Question

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

We are responsible regardless of God's input or not.

You are still Cage...only you have a different attitude. Same power, same character, same personality, same weaknesses, same strengths, same phisique, same shape, and same face. Only now, there is a difference within you. And in short order (trust me), people will notice a difference, and actually ask you "what is different"?

You will not, and do not feel or see anything different about yourself...but others will.

mark my words

What you said makes a bit more sense in this post. I wasn't so sure when I was reading your first post. But now I think I get it.

Paul's attitude changed, but his identity did not. His attitude was his style of interaction. His identity was his perception of his purpose.

Before his conversion, Paul was a man of ideology. After he converted, he was still man of ideology.

Paul had a structured approach to religion. That didn't change. He was into structuring, technicalising, systematising and compartmentalising concepts in a religion. Things were either black or white. Numerical values were always whole numbers and never anything in-between. Everything went into some kind of box to be classified and labelled.

That was Paul's identity and his unique contribution to Christianity. That is not to say that he was the only man of ideology. Countless Christians in history were driven by ideology. Actually, ideology is the common mode of operation and function in churches worldwide. Most of us are "Pauline," not in the teachings we believe in (as in "Pauline" Christianity), but in style and approach to Christianity. Most of us are driven by ideology.

Anyone remember Bruce Lee, that famous Kung Fu philosopher in America? For most of the history of Kung Fu, I'd have to assume, people had to take a structured approach to Kung Fu, strictly formalising, technicalising and systematising its concepts, in order to preserve its meaning. Bruce Lee went against that kind of thinking and came up with the "style with no style" approach to Kung Fu.

The difference between Pauline and non-Pauline Christianity is a bit like that. You could say it's the difference between orthodox and non-orthodox (Note: I don't mean "Pauline" as in "Paul's teachings" but "Paul's style and approach" to Christianity.) This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you reject Paul's teachings. I'm just using Paul as a paradigm.

Bruce Lee was the opposite of Paul. Denominational and conservative Christians could be said to be "Pauline" in style, while mystical, gnostic, free-thinker and non-denominational Christians could be said to be "Bruce Lee" in style. "Pauline" Christians are those who are taught to conform to some kind of style. "Bruce Lee" Christians are those don't conform to any style. (lol, Christianity is a religion of paradigms.)

But Paul wasn't stupid. He knew a structured approach to religion didn't always work, which was why he became Christian. What he contributed was insight into the weaknesses of ideology and logical thinking.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Silas

Quahom

Paul was speaking for himself and his own time...bro. God decride other in the Old testament. He personally named those that were righteous. Before Jesus' walk on earth, there were righteous people, and God took note of that fact. Today there are righteous people who know Christ not, and God the Father takes note of that fact.

Scriptures teach that man is made or counted righteous only through faith. The OT saints trusted in the promise to come and the NT saints trusted in the promise that came, Jesus. God imputes Christ' rightouness in His saints and Christ suffered our sins in His body. There's the trade and thats whats makes us righeous. Not we ourselves or anyone else themselves, but it has always been that we are counted righteous in Christ. The book of Romans speak about this a lot. About people being righteous apart from Christ? Impossible with the God of the Bible, for He says that all work not done in faith [in Christ] is sin and that all the good people do apart from Christ is filty rags. God the Father only takes note of people trusting in Jesus. That much is certain from scripture.

Perhaps that is the point of the Bible which states "The laws are written on the hearts of every man..."

It is and for good reason - namely to show that man have no excuse before God, for He knows that EVERY TIME he sins, He does it with knowledge that its wrong since His God given Conscience testifies to the fact that the laws of God are written on His heart.

I'm gonna vent another issue to US CHRISTIANS. Who the hell wan'ts to listen to a bunch of self righteous hypocrits (sp), telling everyone else they are doomed to hell, when we are like one step away from the same place?

