PDA

View Full Version : Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?



Pages : [1] 2

PneumaPsucheSoma
Sep 24th 2010, 07:24 AM
Why or why not?

ProDeo
Sep 24th 2010, 09:23 AM
I voted yes. I am both. Salvation is mystery. It can't be understood by our limited mind. Why try?

ThyWordIsTruth
Sep 24th 2010, 11:41 AM
Why or why not?

I voted no. I think many of the points in the two systems contradict each other.

E.g.
Either Christ died for the whole world, or Christ only died for the elect. Christ can't possibly die for the whole world, yet only died for the elect.
Either a believer has eternal security, or a believer can fall away. A believer can't have security and still fall away.
Election is either unconditional, or conditional. Election cannot be unconditional yet conditioned on something.
Either grace is resistible, or irresistible. It can't be irresistible, and yet someone can resist it.

The above four are totally contradictory to each other. I, for now, cannot see any middle ground, until proven wrong of course.

notuptome
Sep 24th 2010, 12:10 PM
Will this be seen from an academic perspective or a practical perspective? Why is there no third option? Are we thinking five pointers or seven pointers and is this in contrast to roman catholics or a specific protestant variation?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Butch5
Sep 24th 2010, 12:12 PM
Why or why not?

I don't think so, they both contain doctrines that are opposed to Scripture. If you change the doctrines then you no longer have Calvinism or Arminianism. However, those who hold to these doctrines can be reconciled together if they are willing to forgo the doctrines of men and seek the doctrines of the apostles.

BrianW
Sep 24th 2010, 12:19 PM
I'm wondering why I should even care about Calvinism or Arminianism at all.

Seriously. I'm born again. I love my God and have a thirst for righteousness. I have the promise that I have been filled with the Holy Spirit and that he will guide and teach. And I got all of that long before I even heard of either of these guy's. So....Calvin? Arminius? Pshh.

Who needs them?

I've got Jesus.

Put me down for a vote of: I couldn't care less.

Slug1
Sep 24th 2010, 12:34 PM
I could care less as well.

Just another "ism" to me which is nothing but man making something up to tickle their own ears and anyone else who they can suck in with them.

RabbiKnife
Sep 24th 2010, 12:53 PM
The argument is not over "is salvation efficacious," the argument is over "how does it work," which is a fine academic armchair debate to have, but is absolutely meaningless in the real world.

The "debate" has been around long enough that each side by defined various trigger words according to their own definition, so trying to change the definitions is what the debate as devolved into.

I personally have no problem saying that I am eternally secure and that there is the possibility of my committing apostasy, and that paradox does not bother me at all.

RogerW
Sep 24th 2010, 03:06 PM
Why or why not?

I find myself thinking, "thank God we are not saved by how much we know, but by the One Who knows us." I have Christian friends and family members who are both C and A. The reason these two theological views can never be reconciled is because they are opposed to one another. Both groups are certain they hold the truth, but there is not two truths, there can only be one.

One reason the constant battle continues is because we are Christians, who are passionate about Bible study, and we seek to prove there is value in the study of Scripture from a sincere heart, because it brings us to mature faith and doctrine...or at least it should. Then of course there is another reason, that is because some have spent a lot of time in study, they see themselves as no longer needing to be taught, and become annoyed that anyone would dare question their doctrines. These are more concerned about proving they are right in their understanding, then they are in being shown why their doctrines will not withstand the scrutiny of the whole Bible.

I believe the argument will never be reconciled because each group are Christians who cannot see that sometimes pride has entered in. As long as men have pride, and we all do, this will never be reconciled.

John146
Sep 24th 2010, 03:17 PM
I voted no. I think many of the points in the two systems contradict each other.

E.g.
Either Christ died for the whole world, or Christ only died for the elect. Christ can't possibly die for the whole world, yet only died for the elect.
Either a believer has eternal security, or a believer can fall away. A believer can't have security and still fall away.
Election is either unconditional, or conditional. Election cannot be unconditional yet conditioned on something.
Either grace is resistible, or irresistible. It can't be irresistible, and yet someone can resist it.

The above four are totally contradictory to each other. I, for now, cannot see any middle ground, until proven wrong of course.I voted no for the same reasons.

LookingUp
Sep 24th 2010, 03:52 PM
Why or why not?I don't think so, because wouldn't that reconciliation create a third option which would be unable to include every point of the two you're trying to reconcile?

watchinginawe
Sep 24th 2010, 04:01 PM
I voted yes. I believe they both subscribe to the 5 solas so that is where I believe they find agreement.

markedward
Sep 24th 2010, 04:37 PM
I could care less as well.I think you mean you couldn't care less.

BrianW
Sep 24th 2010, 04:46 PM
A spelling Nazi....Run!

Err...thanks. I edited my screw up after seeing that.

markedward
Sep 24th 2010, 05:21 PM
That's not so much an issue of spelling as much as it is the exact opposite of what he was trying to say.

Slug1
Sep 24th 2010, 06:07 PM
I think you mean you couldn't care less.Hahaha... see, my spelling proves I can care less :P

I couldn't care less :hmm:

I could care less ;)

One means I can't care less and the other means I CAN care less... since I care less, I'll stick with the...

I could care less :P

Or... I can care less, or I do care less :lol:

Don't get me started! :rofl:

RabbiKnife
Sep 24th 2010, 06:14 PM
Oh, the suspenders is killing me.

I can't hardly not wait.

:)

John146
Sep 24th 2010, 08:25 PM
Hahaha... see, my spelling proves I can care less :P

I couldn't care less :hmm:

I could care less ;)

One means I can't care less and the other means I CAN care less... since I care less, I'll stick with the...

I could care less :P

Or... I can care less, or I do care less :lol:

Don't get me started! :rofl:You could care less but you don't feel like it? :D

RabbiKnife
Sep 24th 2010, 08:27 PM
I think we are asking the wrong question...

The issue is not whether two approaches to an understanding of salvation that appear to have diametrically polar presuppositions can be reconciled, but rather, can Christian men and women of good faith and conscience set aside philsophical arguments for the sake of the Gospel?

doug3
Sep 24th 2010, 08:53 PM
I could say "does it really matter?" :hmm: But that would stir up a hornet's nest :rolleyes:, and I think there have been enough megabytes of bandwidth expended on that debate already (though no doubt the debate will continue).

In my experience, God uses pastors and teachers etc. in the"Calvinist", "Arminian" and "couldn't care less" categories, and their many variants, to feed His people. :pp

christseeker
Sep 24th 2010, 09:15 PM
http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww173/prestonjjrtr/Smileys/pokenest.gif :D

Bandit
Sep 24th 2010, 09:41 PM
Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled? Why or why not?

Never. calvinsim (reformed theology) makes God into a sadistic monster. No reconciliation is possible between the theologies, but individuals can still be friends - just like I have friends who are non-christian.

BroRog
Sep 24th 2010, 09:48 PM
Never. calvinsim (reformed theology) makes God into a sadistic monster. No reconciliation is possible between the theologies, but individuals can still be friends - just like I have friends who are non-christian.Monster or not, at least Calvinists acknowledge him as the creator.

Butch5
Sep 24th 2010, 11:40 PM
I think we are asking the wrong question...

The issue is not whether two approaches to an understanding of salvation that appear to have diametrically polar presuppositions can be reconciled, but rather, can Christian men and women of good faith and conscience set aside philsophical arguments for the sake of the Gospel?

With all of the division in the church it doesn't seem so.

Sirus
Sep 24th 2010, 11:49 PM
With all of the division in the church it doesn't seem so.Sure doesn't.

What are fowls, according to Jesus?


Mar 4:4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.

Mar 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
Mar 4:14 The sower soweth the word.
Mar 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
Where are they according to Jesus?


Mar 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
Mar 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
Mar 4:32 But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.
False doctrine and teachers were rampant in the days of the apostles and Peter and Paul said it would get worse when they were gone. Jesus and Paul also said division was necessary.

BrckBrln
Sep 25th 2010, 02:44 AM
I would suggest Calvinism and Arminianism can't be reconciled because they teach different things on the same questions. I would also suggest that it is an important issue and to say "it's just another 'ism'" or "i'll follow Jesus not Calvin or Arminius" is quite a naive (and arrogant) thing to say. A big problem in these debates, as was touched on earlier, is definitional. I find that Arminians have a difficult time thinking in the terms of a Calvinist, which is why there is so much mischaracterization.

Sirus
Sep 25th 2010, 03:09 AM
I would say Calvinist have a difficult time thinking in the terms of a Arminians. While Arminius was closer than Calvin, Augustine had a hard time thinking in the terms of Pelagius, Irenaeus, and the Apostles.

/Sirus ducks and runs :D

BrianW
Sep 25th 2010, 03:17 AM
Why is saying "I'll follow Jesus not Calvin or Arminius" a naive and arrogant thing to say? Care to expound on that and why the debate about the differences between the two theologies are so important?
I don't care which one you agree with or even if you agree with either of them at all. I would just like to know why I should care about either one.

I have my God and his holy word. What more do I truly need?

nzyr
Sep 25th 2010, 03:40 AM
I have my God and his holy word. What more do I truly need?You really don't need anything else.

BrckBrln
Sep 25th 2010, 03:41 AM
Why is saying "I'll follow Jesus not Calvin or Arminius" a naive and arrogant thing to say? Care to expound on that and why the debate about the differences between the two theologies are so important?
I don't care which one you agree with or even if you agree with either of them at all. I would just like to know why I should care about either one.

I have my God and his holy word. What more do I truly need?

It's naive because I would bet that you (and most who say that) are an Arminian! It's arrogant because you're implying those who identify themselves with the labels are not simply following Jesus.

LookingUp
Sep 25th 2010, 04:02 AM
Monster or not, at least Calvinists acknowledge him as the creator.huh? those who embrace arminianism don't believe god is the creator?

BrianW
Sep 25th 2010, 04:11 AM
It's naive because I would bet that you (and most who say that) are an Arminian! It's arrogant because you're implying those who identify themselves with the labels are not simply following Jesus.

I am a Christian and nothing more or less and I in no way shape or form stated or implied that Calvinist or those of the Arminianism persuasion aren't Christians. I have brothers in Christ that I speak to on a daily basis that are In one or the other camps and are pastors, deacons or teachers at their churches. They're Christians and I respect their council and their friendship.
I would think no less of people on this board.

BrckBrln
Sep 25th 2010, 04:17 AM
I am a Christian and nothing more or less and I in no way shape or form stated or implied that Calvinist or those of the Arminianism persuasion aren't Christians. I have brothers in Christ that I speak to on a daily basis that are In one or the other camps and are pastors, deacons or teachers at their churches. They're Christians and I respect their council and their friendship.
I would think no less of people on this board.

This is what I'm talking about. Telling me you're a 'Christian and nothing more or less' tells me absolutely nothing in this current context. I just find it very weird that people like to say this, and then when asked what their view on salvation is, they espouse Arminianism! Do you see what I'm saying here?

BrianW
Sep 25th 2010, 04:21 AM
You haven't read me espouse anything on this board about it one way or the other except to say I don't care about these theologies and to ask why I should.

If you just want to argue instead of answer a couple of questions about what you posted I'm done. This does nothing beneficial for either of us.

BrckBrln
Sep 25th 2010, 04:31 AM
You haven't read me espouse anything on this board about it one way or the other except to say I don't care about these theologies and to ask why I should.

If you just want to argue instead of answer a couple of questions about what you posted I'm done. This does nothing beneficial for either of us.

:B

I guess I will just never get it.

Diggindeeper
Sep 25th 2010, 04:49 AM
I voted no. I think many of the points in the two systems contradict each other.

E.g.
Either Christ died for the whole world, or Christ only died for the elect. Christ can't possibly die for the whole world, yet only died for the elect.
Either a believer has eternal security, or a believer can fall away. A believer can't have security and still fall away.
Election is either unconditional, or conditional. Election cannot be unconditional yet conditioned on something.
Either grace is resistible, or irresistible. It can't be irresistible, and yet someone can resist it.

The above four are totally contradictory to each other. I, for now, cannot see any middle ground, until proven wrong of course.


I voted no for the same reasons.

...I voted no for the same reasons too.

Redeemed by Grace
Sep 25th 2010, 01:30 PM
John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

RogerW
Sep 25th 2010, 02:15 PM
Here is why the issue is relevant! There is only one truth, so in having two opposing views it becomes abundantly clear that (1) both views could be wrong (2) both views have some truth, but not all truth, which is really not truth (3) one view is right and the other wrong. Why is it important? Without knowing the truth have we truly been set free?

Joh*8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Truth comes from the Father, and he who has learned of the Father comes unto Him.

Joh*6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

If we desire to do the will of God, we need to know "the doctrine" that comes from God.

Joh*7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

The Spirit guides us into all truth, so if we don't have truth are we certain we have the Spirit of Christ in us?

Joh*16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

One more. It does one no good whatsoever to be always learning and never coming to know the truth.

2Ti*3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Sep 25th 2010, 03:09 PM
I voted no. I think many of the points in the two systems contradict each other.

E.g.
Either Christ died for the whole world, or Christ only died for the elect. Christ can't possibly die for the whole world, yet only died for the elect.
Either a believer has eternal security, or a believer can fall away. A believer can't have security and still fall away.
Election is either unconditional, or conditional. Election cannot be unconditional yet conditioned on something.
Either grace is resistible, or irresistible. It can't be irresistible, and yet someone can resist it.

The above four are totally contradictory to each other. I, for now, cannot see any middle ground, until proven wrong of course.

Understood, but is there a way to look deeper? Can these be hyper-semantical in the sense of degree or perspective?

e.g.
Can Limited and Unlimited Atonement both be seen as: "Sufficient for all; Efficient for the elect"?

Obviously, some of the differences come from other differences, often "grouped" together. Also, some neglected and/or underemphasized teachings play a role in someone's "position". It seems the majority differences can be attributed to emphasis and perspective, etc.

I think my extensive exposure to extremes of both has ultimately given me a deeper understanding of the "spectrum" of faith. (Obviously, I'm speaking only of non-essentials.)

What thinkest thou?

watchinginawe
Sep 25th 2010, 03:17 PM
Here is why the issue is relevant! There is only one truth, so in having two opposing views it becomes abundantly clear that (1) both views could be wrong (2) both views have some truth, but not all truth, which is really not truth (3) one view is right and the other wrong. Why is it important? Without knowing the truth have we truly been set free?
...
If we desire to do the will of God, we need to know "the doctrine" that comes from God.
...
The Spirit guides us into all truth, so if we don't have truth are we certain we have the Spirit of Christ in us?
...
One more. It does one no good whatsoever to be always learning and never coming to know the truth. :hmm: I am always mindful that these thoughts are probably present just underneath the face of orthodox Calvinism. It is esotericism at its best IMO. While the points you make are very important, it is interesting to me that you subscribe to a theology which removes all resonsibility of correct doctrine from the Church and man. Instead, correct doctrine is a sign of that which God has given by which brethren might know one another. If that is true, then it is manifest to me that if I can believe something different than Calvinism then I should embrace it with absolutely no concern about being wrong about Calvinism being wrong. Deceived or not, I would have the theology God has meant for me to have, either to my salvation or my destruction.

Amos_with_goats
Sep 25th 2010, 03:20 PM
John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

Yup. :)



As both are based on a faulty understanding of time, I would say they can be reconciled... by being abandoned. ;)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Sep 25th 2010, 04:04 PM
Yup. :)

As both are based on a faulty understanding of time, I would say they can be reconciled... by being abandoned. ;)

This is the perfect "time" to ellaborate on such an adjusted understanding of "time", Brother. Bring on the non-paradoxical paradoxes.

RogerW
Sep 25th 2010, 04:10 PM
:hmm: I am always mindful that these thoughts are probably present just underneath the face of orthodox Calvinism. It is esotericism at its best IMO. While the points you make are very important, it is interesting to me that you subscribe to a theology which removes all resonsibility of correct doctrine from the Church and man. Instead, correct doctrine is a sign of that which God has given by which brethren might know one another. If that is true, then it is manifest to me that if I can believe something different than Calvinism then I should embrace it with absolutely no concern about being wrong about Calvinism being wrong. Deceived or not, I would have the theology God has meant for me to have, either to my salvation or my destruction.

I have come to realize that the doctrines I espouse to be truth do indeed align more closely to the doctrines of Calivinism. Here's the rub...I was called a Calvinist before I had even heard of the man! So where did you get the opinion that the theology that I subscribe to; biblical theology I might add...removes responsibility for correct doctrine from the church and men? What exactly are you trying to say? Correct doctrine is "a sign" God has given so that we might know one another? You'll have to enlighten me on your meaning here as well??? You are free to embrace whatever you choose, and since God is providential over the affairs of men, you are correct if one remains to be deceived it is because God wills it. And yes, you and you alone will be held accountable in the day of Judgment.

Perhaps you overlooked my first reply in this thread where I made a point of saying that we are not saved by what we know, but by the One Who knows us. In this last reply my point was to show that what we believe as truth matters in how we live our lives NOW... Will we continue to be tossed to and fro by every new wind of doctrine, or will we know the truth, set free from the bondage false doctrine can bind us in? Will we do the will of God, because we KNOW what His will is, or will we be deceived, and do what men will? Will we always continue to learn, but never learn truth because we don't know what the truth is?

Why did you separate my statements from the verses those statements responded to as though my words find no relevance in the Bible?

What I find especially deceiving is this...those who profess to hate the Reformed Doctrines of Grace; i.e. Calvinistic doctrine, will typically attempt to refute them without really having any understanding of what these doctrines actually teach. In other words they have learned; either or their own, or been taught that Calvinisim is a doctrine from hell. So without clear understanding, they make all manner of statements, much like you have, about doctrine they clearly have no real knowledge of.

watchinginawe
Sep 25th 2010, 04:34 PM
I have come to realize that the doctrines I espouse to be truth do indeed align more closely to the doctrines of Calivinism. Here's the rub...I was called a Calvinist before I had even heard of the man! So where did you get the opinion that the theology that I subscribe to; biblical theology I might add...removes responsibility for correct doctrine from the church and men? What exactly are you trying to say? Correct doctrine is "a sign" God has given so that we might know one another? You'll have to enlighten me on your meaning here as well??? You are free to embrace whatever you choose, and since God is providential over the affairs of men, you are correct if one remains to be deceived it is because God wills it. And yes, you and you alone will be held accountable in the day of Judgment. While my style of writing confounds many, I don't think I will choose to take the opportunity of trying to enlighten you further. I think my point is in what I already wrote and your reply will allow others to discern my point.


Perhaps you overlooked my first reply in this thread where I made a point of saying that we are not saved by what we know, but by the One Who knows us. In this last reply my point was to show that what we believe as truth matters in how we live our lives NOW... Will we continue to be tossed to and fro by every new wind of doctrine, or will we know the truth, set free from the bondage false doctrine can bind us in? Will we do the will of God, because we KNOW what His will is, or will we be deceived, and do what men will? Will we always continue to learn, but never learn truth because we don't know what the truth is? Exactly.


Why did you separate my statements from the verses those statements responded to as though my words find no relevance in the Bible?I think your conclusions stand seperate from scripture. I do think they find relevance in the Bible, but my point was to seperate what you concluded about your doctrine versus any that differ from that.


What I find especially deceiving is this...those who profess to hate the Reformed Doctrines of Grace; i.e. Calvinistic doctrine, will typically attempt to refute them without really having any understanding of what these doctrines actually teach. In other words they have learned; either or their own, or been taught that Calvinisim is a doctrine from hell. So without clear understanding, they make all manner of statements, much like you have, about doctrine they clearly have no real knowledge of. I said no such thing nor am I trying to deceive. And your conclusion? I clearly have no real knowledge of the true doctrine delivered to man by God to His elect. As I offered, esotericism at its best. Carry on RogerW.

Amos_with_goats
Sep 25th 2010, 04:35 PM
This is the perfect "time" to ellaborate on such an adjusted understanding of "time", Brother. Bring on the non-paradoxical paradoxes.

The idea is simple. The Lord is neither limited by having to 'sit around and wait to learn' what man will do, nor is He so small that He can not afford man the opportunity to freely choose.

Both sides of the discussion miss a very simple, and very significant aspect of the Lord... He sits out side of time.

THe Lord created time in Genesis.. He is not limited by it. The linear experience He gave man allows a 'progression'... (sanctification). In this we differ from the angels.

Our imperfect understanding of this nature causes us to seek to explain things in a frame of reference we can understand with our natural mind.

The idea that man would dance into and out of a status that is reflected in their ultimate end is not consistent with the Lord's nature... nor is the idea that He would limit one of His created beings to one decision.. if it were so, we would be no different then the angels... or the rocks that will cry out.

PPS, I am not doing this justice, I will try to return to it later. I am reminded of the earlier (excellent) thread you started on 'time'. Maybe it would be helpful to link to... where others might be able to illumine this topic better then a headsmen. I have searched for it just now with no luck... maybe you can find it.

BroRog
Sep 25th 2010, 04:42 PM
Rather than attempting a synthesis of the two, I think our goal should be to understand each passage of scripture on its own terms, and then accept the larger picture as it develops. To this end and in my experience, the task is a little easier for those who do not already have loyalty to a particular denominational creed.

notuptome
Sep 25th 2010, 05:05 PM
I have often wondered if John Calvin and James Arminius would recognize their teachings today? My observations tend to lead me to the conclusion that both views are distorted by those who advocate for or against each other.

In the crucible of the real world classroom arguments are no real substitute for straight up declaration of Gods word. If we testify that all men are sinners must we define Rom 3:10-18 as total depravity? Unsaved men are certainly depraved. Are we not indebted to Gods grace? Rom 5:8, 6:23 What work must we do to be saved? Rom 10:13 Who is elect? Rom 11:32 Is God at fault if men hear and do not believe? John 3:19

Do sinners need to hear the gospel as Calvin verses Arminian or as God has said?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

RogerW
Sep 25th 2010, 05:27 PM
Rather than attempting a synthesis of the two, I think our goal should be to understand each passage of scripture on its own terms, and then accept the larger picture as it develops. To this end and in my experience, the task is a little easier for those who do not already have loyalty to a particular denominational creed.

What I find Rog when having these discussion is that it really doesn't matter if we have no loyalty to a particular denominational creed. The moment we define what we believe "the Bible" (not a particular denomination or creed) states, boom we are labeled or even libeled the minute there is disagreement. That's the real problem! Instead of attempting to really understand how one has arrived at particular doctrine, and why one believes as he does the defenses go up, the wall is built and there is no getting beyond our own opinions.

There is more common ground, or more error in both views then some will admit, if we only take the time to explain better, and become better listeners (I am not excluding myself here). Take for instance the doctrine of election. The A person usually states something like, "God knew who would choose Him, so He chose them in eternity based on them freely choosing Him in time." The C person usually responds something like, "God chose an elect people in eternity because He knew no man would have any desire to freely choose Him in time."

But what if election is shown to be "in Christ"? Isn't that what Scripture tells us? God chose "in Christ" those who will have everlasting life "in Him." How does that change anything? God did not choose based on what we can or cannot do, He chose "in Christ" so election is based on what Christ did, not on what we will or will not do. Hence we find some common ground, it is neither correct to say God chose knowing we would choose Him, nor is it correct to say God chose knowing no man would choose Him. Christ is the elect, Cornerstone, and all who will have eternal life were chosen "in Him" in eternity.

watchinginawe
Sep 25th 2010, 05:28 PM
I have often wondered if John Calvin and James Arminius would recognize their teachings today? My observations tend to lead me to the conclusion that both views are distorted by those who advocate for or against each other.

In the crucible of the real world classroom arguments are no real substitute for straight up declaration of Gods word. (Sola Scriptura) If we testify that all men are sinners must we define Rom 3:10-18 as total depravity? (Let's extend it to 3:10-31 Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo) Unsaved men are certainly depraved. Are we not indebted to Gods grace? Rom 5:8, 6:23 What work must we do to be saved? Rom 10:13 Who is elect? Rom 11:32 Is God at fault if men hear and do not believe? John 3:19

Do sinners need to hear the gospel as Calvin verses Arminian or as God has said?

For the cause of Christ (Soli Deo Gloria)
Roger I agree Roger. There is a broad consensus of the Gospel which appeals to neither Calvinism and/or Arminianism.

notuptome
Sep 25th 2010, 05:35 PM
I agree Roger. There is a broad consensus of the Gospel which appeals to neither Calvinism and/or Arminianism.
For this we are glad and rejoice in the Lord.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Redeemed by Grace
Sep 25th 2010, 06:02 PM
The poll question should be 100% yes, for it's within one's heart that love and understanding emotes.

You have to chose to love. The Armininan, the Calvinist. And if your chose is not to reconcile the both together, then your choice is established not to love, probably without full understandings. It's not different than any other stereotypes, or classing.

Do you, the personal you, not the collective you, love me? And not in the Lord, which is religious speak. But because of The Lord - for what He has given you? Can you love someone who's see's the Lord governing all things? Can you love someone who can say, God saved me and gave me faith to believe? Can you love someone who declares that one's life is all about God and it is He who works with all men to do the purposes of His will?


For I love you, and really don't need love back from you to love you, for my joy is in the Lord knowing I express His love for me to you.

BroRog
Sep 25th 2010, 07:00 PM
What I find Rog when having these discussion is that it really doesn't matter if we have no loyalty to a particular denominational creed. The moment we define what we believe "the Bible" (not a particular denomination or creed) states, boom we are labeled or even libeled the minute there is disagreement. That's the real problem! Instead of attempting to really understand how one has arrived at particular doctrine, and why one believes as he does the defenses go up, the wall is built and there is no getting beyond our own opinions.

There is more common ground, or more error in both views then some will admit, if we only take the time to explain better, and become better listeners (I am not excluding myself here). Take for instance the doctrine of election. The A person usually states something like, "God knew who would choose Him, so He chose them in eternity based on them freely choosing Him in time." The C person usually responds something like, "God chose an elect people in eternity because He knew no man would have any desire to freely choose Him in time."

But what if election is shown to be "in Christ"? Isn't that what Scripture tells us? God chose "in Christ" those who will have everlasting life "in Him." How does that change anything? God did not choose based on what we can or cannot do, He chose "in Christ" so election is based on what Christ did, not on what we will or will not do. Hence we find some common ground, it is neither correct to say God chose knowing we would choose Him, nor is it correct to say God chose knowing no man would choose Him. Christ is the elect, Cornerstone, and all who will have eternal life were chosen "in Him" in eternity.I'm sorry about your experiences of libel, etc. Just to be clear, though, I was speaking to myself more than anyone else in my last post.

BadDog
Sep 26th 2010, 09:09 PM
I voted no. I think many of the points in the two systems contradict each other.

E.g.

Either Christ died for the whole world, or Christ only died for the elect. Christ can't possibly die for the whole world, yet only died for the elect.
Either a believer has eternal security, or a believer can fall away. A believer can't have security and still fall away.
Election is either unconditional, or conditional. Election cannot be unconditional yet conditioned on something.
Either grace is resistible, or irresistible. It can't be irresistible, and yet someone can resist it.


