Monday, October 12, 2009

Love for all, damnation for all

DAN N SAID:

“False dilemma. God is succeeds in loving everyone, and succeeds in saving those who He intends to save (i.e. believers).”

Well, if you’re going to dichotomize God’s redemptive love from his redemptive intent, then Arminianism is consistent with the following outcome:

God loves everyone without exception and damns everyone without exception. God loves absolutely everyone and fully intends to save absolutely no one. God successfully loves every single sinner while he successfully intends to save no one at all.

Suppose a lifeguard says he loves every drowning swimmer, but only rescues those with blond hair and blue eyes. Yet he’s just at successful at loving each and every drowning victim whom he never intends to rescue. For his intention to let them drown should never cast suspicion on the universality of his love.

Once again, we see how much more loving the Arminian gospel is than the Reformed gospel.

38 comments:

  1. Your anaolgy is not accurate. God's love is shown in that he sucessfully provides a way for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan N said...

    "Your anaolgy is not accurate. God's love is shown in that he sucessfully provides a way for everyone."

    A lifeguard successfully shows his 100% love for every drowning swimmer, not by jumping in to actually rescue a single swimmer, but by throwing each swimmer a lifeline and thereby leaving it up to each swimmer to sink or swim–depending on whether or not the swimmer chooses to grasp the lifeline.

    The lifeguard successfully shows his 100% love for suicidal men, women, and children who jump off bridges by throwing them a lifeline which–being suicidal–they successfully disregard. His successful 100% love for suicidal swimmers is fully consistent with their 100% success rate at drowning in his loving presence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is why anologies are not always useful. If the "suicidalness" is meant to represent total depravity than, in that case the one saving would have enabled them to not be suicidal.

    I suppose the Calvinist anology would be God throws 100 people off a cliff and then rescues 1 of them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DAN N SAID:

    "This is why anologies are not always useful. If the 'suicidalness' is meant to represent total depravity."

    i) Actually, it's not. And it requires no such signification. The point of the illustration lies in the attitude of the lifeguard, not the swimmer. What should a lifeguard do in the face of a suicidal swimmer?

    ii) I also notice that you seem to be in a great hurry to deflect the issue onto Calvinism rather than showing how Arminianism can address the issue on its own terms.

    ReplyDelete
  5. God is not a lifeguard dealing with suicidal swimmers. He is God, who is dealing with those who have (freely) sinned against Him. Sinners deserve punishment because of what we have done. Is it not loving for God to provide a way. What exactly is the "issue" I must resolve?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan N,

    that's an interesting slight of words there:::>

    "....He is God, who is dealing with those who have (freely) sinned against Him....".

    That's not what the Bible teaches.

    Here's what the Bible teaches:::>

    Rom 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

    That verse establishes that Adam with his free will removed any opportunity for you to exercise yours.

    You and I and every soul that comes from a woman will die. There is no choice given to anyone of us.

    Well, none of us lives for himself and none of us dies for himself. Life and death are things beyond our control.

    Why, if I am going to go, I would will that it was this way:::>

    Gen 5:24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.

    There are other ways people have gone. Some went down and another went up and they were all "alive" when they did:::>

    Num 16:31 And as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split apart.
    Num 16:32 And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods.
    Num 16:33 So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

    and:::>

    2Ki 2:11 And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "That verse establishes that Adam with his free will removed any opportunity for you to exercise yours."

    I respectfully disagree

    "Well, none of us lives for himself and none of us dies for himself. Life and death are things beyond our control."

    What has this got to do with anything? No Arminian claims there aren't things that are beyond our control.

    "There are other ways people have gone. Some went down and another went up and they were all "alive" when they did"

    What has this got to do with the price of fish?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan N

    thanks for the respect.

    Your question is centered in your own control of the outcome, that is, you are asserting that you have some part to play in the outcome of your own will and intent. You do not.

    You emphasized (freely) sinned.

    I simply point out that that is not correct and really, if you have a problem with it, take it up with Our Creator, as He has made all the conclusions needed for Salvation of His Elect, but apparently, you need something more than God? Hmmmmm?

    I am sure you can explain sin.

    What I believe you will fail to explain is death, especially if you are adamant about LFW.

    Adam took your free will away. You are now facing death square in the face head on! There is no freedom here to freely sin!! Really, you can go ahead and freely sin. Sin does produce death, but not the death I am speaking about. You are going to die because of another's sin, plain and simple. If you never sinned once, ever, you will still suffer death. That's a fact.