"There is no condemnation for those in Christ" God says. Also, Ive never met a self righteous Christian. Only sinners that know that they too deserve to be in the deepest part of Hell, but ONLY by God's grace in Sovereign election, they have been speard. As a result, they become fishers of men, hoping to save other lost men, bearing the reproach of those who call them selfrighteous among other names.

And Silias. Don't tell me again that what I quote isn't true...unless you have damn good proof...that really pisses me off. You don't know your bible as well as you think you do.

Im a young Christian and Im certian I dont know MOST of the BIble at all! That said, I must say that you come off as a really angry person. I want you to know that Jesus likens that to murder. Its a heart issue with God. Hearts that are lustful are liken to be adulterers for lack of chance and hearts that hate are liken to murderers for lack of oppurnity, which is due to God's grace, incidentally. Im not as bad as I can be, you're not as bad as you can be, and Hitler wasnt as bad as he could have been, only because God didnt permit it. Again, its a heart issue with God, not so much what you do physically. What you do physically are reflexs of what your heart desiers. Thats why men are guilty before God. Repent and Trust in Jesus.

And for the cheap seats. God found Lot and David righteous...chew on that for awhile.

OK.

Angry am I? You have not seen me angry...

But I do think I have some incling of what I am talking about. And I am not a new Christian, by a long shot. I also know that upstarts think they know everything, and that is where fights begin. And please, don't lecture me on murder or God's view on anger...that is just plain inappropriate.

Scriptures teach us that there are righteous men and women. They are such from birth, or due to a cataclysm that changes their perspective on life. Faith is never brought into the righteous question.

Such is a gift from God to some from birth. That is just the way it is.

The rest of us have to learn about it, the hard way.

v/r

Joshua

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

What you said makes a bit more sense in this post. I wasn't so sure when I was reading your first post. But now I think I get it.

Paul's attitude changed, but his identity did not. His attitude was his style of interaction. His identity was his perception of his purpose.

Before his conversion, Paul was a man of ideology. After he converted, he was still man of ideology.

Paul had a structured approach to religion. That didn't change. He was into structuring, technicalising, systematising and compartmentalising concepts in a religion. Things were either black or white. Numerical values were always whole numbers and never anything in-between. Everything went into some kind of box to be classified and labelled.

That was Paul's identity and his unique contribution to Christianity. That is not to say that he was the only man of ideology. Countless Christians in history were driven by ideology. Actually, ideology is the common mode of operation and function in churches worldwide. Most of us are "Pauline," not in the teachings we believe in (as in "Pauline" Christianity), but in style and approach to Christianity. Most of us are driven by ideology.

Anyone remember Bruce Lee, that famous Kung Fu philosopher in America? For most of the history of Kung Fu, I'd have to assume, people had to take a structured approach to Kung Fu, strictly formalising, technicalising and systematising its concepts, in order to preserve its meaning. Bruce Lee went against that kind of thinking and came up with the "style with no style" approach to Kung Fu.

The difference between Pauline and non-Pauline Christianity is a bit like that. You could say it's the difference between orthodox and non-orthodox (Note: I don't mean "Pauline" as in "Paul's teachings" but "Paul's style and approach" to Christianity.) This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you reject Paul's teachings. I'm just using Paul as a paradigm.

Bruce Lee was the opposite of Paul. Denominational and conservative Christians could be said to be "Pauline" in style, while mystical, gnostic, free-thinker and non-denominational Christians could be said to be "Bruce Lee" in style. "Pauline" Christians are those who are taught to conform to some kind of style. "Bruce Lee" Christians are those don't conform to any style. (lol, Christianity is a religion of paradigms.)

But Paul wasn't stupid. He knew a structured approach to religion didn't always work, which was why he became Christian. What he contributed was insight into the weaknesses of ideology and logical thinking.

EXACTLY SALT! Paul's heart changed, but his will was never touched by God. Same goes with the rest of us. (the bruce lee thing was a neet touch)

God does not modify us once we accept Him (not our basic design anyway). Only our hearts are changed. Case in point:

I know a man who was a thief. Damn good thief too, never got caught. Anyway, he came to Christ. "What do I do now?" he asks God. "What you always have done..." was the answer he got. He thought about it for a few years, then realized what God was telling him...he could unlock anything!