The above four are totally contradictory to each other. I, for now, cannot see any middle ground, until proven wrong of course.TWIW is correct, of course. I actually voted that they can be reconciled, and I will have to explain, since strictly speaking they cannot, of course.

Limited atonement is something that many Calvinists do not accept, of the 5 points of the TULIP. So I think we can ignore that one.

Regarding eternal security, I attend a Wesleyan church, and the pastor says that he "has both feet in the air, not firmly coming down in either camp." I know, sounds wishy-washy, but this is actually an extremely common position of Arminian pastors. You see, there is NOSAS and there is NOSAS... Some say that a person can commit certain sins which causes them to lose their salvation, for example, a strong Arminian position. The Church of Christ has such an Arminian position, but that represents a small percentage of Arminianism. And remember that the Calvinist says that a true believer will not become engrossed in serious sin, hence they describe their eternal security as the "perseverance of the saints." Is that much different than the Arminian view? Furthermore most Arminians say that if a person no longer believes in Jesus or chooses to stop following Him that he is no longer saved, while the Calvinist says that such a person must never have truly believed in the first place. Different sides of the same coin?

Incidentally, just FYI I personally hold to a very strong eternal security position, much stronger than the typical Calvinist viewpoint which I refer to as the "preservation of the saints," yet I am much more concerned about what people do to the purity of the gospel than the eternal security question.

I'll come back to the election issue. The irresistible grace issue is the most significant one. It's also perhaps my biggest issue with Reformed theology. Calvinists see God as fully sovereign. I agree, but also claim that God has chosen a "world-system" in which He gives us the opportunity to respond. Otherwise, how can we truly love Him or trust Him. And otherwise how can we reconcile a world in which sin prevails? Also, no one can believe or trust for you. So faith cannot be given to a person. It is a personal response to the gospel. I have little to say which would reconcile this issue. But it is not as extreme as it sounds at first. You see, I am convinced that no one would come to Christ without the working of the Spirit, drawing them to Christ.

Regarding the election issue, it's referred to as "unconditional election." Many Arminians hold to election, seeing no conflict with free will simultaneously. ("Yours truly.") If by "unconditional" it is meant that God chooses us regardless of who we are or any choices we make, I agree. Yet I simultaneously insist that we choose Him as well. There is no conflict. (I hold to Molinism, or "middle knowledge.")

Another issue is "total depravity," of course. I do not accept that we are unable to respond to God's appeals to us. Of course, the Calvinist says that God only draws the elect to Himself. So it becomes a mute point also.

So TWIW is right - they are not reconcilable. Yet are they really that far apart? I think we have to specify what form of Arminianism. The CofC, for example, is very far removed from Reformed theology. Yet Wesleyan Arminianism is not.

BD

Redeemed by Grace
Sep 27th 2010, 12:22 PM
TWIW is correct, of course. I actually voted that they can be reconciled, and I will have to explain, since strictly speaking they cannot, of course.

Limited atonement is something that many Calvinists do not accept, of the 5 points of the TULIP. So I think we can ignore that one.

Regarding eternal security, I attend a Wesleyan church, and the pastor says that he "has both feet in the air, not firmly coming down in either camp." I know, sounds wishy-washy, but this is actually an extremely common position of Arminian pastors. You see, there is NOSAS and there is NOSAS... Some say that a person can commit certain sins which causes them to lose their salvation, for example, a strong Arminian position. The Church of Christ has such an Arminian position, but that represents a small percentage of Arminianism. And remember that the Calvinist says that a true believer will not become engrossed in serious sin, hence they describe their eternal security as the "perseverance of the saints." Is that much different than the Arminian view? Furthermore most Arminians say that if a person no longer believes in Jesus or chooses to stop following Him that he is no longer saved, while the Calvinist says that such a person must never have truly believed in the first place. Different sides of the same coin?

Incidentally, just FYI I personally hold to a very strong eternal security position, much stronger than the typical Calvinist viewpoint which I refer to as the "preservation of the saints," yet I am much more concerned about what people do to the purity of the gospel than the eternal security question.

I'll come back to the election issue. The irresistible grace issue is the most significant one. It's also perhaps my biggest issue with Reformed theology. Calvinists see God as fully sovereign. I agree, but also claim that God has chosen a "world-system" in which He gives us the opportunity to respond. Otherwise, how can we truly love Him or trust Him. And otherwise how can we reconcile a world in which sin prevails? Also, no one can believe or trust for you. So faith cannot be given to a person. It is a personal response to the gospel. I have little to say which would reconcile this issue. But it is not as extreme as it sounds at first. You see, I am convinced that no one would come to Christ without the working of the Spirit, drawing them to Christ.

Regarding the election issue, it's referred to as "unconditional election." Many Arminians hold to election, seeing no conflict with free will simultaneously. ("Yours truly.") If by "unconditional" it is meant that God chooses us regardless of who we are or any choices we make, I agree. Yet I simultaneously insist that we choose Him as well. There is no conflict. (I hold to Molinism, or "middle knowledge.")

Another issue is "total depravity," of course. I do not accept that we are unable to respond to God's appeals to us. Of course, the Calvinist says that God only draws the elect to Himself. So it becomes a mute point also.

So TWIW is right - they are not reconcilable. Yet are they really that far apart? I think we have to specify what form of Arminianism. The CofC, for example, is very far removed from Reformed theology. Yet Wesleyan Arminianism is not.

BD

Hi BD,

So.... if you say that both sides cannot be reconciled, then my question to you is this: does one doctrine teach exclusive salvation over the other or can there be folks saved who hold either of these doctrinal positions and be saved?

Or asked a different way... One has to understand Arminian theology to understand God's salvation of man or one has to understand Reformed theology to be saved, can't be from both?

kay-gee
Sep 27th 2010, 09:44 PM
What a doofus! I don't even know what an Arminianist is.

all the best...

Redeemed by Grace
Sep 27th 2010, 10:53 PM
As it relates to soteriology - Arminianism's main tenet is synergism :):rofl:

BadDog
Oct 11th 2010, 03:51 PM
As it relates to soteriology - Arminianism's main tenet is synergism :):rofl:

RbG is right, of course. By synergism he is referring to man and God cooperating or working together to effect salvation. IOW, Calvinism holds to a monergism approach, that God alone brings about salvation.

I am a synergist. But I am much closer to monergism than most. In saying that I am a synergist do not mean that any works I do can have any impact on salvation at all. That is something which is almost always misunderstood about synergism. Faith or making a decision is not a work. Seeking the truth is not a work. There are ranges of monergism just as with synergism. By cooperating I simply mean that when God asks me to trust in His Son, I respond in faith. No works. But some who hold to monergism require a repentance and turning from sin. Actually, almost all Calvinists also require turning from sin as part of the response God requires to the gospel. I do not. Of course in their perspective the person has already been regenerated or he would not be able to turn from sin.

Almost all Calvinists also hold to Lordship Salvation, which says that a person must make Christ Lord of his life as part of the response to the gospel that God requires. Again, I do not. I hold to the free grace gospel. Salvation is completely a gift. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone.

Thx,

BD

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 11th 2010, 05:36 PM
I contend that as diametrically-opposed as the two seem to be, the differences are largely hyper-semantical and perspective-related. Though they can't be completely reconciled to each other, they can both be reconciled to the absolute truth of the Word... and thus ultimately to each other.

A revelation understanding of God's and man's constitution is vital to this reconciliation. "Belief", "perception", and other persuasions are the functional result of the combined faculties of man's soul. Man's soul is totally depraved; man's spirit is redeemable good.

He will reconcile all things to Himself. Let's get started now. :-)

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 11th 2010, 05:57 PM
I contend that as diametrically-opposed as the two seem to be, the differences are largely hyper-semantical and perspective-related. Though they can't be completely reconciled to each other, they can both be reconciled to the absolute truth of the Word... and thus ultimately to each other.

A revelation understanding of God's and man's constitution is vital to this reconciliation. "Belief", "perception", and other persuasions are the functional result of the combined faculties of man's soul. Man's soul is totally depraved; man's spirit is redeemable good.

He will reconcile all things to Himself. Let's get started now. :-)

You do know that this has a gnostic flavor to what you are saying?

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 11th 2010, 06:06 PM
RbG is right, of course. By synergism he is referring to man and God cooperating or working together to effect salvation. IOW, Calvinism holds to a monergism approach, that God alone brings about salvation.

I am a synergist. But I am much closer to monergism than most. In saying that I am a synergist do not mean that any works I do can have any impact on salvation at all. That is something which is almost always misunderstood about synergism. Faith or making a decision is not a work. Seeking the truth is not a work. There are ranges of monergism just as with synergism. By cooperating I simply mean that when God asks me to trust in His Son, I respond in faith. No works. But some who hold to monergism require a repentance and turning from sin. Actually, almost all Calvinists also require turning from sin as part of the response God requires to the gospel. I do not. Of course in their perspective the person has already been regenerated or he would not be able to turn from sin.

Almost all Calvinists also hold to Lordship Salvation, which says that a person must make Christ Lord of his life as part of the response to the gospel that God requires. Again, I do not. I hold to the free grace gospel. Salvation is completely a gift. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone.

Thx,

BD

A bit of a correction... We don't make Jesus Lord... He is Lord whether we make Him lord or not.... we or maybe I - say that I have been given His wisdom to know Him and willingly submit in trust and obedience.

And we or maybe just I - see that Faith is an ingredient of His Grace of salvation. For a man can hear the gospel 100 times and no impact and then on the 101st time, God's Spirit changes this man's heart to hear and respond and then this man never returns to what he was without Christ, but what he now is IN Christ

BadDog
Oct 11th 2010, 06:14 PM
A bit of a correction... We don't make Jesus Lord... He is Lord whether we make Him lord or not.... we or maybe I - say that I have been given His wisdom to know Him and willingly submit in trust and obedience.
BD: Understood. But that is why they refer to it as "Lordship salvation." :D But LS hold that one must willingly submit to His Lordship IOT gain eternal life. I say that the gospel says we simply believe. Incidentally, I too object to the expression "make Him Lord of your life."


And we or maybe just I - see that Faith is an ingredient of His Grace of salvation. For a man can hear the gospel 100 times and no impact and then on the 101st time, God's Spirit changes this man's heart to hear and respond and then this man never returns to what he was without Christ, but what he now is IN Christ
I agree brother that the Holy Spirit is intimately involved in our response to the gospel... in faith. It is absolutely essential! But I do not refer to it as regeneration... hence my seeing the key distinction as the ordo salutis. IMO God has created us with an ability to seek the truth...

Acts 17:22-28 hen Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that you are extremely religious in every respect. For as I was passing through and observing the objects of your worship, I even found an altar on which was inscribed:

TO AN UNKNOWN GOD

Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it -- He is Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in shrines made by hands. Neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives everyone life and breath and all things. From one man He has made every nation of men to live all over the earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live, so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. For in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'

Thx, good stuff.

BD

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 11th 2010, 06:20 PM
I agree brother that the Holy Spirit is intimately involved in our response to the gospel... in faith. It is absolutely essential! But I do not refer to it as regeneration... hence my seeing the key distinction as the ordo salutis.

Thx, good stuff.

BD

Order order order.... :)


Gotta crawl before ya can run. Gotta make money before you can spend it, unless one is a Democrat [Ouch stepping on some toes for sure :rofl:] gotta be conceaved before ya can be born.... Yep for me, God is a God of order and processes, but I hear ya, some see His Spirit dwelling within after; I just see it making better sense before so that I can see.


Today must be a school holiday for ya... Have a good one!

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 11th 2010, 06:59 PM
You do know that this has a gnostic flavor to what you are saying?

I'm very familiar with the array of various gnostic schools of thought. I'm representing no such thing by my implication. Inference does not determine content or intent.

We vehemently disagree about God's and man's constitution, so mutuality for us will remain elusive. I focus on loving you as a Brother of like precious faith rather than contend with you over subject matter.

:-).

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 11th 2010, 07:13 PM
I'm very familiar with the array of various gnostic schools of thought. I'm representing no such thing by my implication. Inference does not determine content or intent.

We vehemently disagree about God's and man's constitution, so mutuality for us will remain elusive. I focus on loving you as a Brother of like precious faith rather than contend with you over subject matter.

:-).

NP then... It came across as looking like a duck.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 11th 2010, 07:29 PM
NP then... It came across as looking like a duck.

Based on your observation, I'll be more cautious with casual expression. It was a passing example of potential reconciliation.

In actuality, the inverse of your statement is true: ALL untruth has a "flavor" of truth. The alternative is always the substitute for the absolute; untruth could not exist without truth itself.

I certainly see your point, though.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 12th 2010, 02:47 AM
Based on your observation, I'll be more cautious with casual expression. It was a passing example of potential reconciliation.

In actuality, the inverse of your statement is true: ALL untruth has a "flavor" of truth. The alternative is always the substitute for the absolute; untruth could not exist without truth itself.

I certainly see your point, though.

Again NP... Also, I've never done well with all the psychology stuff, for those classes seemed to be more fluff than real to me, but I would counter your statement that all untruth has a flavor of truth in it.... I would substitute 'a lot' for all, for not every declarative is based on truth, but relative to one's background and understandings.

For even Pilate questioned Jesus about what is truth....

John 18:37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." 38 Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and *said to them, "I find no guilt in Him.

Now this comment is interesting, for I don't think I'm smart enough to agree or debate it.... "...untruth could not exist without truth itself." It's like telling me to go stand in the corner of a round room.:spin:

So then Pilate asks, what is truth? :spin:

[And of course, I'd reply Jesus is the way, the truth and life.... and that it's not a decision but an understanding that brings the wisdom of salvation's calling - but that is currently being debated elsewhere]

Have a great evening!

Brother Mark
Jan 7th 2011, 02:46 AM
Why or why not?

How can you reconcile "God is love" with "He didn't die for the unchosen"? Or "God is love" with "God created them for hell"? Or in the words of Christ "Love your enemies" but he himself will send his enemies to hell for eternity with no chance for redemption?

Can you reconcile God's election with man's responsibility and response? Yep. Calvinism and Arminianism? Nope.

percho
Jan 7th 2011, 06:22 AM
Why or why not?

In ten words or less give me the difference between the two.

Thanks.

percho
Jan 7th 2011, 06:26 AM
How can you reconcile "God is love" with "He didn't die for the unchosen"? Or "God is love" with "God created them for hell"? Or in the words of Christ "Love your enemies" but he himself will send his enemies to hell for eternity with no chance for redemption?

Can you reconcile God's election with man's responsibility and response? Yep. Calvinism and Arminianism? Nope.

You do understand with man's responsibility, choice, the vast majority of man will choose hell?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 7th 2011, 06:45 AM
In ten words or less give me the difference between the two.

Thanks.

(Old thread.)

You probably don't want me to be the one to do that. :-)

RabbiKnife
Jan 7th 2011, 02:15 PM
I can.

Man's thoughts are not God's thoughts.

Bandit
Jan 7th 2011, 02:58 PM
You do understand with man's responsibility, choice, the vast majority of man will choose hell?

...“Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them, "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able." [Luke 13:23,24]

Mathetes
Jan 7th 2011, 03:10 PM
You do understand with man's responsibility, choice, the vast majority of man will choose hell?

If it were left solely up to man's choice, all men, not just the majority, would reject Christ.

RabbiKnife
Jan 7th 2011, 03:11 PM
If it were left solely up to man's choice, all men, not just the majority, would reject Christ.

Calvinism and Arminianism agree on this point.

Mathetes
Jan 7th 2011, 03:13 PM
Calvinism and Arminianism agree on this point.

Maybe so. To answer the question of the thread, though, IMO, the two systems cannot be reconciled because they are diametrically opposed to one another. Two things that contradict cannot be reconciled.

Bandit
Jan 7th 2011, 03:30 PM
If it were left solely up to man's choice, all men, not just the majority, would reject Christ.

I would have to say that I disagree. Some have chosen to follow after God.

Brother Mark
Jan 7th 2011, 03:34 PM
I would have to say that I disagree. Some have chosen to follow after God.

But not because he was left to himself. No man can come to God unless he is drawn by God. Both Arminians and Calvinist agree on that point as RK pointed out. Left to himself, man will not seek after God. But God doesn't leave man to himself so some do seek after Him.

Mathetes
Jan 7th 2011, 03:39 PM
I would have to say that I disagree. Some have chosen to follow after God.

Of course they have. But why? Because they wanted to. And why did they want to? Because they were born again.

If that is not true, and if people do not have to be born again to choose to follow after God, then there must be some part of man that is not corrupted by sin. What is it--the mind? the will? some other faculty? What part of man is so untouched by the fall that he will choose Christ and repent all on his own, without being regenerated?

RabbiKnife
Jan 7th 2011, 04:03 PM
Of course they have. But why? Because they wanted to. And why did they want to? Because they were born again.

If that is not true, and if people do not have to be born again to choose to follow after God, then there must be some part of man that is not corrupted by sin. What is it--the mind? the will? some other faculty? What part of man is so untouched by the fall that he will choose Christ and repent all on his own, without being regenerated?

Neither Calvinists nor Arminians believe that any part of man is not touched by the fall and corrupted by sin. Both views agree that God initiates salvation, and that man is wholly unable to and will not seek God without God's first intervention. They disagree on the way to describe that initial intervention.

Brother Mark
Jan 7th 2011, 04:06 PM
Neither Calvinists nor Arminians believe that any part of man is not touched by the fall and corrupted by sin. Both views agree that God initiates salvation, and that man is wholly unable to and will not seek God without God's first intervention. They disagree on the way to describe that initial intervention.

Right. And they disagree on who God intervenes with.

Mathetes
Jan 7th 2011, 04:25 PM
Neither Calvinists nor Arminians believe that any part of man is not touched by the fall and corrupted by sin. Both views agree that God initiates salvation, and that man is wholly unable to and will not seek God without God's first intervention. They disagree on the way to describe that initial intervention.

I'd also add that at bottom their respective doctrines of man differ vastly. Arminians believe that the final decision for salvation is left to the sinner. It is up to him or her to respond favorably to prevenient grace. And therein lies the inconsistency in Arminianism. If Arminians believe--as you say--that there is no part of man untouched by the fall and corrupted by sin, then man's final decision about the gospel will always amount to rejection of Christ. If God does not regenerate the sinner but only gives him a "little push," so to speak, and leaves it all up to him in the end without changing him, then he will continue to reject Christ. Why would he accept Christ if he is still a rebel at heart? Why would he change his mind (repent) if his will is wholly bent on fighting God and continuing to sin? Apart from being changed, man cannot respond favorably to this prevenient grace. All he will do is reject it.

And that is why I think Arminianism is actually hopeless when seen in that light. The salvation plan it represents is like a very wide bridge that spans only halfway across a chasm. Nobody could ever get across to the other side of that chasm because there is nothing to change them so that they receive Christ. Calvinism, OTOH, represents a salvation plan that is like a narrow bridge but goes all the way across the chasm. God has given a body of believers to His Son, and those believers most assuredly will come to Christ, and Christ most assuredly will raise them up at the last day. That is mercy. That is grace.

RabbiKnife
Jan 7th 2011, 04:28 PM
Which demonstrates that you wholly do not understand the concept of prevenient grace.

Mathetes
Jan 7th 2011, 04:34 PM
Which demonstrates that you wholly do not understand the concept of prevenient grace.

Well, then, by all means, enlighten me. What is prevenient grace in your view? How have I gotten it wrong?

RabbiKnife
Jan 7th 2011, 04:42 PM
Let's let Arminius speak for himself:

Article 4 of the Remonstrance...

"That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ, but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places." (Article 4 of the Remonstrance)

The false statement that says that if the decision is left up to man that man will always choose to reject God makes God weaker than sin, makes the drawing and wooing of the Holy Spirit weaker than man's nature...If God, through His Grace, does not draw all men to himself (as the Gospels and Titus teach), then I do not want to have anything to do with that God.

Prevenient grace is grace so profound that it can permit a dead man to respond to that which he could otherwise not even conceive.

Bandit
Jan 7th 2011, 04:44 PM
If it were left solely up to man's choice, all men, not just the majority, would reject Christ.


I would have to say that I disagree. Some have chosen to follow after God.


Of course they have. But why? Because they wanted to. And why did they want to? Because they were born again.

Hello Mathetes,

That is not much of a (human) choice then, is it? (For if it is as you just said, then the only real choice is by God.)

I did not really explain my line of reasoning in my earlier post, and it is obvious that I need to. Unless God chooses to allow man a choice - then there is no human choice! So there really is no such thing as "If it were left solely up to man's choice" as you stated earlier. For man to have a "choice", God must first have given him a "choice". (It really is hard to make a non-existent choice.) So when man chooses, it is not a choice made in a vacuum; it is a human choice based upon God's previous choice to allow that human choice to exist.





If that is not true, and if people do not have to be born again to choose to follow after God, then there must be some part of man that is not corrupted by sin. What is it--the mind? the will? some other faculty? What part of man is so untouched by the fall that he will choose Christ and repent all on his own, without being regenerated?

Here you are assuming the reformed position of (total) depravity. If you assume it, then logically your position does follow; but if your basic assumption is wrong, then your logic has a faulty foundation. I suggest that your fundamental assumption is incorrect.

Mathetes
Jan 7th 2011, 04:52 PM
Let's let Arminius speak for himself:

Article 4 of the Remonstrance...

"That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ, but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places." (Article 4 of the Remonstrance)

Notice his words, "it is not irresistible." That means, of course, that man can resist it, which means that the final decision is up to the unregenerated man. So my point stands.


The false statement that says that if the decision is left up to man that man will always choose to reject God makes God weaker than sin,

No it doesn't. It makes God out to be stronger than sin because God overcomes that resistance by regenerating the elect.


Prevenient grace is grace so profound that it can permit a dead man to respond to that which he could otherwise not even conceive.

The problem is that in this view it only permits, but does not guarantee it by changing the person so that they come to Christ. Sorry, but my argument is sound. If Arminianism were true, then nobody would be saved because in the Arminian view, prevenient grace is not a grace that changes the sinner but merely permits him to come to Christ. Mere permission is not enough. Rebellion against God is in his nature, since the nature is sinful, so he needs to have his nature changed in order to submit to God.

RabbiKnife
Jan 7th 2011, 04:56 PM
Yada, yada, yada.

I'll sign out of this discussion here.

I choose not to follow a cosmic rapist.

Mathetes
Jan 7th 2011, 04:58 PM
Yada, yada, yada.

I'll sign out of this discussion here.

I choose not to follow a cosmic rapist.

Neither do I. I choose to follow the sovereign God. Thanks for discussing this.

Bandit
Jan 7th 2011, 04:59 PM
I would have to say that I disagree. Some have chosen to follow after God.


But not because he was left to himself. No man can come to God unless he is drawn by God. Both Arminians and Calvinist agree on that point as RK pointed out.

Yes, thankfully God does not leave us completely alone in the dark. He chooses to reveal Himself so that we have the choice to respond. There can be no human choice unless there is first a divine choice. What Arminians and Calvinists disagree on is how and what God chose to reveal? (And whether God's choice includes allowing man a choice.)




Left to himself, man will not seek after God. But God doesn't leave man to himself so some do seek after Him.

Yes, but unless God reveals something of Himself, there is no choice. (As an example, do you seek after the strang, fluffy, pink animals crawling on your ceilings and walls?) Unless one has some notion that something exists (or may exist), a sane person doesn't even have the choice to "seek" it.

Mathetes
Jan 7th 2011, 05:16 PM
Hello Mathetes,

That is not much of a (human) choice then, is it? (For if it is as you just said, then the only real choice is by God.)

No, not necessarily. Man chooses to follow God because God chooses him first. Two choices. The question is the order in which they occur.


I did not really explain my line of reasoning in my earlier post, and it is obvious that I need to. Unless God chooses to allow man a choice - then there is no human choice!

Certainly God gives people a choice. People are free to accept Christ or to reject Him; to repent or to continue in sin.


So there really is no such thing as "If it were left solely up to man's choice" as you stated earlier. For man to have a "choice", God must first have given him a "choice". (It really is hard to make a non-existent choice.) So when man chooses, it is not a choice made in a vacuum; it is a human choice based upon God's previous choice to allow that human choice to exist.

I can agree with that, but with this additional thought: When man chooses to follow God in true faith and repentance, it is not only because God has allowed that choice to exist, but it is also because God has changed their will such that now they desire to choose God. Man is bound by his nature, so that nature needs to be changed in order to take a different direction. Thankfully, God not only permits a choice to exist but also changes the nature of some so that they will make that choice.


Here you are assuming the reformed position of (total) depravity. If you assume it, then logically your position does follow; but if your basic assumption is wrong, then your logic has a faulty foundation. I suggest that your fundamental assumption is incorrect.

I'm not surprised there. :) One's doctrine of man will drive one's soteriology. That's why I always go back to anthropology when discussing this issue with people. Soteriology is rooted in anthropology, among other things. Arminians have to prove their doctrine of man biblically just as much as Calvinists do.

Mathetes
Jan 7th 2011, 05:24 PM
Yes, thankfully God does not leave us completely alone in the dark. He chooses to reveal Himself so that we have the choice to respond.

Reformed theology does not deny that God has revealed Himself. Man cannot know a thing about God unless God reveals it to him. God has condescended to reveal Himself to man in various ways, through general revelation (creation, man's conscience) and special revelation (Scripture). So man is offered salvation, to come to that God who has revealed Himself. But the Bible says that no man does. Why? because of the sinful nature. Since man is bound by his sinful nature, he is bound to commit sin. That being the case, we have to be given a new nature if we are to repent and submit to God. So much of this issue hinges on one's doctrine of man.

percho
Jan 7th 2011, 05:24 PM
Maybe so. To answer the question of the thread, though, IMO, the two systems cannot be reconciled because they are diametrically opposed to one another. Two things that contradict cannot be reconciled.

Only if one has the power of reconciliation. I wonder what God is doing?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 7th 2011, 05:28 PM
Armi/Calvi.

False dichotomy.

Boule/boulema.

Thelo/thelema.

Bandit
Jan 7th 2011, 05:44 PM
I'd also add that at bottom their respective doctrines of man differ vastly. Arminians believe that the final decision for salvation is left to the sinner. It is up to him or her to respond favorably to prevenient grace. And therein lies the inconsistency in Arminianism. If Arminians believe--as you say--that there is no part of man untouched by the fall and corrupted by sin, then man's final decision about the gospel will always amount to rejection of Christ. ...

I am not a traditional Arminian (I do not concur with their notion of 'prevenient' grace) so I won't try to defend that notion, but neither do I concur with the doctrine of total depravity. Your whole argument against Arminian thought in general rests upon total depravity being true. And I agree with you in the sense that if total depravity were true, then there could be no alternative to that of the reformed postion (in other words, all reformed theology boils down to 'total depravity' being true.)



