The Cure wrote: The condition that it consistently gives is the condition of faith.
It can't get any more clear than that. The idea of sovereignty is that God requires man to meet his conditions.
So the condition of election, which takes place before the foundation of the world, is faith. How? Firstly, that faith is a gift from God (Eph 2:8). Secondly, this makes God to foresee, not foreknow, much less foreordain. You cannot have faith in a God you do not know (Mat 11:27; Lk 10:22). It is God who must enable you to come to Christ (Jn 6:65). You are not appointed to eternal life because you believe, but believe because you have been appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48). We were chosen for salvation from the beginning (II Thes 2:13). Now you may argue that choosing is not the same as electing, that appointing means something else entirely, but you would be wrong on all counts. You see, God has to do the choosing. But if His choice is based on anything in us, then we are somehow different from those rejected. And who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you glory as if you had not received it? (I Cor 4:7).
The Cure wrote: If his challenge was calling me a toffee, I think I did a pretty good job. I must say, your challenges are quite easy. Do you have any real challenges for a change?
I seem to recall many sound arguments based on clear Biblical texts brought forward by the late Peter J and that other iconoclastic Aussie which were never seriously challenged by either you or anyone else. But tell me dear Cure-for-anything-but Calvinism, what is your definition of sin? What, in your opinion, has sin done to mankind? What condition has it reduced us to? And then, after you have told us your opinion, tell me where in the Bible you get your opinion from. That is how you debate a Biblical issue. You support your arguments from the Bible. And your refusal, so far, to do this, is ( I am sure) the reason why Peter J and Icon O'Clast decided to opt out of this so-called debate. I await your answer with much anticipation. Take all the time you want.
The Cure wrote: Actually, if I were a toffee, I would share myself with everyone else. I would want everyone to enjoy me.
And we have another classic example of a riposte by Mr Cure. If I were ever in a serious debate, I would love to have you on my team. Boy, do you know how to answer an argument! You really answered his challenges, didn't you? Riveting stuff Mr Cure!
Don't you just love the way JD can take a text and make it say what he wants to? He can take a text which clearly talks about unconditional election and tell you how it really means that man gets to do the choosing. He can dance on the head of a pin and not get pricked. Amazing! God said of Israel they were the only nation He had known. This does not mean He was not cognitively aware of the others. It means He dealt with them in a special way. If God's foreknowledge means He fore-sees, then God is not God. Then He is nothing more than a very good soothsayer and fortuneteller like Nostradamus. But "God, from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." "Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal:"The Lord knows those who are His." The question is, how does He know them? When and where does He know them from? If it does not mean that He loved with everlasting love, then we might as well throw our Bibles away because nothing else will ever make sense again.
JD wrote: I do not know any arminians so I cannot answer the questions. Fundamentalists do not need cathechisms to explain away the truth because we believe the book.
The first time you admit you do not know something, and you still manage to make yourself look ridiculous. You are only good at avoiding questions and not much else. Let me explain a few things to you. I will try to keep it simple for you. Confessions are man made and we do not believe they are infallible. We acknowledge them as a document which summarises what we believe the Bible teaches in a systematic fashion. The WCF was produced by many of the the greatest Protestant Bible scholars of the time. The Catechism is designed to teach children and new converts those same Biblical truths - also in a systematic fashion. If you read these documents you will see the numerous Bible texts from which these truths are derived. So the one who would need to do the explaining away is you -because you have a lot of texts to explain away. I personally have not read the Confession in many years, but read the Bible several times a day - to answer your last question. I only use the term Calvinist to distinguish myself from those who erroneously believe in free will. I am a true fundamentalist.
JD wrote: Haven't you heard? It is we who are required to prove our theology. They merely have to state it to make it so. The sad fact though, is that most on here would not have a clue how to begin if someone took their reformed authors away. They ahve no ability for individual thought. It is the reason they respond the way they do. Their faith is in the hope that their leaders, the cathechisms, the confessions, the counsels, John Calvin and those who interpret his work, the reformers have it right, because that is their ultimate authority and it is sad, so sad.
Doesn't that tell you something? Calvin, Luther, all the great theologians who followed them, the catechisms, the great confessions of the Protestant churches all recognised the same glorious truths. Luther was the one who recognised that this issue would be the one that would turn the church back to Rome, because Rome accepted the semi pelagian position. Where are the great Arminian theologians, confessions, catechisms? JD - we do not trust in them; we rightly acknowledge them as being the true expression of what the Bible teaches. From the time of the Reformation till now we have a wealth of scholarly and learned theologians in our camp. What do you have? Not much. So sad
DJC49 wrote: In extreme cases, God slam-dunks and overrides man's obstinate will for His good purposes.
So in "extreme cases" God acts like a Calvinist, but in not so "extreme cases" He is more Arminian. I thought everyone who was a sinner was an "extreme case". Paul himself described them like this; "There is none righteous, no not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness etc" Sounds very extreme to me.
DJC49 wrote: It's interesting to note that what God said was: "IN the day that you eat" and NOT "ON the day that you eat." Death was effectuated the moment Adam chomped and swallowed that fruit. He and Eve were as good as dead as a rose is when snipped off a rose bush. My vote was for *OTHER* as they indeed died both spiritually and physically. Sidebar: What if they had eaten of the Tree of Life (Gen 3:24) PRIOR to eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Any speculation there?
I think if they had eaten it before the fall it would not have changed them. Once they fell and their nature changed God prevented them from eating it. In my estimation Adam ate because he wanted to be captain of his own ship. In essence his sin was no different than Satan's in that he wanted to be numero uno. Ultimately every sin is a reflection of that original sin because it is rebellion to God.