Free Will vs. Predestination

I know a lot of you shudder when you see that topic, but I think it should be a lot of fun to discuss, and hopefully it will do us some good.

So are you Arminian or Calvinist? Do humans have the free will to choose God, or are our wills bound by our sinful flesh? Does a human repent of his sins and trust in Christ of his own self, or must God's Holy Spirit regenerate the heart before such actions can be performed?

Discuss!

Is there a badge for the person who opens the most cans of worms? ;)

Dead men can't choose God.

As John MacArthur says, so do I:

"I am a Biblicist."

John Calvin himself would not call himself a Calvinist, but a student of the Scriptures. Neither Calvin nor Armenius (sp?) were alive when the Canons of Dort were established, which set up what we have today: The 5 Points of Calvinism. These 5 points were direct responses to the 5 objections brought up by the Arminians of that time.

With all that said, well-balanced Calvinism captures the heart of what Scripture systematically proclaims, particularly regarding the salvation of God's elect, His church, determined in eternity past. Arminians, unfortunately, embrace a handful of individual verses that seem, on their surface, to refute many points of Calvinism, yet they either ignore or do not respond to the overwhelming evidence in Scripture that speak to:

Man's totally depraved state, God's unconditional election of His people, the particular redemption of Christ's sacrifice (not-so-wisely called Limited Atonement), the irresistable nature of the grace given by the Holy Spirit, and all saints' perseverance in the faith to the end of their earthly lives.

I was brought up in a mixture of Arminian and Calvinistic thought, both in Christian school and church settings, but what won me over to the Calvinistic side of matters is that I am a Biblicist. And as a Biblicist, I can't do honest research of Scriptures in their entirety and not come away from them with anything else but Calvinistic leanings.

The 5 points of Arminianism simply do not stand up to Scripture. Oh sure, as I said, there are handfuls of individual verses that seem to support some of their arguments; but when weighed against the rest of Scripture and so many non-negotiable truths established therein, the Arminian 5 points cannot stand.

Just my two cents on a million dollar subject.

This is definitely a complex subject. However, God has given everyone a choice. You can either resist temptation or sin. We also have the choice to except God's gift of salvation. However, as in the case of Paul, God sometimes does give motivation. Paul still could have denied God's grace. In the case of Paul, it is important to remember that he was trying to serve God before he became a true Christian. God doesn't force people to become Christians. Though, He does have the power. We all are sinners, God's gift is open to all. He doesn't deny some and accept others.

Technically dead men can't sin, either.

Now we're talking! I was hoping for these kind of exchanges when the forums got up & running. We can only sharpen each other further when we put our beliefs out there and then allow the Word of God to fine-tune and surgically repair our arguments.

I would like to go line by line with what Mr. Hancock wrote to help dissect some misnomers that I used to embrace myself (until Scripture showed me my erroneous conclusions). My complete intention is to help rectify what may seem logical & just (to our finite minds) on the surface and may even be seemingly supported by a handful of Scriptures; but upon deeper review, God's Word cannot contradict itself, and some individual verses have to conform to the majority of texts and principles established throughout the Bible.

And away we go …

Mr. Hancock (DH) wrote: "This is definitely a complex subject."

Amen to that. The information I'm about to unload is pittance compared to the 200+ pages Martin Luther devoted in his classic work "The Bondage of the Will." So, I already admit that I will not be doing the greatest job making the complex to be ultra-simple.

DH: "However, God has given everyone a choice."

This is the first error I used to make, too. The only time God had a Covenant of Works with man (which "to make a choice" is a work), it was with Adam, and Adam chose rebellion. In him and through him (Romans 5:12-19), the rest of mankind was thrown into condemnation from the start, inheriting a sinful nature at conception and being dead in sin (This also should stand to correct Mr. DeGraff's last post as well, because while it is true that dead man cannot sin, it is also true that they are dead because of one man's sin. They're condemned at conception; therefore, God has not given anyone else a choice.) They're doomed in their sin. Romans 3:10-18 quotes a lot of O.T. passages, but particularly Psalm 14 & 53, where it couldn't be more clear about man's lack of choice, where it is repeatedly, overwhelmingly declared: "There is none who does good, no, not one." But David and Paul go further: "There is none who understands; there is none who seeks God." And further: "They have all turned aside; they have together become corrupt/unprofitable."

There's no way around this truth: In our unregenerate, dead state, we cannot choose good; we cannot seek God; we are completely corrupt; and we are incapable of doing any good. As Christ Himself called us, we are born children of Satan; we are his slaves. All the doctrines of grace hinge on this very doctrine: All of mankind is totally depraved. There is NO free will to choose good or seek God when under Satan's slavery.

DH: "You can either resist temptation or sin."

No. According to the above passages and several others, in our unregenerate state, even if we resist sin, as any Mormon or Jehovah's Witness can do, we still can't do any good before God. It is all "filthy rags" and "dung." Those very good works that Mormons do count as nothing before a holy God, because they are dead in their sins. We sin or don't sin as dead men, but we're still in sin, bound for hell.

DH: "We also have the choice to except [sic] God's gift of salvation."

Again, we have no ability to choose God. I know. I know. How do you reconcile all those verses that cry out for men to repent, to follow Christ, to choose good, to obey God's Commandments? But to be frank (and I had a hard time swallowing this initially), the onus is not on me to reconcile those many passages. The onus is on those (formerly me) who use those verses to reconcile them to the non-negotiable truths, in both OT and NT, that man cannot, has no ability to, choose God or His salvation. Christ said it over and over again in the Gospels that no one could choose Him unless the Father revealed it unto him. Jesus spoke often of how His parables were intentionally vague and ambiguous because He gave most of the crowd ears that cannot hear and eyes that cannot see. Ephesians 2:8-9 are easily misunderstood, but they spell this out clearly: MAN HAS NO PART IN SALVATION. Even choosing God gives man something to boast about. Grace AND faith are both the gift of God; it is not of ourselves. The Holy Spirit is the One who convicts the heart, evokes repentance, supplies the faith, and gives the saving knowledge.

DH: "However, as in the case of Paul, God sometimes does give motivation. Paul still could have denied God's grace."

God doesn't give motivation. Lazarus in his dead state wasn't given motivation to come back to life. He was called back to life, and he had nothing to do with it. In fact, Jesus told him to come forth, and then told others to unwrap him. Lazarus didn't choose; he had no capacity to be motivated. So with Paul. Paul had already denied God's grace for years, and in our unregenerate state we do the same. However, when Paul had his Damascus road calling, the call was irresistible, because God was calling him to life, just as He did with Lazarus. Just as Lazarus didn't need motivation to come back to life, nor did he instantly start complaining that he was fine where he was, so Paul would not have, could not, and did not resist God's effectual call to life. (God has two calls to mankind: the general call can be rejected, but cannot be accepted unless His effectual call is united with it. And vice versa: No man can reject God's effectual call, though he by nature rejects the general call ofthe gospel.)

