Man's responsibility.

[makesends]

So if it is based on NOTHING, then it's "Arbitrary".

As has been shown you repeatedly, it is not based on nothing.

In the "Jacob and Esau" case ire you seriously proposing that Jacob was chosen instead of Esau for absolutely no reason or consideration of either one's nature/character??

Yes, Jacob was chosen for God's particular use of him —not by any consideration of his nature/character. No Jacob was not chosen for no reason.

SO "election" isn't and never was "unconditional" (it's nothing but "Theology" after all).

I agree.

If it's nothing but theology, after all, then you know why they call it by the name they do. But troll on.

 

[makesends]

I will be praying for you; because the Holy Spirit will be testifying to you that what I have been preaching is true.

I think you need to come down off your high and holy hill. Do you suppose yourself an apostle? None of us get everything right. And you certainly don't.

 

[Arial]

Actually, this is the answer.

Act 16:29, Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31, And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

That is your answer to whatever you are using it to answer but it is not the answer to the subject which is unconditional election being called arbitrary and those who expect the Calvinist to answer a question, that being what is God's reason, if it is not arbitrary and if it is not based on any merit in the one He chooses; and then stating as if it were brilliant logic, that if they cannot say what was in God's mind and was not revealed, then He did not have a reason and so His choosing would be arbitrary. It is dumb reasoning, not brilliant logic.

 

[Arial]

These scriptures tell a different story in that they speak of the assurance of salvation which basic Calvinism fails to provide.

Since anyone who thinks that they believe may have never been saved in the first place.

That is not in Calvinism, it is in your beliefs. It doesn't even make any sense. The Calvinist has assurance of their salvation because they know it is Christ whom they are trusting and they believe HIm when He says He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and He is the only way to the Father. The choice they made does not even enter into the equation with the Calvinist. There is only One in the equation and that is Christ. HIs person and His work. They believe Jesus SAVED them. Period. Even when they have moments of doubt, or their faith falters, or they sin, even when they are faithless He remains faithful. HE saved them. HE is faithful. Nothing can separate those He saves from Him. Nothing.

 

[Arial]

How do you know that you were given to Him; and not merely drawn to Him?

For one thing I know that He says those who are drawn to Him are those who are given to Him. John 6. So that ends that argument. And if I wasn't given to Him I wouldn't believe Him.

Do you have any internal witness that you are saved or are you just basing that on you chose (what? it is unclear what it is you chose other than you chose to not go to hell.)?

 

[justbyfaith]

That is incorrect. Every Calvinist will tell you that man has a choice in the matter, and that he always and only chooses sin, for which he is responsible—which is why he is facing condemnation!

So, his condemnation is based in merit (or the lack thereof).

 

[Arial]

As I showed above, your believing does not guarantee you to be of the elect.

You have not shown me that at all. It is impossible for you to have done so because it would be anti-biblical.

 

[justbyfaith]

That is incorrect. God's unconditional decision is whom to elect. That is not a decision we make. Man's decision is whether or not to believe in Christ. That is not a decision God makes.

In order for that to be true, man must be able to make a decision.

If he cannot make a decision for Christ, then he has no choice but to reject Christ (because that is the only decision that he can make).

Therefore, God is ultimately responsible for his decision to reject Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

That is incorrect. Even those who are not drawn have a choice in the matter of being saved—and they choose to note believe.

No...those who ate not being drawn are not being faced with a decision to either receive or reject Christ...and therefore there is no decision that is set before them.

 

[justbyfaith]

That is incorrect. Every man without distinction is drawn, not every man without exception.

That is correct. And our choice is made on the basis of sound exegesis involving the whole counsel of God in scripture, which is why we are so at peace with it.

I disagree with you here.

Every man without exception is drawn.

Your choice in the matter of what you believe about John 12:32 will result in your rejecting man's responsibility and accepting God's culpability in the condemnation of the sinner.

