The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Calvinism

God says I am utterly corrupt; I too say I am utterly corrupt. That is the accurate assessment of the cross of us. "It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me." Therefore I am not totally deprave that I can't choose God, but rather I am utterly corrupt that I must accept that assessment of me. That is the difference between calvinism and armenianism I believe. One is true, the other is not. One operates under the grace of free-will thereby receiving the grace of God, and the other reduces this God-given free will and grace that flows that accepts God's truths, assessments, righteousness, holiness, redeption, wisdom.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]God says I am utterly corrupt; I too say I am utterly corrupt. That is the accurate assessment of the cross of us. "It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me." Therefore I am not totally deprave that I can't choose God, but rather I am utterly corrupt that I must accept that assessment of me. That is the difference between calvinism and armenianism I believe. One is true, the other is not. One operates under the grace of free-will thereby receiving the grace of God, and the other reduces this God-given free will and grace that flows that accepts God's truths, assessments, righteousness, holiness, redeption, wisdom.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>May I ask, what scriptures do you use to back up your myth of "free will"? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img] I agree that one is true and one is not, but it's not arminianism sir. Where exactly in scripture do you see this "god-given free will"?<br>Do you deny God's absolute sovereingty and freedom, which are surely explicit in scriptures? Do you believe Eph. 2 when he clearly states that man is Dead in sins? Sir the scriptures are clear regarding Total depravity/Total Inability of man.<br><blockquote>Romans 8:6<br>To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it <span style="background-color:yellow;">does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God</span>.<br>John 6:44 <br><span style="background-color:yellow;"> No one can come</span> to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. <br> <br>1 cor 2:14<br>14The natural person <span style="background-color:yellow;">does not accept the things of the Spirit of God</span>, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.<br></blockquote><br><br>There's plenty more on such, but we'll start there.<br>You would do well to read the following articles. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/readit.gif" alt="readit" title="readit[/img]<br>The Myth of Free-Will<br>Free-will A Slave<br><br><blockquote><br>Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, `If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is `Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men...I assert on Scripture authority from my text, that ye will not come unto Christ, that ye might have life. I tell you, I might preach to you for ever, I might borrow the eloquence of Demosthenes or of Cicero, but ye will not come unto Christ. I might beg of you on my knees, with tears in my eyes, and show you the horrors of hell and the joys of heaven, the sufficiency of Christ, and your own lost condition, but you would none of you come unto Christ of yourselves unless the Spirit that rested on Christ should draw you. <span style="background-color:yellow;">It is true of all men in their natural condition that they will not come unto Christ</span>.(Spurgeon, from "Free Will- A Slave")<br></blockquote><br><br>in Christ,<br>Carlos

waronthesaints,<br><br>First all, let me extend a warm to the Discussion Board.

Unless I misunderstood you here, only the regenerated sinner is able to love and live for God by grace. If you speaking of an unregenerate sinner, then it is not "not this, but that", but rather because the unregenerate man is totally depraved he cannot accept the assessment of himself as being totally depraved. The disease prevents the cure, thus (Matt 11:25-27; Jh 3:3, 5, 19, 6:44; 10:26; Rom 3:11; 8:7; et al).

If I have misunderstood you.. my apologies! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

My sense is that the phrase "totally deprave" is a misleading term, for although it is true an unregenerated man has no communion with God, it suggests that an unregenerated can not receive God by the grace of God-given free will, and that to me would be in error because not only was that available in the garden, but so to is it available to those who receive the cross, so there is no total depravity at all, otherwise then free-will would be something lesser than God ordained it to be in the image of God. I cannot accept that for it would lead someone to have a self-exalted stance that says "God chose me, He did not chose you". That is not right to my conscience in Christ, and then a whole theology is based on this erroneous system, which again troubles my heart for it takes the emphasis off of a loving redeeming righteous God and places it onto a God that really never offerred up free-will to come the cross as a helpless sinner and receive the Lord Jesus as Savior. When you really think about it and pray on it, you will find that the emphasis is all wrong under this reforminism and lacks the meekness, lowliness and humility that a child of God receives life from in Christ from through initial salvation to a sanctifying life.<br><br>Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. <br><br>You must accept these statements by your own free-will.

