Unconditional Election vs. Total Depravity

[Jerry Shugart]

Romans 5
12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

That verse says everyone sinned.

You say that everyone sinned when Adam sinned!

You just make things up and deny what is actually written in the Scriptures.

 

[Clete]

Indeed, because what you call "Calvinism", I call biblical teaching.

Too bad for you that saying doesn;t make it so!

I really don't care what Calvin said. I care what the Bible says and often times Calvin and I observe the same things in scripture.

Againm, saying it doesn't make it so, nor is it relevant to the argument that I've made, which is, in fact, what you actually don't care about.

Sola Scriptura, Clete.

Two things...

Sola Scriptura is a self-contradictory doctrine.

It isn't relevant to the point of the thread!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Their creation hinders them from doing any thing of themselves without the assistance of God’s providence; and their corruption, from doing any thing that is good without God's grace.

Of course the Scriptures declare in no uncertain terms that no one has ever obtained eternal life as a result of his own works but the question which concerns us is whether or not it is theoretically possible.

If the Scriptures teach that a person can, at least in theory, obtain eternal life by his own works then it cannot be denied that every person does in fact have the moral ability to keep God's law. After all, if people do not have the ability to obtain eternal life by their own works then it is impossible, even in theory, that they can. In the second chapter of the book of Romans Paul reveals that a man can theoretically obtain eternal life by his "deeds" or by his "works":

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile" (Ro.2:5-9).​

In his remarks on this passage Calvinist Thomas Schreiner writes that "The main purpose of this section is to demonstrate that the Jews fall short of God's righteousness. Nonetheless, one must still account for the assertion that those who do good works will be granted eternal life. Probably the dominant interpretation is that these verses are hypothetical. Eternal life would be given if one did good works and kept the law perfectly, but no one does the requisite good works, and thus all deserve punishment...At this stage in the argument of Romans, however, it is impossible to argue conclusively against the hypothetical interpretation" (Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 114-15).

Since a person can, in theory, obtain eternal life by his own deeds then it becomes clear that all people have a "free will" in regard to his moral life.

 

[Clete]

This sort of unqualified declaration is what gets many into trouble and leads to misunderstandings.

A standard definition of libertarian freedom is leeway freedom: a moral agent can opt for two or more courses of action under the exact same circumstances. So there are ever so many different and divergent ways to complete the future. Given the same past, and billions of free agents, there are countless ways the future might turn out. Moreover, the choices of multiple free agents interact with each other or counteract each other. In addition, this impacts natural events inasmuch as humans often manipulate natural process to yield desired results.

Is such a "free will" described in Scripture. I think not.

Scripture clearly denies free-will to be an absolute independence on God’s providence in doing of any thing, and of His grace in doing that which is good or a self-sufficiency in all its operations. Scripture denies a plenary indifference of doing what we will, this or that, as being neither determined to the one thing nor inclined to the other thing by any overruling influence from heaven.

Accepting the above implies that the good acts of our wills have no dependence on God’s providence as they are acts, nor on His grace as they are good; but in both regards proceed from such a principle arising within us as is in no way moved by any superior agent (God).

We deny any autonomy of our wills, because they are created; and the second, because they are corrupted. Their creation hinders them from doing any thing of themselves without the assistance of God’s providence; and their corruption, from doing any thing that is good without God's grace. A self-sufficiency for operation, without the effectual motion of God, the first cause of all things, cannot be allowed neither to men nor angels, unless we intend to make them gods; and a power of doing good, equal to that they have of doing evil. We must not grant this to man by nature, unless we will deny the fall of Adam, and fancy ourselves still in paradise.

Defining free will therefore can be difficult. The definition cannot make God the author of sin, but neither it cannot limit the free will of God.

