U/C Unconditional election vs. Conditional election

[Andrew]

quote: "How does it limit God's grace?"

it says that Jesus died only for some. therefore his blood discrimnates in that it only avails to certain individuals.

quote: "Hmmm... every one of the Elect is conceived a sinner."

Yes, and every one who is not the elect too.

quote: "Have you read this entire thread and others related to it?"

I've debated with limited atonement preachers for pages b4, am familiar with their arguments etc. Unless, you are preaching another sort of limited atonement. basically, limited atonement says Jesus died for some only, not all men.

 

[mjwhite]

Dear Andrew,

Did Jesus die for those in Hell?
Did He take their sins upon Him?
Did God spend His wrath on Jesus for them?

It seems, according to you, He did not.
It seems, that according to you, He only actually did those things for those that accept it. If tose things are true, you too then believe in a limited atonement.

If those things are not true, then why are those in Hell suffering for the sins already paid for? Why are they recieving wrath from God supposedly already spent on Jesus?

Your philosophy makes a boast not on Jesus but yourself.
How?
Tell me why you accepted the cross and those in hell did not.
I daresay you cannot tell me, and if you can, you will have to boast on yourself.

Don't answer 'free will'. No one who has free will makes such an important decision without a reason. What was yours and why didn't they make it like you?

mike

 

[Slave2SinNoMore]

I stepped out for a few days, because I found that things were heating up a bit too much. However, I have found something that I think gooes a long way toward proving that limited atonement is false.

One scripture that is very important in this whole debate is 1 Timothy 2:4

"Who desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth".

Well, as you all know, the argument has been whether the "all" actually means "all". Well, I found this a few days ago, about the Greek word used for "all" in this case:

pa'", pa'sa, pa'n: <I>all</I>. When the word appears without an article as is the case in 1 Tim 2:1-6, it means literally <I>everyone without exception</I>. Adjective: masculine singular nominative, 3956. 2/311, 26/CD, 28/CD, 31/CD, 37/CD.

Now, if this is true, then 1 Tim 2:4 definitely means that God does indeed desire that ALL men be saved. This would defeat that part of the limited atonement argument that states that God only desires that some be saved.

Theerfore, if God does indeed desire that all men be saved, wouldn't he provide the opportunity to be saved to all men?

&nbsp;&nbsp;

 

[Reformationist]

/mod hat on

Okay guys.&nbsp; I understand that this is a difficult topic for some to deal with so all I ask is that if you find yourself needing to call someone's else's view heretical just take a break and respond when your not being led by emotion.

If you feel someone's view is wrong, explain it to them in a biblically supported and biblically loving way.&nbsp; After all, as Christians our goal should be to help each other grow in the Lord.&nbsp; The best way to do this is let our conduct be representative of our Lord.

If any of you have any questions about the rules there is a link at the bottom of the page.

/mod hat off

God bless.

 

[NewHope]

Originally posted by Slave2SinNoMore
One&nbsp;scripture&nbsp;that is very important in this whole debate is 1 Timothy 2:4

"Who desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth".

Well, as you all know, the argument has been whether the "all" actually means "all". Well, I found this a few days ago, about the Greek word used for "all" in this case:

pa'", pa'sa, pa'n: all. When the word appears without an article as is the case in 1 Tim 2:1-6, it means literally everyone without exception. Adjective: masculine singular nominative, 3956. 2/311, 26/CD, 28/CD, 31/CD, 37/CD.

As I'm not a Greek scholar I have to ask&nbsp;if any of you know if,&nbsp;in the original Greek, the word "all," as it is used&nbsp;in this case,&nbsp;is a separate use of the word or if it is a conjunctive article when used with men?&nbsp; While God does not sovereignly will every human being to be saved, I believe this verse deals more with God's benevolence and the fact that He does not delight in the death of the wicked.&nbsp; Additionally, I think "all" as it is used in this context probably means that God does not limit His desire for salvation to any single group of people, IOW, His saved will come from all areas and all times.