The scripture that I use to substantiate our non-mythical free-will in God's image as preimenent, is Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. <br><br>God affords us this choice to have a choice to choose. I see man's sovereignty and this God-given free will in God's image in Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and in Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. I for one cannot deny this. It would seer my conscience.<br><br>Under Romans 8.6 I see the flesh, that is the sin of the body and the self of the soul, having no means to come to Christ, so it is not the flesh that comes to Christ, but that God's likeness that does of Gen. 1.26 and Gen. 1.27 that when accepting God's life, receives eternal salvation. Similarly, John 6.44, without legalizing this verse, says ultimately still, before that salvation is received God ordains it, not man, therefore we must fulfill the absolute necessary condition that is well pleasing to the Lord before He ultimately gives us His life, and never before for that is His condition for the gracing us. Amen.<br><br>Same is true of 1 Cor. 2.14, that is not man's natural part that receives God, but that part which is like God that receives God, that is a free-will bestowed at creation, that can reject or accept the truth. Rejecting unto eternal damnation and accepting unto eternal life.<br><br>By these words of God, therefore, we can accept God's emphasis, and not a prideful emphasis, and thus we can reject such statements as:<br>"Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free will;", so it is not our natural free will that comes unto Christ, but that will bestowed to us by God that has a God-given right to choose God and receive eternal life by the grace of God fulfilling His requirement, for this is what our Lord and Savior has provided.<br><br>And the ultimate consequence of the calvin edict is this, "It may seem a harsh sentiment".<br><br>Yes. It is harsh. This is not my God. Martin Luther understood it was grace that saves and a free-will that is graceable that is savable by saving grace.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

waronthesaints,



In His Grace,

waronthesaints,<br><br>What an appropriate name! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/evilgrin.gif" alt="evilgrin" title="evilgrin[/img] I'll let Carlos answer your objections as he is more than capable and I'm sure he is looking forward to replying as well. But I can't resist not replying to this statement you concluded with:<blockquote>Martin Luther understood it was grace that saves and a free-will that is graceable that is savable by saving grace.</blockquote>I would agree that we have two different Gods. But it must also be true that we know of two different Martin Luthers as well. For the historic Martin Luther wrote in regard to "free-will"<blockquote>"The very name, Free-will, was odious to all the Fathers. I, for my part, admit that God gave to mankind a free will, but the question is, whether this same freedom be in our power and strength, or no? We may very fitly call it a subverted, perverse, fickle, and wavering will, for it is only God that works in us, and we must suffer and be subject to his pleasure. Even as a potter out of his clay makes a pot or vessel, as he wills, so it is for our free will, to suffer and not to work. It stands not in our strength; for we are not able to do anything that is good in divine matters." - The Table-talk of Martin Luther (CCLIX)</blockquote>In fact he was so adamantly opposed to the humanistic idea of fallen man having a free-will that he wrote one of the most famous books ever written, The Bondage of the Will. You would be wise to find someone other than Martin Luther to name in your misguided defense of the "myth of free-will". [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,<br>

