Churchwork
04-07-2006, 06:03 AM
Unconditional Election is wrong since there is no Christian who does not think that some are saved and some not saved. So to say Unconditional Election is itself redundant. This is how you know a calvinist is trying to say something else in pride: saying that he is premade for salvation like a robot unconditionally. Instead God's way is conditional election by His foreknowledge of our free-choice.
Similarly, grace is not irresistible, for obviously God gives grace and when God decides to give grace in His divine providence, it is according to His righteousness and holiness. He knows what He is doing. No Christian doubts this, so to say grace is irresistible would be redundant. So again, you know they mean something else in pride: that they think they were premade for salvation irresistibly. Instead God's way is that grace can be resisted. We are not automatons.
Limited atonement is also redundant since obviously God saves some and not others. So you know the calvinist is saying something else in pride: that they are the natural selection or chosen Arian nation, Instead God atones for all, offering all salvation, but not all receive the perfect sacrifice for forgiveness of sins for that is their choice (in the image of God), and their right to refuse God's grace.
Total depravity is wrong for obviously man is fallen. So you know the calvinist is saying something else in pride: salvation offered could never be accepted unless people were preprogrammed robots. Instead, we have ability or free-will to choose salvation (even though fallen) because we are given than right being made in God's image (not by the fallen flesh).
OSAS is true but not like they think. Obviously we are saved eternally at new birth so calvinists are saying something else in pride: the question then is not this, but how OSAS is translated. Is it by premaking the person as taught in calvinism or by God's infinite foreknowledge of our choice (Rom. 8.29) whom to give His life to because we came to the cross the way He requires, by choosing the cross by faith in the grace of being made in His image and drawing of the Holy Spirit.
Similarly, grace is not irresistible, for obviously God gives grace and when God decides to give grace in His divine providence, it is according to His righteousness and holiness. He knows what He is doing. No Christian doubts this, so to say grace is irresistible would be redundant. So again, you know they mean something else in pride: that they think they were premade for salvation irresistibly. Instead God's way is that grace can be resisted. We are not automatons.
Limited atonement is also redundant since obviously God saves some and not others. So you know the calvinist is saying something else in pride: that they are the natural selection or chosen Arian nation, Instead God atones for all, offering all salvation, but not all receive the perfect sacrifice for forgiveness of sins for that is their choice (in the image of God), and their right to refuse God's grace.
Total depravity is wrong for obviously man is fallen. So you know the calvinist is saying something else in pride: salvation offered could never be accepted unless people were preprogrammed robots. Instead, we have ability or free-will to choose salvation (even though fallen) because we are given than right being made in God's image (not by the fallen flesh).
OSAS is true but not like they think. Obviously we are saved eternally at new birth so calvinists are saying something else in pride: the question then is not this, but how OSAS is translated. Is it by premaking the person as taught in calvinism or by God's infinite foreknowledge of our choice (Rom. 8.29) whom to give His life to because we came to the cross the way He requires, by choosing the cross by faith in the grace of being made in His image and drawing of the Holy Spirit.