Now, if this is true, then 1 Tim 2:4 definitely means that God does indeed desire that ALL men be saved. This would defeat that part of the limited atonement argument that states that God only desires that some be saved.

I don't think the main question here should be whether He means everyone when He says "all," but rather, what does He mean when He says He "desires."&nbsp; What does it mean when God says He "desires" something?&nbsp; Is it the same as when we say it?&nbsp; Can God desire something but not have the power, or not affect the power, necessary to make it come to fruition?&nbsp; And, if He does have the power, but doesn't use it, is it really His desire that something happen?

I think it's important to relay that the Bible was written by man, though authored completely by God.&nbsp; Man is limited in his ability to convey things.&nbsp; The things we say and write are often expressed by emotion.&nbsp; We, as created beings, assign various meanings to different words based on the size of our vocabulary.&nbsp; When we hear the word "desire" we understand that word to mean certain things, from a human perspective.&nbsp; So, what does it mean when God desires something?

Theerfore, if God does indeed desire that all men be saved, wouldn't he provide the opportunity to be saved to all men?

Even moreso, if God does indeed desire that all men be saved, wouldn't He ensure that is what happened?&nbsp; Otherwise, if it's only the opportunity He provides, what's happening is that God, in His infinite wisdom, desires (in a humanly way)&nbsp;for beings to be saved that He knows from before they're even created won't be.&nbsp; Is God so weak and powerless that He is responding to the actions of His creation?

God bless.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Andrew
quote: "How does it limit God's grace?"

it says that Jesus died only for some. therefore his blood discrimnates in that it only avails to certain individuals.

But you didn't answer my statement: "If limited atonement causes God's blood to discriminate, then tell me which criteria the discrimination is based upon."

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by mjwhite
Tell me why you accepted the cross and those in hell did not.
I daresay you cannot tell me, and if you can, you will have to boast on yourself.

Don't answer 'free will'. No one who has free will makes such an important decision without a reason. What was yours and why didn't they make it like you?

Andrew, ask yourself: Why did I make a decision for Christ when someone else rejected Him? What's the difference between those that serve Christ and those that do not? Don't say "one accepted Christ and the other didn't", because that's not what we're asking. We're asking: What is the fundamental difference in one sinner that causes her to "accept" Christ, when another sinner does not "accept" Christ? What could possibly cause a few people out of a world full of spiritually dead people to "accept" Christ?

Now considering your concept of "free will", you're basically saying that all sinners are on equal ground when it comes to choosing a savior. So now, if all people are equally sinners, then what factor causes one to "accept" Christ and another not to?

 

[Andrew]

"So now, if all people are equally sinners, then what factor causes one to "accept" Christ and another not to?"

Not quite sure what you are asking but my immed response wld be "I wld have to be God to know that about every sinner." I mean that's between God and the sinner. I cant see into their hearts and minds and know what's going on and who will accept and who will not.

Okay I wanna pick up from Slave-to-sin-no-more's point that "all" means "all". Here is one "knock-out" verse to me:

Roms 5:18 -- Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Now all Christians believe that ALL men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If we cant even agree on this simple truth, then no point carrying on.

v12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [dont tell me you guys believe "all" here means "some"!]

So the first part of verse 18 says Adam's sin brought condemnation to ALL men. The second part says God's free gift of salvation was offered to ALL men.

Now, I dont see why Limited Atonement preachers (the ones I've spoken to) should interpret the first ALL as ALL but then in the same immed context/same breath, interpret the second ALL to mean "some". There's just no consistency in that. I'm no Bible scholar but I know that's basic in Bible study.

Secondly, as I've said many times, how can the last Adam's work be a much more when it only extends to some, whereas the first Adam's work/sin affects all. IOW, Christ work does not 'overide-over and above' Adam's sin effect if he only shed his blood for some. This simply contradict's Roms 5's point the Christ's work is a much more.

Thirdly, 1 Tim cleary says Christ shed his blood for sinners, not the elect. Who are sinners? ALL men! Its that simple.

