Himself to save those who believe.
His promise is the 'first step', if you will. He makes the promise, and makes good on that promise for all who believe in His Son for eternal life.
If that doesn't make sense, please ask for further clarification.
[QUOE]Thus, to be consistent, you
must agree with these statements in the OP:
"You say you are a saint because of Him. I say you are a saint because of both you and Him"
"In ... synergism ... the difference is within the man" (not God's grace)
Why "must" I? I thoroughly REJECT these statements. It is wholly of God's grace that He saves anyone. I hope that is clear enough. He sure doesn't need to save anyone. But He has obligated Himself to save those who believe His promise. I hope that is clear enough.
Since you deny Limited atonement, that means to be consistent you must agree with the following statement from the OP:
S: "I gave up on Calvinism long ago"
M: "You mean you gave up on the idea that Jesus Christ alone is sufficient to save you?"
S: "Yep."
Why "must" I? I totally reject those statements, for the reasons I've just given. Why do you continue to think that my view is that my faith "cooperates/helps" God to save me? There is NO reason for that.
Man is saved by God ALONE. Man CANNOT help God save him. I hope that is clear enough.
Since you argue against God's complete exhaustive control over all things, that means to be consistent, you must agree with the following statements from the OP:
"The Bible says no such thing in any way shape or form. The Bible actually teaches that God is NOT sovereign, and that God is NOT in control. The doctrine known as "the sovereignty of God" is of THE DEVIL."
"God doesn't intend to kill people with natural disasters... it's just the weather."
Again, why "must" I? I totally reject this. God IS sovereign. But clearly NOT in the way RT thinks He is. Our difference is that RT believes that all actions were determined by Him, meaning that they occur because He determined that they would. The Bible doesn't teach that anywhere, and I reject that.
What ever happens, God either IS the cause, or He simply permits it to occur. Of course God does cause many things. He parted the Red Sea, not Moses with his staff in his up-raised hand. But God NEVER causes evil or sin. Ever. All that comes from choice; angels or humans. Both have the freedom to "choose the evil and resist the good".
Since you deny monergistic regeneration (ie, irresistible, regeneration-before-faith), that means to be consistent, you must agree with the following statement from the OP:
NC = Non-Calvinist
Me: Do you pray that God will open men's hearts to believe the gospel?
NC: Yes I do.
Me: How would this make you different from a Calvinist?
NC: I guess I will have to change the way I pray.
Again, why "must" I? However, I've heard no good rational explanation as to WHY any CAlvinist would pray that way, given the RT view of election, meaning all choice for salvation was done in eternity past.
I think that covers all the statements from the OP.
And I just eliminated all of those statements as being any part of my view.
I hope I've been clear enough.
It is interesting how your claims try to force me to accept certain statements that I have explained WHY I reject them. I think that demonstrates how much RT really doesn't understand statements from non-Calvinists who aren't synergists or Arminians.