The point I am trying to make, is that while we have a will, our will is unlike God's omniscient and all powerful will. Our will is limited because we can be influenced by outside forces, and also influenced by internal changes in regeneration, being born in original sin, etc. Of course God has ordained (decreed) these outside forces to occur naturally, freely, or necessarily such that no violence is done to our will. At this point objections arise by those that seek to get behind the curtain, if you will, to speculate and/or decry how God actually pulls this off. To them, while God is able to merely speak and create all that exists, He is somehow not able to ordain all that has, is, or will happen, without necessarily treading upon their Holy of Holies: "free will".

It is best to define free will to be the ability of a moral agent to choose according to his greatest inclinations at the moment he so chooses. Scripture is replete with examples of this notion of free will.

Unfortunately, the anti-Calvinists have taken the term free will to often refer to the ability of man to believe without even the work of God in regeneration. This is due to the error that assumes we are free to choose or select our nature.

The Fall left the human will intact insofar as we still have the faculty of choosing. Our minds have been darkened by sin and our desires bound by wicked impulses. But we can still think, choose, and act. Yet something terrible has happened to us. We have lost all desire for God. The thoughts and desires of our heart are only evil continuously. The freedom of our will is a curse. Because we can still choose according to our desires, we choose to sin and thus we become accountable to the judgment of God.

As fallen human beings we retain our natural freedom (the power to act according to our desires) but lose moral freedom. Every choice we make is determined by something. There is a reason for it, a desire behind it. This sounds like determinism. No! Determinism teaches that our actions are completely controlled by something external to us, making us do what we don't want to do. That is coercion and is opposed to freedom. How can our choices be determined but not coerced? Because they are determined by something within—by what we are (nature) and by what we desire (will). They are determined by ourselves. This is self-determination, which is the very essence of freedom.

Yes, for us to choose Christ, God must change our heart. Indeed, this is precisely what God does. He changes our nature for us. He gives us a desire for Himself that we otherwise would not have. Then we choose Him out of the desire that is within us. We freely choose Him because we want to choose Him. That is the wonder of His grace.

AMR

That's it AMR, redefine common sense terms so that you can feel better about your god punishing people for things that he immutably predestined and created them to do.

Under the Calvinist system our actions are either the result of God's coersion or an "accident" of predestination. Accident in the sense that people have no control over it. One cannot, for example, be justly held morally responsible for the accident of the color of their skin or the accident of their nationality. According to Calvinist doctrine I have no more control over my next action than I had over the date on which I was conceived. Every event was immutably predestined by God before I ever existed and I had no input or say nor do I have any ability whatsoever to alter that destiny in the slightest degree yet I am held responsible for the puppet master's pull of the strings - according to Calvinism that is! Not according to justice! Not according to God!

The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

“Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!” - GOD - Ezekial 18 (Read the whole chapter!)​

Clete

 

[ttruscott]

.
What, in your opinion, is the unforgivable sin? What sin causes Jesus shed blood and atonement to be wasted and spilt in vain?

How can His blood be in vain when it accomplishes everything exactly as was predestined - the redemption of the sinful elect??

So you blame God and call him unloving and evil if He chooses to justly condemn sinners for their law breaking while he chooses some to ransom.

A little slow n the understanding, eh? I'll write slow: Again you have totally accused me of the opposite of what I've been saying for all these paragraphs! I AM THE ONE who insists IT IS JUST for GOD to condemn some and save others in Christ because HE had a righteous and just reason, not an arbitrary impulse for no reason to do so which is what Unconditional election implies.

I call the theology wrongthat HE frees some from judgment by Christ's death for no reason but does not free every sinner from judgment for no reason SINCE THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO AND HIS GREAT LOVE IS A PERFECT REASON TO DO SO! The theology is wrong, not GOD because HE would never act in such a unloving discriminatory manner...for no reason.

God cannot be a Sovereign King who chooses whom He will adopt, from before the foundation of the world.

What are you talking about??? Of course HE is a sovereign King who chooses whom HE will adopt AND HE chose whom HE will pass over for adoption for the very excellent reason that by their free will they have become eternally evil unable to be forgiven and therefore can never fulfill the marriage conditions with HIM in the heavenly marriage, ie to worship HIM as their GOD and to put their faith in HIS Son.