1Ti 1:15* This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Andrew
"So now, if all people are equally sinners, then what factor causes one to "accept" Christ and another not to?"

Not quite sure what you are asking but my immed response wld be "I wld have to be God to know that about every sinner." I mean that's between God and the sinner. I cant see into their hearts and minds and know what's going on and who will accept and who will not.

No no... none are righteous... all have sinned and fall short...

What's the difference between someone that chooses God and someone that doesn't?

Is it genetics? Is it circumstances? Is it the way they were brought up?

If it's any one of those, then the person isn't actually making their own choice, are they? If so, then what can be said about "free will"? And what "force" is actually controlling their decision to "accept" Christ? Could it be God? What really causes someone to "accept" Christ?

 

[Slave2SinNoMore]

Originally posted by humblejoe

Andrew, ask yourself: Why did I make a decision for Christ when someone else rejected Him? What's the difference between those that serve Christ and those that do not? Don't say "one accepted Christ and the other didn't", because that's not what we're asking. We're asking: What is the fundamental difference in one sinner that causes her to "accept" Christ, when another sinner does not "accept" Christ? What could possibly cause a few people out of a world full of spiritually dead people to "accept" Christ?
Now considering your concept of "free will", you're basically saying that all sinners are on equal ground when it comes to choosing a savior. So now, if all people are equally sinners, then what factor causes one to "accept" Christ and another not to?

You've answered the question within your question. Free will is the very thing that causes some people to accept Christ, and some others not to. Just because God calls all men does not mean all men listen to him. Some people have hardened their hearts so much that they just refuse to listen. No amount of pleading by the Spirit will&nbsp;cause them to change their minds.

Your idea of "Equal Ground" doesn't apply, because while it is true that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that all nonChristians have a sin nature, some people feed that sin nature more than others. Don't believe it? It's true. I know many nonChristians who have a much better heart than other nonChristians. I know some nonChristians that I would almost swear were Christians by their attitudes and actions. But of course, we know that all the "good deeds" in the world won't save you. You gotta have Jesus!

And what makes the difference between a wicked careless non-Christian and one who "tries to be good"?&nbsp;The state of their&nbsp;consciences. Yes, nonChristians have consciences. Paul tells us that. NonChristians who ignore their consciences are more likely to ignore the Holy Spirit when he comes calling, while nonChristians who "try to" live by their consciences may be more likely to heed the call of the Spirit. It all comes down to the individual, and how he regards his conscience and his heart.

And no, this does not downgrade God's grace. God gave man a conscience for a reason, and reacting according to conscience does not take anything away from God.

Haven't you ever known a person who was told the truth by a Spirit-led Christian, but they don't accept Christ? If a Christian is walking in the Spirit, and he tells someone about Christ, that is the Holy Spirit speaking through him,not his own words. Therefore, that is the "wooing" of the Holy Spirit.

If it were not possible&nbsp;for man to refuse Christ, why would Christ have said:

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: and if any... hear my voice, and will open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Rev. 3:20

This is an "if" situation. Christ doesn't force anyone to accept him, and some will not. If everyone whom the spirit woos eventually winds up accepting Christ, wouldn't this have read something to the effect of:

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: and the ones I have chosen will hear my voice, and will open the door, and I will come in to them, and will sup with them, and they with me"

&nbsp;

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Slave2SinNoMore
You've answered the question within your question. Free will is the very thing that causes some people to accept Christ, and some others not to.

Why does "free will" select Christ for some and not for others? What are the qualifications necessary before "free will" can or cannot select Christ? And what are those qualifications, exactly?

Just because God calls all men does not mean all men listen to him. Some people have hardened their hearts so much that they just refuse to listen. No amount of pleading by the Spirit will&nbsp;cause them to change their minds.

And why do some not hear and harden their hearts? Why will "no amount of pleading" ever "cause" them to "choose" Christ? There are only two explanations: either the Holy Spirit is not effectual at all, or God predestines.