So, he went to the police (after seven years, he wasn't stupid), and offered his services as a consultant (for free), then he began to speak to children at schools about his life, and how this was not the way they wanted to go. They invariably asked him, what changed his heart... ("What made you Change?"). He said, "God changed my heart". pin drop...

He was still unlocking doors, only now it was the doors to childrens' hearts for God to come in...

what a thief...

v/r

Joshua

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Silas

Where in scripture do you see that? Abraham used to be Abram, a gentile who had no faith in the true God. In fact, he was just like everyone else in his country. Yet, God Soverignly elected this man to the faith and promised that through Him, all of God's people will be named. The whole OT is filled with God's election and the NT brings it to light and makes it obvious, I think.

Originally Posted by Silas

In Christ!

I said Abraham had grace because he had faith first...

a gentile is a Non-jew.. abram was pre-jew and also pre-gentile.. so thats incorrect.

Heb11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.

Heb11:17By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Better yet read all of hebrews chapter 11

How can you not know thats in the bible..

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,


Im confused are you saying we dont have grace through faith?

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Cage

Righteuos maybe, but not good, Quahom. Jesus tells us so..."There is none good, but the father" Jesus even neglected to suggest that he was good...

17. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


Love,

I love you Cage but I need to add something just to try to clarify... the MAN Jesus said He cannot be called good because He was lesser than the Father God in flesh.. but He was still God. So the MAN cannot be called good.. but God is Good. He emptied himself out and put Himself into submission to God and subjected Himself to the will of the Father.. it was an example for all of us.. His whole life was an example to us. You and I would agree on this. We would have to call Him a liar and a blasphemer for allowing people to worship Him since it went against everything He taught..

Im posting a link that addresses this.. its an interesting and informative read.

Apologetics Press - Did Jesus Christ Exist in the Form of God While on Earth?

[Faithfulservant]

Im just going to say something..

People need to quit laying stumbling blocks before other people...

Crosswalk.com - romans 14

Its horrible. Im seeing a lot of spiritual pride in some of these posts and Im guilty of some of it.. thank you Jesus for revealing my sin to me.. Its a serious offense and that pride will be a stumbling block to yourself.. watch it happen.. you start thinking your so smart that you have the answer and you just sinned a horrible sin.

Danger In Spiritual Pride

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Im just going to say something..

People need to quit laying stumbling blocks before other people...

I agree, FS. I think the difficulty with some of these threads is that they were not set up to be real questioning and dialogue. They are started in the form of a question but rapidly become preaching to the choir and trying to convert all Christians to the same interpretation of the Bible.

As I'm sure you know, it can be very difficult to be patient when the conversation is set up to be that way, and it is challenging to disagree with others while still encouraging them in their faith.

I've been trying to encourage Silas while also standing firm in what I believe, because I have reasons for interpreting things the way I do. I sincerely hope that my posts will not cause Silas or anyone else to stumble, but rather to grow strong in their faith through careful exploration of the scriptures (whether they wind up agreeing with me one day or not).

[Silas]

Faithfulservant

I said Abraham had grace because he had faith first... a gentile is a Non-jew.. abram was pre-jew and also pre-gentile.. so thats incorrect.

Heb11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.

Heb11:17By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Better yet read all of hebrews chapter 11

How can you not know thats in the bible..

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, Im confused are you saying we dont have grace through faith?

No beloved of God. What I'm saying is simply this:

We are saved by GRACE alone, through our FAITH alone, and in CHRIST alone. We both have that basic construct. You however, as must Christians do, opt for free will inasmuch as you believe God foresees faith and elects or saves people that He foreknew would have faith. I'm saying that God's election is not based on foreseen faith, or any good or other merit in the person because the person had no faith or any good, but was just as bad as anyone else, and God's election is rooted in "His own good pleasure." Therefore, He has mercy on whom He wills. Futhermore, faith is something God gives us, not what we give to God and since thats the case, ALL of salvation, from the gifts of "faith" to "repentence" to "Grace" is ALL of God and none of man. So when Abraham is made righteous by his faith (as everyone else will be), Im saying that His faith was a gift from God and not something He himself produced. I hope that made a little sense?