    The several verses I cited are like a ticking time bomb about to explode LFW.

    The easiest thing for God to have done was kill Adam and Eve and start over.

    But that then would have conflicted with His Eternal purpose for why the Elect come into the world:::>

    Heb 2:11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers,
    Heb 2:12 saying, "I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise."
    Heb 2:13 And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Behold, I and the children God has given me."
    Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
    Heb 2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
    Heb 2:16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.

    What the doctrine does is make God out to be the bad guy when in fact He is Holy, Just, Right and True!

    I will put over some wisdom here, if you can receive it after hearing it. One of the Ministers of my organization said the other day that he always likes asserting that he is 100% right in all his arguments.

    He then asked "why"?

    His answer, because he knows that his righteous assertion is not the last word, Christ's is.

    ReplyDelete
  9. DAN N SAID:

    “I suppose the Calvinist anology would be God throws 100 people off a cliff and then rescues 1 of them.”

    i) In Calvinism, God is not the only agent. Try again.

    ii) I suppose the Arminian analogy would be God creates a possible world in which he foresees 100 people jumping off a cliff and then offers to rescue them–pending their acceptance–even though there’s another possible world in which they don’t jump off a cliff in the first place, an alternate scenario which God could have created instead of the suicidal scenario. (If they have the freedom to do otherwise, then there’s a possible world in which they do otherwise.)

    “Sinners deserve punishment because of what we have done.”

    In which case you should have no problem with reprobation.

    “Is it not loving for God to provide a way.”

    An ineffectual way is token love.

    ReplyDelete
  10. natamllc,

    I'm not sure you really understand what LFW entails. LFW doesn't mean we are always free to choose anything. It means there are some choices where we are free to chose. I never implied we could escape death.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve said...
    "In which case you should have no problem with reprobation."

    The problem there is if election is unconditional, so is reprobation. Sin plays no part.

    ReplyDelete
  12. DAN N SAID:

    "The problem there is if election is unconditional, so is reprobation. Sin plays no part."

    That's a fallacious inference. Try to produce an actual argument for your conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rebrobation takes place before sin right?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan N,

    then how can you say you freely sinned?

    Are you saying you don't have a choice now?

    I am assuming you are backing LFW?

    If you are not, accept my apologies?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "then how can you say you freely sinned?"
    Why not?

    "Are you saying you don't have a choice now?"
    A choice for what? Sin? Death?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, Dan N,

    I never implied you implied you escape death.

    "....I never implied we could escape death...".

    Only a person without a mind would believe such a thing as that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. DAN N SAID:

    "Rebrobation takes place before sin right?"

    By that logic, you can't even subscribe to conditional election or corporate election, since that takes place before the faithful exercise faith. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan N.

    freely sin, why not? Ah, God still punishes it would be a good enough reason why not.

    But, aren't you implying that you have a choice why not?

    -------------------

    Choice? Yes. Sin!

    And then there is that pesky sin unto death, too.

    How do you understand that sin, if I might venture into your reasonings?

    And let me ask you, "would you say of Jesus that He believed in LFW?"

    ReplyDelete
  19. "By that logic, you can't even subscribe to conditional election or corporate election, since that takes place before the faithful exercise faith. Try again.:

    Wrong. Something based of foreknowldege is completely differnet to that based off determinism. The former can be conditional, the latter cannot.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "freely sin, why not? Ah, God still punishes it would be a good enough reason why not."

    Why would God punishing our freely committed sin be a reason not to have LFW?

    Where are you going with this?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan N.

    Hmmmm? I am not really sure where we are going with this whole thing.

    You started it.

    Maybe I could back up the tape and address the suicidal guy who can't swim then?

    You responded to Steve thus:

    "....God is not a lifeguard dealing with suicidal swimmers. He is God, who is dealing with those who have (freely) sinned against Him. Sinners deserve punishment because of what we have done....".

    Ok, let's deal with two suicides recorded in Scripture.

    Saul's and Judas'.

    Saul went to heaven after he fell on his sword and presumably his armor bearer as well? I guess one could argue the point about the armor bearer, but not King Saul.

    Judas went and hung himself.

    Maybe some would argue he is in Heaven as well?

    I guess based on your reasonings then, King Saul believes in LFW and Judas does not?