And so this hardness of calvinism then begins to falsely accuse saying "based on emotional element." There is no denying man changed after the fall, but within that change was a spark, a life, that always had that ability to choose God if given the opportunity through the mercy of God to accept His way. This is always preserved in scripture, non-emotionally. That is how God made us in His image, otherwise we are not made in His image if it is not so, but we know that we are according to Genesis. This applies most perfectly to Rom. 5.12-18, Eph. 2.1-5.<br><br>Notice this point I had made still stands at face value on the foolishness of the cross that "God chose me and not you!" through calvinism is wrong which agrees with 1 Cor. 1.25-29, Eph. 2.8,9. Under unconditional election the emphasis again is taken off of the grace of free-will and placed unto a different kind of grace, shown in Eph. 1.4 because "unconditional" is harsh. Indeed, God chose me before the foundation of the world only because He knew I would choose Him (and I did not know this myself until I was saved) not because He chose me not matter what I decided, far from it. That would strike the cord of unsettling strangeness if that were true. Like Rom. 9.6-16 says God is the final decider, not man's choice, for man may say he chooses but it may be a false choosing, so unless that choice is fulfilled under God then God will not give grace, that choice first graced originally to receive or not to receive. Proper cause and effect is seen here in armenianism. This is the difference in the reading of scriptures, one more humble than the other. Same for John 1.12,13, for it is not self-will, nor will of man, nor of the flesh, but those that received Him fulfilling God's plan of mercy and grace originating not in the will itself but in that One who first gave that will in Genesis. A leads to B leads to C, not C leads to A leads to B. C=salvation. B=choice. A=grace. The order is all messed up under calvanism which passifies the spirit and blanks the mind. The former proper reflects mankind and God, while the latter is lefting wanting.<br><br>Let's examine your mistaken assumptions of what I believe - "But for the sake of argument, let's assume that your proposition is true; i.e., that man's salvation is not based upon an eternal decree of God apart from any consideration of anyone in particular and that salvation is not only equally available to all men without discrimination but also within the ability of every man without discrimination according to their own "decision". First, man's salvation is based on the eternal decree of God, and is based on the individual, not as you say, not anyone in particular. Second, it is not a "decision" but a "reception". The later is more authentic because it is a receiving, not a deciding for some don't even decide but nevertheless receive. Some decide, though still never really receive. Do you see the difference? There is nothing to boast in receiving, and even boasting in in Christ is ok, but there is a boasting in deciding, though armeniasts don't boast of deciding but purely Christ himself. Through this assuming nature of yours through calvinism and that harshness of it you then use terminology like "idiocy" emotionally claimed noetically. Obviously spurgeons take is on "decision" and self-will misunderstanding "receiving" His Word, His life. There is humility in the latter, not the former, nor is there humility in saying "God chose me, not you, before the foundation of the World and there is nothing you can do about it" in calvnism suggesting an artificial system afoot that all these things about coming to Christ are just for show.<br><br>One final point, I also notice a tactic of calvinism is always to provide 1001 articles to circumvent and gloss over this basic principle, not realizing that covering something up does not get rid of it, that is God's Word is not coverable. If one has the time God-willing is not wasting, one can identify the error in each calvinistic article or perhaps it is more well pleasing to the Lord to not to even engage things such as this that stir the mind, and weaken the spirit.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

You may not realize it but you are waring on the saints. In taking that quote of Martin Luther in isolation we can easily discern he is talking about a free-will that is masked by a mythical self-will and a non-mythical free-will that is alignment with God's will, so that it is the latter that would choose God truly never the former for the former is under "bondage".<br><br>Even though you may not understand this, let me share it with you, that I have found in my spiritual walk, that in my life in Christ, if I were to have this system set up in me seperate from where my free-will in agreement with God's will was so degraded under calvinism, one-wayness, I would not have a communion with God in relationship building, and would likely walk away in time because I would be constantly told under such a system that it was never my choice to begin with, with little or no give and take balance.<br><br>Perhaps that is the ultimate purpose of calvinism, in time, to dissuade its adherents that through its automaton system dejection soon sets in, because it produces false cause and effect and in so doing must rationalize this error causing the brain to stir inordinately and that is always what the evil spirit wants is to put the soul above the spirit injuring that organ of spirit by which God communicates through initially always from inner to outer not outer brainpower to inner. Soul fulfills a secondary role to the receiving spirit to aid the spirit, that is the primary principle at work here.<br><br>Ultimately the error always of calvinism is not seeing the grace in the garden which came first, and no amount of covering up with 1001 articles will solve this problem through rationalizations because as I stated openingly the flesh is utterly corrupt and the cross's accurate assessment of it is not to alter or change it but to let it completely down out of which can come new life, so let calvinism die completely and then you will receive the new life of armenianism to see for the first time in your life the grace in the garden of eden. Amen.<br><br>Let us fulfill the basic conditions: on the one hand, yield - recognizing that you cannot and you will not; on the other hand believe in the Son of God and live - believe in GOd's fact of Christ living in you and believe that you have received. This is victory. Hallelujuah, all is done in Him! May we ask God to show us that all is done by His Son without our help, especially our created free non-mythical free-will to be under Satan's calvinism or God's armenianism. This, and only this, can be called victory.