Your idea of "Equal Ground" doesn't apply, because while it is true that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that all nonChristians have a sin nature, some people feed that sin nature more than others.

Why is that?

Don't believe it? It's true. I know many nonChristians who have a much better heart than other nonChristians. I know some nonChristians that I would almost swear were Christians by their attitudes and actions.

What causes one nonregenerated soul to be "better" than another? The Holy Spirit? Nah, He only works in Christians... hmmmmm...

One may have a "better heart" than another, but all their souls are dead in sin; they have no desire to please God.

And what makes the difference between a wicked careless non-Christian and one who "tries to be good"?&nbsp;The state of their&nbsp;consciences. Yes, nonChristians have consciences. Paul tells us that.

And also according to Paul:

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ - Ephesians 2:4&5a, NASB, bolding mine

NonChristians who ignore their consciences are more likely to ignore the Holy Spirit when he comes calling, while nonChristians who "try to" live by their consciences may be more likely to heed the call of the Spirit. It all comes down to the individual, and how he regards his conscience and his heart.

Do you have scriptural evidence of this?

Haven't you ever known a person who was told the truth by a Spirit-led Christian, but they don't accept Christ? If a Christian is walking in the Spirit, and he tells someone about Christ, that is the Holy Spirit speaking through him,not his own words. Therefore, that is the "wooing" of the Holy Spirit.

No, that is the preaching of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit does not "woo", it changes according to its effectual purpose. The Holy Spirit may be affecting the person preaching, but that does not mean that the Holy Spirit will necessarily extend effectual calling to the recipient of the message.

If it were not possible&nbsp;for man to refuse Christ, why would Christ have said:

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: and if any... hear my voice, and will open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Rev. 3:20

This is an "if" situation. Christ doesn't force anyone to accept him, and some will not. If everyone whom the spirit woos eventually winds up accepting Christ, wouldn't this have read something to the effect of:

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: and the ones I have chosen will hear my voice, and will open the door, and I will come in to them, and will sup with them, and they with me"

&nbsp;

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. - Revelation 3:20, NASB

Again, your interpretation has been affected by this ineffectual "wooing" that you attempt to use.

As you probably expected, I believe that the "anyone [who] hears My voice and opens the door" is the Elect. You're right. It's an "if... then" situation. But that still doesn't prove that the Holy Spirit's effectual call is extended to the Reprobate. If it was, then they would not be the Reprobate, they would be part of the Elect, because they would "accept" Christ.

"Christ doesn't force anyone to accept him, and some will not."

And again I ask you: Why is that? Why will some never "accept" Jesus?

 

[mjwhite]

Cmon
it was said..
You've answered the question within your question. Free will is the very thing that causes some people to accept Christ, and some others not to. Just because God calls all men does not mean all men listen to him. Some people have hardened their hearts so much that they just refuse to listen. No amount of pleading by the Spirit will cause them to change their minds.

Free will is NOT the cause you chose Christ, it is HOW you chose Him, not WHY.

WHY didn't you harden your heart and they did? Let me hear your boast.

 

[NewHope]

Originally posted by Andrew
Roms 5:18 -- Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Now all Christians believe that ALL men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If we cant even agree on this simple truth, then no point carrying on.

I personally&nbsp;believe that&nbsp;all people (except Jesus) have sinned and therefore fallen short of the glory of God.&nbsp; However, you might want to&nbsp;avoid&nbsp;using the term&nbsp;"all Christians"&nbsp;when discussing&nbsp;these types of theological issues.&nbsp;&nbsp;Some Christians might not share your&nbsp;position.&nbsp;

v12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [dont tell me you guys believe "all" here means "some"!]

The belief&nbsp;of limited atonement is that through the sin of one man, Adam, every person who has ever existed, except Jesus, was inculcated with a sinful nature and that by the redeeming act of Christ those that He has chosen to be adopted into His family are imputed with His righteousness.

