Freedom to Choose God (page 24)

LittleToe

DDog:

I don't believe he has thought it through.

He's acknowledged as much, on several points.
Give him time

Deputy Dog

LT

Do you honestly think UnDF'ed is trampling the blood of Christ underfoot?

Isn't that what happens if you say the blood doesn't save, but only makes us savable?

About the trypart man, are you asking if any part of man can respond on it's own? Or what part of man does God quicken? We know the flesh never responds, ever, at any time.

D Dog

LittleToe

DDog:

Isn't that what happens if you say the blood doesn't save, but only makes us savable?

No, I dont think that's trampling the blood, at all. He's claiming to be covered by it, and to love his Lord. How is he trampling it? Be careful with how you judge, lest you be judged accordingly... If we are to be judged on complete accuracy of doctrine, I'm afraid we are all condemned!!!

About the trypart man, are you asking if any part of man can respond on it's own? Or what part of man does God quicken?

What part. I'm of Calvinist persuasion, too

We know the flesh never responds, ever, at any time.

Agreed.

Deputy Dog

Isn't that what happens if you say the blood doesn't save, but only makes us savable?

No, I dont think that's trampling the blood, at all. He's claiming to be covered by it, and to love his Lord. How is he trampling it? Be careful with how you judge, lest you be judged accordingly... If we are to be judged on complete accuracy of doctrine, I'm afraid we are all condemned!!!

LT I don't mean to judge anyone! He's claiming to be covered by it, that's great, but, by claiming every human is covered by it, don't you think that it makes His blood no more than common grace.

About the trypart man, are you asking if any part of man can respond on it's own? Or what part of man does God quicken?

What part. I'm of Calvinist persuasion, too

What are your thoughts? This is a problem for me because in some parts of scripture the words (spirit, soul) seem interchangable. D Dog

LittleToe

DDog:

I don't mean to judge anyone!

I believe you. I know that's not your intent...

He's claiming to be covered by it, that's great, but, by claiming every human is covered by it, don't you think that it makes His blood no more than common grace.

Is that truly what he's claiming?
Or is he not rather claiming that it's available for any who would claim it? The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is just five points, out of nearly one hundred. We may major on the minors, but at the end of the day, there's little difference.

What are your thoughts? This is a problem for me because in some parts of scripture the words (spirit, soul) seem interchangable.

If you have a grasp of the possible inference of there being a difference between Soul and Spirit, then your reading takes on a new meaning. Where an author isn't using the same form (potentially authors other than Paul), then your only difficulty is in knowing if it refers to Soul or Spirit (usually the latter, I believe). It's most clearly seen in 1Thess.5:23, but to be honest it's another thread in it's own right.

Deputy Dog

LT I don't think this the typical Calvinism / Arminianism debate.

He's claiming to be covered by it, that's great, but, by claiming every human is covered by it, don't you think that it makes His blood no more than common grace.
Is that truly what he's claiming?
Or is he not rather claiming that it's available for any who would claim it?

Look at this from page 10 Undis states:

I believe that when The Spirit enlightens a person, The Spirit restores that person's ability to humble himself, and restores that person's ability to repent, if he so chooses.
In other words, The Spirit restores what Adam and Eve originally had before they sinned -- the freedom to choose whether or not to obey God.

It looks to me that he is saying that Jesus died or was sacrificed to give every human a choice, and that benefit comes before salvation, no matter if it's claimed or not. D Dog

LittleToe

UnDF'ed wrote: I believe that when The Spirit enlightens a person, The Spirit restores that person's ability to humble himself, and restores that person's ability to repent, if he so chooses.
In other words, The Spirit restores what Adam and Eve originally had before they sinned -- the freedom to choose whether or not to obey God.
DDog Addressed me: It looks to me that he is saying that Jesus died or was sacrificed to give every human a choice, and that benefit comes before salvation, no matter if it's claimed or not.