    I believe God determined the outcome of both and, I know this is not pretty for you, I disregard the LFW doctrine.

    Do you believe Jesus held to that doctrine, LFW?? Or is that an unfair question to ask you?

    ReplyDelete
  22. natamllc,

    you are not making much sense to me. What has suicide got to do with anything?

    I don't care to speculate on whether Saul or Judas believed in LFW. Either way, God certainly foreknew they would commit suicide.

    Yes, I believe Jesus beleives in LFW.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wow

    now we are getting somewhere Dan N.

    But fuooeey, I have to go and won't be back for a day or so. What timing! What distress?

    Let me ask you to ponder then how He said He did nothing but what He saw His Father do and spoke nothing but what He was given to speak?

    I don't believe Jesus held to the doctrine of LFW. If he did, he would not be God! And Jesus is God, one of the Eternal, Holy Triune!

    You brought up the suicide matter, not me.

    ReplyDelete
  24. DAN N SAID:

    "Wrong. Something based of foreknowldege is completely differnet to that based off determinism. The former can be conditional, the latter cannot."

    I see that you can't keep track of your own argument. You initially said reprobation had to be unconditional because it took place "before" the reprobate sinned.

    Now you're shifting ground. I take that as a tacit admission that your previous argument dissolved on contact.

    And contrary to your simplistic denial, determinism can have conditional elements. A teleology of ends and means, where the ends are contingent on the means. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Wow

    now we are getting somewhere Dan N.

    But fuooeey, I have to go and won't be back for a day or so. What timing! What distress?

    Let me ask you to ponder then how He said He did nothing but what He saw His Father do and spoke nothing but what He was given to speak?

    I don't believe Jesus held to the doctrine of LFW. If he did, he would not be God! And Jesus is God, one of the Eternal, Holy Triune!
    "

    Again, I don't think you understand LFW. Jesus was obedient to His Father, so what?

    "You brought up the suicide matter, not me."

    Actually I said it was a bad analogy. Steve brought up suicide, not me.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I see that you can't keep track of your own argument. You initially said reprobation had to be unconditional because it took place "before" the reprobate sinned.

    Now you're shifting ground. I take that as a tacit admission that your previous argument dissolved on contact.
    "

    I was never meant it was solely because it occurred before hand. I was speaking for under the calvinist system, and didn't think I has to explain all the details.

    "And contrary to your simplistic denial, determinism can have conditional elements. A teleology of ends and means, where the ends are contingent on the means. Try again."

    Steve, if you make something "conditional" upon something you yourself caused, it's hardly conditional. It's an excuse to an end.

    ReplyDelete
  27. DAN N SAID:

    "I was never meant it was solely because it occurred before hand. I was speaking for under the calvinist system, and didn't think I has to explain all the details."

    Since you have yet to demonstrate a halfway accurate grasp of Calvinism, yes, you do have to explain yourself.

    "Steve, if you make something 'conditional' upon something you yourself caused, it's hardly conditional. It's an excuse to an end."

    i) That's an irrational statement. In a causal chain, in order to cause C, I may have to cause B, and in order to cause B, I may have to cause A. so you can have conditionality every step of the way. Try again.

    ii) I'd add, once more, that in Calvinism, God is not the only agent. Try again.

    iii) And in Arminian theism, God causes human agents to exist. Therefore, by your logic, Arminian theism precludes conditionality. Try again.

    iv) You're also shifting from determinism to causation, as if these were synonymous. Try again.

    v) The phrase "excuse to an end" is unintelligible. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "The phrase "excuse to an end" is unintelligible."

    I disagree.
    Also I don't appreciate the sarcastic tone that you have repeatadly used in your replies.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dan N,

    I'm back.

    You responded:::>

    "...Actually I said it was a bad analogy. Steve brought up suicide, not me....".

    I was responding to what you "actually" said, that the suicide analogy was a bad analogy.

    I thought Steve's use of that analogy was great so I pointed to two such "real" events from Scripture to support the use of the suicide analogy as a good idea.


    As for Jesus' belief in LFW, can you give me some verses that show me that?

    From where I am sitting, the Scriptures seem to me to refute any such idea seeing Christ came into a "body" prepared for Him and His whole Life experience was a preplanned one of rejecting His liberties to make choices according to His own Will and passively accepting the Will of God, Our Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost to the point of death, humbly submitting to the criminal acts of those deceived and inspired by Satan to destroy Him according to his will.