In your opinion, God is unloving and unfair when He chooses to give the gracious gift of salvation to whom He wills.

I am just going to leave this here for all to see how you manipulate what is written to your own devious ends. I have chastised only Calvinism for not being loving and proclaim to all under heaven that GOD is absolutely loving when HE chooses to give the gracious gift of salvation to whom He wills. It is Calvin's false god who does not lovingly give every sinner the gift of salvation when there IS NO REASON NOT TO DO SO!!!

You are saying God has his hands tied and cannot help. God is weak.

GOD's hands, ie HIS power, is not tied but HE is bound by HIS character (HE cannot abide evil) and HIS loving kindness as you would know if you knew HIS love and not just a bit of backward theology.

HIS choice to pass over some for election was not unloving as Calvinism suggests

Calvinism doesn't suggest this.
"In love, he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." (Ephesians 1:5-6)

I am in FULL agreement that GOD elected us for love and as well predestined us to adoption as sons out of love...BUT I REJECT that HE was loving those whom HE passed over for adoption FOR NO REASON ACCORDING TO CALVIN. You still haven't answered if you would feel like basking in HIS love that refuses to adopt you for no reason and sends you to hell instead.

No, it is based upon the fact that all humanity is born under the curse of sin and has fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3 and Romans 5)

Let's go back and give the quote this supposedly answers:

I call the Calvinist doctrine that HE could have elected everyone for no reason as unloving to those HE did not elect for no reason. I know HE is loving so if HE could have saved everyone HE would have as per 1 Timothy 2:4-6. HIS choice to pass over some for election was not unloving as Calvinism suggests but was based upon the condition, the reason, that they chose to reject HIM as an evil person, a false god and a liar, thus sinning the unforgivable sin and putting themselves outside of HIS love and HIS mercy.

Your answer: No, IT is based upon the fact... would seem to have no parallel in my quote that you were supposedly answering. What IT are you on about??? I said HIS CHOICE to pass over some was reasonable (and therefore not unloving)! I know that all humanity is born under the curse of sin and has fallen short of the glory of God. I agree. I accept this as true doctrine!!

Why do you keep changing the subject to the righteousness of the judgement when I am talking about the lack of love in Calvin's doctrine for GOD not saving everyone when there is no reason not to do so!!!

You very likely make the unforgivable sin out to be that humans reject Jesus atonement and cannot therefore be forgiven of that rejection. You make God into a weak, passive observer who is evil if He chooses whom he wills.

And as has been proven here more than once, you will probably very likely to get it wrong...and VIOLA!! You are wrong!

Rejecting HIs atonement is not the unforgivable sin; Mark 3:28-30: "Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. 30because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”characterizes the unforgivable sin as blasphemy against GOD and context shows their blasphemy was in accusing Jesus of having (being) and unclean (evil) spirit. He called this insult to His integrity blasphemy against the Spirit which would never be forgiven.

Do Calvinists not need to know about forgiveness?

I contend that those who were passed over for election were those who refused to put their faith in YHWH as their GOD and rejected HIS Son as the saviour because they put their faith in the unforgivable sin of claiming HE was an evil false god, lying to manipulate a false worship of HIMself and fear mongering with the false stories of our suffering in hell if we did not worship HIM.

They cannot be forgiven.
They cannot be redeemed.
They cannot be elected to heaven to be HIS bride.
They cannot be adopted as sons.
All they are good for is to be banished from this reality so the heavenly marriage can begin. That is why they are characterized as "condemned already" in Jn 3:18...they are unforgivable.

 

[ttruscott]

So you believe in the pre-existence of humans?

Well, our pre-conception existence, yes...

 

[MennoSota]

How can His blood be in vain when it accomplishes everything exactly as was predestined - the redemption of the sinful elect??