waronthesaints,<br><br>First of all the "harshness" which some charge against biblical Calvinism, stems from their own pride and not from anything actually taught! What harshness is to be found in God reaching out and saving an undeserving, rebellious, God-hating, spiritual dead sinner out of His sheer sovereign grace and mercy? None, thank you. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] You have not presented any BIBLICAL arguments thus far, but again we read only of sentimentalism and illogical reasoning. Let me take one item from the many things you wrote:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Same for John 1.12,13, for it is not self-will, nor will of man, nor of the flesh, but those that received Him fulfilling God's plan of mercy and grace originating not in the will itself but in that One who first gave that will in Genesis.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Your interpretation of John 1:12, 13 is without question indefensible. It is a flat contradiction of the text. Let's look at the passage as it is written in context, shall we?<blockquote>John 1:11-13 (ASV) "He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."</blockquote>John is speaking specifically of the Jews - "his own and says that the Jews did not receive Jesus as the Christ who was prophesied, i.e., the Messiah. But there was another group, and we know that some of this other group were Jews, albeit a very small minority, who did receive Him. Now, being faithful to both Greek and English grammatical rules, we must read the next statements as identifiers (modifiers) of these "as many as who received Him . . ." to them it was given the power/ability/authority (Gk: dunamis to become children of God.[/i] Next, we read another qualifier (modifier) "who were born not. . . . but of God." Thus the grammatical rules allow and even demand that we read the text as, "To those who were born of God, to them He gave the power/authority/right to become the children of God." The phrase, "but of God" is causal not resultant. It is BECAUSE they were born of God that they received Christ. The "birth" precedes and is the proximate cause of the receiving. To say otherwise is to commit linguistic suicide and to reject the inspired words of God as the Holy Spirit moved John to write them. We can likewise exegete Eph. 2:1-5 and see that "And you did he make alive, when ye were dead . . .". Dead men don't seek. Dead men don't receive anyone. Dead men don't believe on anyone. Dead men don't hear anyone. Dead men don't speak, breath, etc.... They are DEAD! And until God, by the sovereign working of the Spirit, gives one new birth (make alive), Jh 3:5-8.<br><br>It is indefensible also to assert that man has "two wills"; one of the flesh and one of the imago dei. There is but one will which belongs to man and that will does whatever is most desirable to the person at any given moment. It is one's nature which determines what the will does. Thus, if one is born spiritually dead, then the things of the Spirit are foolishness to him and he cannot know them. In fact, the things of God are odious to the unregenerate man (dead man), says Paul. (Eph 5:17-19)<br><br>Again, in the biblical teaching of free sovereign grace, there is no room for boasting as Paul again says:<blockquote>1 Corinthians 4:7 (KJV) "For who maketh thee to differ [from another]? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive [it], why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received [it]?"</blockquote><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Indeed, God chose me before the foundation of the world only because He knew I would choose Him . . .</font><hr></blockquote><p>And how is it, according to you that God "foresaw" that you would "choose Him" (Hmmm, you have already said that "choosing" is irrelevant and that "receiving" is what is important. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bingo.gif" alt="bingo" title="bingo[/img] )? How is it that God could "see you choosing" when you had no ability to "choose"? Of course, this opens the proverbial can of worms which denies the biblical God. For it classically subverts the three major attributes of God's nature; Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience. The Scripture everywhere speaks of God's [color:red]PRE</font color=red>destination, that is He determined BEFOREHAND. But you would make God one Who [color:red]POST</font color=red>destinates, that is He determines what shall be AFTER He comes to a knowledge of something. Do you begin to see the inescapable pit which this leads into? If God only determines what shall be on the basis of what He comes to know, then it must be that there was knowledge which He was not aware of until He perceived it. Thus, Omniscience is denied. Secondly, if God determined your end on the basis of what He alleged perceived; i.e., your "choosing", then you become the sovereign and God simply reacted on the basis of your act. Well, there goes Omnipotence. And lastly, if God perceived your choosing in eternity, before you were even created, then where did God perceive this alleged "choosing" which would have to be apart from His creation? Strike three..... !! There goes God's Omnipresence. The ugly truth is that your view denies God as He has revealed Himself and contradicts the many clear and marvelous statements of His salvific plan.<blockquote>Isaiah 43:13 (ASV) "Yea, since the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who can hinder it?"<br><br>Isaiah 44:7 (ASV) "And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I established the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and that shall come to pass, let them declare."<br><br>Isaiah 46:9-10 (ASV) "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; [I am] God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not [yet] done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure;"<br><br>Psalms 135:6 (ASV) "Whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that hath he done, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps;"<br><br>Daniel 4:35 (ASV) "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"</blockquote><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]One final point, I also notice a tactic of calvinism is always to provide 1001 articles to circumvent and gloss over this basic principle, not realizing that covering something up does not get rid of it, that is God's Word is not coverable.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Perhaps you are confusing this Forum with some other you are visiting? I seem to recall only 4 or 5 articles/sermons which were given to you for your benefit to read. "1001" is hardly the case. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img] The truth is, that I have given you many BIBLE TEXTS as proof of my position; even exegeting some. You have offered none, although you did mention a pseudo Martin Luther, who never lived on this earth. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>So, why don't you begin with Scripture and just for fun, exegete John 6:44 for us. I would be very interested in reading how you handle the inspired text.<br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>

