Well, it's not "theoretical" since we know that those who are actually 
saved or lost were decreed to be that way according to God's secret will.
But pragmatically it does matter significantly whether or not one believes 
in the total sovereignty of God or in some lesser theology of God.  The 
lesser views are open to Alfred Whitehead's and John Cobb's process 
theology whereby God doesn't know the future and is growing and evolving 
even as we grow and evolve.  Arminianism leaves open the possibility for 
Pelagian views such as the works righteousness of the Word of Faith 
movement whereby one has to earn God's blessing by performing acts of 
faith, speaking magical faith formulas, and denying reality.  Word of Faith 
pentecostal movement has taken Arminianism to the nth degree by 
syncretizing it with Christian Science and making God into a heavenly bell 
hop who can be manipulated by what we say and what we think.
I have encountered some Arminians in the pentecostal movement who deny that 
original sin has any effect on humans at birth.  A denial of total 
depravity is essentially to deny that we need to be saved.  We all have the 
ability to save ourselves by being good, an impossibility on both counts.
 IXTHUS<<
RW>        You suggested,
|The apparent paradox is that God's decree seems to contradict human
|freedom.  But our minds are limited...  God's is not.  He is infinitel
|wise.
RW>        Oh, I don't have any illusion that there is such a
RW>thing as human freedom.  Seems to me the whole point of the 10
RW>commandments was to prove to us we are not free to choose what
RW>is good, to convict us of sin so we'd turn to Christ for
RW>salvation.
Exactly.  (See Galatians 3:19-25).
|That's what happened when confessional churches lose their traditions 
|their confessions of faith.
RW>        We used to be in a mainline denomination, equivalent to
RW>United Methodists in the U.S..  They were deathly sick with
RW>liberalism. Yet their statement of faith, which in effect is
RW>their actual constitution (all else being by-laws), is powerful
RW>conservative theology.  But I never heard about it until I was
RW>about to go to seminary; it had just been forgotten.
So sad.  I am a graduate of Asury Theological Seminary, probably the only 
evangelical seminary in the Methodist and holiness tradition.  I got a 
recent issue of GOOD NEWS, which is put out by the conservative United 
Methodists in Wilmore, Kentucky.  The cover has a picture of the Titanic on 
it with the question "Will Homosexuality Split the United Methodist 
Church?"  Unfortunately confessions alone are not enough.  We also need the 
Spirit of God and the grace of God to keep us on track.
I left the Assemblies of God over similar issues, though not the same kind 
of theological liberalism.  Pragmatism seems to be the cry of the day.  "If 
it works it must be of God."  Theological liberalism takes many forms.  
I've seen more and more cultic teaching infiltrate the 
pentecostal/charismatic movement and most are too ignorant to know the 
difference.  A recent post from Harvey Smith is a good example.  He 
borrowed a Mormon doctrine from a popular movie called "The Seventh Sign."
 IXTHUS<<
RW>        You mentioned,
|No, I believe he was right.  Read Romans 9-11 sometime.  God loved Jac
RW>        Yes, that's strong on predestination all right.  But is
RW>it a proof-text for predestination to salvation, the way
RW>EPHESIANS 1 certainly is?  Even if it is, it doesn't negate
RW>other Scriptures which show Christ died for all, or that God
RW>wants all to be saved.  Or so it seems to me, anyway.
Right, that is God's secret will, not His revealed will.  We don't know 
until after the fact what God's secret will is.  I wouldn't call three 
whole chapters of the epistle to the Romans a prooftext, though:)  (Romans 
9-11).
RW>        You continued,
|a matter of achieving salvation.  However, from a Calvinist perspectiv
|this prevenient grace must be a dismal failure because if it is suppos
|to enable human choice it doesn't do the job because many, many are
|actually lost.  Calvinism, on the other hand, teaches that Jesus never
|fails and actually saves all of the elect--not one of them is lost!  A
|only those who actually receive grace will actually respond.  (John 6:
|10:27).
RW>        Well, the two thieves on either side of Christ were
RW>occupying places reserved for them by God.  They both observed
RW>the same events, they knew the same facts about Christ.  Both
RW>received the same grace, yet one accepted and one resisted.
RW>God did not fail, the unrepentant thief failed.  The
RW>sovereignty of God is not diminished because He permitted this.
Both received the same opportunity but they certainly did not receive the 
same grace--if they had *both* would have been saved:)  From the 
perspective of His revealed will, yes, it would have been His will to save 
both thieves.  However, it is evident afterwards that only one was elected 
since only one responded.  This is God's secret will now made manifest as 
the event happened.  The same event turned one away and drew one to Christ. 
The only way to explain this is that one was enabled to freely come while 
the other was only hardened further.  Pharaoh is good example of this, BTW.
RW>        Nevertheless, if this is still a subject of debate
RW>after so many centuries, especially for me, when I see no
RW>practical difference in how we carry out the Great Commission,
RW>one way or the other, and it obviously does not hinder our
RW>fellowship one with the other, I see this thread as an
RW>opportunity for growth, rather than for polemical apologetics,
RW>if you will.   |-)}+
Oh, I'm not being polemical--or I didn't think I was anyway:)  Others may 
be guilty of that, uh, like maybe Mick.  But I think his intentions are 
good even if his tone of voice and methods are wrong.
The bottom line for me is sound doctrine.  If I know that God is control no 
matter what has happened good or bad in my life, then I know that He is 
able to keep what I have committed to Him against that day.  I can have 
genuine assurance of my salvation based on what He has done for me and in 
me, not based on my performance level--though performance is certainly an 
evidence or sign that I am truly saved and reborn.
Thanks for your moderate tone throughout this post, Randg.  I forgot your 
other name.  BTW, I have a high regard for sacramental churches though I 
myself am a Zwinglian when it comes to the ordinances:)
God bless!
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie Ray, 
Chaplain
1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely.
Persevere in them, because if you do,
you will save both yourself and your hearers.  (NIV).
chaplain@isgroup.net
---
 * WR  # 461 * Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide.
---------------