And that is why I think Arminianism is actually hopeless when seen in that light. The salvation plan it represents is like a very wide bridge that spans only halfway across a chasm. Nobody could ever get across to the other side of that chasm because there is nothing to change them so that they receive Christ. Calvinism, OTOH, represents a salvation plan that is like a narrow bridge but goes all the way across the chasm. God has given a body of believers to His Son, and those believers most assuredly will come to Christ, and Christ most assuredly will raise them up at the last day. That is mercy. That is grace.

In this case, God's "mercy" and "grace" would only be a small part of His story; for most His story would be one of "wrath" and "hatred". (God having created most persons with no chance of redemption.) Does this really represent the best human understanding of God's relationship towards mankind? Is there not a more noble (and perhaps more holy) understanding to have about God and His relationship towards mankind? Does such a "love" of a relative few really counter-balance His supposed "hatred" of all those others who never had a chance? Somehow, I think such a doctrine (calvinism) does more harm than good to the character of God.

Bandit
Jan 7th 2011, 06:41 PM
Hello Mathetes,

That is not much of a (human) choice then, is it? (For if it is as you just said, then the only real choice is by God.)


No, not necessarily. Man chooses to follow God because God chooses him first. Two choices. The question is the order in which they occur.

No argument there; God must choose to give man a choice before man can make it.


Certainly God gives people a choice. People are free to accept Christ or to reject Him; to repent or to continue in sin.

On this we agree.





So there really is no such thing as "If it were left solely up to man's choice" as you stated earlier. For man to have a "choice", God must first have given him a "choice". (It really is hard to make a non-existent choice.) So when man chooses, it is not a choice made in a vacuum; it is a human choice based upon God's previous choice to allow that human choice to exist.


I can agree with that, but with this additional thought: When man chooses to follow God in true faith and repentance, it is not only because God has allowed that choice to exist, but it is also because God has changed their will such that now they desire to choose God. Man is bound by his nature, so that nature needs to be changed in order to take a different direction. Thankfully, God not only permits a choice to exist but also changes the nature of some so that they will make that choice.

It is here where I think we begin to diverge. If I understand you, you are saying that man does not have the inherent ability to respond to God (i.e., man has no power to choose). You also seem to be saying that God effectively makes the human choice for us. If so, then you are saying that man really doesn't have a choice. I do not believe that any "change in will" is necessary before repentance.

Here is how I see it. God chooses to give us a choice; we have the innate ability to respond (i.e., we can respond one way or the other - no special "enablement" is required). IF we cannot respond, then no choice is being offered.

On an aside, do you believe that some of those whose natures have been changed (in accord with your view) would then choose to reject God's offer? As I am understanding your position, I see no real human volition involved. You seem to be saying that God and only God makes any real choice, and any human choice was really made by God (so such a changed person could not reject God).






Here you are assuming the reformed position of (total) depravity. If you assume it, then logically your position does follow; but if your basic assumption is wrong, then your logic has a faulty foundation. I suggest that your fundamental assumption is incorrect.


I'm not surprised there. :) One's doctrine of man will drive one's soteriology. That's why I always go back to anthropology when discussing this issue with people. Soteriology is rooted in anthropology, among other things. Arminians have to prove their doctrine of man biblically just as much as Calvinists do.

I make choices every day; can you prove I do not? Your position seems to be that I can not choose to repent. But I make choices every day. Now if your position is that repentance is an impossible choice (like choosing to jump the Grand Canyon) then you will have to prove that repentance is an impossible choice. (And do note, people choose to repent to other persons every day.)

Bandit
Jan 7th 2011, 06:51 PM
Yes, thankfully God does not leave us completely alone in the dark. He chooses to reveal Himself so that we have the choice to respond.


Reformed theology does not deny that God has revealed Himself. Man cannot know a thing about God unless God reveals it to him. God has condescended to reveal Himself to man in various ways, through general revelation (creation, man's conscience) and special revelation (Scripture). So man is offered salvation, to come to that God who has revealed Himself. But the Bible says that no man does. Why? because of the sinful nature. Since man is bound by his sinful nature, he is bound to commit sin. That being the case, we have to be given a new nature if we are to repent and submit to God. So much of this issue hinges on one's doctrine of man.

Where does the bible say that no one comes to God? And if no one comes to Him, then why are we in disagreement, for are we not all then headed to destruction? And if some are not headed for destruction, then some must have sought after God, and if so, then the statement that "none seek after God" cannot be literally true. (Perhaps there is a different understanding for such verses.)

My understanding of scripture is that we are given a new nature after we respond to God, not before.

percho
Jan 7th 2011, 07:24 PM
Reformed theology does not deny that God has revealed Himself. Man cannot know a thing about God unless God reveals it to him. God has condescended to reveal Himself to man in various ways, through general revelation (creation, man's conscience) and special revelation (Scripture). So man is offered salvation, to come to that God who has revealed Himself. But the Bible says that no man does. Why? because of the sinful nature. Since man is bound by his sinful nature, he is bound to commit sin. That being the case, we have to be given a new nature if we are to repent and submit to God. So much of this issue hinges on one's doctrine of man.

You are correct on this that is why the Lamb was slain before and I repeat before the first man Adam (man) was created. Our real creation is in the Word made flesh dying and being resurrected as the last Adam (man) in whose image we shall be.

This is what God is doing not something we are choosing for ourselves. God is also doing it in his way for his purpose and has something to do with reconciliation.

RollTide21
Jan 7th 2011, 10:42 PM
The argument is not over "is salvation efficacious," the argument is over "how does it work," which is a fine academic armchair debate to have, but is absolutely meaningless in the real world.

The "debate" has been around long enough that each side by defined various trigger words according to their own definition, so trying to change the definitions is what the debate as devolved into.

I personally have no problem saying that I am eternally secure and that there is the possibility of my committing apostasy, and that paradox does not bother me at all.It wasn't until I got on this board that I realized that OSAS was so readily associated with Calvinism and Pre-destination. I believe in a form of OSAS, but my ideas on salvation certainly are more of the Arminian persuasion (unless I am just clueless on Arminianism. I believe that we choose to accept Christ do not believe in individual election).

Mathetes
Jan 7th 2011, 11:01 PM
Where does the bible say that no one comes to God?

If no one seeks for God, then no one comes to God--apart from his grace, of course.


And if no one comes to Him, then why are we in disagreement, for are we not all then headed to destruction? And if some are not headed for destruction, then some must have sought after God, and if so, then the statement that "none seek after God" cannot be literally true. (Perhaps there is a different understanding for such verses.)I brought up that verse, as I recall, to indicate human nature. Since nobody seeks after God, it is a universal problem with mankind. Since it affects all men, it must be in man's nature to run from God (i.e., not seek Him). And if it is in his nature to run from God, and it is not in his nature to seek God, then it is certainly not in his nature to respond favorably to the gospel. Since we cannot rise above our own nature, we need a new nature in order to respond to Christ. That is why your statement...


My understanding of scripture is that we are given a new nature after we respond to God, not before....is incorrect and rests on a faulty understanding of man's nature. If our nature governs us, then we must do what nature bids. We cannot suddenly decide to do something against our nature. That is why John 1:12:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

is followed by

who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The flesh profits nothing, as Jesus said. The flesh--which is all we have apart from the Spirit--will never yield to Christ. If that flesh is given the final say in whether I come to Christ or not--which is what Arminianism teaches because it says that grace can be resisted--and God does not overcome that flesh, then I will always choose to reject Christ. That is all that my nature will do.

Mathetes
Jan 7th 2011, 11:33 PM
It is here where I think we begin to diverge. If I understand you, you are saying that man does not have the inherent ability to respond to God (i.e., man has no power to choose).

Correct. Man is dead in sin. He cannot submit to God's laws, and in his flesh he cannot please God (Romans 8:7).


You also seem to be saying that God effectively makes the human choice for us.

Not at all. When I repented and believed in Christ, I chose to do so. God did not repent or believe for me. He predestined that I would do so, but that did not eliminate my will in the matter. My will was involved in my salvation. It's just that prior to salvation, my will by nature had no inclination toward God in any way whatsoever. It was in bondage to sin, governed by the sinful nature. It had to be set free from that bondage.


If so, then you are saying that man really doesn't have a choice. I do not believe that any "change in will" is necessary before repentance.

I know. :-) If you think that no change in will is necessary before repentance, then what you are effectively saying is that the will is corrupted by sin, that it is not fallen. Is that what you believe?


Here is how I see it. God chooses to give us a choice; we have the innate ability to respond (i.e., we can respond one way or the other - no special "enablement" is required). IF we cannot respond, then no choice is being offered.

But you're positing here the idea that humans are totally neutral in regard to God. That is false. Nobody is truly neutral. The sinful nature constantly, relentlessly keeps man's heart running from God, loving darkness rather than light. Moreover, the inability to respond does not make the offer nonexistent. The source of the offer is what makes it real, not the recipient of it.


On an aside, do you believe that some of those whose natures have been changed (in accord with your view) would then choose to reject God's offer?

No, because now they love God and hate darkness. Their new nature gives them new, passionate desires. Because of those desires, they will then make the choice to follow Christ, just as before their conversion their sinful desires led them to choose sin. Of course, it will not be perfect because the sinful nature is not eradicated.


As I am understanding your position, I see no real human volition involved. You seem to be saying that God and only God makes any real choice, and any human choice was really made by God (so such a changed person could not reject God).

But if that changed person wants to choose Christ, then they are doing so of their own will, just as they had always wanted to reject Christ of their own will prior to conversion. Is their choice to sin made by God? Of course not. They sin of their own will. Likewise, is their choice to believe made by God? Again, no. God does not destroy the human will. But he does give some people a new nature so that they will begin to use that will to choose obedience. Anyone who does not have a new nature will continue to do all that they can do under the government of that sinful nature: choose rebellion.


I make choices every day; can you prove I do not? Your position seems to be that I can not choose to repent. But I make choices every day. Now if your position is that repentance is an impossible choice (like choosing to jump the Grand Canyon) then you will have to prove that repentance is an impossible choice. (And do note, people choose to repent to other persons every day.)

The Bible speaks of God granting repentance unto life. It also says:

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7)

If people whose minds are set on the flesh--and that is certainly everyone before conversion--cannot submit to God's law and cannot please Him, how could they possibly be able to repent?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 8th 2011, 12:24 AM
Correct. Man is dead in sin. He cannot submit to God's laws, and in his flesh he cannot please God (Romans 8:7).

Not at all. When I repented and believed in Christ, I chose to do so. God did not repent or believe for me. He predestined that I would do so, but that did not eliminate my will in the matter. My will was involved in my salvation. It's just that prior to salvation, my will by nature had no inclination toward God in any way whatsoever. It was in bondage to sin, governed by the sinful nature. It had to be set free from that bondage.

I know. :-) If you think that no change in will is necessary before repentance, then what you are effectively saying is that the will is corrupted by sin, that it is not fallen. Is that what you believe?

But you're positing here the idea that humans are totally neutral in regard to God. That is false. Nobody is truly neutral. The sinful nature constantly, relentlessly keeps man's heart running from God, loving darkness rather than light. Moreover, the inability to respond does not make the offer nonexistent. The source of the offer is what makes it real, not the recipient of it.

No, because now they love God and hate darkness. Their new nature gives them new, passionate desires. Because of those desires, they will then make the choice to follow Christ, just as before their conversion their sinful desires led them to choose sin. Of course, it will not be perfect because the sinful nature is not eradicated.

But if that changed person wants to choose Christ, then they are doing so of their own will, just as they had always wanted to reject Christ of their own will prior to conversion. Is their choice to sin made by God? Of course not. They sin of their own will. Likewise, is their choice to believe made by God? Again, no. God does not destroy the human will. But he does give some people a new nature so that they will begin to use that will to choose obedience. Anyone who does not have a new nature will continue to do all that they can do under the government of that sinful nature: choose rebellion.

The Bible speaks of God granting repentance unto life. It also says:

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7)

If people whose minds are set on the flesh--and that is certainly everyone before conversion--cannot submit to God's law and cannot please Him, how could they possibly be able to repent?

If only... believers would get a functional grasp of man's constitution, we could rid ourselves of this blight of conflict that is the queen of false dichotomies within Christendom.

Brother Mark
Jan 8th 2011, 12:45 AM
9
If only... believers would get a functional grasp of man's constitution, we could rid ourselves of this blight of conflict that is the queen of false dichotomies within Christendom.

Spell it our for us bro.

percho
Jan 8th 2011, 01:14 AM
More simple English for us simpletons please

percho
Jan 8th 2011, 01:46 AM
I ask that because I also believe the reconcilement of the two has to do with the nature of God at creation of first man Adam. The nature of the first Adam at his creation. The nature of the Word made flesh at his birth by Mary his mother. The nature of The word made flesh after the resurrection which I believe to be the last Adam (man) then the nature of man in the image of the risen Son of God.

I also believe all this is related to our salvation by being the faith of the Word made flesh in his blood for remission of our sins and his faith of his resurrection by which he received the Holy Spirit from the Father to give to us whereby we will be saved.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 8th 2011, 02:24 AM
9

Spell it our for us bro.

This is much like the trinity issue; there are well-developed doctrinal views built in place of an understanding of man as spirit-soul-body. (1Thess. 5:23, Gen. 2:7, Heb. 4:12). It's difficult to strip away the "free will" contention and deal simply with man's will (boule/boulema) and God's will (thelo/thelema). A series of word-studies is important, since man's will and God's will aren't the same type of will. Man's will functions freely as opposed to being externally coerced, but it has extremely limited capability of itself and is internally bound to the influences of the body of sin/death. (See my post in the free will thread.)

The real issue is the fact that man's soul-spirit roles were "inverted" by original sin; and they need to be "redistributed" by dividing asunder of the Word. The mind-will-emotion faculties of the soul weren't designed to function initiatively; they were designed to respond to God's Spirit through the faculties of man's spirit. God doesn't deal directly with man's will; the structural flow is from God's Soul-Spirit through man's spirit-soul. That flow has been disrupted and must be restored by the indwelling Christ of the Holy Ghost. It is a wholly intrinsic structural function that requires God's own indwelling presence to reconnect.

Man's soul is totally depraved; man's spirit is inherently good, though tainted by the filth of the flesh. (Flesh is a whole 'nother study; it isn't just the body.) Man's soul has no conscience-communion-intuition faculties to directly communicate with God; those are man's spirit faculties. Since man's will must access God's Will from a spirit-Spirit interface that has been separated by sin... the "free will" concept becomes pragmatically meaningless. It's an issue of strutural composition, not will-function.

There are volumes and volumes of teaching, but this topic is dismissed in favor of well-established tangents. EVERY principle of the Word is tied to the operational structure of man's constitution and God's. Predestination, foreknowledge, and election must all be understood in light of God's character of doing everything decently and in order.

It's not an issue of various teachings being incorrect so much as it is being incomplete. All things must be reconciled to Him, and thus to each other.

I can lay out a thesis on many other vital interrelated subjects, but most reject the foundation of God as Spirit-Soul-Body and man as spirit-soul-body. Most don't even really comprehend what a soul is, and contend that we can't know much because the Word seems to say little about it. Yet... these entire opposing theological systems are built on differing fundamental premises of one of man's soul faculties versus God's.

The whole Calvi/Armi debate is a futile engagement over an abstraction: "free will". The relevant truth is about His constitution and ours.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 8th 2011, 02:37 AM
I ask that because I also believe the reconcilement of the two has to do with the nature of God at creation of first man Adam. The nature of the first Adam at his creation. The nature of the Word made flesh at his birth by Mary his mother. The nature of The word made flesh after the resurrection which I believe to be the last Adam (man) then the nature of man in the image of the risen Son of God.

I also believe all this is related to our salvation by being the faith of the Word made flesh in his blood for remission of our sins and his faith of his resurrection by which he received the Holy Spirit from the Father to give to us whereby we will be saved.

This is another instance where I THINK I totally agree with you... depending on what you actually mean by what you've said. :-)

Brother Mark
Jan 8th 2011, 02:51 AM
This is much like the trinity issue; there are well-developed doctrinal views built in place of an understanding of man as spirit-soul-body. (1Thess. 5:23, Gen. 2:7, Heb. 4:12). It's difficult to strip away the "free will" contention and deal simply with man's will (boule/boulema) and God's will (thelo/thelema). A series of word-studies is important, since man's will and God's will aren't the same type of will. Man's will functions freely as opposed to being externally coerced, but it has extremely limited capability of itself and is internally bound to the influences of the body of sin/death. (See my post in the free will thread.)

OK. Maybe I can find it and check it out.


The real issue is the fact that man's soul-spirit roles were "inverted" by original sin; and they need to be "redistributed" by dividing asunder of the Word. The mind-will-emotion faculties of the soul weren't designed to function initiatively; they were designed to respond to God's Spirit through the faculties of man's spirit. God doesn't deal directly with man's will; the structural flow is from God's Soul-Spirit through man's spirit-soul. That flow has been disrupted and must be restored by the indwelling Christ of the Holy Ghost. It is a wholly intrinsic structural function that requires God's own indwelling presence to reconnect.

Right. It's like when we say a phone is dead. It can still function. But it's not connected to what it's supposed to be connected to. So we say it's dead. But when you hook it up, it works fine. Same with our spirit.


Man's soul is totally depraved; man's spirit is inherently good, though tainted by the filth of the flesh. (Flesh is a whole 'nother study; it isn't just the body.) Man's soul has no conscience-communion-intuition faculties to directly communicate with God; those are man's spirit faculties. Since man's will must access God's Will from a spirit-Spirit interface that has been separated by sin... the "free will" concept becomes pragmatically meaningless. It's an issue of strutural composition, not will-function.

Correct. Man's will is not completely free. Even Adam had limits on his will. But the arguments come from where those limits are within man. Anyway....Man is meant to be a "slave". Either we are a bond-servant to God or a slave to sin. We never were meant to be rulers of our own universe. And again, the dead telephone example is a good one. The telephone can work, but if it's not hooked up, we say it's dead. Some folks are hooked up to the wrong spirits though and their spirit works in that realm.


There are volumes and volumes of teaching, but this topic is dismissed in favor of well-established tangents. EVERY principle of the Word is tied to the operational structure of man's constitution and God's. Predestination, foreknowledge, and election must all be understood in light of God's character of doing everything decently and in order.

AMEN! We cannot understand the scriptures properly if we don't first let them speak to us about His character and who He is. Only then can we understand that which he is saying.


I can lay out a thesis on many other vital interrelated subjects, but most reject the foundation of God as Spirit-Soul-Body and man as spirit-soul-body. Most don't even really comprehend what a soul is, and contend that we can't know much because the Word seems to say little about it. Yet... these entire opposing theological systems are built on differing fundamental premises of one of man's soul faculties versus God's.

I bet it would be an interesting read.


The whole Calvi/Armi debate is a futile engagement over an abstraction: "free will". The relevant truth is about His constitution and ours.

The argument is not about free will to me. It's more about the character of God than "free will". Both sides misunderstand some characteristics of God, IMO.

But again, I have no issue with reconciling scripture. But to reconcile calvinism with armianism as each is taught today will not happen. They see God in a totally different way and miss major points of His character and who He is.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 8th 2011, 03:49 AM
OK. Maybe I can find it and check it out.

It's Post #210 in the "Do We Have Free Will?" thread, if interested.


Right. It's like when we say a phone is dead. It can still function. But it's not connected to what it's supposed to be connected to. So we say it's dead. But when you hook it up, it works fine. Same with our spirit.

Very much so. The key is understanding thanatos (G2288) in this regard and related to merismos (G3311).


Correct. Man's will is not completely free. Even Adam had limits on his will. But the arguments come from where those limits are within man. Anyway....Man is meant to be a "slave". Either we are a bond-servant to God or a slave to sin. We never were meant to be rulers of our own universe. And again, the dead telephone example is a good one. The telephone can work, but if it's not hooked up, we say it's dead. Some folks are hooked up to the wrong spirits though and their spirit works in that realm.

Grace is widely misunderstood, too. Word study again.


AMEN! We cannot understand the scriptures properly if we don't first let them speak to us about His character and who He is. Only then can we understand that which he is saying.

AMEN!... Back.


I bet it would be an interesting read.

I remain perplexed at others' lack of desire to know these things. I would have given anything to have been taught these truths 15+ years ago.


The argument is not about free will to me. It's more about the character of God than "free will". Both sides misunderstand some characteristics of God, IMO.

I agree.


But again, I have no issue with reconciling scripture. But to reconcile calvinism with armianism as each is taught today will not happen. They see God in a totally different way and miss major points of His character and who He is.

Each reconciled to the Word. Ta-Dah! Lol. Yes?

Brother Mark
Jan 8th 2011, 12:54 PM
It's Post #210 in the "Do We Have Free Will?" thread, if interested.

Read it and commented on it.


Grace is widely misunderstood, too. Word study again.

Indeed it is. I am still learning on that one too.


I remain perplexed at others' lack of desire to know these things. I would have given anything to have been taught these truths 15+ years ago.

Well, much of what we seek in knowledge comes from what we are going through and what the Lord is quickening us in. Agree?


Each reconciled to the Word. Ta-Dah! Lol. Yes?

But then you have reconciled a former calvinist and a former arminian but have not reconciled arminianism and calvinism. ;)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 8th 2011, 02:28 PM
Read it and commented on it.

Indeed it is. I am still learning on that one too.

As am I.


Well, much of what we seek in knowledge comes from what we are going through and what the Lord is quickening us in. Agree?

Yes. Foundational truths are universal, though; so I remain perplexed.


But then you have reconciled a former calvinist and a former arminian but have not reconciled arminianism and calvinism. ;)

Of course. :-). That's really my overall point, though. Everything needs to be reconciled to the Word rather than being individual theological foundations unto themselves. Whole denominations and individual churches have formed or split over Calvi/Armi views. Spirit-soul-body understanding and teaching? Nada. And you're aware of my primary issue with orthodoxy and its practice.

At least Luther only had one door to post his theses on; and literate populations have ready access to the Word as never before.

Alas.. Soulical is not spiritual.

Brother Mark
Jan 8th 2011, 02:42 PM
Yes. Foundational truths are universal, though; so I remain perplexed.

Consider... if my biggest issue is getting my bills paid next month, then that is what I focus on. And the Lord uses that to prune me. Now, at some point in time, when the cross is properly worked in us, we then shift to focus more on what He wants and desires. But that shift comes after desert experiences and being broken and having our soul and spirit divided. It doesn't come through education but it does lead to education.


Of course. :-). That's really my overall point, though. Everything needs to be reconciled to the Word rather than being individual theological foundations unto themselves. Whole denominations and individual churches have formed or split over Calvi/Armi views. Spirit-soul-body understanding and teaching? Nada. And you're aware of my primary issue with orthodoxy and its practice.

Yea. I am aware of it. The calvin/arminian debate bothers me from both sides for reasons I imagine you can guess. But I will admit that the calvinist stuff bothers me more.


At least Luther only had one door to post his theses on; and literate populations have ready access to the Word as never before.

:D lol


Alas.. Soulical is not spiritual.

Watchmen Nee has a book about the awakened soul not being spiritually alive. I need to check that book out. Have you read it?

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 03:10 PM
But again, I have no issue with reconciling scripture. But to reconcile calvinism with armianism as each is taught today will not happen. They see God in a totally different way and miss major points of His character and who He is.
I'm curious as to what exact points of God's character have been missed...?

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 03:19 PM
I am not a traditional Arminian (I do not concur with their notion of 'prevenient' grace) so I won't try to defend that notion, but neither do I concur with the doctrine of total depravity. Your whole argument against Arminian thought in general rests upon total depravity being true. And I agree with you in the sense that if total depravity were true, then there could be no alternative to that of the reformed postion (in other words, all reformed theology boils down to 'total depravity' being true.)

No, not all Reformed theology; just Reformed soteriology. But you are right in saying that this issue boils down to man's nature. For that reason, the Arminian doctrine of salvation also rests entirely upon their particular doctrine of man.


In this case, God's "mercy" and "grace" would only be a small part of His story; for most His story would be one of "wrath" and "hatred". (God having created most persons with no chance of redemption.) Does this really represent the best human understanding of God's relationship towards mankind? Is there not a more noble (and perhaps more holy) understanding to have about God and His relationship towards mankind? Does such a "love" of a relative few really counter-balance His supposed "hatred" of all those others who never had a chance? Somehow, I think such a doctrine (calvinism) does more harm than good to the character of God.

I think the trouble here is that you seem to be pitting one set of God's attributes and ways of dealing with people (the ones you see as positive, such as mercy and grace) against his other attributes and ways of dealing with people that you see as negative, such as wrath and hatred. That approach is a mistake, imo. All of God's ways are good. Nothing God does is wrong, and all His actions have the goal of bringing Him glory. Everything He does is for His glory. Calvinism acknowledges that.

Brother Mark
Jan 8th 2011, 03:25 PM
I'm curious as to what exact points of God's character have been missed...?

Well for starters... God is love. We know that love does not seek it's own.

For calvinist...Does God love all the lost? Does he love his enemies? Does he love someone he creates, who was created only so he can be glorified by sending that someone to hell? Does he do things only for his benefit? Is he self-centered? Those are questions that calvinism doesn't answer very well.

For arminians, Is God's love conditional for his children? Is God long suffering and patient? Are we secure in our performance or God's character? Do all good works start with God?

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 03:31 PM
Man's will functions freely as opposed to being externally coerced, but it has extremely limited capability of itself and is internally bound to the influences of the body of sin/death. (See my post in the free will thread.)

This I agree with. That is why I often ask people to first define what they mean by "free will" when discussing these issues. The vast majority of people believe that "free will" means that the human will is completely free, but that is false. Man's will is free externally in that nothing outside of man forces him to do this or that. God does not show up at Christians' doors on Sunday morning and force them to go to church, neither does the devil force them to commit sin. So the will is free in an external sense. But internally, the will is in bondage to sin.


The real issue is the fact that man's soul-spirit roles were "inverted" by original sin; and they need to be "redistributed" by dividing asunder of the Word. The mind-will-emotion faculties of the soul weren't designed to function initiatively; they were designed to respond to God's Spirit through the faculties of man's spirit. God doesn't deal directly with man's will; the structural flow is from God's Soul-Spirit through man's spirit-soul. That flow has been disrupted and must be restored by the indwelling Christ of the Holy Ghost. It is a wholly intrinsic structural function that requires God's own indwelling presence to reconnect.

Not sure about all of this. Can this be inferred from the Scriptures?


Man's soul is totally depraved; man's spirit is inherently good, though tainted by the filth of the flesh.

Man is totally depraved, not just his soul. That is what total depravity means: All of man's faculties are fallen.

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 03:55 PM
Well for starters... God is love. We know that love does not seek it's own.

I would not be quick to say that either Calvinists or Arminians miss the idea that God is love. Both sides believe firmly that God loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son.


For calvinist...Does God love all the lost? Does he love his enemies? Does he love someone he creates, who was created only so he can be glorified by sending that someone to hell? Does he do things only for his benefit? Is he self-centered? Those are questions that calvinism doesn't answer very well.