waronthesaints quoted Luther saying,<br><br><blockquote><font class="big">Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free will;", so it is not our natural free will that comes unto Christ, but that will bestowed to us by God that has a God-given right to choose God and receive eternal life by the grace of God fulfilling His requirement, for this is what our Lord and Savior has provided.</blockquote> </font mu=big>C. H. Spurgeon said:<br><blockquote><font class="big">Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will. And I will go as far as Martin Luther in that strong assertion of his where he says, "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt of Jesus Christ aright." It may seem a harsh sentiment, but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free-will turn to God cannot have been taught of God; for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both, that He is "ALPHA AND OMEGA" in the salvation of His people.</blockquote> </font mu=big>Apparently, waronthesaints you are a little off track for even Spurgeon understood Luther different that you have!<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Even though you may not understand this, let me share it with you, that I have found in my spiritual walk, that in my life in Christ, if I were to have this system set up in me seperate from where my free-will in agreement with God's will was so degraded under calvinism, one-wayness, I would not have a communion with God in relationship building, [color:red]and would likely walk away in time</font color=red> because I would be constantly told under such a system that it was never my choice to begin with, with little or no give and take balance.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Well, since you would [color:red]walk away</font color=red> this reveals who the sovereign of your faith is--yourself and not God. God's elect will never fully and completely walk away. They may wonder and graze in different pastures and the Lord may even have to take them to glory in an expedient matter (which of course He knew before hand), but they will NEVER "fully" wonder or walk away for God is the Sovereign of their salvation and He will not allow such--at least so says the Gospel-John 17.<br><br>Another problem your posts proves, as Pilgrim already pointed out, is your emotional response being held in higher authority than the Scriptures themselves!!! i.e. you would walk away if Calvinism is the truth, which proves you do not understand the Sovereignty of God, but at least your depravity is consistent....What you do not understand is that Calvinism does not say you do not have a will. No where does it say this! What it says is that it is not as free as you would have it to be. Not even God’s will is totally free—God cannot not sin, cannot be unholy, et.al. God's will is always consistent with His nature....<br><br>A person when regenerated by the Holy Spirit CHOSES Christ. Prior to this they are dead and DEAD men cannot chose for they are dead…thus a rebirth MUST transpire prior to any choice for God. The re-birth though is filled with such wonder and amazement, so joyous, and triumphant, so full of mercy and grace, that when one sees God for the first time he will necessarily irresistibly choose Christ. As a baby desires his mother so does the new born babe of the Holy Spirit desire his Father.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Ultimately the error always of calvinism is not seeing the grace in the garden which came first…. </font><hr></blockquote><p> Yes, GRACE did come FIRST and that is the POINT of Calvinism that you just admitted to. Grace came first and then Adam choose!!! Calvinism does not deny this, but rather embraces it. Adam was made alive and then he chose…for before this he was hiding in fear of God and not desiring to approach Him because of his sin (he was even willing to blame God for his own sin--instant depravity--the woman YOU GAVE ME made me do it....)…..God sought Adam out FIRST, not Adam God. Thanks for making the point Carlos, and more importantly the Lord, was urging you to see!