A little slow n the understanding, eh? I'll write slow: Again you have totally accused me of the opposite of what I've been saying for all these paragraphs! I AM THE ONE who insists IT IS JUST for GOD to condemn some and save others in Christ because HE had a righteous and just reason, not an arbitrary impulse for no reason to do so which is what Unconditional election implies.

I call the theology wrongthat HE frees some from judgment by Christ's death for no reason but does not free every sinner from judgment for no reason SINCE THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO AND HIS GREAT LOVE IS A PERFECT REASON TO DO SO! The theology is wrong, not GOD because HE would never act in such a unloving discriminatory manner...for no reason.

What are you talking about??? Of course HE is a sovereign King who chooses whom HE will adopt AND HE chose whom HE will pass over for adoption for the very excellent reason that by their free will they have become eternally evil unable to be forgiven and therefore can never fulfill the marriage conditions with HIM in the heavenly marriage, ie to worship HIM as their GOD and to put their faith in HIS Son.

I am just going to leave this here for all to see how you manipulate what is written to your own devious ends. I have chastised only Calvinism for not being loving and proclaim to all under heaven that GOD is absolutely loving when HE chooses to give the gracious gift of salvation to whom He wills. It is Calvin's false god who does not lovingly give every sinner the gift of salvation when there IS NO REASON NOT TO DO SO!!!

GOD's hands, ie HIS power, is not tied but HE is bound by HIS character (HE cannot abide evil) and HIS loving kindness as you would know if you knew HIS love and not just a bit of backward theology.

I am in FULL agreement that GOD elected us for love and as well predestined us to adoption as sons out of love...BUT I REJECT that HE was loving those whom HE passed over for adoption FOR NO REASON ACCORDING TO CALVIN. You still haven't answered if you would feel like basking in HIS love that refuses to adopt you for no reason and sends you to hell instead.

Let's go back and give the quote this supposedly answers:

Your answer: No, IT is based upon the fact... would seem to have no parallel in my quote that you were supposedly answering. What IT are you on about??? I said HIS CHOICE to pass over some was reasonable (and therefore not unloving)! I know that all humanity is born under the curse of sin and has fallen short of the glory of God. I agree. I accept this as true doctrine!!

Why do you keep changing the subject to the righteousness of the judgement when I am talking about the lack of love in Calvin's doctrine for GOD not saving everyone when there is no reason not to do so!!!

And as has been proven here more than once, you will probably very likely to get it wrong...and VIOLA!! You are wrong!

Rejecting HIs atonement is not the unforgivable sin; Mark 3:28-30: "Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. 30because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”characterizes the unforgivable sin as blasphemy against GOD and context shows their blasphemy was in accusing Jesus of having (being) and unclean (evil) spirit. He called this insult to His integrity blasphemy against the Spirit which would never be forgiven.

Do Calvinists not need to know about forgiveness?

I contend that those who were passed over for election were those who refused to put their faith in YHWH as their GOD and rejected HIS Son as the saviour because they put their faith in the unforgivable sin of claiming HE was an evil false god, lying to manipulate a false worship of HIMself and fear mongering with the false stories of our suffering in hell if we did not worship HIM.

They cannot be forgiven.
They cannot be redeemed.
They cannot be elected to heaven to be HIS bride.
They cannot be adopted as sons.
All they are good for is to be banished from this reality so the heavenly marriage can begin. That is why they are characterized as "condemned already" in Jn 3:18...they are unforgivable.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a Unitarian/Universalist.

 

[ttruscott]

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a Unitarian/Universalist.

There you go again, making flying leaps of assumptions that are invariably and inevitably wrong!! I'm closer to Calvin than I am to Arminius who did not understand either HIS love nor HIS justice!

How many times have I written that HIS justice condemning the Satanic to hell is righteous yet you claim I must be a universalist? Are you purposefully being aggravating? You just will not deal with me straight, will you ? straight being a theological answer to my last post and not this false red herring deviation from the topic.

 

[MennoSota]

There you go again, making flying leaps of assumptions that are invariably and inevitably wrong!! I'm closer to Calvin than I am to Arminius who did not understand either HIS love nor HIS justice!