I think this approach is wrong because it seems to assume that God must love all his enemies. That does not mesh with Scripture at all. Consider:

The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. (Ps. 11:5)

As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:13-18)

The Bible tells us that God does not love all people. Note also in this passage the freedom of God: He has mercy on whomever he wills. He is not bound to show mercy to anyone at all, but He does to some. That rubs us the wrong way because it seems so unfair according to our standards, but Paul plainly says in this passage there is no injustice with God. In fact, the reason why it is not unjust for God to act this way is rooted in his sovereignty, as Paul explains: 'For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." '

Our job is not to establish our own criterion of what God should and should not be like, even though that is a mistake we can very easily make. Our job is to submit to revelation. If we try to get around revelation and make God fit a mold of our own making, we are essentially committing idolatry, attempting to worship God in a way that is not consistent with how he has revealed himself.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 8th 2011, 04:04 PM
Consider... if my biggest issue is getting my bills paid next month, then that is what I focus on. And the Lord uses that to prune me. Now, at some point in time, when the cross is properly worked in us, we then shift to focus more on what He wants and desires.

I understand and agree. But I'm talking about multiple generations of scholars, theologians, and teachers who are well past survival stage and have established and contributed to these doctrines for nearly two millenia. At some point upline, there is no excuse or reason. The laity doesn't bear such a corporate burden.


But that shift comes after desert experiences and being broken and having our soul and spirit divided. It doesn't come through education but it does lead to education.

One of the most profound things ever said on this forum. Revelation through man's spirit; education through man's soul. Fasting is the key exponent for the former, which maximizes the latter. It sounds like you may have spent a little time in the sands of your own Death Valley. :-)


Yea. I am aware of it. The calvin/arminian debate bothers me from both sides for reasons I imagine you can guess. But I will admit that the calvinist stuff bothers me more.

Having previously been on both sides of that fence, I understand your concern.


Watchmen Nee has a book about the awakened soul not being spiritually alive. I need to check that book out. Have you read it?

I seldom read books/authors; mostly the Word with a few language tools and topical internet research. Nee is one of the exceptions, even though he's basically an OSAS-Arminian trinitarian. Several of his books are must-reads. I've read "The Latent Power of the Soul", if that's the one you're referring to. Good read.

Brother Mark
Jan 8th 2011, 04:11 PM
I understand and agree. But I'm talking about multiple generations of scholars, theologians, and teachers who are well past survival stage and have established and contributed to these doctrines for nearly two millenia. At some point upline, there is no excuse or reason. The laity doesn't bear such a corporate burden.

Agreed with that.


One of the most profound things ever said on this forum. Revelation through man's spirit; education through man's soul. Fasting is the key exponent for the former, which maximizes the latter. It sounds like you may have spent a little time in the sands of your own Death Valley. :-)

Indeed. It took a while for me to accept the desert though. Much focus today is on education instead of revelation and that directly impacts the message preached and the power in which it is preached.


I seldom read books/authors; mostly the Word with a few language tools and topical internet research. Nee is one of the exceptions, even though he's basically an OSAS-Arminian trinitarian. Several of his books are must-reads. I've read "The Latent Power of the Soul", if that's the one you're referring to. Good read.

Same here. I haven't read much of Watchmen Nee but that book is one of the books of his that are on my list of books to read. (Yea, that was the one I was referring to. I just couldn't remember the title of it.) I rarely read books anymore. When I was first saved, I loved reading Charles Spurgeon. Later I read a few books by Devern Fromke. Mr. Fromke's books should be read by almost all believers, IMO, who desire to go all the way with God. But nothing, NOTHING, can beat reading the scriptures and having God open our eyes. I see books as milk because the good authors, receive revelation from God, digest it, then put it in a book in such a way I can get that revelation too. Isn't milk predigested food that is given to us for growth? Meat is not so much a subject matter, (though certainly that is part of it) but rather, it is getting food directly from the Lord Himself.

Brother Mark
Jan 8th 2011, 04:15 PM
I would not be quick to say that either Calvinists or Arminians miss the idea that God is love. Both sides believe firmly that God loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son.

Does your definition of world include the non-elect?


I think this approach is wrong because it seems to assume that God must love all his enemies. That does not mesh with Scripture at all.

Does Jesus not keep his own command about loving enemies?


Consider:

The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. (Ps. 11:5)

As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:13-18)

Who says love and hate are mutually exclusive?


The Bible tells us that God does not love all people.

It tells us in John 3:16 that he loves all people. 1 John tells us He IS love.

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 04:40 PM
Does your definition of world include the non-elect?
No.


Does Jesus not keep his own command about loving enemies?Yes, but in order to fulfill the law perfectly on our behalf, in His role as savior.


Who says love and hate are mutually exclusive?The passage I quoted does. First of all, a distinction is made between Jacob and Esau. The passage goes on to distinguish between those on whom God has mercy and those whom he has raised up for a purpose other than salvation. Yes, the two are mutually exclusive.


It tells us in John 3:16 that he loves all people.
It doesn't say that He loves all people without exception. It says that He loves the world.


1 John tells us He IS love. But God also IS justice, and He IS wrath, and He IS ___________ . He does not [I]have those qualities, since in that case He would consist of composite parts, which implies imperfection. He IS those attributes.

Brother Mark
Jan 8th 2011, 05:41 PM
No.

And that is a problem I have with Calvinist. They change the word world to mean "elect".


Yes, but in order to fulfill the law perfectly on our behalf, in His role as savior.

Does Jesus love the ones whom the Father does not love?


The passage I quoted does. First of all, a distinction is made between Jacob and Esau. The passage goes on to distinguish between those on whom God has mercy and those whom he has raised up for a purpose other than salvation. Yes, the two are mutually exclusive.

No they are not. One is an emotion and the other is not. One can hate and love at the same time.


It doesn't say that He loves all people without exception. It says that He loves the world.

The world is all inclusive. That's why he said "world" instead of elect.


But God also IS justice, and He IS wrath, and He IS ___________ . He does not [I]have those qualities, since in that case He would consist of composite parts, which implies imperfection. He IS those attributes.

Of course God is just and He is holy. But he is not wrath. He experiences wrath. But he doesn't "have" love. He IS love.

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 06:09 PM
And that is a problem I have with Calvinist. They change the word world to mean "elect".

Or we understand it rightly to be not as all-inclusive as Arminians suppose it to be. Jesus made a distinction between the "world" and His disciples:

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. (John 17:9)

That should also answer your next question...


Does Jesus love the ones whom the Father does not love?


No they are not. One is an emotion and the other is not. One can hate and love at the same time.

That distinction, of course, is your own. Even if it were true about human hate and love, though, I'm not so sure that that is true of God. At any rate, the Romans passage describes love and hate as mutually exclusive. God has mercy on some but not on others, all in accordance with his sovereignty. He doesn't have mercy on all. Paul draws a bold, unmistakable line between those whom God loves and those whom He hates. If God loved and hated people at the same time, then Paul's distinction would not be true.


Of course God is just and He is holy. But he is not wrath. He experiences wrath. But he doesn't "have" love. He IS love.

To say that he experiences wrath is really just another way of saying that he has wrath, just like someone who experiences grief has grief, or someone who experiences joy has joy. But that just begs the question: How can God have distinct parts that make up His whole being, since that would imply imperfection? You and I are made up of distinct, composite parts, such as heart, lungs, liver, eyes, and all our other physical components. Each of those parts by itself is lesser than the whole you, since all the parts must be together to make up your total physical being. The whole is greater than the parts. That's why I am having trouble with your description of God's attributes here. You describe God as a being who is divisible, made up of composite parts. Doing that, though, is dragging Him to the level of the creature.

Bandit
Jan 8th 2011, 06:10 PM
...Where does the bible say that no one comes to God? And if no one comes to Him, then why are we in disagreement, for are we not all then headed to destruction? And if some are not headed for destruction, then some must have sought after God, and if so, then the statement that "none seek after God" cannot be literally true. (Perhaps there is a different understanding for such verses.)

My understanding of scripture is that we are given a new nature after we respond to God, not before.


If no one seeks for God, then no one comes to God--apart from his grace, of course.

I brought up that verse, as I recall, to indicate human nature. Since nobody seeks after God, ...

Hello Mathetes,

I have seen where you state that "nobody seeks after God", but which scripture references do you have in mind? Romans 3? I didn't see where you made a particular scripture reference.

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 06:13 PM
Hello Mathetes,

I have seen where you state that "nobody seeks after God", but which scripture references do you have in mind? Romans 3? I didn't see where you made a particular scripture reference.

Romans 3:10-18:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 8th 2011, 06:13 PM
This I agree with. That is why I often ask people to first define what they mean by "free will" when discussing these issues. The vast majority of people believe that "free will" means that the human will is completely free, but that is false. Man's will is free externally in that nothing outside of man forces him to do this or that. God does not show up at Christians' doors on Sunday morning and force them to go to church, neither does the devil force them to commit sin. So the will is free in an external sense. But internally, the will is in bondage to sin.

I'm glad you agree, I suppose.


Not sure about all of this. Can this be inferred from the Scriptures?

I wouldn't call it inferrence; but if you're looking for copious simple proof-texting, you'll have to dig much deeper than merely the letter which killeth. Try spending a decade compiling every such reference and the Greek word studies; then praying through them according to Ephesians 1 while fasting for months at a time. It's not inferrence. Being a didaskalos (Eph. 4) is fairly important, too.


Man is totally depraved, not just his soul. That is what total depravity means: All of man's faculties are fallen.

So said Calvin, et al. His Institutes certainly aren't scripture. I'm not Arminian, either. Both sides are ultimately flotsum flushed from the deep. The real target hasn't been hit yet. And unless you are the exception, I doubt you can thoroughly account for the condition and functionality of man's faculties; especially if the Institutes is your source.

A. Calvinism
B. Arminianism
C. None of the Above

Final answer.

Brother Mark
Jan 8th 2011, 06:13 PM
Or we understand it rightly to be not as all-inclusive as Arminians suppose it to be. Jesus made a distinction between the "world" and His disciples:

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. (John 17:9)

Of course he did. We are no longer of the world when we are saved. He prayed for his disciples. He died for the world, i.e. the ungodly.


That should also answer your next question...

It didn't. Does Jesus love those the Father doesn't love?


That distinction, of course, is your own. Even if it were true about human hate and love, though, I'm not so sure that that is true of God. At any rate, the Romans passage describes love and hate as mutually exclusive. God has mercy on some but not on others, all in accordance with his sovereignty. He doesn't have mercy on all. Paul draws a bold, unmistakable line between those whom God loves and those whom He hates. If God loved and hated people at the same time, then Paul's distinction would not be true.

God said he loved the whole world. Then he wrote there are some he hates. He loves and hates them.


To say that he experiences wrath is really just another way of saying that he has wrath, just like someone who experiences grief has grief, or someone who experiences joy has joy. But that just begs the question: How can God have distinct parts that make up His whole being, since that would imply imperfection? You and I are made up of distinct, composite parts, such as heart, lungs, liver, eyes, and all our other physical components. Each of those parts by itself is lesser than the whole you, since all the parts must be together to make up your total physical being. The whole is greater than the parts. That's why I am having trouble with your description of God's attributes here. You describe God as a being who is divisible, made up of composite parts. Doing that, though, is dragging Him to the level of the creature.

He experiences the emotion of wrath. He IS love. That's why John went to the trouble, as prompted by the Holy Spirit to write "God is love". Scripture doesn't say God is wrath. Love is not an attribute of God. It's who and what He IS.

Bandit
Jan 8th 2011, 06:30 PM
...
My understanding of scripture is that we are given a new nature after we respond to God, not before.


... That is why your statement...[above]...is incorrect ...

I don't see anywhere in scripture where a person is converted before repentance. I see commands everywhere saying things like, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2 and 4:17), and "[God] now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). But I don't see the order calvinists claim: that conversion precedes repentance.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 8th 2011, 06:32 PM
Nobody seems to see the inane irony in two opposing theological systems based primarily on the function of one of man's/God's soul faculties, but neither bothers with a revelation understanding of man's/God's constitution relating to the soul overall and its intra-personal functionality and interrelation between God and man.:B:cry:

Brother Mark
Jan 8th 2011, 06:35 PM
Nobody seems to see the inane irony in two opposing theological systems based primarily on the function of one of man's/God's soul faculties, but neither bothers with a revelation understanding of man's/God's constitution relating to the soul overall and its intra-personal functionality and interrelation between God and man.:B:cry:

Some do. But how can you discuss the spirit of a dead man when you can't get past some basic principles? For instance, one cannot properly learn multiplication if he cannot understand addition.

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 06:48 PM
I wouldn't call it inferrence;

I would. To infer means to find all the clues regarding a topic, compile them all, and then formulate a declaration based on all that evidence--IOW, to conclude from evidence. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was inferred because there is not one single place in Scripture with the heading "The Trinity" and a short, concise definition. The doctrine was instead articulated after many years of painstaking grappling with all the relevant texts of Scripture, and that by many different people.


but if you're looking for copious simple proof-texting,

I am not looking for such. Why this even entered your mind is beyond me.


you'll have to dig much deeper than merely the letter which killeth. Try spending a decade compiling every such reference and the Greek word studies; then praying through them according to Ephesians 1 while fasting for months at a time."
I definitely believe in doing theology systematically, but let's face it, on a discussion forum you can't expect people to do the extensive work you described above. It's just not the medium for it.


Being a didaskalos (Eph. 4) is fairly important, too.

Indeed it is, provided that such a person really is one, truly called by God to teach the Church.


So said Calvin, et al. His Institutes certainly aren't scripture.

Neither are your posts. ;)


I'm not Arminian, either. Both sides are ultimately flotsum flushed from the deep. The real target hasn't been hit yet.

So say you. You are not the final arbiter of this matter, though. Perhaps you should consider yourself a contributor to the discussions instead of the master teacher who is above everyone else? :hmm:

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 8th 2011, 06:57 PM
Indeed. It took a while for me to accept the desert though. Much focus today is on education instead of revelation and that directly impacts the message preached and the power in which it is preached.

:pp


Same here. I haven't read much of Watchmen Nee but that book is one of the books of his that are on my list of books to read. (Yea, that was the one I was referring to. I just couldn't remember the title of it.) I rarely read books anymore. When I was first saved, I loved reading Charles Spurgeon. Later I read a few books by Devern Fromke. Mr. Fromke's books should be read by almost all believers, IMO, who desire to go all the way with God. But nothing, NOTHING, can beat reading the scriptures and having God open our eyes. I see books as milk because the good authors, receive revelation from God, digest it, then put it in a book in such a way I can get that revelation too. Isn't milk predigested food that is given to us for growth? Meat is not so much a subject matter, (though certainly that is part of it) but rather, it is getting food directly from the Lord Himself.

I hadn't considered it quite from that perspective. Good stuff. I intend to read Fromke, based on our convos.

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 07:01 PM
I don't see anywhere in scripture where a person is converted before repentance. I see commands everywhere saying things like, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2 and 4:17), and "[God] now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). But I don't see the order calvinists claim: that conversion precedes repentance.

In John 1:12-13 we are told that people are born again not of their own will but of God. So their conversion is not because of their choice but because of God's will to regenerate them. But someone might still say, "An unregenerate person could repent before being born again." But Romans 8:7 clearly says that the mind set on the flesh cannot submit to God's laws. Anyone who is not born again is certainly someone whose mind is set on the flesh. If someone cannot submit to God's laws, how could he possibly submit to the command to repent?

Bandit
Jan 8th 2011, 07:26 PM
It is here where I think we begin to diverge. If I understand you, you are saying that man does not have the inherent ability to respond to God (i.e., man has no power to choose). You also seem to be saying that God effectively makes the human choice for us. If so, then you are saying that man really doesn't have a choice. I do not believe that any "change in will" is necessary before repentance.
...


Correct. Man is dead in sin. He cannot submit to God's laws, and in his flesh he cannot please God (Romans 8:7).
...
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7)

If people whose minds are set on the flesh--and that is certainly everyone before conversion--cannot submit to God's law and cannot please Him, how could they possibly be able to repent?


Hello Mathetes,

Here is another area where calvinists and Arminians disagree. It appears calvinists understand Romans 8:7 as saying that it is impossible for a person to repent and change his ways. But this is not how I, and many others, understand it.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other."[Matt. 6:24] This text says nothing of not being able to switch masters, just that it is impossible to serve both simultaneously. The point being made in Romans 8:5-8 is similar. As verse 8 summarizes, “So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Do notice that it says that those who are presently in the flesh (presently focused upon worldly things) cannot please God. This passage does not say that it is impossible for a person to change their focus.

Bandit
Jan 8th 2011, 07:35 PM
...If you think that no change in will is necessary before repentance, then what you are effectively saying is that the will is corrupted by sin, that it is not fallen. Is that what you believe?
...

As I have stated before, I do not believe in concept of "total depravity" as most calvinists would use the term. You are free to define "corrupted" and "fallen" as you choose, but I may or may not agree with those definitions. (And right now I really don't know what you mean by them.)

Bandit
Jan 8th 2011, 07:41 PM
... the Arminian doctrine of salvation also rests entirely upon their particular doctrine of man.

Actually, I would say it is calvinism which is based upon a "particular doctrine of man".

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 8th 2011, 07:45 PM
I would. To infer means to find all the clues regarding a topic, compile them all, and then formulate a declaration based on all that evidence--IOW, to conclude from evidence. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was inferred because there is not one single place in Scripture with the heading "The Trinity" and a short, concise definition. The doctrine was instead articulated after many years of painstaking grappling with all the relevant texts of Scripture, and that by many different people.

I haven't inferred spirit-soul-body in the manner of the trinity process at all. Spirit-soul-body is plainly declared in 1Thess. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12; the remaining functionality takes on the nature of what you're describing, I suppose. Trinity is TOTAL inferrence, which is what I was differentiating from. You evidently don't realize I'm not trinitarian.


I am not looking for such. Why this even entered your mind is beyond me.

Forum experience. Nothing personal toward you. Many insist on simple proof-texting.


I definitely believe in doing theology systematically, but let's face it, on a discussion forum you can't expect people to do the extensive work you described above. It's just not the medium for it.

Which is why the OP wasn't about presenting extensive apologetics for each "side".


Indeed it is, provided that such a person really is one, truly called by God to teach the Church.

Very important. "Let not many be masters, for theirs is the greater condemnation."


Neither are your posts. ;)

No argument from me, as long as we're tossin' Calvin.


So say you. You are not the final arbiter of this matter, though.

No. Evidently Mathetes is. :-)


Perhaps you should consider yourself a contributor to the discussions instead of the master teacher who is above everyone else? :hmm:

I don't, but it IS my OP; and it's about reconciliation and contrast, not about promoting a "side". And perhaps you've come in as the Calvi master yourself. No need for us to clash.

I'm just fed up with the centuries of division over an incomplete pair of non-foundational theologies. Please don't mistake my brevity, clarity, and focus for arrogance. Much of any "tone" you perceive is merely the "2D" forum format.

It is patently absurd to build theologies on a single soul faculty without a comprehension of the constitution of man; AND then making it one of the most divisive points of doctrine beyond the fallacy of trinity itself. It's all tied together.

We will evidently disagree; but I pray God's richest blessings on you and your family.

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 07:55 PM
As verse 8 summarizes, “So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Do notice that it says that those who are presently in the flesh (presently focused upon worldly things) cannot please God. This passage does not say that it is impossible for a person to change their focus.
It says that they cannot submit to God's laws. Please explain to me how someone could be unable to submit to God's laws yet at the same time be able to repent.

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 08:00 PM
As I have stated before, I do not believe in concept of "total depravity" as most calvinists would use the term. You are free to define "corrupted" and "fallen" as you choose, but I may or may not agree with those definitions. (And right now I really don't know what you mean by them.)

I take that to mean that you believe that the will is not fallen. That undoubtedly influences your view on how God saves people if you think there is some part of man that is untouched by the fall that can respond favorably to the gospel, on its own with just a little prompting from God (not overhaul or receiving a new nature, just a little push). So the Arminian's view of salvation is definitely just as dependent on their doctrine of man as the Calvinists' view is on theirs.

Bandit
Jan 8th 2011, 08:19 PM
Hello Mathetes,

Here is another area where calvinists and Arminians disagree. It appears calvinists understand Romans 8:7 as saying that it is impossible for a person to repent and change his ways. But this is not how I, and many others, understand it.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other."[Matt. 6:24] This text says nothing of not being able to switch masters, just that it is impossible to serve both simultaneously. The point being made in Romans 8:5-8 is similar. As verse 8 summarizes, “So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Do notice that it says that those who are presently in the flesh (presently focused upon worldly things) cannot please God. This passage does not say that it is impossible for a person to change their focus.


It says that they cannot submit to God's laws. Please explain to me how someone could be unable to submit to God's laws yet at the same time be able to repent.

Repentance involves an admission that one is currently living outside of God's laws. Why do you think Jesus said such things as:

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” [Luke 5:31,32]

“I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.” [Luke 15:7]

As I said in my earlier post, one who is is currently focused on worldly things cannot simultaneously be focused on spiritual things - that is an absolute impossibility - just as it is impossible to serve two masters at the same time. A man can only serve one master at any given moment. A big component of the gospel message is that people can change masters, and Jesus explains how to do that. It is not the impossibility that calvinists make it out to be.

Bandit
Jan 8th 2011, 08:47 PM
As I have stated before, I do not believe in concept of "total depravity" as most calvinists would use the term. You are free to define "corrupted" and "fallen" as you choose, but I may or may not agree with those definitions. (And right now I really don't know what you mean by them.)


I take that to mean that you believe that the will is not fallen. That undoubtedly influences your view on how God saves people if you think there is some part of man that is untouched by the fall that can respond favorably to the gospel, on its own with just a little prompting from God (not overhaul or receiving a new nature, just a little push). So the Arminian's view of salvation is definitely just as dependent on their doctrine of man as the Calvinists' view is on theirs.

I can only go by what scripture says, like where it says,

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent..." [Acts 17:30]

If God commands it, then why say it is impossible?

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 10:06 PM
Repentance involves an admission that one is currently living outside of God's laws.

Sorry, but I don't see how this answers my question: "Please explain to me how someone could be unable to submit to God's laws yet at the same time be able to repent."

Mathetes
Jan 8th 2011, 10:10 PM
I can only go by what scripture says, like where it says,

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent..." [Acts 17:30]

If God commands it, then why say it is impossible?

Because a command does not mean ability. You assume that a command means that those to whom the command is given are able to respond to it. To me, that is faulty reasoning. A command simply tells someone what they ought to do, not what they can do.

If God only ever issued commands that he knew people were able to carry out, then why did He command people to keep his law perfectly even though he knew that they could not do so?

Bandit
Jan 8th 2011, 10:59 PM
Sorry, but I don't see how this answers my question: "Please explain to me how someone could be unable to submit to God's laws yet at the same time be able to repent."


If I may suggest, perhaps the problem is not rooted in my answer. Perhaps you need to reexamine some of your calvinist assumptions. (And I am serious about that.)

Brother Mark
Jan 8th 2011, 11:17 PM
In John 1:12-13 we are told that people are born again not of their own will but of God. So their conversion is not because of their choice but because of God's will to regenerate them. But someone might still say, "An unregenerate person could repent before being born again." But Romans 8:7 clearly says that the mind set on the flesh cannot submit to God's laws. Anyone who is not born again is certainly someone whose mind is set on the flesh. If someone cannot submit to God's laws, how could he possibly submit to the command to repent?

Then repentance must be impossible at all! For no lost man could ever repent, ever! But that's not the way it is. Instead, man's will cannot save him. Never has been able to. That doesn't mean he is unable to agree with God when God draws him. It just means man can't will himself to be save. No matter how much he tries, his will cannot save. But his will can agree with God and then God saves him.

Bandit
Jan 8th 2011, 11:21 PM
Because a command does not mean ability. You assume that a command means that those to whom the command is given are able to respond to it. To me, that is faulty reasoning. A command simply tells someone what they ought to do, not what they can do.

If God only ever issued commands that he knew people were able to carry out, then why did He command people to keep his law perfectly even though he knew that they could not do so?

Mathetes, where did God command people to keep His law perfectly? I submit the record of John the Baptist's parents as recorded in Luke 1:6 for consideration.

"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the LORD blameless."

Butch5
Jan 9th 2011, 05:01 AM
I take that to mean that you believe that the will is not fallen. That undoubtedly influences your view on how God saves people if you think there is some part of man that is untouched by the fall that can respond favorably to the gospel, on its own with just a little prompting from God (not overhaul or receiving a new nature, just a little push). So the Arminian's view of salvation is definitely just as dependent on their doctrine of man as the Calvinists' view is on theirs.

Hi Mathetes,

Can you explain exactly what happened in "The Fall"?

Butch5
Jan 9th 2011, 05:06 AM
Romans 3:10-18:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Hi Mathetes,

Actually, the passage you quoted is speaking of Israel. Paul's point is that the Jew is no better than the Gentile. However, have you considered that Paul may have been using hyperbole? I mean God Himself says that David was a man after His own heart.

Mathetes
Jan 9th 2011, 05:13 AM
Mathetes, where did God command people to keep His law perfectly?

I'm actually surprised that you are asking this. If God did not require perfect obedience, then we wouldn't need a savior. But here are some passages:

And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. (Deut. 6:24)

Love the LORD your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always. (Deut. 11:1)

For if you will be careful to do all this commandment that I command you to do, loving the LORD your God, walking in all his ways, and holding fast to him, then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations greater and mightier than yourselves. (Deut. 11:22-23)

However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you... (Deut. 28:15)

you shall be careful to do all the statutes and the rules that I am setting before you today. (Deut. 11:32)


I submit the record of John the Baptist's parents as recorded in Luke 1:6 for consideration.

"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the LORD blameless."I will submit that Paul said something very similar about himself in Phil. 3:4-9:

though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—

There is an outward obedience to the law that could be blameless in the eyes of men, but nobody is free from sin entirely. Otherwise Paul's blamelessness under the law would have been sufficient for him and he would not have desired the "righteousness from God."

Mathetes
Jan 9th 2011, 05:17 AM
Hi Mathetes,

Actually, the passage you quoted is speaking of Israel. Paul's point is that the Jew is no better than the Gentile.

No, that is not correct at all. Look at the verse immediately preceding the part I quoted:

For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: ...


However, have you considered that Paul may have been using hyperbole?

That is an unsatisfactory explanation because Paul's point in this entire section of Romans is to show the universality of sin, starting all the way back in chapter 1. Are you arguing that there might actually be some human beings besides Christ who have never sinned?

Butch5
Jan 9th 2011, 05:18 AM
In John 1:12-13 we are told that people are born again not of their own will but of God. So their conversion is not because of their choice but because of God's will to regenerate them. But someone might still say, "An unregenerate person could repent before being born again." But Romans 8:7 clearly says that the mind set on the flesh cannot submit to God's laws. Anyone who is not born again is certainly someone whose mind is set on the flesh. If someone cannot submit to God's laws, how could he possibly submit to the command to repent?