So the first part of verse 18 says Adam's sin brought condemnation to ALL men. The second part says God's free gift of salvation was offered to ALL men.

Strange. I don't see the word "offered" or anything that even remotely resembles it's meaning in this group of verses.&nbsp; What version of the Bible are you using?&nbsp; Does it say "offered" in your Bible?&nbsp;

Now, I dont see why Limited Atonement preachers (the ones I've spoken to) should interpret the first ALL as ALL but then in the same immed context/same breath, interpret the second ALL to mean "some". There's just no consistency in that. I'm no Bible scholar but I know that's basic in Bible study.

Well, let's look at the verse.&nbsp; First, as you say, most believe that&nbsp;all men (actually all people)&nbsp;were subject to the result of the sins of one man.&nbsp; So let's not debate something we agree on.&nbsp; What we don't agree on is what the "all" in the second half of the statement refers to.&nbsp; So, let's&nbsp;look at&nbsp;how "all" is&nbsp;used in that context:

&nbsp;Rom 5:18

even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

What was the result of Jesus' righteous act that you believe came to "all men," meaning all of mankind?&nbsp; Justification of life.&nbsp; In the Christian sense, "justification of life" is salvation.&nbsp; So just ask yourself, "Are all men saved?"&nbsp; Note that it does not say it was "offered to all men" as you presuppose.&nbsp; It says it "came to all men, resulting in the justification of life."&nbsp; So, did it come to all men resulting in their salvation?&nbsp; Of course not.&nbsp; Then it can't have meant everyone otherwise the Bible is saying all men are saved by Christ's righteous act, which is most definitely not true.

But, to further show this, let's back up a couple of verses:

Rom 5:15

But the free gift&nbsp;IS NOT&nbsp;like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to MANY.

Now wait a minute!! This verse doesn't even say that "all men" died as a result of Adam's offense.&nbsp; Does that mean that not all men died?&nbsp; Of course not.&nbsp; Because, in context, you see that the offense was imputed to "all men," a concept you ascribe to.&nbsp; However, does it say Christ's gift "abounded to all?"&nbsp; No.&nbsp; It says it "abounded to many."&nbsp; How can it say "many" in one verse and then "all men" three verses later.&nbsp; Isn't that a contradiction?&nbsp; It is only contradiction if you interpret the "all men" that benefit from Christ's righteous act as "everyone, everywhere, from all times."&nbsp; That in itself is illogical.&nbsp; Who benefitted from Christ's righteous act?&nbsp; Was it everyone or was it only those that are saved?

I know.&nbsp; Now's the time to bring up free will, right?&nbsp; While you are telling me that the reason you benefitted from Christ's righteous act was because you "chose to accept Him"&nbsp;ask yourself if your own "free will" was the reason that you got credit for Adam's sin.&nbsp; Also, consider this:

John 15:16
You did not choose Me, but I chose you&nbsp;

Secondly, as I've said many times, how can the last Adam's work be a much more when it only extends to some, whereas the first Adam's work/sin affects all.

The difference can only be understood when you acknowledge who each man, Adam and Christ, represent.&nbsp; Adam is the representative head as well as the physical root of all, and all sinned and fell when he sinned.&nbsp; In contrast, "by one Man's obedience" those whom Christ represents are "made righteous" in Him.&nbsp; Christ is the representative Head, as well as the spiritual root of the new humanity, for through His resurrection they are given new birth and a living hope (1 Pet. 1:3; Eph. 2:1-7).&nbsp; It is very important to understand that when we say "we were made righteous" we don't confuse that to mean that we, as individuals, are completely righteous in everything we do.&nbsp; Of course we still sin.&nbsp; Of course we occasionally do things that are&nbsp;unrighteous.&nbsp; We are not righteous because of our lives and actions.&nbsp; We are righteous because we are in Him and He is righteous.&nbsp; Only those who are "in Christ" are made righteous and justified.&nbsp; If you die having never been "in Christ" His death was of no benefit to you.&nbsp; Even moreso, it wasn't done for your benefit.

