And so it begins...(maybe?)

[Alameth of the Iron Fist]

But if you think when I say "as Paul said" that I mean I follow Paul, or any other man, you'd be incorrect

I don't think that. It just struck me that we're coming from all angles here....thus, the quotation.

[Kirke]

Alrighty. I just wanted to point out that you do have to follow somebody unless you worship yourself.

So the "right side" will be on the "right side", the side that really does follow the Bible. The other sides will follow some heresy, but in the sense of being followers, they are similar...they all follow something/someone.

By the way, I love you.

[steel_lily]

I suppose it really is based on how you take "many". Who are you to say that it is "many" as in "only those God chooses"? God, as we have established, is perfect and timeless. Perhaps this is simply foreseeing that not all will submit themselves to be saved by his hand. It is true that many have been redeemed. Many, too, have refused salvation. It says that "many will be saved". Not "many will have the opportunity to be saved". This is just a foreseeing that not all will be saved...he couldn't say taht all would be saved because he knew that some would choose to stray, choose to deny him.

[Kirke]

"Perhaps this is simply foreseeing that not all will submit themselves to be saved by his hand."

Not an idea presented in Scripture. As a matter of fact, that's an explicit cheapening of how the Bible says "foreknew." Similarly to how Adam knew his wife Eve.

[steel_lily]

What is not an idea presented in scripture? The timelessness of God? I beg to differ.

[Kirke]

Let me rephrase: Show me the word "forsee", or any form thereof, in any place the Bible references God's attributes or actions.

And then I'll show you all the references to "foreknew", which is again similar to a man knowing his wife.

Point being, if anyone states God "foresees", they didn't get that from any Bible I've read. They made it up.

But again this is all getting to be very pointless. We understand this:

The "god" you worship allows people to make choices independent of him.

The God Cecily, Nate, and I worship possesses perfect, infinite dominion (is sovereign) and has mercy on whom He will, and hardens whom He will.

The distinct difference between the two is that Zeus was also very powerful, and near-perfect, but was not all-powerful. Vishnu is considered extremely powerful, but not all-powerful.

And so on and so forth, certain cults believe in a male-female Force that is almost all-powerful but again, not quite.

The belief I am expressing and that the Bible expresses is unique in that it is the only one that says there is an unchanging God that is indeed all-powerful, governing all happenings and bringing all glory to Himself, and allowing none to man.

Perhaps if your god didn't act like an idol, I wouldn't even have the opportunity to compare him to one?

Your god loves the way you think he ought to love; the Bible says that God hates. People.

After forgiving them, your god eternally torments people he apparently claims to love.

The verses you use for evidences are delivered to the Church; it is comfortable for you to believe they are to mankind as a whole, and it sounds nice to be able to tell everybody you meet that "God loves you", and think in your heart that it means that He loves them the same way he loves you.

It's altogether lovely to think that way. Unfortunately the fact that it's lovely and nice invalidates it, and the fact that you are offended by the way the Bible treats your god and your perceptions of god (as false, as idolatry, etc.) is substantial proof that the view you are attacking is the Biblical one.

A stone to make men stumble, and a rock of offence...

[steel_lily]

Pause. You have ceased to debate and started to attack, choosing to attempt to wound instead of attempting to prove your point. You try to belittle me and my stand, at the same time raising yourself and others up. I will put it plainly: James, you are deluded. Do you know what God feels like? Have you heard his voice in the wind, or his hand in the rain? Do you know the still, small whisper on your heart when you hear it? Or are you too busy quoting Calvin and his TULIP doctrine/analysis? No doctrine, no concept, no assertion of mankind is wholly true or wholly right or even good at all. You send cutting words at me for claiming what I take God to be, meanwhile defining him yourself through doctrine and word-twisting. Yes, wonderful, you use scripture. But you don't take into consideration that your very concept of scripture may be skewed. You use it!

Stop referring to God as my "god" or my "idol". Stop. Not "please stop", stop. I am losing respect for you rapidly in this discussion. The fact that I hold another position is not grounds for you to start eroding my credibility through such means. The fact that you turn to this, and have since the beginning, is an evident sign of your fanatacism. Do you know what fanatics do these days? They do a very good job of getting people killed. Think I'm being extreme? Go live in Baghdad for a while, then you'll get what I mean.