Mathetes,

Regarding John 1:12-13, First let me say that there is evidence that this passage did not originally read this way. The early Christians indicate that it was changed from the singular to the plural by the Gnostics. The early Christians contend that it should say who was born of God, not who were born of God. They contend that it was in the singular and referred to Christ, He was the one who was not born of the will of the flesh or of blood or of the will of man but of God. Everyone who has lived other than Christ has been born by the will of man, and of the flesh and of blood. Therefore this passage does not fit very well as referring to men.

However, even if one does insist that the passage refers to men, it still does not support the Calvinist view simply because the ones spoken of were given the power or authority to become son of God. The passage does not say they that they did become children of God, but that they received the authority to become children of God. If you look at the Greek you find that the receiving ("as many as received Him) is in the active voice it means to take hold of, that required action on the part of the subject. So, no matter how we look at it, it simply does not support the Calvinist's view.

Butch5
Jan 9th 2011, 05:29 AM
No, that is not correct at all. Look at the verse immediately preceding the part I quoted:

For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: ...

Actually my friend, what I said is correct. Paul is quoting an OT passage of Scripture that is speaking of Israel.




That is an unsatisfactory explanation because Paul's point in this entire section of Romans is to show the universality of sin, starting all the way back in chapter 1. Are you arguing that there might actually be some human beings besides Christ who have never sinned?

What I am saying is that Paul is using hyperbole. He is not saying that there is not a single human being throughout all of history that never sought after God. His point is that most people do not seek after God. The Scriptures use hyperbole as we can see from other passages. For instance;

Luke 2:1 ( KJV )
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Surely Caesar did not intend to tax people in other kingdoms? Surely he didn't intend to tax every singly human being on the planet. There are other examples like this in Scripture. We see that God Himself said that David was a man after God's own heart, therefore we cannot take Paul's statement to literally mean every single human being, if we do we create contradiction in the Scriptures

Bandit
Jan 9th 2011, 07:55 AM
Mathetes,

Regarding John 1:12-13, First let me say that there is evidence that this passage did not originally read this way. The early Christians indicate that it was changed from the singular to the plural by the Gnostics. The early Christians contend that it should say who was born of God, not who were born of God. They contend that it was in the singular and referred to Christ, He was the one who was not born of the will of the flesh or of blood or of the will of man but of God. Everyone who has lived other than Christ has been born by the will of man, and of the flesh and of blood. Therefore this passage does not fit very well as referring to men.

...

Hello Mathetes,

I also am one of those who accepts that this verse was likely altered. There is a fair amount of evidence supporting that claim. Tertullian records that this verse was altered in the 19th chapter of his On the Flesh of Christ. (A web search for this document should be quite easy.) There also exists at least one very old manuscript which has the verb in the singular - which supports Turtullian’s claim that John 1:13 was originally connected to verse 14 rather than verse 12. And then there is the internal evidence of what the Greek seems to be saying in verses 13 and 14 and how they better describe the virgin birth. (Like why would John feel the need to specifically claim that male physical desire had no part in this birth? But this does make sense if it was intended to be applied toward Jesus' conception and birth - which is where verse 14 is headed.)

This is why I have hesitated discussing John 1:13 when you have brought it up. I think it is misapplied, but this is something that isn't even agreed to by all the supposed textual experts. So any discussion of John 1:13 does have this caveat. I was afraid you would simply think it was a copout on my part; but seriously, any serious discussion of John 1:13 is quite likely over all of our heads. If you care to check this out for yourself, the only reference I have on this can be found in a book called Was Christ God? by Spiros Zodhiates. The whole book is a discussion of the first 18 verses of John. He spends a fair amount of time discussing verse 13 and why he (as well as other Greek experts) believe that this text was altered.

Bandit
Jan 9th 2011, 08:34 AM
... However, have you considered that Paul may have been using hyperbole? I mean God Himself says that David was a man after His own heart.


That is an unsatisfactory explanation because Paul's point in this entire section of Romans is to show the universality of sin, starting all the way back in chapter 1. Are you arguing that there might actually be some human beings besides Christ who have never sinned?

No, but he might be arguing that many people actually were righteous (for I know I would). Hyperbole (including intentional exaggeration) occurs quite frequently in the bible. I would suggest that there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret Romans 3:10-18. The right way would be to read it all seriously, the wrong way would be to read it all literally. Take verse 13 for instance:

Their throat is an open tomb,
With their tongues they have practiced deceit;
The poison of asps is under their lips.

Do you take these words seriously or literally? It should be obvious that it is talking about lying, but are there really asps under some people’s lips?

Now consider in verse 10 where it says,

There is none righteous, no not one.

Really? So everywhere else in the bible where it specifically mentions righteous persons, many time from Jesus’ own lips (see Matt. 13:17, Matt.23:35, Luke 1:6, Luke 2:25), were these people (including Jesus) wrong?

All I can do is suggest that there is a serious way to read Romans 3:10-18 which does not involve taking each statement literally. If you take much of this section literally (as calvinists do) when it should not be, then you have set yourself up for great misunderstanding.

If you now agree that this passage could not have meant that there literally are no righteous persons, then allow me to suggest that it also does not mean that there are literally no persons who seek after God. The bible is full of person who sought after God.

Mathetes
Jan 9th 2011, 02:03 PM
Actually my friend, what I said is correct. Paul is quoting an OT passage of Scripture that is speaking of Israel.

First of all, this is not true. Paul is quoting from Psalm 14:2:

The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.

The phrase "children of men" could hardly be limited to Israel.

Second, Paul is using the passage in his discourse to prove that all are under sin. That is plain from v. 9, where he says that they had previously charged that both Jews and Greeks are under sin. There can be no doubt that the Holy Spirit had all people in view when inspiring Paul to write this passage. I find it alarming that you are ignoring the immediate context in order to hold on to your view. You shouldn't do that.


What I am saying is that Paul is using hyperbole. He is not saying that there is not a single human being throughout all of history that never sought after God. His point is that most people do not seek after God.There is no indication, though, that he is using hyperbole. How do you know this for sure? What clues in the text indicate this?


The Scriptures use hyperbole as we can see from other passages. For instance;

Luke 2:1 ( KJV )
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.That's a good example, but just because the Scriptures use hyperbole in one place does not guarantee that it is employed in another given place. The example about Caesar's taxing is obviously a hyperbole, since we know that the entire world was not taxed. There is no clue in the Romans text, however, to indicate that Paul is using hyperbole. There is nothing that even hints at it.

ShawnW
Jan 9th 2011, 06:49 PM
I think both stances have weaknesses and many polar opposite views. On one hand, you have God electing a certain portion of people from a mass enslaved to sin by no choice of their own. God plucks and chooses those who he will save and the rest (which is the great majority) will burn eternally suffering the same fate as satan who lived with God. This is of no fault of their own, as they had no choice in the matter.

Then you have Arminianism which deflects the sovereignty of our Almighty God and places it on the backs of man...even though scripture (Paul specifically) states people are chosen. God predestines. It means man is able to alter the perfect will of God. For me, that is a serious stumbling block.

I suggest that neither could be right in their entirety...at least not with traditional interpretation.

Butch5
Jan 9th 2011, 06:58 PM
Hello Mathetes,

I also am one of those who accepts that this verse was likely altered. There is a fair amount of evidence supporting that claim. Tertullian records that this verse was altered in the 19th chapter of his On the Flesh of Christ. (A web search for this document should be quite easy.) There also exists at least one very old manuscript which has the verb in the singular - which supports Turtullian’s claim that John 1:13 was originally connected to verse 14 rather than verse 12. And then there is the internal evidence of what the Greek seems to be saying in verses 13 and 14 and how they better describe the virgin birth. (Like why would John feel the need to specifically claim that male physical desire had no part in this birth? But this does make sense if it was intended to be applied toward Jesus' conception and birth - which is where verse 14 is headed.)

This is why I have hesitated discussing John 1:13 when you have brought it up. I think it is misapplied, but this is something that isn't even agreed to by all the supposed textual experts. So any discussion of John 1:13 does have this caveat. I was afraid you would simply think it was a copout on my part; but seriously, any serious discussion of John 1:13 is quite likely over all of our heads. If you care to check this out for yourself, the only reference I have on this can be found in a book called Was Christ God? by Spiros Zodhiates. The whole book is a discussion of the first 18 verses of John. He spends a fair amount of time discussing verse 13 and why he (as well as other Greek experts) believe that this text was altered.

Hi Bandit,

The understanding you've stated above, (not of blood, nor of the flesh, nor of the will of man) being tied to the virgin birth also goes to the point John is trying to make. John's gospel responds to Gnosticism, his point is that Jesus, the man, is the Christ. John is countering the Gnostic claim that the Christ and the man Jesus were two different entities. He states in verse 14 "the Word became flesh". This shows that Jesus was not born of the will of man, nor the will of the flesh, nor of blood, but by the will of God.

Butch5
Jan 9th 2011, 07:34 PM
First of all, this is not true. Paul is quoting from Psalm 14:2:

The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.

The phrase "children of men" could hardly be limited to Israel.

Actually you are correct. However, look at the Psalm that was quoted, the Psalmist himself in the same Psalm says that God is in the generation of the righteous.

Psalms 14:1-7 ( KJV )
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.
Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

If the Psalm that Paul quoted admits that there are those who are righteous, it should be ample evidence that Paul is using hyperbole. I wold think that Paul knew the entire Psalm when he quoted it and he knew that it said that God was in the generation of the righteous.


Second, Paul is using the passage in his discourse to prove that all are under sin. That is plain from v. 9, where he says that they had previously charged that both Jews and Greeks are under sin. There can be no doubt that the Holy Spirit had all people in view when inspiring Paul to write this passage. I find it alarming that you are ignoring the immediate context in order to hold on to your view. You shouldn't do that.

I don't ignore context my friend, however, Paul is using this passage to suggest to the Jew that they also are under sin. In this section of Romans Paul is addressing the Jewish believers, they would agree that the Gentiles were not righteous but most likely would argue if someone suggested that they were not righteous. Paul, however, does just that. He quotes Psalm 14 to show the Jew that he is no better than the Gentile.


There is no indication, though, that he is using hyperbole. How do you know this for sure? What clues in the text indicate this?

From Scripture, If we understand Paul's words there to be extremely literal we will have a contradiction in Scripture. God said that David was a man after His own heart. So, If God said that David sought him and we understand Paul literally then that would me that Paul is saying that David did not seek after God, thus we have a contradiction.

Also, Bandit has addressed the rest of this passage. Do you think that those people Paul spoke of literally had the poison of asps under their tongues? Wouldn't that kill them? You don't think people actually buried dead bodies in the throats of the ones Paul is speaking of do you? He is using hyperbole.


That's a good example, but just because the Scriptures use hyperbole in one place does not guarantee that it is employed in another given place. The example about Caesar's taxing is obviously a hyperbole, since we know that the entire world was not taxed. There is no clue in the Romans text, however, to indicate that Paul is using hyperbole. There is nothing that even hints at it.

On the contrary, he uses it in that very passage speaking of the asps and their throats being sepulchres. We understand a passage to be hyperbole when the passage, taken to the extreme becomes absurd or a contradiction, such as the taxing. We would think it absurd to think that Caesar would attempt to levy taxes on every single person on the planet. We also think it hyperbole when we see statements in Scripture that state the opposite of what Paul said. Paul said there is none righteous, yet there is a multitude of passages that speak of those who were righteous. This leaves us with three options, one Paul's context is not the entirety of mankind, two he is using hyperbole, or three all of those passages that speak of righteous people are wrong. I don't think you would suggest option three so that leaves us wit just two, neither of which allows for an extremely literal interpretation.

Butch5
Jan 9th 2011, 07:40 PM
I think both stances have weaknesses and many polar opposite views. On one hand, you have God electing a certain portion of people from a mass enslaved to sin by no choice of their own. God plucks and chooses those who he will save and the rest (which is the great majority) will burn eternally suffering the same fate as satan who lived with God. This is of no fault of their own, as they had no choice in the matter.

Then you have Arminianism which deflects the sovereignty of our Almighty God and places it on the backs of man...even though scripture (Paul specifically) states people are chosen. God predestines. It means man is able to alter the perfect will of God. For me, that is a serious stumbling block.

I suggest that neither could be right in their entirety...at least not with traditional interpretation.

They are both incorrect, that is why I don't hold to either side. Both "isms" have a set of Scriptures that they struggle to deal with. However, I think Calvinism is the more dangerous of the two. There is also the fact that the entire system of Calvinism is built on inference. Not one of the five points of the TULIP is expressly stated in Scripture, each one must be inferred. I understand that some things are inferred and I don't have a problem with that, however, when the entire system must be inferred, well, here I begin to seriously question the system.

ShawnW
Jan 10th 2011, 01:12 AM
They are both incorrect, that is why I don't hold to either side. Both "isms" have a set of Scriptures that they struggle to deal with. However, I think Calvinism is the more dangerous of the two. There is also the fact that the entire system of Calvinism is built on inference. Not one of the five points of the TULIP is expressly stated in Scripture, each one must be inferred. I understand that some things are inferred and I don't have a problem with that, however, when the entire system must be inferred, well, here I begin to seriously question the system.

I can't subscribe to either in the classical sense. There are parts of both that make sense to me and other parts which makes the hair on my neck stand. I have serious problems with the predestination of man into eternal flames. I also have problems with the classical thoughts on free will.

I do believe we are predestined, chosen, to be first fruits. I do not believe this is of our own free will. As we were once slaves to sins, now we are slaves to Christ. In slavery there is little choice....little free will. God is indeed sovereign and works everything for our benefit. So in that part I can agree with the Calvinists. But, I do not believe he elects some for the eternal flames. That is much too difficult to reconcile with God who loves agape. Nor do I believe it does justice to the original languages. We will ALL see his hand of correction, some in this life. And some through aionion kolasis. My prayer is that I am continually a willing participant in abiding in the fires of purification.

Mathetes
Jan 10th 2011, 01:29 AM
Actually you are correct. However, look at the Psalm that was quoted, the Psalmist himself in the same Psalm says that God is in the generation of the righteous.

Psalms 14:1-7 ( KJV )
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.
Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

If the Psalm that Paul quoted admits that there are those who are righteous, it should be ample evidence that Paul is using hyperbole.

I am not so sure of that. The word "righteous" here obviously refers to people who are saved, but that does not mean there was not a time when they fell into the category of those who don't seek God. Just because someone seeks God now does not mean they were always a God-seeker. Therefore, this does not necessarily mean that Paul was using hyperbole.


I don't ignore context my friend, however, Paul is using this passage to suggest to the Jew that they also are under sin. In this section of Romans Paul is addressing the Jewish believers, they would agree that the Gentiles were not righteous but most likely would argue if someone suggested that they were not righteous. Paul, however, does just that. He quotes Psalm 14 to show the Jew that he is no better than the Gentile.Correct. So all people without exception are under sin. This is confirmed by his later statements,

"Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin."

"Every mouth" sounds pretty literal to me. Paul has in view every single person who has ever lived (except Jesus, of course) because no person can be justified by works of the law. You are trying to impose exceptions to Paul's all-inclusive statements. You shouldn't do that.


From Scripture, If we understand Paul's words there to be extremely literal we will have a contradiction in Scripture. God said that David was a man after His own heart. So, If God said that David sought him and we understand Paul literally then that would me that Paul is saying that David did not seek after God, thus we have a contradiction.There is no contradiction here--none whatsoever. There are people who seek God, but only those who are saved, whom God first changes. Prior to that, they are like the rest of humanity: They don't seek God. David sought God because God had first made him a man after his own heart.


Also, Bandit has addressed the rest of this passage. Do you think that those people Paul spoke of literally had the poison of asps under their tongues? Wouldn't that kill them? You don't think people actually buried dead bodies in the throats of the ones Paul is speaking of do you? He is using hyperbole.There is definitely some figurative language in some of the Psalms he is quoting, but the presence of some figurative language does not necessarily mean that all the language is figurative. This becomes clear when we remember that the citations listed in Romans 3:10-18 are taken from different psalms. Some of those psalms used figurative language heavily, while others did not. Psalm 14 and Psalm 53--the two psalms that say that nobody seeks after God--do not use figurative language except for a single simile later in each psalm: " who eat up my people as they eat bread."

If your interpretation is correct, then there are some people who seek after God even before they are saved, and there are some righteous people. But that interpretation obviously cannot be correct because it would work against the very point he is making in this whole section of Romans: that nobody will be justified by works of the law. Just as importantly, it would also work against his point later in chapter 3 that people are justified by God's grace as a gift. Verses 23-24 say, "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." If Paul were really using mere hyperbole in the earlier chapters, and did not mean that all people without exception are under sin, then that would mean that there are some who don't need the redemption in Christ Jesus, that there are some people who can, in fact, be justified by works of the law. Such people truly seek after God before being saved; such people are truly righteous apart from Christ. I do hope that is not what you believe, but I don't see what other conclusion you could arrive at.

And you said in a recent post that Calvinism is dangerous? My friend, it isn't Calvinism that is dangerous. It is your teaching that is. It will lead those who follow it to the conclusion that some people don't need Christ's redemption but can accomplish salvation without Him. With that, I will conclude by urging you to take this quiz: http://www.gospelquiz.org.

Butch5
Jan 10th 2011, 03:55 AM
I can't subscribe to either in the classical sense. There are parts of both that make sense to me and other parts which makes the hair on my neck stand. I have serious problems with the predestination of man into eternal flames. I also have problems with the classical thoughts on free will.

I do believe we are predestined, chosen, to be first fruits. I do not believe this is of our own free will. As we were once slaves to sins, now we are slaves to Christ. In slavery there is little choice....little free will. God is indeed sovereign and works everything for our benefit. So in that part I can agree with the Calvinists. But, I do not believe he elects some for the eternal flames. That is much too difficult to reconcile with God who loves agape. Nor do I believe it does justice to the original languages. We will ALL see his hand of correction, some in this life. And some through aionion kolasis. My prayer is that I am continually a willing participant in abiding in the fires of purification.

Hi shawn,

The issue is keeping the Scriptures in context. You see predestination simply means to predetermine. God did not predetermine who would and who would not believe. What he predetermined was that those who did believe, i.e. love Him, would be conformed to the image of His Son. You said you don't believe man chooses of his free will, correct. If you don't believe that then you are left with the Calvinist view that men are chosen by God. Most Calvinists today aren't willing to acknowledge the outcome of their doctrine as Calvin did. It is Double Predestination. If God chooses who will be saved then by default He chooses who will not be saved, this would mean that man goes to hell because God did not choose him. That is not what Scripture teaches. Calvinism teaches that man is totally depraved and unable to turn to God and that God must first elect man. If man is made totally depraved as the Calvinist says then man is doing exactly what he was made to do and therefore should be praised not condemned. Yet the Scripture repeatedly exhort man to turn to God and to repent. The apostle John in chapter 1 of his gospel said that Christ gives light (understanding) to everyone who comes into the world, he goes on to quote Jesus' words in chapter 12 where Jesus said, 'If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me.' The early Church (the Ante-Nicene period 100 A.D.-325 A.D.) speaks many times of man's free will being the cause of his eternal destiny. If man does not have the free will to choose God then he cannot be held responsible for the outcome.

ShawnW
Jan 10th 2011, 05:28 AM
Hi shawn,

The issue is keeping the Scriptures in context. You see predestination simply means to predetermine. God did not predetermine who would and who would not believe. What he predetermined was that those who did believe, i.e. love Him, would be conformed to the image of His Son. You said you don't believe man chooses of his free will, correct. If you don't believe that then you are left with the Calvinist view that men are chosen by God. Most Calvinists today aren't willing to acknowledge the outcome of their doctrine as Calvin did. It is Double Predestination. If God chooses who will be saved then by default He chooses who will not be saved, this would mean that man goes to hell because God did not choose him. That is not what Scripture teaches. Calvinism teaches that man is totally depraved and unable to turn to God and that God must first elect man. If man is made totally depraved as the Calvinist says then man is doing exactly what he was made to do and therefore should be praised not condemned. Yet the Scripture repeatedly exhort man to turn to God and to repent. The apostle John in chapter 1 of his gospel said that Christ gives light (understanding) to everyone who comes into the world, he goes on to quote Jesus' words in chapter 12 where Jesus said, 'If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me.' The early Church (the Ante-Nicene period 100 A.D.-325 A.D.) speaks many times of man's free will being the cause of his eternal destiny. If man does not have the free will to choose God then he cannot be held responsible for the outcome.

That sounds great but I don't believe it to be scriptural. Romans chapter 9 points out the clear problem with Arminianism.

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

These verses should set the debate to rest. It says he made vessels of destruction (bore with great patience), objects of wrath, prepared for destruction in order to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.

This is a tough pill to swallow. I get that. But, it's only tough for one to reconcile if they believe the objects of wrath burn eternally in a fire pit. Aionon Kolasis means corrective punishment for an unknown and unmeasurable length of time. Until we stop being spoon fed the scriptures we will never fully mature. The answer to the problem between Calvinism and Arminianism isn't in the NKJV, the NIV or any of the like. It's in the original languages. I would suggest looking at the YLT or the Concordant Literal. Or just open your Strong's and start looking up some of the greek words used for eternal punishment and hell. You might be surprised at what you find. There is a very good reason you won't see the word hell used once in many translations including the YLT. I also find it interesting with each new translation there are less and less words translated as hell. The KJV has hell listed 54 times, the NKJV 34, the NIV 14. There is a very good reason for that if we search it out.

If Calvinism in the classical sense is correct that would mean God made many many people knowing and predestine them to burn eternally. What a horrible thought. I'm shocked that any believer can be ok with that. Arminianism isn't much better. It ignores the pink elephant in the room ie the fact that we are born as slaves to sin, and places the responsibility of sin onto the backs of man. Man who didn't ask to be made...and certainly didn't ask to be born as a slave to sin is now responsible for choosing (with a depraved enslaved mind) God. The deck is stacked against him from the beginning. And if man does not choose God over what every ounce of his flesh is telling him to do, it's his fault and should suffer in fire for eternity for finite sins. IMO, that is neither agape, grace, mercy or even justice. In my opinion Arminianism also doesn't hold up.

God picked Isreal as his chosen people. God picks and choses who will receive now...and who will receive later purified through aionion kolasis. Who will be the first fruits and who will not. He is indeed Sovereign and I believe this world was made to form vessels with which He can dwell and fellowship. This isn't about God making a world, then oops man did something He had no idea would happen. This world isn't a mistake. Man isn't a mistake. If God had to burn 95+% of all his creation eternally wouldn't that make man a monumental mistake in the grandest sense? Why does this make sense to most Christians?

Jesus is indeed all in all. All of creation will be reconciled. Jesus claims victory. Satan's desire is to seperate man from God. If Satan is able to elicit the wrath of God against humanity to where he burns most of them eternally...then how is that a victory?

Seek and you will find the answers you need on these very difficult questions.

Butch5
Jan 10th 2011, 07:35 AM
I am not so sure of that. The word "righteous" here obviously refers to people who are saved, but that does not mean there was not a time when they fell into the category of those who don't seek God. Just because someone seeks God now does not mean they were always a God-seeker. Therefore, this does not necessarily mean that Paul was using hyperbole.
The word righteous obviously refers to those who are saved??? Where does it say that? That is simply an assumption necessary to hold to your position. It says nothing about them being saved it say that God is in the generation of the righteous.



Correct. So all people without exception are under sin. This is confirmed by his later statements,

"Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin."

"Every mouth" sounds pretty literal to me. Paul has in view every single person who has ever lived (except Jesus, of course) because no person can be justified by works of the law. You are trying to impose exceptions to Paul's all-inclusive statements. You shouldn't do that.

Sorry friend, but we need to stay on topic. You quoted Paul saying that there is none righteous. The Scriptures speak of many who were righteous, the Scriptures don’t say they were sinless but they do say that they were righteous. However, the way you are understanding Paul presents a contradiction. Which one is right Paul or all of the other verses? Or maybe Paul is using hyperbole.



There is no contradiction here--none whatsoever. There are people who seek God, but only those who are saved, whom God first changes. Prior to that, they are like the rest of humanity: They don't seek God. David sought God because God had first made him a man after his own heart.

Can you please present a single passage of Scripture to support this claim? I hear this from Calvinists over and over again, that doesn’t make it so.




There is definitely some figurative language in some of the Psalms he is quoting, but the presence of some figurative language does not necessarily mean that all the language is figurative. This becomes clear when we remember that the citations listed in Romans 3:10-18 are taken from different psalms. Some of those psalms used figurative language heavily, while others did not. Psalm 14 and Psalm 53--the two psalms that say that nobody seeks after God--do not use figurative language except for a single simile later in each psalm: " who eat up my people as they eat bread."

Psalms 14:1 ( KJV )
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Is this literal or figurative? Does the fool really speak with in his heart?

Psalms 53:3 ( KJV )
Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Have they literally become filthy and need to bathe?

Psalms 53:5 ( KJV )
There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them.

Has God literally scattered their bones?



If your interpretation is correct, then there are some people who seek after God even before they are saved, and there are some righteous people. But that interpretation obviously cannot be correct because it would work against the very point he is making in this whole section of Romans: that nobody will be justified by works of the law.
And that is the point, no one will be justified by the works of the Law. His whole argument is faith vs. works of the Mosaic Law. That statement pertained to the Jews who he was speaking to. It was the Jews who were under the law, not the Gentiles; he makes this clear in chapter 2.

Romans 2:14 ( KJV )
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:


Just as importantly, it would also work against his point later in chapter 3 that people are justified by God's grace as a gift. Verses 23-24 say, "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." If Paul were really using mere hyperbole in the earlier chapters, and did not mean that all people without exception are under sin, then that would mean that there are some who don't need the redemption in Christ Jesus, that there are some people who can, in fact, be justified by works of the law. Such people truly seek after God before being saved; such people are truly righteous apart from Christ. I do hope that is not what you believe, but I don't see what other conclusion you could arrive at.

From your perspective that may be the only conclusion one could arrive at. However, I don’t hold the Penal model of the Atonement for one thing, so that changes things and I also understand Paul in the context of the historical setting. His argument is that the Jew is no better than the Gentile. This is clear from chapter 3.

Romans 3:8-9 ( KJV )
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

This is the context for his quotes from the OT, his argument is not that there is not a single righteous person in the history of mankind. He is merely proving that the Jews are not better than the Gentiles.

You keep going back to all are under sin, there is no argument with that, the issue is whether or not a person can be righteous and the Scriptures clearly call people righteous. I could post over 100 verses that speak of people being righteous or blameless or the like. Let me ask you straight out, are you saying all of those verses are wrong?

Regarding the need of redemption, this is where I differ on the Atonement. I hold the classic view that says that Christ died as a ransom to free mankind. Under that model if a person did live a sinless life they would still have need of Christ for redemption because they were enslaved to Satan. Under the Penal model if one could live a sinless life they would have no need for redemption. So, you see it is just from your perspective that you would draw your conclusions. In other words, you are trying to fit my statements into you theological understanding and it will not work. If you are going to understand what I am saying it will have to be outside of you theological system.

