Quote Originally Posted by Ben View Post
Right, my point was simply that both understand that sinners require grace before they can begin moving towards God.
Except that the grace of Calvinism is not the grace of God because grace is not irresistibly imposed. Moreover you said both provide free will which is of course impossible. The ability to choose is resident within the believer for that is how God made us in His image with sufficient grace.

I agree, God is only limited by his own holy character. And you’re right, Paul could’ve refused to obey God after his Damascus road experience, but God chooses not to appear to all sinners in such a dramatic and convincing fashion. If he did, I suspect more sinners would be converted.
Of course that is just an assumption on your part; maybe less would believe in Him, so maybe it is not about seeing Jesus physically to convince you. In either case, the fact remains everyone has received sufficient grace to have the free choice, something your god is unable to provide.

Agreed, but God did not intervene when the serpent was tempting Eve, even though he could have.
I am not sure how you would want God to intervene in the Garden or what that means to you, but that would not be reflective of giving man the free choice. So there, again, Calvinism is false.

Not sure what you mean by “your god”, but you said earlier “You have received sufficient grace, even though you don't want it" which as I understand it, is similar to Calvinism’s irresistible grace – it’s unasked-for grace.
You've been attempting to defend Calvinism, that's what I mean when I say your god. You're confusing grace generally with irresistibly imposed salvation taught by Calvinists. That's the kind of grace we are discussing that is unholy.

I agree. There certainly is a sense in which lost sinners can perform good works, like helping the little old lady across the street. After all, Jesus said:

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. (Luke 6:32-33)

But I don’t think lost sinners can perform good in the highest sense, meaning works that are done to the glory of God, in obedience to his Word, and motivated by faith and love for Christ. I think this is what Paul has in mind when he wrote:

7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom. 8:7-8)

That’s why we all need grace, because our minds are naturally hostile to God and cannot submit to his law.
What about big old ladies? That was probably a Freudian slip because we were talking about the little flock.

You're confusing works with faith. If you search God out with all your heart and soul you will find Him and God will give you the gift of faith. If your mind is set on the flesh, it is not set on discovering God. We are not talking about works here, we are talking about how faith is acquired, by irresistibly imposed salvation or given the free choice through human ability. Even human ability is God's grace.

You’d have to ask a Calvinist to answer that one.
You haven't said you are not a Calvinist though many times defending Calvinism.

Nor would I acknowledge someone as a brother in Christ unless he first repented of his sin and trusted in Christ alone for his salvation.
But if that repentance was claimed to be irresistibly imposed as Calvinists claim it would not be genuine. So you still should not break bread with him, because he would not be trusting in Christ alone, but worshiping a false Christ.

I didn’t say Arminius taught that a believer could lose his salvation. I said “most people today who claim to be Arminians also reject perseverance of the saints, even if Arminius himself did not.”
I didn't say you said Arminius taught a believer could lose salvation. You said, "I think Calvinism has right." And I explained whey Calvinism does not have it right for to be once-saved-always-saved is not irresistibly imposed, but a free choice to be receive the Jesus to be kept. You are always defending Calvinism. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. We shall know them by their fruits.

I am not bearing false witness against Arminius. I trust you’ve done the research, I have not, so if you say Arminius taught OSAS, I’ll take your word for it.
You brought up that most who claim to be Arminians believe in non-OSAS not without suggesting by you that Arminians are non-OSAS when of course they are not. Otherwise you would not have brought it up. Moreover, you already exposed your hand in the first post when you said "when the Arminian starting arguing that a believer could lose his salvation." Arminians don't believe a person can lose salvation, so you've been caught.

Calvinists and Arminians certainly disagree on the “how” of OSAS, but agree that a genuine born-again believer cannot lose his or her salvation.
The Calvinist is not a genuine born-again believer, because of the how. The Calvinist is unwilling to repent to the cross to be regenerated.

Perhaps. I’m not too concerned about speculating on the ratios of saved-to-unsaved regarding future generations. I just know that John teaches us that the saved will be such a great multitude that no one can count!
God gave us the size of the New City to interpret. This is the word of God which should be important to you. It leads to ratios to the total number of human beings who have ever lived out of whom a little flock are saved. You don't even need to know the size of the New City or what would comfortably fit that space of 1379 x 1379 miles, how many people there were since Adam and how many people there will be in the millennial kingdom. All you need to do is walk down the street and start talking to people to find out so few are saved. That great number is a "little flock" (Luke 12.32) for God does not contradict Himself. At any one time there are not that many people alive saved on earth so this never turns into a great number of living saved; most people are asleep, certainly not a mustard seed turned into a great tree. It is not promised the saved would turn into a big flock: as the body of Christ they are a little flock and remain so. This has to do with the fact that God is not a respecter of persons in any age to be saved or not to be saved.

There was actually a lot of people saved during Jesus' day, including the 3000 and the 5000. Isaiah was told there were 7000 others in his day. As a percentage of the population back then it would be a higher percentage of saved than is the case today, for the overall population was considerably less back then. In Matt. 13 the tiny mustard seed grew into a great big tree with birds on its branches representing demons. This depicts the Roman Catholic Church, the great harlot of religious Rome, that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications. While the RCC has always been a great percentage of the population, the "little flock" have not even still to this day. You may think 1 in 3 or 1 in 10 are saved when in reality it is more like 1 in 100 to 1 in 300. Afford me some liberty here, but don't miss the point.

And the largest group, Roman Catholics. And the various Eastern Orthodox churches. Sadly none of them preach the gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone.
They are non-OSASers.