DH: "In the case of Paul, it is important to remember that he was trying to serve God before he became a true Christian."

Paul was in actuality only serving himself before God called him to life, just as the Mormons, the Buddhists, Muslims, non-elect Jews, etc. They have created a god in their own image that pleases their afflicted consciences. Sure, the Jewish God of the OT was the same one Paul was technically serving, but not according to God's prescription. He was following a works-based system, and, as Paul points out throughout his epistles, but especially in Galatians, the Covenant of Grace was in effect throughout the OT, but most of the Jews went astray from it because they believed they were in a system of works. Paul as a Pharisee still held to that mindset, and it took God opening his eyes on the road to Damascus for him to see that the Law was always in place to be a mirror to show man's inability to do any good. We can only be saved by God's grace, not any form of work. He may have been trying to serve God, but as all the passages I've stated have non-negotiably made clear: Man can do no good; therefore, he cannot serve God in any capacity until he is made one of His servants, His adopted children.

DH: "God doesn't force people to become Christians."

Very true. And election and irresistible grace are not forced. Basic logic reveals that no dead person can or would complain about being brought back to life; no fish who's washed up on land will ever protest being saved by being thrown in the water; and no animal who's caught in a fatal trap rejects being set free.

The hardest truth I had to swallow is that God elects some for salvation, while leaving others in their sin (Romans 9 – Jacob have I loved; Esau have I hated.). My first protest cried out: THAT'S NOT FAIR! Until I came to full grips with the doctrine of Total Depravity. What's NOT FAIR is that God saves anyone. We all deserve eternal hell for our acts of cosmic treason against an infinite, holy God. The fact that God elects to save some, based on NO MERIT OF THEIR OWN, is mind-boggling, and brings me to my knees in worship that He chose wretched, filthy, disgusting me!! THAT'S NOT FAIR!

God forces no one, because no one who's effectually called feels forced, because who IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would ever reject such a call to life, unless he hasn't been brought to the mirror of his sin and his eternal destination of hell fire? Thus, when God calls someone to life, that person, with a sufficient understanding of his inability and his depravity, has a natural response of: THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! WHY ME?! I'M SO UNWORTHY! WHY ME?!

That's genuine salvation!

DH: "Though, He does have the power."

God alone does. Man has none, not even to choose.

DH: "We all are sinners,"

By definition, incapable of choosing God or His salvation.

DH: "God's gift is open to all."

Amen. The gospel call is to all men, but Christ Himself said that the way and gate are narrow, "few there be that find it." Man is born rejecting God. Some men will gravitate towards or manufacture their own gods, oftentimes with Satan's willing assistance in the establishment of false religions, but NO ONE truly finds Him without God's help. Those whom God chooses to hear His general call will receive greater condemnation for rejecting that call. However, and this is tough to swallow, too: There are some who will go to hell who never once even received the general gospel call (think: millions of Canaanites slaughtered by the children of Israel upon their arrival in the Promised Land. This was no Gospel Outreach missions trip).

Okay, swallow this last tough pill; it is crucial: Men will not go to hell because they have rejected Jesus Christ. Men are going to hell because they've sinned against Almight God. Sure, the condemnation will be greater for those who have not only sinned but have also rejected the general gospel call of Christ; however, all men are destined to hell through Adam and his sin alone.

DH: "He doesn't deny some and accept others."

Partially true. He condemned all mankind in Eden, but promised His Covenant of Grace to Eve and her seed (3:15). In eternity past, He elected all those whom He would save. No man can seek Him on his own, so the Holy Spirit is needed to effectually call them to seek after the true God. Therefore, God will deny NO ONE who seeks Him, but they cannot seek Him without His help; nor will He accept those who are simply seeking, because there is no such person who will seek the true God without His special intervention within them.

As I said at the beginning, it took me awhile to swallow all of these truths, and, trust me, men who are a lot smarter than both of us have spent years studying, researching, and hammering out the truths I just poorly relayed to the rest of you. They know all of the seemingly contradictory verses, and they take them apart, one by one, to show how the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, and irresistible grace are essentially irrefutable.

I don't expect you to instantly fall down and swallow these truths right now (I know I sure didn't; in fact, it took me almost two decades); but as a dedicated follower of Scripture, you'll come to see its agreement from Genesis to Revelation. It's a beauty to behold. But if you're a natural fighter like me, you may stand your ground for another 20 years.

Sorry for another long post, but c'mon, do you expect anything less when I respond?!?

In reply to Wretched Man: this is going to be a long post…

Under points 2 and 3, I agree that all have sinned, and we all are sinful. However, once we have accepted Christ as our saviour, by His grace, we can resist the devil. This doesn't mean we won't sin at all. However, when we do sin, we need to repent. What I meant by saying, "You can either resist temptation or sin," is that in everyday things, you can decide whether to lie, or to tell the truth.

Point 4, is where we have the disagreement. I agree that we don't do anything to earn our salvation except what Romans 10:9 proclaims. However, anyone can do this. In the case of parables, he didn't make them understandable for all, because he knew they had hardened their hearts and would not listen anyway. This doesn't mean they could change latter on.

5: Lazarus being raised from the dead is different than salvation. It is two different types of being raised from the dead. Also, with Paul, I would like to point out that he very likely could have been seeking to serve God when he was persecuting the church (Galatians 1:13-14). He probably believed that being "exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers," was the way to serve God. God showed him otherwise. To clarify, yes, I would agree, he was not serving God by persecuting the church.

As far as many people having this view, that is likely true. But as I'm sure you know, the majority is not always right. As the church in Berea (Acts 17:11) was commended for searching the scriptures on their own, I hope everyone here will also search the scriptures.

To sum it up, where we disagree, is to whom God has given his gift of salvation: to all, or just to a select few. We both know that not all people go to heaven. In fact, most don't. The importance of this issue is immense. If we believe God has only chosen a select few, it is useless to witness to those who are not in this number. It also means that some people can't become Christians. This means an extra phrase should be added to Romans 10:9 that says this is only for the select. Although I know and love many who have this view, it can lead to dangerous results. I hope you will pray about and study this.

Let's see… Another long post! :)

Uh-oh… You just pushed one of my reaction buttons, Daniel! :)

You said that the view WM just explained can lead to dangerous results because it seems to mean that witnessing is useless because God has already decided who will and will not be saved. You say that this leads to the conclusion: "Why witness to somebody if they may be one of the people that God has not elected unto salvation?"

This is critically important. Remember, we DO (sorry, I would use italics, but I can't on this forum) have a reason to witness if we believe in this total depravity: The Holy Spirit uses us as tools (and He has known that He would do this for all eternity) in his hands to pry open a person's heart and receive salvation! Knowing this, witnessing is very important! GOD HAS ALWAYS KNOWN WHOM HE WILL SAVE AND BY WHAT MEANS HE WILL SAVE THEM. Witnessing and preaching are the main ways He uses to do this. I'm just pointing out that witnessing IS important to those who believe in God's election as opposed to man's ability to save himself.