    Thank God Jesus went to the Cross and suffered for His Chosen Beloved, died and rose again to destroy Satan:::>

    Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
    Heb 2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I was responding to what you "actually" said, that the suicide analogy was a bad analogy.

    I thought Steve's use of that analogy was great so I pointed to two such "real" events from Scripture to support the use of the suicide analogy as a good idea.
    "

    Just because suicide occurrs in scripture, it doesn't logically follow that it makes a good analogy.

    "As for Jesus' belief in LFW, can you give me some verses that show me that?"

    I believe that LFW is biblical, and Jesus being God would know such a thing. Are you asking does Jesus believe in LFW or rather does he possess it? You seem to ask the former and then argue against the latter.

    "From where I am sitting, the Scriptures seem to me to refute any such idea seeing Christ came into a "body" prepared for Him and His whole Life experience was a preplanned one of rejecting His liberties to make choices according to His own Will and passively accepting the Will of God, Our Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost to the point of death, humbly submitting to the criminal acts of those deceived and inspired by Satan to destroy Him according to his will."

    i) You have yet to show me any such scriptures.
    ii) Jesus being obedient does not negate his Free Will.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dan N

    I don't want to presume or assume anything upon Steve's intent here, but from what I gather from you two, you button holed the presuppositions of each with this response to me:::>

    "....Just because suicide occurrs in scripture, it doesn't logically follow that it makes a good analogy....".

    It seems the division lies in your wanting to establish, whatever that quantity is, that you teach herein that you have some portion of responsibility for your salvation? LFW brings you to the point that without you making a move, you are without hope of ever being saved from yourself. That is self defeating. You either save your self from yourself or you don't.

    I might add I don't know of one "dead" person who can do that, can you?

    It seems the basis for Steve's argument is sound, rational, logical and squarely built upon Jesus Christ alone having been enlightened to understand that there is nothing of himself that can even respond to the Gospel because his arguments start from the premise of being dead. His arguments always point to Christ alone for his Salvation which points to predestination and foreknowledge.

    One example given that I might put over is the one based on the verse found in Ephesians about adoption.

    Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,


    What does the adopted do to be adopted? "Nothing". It is solely the work of another to bring the adopted home and made a part of their family. The adopted wasn't a part of that family before he was adopted by some means of adoption.

    God does the adopting, not the adopted.

    LFW doesn't allow for adoption and scuttles total depravity because it provides you with some portion of the choice for you to be adopted and predestination. LFW undermines the work of the Church to come into the fullness of Christ and fulfill the Eternal Purpose of God in this generation.

    Eph 3:8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
    Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
    Eph 3:10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
    Eph 3:11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
    Eph 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan N

    "...ii) Jesus being obedient does not negate his Free Will...".

    I would respectfully disagree with that presumption of Christ.

    Christ's Will is never Free.

    If it was, the doctrine of "Oneness" would apply.

    That is not Trinitarianism. Our God is TRIUNE.

    As for lying, the Triune God has already established two immutable things, one, God cannot lie and two, therefore the Triune cannot equivocate thereby we have hope in the Promises of God.

    Paul's revelation of this is remarkable and an "act" of God for him to have put this over for our learning:::>


    1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

    I will assert then that as it is impossible for God, the Triune to lie it is equally impossible for Jesus to have "free will".

    He said as much to Philip, remember?

    Joh 14:8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
    Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
    Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
    Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "It seems the division lies in your wanting to establish, whatever that quantity is, that you teach herein that you have some portion of responsibility for your salvation?"

    I would appreciate it if you didn't make false assumptions about me. I don't have any particular need for LFW, it just happens to be biblical.

    "I might add I don't know of one "dead" person who can do that, can you?"

    "Dead" people aso can't walk or talk.

    "One example given that I might put over is the one based on the verse found in Ephesians about adoption.

    Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

    ...

    God does the adopting, not the adopted."


    I agree God does the adopting. However, no where does it say that such adoption is unconditional.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well Dan N,

    if you appreciate it, why not bring forth then a clear word that you truly believe there is absolutely nothing left for you to do and God puts no requirements upon you to do anything, absolutely anything, for Him to render you justified in Christ Jesus' Work of Righteousness?

    Do you believe that God alone declares sinners Righteous?