 

[justbyfaith]

That is incorrect. The reprobate are responsible for the decisions they make.

Not if they don't have a choice in the matter (if their non-elect status is predetermined rather than foreknown by the Lord).

 

[Arial]

But there is no guarantee that you will endure unto the end...because there are many who have said what you are saying who haven't endured unto the end. Therefore, they were never saved in the first place? How do you know that you were saved in the first place? Because you haven't yet endured unto the end.

There is a guarantee that I will endure to the end. John 10:27-29; Eph 1:13-14; Col 2:8-15; Romans 8:1-5,31-39.

How do you know there are many who have said what I am saying (what is that? Needs to be specified.) who haven't endure unto the end?

 

[justbyfaith]

I hate to break this to you but I suspect you believe the same thing. Does God know who will reject him their entire life and create them anyway? Why would he do that, unless he is some sort of cosmic sadist?

Before the person is created, he can make no decisions.

Before God can know whether someone will receive or reject Him, they have to be a concept in His mind at the very least.

Once they are a concept in His mind, He cannot help but create them because He is love and He wants them to have a chance at life.

God is not a sadist for giving mankind a choice in the matter of whether he will receive or reject Christ;

But He would be a cosmic sadist if He created them without the ability to make a choice in that matter, only giving them the option to reject Him; and then holding them responsible for the decision that they make, even though the decision that they make is based entirely on His decision before time to make them of the non-elect.

 

[Arial]

I will say that soil types #2 and #3 in the parable of the sower are living plants...for all practical purposes, saved. They are forgiven, they receive remission of sins.

Luk 8:13, They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

Act 10:43, To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

It is not the plant that is the focus of this parable but the soil. Their believing never got past their head and into their heart. No depth. They believe the words but they did not know the Person. Their sins were not forgiven for it is Jesus who saves through union with Him.

Only soil type #4 is of the elect.

Correct. And the seed was put in the soil, it did not make the soil. And it did not plant itself.

 

[justbyfaith]

My confidence is not in my election, my confidence is in Christ Jesus.

There is a clear and crucial distinction between the security and assurance of one's salvation. The former is an objective fact grounded in the work of Christ applied by the Spirit, while the latter is a subjective experience grounded in the word of Christ affected by the Spirit.

The doctrine that teaches the eternal security of our salvation finds its basis in the love and grace of God who reconciled believers with himself for his own glory through the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ and for his sake. This great salvation is all of grace; it does not depend on anything we say or do but wholly upon the sinless Son of God. As such, it cannot be placed in jeopardy by anything we say or do. Any teaching that claims a person can lose his salvation ends up making salvation conditional on human merit, attributing in part to man what wholly belongs only to Christ. If salvation is not secured by any merit of ours, then neither is it jeopardized by any demerit of ours. Salvation belongs to the Lord (Jonah 2:9; Ps. 3:8; 68:20; Acts 4:12; Rev. 7:10).

Moreover, the security of our salvation is not a matter of our possessing assurance thereof. In other words, our salvation rests upon the perfect and finished work of the Son of God, not what our transient feelings happen to be telling us at any given moment. What is happening in such cases is that we are looking at ourselves in search of assurance, when the proper ground of assurance should be the same as that of security: Jesus Christ. Peter confidently walked on water so long as he remained focused on Christ; but when he took his eyes off Christ and looked to himself, that is when he doubted and sank below the waves.

The work of Christ grounds our security and the word of Christ grounds our assurance (the word of Christ being the gospel of God's promises). We do not look to our faith for assurance of our salvation but to Christ alone, for Benjamin Warfield was right when he observed: It is not faith in Christ that saves, but Christ who saves through faith. When your faith is at its weakest, Christ remains the sure and solid Rock of your salvation. Rest in him, and him alone.

Nevertheless, if you don't persevere to the end, you were never saved in the first place...