[Silas]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

I love you Cage but I need to add something just to try to clarify... the MAN Jesus said He cannot be called good because He was lesser than the Father God in flesh.. but He was still God. So the MAN cannot be called good.. but God is Good.

Sorry, but I believe you misunderstood our Lord's words. He didnt say that He wasnt good. He said only God is good. He was once again showing them who He really was. They all knew Him to be a good person from youth, so when He said "There is none good but God," He wasnt removing Himself from the equation, but showing that He is God. As you know as a Christian, if Jesus wasnt good, His sacrifice would have not saved us because He wouldnt be a perfect sacrificial lamb but a blemished one (which is not premitted). But thank God that the God-Man was both a pefect man (2nd Adam) and God at the same time. He freed us from the bondage of sin and gave us a passion for His glory that we may live to know Him forever.

[path_of_one]

But logically, Silas-

If people are only saved through election by God, and God will elect these people no matter what their will is, what is the point of evangelism?

Why would we be called upon by Christ to spread the gospel, if it doesn't matter?

If people do not have the free will to choose God, and some people will be destined for faith and others not by God Himself, it sets up some big problems:

1. That people really do not have free will, when the Bible says they do. If people are incapable of choosing to have faith in God, in choosing the narrow path, then how can people be held responsible at all for their actions? After all, if it is up to God and not to ourselves if we follow Christ, then those who do not follow Christ are excused from that- as they could not choose to follow him. You get what I'm saying here?

2. It sets God up to be playing favorites, for no apparent reason. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that He is not calling all people to Him, but only some. The rest He presumably ignores or destines for hell. Well, that is in direct contradiction to Bible verses that say He desires that all come to Him, and it is also in contradiction to His essence- Love- and His nature revealed through Jesus Christ, who came not for the healthy but rather for the sick. There are numerous places in the NT in which people are healed because they have faith- just think of the woman who was healed simply by having faith and touching the hem of His robe.

3. It makes evangelism pointless. If everyone who will be saved was already ordained to be saved, and the rest of the people haven't the free will to choose God anyway, it's kind of pointless to try to spread the Good News. You'd either be preaching to the already converted or sowing seed on infertile ground.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the doctrine of election. People were created with free will. We are saved by God's grace through Jesus Christ, but we have to make the choice to accept that Gift. God reaches out to ALL people in love, but we have to make the choice to reach back.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

I love you Cage but I need to add something just to try to clarify... the MAN Jesus said He cannot be called good because He was lesser than the Father God in flesh.. but He was still God. So the MAN cannot be called good.. but God is Good. He emptied himself out and put Himself into submission to God and subjected Himself to the will of the Father.. it was an example for all of us.. His whole life was an example to us. You and I would agree on this. We would have to call Him a liar and a blasphemer for allowing people to worship Him since it went against everything He taught..

Im posting a link that addresses this.. its an interesting and informative read.

Apologetics Press - Did Jesus Christ Exist in the Form of God While on Earth?

Thank you, FS.

I understand what, and why you believe what you do, and I appreciate your commitment in explaining, but I have not come to that point...Yet. When God puts it in me to believe Jesus was God, it will be then, and only then that I will accept it. I cannot believe what I cannot believe until God reveals it to me and changes my mind. Until then, any acceptance would be in vain, as my heart won't allow me to 'truly' believe it at this time.

Great article, though...it really explains it in a way that makes 'better' sense. But, I'm not worried about being wrong about Christs divinity, anymore. I view him as having divine attributes associated with being born of God's Spirit, but viewing him as God is troubling for me at the moment. God will put it in my heart when I'm ready if it is true, and it will be made clear for me. I trust in God, and have faith in him...


