God Chooses His Elect

[lilymc]

The actual context and tenor of the scriptures that he proof-texts (which he ignores) proves him wrong. Really, it's like talking to the wall with him. It'd be nice if nobody responded to any of his threads anymore and left him to himself. Just quit feeding him. He's a virus. And the more you feed it, the more it grows until it destroys the health of its host. He takes pride in the number of views his threads get and the number of responses he gets. He's mentioned that many, many times. He's prideful in the division that he tries to creat among Christians and the confusion and chaos that he projects onto the board here. Stop responding to his threads and I think it's be better all around in this section and for the community as a whole here. It's a bad element. And largely because of his presence and function here. He'll get tired of talking to himself eventually if people ignore him.

That's what I've been trying to say, for a long time.

[Christian Liberty]

The analogy doesn't comport with the Bible. The Bible describes man as being DEAD in sin. The proper picture would be if you had a car in your yard with a free sign, and there was a corpse in the yard next to it. Dead men don't accept anything.

It's important to have a Biblical conception of man before you start painting the picture, or you'll get the entire painting wrong.

Its an equivocation on the word "free." The Arminians mean that you don't have to pay anything for it. You mean that the person can't even take it.

Really I don't think the correct accusation against them is that they deny salvation being free (they would accept that it is free) but rather that they deny that the person who's supposed to be receving the free gift is actually dead, and the gift is actually life.

[Christian Liberty]

That's what I've been trying to say, for a long time.

I'd do that if I thought he didn't have anything worth saying, but given that that isn't true (Though I don't 100% agree with him) I won't.

[Sola_Fide]

Its an equivocation on the word "free." The Arminians mean that you don't have to pay anything for it. You mean that the person can't even take it.

Really I don't think the correct accusation against them is that they deny salvation being free (they would accept that it is free) but rather that they deny that the person who's supposed to be receving the free gift is actually dead, and the gift is actually life.

It's not an equivocation. It's an analogy that thr Bible doesn't use. If you aren't using Biblical analogies in salvation, you won't understand it. And it is not free. If man has a requirement in salvation, any requirement, then salvation is not free. It's an exchange for work.

[Christian Liberty]

It's not an equivocation. It's an analogy that thr Bible doesn't use. If you aren't using Biblical analogies in salvation, you won't understand it. And it is not free. If man has a requirement in salvation, any requirement, then salvation is not free. It's an exchange for work.

They mean free in layperson's terms. For instance if I offer you a car and say you don't have to pay for it you can accept the car or not. That's "free" in the standard, cultural definition of the word. The problem is that this isn't the Biblical analogy. Salvation isn't a transaction, its Christ's accomplished redemption on the cross for sinners. Its dead men being brought back to life. Dead men who can't respond at all, can't even choose. In other words, you're right. But "free" needs to be defined for them first.

[lilymc]

I'd do that if I thought he didn't have anything worth saying, but given that that isn't true (Though I don't 100% agree with him) I won't.

Then I hope that you and Sola and hell's unicorn will talk amongst yourselves. I agree with what NC said, but I do understand that feeling of obligation to address the twisting scripture. Which I think is why people like pcosmar, William Tell and others reply to Sola.

[Christian Liberty]

Then I hope that you and Sola and hell's unicorn will talk amongst yourselves. I agree with what NC said, but I do understand that feeling of obligation to address the twisting scripture. Which I think is why people like pcosmar, William Tell and others reply to Sola.

Sola and HU are the two posters that make me interested enough to keep posting here

[Sola_Fide]

They mean free in layperson's terms. For instance if I offer you a car and say you don't have to pay for it you can accept the car or not. That's "free" in the standard, cultural definition of the word. The problem is that this isn't the Biblical analogy. Salvation isn't a transaction, its Christ's accomplished redemption on the cross for sinners. Its dead men being brought back to life. Dead men who can't respond at all, can't even choose. In other words, you're right. But "free" needs to be defined for them first.

Right. In reality, salvation is an exchange for work. It is an exchange within the Trinity between God's requirements and Christ's perfect fulfillment of those requirements.

[Christian Liberty]

Right. In reality, salvation is an exchange for work. It is an exchange within the Trinity between God's requirements and Christ's perfect fulfillment of those requirements.

I agree. But if we use "free" in the ordinary sense that most people use it today, people are going to get confused. "I have a car I want to give you for free" is free in the ordinary sense of the word. That is not, however, salvation.

[Christian Liberty]

But you probably still view me as a heathen for disagreeing with you on the New Covenant