Point here: Witnessing IS important to us.

Next: Does man have any ability to save himself? The Bible tells us: Absolutely not.

"'There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.'
13 'Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit';
'The poison of asps is under their lips';
14 'Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.'
15 'Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.'
18 'There is no fear of God before their eyes.'"

As seen from this passage in Romans 3, man is totally incapable of doing any good before God, and certainly cannot "accept" God's gift on his own, even with "motivation from God." God does not simply motivate man to salvation–if God does anything to bring man to salvation, He uses His effectual call, which is, of course, EFFECTUAL.

Point here: Man cannot choose salvation. "There is none who seeks after God."

Next: Does God, from eternity past, choose some men for salvation, and reject others, or does He look ahead to see who will accept His gracious offer?

The Word of God makes this answer clear. The second option is impossible, since, again, "There is none who seeks after God," and "There is no fear of God before [any man's] eyes." No one "accepts" God! Psalm 53 addresses this subject almost directly:

"God looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
Every one of them has turned aside;
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one."

Because of Adam, all of his descendants are fully buried in sin; they cannot and do not want to do good, nor even accept salvation. They hate God and will always hate Him without His miraculous intervention. Very fortunately for us, He DOES intervene miraculously! His providing of salvation and His effectual calling of wicked sinners is miraculous!

Point here: Man cannot accept salvation, so God does not choose those who will accept it on their own–no one does. He chooses a select few to graciously allow salvation by His gift of faith.

I would encourage you to read Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will," which WM suggested (though I have not yet read it myself), and to look up Pastor R. W. Glenn's sermon series on some of these topics. I hope you see why we take our position and come to realize why it is logical based on Scripture. :) Thanks for taking your time to read this poorly-put-together post!

You'll get there, Mr. Hancock.

You sound SO MUCH like me many years ago, but you still can't get around the fact of man's total depravity. This means that Paul could NEVER have been serving God before regeneration. Never! Your assertion flies in the face of the very Scriptures I provided. Man is incapable of serving God without His Holy Spirit within Him! Totally incapable!

Go back to the Reformers and see that the resurrection of Lazarus was a type and shadow of the work Christ does in the hearts of every person who comes to salvation. The two are one and the same because they both deal with death. Yes, one was dead physically and all men are dead spiritually, but just as ONLY Christ can call the physically dead to life, ONLY Christ can call the spiritually dead to life.

Your final question that rejects the idea of God electing some while condemning the majority of mankind was the EXACT same thing I replied with for so many years: Why ever witness if God's already elected people?

And just like I did, you'll have to search the Scriptures better (be that Berean you challenged everyone to be), and pour over Romans 9. You misunderstand Romans 10:9-10 (just like I did) because you currently refuse to accept Romans 9. God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. Think about it: He rejected Esau before Esau ever came out of the womb. According to your logic, Esau would've had to have rejected God; yet God Himself says that He had already rejected him! This is Paul's whole argument in Romans 9: God selects some to redeem and allows others to die in their sin.

In Romans 10:9-10, Paul is not stating an Imperative statement (i.e., a command for people to follow, or a prescription); he is making an Indicative statement (i.e. a point of fact). He is not telling people to go out and ask others: "Do you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus? Do you believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead? Well, then, bodda-bing, bodda-boom! YOU'RE SAVED!" He is simply stating a fact of salvation that if you have confessed with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and all that Christ Himself said goes along with that, and hold the belief in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and all that Christ Himself said goes along with that, you are saved! (Just like Christ never tells us to go out and be "salt" and "light" in Matthew 5. We ARE "salt" and "light." We don't have to go out and be something we already are as believers.) According to your own rendering of this verse in your post (and according to my own erroneous handling of this passage for many years), then, all Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and even demons (see James 2) are saved, because all of them state these very things. You (and I for so many years) are practicing dangerous hermeneutics. The good news is that as long as you continue being an honest Berean in your search for truth in these matters, you'll come around.

So, back to your original, inevitable question: why witness to anyone? Ah, that's easy: Because God tells us to.

Get it? While He has elected His possession from eternity past (an irrefutable Biblical truth spoken by Christ Himself, Paul, Peter, etc.), He graciously uses us as His chosen means to preach that gospel to ALL MEN. He will save His chosen people, but we, who will never know who the elect are until glory, are commanded to preach the gospel everywhere and to everyone. Election doesn't negate this, or why else would God command it? Your question (as was mine) presupposes that those of us who hold our position just seem to be either forgetting, rejecting, or are ignorant of all the passages where Christ and His apostles tell us, and demonstrated themselves, the need to go out and preach the gospel. And you surmise that if those commands are there, it must mean that there's no election, for why would anyone need to preach it if God's gonna pick 'em anyways? I posit that the two seemingly contradictory sides actually exist quite comfortably, because God uses the means of our preaching the gospel to elect the "some" that He's chosen for salvation.

What's funny is that you actually support God's election (just as I did unknowingly), because you (and I) would never complain about God choosing Abraham out of the many thousands alive during his era through whom to elect a special people. Nor do we complain that He further chose Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, and the Israelites over the Egyptians and all the people of Canaan. No. We don't seem to have a problem with that. But if we were really true to ourselves in rejecting election, we would be adamant that God never chose some puny little nation through which to reveal Himself, while leaving millions upon millions of others to die without one word of the gospel being spoken to them. Correct? (We'd say: God just knew the pagan nations would reject Him if He tried to reach them, or He did actually preach to them, too, and they rejected it and it's just not recorded in Scripture, or something like that to support our allegiance to the rejection of election.)

So, ask yourself, why are you bucking what Paul makes so evidently clear in Romans 9? I used to be the clay who would say to the Potter, "why are you doing things this way?" And you are consciously or unconsciously doing the same. These aren't just some random points of disgreement. These points are steeped in Scripture, and it will indeed take Berean-like searches (as it did for me) to see that what I'm sharing with you are congruent with all of Scripture; but I can assure you that the side you're defending (which was my side, too) holds up pretty poorly against the whole of Scripture.

And I'll leave it at that.

Any further objections, which I expect will be familiar to the ones I used to have, just like the ones you've already given, are completely normal; but you must trust me that you need to search the Scriptures more to find the truths that are there within. Also, consult some giants from the past, like Martin Luther, John Gill, John Owen, Thomas Boston.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that a majority of men hold to the doctrines I've inadequately relayed both here and in the previous post; because that couldn't be further from the truth. Unfortunately, it is your beliefs that are of today's majority, and while they are not heretical at all, they are erroneous . I do not say any of this to put you down, but to assure you that I was where you are, and I believe fully that today I have a better understanding of Scriptures than I did 20, 10, and even 5 years ago, not by my own power, but by the constant work of the Holy Spirit working in me and in spite of me and my native obstinacy.

