Dear Readers of this thread,
This thread was shut down for a few days to let things cool down. While I understand their reasoning and in no way dispute their prerogative, I wish to inform them and all of you that I was in no way upset or angry. Not that I expect them to know that and I do understand that they have responsibilities to the owners, to others to themselves and to God. So I am not disputing what they did in the least.
But I want to set my case before you [and them] because the very words I used which I believe they thought inflammatory [and they probably are] are not said with malice, anger, or hate. They are the very same words I will soon use to you my anonymous reader. They are not intended to be personal except that when I am debating an individual they can not be anything else but personal. So I am writing to everybody in general and nobody in particular. If you choose to debate with me, I will ask you very personal questions and I will try to get you to answer me.
The reason for this is because I am discussing the born-again experience that we all as Christians have experienced in one form or the other. And though it is general in that way, it is very individualistic in that we go through it without other humans directly involved. What I mean by this is that no other human can be sure what we are experiencing except by our testimony to them. They have to rely on the witness of our words and actions. So I can not ask you what someone else experienced without it being second hand knowledge, hearsay so to speak. But I will ask you what you think others experience when they encounter God, so as to compare it to your own experience.
Now you may ask what this has to do with the topic of the elect and how they are chosen. It does and I will explain. There are basically three types of Christian thought on the atonement. One school is called the Universalists. They believed Jesus died for all and in the end all will be in heaven, everybody, hell being empty except for Satan and the demons. Another school is called Calvinism or limited atonement, which basically believes that Jesus atoned only for those who get saved, that God elected only these for heaven, the rest He left to pay for their own sins. The third major school is the Arminianist or unlimited atonement, which believe like the Universalists that Christ died for all, but that only some will go to heaven based on whether they had faith in Jesus or not which is shown by their acceptance of the Gospel or their receiving of it. This is like the Calvinists, except that the Calvinists say only the elect will accept the gospel while the Arminianists say those who accept the gospel then become the elect.
Now there are variations of each theme, with some leaning one way and some leaning the other, but that is the basic gist of things. Now I have never had a chance to speak with an Universalist; and if one wants to speak on this topic, I will be glad to listen to their reasoning. I am a Calvinist in that I believe that Jesus died for those He saves and none other. So those debating me have all been from one form of Arminianism or another. And it is to these I am writing to.
My point of interest has been on the scriptures that speak of boasting:
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
And
15Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it,
or the saw boast against him who uses it?
As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up,
or a club brandish him who is not wood!
Here we see a negative connotation for boasting. Yet not all boasting is negative:
4You are my King and my God,
who decrees victories for Jacob.
5Through you we push back our enemies;
through your name we trample our foes.
6I do not trust in my bow,
my sword does not bring me victory;
7but you give us victory over our enemies,
you put our adversaries to shame.
8In God we make our boast all day long,
and we will praise your name forever.
Selah
So we see that boasting in the Lord is not wrong. But then what is a boast?
boast2 (bost) vi. [[ME bosten < bost, n. < Anglo-Fr; prob. via Gmc *bausia- (cf. Norw baus , bold, haughty), ult. < IE *bhou- , var. of base *bheu-, to grow, swell > BE]] 1 to talk proudly about deeds, abilities, etc., either one's own or those of someone close to one, esp. in a manner showing too much pride and satisfaction; brag 2 [Archaic] to be vainly proud; exult --vt. 1 to boast about 2 to glory in having or doing (something); be proud of [the town boasts a fine new library] --n. 1 the act of one who boasts 2 anything boasted of --boaster n. --boasting-ly adv.
SYN.--boast, the basic term in this list, merely suggests pride or satisfaction, as in one's deeds or abilities [ you may well boast of your efficiency] ; brag suggests greater ostentation and overstatement [ he bragged of what he would do in the race] ; vaunt, a formal, literary term, implies greater suavity but more vainglory than either of the preceding [ vaunt not in your triumph] ; swagger suggests a proclaiming of one's superiority in an insolent or overbearing way; crow suggests loud boasting in exultation or triumph [ crowing over one's victory]
To boast in the Lord is not wrong for His deeds and abilities deserve glory and honor, but to glory in ones own deeds, or to be proud of what one has done is wrong. Now I know of no Arminianist who actually thinks he or she is glorying in what they boast in, or is proud of what they boast in, so why do I call it a boast?
But I am getting ahead of myself. What I am talking about is this: the difference between heaven and hell. Why some go to heaven and others go to hell. Now I agree with the Arminianist when they say the difference is those who believe in Jesus go to heaven, the rest go to hell [although not all of them agree to this]. I also agree with them when they speak of the choice being of our own free will. But since we dont make choices based simply on our ability to make choices, but rather, we make choices based on reasons. Especially, we make choices based on reasons when it comes to deep and profound subjects like life and everlasting death.
My differences with Arminianism are in what these reasons are. They believe that everybody has the same reasons to choose to accept Jesus as they did. I reject that.
Let us look at it from the opposite viewpoint. IF everybody did not have the same reasons to accept Jesus and be saved then it could be said that those who did accept Him had better reasons than those who did not. Where does any of these reasons come? If they come from God via the Holy Spirit, then those with better reasons had those reasons because of God and it seems reasonable that God desired their salvation more than those He didnt give the better reasons to.
So they have to have God giving each person the same reason as the next. Now what is the purpose? They believe God loves all people the same and wishes that none perish. The Scriptures they use to back that belief up are not properly used in context. So WHY then do some choose Christ and others NOT?
That is my question to them.
Some have answered because they love God more and the others love sin more. Then that becomes their boast. They still sin, yet they insinuate that they are saved because they are less lovers of sin then someone else. The Scriptures tell us that: We love Him because He first loved us [1st John 4:19 KJV], yet they say He loves all so why do they love God when others dont?
In the end it comes down to character. Do you steal from your company even if you could get away with it? No, but some do. Some get jobs and feed their families, others run off and get somebody else pregnant. Good and right and righteous decisions are marks of good and right and righteous character. Is the decision to follow Christ any less than a good and right and righteous decision? Their boast then is in their own character up and over against the character of those who refuse to believe. I call them boasters in themselves.
I dont speak out of anger, or malice or hate, but I am simply calling it the way I see it. Can you answer WHY you chose to get saved without boasting on yourself?
I will ask for your testimony. I will ask if you think all those who rejected Jesus knew in their hearts the same truths as you. I will then ask you WHY you chose God and them hell. I dont think you will answer me to the end. No one has yet.
Consider these verses...
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
Where is your boast?
Why are you saved?
Is it because Jesus saved you?
or is it because you chose to be accept what He did for everyone and they did not? Just what then did Jesus do to save you that He didn't do to save them?