Saw your post WAYYYY up there from November 09. Hope maybe youre still checking this thread to see if anyone answers.

From my own personal experience I have found that what works best for my family is just systematically covering entire books of the Bible a little each night over the years. This is the same method I follow in my preaching. I guess it is just really expository family devotionals.
Like you, we tried lots of devotionals and outlines even crafts, illustrations and games when the kids were younger but found none of those really accomplished what we wanted to get out of it for our family and, interestingly, our kids just liked simply getting together, praying, reading and talking better. For us, consistency has been the key to what I would call “success” more than curriculum. Though I dont mean to say that I don’t think there is tangible power in going “all Bible.” Anyway, that’s my 2 cents. Hope things are going great in your family devotions.

Although this comment roll has found its way into a cavernous conversation that would better be submitted under some of the other blogs, I must help you both in a small but important correction.

ArmEnian is a race of people. ArmInian is the proper name for the teaching and beliefs of Jacob Hermann, better known as Arminius (I am sure that you knew this). It is a common mistake to mispell or even mispronounce. But, for the many committed Christian brothers and sisters in Christ who have come out of the very Arminian based Armenian Orthodox church, the distinction is very important.

Having said that, my mother-in-law is an Armenian immigrant who loves the Lord. And we have actually used this same little topic as a tool and opportunity for conversation with our own 25% Armenian children who we are praying for and committed to “explaining” the gospel to on a daily basis.

How can you say that Romans 9 is not what happened? Vs. 10-12 says, “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.” This is the way it happened, Vince. “It was said unto her” not “it could have been said unto her.”

You can avoid any scripture you like by simply denying that it is true. Paul says that this is the way it happened not that this is the way it could have happened. What if I were to say that the seven day creation could have happened but that evolution was really what happened? Where would you be as a Christian if you looked at all of scripture the way you look at this passage?

I was not trying to imply that you said that “that” looks back on “are saved.” I was saying that “that” being a pronoun, it requires an antecedent. I realize that a pronoun must agree with its antecedent but I was saying that it must have a noun that it replaces. If you look at this verse in context, (Christ quickened us when we were dead in sins) and (God hath before ordained that we should walk in them), it is clear that God’s quickening is a gift because it is done even when we are dead in sins. Even if not stated in this verse, faith, being the result of quickening, is a gift.

You said, “Since you opted to camp on Rom. 9:18, you arrived at the wrong conclussion for the rest of the text clearly states that God has the right to do what you stated, but it never says He did.” Read the passage again. It absolutely is what happened. Verses 21 and 22 are not saying that this could have happened, they are asking a question to those who question this view, in order to answer them.

2. Concerning Eph. 2:8, it is obvious your mind is made up, grammar, syntax, and context don’t seem to mean anything to you. This is a matter of YOUR pride and choice. A neuter article doesn’t look back on a feminine noun. You opted to do harm to the Word just so you can support your point.

3. Note that I never said, as you are trying to imply, that it looks back on “are saved.” You did to me the same thing you are doing to the scriptures - misrepresentation. The “that” refers to the implied issue - salvation.

Daniel, let me encourage you with Paul’s words to Timothy, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” 2 Tim. 2:15

The issue is not winning or loosing an argument or to support one’s position. We need to go where Scripture takes us. Is election real? Yes, the Bible teaches so. But it is just as true that the Bible teaches that there is a human responsibility involved. How these two work together, I don’t know. However, I know I cannot deny one in favor of the other for doing so is getting half a truth and become unbalanced in one’s theology. Even worse, it is taking away from Scripture and denying God’s sovereignty over His word.

Anything we offer in “exchange” for God’s pardon and promise of eternal life keeps it from being a gift.

Verse 18 says, “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” This has been my point all along. God will have mercy on whomever He wants to, and will harden whomever He wants to. “So then it is not of him that WILLETH, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy (vs. 16).” This verse, very clearly, shows us Paul’s view. IT IS NOT OF HIM THAT WILLETH! The “what if” in vs. 22 is not saying that this is not what hapened, but is giving a possible reason for it. Actually the word “what” is a CONJUNCTION or continuation of the previous verse which says, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

Chapter 10 does not conflict with this (Paul’s) view.

In Ephesians 2:8 “that” is a pronoun that literally means “this thing” and therefore MUST refer to one of the NOUNS in the verse (either grace or faith). A verb (Ex. are saved) cannot have an antecedent.

It is not in my power to convince you of this doctrine, because only the Holy Spirit can do that. It is not of him that willeth, Vince.