Under John 1.11-13, those that received Him are not Jews of old, but all those who believe. Not because they were born again but because they believed, they were born again, not because they were Jews, because I am not a Jew, yet I believe. Birth does not preceed receiving for one can not be born until first one receives life to have new birth. That is true cause and effect that knows man and God. You can refer to this as "Biblical Psychology" for it accurately represents man and God. Calvinism is something else taking a different cause and effect in an unworkable situation saying nothing is really implementable because nothing is our part in this harmony of of obedience and authority just a one-way system like a person having a conversation with himself in a mental hospital. Thank God the true God is not like this. I wonder if a calvinist can go insane as one of these pretend figures in this insane God?<br><br>Eph. 2.1-5 That special favor is wholly of Christ, not of ourselves. The focus is on Christ, that though we were dead in ourselves, we could be made alive in Christ, not a deadness that could not receive Christ for look at me, I chose Christ out of and inspite of that deadness which all men can do if they hath an ear to hear by God's grace. In misreading this verse you take the deadness to mean that the grace of free will can not receive Christ and that is wrong, confusing the flesh for that which is made in God's image. There is a difference. For we are saved of the Spirit John 3.5-8. All that I have is because of Him, I know that now and I can boast of Him, not of my choosing or receiving Him, but that He allowed me that choice and that reception.<br><br>There is the will of the flesh and a will that is well pleasing to the Lord. Rom. 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not. This necessarily talks of a self-will and a will that is good. A will that is not its own, and a will that can please God if only it could. That idealized will you put down is authentic - a will in Christ the same will that chose Christ is the same will that be in a life that wins in Christ which is totally different than the self-will of the flesh for the sin of body is not the only kind of flesh for there is also the self of the soul, which includes self-will. Eph. 5.15-17 is understanding the will of the Lord and walking in that will with the self-will put to nought by the power of the cross. That which is odious to man and which is included in the dead nature is a self-will, not only in the unregenerated man but also the saved man who lives like a fleshly Christian, with a new life but still allowing his flesh and self-will to get the better of him, still needing to be put to nought on the cross. In 1 Cor. 4.7 let us no boast of that we have of our own, and so by the grace of God, it really is on in Christ Himself we can boast for He gives all. So let us not boast of being said that "God chose me, but not you" for that would be equally as bad priding oneself over others. <br><br>You asked me how did I choose? I choose by the grace bestowed upon me before the foundation of the world to receive or not to receive Him. It is very righteous of God not only to know that I would choose Him but also righteous of Him to allow me to refuse Him in that knowing whether I would choose Him so that there are things God is willing to let be so that that in that freedom, and in His knowing that choice that will be made, He will not touch because it was righteously unrighteous for Him to touch that which was made in His image. This leads to softness, lowliness and meekness, not the hardness of calvinisms mentalizing. God did not come to know anything because God knew already that I would choose Him, but remember, it was not because He preselected me, but rather it was because He knew I would choose Him, not because He forced my hand of calvinism, but he let my hand freely decide of armenianism. This is true omniscience. He already perceived this before the foundation of the world, that is why He can say He chose me, because He knew my choice before even I did. What a great God is this. I only found out when I made the choice. But He knew it before the foundation of the world. You must be willing to allow this omnipotent act of God's doing His freedom to operate this way and not be a control-freak over Him, for is that not what calvinism is doing really, trying to control God? None of this is apart from creation as you mistakenly assume but is exactly a part of His creation, and that is God's omnipresense over this whole affair. In your tone you will notice an overassuming nature about many things and that stems directly from calvinism to protect itself mentalizing position, lifeless in the spirit to touch others with God's life. This agrees with Isaiah 43.13, Isaiah 44.7, Isaiah 46.9-10, Psalms 135.6, Daniel 4.35, though many love to falsely use scripture to falsely accuse we should reject such approaches of calvinism, a sign something is not right. None of these verses help defend the position of calvinism rejecting God's grace bestowed upon's free-will that a righteous God would not manipulate under such a system. <br><br>Pseudo Martin was not one who denied the grace of God bestowing man a free-will before the foundation of the world, nor denying the grace of God unto all things. Do you see the difference in this statement, that the real pseudo Martin is the one who says not this?<br><br>Do you see how the very same verses that you use to falsely accuse actually accuse you of falsely accussing? <br><br>You asked for an interpretation of John 6.44 - I would be happy to. The Father draws those to Him because they are drawable, meaning, they in their free-will are receivable because God whom created them, created them with a free-will, that in such free-will was drawn to God and the Father therefore drew them. Do you see how that works? It is quite wonderful. Notice under calvinism one becomes an automaton, freeless, using this to pride themselves over others saying "look at me, God drew me, but He did not draw you". You just don't get that under armenianism because of the humility in which one came to Christ and in reading this properly as was intended placing God's focus and emphasis on our freedom to be drawn, not on our lack of freedom. One is loving, soft and sensitive, the other is cold, hard, and insensitive God. I prefer the first God, not the second for that is what the Holy Spirit is teaching me, quickening and building up my spirit in truth.<br><br>[b]The simple thing about a saved man is he can say to himself, "I am saved because I came to Christ and God received me", but a calvinist can't say this, for a calvinist must always say "I did not choose God, God choose me, I was just a pawn". One is freedom, the other is zombiism.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