But yes, God allows people to make choices independant of him. How else would it be considered a choice? I do not think for one second that he is not in control, do not think for any moment that he could not jump in and do whatever he pleases whenever he pleases. But why would he create a world of puppets that do nothing but exactly what he tells them to do? Where, then, did sin come from, if to sin is to turn away from God? One original choice...Given to two individuals. Two souls would damn how many for the rest of eternity? I think not. Man is sinful, man continues to be sinful, man will evermore be sinful...we shall continue to turn from God. Be we are also continually given the choice to repent.

repent: (v.) - 1. To feel remorse or self-reproach for wat one has done or failed to do; be contrite. 2. To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it. 3. To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.

To choose to come back to God. We will, of course, go back on this. But the point is that we have the ability to repent. What good is repentance if we had no choice in the first place? Why repent for a sin that God has caused you to do by his supreme and immovable hand? Wouldn't it be rather like apologizing to the ground for falling, though gravity gave you no choice in the matter?

The true sign of confidence in power and leadership is allowing your subjects a little bit of freedom. Think about it (you may or may not have observed this)...when there is a new leader, someone who is not sure of his power and is not certain that people will follow him, he gives the people under his rule no mercy and no independance. Every decision, every move must go through him, as the leader. He will stop at nothing to show himself, stop at nothing to make himself noticed and awed and popular.

Consider the contrast. Christ was born in a manger, to an ordinary couple that meant little or nothing to the world. All the important things are layed out for the world to see, but the true beauty is in the way that all the little mundane things line up. (Even those big important things are overlooked by thousands...). God has continually shown confidence in his leadership. He chose a nation of enslaved weaklings and shepherds for his people. That same nation has been attacked, dispersed, enslaved, ignored, and generally abused throughout history. Yet they still hold a sort of odd respect with most people today.

Perhaps if my God acted like an idol, more people would worship him. Perhaps if he behaved like an idol, there would be more images of him. Perhaps he would be easier to put into a little, convenient, pocket-sized definition and carried around as a five-point TULIP. Perhaps if my God were an idol, I would know how to deal with him, be able to argue with him, and define my worship to him better. Perhaps my prayers would range less far and wide...be less conversational.

Perhaps if God were an idol, he would not forbid them.

[heyyou]

Love James, Love, is the key element that you here do not mention.
God is perfect. God is love, and the perfect form of love. Not love of himself, but love of his sheep, his children. Does he tell us to turn to him in our times of need, does he tell us he loves us, so that we are forced to love him back, so that we will turn to him although he has already programmed in those of us that will, to do so? What is Love James? We were made in God's image, the bible says so! Is our love here, our lessened version of him, at all reflected as hardening whom we will, whether or not we have chosen for another person to love us? Is our love about chosing for someone else, about us, and controlling everything? Or anything at all, really? No. Do you not see? Our God is love, is loving. By "our" I mean yours, Ces's, Nate's, mine, Sam's, Bob who lives on the street corner, but believes, Pastor(s)-What-his-face(s), congregations that believe, convicts who ask forgiveness, as they see what wrong they have done, Athletes or Druggies, who believe? If they repent, If they believe does not God love them? Does not God save them, because they accept his hand! He is our God. We are children.

Again, the story of the sheperd! He was God's servant, yes? And when the lamb strayed, and would not return by will, Did not the sheperd of God still love the lamb, still chase him, ever trying to rescue him? He loved that lamb, he could not have saved such a creature without the creatures submittance and repentance, be it eventual or not. He still followed and loved the lamb! This is our God, our loving, wonderful God! Your idea of God's love is not what human love was fashioned after, and we are fashioned after him! LOVE. Your idea of God is not loving. It is pointless and selfishily glorifying! That is not our God! Of course he has the power to harden whom he will, he is all powerful, but he is love, he is meaning, as well. And in your concept he is made meaningless, almost Paradoxal, To control everything and be self-gratified in doing so! You said yourself:

"Anyone that believes on the Name of Christ will be saved. It's absolutely, incontrovertibly, and invulnerably true."

That was you James. So the other problem I see here, is that you seem to have the idea that "anyone who believes in Christ" is anyone believing the exact same as you, anyone who knows the bible well, or else attends church genuinely? Do you think then, that only people biblically educated, or "churched", are loved by God? Only these people will be saved by believing, it is of choosing by him that those outside church and biblical knowledge are saved?

