Welcome to Gaia! ::

One must believe in Jesus Christ who paid for their sins in advance (on the cross). I'm not saying that everyone in the world would be saved even if they reject Jesus, it doesn't work. "Whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16

"If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Romans 10:9-10


Agreed but God did not select certain people to be saved.


1) Pharaoh was long before the Messiah came.
2) Jesus' blood was not wasted on those who completely reject God.
3) Pharaoh was a pagan and did not worship the God of Abraham.


I think you are getting more confused what I'm trying to present.

"For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." Rom 10:9-10


What I meant was that God is in control of everything around us but He allows us to have the ability to have freewill or certain control.

Basicly your saying is that God must have control over everything inorder to be powerful! From your conclusion, does God then control your actions/thoughts? If God controls everything then He must control every single thing you do, even sin.


What your asking me is "Is God able to do this?" but yet I dont have the knowledge of God's ability or the authority to make such statement. I cant simply answer your question.


Again, the issue of freewill... see above.


Explain to me how a man can never do good. Define 'good' and how can we do good?


You do know that the fruit (apple) contained the knowledge of Good and Evil.

Can I ans?
mmkay



It God was like that, then that would state that God dosent love
the unsaved. D:

But, Good thing God isnt like that. Coz, God is love. (:



Christ is The Savior of every one. Coz if Christ would just elect people
to go to heaven, thats not called love. Thats called courrupt, evil and unloving. If you really belive that, then, you need to re-new your mind of stuff.
I mean, if you do belive that God is Love, then you must know that
God is a God of both belivers and non belivers.

Shame you don't agree with it. Shame that the person who posted this thread had several flaws in what he taught. Shame you, like others, accept the libertarian sense of free will and think that John 3:16 proves that because the word "world" is used, that it necessarily means that everyone has a chance to be saved. Shame that you made a strawman fallacy, thinking that Calvinists think that John 3:16 is really interpreted "For God so loved the elect, that He gave His only-begotten Son..."

So, you don't know if you're saved or not. At least by this, it humbles the sinner and glorifies God. Better to be dependent on God for salvation, rather than thinking that your free will ever done anything aright. How ironic that you think that giving a proclamation of saying one is saved and being confident is prideful, yet you who accepts some free will goes about being prideful by claiming that you've done something correctly that others just seem to have missed. If free will has ever done anything, it's led people to eternal damnation. You act as if this "theory" is recent, yet, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that it goes way back to Saint Augustine of Hippo, who accepted the Pauline version of "free will," not some heathen notion that everyone picked up from, namely, the Stoics.

Just be glad I am not even going to bother picking the other parts of your text. If I did, it would be rather long and written in formal reprimanding. So, please, before you (or anyone for that matter) start arguing against what you don't understand, be informed.

Fictitious attack, why?



Then you, my friend, teach synergism.



Yes, "guide you into all truth." Who is "you"?



Howbeit, we must ask what is meant by "hear." Furthermore, why would a sinner thirst the water of life, if he refuses to have life from Christ? Another question is that why would a sinner, who desires to sin, desire the water of life?



And, what is meant by "all"? Every single individual in the world, or both Jew and Gentile? Funnily, this is also what a universalist would use to support that all will be saved. But, you teach a limited atonement of your own as well, seeing that not all are saved (and, I could use Charles Haddon Spurgeon for the response towards the Arminian who says that the Calvinist limits the blood of Christ). Does the Reformed theologian not agree that Christ died for all? He did die for all. Yet, for the world, it was sufficient, but for the elect, it was efficient.

Next time, also write from which of the four books this is in. Other than that, I still don't see how this is a "fictitious attack."



Synergism, from the Greek word συνηργει (sunergei), which means, "working together." In other words, the monergist would say, "God alone," while the synergist would say, "God and man."



Let's go with option three, the Disciples.



But, not all come. Why?



Why not?



Ah, Albert Barnes, the man who was tried, though not convicted, as a heretic, for holding sub-Calvinism. Yes, whoever desires salvation, let him come. But who desires salvation?



You think that I came to God, simply because I was in fear of being banished to hell? That then, my friend, is not love, but fear. Only did I arrive, because I saw that I could not keep the Law, and so saw myself as a wretched sinner, naked, blind, helpless and poor. John Newton was right when he sung,



Only did I choose to come, when the Father drew me towards His Son.



And my, what I wonder what "the natural and obvious interpretation of the language" is, that makes it so opposed to such sense. Albert Barnes doesn't even explain sufficiently, on what "all men" means. He only says, "It cannot be interpreted as this or that," but does not give what "all men" means, according to his definition. Is it "every single individual"?



It is as if Albert Barnes is directing this to Calvinists. As if Calvinists denied that we should pray for "all men." He then asks, "But how could this be a reason for praying for all, if it means that God desired only the salvation of some of all ranks?" But the same question flies back to his face, when one asks, "If salvation only occurs when one chooses by his own free will, then why ask God, who cannot violate the will, to save the sinner, whom which God is helpless in this case?" The verse does say that God desires that all men to be saved and to come and know the truth, and so we agree, yet, I am unsure as to whether Barnes is saying that "all men" refers to every single individual, or just Jew and Gentile.



But, why should these reasons mean such, when all Christians agree with these reasons? If these were the reasons, then all Christians should be in agreement.



You seem to have forgotten, while bolding only a certain part of my text, the letter "a." I said that you teach "a limited atonement as well." But, why would a sinner, who hates God, accept Him? And you confess that you do teach "a" limited atonement, because you said, "Only those who accept Christ as their Savior are forgiven and made new." Of course, you teach differently on how redemption occurs, you, claiming that faith precedes regeneration, hence "Only those who accept Christ...are forgiven and made new."

Because it says "let". That doesn't mean that they will come. Not everyone accepts Jesus. Why? Because they don't want to. Hence, free will.



If you don't want Christ's salvation, then you are not thirsting for it.