Again notice, that Spurgeon is conveying the idea of the renewed will verses self-will. A simple matter that should not be turned into calvinism, and then used to falsely accuse. That is why you misquoted me, for I did not say I would walk away, though I would if I was calvinist, as I know some who have because of the one-wayness of this systmem, a natural consequence, unfortunate. You do not realize how free man's free-will is and that is why there is a heaven and hell, inspite of your words "not as free as you would have it to be". This is to me the difference of calvinism and armenianism, where calvinism of course is always trying to be a control-freak and make man a zombie. I don't like. Calvinism does not deny man has a will, but it describes it as a fake free-will of very little signficance even though one the most important stories in the Bible is the Garden of Eden showing where the true emphasis lies, not on automatons. It is all quite unbalanced, showing something is wrong in the heart of the calvin man. Since the narrow gate is entered from a narrow path, that would explain lots.<br><br>As you know the cause of and effect is all messed up under calvinism from not your view, since a dead man means not the same thing as it does to you. Dead meaning nothing of oneself can receive the truth but only that which is of God and that is a spark of truth which yet remains from the grace of God-given free-will before the foundation of the world and shown available to be exercised in the Garden and throughout the centuries in men with a will under God or under Satan that man having that will originally righteously untouchablly unmanipulated and unimpeded. That is the difference between Satan and God. Satan attempts to manipulate it, like calvinism, but God never does. Some men therefore are never saved because of resistible grace. Do not believe irresistible grace for again that makes you an automaton, and always the purposes of Satan is to automatize men make them believe some untruth to turn them into automatons, that I pray in time by the grace of God you will be able to see.<br><br>Of course, God sought out man first but man resistably refuses grace non-automatonically, though not all men, but under calvinism, it is different, where some are handpicked coldly like a domino system where some remain and some fall, for do you not see how dead a thing is of this calvinism. God says it is not a domino system but a system where He knows which will stand and which will fall; nothing of Himself will He infringe unrighteously like calvinism, but He lets them in freedom choose to receive Him and He graces them fully of Himself. This is a loving God, a non-partial God whom knows the corruptible flesh of men, their conditional election, universal atonement for all men equally (not partiality system of calvinism which is prideful), and human ability graciously bestowed in that which in the image of God that same free-will where God's will is perfect making God God, but man with the same free-will obviously is not God because man let it slide.<br><br>CONCLUSION: calvinism denies of the grace of free-will and places its emphasis instead on the grace of recovery from total depravity but there is no such thing as total depravity for man still is made in the image of God no matter how much it sins. Amen. Though I have not said it yet, my conclusion is that less than 5% of calvins are saved because of this messed up cause and effect relationship that produces a pride, though they obviously cannot see it, in being the stick men that stand up preselected and premanipulated and predetermined, which of course I find quite sick and demented like a cult. I am convinced they are fallen and still have not received new life though Satan loves to get men to believe they are saved when they are not. That is what GWT is for so these men can see their true hearts they have veiled over by 1001 articles.