    "....I agree God does the adopting. However, no where does it say that such adoption is unconditional....".

    Hmmmmmmm? Huh? What? That makes no sense at all.

    Ok, what then are the "conditions" whereby adoption as taught in Scripture?

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Do you believe that God alone declares sinners Righteous?"

    Of course. The scriptures declare that God alone declares righteous, those who have faith.

    "Hmmmmmmm? Huh? What? That makes no sense at all."

    It makes perfect sense. The passage you quotes says nothing about it being unconditional, so why assume it is unconditional?

    "Ok, what then are the "conditions" whereby adoption as taught in Scripture?"

    The scriptures show numerous times that the condition of Salvation is Faith. Even many Calvinists gerally admit this as such. They do however import the idea that faith is an irressistible gift.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dan N,

    to mention a famous byline, this is the "dividing line" between us.

    Your response:::> "....The scriptures show numerous times that the condition of Salvation is Faith. Even many Calvinists gerally admit this as such. They do however import the idea that faith is an irressistible gift....".

    Deep within your being I hear an argument going on between you and God.

    God is saying, "Dan N, it's my Gift and I alone give it".

    Dan N is saying, "yes God, but".

    When you boil down your argument as that quoted of you above in response, you threw out generalities and did not boil it down to say, "really", without one part me, me doing something, I would not be able to receive the Gift of Faith in order to receive Grace and Mercy, and without Grace and Mercy, I would not be united to Christ so as to share in the inheritance foreordained for me too, one of many, Life as part of the Wife of the Lamb, forever and ever hereafter.

    No, you can't, because you still believe there is something in you that you must do to receive Grace and Mercy.

    The math is quite clear.

    You = zero

    God Our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, Son of Adam, Son of God and the Holy Ghost = 100 percent.

    Your math and mine don't square.

    Why is that Dan N?

    I will proffer my own answer and you should too, offer yours?

    God reserves the right to Save us through the work of Jesus Christ.

    Here's my Text that that opinion comes from:

    Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
    Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
    Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
    Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
    Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
    Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
    Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

    Death precedes this Eternal Life.

    There is no other way out for creatures like you and me.

    The moment you refer to "irresistable gift", your focus is not on God's gracious gift, but on "what you do to receive it".

    I repeat, dead people don't think that way.

    Why?

    Because they are dead.

    I have to say this, Dan N, you ain't dead yet!

    I would as Scripture teaches:

    Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

    I know that was a series of assumptions, Dan N. Please remain calm and if you can, respond.

    Either you will come to understand irresistable Grace, by revelation from God through His Work of Righteousness, Jesus Christ, mercifully on your behalf as one of His chosen Elect, predestined and foreordained before the foundation of the world or, you are saying to all the world or at least all the world that follow Trialogue, there is something you do along with the Work of Righteousness done on your behalf already?

    That would add up to "your works" righteousness plus God's Work of Righteousness through Jesus Christ that brings you to Eternal Life.

    That contradicts Scripture:::>

    Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Deep within your being I hear an argument going on between you and God.

    God is saying, "Dan N, it's my Gift and I alone give it".

    Dan N is saying, "yes God, but".
    "

    That is rediculous. I'm not talking back to God. I'm talking back to you. So you hear this deep within by what? Special spiritual revelation?

    Works based salvation is when you try to earn your Salvation. I.E. when you try to replace the work that is done by Jesus on the cross. The bible tells us that Salvation is by grace, through faith. Works based Salvation is when you try to replace the grace side of Salvation.

    You think that merely receiving something means you merit it, and that is your problem. Maybe you are, but I'm not the kind of person who boasts at Christmas time of how good I am to receive my presents.

    The "works based salvation thing" is an over-used strawman. You really need to take a look at what Arminianism teaches, rather than analysing it from your own Systematic. I recommend taking a look at section 5 of
    http://evangelicalarminians.org/sof


    2ndly, If you think that receiving a gift is meritous, your own system doesn't avoid man meriting Salvation. As far as I am aware, Calvinists still believe that you must excercise faith in order to be saved (Salvation is By Grace, through faith).

    3rdly if you want to argue that God is only responsible for Salvation because he determined it, then likewise, God is responsible for sin because according to your system of belief he determined that.

    "Because they are dead."

    I don't think you understand what it means to be dead.

    "I know that was a series of assumptions, Dan N. "

    Which is why I really don't need to respond to most of what you said.

    ReplyDelete