I do believe that people seek God before being saved because Scripture says they do. The apostle John said that Christ lights everyone that comes into the world that means He gives them understanding. Jesus said that if He was lifted up he would draw all unto himself. He didn’t say he would draw all of those who believed. He said he would draw all.



And you said in a recent post that Calvinism is dangerous? My friend, it isn't Calvinism that is dangerous. It is your teaching that is. It will lead those who follow it to the conclusion that some people don't need Christ's redemption but can accomplish salvation without Him. With that, I will conclude by urging you to take this quiz: http://www.gospelquiz.org.

My friend, do you know what I teach? I think if you inquired here you find out that I don’t teach any such thing as you suggest. I have never suggested anyone could be saved apart from Christ. That idea comes from someone trying to understand what I am saying through their Calvinistic theology. I have heard the same or similar statement from other Calvinists.

I did notice however, that you addressed the part of my post that dealt with my statement about Calvinism being dangerous but you didn’t address the part where I said that every point in the TULIP must be inferred because there is not a single verse of Scripture that States one of them outright.
Are you comfortable with a doctrinal system that does not have a single verse of Scripture that states one of its tenets outright?

Butch5
Jan 10th 2011, 07:43 AM
That sounds great but I don't believe it to be scriptural. Romans chapter 9 points out the clear problem with Arminianism.

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

These verses should set the debate to rest. It says he made vessels of destruction (bore with great patience), objects of wrath, prepared for destruction in order to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.

This is a tough pill to swallow. I get that. But, it's only tough for one to reconcile if they believe the objects of wrath burn eternally in a fire pit. Aionon Kolasis means corrective punishment for an unknown and unmeasurable length of time. Until we stop being spoon fed the scriptures we will never fully mature. The answer to the problem between Calvinism and Arminianism isn't in the NKJV, the NIV or any of the like. It's in the original languages. I would suggest looking at the YLT or the Concordant Literal. Or just open your Strong's and start looking up some of the greek words used for eternal punishment and hell. You might be surprised at what you find. There is a very good reason you won't see the word hell used once in many translations including the YLT. I also find it interesting with each new translation there are less and less words translated as hell. The KJV has hell listed 54 times, the NKJV 34, the NIV 14. There is a very good reason for that if we search it out.

If Calvinism in the classical sense is correct that would mean God made many many people knowing and predestine them to burn eternally. What a horrible thought. I'm shocked that any believer can be ok with that. Arminianism isn't much better. It ignores the pink elephant in the room ie the fact that we are born as slaves to sin, and places the responsibility of sin onto the backs of man. Man who didn't ask to be made...and certainly didn't ask to be born as a slave to sin is now responsible for choosing (with a depraved enslaved mind) God. The deck is stacked against him from the beginning. And if man does not choose God over what every ounce of his flesh is telling him to do, it's his fault and should suffer in fire for eternity for finite sins. IMO, that is neither agape, grace, mercy or even justice. In my opinion Arminianism also doesn't hold up.

God picked Isreal as his chosen people. God picks and choses who will receive now...and who will receive later purified through aionion kolasis. Who will be the first fruits and who will not. He is indeed Sovereign and I believe this world was made to form vessels with which He can dwell and fellowship. This isn't about God making a world, then oops man did something He had no idea would happen. This world isn't a mistake. Man isn't a mistake. If God had to burn 95+% of all his creation eternally wouldn't that make man a monumental mistake in the grandest sense? Why does this make sense to most Christians?

Jesus is indeed all in all. All of creation will be reconciled. Jesus claims victory. Satan's desire is to seperate man from God. If Satan is able to elicit the wrath of God against humanity to where he burns most of them eternally...then how is that a victory?

Seek and you will find the answers you need on these very difficult questions.

My friend, I am quite aware of What the Greek says. However, let me ask you a question. You said Romans 9 should end the debate. What is Romans 9 speaking about?

ShawnW
Jan 10th 2011, 08:04 AM
A question to a question isn't a proper response. It sounds more like a teacher student relationship rather than iron sharpening iron. If you have a point please make it. I am eager to learn and understand. I do not claim to have all the answers nor am I defending Calvinism...even if it appears to you that I am doing so. God is working on my understanding.

Bandit
Jan 10th 2011, 10:32 AM
I think both [Arminianism and calvinism] have weaknesses and many polar opposite views. On one hand, you have God electing a certain portion of people from a mass enslaved to sin by no choice of their own. God plucks and chooses those who he will save and the rest (which is the great majority) will burn eternally suffering the same fate as satan who lived with God. This is of no fault of their own, as they had no choice in the matter.

Then you have Arminianism which deflects the sovereignty of our Almighty God and places it on the backs of man...even though scripture (Paul specifically) states people are chosen. God predestines. It means man is able to alter the perfect will of God. For me, that is a serious stumbling block.

I suggest that neither could be right in their entirety...at least not with traditional interpretation.


I can't subscribe to either in the classical sense. There are parts of both that make sense to me and other parts which makes the hair on my neck stand. I have serious problems with the predestination of man into eternal flames. I also have problems with the classical thoughts on free will.

I do believe we are predestined, chosen, to be first fruits. I do not believe this is of our own free will. As we were once slaves to sins, now we are slaves to Christ. In slavery there is little choice....little free will. God is indeed sovereign and works everything for our benefit. So in that part I can agree with the Calvinists. But, I do not believe he elects some for the eternal flames. That is much too difficult to reconcile with God who loves agape. Nor do I believe it does justice to the original languages. We will ALL see his hand of correction, some in this life. And some through aionion kolasis. My prayer is that I am continually a willing participant in abiding in the fires of purification.


Hello ShawnW,

I don't have much time this morning, but here are some thoughts (and they are just my opinions). Both calvinism and traditional Arminianism work from the same set of fundamental premises: 1) total depravity - man has no moral volition with which to respond to God; and 2), individual election - predestined salvation on an individual basis. I think both of these fundamental premises need to be reexamined. Whereas calvinists seem to have no issue with these fundamental premises, traditional Arminians struggled with how to incorporate human moral volition into the mix - that is why they developed the concept of ‘prevenient grace’.

I suggest that total depravity is not true; furthermore I suggest that individual election to salvation is not true. We can discuss each point in turn, if you want, but to me the correct understanding is that men have the moral volition to respond to God (to repent) and that God elects men to salvation corporately. By offering salvation to any and all who ‘have faith’, God has chosen (and predestined) a certain class of people. (And, no, faith is not a gift which God only doles out to certain people. That is another common misunderstanding.)

Mathetes
Jan 10th 2011, 02:09 PM
Butch, let's get down to brass tacks here because I think we're making this more complicated than it has to be. I'm going to summarize what I understand of our discussion up to this point.

1) You took issue with my use of the phrase "No one seeks after God" by saying that it was just hyperbole and should not be taken literally.
2) Thus, you believe that there are some who seek after God before being saved. In your view, when Paul quoted the psalm and wrote, "No one seeks after God," he did not mean every single human being but "people in general."
3) If that were true, then we must also apply the same meaning of "people in general" to the phrase, "There is none righteous."
4) Paul must be talking about the perfect righteousness required by God in order to be accepted by Him. That fits the context since Paul later talks of not being justified by law, God providing a righteousness apart from law, and so on. Paul is explaining what God has done to remedy man's dire problem: the lack of perfect righteousness.
5) Thus, we end up with the interpretation that there are in fact some righteous people, some who have kept the law perfectly.
6) Paul is quoting these verses from the Psalms, though, to show that all are under sin, that there is nobody who can be justified by works of law, and that everyone is in need of the Savior, Christ.
7) Since he is using those verses to lead up to that conclusion, it would make no sense for him to think that there was any exception to the phrase "There is none righteous," since that would imply to his readers that there are some who don't need Christ.
8) Therefore, the idea that the phrases "There is none righteous" and "No one seeks after God" are not meant to be taken literally is an incorrect interpretation of this text and ignores Paul's discourse and flow of thought in this entire section of Romans.

My friend, you need to submit to Scripture.

Mathetes
Jan 10th 2011, 02:17 PM
If man is made totally depraved as the Calvinist says then man is doing exactly what he was made to do and therefore should be praised not condemned.

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. "You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—" (Romans 9:18-23)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 10th 2011, 03:09 PM
So... Nothing yet on the overall constitution of man and/or God; but volumes about the one particular soul faculty of each. And... Is "God's" will individual/shared/cumulative amongst the three God-people? Since it's will (singular), which God-person's will is it? Is it the Father's will? Is it the Son's will? Is it the will of the Holy Ghost? If it's their individually-agreed will, shouldn't it be wills (plural), even if the three God-people are in agreement? In agreement, do the "other two" God-people have to decide to be subordinate to the main will? Or were they elected to do so? If they all share one will, how can they be separate God-people? Why do trinitarians revert from three to one when convenient to speak of God as a whole?

What about us? Does our spirit have no inherent functionality? Is only our soul functioning? The body is dead without the spirit. Does our will function independently of our mind and emotion? Are they inter-functional or separate? Distinct or discrete? Can we will without thought? Can we think without volition? What are scriptural representations of cognition and consciousness? Exactly how did sin affect man's constitution... in detail?

An Institutes-length treatise on man's and God's constitution would be a great foundation before declaring intricate individual functional truths about one small part of either. It would really help to know the non-creedal truth of who God is before adamantly applying other scripture and assigning absolute attributes and functionality.

Please begin with the intra-relational function of all the God-people.

Butch5
Jan 11th 2011, 10:27 PM
A question to a question isn't a proper response. It sounds more like a teacher student relationship rather than iron sharpening iron. If you have a point please make it. I am eager to learn and understand. I do not claim to have all the answers nor am I defending Calvinism...even if it appears to you that I am doing so. God is working on my understanding.

The reason for my question was so that we did not waste time coming at the passage with two completely different ideas only to realize that 20 posts from now. I asked because I didn't want to assume, however, it appears to me that you understand Romans 9 to be speaking of salvation, correct?

Butch5
Jan 11th 2011, 10:41 PM
Butch, let's get down to brass tacks here because I think we're making this more complicated than it has to be. I'm going to summarize what I understand of our discussion up to this point.

1) You took issue with my use of the phrase "No one seeks after God" by saying that it was just hyperbole and should not be taken literally.
2) Thus, you believe that there are some who seek after God before being saved. In your view, when Paul quoted the psalm and wrote, "No one seeks after God," he did not mean every single human being but "people in general."
3) If that were true, then we must also apply the same meaning of "people in general" to the phrase, "There is none righteous."
4) Paul must be talking about the perfect righteousness required by God in order to be accepted by Him. That fits the context since Paul later talks of not being justified by law, God providing a righteousness apart from law, and so on. Paul is explaining what God has done to remedy man's dire problem: the lack of perfect righteousness.
5) Thus, we end up with the interpretation that there are in fact some righteous people, some who have kept the law perfectly.
6) Paul is quoting these verses from the Psalms, though, to show that all are under sin, that there is nobody who can be justified by works of law, and that everyone is in need of the Savior, Christ.
7) Since he is using those verses to lead up to that conclusion, it would make no sense for him to think that there was any exception to the phrase "There is none righteous," since that would imply to his readers that there are some who don't need Christ.
8) Therefore, the idea that the phrases "There is none righteous" and "No one seeks after God" are not meant to be taken literally is an incorrect interpretation of this text and ignores Paul's discourse and flow of thought in this entire section of Romans.

My friend, you need to submit to Scripture.

My Friend, I think you are missing Paul's point. He is not arguing that every single human being is unrighteous. In this portion of his letter to the Romans he is addressing the Jewish believers. They all knew that the Gentiles were unrighteous, however, many Jews thought that they were righteous because they kept the Law. The whole point that Paul is making here is that the Jew who keeps the Law is no more righteous than the Gentiles who does not. That is the purpose of his quote. There would be no reason for Paul to quote the Jewish Scriptures to prove that Gentiles were unrighteous, they all have agreed with him. However, if he says that Jews are no more righteous than the Gentiles, well, now he is going to have to provide some evidence, which he does with his OT quotes. Those quotes would have carried little or no weight with Gentiles, however, they carried a lot of weight with the Jews. This is context of his argument, is that the Jew is no more righteous than the Gentle. He is not trying to prove that every single human being is unrighteous. As I have stated several times the Scriptures call people righteous. God Himself has called some people righteous, surely you are not going to question God on this matter.

My friend, when we have Paul making a statement that none are righteous, and that no one seeks God, and we also have God Himself saying that some people are righteous and that David was a man after His own heart, the only logical conclusions we can come to are, either Paul was using hyperbole, or he did know what he was talking about, or worse, he lied. I don't think the last two option are viable.

Abiding
Jan 23rd 2011, 07:21 PM
Why or why not?

Well it may have a chance if you can get Monergism and synergism to agree.

Abiding
Jan 23rd 2011, 07:29 PM
I find myself thinking, "thank God we are not saved by how much we know,Oh but you are saved by how much you know. That's a lot, considering many people do not know Christ.


but by the One Who knows us." Yes, and we love Him because He first loved us.


I have Christian friends and family members who are both C and A. The reason these two theological views can never be reconciled is because they are opposed to one another. Both groups are certain they hold the truth, but there is not two truths, there can only be one.True.


One reason the constant battle continues is because we are Christians, who are passionate about Bible study, and we seek to prove there is value in the study of Scripture from a sincere heart, because it brings us to mature faith and doctrine...or at least it should. Then of course there is another reason, that is because some have spent a lot of time in study, they see themselves as no longer needing to be taught, and become annoyed that anyone would dare question their doctrines.That's not true, that's just your opinion. There are many great theologians whether Arminian or Calvinists, who absolutely know and agree the more they learn, the less they know. These, Arminian or Calvinists are very humble men.



These are more concerned about proving they are right in their understanding, then they are in being shown why their doctrines will not withstand the scrutiny of the whole Bible.Yes, unfortunately many are.


I believe the argument will never be reconciled because each group are Christians who cannot see that sometimes pride has entered in. As long as men have pride, and we all do, this will never be reconciled.Well if it as you say, one has to be right, both cant be right. Then, one is prideful and the other is not.

Abiding
Jan 23rd 2011, 07:33 PM
I voted yes. I believe they both subscribe to the 5 solas so that is where I believe they find agreement.That is amongs there strongest disagreement. Read about the church of holland and the Remornastrance. The council ot Dort, you may find interesting also.

Abiding
Jan 23rd 2011, 07:41 PM
What I find especially deceiving is this...those who profess to hate the Reformed Doctrines of Grace; i.e. Calvinistic doctrine, will typically attempt to refute them without really having any understanding of what these doctrines actually teach. In other words they have learned; either or their own, or been taught that Calvinisim is a doctrine from hell. So without clear understanding, they make all manner of statements, much like you have, about doctrine they clearly have no real knowledge of.This is one of the most honest and accurate statement I have heard in a long time. ;)

Abiding
Jan 23rd 2011, 07:43 PM
I agree Roger. There is a broad consensus of the Gospel which appeals to neither Calvinism and/or Arminianism.Would you point them out, you got me curious.?

RabbiKnife
Jan 17th 2013, 09:51 PM
This is one of the most honest and accurate statement I have heard in a long time. ;)

The corollary [that those who profess to hate the teachings of Arminius] will typically attempt to refute them without really having any understanding of what these doctrines actually teach.

Many "Calvinists" should more properly be styled as "Bezaists."

Rufus
Jan 18th 2013, 05:53 AM
I'm wondering why I should even care about Calvinism or Arminianism at all.

Seriously. I'm born again. I love my God and have a thirst for righteousness. I have the promise that I have been filled with the Holy Spirit and that he will guide and teach. And I got all of that long before I even heard of either of these guy's. So....Calvin? Arminius? Pshh.

Who needs them?

I've got Jesus.

Interesting. Someone of the Reformed Faith, however, would say that Jesus has me. I was lost; He found me.


Put me down for a vote of: I couldn't care less.

Scripture teaches that learning sound doctrine and understanding it is very important.

Boo
Jan 20th 2013, 11:36 AM
Since I see both methods used by God in drawing sinners, I have to go along with the Molonist concept more.

Rullion Green
Jan 21st 2013, 01:04 PM
I suggest that total depravity is not true;

Thats a pity to see someone with authority espousing this. Arminius believed strongly in original sin as inherited corruption that affects every aspect of human nature and personality, and renders human persons incapable of anything good apart from supernatural grace."
(Arminian Theology, p. 142).

you seem to have positioned yourself in territory that would have qualified you as a heretic in the eyes of Arminius and Wesley, not just Augustine and Calvin.

Pelegainism is prevalent here on this board which makes me think my time is up here, even now the mods are lining up with this historical heresy.

Boo
Jan 21st 2013, 01:10 PM
I suspect there is some misunderstanding between what is written and what is read.

Bandit
Jan 22nd 2013, 01:22 AM
...
I suggest that total depravity is not true; ...


Thats a pity to see someone with authority espousing this. Arminius believed strongly in original sin as inherited corruption that affects every aspect of human nature and personality, and renders human persons incapable of anything good apart from supernatural grace."
(Arminian Theology, p. 142).

you seem to have positioned yourself in territory that would have qualified you as a heretic in the eyes of Arminius and Wesley, not just Augustine and Calvin.

Pelegainism is prevalent here on this board which makes me think my time is up here, even now the mods are lining up with this historical heresy.

Hello Nobunaga,

"Total depravity" is usually taken to mean that a person is completely unable to respond in any way to God. I think this is an incorrect position. If this makes me a heretic, then this is a charge I fully accept.

Bandit
Jan 22nd 2013, 01:47 AM
I suggest that total depravity is not true; ...


Thats a pity to see someone with authority espousing this. Arminius believed strongly in original sin as inherited corruption that affects every aspect of human nature and personality, and renders human persons incapable of anything good apart from supernatural grace."
(Arminian Theology, p. 142).

you seem to have positioned yourself in territory that would have qualified you as a heretic in the eyes of Arminius and Wesley, not just Augustine and Calvin.

Pelegainism is prevalent here on this board which makes me think my time is up here, even now the mods are lining up with this historical heresy.

Hello again,

If I were to represent the administrators/moderators here in any way, (and far be it for me to think anything of myself) then perhaps we realize that even though fallen, we humans can still aspire to the calling to which God calls every man. So what is it about this position of ours -if I may call it ours - which offends you so much? Or in other words, how does us believing we have the ability to respond to God, offend God, in your view?

Noeb
Jan 22nd 2013, 05:12 AM
Thats a pity to see someone with authority espousing this. Arminius believed strongly in original sin as inherited corruption that affects every aspect of human nature and personality, and renders human persons incapable of anything good apart from supernatural grace."
(Arminian Theology, p. 142).

you seem to have positioned yourself in territory that would have qualified you as a heretic in the eyes of Arminius and Wesley, not just Augustine and Calvin.

Pelegainism is prevalent here on this board which makes me think my time is up here, even now the mods are lining up with this historical heresy.You know what I would say.....the ECF's would have "qualified" "as a heretic in the eyes of Arminius and Wesley, not just Augustine and Calvin". Lets' talk historical. Hate to see you go Buddy! :hug:

Gadgeteer
Jan 24th 2013, 04:55 PM
I'm wondering why I should even care about Calvinism or Arminianism at all.

Seriously. I'm born again. I love my God and have a thirst for righteousness. I have the promise that I have been filled with the Holy Spirit and that he will guide and teach. And I got all of that long before I even heard of either of these guy's. So....Calvin? Arminius? Pshh.

Who needs them?

I've got Jesus.

Put me down for a vote of: I couldn't care less.

There is a time when it matters, and when it does not. Two brothers (or brothers & sisters) who stand together, agreeing on the foundation --- that is, salvation by faith in Christ, receiving the persons of Jesus and the Spirit (Eph5:18, Gal2:20) and dwelling in a fellowship of love (1Jn1:3, Jn17:3). Not walking in sin (1Jn3:5-10). Then it does not matter, both (or all) celebrate salvation together, and enjoy Jesus in love.


The time it matters is when one person is tempted/afflicted/persecuted, and waivers in faith. For one view thinks that salvation cannot be forfeited, the other view does --- thus the other brother is concerned about the one, that he or she receives strength and encouragement to overcome.

And that's the point --- not "winning any kind of argument" (especially not at the expense of a brother or sister!), but winning the brother or sister as family, forever. For if our treasure is each other, it's a treasure we CAN take with us!

:-)

Gadgeteer
Jan 24th 2013, 04:59 PM
Hello Nobunaga,

"Total depravity" is usually taken to mean that a person is completely unable to respond in any way to God. I think this is an incorrect position. If this makes me a heretic, then this is a charge I fully accept.

It's not really "total depravity" that is at issue in these discussions; but "total inability". What we've learned from Deut30:11-20, with Rom10:6-10 --- and mirrored in Acts17:26-31, is that God OVERCOMES our depravity sufficiently for all to believe. It really is as Paul said in Rom2:4-8, God kindly LEADS us to repentance, but we can stubbornly refuse and store up wrath for ourselves.

Rufus
Jan 24th 2013, 09:48 PM
I would suggest Calvinism and Arminianism can't be reconciled because they teach different things on the same questions. I would also suggest that it is an important issue and to say "it's just another 'ism'" or "i'll follow Jesus not Calvin or Arminius" is quite a naive (and arrogant) thing to say. A big problem in these debates, as was touched on earlier, is definitional. I find that Arminians have a difficult time thinking in the terms of a Calvinist, which is why there is so much mischaracterization.

Actually, many Arminians struggle with a great deal of scripture and just can't conform their thinking to numerous passages. They insist on trying to rationalize how God's decrees, for example, are compatible with moral free agency. Scripture teaches that no one can understand this, yet this doesn't stop the Arminian from rationalizing, and then when that happens scripture is bent and distorted in order to conform to the philosophy.

Gadgeteer
Jan 25th 2013, 01:13 AM
Actually, many Arminians struggle with a great deal of scripture and just can't conform their thinking to numerous passages. They insist on trying to rationalize how God's decrees, for example, are compatible with moral free agency. Scripture teaches that no one can understand this, yet this doesn't stop the Arminian from rationalizing, and then when that happens scripture is bent and distorted in order to conform to the philosophy.
I'm not really Arminian, but clearly much closer to that than to Calvinism. I can't think of any verses that don't fit "Responsible Grace".

Can you think of any?

Rufus
Jan 26th 2013, 10:54 PM
You do understand with man's responsibility, choice, the vast majority of man will choose hell?

Methinks all men would choose hell because they have no natural desires for God. (I think Rom 3:10ff. makes that pretty clear.) Men love the darkness, not the light. Men love the world, and such friendship makes them enemies of God. Men are natural born haters of God. Man is evil, having no good in him; therefore, nothing good can from within man to make him desire God. One must have a genuine desire for God before he can exercise an act of genuine faith and repentance. But even before that happens, one must have a genuine loathing for himself and see himself the way God sees sinners; yet, men are also natural born lovers of themselves.

Man can no more choose to do that which is Good than God can choose to do that which is Evil. Since God's moral choices are limited by his holy nature, how does man escape the restriction of his evil nature and attain to libertarian style free will?

Rufus
Jan 27th 2013, 12:22 AM
Grace is widely misunderstood, too. Word study again.

Would you care to expound upon that?

Rufus
Jan 27th 2013, 12:25 AM
Right. It's like when we say a phone is dead. It can still function. But it's not connected to what it's supposed to be connected to. So we say it's dead. But when you hook it up, it works fine. Same with our spirit.

Not until it's fixed, it can't. One must act upon the dead phone and fix it before it can function the way it was intended.

Rufus
Jan 27th 2013, 12:53 AM
No they are not. One is an emotion and the other is not. One can hate and love at the same time.

Could you provide examples of this, please, from scripture and from Natural Revelation (reality as we all know it)?


The world is all inclusive. That's why he said "world" instead of elect.

If the term is always used that way, then the whole world is saved, cf. Jn 6:33, 51; 1Jn 2:2, etc.)

Rufus
Jan 27th 2013, 01:09 AM
The point being made in Romans 8:5-8 is similar. As verse 8 summarizes, “So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Do notice that it says that those who are presently in the flesh (presently focused upon worldly things) cannot please God. This passage does not say that it is impossible for a person to change their focus.

But aren't there only two kinds of people in the world -- those "in the flesh" (all the unsaved) and those "in the Spirit" (all the saved)? How does the former please God by changing his focus, apart from becoming the latter first? The two are being contrasted in that passage.

Slug1
Jan 27th 2013, 02:08 AM
If the term is always used that way, then the whole world is saved, cf. Jn 6:33, 51; 1Jn 2:2, etc.)Let's put these in context with the Bible. The "world" as you say is not "saved"... the meaning of the scripture is that all in the WORLD who CHOOSE Christ, will be saved because Christ died for the forgiveness of ALL the world.

For your John 6:33 scripture, we have a context when we read on through to verse 35. You also mentioned 51 which is another to show us the meaning that ANYONE who chooses Christ.

For the 1 John 2:2 scripture, here we have John speaking/writing to Christians and he makes a point that Jesus of for the whole world, He died for ALL SIN of the ENTIRE WORLD. This has always been taught in scripture, that Jesus is not for ONLY those who God has chosen, but instead... for all who choose Him because the entire world is covered by His sacrifice. God doesn't want any to be lost and thus, that is why it is a consistent theme of teaching throughout the scripture as led by the Holy Spirit that Jesus' death is for the entire world and ALL those who will choose Him.

Brother Mark
Jan 27th 2013, 02:26 AM
Could you provide examples of this, please, from scripture and from Natural Revelation (reality as we all know it)?

God is love. But he hates. Agape is a Greek word that means to love by choice and goes beyond emotion. Hate is an emotion, by definition. One can love and hate at the same time. That why God, who is Love, can also hate.


If the term is always used that way, then the whole world is saved, cf. Jn 6:33, 51; 1Jn 2:2, etc.)

I Jn 2:2 doesn't say the whole world is saved. It does say the sins of the whole world have been paid for. That means they CAN be saved. Slugg address John 6 above.

The only way Calvinism stands is that the Calvinist has to say that God, who is Love, does not love and that world does not mean world. The doctrine requires that words be redefined to stand.

Brother Mark
Jan 27th 2013, 02:30 AM
Not until it's fixed, it can't. One must act upon the dead phone and fix it before it can function the way it was intended.

It needs to be plugged in. It has the ability. It's not "incapable". When the owner plugs it in, it can work. Dead in scripture means separated. When someone dies, the spirit and soul are separated from the body. That doesn't mean "incapable" or "unable" or "non-existance". For instance, we are dead to sin yet we can still sin.

One can be dead to Christ and still trust him and become alive in the same way one is dead to sin and choose to sin. Calivinism teaches that being dead means incapable. Yet, they will turn around and say "we are dead to sin but we still sin". It's full of contradictions. World doesn't mean world. Dead means incapable until it comes to dead to sin then it means something else and so on.