<br><br>The proper order is GRACE --------> CHOICE (RECEIVING) -----> SALVATION (God of truth of the Bible of Armenianism)<br><br>NOT<br><br> SALVATION --------> GRACE ------------------------> CHOICE (false god of untruth of calvinism).<br><br><br>The latter stimulates the soul, the former builds the spirit. The latter kills free-will, the former allows free-choice. The latter is emotional, the former is exactly how God desires man to be, spirit, soul and body and in that proper order, 1 Thes. 5.23, Heb. 4.12<br><br><br>Thankyou Jesus!!<br><br>The truth shall set you free. <br><br><br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Again notice, that Spurgeon is conveying the idea of the renewed will verses self-will.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Again, you greatly err. Please read more of Spurgeon. You can begin here: God's Will and Man's Will<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]This is to me the difference of calvinism and [color:red]armenianism</font color=red>, where calvinism of course is always trying to be a control-freak and make man a zombie.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Yes, you would like to control God for this is where your theology naturally leads. You say I WILL be saved and thus say a “magical prayer” and expect God to jump out of a magic lantern and save souls as invoked by your words or the words of another. But, the last time I read the Bible it still says God is in full control and not man thus He is not a genie, He will not be summoned by your will against His own and if you are not elect, it is against His will.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Dead meaning nothing of oneself can receive the truth but only that which is of God and that is a spark of truth which yet remains from the grace of God-given free-will before the foundation of the world and shown exercised in the Garden and throughout the centuries in men with a will under God or under Satan that man having that will originally righteously untouchablly unmanipulated and unimpeded. </font><hr></blockquote><p> Well the Greek word for [color:blue]dead</font color=blue> in Eph 2:1 is [color:blue]nekros</font color=blue> meaning [color:blue]dead</font color=blue> or [color:blue]without life</font color=blue> (Kittle, it is also used in other verses of man’s state: Matt. 8:22; John 5:25; Eph. 2:5; 5:14; Phil. 3:11; Col. 2:13; cf. Luke 15:24). If there would have been a “spark” as you say Paul could have used another term such as [color:blue]hemithanes</font color=blue> meaning “half-dead” (used in Luke 10:30). Apparently, Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit chose the term that best fit the state—that of being DEAD, without life, to God. Thus, your argument is against Scripture not me or other Calvinists? You wrestle with the Scripture (2 Pet 3:16). [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/heavy.gif" alt="heavy" title="heavy[/img]<br><br>And to prove you are a "god" unto yourself you are so bold to say:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Though I have not said it yet, [color:red]my conclusion is that less than 5% of calvins are saved</font color=red> because of this messed up cause and effect relationship that produces a pride, though they obviously cannot see it, in being the stick men that stand up preselected and premanipulated and predetermined, which of course I find quite sick and demented like a cult. </font><hr></blockquote><p> Indeed, my conclusion is less than 5% of Arminians can spell [color:red]armenianism</font color=red>, though they claim to embrace it? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img] Of course, your statement does make me wonder why you embrace gnosticism (a measure of Arminian knowledge/doctrine) vs. grace alone for salvation.

So waronthesaints tell me if you will what desire of yours made you come to Reformed Discussion board? Is it in an attempt to enlighten us poor Calvinists? And if you (free) will what church do you belong to? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/ponder.gif" alt="ponder" title="ponder[/img]