The point is that we've never "arrived" when it comes to God's Word; so you'll keep learning more and more as you go. But where you are is not a place I will return to on my journey, because I've been there and found that it is not supported by the whole of God's Word. It is seemingly supported by some individual verses and some misunderstandings of others, but after a while, with lots of dedication and dogged pursuit of understanding all sides of these doctrines, you'll see it. I did, and I firmly believe you will, too.

Your brother in Christ.

SavedbyGrace, my point was, that if you believe only the select can be saved, it is pointless to witness. I agree that the man's flesh is sinful. However, it is necessary to accept Jesus, before you receive the gift.

For example, pretend you're in court for a huge theft. You don't have the money to repay it. You'll be going to jail until you can pay it. Then, somebody stands up and offers to pay it for you. However, you can deny their gift, or accept it.

Now, in reply to Wretched Man:

1) WM: "You sound SO MUCH like me many years ago, but you still can't get around the fact of man's total depravity. This means that Paul could NEVER have been serving God before regeneration. Never! Your assertion flies in the face of the very Scriptures I provided. Man is incapable of serving God without His Holy Spirit within Him! Totally incapable!"

I agree! As mentioned earlier, Paul was not serving God by persecuting the church. I also agree that "Man is incapable of serving God without His Holy Spirit within Him!"

2) WM: "Go back to the Reformers and see that the resurrection of Lazarus was a type and shadow of the work Christ does in the hearts of every person who comes to salvation. The two are one and the same because they both deal with death. Yes, one was dead physically and all men are dead spiritually, but just as ONLY Christ can call the physically dead to life, ONLY Christ can call the spiritually dead to life."

I don't see the Biblical connection with Lazarus. As you agreed earlier, we are not forced to become Christians. The rest is true, except we still have to accept Jesus' gift.

3) WM: "And just like I did, you'll have to search the Scriptures better (be that Berean you challenged everyone to be), and pour over Romans 9. You misunderstand Romans 10:9-10 (just like I did) because you currently refuse to accept Romans 9. God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. Think about it: He rejected Esau before Esau ever came out of the womb. According to your logic, Esau would've had to have rejected God; yet God Himself says that He had already rejected him! This is Paul's whole argument in Romans 9: God selects some to redeem and allows others to die in their sin."

As you have mentioned, God chose Abraham. In addition he choose the Israelites (but He didn't make it so that no one else could go to heaven). But, the Israelites could still deny him (and they did, Romans 9:4).

4) WM: "In Romans 10:9-10, Paul is not stating an Imperative statement (i.e., a command for people to follow, or a prescription); he is making an Indicative statement (i.e. a point of fact). He is not telling people to go out and ask others: "Do you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus? Do you believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead? Well, then, bodda-bing, bodda-boom! YOU'RE SAVED!" He is simply stating a fact of salvation that if you have confessed with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and all that Christ Himself said goes along with that, and hold the belief in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and all that Christ Himself said goes along with that, you are saved! (Just like Christ never tells us to go out and be "salt" and "light" in Matthew 5. We ARE "salt" and "light." We don't have to go out and be something we already are as believers.) According to your own rendering of this verse in your post (and according to my own erroneous handling of this passage for many years), then, all Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and even demons (see James 2) are saved, because all of them state these very things. You (and I for so many years) are practicing dangerous hermeneutics. The good news is that as long as you continue being an honest Berean in your search for truth in these matters, you'll come around."

I'm kind of confused by what you mean here. I'll try to explain it the best I can. From what you said, you don't see how this could be true since the devils also "believe and tremble." (James 2:19). However, they don't believe in Jesus as their Saviour and neither do they confess the Lord Jesus with their mouth. In addition, we need to take the Bible for what it says. The Bible says that if do these two things, we will be saved. No reason to doubt.

5) WM: "So, back to your original, inevitable question: why witness to anyone? Ah, that's easy: Because God tells us to. Get it? While He has elected His possession from eternity past (an irrefutable Biblical truth spoken by Christ Himself, Paul, Peter, etc.), He graciously uses us as His chosen means to preach that gospel to ALL MEN. He will save His chosen people, but we, who will never know who the elect are until glory, are commanded to preach the gospel everywhere and to everyone. Election doesn't negate this, or why else would God command it? Your question (as was mine) presupposes that those of us who hold our position just seem to be either forgetting, rejecting, or are ignorant of all the passages where Christ and His apostles tell us, and demonstrated themselves, the need to go out and preach the gospel. And you surmise that if those commands are there, it must mean that there's no election, for why would anyone need to preach it if God's gonna pick 'em anyways? I posit that the two seemingly contradictory sides actually exist quite comfortably, because God uses the means of our preaching the gospel to elect the "some" that He's chosen for salvation."

Now that I understand you on this point, I should be able to reply better. this is back to the elect, or no elect, which I will sum up further down.

6) WM: "What's funny is that you actually support God's election (just as I did unknowingly), because you (and I) would never complain about God choosing Abraham out of the many thousands alive during his era through whom to elect a special people. Nor do we complain that He further chose Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, and the Israelites over the Egyptians and all the people of Canaan. No. We don't seem to have a problem with that. But if we were really true to ourselves in rejecting election, we would be adamant that God never chose some puny little nation through which to reveal Himself, while leaving millions upon millions of others to die without one word of the gospel being spoken to them. Correct? (We'd say: God just knew the pagan nations would reject Him if He tried to reach them, or He did actually preach to them, too, and they rejected it and it's just not recorded in Scripture, or something like that to support our allegiance to the rejection of election.)"

God choose Abraham. Why? Because Abraham believed in Him (James 2:23). I would like to point out, that Israel was God's example nation. He wanted to show his power through them. Other nations saw this, and we know that some "strangers" did join Israel, included Rahab. I've also heard of an Incan (or some South-American empire) ruler who searched for God and found Him. Those who seek Him will find Him (Jeremiah 29:13).

We know that God died for everyone. In John 3:16, it says, "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It doesn't say 'that the elect that believeth in him.'

As a brother in Christ, I hope you will rethink this doctrine. Study the Word, and believe!

May God bless you with His wisdom!

You said to Wretched Man, "As a brother in Christ, I hope you will rethink this doctrine. Study the Word, and believe!" I think he made it quite clear that he thoroughly searched the Scriptures for years–decades! Please listen closely to what he is saying. He knows what he is talking about. And if you don't believe him, you'll have to deal with all those giants of the faith who spent their lives poring over the Word of God who agreed with his position. But now I'd like to answer your post (again, since I have not had years of experience, my answer will be a bit rough):

Please remember what I keep saying, and what the Bible makes clear: Absolutely no one seeks after God! No one, no one, NO ONE! Which would you rather believe–the inspired Word of God or a story that contradicts what the Bible teaches (I am referring to your proposal that a man sought after God without hearing the gospel)? Please, please, please listen to what the Bible clearly states! No one can do good; no one seeks God! Man is totally incapable of choosing God's gracious offer–he hates God and does not want to have anything to do with him! Only the Almighty God can change a person's wicked heart, which is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."

