Would you also agree that under the Arminius/MH/Mike scheme that God is indebted to owe man His grace, whereas in the Calvinist scheme, man is indebted to God, but with a price he is unable to pay, thus Christ satisfied the debt we owed.

Mike wrote:
As for John 3:16 the word that is most ignored is "whosoever" This word means "any person whatsoever that.." Hardly an exclusive term, is it? Hard to turn a broad word like "whosoever,' into an exclusive word like "elect" as though any of the elect would not believe in Christ.

Mike wrote:
It is true that words have had their meanings changed, that they might fit theological presumptions. Consider these that have been so altered:
world doesn't mean world
whosoever doesn't mean whosoever
whole world doesn't mean whole world
any doesn't mean any
all doesn't mean all
God's sovereignty means man cannot have free will
will not means can not
longsuffering means that God is patient with the elect, that none of the elect should perish.
These are a few. No doubt there are more. It is clear that some in the church have been tainted by postmodern thinking, that even the simplest words may mean something else. Depending. Like it depends on what the meaning of is, is. And they think they do God service?

Why is it when we preach the truth, we are accused of being unloving? If we were unloving, we wouldn't be telling sinners of the saving grace of God. We wouldn't be preaching how sinfully depraved they are in the sight of God and without repentance and saving faith in the only one who can deliver them from their sin, they will die in their sin and wake up to a sinner's hell for all of eternity.

I am sorry guys, but the Great Awakening was not a result of soft, warm fuzzy, mushy, lovey-dovey preaching, but with Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", George Whitfield. Joseph Alliene "Alarm to the Unconverted", Richard Baxter "A Call to the Unconverted". All of these were staunch Calvinistic preachers who preached hell fire and brimstone messages which God used to draw sinners to repentance. Today we have men like Ian Paisley, John Greer, William McRea and many others following in the same tradition as these workhorses of the faith.

I guarantee you, the reason they preach as they do IS because they love you, not in word only but in deed.

Mike wrote:
Who's "we"?
Your view requires that man has no option but to sin. You cannot state categorically that the unsaved will sin at every point where he is able to do otherwise. Look around you. Do you see only sin among the lost? Does an unsaved man never love his children? Do the evil never give good gifts?
Though it be true that they that are in the flesh cannot please God, it is simply not true that they must therefore, in every case, sin. Why not true? They, by their will, may indeed choose the good, and obviously do. They could not do this if their will was not free to do so, but bound by the chains of irresistible evil which your view makes necessary.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Mike wrote:
The will is free, else it is not the will at all.

How many times do we have to tell you, the will is not a self governing entity, it is governed by either the spirit of man or the flesh of man.

If one is dead spiritually in tresspasses and sin, then that means the will is governed by the flesh.

Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

jago wrote:
A few days ago I asked someone, anyone who knows to list the basic differences between the first three answers.
How does someone who says he is a biblical fundamentalist differ from a calvinist and from an arminian?
1019 people have made the distinction.

Casob wrote:
Okay. Lone wolf. I don't know. Now can we go to step 2.

I asked you a simple question and you change the subject to perseverance of the saints. Stick to the original subject Casob and then we can go on to point number 2.

When were the names written in the book of life?

Casob, "There is no instance when names are added to the book of life, only several instances where names are blotted out."

Question, when were these names written down in the first place? When you made a decision for Jesus or from the foundation of the world as the bible says?

"Now, you say you believe in the "P" in tulip. Do you or not? You do not if your theology is consistent."

Casob wrote:
God never says a man is not saved because he was not elected before the foundation of the world.

Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

According to the above two passages, when are names added to the book of life, when you made a decision for Jesus or from the foundation of te world.

Bernie, every man is held responsible to repent and believe the gospel. This is God's mandate. Where I stand is that these two are brought about as a result of God's working of His grrce in the heart of His elect and will draw them by His effectual power to come to Christ with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Where I differ from the Pelagians and Arminians is that they can come to Christ by their own power, withut the working of God's grace on their hearts.

Mike wrote:
Perhaps, Minnow.
God, being sovereign, may decree what he wills. Glad we agree that much.

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Mike wrote:
Is there a Reformed definition of sovereignty that differs from the common definition? Perhaps that is where the confusion comes from.

"sovereign" - adjective
1a: superlative in quality : excellent

b: of the most exalted kind : supreme sovereign virtue

c: having generalized curative powers a sovereign remedy

d: of an unqualified nature : unmitigated sovereign contempt

e: having undisputed ascendancy : paramount

2a: possessed of supreme power a sovereign ruler

b: unlimited in extent : absolute

c: enjoying autonomy : independent sovereign states

3: relating to, characteristic of, or befitting a sovereign

Mike wrote:
Thanks, Lone Wolf. But I don't have any problem with sovereignty. Why do you think otherwise?

Mike wrote:
Good verses, but what do they have to do with sovereignty?

Casob wrote:
Imagine, calvinsists say they believe God is sovereign

Casob wrote:
5/31/08 7:09 AM
The soul is eternal and self existing without the influence of God.

Casob wrote:
5/31/08 8:34 AM
That soul is not left to itself without the influence of God

Casob wrote:
The soul is eternal and self existing without the influence of God.

And that soul left to itself without the influence of God can somehow draw itself to repent and be converted, born-again without the grace of God.

MurrayA wrote:
Lone Wolf,
Thank you for your contribution.
I had overlooked the use of paroimia (BTW how does one get Greek characters into these posts the way you do? And Hebrew for that matter?) in John 16:29.