Somewhat confused wrote: Why would you want God to open up their hearts?
Because I believe that God has not predetermined his fate. Why do you pray that, if you confess that his fate has already been predetermined?
Somewhat confused wrote: This is surely tacit acknowledgement that it is God who makes the difference!!
And that is what we have been defending all these years in SA. Unfortunately, you are so used to arguing against a strawman that you do not even know what the real argument is?
Somewhat confused wrote: And even in your scheme of understanding, since God foreknows exactly what each person will decide - how do you know that you are not praying for someone that God knows will decide against him and therefore God is actually powerless to do anything for that person.
Boy. You are confused. I think every Calv should use that alias.
The answer to your question is simple. Foreknowledge does not equal predetermination. Foreknowledge is simply being cognizant of the future. This does not mean that God cannot act to change the future. It's quite a simple concept, but it seems that you still have the effects of the red-koolaid you drank.
jago wrote: Yamil the question I asked was do you pray for God to bring the person to repentance and to justify them or do you pray for them to bring themselves to God. Secondly do you know your prayer will be answered in that all you pray for will be saved? I do not know any more than you do who God will draw to Himself.
I pray that God would convict them of their sins and open up their hearts to the Gospel message. I believe that if I pray for such an individual that he will be saved. If I do not pray, then their is a big chance that he would never be saved.
Do you pray that God would draw the sinner unto himself? If so, why do are you asking God to change his predetermined will? _______________________________________
Observer wrote: Firstly what statement are you referring to...
You should know. You read my response to Beeke, did you not? Anyway, did he delete that blog entry. I can't seem to find it anymore.
Observer wrote: Secondly, you should appreciate that there is a world of difference between the saved and the unsaved.
Like I said, the Calvinists always makes exceptions for themselves. You can't do that buddy. Ever heard of consistence?
Instead of giving me an original objection to my position, you lazily simply asked me to refute a link to someone else's opinion. That tells me that you do not feel comfortable enough in your knowledge of your perverted system to be able to stand on your own two feet.
You see I pray because I believe that God did not predetermined all things. So I can have confidence that when I pray that he will answer my prayer according to his perfect will. Since I know that it is his will that all should come to repentance, I can pray for the lost sinner with that same confidence.
You, on the other hand, believe that God has predetermined all things. Prayer to you is nothing more than a religious rite that makes you feel good inside. You cannot pray that God will answer your prayer for the lost sinner because God has already predetermined his destiny. The best you can do is cross your fingers and hope that your prayer coincidentally just happens to be part of God's predetermined plan.
I am not sure what that is, but one thing is for certain...
Observer wrote: Actually you do not agree with him and there is no contradiction in what he is maitaining.
You are right. I do not agree with him. I agree with the statement that disagrees with him. What he maintains and what he stated are two different things. It serves to prove that Calvinism is nothing more than a knotted up ball of self-contradiction.
Observer wrote: What we do deny is that given man's sinful nature... the sinner has no volition towards God.
I know of at least one sinner that has a inarguably a volition towards God: YOU silly!
Unless you of course do not consider yourself a sinner.
Observer wrote: ...and if we take at all seriously what is predicated of sinful man in the Bible.
I have not met a Calvinist who has yet taken seriously what the Bible has to say. All I see is a total disregard to the rules of language, bunch of equivocations, and many more fabricated definitions that cannot be found in one single dictionary. When asked for a simple declarative statement that STATES something (anything!) that they believe, then they always proudly come up lacking in favor of some profound meaning that exists only in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist.
Observer wrote: So no real answers from you. What a surprise! What precisely does "total depravity" mean to you in relation to the sinners nature?
You mean "depravity." "Total depravity" is merely a Calvinistic term that they can't prove if their lives depended on them. It means that left to himself that man (including the elect) will do the vilest of sins. ______________________________________
The previous answer addressed your ridiculous notion that man is not born with volition. The ability to choose is not a miraculous act of God; but rather one of the many faculties he has indued his imago dei with.
One does not suddenly obtain this volition; he is born with it silly!
Observer wrote: You had previously agreed with the quote cited from Joel Beeke! So your mind's changed, where is the rebuttal? Beeke's quote read:
I do agree with him. I was merely using his own words against him if you would read my post correctly. Apparently he(and you) is not aware of how he contradicts himself.
He states that Scripture do not represent faith as a work, but ironically that is what the Calvinists state. When I state that the only condition God places on salvation is faith, you whip out the strawman of faith equals works.
The act of trust is never represented as a work and your insistance that in some cases it is a work is laughable and demonstrates the Calvinist desperate attempt to prove their pet theology.
The act of faith is not a work anymore than thinking is a work. Otherwise we are all guilty! Of course the Calvinist always makes an exception for themselves.
Walt wrote: In the interest of fairness, Shame on you for deceiving! It is one thing for people to use that method of putting in someone's name who is past away, but another to use someone else's name who is alive to make people think they are posting. Doing that with real people's names is really unfair, as you bring that person into the debate who many not have even wanted involved. It is better to quote the person, and if available give the reference to the source. Using their name as you did is wrong in my opinion.
I suppose that him informing you what he did is wrong to.