I must've missed it. Or mayber I need to enter the F_anciful L_and of the C_alvinist to be able to see them. Would you mind (stop giving me the itchy twitchy dance) and answer the following questions respectively like I have done with yours?
OK here it is. Now remember... chapter and verse. (1)If Jesus wanted to teach unconditional election, then why did he choose to state "I will draw all men" instead of "I will draw all the elect."
(2)If the unsaved are not able to resist the Holy Ghost, how is it that the children of God who are sealed with Him and have more spiritual advantages are able to resist him?
(3)Would not the Calvinist doctrine of predeterminination make God the cause of all evil?
(4) Can a sovereign God create man with free agency?
(5) If God is sovereign does he have the right to integrate human responsibility into his soteriological purposes?
(6) If prayer is asking, why do you ask for something of God if he has predetermined all things and nothing will change that?
(7) Does Christ force people to be saved or does he give them a choice?
Unfortunately, I would not ignore without Allen (another Calvinist friend of yours) wimpering to SA for making too many consecutive posts.
The only comment I can state concering the FEW scriptures quoted is that NONE state what you purport. THe best you have done is make Calvinistic inferences from out of context versus. Wishful thinking at best. Now if you really want to impress me, try providing a Scripture that makes a direct declarative statement to any of the points mentioned.
I, yes I, the Weapon of Mass Instruction; the Calvinistic Plague infecting theological elitism with the devastating truth; I was able to give simple declaratives statements from Scripture to support my points. Unfortunately, you want to play revisionist and insist that it should state something else.
"Did Christ come to seek and to save sinners (Luke 19:10), or to save those that seek Him?"
Now are you going to return the favor and answer my questions or are you the usual Calvinists that has all the questions but none of the answers?
I reffer you to my previous post. You may have missed it.
(6) Now this is your most ridiculous statement. Firstly, it is quite a ridiculous assertion to assume that God will answer Jeremiah's prayer and not everyone else. Secondly, it is quite ridiculoue to state that the promise pertains to Jeremiah but the curses do not. Your hermeneutic is taking you to Lurker's league. Apparently you find it hard to differentiate between God talking TO Jeremiah and God talking THROUGH Jeremiah.
(7) Nice strawman.
Honestly, I think you are making it up as you go. You reject simple declarative statements for wild irresponsible assertions.
Well, I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Well, I, out of the pure generous goodness of my heart answered all your questions with a chapter and verse. On top of that I was able to do it in one post. Now I wonder if you are able and willing to do likewise.
Well Street preacher it seems that you have a problem with what the Scripture STATES vs. what YOU would like it to mean.
(1) The Scriptures state "all men." If you think this is an erroneous translation you are going to have to take it up with them. Personally I trust them and considering the context and grammatical structure of the sentence, your position does not stand a chance.
(2) The Scriptures states "ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." Are you now going to state that it Holy Ghost should be substituted for Stephen?
(3) Well this one, you are going to have to take up with God. If you do not want to accept simple declarative statements you might as well hang up Christianity and become an atheist.
(4) I have yet to find a Calvinist who sincerely cares about context but if you want to go there I am more than happy to go with you.
Well there are IFB's that believe in Lordship Salvation.
I personally do not. At least not as it is commonly defined. But I think that easy believism is better attributed to neoevangecalism, rather than fundamentalism. Fundamentalist are generally hard against sin, whereas the neoevangelicals stay clear away from such preaching. We just happen to believe that their is not a sin to great that God will not forgive.
I do believe that you should take my advice more seriously. Your pastor is God's gift to you for such purposes. And his primary duty is to watch for your soul. If he does not give you the answer that you need, then I would do as you said and leave it up to the Lord. But to deny him the God-ordained priviledged simply because you fear what he may think is placing yourself in a vulnerable position. God works through the Pastor and if you sincerely desire the Holy Spirit to lead you then you should submit to the avenues which He has provided. It would be like your son or daughter denying you the priviledge of providing the much needed guidance.
"1)Very simply because in John 12:32 Jesus states the extent of his drawing: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL MEN unto me."
2)Yes. Acts 7:51 demonstrates a whole bunch of people resisting the Holy Spirit.
3) No. Because it is God's word that dictates the conditions of salvation. If the conditions originated with God, I see no reason why you should think that man is the cause simply because God allows for human responsibility. (John 3:16)
4) Yes. For it is He that sets the standard, not man. He provides the options, we simply choose. He sovereignty is seen that he wills all to come into repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
5)He works all things after the counsel of his will. You need no verse since I agree with you on this one.
6)God cannot change but he can be moved to act on the behalf of the sinner. "Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not." (Jeremiah 33:3)
7) No. I am not sure why you would think a consent is needed when he clearly COMMANDS it. (John 3:7)
"Surely you arenâ€™t suggesting disobedience to the great commission? Selective obedience? The error the free willers embrace is; you think if everyone preached to doesn't get saved the messenger has failed God so you corrupt the Truth to fill church pews and offering plates. God said:"
Actually she is exposing your theology as the big jumbled up knot of self contradiction that it is.
That God would command you to preach to those who have been created for the sole purpose to burn in hell.
Now I seriously doubt that Paul was giving thanks to God because of this.
Out of all due respect to DB, I think it would be more accurate for him to label himself as seeking believer. For a dicerning believer would not keep going back and forth between extremes.
It seems to me that he does not have a solid pastor with a solid church that he attends. Maybe we should pray that the Lord will lead him to one.
Sadly, (off the subject), we have too many church leaders who act more like corporate managers then loving pastors. When I think about the people it makes me sad. When I think of the spiritual leaders, it inflames me with zealous fury.
Oh yes, I forgot, according to Calvinism God is not allowed to dictate in the Scripture his mode and means of saving sinners. He needs the Calvinists to help him out and (re)explain what God really meant to say. The dictionary and basic grammatical rules of language (that God created) are not good enough. Only those from the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist are true.
"We are to worship him in truth. That would apply to doctrinal truth. There is no guarantee that the modern hymns are 100% doctrinally accurate, the Psalms are."
I guess it would only make sense to forget about preaching altogether. For the only preaching that we can be sure to be true is the Bible. According to DB we should go to church sing a song, read a passage of Scripture, go home. When ever we instruct our children in anything we should simply dictate the Bible. Anything else is not truth.
Gerard is one of many examples of one who does not believe in God because he cannot believe, but rather because he WILL not believe.
His latest post though similar to his previous posts, tops them all.
"You're confusion of the words species, subspecies and kinds is misleading..."
Well, blame your fellow evolutionists, they are the ones who articulated the words. Apparently they are the ones that are misleading you since they are the ones who make the distinction.
The devastating truth is that s cat will always produce a cat; no fish, no dog, no half-way-in-betweener, nothing. Its always a cat. It has never happened in the past, it's not happening in the present, it will never happen in the future.
Get over it. Jesus is Lord. He loved you enough to die on the cruel cross for you. You can either embrace his love or be destined for hell.