This is what the Bible teaches! You are unknowingly rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture–a dangerous error! I don't want to sound unkind or unwilling to hear your position, but I want to show you your fallacy in your thinking. Please don't reject this–think through it, and realize how it fits with what the Bible teaches.

I am sure that you are sincere in your faith and love God and His Word, but please search that Word to see that you are not correct in your thinking.

And to readdress the same subject:
Witnessing is NOT unnecessary to us! As Wretched Man said: "[God] graciously uses us as His chosen means to preach that gospel to ALL MEN." God commands us to preach the gospel to everyone, regardless of whether we think they are elect or not. This is very important for you to realize, or it will lead you to conclusions like those you have erroneously made.

Please realize:

1. God has said in His Word that no one seeks Him–no one will be saved without God's miraculous intervention.

2. God does provide miraculous intervention–and often! He does this only through the preaching of the gospel. No one can be saved without hearing the gospel. So, if God wants a person to be saved, He will certainly allow him to hear the gospel.

3. Witnessing is not unnecessary if we believe these two points above, because God uses our witnessing/preaching of the gospel as a means to give His gift of faith to a person whose heart He has opened.

We are not being unreasonable–we are using the Scriptures to draw these conclusions. Please, please realize this and reconsider your view.

Your brother in Christ,

SBG

P.S. Sorry for all the exclamation points–if there were a punctuation mark in between a "." and a "!", I would use it. :)

@DH -" We know that God died for everyone. In John 3:16, it says, "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It doesn't say 'that the elect that believeth in him.'"

I don't know much about this, but my dad has used this example… someone said, "All means all and that's all that all means." That's not really true, and it could be that the "all" in John 3:16 doesn't mean a literal "all".
"And all the city was gathered together at the door." (Mark 1:33)
"And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?" (Matthew 21:10)
I don't think the entire city was gathered at the door, and that the entire city was moved. I could very well be wrong, but John 3:16 doesn't have to mean that Jesus died for EVERYONE.

In reply to SavedByGrace -

SBG: "You said to Wretched Man, "As a brother in Christ, I hope you will rethink this doctrine. Study the Word, and believe!" I think he made it quite clear that he thoroughly searched the Scriptures for years–decades! Please listen closely to what he is saying. He knows what he is talking about. And if you don't believe him, you'll have to deal with all those giants of the faith who spent their lives poring over the Word of God who agreed with his position. "

While I'm sure WM has searched the scriptures, no one is perfect. Even the "gaints of faith” have made their compromises. We CANNOT accept something just because a well respected person has said it. God is the only one who doesn't make mistakes.

SBG: “Please remember what I keep saying, and what the Bible makes clear: Absolutely no one seeks after God! No one, no one, NO ONE! Which would you rather believe–the inspired Word of God or a story that contradicts what the Bible teaches (I am referring to your proposal that a man sought after God without hearing the gospel)? Please, please, please listen to what the Bible clearly states! No one can do good; no one seeks God!”

First of all, I would like to make it clear that no one is perfect. This is not an issue. Now, on the topic of Psalms 53, its says: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.” However, we know that it does not mean that there weren't some who were serving God, because we know that at least the person who wrote this Psalms was seeking God. The Bible promises that those who seek God with all their heart will find Him (as mentioned earlier).

SBG: “Man is totally incapable of choosing God's gracious offer–he hates God and does not want to have anything to do with him! Only the Almighty God can change a person's wicked heart, which is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."”

People have the choice whether to be saved or not. God does not force us to become Christians. He has given us a choice.

I hope that answers your discussion. Please verify everything you hear and read by the Word of God.

@RejoicingAlways(BethanyM) – If you look at the Greek for John 3:16, the word for “whosoever” means all, any, or whosoever. Also, if you look at the verse, it says, “For God so loved the world.” The world is not just a few, but the whole world. With these two words, we can be positive that John 3:16 means everyone.

I'm sorry for repeating the same thing over and over again…

Please realize that I certainly AM verifying what I say by the Scriptures. Please give me some verses that hold up your view. WM and I have given you many. Also, I know that men are not perfect, but I tend to rely on, after the Bible, of course, those who have spent their lives studying the Scriptures, authenticating their conclusions by what the Scripture says. Please see this: God CLEARLY states that NO ONE seeks Him–NO ONE goes to Him by their own will. Our wills are controlled by our evil hearts, due to Adam's sin–therefore, we cannot come to God of our own accord. Please realize again that I am using Scripture to back me up:

"The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one." (Psalm 14:2-3)

"God looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
Every one of them has turned aside;
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one." (Psalm 53:2-3)

"Salvation is far from the wicked,
For they do not seek Your statutes." (Psalm 119:155 [remember that all men are wicked by nature because of Adam's sin])

"As it is written:

'There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.'" (Romans 3:10-12)

These verses clearly show that no one can ever seek God; please do not ignore these verses!

I hope that you will consider this view, because it is the Biblical one!

Your brother in Christ,

SBG

SavedByGrace – Just to simplify, WM and you are discussing different topics with me. WM is talking about whether there is an elect or not. You are discussing whether people can accept God or not.

You mentioned that you used scripture to back up what you said. You did for some sections. However, in the area that we disagree, you used Psalms 53. I mentioned this earlier, but you have not responded to that. Somebody could say the whole Scripture backs them up. This could be true, but then they could stretch this to the untruth. It is important that we don't stretch what the Bible says.

WM and I agree on this point (at least from what I understand), that we have the choice to accept God as our Saviour or not. That is self-evident. God is not going to give His gift of salvation to those who don't want it. The Bible clearly explains how to be saved. If we don't do this, we won't be saved.

Mr. Hancock, I have to admit that you have me baffled. Not because you have presented any definitive arguments to support yourself even Scripturally, but because your responses indicate that you are not fully reading my posts, and you dismiss centuries of godly study and Biblical research by men who moved entire nations with their treatises on Scripture. While I would say that we should never herald any man above God, you are not showing reverence to men whom God used to change entire nations for centuries. You must show more reverence for these men of God and the work they have done. (I think we all know that no one is perfect, so I'm not sure why that was stated repeatedly in your last post; but you draw the conclusion that since no one is perfect, we can arbitrarily sweep men of renown away if their life's work runs counter to your less-researched and less-studied position. Where is the respect and reverence for the thousands of pages that these godly men spent years penning?)

With all that said, my brother, rather than go into another lengthy post to counter your points, I will ask you to do one thing that I hope will reveal to you how often you add to Scripture to make it say what you're wanting it to say, such as your exegesis of Psalm 53:

Paul Washer has contended that there is not one place in Scripture where either Jesus or His disciples/apostles ever uttered the words to anyone that they needed to accept Jesus as their Saviour or accept Him into their heart; however, you have used that infamous phrase throughout your posts, very common and contemporary as it is. Will you please show in Scripture (chapter and verse) where Jesus or any of His disciples ever tell someone, specifically, to accept Jesus as their Saviour or accept Him into their heart? Paul Washer contends (and I would have to agree) that it's extrabiblical phrasing created by man. Will you please prove that wrong with Scripture?