Much Love,

[Silas]

path_of_one

If people are only saved through election by God, and God will elect these people no matter what their will is, what is the point of evangelism? Why would we be called upon by Christ to spread the gospel, if it doesn't matter?

There are two reason to witness. 1. Jesus commands it. and 2. It is the "means" by which God reaches the "end" in salvation (1Cor. 1:23). We witness the truth to every one with confidence that God has a people from every tribe, tounge, and nation and that He will save His own by the means of the gospel going out. Therefore, we dont have to be great with words, we just give the gospel to everyone and know that the sheep will hear. All of the great preachers who did the most evangelism have been Calvinist and understood these teachings, from the Reformation to the Puratain, to the Great Awaking in American with Jonathan Edwars, to Spurgeon in England, to Way of the Master in American today, etc. etc.

1. That people really do not have free will, when the Bible says they do.

Give me one verse in the Bible that says "man has a free will" or is able to come to Christ in and of His own strength.

If people are incapable of choosing to have faith in God, in choosing the narrow path, then how can people be held responsible at all for their actions? After all, if it is up to God and not to ourselves if we follow Christ, then those who do not follow Christ are excused from that- as they could not choose to follow him. You get what I'm saying here?

Apostle Paul knew this question would arise and so he said in Romans 9:19..."You will say to me then, why does He [God] still find fault?" Read Romans 9 for a clear teaching of God's election and then Read from Romans 8:28 all the way through Romans 11 for Paul's teaching of election. The reason why God could still find fault is because man should know that he ought to come to God, but he doesnt want to. Instead, He in and of his own will, chooses sin over God. Moreover, man is judged supernatually through Adam. His sin is our sin and all are guilty through him.

2. It sets God up to be playing favorites, for no apparent reason.

Not at all. All are guilty before God. God's ection has nothing to do with the sinner, but with God's good pleasure and God's choice to love them. All sinners are created equal and the ONLY reason some arent as bad as they could be is because of God's good pleasure in frustrating the evil desiers of their heart. God's mercy even extends to the reprobate sinner in that God does not allow them to get as bad as they could be. In other words, Hitler could have been worse, but wasnt because God didnt allow it.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that He is not calling all people to Him, but only some. The rest He presumably ignores or destines for hell. Well, that is in direct contradiction to Bible verses that say He desires that all come to Him, and it is also in contradiction to His essence- Love- and His nature revealed through Jesus Christ, who came not for the healthy but rather for the sick. There are numerous places in the NT in which people are healed because they have faith- just think of the woman who was healed simply by having faith and touching the hem of His robe.

First, God sent Jesus for ALL those who will want Him and NONE that come to Christ will be turned away. Second, you said God's essence is Love. That isnt true. Rather, God's essence is Holiness. Love is a perfect attribute that flows from His Holiness (as all of His other attributes do). Third, you allude to 2Peter 3:9 where it says "God desieres all" to come to Christ and be saved. Ive already shown form both an easy english read and a hard context study that the "all" is refering to elect. Its on this thread I believe, or I can say it again. Lastly, the people in the NT that had the most faith, namely, the woman who had a demon possed child and the Roman officer, were both Gentiles and in each occurance we can see allusions to the fact that Gentiles were going to be counted as "Children of God," and not just Jews.

3. It makes evangelism pointless. If everyone who will be saved was already ordained to be saved, and the rest of the people haven't the free will to choose God anyway, it's kind of pointless to try to spread the Good News. You'd either be preaching to the already converted or sowing seed on infertile ground.

Again, God hasnt only ordained the "ends" but the "means." The gospel is the means by which God calls His sheep.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the doctrine of election. People were created with free will.

If you can show from scripture ONE verse that teaches that after the fall man's will is free, you would have successfully debunked 1500 years of how the Chruch of yesteryear believed scripture.

We are saved by God's grace through Jesus Christ, but we have to make the choice to accept that Gift. God reaches out to ALL people in love, but we have to make the choice to reach back.