Rufus
Jan 27th 2013, 02:48 AM
Hi Mathetes,

Actually, the passage you quoted is speaking of Israel. Paul's point is that the Jew is no better than the Gentile. However, have you considered that Paul may have been using hyperbole? I mean God Himself says that David was a man after His own heart.

Rom 3:10ff. is a universal indictment of mankind. All mankind. Verse 10 is preceded with:

Rom 3:9
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,
NASB

So, no, it wasn't speaking just to Israel. Everything preceding Romans 3 in fact included Jews and Gentiles. What follows v.9 is a why Jews and Greeks are all under sin.

Also, do you think the nature of a Jew is different from the nature of a Gentile? Don't Jews and Gentiles both descend from Adam?

And David does not make your case against Total Depravity. David himself in his penitential prayer implored God to not take His Holy Spirit from him, indicating that David's life for the most part was greatly influenced by the Spirit of God.

Rufus
Jan 27th 2013, 03:03 AM
Actually my friend, what I said is correct. Paul is quoting an OT passage of Scripture that is speaking of Israel.

But he's applying it to Jews and Gentiles in Romans! And why wouldn't he? There's is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in terms of human nature.


What I am saying is that Paul is using hyperbole. He is not saying that there is not a single human being throughout all of history that never sought after God. His point is that most people do not seek after God. The Scriptures use hyperbole as we can see from other passages. For instance;

Luke 2:1 ( KJV )
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Surely Caesar did not intend to tax people in other kingdoms? Surely he didn't intend to tax every singly human being on the planet. There are other examples like this in Scripture. We see that God Himself said that David was a man after God's own heart, therefore we cannot take Paul's statement to literally mean every single human being, if we do we create contradiction in the Scriptures

A great example of how the "world" is used in a limited sense. Very good passage to keep in mind when considering Jn 3:16 and other similar passages.

Of course, Augusts did fully intend to tax everyone within the Roman empire, the Roman world. And the Roman world was the only known world at the time! Wherever a Roman soldier was or had been -- that was the Roman world. Rome was a world empire.

But in the case of Rom 3, Paul is clearly indicting all mankind -- Jews and Greeks (Gentiles). There's nothing from the context to suggest that Paul exaggerating. He made a scathing indictment against the entire human race. And rightfully so when you push on to Romans 5. The only way it could be "hyperbole" is the entire human race didn't descend from the loins of Adam.

Gadgeteer
Jan 27th 2013, 04:21 AM
God is love. But he hates. Agape is a Greek word that means to love by choice and goes beyond emotion. Hate is an emotion, by definition. One can love and hate at the same time. That why God, who is Love, can also hate.To perceive that God created most to BE sinful and to BE hated and TO perish --- then He runs this "Final Judgment" judging MEN for what He Himself decided long ago --- makes God fraudulent-judge, ultimate hypocrite, wicked (He cannot be causally involved in sin without being guilty), and NOT a God of love.

It would frighten me to stand next to someone in a lightning storm, openly saying such a thing about God...


I Jn 2:2 doesn't say the whole world is saved. It does say the sins of the whole world have been paid for. That means they CAN be saved. Slugg address John 6 above.John6:67-70 must be addressed by "predstionationists" --- Judas is only held up to prove to Peter leaving is very possible.


The only way Calvinism stands is that the Calvinist has to say that God, who is Love, does not love and that world does not mean world. The doctrine requires that words be redefined to stand.

Absolutely. And it must be a very depressing doctrine; all who hold it, who are so sure they are elect, cannot deny that those in Luke8:12 also thought they were "elect".

....before they fell...

Gadgeteer
Jan 27th 2013, 04:33 AM
Rom 3:10ff. is a universal indictment of mankind. All mankind. No it's not --- it is a DAVIDIC LAMENTATION, merely quoting Psalm 14 & 53. You cannot overturn "SEEK (salvation!) and you will FIND --- few are those who FIND-BY-SEEKING salvation!" Matt7:7, 14
Verse 10 is preceded with:

Rom 3:9
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,
NASB

So, no, it wasn't speaking just to Israel. Everything preceding Romans 3 in fact included Jews and Gentiles. What follows v.9 is a why Jews and Greeks are all under sin.

Also, do you think the nature of a Jew is different from the nature of a Gentile? Don't Jews and Gentiles both descend from Adam?

And David does not make your case against Total Depravity. David himself in his penitential prayer implored God to not take His Holy Spirit from him, indicating that David's life for the most part was greatly influenced by the Spirit of God.

You're not arguing "Total Depravity"; you're arguing "total inability" --- and all men are ENABLED --- Deut30:11-20, Rom10:6-10, and Acts17:26-31.

If you would [b]ENGAGE those passages, you wouldn't have to KEEP POSTING in support of "predestination", because you'd realize "predestined salvation" is overturned.

Brother Mark
Jan 27th 2013, 04:37 AM
To perceive that God created most to BE sinful and to BE hated and TO perish --- then He runs this "Final Judgment" judging MEN for what He Himself decided long ago --- makes God fraudulent-judge, ultimate hypocrite, wicked (He cannot be causally involved in sin without being guilty), and NOT a God of love.

I think love the biggest hole in the reformed movement. They think love is the opposite of hate and it's not. Love is the opposite of selfishness. (Love does not seek it's own.) One can emotionally hate someone that they love with the will. That's why God could sacrifice His Son on the cross for sinners.

The way the reformed movement defines love means that God cannot love those that are not the elect (as elect is defined by the reformed movement). But the scriptures tell us God is love. So in the reformed movement, Love, does not love. That doesn't work, IMO.

Rufus
Jan 27th 2013, 04:51 AM
Hello again,

If I were to represent the administrators/moderators here in any way, (and far be it for me to think anything of myself) then perhaps we realize that even though fallen, we humans can still aspire to the calling to which God calls every man. So what is it about this position of ours -if I may call it ours - which offends you so much? Or in other words, how does us believing we have the ability to respond to God, offend God, in your view?

It gives man an excuse to boast about his religious aspirations? And it gives man an excuse to glory in himself? And these kinds of things diminish the inestimable value of God's saving grace and, therefore, the very atonement of the Holy One himself. After all, when it's all said and done, the Armininan decision-maker has himself to thank for making the right choice in choosing Christ -- the choice that allowed God to live up to his end of the bargain. How can the glory not go to the person with whom the spiritual buck stops -- with the one who holds his own destiny in his own hands? How can't great spiritual value be found within the decision-maker himself, since an evil man made a good decision?

Noeb
Jan 27th 2013, 05:59 AM
There's this little thing called "natural law". The ECF's often talked about it. They didn't believe Original Sin. God made man with the ability to believe. How could he not? He told Israel to circumcise their hearts. When man does, he's doing what God created him for and his praise comes from God.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Rom 2:17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God
Rom 2:18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law;
Rom 2:19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
Rom 2:20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--
Rom 2:21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal?
Rom 2:22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
Rom 2:23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.
Rom 2:24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
Rom 2:25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
Rom 2:27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.
Rom 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
Rom 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Gadgeteer
Jan 27th 2013, 07:25 AM
[/B]
I think love (is) the biggest hole in the reformed movement. They think love is the opposite of hate and it's not. Love is the opposite of selfishness. (Love does not seek its own.) (1Cor13:5 --- "zeteo", demand) One can emotionally hate someone that they love with the will. That's why God could sacrifice His Son on the cross for sinners.

The way the reformed movement defines love means that God cannot love those that are not the elect (as elect is defined by the reformed movement). But the scriptures tell us God is love. So in the reformed movement, Love, does not love. That doesn't work, IMO.

Mark, this is a spectacular post --- one of the best I've seen here. You've cut to the very foundation.

"God is love" --- John tells us in 1:4:16. But for the UNPREDESTINED, in their doctrine He is NOT "love"!

"Father, forgive them! They don't know what they're doing!"

What was Jesus expressing here? In the FACE of His own murder, looking at the sneers and scowls of His murderers, He LOVED them!!!!!


"Even denying the Master who BOUGHT them". 2Pet2:1.

Who did He buy? The horrible reprobates, false teachers & prophets, who NEVER cease from sin, whose eyes are full of adultery, stains and blemishes for whom the black darkness has been reserved! Who delight and REVEL in their sin all day long!

BUT HE BOUGHT THEM TOO!!!

Under "predestination", did His death buy ANYONE who are "worthless creatures of instinct fit only to be captured and killed"?

How?

But there it is --- He died for them too.

Gadgeteer
Jan 27th 2013, 07:31 AM
There's this little thing called "natural law". The ECF's often talked about it. They didn't believe Original Sin. God made man with the ability to believe. How could he not? He told Israel to circumcise their hearts. When man does, he's doing what God created him for and his praise comes from God.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Rom 2:17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God
Rom 2:18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law;
Rom 2:19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
Rom 2:20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--
Rom 2:21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal?
Rom 2:22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
Rom 2:23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.
Rom 2:24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
Rom 2:25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
Rom 2:27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.
Rom 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
Rom 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Very excellent --- how can someone BY NATURE do what the law requires? The Calvinists' answer to this is that those few who can, had their natures CHANGED. But Scripture says not:


"We formerly ...were by nature children of wrath/Hell, even as the rest; but God, rich in His mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us (God so loved the WORLD), even when we were dead in our sins made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved). ...for by grace THROUGH FAITH have you been saved!" Eph2:3-5, 8


In no way can we divorce verse 8 from verse 5 --- we were saved through faith WHEN we were BY NATURE children of Hell!!!

Through faith. DEAD MEN BELIEVED!!!!!

Scooby_Snacks
Jan 27th 2013, 02:54 PM
I think love the biggest hole in the reformed movement. They think love is the opposite of hate and it's not. Love is the opposite of selfishness. (Love does not seek it's own.) One can emotionally hate someone that they love with the will. That's why God could sacrifice His Son on the cross for sinners.



Hi Mark,

How can a person emotionally (with their heart and soul) hate a person and love them at the same time?
Isn't that being double minded? It sounds like blessing outwardly but inwardly cursing to me.
Will you explain it to me so that I can understand?

Brother Mark
Jan 27th 2013, 08:13 PM
Hi Mark,

How can a person emotionally (with their heart and soul) hate a person and love them at the same time?
Isn't that being double minded? It sounds like blessing outwardly but inwardly cursing to me.
Will you explain it to me so that I can understand?

Because love is of the will. One can feel the emotion of hate, but that doesn't mean he will not love with the will. Agape is centered in the will but does have emotions with it.

When we look at 1 Cor., look at what love is.

1 Cor 13:4-8

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails.
NKJV

Notice how each description is about selflessness. Love doesn't focus on self. We've been taught, that hate is the opposite of love. But it's not. The opposite of love is self centeredness.

If one focuses on self, he will be impatient, he will envy, he will parade himself (i.e. brag), he will be full of pride (puffed up), seek his own, be easily provoked, etc. The opposite of love is selfishness.

Hate is an emotion. Here's the english definition.

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.

There's an intense dislike. A strong and passionate emotion.

One who is selfless, can be patient with the one he hates. He can be kind to the one he hates. He won't be easily provoked by the one who he hates. In other words, he will love the one he hates.

A child might say "I hate you" to a parent and the feeling is genuine at the moment. however, the child still loves his parents even though for the kid, the love we speak about is a feeling (phileo) kind of love. So even in the emotional realm, one can love and hate at the same time.

Rufus
Jan 28th 2013, 01:13 AM
I'm not really Arminian, but clearly much closer to that than to Calvinism. I can't think of any verses that don't fit "Responsible Grace".

Can you think of any?

I don't know if I can or not because I don't understand what you mean by your phrase.

Rufus
Jan 28th 2013, 01:37 AM
There is a time when it matters, and when it does not. Two brothers (or brothers & sisters) who stand together, agreeing on the foundation --- that is, salvation by faith in Christ, receiving the persons of Jesus and the Spirit (Eph5:18, Gal2:20) and dwelling in a fellowship of love (1Jn1:3, Jn17:3). Not walking in sin (1Jn3:5-10). Then it does not matter, both (or all) celebrate salvation together, and enjoy Jesus in love.

Please show me a scripture where it says that we're SAVED by faith in Christ. Then I'll come "celebrate" with you.

Rufus
Jan 28th 2013, 02:37 AM
Let's put these in context with the Bible. The "world" as you say is not "saved"... the meaning of the scripture is that all in the WORLD who CHOOSE Christ, will be saved because Christ died for the forgiveness of ALL the world.

For your John 6:33 scripture, we have a context when we read on through to verse 35. You also mentioned 51 which is another to show us the meaning that ANYONE who chooses Christ.

Thank you very much for making my argument. We have learned an important word usage lesson. The term "world" can be used in the universal sense or it can used hyperbolically. The onus, therefore, is on you and other Arminians to prove beyond a reasonable that Jn 3:16, as one example, is used in the universal sense.

For example, if I were to say that the whole world is going to hell in hen's basket, in what sense would I be using the phrase "whole world"? Would I mean that each and every person in the world is going to hell or would I have been exaggerating greatly and mean instead that many or most in the world are going to hell?

In Jn 3:16, I believe I could make a pretty credible case for the term "world" being used in the more restrictive (hyperbolical) sense. I could start in any number of places in scripture, but John 17 would be a good place since Jesus, obviously, is not the High Priest for each and every person in the world for whom he supposedly loves, since he omitted each and every person from his prayer. Why would he not pray for those whom he loves and for those for whom he died, according to Arminianism!? If he died for all, then he must be the High Priest for all!

Or I could also start way back with the Abrahamic Covenant. God did not promise Abraham that he would make him the father of the world (i.e. each and every person in it) but only that through his seed, He would make him the [spiritual] father of many nations -- not even all nations!


For the 1 John 2:2 scripture, here we have John speaking/writing to Christians and he makes a point that Jesus of for the whole world, He died for ALL SIN of the ENTIRE WORLD. This has always been taught in scripture, that Jesus is not for ONLY those who God has chosen, but instead... for all who choose Him because the entire world is covered by His sacrifice. God doesn't want any to be lost and thus, that is why it is a consistent theme of teaching throughout the scripture as led by the Holy Spirit that Jesus' death is for the entire world and ALL those who will choose Him.

Only in your imagination has it always been taught in scripture. When it comes down to the question of "For whom did Jesus Christ die?", I would say the scriptures are quite clear on that issue. He did not die for each and every person in the world. He died, specifically, for all those whom His Father gave to him.

If Jesus died for each and every person in the world, then the whole world is saved. Or since you believe that he died for each and every person on the planet, then his atonement could only be a limited atonement in another sense: He died only for some sins of all people, but not for all sins of all people. This is especially true with the part of the Arminian heresy that teaches Christians can lose their salvation. When a person becomes a Christian, Christ obviously did not die for all the sins of that person (past, present and future). He could have only died for the past and present sins. All future sins a person commits after point of conversion, he must earn Christ's atoning work by the quality of life he lives. If he lives a righteous enough life, Christ will cover all those sins subsequent to his conversion. But if not...oh, well...

But the problem gets even stickier for this part of the heresy. One must wonder how the all-knowing Christ could pay for the sins of those who he knew in eternity would never accept his salvation, or for those sins of professing Christians who would end up dumping him by "falling away"? How can the Arminian concept of "foreknowledge" even be reconciled with either Unlimited Atonement (which it really isn't anyway, as explained above) or the Apostasy of the Saints? It kinda makes Christ out to be one confused village idiot, doesn't it? He's died for people who he knew in eternity would ultimately choose hell over his free offer of eternal life by his grace? Really?

Scooby_Snacks
Jan 28th 2013, 02:44 AM
Because love is of the will. One can feel the emotion of hate, but that doesn't mean he will not love with the will. Agape is centered in the will but does have emotions with it.

When we look at 1 Cor., look at what love is.

1 Cor 13:4-8

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails.
NKJV

Notice how each description is about selflessness. Love doesn't focus on self. We've been taught, that hate is the opposite of love. But it's not. The opposite of love is self centeredness.

If one focuses on self, he will be impatient, he will envy, he will parade himself (i.e. brag), he will be full of pride (puffed up), seek his own, be easily provoked, etc. The opposite of love is selfishness.

Hate is an emotion. Here's the english definition.

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.

There's an intense dislike. A strong and passionate emotion.

One who is selfless, can be patient with the one he hates. He can be kind to the one he hates. He won't be easily provoked by the one who he hates. In other words, he will love the one he hates.

A child might say "I hate you" to a parent and the feeling is genuine at the moment. however, the child still loves his parents even though for the kid, the love we speak about is a feeling (phileo) kind of love. So even in the emotional realm, one can love and hate at the same time.

Now that I have asked, I thank you for responding to me Mark, and I guess I still dont understand what you are saying, and thats okay, as long as I tried to understand. I am thinking that being selfless (being surrendered to God's will rather than being self willed)
would eventually eliminate the hatred.


I dont have an opinion readily to say what the opposite of love is. I do not believe an honest person can hate a person and love them at the same time. I believe the hatred must be dealt with in order for the love to be genuine/truthful/honest.


Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
(Galatians 5:19-21 ESV)

This hatred is a work of the flesh, in ESV translation, emnity.

enmity [ˈɛnmɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
a feeling of hostility or ill will , as between enemies; antagonism

This is the definition of hatred posted:

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
Hatred is a work of the flesh. Love is a fruit of the spirit.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
(Galatians 5:22-24 ESV)

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:20 ESV)
I dont know about you, but to me, if hating my brother means I cannot love God, it probably means I cannot love my brother, either.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
(Matthew 5:43-45 ESV)

We are no longer to hate our enemy. Hating them and loving them at the same time....Do you think that is Gods will?

What you shared stood out to me, and I noticed that others here agree with what you stated, and why I asked for clarification.

Brother Mark
Jan 28th 2013, 02:49 AM
Now that I have asked, I thank you for responding to me Mark, and I guess I still dont understand what you are saying, and thats okay, as long as I tried to understand. I am thinking that being selfless (being surrendered to God's will rather than being self willed)
would eventually eliminate the hatred.


I dont have an opinion readily to say what the opposite of love is. I do not believe an honest person can hate a person and love them at the same time. I believe the hatred must be dealt with in order for the love to be genuine/truthful/honest.


Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
(Galatians 5:19-21 ESV)

This hatred is a work of the flesh, in ESV translation, emnity.

enmity [ˈɛnmɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
a feeling of hostility or ill will , as between enemies; antagonism

This is the definition of hatred posted:

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
Hatred is a work of the flesh. Love is a fruit of the spirit.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
(Galatians 5:22-24 ESV)

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:20 ESV)
I dont know about you, but to me, if hating my brother means I cannot love God, it probably means I cannot love my brother, either.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
(Matthew 5:43-45 ESV)

We are no longer to hate our enemy. Hating them and loving them at the same time....Do you think that is Gods will?

What you shared stood out to me, and I noticed that others here agree with what you stated, and why I asked for clarification.

I hear where you are coming from but what do you do with the scriptures where God states he hates someone?

Slug1
Jan 28th 2013, 02:51 AM
Thank you very much for making my argument. We have learned an important word usage lesson. The term "world" can be used in the universal sense or it can used hyperbolically. The onus, therefore, is on you and other Arminians to prove beyond a reasonable that Jn 3:16, as one example, is used in the universal sense.I looked it up in my Study Bible and used it the way of the original Greek and it's meaning.

Christ died for ALL sin of ALL people of ALL the world.

Not only for those who Calvinists and the Reformed position believe are, "the elect".

Scooby_Snacks
Jan 28th 2013, 03:15 AM
I hear where you are coming from but what do you do with the scriptures where God states he hates someone?


I need the scripture (s) you are thinking of. I believe most (or all) of those scriptures are in the O.T. You can share them if you like.
It may be a while before I get back to you though.

Rufus
Jan 28th 2013, 03:44 AM
God is love. But he hates. Agape is a Greek word that means to love by choice and goes beyond emotion. Hate is an emotion, by definition. One can love and hate at the same time. That why God, who is Love, can also hate.

Two problems here: By saying that "hate" is an emotion by definition, you mean for us to infer by that God has emotions like we human beings do. That's a dangerous road down which to travel for obvious reasons.

Secondly, in the Gr. the term "misso" from "miseo" means to detest or to love less. For example, I don't believe that in eternity God despised Esau per se before he was born. But I do believe that he did not "know" Esau the way he does his own children. By "know" (a strong term), I mean he didn't set his tender affections upon Esau in eternity in the way that he did with Jacob. Jacob he "foreknew", but not Esau. Therefore it could be said that Esau was "hated" by God. Esau simply wasn't known by God the way Jacob was.

Therefore, since Scripture contrasts Jacob and Esau, I can only conclude that God didn't love Esau the way he did Jacob. And since by "hate", I think it's reasonable to believe that what is being taught is that God simply loved Esau differently (less) and not with the same fulness of his love that he had for Jacob.


I Jn 2:2 doesn't say the whole world is saved. It does say the sins of the whole world have been paid for. That means they CAN be saved. Slugg address John 6 above.

But 1Jn 2:2 doesn't teach that Christ is potentially the propitiation for the sins of the whole world either Since he IS the propitiation, then I can only conclude from this passage that he satisfied His Father's justice on behalf of each and every person in the world, according to your interpretation of the term "world". And since he satisfied his Father's justice for all, then the whole world must be saved, according to 1Jn 2:2. He either is or isn't the propitiation for the sins of the world. The text doesn't say either that he will become the propitiation.


The only way Calvinism stands is that the Calvinist has to say that God, who is Love, does not love and that world does not mean world. The doctrine requires that words be redefined to stand.

The term "world" is used in various ways in scripture. You should conduct a word usage study. Even Greek scholars recognize that the term is used literally and figuratively, i.e. in the universal or limited sense, respectively.

kosmos
NT:2889 kosmos (kos'-mos); probably from the base of NT:2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]):

KJV - adorning, world.
(New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright International Bible Translators, Inc.)

RogerW
Jan 28th 2013, 03:47 AM
I looked it up in my Study Bible and used it the way of the original Greek and it's meaning.

Christ died for ALL sin of ALL people of ALL the world.

Not only for those who Calvinists and the Reformed position believe are, "the elect".

Well then what's the big deal???? I mean 'for God so loves the whole world, especially every human born on it'....Oh yippee that's real comforting for all of us...yes??? Not so fast it seems that some, perhaps even most of those whom God loves will be cast into the eternal flames FOREVER! And you say Calvinist/Reformed believers doctrine is wierd??? Now I know you'll respond with oh no, no, no God casts no one into the eternal flames...we choose to go there ourselves because we refuse to believe....so God who loves every human so much that He sent His only Son to save them..knowing full well He could keep them from the flames, I mean isn't that what the verse says? His Son died so the whole human race could be saved, but rather than actually saving those whom He loves soooo much, He lets them stay in their wilful rejection so they can DIE FOREVER! Are you kidding me? Boy if this is love, no thank you! You have a bizarre knowledge of the God of love and mercy. Why send your Son to die for those you love, and then forget you love them in the end when you could turn them to you in love if you wanted to? Your god is pathetic, and is not the God of Holy Scripture.

Rufus
Jan 28th 2013, 03:48 AM
I looked it up in my Study Bible and used it the way of the original Greek and it's meaning.

Christ died for ALL sin of ALL people of ALL the world.

Not only for those who Calvinists and the Reformed position believe are, "the elect".

Well, then, everyone is saved!

Two questions: I'm afraid to ask but I will, anyway: Which "study bible" do you use?

And What translation is it?

And might as well swing for the fences, here: What verses, specifically, did you look up in your study bible?

Slug1
Jan 28th 2013, 03:53 AM
Well then what's the big deal???? I mean 'for God so loves the whole world, especially every human born on it'....Oh yippee that's real comforting for all of us...yes??? Not so fast it seems that some, perhaps even most of those whom God loves will be cast into the eternal flames FOREVER! And you say Calvinist/Reformed believers doctrine is wierd??? Now I know you'll respond with oh no, no, no God casts no one into the eternal flames...we choose to go there ourselves because we refuse to believe....so God who loves every human so much that He sent His only Son to save them..knowing full well He could keep them from the flames, I mean isn't that what the verse says? His Son died so the whole human race could be saved, but rather than actually saving those whom He loves soooo much, He lets them stay in their will rejection so they can DIE FOREVER! Are you kidding me? Boy if this is love, no thank you! You have a bizarre knowledge of the God of love and mercy. Why send your Son to die for those you love, and then forget you love them in the end when you could turn them to you in love if you wanted to? Your god is pathetic, and is not the God of Holy Scripture.The reason God sent His Son to die for ALL the world is because OF His love for ALL and that He "desires" that no one perish. All a person must do is believe IN His Son.

Calvin and the Refromed position don't believe this based on the doctrines. They believe God only wants select few who are called, "the elect".

So... which is accurate? That God sent His Son for ALL?

Or God only sent His Son for those He selected "the elect," and God "really" doesn't desire that no one perish?

RogerW
Jan 28th 2013, 04:02 AM
Well, then, everyone is saved!

Two questions: I'm afraid to ask but I will, anyway: Which "study bible" do you use?

And What translation is it?

And might as well swing for the fences, here: What verses, specifically, did you look up in your study bible?

We get the context and a clear understanding of what Christ is saying in Jo 3:16 when we continue to read...Christ did not come to condemn the world, it was already condemned. He came to save and this is the way or manner in which He did it. It's clear if you wish to see it, that "world" is not speaking of every human being, but only those who believe. And those who remain in unbelief are condemned already.

Joh*3:16 For God so loved [in this manner] the world,[whole created orderly arrangement] that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh*3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh*3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Blessings to you Rufus

RogerW
Jan 28th 2013, 04:04 AM
The reason God sent His Son to die for ALL the world is because OF His love for ALL and that He "desires" that no one perish. All a person must do is believe IN His Son.

Calvin and the Refromed position don't believe this based on the doctrines. They believe God only wants select few who are called, "the elect".

So... which is accurate? That God sent His Son for ALL?

Or God only sent His Son for those He selected "the elect," and God "really" doesn't desire that no one perish?

What does the passage say slug? Whosoever believes...are saved! Who will believe? The world will be saved through those who believe. It is in this way that God so loves the whole world!

Slug1
Jan 28th 2013, 04:06 AM
What does the passage say slug? Whosoever believes...are saved! Who will believe? The world will be saved through those who believe. It is in this way that God so loves the whole world!But Calvin and the Reformed position does not believe this. The doctrine(s) teach that ONLY the elect CAN believe. So that means that those doctrines disregards the meaning of these scriptures in that ALL sin, ALL people, of ALL the world.

Gadgeteer
Jan 28th 2013, 04:14 AM
I don't know if I can or not because I don't understand what you mean by your phrase.
"Responsible" --- dictionary definition, accountable as being cause to something within one's power or control.

Hence, "Responsible Grace" --- God's gift of grace to every man woman and responsible child, that all WHO believe be saved.

God's kindness LEADING men to repentance, but they can stubbornly refuse and store up wrath for themselves, and each by pursuing righteousness chooses for themselves eternal life, or by pursuing sin chooses for themselves wrath.

Rom2:4:8. Rev20:13. 1Pet1:9. Luke21:19. Etcetera...

