Decision for Christ vs. Election & (depravity of man)

[Brother Mark]

I disagree completely with that. I believe that Saul's (Paul's) heart towards God was different than many of the other Pharisees. I believe he loved God and truly wanted to serve and obey Him but was just ignorant about what God really wanted from him and ignorant about Christ (1 Tim 1:12-13). Many of the other Pharisees, on the other hand, only cared about themselves and their power and status and had no real love for God and were far more concerned about that than serving and obeying God.

But we have to admit, God went the extra mile to save Paul. Not many of us are granted such an experience. Paul said he was a Pharisee of the Pharisee and proud of himself. He considered himself the "chiefest of sinners" (i.e. worst) so that he could serve as an example that ANYONE could be saved. Did God save Paul because there was a genuine desire in Paul? Was it something good in Paul that motivated God to give him the experience he gave? Why wasn't Jesus signs enough? Paul was around when Jesus was around. (I think Stephen's testimony was too much for Paul, but that's another thread.) I think Paul pretty much has said he was worse than the other Pharisees but saved anyway. But that's my opinion.

I believe He did enough for Sodom for them to repent.

Agreed. But he didn't do all it took for them to repent. He himself said if he had done more, they would have repented.

So, I certainly don't think anyone could conclude that He should have done as much there as He did in Capernaum (Matt 11:23) or other parts of Israel so that they would have repented.

I didn't say he should have. All I am saying is he doesn't give all the same exact chance. If he gives a person one chance, isn't it enough?

He did enough for them to repent so that is what matters. But they didn't.

Agreed. Again, I never said he didn't do enough. Just that he didn't do as much there, as he did in other places. IOW, it's not the SAME for all people. Do you think people living in Islamic Fundamentalist circles hear the gospel and see God's works to the same exact degree as those of us that have heard Jesus preached most of our lives?

I believe He did more in Capernaum and other places in Israel because they were so wicked and more was required in order to try to convince them to repent. I certainly don't believe He did more in Israel because He cared more about the people of Israel than the people of Sodom. He is not a respecter of persons.

Again, I never said he was a respecter of persons. Nor did I say he didn't do enough. All I said was he didn't give everyone the same exact treatment/opportunity.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Amen.

That's good enough for me. The other things you mentioned are probably things that we can't prove one way or another but the main thing is that we agree that God offers salvation to everyone and everyone has the opportunity to answer the call and to be saved even though not everyone does, obviously.

Indeed. God gives all a chance to be saved and desires them all to be saved and provided way for them all to be saved.

[keyzer soze]

Just because there may not be any scripture that speaks about what happens when babies die doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. There is plenty of scripture that speaks of the responsibility of those who are able to hear or read the gospel and respond to it. This is not an issue that the Bible is silent about so I don't see why we can't know the truth of the matter. There is plenty of scripture that speaks of God's requirements and expectations for people who are able to read or hear the gospel.

God's requirements are perfection and the only way to get that is through Jesus, we can do nothing to add to what Jesus did for our salvation. The work was finished at the cross.

My point about babies wasn't that it compares in scripture, simply that i run into the same wall in that scripture clearly states election and free-will. mix in the sovereignty of God and my head spins.

[Brother Mark]

My point about babies wasn't that it compares in scripture, simply that i run into the same wall in that scripture clearly states election and free-will. mix in the sovereignty of God and my head spins.

Spurgeon calls them two sides to the same coin. Armenians call speak of it this way a door into heaven has on one side "Whosoever believes, may enter" and all the other side it says "I knew you would".

Perhaps this is not appropriate here, but I think that each side overemphasizes something. I think the Calvinist can overemphasize and misunderstand the sovereignty of God to the point, they make him responsible for everything, even sin! Even to the point that any "decision" I make is the result of God pulling all the strings and causing it to happen. I think that Armenians can so emphasize the role of man, that salvation is more man than God. One side says God controls everything. The other side says "man controls his heart and thoughts". Now in fairness to both sides, those kind of broad generalizations don't do either side justice. It just seems to me we get so caught up in our most passionate part, it's easy to leave off the other. I am glad to speak to someone who sees both sides.

[LookingUp]

He is calvinist. But I don't find him so rigid as some today are. For instance, his take when preaching the gospel "God has elected some to be saved. Why won't you be one of them?" That is a different than much of what I hear today. Even so, he has such great riches from the Lord! Why would I miss out on them because we have a minor disagreement?



Sure. But then one has to acknowledge that God, as an act of grace, built into all men the ability to repent. That's something that most calvinist don't do.

I can't help but rep you again, Brother Mark. I am blessed by your posts! My heart resonates with so much you share & I truly appreciate your input on the board!