We are saved by Grace through faith, amen!! But, we dont have the ability to come on our own..."None can come to the Son unless the Father first draws him." Does God draw everyone? Is that what scritpures teach? Honestly, I know why Christians have hard time with this doctrine. Its because we've been unknowingly influenced by free will theology and most of us wont come out of our presuppossitons. Ive been a Christian for three years and I started out as most - a "free willer." I didnt even know there was a 1500 year old debate between Chrsitians concern Arminism or Calvinism or Predestination vs free will, I just assumed that man has a free will when the Bible clearly shows that man's will is in bondage to sin and he will always be consistant to His nature when making a choice. Man's nature hates God and loves sin, loves darkness and not light, he never chooses to Come to Christ. If it werent for election, NONE would be saved.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Im just going to say something..

People need to quit laying stumbling blocks before other people...

Crosswalk.com - romans 14

Its horrible. Im seeing a lot of spiritual pride in some of these posts and Im guilty of some of it.. thank you Jesus for revealing my sin to me.. Its a serious offense and that pride will be a stumbling block to yourself.. watch it happen.. you start thinking your so smart that you have the answer and you just sinned a horrible sin.

Danger In Spiritual Pride

(Ephesians 4) ESV Bible Online: Passage: Ephesians 4 I read it this morning and it conveys a great message, imo.


Love,

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Silas

Faithfulservant

No beloved of God. What I'm saying is simply this:

We are saved by GRACE alone, through our FAITH alone, and in CHRIST alone. We both have that basic construct. You however, as must Christians do, opt for free will inasmuch as you believe God foresees faith and elects or saves people that He foreknew would have faith. I'm saying that God's election is not based on foreseen faith, or any good or other merit in the person because the person had no faith or any good, but was just as bad as anyone else, and God's election is rooted in "His own good pleasure." Therefore, He has mercy on whom He wills. Futhermore, faith is something God gives us, not what we give to God and since thats the case, ALL of salvation, from the gifts of "faith" to "repentence" to "Grace" is ALL of God and none of man. So when Abraham is made righteous by his faith (as everyone else will be), Im saying that His faith was a gift from God and not something He himself produced. I hope that made a little sense?

In difficult doctrinal matters, may we have gracious attitudes and humble hearts, desiring most of all to please Him who has called us to serve Him in the body of Christ. Discussion - YES! Disagreements - YES! Division - NO!


Jesus said, "By their fruit ye shall know them." When a particular position on the Scriptures causes one to become argumentative, legalistic, and divisive, I question the validity of that position. I seek to embrace those things that tend to make me more loving and kind, more forgiving and merciful. I know then that I am becoming more like my Lord. If you have come to a strong personal conviction on one side of a doctrinal issue, please grant us the privilege of first seeing how it has helped you to become more Christ-like in your nature, and then we will judge whether we need to come to that same persuasion. Let us always be certain to look at the fruit of the teaching.
-Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel

I had to erase what I wrote because it wasnt quite what I was trying to say.. so Im posting this instead..

Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of God

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Silas

Therefore, we dont have to be great with words, we just give the gospel to everyone and know that the sheep will hear.

Agreed. I actually think you don't need to speak at all. "Speak the gospel always, and if necessary use words." A Christian's actions and character should speak volumes about our Lord on their own.

All of the great preachers who did the most evangelism have been Calvinist and understood these teachings, from the Reformation to the Puratain, to the Great Awaking in American with Jonathan Edwars, to Spurgeon in England, to Way of the Master in American today, etc. etc.

This is a nice opinion. From your perspective, the great preachers were Calvinist. From my perspective, the great preachers were the Christian mystics. From someone else's perspective, it might be Billy Graham or Chuck Smith. What makes a great preacher to one person isn't what makes a great preacher to another, which is why it's wonderful to have a diverse selection, so each of us can be fed spiritually in the way that we need and for which we are ready.