How many times have I written that HIS justice condemning the Satanic to hell is righteous yet you claim I must be a universalist? Are you purposefully being aggravating? You just will not deal with me straight, will you ? straight being a theological answer to my last post and not this false red herring deviation from the topic.

I didn't make a flying leap. I read the first sentences of your previous post and note you taught universalism.

You wrote:
"I call the theology wrongthat HE frees some from judgment by Christ's death for no reason but does not free every sinner from judgment for no reason SINCE THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO AND HIS GREAT LOVE IS A PERFECT REASON TO DO SO! The theology is wrong, not GOD because HE would never act in such a unloving discriminatory manner...for no reason."
The conclusion is that you call universalism correct.
My response:
There is every reason not to free a lawbreaker from the punishment for the crimes they have committed. Love sees to it that criminals pay for their crimes.
Would you call a judge "a loving judge" if he freed every murderer, thief and scoundrel? Would the judge be just in pardoning all?
Jesus tells us repeatedly that he receives "those the Father gives me." In his intercessory prayer he points out that he does not pray for the world, but for those whom God has chosen.
I do not see how you can call God unloving. It is appalling to me.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you consider it to be "merited" by our having faith in His blood?

Romans 3:24-25
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.​

Are you wondering if having faith in His blood is the minimum requirement to merit God's favor?
Whenever you are attempting to get away with the minimum requirement, you have missed the mark.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Merit: verb
To be worthy of; deserve



While I certainly do reject the loaded meaning of the Calvinist "Unmerited Favor" doctrine, I don't think I can agree with your comments either. At least not as stated.

Help me find a way to restate it.

The idea that I've done something that merits God the Son offering His life in exchange for mine is just not something that can sit for one second inside my brain. I mean what in the world could I possibly have to offer that wouldn't insult the value of His life? If I gave my life 100 times over it would far less than if I had broken a chip of brick off the side of my house and offered it in exchange for the The Ophir Mystique! Which is a semtiment that I cannot help but think that you surely agree with.

You are thinking about it wrong.
Meriting God's favor is not a matter of equivalent exchange.

Could you clarify just what you mean?

God is looking for people to spend eternity with.
God does not want to spend eternity with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
God does not want to spend eternity with people that only honor Him with their lips. (Matthew 15:8)

So, how is God going to choose the people He will spend eternity with?
He looks for those that turn from wickedness and turn to righteousness.
He looks for the humble.
He looks for the person that will leave everything to follow Him.
He looks for the person that will pass the trial of their faith.
He looks for the person that will overcome.

There are many passages in the Bible that speak about what God is looking for.
The value of the people that God wants to spend eternity with can only be measured by God and by eternity.
Whether God thinks someone is worthy of spending eternity with Him is completely up to God.
But, God will not spend eternity with anyone that He does not believe is worthy of being in His kingdom.

2 Thessalonians 1:11-12 11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power: 12 That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Grace means "unmerited favor."
Do you agree?

No, that is a lie from the devil.

Does God extend unmerited favor to those whom He wills?
Yes or no.

No, God only extends His favor to those that He believes have merited it according to the standards He has clearly provided to us in scripture.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It is best to define free will to be the ability of a moral agent to choose according to his greatest inclinations at the moment he so chooses. Scripture is replete with examples of this notion of free will.

Free will, as shown by the scriptures, involves the ability to change your inclinations.

Free will is the ability to change the inclinations of your heart (choose to change what you desire).

Joshua 24:23 23 Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel.​

Psalm 119:112 112 I have inclined mine heart to perform thy statutes alway, even unto the end.​

Free will is the ability to change the inclinations of your ears (choose to change what you will hear and believe).

Jeremiah 35:15 15 I have sent also unto you all my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, saying, Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings, and go not after other gods to serve them, and ye shall dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your fathers: but ye have not inclined your ear, nor hearkened unto me.​

 

[MennoSota]

Of course the Scriptures declare in no uncertain terms that no one has ever obtained eternal life as a result of his own works but the question which concerns us is whether or not it is theoretically possible.