RogerW
Jan 28th 2013, 04:17 AM
But Calvin and the Reformed position does not believe this. The doctrine(s) teach that ONLY the elect CAN believe. So that means that those doctrines disregards the meaning of these scriptures in that ALL sin, ALL people, of ALL the world.

We believe what Scripture teaches us. From the mouth of Christ, "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." Your complaint comes from not knowing who will believe, and how they will believe. I'll give you a hint, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 04:20 AM
We are no longer to hate our enemy.
As if we ever were? Where do people get this idea?

Slug1
Jan 28th 2013, 04:26 AM
We believe what Scripture teaches us. From the mouth of Christ, "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." Your complaint comes from not knowing who will believe, and how they will believe. I'll give you a hint, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."Cool... so who are the "whosoevers"??

Those who God chose or those who choose God?

RogerW
Jan 28th 2013, 04:28 AM
Cool... so who are the "whosoevers"??

Those who God chose or those who choose God?

What does the Word of God tell you? Forget about what you think Reformed Doctrine teaches, what does Scripture say regarding "whosoever"?

Slug1
Jan 28th 2013, 04:33 AM
What does the Word of God tell you? Forget about what you think Reformed Doctrine teaches, what does Scripture say regarding "whosoever"?:) Ya think I'd not say all I say if I didn't know what the Word of God says? What the Word of God says does not align with what Calvin and the Reformed position says.

So who are the "whosoevers"??

Those who God chose (Calvin/Reformed position) or those who choose God (the Word of God)?

So... to be direct in answering your questions... the Word of God tells me that whosoever is ALL in the world WHO turn toward God and CHOOSE to believe in His Son.

Since Calvin and the Reformed position does NOT teach this... this cannot be overlooked.

RogerW
Jan 28th 2013, 04:52 AM
:) Ya think I'd not say all I say if I didn't know what the Word of God says? What the Word of God says does not align with what Calvin and the Reformed position says.

So who are the "whosoevers"??

Those who God chose (Calvin/Reformed position) or those who choose God (the Word of God)?

So... to be direct in answering your questions... the Word of God tells me that whosoever is ALL in the world WHO turn toward God and CHOOSE to believe in His Son.

Since Calvin and the Reformed position does NOT teach this... this cannot be overlooked.

Remember I'm of the Calvin and Reformed mindset, so please enlighten me with Scripture...Who turn toward and choose to believe in His Son? You see my Reformed Doctrine tells me that none will apart from grace. Unless God by grace through faith through the power of His Word and Spirit make me willing to turn to Christ, I will remain in my natural fallen state with no desire to turn to Christ for life.

Slug1
Jan 28th 2013, 05:06 AM
Remember I'm of the Calvin and Reformed mindset, so please enlighten me with Scripture...Who turn toward and choose to believe in His Son? You see my Reformed Doctrine tells me that none will apart from grace. Unless God by grace through faith through the power of His Word and Spirit make me willing to turn to Christ, I will remain in my natural fallen state with no desire to turn to Christ for life.When Jesus said to that rich man, "Follow me"... was this an example of what was to come as the Spirit making a person willing? Christ was willing... so was the rich man an elect or not in accordance of all you said in that other thread?

Christ OFFERED that man to follow Him... but he chose not to follow. I know I refused for many years, maybe you did also but when you finally did CHOOSE to follow... was it because you chose to follow based on what the Holy Spirit was revealing to you or because God chose you TO follow and thus, the Holy Spirit worked upon you?

In other words... based on Calvin and the Reformed position... DOES the Holy Spirit work upon ONLY those who God has chosen or does the Holy Spirit work on ALL and only those who choose to follow, accept Christ?

RogerW
Jan 28th 2013, 05:37 AM
When Jesus said to that rich man, "Follow me"... was this an example of what was to come as the Spirit making a person willing? Christ was willing... so was the rich man an elect or not in accordance of all you said in that other thread?

This is not Scripture proof of one who turns toward and chooses to believe in His Son. The young man wanted to know what he could do to attain eternal life. He was no more believing Christ could save him then the devil would. He was simply hoping that Christ would affirm his own supposed goodness in himself and his riches. But, we can't lose all hope for this young man because he did go away sad. Was he Gods elect? Could he have at some point been born again? Of course, as long as there is life in us we should never doubt the power of God to save whosoever He wills.


Christ OFFERED that man to follow Him... but he chose not to follow. I know I refused for many years, maybe you did also but when you finally did CHOOSE to follow... was it because you chose to follow based on what the Holy Spirit was revealing to you or because God chose you TO follow and thus, the Holy Spirit worked upon you?

Christ showed him the way of life was through Him. But the young man did what every single human in unbelief does! He loved his riches more than Christ, and he still did not see himself in need of a Savior. The reason I chose to follow Christ was because God by grace through the hearing of faith softened my heart and made me willing to turn to Him for life. If God had not first chosen me, then I never would have chosen Christ. The Father drew me to the Son, through no will of mine. And then I heard the gospel of salvation and God gave me ears to hear and a heart to understand and my life changed forever.


In other words... based on Calvin and the Reformed position... DOES the Holy Spirit work upon ONLY those who God has chosen or does the Holy Spirit work on ALL and only those who choose to follow, accept Christ?

Why not simply show the Scripture that tells us the Holy Spirit works on all and only those who choose to follow accept Christ? It would be far more convincing if you used Scripture to prove Reformed Doctrine is not true.

Joh*14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Co*2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Gadgeteer
Jan 28th 2013, 06:21 AM
This is not Scripture proof of one who turns toward and chooses to believe in His Son. The young man wanted to know what he could do to attain eternal life. He was no more believing Christ could save him then the devil would. He was simply hoping that Christ would affirm his own supposed goodness in himself and his riches. But, we can't lose all hope for this young man because he did go away sad. Was he Gods elect? Could he have at some point been born again? Of course, as long as there is life in us we should never doubt the power of God to save whosoever He wills. Wow --- so Reformed theology rewrites even JESUS" words, from "Whosoever sees AND BELIEVES", into "whosoever HE WILLS/DECREES". In spite of the fact that God decrees (boulemai) NONE to perish (2Pet3:9).


Christ showed him the way of life was through Him. But the young man did what every single human in unbelief does! He loved his riches more than Christ, and he still did not see himself in need of a Savior. The reason I chose to follow Christ was because God by grace through the hearing of faith softened my heart and made me willing to turn to Him for life. If God had not first chosen me, then I never would have chosen Christ. The Father drew me to the Son, through no will of mine. And then I heard the gospel of salvation and God gave me ears to hear and a heart to understand and my life changed forever. Another rewrite of Jesus' words --- from "They closed their OWN eyes and ears less they see/hear/understand and TURN" --- into "God GIVES ears and eyes SO THAT men THEN understand and are saved".


Why not simply show the Scripture that tells us the Holy Spirit works on all and only those who choose to follow accept Christ? It would be far more convincing if you used Scripture to prove Reformed Doctrine is not true. How about answering Jesus in Jn6:67-70, where Jesus answers Peter's protest-of-loyalty ("We can't leave, we know You're the Messiah!") --- by holding up JUDAS as proof of "ability to leave"!


Joh*14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. We receive the Spirit THROUGH belief in Jesus. Zero conflict.


Co*2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Congrats --- the same verse in the same understanding as Sproul, Pink, Piper, White, MacArthur, even Spurgeon. Every Calvinist author out there misquotes 1Cor2:14, never realizing verse 12 says we receive the Spirit through saving-belief and THEN GET the things that unbelieving men do not have!

"Deeper-things-of-the-Spirit", given to BELIEVERS. Like in Matt13, "To he who HAS (saved!), more is given (deeper knowledge)." And Matt16:17 --- Peter knew about Jesus' Messiahship because Peter believed in Jesus. Exactly the same concept as John10:26-28.

"You do not believe (deeper knowledge that I'm the Messiah), because you're not My sheep. If ANYONE enters through Me he shall be saved, and shall go in and out and find pasture (shall BECOME My sheep). Jn10:26-28, 10:9

"Predestined Salvation" is a very elaborate structure; sophisticated walls, mahogany trim and chrome-plated hardware; but it's really full of holes that have been troweled over. One by one we examine the "founding verses", and find they do NOT support "predestination".

adampjr
Jan 28th 2013, 10:57 AM
Why is this conversation going on in two places?

Isn't the question at hand for this thread whether or not the beliefs can be made compatible somehow? Not which one is right...

Boo
Jan 28th 2013, 11:08 AM
Why is this conversation going on in two places?

Isn't the question at hand for this thread whether or not the beliefs can be made compatible somehow? Not which one is right...

Yep, that is the original question. However, there are those who just want one of the other to be THE WAY God does things. People want to lock Him into a method.

Gadgeteer
Jan 28th 2013, 05:09 PM
Why is this conversation going on in two places?

Isn't the question at hand for this thread whether or not the beliefs can be made compatible somehow? Not which one is right...

When someone asserts an understanding that rewrites Jesus' words, it's appropriate to confront what's being done.

But the two beliefs can not be reconciled --- "Compatibilism" is not credible.

EITHER God makes the decision, and the Final Judgment is a fraud and God is a hypocrite and false judge (because really HE decided everything, then judges MEN for what HE decided), or God draws all men to where their depravity is overcome sufficient for them to make a CHOICE --- and then He judges them FOR that choice.

It's not possible to straddle the fence, to sit in the middle of the road, to walk in both lands, etcetera.

Yep, that is the original question. However, there are those who just want one of the other to be THE WAY God does things. People want to lock Him into a method. No, there are those who want to consider all Scripture, and pursue sound doctrine no matter what damage it does to former personal perceptions. Those who won't let rewrites-of-Jesus'-words stand without comment.

RE "the thread subject" --- it is COMPATIBILISM that attempts to harmonize the two views. Therefore next post I'll re-copy my thoughts on Compatibilism...

Gadgeteer
Jan 28th 2013, 05:15 PM
"Compatiblism" attempts to harmonize the concepts of "man's free will", with "God's sovereign predestination of everything". Per Calvinism, there is no provision for "God permitting anything" --- all has been decreed. This makes God causally involved in sin; either causing it directly (double predestination), or creating the world such that all men WILL sin, and only God's direct sovereign/monergistic intervention can wrest man from his sinful dedication.

God cannot be causally involved in man's sin at all. The clearest violation this presents is expressed in Matt12:25-31 --- God's house would be divided. To perceive God as having anything to do with sin, even ordaining it, fits Jesus' rebuke, and His calling it "blasphemy".

By creating a universe where only one eventuality can happen, God has ordained all actions of all men. Thus all men are ordained reprobate, until God monergistically regenerates the few elect. They may exercise "free will", but only as far as their natures allow them. Man has no choice in his nature, but he "freely" chooses within the boundaries of his nature. Here is a flaming contradiction --- if reprobate men cannot move from sin towards God because of their sin nature, then neither can regenerate men move from God towards sin because of their new spiritual nature; but Christians are very capable of sinning. God's attitude towards man and sin is clearly indicated in 1Cor10:13 --- He always provides an escape for sin, and allows each man to choose the sin or the escape. To argue "this only applies to Christians" denies the reality of "moving from sin towards God" vs "moving from God towards sin".

The argument about why Adam and Eve fell, was "God created a Universe where they WOULD fall". It was recently asked, "Why would God put the Tree of knowledge in the garden, if He didn't want them to sin?" And my response, "Why did He put the tree of life there?"

To carefully construct a universe where billions of people have only one predestined course, exceeds the ability of the universe to accommodate; randomness MUST intrude. This is not against God's sovereignty, "randomness" is an aspect of the universe He created.

The claim that "God does not force" is bogus; there is no difference between "forcing", and the idea of God monergistically changing some natures, where each is therefore constrained by either his "left-alone-degenerate" nature, or by his "sovereignly-regenerate" nature. One may argue that "a lobotomy does not FORCE a man to be non-criminal", but such an argument would be false.

If a man is constrained by his nature, and that nature is outside of his choice, then the man has no free will. Hang the arguments, this is a fact.

Another issue "Compatibilism" ignores is the question "For whom did Jesus come?" In Matt9:12-13 Jesus came for sinners; "It is not the healthy that need a physician, but the sick; I came not for the righteous but for sinners." If unregenerated people CANNOT believe, then Jesus did not come for the sick/sinners, He only came for the REGENERATED. But the regenerated are righteous already and do not NEED the Phycisian/Savior! So what is the connection between "Jesus' coming", and "regeneration"? The connection is BELIEF --- Jesus came for sinners, who can believe and receive the Spirit and BECOME regenerated. It's the only understanding that makes sense of what Jesus said.


==============================================

The above treatise proves that "Compatibilism" cannot be reconciled with Scripture. Since "Arminianism" is much closer to Scriptural dictate than is "Calvinism", and since the two positions conflict, they cannot be reconciled.

Calvinism cannot be reconciled either with Arminianism, or with Scripture.

percho
Jan 28th 2013, 08:16 PM
Has, "whosoever," always been applicable?

Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear.

Could just whosoever be heard by God? Would something have to be done concerning sin before, whosoever could apply?

Harvest? Why was there a feast of first fruit, followed months later with a feast of in gathering followed by that last day the great of the feast?

Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
Acts 15:14,17 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Could those in bold be the first fruit and those underlined be the whosoever will? Is this separated by an event?
V16 After this, I will return and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

When Jesus walked the earth was he a prophet like unto Moses?

When he made this statement was it a prophesy? John 7:37,38,39 If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Now fifty days after his resurrection the first fruit of the spirit (See Rom. 8:23) was given, but was it given to all or to the ones whom the Lord our God should call? Jesus said in verse 37, "if any man."

Why did bold and underline? Because it was a prophesy for all but for the first fruit in one harvest, and for the residue of men in the other harvest.

What is significant about the day Jesus prophesied this? In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying;

That day is the final, seventh feast day, of the holy convocation days of the LORD, and it was the eighth day following the feast of in gathering which I believe to concern all Israel of Romans 11:26 the tabernacle of David and on the eighth day the residue of men. Which is Rev. 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Is this a day of salvation or is it the day of salvation? Harvest?

One more question. Is it the seven feasts of the LORD or is it the seven feast days of the LORD?

Rufus
Jan 29th 2013, 12:04 AM
"Responsible" --- dictionary definition, accountable as being cause to something within one's power or control.

Hence, "Responsible Grace" --- God's gift of grace to every man woman and responsible child, that all WHO believe be saved.

God's kindness LEADING men to repentance, but they can stubbornly refuse and store up wrath for themselves, and each by pursuing righteousness chooses for themselves eternal life, or by pursuing sin chooses for themselves wrath.

Rom2:4:8. Rev20:13. 1Pet1:9. Luke21:19. Etcetera...

Adam had it within his power to trust God or not to. So, all mankind is responsible because all mankind is in Adam the federal head of the human race, but not because all mankind, subsequent to the Fall, has all this moral/spiritual ability.

Where is all this moral ability with the fallen angels? Everywhere we read, Satan and his hordes are said to be evil or doing evil? And God created those angles knowing they would fall and be punished forever.

Or let's postulate this theory and say that God had decided to do the same thing with Man. After Adam fell God condemned our first parents and the entire human race in Genesis 3, offering no remedy for Adam's sin. How would that have worked out under your theory?

Or if you don't care for my theory, we can switch to Reality. How did your "responsible grace" theory work out for the many first-born Egyptians (and even non-Egyptians, save for the Hebrews) during the Exodus? It appears to me God held tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) morally responsible for the sin of Pharaoh -- their federal head. When you get this little Arminian dilemma (in more ways than one!) worked out, please get back to us.

And after you have that one worked out, you can begin work on God's moral ability. You need to explain to us how is it that God cannot choose to do evil due to his holy nature, yet evil man is able to choose good apart from God's effectual grace. Since effectual grace isn't the difference between one man rejecting the gospel and the other believing it, then the difference must be found in the two decision-makers themselves, correct? You need to explain to us how someone in the flesh (all the unregenerate) was able to do the impossible, i..e pleasing God by coming to faith.

Rufus
Jan 29th 2013, 12:16 AM
How about answering Jesus in Jn6:67-70, where Jesus answers Peter's protest-of-loyalty ("We can't leave, we know You're the Messiah!") --- by holding up JUDAS as proof of "ability to leave"!



Please quote for us from the bible translation you're using wherein it is written what you claim Peter said.


** Post edited by BrianW.

Bandit
Jan 29th 2013, 01:00 AM
Hello Mathetes,

Here is another area where calvinists and Arminians disagree. It appears calvinists understand Romans 8:7 as saying that it is impossible for a person to repent and change his ways. But this is not how I, and many others, understand it.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other."[Matt. 6:24] This text says nothing of not being able to switch masters, just that it is impossible to serve both simultaneously. The point being made in Romans 8:5-8 is similar. As verse 8 summarizes, “So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Do notice that it says that those who are presently in the flesh (presently focused upon worldly things) cannot please God. This passage does not say that it is impossible for a person to change their focus.


But aren't there only two kinds of people in the world -- those "in the flesh" (all the unsaved) and those "in the Spirit" (all the saved)? How does the former please God by changing his focus, apart from becoming the latter first? The two are being contrasted in that passage.



Hello Rufus,

My post already answered your question. A person becomes saved as a result of repenting, so repenting is something the unsaved must do.

Bandit
Jan 29th 2013, 01:06 AM
Hello again,

If I were to represent the administrators/moderators here in any way, (and far be it for me to think anything of myself) then perhaps we realize that even though fallen, we humans can still aspire to the calling to which God calls every man. So what is it about this position of ours -if I may call it ours - which offends you so much? Or in other words, how does us believing we have the ability to respond to God, offend God, in your view?


It gives man an excuse to boast about his religious aspirations? And it gives man an excuse to glory in himself? And these kinds of things diminish the inestimable value of God's saving grace and, therefore, the very atonement of the Holy One himself. After all, when it's all said and done, the Armininan decision-maker has himself to thank for making the right choice in choosing Christ -- the choice that allowed God to live up to his end of the bargain. How can the glory not go to the person with whom the spiritual buck stops -- with the one who holds his own destiny in his own hands? How can't great spiritual value be found within the decision-maker himself, since an evil man made a good decision?

Paul does not boast about himself, he boasts of Christ. Your argument here is irrational and unfounded.

Rufus
Jan 29th 2013, 04:42 AM
No it's not --- it is a DAVIDIC LAMENTATION, merely quoting Psalm 14 & 53. You cannot overturn "SEEK (salvation!) and you will FIND --- few are those who FIND-BY-SEEKING salvation!" Matt7:7, 14

You're not arguing "Total Depravity"; you're arguing "total inability" --- and all men are ENABLED --- Deut30:11-20, Rom10:6-10, and Acts17:26-31.

If you would [b]ENGAGE those passages, you wouldn't have to KEEP POSTING in support of "predestination", because you'd realize "predestined salvation" is overturned.

Yes, it's a Davidic Lamentation which Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is using to indict all mankind. Read v. 9! Jews and Gentiles are all under sin! And Paul then immediately shows WHY they are all under sin! NO EXCEPTIONS!

No one on this planet seeks God unless the Father draws that person. And the Father does not draw everyone without exception, but he does draw everyone without distinction! And there is a difference!

Rufus
Jan 29th 2013, 04:46 AM
The reason God sent His Son to die for ALL the world is because OF His love for ALL and that He "desires" that no one perish.

No! He is not willing that any of the beloved should perish! Context means something. Read 2 Peter 3 in its context. The passage does not say that God is not willing for anyone in the world to perish. That is not what vv.8, 9 are saying.

TheDivineWatermark
Jan 29th 2013, 04:48 AM
Jesus is the One Who said: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto Me." John 12:32

Rufus
Jan 29th 2013, 04:49 AM
Why is this conversation going on in two places?

Isn't the question at hand for this thread whether or not the beliefs can be made compatible somehow? Not which one is right...

I thought the poll results settled that issue. ;)

Rufus
Jan 29th 2013, 05:03 AM
Another issue "Compatibilism" ignores is the question "For whom did Jesus come?" In Matt9:12-13 Jesus came for sinners; "It is not the healthy that need a physician, but the sick; I came not for the righteous but for sinners." If unregenerated people CANNOT believe, then Jesus did not come for the sick/sinners, He only came for the REGENERATED. But the regenerated are righteous already and do not NEED the Phycisian/Savior! So what is the connection between "Jesus' coming", and "regeneration"? The connection is BELIEF --- Jesus came for sinners, who can believe and receive the Spirit and BECOME regenerated. It's the only understanding that makes sense of what Jesus said.

Your sophistry is unbelievable. Why couldn't he have come to regenerate the elect "sick"?

And Jesus did not come into the world to become a potential savior. He came into the world to actually save people -- in fact HIS people! But Arminians cannot say this because each man's destiny rest with himself. He has the final say on whether he wants salvation or not -- not the Father, not the Son, not the Holy Spirit. Man is sovereign in his own little, insignificant, pathetic universe and God dare not invade his royal space! In fact, according to Armininism, in heaven where there are many mansions, the vast majority of those might be empty because salvation is not guaranteed to anyone!
In fact, Jesus is probably not even there, since he didn't fulfill his Father's will perfectly!

Rufus
Jan 29th 2013, 05:07 AM
Paul does not boast about himself, he boasts of Christ. Your argument here is irrational and unfounded.

No, your objection is absurd! Paul believed salvation is all by God's sovereign grace. That's why He couldn't boast in himself. How soon you forget that Paul experienced God's sovereign election on the road to Damascus. Paul wasn't seeking Christ. Christ sought out Paul and actually saved him!

Rufus
Jan 29th 2013, 05:19 AM
Hello Rufus,

My post already answered your question. A person becomes saved as a result of repenting, so repenting is something the unsaved must do.

You're batting .500 with this reply, so I suppose a congratulations is in order? Your post answered nothing. You have to show us how those "in the flesh" (all unregenerate people) managed to please God by repenting. You have to show how those in the sphere of "the flesh" moved out of that to occupy the sphere of "the Spirit" because it's only in the sphere of the Spirit that anyone can please God.

But you are right in that everyone is commanded to repent. My answer to that is: So what? Israel under the Old Covenant was commanded to keep the whole Law perfectly and completely. Did they? People are commanded to stop sinning or to sin no more. Have they? People are commanded to be holy just as God is holy. Has anyone? Yet, at the same time, scripture tells us that there isn't a person alive who doesn't sin. Either God is very confused or you Arminians are with respect to the purpose behind God's commands.

RogerW
Jan 29th 2013, 01:04 PM
Jesus is the One Who said: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto Me." John 12:32

Yes, all without distinction [Jew & Gentile alike] but not all without exception. I'm glad you bracketed [men] because the translators made this passage as clear as mud by adding it.

Gadgeteer
Jan 29th 2013, 06:34 PM
Yes, it's a Davidic Lamentation which Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is using to indict all mankind. Read v. 9! Jews and Gentiles are all under sin! And Paul then immediately shows WHY they are all under sin! NO EXCEPTIONS!Do you know what a "lamentation" is? It's an exaggeration. Like Genesis 6:5 --- men's thoughts were only evil continually --- but that didn't prevent ONE, from being righteous and finding FAVOR with God.


No one on this planet seeks God unless the Father draws that person. And the Father does not draw everyone without exception, but he does draw everyone without distinction! And there is a difference!

Huh? This is word-play. He draws everyone without exception. Tell us who in Matt22:2-4, was not invited?


Your sophistry is unbelievable. Why couldn't he have come to regenerate the elect "sick"?Before you make charges like "sophistry", document it -- support your charges with facts.

Jesus does not regenerate, the SPIRIT does. The received Spirit --- Titus3:5-6. And the only connection between "Received-Spirit" and "Jesus-coming", is belief.


And Jesus did not come into the world to become a potential savior.Yes He did --- the word is "PROVISION". Jesus is the Savior of the WORLD (provision), malista/specially/above-all believers (fulfillment). 1Tim4:10. He is the propitiation for sins, and not just OURS (fulfillment), but also the WHOLE WORLD (provision). 1Jn2:2.
He came into the world to actually save people -- in fact HIS people!No, He is the Savior of the WORLD! Jn4:42!


But Arminians cannot say this because each man's destiny rests with himself.Yes it does! Romans2:4-8!!! "Those WHO by perseverance in doing good seek glory honor and immortality, receive eternal life; but those WHO are selfishly ambitious and DO not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, receive wrath."
He has the final say on whether he wants salvation or not -- not the Father, not the Son, not the Holy Spirit.This is a choice God has GRANTED --- "I have set before you life and death --- so CHOOSE LIFE by loving God, by obeying His voice ...and holding fast to Him." Deut30:19-20.
Man is sovereign in his own little, insignificant, pathetic universe and God dare not invade his royal space!You're not arguing with me --- read Acts17:2-31 and THAT is where your argument is.

Write your own Bible --- 'cause you're not following the real one.
In fact, according to Armininism, in heaven where there are many mansions, the vast majority of those might be empty because salvation is not guaranteed to anyone!Your copy doesn't have 2Tim1:12-14, does it? "Retain the (teaching). GUARD, by the Holy Spirit who indwells us, the treasure (of eternal life) that has been entrusted to you."

In fact, Jesus is probably not even there, since he didn't fulfill his Father's will perfectly! What's the point of discussing things with you, Rufus? These are clear and absolute Scriptures --- and you're just not interested.

Why don't you write your own bible, one that does NOT have Rom2:4-8 in it; or 1Tim4:16 or 2Tim1:12-14. Or Deut30:11-20, Rom10:6-10, Acts17:26-31, or any other passage you find "offensive" to Predestined Salvation. Then open your own message board, "Rufus-bible-forums".


The rewrite will be easy, Rufus --- by the time you take out all the passages plainly asserting personal choice and responsibility of diligence to abide in Jesus and in salvation, you can probably print it all on a postage stamp.

:-)

Gadgeteer
Jan 29th 2013, 06:50 PM
Yes, all without distinction [Jew & Gentile alike] but not all without exception. I'm glad you bracketed [men] because the translators made this passage as clear as mud by adding it.

All men every last one is called, without exception.


Acts17:26) having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
27) that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

30) "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
31) because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Clear and precise, undeniable. Your choice is to ignore it and pretend "predestination" still exists (and be found fighting against God! Acts5:33!), or to give up "predestined salvation".


Matt22:2) "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son.
3) "And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come.
4) "Again he sent out other slaves saying, 'Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."'
5) "But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business,
6) and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them.
7) "But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire.
8) "Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy.
9) 'Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.'
10) "Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests.
11) "But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes,
12) and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless.
13) "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
14) "For many are called, but few are chosen."


MANY are called --- how many, according to Jesus? Everyone in view.

FEW are chosen --- which few, according to Jesus? Those who DECIDED BY THEMSELVES to come.

One declined because he chose business; another because he chose farming. A third chose to refuse the clean clothes. Many others declined for unspecified reasons, but THEY CHOSE.


That's it, RogerW --- discard the doctrine, or discard Jesus' words. If you think Jesus gave this little speech all the while secretly ENDORSING "predestined-salvation-God/King-makes-exceptions", let's see how you make it work.