If you insist that this is fact, rather than opinion, I would challenge you to prove to others that the greatest preachers were Calvinist. It isn't possible because saying something is "great" is in and of itself a personal judgement.

There's nothing wrong (at least to me) with you feeling that Calvinism works for you and helps you grow spiritually. I just ask for the same respect- there is a history of Christian mysticism back not only 1500 years, but back to the very beginning of the Jesus movement, so I think my path is justified, if you feel that a long history helps justify a spiritual path and set of beliefs (which is indicated by your reference to the long history of Calvinism). Personally, I don't think that historical longevity necessarily points toward truth, but then I am not arguing that my flavor of Christianity is superior to all others, so it doesn't really fall on me to defend my own path as the "best" and "greatest" since I only claim it to be so for myself.

Give me one verse in the Bible that says "man has a free will" or is able to come to Christ in and of His own strength.

Like the word "trinity" the word "free will" is not in the Bible. That does not mean that it does not exist or is not a correct interpretation, just as most Christians defend the trinitarian vision of God.

Why is "free will" not in the Bible as a phrase? Language differences between expression of the concept in Hebrew, Greek, and English.

In Hebrew, human will is expressed as intentional action by a variety of verbs rather than a noun. Verbs such as "to choose," "to desire," and "to determine" indicate intentionality. One cannot choose without the capacity to do so. Biblical Hebrew makes no effort to distinguish will from intellect, feeling, or emotion. The culture and language at the time did not think about dividing up the human personality as we do today (which has its own long philosophical history). For the Biblical Jews, "will" was an objective reality of action, not a description of inner thought as it is used today, hence the indication that an interpretation of humankind's nature as "free willed" is correct when we look at the verbs used to describe human action.

The NT reflects the same perspective as the old, as it was an outgrowth of Jewish culture, thought, and religion. Greek was similar in that verbs expressed choice and intention, rather than a noun as we use it today.

A variety of Biblical scholars agree that scripture shows humans are agents that, unlike the animals, are responsible for their actions, have the capacity to deliberate among courses of action, choose, and act intentionally (rather than driven by instinct), and can thus respond to the revealed will of God by accepting or rejecting it.

Thus, you have passages that clearly depict human beings who are choosing to turn toward God, asking for His assistance and strength to keep them on that narrow path:
"I desire to do your will, O my God" - Psalms 40:8
"Teach me to do your will" - Psalms 143:10
"If anyone chooses to do God's will" - John 7:17
"but has control over his own will" 1 Cor 7:37
"I have come to do your will, O God" - Heb 10:7
"We ask anything according to His will" - 1 John 5:14

Romans 9 for a clear teaching of God's election and then Read from Romans 8:28 all the way through Romans 11 for Paul's teaching of election.

I've read these passages many times and I am not ashamed to say I'm still praying over and working through them. However, I am very aware of the Calvinist doctrine (learned about it long ago) and I do not believe that this is what Paul meant. Why? Here's a few of the passages that still indicate that human choice is some factor in the salvation equation (and mind you, human choice does not negate God's grace or make it "our own doing" that we are saved):

"The Word (God's message in Christ) is near you, on your lips and in your heart; that is the Word (the message, the basis and object) of faith which we preach, because if you acknolwedge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart a person believes (adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Christ) and so is justifed (declared righteous, acceptable to God), and with the mouth he confesses (declares openly and speaks out freely his faith) and confirms his salvation." 10:8-10 Amplified

There are more- it just takes careful reading. Knowing what we do about intentional action indicating free will in Hebrew and Greek, you can clearly see some issues with the doctrine of election here. As far as I've seen, it takes intentional action on the part of a human being to "acknowledge," "confess," "adhere to," "trust in," and "rely on." We choose what to confess, what to acknowledge, what to rely on. I could choose something different, but I choose God, even when it gets difficult.