If the Scriptures teach that a person can, at least in theory, obtain eternal life by his own works then it cannot be denied that every person does in fact have the moral ability to keep God's law. After all, if people do not have the ability to obtain eternal life by their own works then it is impossible, even in theory, that they can. In the second chapter of the book of Romans Paul reveals that a man can theoretically obtain eternal life by his "deeds" or by his "works":

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile" (Ro.2:5-9).​

In his remarks on this passage Calvinist Thomas Schreiner writes that "The main purpose of this section is to demonstrate that the Jews fall short of God's righteousness. Nonetheless, one must still account for the assertion that those who do good works will be granted eternal life. Probably the dominant interpretation is that these verses are hypothetical. Eternal life would be given if one did good works and kept the law perfectly, but no one does the requisite good works, and thus all deserve punishment...At this stage in the argument of Romans, however, it is impossible to argue conclusively against the hypothetical interpretation" (Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 114-15).

Since a person can, in theory, obtain eternal life by his own deeds then it becomes clear that all people have a "free will" in regard to his moral life.

Jerry, Tom Schreiner was my Sunday School teacher at Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis. Thank you for quoting him. It is unfortunate that you have no idea what he is talking about.
God used both Dr Schreiner as well as Pastor John Piper to gently challenge my free will belief in which I had been raised.

 

[MennoSota]

Clete wrote:
"Under the Calvinist system our actions are either the result of God's coersion or an "accident" of predestination."

The above comment is ignorantly false.
Our actions are the result of sin.
God chooses whom he will ransom, by His Sovereign will.

It is sad to read such ignorance coming from Clete regarding God's word.

 

[glorydaz]

Are you wondering if having faith in His blood is the minimum requirement to merit God's favor?
Whenever you are attempting to get away with the minimum requirement, you have missed the mark.

You ask me what I'm wondering, and then declare I've missed the mark? :chuckle:

We access the grace of God through faith in the blood. That's what it means to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We literally believe unto righteousness. Romans 10:10 Saved by grace through faith.

Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.​

If it were anything more than the "minimum requirement" - that we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, we would have reason to boast. Boasting is EXCLUDED by the law of faith. Romans 3:27

Eph. 2:4-9 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.​

That in the ages to come, the exceeding riches of His Grace be seen. All glory to the Lord Jesus Christ whose shed blood is God's Grace. All the glory, I say, even the work being done in us through the Holy Spirit is not to be put to our credit.

Philippians 1:6
Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:​

 

[glorydaz]

Clete wrote:
"Under the Calvinist system our actions are either the result of God's coersion or an "accident" of predestination."

The above comment is ignorantly false.
Our actions are the result of sin.
God chooses whom he will ransom, by His Sovereign will.

It is sad to read such ignorance coming from Clete regarding God's word.

The above poster is just plain ignorant. :dunce: Clearly unable to read what is posted.

If you don't have enough smarts to comprehend what Clete has written, you need to refrain for saying anything at all.

 

[MennoSota]

The above poster is just plain ignorant. :dunce: Clearly unable to read what is posted.

If you don't have enough smarts to comprehend what Clete has written, you need to refrain for saying anything at all.

It's easy to read the errors in Clete's presupposition, which brings his entire thesis crumbling like a house of cards.

 

[glorydaz]

It's easy to read the errors in Clete's presupposition, which brings his entire thesis crumbling like a house of cards.

It's easy to read your misreading of Clete's statement. Didn't you bother to read his entire point? You clearly missed it. Try again.

 

[MennoSota]

It's easy to read your misreading of Clete's statement. Didn't you bother to read his entire point? You clearly missed it. Try again.

I have read all of Clete's comments. He doesn't understand Reformed theology, but he does a fine job of picking and choosing his quotes.
His problem is that he starts with a false statement and then attempts to support it. Hence...the house of cards.