And therefore, how can anyone know that they are saved until they have reached the end of their llves and have persevered to the end?

And of course, by your definitions, I am speaking of assurance rather than security.

The true gospel brings assurance (1 Thessalonians 1:5 (kjv); Calvinism does not.

I get that sinners are responsible for their wicked decisions, but do you believe the redeemed are ultimately responsible for their salvation (since they chose Christ)?

Since they could not be saved apart from the blood of Christ being shed for them, Christ is ultimately responsible for their salvation; while (I will say that) their choice in the matter of receiving or rejecting Christ is a factor in whether or not they will be saved.

 

[Arial]

Believing is a choice that we make.

Keep trusting in that or turn and trust in Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

Kina curious as to just where the bible teaches this.

It is the basic teaching of the whole of scripture.

For starters, see Romans 4:1-8, Romans 11:5-6, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7, Galatians 2:16.

 

[justbyfaith]

Choosing to believe is not actually believing. One does not believe what they choose to believe unless they already do believe it. A person cannot simply say they choose a belief and count it as being equal to the same thing as truly believing it. We are talking about being saved by grace through faith in Christ. You have salvation coming from, not grace, and not faith in Christ, but by choosing to be saved. Not grace. Not faith. But simply choosing salvation.

Now dissect those sentences and tell me what they mean.

Much of what you believe the Bible means is not sound according to the whole counsel of God, and when you are shown this, you ignore it, repeat your misinterpretation and the contradictions in scripture they have been shown to produce, as though you have no true interest in finding out what God means in His word, but are quite satisfied with what you say He means.

I can choose to believe by exposing myself to God's word on a regular basis.

If I do that, the sure outcome of that is that I will believe (Romans 10:17).

But even with that, I find that there are things in the Bible that will allow someone who does not want to believe, to not believe.

Since believing has to do with surrendering to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and receiving Him as the Saviour from sin, choice is a factor in the matter of whether or not someone chooses to believe.

If someone does not want to submit to the Lordship of Christ or be delivered from their sins (which are pleasurable for a season), they may choose not to believe for that they want to keep their sins;

Even if the evidence for Christ is overwhelming.

In such a case, God will honour their heart's desire and will harden their hearts so that they can continue to reject Christ as is the inclination of their hearts (as was the case with Pharaoh).

 

[justbyfaith]

I will point out that you are the one who says salvation is an offer by God that one either accepts or rejects. I am the one (and not the only one) who says salvation is not an offer, but a done deal for the elect. It is God who elects and God who gives them to Christ, and God who gives them the faith necessary. That is as far from universalism as one can get. What you present Rom 5:18 as meaning is Universalism that then not rightly handling of the word of God and producing contradictions in it, says it is not universalism because of this and that. And the this and that are picked up from isolated scriptures and even portions of sentences. Your own doctrines are contradictory to themselves.

I know from past experience with you that you interpret Romans 5 as meaning that the cross took care of the imputed sin of Adam for all men without exception and that in essence we all start with a clean slate. That there is no imputed sin of Adam since the crucifixion. But you have nothing from the Bible to support this but your own theories superimposed onto the Bible from that one verse, taking none of the rest of the Bible into consideration.

In other words, you don't have an answer for what I said about Romans 5:18.

 

[justbyfaith]

The self-determinist keeps claiming that God is not particular —er, not partial— as though this proves that God doesn't choose anyone in particular until that person sets himself apart from the rest in choosing God. That notion is self-contradictory. Yet they want to claim that Calvinism is contradicting themselves to say that the elect are chosen 'unconditionally'. Once again, God does not choose on the basis of any person's worth or work or any other condition found in that person. He 'chooses' on the basis of HIS purposes for the person.

God is the cause of the particularities of individuals. THEY are not the cause of that. What you are is what God made you. YOU did not do this.

Is it not true that in Calvinism the sinner is condemned for his sin?

This is condemnation by merit (or the lack thereof).