So he is harsh on people's of faith, but not religon, basically? I laugh. I can name alot of people, right now, who are as faithful and strong in that as you, or Ces, or Emrys, or Sam, but have almost never gone to church. Or who don't know a thing from their church. And who haven't read the bible. Yet they know God, repent, believe truly and wholly, and as you do. Do you suggest that these people are inferior to you because of your biblical education? They follow as you do, are loved as much by God. ANYONE tha believes. And those who do not, he still loves, as the sheperd chased the fleeing, straying lamb. That lamb wanted not to return, but eventually submitted to being carried.Eventually, he was a follower. Does not God do as he had hs sheperd do, and follow his straying lambs as lovingly as his followers?

[Kirke]

Again, I won't worship a god that torments people after he claims to love and forgive them.

Not a Biblical standard of mercy. Not the Biblical God.

And for what it's worth, I am not interested in attacking individuals here. Have I attacked a character trait? Have I brought up things to use against anyone personally?

I won't go into trying to defend the idea the word "doctrine" represents.

I'll ask you...do you know what doctrine means? Not according to the modern dictionary, but do you know what the Bible says it is?

"My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:"

"And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:"

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

"Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us."

"Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord."

"But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you."

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

"Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?"

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"

"Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?"

"For sleepermongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

I'm attempting, perhaps vainly, to impress the idea of doctrine and the worth and import God gives to it on your mind. Do you recall the way Paul wrote (in the Bible, God's Bible, so God said it, lest we think I am following Paul...-sighs-)? The way he presented the Gospel in his Epistles?

He referred to that as his doctrine. Jesus Christ referred to what other men called "doctrine" as His "gospel." The Jews called His teachings doctrine, Paul did, and I know this because the Bible says so, furthermore, the Bible itself refers to the same ideas by the two terms "doctrine" and "gospel."

Does that help?

-----------------------------------------------------------

I like the references to the parable of the lost lamb. Are you aware of the context of that parable, Bethany?

"And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them."

Jesus Christ was in other words poking a stick in the eye of the Pharisees with the Truth by saying He'd be happier if a sinner came to repentance than ninety-nine righteous men stayed saved.

But the context was men who were so vain that they felt they were justified in calling other men sinners, i.e., from the view that they themselves were not such. Jesus Christ was answering them on that view, treading their turf, as it were.

[heyyou]

Where do we say he torments people after claiming to love and forgive them?

Is love not partially the constant will to come back to and forgive no matter how many times your child disobeys, or turns away?

He is in fact tormenting after claiming love and forgiveness in your view, as it has been presented. He plants it in some of his children to love him, then he plants it in all of them to sin? And he forgives those who he made to love him, even though he soon after creating them, gave them sin?

Because in your view, as I've understood it, it was God that programmed Adam. This means God programmed Adam to take the apple and bring sin to the human race. So God planted the sin in us, if free will does not exist. IS that Not torment? After he has already programmed some to love him and take his hand, he programs all to sin? So the followers are sinners, all by his hand?

[steel_lily]

<laughs>

I won't go into defending the idea "doctrine" represents

And he then proceeds to spend the rest of the post doing just that. My, but I love contradictions.

At any rate...

I was speaking in the modern context, using the modern definition as we know it. If you prefer, I could use "dogma", or simply "some man's interpretation that happened to become widely known". I realize that, in your mind, all words should be defined by what they stand for in the Bible, but life dictates otherwise and we are called to be a part of society.

But the above is quite correct. It's very simple...a matter of order, really. God stated from the start that the penalty of sin is death. He loved all his children, and hated to see them die. So he sent his son to die and atone for their sins, covering any and all that might come to him. He then advertises it widely: The wages of sin is death, but come to me and accept me and bring me into you and you shall be saved from it.

[Kirke]

I presented Scripture's defence of its own use of "doctrine", Sammi.

And Bethany, thank you for being humble and presenting your view as how you think I say it.

Because I didn't ever say that Adam lacked a free will, even an independently free one.

He had a perfectly free will! What did he do with it?

[steel_lily]

I realize that, James. You're hingeing on legalities.

He failed. It is in human nature to fail, to fall, to break, to sin. God would then, through your eyes, allow the failing of one man (and his wife) to govern the rest of humanity and force him to damn much of humanity to hell? That makes no sense.

[Kirke]

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

[steel_lily]

So why are not all damned, then?