Secondly, I do not see any reason in these passages why God has not called us all to be His children and saved. What I do see is an exhortation to be happy with our place and gifts in life. There are some who are called by God to be great among all humanity- these are the Mother Theresas of the world- and we are not to be envious of others' gifts and place in God's plan. We are all created for different purposes (the parable of the clay vessels) and we should desire to grow into whatever gifts God has given us rather than being jealous of others.

I suppose you could say I believe that God creates us all with different and unique qualities and purposes in His plan. Some might be considered "elect" because they make a huge and lasting impact in spreading the love and grace of God to others; most of us are created for much smaller purposes. We are not to question that God has His reasons for each of us. Yet it is up to us individually whether to choose to follow God's will for us or whether to remain self-centered, using our gifts for our own ends rather than His.

I do not believe any person is created and predestined for hell.

Paul himself indicates that God wills that all humanity be saved:
"I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone- for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men- the testimony given in its proper time." - 1 Timothy 2:1-5 NIV

The reason why God could still find fault is because man should know that he ought to come to God, but he doesnt want to. Instead, He in and of his own will, chooses sin over God.

So, according to the doctrine of election, people have the free will to choose sin, but not God? **Philosophical question here: if you only have one choice, is it a choice?**

Moreover, man is judged supernatually through Adam. His sin is our sin and all are guilty through him.

The very popular doctrine of original sin. After study, I decided I did not believe this was accurate, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say I do not agree, and would be happy to discuss this at a later time in another thread.

All are guilty before God. God's ection has nothing to do with the sinner, but with God's good pleasure and God's choice to love them. All sinners are created equal and the ONLY reason some arent as bad as they could be is because of God's good pleasure in frustrating the evil desiers of their heart. God's mercy even extends to the reprobate sinner in that God does not allow them to get as bad as they could be. In other words, Hitler could have been worse, but wasnt because God didnt allow it.

So God is halting all sinners to some degree, but chooses to let some sinners sin more than others. Why? We don't know. It doesn't seem to make sense, since God tells us over and over in the Bible that He wants righteousness, He wants goodness, He wants peace and love, and He wants all to be saved (see above quote) but somehow instead of getting what He wants, He chooses to let some sinners be like Mother Theresa and others be like Hitler.

Hmm... Just isn't meshing with everything I've learned about God's character and will from the Bible.

I put the responsibility for people's sin squarely on humankind. I can choose to sin more or less. I can't choose to be perfect (or if I can, I haven't figured that out yet), but I certainly can and do choose whether or not to sin all the time. I am not a puppet whose strings are pulled by God.

First, God sent Jesus for ALL those who will want Him and NONE that come to Christ will be turned away.

I believe God sent Jesus for everyone. Period. Whether they want Him or not. The work that Jesus Christ accomplishes in us through God's grace depends on us accepting the Gift, but the Gift was freely given for all.

And yes, no one who comes to Christ is turned away.

Second, you said God's essence is Love. That isnt true. Rather, God's essence is Holiness.

"God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." 1 John 4:16 KJV

Love is a perfect attribute that flows from His Holiness (as all of His other attributes do).

OK. That doesn't negate that the scripture does not say, "God has love" or "God loves" or "God is holy and so He loves." The scripture says, clearly and in every translation, "God IS love." That is what indicates that this is not merely one of His attributes, but rather an essence. It is a definitional statement- X is Y.

Third, you allude to 2Peter 3:9 where it says "God desieres all" to come to Christ and be saved.

That idea comes from far more than 2 Peter 3:9. See above.

Ive already shown form both an easy english read and a hard context study that the "all" is refering to elect. Its on this thread I believe, or I can say it again.

You can say it as many times as you want, but that does not make it true, nor does it explain the other passages that indicate the same thing (see above). I don't need you to say it again, I need you to provide detailed justification.

Lastly, the people in the NT that had the most faith, namely, the woman who had a demon possed child and the Roman officer, were both Gentiles and in each occurance we can see allusions to the fact that Gentiles were going to be counted as "Children of God," and not just Jews.

Not sure what the point is here. I'm a Gentile myself, so obviously I believe this is true.

Continued... (text limitations)