Thank you.

Daniel Hancock: People have the choice whether to be saved or not. God does not force us to become Christians. He has given us a choice.

I hope that answers your discussion. Please verify everything you hear and read by the Word of God.</i>

Shooting that right back at you, please verify everything you say by the Word of God. Where in the Word of God are you getting the idea that anyone who has been saved chose to do so? The very definition of "saved" indicates that the saving party took the first step. God has to change a sinner's heart before he is willing to repent and believe.

@ Everyone I think that this discussion is great ! Although I lean toward the Reformed position because it shows how great the Almighty God is. I would urge us to have brotherly love in our midst. try to persaude others rather than beating up on them. Which I think has been going on very well so far :) @ Daniel Hankock to say that Reformers don't evangalize all we have to do is like at our Church History back to the Great Awakening and Reformation. Although there have also been great Arminians such as John Wesley and Charles Finney.

In reply to Wretched Man

WM, I have a question for you. Was Samson perfect? God used him in a mighty way, but he definitely had mistakes. If we were to follow his example, there would be problems. The point – We can't take man's word above God's. Since no one is perfect, we can't believe every word that comes out of a certain man's mouth, even if God did work through them.

Secondly, Paul, an apostle, in Romans 10:9, said it. We know that every word in the Bible is the Word of God. Also, we are saved by believing in the Lord Jesus that God hath raised Him from the dead and confessing Him with our mouth. This is how we accept His gift. Also, regarding additional verses, just take a look below at the response to ChiefofSinners.

In reply to ChiefofSinners:

Here is one of the verses. The book of John is full of verses explaining it (see John 1:12, 3:18, 5:24).

John 6:40. “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

To clarify, Jesus has taken the first step, He died on the cross. He's holding his gift out to us. All we have to do is follow John 6:40.

Thank you, God's Bondslave, for the reminder.

I will give you John Wesley, who had his quirks, but was mostly spot on. George Whitefield had to reign Mr. Wesley in quite often, especially on his views of Election. However, I can't give you Charles Finney. Dig deeper into his works regarding theology, and he's been aptly branded heretical. He had some very disturbing views that have either been buried or whitwashed over the years. Also, his pragmatic form of evangelism has been disastrous on today's church. He was the forerunner of the mega-church debacle, in my opinion.

Mr. Hancock: I don't mind being a broken record on this, because I need you to confess the truth, once you get through all the hubris and rhetoric; so I'll make my request again:

Please provide chapter and verse on where we can find anywhere by Christ or His apostles/disciples in any of the gospel presentations the words "accept Jesus as your Saviour" or "accept Him into your heart."

I will not relent on this, nor will I get caught up in any more rabbit trails. (This is for your own good, as it was for mine so long ago.)

You are asking for something I didn't ever say. If you go through the posts above, never did I say that salvation required us to "accept Jesus into our heart." I did say "We are saved by believing in the Lord Jesus that God hath raised Him from the dead and confessing Him with our mouth. This is how we accept His gift." I did give you verses on how the Jesus said how to be saved.

Also notice, that I have not been discussing specific people, whether Arminian or Calvinist. All have had their problems. God's word is the only thing we can trust without a doubt.

Ok, Mr. Hancock, I'll set you free from "accept Him into your heart," but you're still on the hook for "accept Jesus as your Saviour," and the new one "accept His gift." Please show me where we can find these phrases in Scripture.

Mr. Hancock, Wretched Man was not talking about Samson. He was talking about men who spent their lives searching the Scriptures, who changed nations, who caused Christianity to spread throughout the world. Samson was a weak soul in a strong body. He continually sought revenge, disobeyed God, and had a very haughty spirit. These men, although they are not perfect, spent and risked their lives to find God's truth and show it to others. Wretched Man made clear that they were not perfect, but they are hardly comparable with Samson. Just clarifying…

Also, do you believe that the Bible contradicts itself? Obviously you do not. But how do you, with your beliefs, compromise John 6:40, written by one apostle through the Holy Spirit, with Romans 3:10-12, written by another apostle through the Holy Spirit? According to your view, they are not harmonizable. Therefore, you will have to conclude that the Bible contradicts itself, and therefore is not the Word of God. I KNOW that you do not believe this! If I am in error somehow, prove me wrong, please! But if you see my logic, please consider that you may be wrong in your belief.

In our view, we can harmonize those two passages. Paul was stating a fact–no one can do any good, no one seeks God, so therefore God must elect certain persons to salvation, or no one can be saved. In John 6:40, Jesus' words were, as WM said before with another passage, not imperative ("You are able to come to Me by yourself, so do it"), which would contradict other passages of Scripture, but it is indicative ("If you come to Me, you will be saved"). Other Scriptures, like the ones I have shown, show that no one can come to Christ simply because they want to. So therefore, this must mean that Jesus was simply stating a fact, but knew that it was impossible for His hearers to follow it alone–they needed Him to draw them to Himself.

Please tell me how you harmonize passages such as these, and please tell me how I am wrong in my belief. If you do not have an answer, please reconsider your beliefs.

Your brother in Christ,

SBG

@ Wretched Man - Accepting Jesus as our Saviour is what John 6:40 talks about. Yes, different terminology. We accept Jesus as our Saviour by believing that God raised Him from the dead. Also, from John 6:40, He says when we believe on Him, He will give us His free gift of eternal life. This is how we accept His free gift. I hope this clarifies the subject for you.

@ SavedbyGrace - I mentioned Samson as an example of an imperfect man that God worked through. God can work through those who are imperfect, praise God! However, we can't trust every word of those who are imperfect. We have to verify everything by the Bible. Those men that God worked through (of course, the men still had mistakes). Still, we can't believe every word they said.

Romans 3:10-12 is basically quoting Psalms 53. These verses are just saying we, as humans, are "under sin." (see Romans 3:9) It is not saying anything about only the elect being saved. God gift is open to everyone (John 3:16). I am not saying that John 6:40 says “You are able to come to Me by yourself, so do it.” God is holding out His gift of eternal life, and calling us to accept this gift. We need to go to Him, by believing in Him, to be saved.

In reply to you saying again that no one is perfect, I say again: I know no one is perfect, I'm just saying that what the Reformers said can be verified by the Bible, so they are trustworthy!

Also, you didn't answer my challenge: Please show me how your view reconciles the two passages I gave! And let me reestablish my logic. You said that you don't believe that Jesus said, "You are able to come to me by yourself, so do it," as I suggested, but you just said that He was saying, "I have given you a gift, and since you are able to accept it, do so." These two statements are, in essence, one and the same! And why do you focus on one part of Romans 3:10-12 (under sin), while ignoring the part that says that no one seeks God?