[Kirke]

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

[steel_lily]

Why? Do you not feel like a lab rat, believing all this? If God put Adam on this Earth with the capability to sin, and full knowledge that he would, and that same God would spend the rest of the days of this Earth saving some and condemning others all based on that one original sin, what is the point? It's all one big long game, a science experiment that means nothing. You live. Great. Whoopee. She dies and goes to hell. Aww, how sad. Moving on...

Over and over and over through the ages. What kind of sadistic game is that? Is this how God then gets his jollies? And we are expected to serve a God who has been playing a cosmic game of dice? Adam started the game and set the odds. God now arbitrarily saves people...roll a six or a four and the person goes to heaven. One and five is a reroll. Anything else and you're damned.

[Kirke]

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"

[heyyou]

But you didn't answer about Adam, James. You've discluded him from your last few points, without ever having yet proved your view on him correct.

How righteousness fits into your take of God makes no sense to me. How can anything we do even qualify as righteous if we have no free will? Is not God then unrighteous, if he controls every move we make? Because people sin.

All people sin. You say Adam determined that, but I thought God determined all in your view? That means God determines sin too.

If he controls everything, he controls the choices we make to sin as well. So in essence, God makes us sin too? How is that righteous, how can a person be righteous or unrighteous, in their decisions and actions, if it is he that controls the decisions and actions, and he is righteousness? That just makes no sense...

(Sorry, not much a debating post, just confusion about how this makes sense to you....)

[steel_lily]

That and you prove God to be a liar. The wages of sin is death. He has told us this. But if he controls us and our very souls, our every move on this Earth, then he himself causes sin. When one causes sin to occur, is one not guilty of sin? You are accusing God of sinning. You claim the impossible. Even if God were capable of sin, he would then have to die for it by his own rule. So either God is not as immortal as we thought, or his rules apply to everyone but him. Either way, it significantly lessens his Justice.

(I'd like the references on those bits of scripture, por favor.)

[Kirke]

"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"

On Adam, the Bible says he was perfect prior to the fall, that means his will had to be free of sin, for imperfection is rebellion against God.

So we know his will was free of sin, but it was not free of righteousness, even as ours are not.

Recall how Paul states that you cannot serve two masters? He never once implies you can do other than serve. In essence, I am saying that God was not surprised at Adam's sin, nor did it go against His will, for nothing can go against God. Who can withstand Him? (Not, "Who can withstand Him when he's trying to stop them?")

For has not the potter power over the clay, to of the same lump make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor? And shan't you ask God: "But then, who has resisted Your will? Didn't You do this Yourself because you are all-powerful and I cannot but do as You wish?"

NAY, OH MAN, WHO ART THOU THAT REPLIEST AGAINST GOD?

On whom He has mercy, He has mercy, and whom He will, He hardeneth.

[steel_lily]

According to your theories, I ask that boldly and openly. I reply(est) against the argument of a God who is daily effecting rebellion against him, yet stating that the cost for such rebellion is death. He continues to govern us all, then? Or every breath? Then he governs sin and sees that it happens. By his own rules, in your theorization, God must die.

(I'm still requesting the verse references off of what you are using, please)

[st1_Emrys]

since it seems you aren't receiving the information I believe his main source is Romans 9 (correct me if I'm wrong)

[steel_lily]

Thank you.

[Kirke]

I was burying my flesh and blood, this is my excuse (or reason) for not responding promptly.

You will find the words to be in Paul's speech on doctrine in his letter to the Church of Rome. It was given chapters and verses when John Calvin and others of Paul's faith instituted the Geneva Bible, the first Bible to contain chapters, verses, and other reference material. It is in the ninth chapter, and Nate is correct.

The original had no such chapters. That's why I don't use them myself EXCEPT as what they were intended for by the Genevans who first implemented them: as reference tools to quickly inform another of which portion of the Bible you were speaking of.

I wonder sometimes if they foresaw that men would someday use this as a cheap tool, to compile lists of references and then construct a theology not based on exegesis of Scripture, but instead on nitpicky verse-mongering.

I'm sorry if I seem to be digressing, but I do not want to debate on the level of having to explain 15 different verses in context. The letters were written as letters, not as tiny chunks of speech which they randomly slapped into a letter. -grins- 'Tis what comes of studying the Bible's history, but not only can you thank Calvin for the freedom you have today in America, you can thank him and his directly for the fact your Bible has chapters, verses, and inbuilt commentaries (similarly to how you can thank Edison for the lightbulb). I simply don't like it when people consider man's introduction of tools, much like a commentary, as the Bible itself. Just because the marking is in your Bible doesn't make it "part" of the Bible!!!