Thirdly, 1 Tim cleary says Christ shed his blood for sinners, not the elect. Who are sinners? ALL men! Its that simple.

1Ti 1:15* This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Was there anyone who was not sinful?&nbsp; Who else would He save?&nbsp; Does the verse say that He "came into the world to save all sinners?"&nbsp; Even if you interpret it that way you are saying that Christ, God incarnate, came to accomplish the salvation of everyone and was unable to do that.&nbsp; A God that cannot accomplish that which He sets out to accomplish is not the kind of God that I personally would worship.

Take care and God bless.

 

[NewHope]

Originally posted by Slave2SinNoMore
And what makes the difference between a wicked careless non-Christian and one who "tries to be good"?

Isaiah 64:6

But we are all like an unclean thing,
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

Romans 3:12

There is none who does good, no, not one.

It all comes down to the individual, and how he regards his conscience and his heart.

Romans 9:15,16

For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."&nbsp; So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.&nbsp;

If it were not possible&nbsp;for man to refuse Christ, why would Christ have said:

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: and if any... hear my voice, and will open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Rev. 3:20

John 15:16

YOU DID NOT CHOOSE ME, BUT I CHOSE YOU and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.

Eph 1:4-6

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us&nbsp;to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

2 Thess 2:13

God from the beginning&nbsp;CHOSE YOU&nbsp;for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth

Who is it that you said chooses?

Take care and God bless.

 

[Slave2SinNoMore]

Originally posted by mjwhite
Cmon
it was said..

WHY didn't you harden your heart and they did? Let me hear your boast.

mjwhite, to be honest with you, I am tired of seeing you accusing me and other brethern of boasting.&nbsp;You need to learn how to get your point across without insulting people. Since we've begun this discussion,&nbsp;I and others have&nbsp;been accused and ridiculed by you, and it's getting old.

The real funny thing is that you accuse us of "boasting" because we say that we choose to accept Christ. But according to you, God chose you and not some others. he favored you over them. Therfore, you are more special in God's sight than others. Now, how&nbsp;how can you claim&nbsp;that is not boasting, but at the same time say that when Andrew and Ben and I claim that we choose to accept Christ, taht is boasting?

 

[Slave2SinNoMore]

mistake...meant to edit, not quote

 

[NewHope]

Originally posted by Slave2SinNoMore
The real funny thing is that you accuse us of "boasting" because we say that we choose to accept Christ. But according to you, God chose you and not some others. he favored you over them. Therfore, you are more special in God's sight than others. Now, how&nbsp;how can you claim&nbsp;that is not boasting, but at the same time say that when Andrew and Ben and I claim that we choose to accept Christ, taht is boasting?

To understand what it means to be God's elect you must understand that those that believe they are God's elect acknowledge that there is nothing "more special" about them that was the basis for God choosing them.&nbsp; The elect were fallen, totally depraved human beings who, just like the non-elect, would never have sought God on their own, nor could they have done anything in the past, present or future that would or does merit their salvation.

The reason that it is considered boasting when you credit your decision as the basis for God redeeming you, you claim there was something about you that set you apart.&nbsp; Your claim is that you are in some way different than those who don't "accept God."&nbsp; That is erroneous and unbiblical.&nbsp; You were fallen, depraved and totally unable to do something, i.e. turn away from your fallen nature and turn toward God, that would merit your salvation.

I think the real source of disagreement is the difference in interpretations of what it means to be fallen.&nbsp; Those that believe in the sovereignty of God and the depravity of man after the Fall believe that when the Bible says that mankind was "dead in their trespasses" that we were exactly that, spiritually dead and unresponsive.&nbsp; We were unable to turn to God with the condition that our heart was in.&nbsp; The Holy Spirit could "woo" all day and if He was "wooing" a dead heart it would do no good.&nbsp; God had to take out your "heart of stone" (unresponsive) and replace it with a "heart of flesh" (responsive).&nbsp; Only then could you turn away from your sinfulness and embrace God's authority.&nbsp; As is very obvious, not everyone has been given a "heart of flesh."&nbsp; Therefore, those who still have a "heart of stone" will remain unresponsive to the Holy Spirit of Truth until God changes their heart to a "heart of flesh."