And I repeat again, in response to you saying: "God is holding out His gift of eternal life, and calling us to accept this gift. We need to go to Him, by believing in Him, to be saved," THE BIBLE SAYS THAT WE CANNOT "GO TO GOD"–THE ONLY WAY WE CAN BE SAVED IS IF HE CHANGES OUR HEARTS

In response to you saying: "Accepting Jesus as our Saviour is what John 6:40 talks about," I say: The Bible makes clear that we do not and cannot "accept" Jesus as our Saviour. Saying that Jesus said otherwise is saying that He, the second Person of the Trinity, contradicted what the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, said through Paul!

So, I restate my challenges. Please do not ignore them.

1.Why do you insist that men who spent their lives diligently studying Scripture are wrong simply because they were not perfect, when I could make the same argument, backed up by the Bible, against you and your unstudied opinions?

1. How do you, with your stated beliefs, reconcile John 6:40 with passages like Romans 3:10-12?

2. How can you say that we can accept Christ when passages of Scripture say we can't?

Please tell me why you are right in these areas, and how I am interpreting clear Scriptures wrongly.

Your brother in Christ,

SBG

SavedbyGrace, I think we have a couple misunderstandings here.

1) I have studied this, I've read what the scripture says. If you believe those men, point out the verses that they used so I can also believe what God says.
edit: Many Godly men who have studied this believe that there is no elect. It is a mistake, to say that God's gift is only for the elect. John 3:16 says "For God so loved the WORLD [not just the elect], that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever [not just the elect] believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

2) As mentioned, Romans 3:10-12 is talking about how all people are under sin. You have to read the context in Romans 3:9. Let me put it this way. Imagine you are drowning. If I reached out my hand to save you, and you grabbed on, I still would be the one saving you. You wouldn't be saving yourself. That is what Jesus does. We need to accept his outstretched hand and grab on! We can't save ourselves.

3) We have to believe in Him in order to accept his gift of Salvation. It says it, plain and clear, in John 6:40. To have everlasting life [salvation], you have to believe on God [which is accepting God Salvation]. God will not give us everlasting life, if we don't believe on Him.

I hope that answers all your questions.

I don't disagree with John 6:40 at all. Everyone who believes will have eternal life. The question is not whether God will grant eternal life to those who believe. The question is whether those people believe of their own desire and nature, which, according to you can seek God, or whether God has to give them a new nature which does desire Him.

Just four verses later we read, "No one can come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me draws him." John 6:44

Just because John 3:16 says "whoever believes" will be saved doesn't disprove the idea of election. If election is true, then that verse can be interpreted to mean that whoever believes will be saved, and because those people believe and are saved, we can logically conclude that they were God's elect, chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world.

By the way, I still don't get where you're getting the "accepting" idea. You keep using verses that talk about "believing," and then you say, "That's the same thing as accepting." Why not just say "believing" and get rid of the "accepting" terminology? It's not we who must accept Jesus; He must accept us! We can't get into Heaven without His acceptance.

Sinning is a sign of deadness (spiritually).

Good answer, Octavius! I couldn't think of a smart reply. ;)

Yeah, I try to keep mine as one-liners. (As several other people are not doing. clears throat Just kidding, I love reading this debate.)

Mr. Hancock, your analogy is a little faulty. Yes, we are drowning, and yes, Christ is willing and able to save us, holding out His hand to us, but the Bible makes clear that we do not want to take His hand. As in the verse COS offered, no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him.

How do you explain this? How do you explain the part of Romans 3:10-12 that says that no one seeks God (which you have still not answered)? The Bible shows here that no one will come to God simply because God has provided a way to Himself–He must also draw them to salvation. I am not coming up with this on my own, according to my own brain's faulty logic. I am using Scripture. Please realize this.

If you want to see how trustworthy the Reformers are, check them out. I am not as well-versed on their writings as I could be, and I could not boil down their doctrines on this forum. See for yourself that they have a solid foundation on Scripture, and see that they are right. They give numerous Scriptures to back up their statements.

Also, in your answer to your answer to my third challenge, you said, "To have everlasting life [salvation], you have to believe on God [which is accepting God Salvation]. God will not give us everlasting life, if we don't believe on Him." I wholeheartedly agree! I am saying, backed by Scripture, that we cannot "believe on Him" if He does not give us grace to do so! Please realize how illogical your view is!

In response to your answer to my first challenge, where you said: "It is a mistake, to say that God's gift is only for the elect." I did not say that it was. I am saying that God's gift is open to everyone, but He has already decided who He will allow to take it. This is not unfair. God is the Almighty–He is allowed to decide who gets salvation and who does not! He is incredibly gracious to allow it to anyone! Don't change what the Bible says because you believe that if what it says is true, God is unfair. If we are right, God is not unfair–He would be gracious if He allowed only one person to take His gift!

I, too, may be sounding like a broken record, but please reconsider your beliefs.

Your brother in Christ,

SBG

Thank you, Mr. Hancock, for proving my point to all who are keeping up with this discussion. There is NO Scripture that says we must "accept Christ" as our Saviour, as a gift, into our hearts – whatever! NO WHERE!

However, you, sir, are making the erroneous move of interpreting Scripture wrongly. This is what is called bad hermeneutics.

All you have provided is ONLY your personal interpretation of John 6:40, which says nothing about "accepting;" it's just what you want it to say. As ChiefOfSinners pointed out, stealing my pre-saved thunder, John 6:44 completely destroys your erroneous interpretation of 6:40.

You have to follow these basic rules of Scripture interpretation:

RULE #1: Scripture must interpret Scripture.

RULE #2: Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

You only have two choices when you put John 6:40 up against 6:44. You can either continue to place head firmly into the hole in the sand of poor hermeneutics that you're practicing (which is what I did in pride for several years, not wanting to surrender to the clear teaching of Scripture) OR you can explain to all of us waiting for your response what John 6:44 means (WITHOUT contradicting yourself or adding to the verse a meaning that is not there).

(You are so close to seeing the light. Please take a moment and read John 6:44 over and over and over again until you see how it contradicts your faulty rendering of 6:40, which says NOTHING about "accepting.")

Thank you for asking by the way. I have plenty of other verses that support the doctrine of Election, but I'll give you one verse at a time for you to interpret. At some point, you're even going to irritate yourself with all the twisting you have to do with your interpretations to jam your presuppositions into what is NOT THERE.

My prayer is that you will, over the course of this discussion-in-progress see how Scripture beautifully supports itself. As SBG & COS have already pointed out, you're contradicting yourself and making up new laws of Biblical interpretation left and right to stay loyal to your cause. We'll patiently wait you out. (And always remember, I ran around in circles many years ago just as much as you are doing, trying so hard to cling to what became obvious was/is a lost cause with so much Scripture overwhelmingly against it.)

Ok. Refocus: Please interpret John 6:44 with no contradictions and no adding to the verse.

Before I discuss anything else with ya'll, please inform me if the following is your belief (not mine).

"All can be saved, but God only chooses the elect to motivate in salvation. Those who are not the elect will never try to follow God. The elect can still deny God."