In fairness, he was responding to Ellderwho's question:

8. Because the scripture say my mindset is hostile towards God, does that hostility vanish after the enlightenment?

It seems to me that the answer was in reply to a humbling that occurs after enlightenment, after the Holy Spirit Regenerates. It's actually a confession that the Regeneration is entirely of grace. He then goes on to add that the individual continues to make choices, which we know to be fact. The biggest debate, here, is whether or not God acts before or after the mind of man makes a choice. I would suggest that man is involved in "Conversion" (and so UNDF';ed is correct in an experiential way), but that Regeneration precedes this, enabling a man to avail himself of the good that has been graciously provided (since before this he was unable, being "Totally Depraved", with nothing "good" in him to desire this). But regardless of whether or not this is his position, a Universalist doctrine doesn't (IMHO) "trample the blood". It just graciously applies it to everyone.

ellderwho

LittleToe,

The biggest debate, here, is whether or not God acts before or after the mind of man makes a choice. I would suggest that man is involved in "Conversion" (and so UNDF';ed is correct in an experiential way), but that Regeneration precedes this, enabling a man to avail himself of the good that has been graciously provided (since before this he was unable, being "Totally Depraved", with nothing "good" in him to desire this).

I want to understand the wording "experiential way" I believe you misapply this term to lesson the impact of Udis' position.

The fact remains, he gives man a choice. You stating experiential way, would indicate to me that said enlightenment was the catalyst for his right decision. Which is half of Undis' position. He never speaks of the other half of his position, the man that rejects the calling. He has clearly stated that after being enlightened man has a choice to accept or reject. If he accepts this calling/enlightenment then only would your term of "experiential way" apply.

The biggest debate, here, is whether or not God acts before or after the mind of man makes a choice .

I would disagree with you. It was not in my plans to seek God. Let alone his Son as my redeemer. I believe God knows beforehand the condition of my heart. Whether or not he makes himself known to me.

God in his all knowing wisdom, knows the beginning of time to the end, enlightens someone and sits there and says gee I wonder if this one is going to choose me. The biggest debate IMHO is 'can man reject Gods will'. All through the Bible is there one instance were mans will is done and not Gods? In the end Undis turns God ito a spectator, waiting to see if man will decide to come to him with a little coaxing from the Holyspirit. E. edit to add; lets not forget the name of this thread. "Freedom to Choose God"

LittleToe

Ellderwho:

I want to understand the wording "experiential way" I believe you misapply this term to lesson the impact of Udis' position.

You picked up on the keyword. I'm glad that wasn't lost on you.
I didn't misapply it, I applied it, to lessen the impact of UnDis's position...

The fact remains, he gives man a choice.

Yes UnDis does. But then doesn't man have to accept, by faith (which is given as a "gift of the Spirit"), grace (which is freely offered by God)? That acceptance is governed by "irresistable grace", but nonetheless is an action (not a "work").

You stating experiential way, would indicate to me that said enlightenment was the catalyst for his right decision. Which is half of Undis' position. He never speaks of the other half of his position, the man that rejects the calling. He has clearly stated that after being enlightened man has a choice to accept or reject. If he accepts this calling/enlightenment then only would your term of "experiential way" apply.

Do you mean "regeneration" when you speak of enlightenment?
I ask because the spirit of man may surely be regenerated before the senses are engaged?
I would rather leave the term "enlightenment" to a stage where the mental processes are engaged, ie. at conversion...

The biggest debate IMHO is 'can man reject Gods will'.

That's surely as much a no-brainer as my distillation.
Further, the doctrine of irresistable grace covers this one, of which I also have experience.

All through the Bible is there one instance were man will is done and not Gods?

Which specific account are you refering to? You just undermined the strength of your own argument - LOL.

ellderwho

You picked up on the keyword. I'm glad that wasn't lost on you.
I didn't misapply it, I applied it, to lessen the impact of UnDis's position...

What would the "experiential value" be when the choice is the latter? re: Holyspirits "enlightenment?

But then doesn't man have to accept, by faith (which is given as a "gift of the Spirit"), grace (which is freely offered by God)?

Ahhh......Yeah. I do believe we're on the same pg.

Do you mean "regeneration" when you speak of enlightenment?
I ask because the spirit of man may surely be regenerated before the senses are engaged?

I believe this to be the course.

All through the Bible is there one instance were mans will is done and not Gods?
Which specific account are you refering to? You just undermined the strength of your own argument - LOL.

Your wit is over my head. E.

Freedom to Choose God

Share this