Take care and God bless.

 

[Slave2SinNoMore]

Originally posted by NewHope

To understand what it means to be God's elect you must understand that those that believe they are God's elect acknowledge that there is nothing "more special" about them that was the basis for God choosing them.&nbsp; The elect were fallen, totally depraved human beings who, just like the non-elect, would never have sought God on their own, nor could they have done anything in the past, present or future that would or does merit their salvation.

To be chosen by God when others are not seems pretty special, I'd say. Why are some chosen and some not? What is the basis of taht decision?

Originally posted by NewHope

The reason that it is considered boasting when you credit your decision as the basis for God redeeming you, you claim there was something about you that set you apart.&nbsp; Your claim is that you are in some way different than those who don't "accept God."&nbsp; That is erroneous and unbiblical.&nbsp; You were fallen, depraved and totally unable to do something, i.e. turn away from your fallen nature and turn toward God, that would merit your salvation.

No, we do not claim there was something about us that set us apart. In fact, we claim that we are not set apart until we become Christians.

Strict predestinists are the ones who think they are set apart to be saved, when others are not. By saying that, you are indeed in effect saying that you must be special in God's eyes; otherwise why would he have chosen you and not others?

And gee whiz, how many times do we have to tell you that by accepting God's gift, that is in no way or fashion "meriting" our salvation? We still didn't earn it. If God said "You worked so hard, so I'm gonna save you", then that would be earning it.

Someone offers you a gift because they love you. You accept it. Now, did you earn that gift? No. Did you "merit" that gift? No.

By the same token, you have the free will to accept. If you accept, good. If not, the giver isn't to blame. The recipient is to blame.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by mjwhite
Cmon
it was said..
You've answered the question within your question. Free will is the very thing that causes some people to accept Christ, and some others not to. Just because God calls all men does not mean all men listen to him. Some people have hardened their hearts so much that they just refuse to listen. No amount of pleading by the Spirit will cause them to change their minds.

Free will is NOT the cause you chose Christ, it is HOW you chose Him, not WHY.

You say that "free will" gave you the choice of whether or not you "chose" Christ. Why does free will allow one person to "choose" Christ, and another it doesn't?

WHY didn't you harden your heart and they did? Let me hear your boast.

Don't be obtuse. I have nothing to boast about. Christ changed me, not the other way around.

It's not about the ones that harden their heart. It's about the people that are changed by God. People that harden their hearts go from what to what? Unsaved to more unsaved??? There's no salvific change there. On the other hand, when someone is regenerated, they change from unsaved to saved! THERE'S the change. Hardening of the heart proves no salvific change. You're using the wrong criterion for salvific evidence.

I was regenerated by God and it is evidenced by my faith and works.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Slave2SinNoMore
To be chosen by God when others are not seems pretty special, I'd say. Why are some chosen and some not? What is the basis of taht decision?[/B

God saves some according to His Sovereign Choice. It's not for us to decide who and why. It is a mystery of God's will.

And gee whiz, how many times do we have to tell you that by accepting God's gift, that is in no way or fashion "meriting" our salvation? We still didn't earn it. If God said "You worked so hard, so I'm gonna save you", then that would be earning it.

Yes, but you say it is the deciding factor in salvation. If any word, thought, action, etc. that you commit can give or open the doors to salvation to you, then it is you that are doing the saving and effecting of your salvation. Then Christ's sacrifice becomes arbitrary at best.

Someone offers you a gift because they love you. You accept it. Now, did you earn that gift? No. Did you "merit" that gift? No.

By the same token, you have the free will to accept. If you accept, good. If not, the giver isn't to blame. The recipient is to blame.

Argh... I just don't think I have the heart to go over the "gift argument" again.