Is that what you all are saying. If it is, I'll proceed in the rest of my reply.

"All can be saved, but God only chooses the elect to motivate in salvation. Those who are not the elect will never try to follow God. The elect can still deny God."

Okay, I'll let you have the "all can be saved" part, although we may disagree on all the implications of that statement. I totally disagree with the "the elect can still deny God" part. Unless you mean that, until the elect are saved, they are just as rebellious and wretched, if not more so, than the rest of the world. If that's what you mean, then yes, the elect deny God, sometimes until their dying breaths.

But if you mean what I think you mean, that even if God has elected someone, they can still go to Hell because they refuse to repent, then no, that couldn't be possible. If God has chosen someone for salvation, they will be saved. "And those whom He predestined He also called. Those whom He called He also justified. Those whom He justified He also glorified." Romans 8:30

So COS, you are saying that God "forces" the elect to become Christians?

By the way, two things. Congratulations everyone on reaching a 3rd page. Secondly, everyone else, please inform me whether you agree with COS or the statement that I gave earlier. This will help me reply with precision to your arguments.

Thanks!

My advice to COS & SBG would be to continually defer you to my first few posts, so that they do not drift off in vain. The arguments you continue to resurrect, Mr. Hancock, were already addressed and answered in those posts. You're exposing that you either did not read them fully or you did not read them with fully comprehension and understanding.

Go back and read them, as they succinctly answer your charges, and then, go interpret John 6:44 at Its face value, adding no more commentary or contradictions. What does that verse ALONE say?

Umm… yeah, I guess you could say that. Otherwise we wouldn't want to become Christians. Naturally, we are rebels; we're totally against God by nature; that's why we need to be reconciled. A rebel doesn't want anything to do with his opponent. God must change our hearts, or we would never come to saving faith and repentance.

On the other hand, once we've been given a new heart, we believe and repent of our own power, because our new heart has the desire and the ability to do those things.

If we were able to repent and believe on our own, without God's regenerating work, then we could get part of the credit for our salvation! But we know that all of the glory goes to God, so however it is that we're saved, it must be something that's totally against our natural will.

Mr. Hancock, please stop dodging WM's challenge. Please interpret John 6:44 without contradicting what you have already said.

I will reply to WM challenge in a second. WM, please clarify where you stand. I wrote that phrase from what it sounds like you believe. If this is it, please let me know and I will respond accordingly.

DH: I did answer you …… in my first few posts.

@Mr. Hancock <blockquote>So COS, you are saying that God "forces" the elect to become Christians?</blockquote>

Let's look at what the Scripture says. In Acts chapter 9 we see Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus. Does that not answer the question?

It's important to understand man's condition to understand God's salvation plan. Man is born totally depraved, and does not have the ability to choose God on his own. (John 6:44, Genesis 6:5, 1 Kings 8:46, etc.) Man cannot do good. (Psalms 14:3). Our righteousness is as filthy rags before the Lord. (Isaiah 64:6) Man is in a fallen state and it need of a Savior. Man can only stand in the presence of the Lord through the blood of Jesus Christ. In our fallen state, we cannot do good. We cannot choose God. God must draw us to himself. (John 6:44).

To sum it up, the Bible teaches that just like Paul or the man born Blind in John chapter 9, we can say: "one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see."

No. Those who are saved still sin because Christ is still in the process of saving us. That may sound wierd, so let me explain. Initially, Christ saves us (regeneration). Continually Christ saves us (sanctification). In the future, Christ will save us completely (glorification).
An example. When Christ first saves us, he won the capital of our heart. But there are still outlying villages that reject him (areas of sin in our lives). Over time (this life on earth), the villages are won over by hard fighting: gouging out right eyes and cutting off right eyes (growing in grace and comformity to His will). At our glorification, when Christ returns, the whole kingdom will be perfected (we will be like Him in glory). In this sense, salvation is progressive. Christ works in us to put off sin and put on Christ. This is what the Scripture means "work out your salvation with fear and trembling". Its talking about sanctification. Obviously, we can't work out our salvation by ourselves, in our own strength, because in the first place we didn't earn our salvation. Christ gives us the grace to work out our salvation, but we are still the ones working. Working out your salvation isn't some strange mystic something that we just sit back and pray that God would give us grace. The verse includes the word work for a reason. We still work, but not in our own strength.
Sorry, I kinda trailed off from your original question. Hope my answer made sense.
Oh, I just saw that whoever I was replying to took their comment off. Oh, well, they basically asked if I believed that once you are saved you don't sin (misinterpreting my last comment that
"sinning is a sing of deadness"). We still sin because Christ isn't finished saving us.

That was me. :) I deleted most of my comments, because they weren't being verified. So they didn't make sense in the flow of conversation.

I agree with that, as far as sanctification goes. I just wanted to clarify.

But what did Jesus mean on the cross when He said "It is finished" then? Just to add another perspective. :)

To clearify, please simply tell us, WM, do you agree with that statement (which from previous posts it sounds like you do). I can't reply without that.

@God's Maiden of Virtue <blockquote>I'm not good at debating AT ALL, but I'm going to try to say this right.
The Bible says specifically, that we are to believe in God (John 3:16), repent (forsake) of our sins (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17) and put our trust in the Savior. It doesn't say anything about accepting Jesus into our hearts.
</blockquote>

It is important to note that "our" belief in God is evidence of God working in us, (Philippians 2:13, etc.), not a work of our own. "There is no man that cometh unto me except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44).

The elect (once God has saved them in time) will not reject God in a damning way. Christians can (and do) backslide, but they will never reject God.
Just to continue my one-liners:
Did Jesus force Lazarus to come out of the grave?
Of course not. But unless He had enlivened his dead body, Lazarus couldn't have, wouldn't have, come.
In the same way, Jesus doesn't force us to come out of our spiritual deadness. But we can't and won't come unless he first enlivens our dead souls.
I think it is twisting what we have said to say that God 'forces' the elect to be saved. We don't believe in a (sorry) divine rapist. God doesn't force his love on us.
It's crucial to remember that native man is dead. Our once-free will is corrupted by sin so that we are incapable of wanting to or actually choosing God, unless he does something to our hearts first.

"Tis not that I did choose thee, for Lord that could not be;
this heart would still refuse thee, hadst thou not chosen me.
Thou from the sin that stained me hast cleansed and set me free;
of old thou hast ordained me, that i should live to thee."

"Twas sovereign mercy called me and taught my opening mind;
the world had else enthralled me, to heavenly glories blind.
My heart owns none before thee, for they rich grace I thirst;
This knowing, if I love thee, though must have loved me first."

A hymn I truly love that reflects the truth of Scripture beautifully.

I thought you maybe just misunderstood, or wanted further clarification.
In responce to your question, Jesus meant that the cup of wrath that God poured out on him on the behalf of wretched sinners was finished, empty, not one drop left for those who believe. The sacrifice was complete, accepted, and final.