[steel_lily]

Did I say that I was searching to nitpick? I wanted to read the letter myself and cross-reference it for the purpose of further understanding and debate. Please don't presume to know my intentions.

So you wish to go over the entire letter to the Romans? Here we go, then...I'll go first.
**Just for anyone following, I am taking excerpts. I strongly encourage y'all to actually read the entire book yourselves.**

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

For those of us who prefer to read this in something a touch more comprehensible:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal powerand divine nature, have been clearly percieved, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools"

Right. So this is Romans 1: 18-22. All of my references will be given first in King James, then in ESV. Just so that the normal people can follow, and my argument will be validated.

The wrath of God, meaning damnation to hell, is moved upon all men. Why? Because God shows his divine self to all of us, since the beginning of time, and we are thus without an excuse for rejecting his existance. The last part is the part that most strongly evidences my point, however. It clearly outlines the fact that God shows himself to us and we refuse to accept him as God. Thus the wrath.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who [God] will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteusness, indignation, and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every sould of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God."

OR

"He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in his well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. there will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality."

Romans 2: 6-11

I added this in just because it again displays a clear choice. I also like the last setence in the ESV version. God displays no partiality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets: Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearabce of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousnessl that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of teh Gentiles also; Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

OR

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a porpitiation by his blood, to be recieved by faith. This was to show God's righteousnes, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

Romans 3: 21-31

My only note to state is: how many times is the phrase "by faith" found?

Here, at the beginning of Chapter Four, I will give pause because I am tired and my eyes are fuzzy.

[Kirke]

Why did you post no passages that deal with the source of faith, or why it is men believe or do not believe after they are all (every living one) presented with the truth, why it is men actually possess faith to begin with?

Why didn't you post the passages that say God hated Esau before he was born so the purpose of election might stand?

Why didn't you post the verses that state we are saved through grace by faith, and that not of yourselves, it being the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast?

Why didn't you post the verse that states that it is not of him who wills or of him who runs, but of God that sheweth mercy? Why didn't you post the verse that explicitly states that your willing is invalid?

All the verses you posted are entirely true, but only one of them deals with the origin of faith, whether it be from man's free will, or from God's will for man, and mostly by crossreference of the law of faith. Why do you not start at the beginning? Why do you take the middle from the Bible and the beginning from elsewhere?

The law of faith is well laid out in Paul's letter to the Church of Ephesus:

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

You might also read:

"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

I once asked myself a question when I came back to the Bible from the writings of Buddha and I studied the two great doctrines, for even in my blindness God did open my eyes to see that there were not many, in the sense that Catholics and Mormons and Armenians are all different. They all claim that they have power aside from God, and I could see that what I then knew and heard of as "Calvinism" did NOT do that.

It was what set it apart. My question was this: If the Arminians are correct, why do they choose to use terms like "will" and why do they believe that man can perform independent action (choice) seperate from the influence of God to induce their own salvation, why is it that the Bible condemns this?

And if Calvinism is truly so evil, so robotic (I read the writings of Calvin and others and found this "robot" argument to be based on a misconception of the doctrine...often a purposeful one, because true "Calvinism" is undefeatable. Straw men aren't.), why was the purpose of election, predestination, and every other facet of the doctrine laid out in Scripture in the same way it was laid out in the books of doctrine written by "Calvinists" and Presbyters???

[st1_Emrys]

Watch it guys. You're treading a very fine line.

James, let her complete her thought, she is working through Romans chronologically, not in any progression of her thought.

[Alameth of the Iron Fist]

I agree.

And I won't refrain from telling you that all this pains me.

[Kirke]

Nate, Ces, not sure what fine line you are speaking of, if you'd enlighten me, I'd appreciate it muchly.

To my love: Darling, darling...it is good. The Word cannot return void, and any discussion focusing on the Word cannot in any way damage or take away from the beauty of pure, unchanged Scripture.

I'm not at all angry, anyone. I want to make that clear. I'm not angry, upset, or emotionally involved except as loving everyone present and also my emotional love for the Truth. Balancing those two isn't always easy, but I do my best before my King.